Hacker News Reader

Comment by orasis | Hacker News Reader

Montana resident here. I won’t comment in the wisdom of the policy itself, but I will say that people avoiding work due to CoVid benefits is a very real thing. It’s widely considered wise to go hunting and play video games rather than go to work.

View on HN

Montana resident here. That’s anecdotal bullshit.

TN here with another anecdote that says it isn’t.

Spoke to someone just recently who said they’ll stay on unemployment as long as they are allowed because they haven’t had to work in over a year and get to spend their time playing their favorite video games.

Which, if you make as much unemployed as you do employed, it makes no sense to return to work. He’s not a bad person. He’s just optimizing.

So these are all people who make less than $2000 a month. That's $12 an hour.

That's above minimum wage, isn't it (I don't know if it's different over there, but I expect it's not >$12)?

There are two ways to solve this "problem" (if you consider it to be one). Either cut the benefits, or raise the minimum wage (or pay above minimum wage).

Personally, I'd rather have people dicking around, hunting and playing video games and having fun, rather than working at a soul-sucking mimimum-wage job and still be on the state's teat (getting food stamps) because the minimim wage is too low.

I don't think tax payers have the same view as you.

Taxpayer here, and former low-paid wage slave, I agree with alienthrowaway.

I am a tax payer - tax payers are also on the hook for food stamps and other costs that are a direct result of McJobs not paying enough.

But in one case, they are being productive, in the other case, they are not.

I prefer having people on the dole if they are productive rather than sitting at home entertaining themselves at my expense. There is no societal upside to that.

Yes. He used to be a zip line guide, so I’m assuming it ain’t much.

A simple solution to this problem could be employers paying more than unemployment.

But nah, just force people to accept shit wages.

$300 / week is $7.50 / hour.

$7.50 / hour is a pittance.

This is what the point of a social safety net is. If you can't work, you get a pittance, but enough to live on. And if nobody around wants to pay you enough to live on, you don't have to take their starvation wages.

$300/ week is just the federal boost. There is an underlying base payment of UI that you ignored. Thus the "hourly" of UI is much more than $7.50

Fair point.

If you use https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator to estimate your benefit for $40k/yr ($10k/qtr) you get $400/week, so with the extra PUA program it's $700/week.

$400/week is $10/hour. $700/week is $17.50/hour.

At 40 hours/week, $17.50/hour is $36,400 for 52 weeks. It's arguably more than a pittance, but it's only 1.3x the federal poverty level for a family of 4. It also effectively sets a $17.50 price floor on labor for anyone who is eligible for the PUA program.

I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Employers would have to raise wages and raise prices a bit to compensate. I have seen a handful of papers with evidence that price increases are generally a lot smaller than minimum wage increases, so I'm not worried about it just turning into inflation. But I am not an economist so I don't want to make claims that I can't back up.

For some people, no amount of money is worth their time. Work only enough to survive. And if the government can take care of that, then it is not worthwhile to seek employment regardless of wages.

Employers paying more wouldn't help much. The problem is that we've made it possible to not worry about necessities like food and housing even if you don't work at all, and for a lot of people, they'll choose to forego luxuries if it means they never have to work again.

particularly if their personal luxuries (ie internet and beer) are affordable within this income level

Why should the meager cashflows of the small business be forced to compete with the money printer at the federal reserve? I'm all for companies raising wages in competitive environments. The situation at present is not a competitive environment.

Maybe it is. What's minimum wage like there? Are low level employees guaranteed good pay, decent quality of life, sick/parental leave, and so on?

Montana has become absolutely inundated with CoVid refugees fleeing the cities which has massively driven up housing prices and rents to the point where it's completely unaffordable for anyone working class. Businesses first got hit with being shut down by CoVid and now can't fully re-open because no one wants to work. It's a complete shitshow here and I know numerous people that have been here for decades that are being forced out.

Are minimum wage employees given healthcare they can afford? You know... since there's a pandemic still going on

I'm in Michigan and I've spoken with people who either can't hire or don't want to work because of the amount they get on unemployment. They would rather stay home and collect than contribute. Even in jobs that are naturally socially distant.

It's anecdotal, sure. I would love to see some studies on it or even just data.

>making mimimum wage

>contribute

I think you need to consider how screwed by outsourcing and immigration working class Americans have been for the past 30 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com