|
Post by n00b on Jul 27, 2020 16:26:16 GMT -5
In CA employees don't contribute to UI. It's all the Employer. I'm a CA employer, I wouldn't mind paying a higher UI rate if they changed the way they determined benefit amount and the amount of time an employee could collect. I think it's more employees are worried their wages will go down because business will be affected if UI tax goes up. Looking out for their job in the short term, but it will hurt them if their job is swallowed up when the economy collapses. The pro-business lobby has a lot of swing just about everywhere in the country. We're all being played by politicians (on both sides). We get worked up about things we don't agree about when there are major issues that could be fixed that people on both sides agree about. Crony capitalism is one of them. (I think civil asset forfeiture would be another). But no politicians get political points for accomplishing something both sides agree on.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 16:45:49 GMT -5
I think it's more employees are worried their wages will go down because business will be affected if UI tax goes up. Looking out for their job in the short term, but it will hurt them if their job is swallowed up when the economy collapses. The pro-business lobby has a lot of swing just about everywhere in the country. We're all being played by politicians (on both sides). We get worked up about things we don't agree about when there are major issues that could be fixed that people on both sides agree about. Crony capitalism is one of them. (I think civil asset forfeiture would be another). But no politicians get political points for accomplishing something both sides agree on. Right. I think the problem is both sides can't agree among each other on what to do. It's certainly a complicated issue. But this whole plan should have been unveiled last week - at the latest. I get it's complicated, I don't think the answer is giving $600 extra a week to people in Los Angeles but then giving the same benefit to those in rural Alabama. But the answer definitely wasn't waiting until now to decide. Maybe the Republican side was thinking making people wait and panicking that benefits would expire would lead them to go out and get jobs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 16:50:17 GMT -5
The best thing to do is to just extend them while they figure it out. The economy is not going to be hurt by giving people money to spend. Long-run, it could even help the jobs situation.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 16:53:22 GMT -5
Employers (and employees that aren't thinking about the next crash) don't want the UI tax raised. . . In CA employees don't contribute to UI. It's all the Employer. I'm a CA employer, I wouldn't mind paying a higher UI rate if they changed the way they determined benefit amount and the amount of time an employee could collect. What changes would you make? I know employees pay into the CA Disability fund. (It's WAY better to be on disability than unemployment. We had a few employees that went out on *questionable* disability claims, but, that's none of my business )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 17:16:40 GMT -5
What is the point of those hypotheticals? No one is proposing either thing. Although the second option may be in the works.
I get it. You think people who lost their jobs only have themselves to blame. Should have planned better. (My inner holiday at work. Should throw in something about "all you conservatives" for good measure.)
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 17:28:41 GMT -5
What changes would you make? I know employees pay into the CA Disability fund. Benefits received: No minimum / No maximum. Weekly benefit received would be equal to 1/52nd of your last years' taxable income for a maximum of 8 weeks every 4 years. No Maximum would lead to an increase in fraud, I would assume. Also, are you suggesting someone should only be able to collect unemployment for 8 weeks in a 4 year span? Obviously this is a separate argument from what's going on now with the COVID situation, but not sure I agree with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 17:40:23 GMT -5
You think people who lost their jobs only have themselves to blame. Should have planned better. (My inner holiday at work. Should throw in something about "all you conservatives" for good measure.) Not at all. Sometimes it's their fault, sometimes they have nothing to do with it. As to planning better, yes we absolutely could benefit from that trait being more prevalent. If you're unemployed for 26 weeks, yes you only have yourself to blame. It must really suck to go through life seeing victims everywhere and people trying to victimize you. I would much rather go through life with empathy than have none whatsoever. Better to err on the side of compassion.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 17:43:18 GMT -5
If you're unemployed for 26 weeks, yes you only have yourself to blame. I don't think this statement can even be made pre-Corona depending on where you live. Post-corona, absolutely not.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 27, 2020 17:45:32 GMT -5
