New stimulus proposal

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

Over 60% on unemployment are receiving more than they made working. That's a problem.

By one estimate, but of course if this was easy to estimate it would be easy to fix.

Keep in mind, these are people that were WORKING when the pandemic hit, and for **** pay at that. They aren't the lazy POS dregs of society. They will most likely work for **** pay all of their lives, with this brief period of making slightly more while not working while there is a shortage of available jobs. Is this really a problem you want the nation to take an economic hit over?

 

[ronpolk]

Your first paragraph is a long running problem of leverage. We've spent decades removing any leverage workers have, while granting as much leverage as we can to multinational corporations. The result has predictably been decreased pay.

Your example is a good start. But expand it this way. Say the insurer has 100 claims to pay. They know the average claim is $20k, but they do not know the true value of your claim. The claims run from $15k to $25k. Would you be ok with them sending you a check for $15k? I doubt it. But that's what you want Congress to do. They difference is that no one is "owed" unemployment. It's charity. But Congress has no way of getting the right amount of money to each claimant. The system is a typical bureaucratic cluster17. That's why the $600 amount started to begin with, to ensure they provided almost all with 100% income replacement, even if some were getting over 100%. Not because they are owed it, but because of the repercussions if they dont.

The state certainly does verify how much money you made prior to unemployment. The system is in place. Congress did not have to recreate the wheel in order to get people the proper amount. They should have left it to process already in place with the states to verify the amount. Does it complicate the process, sure it does, but it’s also an attempt to get it right that way people will want to go back to work.

And I’m not going to debate with you how private companies pay and rather they should pay more or not. But it’s a 100% fact that when unemployment is low like it was, that is much better for the worker. When any job, but especially blue collar jobs, have to compete harder for employees this drives up wages. Take a look at what someone like Sanderson farms has done with their minimum pay. And then look at how that impacted someone like Howard industries that competes for the same type of employees in that south MS area. It forced Howard to look at pay, benefits and working conditions. I know of a small company in the Jackson area (around $40 million in revenue) that is very seasonal. They used to rely on a small number of steady employees and then temp workers when busy season hit. When unemployment got around 4% they had to start hiring people full time and introduced new benefits to keep people from going to work at other places.

If you wanna keep wages stagnant and people barely getting by then by all means keep up the $600 per week. But if you wanna see wages rise and people have an opportunity to grow their income, then getting unemployment back as low as possible is how to do that.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

The state certainly does verify how much money you made prior to unemployment. The system is in place. Congress did not have to recreate the wheel in order to get people the proper amount. They should have left it to process already in place with the states to verify the amount. Does it complicate the process, sure it does, but it’s also an attempt to get it right that way people will want to go back to work.

And I’m not going to debate with you how private companies pay and rather they should pay more or not. But it’s a 100% fact that when unemployment is low like it was, that is much better for the worker. When any job, but especially blue collar jobs, have to compete harder for employees this drives up wages. Take a look at what someone like Sanderson farms has done with their minimum pay. And then look at how that impacted someone like Howard industries that competes for the same type of employees in that south MS area. It forced Howard to look at pay, benefits and working conditions. I know of a small company in the Jackson area (around $40 million in revenue) that is very seasonal. They used to rely on a small number of steady employees and then temp workers when busy season hit. When unemployment got around 4% they had to start hiring people full time and introduced new benefits to keep people from going to work at other places.

If you wanna keep wages stagnant and people barely getting by then by all means keep up the $600 per week. But if you wanna see wages rise and people have an opportunity to grow their income, then getting unemployment back as low as possible is how to do that.

They do, but the states (in general) don't provide 100% income replacement. Some (most?) don't come anywhere close. The $600 was the only way to bump that up to 100% income replacement. Congress claimed at the time that there was no other way to do it more efficiently. Or put another way, you can underpay some, or overpay some. Pick your poison. Could a better Congress fine tune it better? Probably. But that's not the choice in front of us.

You mean the Howard Industries that was busted for intentionally using illegal labor for decades, and got a slap on the wrist for it? Yeah, great example.

