Second stimulus check

[Lanny]

4 hours ago, hippiemamato3 said:

I agree that the unemployment situation is an issue, but that's mostly because many Americans are not paid a living wage. 

 

A few minutes ago, I read that 68% of the people who are receiving the $600 weekly unemployment benefit are receiving more money each week than they normally make when they are working. Possibly 2X what they normally make (I don't memorize so am not sure about the percentage for that)

There are many businesses trying to get their employees to return to work and the employees won't return to work and those businesses can't reopen. Many businesses will fail  because their employees won't return to work.

 

 

[hippiemamato3]

22 minutes ago, Lanny said:

 

A few minutes ago, I read that 68% of the people who are receiving the $600 weekly unemployment benefit are receiving more money each week than they normally make when they are working. Possibly 2X what they normally make (I don't memorize so am not sure about the percentage for that)

There are many businesses trying to get their employees to return to work and the employees won't return to work and those businesses can't reopen. Many businesses will fail  because their employees won't return to work.

 

 

Can you blame them? If they are living in poverty, no wonder they are enjoying being able to breathe a bit! The employers need to increase the amount they are paying their customers so they don't HAVE to rely on government support. 

[Bootsie]

41 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Can you blame them? If they are living in poverty, no wonder they are enjoying being able to breathe a bit! The employers need to increase the amount they are paying their customers so they don't HAVE to rely on government support. 

I know a fair number of people in this situation--none of whom are living in poverty.  Just about every high school and college person who works part-time and lives in an upper middle class household has found themselves in that situation. DS's employer went out of business and he was making more on unemployment than he was working.  Another business opened and offered him a job.  He debated what to do, knowing that he would make less working than he would staying home.  But, he did not feel good about himself as an able-bodied young adult sitting at home collecting government money.  So, he accepted the job.  Now, not only has he given up the larger government payment but he is making LESS than he was before COVID.  He is no longer allowed to accept cash tips (which was how much of his pay was received); customers can only pay tips via credit card and most customers are just not tipping rather than going through the hassle of a $2 credit card transaction.  

[Ottakee]

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

 

A few minutes ago, I read that 68% of the people who are receiving the $600 weekly unemployment benefit are receiving more money each week than they normally make when they are working. Possibly 2X what they normally make (I don't memorize so am not sure about the percentage for that)

 

I stayed working.  I am a certified special education teacher but currently employed as a special education paraprofessional.   I could have made more than double my weekly wage if I had been on unemployment.  Sad commentary on the wages education pays.

[JustEm]

2 hours ago, Lanny said:

 

A few minutes ago, I read that 68% of the people who are receiving the $600 weekly unemployment benefit are receiving more money each week than they normally make when they are working. Possibly 2X what they normally make (I don't memorize so am not sure about the percentage for that)

There are many businesses trying to get their employees to return to work and the employees won't return to work and those businesses can't reopen. Many businesses will fail  because their employees won't return to work.

 

 

 

And in my state that is because those businesses were not paying a livable wage to begin with.  Our society has accepted not paying a livable wage for too long because they prefer to pay less for their products.  This is an issue of our societies creation.  I applaud people for realizing they are worth more than what these shitty businesses are willing/able to pay.  Signed the wife of a man who got out of the situation right before everything shut down.  It dh hadn't switched careers in January he would have been collecting more in unemployment than he was making at his job.  And I would have encouraged him to not work for less if he was offered something so he could spend that time looking for something that paid better.

Edited July 26, 2020 by hjffkj

[hippiemamato3]

36 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

They weren't in poverty. Here, a person who makes the full amount makes the equivalent is something like $22 an hour. A person who gets the full amount here definitely makes more than I do, even before the paycut we have to take now, and I'm not underpaid. 

A lot of them were. And $22 an hour isn't great. 

[JustEm]

1 minute ago, hippiemamato3 said:

A lot of them were. And $22 an hour isn't great. 

 

No, it isn't, especially if you have a family to support

[hippiemamato3]

Just now, hjffkj said:

 

No, it isn't, especially if you have a family to support

I'm pretty sure you cannot support a family on $22 an hour. 

[JustEm]

21 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

I'm pretty sure you cannot support a family on $22 an hour. 

You can.  It isn't easy though.  Ask me how I know. Like I said dh just did a complete career switch. And as a non college graduate he has to start at the bottom, which not including bonuses he is just under $22/hour

[Frances]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

They weren't in poverty. Here, a person who makes the full amount makes the equivalent is something like $22 an hour. A person who gets the full amount here definitely makes more than I do, even before the paycut we have to take now, and I'm not underpaid. 

