Montana to cancel unemployment benefits to address severe workforce shortage(money.yahoo.com)
money.yahoo.com
Montana to cancel unemployment benefits to address severe workforce shortage
https://money.yahoo.com/montana-plans-to-cancel-unemployment-benefits-161755830.html
373 comments
> Job that pays less than unemployment benefits....
Yeah that’s pretty much exactly why they reduced unemployment benefits. You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else?
You know the money comes from other people, right? Other people that work. And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that?
I mean, somebody has to, right?
Yeah that’s pretty much exactly why they reduced unemployment benefits. You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else?
You know the money comes from other people, right? Other people that work. And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that?
I mean, somebody has to, right?
> You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else?
Nah, please consider re-reading my comment in its entirety. The comment that I’m replying to is taking a sentence out of context, creating a straw man out of it, and then attacking it.
> You know the money comes from other people, right?
Yeah, definitely
> And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that?
Bit of a slippery slope (tax evasion, in the US, usually doesn’t lead to death at the hands of law enforcement) but yea, I agree with the sentiment here. Avoiding arrest is good (barring any justified civil disobedience)
Nah, please consider re-reading my comment in its entirety. The comment that I’m replying to is taking a sentence out of context, creating a straw man out of it, and then attacking it.
> You know the money comes from other people, right?
Yeah, definitely
> And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that?
Bit of a slippery slope (tax evasion, in the US, usually doesn’t lead to death at the hands of law enforcement) but yea, I agree with the sentiment here. Avoiding arrest is good (barring any justified civil disobedience)
If everyone has a job except you, unemployment is a lonely and depressing endeavour. If the majority of your friend circle is unemployed, it becomes something different.
In Canada with CERB ($400/week), it's been like being a school kid on summer break all over again. You have very little money, but can spend endless days reconnecting with your friends, hiking, playing games, learning music, et cetera.
Not many people want to get a job - as it's just as fun as being the only kid in your group who got a job at 17. You might be making money, but everyone else is making out at the midnight bonfire
In Canada with CERB ($400/week), it's been like being a school kid on summer break all over again. You have very little money, but can spend endless days reconnecting with your friends, hiking, playing games, learning music, et cetera.
Not many people want to get a job - as it's just as fun as being the only kid in your group who got a job at 17. You might be making money, but everyone else is making out at the midnight bonfire
>You have very little money, but can spend endless days reconnecting with your friends, hiking, playing games, learning music, et cetera.
The horror! Sounds like these employers need to raise wages to do better than the absolute minimum. If higher paying jobs are available, people will work. And some people still won't, but those people weren't going to work much anyway.
The horror! Sounds like these employers need to raise wages to do better than the absolute minimum. If higher paying jobs are available, people will work. And some people still won't, but those people weren't going to work much anyway.
I wasn't saying it's horrible, I was trying to explain why people choose to remain unemployed.
Setting the right level for benefits is hard: Either the basic income is high enough to provide for a good life (why would I get a job), or it's not high enough to pay for food, shelter, bills (why do we treat our unemployed people this badly).
Rising the wages across the board raises prices sooner or later. That probably moves the unemployment money from the former category to the latter via inflation, which does motivate people to get a job, but screws the people who can't get a job.
I have no solutions to offer. This is a gnarly problem, featured for example in the Grasshopper and the Ant, first recorded in Aesop's fables from ~600BC. Enjoying life is wonderful, but if everyone enjoys life, we'll all starve.
Setting the right level for benefits is hard: Either the basic income is high enough to provide for a good life (why would I get a job), or it's not high enough to pay for food, shelter, bills (why do we treat our unemployed people this badly).
Rising the wages across the board raises prices sooner or later. That probably moves the unemployment money from the former category to the latter via inflation, which does motivate people to get a job, but screws the people who can't get a job.
I have no solutions to offer. This is a gnarly problem, featured for example in the Grasshopper and the Ant, first recorded in Aesop's fables from ~600BC. Enjoying life is wonderful, but if everyone enjoys life, we'll all starve.
> Enjoying life is wonderful, but if everyone enjoys life, we'll all starve.
Maybe the solution is in the middle: make work time as little as possible so people who work can also enjoy life and pay them according to that time.
Maybe the solution is in the middle: make work time as little as possible so people who work can also enjoy life and pay them according to that time.
I have to agree, I suspect the culture of mandatory 8 hours a day 5 days a week leads to a massive amount of wasted work hours put in just to fill the time (when considered across everyone in society who works under such conditions). It's a net loss for society as a whole.
oh how wrong you are -- according to Jack Ma in China:
Jack Ma endorses China’s controversial (996) 12 hours a day, 6 days a week work culture
Jack Ma endorses China’s controversial (996) 12 hours a day, 6 days a week work culture
Is it any suprise that a chinese elite would advocate a "work makes free" policy?
Basic income would allow for people to focus on their own health and take work when they want to do something.
Part of technological and societal progress is that we don’t use the threat of starvation for people to better for themselves. We have enough money to bring up the bottom economic class and still let the top have their private cruise ships.
Part of technological and societal progress is that we don’t use the threat of starvation for people to better for themselves. We have enough money to bring up the bottom economic class and still let the top have their private cruise ships.
If you doubled federal individual income taxes for everyone in the US, you could pay each adult US citizen around $750/mo in UBI with that increase.
If you doubled ALL federal income taxes in the US, you could pay each adult US citizen ~$1500/mo in UBI.
The math is daunting because the number of people is so high.
If you doubled ALL federal income taxes in the US, you could pay each adult US citizen ~$1500/mo in UBI.
The math is daunting because the number of people is so high.
Taxes do not work linearly like you seem to think.
If you double the tax rate, you won't double the tax revenue. There's a big chance that the revenue would go down.
Another thing is, that money is not the wealth; productivity is. So if you want to pay UBI to everyone and want to keep the same purchase power of the dollar, you have to preserve productivity at the national level (GDP is a measure; but you need that specific physical output as products and services, not money). Which you won't, if a part of population would stop working.
If you double the tax rate, you won't double the tax revenue. There's a big chance that the revenue would go down.
Another thing is, that money is not the wealth; productivity is. So if you want to pay UBI to everyone and want to keep the same purchase power of the dollar, you have to preserve productivity at the national level (GDP is a measure; but you need that specific physical output as products and services, not money). Which you won't, if a part of population would stop working.
A small UBI would end up being net zero for lots and lots of people. No burden, no benefit (except the knowledge it would still come in if their circumstances changed).
No. Because nobody would work, and corporations would invest all revenues offshore. The country would be destroyed, and you’d get nothing. Income taxation is one of the most economically destructive and violent ways to generate revenues.
Do you seriously think it’s a good idea to point guns at people doing the work and tell them to give you 80-100% of their pay because you think you deserve it for doing nothing?
Only a violent sociopath would do that, right? Please tell me how your proposal is different.
Do you seriously think it’s a good idea to point guns at people doing the work and tell them to give you 80-100% of their pay because you think you deserve it for doing nothing?
Only a violent sociopath would do that, right? Please tell me how your proposal is different.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear (and I can see how I left it slightly unclear).
I don’t see any viable path to paying UBI at those relatively low levels because the tax burden on people and companies is too high. (And frankly, $750/mo isn’t enough to accomplish what the UBI advocates want to promise which is to make work literally optional.)
I don’t see any viable path to paying UBI at those relatively low levels because the tax burden on people and companies is too high. (And frankly, $750/mo isn’t enough to accomplish what the UBI advocates want to promise which is to make work literally optional.)
I'm not at all convinced of UBI, but does your math include removing all the tax that pays for benefits that would no longer be needed such as unemployment, social security, etc.? It seems removing those benefits would reduce the tax burden significantly.
That's a nice theory at steady-state, but how do you get there?
If UBI is less generous than Social Security, then you have a problem.
You have lots of retirees (15% of the population) who have been promised Social Security and have retired on that basis. You also have lots of people that are relatively near retirement that will be in the streets with pitchforks if you threaten their benefits: Social Security is the original third rail of American politics - touch it and you die.
You basically need to allow people to choose whether to get UBI or stay in Social Security. This creates a gigantic fiscal bulge because you end up funding Social Security for everyone for whom it represents a better deal.
If UBI is more generous than Social Security, then you also have a problem. You are effectively exchanging it like-for-like and there's no extra tax take to spread around.
If UBI is less generous than Social Security, then you have a problem.
You have lots of retirees (15% of the population) who have been promised Social Security and have retired on that basis. You also have lots of people that are relatively near retirement that will be in the streets with pitchforks if you threaten their benefits: Social Security is the original third rail of American politics - touch it and you die.
You basically need to allow people to choose whether to get UBI or stay in Social Security. This creates a gigantic fiscal bulge because you end up funding Social Security for everyone for whom it represents a better deal.
If UBI is more generous than Social Security, then you also have a problem. You are effectively exchanging it like-for-like and there's no extra tax take to spread around.
It does not, but I also don't see any way that a $750/mo provides a viable path to remove a $1500/mo average (and 150+% of that for many) Social Security payment for people who contributed to FICA over their entire working lives and properly planned on that money as part of their retirement finances.
Morally and politically, I can’t see how to make UBI replace social security. You might be able to make reduced UBI payments to seniors, but at some point you have to ask “what does the U in UBI stand for?”
Morally and politically, I can’t see how to make UBI replace social security. You might be able to make reduced UBI payments to seniors, but at some point you have to ask “what does the U in UBI stand for?”
> but does your math include removing all the tax that pays for benefits that would no longer be needed such as unemployment, social security, etc.?
Earned benefits like unemployment, disability, and social security are usually not targeted for replacement by UBI, and it is dubious that it makes them unnecessary (especially UI/DI, given benefit levels) unless it is at a very high level.
Earned benefits like unemployment, disability, and social security are usually not targeted for replacement by UBI, and it is dubious that it makes them unnecessary (especially UI/DI, given benefit levels) unless it is at a very high level.
[deleted]
Even ignoring the ridiculous 80-100% here, people who don't work aren't "doing nothing". There is more to the human endeavor than buying and selling.
Why do you take weekends? Or go home in the evening? Why aren't you using your evenings to be a "productive member of society"?
Why do you take weekends? Or go home in the evening? Why aren't you using your evenings to be a "productive member of society"?
There's a difference between "I don't spend literally all of my time productively contributing to society" and "I never productively contribute to society".
Why is a job synonymous with "productively contributing to society"? I can think of a lot of jobs that appear to make society worse and a lot of activities that aren't jobs that make society much much better.
It is a mistake to assume that those living on UBI and not working in formal employment would be "never productively contributing to society". Sure, a portion of UBI recipients might be entirely idle, but others would contribute to things that are seen as a social positive even if they don’t neatly fit into profit-generating, paid-salary-position-creating activities.
For example, if I didn’t have to work myself, I could finally do some of the more ambitious contributions to OpenStreetMap that I have been dreaming of: adding all the missing house numbers for my county, for instance. Then society as a whole benefit from that libre resource even if I as a contributor was not paid a salary for it. By the same token, some of the most active Wikipedia editors are able to dedicate such enormous time and effort because, for whatever reason, they do not work. Yet all of us here benefit day in and day out from what they do.
For example, if I didn’t have to work myself, I could finally do some of the more ambitious contributions to OpenStreetMap that I have been dreaming of: adding all the missing house numbers for my county, for instance. Then society as a whole benefit from that libre resource even if I as a contributor was not paid a salary for it. By the same token, some of the most active Wikipedia editors are able to dedicate such enormous time and effort because, for whatever reason, they do not work. Yet all of us here benefit day in and day out from what they do.
I expect that in practice, you'd get way more entirely idle people than you would people who worked on things like OpenStreetMap and Wikipedia.
So?
It‘s fine that you want to have a fun pastime, just don't force me to pay for it (via taxes).
And where in that false dichotomy do you put raising children?
How is what I said a false dichotomy? I'm not saying those are the only two possibilities. I'm just saying they're not one and the same, which my parent comment implied they were.
I don’t care about that. All I care about is that people realize that taking from others is only achievable through violence and/or deception.
80-100%? Holy hyperbole batman.
Stop beating that strawman! He's already dead.
Stop beating that strawman! He's already dead.
If the suggestion were in fact to double "all federal income taxes", what do you think tax rates would end up looking like? Right now the top "all taxes" federal marginal rate is 39.35%. (2.35% Medicare, and 37% individual income tax). Doubling that gets you to 78.7%. And state taxes also exist; in California the top rate would be > 90% overall.
And of course doubling rates will not double revenue, because incentives really are a thing and a change this large would have large incentive-mediated effects, including people ending up with more compensation in non-taxable form (leisure, respect, non-taxable perqs, etc). The only way to double _revenue_ is for rates to rise even more, or more likely to start affecting more people (i.e. the top rate starting to apply at lower income levels).
Now those are marginal, not average, rates. But just to be clear, right now US government (federal, state, local) spending is ~46% of GDP. Federal spending on its own is ~30% of GDP. If we are talking about doubling that second number, overall government spending would be 76% of GDP. Which generally means the _average_ tax burden across all people would be 76% of income (though some of that can get hidden via corporate income taxes and whatnot). There will absolutely have to be people with average tax burdens > 80% to suport that. That's assuming that we don't finance things by borrowing, of course; 1/3 of US government spending right now is not even coming from tax revenue.
It might also be instructive to compare 76% government spending to the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen... to see how that measures up against other countries.
And of course doubling rates will not double revenue, because incentives really are a thing and a change this large would have large incentive-mediated effects, including people ending up with more compensation in non-taxable form (leisure, respect, non-taxable perqs, etc). The only way to double _revenue_ is for rates to rise even more, or more likely to start affecting more people (i.e. the top rate starting to apply at lower income levels).
Now those are marginal, not average, rates. But just to be clear, right now US government (federal, state, local) spending is ~46% of GDP. Federal spending on its own is ~30% of GDP. If we are talking about doubling that second number, overall government spending would be 76% of GDP. Which generally means the _average_ tax burden across all people would be 76% of income (though some of that can get hidden via corporate income taxes and whatnot). There will absolutely have to be people with average tax burdens > 80% to suport that. That's assuming that we don't finance things by borrowing, of course; 1/3 of US government spending right now is not even coming from tax revenue.
It might also be instructive to compare 76% government spending to the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen... to see how that measures up against other countries.
Be real man, no country on earth is taxing their people at 80-100%. I'd happily trade scandi taxes for scandi safety nets and worker protections. I think those max out at ~ 50%?
Regardless, I don't know why I get pulled into debates with people who view taxes as theft instead of the price of a civilized society. Neither of us are ever going to change our world views based on the arguments of another.
Regardless, I don't know why I get pulled into debates with people who view taxes as theft instead of the price of a civilized society. Neither of us are ever going to change our world views based on the arguments of another.
> I’d happily trade
But that’s not your choice. It’s interesting that you indicate disagreement with how the money is spent, but not how it is taken. This seems like the same concern for those they are taking it from. Can you imagine how a society would function if it were based on consent?
But that’s not your choice. It’s interesting that you indicate disagreement with how the money is spent, but not how it is taken. This seems like the same concern for those they are taking it from. Can you imagine how a society would function if it were based on consent?