I'm not following you on unemployment. Why would forcing people off unemployment drive the unemployment rate down?

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

“Money for nothing and your checks for free”

Signed Washington DC

Of course people just point to the money that the average American received which isn't near as much as businesses received. I am not referring to the small business that is staying afloat but the Lakers, Catholic Church, and other big business that received the lions share of the stimulus. There is a reason that they didn't release all the businesses that received funds because there are a lot of politician ties.

Both sides of the aisle got even richer off the stimulus.

 

[ronpolk]

They do, but the states (in general) don't provide 100% income replacement. Some (most?) don't come anywhere close. The $600 was the only way to bump that up to 100% income replacement. Congress claimed at the time that there was no other way to do it more efficiently. Or put another way, you can underpay some, or overpay some. Pick your poison. Could a better Congress fine tune it better? Probably. But that's not the choice in front of us.

You mean the Howard Industries that was busted for intentionally using illegal labor for decades, and got a slap on the wrist for it? Yeah, great example.

I'm not following you on unemployment. Why would forcing people off unemployment drive the unemployment rate down?

I never once said we should force people off unemployment. I’ve said several times I’m very supportive of the safety net that unemployment benefits provide. But people who are making more money on unemployment have no monetary incentive to go back to work. I’m all for unemployment helping provide for people while they are unemployed. I’m not for it increasing their wage and I want people making an attempt to go back to work. Not once have I suggested we just yank the unemployment away.

You and I are opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I want people to get back to work and try to better their wages by working hard and being a good employee. I 100% acknowledge that is not easy and that companies should look to increase wages where they can. However, what you seem to want is for the government to bridge a gap in pay that you feel is unfair.

 

[bolddogge]

I didn't receive a cent of stimulus.
I hope they don't re-up the $600 because I'm tired of hearing about people choosing not to work because they make more sitting on the couch.
I'm also tired of people complaining about having to work from home.
I've not missed a day of work due to this crap and could use some time off.

My taxes went from a $3,500 refund to a $1,500 bill this year and I'll have 2 kids at State in a few weeks.​

​

Now you slackers need to get off my lawn and get your butts back to work!​

 

[fishwater99]

I didn't receive a cent of stimulus.
I hope they don't re-up the $600 because I'm tired of hearing about people choosing not to work because they make more sitting on the couch.
I'm also tired of people complaining about having to work from home.
I've not missed a day of work due to this crap and could use some time off.

My taxes went from a $3,500 refund to a $1,500 bill this year and I'll have 2 kids at State in a few weeks.​

​

Now you slackers need to get off my lawn and get your butts back to work!​

Boom!

 

[goindhoo]

Think it’s capped at $600 from federal

 

[RocketDawg]

I didn't receive a cent of stimulus.
I hope they don't re-up the $600 because I'm tired of hearing about people choosing not to work because they make more sitting on the couch.
I'm also tired of people complaining about having to work from home.
I've not missed a day of work due to this crap and could use some time off.

My taxes went from a $3,500 refund to a $1,500 bill this year and I'll have 2 kids at State in a few weeks.​

​

Now you slackers need to get off my lawn and get your butts back to work!​

Was it because you have a higher tax bill (perhaps due to higher income), or because you had lessened your withholding? There's a difference.

 

[fishwater99]

Was it because you have a higher tax bill (perhaps due to higher income), or because you had lessened your withholding? There's a difference.

Many people are paying a higher effective tax rate due to amount for the standardized deduction going up. Less people are able to itemize their deductions like in the past.
Luckily, I have a rental property that let's me itemize still.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

I never once said we should force people off unemployment. I’ve said several times I’m very supportive of the safety net that unemployment benefits provide. But people who are making more money on unemployment have no monetary incentive to go back to work. I’m all for unemployment helping provide for people while they are unemployed. I’m not for it increasing their wage and I want people making an attempt to go back to work. Not once have I suggested we just yank the unemployment away.

You and I are opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I want people to get back to work and try to better their wages by working hard and being a good employee. I 100% acknowledge that is not easy and that companies should look to increase wages where they can. However, what you seem to want is for the government to bridge a gap in pay that you feel is unfair.

