Unemployment/wages/economy/the future/I need more coffee

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’m not trying to claim an entirely 1:1 situation. I’m just saying it’s a stretch to call intentional unemployment a large problem when overall unemployment is technically down.
No, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any shift anywhere else in the statistics. But it DOES mean that there are slightly fewer people collecting unemployment than there were, in this specific location, at the height of their last peak season pre-COVID.  I don’t see how we can blame unemployment checks for the problem when there are fewer of them.

This is not necessarily correct.  There is a difference between the number of people included as unemployed in the unemployment rate calculation by the BLS and unemployment insurance claims that are administered on a state by state basis and a calculated using different definitions.  

You cannot draw conclusions about how many people are collecting unemployment insurance benefits, or how those benefits are impacting labor decisions, by looking at the unemployment rate. 

 

[Bootsie]

For an example of how the unemployment rate does not reflect unemployment benefits, consider Nebraska, with unemployment at 2.9%.  The graph below shows the number of people receiving unemployment benefits in Nebraska, pre-pandemic the number was about 100,000.  Now it is over 400,000--more than four times higher.  

And, this is much more likely to impact certain industries than others.  A dentist who is looking at making $2000 on unemployment of $7000 working will return to work.  A college student who is looking at working at a restaurant and earning $1200, versus not working and earning $1700 will rationally choose not to work (and more likely to be part of the 400,000 collecting unemploymnet)

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

For an example of how the unemployment rate does not reflect unemployment benefits, consider Nebraska, with unemployment at 2.9%.  The graph below shows the number of people receiving unemployment benefits in Nebraska, pre-pandemic the number was about 100,000.  Now it is over 400,000--more than four times higher.  

And, this is much more likely to impact certain industries than others.  A dentist who is looking at making $2000 on unemployment of $7000 working will return to work.  A college student who is looking at working at a restaurant and earning $1200, versus not working and earning $1700 will rationally choose not to work (and more likely to be part of the 400,000 collecting unemployment)

I realized that this chart is for dollars spent--not people--but the idea is the same it Nebraska is spending over 4 times as much on unemployment benefits, despite the lowest rate of unemployment in the country.

[Fritz]

It's complicated by capacity limits as well. A lot of servers don't want to come back/give up unemployment when restaurants are not allowed to be fully opened yet. They are unsure if they can make the money they did prior to the pandemic. One of my children was in the service industry when the shut down began. They were able to draw unemployment but later chose to take another FT job and decline the unemployment. Many of their peers are continuing to draw unemployment. Some don't want to gamble being able to make enough while others are just choosing the easier route. My child is quitting their current job to return to their former employer in hopes things will soon return to normal enough to make enough money to get by. It's more of a hours/lifestyle/job enjoyment/loyalty to employer choice for them.

While shopping in a big box store yesterday the cashier remarked that they can't get any help. She said they had had one new hire that rather than come in to work on their first day they came in and said they had gotten a letter saying they qualified for $18,000 more in unemployment so no thanks. I know the letter about $18k is true because my child also received this letter even though they had already been working FT for many months. Is it possible for a person to draw a lesser amount of unemployment while returning to these limited capacity settings? I don't know the ins and outs of unemployment. I am very grateful it was available for my child when the shutdown began. And I can understand why some would choose to stay home until they absolutely have to return but how long can these small business owners hang on with no workers? The big boxes will likely be fine. It's the small business owners I worry about.

[SKL]

And many of these same employers will have tax increases to pay for the benefits that are keeping them low-staffed.

[Carrie12345]

30 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I realized that this chart is for dollars spent--not people--but the idea is the same it Nebraska is spending over 4 times as much on unemployment benefits, despite the lowest rate of unemployment in the country.

I’ve never said anything about the difference in dollars. 
If a workforce population of (and I’m making this number up for simplicity) 100,000 has 4,900 people collecting unemployment in 7/2019 and 4,600 people collecting unemployment in 3/2021... there are fewer people “sitting home collecting checks” than before the virus and before increased amounts. 
 

 

[HeartString]

45 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I realized that this chart is for dollars spent--not people--but the idea is the same it Nebraska is spending over 4 times as much on unemployment benefits, despite the lowest rate of unemployment in the country.

