Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2020 16:08:28 GMT -5
It's a very odd hill for Trump to die on. Who -- besides Tea Party fools -- is he going to offend by helping out Americans (i.e., voters)?
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 16, 2020 14:40:15 GMT -5
"Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota made news by declining unemployment assistance: “My administration is very grateful for the additional flexibility that this effort would have provided, but South Dakota is in the fortunate position of not needing to accept it. South Dakota’s economy, having never been shut down, has recovered nearly 80% of our job losses.”
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 16, 2020 18:02:45 GMT -5
"Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota made news by declining unemployment assistance: “My administration is very grateful for the additional flexibility that this effort would have provided, but South Dakota is in the fortunate position of not needing to accept it. South Dakota’s economy, having never been shut down, has recovered nearly 80% of our job losses.” I bet the 20% that are still unemployed are just happy as all get-out that they are not getting that $400/week because she wanted to make a political point.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 6, 2021 19:59:28 GMT -5
I figured I could revive this thread back up. What does everyone think about the states who cut off unemployment benefits early before they were supposed to finish next month? Not only that, but is there a chance for a possible extension?
I mean to the first point, it seems to be backfiring, really. I have not seen many reports that have shown significant evidence that this is helping the job market or getting more people into the workforce. There are reports that say it has made no difference, while there are some who say in certain scenarios it has resulted in an improvement. It seems negligible at best.
However, the issue now has become that these states are getting SUED, and they are being ordered to pay the money back. I think this is interesting. The elephant in the room is that practically all of the states who have cut off federal support for unemployment benefits have been Republican-led states.
So, is this not costing the states more money? Cutting off money, having to repay it, and incurring legal fees? And it didn't make a difference in the workforce anyways? Sounds like a headache for politically motivated stunts. Which, also may have just been the wrong thing to do, that's another part of the discussion.
I saw an article from Yahoo today that the White House may be 'walking back' Biden's comments about unemployment supplements ending in September. I think that even if the extra money (300$/week, for example) is gone, that they could extend regular unemployment benefits or the self-employed, etc. benefit programs. Probably because of the Delta variant. I imagine that there is no way they extend the program with additional supplements, but, maybe it's possible they continue some sort of financial support.
Curious to hear perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 6, 2021 21:28:43 GMT -5
I recently drove from California to Minnesota and back staying in places like Elko, NV, Butte, MT, and Bismarck, ND. I saw help wanted signs at almost every restaurant, food store, coffee shop I visited. The small town in Minnesota that was my base camp had several restaurants that were only open on Thursday through Sunday due to staff shortages. Based upon my experience the need for workers is definitely real.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Aug 6, 2021 22:22:18 GMT -5
Based upon my experience the need for workers is definitely real. I don't think there is anyone questioning the "need for workers" at this point. it is just a question of whether ending the extra availability of subsidizing people to not work will help push people into filling those job vacancies. sidenote: I don't think anyone has a right to complain about places being closed due to worker shortage unless the would-be-complainer is actually willing to work those jobs (for the rates that those employers are paying)... which the vast majority of complainers would never be willing to do
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 6, 2021 23:19:05 GMT -5
I figured I could revive this thread back up. What does everyone think about the states who cut off unemployment benefits early before they were supposed to finish next month? Not only that, but is there a chance for a possible extension? I mean to the first point, it seems to be backfiring, really. I have not seen many reports that have shown significant evidence that this is helping the job market or getting more people into the workforce. There are reports that say it has made no difference, while there are some who say in certain scenarios it has resulted in an improvement. It seems negligible at best. However, the issue now has become that these states are getting SUED, and they are being ordered to pay the money back. I think this is interesting. The elephant in the room is that practically all of the states who have cut off federal support for unemployment benefits have been