Um, what do you think is going to happen when you slash unemployment? Dont call it "forcing" if you want, I'm concerned with what effect it will have, not what we call it. You slash the payments, and people will be making less then they were before they were laid off. Not all of them can find a job. That has sufficiently bad economic repercussions that it is worth a good bit of "overpay" to avoid at this time.

It has nothing to do with bridging a gap.

I don't think we're that far apart, I just think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. You speak as If the job market is as it was a year ago, not as it is now. The unemployment rate is high. There are not enough jobs to go around for those that have been laid off. They can't all go back to work. You seem to think adding more people that need a job will lower the unemployment rate rather than raise it. The system cannot provide sufficient unemployment to many without overpaying some. I would love to live in a world where I can wish that all away like you apparently have, but unfortunately I live in the real world.

 

[johnson86-1]

I'm a bit turned off by the idea that people who once made less than me just made more sitting at home and will now make more to go back to lesser paying jobs, but I think about it like this: I have remained employed at a good job, gotten to work with people I like, never missed a moment of life insurance or health insurance coverage, never even missed a 401k match, and when this is all over I will still have that job. On top of that I'm going to make out with $4800 of stimulus check cash, which will translate into part of a new roof and (finally) substantial savings that arent tied to my retirement. It sucks not to be profiting as much as other people who weren't as well employed as me before this, but I wouldn't trade my position for theirs after this over for what they made out with. We have yet to see the final toll on how many businesses will not be reopening from this crisis. There are going to be a lot of people looking for work for a very long time, in a very competitive market for labor who I dont envy.

That's a very healthy and reasonable perspective.

GTFO with that ****. This is a Message Board!!!

 

[AtlantaDawg]

The Republicans need to fight this... We are running up debt that is approaching $30 Trillion. This is going to be a nightmare scenario... High debt (National, state, city/county, etc.). High unemployment, small biz closing, fighting politicians.... the perfect storm.

Just check this out: https://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[bolddogge]

A combination of things. 1 - Wife started a new job with higher income. 2 - She didn't withhold quite enough. 3 - Child tax credit went bye bye.

 

[Dawg1976]

I'm retired. Not going back to work. Now...where's my check?

 

[msstate7]

The Republicans need to fight this... We are running up debt that is approaching $30 Trillion. This is going to be a nightmare scenario... High debt (National, state, city/county, etc.). High unemployment, small biz closing, fighting politicians.... the perfect storm.

Just check this out: https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Wasn't it their plan?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

^^^This is the correct answer. Seemingly limitless supply of people out there gaming the system. I have a friend that runs a manufacturing plant and they can't fill positions. Pay is pretty solid. PLENTY of people apply. Some recent answers when he followed up on applications:

"I'm playing XBox, call back some other time."

"I'm looking for $30/hr."

"I'm not interested."

He expected to be inundated today with applications because they have until end of day tomorrow to prove that they've applied to enough places to get their weekly check.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Convince me to believe in the term "underpaid". If someone is underpaid, it implies that the job they are doing has more value than is being recognized by their current employer. Unless they are the only company on the face of the earth to have that kind of position, they should be able to go apply for the same job role at another company and get paid more.

 

[Grove Sh*tter]

“Money for nothing and your checks for free”

Signed Washington DC

I want my
I want my
I want my PPP

 

[JungRebel]

Do you think there should be a federal minimum wage? What do you mean by value? I have no problem with minimum wage jobs but what that should be is another issue, and no one has ever been able to sell me on the idea that the taxpayer should pick up the difference between the minimum wage and the actual cost of living. Something seems very wrong to me when Wal-Mart can pay employees wages low enough that they qualify for welfare just so they can turn around and use that welfare at Wal-Mart. It seems to me their deal is, "Here we pay you this, the taxpayer gives you that, here is a discount so you can get whatever you need here." Feels like I'm being taxed by companies and the government when they dont pay their employees enough to be off welfare. I am ready to be convinced if someone can tell me why that is reasonable and I'm the *******, but Costco doesnt seem to have a problem paying their Mississippi employees more. Wal-Mart employers almost 4,000 people who are also on SNAP. Meanwhile Costco pays at least $15 an hour in addition to offering some benefits.

