Trump Administration Tells States To Yank Benefits From Those Who Won’t Return To Work

Some of you really should read this
https://oregoncatalyst.com/47140-oregon-restaurant-stimulus-people-unemployed.html
"OREGON RESTAURANT: STIMULUS KEEPS PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED"

 

Why does any need to be told that UI benefits will be cut if you refuse to work? That should be painfully obvious.

 

In other words, you cannot present a sound reason anyone should expect their unemployment benefits to continue when their job comes back on line.
Thanks.

 

Based on the two sentences that preceded the one you quoted...

 

That's an official White House Policy for those entering the West Wing, so I imagine that you recognize that you are saying Trump is engaging in fake news fear mongering?

 

This is all a thinly-veiled attempt by the left to keep the economy in shambles long enough to affect the election.
Nothing more, nothing less.

 

He seriously just edited out the explanation for your conclusion statement and then asked you to explain your conclusion?

Wow.

 

Ah.

You take issue with these people choosing to take whatever risk this represents?

 

Oh I see what you're asking. The federal government is urging states to request or require employers to tell the states when said employers have employees that wont return to their jobs so that the states can then, presumably, cut the UI benefits off for said employee.

 

Thing is the very nature of an infectious disease makes it not only a personal risk but a communal one.

 

Curious, what about the "essentials"? Grocery cashiers, convenience stores, hardware stores, janitors, long list, the 70% of the other jobs) Should they get paid UI + $600 if they are uncomfortable?

Personally I dont think I'm any better, or more important than they are. Neither does my employer.

Is that what the people that want to stay home are saying?

 

Ok...and what's wrong with that? They are specifically asking for " for reasons that do not support their continued eligibility for benefits.”

No State that I am aware of that is slowly opening is requiring people to come back to work if they don't feel safe. Maybe you can provide me with a State that has a different policy.....

 

So the reason that these folks are essential is exactly because of the cost-benefit analysis that went into keeping society operating at a certain level while balancing the risk of the virus spreading.

The non-essential workers ended up on the side of that equation such that the benefit to society of keeping their business open was less than the risk to society of spreading the virus. And thus, their jobs were temporarily terminated and they were permitted to obtain UI because they lost their job. But that cost vs benefit analysis is always going to be on a shifting scale and personal situations must come into play. The medical experts are warning everyone that opening up the economy too soon will result in unnecessary death and injury. That is going to impact demand as well as supply, especially in those non-essential businesses.

I am not advocating a complete redesign of the UI so that everyone can get it (at least not yet) and I very much sympathize with the essential worker - to the point of advocating that they should get hazard/bonus pay for working during this time period (or at least those who aren't working from home). I also sympathize with the non-essential worker who suddenly has to decide whether to risk the safety of themselves and their family because the government decided that it needed to cut the UI population down by prematurely declaring the State is safe to re-open.

 

Well the thread is about what the Trump Administration is asking for. I don't know where each state is on the matter.

 

Hmm.
What other choices should I not have because of this "communal need"?

 

I willingly admit these are not normal circumstances but let me just throw this idea out there.

If the old and vulnerable stay home as they probably should... then gradually the young and healthy + those who feel confident their workplace is safer than walmart head back out. We are still slowing the spread, which I've been told is inevitable.

At least we move towards herd immunity and get sick at a slower pace without overwhelming the medical community.

I do think it's kind of funny that one of the places we're allowed to go is Walmart and that's the one freaking place right now that gives me the covid creeps more than anywhere. It's a germ fest, hundreds of people visit every day at Each location.

My office is 1,000x safer.

 

Sure - but then why did the document need to be written? If so obvious, one wouldn't think the administration would waste the time and effort to address the UI situation following covid.

 

I didn't say they should. At any point.

 

And so, you have no issue to take issue with.

 

I guess not, if you ignore all I've said about Trump coming clean.

 

Since you agree that no one should expect their UI benefits to continue after they are able to do back to work, whatever complaint you have related to same is, at best, trivial.

 

I guess this copied answer that I wrote to another poster still applies.
"
I willingly admit these are not normal circumstances but let me just throw this idea out there.

If the old and vulnerable stay home as they probably should... then gradually the young and healthy + those who feel confident their workplace is safer than walmart head back out. We are still slowing the spread, which I've been told is inevitable.

At least we move towards herd immunity and get sick at a slower pace without overwhelming the medical community.

I do think it's kind of funny that one of the places we're allowed to go is Walmart and that's the one freaking place right now that gives me the covid creeps more than anywhere. It's a germ fest, hundreds of people visit every day at Each location.

My office is 1,000x safer."

 

Having spent a few years on this board and by now I have a pretty good idea of many posters political positions.
Guarantee if President Trump had taken total control of opening any parts of the economy the usual suspects would have spent just as many if not more hours complaining he was not doing it correctly. Have you personally ever complimented your president on anything? If so I await the link.
A twelve year old is capable of understanding that the Governor of Wyoming will have different parameters than the Governor of New Jersey. Apparently those that are trying to pin the reopening of the US economy on the man in the White House see no difference or it is just more orange man bad behavior.
Brilliant move Mr. President.

 

I agree with this statement. I would like to also point out that most on this forum that support the current president pissed and moaned for the entire eight -8- years the last president held office.

Partisan is as a partisan does. Welcome to the pointless side of politics filled with echo chambers, confirmation bias, misinformation, and propaganda.

Politicians benefit from stupid people and there is plenty to be had.

 

Well its not so much a matter of X place of business being safer than Y but rather X being more essential in a lockdown situation than Y. The aim is to limit the exposure potential and which generally reduces the exponential growth of infections. Consider the math of COVID's infection rate in a contained simulation with a standard R naught value of 2.5 over just three iterations.

First iteration is you, you're infected. With an R0 of 2.5 the second iteration hypothetically leaves 2.5 people infected. But the third iteration those 2.5 people now hypothetically infected 406 others. Now cut the infection rate in half. 1 infected person produces 1.25, 1.25 produces 15. By cutting the infection growth potential in half we've theoretically prevented 392 infections. That's what we're after with these shutdowns. Now its pretty much impossible to calculate exactly what reduction we're achieving there are just a near infinite number of variables we cant know. But the mathematical logic is undeniable and so we shutdown what we can.