Does the dollars out figure include the amount from the extra federal unemployment?  That would make it hard to compare pre Covid dollars with today’s dollars. A friend of was getting $80 a week from the state, but $500 from the federal part, thats 5x as much.  

Edited April 29, 2021 by HeartString

[Bootsie]

27 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’ve never said anything about the difference in dollars. 
If a workforce population of (and I’m making this number up for simplicity) 100,000 has 4,900 people collecting unemployment in 7/2019 and 4,600 people collecting unemployment in 3/2021... there are fewer people “sitting home collecting checks” than before the virus and before increased amounts. 
 

 

But, those made up numbers are not necessarily in line with what is happening.  I cannot say that there is definitively not a town in the US where that is happening, but overall in the US, those numbers do not reflect reality at all.  The workforce population has significantly changed since February 2019, so one cannot assume that the 100,000 number has remained the same.  And the unemployment rate--if it did drop from 4.9% to 4.6% does NOT indicate the number of people collecting checks.  

Have you checked in your local area to see what the total number of people employed is?  The total number of work hours?  The total number of people drawing unemployment checks?  

[skimomma]

3 hours ago, vonfirmath said:

Actually, this article says the most frequently used drug test DOES pick up much more than pot -- including meth. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326305#what-drugs-can-the-test-find

 

Yes, the tests will pick up all kinds of drugs.  But most (I think all, actually) other than pot leave the body quickly whereas pot use going back up to 30 days will be picked up by the test.  So, someone can use a hard core drug on a Saturday and have a clean drug test on Monday but if that same person ate a pot brownie three weeks ago, they won't.  And let's not even get into prescription drug abuse.  I'm not saying I am in favor of any drug use or that employers should not be concerned about the safety issues and liability associated with it.  What I am saying is the testing methods we use are not very effective in addressing those issues and more times than not flags people who are using a relatively benign drug (weed) that is legal in many states.  If that is true, it is an unnecessary barrier to employment.  

[Carrie12345]

23 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, those made up numbers are not necessarily in line with what is happening.  I cannot say that there is definitively not a town in the US where that is happening, but overall in the US, those numbers do not reflect reality at all.  The workforce population has significantly changed since February 2019, so one cannot assume that the 100,000 number has remained the same.  And the unemployment rate--if it did drop from 4.9% to 4.6% does NOT indicate the number of people collecting checks.  

Have you checked in your local area to see what the total number of people employed is?  The total number of work hours?  The total number of people drawing unemployment checks?  

Ya know, I’ve checked and supplied numbers to support my impression that we don’t have tons of additional “lazy people sitting around collecting checks”. Have you checked numbers to show that there ARE? Because I feel like you’re just wanting to share your opinion for the sake of your opinion now. 
 

Not opinion. Gut feeling. Hard to edit on my phone. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Carrie12345

[SKL]

This is not "data," but we have had past part-time employees refuse to return to work, for the stated reason that they are getting more money sitting at home.

Whether or not that was contemplated at the time the benefits were created, I don't know.

I also know there are a lot of moms out of the work force, or cutting back on hours/projects, because of "virtual" or unpredictable school logistics.  I'm not sure whether these individuals would be in the "numbers" that people look at.  Many are probably not actively seeking new jobs, but some may be seeking part-time or flexible work opportunities.

[frogger]

It does seem ridiculous that people wouldn't do what was in their own best interest. If I were a College student, I'd prefer to sit at home and study than take a pay cut and go work. Or parents leave older kids home alone who might need help with school so I can work for less money.

Forget laziness, at some point you are asking people to be completely irrational.

I'm curious how employment figures will change next year when kids are back in school. Even with more and more school districts back in person, many parents opted for the online version of school or even homeschool for the year and therefore haven't went back. 

[Carrie12345]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

This is not "data," but we have had past part-time employees refuse to return to work, for the stated reason that they are getting more money sitting at home.

Whether or not that was contemplated at the time the benefits were created, I don't know.

I also know there are a lot of moms out of the work force, or cutting back on hours/projects, because of "virtual" or unpredictable school logistics.  I'm not sure whether these individuals would be in the "numbers" that people look at.  Many are probably not actively seeking new jobs, but some may be seeking part-time or flexible work opportunities.

