Laid Off Workers Set Up Soup Kitchens in Front of Senators Opposed to Extending $600 Checks - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15112864
Unemployment insurance doesn't pay much and $600 an extra a month is not much when you take into consideration the fact that unemployment insurance doesn't pay much anyway. So, I think what it boils down to, is that corporations need to pay their workers more to give them an incentive to come back to work and that's if they are willing to have them come back to work during this pandemic.

Corporations have been taking advantage of workers, ripping them off and under-paying them. That's especially true when some of these big corporations are collecting billions of dollars in corporate welfare. So if these businesses can collect money from the taxpayers then they can start by paying a higher wage that is more in line with inflation and the cost of living.

They are just trying to rip workers off and under-pay them so they can maximize their profit. They can pay their workers more and still make a decent profit. These companies are also lobbying Congress trying to get shielded from liability if their employees catch COVID at work. If they are forcing workers to return to work under these conditions, they should be held liable for damages if their workers catch COVID and have to pay their workers damages.

By Chauncey Alcorn of CNN wrote:Loeffler, recently told Fox Business Network that she believes the supplemental unemployment payments from the federal government discourage out-of-work employees from returning to their jobs, where they risk catching coronavirus.

Under the CARES Act, more than two-thirds of laid-off employees were being paid more per week to stay home and collect unemployment than they would earn by returning to work, according to a University of Chicago analysis.

"I've talked to many employers across Georgia that are having a hard time bringing back folks to work," Loeffler told Fox Business last month. "We need to remove that incentive not to be at work. ... I'm not seeing a big need to extend the federal unemployment insurance."

Loeffler's office on Monday said she needed more time to respond to a request for comment about the soup kitchen being set up outside her office Tuesday.
UNITE HERE President D. Taylor and others have pointed out that Congress approved at least $23 billion in coronavirus relief grants to major airlines and about $500 billion in corporate loans via the CARES Act in March.

"I find it the height of hypocrisy that these same senators are willing to give billions to companies, but a poor worker getting $600 is too much," Taylor told CNN Business on Sunday.

The ripple effects from declining to extend unemployment may cost Americans more in the long run.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/business ... index.html
#15112876
@wat0n

OHH OK! Thank you for the correction. I appreciate it! I am surprised the federal government would pay that much. That's a lot of money (at least to me, that's a lot of money). But then, it costs a lot of money to live too though. I was under the impression it was $600 extra a month and not $600 weekly. I do not collect unemployment, so I wouldn't know for sure. I do think employers should be held liable for forcing workers to return under dangerous conditions though.

I think it is reasonable to pay a little extra to unemployed workers until we have gotten through this pandemic, however, I am not sure if $600 extra a week is reasonable. It would also depend on what their base weekly pay would be without the extra $600 a month. Of course, some live in high cost of living areas too. Perhaps the base pay should be determined by state and cost of living for the unemployed workers. What is your take on it?
#15112879
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n

OHH OK! Thank you for the correction. I appreciate it! I am surprised the federal government would pay that much. That's a lot of money (at least to me, that's a lot of money). But then, it costs a lot of money to live too though. I was under the impression it was $600 extra a month and not $600 weekly. I do not collect unemployment, so I wouldn't know for sure. I do think employers should be held liable for forcing workers to return under dangerous conditions though.

I think it is reasonable to pay a little extra to unemployed workers until we have gotten through this pandemic, however, I am not sure if $600 extra a week is reasonable. It would also depend on what their base weekly pay would be without the extra $600 a month. Of course, some live in high cost of living areas too. Perhaps the base pay should be determined by state and cost of living for the unemployed workers. What is your take on it?


That would make sense. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, someone who works 50 hours a week (which is actually a lot) would still be getting less than $600 for working as usual. In fact, the $600 weekly aid is what someone earning $15/hour would get working 40 hours a week.

Giving $600/week to everyone almost surely creates a disincentive to work. The only exception would be (perhaps) in localities with $15+/hour minimum wages who work more than 40 hours a week.
#15112886
Pants-of-dog wrote:Raising the minimum wage to 15$ an hour and forcing businesses to provide PPE and other safety measures would resolve this problem.


No, it would not. Plenty of businesses that are already struggling over the restrictions to allow people hang out in interiors (like restaurants and many others in similar face-to-face service industries) would simply close up shop in states like Alabama and others in the South.

I think that, for now, the Federal assistance will remain necessary. The pandemic itself is a more pressing concern and preventing the spread of the disease (which includes preventing evictions, which are hardly consistent with social distancing) is more urgent now. If paying $600/week on top of UI would help accomplish this, then so be it. If it is possible to lower the $600/week assistance (as Trump recently did, by placing it at $400/week, or by coming up with a formula based on the previous base pay and COL) while still preventing evictions then so be it, but I see this as a secondary concern for the next few months. Taxpayers will of course need to foot the bill in the future, but well, it's just how global pandemics are.

These aids should all end as soon as a vaccine is developed and deployed. Refusing to vaccinate = no social assistance.
#15112889
@wat0n

The problem with the executive order that Trump has signed is that it requires states to come up with a quarter of the cost of the extra $400. That's money that some and perhaps most states don't have. Which means, workers might not receive that extra $400 a week at all. I think this was a way for Trump to say to the American people "see, I am trying to help you" without ever actually helping given that the unemployed won't receive that extra $400 a week anyway. That means, the feds won't have to pay anything too as well as the states.

