Update - 3/11/21 - America Rescue Plan Bill is signed!

[visionary]

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Renegade7]

That moment when the national debt is more important then saving lives...

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

That moment when the national debt is more important then saving lives...

 

 

600 dollars on top of typical unemployment benefits, a billion dollars for an FBI building and a couple hundred for a west wing remodel, 8 billion for military weaponry, a long with whatever other pork is stuffed in this bill isn’t exactly going to save lives.

 

There are businesses that are hiring, but people need to want to work. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Llevron]

28 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There are businesses that are hiring, but people need to want to work. 

 

Pay them more?

[tshile]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

That moment when the national debt is more important then saving lives...

Just more nonsense from our fellow conservatives

 

they love to preach about moral hazard and the debt and fiscal responsibility as a way to oppose something when they know the real reason for their opposition can’t be stated 

 

They don’t practice any of that when they’re writing their own bills, though

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

The fight over the $600/wk vs. 70% of income maxed at $500/wk seems ridiculous to me. Anybody who was making >~$37k qualifies for the $500/wk. So how much is this really going to cost vs. $600/wk for all? How about people who have had their income reduced? Or hours cut back? Add to that new infrastructure to support whatever crazy algorithms & systems to manage the distribution/qualification to 21 million people. Add in the delay past July 31 that it's going to take to put money in people's pockets and there are going to be a lot of people missing rent, mortgage, utility bills to pay for food. 

 

This article does a good job of defining why the $600 should continue. 

 

"Furman finds that at peak levels (in the third quarter of 2020) the extra $600 top-up by itself is projected to boost GDP by 2.8% and to support just under three million jobs. In short, letting this extra $600 in UI benefits expire at the end of July would by itself cause more job loss than was seen in either of the recessions of the early 1990s or early 2000s." 

 

https://www.epi.org/blog/cutting-off-the-600-boost-to-unemployment-benefits-would-be-both-cruel-and-bad-economics-new-personal-income-data-show-just-how-steep-the-coming-fiscal-cliff-will-be/

 

Furman's paper Before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis on June 18, 2020

 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VC/VC00/20200618/110811/HHRG-116-VC00-Wstate-FurmanJ-20200618.pdf

 

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

600 dollars on top of typical unemployment benefits, a billion dollars for an FBI building and a couple hundred for a west wing remodel, a long with whatever other pork is stuffed in this bill isn’t exactly going to save lives.

 

There are businesses that are hiring, but people need to want to work. 

 

Why would they not want to work?  I keep hearing this narrative about people staying home and taking advantage of extra pay. Just for those playing at home - 70% of those going back to work in June were making more on unemployment with the extra $600 than their jobs paid them but they went back anyway. That;s becasue they understand that the extra unemployment is temporary not permanent. 

 

Are there some that are taking advantage of these few extra $s? Sure. But so what. Let them! It's needed money for so many others. The idea that big overlord government needs to make sure all the peasants go back to work becasue by and large they are just a bunch of lazy ****s is in my opinion totally insane. People want to work. People want things to get back as close to normal as possible. 

 

Following is more a general statement - I said this before and will say it again. The fundamental difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans do not want a single person to get an extra $ so they are will to screw everyone over just to keep a few from getting free money.  Democrats will give away the entire store just to make sure everyone gets taken care of. Both approaches can be right or wrong. It depends on the situation. In the end there should be compromise. And of course that is where the real issue is. Neither want to compromise any more. It's one way and one way only. 

 

In this particular case i agree with the Dems. So what if a few people get away with being lazy. It's a small price to pay to keep the economy from doing a complete meltdown and taking everyone with it. . 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Pay them more?

Yea, I know my business is going to have to do it.  We need employees 
 

 

On the flip side, during the pandemic my business has increased its prices by about 25 percent and if we have to pay people 25-30/hr we will need to raise prices by another 30 percent.  Make sure people do they only get 30-35 hours. (Eg no overtime)...

 

right now, even with the price increases we are very busy so I’m sure people will pay more. 
 

for instance, our very lowest charge pre pandemic was $125, now it is $180, we will soon be increasing it to $235.  
 

another service we charge was $625, we have increased it to $725, and we will end up increasing it to $925... 

 

we will see if people will pay the higher amounts,  but we have such a long backlog right now we have time to see.

 

congrats on the wage increases tho

 

 

Yay Anecdotal Evidence....

Edited July 30, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[CousinsCowgirl84]

10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Why would they not want to work? 
 

 

in a lot of cases that extra 600 a week is more than there entire check. I can only speak from my limited point of view. But no one is even apply for jobs...

 

guy who runs a local pizza place told me the same thing, can’t get delivery drivers..