All logically assumed to be pieces of a complex puzzle, for sure. I’m not yet seeing evidence that any one of those pieces is individually worthy of blame or scorn.

If I get the time, I might dig deeper just to try to satisfy my own curiosity, lol.  It’s hard to carry so many numbers in my head in between going about my day!

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, frogger said:

It does seem ridiculous that people wouldn't do what was in their own best interest. If I were a College student, I'd prefer to sit at home and study than take a pay cut and go work. Or parents leave older kids home alone who might need help with school so I can work for less money.

Forget laziness, at some point you are asking people to be completely irrational.

It's not irrational to try to have continuous work history in order to improve future work options.  Everyone knows the current props will end soon, and those who are off work too long will have a harder time getting a job.

Sure, some people will weigh the pros and cons differently, but it's not irrational to work just because you could get government relief if you didn't.

[frogger]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's not irrational to try to have continuous work history in order to improve future work options.  Everyone knows the current props will end soon, and those who are off work too long will have a harder time getting a job.

Sure, some people will weigh the pros and cons differently, but it's not irrational to work just because you could get government relief if you didn't.

I agree that you need to think long term if you want to get ahead but it really depends on your situation. 

I certainly don't have a continuous work history. I'm actually not worried about going back to work either. Partly, because it is highly likely I will be self employed. None of my children need to have continuous work history either and their age group is more likely to wait tables and such.

The point is though that it isn't just "lazy" to do what makes sense for you at the time. You work with the hand you are dealt.

Edited April 29, 2021 by frogger

[Bootsie]

53 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Ya know, I’ve checked and supplied numbers to support my impression that we don’t have tons of additional “lazy people sitting around collecting checks”. Have you checked numbers to show that there ARE? Because I feel like you’re just wanting to share your opinion for the sake of your opinion now. 
 

Not opinion. Gut feeling. Hard to edit on my phone. 

Yes, I have checked numbers and there are people who are not returning to work.  I have not referred to any of those people as "lazy people"; I think they are rational people reacting to economic incentives. 

If you look at Nebraska, with the lowest unemployment rate in the country, there were about 5000 people collecting unemployment at the beginning of March 2020. At the beginning of April, 2021, that number was 9483.  

This is in one place with LOW unemployment--those numbers are in line with national numbers. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’ve never said anything about the difference in dollars. 
If a workforce population of (and I’m making this number up for simplicity) 100,000 has 4,900 people collecting unemployment in 7/2019 and 4,600 people collecting unemployment in 3/2021... there are fewer people “sitting home collecting checks” than before the virus and before increased amounts. 
 

 

the number of people in the US receiving unemployment benefits Feb 29, 2020--1,708,000  on April, 3, 2021-- 3.708,000  So there are over twice as many people receiving unemployment benefits today than were pre-pandemic. 

And, there are far fewer people working.  The graph below shows the employment level.  

 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

And many of these same employers will have tax increases to pay for the benefits that are keeping them low-staffed.

Unless their state legislature does something about it. Mine already has.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

I agree that you need to think long term if you want to get ahead but it really depends on your situation. 

I certainly don't have a continuous work history. I'm actually not worried about going back to work either. Partly, because it is highly likely I will be self employed. None of my children need to have continuous work history either and their age group is more likely to wait tables and such.

The point is though that it isn't just "lazy" to do what makes sense for you at the time. You work with the hand you are dealt.

Yeah, I'm not saying "lazy," I just feel that the government policy is encouraging choices that aren't ultimately best for the individuals or the overall economy.

[SKL]

Anyone know the estimated number of people whose SSNs are being used for fraudulent unemployment claims?  I wonder if that's also skewing the overall numbers?  I know it's a pretty serious issue, and I personally know at least one person who got a 1099 for unemployment benefits she neither applied for nor received.

[frogger]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I'm not saying "lazy," I just feel that the government policy is encouraging choices that aren't ultimately best for the individuals or the overall economy.

I couldn't agree more.

[Amy in NH]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I'm not saying "lazy," I just feel that the government policy is encouraging choices that aren't ultimately best for the individuals or the overall economy.