What about those that make less than the full amount? Were they living in poverty or having a difficult time paying for the basics?

[Frances]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

 

I'm not going to argue why it's ok for people not working to make more than those who are working, many of whom are now taking paycuts to continue working and be exposed to all of the risk. Yes, those deemed "essential" are those who are taking the full brunt of this and will continue to. 

That wasn’t my point at all and I don’t think it’s the case that everyone not working is making more than everyone working. We had huge income disparity before this and that hasn’t really changed. And just for full disclosure, my husband is a healthcare worker whose employer has made cuts and we are both still working. It hasn’t even occurred to us to be resentful of anyone collecting unemployment. 

[JustEm]

There are plenty of people making more money on unemployment than they were before.  But no one is getting rich off of unemployment.  Most of those people getting more are basically finally able to catch up, in theory.  Someone above said that in MA one could make $75,000 on unemployment.  But my understanding of MA unemployment is that they would have had to be making $150,000 prior to losing their job in order to be making that much (if I misread it please correct me.)  And while going from $150,000/yr to $75,000/yr is certainly doable, having that hank out from under you isn't just a blip.  It takes time to rearrange things for any massive shift in financials to be normal. and without that $600/week extra help those people who were making $150,000 would only be collecting $44,000, which is a drastic difference.

[SeaConquest]

Perhaps if we taxed billionaires just a wee bit more, people could have a living wage and we wouldn't be having this debate. 

[Moonhawk]

3 hours ago, Lanny said:

 

A few minutes ago, I read that 68% of the people who are receiving the $600 weekly unemployment benefit are receiving more money each week than they normally make when they are working. Possibly 2X what they normally make (I don't memorize so am not sure about the percentage for that)

There are many businesses trying to get their employees to return to work and the employees won't return to work and those businesses can't reopen. Many businesses will fail  because their employees won't return to work.

 

 

 I'm not sure I am reading your intentions/implications clearly: is this information only, or are you implying employees are betraying the employer by not going back to work, or that they are lazy for making a financially reasonable decision that impacts their health as well?

Regardless, I'm appalled that people aren't appalled at those numbers; think about how little we expect people to live on, and then get upset at them when they don't kowtow in thanks for the opportunity to work for those amounts during a pandemic that puts their health at risk [at the very least].

The beauty of at will employment isn't only that you can fire employees without warning or for any reason. It's also that the employee is allowed to leave their position whenever they want (as many employers like to remind their lower employees). And now for the first time many are experiencing a safety net and are possibly able to make their lives better even for a small amount of time. 

We are not talking about cogs in a wheel. We are talking about human beings with the same amount of worth as anyone else. They don't owe their employer anything. 

Pay what the job market will bear, to paraphrase. I hear all of these people are losing their jobs and desperate to be working. If you are paying enough, you'll be able to find someone. If you aren't paying enough, pay more. If you can't pay more, you will adapt to a smaller workforce or go out of business.

Businesses closing will have a ripple effect on the economy and we are all going to suffer. I'm certainly not making light of it or being heartless of the business owner's potential plight. But I'm not going to blame the workers for it, either. If we really need to blame someone else, maybe we should look at lenders and financial institutions and "pass the buck" up instead of down; that's what we normally do when it's real money, anyway.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Moonhawk

[BlsdMama]

1 hour ago, hippiemamato3 said:

A lot of them were. And $22 an hour isn't great. 

I'd say that depends where you live.  My son in law supports his family on less than that.

[JustEm]

10 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

I'd say that depends where you live.  My son in law supports his family on less than that.

It certainly depends on where you live.  We are in a medium cost of living area and can live on $22/hr.  We don't have a lot of the bells and whistles that other people have and even consider necessities.  But we are well fed, sheltered, and are able to save for the future.  It certainly would be easier in a low cost of living area

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Lanny said:

There are many businesses trying to get their employees to return to work and the employees won't return to work and those businesses can't reopen.  

Perhaps they should consider paying a living wage. 

[katilac]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I know a fair number of people in this situation--none of whom are living in poverty.  Just about every high school and college person who works part-time and lives in an upper middle class household has found themselves in that situation. DS's employer went out of business and he was making more on unemployment than he was working.  Another business opened and offered him a job.  He debated what to do, knowing that he would make less working than he would staying home.   

