Unemployment Extension

[trojansc]

I see a lot of debate about whether or not the government should extend the $600/weekly federal assistance for unemployment until January 2021.

There are other proposals, like:

-Having the state's per week additional benefits be dependent on their state's unemployment rate. For example, if unemployment is worse in Arizona than Wyoming, California's might receive $500 extra weekly while Wyoming only receives $200 extra weekly.

-Having a $450/week bonus for RETURNING to a job. This doesn't benefit anyone receiving unemployment unless they are actually able to go out and secure a job. This is a cute idea, but I don't see how giving extra money to those who find a job helps the unemployed.

-Capping the unemployment benefits at someone's prior income (why was this not done in the first place?) So, in this sense, you can still get the $600 extra benefits IF it doesn't exceed what your earnings were prior to Coronavirus. This would have made sense to me in the first place, but are we surprised that many states unemployment offices are unprepared to deal with something like this? It's insane that the technology is that hard to put into place. Some states say they won't have an issue, others are almost certain they will.


I don't think there is one clear answer and it gets complicated when you consider this is federal assistance and each state has a unique situation when it comes to jobs, unemployment, and cost of living. Some states are getting hit much harder than others re: coronavirus and some JOBS are getting hit much harder in certain states than others. I DO think there should be some supplemental benefits besides what each state is offering as it's maximum unemployment business.

I'm really tired of the "People are making MORE on Unemployment argument!" ........... That's the workers fault? Why was it set up like that in the first place? And if an employer attempts to re-hire an employee and they refuse to return to work, that in most all cases disqualifies them to be eligible for unemployment. The narrative that people don't want to work and would like to sit on unemployment may be true in some cases, but it's really overplayed. There are many people who are also making LESS on unemployment, and of course this money is still taxed!

[holidayhusker]

Jul 2, 2020 9:27:11 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I see a lot of debate about whether or not the government should extend the $600/weekly federal assistance for unemployment until January 2021.

There are other proposals, like:

-Having the state's per week additional benefits be dependent on their state's unemployment rate. For example, if unemployment is worse in Arizona than Wyoming, California's might receive $500 extra weekly while Wyoming only receives $200 extra weekly.

-Having a $450/week bonus for RETURNING to a job. This doesn't benefit anyone receiving unemployment unless they are actually able to go out and secure a job. This is a cute idea, but I don't see how giving extra money to those who find a job helps the unemployed.

-Capping the unemployment benefits at someone's prior income (why was this not done in the first place?) So, in this sense, you can still get the $600 extra benefits IF it doesn't exceed what your earnings were prior to Coronavirus. This would have made sense to me in the first place, but are we surprised that many states unemployment offices are unprepared to deal with something like this? It's insane that the technology is that hard to put into place. Some states say they won't have an issue, others are almost certain they will.


I don't think there is one clear answer and it gets complicated when you consider this is federal assistance and each state has a unique situation when it comes to jobs, unemployment, and cost of living. Some states are getting hit much harder than others re: coronavirus and some JOBS are getting hit much harder in certain states than others. I DO think there should be some supplemental benefits besides what each state is offering as it's maximum unemployment business.

I'm really tired of the "People are making MORE on Unemployment argument!" ........... That's the workers fault? Why was it set up like that in the first place? And if an employer attempts to re-hire an employee and they refuse to return to work, that in most all cases disqualifies them to be eligible for unemployment. The narrative that people don't want to work and would like to sit on unemployment may be true in some cases, but it's really overplayed. There are many people who are also making LESS on unemployment, and of course this money is still taxed!

. You might be tired of hearing about it but it was a dumb dumb thing to do. Why would you want to go back to work when you make can make more sitting at home.Guess who’s idea that was?

[trojansc]

Jul 2, 2020 10:02:56 GMT -5 holidayhusker said:

. You might be tired of hearing about it but it was a dumb dumb thing to do. Why would you want to go back to work when you make can make more sitting at home.Guess who’s idea that was?

Did you read the post? Because I agreed that the blanket $600 was NOT the best way to do it. So are you in favor for extending the $600 benefits as long as it doesn't exceed what they were making prior to coronavirus?

