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

[Llevron]

It’s not hard to fire people with documented cause, honestly. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I guess it depends on how small your business is.  

10 people. Doesn’t get much smaller

[CousinsCowgirl84]

38 minutes ago, tshile said:

10 people. Doesn’t get much smaller

 

there are tons of businesses that have fewer than ten employees....

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

It’s not hard to fire people with documented cause, honestly. 

 

Anyway, I’ll stand by my point that giving people an extra 600 dollars to stay unemployed incentivizes staying home and staying unemployed.... and at least, not giving them 600 dollars gives them motivation to find a job.

 

On the other hand, I don’t think people are visiting food banks because it’s a hobby...

Edited July 30, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Burgold]

I don’t know. I think the incentivized people not to wok misses something essential. 
 

People like to feel useful, work gives them a role, a sense of identity. I think that’s why so many have historically have put in unpaid overtime or take on jobs where they are chronically underpaid like teaching or nursing. 
 

There’s this myth that the poor are lazy and looking to take advantage... that that’s why they are poor. I think it’s bull. Often, the poor are our hardest workers. 

[skinsmarydu]

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

On the other hand, I don’t think people are visiting food banks because it’s a hobby...

I repeat, that extra money TO STAY HOME & HEALTHY is helping restaurants like mine. I stayed home for 2 months and could continue to, without any help...but that's not good for me mentally, so I'm working but staying in the kitchen, away from the public. (Not everyone has the options I do, I count myself as extremely fortunate in that regard.)

That extra money is keeping the economy moving, albeit hobbled, whether people believe it or not. 

 

[Llevron]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Anyway, I’ll stand by my point that giving people an extra 600 dollars to stay unemployed incentivizes staying home and staying unemployed.... and at least, not giving them 600 dollars gives them motivation to find a job.

 

On the other hand, I don’t think people are visiting food banks because it’s a hobby...

I mean I feel you, we just disagree. I think right now we should be incentivizing staying home....ya know, instead of spreading the once in 100 years unusually contagious virus that happens to be decimating our economy and killing hundreds of thousands. 
 

I jest...but ya know what I’m saying. Obviously I don’t think you should do this forever. I do think we should pay people more helping to get them out there and help the economy. But I think should wait out the...death....that’s out there. 

[goskins10]

27 minutes ago, Llevron said:

It’s not hard to fire people with documented cause, honestly. 

 

@tshile @CousinsCowgirl84

 

I think you are talking about two different things - Firing someone - Paying them Unemployment.

 

Most states are "At Will" employment states so they need no reason to fire them. So firing them is not a problem.

 

However, even when fired for cause it is very difficult to get out of paying unemployment. You have to have cause very well documented. Even then it can come down to who you draw for the hearing - I know in DC it's an adjudicator. 

 

 

 

[goskins10]

12 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

there are tons of businesses that have fewer than ten employees....

 

Anyway, I’ll stand by my point that giving people an extra 600 dollars to stay unemployed incentivizes staying home and staying unemployed.... and at least, not giving them 600 dollars gives them motivation to find a job.

 

Not a single person has disagreed that it provides some people incentive to stay home and collect a check. The difference is - you started this with "A lot of people". Again i ask you to define "A Lot". 

 

Are "some" people staying home for the extra money? Yes. Again, no one is denying that. But there are more than $ reasons.  For example you said the owner of a pizzeria could not find drivers. Who would want to go to a bunch of strangers houses to deliver pizza for minimum wage plus a few tips? Talk about risk reward being off completely. My guess is that you could reverse the money - making more money working than on UI and it would still be hard to find people. So that's not a very good example to hold up as people staying home just for the money. 

 

I believe people are who they are. There are some people taking full advantage of this and staying home even if a job is there (part of the stimulus is that the work search requirement is removed as is the requirement to go back to work if your job is offered). But those people are the ones typically always looking for a way out. And despite what the right keeps clamouring that is a very small number of people. Like I said 70% of those going back to work in June were making more money on UI yet chose to go back to work. They want to contribute to society.

