OREGON RESTAURANT: STIMULUS KEEPS PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED

Not going back to work is the point of the exercise.

 

People were provided with food rations and other essentials (basically all needs met .. housing included) for years during WWII, and happily returned to work as soon as it was all over. Most sane people recognise that 'universal' welfare is impossible to sustain. They understood that in 1945, and they understand it now.

Of course, that still leaves the sort of people who think the tax payer owes them something just for existing.

 

I've read those studies. It's true, liberals are smart. Luckily, liberals are found on both sides of the political divide .... though of course there are more on the Right than the Left in the 21stC.

 

Time to get 'em out planting and harvesting, so the country can feed its citizens.

It's what they had to do during the war.

 

I'm glad some people here understand the reality of the situation and human nature!

I agree with both of you.

The implication that these layoffs were "just because" of "mean employers" for "no reason" and that their employees now somehow deserve this unemployment benefit windfall as an "F U" to their employers ---- there aren't enough emojis to express how stupid that idea is.

The biggest incentive to work is money, and passage of this idiotic unemployment $600/week bonus plan has removed all incentive to work, when a person can sit home and pocket more money.

I'm disappointed (but not at all surprised) at the Democrats for slipping this $600/week bonus into the relief bill, but I'm disappointed beyond words at the Republicans who didn't demand its removal. I can't see any chance of correcting this after-the-fact, so I suspect we're stuck with it until it expires after 4 months. The working man and the tax payer were screwed by both parties when this $600/week bonus boondoggle was allowed to pass.

That would be all well and good, except we are not paying only 80% of their original salary. I've already pointed out multiple times that thanks to the $600/week bonus on top of unemployment, people in 75% of the states are now making more money to be unemployed than they were making when they were working. And that is a problem.

 

Part of the success of the Gingrich/Kasich policies of 1990's and the Bush/Republican 2001-2007 was welfare reform and not huge expansions of welfare and liberalization or work requirements and in fact tightening them. People went back to work. Obama and the Democrats did expand welfare and liberalized this rules and what did we get? A LFPR going over the cliff and longer people staying on welfare rather than seeking employment and the worst recovery and unemployment in modern history.

 

That $600/week is how people are managing to pay their mortgages and ya know...EAT

Of COURSE Republicans are against that

 

The rationing in WW2 wasn't to provide people with things they could not buy but to PREVENT them from buying TOO MUCH of things that were needed on the Battlefront.

 

It's not infinite it is for as long as we do yes people will take advantage of that and that is what these small business owners are worried about as they start to reopen. The best way to protect business is to ensure their luqidity so they are there to rehire. People aren't spending money right now even if they have it. Instead of an arbitrary date in July the $600 shouldnhave been based on some measurable factors and tied to states reopening. And as I note try to rescind it and watch the political flak hit the sky's.

 

And will enable them to do so when there are jobs available and OF COURSE Democrats are for that.

 

That $600/wk is temporary. Ends in July.

 

DUH exactly what I said when I noted the small business owners complaining they will not be able to get their workers back until July. And just try to walk that minefield trying to rescind it and stop payments in May or June.

 

If you give unemployment benefits to people who are laid off, these people are the most likely to actually spend the money they get thanks to their unfortunate situation. And that spending is will create demand for businesses and help them stay in businesses and protect jobs. Unemployment benefits are a lot more likely to be spent than stimulus checks.

But it is true that no matter how much we give, many strugging industries like restaurants and airlines won't be helped because people won't spend on them. That is why we need to aid struggling businesses in the form of bailouts and loans and we need to do a much better job at this.

Even with people not spending as much as they usually do, we still need unemployment benefits so that people can afford their rent, mortgage, health insurance, food, and other basic expenses. Once this crisis is over and if tens of millions of people are defaulting on their mortages, because they are months behind on their payments, because they weren't getting any income during the crisis, then we are going to be in big trouble.

Some people will take advantage of unemployment benefits, but that is true of all government aid. But unemployment benefits aren't as good as a real job and are temporary, so most people will try to find a job as quickly as possible. Also, with the number of unemployed vastly outnumbering the number of jobs, it isn't much of a problem anyway.

 

If they offer the jobs back to the paid off employees...the employees have no choice but to come back.