Actually, it does benefit individuals to have enough money to pay their bills without a heap-ton of stress.  We're talking about low and middle income earners who have been squeezed over the past 25 years.  If so many employers are desperate for workers, taking some time off during a pandemic shouldn't hurt the individual's ability to find work later.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Amy in NH

[HeartString]

I feel like Covid is being ignored in this discussion.  Less than half the population is vaccinated at this point. There is still a pandemic raging.  Some people may still be making a rational decision to stay home to avoid getting sick or to protect a family member.  I think we have to wait a few more months before we can say unemployment is just being caused by people choosing not to work just for the extra money.  There are still plenty of *pandemic* related issues.  Low skilled workers are more likely to be the younger people, the ones who haven’t had time to be fully vaccinated yet.  My young adult got his first shot on the first day it opened to him in our state and isn’t due for his second for another week, then 2 more weeks to be fully protected. 
 

[HeartString]

10 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

  If so many people are desperate for workers, taking some time off during a pandemic shouldn't hurt the individual's ability to find work later.

I agree, in 5 years no one will care that the blank spot in your waitressing or cashiering work history ended in Sept 2021 instead of March.  

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Actually, it does benefit individuals to have enough money to pay their bills without a heap-ton of stress.  We're talking about low and middle income earners who have been squeezed over the past 25 years.  If so many people are desperate for workers, taking some time off during a pandemic shouldn't hurt the individual's ability to find work later.

But, I would argue this is not what is happening with much of the unemployment benefits.  I think where it is having the most impact is young people (who haven't been alive, much less in the work force for the past 25 years) who tend to work part-time.  Because of the federal boost these young people often find they will make LESS if they return to work (not even factoring the value of their time, commuting expenses, differences in taxes, etc.)

 

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I would argue this is not what is happening with much of the unemployment benefits.  I think where it is having the most impact is young people (who haven't been alive, much less in the work force for the past 25 years) who tend to work part-time.  Because of the federal boost these young people often find they will make LESS if they return to work (not even factoring the value of their time, commuting expenses, differences in taxes, etc.)

 

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. 

[Bootsie]

Just now, HeartString said:

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. 

If a college student is making $1700 per month on unemployment and looking at a job possibility

If he works 20 hours per week at a job making $15 per hour, that is $1,200.  About $90 will go to Social Security taxes--leaving about $1110--And then pays income taxes (the difference here depends upon tax laws exempting some of the unemployment benefits from taxation).  So why work for 20 hours per week, commute to work, etc. and make 60% of what you would make NOT working???

These are the people that the unemployment benefits are impacting the most.  

I think it has less impact on someone how is lower-middle class who is trying to support a family.  

[Amy in NH]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

But, I would argue this is not what is happening with much of the unemployment benefits.  I think where it is having the most impact is young people (who haven't been alive, much less in the work force for the past 25 years) who tend to work part-time.  Because of the federal boost these young people often find they will make LESS if they return to work (not even factoring the value of their time, commuting expenses, differences in taxes, etc.)

 

Okay, then they're living "the easy life" on the unemployment money I didn't collect when my temporary winter job contract was canceled due to COVID.  I was supposed to have earned $10K between December and March, and was laid off at the end of November.  Good for them.  Maybe now they'll be able to afford a reliable car to get back and forth to work with in the future, instead of a beater that will break down every week.  Maybe they'll be able to pay off student loans that would have kept them from buying a home, getting married, or having kids before they're 35.  Maybe they aren't fully vaccinated yet, and they don't want to bring a potentially deadly disease home to a family member at high risk.  Whatever.  I'm not begrudging anyone some money that makes their life easier for a short time when we all struggle so much our whole lives to put money into the pockets of the richest 2200 people in the world while scraping for grocery and gas money. 

If employers want employees, they need to offer compensation that makes sense, including reasonable work schedules, wages, and paid time off that allows people to have a decent standard of living they can actually enjoy.  If there's one thing this pandemic has shown us, society depends on the low-wage earners who do the actual labor in this world. Tax the extremely wealthy, close loopholes on off-shore tax havens, and redistribute the wealth to the people who ACTUALLY create it - the working class.  There's nothing stopping us from having policies that support the "middle class" while supporting SMALL local businesses - oh, except the oligarchs and their brainwashed minions.

