Nah..... the rest of your post and previous posts suggest you won't be arguing in earnest and it would be a waste of my time. Again proving my point.....I told you I prefer we taper unemployment..... For whatever, your puny mind can only accept $600 as a plan. LOL. I hate Bernie Bros, so you seem to just have a bunch of emotional arguments..... par the course for you. Take care.
Good call, it would definitely be a waste of time. To what? it's currently been tapered to 0. So you got your wish. Based on what research? $600 seems like it's working ok, based on all the evidence we have and the current state of uncontrolled pandemic and the worst labor market and economic situation in about 100 years - I'm not opposed to raising it even more.
Yea, you're like debating a wall that puts words into your mouth. See there you go again...... Instead of just asking a simple question, you have to be so smug and assuming.
Just published: https://news.yale.edu/2020/07/27/ya...ed-jobless-benefits-did-not-reduce-employment Yale study finds expanded jobless benefits did not reduce employment By Mike Cummings july 27, 2020 A new report by Yale economists finds no evidence that the enhanced jobless benefits Congress authorized in March in response to the COVID-19 pandemic reduced employment. The report (PDF) addresses concerns that the more generous unemployment benefits, which provide $600 per week above state unemployment insurance payments, would disincentivize work. The researchers assessed this claim using weekly data from Homebase, a company that provides scheduling and timesheet software to small businesses throughout the United States. The findings suggest that, in the aggregate, the expanded benefits neither encouraged layoffs during the pandemic’s onset nor deterred people from returning to work once businesses began reopening. The enhanced unemployment benefits were initiated under the CARES Act, a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus package enacted on March 27 that attempted to ease the pandemic’s severe economic consequences. The expanded benefits, which are set to expire July 31, provide a $600 weekly payment in addition to any state unemployment insurance. The supplemental payment was designed to cover 100% of the average U.S. wage when combined with existing unemployment benefits. The generosity of an individual’s unemployment benefits depends on several factors, including their earnings history and their state’s schedule of benefits. The report found that workers receiving larger increases in unemployment benefits experienced very similar gains in employment by early May relative to workers with less-generous benefit increases. People with more generously expanded benefits also resumed working at a similar or slightly quicker rate than others did, according to the report. “The data do not show a relationship between benefit generosity and employment paths after the CARES Act, which could be due to the collapse of labor demand during the COVID-19 crisis,” said Joseph Altonji, the Thomas DeWitt Cuyler Professor of Economics in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and a co-author of the report. We find that that the workers who experienced larger increases in UI generosity did not experience larger declines in employment when the benefits expansion went into effect. Additionally, we find that workers facing larger expansions in UI benefits have returned to their previous jobs over time at similar rates as others. We find no evidence that more generous benefits disincentivized work either at the onset of the expansion or as firms looked to return to business over time. From the study: We find that that the workers who experienced larger increases in UI generosity did not experience larger declines in employment when the benefits expansion went into effect. Additionally, we find that workers facing larger expansions in UI benefits have returned to their previous jobs over time at similar rates as others. We find no evidence that more generous benefits disincentivized work either at the onset of the expansion or as firms looked to return to business over time.
Look, I understand the bit about $600 extra per week per person is a general fix to a complex problem. I know some kids that had part time jobs - that got laid off - are geting the $600 per week, when they were only making about $500 per month. I know of some cooks at restaurants who make more with unemployment + the $600 than when they worked - so they are not incentivized to get back to work. If it were me, I would let them keep the $600 per week for 3 months after they got a new job - thus they could earn even more - and be incetivized to find a job..... The really BIGGER problem is that we have too many people making less than $600 per week, which is only $15 an hour....... DD
https://www.glassesrb.com/?gclid=Cj...mchw82hHizj1DAqhgjAE0lsoE1jgBWtRoCPbEQAvD_BwE Check out this deal on Ray Banz.
Once again, you've proven that you either haven't the ability to comprehend anything, or you like to hyperbolize and paint enemies where you see fit. It's actually quite entertaining and predictable.