If they refuse they lose unemployment and possibly face fraud charges

 

Exactly. A good outcome for both laid off workers and businesses that did not shut down

 

It's not just that same person for that same job, what if the previous job is no longer there, what motivation will they have to seek a new one? Or I can call you back but for only 32 hours to start?

 

You can't go on vacations, you can't go to the movies, you can go to sporting events, you go out and just shop there are LOTS of ways you can't spend money right now. I can see no distinction between whether it is an unemployment check or a stimulus. Sending people money has NEVER worked as a stimulus. Keeping business afloat and then employing people and growing the economy has always worked as a stimulus. And again the point here people are making MORE money not working than when they did and it is printed money not earned money. That is a recipe for another Obama/Biden recovery which was a total suck.

 

But with money, you can pay your rent, you can keep your health insurance, you can pay your mortgage, you can have some money in the bank to buy that new car when the crisis is over. Without unemployment benefits, you will be months behind on your payments, in deep credit card debt, and you will have to go bankrupt. Tens of millions of people going bankrupt is the last thing that you want to happen during a "recovery." If that happens, the businesses that held on during the pandemic will see few customers when their doors open again. And that means that most of the job losses will take years to reverse. Does that sound eerily like 2008? It should.

The stimulus only gives people a couple grand and only covers their expenses for a month, which isn't much help to someone unemployed for six months. Thankfully, Trump and Democrats in Congress did expend unemployment benefits to help them too, and we should improve and extend those benefits if this drags on monger. Most of the stimulus goes to people who still have jobs and are less likely to spend the money they get since they aren't in financial trouble.

Letting people lose their jobs and go bankrupt has never worked as a stimulus. When you give desperate people money, they will spend it, and businesses will get revenue, and hire or keep jobs as a result. its simple logic. Unemployed benefits alone don't prevent bad recessions, especially when they don't get extended and businesses and banks are allowed to fail.

Agreed. An economy works with supply and demand. One cannot work without the other. Supply is half the equation.

And that shouldn't be happening. Unemployment benefits should be no more than 80% of income. Unemployed people also face the risk of Congress ending their benefits, having to pay COBRA, and extended unemployment making them less marketable. Nobody wants to be in that position, even if they are getting benefits.

The recipe for an Obama/Biden recovery is a weak stimulus less than 1 trillion spread out over a long time period, ending unemployment benefits after a year, letting tens of millions of people default on their mortgages, and letting countless businesses and banks fail. If we had spent the kind of money in 2008 that we are spending now under Trump, that recession wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

 

If their old job is no longer there...there probably aren't a lot of jobs to FIND

 

Thanks for you unsupported and unsupportable opinion.

When money goes into the economy it supports businesses and creates jobs. That's econ 101

 

If you’re under 50 and healthy you’re not risking your life going to work unless you consider commuting every day, risking your life. Have you looked at the chance of dying overall, much less the chance of it killing a younger healthy person? If that scares you I suggest therapy. Lots and lots of therapy because you’re probably I’ll equipped to function in any job.

 

When has it worked? Didn't work for Obama. Didn't work for Bush when he did the tax prebate.

 

Dodge noted, but the act is the employment agencies aren't even going to be checking all the millions and as the small business people have warned when they can't pay more than it pays to not work people will choose to not work.

 

And best the get that money by earning it by contributing to the economy with their labor and brains. Long term unemployment benefits rather than probusiness policies is what created the worst recovery in modern history and the worst employment in history.

Letting people lose their jobs and go bankrupt has never worked as a stimulus. When you give desperate people money, they will spend it, and businesses will get revenue, and hire or keep jobs as a result. its simple logic. Unemployed benefits alone don't prevent bad recessions, especially when they don't get extended and businesses and banks are allowed to fail.

And supply side is on the investment side, you're talking demand side which has never worked. The idea is they are not unemployed six months because businesses have been liquid and will now expand and capital will come into the markets and people will EARN their money and not become government expenses. Paying them not to work foils that.

So we get businesses up an running by making sure they were liquid through this mess and they bring people back and start paying them for their labor instead of them sitting on the sidelines not having to work.[/QUOTE]

 

A nice Gravy Train.

Why work (to make less)?