 

That the Republicans (not accusing you of being republican - I have no idea. Talking more in general here) are now saying otherwise further shows their hypocrisy. When passing the massive tax cuts for the rich the mantra every time is "people want to work and we need to create jobs for them! These tax cuts will allow businesses to grow and give people what they really want, jobs!"  Now all of a sudden everyone is lazy and just wants a free meal. 

 

In the end it is the same philosophical difference between liberal and conservative. Conservatives are so concerned about a single person getting something "free" that they will deny millions needing help just to keep one person for getting something "free". In fairness the liberals tend to go the other way. They are so worried about making sure every person who needs help gets it, they could careless how many people get it "free" and are just being lazy.

 

There are appropriate times for both view points. In this particular case I side with not caring who gets a free lunch that is just being lazy because the society as a whole is suffering too much. We need to make sure people are taken care of. So I could care less of a few people are even "a lot" of people are incentivized to stay home and collect a check when there is work to be had. They are dwarfed by the number of people who need the help so they can keep a roof over their heads and food on the table through this pandemic. 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@goskins10

 

A lot? Are you looking for a specific number? 160,000 people is both a lot of people and a small amount of people. 
 

30 percent is a lot of people. 20 percent is a lot of people. 1 percent is a lot of people. It depends on your reference. I’m not sure what you are asking me to define.

 

A lot is enough people to cause a strain on the labor market, which makes providing basic needs more difficult. OFC my evidence is all anecdotal but that’s all we have right now.  Despite having a high unemployment rate there is still a labor shortage.

Edited July 31, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

@tshile @CousinsCowgirl84

 

I think you are talking about two different things - Firing someone - Paying them Unemployment.

 

Most states are "At Will" employment states so they need no reason to fire them. So firing them is not a problem.

 

However, even when fired for cause it is very difficult to get out of paying unemployment. You have to have cause very well documented. Even then it can come down to who you draw for the hearing - I know in DC it's an adjudicator. 

 

 

 

no I’m not talking about different things. 
 

and no we’ve never had a problem with people that are fired and having to pay them unemployment. It’s been very easy. Yes you need documentation to show, but no it hasn’t been hard, and no at no point were we required to have the person have signed the documentation in order to use it to prove the case. 

14 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

there are tons of businesses that have fewer than ten employees....

So I misread what you said. You said you don’t have time 😂

 

that’s such a cop out. You don’t have time to do what’s required to run the business? Interesting position you’ve put yourself in. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by tshile

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@goskins10

 

A lot? Are you looking for a specific number? 160,000 people is both a lot of people and a small amount of people. 
 

30 percent is a lot of people. 20 percent is a lot of people. 1 percent is a lot of people. It depends on your reference. I’m not sure what you are asking me to define.

 

BTW: Not trying to be an ass here. I promise.   In fairness you said "a lot" and are having difficulty defining what you mean as a lot and that was my point. When you write "a lot", most people reading your comment are going to the high side of what they believe "a lot" is, which leads to "the majority". Honestly, no one knows for sure. Not many would admit it even if they were. BTW: 70% getting paid more and coming back to week was not 70% of those making more. It was of the whole. It just means 30% of those returning were not making more on UI.

 

So the fair question to ask when I say 70% is how many people overall were making more on UI than would if at work. I found this article that suggests that 68% of workers receiving the extra $600/wk are making more than they were while working (note: This goes down to 34% at $300/wk). So 70% coming back is within the margins of error of being the same number. So this study at least would suggest the impact you are expecting is minimal if at all. They however did bring up an inequity I had not thought of. Say you have a janitor that works for what is considered "essential" business and thus has to go to work. And a janitor who is in a nonessential business and thus gets paid to stay home. The one in the essential is being paid LESS to go to work and risk their lives than the one being paid to stay at home. This is enough to make me rethink my position - a little. 

 

I think they should keep the $600/wk until they can get the system set to provide 100% of wages (republicans are saying 70% which I believe is too low) but also provide assistance to essential business to pay hazard pay to those required to work. Target is actually doing that on their own. Employees get $2.00/hr more than pre-covid wages. This would remove the incentive to stay home but not punish people for being out of work due to covid. 

