Poll of the Day > Montana to end Extra Unemployment Benefits due to Work Shortages...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mamy of these people still end up needing government benefits when working these shit hole jobs.

Taxpayers are literally subsidizing these companies by paying their employees for them.

---

Ok, so almost half the jobs in the US pay $15 or less an hour.
Unemployment which just about anyone could qualify for due to the pandemic, is currently paying base unemployment (min of $200 a week) + 300$ (so min of $500 a week but more than that for most.

But wait..there's more. The pandemic release portion of that is not taxable, just like the stimulus checks etc, meaning $1200 of that per month is tax free.

As a low estimate that means people are getting $600 a week or $2400 a month, mostly tax free (1200*12 months is only 14400 total...subtract the 12.5k deduction and that only leaves at max $2000 you pay taxes on (at 10%)...or $200 in taxes for the year (mind you there are other reduction that could drop that to 0).

Now if you work a 40 hour week at $15 an hour, you net a total of $600 a week as well! Woot your making as much as unemployment. Sadly that is the top end of the 15$ and under wages (almost half the population gets). in addition you pay taxes on all of it, meaning $2400 or so a year. You also have expenses you pay just to work (transportation costs, eating out more etc etc).

Basically for almost half the population not working right now is much better than working.

All jobs need to pay more honestly, across the board (until you are making 60k+ a year). Increasing min wage is BAD....very BAD.....you need to increase ALL hourly wages by the same amount (%)......and with that you also increase the base/min wage as well.

Just boosting min wage causes more skilled jobs that you need to be trained for, pay for licenses etc, to now just be making min wage as well. It's partially reponsible for it being so hard to find workers.

Before, if you were (for instance) doing the job I just got hired for, being a caregiver for the elderly, you made about 1.5x min wage. That isn't great mind you, but since you need to complete a 60 hour training course and pay $300 for the licence etc, it at least gave you some incentive to spend that money/time.

They are finally raising the wages for those jobs since nobody was taking them after covid, but up until covid, they paid min wage because it was increased from $10/hr to $13.50 an hour (well they paid like 14$ an hour, but most min wage jobs offer $14 as well even though the min wage is 13.50).

There are some things that could be done to make jobs more enticing.

First, pay more for basic jobs, so people doing them can afford to freaking live where the job is. This isn't freaking rocket science people. If it costs freaking $1200 to rent a 1 bedroom apartment, you need to pay enough for your employees to rent somewhere to live, buy food and have some money left over, and not require them to work 40+ hours to do it.

That leads to #2, which is offer jobs that don't require 40+ hours a week. Conduent for instance (worked there a few years ago) required a minimum of 50 hours a week. Over 40 hours is very common for many jobs.

There is no reason for that, there are plenty of workers out there, offer positions that are more along the lines of 24 hours a week for part time, and 32 hours a week for full time.

By combining the two above suggestions, you would have far more people happy with their job. It would be WAY easier for you to get people to work for you, if you paid them freaking $20/hr and they only had to work 4 days a week (8 hours a day), then you have a part time position for the last 3 days (24 hours). That splits the week up perfectly, you have no days your business is closed, your employees are much happier and less tired, and your costs don't really go up at all compared to all the other expenses you have running a company.

Freaking fast food etc give employees a 2$ an hour wage increase, but boost food prices by 33%. That is absolutely wrong as the additional cost for the employees is negligible (I'm looking at you Mc Donalds).

Total cost for 3 employees a day getting $2 more an hour (24 hour mc d's), is only freaking $144.....for the whole freaking day. If you charged 5 cents more per item you sold, you would make more then 5x that much extra money by the end of the day (easily).

The cost to pay employees is so little compared to everything else, that you could double the pay of ALL employees and barely affect the actual cost of product for your store (for most larger companies at least).

There is no reason to pay them so little. No reason to require so many hours, and the combination of both makes it very likely your employees are going to both be unhappy, and will avoid working if they have any way to do so.

Because of this last year and a half, and the fact that many people have been getting over double the amount they need to survive every month, it's likely many have saved a significant amount, so even if you stopped the bonus unemployment right now, they might STILL not go back to work for quite awhile, until companies are FORCED to increase wages and do more to entice workers.


