Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have lost jobs or hours, poll finds | Hacker News Reader

Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have lost jobs or hours, poll finds

latimes.com

95 pointsmyth_drannon44 comments

Open articleView on HN

Why not break this into:

N% have lost jobs

N% have lost hours

We don't have N% have dead or infected with cv, do we?

Because they want you to think the worst, i.e. 18% have lost jobs, because the title is clickbait.

If cv is very bad ( I really hope it is not ) many boomers will pass away. Who then will read newspapers? They are just utter garbage now.

This is one of many changes CV will bring, IMHO.

This year, over 20% of Americans have suffered death or tooth decay. Click here to find out how to protect your family.

How about total dollar value of reduced wages across the USA?

That’s not useful either. What does lost hours mean? Is that 10% of your hours or 90% of your hours. One friend has lost 100% of her hours but somehow is still employed. Is she “lost hours” or “lost jobs”?

How about which N% will likely miss their rent payment? Because that's the key - those missed payments on 4/1 will have massive impacts to the economy.

Some fraction of that N% represents landlords who now may not be able to make their mortgage payment.

I'm hearing that companies are facing sudden cash flow problems, where due to the outbreak orders are cancelled last minute en masse. these companies guarantee 50-100% refunds no matter when you cancel, so orders are sitting on loading docks that have been paid for with no one to go, and the revenue has suddenly turned into costs.

I have no idea why markets turned higher today. Shit is hitting the fan. Work is being stopped, layoffs are going on across small margin businesses, and people are not going to have money to pay their rent or mortgage in two weeks. And the only thing I've seen from the Government is talk - zero policy, zero decisions.

And this isn't just your neighborhood cafes laying people off. It's companies up and down the supply chains and B2B manufacturers that don't operate on high margins and don't have vast reserves of cash.

When the quarantines and shutdowns half, it's going to be a bloodbath of consolidation.

Since 2008, most of the jobs created have been service jobs. The low unemployment everyone keeps on about is covering up the fact that the people who got employed got shittier jobs.

This thing is going to be a bloodbath in the US. We'll probably see a Democratic wave in November.

> We'll probably see a Democratic wave in November.

I'm still on the fence about this.

It's certainly conceivable that the Trump Whitehouse will throw excessive amounts of money at the problem - i.e. going downright socialist by giving millions of citizens $1,000 to $2,500/mnth welfare cheque through the spring.

The almost certainty is that Trump (GOP et al) will do anything possibly to remain in power come November.

I think this is a very interesting analysis. I think it's more apt to say there could be a Populist wave in Nov, which could be very positive for whichever party adopts a populist stance. Looking at the current state of the Democratic Primary it doesn't appear it will be the Dems which push that agenda.

This has been a big fear of the left - that if the GOP takes up the socialist plank for the working class before the DNC does, it would be a death knell for the resurgent American left. Throw in climate fear after this recession and there's been a lot of worry of ecofascism surging.

> We'll probably see a Democratic wave in November.

Not if Republicans seize the opportunity to go populist and outflank the Democrats. Right now 2 major US Senators are calling for more populist relief than proposed by Democrats.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/politics/coronavirus-romney-p...

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/media/tom-cotton-coronavirus-house-b...

wife's job is "firing" people so they can collect unemployment, and will rehire them later. I don't know the legalities around this, it's definitely odd. and you have to take the business' word for it...

It's not odd, that's pretty standard practice in dire situations like this. The company doesn't have the money to pay your wife or her colleagues, and since the government hasn't done anything special (yet) to help out businesses the only way they can guarantee she gets a portion of her salary is through layoffs.

If they furloughed your wife instead, she would not get paid anything by anyone until the government decides what the relief effort looks like.

Aren't you also eligible for unemployment if you're laid off?

If you terminate for cause then the employee can't get unemployment. So you "lay off" of "lose budget" then the employee can get benefits. (USA/WA interpretation)

Construction companies do it annually - at least here where it gets cold in the Winter. I know people who get laid off every year and then re-hired once the Spring work picks back up. Thing is they know this so they're prepared and plan for it.