> Be real man, no country on earth is taxing their people at 80-100%
Sure. Neither is any country providing a $750/month UBI, much less $1500/month, from taxes. (Some countries do provide that sort of thing for citizens from oil revenues or whatnot.)
> I'd happily trade scandi taxes for scandi safety nets and worker protections. I think those max out at ~ 50%?
~50 govt revenue as a fraction of GDP, yes. A lot of that is VAT, not income taxes, of course.
But also, that's not the same as the discussion above about UBI. Yes, a Scandinavian-style safety net can be done at much lower taxation levels than "doubling the US federal revenues", especially people by and large don't abuse the safety net. Spending 1% of GDP on the military, not 3%, also helps a bit.
> people who view taxes as theft instead of the price of a civilized society
I have no idea where you got that from anything I said, and that is most certainly not how I view taxes.
> Neither of us are ever going to change our world views based on the arguments of another.
Honestly, it sounds like you have no idea what my world view even is...
Sure. Neither is any country providing a $750/month UBI, much less $1500/month, from taxes. (Some countries do provide that sort of thing for citizens from oil revenues or whatnot.)
> I'd happily trade scandi taxes for scandi safety nets and worker protections. I think those max out at ~ 50%?
~50 govt revenue as a fraction of GDP, yes. A lot of that is VAT, not income taxes, of course.
But also, that's not the same as the discussion above about UBI. Yes, a Scandinavian-style safety net can be done at much lower taxation levels than "doubling the US federal revenues", especially people by and large don't abuse the safety net. Spending 1% of GDP on the military, not 3%, also helps a bit.
> people who view taxes as theft instead of the price of a civilized society
I have no idea where you got that from anything I said, and that is most certainly not how I view taxes.
> Neither of us are ever going to change our world views based on the arguments of another.
Honestly, it sounds like you have no idea what my world view even is...
>Sure. Neither is any country providing a $750/month UBI, much less $1500/month, from taxes. (Some countries do provide that sort of thing for citizens from oil revenues or whatnot.)
Kuwait pays ~$10k per citizen, last I checked. A few countries pay citizens for having children too.
Kuwait pays ~$10k per citizen, last I checked. A few countries pay citizens for having children too.
Thanks for bringing this up. I just happen to have lived there. You should go check it out and try to find just one Kuwaiti citizen working a non-government or non-executive job. Talk to the people that are working and ask them where they are from, how much they get paid, how they are treated, and what happens if they try to switch jobs or leave the country before their ‘visa debt’ is paid. Also walk around and check out how well they take care of the place, or their own health for that matter. And, yeah, oil money.
So, to recap... the formula for utopia is to destroy the environment by burning all of your natural resources, and enslave foreigners to do all your work. So progressive.
So, to recap... the formula for utopia is to destroy the environment by burning all of your natural resources, and enslave foreigners to do all your work. So progressive.
> Kuwait pays ~$10k per citizen, last I checked
That's one of the "from oil revenues" cases I mentioned, indeed. Though are you claiming $10k/month? I'd love a source for that number; the last number I saw was ~$3k/month subsidy if you work in the private sector. Obviously if you work for the government directly you get whatever that salary is, which in Kuwait is pretty nice, but that's ostensibly a job, not a UBI.
That's one of the "from oil revenues" cases I mentioned, indeed. Though are you claiming $10k/month? I'd love a source for that number; the last number I saw was ~$3k/month subsidy if you work in the private sector. Obviously if you work for the government directly you get whatever that salary is, which in Kuwait is pretty nice, but that's ostensibly a job, not a UBI.
> Basic income would allow for people to focus on their own health and take work when they want to do something.
A very mature, robust UBI might, but we’re far from being able to support that. Realistically, a near term UBI increases opportunity and aggregate economic performance by reducing perverse incentives and friction in means-tested welfare programs.
It takes about $7350/year/person (average household size weighted by population is around 3.4, interpolating between poverty line by household size numbers that’s about $24,500 annual household poverty line) to have an on-average poverty-line-level UBI, which costs $2.4 trillion/year.
That’s 11% of GDP (and not all ofnit additional, because many existing poverty support programs would be subsumed), which is enormous but probably not unsustainable with political will—but you aren’t realistically, no matter how much political will there is, be able to maintain enough of a multiple to make work really unnecessary for most people—poverty level income after government transfers isn’t a “living income” level (which is why ”living wage” efforts typically target an income level that starts, as a baseline, about 4× higher for full-time work.)
A very mature, robust UBI might, but we’re far from being able to support that. Realistically, a near term UBI increases opportunity and aggregate economic performance by reducing perverse incentives and friction in means-tested welfare programs.
It takes about $7350/year/person (average household size weighted by population is around 3.4, interpolating between poverty line by household size numbers that’s about $24,500 annual household poverty line) to have an on-average poverty-line-level UBI, which costs $2.4 trillion/year.
That’s 11% of GDP (and not all ofnit additional, because many existing poverty support programs would be subsumed), which is enormous but probably not unsustainable with political will—but you aren’t realistically, no matter how much political will there is, be able to maintain enough of a multiple to make work really unnecessary for most people—poverty level income after government transfers isn’t a “living income” level (which is why ”living wage” efforts typically target an income level that starts, as a baseline, about 4× higher for full-time work.)
> Rising the wages across the board raises prices sooner or later.
Does it actually have to though? If a company is still profitable it doesn't actually have to raise its prices just because its profits go down.
Does it actually have to though? If a company is still profitable it doesn't actually have to raise its prices just because its profits go down.
Typical margins in various unskilled labour jobs are under 10%, and labour is usually one of the big ticket items on the budget. If payroll goes up 30%, prices have to go up - or the business goes bankrupt.
Next up, someone who saw Founder is going to point out that McDonalds makes money from rent, not selling food. Sure, that might be true for McDonalds-the-corporation, but the McDonalds-down-the-street franchise will have to come up with the payroll money somehow.
Your average business is way less profitable than you think.
Next up, someone who saw Founder is going to point out that McDonalds makes money from rent, not selling food. Sure, that might be true for McDonalds-the-corporation, but the McDonalds-down-the-street franchise will have to come up with the payroll money somehow.
Your average business is way less profitable than you think.
For sure, I'd heard that 10% before and it makes sense - also aware of the McDonald's use case. I wasn't trying to imply that this was a simple or universal fix. Still, pulling unemployment to force people back to work feels really gross and I think we need to start to look at where there's room in that 10% (or more for other companies) to help people.
That said, do we need so many McDonald's? If, say, half of them closed, but the people who worked there had better lives and more free time, I'm inclined to believe the world would benefit. So maybe we end up with fewer low-skill jobs, but ultimately was society really benefiting greatly from that labor anyways?
And if the answer is "yes", ok, that's probably a case for the government to start providing or assisting in that service.
That said, do we need so many McDonald's? If, say, half of them closed, but the people who worked there had better lives and more free time, I'm inclined to believe the world would benefit. So maybe we end up with fewer low-skill jobs, but ultimately was society really benefiting greatly from that labor anyways?
And if the answer is "yes", ok, that's probably a case for the government to start providing or assisting in that service.
The McDonald's where minimum wage is $15 don't really charge that much more than the places where it's $7.25 though.
It's a lot more risky for the business though, which means that more marginal areas will not have a McDonald's if they can't do the volume.
A Sausage, Egg and Cheese McGriddle meal is $5.99 in Montgomery AL, but $9.19 in New York NY.
What's your source for those? I checked UberEats and it's $5.06 in Seattle.
How much of the difference is wage and how much is rent?
I don't think this proves anything at all, but certainly not about wages. Food in big cities is often 2-3x the cost, which you can attribute to:
a) Customers having higher salaries
b) Property being massively more expensive
c) In the case of NYC, much higher property taxes
d) Yes, perhaps the cost of labor as well
Seems really hard to draw any conclusion given all of that.
a) Customers having higher salaries
b) Property being massively more expensive
c) In the case of NYC, much higher property taxes
d) Yes, perhaps the cost of labor as well
Seems really hard to draw any conclusion given all of that.
>I don't think this proves anything at all
It absolutely disproves the statement "McDonald's where minimum wage is $15 don't really charge that much more than the places where it's $7.25"
McDonalds charges >50% more in this comparison of $15 vs. federal minimum wage locales.
I'm not making any claims whatsoever about why the price is higher in NYC. I just want people to stop relying on the canard "McDonalds prices are similar everywhere" during this debate.
It absolutely disproves the statement "McDonald's where minimum wage is $15 don't really charge that much more than the places where it's $7.25"
McDonalds charges >50% more in this comparison of $15 vs. federal minimum wage locales.
I'm not making any claims whatsoever about why the price is higher in NYC. I just want people to stop relying on the canard "McDonalds prices are similar everywhere" during this debate.
Fair enough. You're right, and my response was attacking a straw man argument that you never made - sorry about that.
If a company relies on wage slavery and the implicit American threat of 'no work: no housing, no food, no medical', then those companies should die.
Edit: it's funny how I'm modded down, but this is straight up 'Socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor'. And it's doubly insulting that the unemployment "insurance" is being pulled en masse, with only regard to the monied elite.
Then again, I'd expect no less coming from a den of VC's and their ilk. They certainly don't care about the human.
Edit: it's funny how I'm modded down, but this is straight up 'Socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor'. And it's doubly insulting that the unemployment "insurance" is being pulled en masse, with only regard to the monied elite.
Then again, I'd expect no less coming from a den of VC's and their ilk. They certainly don't care about the human.
[deleted]
i_haz_rabies(1)
>If a company is still profitable it doesn't actually have to raise its prices just because its profits go down.
Because companies/executives are known to be altruistic?
Because companies/executives are known to be altruistic?
If it sounded like I was implying that companies would do that, that's my mistake - I was only saying that they could do that.
There's also another factor which I think is important. If working was simple enough to be a bit dull but not horrendously unpleasant due to companies that wish to work people to the bone, patronise them, and forcing them to submit to nasty management, it might be a more attractive concept.
If people are desperate for work, they are vulnerable to the absolutely disgusting way they are treated and exploited by employers.
I find that in tech that employers treat me fantastically because I have more of a value proposition and am thus bargaining from a stronger perspective.
If working is so bad that it's actively damaging to my mental and physical health, I would be doing everything I can to avoid it.
If people are desperate for work, they are vulnerable to the absolutely disgusting way they are treated and exploited by employers.
I find that in tech that employers treat me fantastically because I have more of a value proposition and am thus bargaining from a stronger perspective.
If working is so bad that it's actively damaging to my mental and physical health, I would be doing everything I can to avoid it.
The unfortunate side is that the people voting on and installing policies that don’t help workers but tend to punish them have never seen that side of life—one where they’ve had to operate at the mercy of a cruel employer out of desperation and just plain survival.
We can surely do better than that, but it takes empathy. For that reason, my hopes are tempered.
We can surely do better than that, but it takes empathy. For that reason, my hopes are tempered.
> Enjoying life is wonderful, but if everyone enjoys life, we'll all starve.
What a grim, zero-sum view. How about working and enjoying life?
What a grim, zero-sum view. How about working and enjoying life?
I think it's more accurate to say "If everyone optimizes for immediate enjoyment all the time, we all starve."
And if everybody optimizes for capital markets all the time, people die without living.
For sure! I would never advocate "maximize other people's money" as a philosophy around which anyone should center their life. The idea is to convince everyone to buy into an economy that works, and then live life around that.
Prices are a function of supply and demand, not the cost of labor.
But if the equilibrium is below the cost of production, no one will bother producing.
if you mandate higher wages by making firms compete with welfare all you do is create wage-push inflation, because to fund the higher wages companies will have to raise prices. Your average business where low-paid people work, like services or retail or hairdressers don't have some crazy margins where you can magically conjure up money out of the ether.
Big companies can also lower profits.
I know it's a shocking idea, but it is possible.
Sometimes when that happens more money ends up in the local economy and hairdressers etc can charge more and pay more without pricing themselves out of the market.
It's the difference between an optimistic and inclusive economy and a depressive and retentive one which tries to minimise shared opportunity.
I know it's a shocking idea, but it is possible.
Sometimes when that happens more money ends up in the local economy and hairdressers etc can charge more and pay more without pricing themselves out of the market.
It's the difference between an optimistic and inclusive economy and a depressive and retentive one which tries to minimise shared opportunity.
There's not a lot of big, profitable business in Montana (in fact apparently the largest company in the state has about 10k employees). What you're talking about is monopsony power which yes, can depress wages, but as the article points out Montana has an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent and every sector has labour shortages. It's a tight, competitive labour market, not a loose one.
There is no magic here. If everyone charges more and pays more you have, on aggregate, gained nothing. That's the point, if merely raising nominal wages would make everyone better off we'd have a magic button to solve poverty.
There is no magic here. If everyone charges more and pays more you have, on aggregate, gained nothing. That's the point, if merely raising nominal wages would make everyone better off we'd have a magic button to solve poverty.
> If everyone charges more and pays more you have, on aggregate, gained nothing
You would reduce income inequality. People who earn money from labour would now earn more vs. people who earn money from capital gains. It would also incentivise investing into production companies rather than passive investments like real estate.
You would reduce income inequality. People who earn money from labour would now earn more vs. people who earn money from capital gains. It would also incentivise investing into production companies rather than passive investments like real estate.
> It would also incentivise investing into production companies rather than passive investments like real estate.
It would do the opposite. Investments with low to no labor costs would see increased investment as the returns are protected against rising labor costs.
High labor costs also incentivize automation of low level tasks traditional performed by low wage labor. Anybody who’s used a self checkout kiosk knows how that works.
It would do the opposite. Investments with low to no labor costs would see increased investment as the returns are protected against rising labor costs.
High labor costs also incentivize automation of low level tasks traditional performed by low wage labor. Anybody who’s used a self checkout kiosk knows how that works.
Automation is coming anyway. A kiosk costs many many magnitudes lower than even an unpaid human. The unpaid human still has to go to the loo.
This is not an argument to keeping people underpaid.
This is not an argument to keeping people underpaid.
Kiosks break down requiring service calls. They need software teams to keep them updated, and a not-insignificant portion of the population still just refuse to engage with them. That's why almost all of the ones you see around in stores have attendants still.
How would reducing the profitability of productive companies incentivize investing in them? If I knew this was coming I’d try to move my own investments (time and money) into activities which didn’t require high-priced inputs (like labor) to things which didn’t (like IP and real estate and maybe even crypto).
[deleted]
Actually it increases income inequality. Raising wages affects the lowest wage workers most, the same who are impacted by raising prices. The wealthy and ultra rich don’t benefit from increased wages, aren’t harmed by raised prices, but they earn an income on increased prices so result in higher income.
Think of it as the owner has a percentage of revenue. So prices go up, they make more even if most of it is given as wages. Obviously, firms want to raise prices but are limited by the market because of competition. If everyone must raise prices then the competition element is removed.
Think of it as the owner has a percentage of revenue. So prices go up, they make more even if most of it is given as wages. Obviously, firms want to raise prices but are limited by the market because of competition. If everyone must raise prices then the competition element is removed.
How? Higher minimum wages make owning a business less atractive.
Minimum wages in America are so low, that an increase in minimum wages goes to spending on consumption goods. This drives economic activity.
Eventually inflation catches up and we are back here again.