 

Here is the article. It's an interesting read. fivethirtyeight.com is rated left-center based. So take that as you want. But to me the article was pretty fair.  

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-getting-more-money-from-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

BTW: Not trying to be an ass here. I promise. 

I’ve been down this path with him/her enough to know you’re wasting your time. 
 

There’s no learning going on. It’s the same nonsense arguments over and over, never any data to back it up. It’s wrong information repeated over and over, every now and then you get a glimmer of hope that something is learned, only to see the same dumb posted again the next week. 
 

it’s a waste of your time. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by tshile

[goskins10]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

no I’m not talking about different things. 
 

and no we’ve never had a problem with people that are fired and having to pay them unemployment. It’s been very easy. Yes you need documentation to show, but no it hasn’t been hard, and no at no point were we required to have the person have signed the documentation in order to use it to prove the case. 

 

It is two different things regardless of if you seed ti that way or not. That is a pure fact, or at least it is in many states and DC. So what may be happening here is that you may be in a state where it's not as difficult to get out of paying unemployment. Also, I never said anything about signed proof. So that may be attributed to someone else. 

 

In MD and DC - I was a store manager for several restaurants in both - you can fire whoever you want. But many times you can have all the proof you want and the adjudicator will still rule in favor of the person fired unless they broke a law. All they had to do was show up at the hearing and they win. But that could be different in other states.

 

So where is your business? That may explain our different experiences. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by goskins10

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

It is two different things regardless of if you seed ti that way or not. That is a pure fact, or at least it is in many states and DC. So what may be happening here is that you may be in a state where it's not as difficult to get out of paying unemployment. Also, I never said anything about signed proof. So that may be attributed to someone else. 

 

In MD and DC - I was a store manager for several restaurants in both - you can fire whoever you want. But many times you can have all the proof you want and the adjudicator will still rule in favor of the person fired unless they broke a law. All they had to do was show up at the hearing and they win. But that could be different in other states. So where is your business? 

Yes it was attributed to the person that said you had to have the employee sign the documents if you wanted to use them as proof. 
 

the same person who made claims about how hard it is, then said they don’t have time to do hearings. 
 

im in va. Right to work stare. 
 

no we don’t need to prove laws were broken to justify fire with cause. We just need basic documentation that proves they couldn’t do their job correctly. 
 

you also need to be able to refute the employees claims and whatever proof they have. Which we’ve never had a problem. Most people try to claim they lost their job because there wasn’t anymore work for them (ie: claiming lay-off) and that’s super easy to refute. 
 

(In hindsight someone being fired from a place that is actively working to hire more people into the same role, and routinely has discussions both documented and not about how we’re understaffed and need more people, turning around and claiming lay-off due to lack of work is ****ing hilarious and fits right in with who those people were and why they got fired in the first place. )

Edited July 31, 2020 by tshile

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Yes it was attributed to the person that said you had to have the employee sign the documents if you wanted to use them as proof. 
 

the same person who made claims about how hard it is, then said they don’t have time to do hearings. 
 

im in va. Right to work stare. 
 

no we don’t need to prove laws were broken to justify fire with cause. We just need basic documentation that proves they couldn’t do their job correctly. 
 

you also need to be able to refute the employees claims and whatever proof they have. Which we’ve never had a problem. Most people try to claim they lost their job because there wasn’t anymore work for them (ie: claiming lay-off) and that’s super easy to refute. 

 

 

Fair enough. It could also be type of business driven.  We always had our documentation in order - meaning documented them not following company rules, being late so many times, incompetence etc. And I won most times. But I lost a few times where I should have won. I should also state that this was quite a long time ago (30 yrs). I may be going off very old information that is no longer as valid. 

 

Back to the topic - One of the rules for the stimulus is you cannot fire someone for refusing to get off UI during the extended period and extended benefits. But that will run out. And with "at will" employment, you are right they risk being fired once the new benefits run out. That is something I very much agree with you on. That should be incentive to go back even if you are getting a few extra $ now. If it's not, you were not that commited to begin with. 

[tshile]

Has anyone compiled data that shows, in a statistically significant way, that people are choosing to not go back to work simply because they make more money with UI?

