[Cause]

Out of curiosity, is it true that the federal unemployment benefit is pricing people out of the job hunt? I can believe it. With federal unemployment they are getting 600 (soon to become 400 maybe) dollars a week. On top of what I believe would be a state benefit? That would be more than a week of minimum wage?

So I don’t know how this works. Is there a maximum period you can claim unemployment? I presume it’s tax free? Does seem like someone who was earning minimum wage before would be better off with the benefit?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 08 August 2020 - 10:26 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, is it true that the federal unemployment benefit is pricing people out of the job hunt? I can believe it. With federal unemployment they are getting 600 (soon to become 400 maybe) dollars a week. On top of what I believe would be a state benefit? That would be more than a week of minimum wage?

So I don't know how this works. Is there a maximum period you can claim unemployment? I presume it's tax free? Does seem like someone who was earning minimum wage before would be better off with the benefit?

'when they've actually looked at the data so far, economists have found scant evidence that unemployment payments are presently having a large impact on the job market. If they were, you would expect hiring to be faster right now in states where benefits are skimpier compared with what people earn working. It's not obvious that that's the case. Evercore ISI's Ernie Tedeschi—Twitter's favorite source of speedy macro analysis—found that between April and May, unemployment dropped slightly quicker in states where unemployment is less generous compared with the typical wage, but the difference wasn't statistically significant. In a much more formal draft paper recently presented at the Brookings Institution, a group of economists found that there were fewer layoffs and rehiring actually seemed to be going faster in states where benefits were relatively more generous. Likewise, they found that at small businesses, employee hours collapsed further and have recovered slower in states where unemployment benefits replace a smaller share of the typical wage. "This is the opposite of the pattern one would expect if either were importantly driven by labor supply responses to UI generosity," the paper notes.

[...] But in the end, there just isn't good empirical evidence that unemployment benefits are much of a drag on rehiring at the moment, and for every saltwater taffy shop owner who says he can't find enough staff, there seem to be plenty of everyday examples of employees who've gone back to their old jobs even though it meant a pay cut. Some might feel like they're forced: Workers risk losing their benefits if they turn down a job offer. Others are doing it it by choice: As one restaurant server in Delaware put it to the Times, "I'm a go, go, go personality."'

https://slate.com/bu...epublicans.html

'there is little evidence that the extra $600 was dissuading people from returning to work, according to five studies.'

https://www.washingt...oyment-benefit/

'Using a variety of government and private-industry data sets, they all concluded the same thing: The $600 federal supplement does not appear to have depressed job growth.

As the Yale economists summarized: "We find no evidence that high [unemployment insurance] replacement rates drove job losses or slowed rehiring." The Evercore ISI economist, Ernie Tedeschi, also observed that in June, around 70 percent of unemployment recipients who resumed working had been receiving more from benefits than their prior wage — yet nonetheless returned to work.

Why might this be the case?

Because, as a recent survey of elite economists from the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets found, the main force holding back job growth is firms' lack of interest in hiring, not people's unwillingness to work at prevailing wages. With U.S. unemployment in double digits, job vacancies depressed and jobless benefits temporary, most workers don't want to lose any shot they might have at reemployment.

[...] some employers have offered examples of individuals turning down jobs. But whether these workers rejected offers because of high unemployment benefits (vs. other factors, such as fears of infection or lack of child care) is difficult to parse. [...] these studies all show that, on net, higher government benefits are not currently depressing employment.

If anything, research to date suggests the federal benefit supplement has boosted macroeconomic activity and, therefore, likely supported hiring. That's because these benefits have supported consumer spending, which in turn helps retailers, landlords and other businesses keep workers on their own payrolls.'

https://www.washingt...3988_story.html

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 August 2020 - 10:44 PM

[Cause]

Still interesting to me that some people at least, apparently 3/5ths are earning more now than when they had jobs. Amazing that the states can pull that off and probably one of the reasons the stock market is still booming and people are still buying things but wow.

[Vengeance]

That tells you that minimum wage is way too low and that Corp American has been fleecing the poor for ever.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 09 August 2020 - 03:43 AM, said:

Still interesting to me that some people at least, apparently 3/5ths are earning more now than when they had jobs.

