I’m not very good at macroeconomics, but the papers I can find (from back when the federal government added $600 on top of existing benefits, as opposed to $300 now) indicate that at the macro level increased unemployment benefits have limited if any disincentivizing effect.
Dube. (2020). “Aggregate Employment Effects of Unemployment Benefits During Deep Downturns: Evidence from the Expiration of the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation”. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w28470
I am not trying to argue that many if not most people who are on unemployment do not need it. Life is complicated and situations are different. What I am arguing against is the idea that staying home to collect unemployment instead of going to work for almost the same money is what rational people would do. I disagree, unless rational is simply defined as looking out for what is best for you. If so, then the greedy rich people and corporations are just acting in their best interests and thus are no less immoral than anyone else.
As to folks only taking what they need, of course some unnecessary things make life more enjoyable and varied. But looking at the horrible poverty and environmental degradation across the planet, it is probably low consumption and increased generosity that are the ideals.
Maybe it would sound better if you consider it an unorganized strike for better wages. Going to work costs money also, clothing, eating out, transportation, perhaps childcare.
And the closing of schools seems to be a big reason why people are staying home. That’s very rational.
It is not rational for businesses to expect people to go back to work for the same or reduced pay they get from staying home. They can wait until benefits run out, or they can increase pay. MW around here is higher than the benefits will get you, and if fast food places are closing I haven’t heard of it.
As far as morality goes, “immoral” workers are just taking their cues from the rich. It is immoral to not pay your debts, even if your debts come from medical costs imposed by a broken healthcare system. It is immoral to not come to work, even if your hours get switched on a weekly basis without notice making childcare difficult or impossible.
Remember, those against higher taxes on the rich seem to think that CEOs would just goof off if they get a million a year less, so 19 million instead of 20. I guess the stay at homes are listening to them.
Well, if I was a minimum wage worker I’d definitely prefer to not work and get paid 98% than work and get paid 100%, even if it’s just a temporary thing. I don’t have a very strong work ethic but I’d wager people like me are not rare at all. There’s a good chance that I’d be looking for work that pays substantially higher than minimum wage, but I wouldn’t take a minimum wage job if I was getting $588/week just so that I can say that I work for a living.
But this is a good example of why I think a truly universal basic income is better than high unemployment benefits. If everyone was getting a $250/week cheque regardless if they were working or not, they would be a lot more likely to want to work for an additional $8/10/15 per hour instead of $0.30 per hour like Max_S indicated the differential was.
People who left work due to having personal health concerns, because they had to care for family members, or otherwise were needed at home who collected unemployment while doing so were making rational decisions.
Healthy, single folks like me doing it? Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe I could have made as much or more by staying home, and I would have been less likely to catch covid if I had, but I also was thinking longer term and thought sticking with my job through the crisis so I would HAVE a job at the other end without needing to look for another one would work out best for me.
On the other hand, people on the fence about leaving anyway might have just been taking the opportunity to do so with a better financial cushion.
I also expect there are some short-sighted people with lack of planning skills who lived it up sitting at home who might be getting a cold shock of a wake-up call in the near future.
The top 1% owns 43%of the wealth in this country. The bottom 50% owns 1% of the wealth. So capitalism works out really well for the chosen few. For others, not so much.
Meanwhile the environment has been horribly damaged and we cannot even manage to fix our broken health care system because there are too many people making money off things the way they are. Get your share and too bad for all those that cannot.
True, and it’s not as though there’s zero middle ground between capitalism and the “Marxism” that D_Anconia is decrying. In fact, there are an infinite number of potential ways to balance the mix of market and government power.
See, I don’t think it really makes sense to keep asking rhetorical questions about “it”, when “it” is a very different thing in pretty much every socioeconomic system where it’s implemented.
Oh again with that stupid argument. What about the people of China, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand and Belgium?
The problem with the countries you mentioned isn’t just that they are communist. They are also run by dictatorships.
Correct but the majority of people I know doing “gigs” are bragging about how much money they make on Doordash, Grubhub, Uber Eats, Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Shipt, and the like. I was reading a discussion earlier between someone who works at an Amazon warehouse considering leaving in order to be eligible for Amazon flex package delivery, which would make no financial sense at all (gross less money, have to pay double FICA, no benefits, car expenses, etc). Among these “gig economy” groups, I have yet to see anyone offer evidence that they make more money than an entry level W2 unskilled labor job that pays $15/hr plus benefits and will hire anyone.
Actually, in many places in the US minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour. Like where I live. In which case a gig job that pays the equivalent of $15/hour, even stuff like the self-employment tax, may still be a step up.
As I have mentioned before, I do know someone making $30k a year on Shipt, but she treats it like a job and works hard and consistently at it.
There’s all sorts of versions of both democratic socialism and Marxism. But in any case, nobody in this thread has been in any way advocating for Marxism. Biotop’s reference to the general principle of people in a society “contributing what they can and taking what they need” is not the same thing as an endorsement of actual Marxist ideology.
Yes, a lot of conservatives are reflexively triggered by seeing that phrase and jump to the conclusion that actual full-blown Marxism must be the subject under discussion, but that’s not Biotop’s fault (or Marx’s, for that matter).
Marx didn’t make it up: it goes back to at least 17th-century social philosophy and, according to some interpretations, to the New Testament and/or Roman law.
It’s ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that just because somebody says, as Biotop did, that such a principle would apply in an “ideal society” that they must therefore be endorsing an actual Marxist system of governance.
That’s like assuming that somebody who says “Nature is the best instructor”, a phrase widely known as a quote from Hitler, must be supporting Nazi ideology.
I am of course no Marxist. My educational limitations will alas be showing when I confess that I have never read a word of Marx.
But taking care of my neighbors and conserving my share to what I need were certainly major parts of the Christian values I was brought up with by my conservative Presbyterian minister father. And I have read a lot of the Bible where this kind of stuff gets talked about quite a lot.
