What perverse incentive is that?
We are at ridiculously high unemployment numbers, so whether people are "incentivized" to work or not doesn't mean much.
We are at ridiculously high unemployment numbers, so whether people are "incentivized" to work or not doesn't mean much.
Not sure it's the right term to use for people, since as you say, the jobs aren't there. But for state governments, for sure.
This causes the states' perverse incentives that you mentioned. Many people believe a big push to reopen has been motivated by states trying to get people off unemployment as they know some workers would rather stay safe at home and lose unemployment benefits than return to work in an unsafe environment.
>Certainly there will be some people who do it, but you would basically have to commit fraud to do it.
Also the extra unemployment benefits expired so anyone still doing this is not making more than they would at their job. Their only incentive to continue this fraud is for their own personal safety. You can't call a preference for one's own personal safety "perverse".
Maybe then it says more about our current economic system as a whole.
But my point was it seems like if $600 / week is enough for folks to choose not to work, that says more about the work not being meaningful or the employer being unable to (or choosing not to) pay the worker well.
If $600/wk is enough not to work, then it can also speak to the quality of the worker and their lack of skills. Spending time complaining about how hard life is, rather than doing something about it. Not everyone is like that, and not no-one is like that either.
Severance is counted against eligibility for unemployment in most states.
Source; had a friend not understand this, to wonder where their unemployment was, to get their first check after their severance ran out.
two of your three examples are plague-pit jobs that will involve the employee interfacing with the public and getting sick, probably bankrupting themselves with medical bills. that's the real problem.
it's a free market, and if you can't retain employees that's because you're not offering enough. Offer someone $1m a year to work in your casino, they'll take it (even during a pandemic) and you know it. Now we're just negotiating over the price.
Start offering $60k, maybe $70k, and full health coverage to balance out, you know, risking your life and long term financial health so Karen can get her gyro, and people will take it.
The real underlying problem is that a lot of these businesses are essentially bankrupt already, they are the walking dead, their business model will no longer work due to the pandemic (they relied on not paying for their employees' health care and that's no longer a viable scheme with the pandemic on) and they're demanding what amount to subsidies (artificial reductions on the cost of labor, for which the clearing price has risen due to increased personal risk) in order to stay afloat.
taking away unemployment benefits isn't going to bring customers back to your subway, it's over for a significant number of businesses and the owners are pleading to delay the inevitable. This is the economic impact that people wanted to pretend didn't exist, there is no reason the stock market should be bouncing against an all-time high when our economy dived 33% annualized rate this quarter and the pandemic is spreading faster than ever.
You're looking at a crashing economy and suggesting that the real problem is the only brace still propping it up, and suggesting that we knock it out.
Many of these businesses are going to die regardless, because of the failed pandemic response, the failure to enact a sufficient degree of stimulus, and because these businesses are no longer viable with an ongoing pandemic.
And yes, I said plague pit. How in the world do you think it's reasonable for an employee that is not provided with any health insurance (or a bronze plan or whatever) to risk an infection that can stick you with a $1.1m bill, for $7.50 an hour? Employees are, shall we say, not going to respond to that economic incentive, that's not a reasonable trade from any perspective.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/breaking-down-this-miracle...
Instead, they will stay at home, and 33% of renters are going to miss their payment this month, just as the article says. As they said in 2008: if you don't pay your mortgage this month, you have a problem. If 33% of people don't pay their mortgage this month... the bank has a problem.
The reality is that businesses that require interfacing with the public are going to see a downturn in customers no matter what, and are going to have to start paying for their employees' health care, no matter what. You can't expect people to take on a near-certainty of an extraordinarily expensive hospital stay for $7.50 per hour. People won't do that, and customers aren't coming into the business at the same rate they used to anyway. Those businesses are walking dead and forcing employees to accept sub-market wages to get them back to work won't help that.
The drive to work can get you a $500k doctor bill, and at similar risks for Covid $500k doctor bill. Both of which these demographics will not pay at all. They will either just leave it in collections or use bankruptcy to eliminate it.
It's how business owners paying minimum wage want the market to work, but it's not how it does. Shit, a lot of businesses aren't even trying to mitigate the risks, not providing PPE, etc - they just expect minimum-wage workers to absorb all that risk and cost if they don't want to die.
2. It's not just you, you could infect your friends and family and children.
3. If someone actually compared the actual odds (i.e. real numbers) of getting in a card accident with getting Covid-19 working in one of these public-facing jobs we are discussing, under current conditions, then we'd be able to tell if the comparison you're proposing is reasonable or not.
Everyone is talking about the employees not wanting to go back to work, but as far as I can tell, I don't think the customers want to go to the businesses either.
I still personally think the crux is lack of demand. I don't think the customers exist anymore that would be willing to pay enough to account for the extra cost of the business given Covid. And one of those cost include safety precautions to their employees.
As an example, Amazon was able to hire 175000 additional workers through the pandemic, even though they were getting unemployment checks.
So I think it's naive to think that removing unemployment is what will save those business. But I'm not a zealot on this, that's just my current rationale. I'm welcoming counter points.
I recall (long time ago) that Germany's unemployment included a list that employers could use to find workers. If an unemployed person was offered a job, they were cut from unemployment. Our current system has people claiming unemployment, getting more money that working. This created a situation that employer could complain to the government, but then the employee feels "cheated" and brings those negative feelings back to work... not exactly a good situation.