---

Muscles posted...

What if we gave them some sort of benefit that doesn't get taken away when working? Idk maybe some sort of basic income, and so the current workers don't get screwed we can give it to everyone

We can even get rid of unemployment, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc to pay for it

Yes.
That's called UBI, and we should fucking do it. first we need to tax corporations to pay for it, shift from the current employment based taxation (payroll tax, income tax, social security tax, etc...) to one based on taxing companies for point of sale transactions (sell to an American, you eat our tax even if "my HQ is in Ireland, lulz").
Then taxes cease to discourage hiring people and even if we went full automation, we'd have the corporate taxes to pay for the safety net.

Hilariously, now the far left seem to think UBI is a right wing Milton Friedman idea and don't like that it replaces all the existing social programs, saying Yang's plan will be less benefits than unemployment, SNAP, "Earned" Income Tax Credit, etc...

But yeah, UBI encourages people to work since you get it whether you have a job or not. Unemployment when it's generous encourages people to not work.

streamofthesky posted...

Yes.
That's called UBI, and we should fucking do it. first we need to tax corporations to pay for it, shift from the current employment based taxation (payroll tax, income tax, social security tax, etc...) to one based on taxing companies for point of sale transactions (sell to an American, you eat our tax even if "my HQ is in Ireland, lulz").
Then taxes cease to discourage hiring people and even if we went full automation, we'd have the corporate taxes to pay for the safety net.

Hilariously, now the far left seem to think UBI is a right wing Milton Friedman idea and don't like that it replaces all the existing social programs, saying Yang's plan will be less benefits than unemployment, SNAP, "Earned" Income Tax Credit, etc...

But yeah, UBI encourages people to work since you get it whether you have a job or not. Unemployment when it's generous encourages people to not work.

I'm more for you only getting UBI if you work, even if it's only a small amount, it's a suppliment to wages you earn, not enough to just flat live on, at least until there are not enough jobs for every american to work 2 days or more a week (and there certainly are enough jobs for that right now).

I'm against NOT WORKING just because you can't do certain jobs. Can you talk on a phone? Then you can work, wait times to talk to a person, for instance about your passport, are insane (like 5+ hours). How many "disabled" people getting money for nothing could actually be answering phones and drop that down to a 5 minute wait instead of a 5 hour wait?

Yeah, if your totally disabled, can't move, can't talk on a phone etc, that is fine, but I would suggest that most people who are on disability COULD do jobs even if it was only working from home/answering phone calls etc.

Same with parents with kids, work at a child care facility, where you can both watch your child, and other children, so other parents can work other jobs.

I don't believe in giving out free money as long as any Americans are having to work, it's not fair. Why should some have to work extra hard/long, so others get to do absolutely nothing?

IF you can work, you should work.

But you shouldn't have to spend your whole life working anymore. Even if you only work 2 days a week, I propose a "living wage" plan that suppliments income up to a certain amount (it's based on the hours you work mind you, so there is incentive to work more, but caps at 30 hours a week or something like that).

Basically you can still deal with minimum wages etc, but you get a supplimental income of $10/hr you work per week up to 30 hours.

Min wage (and hopefully all wageS) would still get bumped, probably to something like $15/hr)...which means if you work 30 hours a week, you would actually be netting $25/hr, or $750 a week, and that would be the bare minimum you could get paid for that amount of time.

Basically it's a universal basic wage per hour (Based on the theory that each human beings time is worth a bare minimum amount per hour).

The taxes come from corporations/money that is gained by automizing many current positions etc. The government can even help companies get this automated etc, but there is a tax for that after a companies automates (that tax goes towards paying the UBW).

Net result, companies pay less as they don't pay employees anymore (or far less), citizens need to work less as there are less jobs (but still plenty for everyone to work at least 2 days a week), and citizens each make enough money to live on, even if they do only work 2 days (or 16 hours) a week.

16 hours *25$ is about $1600 a month....it would be a bit tight to live on that in some places, but over all it could work. Anyone working 24 hours or more though would be able to live comfortable almost anywhere in this country.