To be fair the real issue is the wealth gap.
More money in the hands of poorer people means more money circulation and demand.
Money in rich people’s hands means more investment.
Currently far more is in the hands of rich people so we have incredible amounts of investment dry powder waiting to be deployed, and riskier and less healthy ideas being funded.
Optimum consumption and investment is the ideal way forward, and everyone gets a bigger pie (except the environment)
Eventually inflation catches up and we are back here again.
To be fair the real issue is the wealth gap.
More money in the hands of poorer people means more money circulation and demand.
Money in rich people’s hands means more investment.
Currently far more is in the hands of rich people so we have incredible amounts of investment dry powder waiting to be deployed, and riskier and less healthy ideas being funded.
Optimum consumption and investment is the ideal way forward, and everyone gets a bigger pie (except the environment)
> If everyone charges more and pays more you have, on aggregate, gained nothing.
Except for the rampant price inflation in housing, healthcare, education, which has happened over the past few decades. The higher unemployment benefits reflect the actual cost of living. Wages (and service industry prices) rising are unfortunately more of a trailing correction than a leading cause.
Except for the rampant price inflation in housing, healthcare, education, which has happened over the past few decades. The higher unemployment benefits reflect the actual cost of living. Wages (and service industry prices) rising are unfortunately more of a trailing correction than a leading cause.
>It is a tight competitive labor market
So raise wages enough to convince people to move to Montana.
So raise wages enough to convince people to move to Montana.
The logic is a bit misleading, because you implicitly assume that goods and services should be as cheap as possible, while rents and real estate prices are rising to all time highs.
If rents were lower, and goods and services were more expensive, then many people would earn more (since many low paying jobs are in retail and personal services). And it would be a lot easier to lower living expenses by just consuming less.
If rents were lower, and goods and services were more expensive, then many people would earn more (since many low paying jobs are in retail and personal services). And it would be a lot easier to lower living expenses by just consuming less.
How does giving people more money lower rents though? If UBI became likely, I’d expect investments in the low-end of the housing market to do better based on the prospect of a rising rental market and more steady payments of rents owed.
I'd guess that if low-end housing were a more profitable segment of the market, then supply would increase, driving down the price.
This seems to be just a recipe for defeatism. It essentially argues that there will always be poor, that anything you do to fix it will just make them poorer. I just don't buy it.
And if its true, then tear the damn system down, because its failing us.
And if its true, then tear the damn system down, because its failing us.
"all you do is" ... there are are lot of possible side-effects.
I honestly don't see the problem. Abnormally low inflation is a problem, unless a government cunningly takes advantage of the labor force to get ahead of other nations there is no benefit, it merely indicates that the private sector is not competitive enough and rising asset prices are just an indicator of an increasingly unstable economy.
Just think about it, China gives you free shit, you take advantage of the free shit to make your nation grow faster. Trump says, we don't want your free shit (trade war). Biden says, thanks to your free shit we can grow our economy (infrastructure).
Of course if you do neither, the free shit piles up in your country, prices for everything go down and people are unemployed as a result.
Just think about it, China gives you free shit, you take advantage of the free shit to make your nation grow faster. Trump says, we don't want your free shit (trade war). Biden says, thanks to your free shit we can grow our economy (infrastructure).
Of course if you do neither, the free shit piles up in your country, prices for everything go down and people are unemployed as a result.
You’d have to pay a ton of money to get people to give up free time with their friends having fun.
So you appeal to the market forces (just pay more!), but ignore the massive distortion of market forces due to welfare that has increased a lot since the pandemic started?
> The horror!
The scary part is the deficit we are incurring to pay for it. It's not sustainable. The benefits cannot be extended indefinitely.
EDIT: In Canada
The scary part is the deficit we are incurring to pay for it. It's not sustainable. The benefits cannot be extended indefinitely.
EDIT: In Canada
The last time the federal government had a surplus was 2001. If we can manage to sustain a twenty-year deficit for expeditionary wars, but can't to sustain the health and well-being or our own people, our priorities are incredibly inverted.
I live in Canada and was talking about Canada, as was the GP. I don't know the fiscal capacity of the US. But here, CERB/CRB are not sustainable with our current fiscal capacity.
"If you can't afford what you need, you just have to pay more" is a true statement, but not much of a solution in most cases.
I think the bigger problem is that the work environment has turned into political hell.
> Not many people want to get a job
How can one reconcile your hypothesis with the recent employment statistics: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210409/dq210...
There is a clear uptake from record unemployment.
Having a good work in your life is still more fulfilling than just leisure for most people, on top of that, you can afford more things. Yes, shitty jobs have trouble finding people. I personally see that not as a downside, but rather an upside of the whole thing.
How can one reconcile your hypothesis with the recent employment statistics: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210409/dq210...
There is a clear uptake from record unemployment.
Having a good work in your life is still more fulfilling than just leisure for most people, on top of that, you can afford more things. Yes, shitty jobs have trouble finding people. I personally see that not as a downside, but rather an upside of the whole thing.
(paid) work or leisure is a false dichotomy. What people want, and what fulfils them, is meaningful activity, not 'work' in itself.
Work can provide meaning in various ways (care for colleagues, creative expression, a 'goal' to work towards, etc.) and the idea of having more money can be somewhat meaningful, of course (especially if you really need it!).
But there are tons of other meaningful and fulfilling things a person can do with their time, and I'm willing to bet that most people would prefer most of those over having to do 'stuff' for a 'boss/manager' in a hierarchical organization that might (in part) not provide much meaning other than making money for them and hopefully enough for yourself.
Work can provide meaning in various ways (care for colleagues, creative expression, a 'goal' to work towards, etc.) and the idea of having more money can be somewhat meaningful, of course (especially if you really need it!).
But there are tons of other meaningful and fulfilling things a person can do with their time, and I'm willing to bet that most people would prefer most of those over having to do 'stuff' for a 'boss/manager' in a hierarchical organization that might (in part) not provide much meaning other than making money for them and hopefully enough for yourself.
Work is what we do for others.
Hobbies are what we do for ourselves.
We can widen the definition of work to be far more inclusive, and then structure a program to compensate people for doing that work http://www.jobguarantee.org/
Hobbies are what we do for ourselves.
We can widen the definition of work to be far more inclusive, and then structure a program to compensate people for doing that work http://www.jobguarantee.org/
My point was that 'work', doing things that are not leisure (although that distinction can be vague) is not limited to what we generally mean when we say 'job' (paid labor). The role of a mother comes to mind, or retirees who spend time volunteering.
Anyways, just clearing that up. I agree that the recipe to happiness probably includes a hefty dose of 'what we do for others'. I don't think I've met a person who was truly happy just slacking off and doing things just for themselves.
Anyways, just clearing that up. I agree that the recipe to happiness probably includes a hefty dose of 'what we do for others'. I don't think I've met a person who was truly happy just slacking off and doing things just for themselves.
> Work is what we do for others.
And since others do so much for me, it's only fair that I do something for them.
And since others do so much for me, it's only fair that I do something for them.
Labor used to be directly related to our ability to feed ourselves (when everyone was a farmer / hunter gatherer). No work = no eat.
Nowadays, we have more productivity as a species if we do specific labor instead in order to feed ourselves, but the premise is the same. No work = no eat (at least until you have enough savings/investments to afford not to work). At least until theoretically automation takes all of the jobs.
Nowadays, we have more productivity as a species if we do specific labor instead in order to feed ourselves, but the premise is the same. No work = no eat (at least until you have enough savings/investments to afford not to work). At least until theoretically automation takes all of the jobs.
[deleted]
'Work' is service to others and the community and is 'meaningful activity' to many people.
When it's about 'creative expression' it's really about oneself.
If you fill up gas in cars all day, your friend lays brick, someone else logs and mills, another frames ... then that's us working together to create warm homes.
So if we can do that without individuals siphoning off the top (or bottom) it works.
When it's about 'creative expression' it's really about oneself.
If you fill up gas in cars all day, your friend lays brick, someone else logs and mills, another frames ... then that's us working together to create warm homes.
So if we can do that without individuals siphoning off the top (or bottom) it works.
The solution seems to be to force people back into the shitty jobs by threatening them with starvation rather than improving conditions.
Much has been said about how much of a dead end this jobs are but I’d like to reiterate how incredibly difficult it is when you have no time to improve your lot in life. There’s so many statistics about how poverty and poverty jobs are a trap that most never escape in the US compared to other developed countries.
Much has been said about how much of a dead end this jobs are but I’d like to reiterate how incredibly difficult it is when you have no time to improve your lot in life. There’s so many statistics about how poverty and poverty jobs are a trap that most never escape in the US compared to other developed countries.
I'm in a similar situation in Australia with roughly the same monetary benefits from Centrelink. An extended summer break really is what it feels like. Honestly, I don't even miss the money I used to make and my mental health has improved so dramatically that going back to work just to make the same amount (with the jobs that are currently available here) just seems absolutely crazy.
It is very hard though when everyone else around you acts as though being on government assistance makes you some kind of a useless, good for nothing leech who doesn't even deserve to have food or a roof over their head.
It is very hard though when everyone else around you acts as though being on government assistance makes you some kind of a useless, good for nothing leech who doesn't even deserve to have food or a roof over their head.
As opposed to the bigger leaches which are the rich who make money just by having it. Bill gates has tripled his net worth while trying to give it away. If the rich won’t do anything at least improve conditions for people stuck on the bottom.
> You have very little money, but can spend endless days reconnecting with your friends, hiking, playing games, learning music, et cetera.
Doesn't sound like a bad life to be honest. Good to hear we have a bright future if we ever get AI to take all the jobs.
Doesn't sound like a bad life to be honest. Good to hear we have a bright future if we ever get AI to take all the jobs.
But then how will the landlords get paid?
If robots are doing all the work, why would landlords be paid for anything?
If the landlords won’t be paid for anything, why would they provide housing for tenants? Then where will the tenants live?
Whatever you think of landlords, people do in general prefer to live indoors and landlords are in the business of offering that service.
Whatever you think of landlords, people do in general prefer to live indoors and landlords are in the business of offering that service.
If robots do all the construction and maintenance, then there's probably an AI that owns the building too that just wants the energy to sustain itself, in which case it probably owns the grid too, and probably won't care much about what the humans living in its buildings are doing.
The hypothetical of this thread is "a bright future if we ever get AI to take all the jobs." That's a much bigger change from our current condition than e.g. a renegotiation between capital and humanity with respect to customary provision of shelter. Such renegotiations already occur with regularity, but the robots have never yet done all the work. If the robots ever do this (and since we're assuming a miraculous future, without simultaneously demanding all the decision-making power) there would no longer be a reason to preserve the privileges previously associated with historical investment in residential construction.
Why should they get to offer that service merely because they bought the land first? Why does the service of housing people need to be offered by private citizens?
What else would buying the land mean? Why do I get to use this laptop, eat this food, wear this shirt, or live in this [owner-occupied] house just because I bought it first?
Housing could absolutely be provided by companies or governments. In the US, government has an absolutely horrible track record of providing desirable housing (except perhaps military base officer housing).
Housing could absolutely be provided by companies or governments. In the US, government has an absolutely horrible track record of providing desirable housing (except perhaps military base officer housing).
We don't have to have government take over housing, just relax the zoning regulation. The damn real estate owner's association has too much power - if we curb some of it, I will have no problem with privately owned real estate.
Remove the carveouts against money laundering for real estate, the preferential tax treatment / mortgage interest deductibility for investment properties, things like that.
Remove the carveouts against money laundering for real estate, the preferential tax treatment / mortgage interest deductibility for investment properties, things like that.
Business loans are tax-deductible because we have a tax system based on net income.
Why should airlines or manufacturers or other businesses be able to deduct the interest on their loans, while one specific sector cannot?
Why should airlines or manufacturers or other businesses be able to deduct the interest on their loans, while one specific sector cannot?
> Other business loans are tax-deductible because we have a tax system based on net income.
I want to make a distinction between productive use of capital and rent-seeking. If you're getting a loan in order to buy an existing piece of property and rent it out - that is not productive, it is rent seeking (since you generate cash flow from just holding onto an asset and not doing anything with it).
If you're building a new house or renovating/repairing the existing house with that loan, then the part that goes towards building/renovation is productive and the interest on that part of the loan should be deductible.
The point is that people can make a lot of money by buying up real estate "portfolios" and simply sitting on them to generate cashflow, pricing others who want to buy a home out of the market. This would even out the balance a bit and make holding onto lots of investment assets more expensive but buying your first home [relatively] more affordable.
I want to make a distinction between productive use of capital and rent-seeking. If you're getting a loan in order to buy an existing piece of property and rent it out - that is not productive, it is rent seeking (since you generate cash flow from just holding onto an asset and not doing anything with it).
If you're building a new house or renovating/repairing the existing house with that loan, then the part that goes towards building/renovation is productive and the interest on that part of the loan should be deductible.
The point is that people can make a lot of money by buying up real estate "portfolios" and simply sitting on them to generate cashflow, pricing others who want to buy a home out of the market. This would even out the balance a bit and make holding onto lots of investment assets more expensive but buying your first home [relatively] more affordable.
Because they own stuff and see it as their right to make money for doing nothing.
[deleted]
Firstly, fairly obvious you've never been a landlord. Second of all, yes, making money by owning stuff is called capitalism and that is the system we have.
Thank you so much for your enlightening comment. Clearly I understood neither of those things and now, I do.
They get paid with the state provided unemployment income.
[deleted]
I guess Montana hasn't heard of AI, as they're facing a labour shortage
It's hard to even make enough money to buy a house/save for retirement, is there any wonder why people don't want to work, when all it affords them only a marginally less meagre existence, with no leisure time to enjoy it?
> Not many people want to get a job - as it's just as fun as being the only kid in your group who got a job at 17. You might be making money, but everyone else is making out at the midnight bonfire
This is honestly kind of true. I'm the only person in my friend group who has been working full time the entire pandemic and I've definitely been missing out on fun.
Oh well. Someone has to pay for CERB.
This is honestly kind of true. I'm the only person in my friend group who has been working full time the entire pandemic and I've definitely been missing out on fun.
Oh well. Someone has to pay for CERB.
This sounds like the world I want to live in!
Shouldn't our miraculous technological advances and enormous wealth enable this lifestyle for anybody who wants it (rather than just the idle oligarch class, which has not only the luxury of not working, but the luxury of actual luxury to go with it?)
Shouldn't our miraculous technological advances and enormous wealth enable this lifestyle for anybody who wants it (rather than just the idle oligarch class, which has not only the luxury of not working, but the luxury of actual luxury to go with it?)
You mean before they discontinued it last September? As the name suggests, it was a temporary taxable benefit. Unfortunately we don't have a UBI in Canada yet.
Canada transitioned CERB into a more-permissible Employment Insurance (EI). I'm sure the poster you are replying to means they've moved onto that.
* headsmack * Of course! It all makes sense now! These people are fundamentally lazy and need to get off the public teat. They need a "dad" to kick them in their lazy ass to start contributing something for a change instead of being parasites on society! How silly of me. Thanks for explaining.
People downvoting... Guys, read it slower or something.
