Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Ottakee

Impact of $600 unemployment bonus and people going back to work

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Where are the funds for unemployment benefits and [potentially] forgivable business loans coming from? 

State unemployment benefits should be funded through state unemployment insurance programs.

The federal bonus for unemployment and the business loans are being funded by federal government deficit spending.  The US government is borrowing money today, which means taxes in the future will have to be collected to pay for this. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Where are the funds for unemployment benefits and [potentially] forgivable business loans coming from? 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-unemployment-the-last-time-edd-jobless-fund-went-broke-taxes-jumped/
“California is borrowing money to keep paying unemployment claims ushered in by a feeble job market infected by the coronavirus, state officials have confirmed.

It’s not clear how California might repay the federal government for the money it is borrowing — or how much money the state will require — but the last time the state had to borrow to keep the unemployment insurance fund afloat, tax costs for businesses rose.

It’s a dreary scenario, but one with a precedent triggered by the last recession: A trust fund supervised by the state’s Employment Development Department, or EDD, runs out of money to pay a rising tide of unemployment claims. That, in turn, forces cash-strapped California to borrow from the U.S. government to keep the jobless fund afloat and capable of making payments to displaced workers.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 2:59 PM, Teresa in MO said:

What I find unfair is if you were say a restaurant worker that got laid off and is collecting around $900 a week unemployment vs.  an "essential" grocery store clerk who is definitely not laid off and working probably extra hours is only making half of that.  And the grocery store clerk is the one being exposed over and over probably.  I have 2 sons and one son-in-law who work in grocery stores and while their employers will give them a leave if they are uncomfortable working it is unpaid, plus they have to pay for the portion of their health insurance that the company was paying.  They cannot file for unemployment for taking a voluntary leave.  You have 18 year olds collecting almost $4000 a month unemployment.  That is almost more than my late dh brought in when he passed.

At least here, restaurant servers would generally make significantly more money than a grocery store clerk, but the grocery store employee would likely have better benefits. Here servers are paid minimum wage (one of the highest in the nation) plus tips. My son knows young adults who make close to six figures being servers in our largest city. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frances said:

At least here, restaurant servers would generally make significantly more money than a grocery store clerk, but the grocery store employee would likely have better benefits. Here servers are paid minimum wage (one of the highest in the nation) plus tips. My son knows young adults who make close to six figures being servers in our largest city. 

I was not really talking about restaurant servers, but more like fast food.  Even though they are open for drive thru not all workers were needed or kept.  A better example would be a worker at a department store that was closed or the 18 year old library shelving clerk.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'm reading news stories saying that for the Paycheck Protection Program loans to be forgiven, the business maintain the number of employees they had before the shut down. So that's going to be another driver here, because workers will lose their UE if not willing to return assuming reasonable changes have been made and employers are motivated to FIRE if they don't get those employees back so they can rehire. 

https://www.nbc4i.com/community/health/coronavirus/as-ohio-reopens-workers-have-rights-as-they-return-to-work/

And then this article makes the interesting point that if someone feels strongly about not wearing a mask, they're screwed for returning to work as masks are mandated for employees except in rare cases. https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/2020/05/11/ohio-masks-mandatory-recommended-retail-open-coronavirus-order/3098855001/  So this will continue to get interesting, if 50% of the people in my area (not where this news article is from btw) are not wearing masks but then are going to be compelled to to return to work. On the other hand, we could have a demographic where a percentage of non mask wearers also don't work. (retired, stay at home, whatever). Still, interesting. It's a mind control experiment in a way. And when does it END? When do they either accept a certain level of sickness (like they do the flu) or get the numbers low enough (with their infamous contact tracing) that they can tell workers they don't HAVE to wear masks? Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work. So it's nice for a politician, not so nice for everyone else. But how long is this going to go on? Could be the next tipping point. People who feel they're being made sick or harmed by the mask mandate are going to lose tolerance for it.

Edited by PeterPan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 8:07 AM, Ottakee said:

How will the $600 unemployment bonus affect people going back to work?

My state is opening up manufacturing next week.   That means many people will be going back to work (but governor gave lots of exemptions for workers).  Most manufacturing jobs in my area pay $12-16/hour.   Unemployment is now paying around $24/hour.  That means people that do go back to work will be making far less money now.  Then add in child care costs and travel expenses and this could be a big financial hit to them.

Similarly, so many of the essential workers that have been working all along are earning maybe 1/2 of what they would on unemployment.

I know, personally, I am earning far less working in education than I would be on unemployment.

A couple of thoughts, because sometimes things strike me differently than others. 

First, this bonus is temporary and was put in place partly to encourage people to stay home. When it runs out it is unlikely to get extended in its current form. 

