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: 28,098
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 25, 2021 9:47:01 GMT -5
With no time limits? There are arguments for and against UBI too. I’m not totally convinced that this isn’t just an argument to back door into UBI without calling it that. Why would you think I was saying no time limit - I didn't say forever. I mean, I'm not arguing for UBI in this sense at all. I'm just saying that we should still be providing additional benefits. At least the weekly benefit level. I was saying if the argument is get to people back to work, which has been a very common Republican one, it makes sense that they would support return to work bonus, mixed earner income unemployment/additional benefits for people who lost income. Then again, this is politics. We actually had a bill introduced by an R who wanted people who refused to be vaccinated per company requirements to be eligible for unemployment.
|
|
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: 28,098
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 25, 2021 9:52:08 GMT -5
Also, wasn't there *months* when the Pandemic was still at some of its WORST, when there were no additional unemployment benefits? It made no sense how from September-December 2020 (or whatever period it was) that people got 0 additional unemployment benefits. Those should have been retroactive. I guess this goes to merv's point.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 25, 2021 11:34:22 GMT -5
Also, wasn't there *months* when the Pandemic was still at some of its WORST, when there were no additional unemployment benefits? It made no sense how from September-December 2020 (or whatever period it was) that people got 0 additional unemployment benefits. Those should have been retroactive. I guess this goes to merv's point. Out of curiosity, what’s the reasoning behind getting bigger unemployment checks for COVID-related unemployment than unemployment that happened in 2019? Other than it applied to more people so it was politically better? Like, if you’re comparing a single mom getting laid off in April 2019 vs April 2020, is there a reason the April 2020 layoff needed more income to get by? I’m not even tackling this from knowing if it incentivizes a return to work. Just what was the rationale?
|
|
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: 28,098
|
Post by trojansc on Sept 25, 2021 11:45:55 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what’s the reasoning behind getting bigger unemployment checks for COVID-related unemployment than unemployment that happened in 2019? Other than it applied to more people so it was politically better? Like, if you’re comparing a single mom getting laid off in April 2019 vs April 2020, is there a reason the April 2020 layoff needed more income to get by? I’m not even tackling this from knowing if it incentivizes a return to work. Just what was the rationale? Are you seriously asking this question? You can't think of any rationale as to why there would be a more dire need for unemployment insurance in a pandemic than in any normal year? Layoffs didn't happen at the same scale in April 2019, well, for one. Schools were not closed, businesses were not shut down due to government regulations. There were more options to work and especially in April 2020, people were forced to stay home for the wellness of the country and not everyone can work from home. The rationale is that there are less opportunities to work and incomes were cut drastically. Entire industries were devastated. The situation is better now than it was in April 2020, but, there are many industries that have not and may not ever recover. That doesn't man there needs to be a lifetime extension. FWIW - I'm not even explicitly advocating for bigger unemployment checks in this scenario. I at least think the federal government should provide additional benefits at the normaly weekly state level. Especially given that our unemployment system is largely broken (even in April 2019). I think going from Weekly + 300$ --> 0$ is a mistake. At least trickle it down to weekly. Then again, if you're going to argue that we should provide higher unemployment in April 2019 (i.e non-pandemic scenarios) and our unemployment system is broken and should have been addressed already, then, we are in agreeance and there is no rationale explanation necessary!
