CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

The idea of people scamming their way into getting $1k per week is pretty heinous and awful, but people who really need it as an income replacement should never be looked down on. This isn't about people refusing to work and demanding to get paid to do nothing, like some dumb cliche in criticism of evil socialism. Now of all times we should be propping people up to get through this.

People cannot put 2 and 2 together, though.

They see these unemployment payments as "high" because its 1) more than what they are probably making themselves and 2) More than most "essential" workers. Plus, the usual stigma that already comes with government assistance.

They fail to see the other side and see that low wages are themselves a problem. So instead of raising wages (think of small businesses!) or raising benefits (lazy bums collecting free money!) neither happens and we spite ourselves all over again.

I'm not going to fault anyone for taking any handout. Everyone saw how fast those major corporations went after that free money. Why should a private citizen react differently? Oh, its about dignity, pride, being paid "my value." Its insane.

[Majingir]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

The idea of people scamming their way into getting $1k per week is pretty heinous and awful, but people who really need it as an income replacement should never be looked down on. This isn't about people refusing to work and demanding to get paid to do nothing, like some dumb cliche in criticism of evil socialism. Now of all times we should be propping people up to get through this.

The whole thing wasnt fully thought out from the start.

In Canada we're getting $2000 a month ($500 a week, equivalent to about $1400 a month,$350 a week in the US).

Anyone who meets the minimum requirements will get the money.

The other issue here is that there's people preferring this over going back to work. Why? Because their work is paying them less than $500 a week during normal times. So the fault here is more the companies themselves if the government deems $500 a week as a passable living wage and so many are making under that.


What really should've happened is that everyone gets 100% of their AVERAGE weekly salary. 50-75% paid for by their work (who receives assistance from the government) and the government just tops up the rest. It would allow employees to stay employed, and money to be distributed fairly.

[DaImmaculateONe]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

This isn't about people refusing to work and demanding to get paid to do nothing, like some dumb cliche in criticism of evil socialism.

Even if you did refuse to work, doesnt your workplace just tell unemployment and which might make you ineligible for benefits.

I think the bigger problem is healthcare. Would you rather get paid less and have healthcare benefits from work or get paid more money and be responsible for your own well being?

[Majingir]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

Even if you did refuse to work, doesnt your workplace just tell unemployment and which might make you ineligible for benefits.

I think the bigger problem is healthcare. Would you rather get paid less and have healthcare benefits from work or get paid more money and be responsible for your own well being?

Eligibility here requires you being ready/able to work while also having no opportunity to do so because your employer didn't call/hire you back.

The people ripping on those getting the money are like "get a job and stop collecting free money". These people have jobs. Legally they don't, but that's because their employer laid people off so that they can collect the money. Once they're open again, they'll call people back.

Somehow those complainers think someone who has a job in an office or store or wherever will just move on from their current employer, stop getting the government assistance money, and just work at a grocery store or walmart or something like that, litting health at risk, making less money, and hurting their career. In what world does that make sense?

[jfsolo]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

People cannot put 2 and 2 together, though.

They see these unemployment payments as "high" because its 1) more than what they are probably making themselves and 2) More than most "essential" workers. Plus, the usual stigma that already comes with government assistance.

They fail to see the other side and see that low wages are themselves a problem. So instead of raising wages (think of small businesses!) or raising benefits (lazy bums collecting free money!) neither happens and we spite ourselves all over again.

I'm not going to fault anyone for taking any handout. Everyone saw how fast those major corporations went after that free money. Why should a private citizen react differently? Oh, its about dignity, pride, being paid "my value." Its insane.

Dr. King said it most succinctly, "socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor" It's extraordinary to me how many people have internalized this idea, fighting so hard for policies that prop this concept up even though they will be personally harmed by it.

[p_rushing]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

Even if you did refuse to work, doesnt your workplace just tell unemployment and which might make you ineligible for benefits.

I think the bigger problem is healthcare. Would you rather get paid less and have healthcare benefits from work or get paid more money and be responsible for your own well being?

The application requirements are not being enforced in the US right now. There aren't a lot of jobs or it is hard to interview for some industries so they cut that requirement. It does create issues where some people are getting more money than they would working.

$600+ state money has a lot of people getting $1,000 a week. That is $52,000 a year to sit at home.

Unemployment is a benefit that you pay for because companies pay for it instead of paying you more money. There shouldn't be any issues collecting it. The only issue is those people who abuse it and don't look for work.



I really hope 3Q doesn't bring the collapse I think it will. A lot of people may be out of work come 3Q/4Q.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[KSUowls]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

Economics and politics often go hand in hand, so this is a delicate topic. It's a topic without an easy solution though because economics basically work like an intricately woven web. You could even say that the butterfly effect applies.

It's terrible that anyone would be condemned for taking the unemployment money during this time. It's really not a logical response during a pandemic to view anyone like that when for many it's out of their control. However, it's also true that giving people more money than they would have made while working, it actively discourages economic recovery. Not because people are lazy, but because there is an economic incentive not to work. Many of these people getting a pay raise are getting it well beyond the poverty line (even above the average US income) too. Now, there actually are some economic reasons why it makes sense to give people more than 100% of their salary. People spend more time at home meaning that their utility bills are going to go up, and the pandemic could have caused scarcity of certain resources increasing the price at the register. Also, you have the unintended (possibly intended) effect of encouraging people to stay at home to help stop the spread of the virus. However, to come full circle, how can you have recovery if people are being encouraged to not work? It's an extremely difficult balancing act without an easy answer, and some of the potential solutions have there own set of complexities. I can't really condemn any of the responses the government because while they all stem from some form of philosophical basis, they all have merits in an unprecedented situation.