I think "just about every one" is a big exaggeration, because vast numbers of high school and college students work at jobs that kept right on trucking during Covid. Grocery stores, Home Depot, Office Depot, some restaurants. I think our individual perception of that varies depending on where we live and our social circle. You see a bunch of young people making bank when they don't even need it, and others see a bunch of adults who were scraping by and who desperately do need it. Both are true as far as it goes - that is, after all, what you see - but I think the big picture is that a whole bunch of adult workers don't make anywhere near a living wage. 

And you have to take any reasonable job that is offered to you when on unemployment, unless you are willing to lie on a government document and take your chances with the consequences.  

[Bootsie]

23 minutes ago, katilac said:

I think "just about every one" is a big exaggeration, because vast numbers of high school and college students work at jobs that kept right on trucking during Covid. Grocery stores, Home Depot, Office Depot, some restaurants. I think our individual perception of that varies depending on where we live and our social circle. You see a bunch of young people making bank when they don't even need it, and others see a bunch of adults who were scraping by and who desperately do need it. Both are true as far as it goes - that is, after all, what you see - but I think the big picture is that a whole bunch of adult workers don't make anywhere near a living wage. 

And you have to take any reasonable job that is offered to you when on unemployment, unless you are willing to lie on a government document and take your chances with the consequences.  

I didn't say "just about every one". But, I didn't word it well.  In my previous sentence I said that I knew a fair number of people in that situation; and I still meant to be referring to that set of people.  I did not mean to imply that just about every high school or college student is now unemployed and receiving unemployment checks.  

[SereneHome]

3 hours ago, hippiemamato3 said:

A lot of them were. And $22 an hour isn't great. 

Ummmm, that's $45K/yr. I am not sure what you consider great, I consider it pretty damn good!

[hippiemamato3]

1 minute ago, SereneHome said:

Ummmm, that's $45K/yr. I am not sure what you consider great, I consider it pretty damn good!

Wow. It seems really low to me....

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

Perhaps they should consider paying a living wage. 

"Living wage" is such an abstract number and is very subjective.

[SereneHome]

Just now, hippiemamato3 said:

Wow. It seems really low to me....

How is $45K a year low?? Even in HCOL a single  person can very much make it on that amount. Of course, if you are a single parent of 5 then it might be a problem, but then various govt programs might start kicking in.

 

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

How is $45K a year low?? Even in HCOL a single  person can very much make it on that amount. Of course, if you are a single parent of 5 then it might be a problem, but then various govt programs might start kicking in.

 

Taxes. Childcare. Housing. Food. In Little Rock, AR my sister makes this amount and it will be VERY, VERY tight to support herself and her daughter. Little Rock is hardly a HCOL area. Fortunately, she has a federal job with benefits and a wage scale that will consistently increase over time.

With that $3750/mo...

• Taxes $300/mo. Federal, state and local.
• Housing $1200/mo. (2BR apt. in town or 3 BR house 30 minutes away)
• Childcare $1200/mo. (not top of the line either)
• Car & gas $500/mo.
• Utilities $300/mo
• Food, clothes, toiletries, etc.???  ....$250/mo.

 

There is NOTHING left.

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[hippiemamato3]

6 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

How is $45K a year low?? Even in HCOL a single  person can very much make it on that amount. Of course, if you are a single parent of 5 then it might be a problem, but then various govt programs might start kicking in.

 

I live in a fairly HCOL area. A single parent with even one kid couldn't live on that here. Maybe I'm way out of touch with 'average' in this country, but it's definitely low for where we live. 

[SereneHome]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Taxes. Childcare. Housing. Food. In Little Rock, AR my sister makes this amount and it will be VERY, VERY tight to support herself and her daughter. Little Rock is hardly a HCOL area. Fortunately, she has a federal job with benefits and a wage scale that will consistently increase over time.

Oh I know, I get it. I am not saying $45K is rich, but it's doable. I've looked over a lot of people's finances over the last 5 yrs doing tax returns and book keeping for small / mid size businesses. And it's hardly ever simple as just increasing wages bc of the ripple effect it has.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Oh I know, I get it. I am not saying $45K is rich, but it's doable. I've looked over a lot of people's finances over the last 5 yrs doing tax returns and book keeping for small / mid size businesses. And it's hardly ever simple as just increasing wages bc of the ripple effect it has.