 

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, Amy in NH said:

Okay, then they're living "the easy life" on the unemployment money I didn't collect when my temporary winter job contract was canceled due to COVID.  I was supposed to have earned $10K between December and March, and was laid off at the end of November.  Good for them.  Maybe now they'll be able to afford a reliable car to get back and forth to work with in the future, instead of a beater that will break down every week.  Maybe they'll be able to pay off student loans that would have kept them from buying a home, getting married, or having kids before they're 35.  Maybe they aren't fully vaccinated yet, and they don't want to bring a potentially deadly disease home to a family member at high risk.  Whatever.  I'm not begrudging anyone some money that makes their life easier for a short time when we all struggle so much our whole lives to put money into the pockets of the richest 2200 people in the world while scraping for grocery and gas money. 

If employers want employees, they need to offer compensation that makes sense, including reasonable work schedules, wages, and paid time off that allows people to have a decent standard of living they can actually enjoy.  If there's one thing this pandemic has shown us, society depends on the low-wage earners who do the actual labor in this world. Tax the extremely wealthy, close loopholes on off-shore tax havens, and redistribute the wealth to the people who ACTUALLY create it - the working class.  There's nothing stopping us from having policies that support the "middle class" while supporting SMALL local businesses - oh, except the oligarchs and their brainwashed minions.

 

I think there are really two discussions:

1) Do unemployment benefits incentivize behavior ? (Based on sound economic reasoning and empirical evidence, I would find it difficult to think that they do not)

2) Is this behavior as a society we want to incentivize? (Really a question about values)

[Soror]

I have been hearing locally that companies can't find workers. I could see that the increased unemployment benefits are likely a factor for some. I think it is ridiculous for unemployment pay to be greater than the wages of job and in our LCOL area it is enough for some to live on. 

BUT I also know wages aren't what they should be in some places. Dh started at his job 25+ yrs ago  because they paid the highest starting pay. It was worth it for the kind of crappy and dirty job because the pay and benefits were that good. These days their starting salary is on par with the fast food places, which is far easier work. The fast food places have had to increase their pay to get workers but they haven't. Now they are talking about increasing pay but taking away 401k match. 

We have so little vaccine uptake and so many that have said COVID is NBD I don't see the pandemic as a significant factor in our numbers. 

[Frances]

51 minutes ago, SKL said:

Anyone know the estimated number of people whose SSNs are being used for fraudulent unemployment claims?  I wonder if that's also skewing the overall numbers?  I know it's a pretty serious issue, and I personally know at least one person who got a 1099 for unemployment benefits she neither applied for nor received.

Some states like mine aren’t releasing details because they think it will lead to more fraud. I don’t know if there are any national numbers out there, but I think CA, TX, and WA have released estimates.

[Moonhawk]

 

19 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think there are really two discussions:

1) Do unemployment benefits incentivize behavior ? (Based on sound economic reasoning and empirical evidence, I would find it difficult to think that they do not)

2) Is this behavior as a society we want to incentivize? (Really a question about values)

This makes it sound as if only one behavior is being incentivized.^ Really, there are multiple behaviors that could be outcomes from unemployment benefits. 

A lot of people are using this time off to do what they always wanted to do -- get education, or a certificate, or training, for a better-fitting position, or start their own business or side gig. If you are working 2 jobs, or time and a half, or have kids and commute, there usually isn't enough gas in the tank at the end of the day. By "luck", you have the time and money to tide you over, it's the door a lot of people needed. It's a windfall that really will only come once in a lifetime.

Now that they are told they "should" come back part-time to a job that paid little, was hard work, has no security, and doesn't allow them the time to better themselves, so that they don't seem like moochers. But, they are potentially going to be more productive members of society, not to mention benefit themselves and their family [potentially community] more.

 Going to school/training isn't seen as a "gap" on a resume. And a gap during Covid isn't going to be questioned anyway.

 It's not going to work out for everyone, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try, or that some low-paying jobs won't be there if they don't make it.*

So to answer your #2: yes, I don't see a problem with this particular behavior being incentivized. 

*Or perhaps, the low-paying jobs they come back to will be not-as-low because of it. Not going into a 2-paragraph thing about businesses closing or scaling back, since that's out of the scope of my reply: the tornado in Oklahoma to my butterfly in China. Conscious choice.

