lindsey graham is upset some people
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
With the additional money, it would equate to about $24/hr to be on unemployment for someone in South Carolina (figures I saw). The bigger issue is that you can apparently collect unemployment if you quit...as long as you say it was because of the corona virus. That could be problematic.
And if the Republicans balk at that, the angry socialist will block things because of the $500 billion set aside for businesses.
Really the main take away from this is that Congress is inept. Both parties, those idiots hold office for 40 years and they are not fit to run a lemonade stand. Schumer, McConnell, Pelosi...the whole lot of them. Idiots.
If they are going to make more by not working than working then you are incentivizing layoffs.
True example.
Employer suggests half the hours per week or unemployment benefits if employee quits.
Employee quits thinking he is eligible for unemployment benefits.
.
If an employee in Indiana quits without just cause in connection with the work they get zero. Its called a voluntary quit and it defeats their eligibility if a protest is lodged against the claim.
I've worked with unemployment law and the system for more than 43 years. There are coordination of benefits provisions in every UI combination you've ever seen out there - with SUB pay, with Social Security, in those very rare cases with Worker's Compensation and/or other public disability matters. They always cap the maximum combination of UI and another source at 95% in the case of UAW SUB pay down to about take home pay, but never does the benefit exceed an employees pre-separation gross wages. Someone snuck this in the bill or screwed up and allowed it in by forgetting to draft in the usual cap language.
It should be corrected as a scrivener's error and move on.
In your case, the employee files a claim and the employer doesn't protest so the employee gets the benefits.
According to Munuchin not all states have the ability to match it to 100 percent so the figure of 600 was added to regular benefits.
The $600 only goes through June, anyone leaving to make a little more is taking a pretty big risk after June. Unemployment may be fairly high.
I honestly don't know. What I posted was the argument I read.
I think we can all agree that we are in some crazy uncharted territory here. $2 trillion is a whole bunch of money.
Looks as though it will stick. So who wants one of Walmart's open jobs when you get a $48k/yr gig for couch surfing for 4 months?
Let me understand: you are mad that a person won't be paid MORE for doing ZERO work than for doing actual work, BUT you are OK with the Kennedy Center getting $25M (not for employees), $75M each to arts and PBS and 1 Billion to Amtrak?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It would actually. Its bullshit.
wouldn't want one of walmarts crap jobs anyway, the working man has suffered enough the last 30 years let him game the system for 4 months for once
Yes. That would be tremendously beneficial to our country in the long run. Good thinkin there, Kurt.
As I understand it, the $600 was an amount chosen to be easy. The result is that in some statrs with better UI protections some people may make more by quitting than working. Yet the same people who are mad at that are perfectly OK with Boeing giving the man who, created a corporate culture that incentivized employees who knew they were building a plane that will kill you, $62 million as a reward for doing that and getting fired. Getting paid $62 million for creating an unsafe plan is not a terrible incentive but having some workers, not all but some,make a little more by not working is a crisis.
Let us file murder charges against the former Boeing CEO then talk about the workers?
Let us file murder charges against the former Boeing CEO then talk about the workers?
Agreed! We need term limits. Two four year terms and go home and get a real job. Only benefits should be 401K and health insurance only for the senator and congressperson and they pay for their family.
Eh, the man's been shitting on us enough. Don't begrudge us our rare victory.
The rich have been gaming the system for centuries, and that hasn't bothered you one bit. Now the working guy gets a little something something and the economy is going to come crashing down? You really need to pray on this one.
Meh I don't really care that much. It's obviously a dumb policy but if it's what's needed to streamline things..... so be it... we've got bigger issues to worry about
I have no problem with any of that. I'm only taking issue with the clutching of pearls about the possibility that it might not be "fair" by those who have always somehow ended up on the right side of "fair."
This isn't the equivalent. For one, who paid the Boeing CEO? I agree with you that the golden parachutes these guys get is insane, particularly in the instance that you mentioned. I am also a little tired of corporations that say they have nothing more to give, finding millions of dollars to pay off failures. "We wouldn't get a good CEO without these deals" is bull shit in my opinion. And don't get me started on the biggest welfare queens in the U.S. being corporations. Lower their taxes but those assholes ship everything they can overseas and then come back to the very people they won't hire anytime there is a crisis saying "too big to fail"....f--- you. To me if they take money from the government, their CEO and other chief officers should all be fired with no parachute.
All that being said, the workers quitting in this instance are taking what ostensibly is public money while it was the private Boeing deciding to pay a worthless piece of shit (that would just be summarily fired if he were a line worker) an un-Godly amount of money to go away.
I don't necessarily like what happens in paragraph one and two. I am off the globalism train to a certain extent. It has exported jobs, necessary supply lines, and our national security to places like China. It has made people like the CEO of Boeing filthy rich while making potential employees of his, not so much. (And Boeing may not be as apt of an example, with it being airlines, I don't know how much manufacturing they have exported, my point stands though.) You want income disparity, start with that.
And while I am all fired up. China must really be made to pay a price after all of this. They (Chinese communist party) are a blight on the globe.
I don't know. It might be a drafting oversight or it might be someone put language in the bill without adding a cap and that might be intentional.
Are you saying Boeing isn't getting help in the stimulus bill? Some of that help is because of what is happening, but Boeing's death rattle does go back to the Max. We are at least in part paying Boeing for building a deathtrap.
I can assure you of one thing. The poor are never going to become rich by “gaming the system” this time. Never.
For years we heard conservatives complain that government doesn't have to balance a budget like we do. Those Tweets remind me that this is a good time to point out that these businesses just received massive tax cuts and a record run of good times. Why did they have record debt? Did they think the good times would last forever?
I am sure they are. The CEO you mentioned is in the past though. I addressed my opinion on the current CEO if they need a bailout.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I know someone who owns several very lucrative businesses set up as pass throughs. This person, as Stoll can attest, likely increased his income significantly via the tax cuts. His first order of business with the virus was to lay off his work force.
It is not that they have it too good. It is that it could incentivize not going to work, which is counterproductive.
They lost their jobs. That’s how that got on UI. Plus, your argument applies to receiving any UI. Paying people when they don’t work always adds an incentive to remain unemployed.
Edit - 3.3M people have filed for unemployment. The incentive to stay home argument only comes into play if there are good paying jobs available. Seems pretty clear that the number of unemployed right now is much greater than available jobs.
Aren't we telling non-essential people to not work? Maybe we should incentivize them to not work?
We liberals have said golden parachutes incentivize CEO's to screw up and get fired. Would you get fired tomorrow for a $62 million paycheck? I would.
I would semi agree here if there weren't so many that haven't worked any and have gamed the system for years.
I was laid off in 2009 during the mortgage fiasco and was able to draw unemployment, my cousin called me because she knew I was conservative and said "I don't see you turning down government assistance now" my response was call me back when you have put 20 years worth of part of your wages into a system. She is one that is a taker but not a giver, she quickly hung up and it is going on 11 years she has never brought the subject up again. FWIW I took 3 months of unemployment and was called back, I still think I'm ahead of the game as far as money put in vs money taken out.
Similar threads