 

It's doable only by sacrificing safety/security in housing and quality childcare.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

I live in a fairly HCOL area. A single parent with even one kid couldn't live on that here. Maybe I'm way out of touch with 'average' in this country, but it's definitely low for where we live. 

 

It's low for most places. People only get by on it by scrimping where they can. I have discussed with my sister looking at a 1BR apartment in a safer/more secure area vs. a house further out that will require more gas and increased transportation expenses, for ex.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[SereneHome]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

 

It's doable only by sacrificing safety/security in housing and quality childcare.

How much does your  sister pays for housing?

Childcare - it depends hugely on an area and age of the child. I used to belong to money / moms forum and the range of pricing for child care was mind boggling.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

How much does your  sister pays for housing?

Childcare - it depends hugely on an area and age of the child. I used to belong to money / moms forum and the range of pricing for child care was mind boggling.

 

Currently, $1500/mo for a 2 BR and she is looking to downsize. DH and I paid $1200/mo for toddler care 10 years ago in LR. She will need infant care. These are the going rates for quality care.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[SereneHome]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Currently, $1500/mo for a 2 BR and she is looking to downsize. DH and I paid $1200/mo for toddler care 10 years ago in LR. She will need infant care. These are the going rates for quality care.

and she won't get any assistance for child care? Or child support

Bc then yep, that's really hard. By my very rough calculations, $45K is about $3K month take home, which she would be spending on housing and care.

But still....there is no way all jobs can be paying $50K/yr to start. That's just not feasible at all. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

and she won't get any assistance for child care? Or child support

Bc then yep, that's really hard. By my very rough calculations, $45K is about $3K month take home, which she would be spending on housing and care.

But still....there is no way all jobs can be paying $50K/yr to start. That's just not feasible at all. 

 

A) No, because 45K is over the federal poverty guidelines and B) no.

Fundamentally, the work she's doing is worth more than she is being paid. Fortunately, she has accepted a job with automatic step increases in pay. That same job, on the STATE pay scale is paid $15K less. There is no rhyme or reason for that disparity. This is a degreed, salaried position and she needed a master's degree to get it.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Bootsie]

29 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Ummmm, that's $45K/yr. I am not sure what you consider great, I consider it pretty damn good!

That is at about the second quintile for household income in the US.  It is about TWICE the median household income for some counties in Texas.  It is just about in the ballpark of the median wage of worker in the US.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

That is at about the second quintile for household income in the US.  It is about TWICE the median household income for some counties in Texas.  It is just about in the ballpark of the median wage of worker in the US.

 

Which is precisely why the food pantry and soup kitchen lines are so long.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Moonhawk]

7 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I know a fair number of people in this situation--none of whom are living in poverty.  Just about every high school and college person who works part-time and lives in an upper middle class household has found themselves in that situation. DS's employer went out of business and he was making more on unemployment than he was working.  Another business opened and offered him a job.  He debated what to do, knowing that he would make less working than he would staying home.  But, he did not feel good about himself as an able-bodied young adult sitting at home collecting government money.  So, he accepted the job.  Now, not only has he given up the larger government payment but he is making LESS than he was before COVID.  He is no longer allowed to accept cash tips (which was how much of his pay was received); customers can only pay tips via credit card and most customers are just not tipping rather than going through the hassle of a $2 credit card transaction.  

It sounds more like you know a fair number of people who didn't really need jobs in the first place and only lost disposable income, and so are not being impacted the way that people who actually need jobs are. Or, perhaps they did need the jobs but have another extra safety net (family) who are able to cushion the blow.

I don't think that the fact these people fall into the safety net means the safety net isn't saving more people from actual disaster. Or that the safety net isn't working as intended. Or that the safety net is too good or too much, it just means the cliff that some people were desperately clinging to was very sharp and in order to save those people some others were also fortunately caught from a much shorter fall.

[the rest of my post is more of an "and also", and doesn't really tie to the post I'm quoting.]

Especially with the uncertainty going forward for many, just a couple extra weeks with the $600 could make the difference of how much food they have for a couple months. You can feed a family of 6 on at least $340/month and probably less if you needed to (though you may not exactly like what you are eating and there may be some grumbly tummies and grumbling mouths). Just 1 extra week of $600 can make that happen. 

Even if the wolf isn't at the door that hungrily, it is still helpful and also a useful way to help repair consumer confidence in the middle of all this. I thought we were concerned about the economy?