^eta: obviously Bootsie I know you know there are multiple possible outcomes and you didn't explicitly state that there was only one. But, just pointing out how it came across.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Moonhawk

[Bootsie]

47 minutes ago, Frances said:

Some states like mine aren’t releasing details because they think it will lead to more fraud. I don’t know if there are any national numbers out there, but I think CA, TX, and WA have released estimates.

Texas has reported that they have flagged 234,268 claims as possible fraud in 2020.  In 2019 only 1142 claims were flagged as possible fraud.  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Amy in NH said:

Okay, then they're living "the easy life" on the unemployment money I didn't collect when my temporary winter job contract was canceled due to COVID.  I was supposed to have earned $10K between December and March, and was laid off at the end of November.  Good for them.  Maybe now they'll be able to afford a reliable car to get back and forth to work with in the future, instead of a beater that will break down every week.  Maybe they'll be able to pay off student loans that would have kept them from buying a home, getting married, or having kids before they're 35.  Maybe they aren't fully vaccinated yet, and they don't want to bring a potentially deadly disease home to a family member at high risk.  Whatever.  I'm not begrudging anyone some money that makes their life easier for a short time when we all struggle so much our whole lives to put money into the pockets of the richest 2200 people in the world while scraping for grocery and gas money. 

If employers want employees, they need to offer compensation that makes sense, including reasonable work schedules, wages, and paid time off that allows people to have a decent standard of living they can actually enjoy.  If there's one thing this pandemic has shown us, society depends on the low-wage earners who do the actual labor in this world. Tax the extremely wealthy, close loopholes on off-shore tax havens, and redistribute the wealth to the people who ACTUALLY create it - the working class.  There's nothing stopping us from having policies that support the "middle class" while supporting SMALL local businesses - oh, except the oligarchs and their brainwashed minions.

 

But at the level it is now--if a high school or college student is making $1700 on unemployment instead of working 20 hours per week, that student would need to be making over $23 an hour to break even going to work.

If restaurants, grocery stores, and other places are going to hire these workers and pay them more than $23/ hour that is equivalent to about $46,000 per year for a full-time worker.  I don't know many small, local businesses that can afford to pay these workers 

[Teresa in MO]

But what about this scenario:

Student A - 20 yo student who worked as a waitress in a restaurant that had to close its dining room.  Took 12 hours virtually at a community college.  Went on unemployment and drew $925/week.  When the restaurant recently opened to full capacity, student A decided they made more by drawing unemployment and decided not to return to work.

Student B - 20 yo student who worked at a grocery store 40 hours a week at $15/hour.  Gross pay $600 before taxes.  Grocery stores did not close down and student had to continue working to pay living expenses.  Grocery store workers were considered high risk exposure to Covid. Took 18 hours virtually at a community college.  

My son is student B, his friend is student A.  I am not begrudging unemployment benefits to anyone, but it shouldn't be more than you made when you were working your job.  I believe the benefits should stop when you are offered your job back, whether you choose to go back or not, especially since you can be vaccinated.

[whitestavern]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:44 AM, Carrie12345 said:

But what we’re seeing IRL is that there AREN’T people to fill those positions. And “we” are getting mad about it.

In my area at least there are fewer teens working jobs. Both mine worked multiple jobs through high school, but very few of their friends had jobs. 

[Carrie12345]

12 hours ago, Teresa in MO said:

I believe the benefits should stop when you are offered your job back, whether you choose to go back or not, especially since you can be vaccinated

This is something I was wondering about a while ago.  I was under the impression that (regular) unemployment required active job searching. I haven’t looked into whether or not that was true, and I have no idea what the current situation is.  And I don’t have a firm stance on what it *should be right now or recently, given the different risks of different jobs and different risk factors within families.

Many vaccinated people I know are still cautious, particularly if they or their young kids have serious conditions to consider. And there are a LOT of people (including me) who haven’t yet reached that target date of maximum effectiveness.

I wouldn’t go to work right now, especially with kids ineligible for vaccination.  I have a sister, otoh, who has been medically advised to not get vaccinated AND has major risk factors, who has to go to work. And has a young child at home. These are not simple choices for many people.