---

Mead posted...

Just do UBI already

---

^ I mean... the unemployment checks have basically been a beta test of that idea and it's worked out horribly. People don't want to work so small businesses are getting murdered

No, I'd rather just give across the board UBI.
The point of working is to have more than the bare minimum to survive on, if you want like...a nice house, to go on trips, latest smart phone, etc...
it still encourages people to work.

If you just give UBI to people who work, then you have to leave the entire social safety net apparatus in place and it defeats the entire purpose.

Also, on your prior post...

wolfy42 posted...

Now if you work a 40 hour week at $15 an hour, you net a total of $600 a week as well! Woot your making as much as unemployment. Sadly that is the top end of the 15$ and under wages (almost half the population gets). in addition you pay taxes on all of it, meaning $2400 or so a year. You also have expenses you pay just to work (transportation costs, eating out more etc etc).

Basically for almost half the population not working right now is much better than working.

Exactly, this is why the UI boosts are insane, especially the $600 last year.
And it's not even a matter of equaling this new UI amount. It has to significantly exceed it to entice people to work vs. sit around at home.
The whole thing is terrible and grossly unfair to the people that were "essential" and had to work through the pandemic w/ no way out to get UI instead.
If Dems want to put an upward force on wages, then they should grow a fucking spine and just raise min. wage. Raising taxes on the high earners to make it more of a diminishing return to payout CEOs so much wouldn't hurt, either.

All jobs need to pay more honestly, across the board (until you are making 60k+ a year). Increasing min wage is BAD....very BAD.....you need to increase ALL hourly wages by the same amount (%)......and with that you also increase the base/min wage as well.

Just boosting min wage causes more skilled jobs that you need to be trained for, pay for licenses etc, to now just be making min wage as well. It's partially reponsible for it being so hard to find workers.

I completely disagree. Raising the minimum wage is vastly better and more fair than this UI boost. It provides an upward force for all wages, because now the low wage unskilled job is making as much as some of the jobs that require skills/experience, so then they demand more, and then those above them demand more, etc...
Just paying out shit loads of unemployment benefits those that get laid off, but fucks over those trapped in their jobs (you can't get UI if you quit your job, as the authors of the UI bills cheerfully put it)

First, pay more for basic jobs, so people doing them can afford to freaking live where the job is. This isn't freaking rocket science people. If it costs freaking $1200 to rent a 1 bedroom apartment, you need to pay enough for your employees to rent somewhere to live, buy food and have some money left over, and not require them to work 40+ hours to do it.

Sure. But this is a state issue. The cost of living varies so fucking wildly across the country, you can't just set the federal minimum based on California. There are plenty of areas where houses sell for $100K and you can live on less than $15/hr (if full time) just fine. Then there's NYC, Silicon Valley, D.C., etc... where you're effectively in poverty if you make the national median salary (somewhere in the $50K range, I think?).

By combining the two above suggestions, you would have far more people happy with their job. It would be WAY easier for you to get people to work for you, if you paid them freaking $20/hr and they only had to work 4 days a week (8 hours a day), then you have a part time position for the last 3 days (24 hours). That splits the week up perfectly, you have no days your business is closed, your employees are much happier and less tired, and your costs don't really go up at all compared to all the other expenses you have running a company.

See, this stuff is just ridiculous to me. I thought $15/hr was the Democrat rallying cry, but now b/c we're basing our standards on the ludicrous UI boosts, it needs to be even higher?

Freaking fast food etc give employees a 2$ an hour wage increase, but boost food prices by 33%. That is absolutely wrong as the additional cost for the employees is negligible (I'm looking at you Mc Donalds).

Total cost for 3 employees a day getting $2 more an hour (24 hour mc d's), is only freaking $144.....for the whole freaking day. If you charged 5 cents more per item you sold, you would make more then 5x that much extra money by the end of the day (easily).

The cost to pay employees is so little compared to everything else, that you could double the pay of ALL employees and barely affect the actual cost of product for your store (for most larger companies at least).