'College-Educated Professionals Are Capitalism's Useful Idiots

How I got co-opted into helping the rich prevail at the expense of everybody else

[...] In 40 years, the share of wealth owned by our richest 1 percent has doubled, the collective net worth of the bottom half has dropped to almost zero, the median weekly pay for a full-time worker has increased by just 0.1 percent a year, only the incomes of the top 10 percent have grown in sync with the economy, and so on. Americans' boats stopped rising together; most of our boats stopped rising at all. Economic inequality has reverted to the levels of a century ago and earlier, and so has economic insecurity, while economic immobility is almost certainly worse than it's ever been.

What's happened since the 1970s and '80s didn't just happen. It looks more like arson than a purely accidental fire, more like poisoning than a completely natural illness, more like a cheating of the many by the few—and although I've always been predisposed to disbelieve conspiracy theories, this amounts to a long-standing and well-executed conspiracy, not especially secret, by the leaders of the capitalist class, at the expense of everyone else. A Raw Deal replaced the New Deal.'

https://www.theatlan...Vdy-cNQRLpT4vNc

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 09 August 2020 - 04:15 AM

[Tsundoku]

Azath Vitr (D, on 09 August 2020 - 04:15 AM, said:

Cause, on 09 August 2020 - 03:43 AM, said:

Still interesting to me that some people at least, apparently 3/5ths are earning more now than when they had jobs.

'College-Educated Professionals Are Capitalism's Useful Idiots

How I got co-opted into helping the rich prevail at the expense of everybody else

[...] In 40 years, the share of wealth owned by our richest 1 percent has doubled, the collective net worth of the bottom half has dropped to almost zero, the median weekly pay for a full-time worker has increased by just 0.1 percent a year, only the incomes of the top 10 percent have grown in sync with the economy, and so on. Americans' boats stopped rising together; most of our boats stopped rising at all. Economic inequality has reverted to the levels of a century ago and earlier, and so has economic insecurity, while economic immobility is almost certainly worse than it's ever been.

What's happened since the 1970s and '80s didn't just happen. It looks more like arson than a purely accidental fire, more like poisoning than a completely natural illness, more like a cheating of the many by the few—and although I've always been predisposed to disbelieve conspiracy theories, this amounts to a long-standing and well-executed conspiracy, not especially secret, by the leaders of the capitalist class, at the expense of everyone else. A Raw Deal replaced the New Deal.'

https://www.theatlan...Vdy-cNQRLpT4vNc

Really interesting article. So much of it I guess clicked for me, having been a small kid in the 70s and a teen in the 80s when I started to notice the world around me.

This bit in particular made me nod as I was reading:

"The faction that was now dominant in the Democratic Party had been pushing for a more centrist economic and social-welfare policy since the 1970s, but the Republican Party after 1980 had no comparable moderating faction—which in a two-party system meant that Democrats kept moving toward a center that kept moving to the right."

What's that window called? Overton? I noticed the effects but didn't know of the idea of the ways and wherefores until I read about it only a few years ago. Plus in some posts on here actually.

https://en.wikipedia.../Overton_window

Yeah - it's like the GOP basically abandoned all principles except "Keep the rich rich and fuck the rest" in the 80s and pusued it with singleminded purpose. And they won.
Hell, even the Dems migrated right and we even have the phrase "Wall St Democrat" which once meant a part of the Dems and now means most of them.
It's like the USA rolled back the clock to Dickensian England or the robber barons of the late 19th century.

"Affluent college-educated people, Democrats as well as Republicans, began using the phrase socially liberal but fiscally conservative to describe their politics, which meant low taxes for higher-net-worth individuals (another new term) in return for tolerance of . . . whatever, as long as it didn’t involve big new social programs that affluent people would have to pay for. It was a libertarianism lite that kept everything nice and clubbable and it did at least have the virtue of ideological consistency."

"The obeisance of the rich right and their consiglieri to Trump for the past four years has exposed more nakedly than ever their compact—everything about money, anything for money—and the events of 2020 pushed that along to an even more hideous crescendo. In early spring, when COVID-19 had killed only dozens of Americans, Stuart Stevens, a strategist for the four previous Republican presidential nominees, wrote that “those of us in the Republican Party built this moment,” because “the failures of the government’s response to the coronavirus crisis can be traced directly to some of the toxic fantasies now dear to the Republican Party … Government is bad. Establishment experts are overrated or just plain wrong. Science is suspect.”"