Benefits received: No minimum / No maximum. Weekly benefit received would be equal to 1/52nd of your last years' taxable income for a maximum of 8 weeks every 4 years. No Maximum would lead to an increase in fraud, I would assume. Also, are you suggesting someone should only be able to collect unemployment for 8 weeks in a 4 year span? Obviously this is a separate argument from what's going on now with the COVID situation, but not sure I agree with that. Unfortunately, some industries that are seasonal (particularly construction) tend to use unemployment insurance as a regular supplement to their workers' incomes (depending on various state laws). They lay people off every year, the workers collect unemployment, and then they rehire them. This is a drain on everybody else, and it's not really what unemployment insurance was supposed to be for.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 18:13:20 GMT -5
I don't think this statement can even be made pre-Corona depending on where you live. Post-corona, absolutely not. Where you live is largely immaterial in the days of the Interwebs. Same thing CovId pre-CovId. Still unemployed 26 weeks later, you need a different line of work. I don't think it's even close to being as simplistic as you think it is. I definitely think there is a middle ground between not trying to better yourself and situation versus not having opportunities (which are going to vary), but I don't think you acknowledge that. Almost nothing is the "Same" pre-covid and current COVID.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 18:37:03 GMT -5
I don't think it's even close to being as simplistic as you think it is. I definitely think there is a middle ground between not trying to better yourself and situation versus not having opportunities (which are going to vary), but I don't think you acknowledge that. Almost nothing is the "Same" pre-covid and current COVID. If you find yourself without opportunities after 26 weeks either you're looking in the wrong places for a solution or you are being too picky about the solutions you find. I'm thinking the hardest hit would be older employees, particularly those who are have health issues (corona) and those who have been working in the same job or industry for 10+years that abruptly closed and now have little options outside of what they were working in.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 18:57:56 GMT -5
First 5 minutes are a mess.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 27, 2020 19:10:22 GMT -5
I'm thinking the hardest hit would be older employees, particularly those who are have health issues (corona) and those who have been working in the same job or industry for 10+years that abruptly closed and now have little options outside of what they were working in. Certainly reasonable assumption. I'm just a few years from retirement, been in the same industry for 30+ years. I'd be mowing yards, cleaning swimming pools, walking dogs, delivering Uber Eats, buying/selling/fixing used cars and motorcycles, selling on Etsy before I was on unemployment for 26 weeks. You could do all of those things (even multiple of them together) and still collect on unemployment. Unemployment "Insurance" is really called Wage replacement instead of liming it to the common idea of "lazy people that don't want to work". There are many people on unemployment not reporting that they are doing some of those either, or doing them under someone else's name and giving them a cut. Oh, but I don't know of any instances of those in particular, just my suspicion, before someone accuses me of obstructing justice
Those side hustles are a lot easier (and some of them are to an extent only available/feasible) in bigger cities.
|
|
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: 28,106
|
Post by trojansc on Jul 28, 2020 0:32:31 GMT -5
The maximum benefit in California is $450/week (1800$/month) and Louisiana is ($247 a week/$988 per month). This is crazy to me. California ranks 23rd(!) in maximum unemployment per week. This is one of the most liberal states with one of the highest costs of living. What is their justification for their safety net being that much lower than a state like Iowa (max $548)? Maybe they heard you! From a Forbes article: "On July 27, certain California legislators indicated that they would move to pass legislation to fill any gaps in the $600 unemployment benefits if Congress approves a smaller amount, to help Californians during the economic downturn. Legislative leaders expressed the view that such an additional benefit would be crucial to prevent an economic collapse and ensure working families can keep their housing and pay for necessities." I don't know the likeliness or logistics of it, but very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 28, 2020 9:21:52 GMT -5
In the meantime, we're likely looking at tens of millions of evictions nationwide in the next couple months. Seems like that'll be bad for the economy.
|
|