 

we have data compiled that shows the opposite. 
 

so where is the data to back this up?

 

all I’ve seen is conjecture, hand waving, and some “I know someone that...”

 

I know people who have made decisions like that too. No one is denying they exist. 
 

but some of you are making strong claims about the extent to which these people exist. Do you have any data to actually back it up? I’m just curious because I havent seen it, so I’m curious where this mindset comes from. Maybe it’s just not showing up in my feeds. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by tshile

[bcl05]

I don't really understand why encouraging people to stay home is bad, in the context of a pandemic that has killed 150,000 Americans, so far.

 

A lot of the discussion I've seen has suggested that providing incentives for people to stay home is bad and undesirable.  I completely get that, in normal times.  Now, though, when our priority should be to suppress the spread of a deadly virus, this is actually a big benefit.  If we support people well enough with UI people won't be forced back to work just to remain fed and sheltered.  We can keep things closed enough to slow or stop the spread of the virus.  (or at least we could if people had the slightest bit of common sense and social responsibility).

 

I realize that this is a pipe dream that would depend on shared responsibility, good leadership, and coordinated, data-driven response.  I just want to point out that incentivizing people to stay home is not necessarily bad. 

[EmirOfShmo]

The whole "if we don't pay them $600 they'll go back to work" argument is bull****. People aren't going to go stay in a hotel, fly on a plane or ride on Amtrak when you take away their $600. I don't recall seeing any 'Now Hiring' ads on Monday by hotels, airlines & Amtrak now that the $600 is gone (effective Sunday, July 26th). I guess those workers just don't want to work - even with their extra $600 gone.  

I don't care what their job was - it's not suddenly coming back because you took away their $600. Such stupid ****ing logic. Are there some people doing that? Yes, but point me to data, in detail, that supports that ‘a lot’ of people are doing this. Such bull****.

 

Companies are still laying people off.

 

The following is from a daily Yahoo Finance morning briefing email I get (my emphasis):

The latest weekly report on initial jobless claims showed another 1.434 million workers filed for unemployment insurance. That number shows many are still being newly let go from their jobs. Claims for continuing unemployment insurance, however, were even more concerning, rising by more than 800,000 to 17.01 million last week, the first increase since May.

"The increase in continued claims suggests that rehiring may be pausing as the rise in Covid-19 cases causes more businesses to shut down or scale back reopening plans," said Nancy Vanden Houten, lead economist at Oxford Economics.

As of last week, Vanden Houten estimates that when you include those receiving pandemic unemployment assistance, adjust for backlogs and states no longer reporting claims, it's likely that some 29.6 million people were receiving benefits of some sort as of July 11 — a record high.

‌The most recent claims data also covers the reference week for the July jobs report, which will be released a week from today on August 7. And this data could also be another step back in the labor market’s improvement that started back in May.

 

Southwest Airlines Spends $1.7Billion on Employee Separations

 

Although Southwest Airlines will not be laying off workers, over 17,000 employees will leave the company at a cost of $1.7 billion.

“Experts tell me that, while our cases should plateau at 60,000-70,000 new per day, there is no evidence (based on behaviors) that the case counts will come down—until we have a vaccine,” Kelly wrote. “I’ve recently heard from CEOs of four large U.S. pharmaceutical companies racing to develop vaccines. All agree none will be available until early next year, at best. Based on that, all agree that things won’t be ‘normal’ until mid-year 2021, at best.

In planning for the “worst case scenario,” the executive asked employees to consider taking an extended time off package the airline is offering to conserve cash. The 17,000 employees that are either leaving the company outright or taking extended time off will cost the airline $17 billion in exit fees.

 

https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/southwest-spends-1-7-billion-on-employee-separations-predicts-depressed-demand.html

 

 

[tshile]

45 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

 

I don't really understand why encouraging people to stay home is bad, in the context of a pandemic that has killed 150,000 Americans, so far.

 

I’m commenting before I’ve thought through it all carefully, but...