While it definitely shouldn't have lead to a 33% increase, wages are costly beyond just the amount the employee gets. Payroll taxes, social security taxes, medical plans and 401K contributions (probably doesn't apply to McD's), and so on... are all percentages based on the wage.
We're still in a very old system of taxation based on number of employees and wages. Which just doesn't work in the modern age of automation, outsourcing, global sales, corporate inversion, etc... The people that run their business like a traditional one (including McD's) get hammered in taxes. The super rich tech companies that claim their HQ is in a tax haven and ruthlessly slash their local work force in favor of bots/algorithms and offshore support in 3rd world countries make out like fucking bandits.

Because of this last year and a half, and the fact that many people have been getting over double the amount they need to survive every month, it's likely many have saved a significant amount, so even if you stopped the bonus unemployment right now, they might STILL not go back to work for quite awhile, until companies are FORCED to increase wages and do more to entice workers.

All this is doing long term is pushing those companies to try to automate as much as possible even faster, since now the cost savings from shedding employees is even higher.

if they want people to work then they should offer them benefits that make them WANT to work

---

There never should have been any extra in the first place. There are places EVERYWHERE Looking for workers and NO ONE wants to work because they make more NOT WORKING. What is wrong with that picture? Just dumb, lazy MOFOS!

---

Decoy77 posted...

Looking for workers and NO ONE wants to work

its way better to just chill for some people

some people are great workers but I dont think everyone should feel compelled. I used to be a much sadder and more frustrated person back when I was trying to be someone that I wasnt

---

OhhhJa posted...

^ I mean... the unemployment checks have basically been a beta test of that idea and it's worked out horribly. People don't want to work so small businesses are getting murdered

It'd be kinda interesting if with UBI -- which is intended to be enough for people to live -- basically puts entire industries out of business and what the overall impact may be. We obviously can't support a post-labor society -- and are at least hundreds of years away from it -- so I imagine we'll probably just go the route of Venezuela and, tbh, many of UBI's prominent supporters *had* previously suggested that the US should be more like Venezuela before the country imploded.

streamofthesky posted...

I completely disagree. Raising the minimum wage is vastly better and more fair than this UI boost. It provides an upward force for all wages, because now the low wage unskilled job is making as much as some of the jobs that require skills/experience, so then they demand more, and then those above them demand more, etc...

It basically just creates a new peasant class by raising the floor while the ceiling remains where it is, so you have the elites in government & at the top of the business world (although, realistically, if the far-left gets their way, it'll be government alone) and then everybody else. The idea of upward trickle is largely imaginary because, on a pragmatic level, it takes too long for anything to actually change and many companies can't afford it because they're paying more at the bottom. Then the cost of basic goods go up on everybody because companies have to pay more and people at the bottom have more to pay for those goods.


---

streamofthesky posted...

I completely disagree. Raising the minimum wage is vastly better and more fair than this UI boost

Mostly agree with your points even though your disagreeing with me. Want to point out that I have not said the current UI boost is good in any way and actually was arguing against it.
Having a wage boost for workers though and requiring everyone to work at least 16 hours per week (in order to get any benefits) unless they are extremely disabled (can't even answer phones), seems like a much better over all plan to me (fairer that is).

I get what your saying, but a flat UBI is unfair to those people who do work, and I strongly feel that every american should share the workload. You can work more then 16 hours, but it should be required for you to work 16 hours if you want any benefits at all.

---

hungrymike posted...

They don't owe you a thing but the tax payers owe them a living for doing nothing?

Taxpayers aren't real. Nobody "pays" taxes. That money legally belongs to the state, who should use it to benefit society. Making sure people don't starve or have no place to live just because they're unemployed is important to have a functional and empathetic society


---

wolfy42 posted...

I get what your saying, but a flat UBI is unfair to those people who do work, and I strongly feel that every american should share the workload. You can work more then 16 hours, but it should be required for you to work 16 hours if you want any benefits at all.

Why?
They get the UBI money, too.
They're working to afford above the minimum living standard. If they're fine growing old in a studio apartment eating cheap food and never traveling or splurging on anything, let them. If they want the "finer things", then they can work and earn them.
Seriously, how is UBI unfair to those who work?