If you sincerely think someone getting $2400/month for a few months (which are ending) has been an unfair economic advantage to this person who has also lost their job, probably has little to no savings, and is not certain to find a job (recession, btw) or work a job due to getting sick (pandemic, btw), please put yourself on that budget, completely, for the next 3 months and donate the rest of it to your favorite charity. 

It is not immoral, I don't know why people are treating this as a moral weakness or as an affront to their own financial resources, that others need money to live and are using the available resources? People are not lesser for choosing to use the completely legal and not-immoral unemployment plan. 

edit spelling

Edited July 27, 2020 by Moonhawk

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

   It is just about in the ballpark of the median wage of worker in the US.

I wouldn't really consider $45,000 to be in the ballpark of $63,000. Now, it is in the ballpark of the average income, but, at those levels, another $270/month is pretty important. 

8 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I don't think that the fact these people fall into the safety net means the safety net isn't saving more people from actual disaster. Or that the safety net isn't working as intended. Or that the safety net is too good or too much, it just means the cliff that some people were desperately clinging to was very sharp and in order to save those people some others were also fortunately caught from a much shorter fall.

QFT. 

[Bootsie]

9 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

It sounds more like you know a fair number of people who didn't really need jobs in the first place and only lost disposable income, and so are not being impacted the way that people who actually need jobs are. Or, perhaps they did need the jobs but have another extra safety net (family) who are able to cushion the blow.

I don't think that the fact these people fall into the safety net means the safety net isn't saving more people from actual disaster. Or that the safety net isn't working as intended. Or that the safety net is too good or too much, it just means the cliff that some people were desperately clinging to was very sharp and in order to save those people some others were also fortunately caught from a much shorter fall.

 

I am very concerned about people facing actual disaster.  I do not think the safety net is too good or too much.  My concern is that the safety net that was put in place does not do enough in those situations and does not target those situations.  It creates many unnecessary distortions in our labor market and has many unintended consequences.  I would prefer a much more targeted approach to help those who really need help.    

[SereneHome]

4 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

 I'm not sure I am reading your intentions/implications clearly: is this information only, or are you implying employees are betraying the employer by not going back to work, or that they are lazy for making a financially reasonable decision that impacts their health as well?

Regardless, I'm appalled that people aren't appalled at those numbers; think about how little we expect people to live on, and then get upset at them when they don't kowtow in thanks for the opportunity to work for those amounts during a pandemic that puts their health at risk [at the very least].

The beauty of at will employment isn't only that you can fire employees without warning or for any reason. It's also that the employee is allowed to leave their position whenever they want (as many employers like to remind their lower employees). And now for the first time many are experiencing a safety net and are possibly able to make their lives better even for a small amount of time. 

We are not talking about cogs in a wheel. We are talking about human beings with the same amount of worth as anyone else. They don't owe their employer anything. 

Pay what the job market will bear, to paraphrase. I hear all of these people are losing their jobs and desperate to be working. If you are paying enough, you'll be able to find someone. If you aren't paying enough, pay more. If you can't pay more, you will adapt to a smaller workforce or go out of business.

Businesses closing will have a ripple effect on the economy and we are all going to suffer. I'm certainly not making light of it or being heartless of the business owner's potential plight. But I'm not going to blame the workers for it, either. If we really need to blame someone else, maybe we should look at lenders and financial institutions and "pass the buck" up instead of down; that's what we normally do when it's real money, anyway.

Well, that's a nice sentiment!

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would prefer a much more targeted approach to help those who really need help.    

The problem with a much more targeted approach is that it takes a lot of time, and time was a luxury we did not have. People needed to pay rent and buy groceries right away or it would have been a disaster, so a big net that caught some extra fish was probably the way to go. I'm not sure what alternative would have been better. 

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, katilac said:

I wouldn't really consider $45,000 to be in the ballpark of $63,000. Now, it is in the ballpark of the average income, but, at those levels, another $270/month is pretty important. 

QFT. 

Where are you getting $63,000?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary earners in the US is $1002 (which is 10.4% higher than last year).  

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, katilac said:

-The problem with a much more targeted approach is that it takes a lot of time, and time was a luxury we did not have. People needed to pay rent and buy groceries right away or it would have been a disaster, so a big net that caught some extra fish was probably the way to go. I'm not sure what alternative would have been better. 

I think a more targeted approach could have been implemented just as quickly.  In fact, the way things were handled caused disasters for some people.  States were flooded with unemployment claims--more than their systems could handle and their computer systems were not set up to handle the process.  That caused many people not to be able to even apply or get into the system for weeks; those individuals were getting nothing--nothing to pay rent and nothing to buy groceries.  