 

[bolddogge]

This is the first year I've not been able to itemize in over 25 years. The $5K swing took me by surprise.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

View attachment 17007

 

[johnson86-1]

Do you think there should be a federal minimum wage? What do you mean by value? I have no problem with minimum wage jobs but what that should be is another issue, and no one has ever been able to sell me on the idea that the taxpayer should pick up the difference between the minimum wage and the actual cost of living. Something seems very wrong to me when Wal-Mart can pay employees wages low enough that they qualify for welfare just so they can turn around and use that welfare at Wal-Mart. I am ready to be convinced if someone can tell me why that is reasonable and I'm the *******.

There should not be a federal minimum wage for sure. THe minimum wage seems morally suspect regardless, but if it can pass a morality test at all, I can't imagine how it can do so setting the same minimum wage in the Mississippi Delta as it does in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.

 

[Misfit]

You really don't know that what is being talked about in this thread is the Republican proposal? Which Republicans are you expecting to fight the party leadership's attempt to buy votes?

 

[dudehead]

Wasn't it their plan?

Yes, it was: "Starve the Beast" per Milton Friedman (whose pic is in this very thread) ushered in by Greenspan and the Gipper himself.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

Convince me to believe in the term "underpaid". If someone is underpaid, it implies that the job they are doing has more value than is being recognized by their current employer. Unless they are the only company on the face of the earth to have that kind of position, they should be able to go apply for the same job role at another company and get paid more.

If a company is paying all its workers the same as the value they produce, then how does the company make profit?

 

[M R DAWGS]

I want my
I want my
I want my PPP

Nice

 

[Grove Sh*tter]

So here's the latest I dug up on the proposal:

"The Senate proposal for extending the benefits will be based on 70% to 75% of lost wages, Grassley said, starting at $200 a week and over time increasing to $500 a week, with state assistance"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...ct-contains-far-more-than-just-another-check/

Soooooo, the longer you remain on unemployment, the bigger your check gets? Am I reading this right? That's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen. Shouldn't it taper off as you stay on to get people motivated back to work?

Fwiw, I like another round of PPP for businesses that have lost half of their revenues since the reason they lost revenues was because the gubment MADE THEM SHUT DOWN.

The response to this thing as a whole has been like a 17ing Laurel and hardy routine. These clowns that are running our country are an embarrassment. Wholesale stupidity and fear mongering.

 

[M R DAWGS]

So here's the latest I dug up on the proposal:

"The Senate proposal for extending the benefits will be based on 70% to 75% of lost wages, Grassley said, starting at $200 a week and over time increasing to $500 a week, with state assistance"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...ct-contains-far-more-than-just-another-check/

Soooooo, the longer you remain on unemployment, the bigger your check gets? Am I reading this right? That's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen. Shouldn't it taper off as you stay on to get people motivated back to work?

Fwiw, I like another round of PPP for businesses that have lost half of their revenues since the reason they lost revenues was because the gubment MADE THEM SHUT DOWN.

The response to this thing as a whole has been like a 17ing Laurel and hardy routine. These clowns that are running our country are an embarrassment. Wholesale stupidity and fear mongering.

Yeah, I don’t care what side of the aisle they sit on. I’m not in favor of anymore handouts.

 

[Dawg_4_lifes]

I hate to brag, but I am so wealthy i called the Treasury personally and told them that I did not need your money. Well they sent me that check anyway and I bought some new patio furniture.
I have been employed this whole time, but have been working from home. I work in sales and the numbers are way down so it does disrupt my ability to be super hood rich or just livin large. (not braggin)

 

[Go Budaw]

There should not be a federal minimum wage for sure. THe minimum wage seems morally suspect regardless, but if it can pass a morality test at all, I can't imagine how it can do so setting the same minimum wage in the Mississippi Delta as it does in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.