PunishedOni posted...

Taxpayers aren't real. Nobody "pays" taxes.

Tell that to the fat portion of my income I pay to the government.

PunishedOni posted...

That money legally belongs to the state, who should use it to benefit society.

Yes! The money that tax payers pay that then legally belongs to the state should be used to benefit society.

PunishedOni posted...

Making sure people don't starve or have no place to live just because they're unemployed is important to have a functional and empathetic society

Yes. Its called a social safety net. Its there to catch you when u fall so u can get back up. It is something that people need to contribute to in order to exist. With enough people reaping and not sowing the social safetynet will fail to yield any value. Its a safety net, not a hammock.

streamofthesky posted...

Seriously, how is UBI unfair to those who work?

Because someone has to do those jobs, at least for now.

IF NOBODY had to do them and it was just a choice, that would be one thing, but it's not.

Somebody is going to have to work, and do those jobs, and if you can live off UBI your going to put more work on those people who feel it's their duty to contribute to society (like me).

I'm old, sick, have a bad back, can't stand for to long, can't sit for too long, can't see very well, need hearing aids to hear, scared of driving at night, diabetic with high blood pressure and have had really bad pnuemonia. I still refuse to go on disability and not contribute, and I will keep working until there is no possible way for me to do so.

There are many people like me, and if you have a large percentage of the population able to just sit at home and do nothing but still live comfortably, you put more demand/responsibility/stress on those who are still working.

I want to contribute, but I don't think we need everyone to work 40 hours anymore. I think we could have more people work, but have the norm be 32 hours instead of 40, and then have a good number of jobs that are only part time (24) hours, especially for those who are 50+ (or 55 I guess like so many freaking other things that are 55+ (very annoying when your a few years away from being 55 btw).

24 hours isn't much to ask I think of people, and if you supplimented income for the first 24 hours (or 16 or whatever ends up being needed), you could ensure people could live comfortably that way (but not have tons of money for saving, going on trips, buying new cars etc).

24 hours work and you have food, a roof over your head, internet and some money for entertainment etc each month. Your not living large, but your living comfortably in most areas.

32 hours and that extra 8 hours basically gives you more disposable income, lets you save for a trip etc.

You could also work MORE than 32 hours if you really wanted but it should never be required. You can't do that with our current system, and you can do it even less if you expand the # of people who are not working (which a UBI would totally do).

I don't believe in making people slaves, and if you wanna change everything so we all share all the profits of this country equally etc, fine, but I am not about having a fraction of the citizens of this country doing all the work, it's not freakin fair.

You already have a good 10% who are rich/wealthy etc who don't need to work or contribute, and probably another 10-20% who are on disability/unemployment/social security etc. In addition you of course have children etc, so of people alive in this country you have well over 1/3rd of them who are not working or contributing right now. UBI could easily make that over 50% or even up to 66%, where 1 out of 3 people is basically doing work and supporting all the rest.

And by supporting, I don't mean money. I mean actual work, effort, doing what needs to get done. It's like parents doing something for babies. Just cause the babies have money and are "paying" the parents for their work, they still lounge around and live off other peoples efforts.

We should all work together, reduce the stress on the community by all doing are part. Nobody should just kick back and watch others do everything for them. It's just flat out not fair.

---

Decoy77 posted...

There never should have been any extra in the first place. There are places EVERYWHERE Looking for workers and NO ONE wants to work because they make more NOT WORKING. What is wrong with that picture? Just dumb, lazy MOFOS!

the people are becoming just like the politicians. it's very beautiful indeed.

---

hungrymike posted...

Yes. Its called a social safety net. Its there to catch you when u fall so u can get back up. It is something that people need to contribute to in order to exist. With enough people reaping and not sowing the social safetynet will fail to yield any value. Its a safety net, not a hammock.

with all the wealth at the top it makes a lot more sense for the very rich to be taxed at a fair rate to support social programs


---

Oh look, too many people are getting payout from the insurance they paid into, better make sure they can't do that.

Car insurance companies don't like if too many people make claims you know...

---