Again, I don't know how every single state works, and i have direct experience here in California -- but you HAVE to go back to work if your job calls you back. If you refuse, that can make you ineligible for unemployment. I also know several people who went back to work and are making MORE than they were before (and making more than people on unemployment!) because even though they went  back to work they are still receiving the additional unemployment for reduced hours. 

For what its worth -- the corporation I work for runs hundreds of domestic and international airport restaurants, retail booths, pharmacies, etc.. They've gotten free rent (how many Americans have?) since March. You don't want to know how much rent costs at LAX. 

Also, people literally still can't go back to work directly because of government mandates. California has now banned dine-in restaurants, movie theatres, various entertainment venues, etc for another 3 weeks, which is when the extra unemployment benefits end. So people who just got their jobs back or were about to get their jobs back are now waiting again. Some additional benefits are necessary.

[Deleted]

The BEST way to help the economy is to put money in the pockets of normal people. Oddly enough it's also the best way to help those same normal people.

Also, what is worse? Paying people more than they might make at their underpaying jobs OR forcing them back to work in the middle of a pandemic?

I think the answer is obvious. holiday, sitting in his Colorado middle-class neighborhood, smoking pot, counting his small business loans, thinks their lives aren't worth the impact on his bank account.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 2, 2020 9:27:11 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I see a lot of debate about whether or not the government should extend the $600/weekly federal assistance for unemployment until January 2021.

There are other proposals, like:

-Having the state's per week additional benefits be dependent on their state's unemployment rate. For example, if unemployment is worse in Arizona than Wyoming, California's might receive $500 extra weekly while Wyoming only receives $200 extra weekly.

-Having a $450/week bonus for RETURNING to a job. This doesn't benefit anyone receiving unemployment unless they are actually able to go out and secure a job. This is a cute idea, but I don't see how giving extra money to those who find a job helps the unemployed.

-Capping the unemployment benefits at someone's prior income (why was this not done in the first place?) So, in this sense, you can still get the $600 extra benefits IF it doesn't exceed what your earnings were prior to Coronavirus. This would have made sense to me in the first place, but are we surprised that many states unemployment offices are unprepared to deal with something like this? It's insane that the technology is that hard to put into place. Some states say they won't have an issue, others are almost certain they will.


I don't think there is one clear answer and it gets complicated when you consider this is federal assistance and each state has a unique situation when it comes to jobs, unemployment, and cost of living. Some states are getting hit much harder than others re: coronavirus and some JOBS are getting hit much harder in certain states than others. I DO think there should be some supplemental benefits besides what each state is offering as it's maximum unemployment business.

I'm really tired of the "People are making MORE on Unemployment argument!" ........... That's the workers fault? Why was it set up like that in the first place? And if an employer attempts to re-hire an employee and they refuse to return to work, that in most all cases disqualifies them to be eligible for unemployment. The narrative that people don't want to work and would like to sit on unemployment may be true in some cases, but it's really overplayed. There are many people who are also making LESS on unemployment, and of course this money is still taxed!

The current unemployment payments is a total job killer right now.  There are many companies (like the one I work for) that cannot get enough people to work.  It isn't hiring back - it is hiring new people (we are growing).  It is my understanding that people are exempt from looking for a job or turning down a *similar* job in getting the benefit (not sure about returning to the same job).  

I am fine with paying people that lost their job - I am just not liking the paying more than before.  

Instead of making this a Federal program - what if the Federal Government paid the states to implement how they see fit?  They would probably do a better job of managing and making it work so that those that were financially harmed can be helped.

And this isn't the workers fault - it was the Government's fault for not putting in the 'fix' before the bill was signed.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 2, 2020 10:36:30 GMT -5 @ruffda said:

The BEST way to help the economy is to put money in the pockets of normal people. 

Spoken like a Keynesian.  An Austrian would have a different opinion.

[trojansc]

Jul 2, 2020 10:56:42 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

The current unemployment payments is a total job killer right now.  There are many companies (like the one I work for) that cannot get enough people to work.  It isn't hiring back - it is hiring new people (we are growing).  It is my understanding that people are exempt from looking for a job or turning down a *similar* job in getting the benefit (not sure about returning to the same job). 

I am fine with paying people that lost their job - I am just not liking the paying more than before.  