[Carrie12345]

16 hours ago, Bootsie said:

the number of people in the US receiving unemployment benefits Feb 29, 2020--1,708,000  on April, 3, 2021-- 3.708,000  So there are over twice as many people receiving unemployment benefits today than were pre-pandemic. 

And, there are far fewer people working.  The graph below shows the employment level.  

 

Interesting.  I’d like to dig into that eventually.

[Wheres Toto]

14 hours ago, Bootsie said:

But at the level it is now--if a high school or college student is making $1700 on unemployment instead of working 20 hours per week, that student would need to be making over $23 an hour to break even going to work.

If restaurants, grocery stores, and other places are going to hire these workers and pay them more than $23/ hour that is equivalent to about $46,000 per year for a full-time worker.  I don't know many small, local businesses that can afford to pay these workers 

But unemployment benefits are eventually going to end.   At that point, people who need to work will go back to work.   For some, they may have been able to use the extra time for training or school, or to relax, take care of kids.  For some, maybe they managed to get caught up on some bills or pay down some debt so when they return, they are in a better position than they were before.  

[Wheres Toto]

In NJ, if you were offered your job back you were expected to take it, but there were options to continue on unemployment if it was a high-exposure position and you had risk factors (early on before vaccines were widely available, at least).     People were not expected to look for work during the heights of the pandemic.    

[SKL]

59 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

This is something I was wondering about a while ago.  I was under the impression that (regular) unemployment required active job searching. I haven’t looked into whether or not that was true, and I have no idea what the current situation is. 

I asked my boss about this.  She said, who's going to dare to report someone for choosing not to come back to work in a pandemic?  Even if the job isn't risky, the optics would be awful.

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, Wheres Toto said:

In NJ, if you were offered your job back you were expected to take it, but there were options to continue on unemployment if it was a high-exposure position and you had risk factors (early on before vaccines were widely available, at least).     People were not expected to look for work during the heights of the pandemic.    

Most of the places that I see desperate for workers are high-exposure positions, fast food, restaurants, retail.  And a lot of places have dropped mask mandates so these positions require working in un masked crowds.  The college students everyone is talking about haven't been eligible for vaccines everywhere long enough to have had a second dose and get to peak effectiveness, even if they got a shot on the first day it was available.  So we're all sitting around wondering why un- vaccinated young adults aren't willing to work in crowds of un masked people. Like I said earlier, its like this discussion seems to be acting as though we are post Covid when we are just at the beginning of the end of Covid.

[Teresa in MO]

No one should be profiting on unemployment.  Benefits should be capped at the wages you were making before losing your job.  My ds did not have an option of unemployment because grocery stores were not laying people off due to the pandemic.  Just the opposite, their employees were working more hours.  So, for the past year he has been working a high exposure job because our household does not have a wage earner since my dh passed away in 2016.  It is called survival.  So it is very disheartening for him to see friends rake in the money while he has worked his butt off between work and school at great risk for him and his family.  My whole point of this is no one should be bringing in more in unemployment than they were making before.  

[frogger]

3 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

But unemployment benefits are eventually going to end.   At that point, people who need to work will go back to work.   For some, they may have been able to use the extra time for training or school, or to relax, take care of kids.  For some, maybe they managed to get caught up on some bills or pay down some debt so when they return, they are in a better position than they were before.  

Maybe. Of course, if large numbers of businesses have shut down, they won't have jobs to go back to. College usually take 3-5 years so it is unlikely that one year off is going to make someone have a huge leap up the ladder. Some might be near the end but for most a year will not take them to a whole new career. 

Plus, if you have a glut of entry level workers all at once it will be difficult to absorb them. Usually entry level people work with senior level people (at least for many careers). Nobody wants a whole group of junior engineers designing a multi million dollar project. 😁 So having a variety of jobs available is still helpful in general.

If people are just packing into restaurants and there isn't enough people to serve them all then perhaps the business will be fine. Of course, with less employees they will have a harder time meeting their fixed costs like the building rent or mortgage and tools of the trade. Sadly, it costs the same to heat a building regardless of how many meals you serve. Where businesses are at on this continuum probably depends on where you live.