[Moonhawk]

Just now, SereneHome said:

Well, that's a nice sentiment!

Are you saying I am incorrect? There are more options, true. I guess I missed "take out a loan." Also, "sell your soul to the next interested buyer." Perhaps "sell a kidney, preferably overseas, but most preferably in the green zone overseas, if they are accepting American travelers."

Or are you saying I should have cushioned it more? "If you can't pay more, strongly consider your business options and whether or not you are viable in your marketplace."

Or are you saying I am heartless? It very much hurts my heart because this just means even more people are slipping into this pit I am so angry anyone has to live in. And what makes it worse is that they may not have the survival skills necessary at poverty levels if they fall that far; it is a steep learning curve how to not live with money.

Or are you saying that I am gleefully hoping for their closure?  I am a business owner, btw, no longer able to pay contractors, and having to adapt to a smaller workforce of me and my husband only. Hopefully the adaption will work (there is no other option). I don't wish anyone into this situation.

I understand you probably posted more from anger at the situation, and not at me, this topic is just very close to my heart and I DO want to make it clear that I DON'T WANT businesses to close, either for the economy as a whole but mostly for the people each and every business affects. The owners, the families of the owners, the workers, the people that depend on their services, the main streets that need open storefronts to beget business for other stores, the local charities that they donate to, and so on down the line. 

I'm sorry, Serene, that I was not a good communicator in my previous post and that I led you to think that I didn't care. Please, please understand that I know that no one wins in this situation. Sometimes my tone comes off a bit sarcastic or dry or sometimes overly objective, and that is a facet (flaw?) of my personality. I find in difficult situations I usually like to state the multiple options I see as directly as possible. In this case it did not serve my communication well, and I apologize if I offended you or others.

[Sneezyone]

20 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Are you saying I am incorrect? There are more options, true. I guess I missed "take out a loan." Also, "sell your soul to the next interested buyer." Perhaps "sell a kidney, preferably overseas, but most preferably in the green zone overseas, if they are accepting American travelers."

Or are you saying I should have cushioned it more? "If you can't pay more, strongly consider your business options and whether or not you are viable in your marketplace."

Or are you saying I am heartless? It very much hurts my heart because this just means even more people are slipping into this pit I am so angry anyone has to live in. And what makes it worse is that they may not have the survival skills necessary at poverty levels if they fall that far; it is a steep learning curve how to not live with money.

Or are you saying that I am gleefully hoping for their closure?  I am a business owner, btw, no longer able to pay contractors, and having to adapt to a smaller workforce of me and my husband only. Hopefully the adaption will work (there is no other option). I don't wish anyone into this situation.

I understand you probably posted more from anger at the situation, and not at me, this topic is just very close to my heart and I DO want to make it clear that I DON'T WANT businesses to close, either for the economy as a whole but mostly for the people each and every business affects. The owners, the families of the owners, the workers, the people that depend on their services, the main streets that need open storefronts to beget business for other stores, the local charities that they donate to, and so on down the line. 

I'm sorry, Serene, that I was not a good communicator in my previous post and that I led you to think that I didn't care. Please, please understand that I know that no one wins in this situation. Sometimes my tone comes off a bit sarcastic or dry or sometimes overly objective, and that is a facet (flaw?) of my personality. I find in difficult situations I usually like to state the multiple options I see as directly as possible. In this case it did not serve my communication well, and I apologize if I offended you or others.

The bolded is deeply underestimated. People who fall into poverty have no idea how hard the systems of ‘support’ are to navigate. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Moonhawk]

55 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am very concerned about people facing actual disaster.  I do not think the safety net is too good or too much.  My concern is that the safety net that was put in place does not do enough in those situations and does not target those situations.  It creates many unnecessary distortions in our labor market and has many unintended consequences.  I would prefer a much more targeted approach to help those who really need help.    

 

39 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think a more targeted approach could have been implemented just as quickly.  In fact, the way things were handled caused disasters for some people.  States were flooded with unemployment claims--more than their systems could handle and their computer systems were not set up to handle the process.  That caused many people not to be able to even apply or get into the system for weeks; those individuals were getting nothing--nothing to pay rent and nothing to buy groceries.  

