Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

End game for closed businesses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

    Is it, though? Sure there will be some slugs out there who would rather sit home than work but everyone I know can't wait to get back to work. If you told my daughter she could go back today, she'd be there as fast as she could.

    If your employees would rather sit home and collect than come back to work, the unemployment system isn't the issue.
    It won't matter what the employees want if they want to be paid. If you choose to sit at home when there's work available, they'll cut off the bennies.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

      Is it, though? Sure there will be some slugs out there who would rather sit home than work but everyone I know can't wait to get back to work. If you told my daughter she could go back today, she'd be there as fast as she could.

      If your employees would rather sit home and collect than come back to work, the unemployment system isn't the issue.
      any time unemployment is paying $20-25 per hour, it is an issue.
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

      -George Carlin

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by TexasHusker View Post

        any time unemployment is paying $20-25 per hour, it is an issue.
        I’ll stand by my original post. If an employer is concerned that his employees would rather stay home than return to work, the problem isn’t unemployment.

        Quite a few techs in our system have been laid off or had hours cut and are collecting full or partial unemployment. None of them make $20-25/hr. All of them can’t wait to be back to full hours. It’s not about the money. It’s about the job.
        Steve

        * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
        * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
        * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

          I’ll stand by my original post. If an employer is concerned that his employees would rather stay home than return to work, the problem isn’t unemployment.

          Quite a few techs in our system have been laid off or had hours cut and are collecting full or partial unemployment. None of them make $20-25/hr. All of them can’t wait to be back to full hours. It’s not about the money. It’s about the job.
          If unemployment pays MORE than the job does, then it is a problem. Why would i go to work unless I have to, if I am paid to stay home?

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Scallywag View Post

            If unemployment pays MORE than the job does, then it is a problem. Why would i go to work unless I have to, if I am paid to stay home?
            My daughter makes $12/hr. She also loves her job and hates that she isn't there. She likes the people she works with. The company treats them all well. She will be back the instant they reopen even if unemployment is paying double what she usually earns.

            The techs at our medical practices want to be working. They make $15 or so. They have medical benefits, a 401k, PTO, tuition reimbursement, and other benefits. They want to be working, not sitting at home. As soon as they are given hours again, they'll be right back.

            Nobody worth having as an employee is going to sacrifice a good job that they enjoy just to make a little extra money for a month or two, and then have to go out and hope to find work again.

            It's not about the money.
            Steve

            * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
            * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
            * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by Scallywag View Post

              If unemployment pays MORE than the job does, then it is a problem. Why would i go to work unless I have to, if I am paid to stay home?
              Yeah, it really depends on the individual. Some people are self motivated and will work hard for their pay. others wont. Others are willing to contribute far above their "worth" for little or no pay. It's my guess that if you told the majority of people that they would make more than they are paid while working, equal to $31/hour in my state, they will just stay home. In fact, it's the whole reason why we have so many able bodied people perpetually staying on section 8, food stamps, welfare, etc. Plenty people argue for the unemployment checks above their working wage. My personal opinion is that it should have been capped at 80-90% of working wages. Getting paid MORE not to work is way worse than even paying 100% of their working wage. It's a disincentive to work.

              I ran some calculations, and in my state, some people are getting paid DOUBLE not to work. Now for those of you currently working (myself included), imagine if the government told you they'd pay you DOUBLE your pay not to work... I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to keep going in. I'm a pretty driven person, have mostly worked 60 hours+ year round since I was 18 years old, but that's a pretty damned hard deal to pass up on.

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by ~bs View Post
                it's the whole reason why we have so many able bodied people perpetually staying on section 8, food stamps, welfare, etc.
                As always, blaming poverty on the poor doesn't work so let's not perpetuate that. Yes, there is a disincentive to work. Why? Because if you earn $1.00 over the income limit, you lose 100% of your benefits. It's insane. Why we don't have a graduated system that allows you to earn more and get proportionally reduced benefits rather than all or nothing is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind is going to accept a job where they'll make slightly more money but immediately lose health insurance and food stamps because the net result would be they'd actually be making a lot less. It's not because they don't want to work. It's because they can't both work and provide for their families due to the way the system is structured. That's not the fault of the workers. They're just stuck dealing with a deeply flawed system.

                imagine if the government told you they'd pay you DOUBLE your pay not to work... I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to keep going in.
                You're leaving out one very important detail. That double pay is TEMPORARY. It's only for four months. Then you'd be unemployed with zero income. Still willing to do that? I'm certainly not taking that deal. I don't know anyone else who would either.
                Steve

                * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
                * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
                * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by ~bs View Post

                  Yeah, it really depends on the individual. Some people are self motivated and will work hard for their pay. others wont. Others are willing to contribute far above their "worth" for little or no pay. It's my guess that if you told the majority of people that they would make more than they are paid while working, equal to $31/hour in my state, they will just stay home. In fact, it's the whole reason why we have so many able bodied people perpetually staying on section 8, food stamps, welfare, etc. Plenty people argue for the unemployment checks above their working wage. My personal opinion is that it should have been capped at 80-90% of working wages. Getting paid MORE not to work is way worse than even paying 100% of their working wage. It's a disincentive to work.