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 25, 2021 15:04:37 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what’s the reasoning behind getting bigger unemployment checks for COVID-related unemployment than unemployment that happened in 2019? Other than it applied to more people so it was politically better? Like, if you’re comparing a single mom getting laid off in April 2019 vs April 2020, is there a reason the April 2020 layoff needed more income to get by? I’m not even tackling this from knowing if it incentivizes a return to work. Just what was the rationale? Are you seriously asking this question? You can't think of any rationale as to why there would be a more dire need for unemployment insurance in a pandemic than in any normal year? Layoffs didn't happen at the same scale in April 2019, well, for one. Schools were not closed, businesses were not shut down due to government regulations. There were more options to work and especially in April 2020, people were forced to stay home for the wellness of the country and not everyone can work from home. The rationale is that there are less opportunities to work and incomes were cut drastically. Entire industries were devastated. The situation is better now than it was in April 2020, but, there are many industries that have not and may not ever recover. That doesn't man there needs to be a lifetime extension. FWIW - I'm not even explicitly advocating for bigger unemployment checks in this scenario. I at least think the federal government should provide additional benefits at the normaly weekly state level. Especially given that our unemployment system is largely broken (even in April 2019). I think going from Weekly + 300$ --> 0$ is a mistake. At least trickle it down to weekly. Then again, if you're going to argue that we should provide higher unemployment in April 2019 (i.e non-pandemic scenarios) and our unemployment system is broken and should have been addressed already, then, we are in agreeance and there is no rationale explanation necessary! I wasn’t asking why more people needed unemployment. Just why those getting unemployment got the +300 compared to 2019. I totally agree with the federal government supporting the states with an influx of cash because the numbers of unemployment claims were through the roof and states probably couldn’t handle it. I was asking if $400 was deemed the appropriate amount for a given worker in 2019, why $700 was the correct amount in 2020. I realize it was a bit off topic and unrelated to the question if the standard amount should be extended, but that question came to mind.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 25, 2021 15:11:29 GMT -5
Because the $400 wasn't enough in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 8, 2021 8:08:50 GMT -5
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,367
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2021 10:42:43 GMT -5
There shouldn't be any unemployment right now in this market. There isn't enough employment to meet the current production demands. Should be a great market for the unemployed to get much higher wages than before COVID.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 8, 2021 11:10:50 GMT -5
There shouldn't be any unemployment right now in this market. There isn't enough employment to meet the current production demands. Should be a great market for the unemployed to get much higher wages than before COVID. It's almost like markets are less efficient than people think. Or that there reasons other than extended UI for people not coming back into the workforce.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,367
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2021 12:05:12 GMT -5
There shouldn't be any unemployment right now in this market. There isn't enough employment to meet the current production demands. Should be a great market for the unemployed to get much higher wages than before COVID. It's almost like markets are less efficient than people think. Or that there reasons other than extended UI for people not coming back into the workforce. I am curious as to the cause. Extended UI was part of the problem early on. I haven't heard this anywhere, but I am guessing we have far less transit workers from other countries, fewer visas, etc... all do to COVID and the border. This has created a very low supply of workers across the US vs. pre COVID.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 8, 2021 12:14:58 GMT -5
It's almost like markets are less efficient than people think. Or that there reasons other than extended UI for people not coming back into the workforce. I am curious as to the cause. Extended UI was part of the problem early on. I haven't heard this anywhere, but I am guessing we have far less transit workers from other countries, fewer visas, etc... all do to COVID and the border. This has created a very low supply of workers across the US vs. pre COVID. Do you have evidence that extended unemployment was the cause for labor shortages early in the pandemic? Because it clearly wasn't the source of issues a month ago.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 8, 2021 12:15:10 GMT -5
Like, actual data.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,367
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 8, 2021 14:55:45 GMT -5
I am curious as to the cause. Extended UI was part of the problem early on. I haven't heard this anywhere, but I am guessing we have far less transit workers from other countries, fewer visas, etc... all do to COVID and the border. This has created a very low supply of workers across the US vs. pre COVID. Do you have evidence that extended unemployment was the cause for labor shortages early in the pandemic? Because it clearly wasn't the source of issues a month ago. The 25 states that ended federal unemployment insurance has about 25% unemployment than the 25 states plus DC. Pretty much impossible to quantify the impact of 'only' UI on unemployment.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Oct 8, 2021 15:02:22 GMT -5
Do you have evidence that extended unemployment was the cause for labor shortages early in the pandemic? Because it clearly wasn't the source of issues a month ago. The 25 states that ended federal unemployment insurance has about 25% unemployment than the 25 states plus DC. Pretty much impossible to quantify the impact of 'only' UI on unemployment. That doesn't even make sense.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2021 15:10:35 GMT -5
This is like when communists deal with famine. Their love of the theory overwhelms their ability to recognize the reality.
|
|