Good for you! Now that you finally got it, you'll vote Republican/Conservative/whatever-it's-called-where-you-live next time too, I hope? /s
I think you're forgetting the detail of the very little money you're making from unemployment not being enough to afford things like rent, food, health care, children..
You're privileged bias is showing when you refer to hiking, playing games, learning music rather than trying to buy medication or keep a roof over your head.
You're privileged bias is showing when you refer to hiking, playing games, learning music rather than trying to buy medication or keep a roof over your head.
[deleted]
You make a fair point.
I mean it is a red state and this seems in line with Republican talking points. I am actually surprised to see it implemented because people usually just complain about "unemployed people getting help from the state" so I guess good for them for actually walking the walk (even though the policy is baseless of course). The election turnout was over 80% so there's that too.
I struggle to have sympathy for people who elect leopards and get surprised when their face is eaten.
How about raising wages to attract employment? Where is the invisible hand when you need it? Is it a workforce shortage or a pay rate shortage?
The invisible hand of the market has selected the most profitable solution: a combination of PR and donating to politicians.
Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat?
A minimum wage is below housing wage in every single state in US. https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-aff...
Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat?
A minimum wage is below housing wage in every single state in US. https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-aff...
> Why raise wages if you can force people to choose between starvation and working two jobs until they break of old age or die of a very likely preventable disease that they could not afford to diagnose and/or treat?
Well they obviously got what they deserved from not working hard enough. Must have not been told about bootstraps
/s
Well they obviously got what they deserved from not working hard enough. Must have not been told about bootstraps
/s
I hear this argument quite often, but it IS the market’s will. In fact, if the market got what it wanted, many towns and villages would just not be viable.
My point is not that minimum wage is bad, but rather, redistribution of wealth is necessary.
My point is not that minimum wage is bad, but rather, redistribution of wealth is necessary.
My "radical" take is that we need to crush wages.
Mcdonalds cook - $40k/yr
Senior Dev - $130k/yr
CEO - $180K/yr
I don't know how something like this could be implemented, but we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers.
Mcdonalds cook - $40k/yr
Senior Dev - $130k/yr
CEO - $180K/yr
I don't know how something like this could be implemented, but we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers.
>we are on a fast track to 95% of wages going to 5% of workers
Really? Based on what data?
The US Census Bureau has data on the aggregate share of income in Table H-2. For 2019, the top 5% of households received 23.0% of aggregate income (a bit lower than 2018 and 2017).
Looking back 25 years before that to 1994, that number was 21.2% and (eyeballing it) seems to have been fairly range-bound in the 20-23% range since the early 1990s.
The data starts in 1967, where that number was 17.2%.
Really? Based on what data?
The US Census Bureau has data on the aggregate share of income in Table H-2. For 2019, the top 5% of households received 23.0% of aggregate income (a bit lower than 2018 and 2017).
Looking back 25 years before that to 1994, that number was 21.2% and (eyeballing it) seems to have been fairly range-bound in the 20-23% range since the early 1990s.
The data starts in 1967, where that number was 17.2%.
Who are we redistributing it from? It seems it is always the not overly secure people who have to have their wealth redistributed.
Which proposal is that? The ones about putting more taxes on people making over $400,000 a year?
With inflation and cost of living rising so much, is 400k pretax really "insanely rich"?
I can barely afford my house and car, which middle class people of 50 years ago had no issues affording.
Aren't there many more people out there making 50M a year who should be targeted before I am targeted?
I can barely afford my house and car, which middle class people of 50 years ago had no issues affording.
Aren't there many more people out there making 50M a year who should be targeted before I am targeted?
If a breaking point is reached any wealth is distributed.
Violently, inefficiently and unfairly, but all of it. Where do you think the support for communism came from in early XX century?
Violently, inefficiently and unfairly, but all of it. Where do you think the support for communism came from in early XX century?
Wealth redistribution to support small towns would be taken from large cities. Large cities are typically enormously profitable.
Wealth redistribution to support poor people would be taken from businesses. This is a typical social welfare model.
Wealth redistribution to support poor people would be taken from businesses. This is a typical social welfare model.
If unemployment is low then this is not a matter of viability though. Redistribution of wealth is necessary but only to the point where it enables productive work to be done.
Supply and demand until it comes to the labor market.
Then, it's we're entitled to all the cheap labor we require.
Then, it's we're entitled to all the cheap labor we require.
I keep seeing this argument, but do you get that there's an artificial floor placed by these benefits? You can't really talk about the free market at that point.
There is no free market anywhere, ever. There are only interest groups and power relationships between them, leveraged by various political traditions, one of which includes a very specific kind of relationship we call "money".
The concept of a "free market" belongs with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It's not something a rational adult should ever admit to believing in.
Remember this next time the financial industry demands a bail-out or a major military project goes ridiculously over budget, and everyone pretends to be shocked and surprised.
The concept of a "free market" belongs with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It's not something a rational adult should ever admit to believing in.
Remember this next time the financial industry demands a bail-out or a major military project goes ridiculously over budget, and everyone pretends to be shocked and surprised.
Supply and demand work both ways. If you remove unemployment benefits from the local economy, what do you think this will do to local demand, and thus to revenue of local shops? And what will this do to the wage level the average local shop can afford?
Edit: Growing up in the poor part of my country, I could see that first-hand: The father of my friend had a small shop and had a revenue spike every month, the same day every month. It was the day after unemployment benefits landed on people's bank accounts.
Edit: Growing up in the poor part of my country, I could see that first-hand: The father of my friend had a small shop and had a revenue spike every month, the same day every month. It was the day after unemployment benefits landed on people's bank accounts.
Presumably this benefit is to cover the wages of someone who might have been employed full time. $300 a week / 40 hours = $7.5/hr. There's your artificial floor. Great money if you are living with your parents, tougher situation if you are the parent.
I'm happy to be corrected on this point, but actually aren't we talking about $300 of additional benefits on top of whatever the state is providing that is funded by the Federal government?
Yep. For me in Minnesota that’s $850 a week, so over $21 an hour for a 40 hour work week. I’m not sure how anyone even approaching minimum wage is supposed to compete with that.
>I keep seeing this argument, but do you get that there's an artificial floor placed by these benefits?
Artificial floor? This is literally a mechanism in place that adds more money into the economy. You can complain about the tax burden of unemployment insurance but that's not what I am seeing in your comment.
Seriously what the hell am I reading here? This is literally the free market in action, if you don't see it then your definition of free market only includes a market that only benefits yourself.
The minimum wage is crap because it is a price control. It prevents market signals from working. No additional money is being added into the economy, there is no guarantee that you find employment, it is literally a ban on work.
However, unemployment is not that, it is a defacto jobs guarantee except the job in question is merely seeking a job. The reason why job guarantees work is that they create additional money that drives inflation beyond the point where the job guarantee is necessary.
If the job guarantee is set at $1500, then inflation will rise until the private sector can afford to pay everyone $1500 or more.
Artificial floor? This is literally a mechanism in place that adds more money into the economy. You can complain about the tax burden of unemployment insurance but that's not what I am seeing in your comment.
Seriously what the hell am I reading here? This is literally the free market in action, if you don't see it then your definition of free market only includes a market that only benefits yourself.
The minimum wage is crap because it is a price control. It prevents market signals from working. No additional money is being added into the economy, there is no guarantee that you find employment, it is literally a ban on work.
However, unemployment is not that, it is a defacto jobs guarantee except the job in question is merely seeking a job. The reason why job guarantees work is that they create additional money that drives inflation beyond the point where the job guarantee is necessary.
If the job guarantee is set at $1500, then inflation will rise until the private sector can afford to pay everyone $1500 or more.
Right, gives a whole new meaning to the term “invisible hand”
As an employer, it's really hard to compete for talent with the company down the street, when the company down the street is paying $300 per week for 0 hours worked. That really messes with the invisible hand.
If you can't afford to pay more than $7,50 per hour, then the market has spoken: you have no working business model.
It’s not the $7.50 so much as the $7.50 extra for zero hours.
So my calculus is “Would I rather make $300/week for zero hours worked or $600/week for 40 hours worked?”
So it’s not just a more money question, but a money vs time issue. It seems rational to me to prefer less money for no work. The problem is that it’s not sustainable as we’re adding debt to pay for it in the short term. This seemed important when work was impossible due to COVID, but now that we’re recovering it’s again possible to work.
Is there was a sustainable UBI plan to keep paying for this in the long term, that would be nice.
So my calculus is “Would I rather make $300/week for zero hours worked or $600/week for 40 hours worked?”
So it’s not just a more money question, but a money vs time issue. It seems rational to me to prefer less money for no work. The problem is that it’s not sustainable as we’re adding debt to pay for it in the short term. This seemed important when work was impossible due to COVID, but now that we’re recovering it’s again possible to work.
Is there was a sustainable UBI plan to keep paying for this in the long term, that would be nice.
The Wendy's in Bozeman MT is starting at $17/hr. The McDonalds is starting at $15.50.
This is not a wages problem. This is a huge influx of wealthy people to the state that aren't working but are taking up property and services problem.
This is not a wages problem. This is a huge influx of wealthy people to the state that aren't working but are taking up property and services problem.
The cost of living in Bozeman is astronomical. $800k single family houses. $1,500 apartments.
Even the exorbitant sounding $17 an hour isn’t much of a living wage in Bozeman anymore. Hasn’t been for a decade or more.
Even the exorbitant sounding $17 an hour isn’t much of a living wage in Bozeman anymore. Hasn’t been for a decade or more.
People getting paid entry wage at McDonald's were never supposed to be able to afford a house on that.
Also housing prices are astronomical, but your numbers are a touch high. I believe the median home price is $600k or so.
Also housing prices are astronomical, but your numbers are a touch high. I believe the median home price is $600k or so.
> were never supposed to be able to afford a house on that.
Cost of living isn't just "buying a house". It's housing, transportation, clothing, food, etc.
> your numbers are a touch high.
Nope. I just got a flier that mentioned that the average home price for a townhouse in Belgrade (a "suburb" of Bozeman (which itself only has roughly a 50k population), for those not local) is $765k.
Cost of living isn't just "buying a house". It's housing, transportation, clothing, food, etc.
> your numbers are a touch high.
Nope. I just got a flier that mentioned that the average home price for a townhouse in Belgrade (a "suburb" of Bozeman (which itself only has roughly a 50k population), for those not local) is $765k.
> entry wage at McDonald's
"Entry wage" is a misnomer for jobs like that. There's no advancement at a job like that except to management, and there will always be an order of magnitude fewer managers than workers (and far less turnover.)
"Entry wage" is a misnomer for jobs like that. There's no advancement at a job like that except to management, and there will always be an order of magnitude fewer managers than workers (and far less turnover.)
Not everyone who works at McDonald's is supposed to stay there forever and advance there. In general, you should either be getting a college degree or taking up a skilled trade, and only working at McDonald's until you do.
A college degree is not a guarantee that you'll get a high paying job. Some degrees will only offer a $10k improvement over a full time McD's job. The average will push you into $70k a year, which puts you about $20k over the poverty line at least†.
And skilled trades... they've been devalued as well. The average salary for a welder is in the $17/$18 range across America††. Not really better than McD's (in this thread of conversation at least).
† https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/average-sala...
†† https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/welding-jobs...
And skilled trades... they've been devalued as well. The average salary for a welder is in the $17/$18 range across America††. Not really better than McD's (in this thread of conversation at least).
† https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/average-sala...
†† https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/welding-jobs...
This comment completely shocked me. Quick zillow verifies it... If you had asked me, I would have guessed <$200k.
What drives those prices?
What drives those prices?
People selling their $1.5M home in California and buying one home here and one in Arizona/Florida.
> People selling their $1.5M home in California and buying one home here and one in Arizona/Florida.
And real estate investment groups buying up housing to rent.
And real estate investment groups buying up housing to rent.
As per a conversation I had with a realtor, they don't buy houses to rent them out, since the wear and tear of the renting lowers the eventual sale price. Since the price for houses has been going up steadily for over a decade now, it's financially advantageous for them to leave the houses empty and wait for a sale.
Sounds like a supply/demand problem; I wonder what caused an influx of out-of-towners buying up properties.
It's a beautiful area with lots of nature-based activities nearby, and the prices are/were low enough that people moving away from California could buy a house here and in Arizona.
That makes sense, we're seeing a "covid bubble" from people from areas like CA into rural places - combined with the labor shortage and lumber prices this will cause some disruption for awhile, but then I expect we see a price crash there eventually, brought on by over-building.
> I expect we see a price crash there eventually, brought on by over-building.
Sadly, it's not a covid-driven bubble. 5 years ago a new downtown development was selling condos at $600k a pop, and they were sold out before the building was finished.
Affluent people have been moving here for decades now.
ref. https://www.taunyafagan.com/bozeman-price-trends/ for the market around 10 years ago.
Sadly, it's not a covid-driven bubble. 5 years ago a new downtown development was selling condos at $600k a pop, and they were sold out before the building was finished.
Affluent people have been moving here for decades now.
ref. https://www.taunyafagan.com/bozeman-price-trends/ for the market around 10 years ago.
> That makes sense, we're seeing a "covid bubble" from people from areas like CA into rural places
It has been fairly extensively covered that the COVID migration from coastal California is overwhelmingly to inland California (and not particularly to “rural places”; e.g., the main destination of the Bay Area COVID migration is the urban and suburban parts of the Sacramento metro.)
It has been fairly extensively covered that the COVID migration from coastal California is overwhelmingly to inland California (and not particularly to “rural places”; e.g., the main destination of the Bay Area COVID migration is the urban and suburban parts of the Sacramento metro.)
Okay but they should be paying taxes locally.
I don't know about Montana but in my state I pay state income taxes, county and city property taxes, and state, county, city sales taxes.
I don't know about Montana but in my state I pay state income taxes, county and city property taxes, and state, county, city sales taxes.
Perhaps. But doesn't competition also drive firms to make decisions that rely on such business models? If you leave fiscal room for an increase in the cost of labor, aren't you paying the opportunity cost that will put you at a price disadvantage relative to your competitors? Markets punish inefficiency, even at the price of long term risk.
You, the customer, is the person who pays the employee down the road.
[deleted]
What if you are just starting out? Should only the big companies be able to hire workers? Is this tilting the odds in favor of say McD etc?
Then it means your working business model relies on VC money or government subsidies. Founders can take the cut but not the employers who don't benefit from it. Isn't the buck supposed to be passed down to the customers, not the workers ?
If you can't pay a living wage, don't start or have a business. Period.
This isn't a big vs small business debate - small places don't always pay crap wages, and some big places do pay crap wages.
Sidenote: A lot of fast food places are franchises, and a franchise might just have one or two. They aren't in any better position than a family-owned fast food place in a small town.
This isn't a big vs small business debate - small places don't always pay crap wages, and some big places do pay crap wages.
Sidenote: A lot of fast food places are franchises, and a franchise might just have one or two. They aren't in any better position than a family-owned fast food place in a small town.
They're often in a worse-off position, as you can run a family diner with a family; I've seen a number where it's a husband/wife team with maybe one "employee" (as owners don't need to be paid a wage). Franchises usually can't get away with that (maybe Subway could).