 

 

10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

The idea that big overlord government needs to 

 

guarantee wages is ridiculous

 

10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

In this particular case i agree with the Dems. So what if a few people get away with being lazy. It's a small price to pay to keep the economy from doing a complete meltdown and taking everyone with it. . 
 

 

 

Also, if you want to control the pandemic having people stay home and not work is a reasonable way to achieve that goal...

[goskins10]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

in a lot of cases that extra 600 a week is more than there entire check. I can only speak from my limited point of view. But no one is even apply for jobs...

 

guy who runs a local pizza place told me the same thing, can’t get delivery drivers..

 

Not being a smart ass here but what is "in a lot of cases" - is that 10%, 20%, 50%? What is "a lot?' I have statistics suggesting your observation is not true at least 70% of the time. And if $600/wk is more than their entire check - as I said elsewhere that means we have a living wage problem not a Covid Stimulus problem.  The statistics say tat overall you are not correct. ALso, pizza delivery during a very contagious pandemic may not be the best job to hold up. I personally would prefer to do just about any other job than deliver pizza to a bunch of peoples houses when we are told to stay away from others for our own safety. 

 

I will say it again - if a few people get ways with not working then fine. The benefits far outweigh the negatives. 

 

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

guarantee wages is ridiculous

 

I almost answered this a different way - but then rereading I will work on the assumption that you are being sarcastic? 

 

 

[Llevron]

25 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

in a lot of cases that extra 600 a week is more than there entire check. I can only speak from my limited point of view. But no one is even apply for jobs...

 

guy who runs a local pizza place told me the same thing, can’t get delivery drivers..

 

How much of that do you think is attributed to people deciding 7.50 or whatever min wage is plus tips isnt worth catching the invisible death outside? Cause im willing to bet that has more to do with it than the money that the government was giving people. I mean, currently the choice is get paid a little and risk death vs Get paid a little more and dont risk death. And people are advocating for taking away the dont risk death option and acting like its a reasonable position lol. Also no liability on the business in the case of death? So no risk on your part (not you in particular btw ) but the risk of death for a almost enough to pay your (again not you) bills. Its not surprising the choice people are making. 

 

34 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Yea, I know my business is going to have to do it.  We need employees 

 

The company I work for is in the same situation - we need more employees but we pay less than market value for peoples services. Whats working for us currently is the fact that we are steady even through the pandemic and can provide a safe location to work in. Im not sure how that would help anyone in a not kinda government facility though. 

 

Dont get me lying to you like I know whats best for anyone here. I really really dont. Im just saying, if I were in the situation where I had to take free money or risk death, I would put my career aspirations to the side for a moment and take free money without thinking about it.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Llevron

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I'm not going to lie for a second, if I had a sub $50k job and had a choice to return to work or continue collecting unemployment with the $600 on top - I would absolutely choose to stay home with my family and take the money.  However, I think the 'choice' part is where it gets murky.

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

600 dollars on top of typical unemployment benefits, a billion dollars for an FBI building and a couple hundred for a west wing remodel, 8 billion for military weaponry, a long with whatever other pork is stuffed in this bill isn’t exactly going to save lives.

 

There are businesses that are hiring, but people need to want to work. 

 

My goodness, are you taking this statement as a defense of their nonsense?

 

You missed my point entirely. Lives are more important then money.

 

This bill is them playing political football with our lives while people are dying and careening towards an explosion in tent cities.  How much social distancing we expect to happen in one of those?

Edited July 30, 2020 by Renegade7

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

There are businesses that are hiring, but people need to first trust that starting a new job is safe, and will continue to be so, and will pay enough to be worth the risk.

 

I'm guessing that's what you actually meant to say.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Califan007

[tshile]

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Why would they not want to work?

You’re going to get right wing talking points that aren’t backed up by data. 
 

it’s simple. People are more concerned about exercising their notions of fairness and moral hazard, than working with well founded economic theories and practices. 

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not going to lie for a second, if I had a sub $50k job and had a choice to return to work or continue collecting unemployment with the $600 on top - I would absolutely choose to stay home with my family and take the money.  However, I think the 'choice' part is where it gets murky.

And you’d be rolling the dice that you continue to get that money, and that you can easily find a job when it does expire. 
 

and the data showed last month that 70% of rehires were people who net out making less to returning to work than they would have collecting UI with the extra 600$. 
 

so... not as many people are willing to roll the dice the way you are as what people are claiming. 
 

edit: also I believe you’re supposed to no longer qualify once your employer reports you were offered your job back and declined. I haven’t read enough to know how well that’s being enforced but given then requirements of the PPP and how unemployment insurance works for the employer I would think they’re definitely reporting that. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by tshile

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm guessing that's what you actually meant to say.