Second, going back to work isn’t really a financial hit. It is a return to the status quo. While I agree too many people are underpaid, going back to work and it’s accompanying expenses and benefits is something that the people involved are normally managing. If they are unable to secure child care as a direct result of the limitations (school aged children for example) then staying home and drawing unemployment until the school year would normally end is a legitimate thing to do. I believe most, of not all, states are allowing this. 

Third, there is a point at which a person becomes willingly unemployed - for example if they are called back to work and just decide not to go back, Those folks will no longer qualify for unemployment and the $600 is irrelevant. 

Fourth, this may be pie in the sky thinking, but the general public has gained a new awareness of the relatively low pay many receive. Hopefully this will mean that there will be an overall push towards changes in compensation. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TechWife said:

A couple of thoughts, because sometimes things strike me differently than others. 

First, this bonus is temporary and was put in place partly to encourage people to stay home. When it runs out it is unlikely to get extended in its current form. 

Second, going back to work isn’t really a financial hit. It is a return to the status quo. While I agree too many people are underpaid, going back to work and it’s accompanying expenses and benefits is something that the people involved are normally managing. If they are unable to secure child care as a direct result of the limitations (school aged children for example) then staying home and drawing unemployment until the school year would normally end is a legitimate thing to do. I believe most, of not all, states are allowing this. 

 

Note that a lot of the camps people use for childcare during the summer have also already been cancelled.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

Note that a lot of the camps people use for childcare during the summer have also already been cancelled.

Summer camps and childcare are allowed to operate here for working parents who are working outside their homes. Childcare was never closed during shelter in place because essential workers need childcare. YMCA open up childcare for essential workers since the demand is there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Summer camps and childcare are allowed to operate here for working parents who are working outside their homes. Childcare was never closed during shelter in place because essential workers need childcare. YMCA open up childcare for essential workers since the demand is there. 

They may be allowed to operate. But in many cases they are choosing not to (or have not opened up registration yet)  Our normal summer camps is still saying they are evaluating the possibilities.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

 Our normal summer camps is still saying they are evaluating the possibilities.

 

Our normal summer camps aren’t allowed to operate yet. Only those for parents working outside their homes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'm reading news stories saying that for the Paycheck Protection Program loans to be forgiven, the business maintain the number of employees they had before the shut down. So that's going to be another driver here, because workers will lose their UE if not willing to return assuming reasonable changes have been made and employers are motivated to FIRE if they don't get those employees back so they can rehire. 

https://www.nbc4i.com/community/health/coronavirus/as-ohio-reopens-workers-have-rights-as-they-return-to-work/

And then this article makes the interesting point that if someone feels strongly about not wearing a mask, they're screwed for returning to work as masks are mandated for employees except in rare cases. https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/2020/05/11/ohio-masks-mandatory-recommended-retail-open-coronavirus-order/3098855001/  So this will continue to get interesting, if 50% of the people in my area (not where this news article is from btw) are not wearing masks but then are going to be compelled to to return to work. On the other hand, we could have a demographic where a percentage of non mask wearers also don't work. (retired, stay at home, whatever). Still, interesting. It's a mind control experiment in a way. And when does it END? When do they either accept a certain level of sickness (like they do the flu) or get the numbers low enough (with their infamous contact tracing) that they can tell workers they don't HAVE to wear masks? Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work. So it's nice for a politician, not so nice for everyone else. But how long is this going to go on? Could be the next tipping point. People who feel they're being made sick or harmed by the mask mandate are going to lose tolerance for it.

In many places, healthcare workers have already dealt with this for years. Either get a flu vaccine or wear a mask during the entire flu season. And how in the world is it a mind control experiment?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Our normal summer camps aren’t allowed to operate yet. Only those for parents working outside their homes. 

These are the camps that normally serve parents working outside the homes. (Keep kids all day, provide various sorts of activities).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

These are the camps that normally serve parents working outside the homes. (Keep kids all day, provide various sorts of activities).

I understand. However now these camps are not open to all public. I can’t send my kids but my paramedic neighbors can send their kids. So there is no point in open registration since it’s not open to all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work.  

I read the article and think this is a huge overreach.

The closest to an actual sickness complaint that I see is the person who says workers breathe in too much CO2 over the ten hours they wear the mask provided by their company. This can give you headaches but is very unlikely to cause any kind of actual sickness. We know this because healthcare workers deal with it all the time. 

People deal with intrusive requirements all the time based on safety protocols at work. You may work in a refinery and be unable to have a full beard, because it interferes with the fit of the mask you need to put on in an emergency. My dh had to shave part of his facial hair just for a visit, he doesn't even work there! But those are the rules, and he wants to sell to them, so there ya go. He has the freedom to refuse to do it, and they have the freedom to refuse him entry. 