On the flip side, you’ve done nothing but yell “junk data”, “neo-left,”and gone off on UBI tangents, none of which has done anything to counter the actual information provided by Sam. As has been mentioned, the infrastructure wasn’t in place to make the unemployment boost tie to local COL. $600 was indeed an arbitrary number and it’s definitely true some people are coming out “ahead.” But as has been the case since pretty much forever, a stimulus at the bottom of the economic hierarchy has a huge effect at all levels because that stimulus money gets spent. That’s exactly what happened here and continuing to do so isn’t going to create inflation or lower the labor pool. I get it - Sam isn’t arguing politely and being on the other end of that isn’t enjoyable. But he’s providing real information, while you’ve been limited to “nuh-uh”. So I’d maybe check your own smugness here.
Once again, what have his data sets shown besides saying that people that are given a raise through unemployment are being lifted out of poverty? Of course that's the case. It's also a proving point of why UBI works. Funny thing is, these points are obviously not very far apart on the spectrum of things. The smugness comes from the fact that Sam literally missed the second sentence of the thread and is consistently looking past that. He continues to twist words and create words, as is his MO. Obviously debating someone like that is fruitless, as proved by his last post in here, which literally does absolutely nothing to further the conversation.
Junk Data! Cherry picked stats! While I mostly agree with you on this topic, you do come of as very condescending, let the data speak for itself.
Far be it from me to challenge a Yale study but I'm sure people were incentivized to return to work by losing their benefits. Obviously this isn't a normal downtown with most people who have returned to work returning to their old jobs.
You cannot talk to me about 600$ being too much When 550 billion dollars is unaccounted for. 550,000,000$ went to an orange hole of corruption Rocket River.
FYI, $600 was not an arbitrary number. From the study: "The payment was designed to replace 100 percent of the mean U.S. wage when combined with existing UI benefits." Also from study: "This results from the fact that the earnings distribution in the U.S. is right-skewed, so the median worker earns less than mean earnings."
Also, I've conceded that point. Initially it seemed like that would be the case. For the most part, it has not.
I honestly don't know. Data showing that giving people a raise lowers poverty isn't really relevant to the conversation being had, though, imo. Because that's what should happen in that situation. The data that mattered to me is that 2/3 of the unemployed were making more than before they became unemployed. And that was from Sam's article. As I said before, maybe it's a pipe dream, because we weren't prepared for it, but 100% of normal salary was appropriate. Nothing more. If our unemployment systems had been better, we could have done that. They were not. I also realize some people are making far less than that. I think those people should get more than $600, temporarily. I also believe we, as a country, should be better prepared, from a financial standpoint, individually, to weather something like this. Temporarily. Not for this long, though. I can't state this enough: I realize this thread comes off as condescending and apathetic, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I really do feel for these people. I also believe in doing the right thing, always. Giving someone a raise during an economic crisis, for not working, is not the right thing.
Its hard to accomplish this when you have to live paycheck to paycheck and likely have a negative net worth. I mean, the reality is that wages must go up. You can't expect a family making below $15/hour to make it in this country and be able to have savings. I've had friends that have suggested those people need to sacrifice, but sacrifice what? We live in a rich country where there is obviously plenty of money to go around. We spend so much on our military, so much on providing tax breaks to the corporate elite and we refuse to invest on our citizens. Somehow, just because we live in a capitalistic society we are told by Republicans that we are supposed to be okay with billionaires becoming even richer, into the double digits billions, because "they worked hard" and because "they were smart". It's like, WTF, do people not work hard, are people not smart? It's such a BS concept that as a society we will ****ing bow down to these corporations and provide them many tax cuts just to convince them to open headquarters in X city. A company like Amazon does not need the country to kiss their ass, they have plenty of capital to do without the tax cuts and they will make that much more in their business. Face it, we continue on our current path, people will never have any sort of wealth. Not everyone will be smart enough to own a business and make good money, have a career and make good money. There is a lower class that will always be that, the lower class, the lowest wage earners, but we need to provide them the opportunity to at least own something, to have $1,000 of emergency cash.
I agree with this completely. I think a UBI, subsidized by companies like the Amazons, the Apples, the Googles, etc. (After all they're making so much money from our personal lives) would help much of this. I think that since this time, wages have gone down, relative to inflation. I don't know this for sure, and I'm too lazy to look up the data, to be honest. I know they definitely haven't gone up. But costs have. Healthcare costs more. Food costs more. Etc. A lot of it because of government taxes and the like. What's happened is, since the late 60's or so, the government has become a booming business. You get into office, you get rich. Your buddies get rich from you. The poor subsidizes your business. This shouldn't be happening. I think scaling back government in the national level is one way to scale back this corporate greed. I think local and state governments need to be given their local powers back.