Instead of making this a Federal program - what if the Federal Government paid the states to implement how they see fit?  They would probably do a better job of managing and making it work so that those that were financially harmed can be helped.

And this isn't the workers fault - it was the Government's fault for not putting in the 'fix' before the bill was signed.

The unemployment rate is better than what was expected for June, though? Some people actually enjoy working (sick freaks!) I know a lot of people who have bad home situations and they're pretty fed up of being in close quarters. I think a lot of people are also very worried there jobs will never come back, so they can't sit around and wait forever and HOPE that additional unemployment relief comes.

I am with you on not paying more than before (while not blaming or shaming those) - especially because a blanket stimulus was given out (and will probably be given out again).

How do we go about ensuring that people receive benefits based on their city/state's cost of living? (Which of course, can vary city to city and even within states) You can move states and still collect unemployment benefits, so someone is always going to be able to get over on the system. I guess you just try to prevent that as much as possible and try as hard as you can to spread the money out evenly to the people who need it (and worked for it pre-corona) as best as you can. 

[Deleted]

Jul 2, 2020 10:58:16 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Jul 2, 2020 10:36:30 GMT -5 @ruffda said:

The BEST way to help the economy is to put money in the pockets of normal people. 

Spoken like a Keynesian.  An Austrian would have a different opinion.

We don't pay workers enough in this country. What happens? The Fed and state end up subsidizing the workforce -- just one more handout to holiday and his ilk.

The dirty little secret of America is that we never really got rid of slave labor.

[bluepenquin]

Jul 2, 2020 11:28:10 GMT -5 @ruffda said:

Jul 2, 2020 10:58:16 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Spoken like a Keynesian.  An Austrian would have a different opinion.

We don't pay workers enough in this country. What happens? The Fed and state end up subsidizing the workforce -- just one more handout to holiday and his ilk.

The dirty little secret of America is that we never really got rid of slave labor.

Whoops - not Keynes, something more to the left.

[Deleted]

If people aren't paid a livable wage (including health care), do you consider that an efficient economic system? Leave left and right -- and Keynes -- out of it.

It would be *slightly* more palatable if the 1% didn't have so much of the country's wealth.

Anyhow, unemployment benefits -- at whatever amount -- are the least of our problems. If people can't afford stuff, guess what? The whole thing collapses.

[azvb]

I think every week my daughter has to respond to if she’s found/looked for a job. She tells them, “I’m a coach and a referee. Those jobs don’t exist right now.” Surprised they’ve never told her to look for a job outside her expertise. If no volleyball is played this fall, guess she will still get unemployment.

[Deleted]

70%? Guess again.

And that's the point, the pie is not large enough. Telling people to "find a better job" is risible. For one thing, someone has to do those jobs. As for "agreed upon" price, it's more like "take it or leave it."

People are not being paid what they are worth. So, yes, I think the system is broken.

[mikegarrison]

Jul 2, 2020 11:56:43 GMT -5 azvb said:

I think every week my daughter has to respond to if she’s found/looked for a job. She tells them, “I’m a coach and a referee. Those jobs don’t exist right now.” Surprised they’ve never told her to look for a job outside her expertise. If no volleyball is played this fall, guess she will still get unemployment.

Under normal circumstances, unemployment does run out.

And a big part of the purpose of unemployment is to give people time to look for a similar or better job than the one they lost. Forcing everyone to quickly take a job mopping floors or something (assuming that wasn't their job originally) is what unemployment insurance was supposed to protect against. It's good for the economy to have people with skills and experience matched up with the jobs they have the skills and experience to work.

[mikegarrison]

Jul 2, 2020 12:48:41 GMT -5 @daryldearman said:

It's also absurd that somebody that worked for 3 months out of the previous year can collect benefits for 6 months.

This is a structural problem because of how many states set up their unemployment. There are a lot of seasonal industries (like construction work) that effectively use unemployment as a pay multiplier that comes out of the pockets of non-seasonal industries.

[mervinswerved]

I vote other.

$2000 a month to every adult and child in America, regardless of employment status or income, until the pandemic is over and businesses can reopen without restrictions.

If people are worried about rich people getting checks, you can just get it back in taxes next year.