Republican-led states. So, is this not costing the states more money? Cutting off money, having to repay it, and incurring legal fees? And it didn't make a difference in the workforce anyways? Sounds like a headache for politically motivated stunts. Which, also may have just been the wrong thing to do, that's another part of the discussion. I saw an article from Yahoo today that the White House may be 'walking back' Biden's comments about unemployment supplements ending in September. I think that even if the extra money (300$/week, for example) is gone, that they could extend regular unemployment benefits or the self-employed, etc. benefit programs. Probably because of the Delta variant. I imagine that there is no way they extend the program with additional supplements, but, maybe it's possible they continue some sort of financial support. Curious to hear perspectives. The issue is that unemployment payments aren't really being collected as they are intended. They are being used as UBI payments. My state requires you to apply for two jobs per week, asks if you were willing and able to work, and asks if you turned down an employment opportunity. With the current labor shortage, are people truthfully applying for jobs, willing and able to work, and not turning down job offers? I find that hard to believe. So the political divide is between people who are for and against UBI.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,137
|
Post by trojansc on Aug 6, 2021 23:45:27 GMT -5
The issue is that unemployment payments aren't really being collected as they are intended. They are being used as UBI payments. My state requires you to apply for two jobs per week, asks if you were willing and able to work, and asks if you turned down an employment opportunity. With the current labor shortage, are people truthfully applying for jobs, willing and able to work, and not turning down job offers? I find that hard to believe. So the political divide is between people who are for and against UBI. I'm only familiar with experiences within California's EDD (Unemployment/Disability) (and I don't even live there anymore) but, the provision is not to look for ANY work, is that you are required to look for work in your field. You do not have to look for work at McDonalds if you are a performing artist or comedian at the House of Blues, for example. This wasn't required for all people (I'm not sure what was the determinant, but I know some people didn't have to look before) but now everyone is required to look for work in California. This was a post on the first page that I think is a good example of this idea. I agree with you in SOME instances it's going to be hard to believe. However, in others, it is not unrealistic at all. There are some professions that were hit much much harder than others. 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. I think the larger issue - beyond the UBI vs. Unemployment argument in general is that the unemployment system is broken and inefficient. It could be ran much better.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Aug 7, 2021 0:51:10 GMT -5
TEMPORARY unemployment insurance to allow you to look for work in your field isn't a bad thing. But if there are no openings in your field, but there is a need in other fields (especially fields that don't require longterm specialized training), then why shouldn't people have to help out with the work that is needed while they wait for there to be demand in "their field" again?
I mean, if you have enough saved to be able to sustain yourself on your savings, then more power to ya. But why should the government pay people to not work for an extended time (when there is work that they are capable of doing that needs done)?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 7, 2021 1:14:23 GMT -5
The purpose of unemployment benefits is twofold:
1) They give people a chance to find a good replacement job, rather than just take any kind of work available because they need to eat. This is good for overall getting the most economic value out of the workforce, but it is bad for employers who traditionally want to hire "unskilled" labor at the lowest possible pay.
2) It helps keep the economy from crashing, because when some jobs get cut that leads to retail and service jobs getting cut, which leads to more jobs being cut, etc. Unemployment benefits can soften that crash cycle.
The value of these benefits to the economy reduce over time as the overall economy finds a new stable level of employment, which is really the main reason why unemployment benefits taper off or end. It's not supposed to be because "we have to force these freeloaders back to work".
In the context of the COVID pandemic, it makes sense to try to maintain unemployment benefits as long as the pandemic lasts. That should help keep a temporary problem from turning into a more long-lasting crash (item 2 above). But if, for instance, we decided the pandemic is "the new normal", then there is no benefit to the economy to keep paying extended unemployment.
I think a lot of the pressure here is coming from the employers who very, very much want to hire people at $8/hr or whatever, and are really annoyed that people are telling them "not unless you pay me more than that".