Sometimes worse off, some aren't. There are different challenges to both models. I was more pointing out that many fast food places aren't exactly a real part of a big international chain, but rather some folks that are paying to use the name and menu. None of this changes my main point, though:
If you cannot pay your employees a living wage, you should not run a business.
If you cannot pay your employees a living wage, you should not run a business.
It's $7.50 per hour extra:
> Starting June 27, Montanans will lose access to the extra $300 in weekly unemployment benefits, but maintain their regular benefits.
> Starting June 27, Montanans will lose access to the extra $300 in weekly unemployment benefits, but maintain their regular benefits.
If people are comparing $300 for 0 hours vs $300 for 40+ hours then sure.
Try paying them $600 per week. If they see you pay enough for them to afford rent (which is not possible with $300 week) you will have the better offer.
Try paying them $600 per week. If they see you pay enough for them to afford rent (which is not possible with $300 week) you will have the better offer.
If they see you pay enough for them to afford rent (which is not possible with $300 week)
It is quite possible to pay rent if you make $300 a week in parts of this country. That is why the $15/hour nationally is dumb. Let the locals pick their number for their area.
It is quite possible to pay rent if you make $300 a week in parts of this country. That is why the $15/hour nationally is dumb. Let the locals pick their number for their area.
$600 a week, when some Montana cities (Bozeman) have apartments in the $1,500 a month range, still isn't much to try and live on.
No, it's easy, you pay $400 a week.
I don't think many people would work for $400 a week when you can get $300 a week by not working.
[deleted]
Sounds like you should be paying your staff more than $7.5/hr if that is the going rate by this company down the street paying $300 a week.
That just means your company should go out of business and free up resources for a more productive company.
Edit: How does the more productive company survive? Well, there is a "company" down the street creating customers who have $300 per week to spend on things they actually need.
Edit: How does the more productive company survive? Well, there is a "company" down the street creating customers who have $300 per week to spend on things they actually need.
Or, if you are able you can move your business to Mexico or China.
Hurray for employers who pay so little that they cannot even compete with the unemployment benefits.
Please don't break the site guidelines by posting snark, flamebait, and/or shallow dismissals.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
what? Competing with free money isn't like that. Would you say paying double the free money but also take up half of people's time, plus other hassles they have to put up with, is a good deal?
Considering both unemployment benefits and minimum wage are not enough to pay rent for a single bedroom apartment in every single state in US then yeah, I'd say quite a few of people would consider it at better deal.
Unemployment is currently more than paying my mortgage in California.
If you were making minimum wage in California your state unemployment benefits would have been $267 per week.
With federal covid aid that would have gone up to $567 - close to California minimum wage, but just short of it.
I welcome you to try to pay rent/mortgage + afford food with that much money.
With federal covid aid that would have gone up to $567 - close to California minimum wage, but just short of it.
I welcome you to try to pay rent/mortgage + afford food with that much money.
Even if someone manages to live exclusively off of unemployment that means this person has reduced his resource consumption and freed up scarce resources and made them available for others who actually need them.
$2000 a month is more than enough to live with roommates.
It literally is like that. If your company cannot compete with such a low "salary" your company shouldn't exist. It means your company is taking away resources from the economy and requires direct support from the government to function.
At that point it makes more sense to just give money to individuals directly so that they can spend the money on actually productive companies.
At that point it makes more sense to just give money to individuals directly so that they can spend the money on actually productive companies.
That sounds much better. You could spend your extra time and money to go to college or trade school instead of going into debt, or at least not have an insurmountable debt if you don’t get a good job after.
Of course it is, particularly if (as is likely), the unemployment benefits aren't enough to get by on.
Having all the free time in the world is no use if you still can't afford to eat or put a roof over your family.
Having all the free time in the world is no use if you still can't afford to eat or put a roof over your family.
With the amount of unemployment being disbursed it’s looking like Congress won’t even need to pass a $15 min wage bill anymore. Employers will be forced to raise wages to compete. This is a lever of which up to now I was unaware.
Employers are probably waiting for the pandemic and unemployment insurance to end so they don’t have to raise wages to attract workers to these now-hazardous working conditions, as it’s hard to walk back wage raises. Every employer benefits from a society where everyone pays their employees more, but also if they are the only employer to pay their own employees as little as they can get away with. Yes, the minimum wage does need to be hiked (arguably not to $15/hour), as it’s in the best interest of both employees and workers.
> it’s hard to walk back wage raises.
That's what inflation is for. The problem is that the minimum wage should increase with inflation. Inflation is best used to lower the pay of the higher paid, not the borderline (for which there's no savings because of resultant increases in crime and the need to supplement low pay with transfer payments - which is just subsidy of private industry.)
That's what inflation is for. The problem is that the minimum wage should increase with inflation. Inflation is best used to lower the pay of the higher paid, not the borderline (for which there's no savings because of resultant increases in crime and the need to supplement low pay with transfer payments - which is just subsidy of private industry.)
I've always found it weird when countries have big gaps between benefits and minimum wages. It's basically saying "you can only have 2 dollars an hour from us, but you can't have less than 10 from them, hmmm I hope no one cheats on this system...".
They have to raise due to inflation regardless. A lot of people didn’t even receive COLA for the past couple of years.
That's kind of how we got into this mess in the first place - employers not giving COLA over decades.
That's because company owners and shareholders did all the hard work and deserve any increases in profits.
/s
/s
I wish we could switch to not tying unemployment benefits so much to employment.
I know that sounds funky, but the reason why they don't want your minimum wage job is then they lose the benefits (not just money, but things like food stamps, etc.). If they didn't lose their benefits, they'd work to gain some extra cash in addition to them.
This is just cruel.
I know that sounds funky, but the reason why they don't want your minimum wage job is then they lose the benefits (not just money, but things like food stamps, etc.). If they didn't lose their benefits, they'd work to gain some extra cash in addition to them.
This is just cruel.
That's universal basic income.
No, OC is talking about benefits like food stamps, discount electricity, discount health insurance, etc. You would still have to work to earn money, you just wouldn’t lose your non-monetary benefits. It’s more like a universal social safety net.
This is just the government subsidising underwater businesses then? I feel like there’s this irrational impulse that work, any work is better than looking after someone until they can find good employment. If jobs are so poorly paid they can’t sustain the unfortunate person who has to take them perhaps they shouldn’t exist or at least be nationalised so society gets the benefits they are paying for rather than having them funnelled into the pockets of private individuals.
Yes. But that's why you also need a mandatory floor (a generous minimum wage), and strong labor institutions, so that companies don't just get to take advantage of the social support programs to support their exploitative business models.
See this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... as the most previously quantified and discussed example.
Article title: Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Article title: Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Agreed there!
You didn't read the OPs comment well. He said "not just money".
> Montana's unemployment rate was 3.8% in March, down from its 11.9% pandemic peak in April 2020, according to data by the Labor Department.
Politicians used to brag about those levels being full employment.
Politicians used to brag about those levels being full employment.
> Politicians used to brag about those levels being full employment.
That was before they began openly fudging the numbers. Following 2008 they began removing people from the unemployment numbers once their unemployment benefits expired.
The unemployment rate was never 5% after 2008 and it’s not 3.8% now, millions and millions of people have been written off by politicians using those fake numbers for their reelection campaigns.
That was before they began openly fudging the numbers. Following 2008 they began removing people from the unemployment numbers once their unemployment benefits expired.
The unemployment rate was never 5% after 2008 and it’s not 3.8% now, millions and millions of people have been written off by politicians using those fake numbers for their reelection campaigns.
> Following 2008 they began removing people from the unemployment numbers once their unemployment benefits expired.
The BLS unemployment rate that’s referenced here is the number of people looking for work who can’t find work [0] so it is meant to measure the percent of the labor force that isn’t working. There are six different rates estimated (U1-U6) and I’m not aware of any that stop counting once unemployment benefits run out. There is a specific stat (U1) to estimate those who have been unemployed for long periods.
[0] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm [1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-economics/chapte...
The BLS unemployment rate that’s referenced here is the number of people looking for work who can’t find work [0] so it is meant to measure the percent of the labor force that isn’t working. There are six different rates estimated (U1-U6) and I’m not aware of any that stop counting once unemployment benefits run out. There is a specific stat (U1) to estimate those who have been unemployed for long periods.
[0] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm [1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-economics/chapte...
See the last section of your link:
> Unemployment insurance (UI) programs are administered at the state level and provide assistance to jobless people who are looking for work.
By definition those receiving unemployment are looking for work. Once you come off unemployment, you are not automatically considered unemployed and seeking work, instead the burden is on you to prove to the BLS you are actively looking for work, this is called marginally attached to the labor force but the catch all is discouraged workers a subset and nearly anyone unemployed that has run through their benefits and still not employed is nearly always going met this definition and they are not considered part of the labor force. (See your link - Who is not in the labor force? )
> Unemployment insurance (UI) programs are administered at the state level and provide assistance to jobless people who are looking for work.
By definition those receiving unemployment are looking for work. Once you come off unemployment, you are not automatically considered unemployed and seeking work, instead the burden is on you to prove to the BLS you are actively looking for work, this is called marginally attached to the labor force but the catch all is discouraged workers a subset and nearly anyone unemployed that has run through their benefits and still not employed is nearly always going met this definition and they are not considered part of the labor force. (See your link - Who is not in the labor force? )
This is normally true, but the condition of looking for work was removed with the pandemic unemployment programs, I think because it wasn’t possible to look for work and people needed help.
“Proving” to BLS just means answering a question on a survey, so it’s not burdensome compared to what is required to do continue unemployment insurance. So workers who run out of benefit and answer something like “yes, I’d like to work, am looking, and can’t find” will be included in U3.
There are other measures for underemployed, or people who gave up working, etc. I think those are U4-U6, described in the second link I posted.
I find lots of these arguments are people not understanding the unemployment measures or people arguing with different versions.
“Proving” to BLS just means answering a question on a survey, so it’s not burdensome compared to what is required to do continue unemployment insurance. So workers who run out of benefit and answer something like “yes, I’d like to work, am looking, and can’t find” will be included in U3.
There are other measures for underemployed, or people who gave up working, etc. I think those are U4-U6, described in the second link I posted.
I find lots of these arguments are people not understanding the unemployment measures or people arguing with different versions.
I don’t disagree it amounts to answering a question, and it’s easy to say it’s not a burden.
But on the ground it can be a tremendous burden, we are talking about people who may be avoiding calls because it’s creditors, we are talking about people who don’t have a phone (it’s impossible for most in power to even acknowledge there are people without a phone or even the continuity of continuous phone service - they point to a FCC pledge carriers signed not to do that, but the carriers have do it anyway).
There are many reasons this larger demographic of hidden workforce is not included in the BLS surveys to any meaningful degree, certainly the homeless are not, which I don’t believe in the homeless numbers either, or maybe more diplomatically I should say I believe they are political numbers.
Just as a example, early on we heard politicians discussing mortgages and rent, evictions protections, but once the lawmakers passed the stimulus have you heard any meaningful discussion about any of that? Pre pandemic there were 1M student loans defaulted per year, a long standing trend of adults living at home with parents in record numbers.
Before any of it can be addressed it needs to be acknowledged, it doesn’t help when both sides of the two party political system have consistently taken credit for record unemployment and record stock markets, or eviction protections or FCC pledges to waive late fees and not cut of service, it’s not all fake but it is fake to a meaningful degree. Again we saw something similar with the 2008 bank bailouts and the HAMP and HARP programs, I worked for a law firm briefly that tried to help people and we did to an extent, but for the most part maybe 80% it was banks saying you didn’t submit the paper work, we don’t have it, for months while simultaneously forging ahead in foreclosure cases often with fraudulent documents. To this day politicians champion those programs pointing to a return of the loans with interest, not once addressing the very real systemic problems, fraud and human costs.
But on the ground it can be a tremendous burden, we are talking about people who may be avoiding calls because it’s creditors, we are talking about people who don’t have a phone (it’s impossible for most in power to even acknowledge there are people without a phone or even the continuity of continuous phone service - they point to a FCC pledge carriers signed not to do that, but the carriers have do it anyway).
There are many reasons this larger demographic of hidden workforce is not included in the BLS surveys to any meaningful degree, certainly the homeless are not, which I don’t believe in the homeless numbers either, or maybe more diplomatically I should say I believe they are political numbers.
Just as a example, early on we heard politicians discussing mortgages and rent, evictions protections, but once the lawmakers passed the stimulus have you heard any meaningful discussion about any of that? Pre pandemic there were 1M student loans defaulted per year, a long standing trend of adults living at home with parents in record numbers.
Before any of it can be addressed it needs to be acknowledged, it doesn’t help when both sides of the two party political system have consistently taken credit for record unemployment and record stock markets, or eviction protections or FCC pledges to waive late fees and not cut of service, it’s not all fake but it is fake to a meaningful degree. Again we saw something similar with the 2008 bank bailouts and the HAMP and HARP programs, I worked for a law firm briefly that tried to help people and we did to an extent, but for the most part maybe 80% it was banks saying you didn’t submit the paper work, we don’t have it, for months while simultaneously forging ahead in foreclosure cases often with fraudulent documents. To this day politicians champion those programs pointing to a return of the loans with interest, not once addressing the very real systemic problems, fraud and human costs.
You’re providing very basic critiques of all surveys, not just this. Feel free to critique the methods that BLS (and many other big surveys) and you may be able to improve them.
I think they certainly aren’t perfect and this isn’t meant as an absolute measure, but an estimate. So it’s the best measure we have compared to everything else.
Perhaps we should ignore it because it is worse than nothing. But if you read through the methods you’ll see that they plan for the issues you bring up as they are typical for phone surveys.
Also, if we’re just pitching narrative, I expect job seekers to be more likely to be responding to phone and email since they are waiting on interviews to contact them back.
I think they certainly aren’t perfect and this isn’t meant as an absolute measure, but an estimate. So it’s the best measure we have compared to everything else.
Perhaps we should ignore it because it is worse than nothing. But if you read through the methods you’ll see that they plan for the issues you bring up as they are typical for phone surveys.
Also, if we’re just pitching narrative, I expect job seekers to be more likely to be responding to phone and email since they are waiting on interviews to contact them back.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chart...
What about the 20 million working age on social security? Not counted.
21% of Americans are on means-tested public assistance, which, by definition, requires lack of sustainable employment. Not counted.
A huge number of students can’t find a job. Not counted.
Not that ‘employment’ is a meaningful measure of a society’s desirability.
What about the 20 million working age on social security? Not counted.
21% of Americans are on means-tested public assistance, which, by definition, requires lack of sustainable employment. Not counted.
A huge number of students can’t find a job. Not counted.
Not that ‘employment’ is a meaningful measure of a society’s desirability.
It depends on what I’m trying to count. If someone is working age and on SSI, then they aren’t capable of working.
The U3 number is trying to measure how much of the total workforce is able to find work. If I can’t or don’t want to work, I’m not part of the workforce.
It’s not that unemployment rate is a measure of “desire ability” (whatever that means) but as a measure of how much labor is available and can work. It’s a useful economic measure, but not an absolute one.
The U3 number is trying to measure how much of the total workforce is able to find work. If I can’t or don’t want to work, I’m not part of the workforce.
It’s not that unemployment rate is a measure of “desire ability” (whatever that means) but as a measure of how much labor is available and can work. It’s a useful economic measure, but not an absolute one.