Don’t think anyone would really disagree with the Manhattan vs. MS Delta part. However, it’s still possible to set a blanket percentage-based minimum wage based on cost of living in each individual county across the country. Cost of living calculators are widely available and coefficients for pretty much every county in the nation are known. It would be simple to set a federal requirement that says minimum wage has to be X% of the median cost of living for the county in which the employer is located. First step is to set the source of the COL data and make it official and available to public, second is to set the percentage of the median or average that should be the minimum wage.

Of course, politicians are terrible at math, so this proposal might be really scary for them.

 

[johnson86-1]

Don’t think anyone would really disagree with the Manhattan vs. MS Delta part. However, it’s still possible to set a blanket percentage-based minimum wage based on cost of living in each individual county across the country. Cost of living calculators are widely available and coefficients for pretty much every county in the nation are known. It would be simple to set a federal requirement that says minimum wage has to be X% of the median cost of living for the county in which the employer is located. First step is to set the source of the COL data and make it official and available to public, second is to set the percentage of the median or average that should be the minimum wage.

Of course, politicians are terrible at math, so this proposal might be really scary for them.

There's the math part, and there are presumably still some politicians that have a moral compass (like maybe 3 or 4 in congress? Is that too optimistic?) that would be concerned about telling people if they aren't as productive as the government thinks they should be, they don't get to work at all.

 

[ronpolk]

Um, what do you think is going to happen when you slash unemployment? Dont call it "forcing" if you want, I'm concerned with what effect it will have, not what we call it. You slash the payments, and people will be making less then they were before they were laid off. Not all of them can find a job. That has sufficiently bad economic repercussions that it is worth a good bit of "overpay" to avoid at this time.

It has nothing to do with bridging a gap.

I don't think we're that far apart, I just think you have a fundamental misunderstanding. You speak as If the job market is as it was a year ago, not as it is now. The unemployment rate is high. There are not enough jobs to go around for those that have been laid off. They can't all go back to work. You seem to think adding more people that need a job will lower the unemployment rate rather than raise it. The system cannot provide sufficient unemployment to many without overpaying some. I would love to live in a world where I can wish that all away like you apparently have, but unfortunately I live in the real world.

Where do you believe I have a fundamental misunderstanding at?

I’ve said numerous times I don’t want someone kicked off the unemployment. I completely understand that the job market today is not what it was 5 months ago.

Here is what I want: 1) if someone is offered a job and does not take it (within reason obviously - not something that puts then in an obvious bad position) then they get taken off unemployment; 2) if someone is not actively seeking a job, they need to be off unemployment; 3) unemployment benefits should not exceed the salary you had prior to covid.

If someone is looking for a job and can’t find one, I would never dream of taking them off unemployment. Never once advocated for that. You can’t seem to understand that I’ve never advocated for that.

What you don’t seem to understand, is that jobs are out there and are not being accepted because people are currently making more money not working. I know this for a fact because customers of mine have experienced this.

My understanding is that the new unemployment caps at 70% of previous wage and requires proof of job search. If that is true, I bet you’re going to see the job market is a little better than you think it is. Obviously service industry (bars and restaurants) is likely still really bad.

 

[Go Budaw]

There's the math part, and there are presumably still some politicians that have a moral compass (like maybe 3 or 4 in congress? Is that too optimistic?) that would be concerned about telling people if they aren't as productive as the government thinks they should be, they don't get to work at all.

I’m not sure its a moral issue as much as just a classic optimization problem, with vast disagreements about how to solve it. But regardless, some form of federal minimum wage is always going to be in effect in the US from now until the end of time. We’d be better served as a country to try and figure out how to make it more efficient (and how it should work in concert with other federal initiatives like welfare and unemployment) than arguing whether or not it should exist.

 

[engie]

I just know I spend 6 weeks per year in Michigan(in normal times), and their minimum wage hike has given a bunch of jobs to computers in their fast food sector anyway. Definitely didn't increase quality of life for the 2-3 people per fast food joint whose jobs were totally replaced by screens. Talking 3 total people working at McDonald's during breakfast type of thing with 4-5 order screens.

I guess ultimately I'm for the technological advancement, though I often feel conflicted about it.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

Where do you believe I have a fundamental misunderstanding at?