[DocHolliday]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

When you lose money for working, the incentive is there to not work. Who would work for less money than not working?

It’s also like the jobs where this applies are kick *** fulfilling jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

Economics and politics often go hand in hand, so this is a delicate topic. It's a topic without an easy solution though because economics basically work like an intricately woven web. You could even say that the butterfly effect applies.

It's terrible that anyone would be condemned for taking the unemployment money during this time. It's really not a logical response during a pandemic to view anyone like that when for many it's out of their control. However, it's also true that giving people more money than they would have made while working, it actively discourages economic recovery. Not because people are lazy, but because there is an economic incentive not to work. Many of these people getting a pay raise are getting it well beyond the poverty line (even above the average US income) too. Now, there actually are some economic reasons why it makes sense to give people more than 100% of their salary. People spend more time at home meaning that their utility bills are going to go up, and the pandemic could have caused scarcity of certain resources increasing the price at the register. Also, you have the unintended (possibly intended) effect of encouraging people to stay at home to help stop the spread of the virus. However, to come full circle, how can you have recovery if people are being encouraged to not work? It's an extremely difficult balancing act without an easy answer, and some of the potential solutions have there own set of complexities. I can't really condemn any of the responses the government because while they all stem from some form of philosophical basis, they all have merits in an unprecedented situation.

My question is why is the additional benefit only valid now? What makes losing your job next year for a non-Covid reason any different?

I understand the additional benefit is more intended to keep the economy going rather than a compassionate response from government towards citizens. If they feel like it costs more money to participate in the economy and keep things from falling flat on their *** (which a lot of this **** is merely a house of cards anyway) then make it permanent and increase labor wages across the board.

But no. Lobbyists aren't going to do that on behalf of any corporation. They are getting their welfare check and paying low wages meanwhile we have our citizens fighting each other about receiving an additional $600/month from the state? Or people actively pushing AGAINST receiving additional stimulus payments? **** that.

[dubcity]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

I'd be fine with upping unemployment benefits, but at the end of the day unemployment insurance shouldn't be thought of as complete income replacement under non-pandemic/lockdown circumstances. It's a safety net and a way to catch your breath after getting laid off. Need to have strict limits on how many weeks you can collect, and even stricter adherence to seeking future employment. And going down the road of, "rich people get free money, so should I, permanently," isn't one I'm interested in.

[slickdtc]

CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

It’s $600 a WEEK. $2400/month.

I would’ve made substantially more than I do working if I had not taken a job. PA does have a high weekly unemployment maximum though. Other states were hundreds less (and less time you’re eligible).

But it’s a balancing act. That extra kick-in is ending soon (might be extended but it’ll end eventually). So I could’ve made 6 months wages in 3 months, but once it ran out that would be the only rations I had until I found a job. With all the uncertainty, the unemployment backing up due to mass claims, and a job offer that was okay but provided stability (medical field), my decision was easy. For what it’s worth, I did not expect to get any action once **** hit the fan in mid-March so a healthy amount of paranoia also played in to my decision.

I don’t consider myself noble for working instead of collecting, and I certainly don’t act salty at the people who are. We’ve all got to make the best decisions for ourselves and our families. This is helping so many more people survive and make ends meet than the amount of people who are abusing it. And like I said, that ride will eventually end. So stop crying about other people’s money and focus on your own.

It certainly does illustrate how fragile people’s economic situation is and what is actually needed to keep the whole thing afloat. House of cards is right.

[KSUowls]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

My question is why is the additional benefit only valid now? What makes losing your job next year for a non-Covid reason any different?

I understand the additional benefit is more intended to keep the economy going rather than a compassionate response from government towards citizens. If they feel like it costs more money to participate in the economy and keep things from falling flat on their *** (which a lot of this **** is merely a house of cards anyway) then make it permanent and increase labor wages across the board.

But no. Lobbyists aren't going to do that on behalf of any corporation. They are getting their welfare check and paying low wages meanwhile we have our citizens fighting each other about receiving an additional $600/month from the state? Or people actively pushing AGAINST receiving additional stimulus payments? **** that.

This is the difference in talking about things inside and outside of a pandemic because inside of a pandemic a lot of this is a house of cards as you said. In 2020 people are unemployed due to unprecedented loss of consumer confidence due to a global pandemic as well as government mandated shutdowns. It seems a little more appropriate for the government to kick some extra money your way when they are the reason that you are unemployed on top of that unprecedented global economic situation that could have lasting effects on the economy and a person's potential future employment.

Outside of it I will avoid detailing, but nothing about economics is as easy as do X to achieve Y and ride off into the sunset. You do X to get Y and then Y brings along 50 of their little babies that you have to take care of like rising unemployment, price inflation, etc. I don't disagree that our generation could use a little more money (the stats show that), but it's not an easy topic to explore here.

[dickey1331]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

$2400 a month is a lot more than what I made when I first joined the military. I don’t blame people for not wanting to go work some lame job where people are just going to yell at you when you say please put on a mask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[NDAlum]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

Pretty sure that $600 is taxable so once next tax season rolls around I think some people are going to get some bad news.

If your one of the people getting that $600 make sure you account for this if you can.

[slickdtc]

Re: CDC Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the United States.

Yeah, next year’s tax season is going to be not fun if you opted to have your unemployment issued tax-free. Which I imagine most people did, since they needed every dollar during this ****. I somehow doubt by tax season folks will have their affairs in order to be able to make that tax payment. Certainly the continual stringing along of opening and closing isn’t helping matters...

UE being taxed makes the shaming over taking assistance even more ridiculous.