Right, it doesn't count non-employment. Politicians got smart, it only matters what the numbers claim to be true. Inflation is calculated differently than it was 30 years ago. It feels to me like healthcare, education, housing, food, etc. are going up year over year.
I also think the gig economy is messing with the numbers. You have a bit of income from some gig job, you're not unemployed.
I live in Iowa and our unemployment rate pre-pandemic was only 0.3%. There were no special generally available assistance programs available, so I do not think COVID Relief is the cause for the present situation, it's just what returning to normal was always going to look like. There is more demand for labor than there are laborers.
OECD defines a "healthy full employment" rate to be 4-6% unemployment, so the labour pool is unhealthily low already.
Unemployed are defined as "[..] people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work."
The question is how many people exited the workforce, because both unemployment benefits and minimum wage offer payments that just barely allow them not to starve to death.
Normally people would be incentivized to find work, because even minimum wage would offer a significant upgrade over unemployment benefits, but since minimum wage is so abysmally low they couldn't have set unemployment benefits much lower or people would have literally starved.
The sane solution of increasing minimum wage to incentivize people to find jobs while obvious is not very popular with wealthy political donors.
The question is how many people exited the workforce, because both unemployment benefits and minimum wage offer payments that just barely allow them not to starve to death.
Normally people would be incentivized to find work, because even minimum wage would offer a significant upgrade over unemployment benefits, but since minimum wage is so abysmally low they couldn't have set unemployment benefits much lower or people would have literally starved.
The sane solution of increasing minimum wage to incentivize people to find jobs while obvious is not very popular with wealthy political donors.
That 4-6% is 'healthy' definitely does not mean that lower rates are 'unhealthy'.
But it does. You'll never be able to find jobs for literally everyone (mental illnesses, etc.) and want some slack in the labour pool to handle seasonal fluctuations etc.
If you're literally scraping the barrel, you need to import more workers, or move jobs out of state, or automate some away etc.
If you're literally scraping the barrel, you need to import more workers, or move jobs out of state, or automate some away etc.
That's not unhealthy, it's just not as opportunistic as it could be ... and there's a big difference between those things.
The neoliberal view would be 'more immigration because you could expand' ergo 'unhealthy/unoptimized state, increase people to make more GDP'.
But that's only one view.
Given a flat population, it generally actually wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for example to 'let people go' to create more slack for times of economic swings.
Very low unemployment can only be characterized as 'unhealthy' from the view of 'maximizing GDP growth' for the most part.
The neoliberal view would be 'more immigration because you could expand' ergo 'unhealthy/unoptimized state, increase people to make more GDP'.
But that's only one view.
Given a flat population, it generally actually wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for example to 'let people go' to create more slack for times of economic swings.
Very low unemployment can only be characterized as 'unhealthy' from the view of 'maximizing GDP growth' for the most part.
It means they are not healthy, that is different but probably the same intent.
Is it measured the same way though?
But are they actually full time employees?
If yes, then it truly is brag-worthy.
If yes, then it truly is brag-worthy.
I am not from the USA and I read the article to understand a bit more how unemployment benefits work in the US.
I find the title misleading, it's the pandemic $300 per week additional benefit that gets suspended not the whole unemployment benefits people looking for a job are entitled to (Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) program and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program).
Correct me if I am wrong.
Now, is the situation back to normal enough to justify it, should those unemployment benefits stay the same, etc. those are all important questions.
I find the title misleading, it's the pandemic $300 per week additional benefit that gets suspended not the whole unemployment benefits people looking for a job are entitled to (Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) program and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program).
Correct me if I am wrong.
Now, is the situation back to normal enough to justify it, should those unemployment benefits stay the same, etc. those are all important questions.
You are correct. The question is what MT pays for their UI as every state has different amounts and weeks per claim. As to whether the extra $300 should continue, I would be in favor of allowing it for those that can prove they are searching for work and not getting hired. Others not searching or not accepting offers should lose their benefits.
[deleted]
Looks like everyone has already forgotten about the CARES act and how it was divided.
$266B went to unemployment and $377B to small businesses, of course the law makers were going to end the program and force people back into low paying jobs with no alternative to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.
Biden said all along he lead the last economic recovery, and he did...on paper. Following 2008 he helped devise a system of removing people from the unemployment numbers once their benefits expired and even though many never returned to work they were swept under the rug and poof 5% unemployment.
That’s what this is, and you can be sure Montana will be championing the policy and highlighting record levels of unemployment, but the reality is those “lucky” enough to get a job will return to a shit job, living paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford a $400 emergency expense (as was the case pre-pandemic) and record numbers of people will be written off as if they never existed.
It sounds like a tinfoil conspiracy theory, but it’s something we saw in 2008 and already seen multiple times policy decisions during the pandemic. Meanwhile the people will continue to point the fingers at one another and debate in forums like this, not realizing or simply unable to accept the suffering in this dystopia. #Dogetothemoon
$266B went to unemployment and $377B to small businesses, of course the law makers were going to end the program and force people back into low paying jobs with no alternative to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.
Biden said all along he lead the last economic recovery, and he did...on paper. Following 2008 he helped devise a system of removing people from the unemployment numbers once their benefits expired and even though many never returned to work they were swept under the rug and poof 5% unemployment.
That’s what this is, and you can be sure Montana will be championing the policy and highlighting record levels of unemployment, but the reality is those “lucky” enough to get a job will return to a shit job, living paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford a $400 emergency expense (as was the case pre-pandemic) and record numbers of people will be written off as if they never existed.
It sounds like a tinfoil conspiracy theory, but it’s something we saw in 2008 and already seen multiple times policy decisions during the pandemic. Meanwhile the people will continue to point the fingers at one another and debate in forums like this, not realizing or simply unable to accept the suffering in this dystopia. #Dogetothemoon
Biden didn't come up with the U-3 unemployment rate, just like every administration they used it because it improves even when the economy isn't adding jobs.
It's not a serious number. The only number that counts is the prime-age employment rate.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
The stupid thing that Biden (and Obama) brag about is having the longest recovery in history. What that really means is the slowest revovery in history. You can't say that the Dems didn't learn their lesson, though - the money spigot is turned on this time, and if they pull it off the economy after the pandemic will be better than the one before it.
It's not a serious number. The only number that counts is the prime-age employment rate.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
The stupid thing that Biden (and Obama) brag about is having the longest recovery in history. What that really means is the slowest revovery in history. You can't say that the Dems didn't learn their lesson, though - the money spigot is turned on this time, and if they pull it off the economy after the pandemic will be better than the one before it.
Interesting, I suspected as much. Japan has extremely low unemployment but the low inflation (historical rate pre covid) indicates that the jobs are not being paid a high salary. In other words, a lot of the people are still underemployed.
I can believe that unemployment numbers are easy to game and that politicians mess with them in a non productive way.
I can believe that unemployment numbers are easy to game and that politicians mess with them in a non productive way.
If you read the underlying report that drove the unemployment pull quote you can see they spend a lot of time explaining that the labor shortage is driven by an increase in the population not looking for work. It speculates that increase is attributable to obvious pandemic causes like needing to provide child care, deal with sick family or older family.
https://lmi.mt.gov/_docs/Publications/LMI-Pubs/Labor-Market-...
Missoula public schools were still operating with a remote day per week when those numbers were collected, it’s really hard to work with a young kid in need of care an extra day per week. So it’s not surprising the workforce size reduced.
In light of this, this change seems particularly cruel.
https://lmi.mt.gov/_docs/Publications/LMI-Pubs/Labor-Market-...
Missoula public schools were still operating with a remote day per week when those numbers were collected, it’s really hard to work with a young kid in need of care an extra day per week. So it’s not surprising the workforce size reduced.
In light of this, this change seems particularly cruel.
Who needs evidence when you have ideology.
This is a surprisingly insightful phrase in this day and age. So much can be explained by this, at least when it comes to human and societal behavior
> It speculates ...
I can’t tell which ‘side’ you are referring to.
I can’t tell which ‘side’ you are referring to.
This bill is clearly not one that is particularly compassionate. They're not creating new social safety nets.
Do you really need us to spell it out?
Do you really need us to spell it out?
I’ll spell it out for the unaware, especially those in non-US countries that lack context. There’s a lot of assumptions built into this summary, and it is not clear whether it’s fully accurate or not, but it does help convey the viewpoint you’re referring to in a more comprehensive fashion.
America was and continues to be built in large part by wage theft and labor exploitation. We don’t provide the social support services that are taken for granted in first-world countries like Canada, because doing so conflicts with the strongly-held belief — the ideology — that the best way to support the poor is to ensure that they’re employed in a job, no matter how terrible the working conditions or pay. Workers are told that this is a “ladder of success”, but upward mobility has stalled due to the wealth being drained out of the system into the ultra-wealthy and their families. Workers are encouraged to work for local businesses, who are themselves going bankrupt and collapsing at the swordpoints of Walmart, Amazon, and Covid. Health care costs have skyrocketed, health insurance is only offered to a subset of the workforce, and minimum wage doesn’t cover rent, food, and health care (pick one only).
So, Montana is canceling unemployment as a way to force people to work at jobs they otherwise wouldn’t work at. This forces people back into the modern enslavement system, and takes for granted that enough employers are left in Montana to hire those workers. Rather than assessing whether enough jobs exist for their citizens and then requiring businesses to pay a reasonable wage that covers living costs, or offering benefits to attract workers, the state of Montana will simply block unemployment benefits. Employers that offer miserable wages, no health insurance, and poor working conditions are expected to see an increase in workers applying for those roles, further weakening the negotiating position of workers versus employers.
The best analogy, then, for the perceived cruelty of these motivations is, in these modified words of the consultant from “Office Space”:
“We fixed the glitch. So they won’t be receiving an unemployment check anymore. So it’ll just work itself out naturally.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is
America was and continues to be built in large part by wage theft and labor exploitation. We don’t provide the social support services that are taken for granted in first-world countries like Canada, because doing so conflicts with the strongly-held belief — the ideology — that the best way to support the poor is to ensure that they’re employed in a job, no matter how terrible the working conditions or pay. Workers are told that this is a “ladder of success”, but upward mobility has stalled due to the wealth being drained out of the system into the ultra-wealthy and their families. Workers are encouraged to work for local businesses, who are themselves going bankrupt and collapsing at the swordpoints of Walmart, Amazon, and Covid. Health care costs have skyrocketed, health insurance is only offered to a subset of the workforce, and minimum wage doesn’t cover rent, food, and health care (pick one only).
So, Montana is canceling unemployment as a way to force people to work at jobs they otherwise wouldn’t work at. This forces people back into the modern enslavement system, and takes for granted that enough employers are left in Montana to hire those workers. Rather than assessing whether enough jobs exist for their citizens and then requiring businesses to pay a reasonable wage that covers living costs, or offering benefits to attract workers, the state of Montana will simply block unemployment benefits. Employers that offer miserable wages, no health insurance, and poor working conditions are expected to see an increase in workers applying for those roles, further weakening the negotiating position of workers versus employers.
The best analogy, then, for the perceived cruelty of these motivations is, in these modified words of the consultant from “Office Space”:
“We fixed the glitch. So they won’t be receiving an unemployment check anymore. So it’ll just work itself out naturally.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is
This doesn’t check out. If I was paid $500K to work, and $600K to not work, I would choose not to work. The absolute numbers don’t matter for the incentives to be inverted. Low wages are an unrelated problem.
Suggesting the US is not a first world country further weakens this entire comment.
Suggesting the US is not a first world country further weakens this entire comment.
How can you say that the fact that wages are lower than the alternative is the problem, and in the same paragraph say that low wages are an unrelated problem. Low wages are literally _the_ problem. If you paid people more, they would leave unemployment and take the pay. In my experience it's a small subset that refuses to work at all costs. I know people who want to work but just can't find jobs that ate _worth it_. A job needs to be worth it or we create a dystopia of essentially mass capitalistic incarceration.
By your own statement, if they raise the wage, people will go back to work. This "solution" is just kicking the legs out from under people who are just barely able to stand as it is.
By your own statement, if they raise the wage, people will go back to work. This "solution" is just kicking the legs out from under people who are just barely able to stand as it is.
Personally, I’m a pretty solid fan of UBI, but I didn’t try to incorporate my views on that into the explainer. As you note, there are a lot of weaknesses in the “work is required for life” principle that we inherited from the founding colonies.
(I'm so glad to see this reply, because it means I was successful at describing the referenced mindset and have inspired a discussion of the viewpoint itself. Even if I'm not sure how much of it I agree with myself, that's a win.)
Well unamployment benefits does not need to be constant.
Where I am from I can get 90% of my previous paycheck up to a max of approx 3200 USD a month for the first two years.
Then they start to drop off quite fast to a much lower buttom.
So even if a new job was lower than the 3200 USD I could be getting I would still be incentivised to get a new job before the high benefits runs out.
Where I am from I can get 90% of my previous paycheck up to a max of approx 3200 USD a month for the first two years.
Then they start to drop off quite fast to a much lower buttom.
So even if a new job was lower than the 3200 USD I could be getting I would still be incentivised to get a new job before the high benefits runs out.
Unemployment insurance is only applicable to people that can work, choose to work, but cannot find work. Your criticism is all about the entire system of work. Different concepts.
I think you’re advocating for UBI. Maybe UBI is a better idea, but UI is not that.
I think you’re advocating for UBI. Maybe UBI is a better idea, but UI is not that.
This is quite a succinct explanation floatingatoll, thanks for expanding.
looks like we've found David Graeber's account... ;P
[deleted]
I looked up this guy and apparently there's one of three things intended by this comment. Either you're complimenting me (but the emoji and throwaway nature of the comment suggest otherwise), you're insulting me by calling me an economist (not exactly a common insult, but it's definitely not a favored profession), or you're comparing me to someone who's dead (which is terrifying and probably not what you meant, but who even knows with today's trolls).
Of those options, I think you meant this to be an insulting and dismissive comment, wherein you jokingly compare me to a dead man in order to weaken or diminish the views represented in my detailed writeup of the 'unspoken' viewpoint referenced upthread. If so, you will find that Hacker News is not a reliably effective venue for that sort of manipulation of others. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, I of course welcome clarification. :)
Of those options, I think you meant this to be an insulting and dismissive comment, wherein you jokingly compare me to a dead man in order to weaken or diminish the views represented in my detailed writeup of the 'unspoken' viewpoint referenced upthread. If so, you will find that Hacker News is not a reliably effective venue for that sort of manipulation of others. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, I of course welcome clarification. :)
uhhhh none of the above? you just sound like him. nice to just fly off the handle based on a bunch of assumptions about my intent, though i think your assumptions and hostility say more about you than me. the emoticon was because it was teasing-- that's what the tongue out emoticon means.
didn't even know he was dead-- read his book not that long ago. not sure what the fuck you're on about comparing people to dead people-- are we just supposed to stop speaking of the dead altogether?
didn't even know he was dead-- read his book not that long ago. not sure what the fuck you're on about comparing people to dead people-- are we just supposed to stop speaking of the dead altogether?
David Graeber was an anthropologist, not an economist, and a leader of Occupy Wall Street and author of "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I think the reference is to the latter. Whether you should take it seriously or consider it flattering I couldn't say, but having read the book and your comment, they are in fact quite aligned.