                  I ran some calculations, and in my state, some people are getting paid DOUBLE not to work. Now for those of you currently working (myself included), imagine if the government told you they'd pay you DOUBLE your pay not to work... I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to keep going in. I'm a pretty driven person, have mostly worked 60 hours+ year round since I was 18 years old, but that's a pretty damned hard deal to pass up on.
                  BS where are you located that you get paid that much? I mean in the boeing post I showed you how much a person has to make to make maximum unemployment. What is the calculation for your state? In PA it's 50% of your wage up to $573/week. So Steve's daughter will get $240/week plus $600/week. So she will make $240 + $600 for 4 months potentially longer. But $840 is not 2x her wages and $840/week is $43k/year. That is not $52k/year. Tech workers where steve is will make $300/week + $600 = $900/week. That is $46k/year. I guess someone is making a lot to be making $52k/year you keep quoting. Are they making that much? In a few other states I think unemployment maxes out at 50% of the salary.

                  Average unemployment is $386/week. That is $20,072/year but right now only 39 weeks = $15054 for the year. Then the $600/week for 16 weeks is $9600. Then they get the state unemployment. Will they extend the $600/week. Seems like a lot considering how cheap the federal government is right now. I guess it's possible they will extend it past 4 months. But the thought is we are going to "spring" back to work and get rehired and that $600/week will keep people from going under. Not sure because people laid off are not getting medical.
                  LivingAlmostLarge Blog

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Originally posted by disneysteve View Post


                    You're leaving out one very important detail. That double pay is TEMPORARY. It's only for four months.
                    Want to bet me a dollar that gets extended until the end of the year, kind of like these shut downs are doing?
                    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

                    -George Carlin

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by TexasHusker View Post

                      Want to bet me a dollar that gets extended until the end of the year, kind of like these shut downs are doing?
                      How long do you think they can extend the $600/week? I wonder if they also bite off more than they can chew the federal government. I suspect the unemployment numbers are way higher than economist think. If they thought 100k job losses march was actually 701k job losses that leads me to think that they are WAY off. So the "budget' for unemployed benefits is way more than they are projecting. So how will they cover it?

                      Besides the $600 they already extended unemplyment from 26 to 39 weeks so the federal government is paying an extra 13 weeks per person to the states to give the $386/average. So already they have give more and extended it. How much more can they afford to budget? What about medical coverage? With this does that mean people get expanded medicaid? If that happens are a quick step to socialized program?
                      Last edited by LivingAlmostLarge; 04-08-2020, 10:46 AM.
                      LivingAlmostLarge Blog

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
                        You're leaving out one very important detail. That double pay is TEMPORARY. It's only for four months. Then you'd be unemployed with zero income. Still willing to do that? I'm certainly not taking that deal. I don't know anyone else who would either
                        Except you are probably under the assumption that everyone would think about that like you are. I doubt that the average person out there would think ahead that much. Call that short-sighted, even tragic. But probably true.
                        And, I guarantee that this will be extended. You could get up to two years of unemployment back in 2009. That same thing will be coming this time around as well.
                        Brian

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by bjl584 View Post
                          You could get up to two years of unemployment back in 2009. That same thing will be coming this time around as well.
                          Well that would definitely change most people's answers. Would folks take 2 years of double pay not to work? Would I do it? Possibly but it would partly depend on availability of reasonably priced health insurance. Making 4 years worth of income in 2 years would put us within spitting distance of retirement (assuming the market has mostly recovered by then). Plus if we kept our spending steady, the extra 2 years worth could go 100% into savings and grow a bit more. I'd would at least sit down and run the numbers.

                          Realistically, though, how does unemployment actually work? Let's say someone, like my daughter, was laid off last month due to COVID. And let's say her job finally reopens May 15, two months later. They call her to come back. If she says, "No thanks", what happens? Can she continue to collect unemployment for 2 years or however long it exists if she is voluntarily out of work?
                          Steve

                          * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
                          * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
                          * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

                          Comment


                            Dow up today as Sanders ends his campaign.

                            Tomorrow's unemployment numbers & the quarterly earnings reports starting next week may see a rout.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by disneysteve View Post


                              Realistically, though, how does unemployment actually work? Let's say someone, like my daughter, was laid off last month due to COVID. And let's say her job finally reopens May 15, two months later. They call her to come back. If she says, "No thanks", what happens? Can she continue to collect unemployment for 2 years or however long it exists if she is voluntarily out of work?
                              In theory, her benefits would be cut off if she's staying unemployed by choice, but it is way more complicated than that. And with 50 million unemployed people to keep track of, the opportunity to cheat the system more ripe than it already was.
                              Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

                              -George Carlin

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
                                As always, blaming poverty on the poor doesn't work so let's not perpetuate that. Yes, there is a disincentive to work. Why? Because if you earn $1.00 over the income limit, you lose 100% of your benefits. It's insane. Why we don't have a graduated system that allows you to earn more and get proportionally reduced benefits rather than all or nothing is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind is going to accept a job where they'll make slightly more money but immediately lose health insurance and food stamps because the net result would be they'd actually be making a lot less. It's not because they don't want to work. It's because they can't both work and provide for their families due to the way the system is structured. That's not the fault of the workers. They're just stuck dealing with a deeply flawed system.


                                You're leaving out one very important detail. That double pay is TEMPORARY. It's only for four months. Then you'd be unemployed with zero income. Still willing to do that? I'm certainly not taking that deal. I don't know anyone else who would either.
                                Not blaming. Already said it depends on the individual and that some people will want to work and others won't.

                                Pay is temporary, so people will want to take advantage of it for as much as they can, even 4 months. Also the feds likely will extend it, just like the last time around UNLESS there's some sort of miraculous vaccine and recovery in 4 months. I'd guess many on this board wouldn't find doubling their income for 4 months (with possibly much more) without stable income to be a good deal, but many people will. Again NOT EVERYONE. To be honest, if you told me I'd double my income for 4 months for no work, downside is no guarantee that I'll be employed afterwards, I would still find that to be somewhat tempting.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X