If people feel so strongly about having to wear a mask that they refuse to do so, that's their decision to make. It will come with both good and bad consequences like any decision. I have asthma and severe allergies and I do get the 'this mask is suffocating me' feeling. It would be extremely difficult for me to keep a mask on all day. The difference is that I regard that as my problem to solve. I suck it up or I work elsewhere. So many people want to scream about liberty and freedom and independence, without seeing the irony of wanting someone else to solve the problems they have in wearing masks. 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frances said:

In many places, healthcare workers have already dealt with this for years. Either get a flu vaccine or wear a mask during the entire flu season. And how in the world is it a mind control experiment?

 

Actually hospital employees have to keep all of their immunizations up to date, including the flu vaccine as a condition of their employment. No vaccines, no job. 

However your point stands because there are many scenarios in which employees are required to wear masks and it’s just part of the job. 

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bootsie said:

State unemployment benefits should be funded through state unemployment insurance programs.

The federal bonus for unemployment and the business loans are being funded by federal government deficit spending.  The US government is borrowing money today, which means taxes in the future will have to be collected to pay for this. 

Well, we paid for the last couple of decades of war with a credit card, and still managed to give certain people massive tax breaks and everything was hunky dory, so why be concerned with this??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, katilac said:

I have asthma and severe allergies and I do get the 'this mask is suffocating me' feeling. It would be extremely difficult for me to keep a mask on all day. The difference is that I regard that as my problem to solve. I suck it up or I work elsewhere.

I switched from civil engineering as a career to computer science because of asthma. My kids are opting for computer science as major for similar reasons. My mom quit her nurse job because of bronchitis that was probably acquired at her urgent care workplace. Luckily my parents did not need my mom’s income by then as the mortgage was already paid off. 

I think that people who have health difficulties with mask would have to gravitate to home based work for the short term or permanently, like Etsy shops, tutoring online, work from home medical billing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Well, we paid for the last couple of decades of war with a credit card, and still managed to give certain people massive tax breaks and everything was hunky dory, so why be concerned with this??

Because of the vastly reduced tax revenues and rapidly contracting economy, I would think. There was no government or virus mandated economic shutdown during those other things you mentioned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Well, we paid for the last couple of decades of war with a credit card, and still managed to give certain people massive tax breaks and everything was hunky dory, so why be concerned with this??

First, I would disagree that everything was hunky dory.  But irresponsible spending during one time period doesn't change the economic reality of what happens when there is more borrowing to pay for even more spending in a future time period.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother is one of the people getting more on UI than he usually earns.  He earns about $18/hr but works 32.5 hours a week (paraeducator/instructional assistant/teaching assistant for sped students).  
 

They could have made the $600 add’l weekly amount an “up to” payment that added up to $600, for a total of no more than 90-100% of your average weekly wage but that would cost more money to administer and slow down the distribution of payments.  
 

He can’t go back to work until September but the extra amount stops in July.  He has a child at high risk and he himself is disabled so I think it’s great he’s able to stay home and not have to go and get a high risk job somewhere.  
 

The social safety network is so feeble and has screwed him over more times than not, so honestly, I don’t think it’s a problem that for once it’s working out in low income people’s favor.  I do not resent that I am still working at my regular billing rates (and clients are slower to pay) just because some folks who don’t enjoy the privilege I have (able to work from home, self employed, much higher than the median income) are getting a bit extra in UI.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

My brother is one of the people getting more on UI than he usually earns.  He earns about $18/hr but works 32.5 hours a week (paraeducator/instructional assistant/teaching assistant for sped students).  
 

May I ask what state your brother lives in?  I do the same job (and have my special education Teaching certificate too) but make far less an hour.    It is our contract year and I would love to hear what other states/areas are paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EmseB said:

Because of the vastly reduced tax revenues and rapidly contracting economy, I would think. There was no government or virus mandated economic shutdown during those other things you mentioned.

But the TCJA gave massive tax cuts, primarily to the wealthy and corporations, during a long period of economic expansion following the Great Recession and resulted in ever increasing deficits while we still have crumbling infrastructure. At least my state was smart enough to save during the good times after the recession and now we are in the top five among states for best financial position to weather this economic crisis.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ottakee said:

May I ask what state your brother lives in?  I do the same job (and have my special education Teaching certificate too) but make far less an hour.    It is our contract year and I would love to hear what other states/areas are paying.


We are in Western Washington/Seattle area.  Cost of living is very high.  
 