Ah, interesting! I will add it to a list, thank you.
Hmmm... I was trying to point out that speculation may be more ideological than evidentiary. Was that missed, or am I the one driving in the slow lane?
There's also the obvious "problem" that when every employer in the state/city is trying to hire simultaneously then employers of last resort will be the last applied to.
Another obvious question to ask is what's the student population deficit vs previous years. Montana has several large schools in small cities. So if students never showed up thats thousands of people worth of work force that probably don't show up well on surveys
hire*
Indeed. Literally from the article: "Montana's unemployment rate was 3.8% in March". That's higher than it was before the pandemic! How is that even remotely consistent with a "severe labor shortage"?
Per the parent, unemployment is not the same thing as workforce participation.
If someone has decided to stop looking for work so that they can stay home and care for a sick family member, or take care of a child, then they are no longer counted towards the unemployment rate, even though overall workforce participation has declined.
If someone has decided to stop looking for work so that they can stay home and care for a sick family member, or take care of a child, then they are no longer counted towards the unemployment rate, even though overall workforce participation has declined.
No, that's the U-3 number which is intended to measure people actively seeking work. It's true there's a lot of subtlety with measuring and understanding unemployment statistics, but this argument is just spin, it doesn't hold.
The simple truth is that workforce participation in Montana (and the rest of the US) is actually quite high right now, especially given the pandemic context.
This policy is simply misguided, period. It targets the wrong people for the wrong things to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And it's actively harming the people who elected the government. All because the people making decisions choose to believe spin and not truths.
The simple truth is that workforce participation in Montana (and the rest of the US) is actually quite high right now, especially given the pandemic context.
This policy is simply misguided, period. It targets the wrong people for the wrong things to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And it's actively harming the people who elected the government. All because the people making decisions choose to believe spin and not truths.
It does a pretty crappy jjob of acting as a proxy, as the only thing it does measure is people using state unemployment programs.
Once you exhaust your benefit, or if you decide not to claim, you aren't counted. Some business models actually factor in usage of the unemployment system to provide continuity of workforce via keeping people solvent between rehires, further diluting the utility of the metric.
After a certain age, there is a marked reluctance to hire on older workers that I've noticed, and far fewer older applicants in at least my field than I expected. It is not uncommon in so.e parts of the country for some people to be completely unaware that unemployment is even a thing they can avail themselves of, or if there is, there's so much stigma and saber rattling at "those damn fraudsters" that after you hear it enough you start to wonder whether you should really be collecting it at all.
BLS - Better Lying with Statistics
Once you exhaust your benefit, or if you decide not to claim, you aren't counted. Some business models actually factor in usage of the unemployment system to provide continuity of workforce via keeping people solvent between rehires, further diluting the utility of the metric.
After a certain age, there is a marked reluctance to hire on older workers that I've noticed, and far fewer older applicants in at least my field than I expected. It is not uncommon in so.e parts of the country for some people to be completely unaware that unemployment is even a thing they can avail themselves of, or if there is, there's so much stigma and saber rattling at "those damn fraudsters" that after you hear it enough you start to wonder whether you should really be collecting it at all.
BLS - Better Lying with Statistics
You stated your viewpoint, and claimed that the other point of viewpoint is “spin”. However you haven’t made a compelling argument why the opposing viewpoint is spin and why yours is better.
Nor did the parent cite and actual number for the "quite high" workforce participation rate.
Well if the people who lost their job do not have the right qualifications to work in the open positions, and are unlikely to get them you can have both (as it takes time (month, years) and often money (an unemployed person might not have)).
Also if the jobs are so badly payed that it's going in the direction of it being better to not work even if there is no money for unemployed people you also can have a labor shortage. (Just an example, so physical taxing job which which also has a high chance of damaging your clothes and doesn't provide clothes for you can make you cost more money due to increased living cost (clothes, more food) then you might earn.)
I'm not saying that any of this things are happening, just that you totally can have both high unemployment and a servere labor shortage , either due to qualifications or due to inhuman working conditions.
Also if the jobs are so badly payed that it's going in the direction of it being better to not work even if there is no money for unemployed people you also can have a labor shortage. (Just an example, so physical taxing job which which also has a high chance of damaging your clothes and doesn't provide clothes for you can make you cost more money due to increased living cost (clothes, more food) then you might earn.)
I'm not saying that any of this things are happening, just that you totally can have both high unemployment and a servere labor shortage , either due to qualifications or due to inhuman working conditions.
That's true when comparing workforces across demographics and economies, sure. Happens all the time. But here we're comparing "2019 Montana" with "2021 Montana" -- it's not like Montanans or their economy have changed that much. The clear hypothesis is that if the same people are doing the same jobs in the same economy with similar workforce participation numbers that there is no "severe" employment shortage".
But 2021 Montana is significantly different to 2019 Montana. For just one change, the entrances to Yellowstone are closed. So there aren't even the same jobs available, think of all the tourist facing positions that aren't needed. Even if the employment rate was the same, you'd have to assume that the working population had changed along with the jobs available.
3.8 is a fairly low unemployment rate overall though
Yes, but we don't cut people off of benefits because of "fairly low" unemployment. Were GOP governors itching to impoverish their own electorate in 2019? Why not? What changed? (I mean, we know what changed. Minority parties have vested interest in government failure, and now that partisanship is nationalized GOP governors are actually incentivized to hurt the people that elected them if there's a Democratic federal government.)
I didn't mean that as justification for cutting off benefits, it was unintended it if sounded that way. In fact I think Jerome Powell, Chair of the Fed has been quoted as saying he's not too worried about reports of employers complaining about hiring because he's looking at data on actual wages - and if the employers were participating in a labor market he would see increased wages as competition for labor.
ABeeSea(1)
I'm in Minnesota, but I've had friends that own small businesses have people refuse to come back to work and they've straight up told them it's because their unemployment benefits pay them roughly the same amount (or more) as they'd get for working.
The local turkey processing plant has a huge sign on bonus right now for the same reason, just to try and coax people back to work.
The local turkey processing plant has a huge sign on bonus right now for the same reason, just to try and coax people back to work.
Have the small business owners increased the hourly wages in light of this?
I don't think it's particularly healthy that we expect the meager cashflows of small businesses to compete with the money printer at the federal reserve.
Small businesses can't afford to pay $1200 per month?
It's much more than $1200. It's $300 state and $300 federal, weekly, so $2400 a month.
But business can't offer $2500 and rake in the applications. When you're getting $2400 a month for sitting around watching movies all day, it is going to take a lot to move the needle and make you want to go back to work.
But business can't offer $2500 and rake in the applications. When you're getting $2400 a month for sitting around watching movies all day, it is going to take a lot to move the needle and make you want to go back to work.
Not all states are offering this. Are you sure Montana does?
Sure but this has been the monetary policy for the past two decades - eg all of that surveillance valley "disruption". National brands get limitless ZIRP investment money, while local owner-equity businesses get run out of business. The new change is that some of the money printing is being used to help individuals, rather than traditionally undermining them.
No. Should that be a temporary increase until federal benefits run out? Should it go to current employees? What if they're paid different rates, do they suddenly make the same amount?
Even if they increase it to be somewhat more than the government is paying people, you're still competing with them getting income for doing absolutely nothing.
This is all coming from someone that is also getting unemployment. However, it's less than I normally make - significantly so, depending on the week. It's a shame state unemployment systems apparently couldn't cope with a percentage increase rather than a flat number.
Even if they increase it to be somewhat more than the government is paying people, you're still competing with them getting income for doing absolutely nothing.
This is all coming from someone that is also getting unemployment. However, it's less than I normally make - significantly so, depending on the week. It's a shame state unemployment systems apparently couldn't cope with a percentage increase rather than a flat number.
I was born and raised in the midwest. I totally understand why Montana would do such a thing, and I believe the move will be popular.
Red states are different than blue states, and that's ok. What seems cruel/perveted/bigoted/anarchistic/mean-spirited/unpatriotic in one place is not in the other.
It has a lot to do with the unspoken social contract of the region. The best news: If you're stuck in a state that doesn't fit you, it's a free country, you can move to one that better aligns.
Red states are different than blue states, and that's ok. What seems cruel/perveted/bigoted/anarchistic/mean-spirited/unpatriotic in one place is not in the other.
It has a lot to do with the unspoken social contract of the region. The best news: If you're stuck in a state that doesn't fit you, it's a free country, you can move to one that better aligns.
Just for context I was born in & have spent most of my life in the Midwest of the USA. My observation about cruelty was the double dealing on display with the governors quotes.
It implied that the data said it was the benefits causing the lack of employees when their own labor bureau was saying it was pandemic related issues.
It implied that the data said it was the benefits causing the lack of employees when their own labor bureau was saying it was pandemic related issues.
By nature, we humans are very lazy.
If I could sit all day and do what I liked instead of writing code, I'd do that instead.
Sure, I love to write code. But I want to write the code that gives the joy. Not the code that some client wants me to write.
That being said, ending the unemployment benefits is the right move.It's not sustainable. I worry greatly that we're entering a time when the government is going to become our dad/mom and we don't have to work.
But then, where will the money come from??? We can only tax the rich so much.
Sure, I love to write code. But I want to write the code that gives the joy. Not the code that some client wants me to write.
That being said, ending the unemployment benefits is the right move.It's not sustainable. I worry greatly that we're entering a time when the government is going to become our dad/mom and we don't have to work.
But then, where will the money come from??? We can only tax the rich so much.
As evidence against the idea that people left to their own devices will not work to the benefit of society, I present all progress in human history. At no point was there something other than a human leading governments or industries.
The real question is, how many of these driven people do we actually need, and what are the proper ways to let work with the other people.
The real question is, how many of these driven people do we actually need, and what are the proper ways to let work with the other people.
It would only take 20%
The other 80% would work for them. The 80/20 rule in principle.
Yes, sounds bad, but that the world that we live in.
The other 80% would work for them. The 80/20 rule in principle.
Yes, sounds bad, but that the world that we live in.
Wait you are concerned that the government is becoming too much like a parent figure but you also think the correct role of the government is to tell people to do their homework?
> I worry greatly that we're entering a time when the government is going to become our dad/mom and we don't have to.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the goal for too many people anymore.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the goal for too many people anymore.
There's only a "worker shortage" because wages are low. There wouldn't be a "shortage" if these businesses actually paid decent wages.
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/139001107417964544...
>Most of these restaurant and retail owners can clearly pay more if they want but they are worried about the precedent and they know if they ban together and whine to a compliant media enough and fake like people won’t get cheeseburgers politicians will pull UI and social programs
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/139001943881718579...
>Here we detail the long history of industry trade groups in nursing, education, trucking, construction & dozens of industries shaping media narratives of “worker shortages”. covid just supercharged this decades old PR gambit with an added kicker of pressuring govt to suspend UI
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/139001107417964544...
>Most of these restaurant and retail owners can clearly pay more if they want but they are worried about the precedent and they know if they ban together and whine to a compliant media enough and fake like people won’t get cheeseburgers politicians will pull UI and social programs
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/139001943881718579...
>Here we detail the long history of industry trade groups in nursing, education, trucking, construction & dozens of industries shaping media narratives of “worker shortages”. covid just supercharged this decades old PR gambit with an added kicker of pressuring govt to suspend UI
The Wendy's in Bozeman starts at $17. The McDonald's there starts at $15.50. I know of people working at a clothing store (Athleta) making $22.
I think you're extremely off the mark with this comment.
I think you're extremely off the mark with this comment.
I pointed this out in another comment, but posting wages without noting the exceptionally high costs for housing in Bozeman is misleading.
Single family houses on the outskirts of town are selling for upwards of $800k. Condos anywhere from $400k to $1M. Apartments are going for $1,500 a month. Your Athieta (a somewhat high end clothing store, also worth noting) employee is barely making double what's needed to just afford an apartment.
Single family houses on the outskirts of town are selling for upwards of $800k. Condos anywhere from $400k to $1M. Apartments are going for $1,500 a month. Your Athieta (a somewhat high end clothing store, also worth noting) employee is barely making double what's needed to just afford an apartment.
Are you asserting that the monetary value of unemployment benefits exceeds the full time salary of those jobs? It's easily possible that the the majority of local employers pay much less than that and are threatened by UI. Does every local business pay that well or just the corporate chains (which have additional wage pressures and other nationwide factors)?
You can't meaningfully compare just the monetary amounts, since the jobs require you to get up and go to work every day, and the unemployment benefits don't.
Why can't you compare them? Money is money and I can't pay for groceries or rent with or without "get up and go to work every day", it's completely irrelevant.
If your free money covers groceries and rent, then you compare "get up and go to work every day" with the luxuries you can use the extra money on.
That's a colossal "if", the idea of "welfare queens" living the high life on government benefits is never actually true outside of fraud cases.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/montana-governor-ends-e...
>In towns like Bozeman, where costs of housing have skyrocketed during the pandemic, workers “are not getting jobs because these jobs don't pay enough to pay their bills,” McWilliams said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/montana-governor-ends-e...
>In towns like Bozeman, where costs of housing have skyrocketed during the pandemic, workers “are not getting jobs because these jobs don't pay enough to pay their bills,” McWilliams said.
This simply isn't true though. Because the jobs pay more than the welfare in most cases, and don't require any skill. Some businesses in town have closed as a result. I know multiple people who would rather scrape by on welfare and enjoy their summer.
“and disproportionately harms ...”
Okay, let’s hear the proportions then. We’re talking about unemployment in Montana.
Okay, let’s hear the proportions then. We’re talking about unemployment in Montana.
Montana resident here. I won’t comment in the wisdom of the policy itself, but I will say that people avoiding work due to CoVid benefits is a very real thing. It’s widely considered wise to go hunting and play video games rather than go to work.
Maybe it is. What's minimum wage like there? Are low level employees guaranteed good pay, decent quality of life, sick/parental leave, and so on?
Are minimum wage employees given healthcare they can afford? You know... since there's a pandemic still going on
Montana has become absolutely inundated with CoVid refugees fleeing the cities which has massively driven up housing prices and rents to the point where it's completely unaffordable for anyone working class. Businesses first got hit with being shut down by CoVid and now can't fully re-open because no one wants to work. It's a complete shitshow here and I know numerous people that have been here for decades that are being forced out.
I'm in Michigan and I've spoken with people who either can't hire or don't want to work because of the amount they get on unemployment. They would rather stay home and collect than contribute. Even in jobs that are naturally socially distant.
It's anecdotal, sure. I would love to see some studies on it or even just data.
It's anecdotal, sure. I would love to see some studies on it or even just data.
>making mimimum wage
>contribute
I think you need to consider how screwed by outsourcing and immigration working class Americans have been for the past 30 years.
>contribute
I think you need to consider how screwed by outsourcing and immigration working class Americans have been for the past 30 years.
Montana resident here. That’s anecdotal bullshit.
TN here with another anecdote that says it isn’t.
Spoke to someone just recently who said they’ll stay on unemployment as long as they are allowed because they haven’t had to work in over a year and get to spend their time playing their favorite video games.
Which, if you make as much unemployed as you do employed, it makes no sense to return to work. He’s not a bad person. He’s just optimizing.