BLS data is going to look crazy. Surely, there’ll be a jobs report where unemployment jumps from <4% to >10%. And then in a few months, it’ll jump back down again.

How far will it jump back down?

A lot of small and medium sized businesses are pretty marginally profitable and exist because of legacy momentum. I'm starting to think that a lot of these businesses will never re-start after the pandemic ends.

If there's any saving grace, it might be that this is spring-break time. Perhaps some workers were planning on spending cash on a vacation, that money can be used for essentials.

Wishful thinking, probably. But I'm really looking for ways this will all work out. (As it inevitably will.)

In related news, 90% have either coughed or died suddenly.

Losing hours and losing jobs are two very different things, conflating statistics like this is counterproductive to understanding.

No, they’re talking about just one thing - not receiving pay.

First paragraph (and headline):

> Some 18% of adults reported that they had been laid off or that their work hours had been cut

I think the person you responded to was saying was that both of those things (being laid off and having hours cut) involve not receiving some amount of pay. And that that's the reason they were grouped together.

Basically that it was answering one specific question: How many had pay impacted. But that it doesn't answer these other questions that yes would in fact be very useful, including a breakdown.

Perhaps, but the data is merged and too much information is lost.

Did I prick my finger or lose 4 pints of blood! == Less overtime or fired.

I don't think that's a fair comparison, personally. Getting your hours cut is a big deal and might mean you can't pay your bills.

Like I said, I think it's great to split them out if you can, but let's not minimize actual pain people are going to be going through right now. Especially on a site where the average income is so much higher than most.

Grouping related things together isn't necessarily conflating.

I don't think the article is trying to say "18% of workers have basically lost their jobs!!!", but rather to give a sense of how many people's incomes are impacted.

If they weren't trying to conflate them the headline would have been "Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have reduced our or lost jobs"

Agreed, losing a job is very different than getting hours cut. Both suck, one sucks much much more.

For many, losing a job maybe preferable so they can collect unemployment.

Edit for what I thought was obvious context:

If you had a full-time job and where forced to go to meager part-time hours, it might be better to just get laid off and collect. I had a friend in this situation. It would have been better for him to have been laid off.

How? Unemployment is limited to half your pay.

My charitable read would be to append: "... so they don't have to risk being infected at this time."

A less charitable read is also quite possible.

Many service workers are getting a lot less money per hour worked than before because they're tip-based.

A lot of employees also just lost their childcare as schools and day-cares closed. Getting half-pay and being free to take care of your children could be preferable to getting half- or even 80%-pay while having to find and pay a babysitter for the time you're still working.

Also, to add to your point, most service workers don't get sick leave, so it's not just the risk of being infected -- if you get sick, you don't get paid. Unemployment still pays sick people.

Not necessarily. Colorado's is something like 80% of your weekly compensation (I think the math looks at the average of the last 20 weeks of employment).

Hm, true, I guess I neglected to remember that unemployment is a state-managed program.

A reduction in hours can qualify you for unemployment insurance.

Unemployment now covers coronavirus.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/what-to-do-if-yo...

Loosing a fully paying job is never preferable to unemployment in the US.

E.g. “ If you are eligible to receive unemployment, the weekly benefit rate in Indiana is 47% of your average weekly wage (to come up with your average weekly wage, divide your total wages during the base period by 52). The weekly benefit rate is subject to a minimum of $50 and a maximum of $390. You may receive benefits for a maximum of 26 weeks.”

But it could be a temporary thing. Service workers can be laid off temporarily and hired back. Essentially offloading them from the company's payroll and adding them to the states'. Instead, if there's an option for states to provide unemployment without actually getting fired - disability? - for anyone affected not just those with the virus could also help in these times.

There are a ton of businesses that operate on thin margins - restaurant and service industry in general - and it makes sense for the government to step in.

>Loosing a fully paying job is never preferable to unemployment in the US.

Is that what I said? No, it's not.

Unfortunately, I don't think part-time employees can collect unemployment. I'm guessing part-timers were the most effected, since that includes most restaurant workers.

That probably varies by state. In California your UI payout is determined by your average W2 income over the past six(?) months. Front of house workers would be covered, but may be at a disadvantage due to tips.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com