This intrigues me. Would you be willing to lay out your ideal targeted approach? I know we can't turn back time, but I haven't been able to really think of a way that doesn't exclude some faction that needs the extra help without encompassing some more fortunates. This last part where you say the safety net didn't do enough for some piques my interest, and I'd be interested to know if the "enough" you aim for is all monetary or other support systems as well. 

[Tap]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I think a more targeted approach could have been implemented just as quickly.  In fact, the way things were handled caused disasters for some people.  States were flooded with unemployment claims--more than their systems could handle and their computer systems were not set up to handle the process.  That caused many people not to be able to even apply or get into the system for weeks; those individuals were getting nothing--nothing to pay rent and nothing to buy groceries.  

I was off work, unpaid for 3 months from my full time job.  I was told when I first went on leave that I wouldn't qualify for UI since I was on FMLA due to school closure. Since my job was still available to me, I wasn't eligible (ie I wasn't laid off/furloughed etc). My employer is excluded from providing paid-FMLA so I am just out of luck. Some rules changed after that. I applied for unemployment about 6 weeks into my time off. I applied for UI anyways because I have 2 jobs and I was wondering if reduced hours on my second job (went from 10 hours to 8 hours), would qualify me for a minuscule amount of UI but that would qualify me for the $600/week. So, while it wouldn't be a lot per week, it would be more than the zero $$ I was making.  I am also in arrears to my employer until Sept, to pay back medical insurance premiums. At the end of 3 months, I was in debt $2000 in benefit payments. It will be Sept before I get a full paycheck again. 

I  applied in early May. They still haven't processed my application. I have emailed (tried calling 20+ times but can't get thru) and they said they have all the information they need,  it just hasn't been looked at yet. They are still months behind in my state. 😞 I live just fine without the money. I have a savings and we keep out bills low. Who I worry about...is the people who don't have a savings, or second income, who have been waiting just as long.

I know soooo many teenagers in my state who are making a lot of money on Unemployment  right now. They may have only worked 1 day a week, but that was enough to qualify them for UI and the $600 per week. I have a friend whose 2 teenage daughters are making $2500-3000/month not working, but used to make $500/mth when they had jobs. The teens are hostesses in restaurants that  were closed due to Covid.  But families like mine, that use my paycheck to pay bills and eat, are still in limbo with decisions.  I hear this all the time from parents of teenagers. 😞 

A targeted approach makes wayyy more sense. Most teens don't really need $3000 UI/mth. (Unless they actually contribute to the household expenses ) LOL  But even with a broad-scatter, give it to everyone approach, the systems are still very, very overwhelmed. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Tap

[Tap]

4 minutes ago, kand said:

That’s ridiculous. I didn’t realize dependents even qualified for unemployment benefits. My two kids old enough to work have continued to do so, at less than $600 a month, much less per week. They have felt very fortunate to still be able to work during this. They’re going to feel ripped off if they hear they could have made two months of salary in a week 😮. 

It is just people who have been completely laid off/furloughed. Many teens in our areas work for small businesses (larger chain restaurants are still open for delivery here, so they still have jobs). Those who paid into unemployement and were working as lifeguards, small restaurants staff, camp staff etc, whose employer completely shut down (or laid off staff) are the ones who qualify. 

[amyx4]

5 hours ago, kand said:

That’s ridiculous. I didn’t realize dependents even qualified for unemployment benefits. My two kids old enough to work have continued to do so, at less than $600 a month, much less per week. They have felt very fortunate to still be able to work during this. They’re going to feel ripped off if they hear they could have made two months of salary in a week 😮. 

I know a teen who got fired from his job in mid-February. He's collecting the $600. His parents told me about the $600. (He was fired because he was late a million times to work)  His parents have not lost a single day of work from their very well paying jobs. 

My teens swear a friend of theirs quit his job and was able to get the $600. 

I don't how the money should've be distributed.

[BlsdMama]

6 hours ago, kand said:

That’s ridiculous. I didn’t realize dependents even qualified for unemployment benefits. My two kids old enough to work have continued to do so, at less than $600 a month, much less per week. They have felt very fortunate to still be able to work during this. They’re going to feel ripped off if they hear they could have made two months of salary in a week 😮. 

This is a challenge because some "dependents" are actually self supporting now.  Payments can go off 2019 or 2018 taxes.  In early 2018, my "child" was living in dorms, with a meal plan his parents paid for, and had virtually no bills.  Come Covid, spring 2020, the same kid, claimed as a dependent for the previous year, is now 21, living in an apartment with a car, has bills to pay and because college food service closed, the meal plan we paid for is useless.  Now, granted, he works for a pizza place, so they were busier than ever.  However, YES, dependents NEED to qualify for unemployment benefits.  I can't fathom us absorbing his rent, his utilities, his car payment!  