The current system has all sorts of moral hazard and unintended consequences. I could provide a policy recommendation, but that's really out of scope for a small discussion forum.
I do appreciate your discussion though!
The US has a very good level of testing/mask usage. And, to be blunt, just wear a mask and wash your hands...you will be okay. I understand why some groups of people are very worried: if you are obese, if you are over 60, if you work in a hospital/care home...but if you work in an office, it isn't a "Hunger Games" situation.
I don't think furlough/unemployment schemes necessarily created that incentive though. People in some places are clearly being very cautious (I am in the UK, people aren't wearing masks and not being cautious at all...I have seen larger crowds at pubs than ever...no masks) anyway.
So I think the solution to the unemployment problem is a change in message from govt. If you take precautions, you will be okay (again, where I am the message was very urgent and serious...this worked at first but some people are ignoring totally and others are staying at home terrified of their own shadow...so who knows? But I think it would have success generally).
If this is true, why is the outbreak here so much worse than basically any of our peer countries?
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/8993658...
And looking in the last 3 days is misleading since we know the pandemic hits in waves, at different times, across different countries.
The problem is we aren't at the end yet. Any time frame you use is therefore going to give you an incomplete picture. I used the last three days because it shows that the US is clearly in a worse current position. That means we will continue creeping up that initial per capita list you linked. Maybe the UK, Spain, France, or Italy experience a second wave at some point down the line, but at least they have gotten past the first wave that the US still hasn't been able to stop.
Instead of saying "better" I should have said "has fewer per capita deaths so far".
But as you said in your other reply, we understand Covid to be a regional disease that comes in waves, washing over a region and then subsiding. For smaller, denser countries in Europe, it is easier for this disease to reach all regions. America is vast with a much lower population density, and the virus is taking its time finding its way around.
However, if you break the US down into regions you can see how bad it is. NY state has a comparable population density to Italy (162 vs 200 for Italy), and both were hard hit at the beginning of this thing. New York state suffered 1,687 deaths per million, while Italy only suffered 582 deaths per million so far. This I think provides a more nuanced picture rather than just looking at deaths per million by country. Population density is really a factor here.
That assumes that the masks are as effective as claimed, that mass enforcement is even feasible, and that the Federal govt. has the right to create such a mandate. I don't believe we have enough data to know the efficacy of masks, especially handmade masks out in the field. Mass enforcement of mask wearing, even if it was somehow cost affordable to task law enforcement with, would likely be met with heavy protest or open revolt in the United States by various civil rights groups.
There's nothing wrong with being concerned about safety, especially these days. However, it's not so simple as 'pass a mask law', and if you really think about it ... there's a silver lining there. Do you want to be ruled by a government who can tell you what to wear, when to wear it, how to wear it — even if you dissent? Once there is a precedent for a national mask law, the Federal government can use that to push for further loss of freedoms for individuals and states. I'm not saying the mask law concept is intentionally being pushed to erode freedoms, rather, that it has the potential to do so.
Businesses can already refuse service for any reason not protected by Federal/State law. That's plenty of grounds to kick out a non mask wearer. I don't see the need for additional laws, enforcement, or government spending. Let businesses and employees decide the level of risk they are willing to take.
And you want a national mandate to wear masks but you said that people wearing them got infected. Interesting take.
[1] https://www.bryanhealth.com/app/files/public/4953/wear-a-mas...
you'd need to take an unnecessary risk like eating lunch in a group to create a significant exposure in that environment.
I'm... not sure... whether the science on this holds up, but it struck me as a good compromise. People expressed concern that wearing a mask for nine hours straight, without any breaks, would become very uncomfortable.
If the benefits were instead given to everyone, then you wouldn't lose money by getting a job.
The argument against generous "unemployment insurance" vs. "UBI" is valid enough. But it's based on an assumption of near-full employment that doesn't hold right now.
Basically: this is not the time to have that argument.
Broadly: I think this is mostly spin, and would want to see a real study instead of anecdotes from friends.
Politicians like Ocasio-Cortez actively told people they shouldn't go back to work even as places open back up. This is problematic because if enough people believe that, there is a risk of shortages for things like food. We over produce quite a bit in America, farms are heavily subsidized, and it's mostly school/restaurant food chain products that are being dumped right now (and many Americans are realizing for the first time we get totally different qualities of products than restaurants do), so it's not affecting us too badly yet.
Hopefully it won't, but there needs to be a balance between any proposal for UBI or continued unemployment and restarting production systems that produce domestic goods we need to survive.
This is interesting, can you clarify what you mean?
This is one of the tricky things about economic policy. If you are proposing UBI, you are likely to be the worst person possible to implement it. All the proponents see are upsides without the deep understanding of the downsides.
A country which manages this well is Denmark. They have high levels of union membership, they have a true contributory unemployment insurance scheme that functions like UBI but they are also very savvy about capitalism/markets, and have one of the most flexible labour markets in the world (one of the few places on par with the US, maybe even ahead of). They understand that capitalism is the way you pay for all this stuff, it is the solution, not the problem. Very few political systems can make this leap.
The same applies to the discussion around restarting. Lots of countries went hard on the lockdown rhetoric...and now, it is pretty hard to roll back.
It is very concerning though. I don't think this is going to be some huge decade long disaster, things will get better. But there is a real possibility that a lot of supply gets destroyed in the meantime as the middle-class cocoons themselves at home out of fear.