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 7, 2021 7:59:56 GMT -5
The purpose of unemployment benefits is twofold: 1) They give people a chance to find a good replacement job, rather than just take any kind of work available because they need to eat. This is good for overall getting the most economic value out of the workforce, but it is bad for employers who traditionally want to hire "unskilled" labor at the lowest possible pay. 2) It helps keep the economy from crashing, because when some jobs get cut that leads to retail and service jobs getting cut, which leads to more jobs being cut, etc. Unemployment benefits can soften that crash cycle. The value of these benefits to the economy reduce over time as the overall economy finds a new stable level of employment, which is really the main reason why unemployment benefits taper off or end. It's not supposed to be because "we have to force these freeloaders back to work". In the context of the COVID pandemic, it makes sense to try to maintain unemployment benefits as long as the pandemic lasts. That should help keep a temporary problem from turning into a more long-lasting crash (item 2 above). But if, for instance, we decided the pandemic is "the new normal", then there is no benefit to the economy to keep paying extended unemployment. I think a lot of the pressure here is coming from the employers who very, very much want to hire people at $8/hr or whatever, and are really annoyed that people are telling them "not unless you pay me more than that". It isn’t just those employers. My local Starbucks is understaffed and it pisses me off in the morning. But I believe Starbucks pays their employees fairly well (with benefits). For you, what would be the signal that the pandemic is “over”?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 7, 2021 8:23:45 GMT -5
The purpose of unemployment benefits is twofold: 1) They give people a chance to find a good replacement job, rather than just take any kind of work available because they need to eat. This is good for overall getting the most economic value out of the workforce, but it is bad for employers who traditionally want to hire "unskilled" labor at the lowest possible pay. 2) It helps keep the economy from crashing, because when some jobs get cut that leads to retail and service jobs getting cut, which leads to more jobs being cut, etc. Unemployment benefits can soften that crash cycle. The value of these benefits to the economy reduce over time as the overall economy finds a new stable level of employment, which is really the main reason why unemployment benefits taper off or end. It's not supposed to be because "we have to force these freeloaders back to work". In the context of the COVID pandemic, it makes sense to try to maintain unemployment benefits as long as the pandemic lasts. That should help keep a temporary problem from turning into a more long-lasting crash (item 2 above). But if, for instance, we decided the pandemic is "the new normal", then there is no benefit to the economy to keep paying extended unemployment. I think a lot of the pressure here is coming from the employers who very, very much want to hire people at $8/hr or whatever, and are really annoyed that people are telling them "not unless you pay me more than that". It isn’t just those employers. My local Starbucks is understaffed and it pisses me off in the morning. But I believe Starbucks pays their employees fairly well (with benefits). For you, what would be the signal that the pandemic is “over”? Why don't you believe in capitalism when it comes to employment? It's obvious your Starbucks is not offering enough compensation. If they did they would not have a hiring shortage.
|
|
|
Post by ilikewaffles on Aug 7, 2021 11:07:56 GMT -5
It isn’t just those employers. My local Starbucks is understaffed and it pisses me off in the morning. But I believe Starbucks pays their employees fairly well (with benefits). For you, what would be the signal that the pandemic is “over”? Why don't you believe in capitalism when it comes to employment? It's obvious your Starbucks is not offering enough compensation. If they did they would not have a hiring shortage. A business needing to compete with government's unemployment insurance is not capitalism. I live in a state with extended benefits, although employers are begging for workers. As labor has gotten more expensive, prices for everything has gone up. The people staying home instead of working are part of our obese governor's voting block. He'd rather be reelected than keeping everyday necessities affordable. The middle class pays once again.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Aug 7, 2021 11:29:56 GMT -5
Why don't you believe in capitalism when it comes to employment? It's obvious your Starbucks is not offering enough compensation. If they did they would not have a hiring shortage. A business needing to compete with government's unemployment insurance is not capitalism. I live in a state with extended benefits, although employers are begging for workers. As labor has gotten more expensive, prices for everything has gone up. The people staying home instead of working are part of our obese governor's voting block. He'd rather be reelected than keeping everyday necessities affordable. The middle class pays once again. So you support a system where businesses prey off the desperation of people. Reagan destroyed the middle class decades ago when he attacked the unions. States, through laws such as "right to work" have attacked workers rights as well. Add to that the huge tax cuts given to corporations and one can argue that "obese government" has been slanting the rules toward corporations as well. It's good to see the worker having some leverage these days. If businesses are begging for workers RAISE COMPENSATION. See how that works?
|
|
|
Post by ilikewaffles on Aug 7, 2021 11:46:29 GMT -5
A business needing to compete with government's unemployment insurance is not capitalism. I live in a state with extended benefits, although employers are begging for workers. As labor has gotten more expensive, prices for everything has gone up. The people staying home instead of working are part of our obese governor's voting block. He'd rather be reelected than keeping everyday necessities affordable. The middle class pays once again. So you support a system where businesses prey off the desperation of people. Reagan destroyed the middle class decades ago when he attacked the unions. States, through laws such as "right to work" have attacked workers rights as well. Add to that the huge tax cuts given to corporations and one can argue that "obese government" has been slanting the rules toward corporations as well. It's good to see the worker having some leverage these days. If businesses are begging for workers RAISE COMPENSATION. See how that works? In my county the minimum wage is $13.00 per hour, which is what McDonald's workers make. Jobs in warehouses at least $20.00 per hour. People can easil6 find work if they want it, so no one is preying off the desperation of anyone. What businesses are doing is holding out until the unemployment runs out because they know that the people no showing interviews now are going to show up then. Until then fewer days open or slower service. We'll just have to deal with It until the government gets out of the business of paying people to stay home.
|
|