[Carrie12345]

42 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

This is a challenge because some "dependents" are actually self supporting now.  Payments can go off 2019 or 2018 taxes.  In early 2018, my "child" was living in dorms, with a meal plan his parents paid for, and had virtually no bills.  Come Covid, spring 2020, the same kid, claimed as a dependent for the previous year, is now 21, living in an apartment with a car, has bills to pay and because college food service closed, the meal plan we paid for is useless.  Now, granted, he works for a pizza place, so they were busier than ever.  However, YES, dependents NEED to qualify for unemployment benefits.  I can't fathom us absorbing his rent, his utilities, his car payment!  

I don’t have any kids claiming unemployment, but I do bristle at the concept of them not “needing” money. My dd (maybe both dds) may be getting an extra $3/hr (with a cap) for being an essential worker in our state. Will either of my kids starve without it? No. But they’re starting adulthood in a very unpredictable time and I’m glad they’re getting a bit of a boost. Because, as optimistic as I am for dh and myself, we’re going to be going through whatever economic downturns are in store, too, and I can’t reasonably make promises to my 17 and 18 (or 21) year olds. 

I can’t help it if other teenagers are making dumb decisions with extra money any more than I can if adults are but, over here, that’s padding for education, transportation, and other things that will make a big difference in their long term stability.

[SereneHome]

8 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

Are you saying I am incorrect? There are more options, true. I guess I missed "take out a loan." Also, "sell your soul to the next interested buyer." Perhaps "sell a kidney, preferably overseas, but most preferably in the green zone overseas, if they are accepting American travelers."

Or are you saying I should have cushioned it more? "If you can't pay more, strongly consider your business options and whether or not you are viable in your marketplace."

Or are you saying I am heartless? It very much hurts my heart because this just means even more people are slipping into this pit I am so angry anyone has to live in. And what makes it worse is that they may not have the survival skills necessary at poverty levels if they fall that far; it is a steep learning curve how to not live with money.

Or are you saying that I am gleefully hoping for their closure?  I am a business owner, btw, no longer able to pay contractors, and having to adapt to a smaller workforce of me and my husband only. Hopefully the adaption will work (there is no other option). I don't wish anyone into this situation.

I understand you probably posted more from anger at the situation, and not at me, this topic is just very close to my heart and I DO want to make it clear that I DON'T WANT businesses to close, either for the economy as a whole but mostly for the people each and every business affects. The owners, the families of the owners, the workers, the people that depend on their services, the main streets that need open storefronts to beget business for other stores, the local charities that they donate to, and so on down the line. 

I'm sorry, Serene, that I was not a good communicator in my previous post and that I led you to think that I didn't care. Please, please understand that I know that no one wins in this situation. Sometimes my tone comes off a bit sarcastic or dry or sometimes overly objective, and that is a facet (flaw?) of my personality. I find in difficult situations I usually like to state the multiple options I see as directly as possible. In this case it did not serve my communication well, and I apologize if I offended you or others.

No, I absolutely don't think you are heartless, not do I think you are hoping for business closures.  Of course not! You seem to be a kind and compassionate person and you have nothing to apologize for.  But I come from a different perspective on this topic and comments like that give me a certain reaction.

I haven't been on these boards long enough, but I would venture a guess that conversation about "living wages" have been done more than once. But I was born in a country that wanted everyone to have everything they needed and it doesn't work. As I mentioned in a post in this thread, "living wage" is not a real number, it's a subjective term. Not all jobs can or should pay a "living wage" bc not all jobs created equal. And I not talking about doctor vs janitor. I am talking about jobs that were never meant as "support your family" type of jobs.

Over the past 5 yrs I have done tax returns and book keeping for small / mid size business, most of them service type businesses. There is no way most of them can pay $50K/yr as a starting salary to their employees.  Sure, if it's a restaurant or salon, there are tips involved. But otherwise?  It's not that simple. Then there is manufacturing. If you ever watch Shark Tank time and time again entrepreneurs are saying that they have to make things in China, otherwise, their business can't survive, it's too expensive to produce thins in US, in terms of costs, including salaries.

Anyway.....I know you are coming from a place of worry I just think that we have different ideas on how to handle this worry.