So, signing executive orders that don't effectively do anything is still not doing anything or helping anybody. It also enables Trump to try to pass the buck and say, "it's not my fault, I signed an executive order and the states didn't pay their half. It's the state's fault." It's Trump's way of trying to show he is trying to help while not really trying to help and trying to pass the buck back to the states when in reality, the buck stops with him and not the states. He is playing a game of hot potato trying to pass liability off for his job and his responsibilities onto somebody else so that he can try to deflect blame for his own failures.
#15112892
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n

The problem with the executive order that Trump has signed is that it requires states to come up with a quarter of the cost of the extra $400. That's money that some and perhaps most states don't have. Which means, workers might not receive that extra $400 a week at all. I think this was a way for Trump to say to the American people "see, I am trying to help you" without ever actually helping given that the unemployed won't receive that extra $400 a week anyway. That means, the feds won't have to pay anything too as well as the states.

So, signing executive orders that don't effectively do anything is still not doing anything or helping anybody. It also enables Trump to try to pass the buck and say, "it's not my fault, I signed an executive order and the states didn't pay their half. It's the state's fault." It's Trump's way of trying to show he is trying to help while not really trying to help and trying to pass the buck back to the states when in reality, the buck stops with him and not the states. He is playing a game of hot potato trying to pass liability off for his job and his responsibilities onto somebody else so that he can try to deflect blame for his own failures.


Yeah, and if he's playing that game it's because he's trying to bypass the House. He can at most give $300/week (based on what you wrote here, I'm not sure about the specific law regarding appropriation procedures here), the interesting thing is that one would expect this burden to fall on Red states since they are poorer :hmm:

Let's see how that turns out. I'm guessing reality will make both sides to become more conciliatory as the deadlines approach.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If your business model cannot afford a decent minimum wage and basic worker safety, your business model is not viable and you should not be in business.


OK, and if that happens what would happen to those workers who are laid off? Answer: They'll work informally, out of any government regulations and without paying the corresponding taxes.
#15112926
wat0n wrote:I think he means providing the extra ones in the context of the pandemic. But yeah, I think most States already have that under the law.

So extra money (Paid for by taxpayers and Businesses) on top of standard unemployment benefits (money paid in by taxpayers and businesses for the unemployed when they are unemployed.) State all have a surplus left over from the last 3 trillion dollar bailout plan so no state is going to be light on the extra funds. Democrat cities that have been run into the ground with poor economic strategies and abysmal fiduciary policies want Pelosi to pork up the package with more taxpayer money for the stupid Democrats that cannot maintain fiduciary responsibility of any kind. Thank God crooked Hillary is going to jail for her crimes against America. Hopefully The Hawaiian Muslim slumlord pimp wannabe is next to get some time in court. Never vote for an Antifa Loving, BLM Supporting, Police Defunding, Sanctuary City Creating, Leftist Democrat this Century! Get back to work America. Communism must die in all of America's political Arenas.
#15112951
@Chad

It's not that simple. The thing is, Trump closed down the pandemic team BEFORE the pandemic hit, which was really stupid. He did so, because he needed a way to pay for tax cuts to the rich. See, he was trying to get something for nothing and so were his rich friends. But then, the pandemic actually hit and Trump did not listen to the advice of the experts.

So, guess what. Trump, the U.S. government and the rich folks who refused to listen to the advice of experts and who closed down the pandemic team which could have helped to prevent some of these costs are now going to have to pay an even bigger cost than they otherwise would have paid. They were trying to get something for free. But their is no such thing as free and one way or another you are going to pay. So, it's better to pay up front and listen to the experts up front rather than have to pay an even higher cost further down the line than what you otherwise would pay. But you will pay one way or another because nothing is free.

This is Trump's fault and the reason why the feds are being asked to pay all this money is because Trump closed down the pandemic team and didn't listen to the experts. So now, the taxpayers including the rich are going to pay. The rich use CPAs to get out of paying taxes, but the rich will still pay anyway in the costs of the economic damage done to their businesses by the pandemic. They could have prevented and mitigated most of the economic damage done to their businesses if they just paid their taxes to begin with and voted for somebody who would have not closed down the pandemic team and would have listened to the experts. But that's not what happened so they paid in terms of economic damage done to their businesses anyway regardless even if they don't pay taxes because they can hire attorneys and CPAs to weasel their way out of paying those taxes. Either way you still pay one way or another.

It's not going to be so simple for rich folks to throw those economic damages done to their businesses by the pandemic back on the taxpayers when the pandemic will devastate the work force if they return back to those businesses to work without having a proper vaccine that is effective. When you are a business and your work force can't return back to work, that's costing you money, big time. So, I don't think the rich will be able to escape those costs given the situation. But they could have mitigated some of those costs if they had just stopped being so short sighted and greedy in the first place.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 12 Aug 2020 03:48, edited 4 times in total.
#15112952
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is interesting how capitalist governments should be free to make policy that hurts laid off workers but should not make policy that imposes any kind of inconvenience on businesses.


You mean like minimum wages, social security payments, tax withholding, labor law, the obligation to provide PPEs and enforce social distancing restrictions in the midst of the pandemic, pay corporate taxes, respect environmental regulations and so on?

That's at least 32,000 felonies. Thanks […]

September 26, Friday Lincoln has shrewdly antic[…]

Then you don't know what "majority" mea[…]

This is just a pretty typical Western liberal tak[…]