I’ve said numerous times I don’t want someone kicked off the unemployment. I completely understand that the job market today is not what it was 5 months ago.

Here is what I want: 1) if someone is offered a job and does not take it (within reason obviously - not something that puts then in an obvious bad position) then they get taken off unemployment; 2) if someone is not actively seeking a job, they need to be off unemployment; 3) unemployment benefits should not exceed the salary you had prior to covid.

If someone is looking for a job and can’t find one, I would never dream of taking them off unemployment. Never once advocated for that. You can’t seem to understand that I’ve never advocated for that.

What you don’t seem to understand, is that jobs are out there and are not being accepted because people are currently making more money not working. I know this for a fact because customers of mine have experienced this.

My understanding is that the new unemployment caps at 70% of previous wage and requires proof of job search. If that is true, I bet you’re going to see the job market is a little better than you think it is. Obviously service industry (bars and restaurants) is likely still really bad.

I think you have a misunderstanding between the relationship of unemployment payments and overall employment (you seem to think adding to the overall pool of workers without adding to the pool of overall jobs will somehow increase the overall number of workers with jobs (outside a marginal effect), such as in your next to last sentence), and are now conflating unemployment payments that pay say 30% of income replacement with payments that replace 100% of income, as well as ignoring that some workers can't work due to family changes etc (daycare, school, etc).

Most people on unemployment that have their payments cut in half of to a third, will in effect be kicked off unemployment.

Thats what I want to. But it doesn't appear to be in the menu. From the choices we appear to have, overpay some or underpay many, which do you choose?

You are currently advocating to slash their payments, are you not?

Anecdotes are not data. Actual surveys show few people have job opportunities and are turning them down, per surveys of small businesses.

My understanding (based on statements of Congressman, so taken with a huge grain of salt), is that the system cannot effectively do that. Most libs are arguing to pay people via the IRS and claw it back based on taxes, because the system can actually efficiently and accurately do it that way. Republicans seem to want to do it via the UI system so that they can generate that lazy welfare feeling.

 

[ronpolk]

I think you have a misunderstanding between the relationship of unemployment payments and overall employment (you seem to think adding to the overall pool of workers without adding to the pool of overall jobs will somehow increase the overall number of workers with jobs (outside a marginal effect), such as in your next to last sentence), and are now conflating unemployment payments that pay say 30% of income replacement with payments that replace 100% of income, as well as ignoring that some workers can't work due to family changes etc (daycare, school, etc).

Most people on unemployment that have their payments cut in half of to a third, will in effect be kicked off unemployment.

Thats what I want to. But it doesn't appear to be in the menu. From the choices we appear to have, overpay some or underpay many, which do you choose?

You are currently advocating to slash their payments, are you not?

Anecdotes are not data. Actual surveys show few people have job opportunities and are turning them down, per surveys of small businesses.

My understanding (based on statements of Congressman, so taken with a huge grain of salt), is that the system cannot effectively do that. Most libs are arguing to pay people via the IRS and claw it back based on taxes, because the system can actually efficiently and accurately do it that way. Republicans seem to want to do it via the UI system so that they can generate that lazy welfare feeling.

How many times do I have to say I understand there will not be as many jobs as pre-covid? I completely get unemployment is not going back to 4%. I’m ok with people being on unemployment. What about that have I not made clear?

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

How many times do I have to say I understand there will not be as many jobs as pre-covid? I completely get unemployment is not going back to 4%. I’m ok with people being on unemployment. What about that have I not made clear?

Maybe explain what job market benefit you expect us to gain by slashing unemployment payments?

 

[ronpolk]

Maybe explain what job market benefit you expect us to gain by slashing unemployment payments?

When did I say there would be a job market benefit? I said there would be a benefit for people to look for a job if they were not making more on unemployment.

 

[SyonaraStanz]

Many people are paying a higher effective tax rate due to amount for the standardized deduction going up. Less people are able to itemize their deductions like in the past.
Luckily, I have a rental property that let's me itemize still.

This is what got me. Deductions were basically a wash, but I lost personal exemptions.