 

I do have a problem with an idea that we just pay people who have lost their jobs to stay home. The rest of us aren’t getting any such luxury. 
 

if you’re talking about a bigger policy that goes beyond that then I’d need to rethink it. 
 

So far I’m on board with the idea that people aren’t actually doing this in any meaningful way. If someone can show me data that says they are I will reconsider, but so far I’ve only seen data that show’s the opposite (70% of people who went back to work, went back to a job that pays less than UI with the extra 600$)

 

but I’m not onboard, yet, with the idea that we should encourage people to stay unemployed. 
 

I don’t know. That’s a tough one. Especially when we think about the idea that if people just wore masks this wouldn’t be such a big deal to begin with... 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Has anyone compiled data that shows, in a statistically significant way, that people are choosing to not go back to work simply because they make more money with UI?

 

we have data compiled that shows the opposite. 
 

so where is the data to back this up?

 

As I said, anecdotal. Real evidence takes time to developer. I’m surprised you don’t see the the logic that giving people money to not work makes them less likely to work. That mostly simple logic combined with a lot of anecdotal evidence all but proves it. I’m not sure why you are picking this hill to die on a way. 
 

The only evidence you’ve posted to suggest this is not the case is that of the people whose same employer offered them their job back (a small percentage) 70 percent accepted (an even smaller percentage)....
 

 

Quote

but some of you are making strong claims about the extent to which these people exist. Do you have any data to actually back it up? I’m just curious because I havent seen it, so I’m curious where this mindset comes from. Maybe it’s just not showing up in my feeds. 

Look. It’s not laziness. It’s common sense. If someone is gonna pay me more not to work, I won’t work. I’m not Blaine for people for choosing not to work, I’m saying that the government shouldn’t necessarily create incentives to rely on the government for $$.

 

You got a nice job I’m sure. 600 ain’t nothing to you. But if someone is pulling in 450 bucks after taxes a week, 600 is a lot to give up. I don’t blame them one bit. My problem is with the government who chooses to do that instead of alternatives.

 

 

Its a fallacy to suggest that since some Jobs aren’t coming back the people need 600 dollars ON TOP of their normal employment benefits.@EmirOfShmo. Get a different job.

Edited July 31, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Get a different job.

Sure, everyone just go get different jobs in a pandemic, no less.  
 

As someone who got laid off in 2018 after 13 years of service with my company, along with 80 others at the same time, I can tell you with certainty it’s not that easy.

 

Sure, getting any job, that’s easy.  But any job doesn’t feed your family and pay the mortgage.  Particularly when your peers with similar skillsets all need work too.

Edited July 31, 2020 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[CousinsCowgirl84]

13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

.

 

Sure, getting any job, that’s easy.  But any job doesn’t feed your family and pay the mortgage.  Particularly when your peers with similar skillsets all need work too.

 

I was referring for the most part about menial jobs where 600 dollars makes up a large part of your pay. Say, sub 50k. To suggest that a Walmart greeter cannot get a job delivering pizza is not accurate.

 

and if you want to extend jobless benefits that’s OK. But there isn’t a good reason to give people an extra $600 after the initial shock has passed.

Edited July 31, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I don’t know what the solution is but way too damn much of this new money is finding its way to Apple, Amazon, and Facebook.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

As I said, anecdotal. Real evidence takes time to developer. I’m surprised you don’t see the the logic that giving people money to not work makes them less likely to work. That mostly simple logic combined with a lot of anecdotal evidence all but proves it. I’m not sure why you are picking this hill to die on a way. 

yet we’ve developed real evidence for the argument that counters your argument. Interesting

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Common-Sense
 

Because appeals to common sense are dumb because they’re often wrong. 
 

you want to appeal to common sense to argue against real data, and add on that you haven’t had enough time to get real data (even though real data for the counter argument exists)

 

I’m sorry you’re an adult and don’t understand that basic principle of critical thinking. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

yet we’ve developed real evidence for the argument that counters your argument. Interesting

no you haven’t. You’ve said a small percentage of people returned to their jobs. That’s it.

 

70 percent of the people who were offered the same exact job back. Is a very small percent of the people who lost their job/quit during the pandemic..

Edited July 31, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84