Spoke to someone just recently who said they’ll stay on unemployment as long as they are allowed because they haven’t had to work in over a year and get to spend their time playing their favorite video games.
Which, if you make as much unemployed as you do employed, it makes no sense to return to work. He’s not a bad person. He’s just optimizing.
So these are all people who make less than $2000 a month. That's $12 an hour.
That's above minimum wage, isn't it (I don't know if it's different over there, but I expect it's not >$12)?
There are two ways to solve this "problem" (if you consider it to be one). Either cut the benefits, or raise the minimum wage (or pay above minimum wage).
Personally, I'd rather have people dicking around, hunting and playing video games and having fun, rather than working at a soul-sucking mimimum-wage job and still be on the state's teat (getting food stamps) because the minimim wage is too low.
Personally, I'd rather have people dicking around, hunting and playing video games and having fun, rather than working at a soul-sucking mimimum-wage job and still be on the state's teat (getting food stamps) because the minimim wage is too low.
I don't think tax payers have the same view as you.
Taxpayer here, and former low-paid wage slave, I agree with alienthrowaway.
I am a tax payer - tax payers are also on the hook for food stamps and other costs that are a direct result of McJobs not paying enough.
But in one case, they are being productive, in the other case, they are not.
I prefer having people on the dole if they are productive rather than sitting at home entertaining themselves at my expense. There is no societal upside to that.
I prefer having people on the dole if they are productive rather than sitting at home entertaining themselves at my expense. There is no societal upside to that.
Yes. He used to be a zip line guide, so I’m assuming it ain’t much.
A simple solution to this problem could be employers paying more than unemployment.
But nah, just force people to accept shit wages.
But nah, just force people to accept shit wages.
$300 / week is $7.50 / hour.
$7.50 / hour is a pittance.
This is what the point of a social safety net is. If you can't work, you get a pittance, but enough to live on. And if nobody around wants to pay you enough to live on, you don't have to take their starvation wages.
$7.50 / hour is a pittance.
This is what the point of a social safety net is. If you can't work, you get a pittance, but enough to live on. And if nobody around wants to pay you enough to live on, you don't have to take their starvation wages.
$300/ week is just the federal boost. There is an underlying base payment of UI that you ignored. Thus the "hourly" of UI is much more than $7.50
Fair point.
If you use https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator to estimate your benefit for $40k/yr ($10k/qtr) you get $400/week, so with the extra PUA program it's $700/week.
$400/week is $10/hour. $700/week is $17.50/hour.
At 40 hours/week, $17.50/hour is $36,400 for 52 weeks. It's arguably more than a pittance, but it's only 1.3x the federal poverty level for a family of 4. It also effectively sets a $17.50 price floor on labor for anyone who is eligible for the PUA program.
I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Employers would have to raise wages and raise prices a bit to compensate. I have seen a handful of papers with evidence that price increases are generally a lot smaller than minimum wage increases, so I'm not worried about it just turning into inflation. But I am not an economist so I don't want to make claims that I can't back up.
If you use https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator to estimate your benefit for $40k/yr ($10k/qtr) you get $400/week, so with the extra PUA program it's $700/week.
$400/week is $10/hour. $700/week is $17.50/hour.
At 40 hours/week, $17.50/hour is $36,400 for 52 weeks. It's arguably more than a pittance, but it's only 1.3x the federal poverty level for a family of 4. It also effectively sets a $17.50 price floor on labor for anyone who is eligible for the PUA program.
I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Employers would have to raise wages and raise prices a bit to compensate. I have seen a handful of papers with evidence that price increases are generally a lot smaller than minimum wage increases, so I'm not worried about it just turning into inflation. But I am not an economist so I don't want to make claims that I can't back up.
For some people, no amount of money is worth their time. Work only enough to survive. And if the government can take care of that, then it is not worthwhile to seek employment regardless of wages.
Employers paying more wouldn't help much. The problem is that we've made it possible to not worry about necessities like food and housing even if you don't work at all, and for a lot of people, they'll choose to forego luxuries if it means they never have to work again.
particularly if their personal luxuries (ie internet and beer) are affordable within this income level
Why should the meager cashflows of the small business be forced to compete with the money printer at the federal reserve? I'm all for companies raising wages in competitive environments. The situation at present is not a competitive environment.
Seems cruel to me. Especially if you need a part time job because of family commitments. Plenty of full time jobs are actively hostile to working parents. Perhaps dealing with that issue first would help?
Or is this really just about punishing those who can't fight back as hard? Probably.
Edit: unemployed people are easy targets in order to appear tough in politics. Its great for later campaigning.
Or is this really just about punishing those who can't fight back as hard? Probably.
Edit: unemployed people are easy targets in order to appear tough in politics. Its great for later campaigning.
This is the governer who received support for assaulting a reporter while campaigning.
Assault on reporter
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/politics/greg-gianfort...
Anger management course. Community service of 40 hours.
And some other issues on top, including some bending of the truth? Wow. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/17/greg-gianfor...
Anger management course. Community service of 40 hours.
And some other issues on top, including some bending of the truth? Wow. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/17/greg-gianfor...
One better long term solution is to raise salaries. Raising the hourly wage will help fill in some employment.
Yes there are side effects to that (raising prices is one), but anything else is pushing a problem forward.
Yes there are side effects to that (raising prices is one), but anything else is pushing a problem forward.
Here in Florida many restaurant owners are complaining that no one is coming back.
What even more hilarious is, they are offering $200 sign on bonuses to work in their restaurant. Meanwhile Wawa (a gas station chain) is offering $500 bonus + 1 day PTO when you get your vaccine AND $75 to get your vaccine.
Gee I wonder why someone isn't signing up to a $200 bonus to get paid hopefully $8 an hour after tips!
What even more hilarious is, they are offering $200 sign on bonuses to work in their restaurant. Meanwhile Wawa (a gas station chain) is offering $500 bonus + 1 day PTO when you get your vaccine AND $75 to get your vaccine.
Gee I wonder why someone isn't signing up to a $200 bonus to get paid hopefully $8 an hour after tips!
Like when the employer says, no, you aren't getting a raise, but here is a one time $1000 bonus. Taking advantage of people's delay discounting ...
otoh, in the context where you do not feel like you can count on keeping the job, then bonuses become more appealing than incremental wage increases.
otoh, in the context where you do not feel like you can count on keeping the job, then bonuses become more appealing than incremental wage increases.
If the U.S. were to double the minimum wage from $7 to $15, it would make sense to invest in robotics firms, or perhaps the largest fast food chains like McDonald's.
Why? Because lower-price restaurants would have a choice: dramatically raise their food prices (which would almost certainly drive inflation across the board as everyone in all industries would hopefully see raises to deal with increased costs of living) or try to minimize the hit. If the latter, this would set off an immediate price war, even if unintentional, because McDonald's especially would strive to keep their prices from changing as little as possible.
Then, the smaller chains that couldn't afford to reduce their workforce and/or invest in efficiency or robotics wouldn't survive. You would see less competitive chains like Popeye's closing up on Interstate exits, and their marketshare would be handed over to the larger chains.
The unintended consequences of a massive shift like that would be enormous, and it would absolutely result in a stronger national chains and probably destroy or badly harm local eateries -- especially the ones that were trying to be price competitive. Get ready to see your local small businesses under severe pressure, while profitable operations like McDonald's and Chik-Fil-A will mop up the smaller places, and this is across the board at any low-skill, low-wage places, not just restaurants.
Why? Because lower-price restaurants would have a choice: dramatically raise their food prices (which would almost certainly drive inflation across the board as everyone in all industries would hopefully see raises to deal with increased costs of living) or try to minimize the hit. If the latter, this would set off an immediate price war, even if unintentional, because McDonald's especially would strive to keep their prices from changing as little as possible.
Then, the smaller chains that couldn't afford to reduce their workforce and/or invest in efficiency or robotics wouldn't survive. You would see less competitive chains like Popeye's closing up on Interstate exits, and their marketshare would be handed over to the larger chains.
The unintended consequences of a massive shift like that would be enormous, and it would absolutely result in a stronger national chains and probably destroy or badly harm local eateries -- especially the ones that were trying to be price competitive. Get ready to see your local small businesses under severe pressure, while profitable operations like McDonald's and Chik-Fil-A will mop up the smaller places, and this is across the board at any low-skill, low-wage places, not just restaurants.
Over the last twelve years, the federal minimum wage has been constant. Over that same time period, the cost of a Big Mac has gone up by about 25%.
Since 1997, the federal minimum wage has gone up by 40%. Over that same time period the cost of a Big Mac has gone up by 100%.
Perhaps the relationship between minimum wage and fast food prices isn’t linear.
In addition, the federal nature of the US means that we’ve had lots of different trials, and the results are that your expected result doesn’t happen in states with higher minimum wages, but only by a small amount. In addition, a whole body of scientific research has found that your expected effect doesn’t happen.
Minimum wage history from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart. Big Mac prices from https://www.eatthis.com/big-mac-cost/ with some interpolation to match the years that the minimum wage changed.
Since 1997, the federal minimum wage has gone up by 40%. Over that same time period the cost of a Big Mac has gone up by 100%.
Perhaps the relationship between minimum wage and fast food prices isn’t linear.
In addition, the federal nature of the US means that we’ve had lots of different trials, and the results are that your expected result doesn’t happen in states with higher minimum wages, but only by a small amount. In addition, a whole body of scientific research has found that your expected effect doesn’t happen.
Minimum wage history from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart. Big Mac prices from https://www.eatthis.com/big-mac-cost/ with some interpolation to match the years that the minimum wage changed.
The big mac index was created to compare relative currency strengths, but if you can use it to get a view into the price of big macs internationally. A big mac costs €4.25 in the euro area and US$5.66 as of Dec 2020. So in nations that have better minimum wages, and much more complete safety nets (and more taxes), the big mac is actually cheaper. (maybe that reflects the lower cost of universal healthcare)
https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index
Note there are high safety net nations both above and below the US cost of Big mac, which signals that maybe something else is afoot there. But certainly there is enough variation to dispel that unemployment benefits are correlated the cost of the big mac.
https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index
Note there are high safety net nations both above and below the US cost of Big mac, which signals that maybe something else is afoot there. But certainly there is enough variation to dispel that unemployment benefits are correlated the cost of the big mac.
The federal minimum wage is a distraction since so many states have higher ones.
The prices are similarly high across the country. They’re definitely a bit higher in NYC compared to Alabama, but not at all proportional to the minimum wage. In addition, NYC has much higher costs for properties so there’s an expected difference in price.
This is a 6 year old study, but it says that raising minimum wage to $15 would increase fast food prices 4.3%. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/study-raisi...
Only by ignoring the fact that it's not just the workers in the business itself. There will be supply chain effects also.
Wages are not 100% of current food prices.
I don't know what they are, but it isn't 100%, which is what it would take to require doubling prices to cover doubled wages.
I don't know what they are, but it isn't 100%, which is what it would take to require doubling prices to cover doubled wages.
That is true, but it is why I said "nearly". The largest cost in any fast food restaurant is almost certainly labor.
Labor costs are obviously not nearly 100% of revenue, no one would bother operating a franchise.
They're nearly 100% of total costs, not of revenue.
Doubling prices would double (incremental) revenue.
No it wouldn't, because with those higher prices, you'd have fewer sales.
Edit: Incremental revenue? Okay, that it would double, but so what?
Edit: Incremental revenue? Okay, that it would double, but so what?
Wages obviously aren't the only significant cost is all. I was being chippy with the first comment about revenue, because that's the corner the other poster decided to argue from, that wages are the most significant cost (which I combined with their earlier implication that doubling wages would nearly double prices, a statement that implies the starting wages more or less match the starting revenue).
Three things, one they are already automating so wages don't have anything to do with it.
two, I love how you're carrying water and claiming they'd need to raise prices by 100% to cover a higher wage, when the CEO doesn't have share concern.
https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/mcdonalds-ceo-chain-will...
and three in Australia where the minimum wage is nearly $20 an hour, the food prices are only a little higher.
https://www.aussieprices.com.au/mcdonalds-prices/
so your concern is proven by the CEO of the company and reality to be nonsense.
two, I love how you're carrying water and claiming they'd need to raise prices by 100% to cover a higher wage, when the CEO doesn't have share concern.
https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/mcdonalds-ceo-chain-will...
and three in Australia where the minimum wage is nearly $20 an hour, the food prices are only a little higher.
https://www.aussieprices.com.au/mcdonalds-prices/
so your concern is proven by the CEO of the company and reality to be nonsense.
Read my comment again. You will see that what I'm actually saying is that McDonalds and other large national chains would actually end up stronger after hiking minimum wage.
"Then, the smaller chains that couldn't afford to reduce their workforce and/or invest in efficiency or robotics wouldn't survive. You would see less competitive chains like Popeye's closing up on Interstate exits, and their marketshare would be handed over to the larger chains."
That's sort of the point of productivity improvements. You either invest capital or you die.
Exactly why should poor people prop up poor businesses with low capital depth because "what about the jobs"?
Kalecki warned about this as far back as 1943.
https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-em...
That's sort of the point of productivity improvements. You either invest capital or you die.
Exactly why should poor people prop up poor businesses with low capital depth because "what about the jobs"?
Kalecki warned about this as far back as 1943.
https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-em...
I'm in a relatively rural location "in the sticks" and the local businesses have been offering $15/hr or more for evenings/weekends for over four years and I assume because they still have the signs up they're not filling enough positions.
Are these claims based on anything but "common sense"?
I always find it fascinating that nobody mentions the elephant in the room with regards to minimum wage. Instead of raising the price of goods (BigMac in this case), there is a much simpler answer - reduce profit.
Given that McDonald's makes approximately $10B in profit per year [1], I think everyone up the chain will still be able to keep their mansions and multiple homes if it only makes a couple of billion in profit each year.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/gros...
Given that McDonald's makes approximately $10B in profit per year [1], I think everyone up the chain will still be able to keep their mansions and multiple homes if it only makes a couple of billion in profit each year.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/gros...
Anybody thought of increasing the minimum wage instead?
I don't think this would help, since there's already a lot of businesses offering significantly over minimum wage that are still having trouble finding employees.
maybe all the rioters will go back to flipping burgers and bagging groceries now.
Paying enough unemployment for people to survive damages the reserve army of the unemployed. It's important to remember that capitalists and communists basically agree on most economic points, they just disagree on the most ethical distribution of resources.
OH WAIT.
https://www.mtpr.org/post/industry-experts-talk-about-challe...
I knew I remembered this. There was a damn "labor shortage" in Montana before the pandemic.
I knew I remembered this. There was a damn "labor shortage" in Montana before the pandemic.
Sounds to me like labor wage expectations have gone up, and businesses aren't reacting accordingly. As I recall, many minimum wage-$13 an hour jobs find better returns on unemployment benefits than actually working. (I don't see this as a problem with the government program either; wage theft is a real thing).
I wonder how many of the people not working are long covid cases.
“Different papers have established that the extra $600 in benefits distributed earlier in the pandemic had limited labor supply effects and likely didn’t disincentivize work, including one by the National Bureau of Economic Research and another by Yale University. The current supplemental benefit is worth half of what those papers reviewed.”