Neither.
If employers really wanted more workers, they'd up wages.
If employees really wanted to work they'd settle for less.
If neither is happening then everyone is happy and anyone complaining is a liar in the economic sense.
If employers really wanted more workers, they'd up wages.
If employees really wanted to work they'd settle for less.
If neither is happening then everyone is happy and anyone complaining is a liar in the economic sense.
The corporation needs labor, but the employee need money, not labor (but it happens that most common way for normal people to earn money to live is through labor).
The complaining is an economic act in itself - employers whining about "unable to find workers" usually get political help as a result, either in the form of tax breaks/other subsidies or in the form of relaxed labor laws/enforcement (e.g. loosening the requirements to fire someone, reducing the amount of inspection for undocumented workers).
If these unemployment benefits were paid out UBI-style, regardless of current employment, there wouldn't be a disincentive to find work.
They might either go out of business or automate those roles if they can't afford to pay blue collar workers a living wage. I'm not a socialist, but some business do rip off low income workers. So they might as well cease to exist if they can't find workers to rip off, instead of claiming that people are lazy.
I think your new marginal rate only applies to anything over the limit that bumped you into a new tax bracket, so I don’t think this is right. A raise always gets you more money.
The exception being if it bumps you out of the government assisted healthcare bracket. Then, a raise could indeed be a loss.
Edit: I thought you were talking about income tax, but you might have been talking about business subsidies, which I know nothing about.
Sorry if I'm missing your point...
But in addition, unemployed people have been getting unprecedented amounts of weekly Unemployment Insurance payments. In normal times, you can only get these for a few months while proving that you are actively looking for work. During the pandemic, these have been extended and greatly increased, and the government has mostly stopped checking whether people were really looking for work. The normal rules are going to go back into effect soon, though.
How much is it normally? Definitely not 0%. Also, what's "government payments"? Does it include wages to government employees, for instance?
(I expect the figure is higher than normal, I'm just not sure from this how much higher)
I worked a shitty job to get through college, it's a stepping stone.
These jobs aren't meant to live on. They should be used as part time jobs for people transitioning in their careers, like students.
When you give handouts to people who don't want to work you are not doing them any favors. They become reliant and trapped in that loop.
That's not to say there shouldn't be a safety net with strict qualifications. You're doing no service to the people who need it by allowing those who don't.
We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
"Fast food work is a stepping stone to a better job!"
Have you been to a McDonalds or Wendys recently? Most of the workers are in their 30s-40s+. The concept of a low-wage "stepping stone" job is a fallacy that people have subscribed to to justify paying unlivable wages.
> We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
Unfortunately many of my tax dollars go to fund a military I find ethically abhorrent instead of improving the quality of life in the US.
Don't speak for me please.
Also, I'm not talking about the people who need support, I'm talking about the people taking advantage and staying on unemployment because they don't want to work.
If someone chooses to not be employed and it brings them basic needs and recuperation, then I see the system working well.
When others see that you can just give up and get paid, they will also become burnouts.
Eventually you will run out of other people's money.
Here's an idea: next time there's an oil spill, lets take the money for cleanup out of the executives' bank accounts (and investments, and properties) before we dig into the public coffers. Then we can talk about freeloaders at the bottom.
If the pentagon can "lose" 125 billion dollars ($125,000,000,000), I really don't care that people with the ability to "milk" the gov for cash are taking advantage of that ability. It's their own money in the first place!