He’s a temp hire with about 1 year on the job.  
 

He’s in a lower paid district for our area.  I think he started at $16.  In my district, paras are paid between $20-24/hr.  Certificated sped teachers make a fair bit more than that.  He was a SAHD for a decade and went through a divorce recently.  His long term plan to to get a sped teaching license or perhaps a degree in social work.  
 

Because he missed some work when my niece was very sick and he’d been working for less than a year and didn’t work last summer, his weekly UI benefit would have been about $200.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 10:09 AM, kdsuomi said:

They're supposed to, but I don't know that all companies (especially smaller) will. 

 

Since their UI rates for 2021 are based on how many people draw benefits from their account, yes, small businesses have a BIG incentive to report people who just quit their jobs/won't come back to work even if safety protocols and social distancing is being followed.  All of my clients are small non-profits and churches.  Most have everyone working from home.  I just responded to inquiries from the state UI office about three different workers from two different organizations and the circumstances around their employment terminations.  1 of the workers was offered work from home but just refuses to work.  I am documenting everything.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I know how unemployment works. I do feel that many small businesses will think it will make term look bad if they report people. Even on this thread we have people equating it to either taking an incredibly unsafe job (not true) or their families starving (also not true). At times like this small businesses can't afford any bad publicity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PeterPan said:

And then this article makes the interesting point that if someone feels strongly about not wearing a mask, they're screwed for returning to work as masks are mandated for employees except in rare cases. https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/2020/05/11/ohio-masks-mandatory-recommended-retail-open-coronavirus-order/3098855001/  So this will continue to get interesting, if 50% of the people in my area (not where this news article is from btw) are not wearing masks but then are going to be compelled to to return to work. On the other hand, we could have a demographic where a percentage of non mask wearers also don't work. (retired, stay at home, whatever). Still, interesting. It's a mind control experiment in a way. And when does it END? When do they either accept a certain level of sickness (like they do the flu) or get the numbers low enough (with their infamous contact tracing) that they can tell workers they don't HAVE to wear masks? Workers in this article are making serious complaints about sickness and problems from wearing masks while doing physical work. So it's nice for a politician, not so nice for everyone else. But how long is this going to go on? Could be the next tipping point. People who feel they're being made sick or harmed by the mask mandate are going to lose tolerance for it.

I read the article, and am surprised to see so many people who seem to have some kind of philosophical objection to masks and/or think a mask is going to harm them. It sounds like perhaps they have been watching some of the conspiracy theory videos or the debunked doctors from Bakersfield. That’s really too bad 😕.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kand said:

I read the article, and am surprised to see so many people who seem to have some kind of philosophical objection to masks and/or think a mask is going to harm them. It sounds like perhaps they have been watching some of the conspiracy theory videos or the debunked doctors from Bakersfield. That’s really too bad 😕.

Well I thought the *range* of answers was interesting. If someone is living in an area that is more homogenous, they might be really surprised or tend to think this is just a bunch of hicks blowing steam. But they're quoting so many people, it's noteworthy. I'm seeing it in other places too. I follow a blog about Disney, and reaction to the suggestion that the parks would *require* masks in the US was almost much more negative than I thought it would be. Mostly negative, not even 50/50. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

. But they're quoting so many people, it's noteworthy.

I agree it’s noteworthy. I don’t know about hicks blowing off steam, I’m just saying it sounds like the consequence of so many millions of people having watched the conspiracy videos that have been going around, and that’s too bad that the makers have succeeded in getting so many people to believe things that aren’t true.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

Again, I know how unemployment works. I do feel that many small businesses will think it will make term look bad if they report people. Even on this thread we have people equating it to either taking an incredibly unsafe job (not true) or their families starving (also not true). At times like this small businesses can't afford any bad publicity. 

On the other had, would it be better publicity that the business is breaking the law and is cooperating with the fraudulent employees?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kand said:

I agree it’s noteworthy. I don’t know about hicks blowing off steam, I’m just saying it sounds like the consequence of so many millions of people having watched the conspiracy videos that have been going around, and that’s too bad that the makers have succeeded in getting so many people to believe things that aren’t true.

I've never seen a conspiracy video so I have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe the only "conspiracy" out there is within the movement/people who say dissent is not allowed, that we cannot question, that we have to blindly shut up, that no one has the right to say what they want their country to look like. I mean literally LOOK like. And for someone to say well they HAVE to wear masks, it HAS to be that way, well isn't that the point, that a whole swath want to question that and people are saying no, not allowed, can't ask that, can't say that. 

I think Disney's going to have a problem. We'll see how fast they pedal their bikes. If Orlando is not requiring when they open Disney to tourists from outside FL, then I would expect it to drop. They can expect a massive falloff if they don't. 