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 09 August 2020 - 06:50 AM

[Cause]

So long as the republicans don’t ducking mess with estate tax we at least have that going for us. I’m actually quite curious what will happen when gates, buffet and beezos die. Will the us government end up owning a majority share in amazon? Is that legal?

Although as I say this thought out loud not sure if us tax law allows them to put the whole thing in a charity trust? That’s something that bugs me. Charity is for when government fails, not to replace it. Zuckerberg put all his money in his own charitable trust that he controls complexity. Saying he have billions to charity is a lie.

Edit- I don’t understand payrol tax deferment? Will I get more money in my paycheck? But it’s a deferment so I still have to pay it eventually? Also am I not paying the tax or is my employer not paying the tax?

This post has been edited by Cause: 09 August 2020 - 10:51 PM

[Macros]

You're always paying the tax, only the rich can afford to not pay the tax

[Malankazooie]

Got around to watching that Axios interview of Trump. The lies are not even clever, nor is there an attempt or effort to make them believable. It was exhausting to watch. You know how there are comedians who do rather absurd and outrageous impersonations of Trump? Well the margins between their imitations and the real thing is razor thin now. Four more years of this and we are fucked.

[Aptorian]

The frustrating part about watching Trump is that I never quite know what I'm watching.

A shrewd manipulative charlatan who will say and do anything to gain favor and look good?

A bumbling idiot who has no clue what he's doing and is just making shit up as he goes - Not a liar. Just doesn't understand science. Or politics. Or magnets.

A feeble minded pensioner who's mind is turning to mush and has no real grasp on fact and fiction any longer.

And mostly it feels like it's all of the above which is just scary.

[Gorefest]

Malankazooie, on 10 August 2020 - 08:59 AM, said:

Got around to watching that Axios interview of Trump. The lies are not even clever, nor is there an attempt or effort to make them believable. It was exhausting to watch. You know how there are comedians who do rather absurd and outrageous impersonations of Trump? Well the margins between their imitations and the real thing is razor thin now. Four more years of this and we are fucked.

I would argue that with three less years you are already fucked.

[Malankazooie]

Biden selects Kamala Harris for VP. McGruff the Crime Dog approves.

[Cyphon]

My twitter feed suggests she's a mixed bag from a progressive view point. But maybe that doesn't matter for electoral success.

[QuickTidal]

Cyphon, on 11 August 2020 - 08:52 PM, said:

My twitter feed suggests she's a mixed bag from a progressive view point. But maybe that doesn't matter for electoral success.

She is literally the 4th most progressive in the senate apparently.

Also, she's going to utterly destroy Pence in the debate...like eviscerate him with words.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm cynical about the theory behind this pick, but Harris doesn't bother me. Neither does Biden. I'm thoroughly "meh" about the Democratic ticket. Both are "safe." I shall vote enthusiastically to dump Trump and then fucking send him and all his cronies to jail (like that'll happen). THAT is what I'm excited to vote for. I'll never have the enthusiasm for another candidate as I did for Obama, I think.

Dems are playing it safe... as they should.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2020 - 09:06 PM, said:

Cyphon, on 11 August 2020 - 08:52 PM, said:

My twitter feed suggests she's a mixed bag from a progressive view point. But maybe that doesn't matter for electoral success.

She is literally the 4th most progressive in the senate apparently.

Also, she's going to utterly destroy Pence in the debate...like eviscerate him with words.

This will be the very first American vp debate i have ever bothered to watch.

[Aptorian]

Will Pence be allowed to be on stage with a woman without Mother standing next to him?

[Slow Ben]

Abyss, on 12 August 2020 - 01:57 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2020 - 09:06 PM, said:

Cyphon, on 11 August 2020 - 08:52 PM, said:

My twitter feed suggests she's a mixed bag from a progressive view point. But maybe that doesn't matter for electoral success.

She is literally the 4th most progressive in the senate apparently.

Also, she's going to utterly destroy Pence in the debate...like eviscerate him with words.

This will be the very first American vp debate i have ever bothered to watch.

100%


It’s gonna be a bloodbath...

[Cyphon]

Everyone seems to be saying that, I don't know enough to agree or disagree. Does sound like the Dems will have to do some expectation management or Harris won't seem to have done well enough and Pence will have to do very little for it to seem okay for him.

[Terez]

She doesn't even have to do well. Pence is a total dope.