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

But unemployment benefits are eventually going to end.   At that point, people who need to work will go back to work.   For some, they may have been able to use the extra time for training or school, or to relax, take care of kids.  For some, maybe they managed to get caught up on some bills or pay down some debt so when they return, they are in a better position than they were before.  

Yes, people may be able to do some things with the time/money they are receiving from unemployment.  What I was trying to address was the issue of why higher and extended unemployment benefits will lead to more people making the choice not to work right now than would have made that choice otherwise.  This will lead to it being harder for employers to find workers, especially in particular industries.  Those facts remain even if you think that people are making good choices in what they do with their time and money.

[JumpyTheFrog]

25 minutes ago, Teresa in MO said:

Benefits should be capped at the wages you were making before losing your job.

I would cap them at maybe 85-90% of previous wages because the employee no longer is paying tax (unless unemployment is taxable) or commuting costs. There needs to still be some incentive to make working better for someone's wallet than not working. Do people really believe that nobody would choose to stay home rather than work when working would pay less than collecting unemployment? I don't know what percent of people would scam the system (collecting unemployment when it is safe enough for them to return to work), but it is more than 0%.

[HeartString]

27 minutes ago, Teresa in MO said:

No one should be profiting on unemployment.  Benefits should be capped at the wages you were making before losing your job.  My ds did not have an option of unemployment because grocery stores were not laying people off due to the pandemic.  Just the opposite, their employees were working more hours.  So, for the past year he has been working a high exposure job because our household does not have a wage earner since my dh passed away in 2016.  It is called survival.  So it is very disheartening for him to see friends rake in the money while he has worked his butt off between work and school at great risk for him and his family.  My whole point of this is no one should be bringing in more in unemployment than they were making before.  

While I agree completely, that wasn’t an option because most state unemployment insurance agencies have such old computer system they literally cannot handle that kind of computation.  Even just adding 1 set amount to everyone nearly broke some systems, they were calling in people who knew how to program in 40 yr old coding languages.  To cap it at your normal earnings would have meant delays of months and months during the height of the shut downs.  This was a “do the best you can with what you have” situation. States should have been updating their systems all along, but a crisis isn’t the time to spend years overhauling whole system.  

[JumpyTheFrog]

1 minute ago, HeartString said:

States should have been updating their systems all along, but a crisis isn’t the time to spend years overhauling whole system.  

You make a good point. I thought unemployment was already at least partially based on previous wages. If it wasn't and they couldn't easily fix it, then I guess my idea wouldn't have worked. However, they should fix it moving forward.

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

I would cap them at maybe 85-90% of previous wages because the employee no longer is paying tax (unless unemployment is taxable) or commuting costs. There needs to still be some incentive to make working better for someone's wallet than not working. Do people really believe that nobody would choose to stay home rather than work when working would pay less than collecting unemployment? I don't know what percent of people would scam the system (collecting unemployment when it is safe enough for them to return to work), but it is more than 0%.

During non Covid times unemployment is capped with a max amount.  In most states the Max is less $500 a week and most earners don’t qualify for anywhere near that much.  Since Nebraska was brought up earlier I looked it up.  It’s 50% of your highest earning quarter up to a max of $440.  This is a COVID specific problem.  
 

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

This is something I was wondering about a while ago.  I was under the impression that (regular) unemployment required active job searching. I haven’t looked into whether or not that was true, and I have no idea what the current situation is.  And I don’t have a firm stance on what it *should be right now or recently, given the different risks of different jobs and different risk factors within families.

Many vaccinated people I know are still cautious, particularly if they or their young kids have serious conditions to consider. And there are a LOT of people (including me) who haven’t yet reached that target date of maximum effectiveness.

I wouldn’t go to work right now, especially with kids ineligible for vaccination.  I have a sister, otoh, who has been medically advised to not get vaccinated AND has major risk factors, who has to go to work. And has a young child at home. These are not simple choices for many people.

Unemployment benefits programs are administered by states, so vary somewhat from state to state.  Generally, you must be seeking a job.  Work search requirements were dropped last spring, and I do not know if all states have reinstituted them.  Often it is a fairly low bar.  And, with a record number of people on unemployment and changing federal policies (which the states were not prepared for but were required to administer) state unemployment offices have been overwhelmed.  In reality, I would think there is little time for this to be monitored in the current economic situation