So I'm trying to look this up, because I'm wondering what FL is doing. It looks like they're deciding mask policies at the county level. And Miami has a little problem, because in one day 600+ people at the park refused to comply with their policy that people should wear a mask while walking in the park. https://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2020/05/01/very-challenging-florida-city-issues-652-face-mask-warnings-1st-day-back-in-parks/  Seriously. Outside. That's not science, that's mind control. That's attempting to BREAK people and say they must fear, they must fear every moment, that we must become like China. And people are rejecting it. 

So we'll have it out with people pushing back, lawsuits, back pedaling. The people have to decide what they want their country to be. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

On the other had, would it be better publicity that the business is breaking the law and is cooperating with the fraudulent employees?  

I think it would in many places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 I think Disney's going to have a problem. We'll see how fast they pedal their bikes. If Orlando is not requiring when they open Disney to tourists from outside FL, then I would expect it to drop. They can expect a massive falloff if they don't. <snip>

So I'm trying to look this up, because I'm wondering what FL is doing. It looks like they're deciding mask policies at the county level. And Miami has a little problem, because in one day 600+ people at the park refused to comply with their policy that people should wear a mask while walking in the park. <snip>  That's not science, that's mind control.  

In the first paragraph, do you mean Disney World can expect a massive falloff in number of attendees if they require masks and Orlando doesn't? I wouldn't agree with that.  Local attendees, perhaps, although I still doubt it would be massive. From what I'm reading and hearing, tons of people are raring to get to Disney. And there would be breaks from wearing the masks: you obviously can't wear them while eating and I'm guessing not while you're on certain rides. When I'm in line and such, I would definitely want those around me in masks (even if they have virtual queues, you have to converge together at some point to enter). 

To the second part, I agree that they shouldn't require masks while walkin in the park unless there are complicating factors I'm unaware of, but I'm not sure that 652 people not wearing them the first day is necessarily a huge amount, or that all of them were 'refusing' to wear the mask. Miami is huge and they've been stuck at home, I can't imagine the number of people flooding the parks right now. A fair number of people may have simply forgotten their masks, and I'm sure a very large number were testing the waters to see if it was 'really' required. 

It's a bridge too far to call bad policy "mind control." 

Edited by katilac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, katilac said:

do you mean Disney World can expect a massive falloff in number of attendees if they require masks and Orlando doesn't? I wouldn't agree with that.  Local attendees, perhaps, although I still doubt it would be massive.

I guess we'll just see. I'm planning a trip back, been saving my nickels, so I'm watching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

I guess we'll just see. I'm planning a trip back, been saving my nickels, so I'm watching. 

Will you go if they require masks? Would that be too difficult for your ds? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Will you go if they require masks? Would that be too difficult for your ds? 

There's actually going to be a lot more interesting situation than that, because I was stacking the brief Disney trip with a cruise. So some of how this goes down will reflect what's going on in the port location and at the state level. I will make a decision as I get closer and see what's happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-staggering-number-of-laid-off-workers-are-receiving-more-money-from-unemployment-benefits-than-when-they-were-employed-2020-05-26
A staggering number of laid-off workers are receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they did from their jobs

As federal lawmakers debate another relief package for the coronavirus pandemic that’s put approximately 35 million Americans out of work, a new study shows how generous (or not) the added unemployment benefits were in the initial stimulus bill addressing the crisis.

Two-thirds (68%) of jobless workers would bring home more money from their state unemployment insurance and $600 weekly supplement from the federal government than they would on the job, according to University of Chicago researchers. 

In fact, one in every five eligible workers would receive benefits that were at least double their lost earnings, added the researchers, who emphasized that they weren’t taking a position on whether the benefits were too much or too little.

The median earnings-replacement rate was 134% of lost wages, they estimated. In every state, the median earnings-replacement rate exceeded lost wages, ranging from 129% in Maryland to 177% in New Mexico. 

The supplemental $600 weekly benefit was one part of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act that also included direct $1,200 checks to most Americans, and potentially forgivable business loans. The additional jobless benefits expire at the end of July.

The Chicago study, distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research this week, said the benefit was a “substantial income expansion” for lower-income workers but pointed out that many workers might have also lost health insurance when they lost their wages.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 1:38 PM, hippiemamato3 said:

And so the choice comes down to work under unsafe conditions, or starve. Interesting that anyone would think that's acceptable. 

Reality is that people do have to work to produce food and other essentials for society. Having people work isn’t a choice, it’s a necessity.

Employers seem to be doing their best to make conditions as safe as possible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...