Yeah the same people saying people aren’t working cause they’re scared, are hell bent on holding up the extension by absolving employers of responsibility for the safety of the workplace. 
 

it’s incredible how transparent that side’s arguments are. It’s interesting to look at an individual and just ask yourself, “is it that they think I’m stupid and can’t see through their bull****, or is it that they’re stupid and don’t even realize their own bull****?”

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by tshile

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

And you’d be rolling the dice that you continue to get that money, and that you can easily find a job when it does expire. 
 

and the data showed last month that 70% of rehires were people who net out making less to returning to work than they would have collecting UI with the extra 600$. 
 

so... not as many people are willing to roll the dice the way you are as what people are claiming. 
 

edit: also I believe you’re supposed to no longer qualify once your employer reports you were offered your job back and declined. I haven’t read enough to know how well that’s being enforced but given then requirements of the PPP and how unemployment insurance works for the employer I would think they’re definitely reporting that. 

That's why I said the 'choice' part is where it gets murky.  I don't know all the details, but it's my understanding as well that if you are offered to go back to work and you decline, unemployment benefits are no longer available.  My point was that if there was any loophole to get me out of having to go back to work that would allow me to continue to collect unemployment +$600/wk, I'd take that loophole.  Particularly if I work in a service job that relies on tips or a low paying job that is a dime a dozen.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

23 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm guessing that's what you actually meant to say.

Your statement fair enough, but society doesn’t function if people don’t work. Ultimately free money incentivizes people not to work and the wages they were making before.   I will say there are ways to deal with it (paying higher wages like you said, or accepting it as a trade off for limiting the spread of the virus) but pretending there isn’t an affect on the labor market is a bit silly IMO. 

 

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah the same people saying people aren’t working cause they’re scared, are hell bent on holding up the extension by absolving employers of responsibility for the safety of the workplace. 

 

im working...

Edited July 30, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

. 

edit: also I believe you’re supposed to no longer qualify once your employer reports you were offered your job back and declined. I haven’t read enough to know how well that’s being enforced but given then requirements of the PPP and how unemployment insurance works for the employer I would think they’re definitely reporting that. 

it’s not enforced that much, and it shouldn’t be. If you asked an employer if they fired their employee or the employee quit, it’s cheaper for the employer if the employee quit. You can’t rely on the employer being honest to determine whether or not an employee deserves benefits or not.  All they have to do is show they are looking for a job.  Eg, a listing on indeed will suffice, the unemployment commission doesn’t have time to investigate claims that detailed.

 

As far as PPP goes, It’s in the aggregate and include rent/utilities so there is a lot of ways to spend that money.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

it’s not enforced that much, and it shouldn’t be. If you asked an employer if they fired their employee or the employee quit, it’s cheaper for the employer if the employee quit. You can’t rely on the employer being honest to determine whether or not an employee deserves benefits or not.

..... there’s an entire system in place for that. You have hearings over that exact thing. Each side gets to submit their claims and there’s a hearing if the claims differ. 
 

either your state is backasswards, you’ve never had to fire employees or deal with UI claims, or your whole “I run a business” shtick is a lie. 
 

I don’t know how anyone can run a business and not understand unemployment process unless your state has none. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

..... there’s an entire system in place for that. You have hearings over that exact thing. Each side gets to submit their claims and there’s a hearing if the claims differ. 

 

 

A small business doesn’t have time to go to hearings and neither does someone making less than 50k/year. The system isn’t as efficient as you like to believe.

 

 

I have had to deal with firing people/people quit but only once have  I had to deal with a difference of opinion regarding what happened.

 

The unemployment office found in favor of the employee without a hearing, basically they said because I didn’t have documentation showing the multiple issues I had with the person I couldn’t show cause... so they got unemployment benefits. You need to write down the violations and have the employee sign it in order show cause, at least that’s what I was told over the phone. That was at least 5-6 years ago.  

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

You had since May, Mitch.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

A small business doesn’t have time to go to hearings

uh, around here they do. 

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

You need to write down the violations and have the employee sign it in order show cause, at least that’s what I was told over the phone. That was at least 5-6 years ago.

Never had anyone sign anything. 
 

but yes if you’re going to show the UI people cause for firing someone to deny benefits and employer costs into the UI system then you have to have evidence, usually just documentation. 
 

which is really easy to do if you’re firing someone because they fail to perform the job they were hired to do. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

31 minutes ago, tshile said:

uh, around here they do. 

Never had anyone sign anything. 

 

 

 

I guess it depends on how small your business is.  

 

 

31 minutes ago, tshile said:

but yes if you’re going to show the UI people cause for firing someone to deny benefits and employer costs into the UI system then you have to have evidence, usually just documentation. 
 

which is really easy to do if you’re firing someone because they fail to perform the job they were hired to do. 

 

actually in this case the employee was late a few times and had a bad habit of cussing in front of my customers.  Not at them, just in talking....  I had to prove he cussed....