[Politics_Observer]

Well it seems the republican governors who cut Pandemic aid to the unemployed, it didn't help business find new workers. Instead, those who were receiving the aid simply cut spending instead which in turn harms the economy.

CNN)Pandemic unemployment benefits are ending nationwide the first weekend in September, but don't expect to see millions of available jobs to be filled quickly.

At least 7.5 million people are projected to lose their pandemic unemployment compensation in the 26 states that are still paying benefits, according to The Century Foundation. That flood of potential new hires comes at a time when job openings are at a record high, and businesses are boosting wages, offering bonuses and providing other incentives to lure workers.

So far, however, employment hasn't grown substantially faster in the states that terminated benefits early, studies and government data have found.

The enhanced jobless payments aren't the only reason why Americans may be reluctant to return to work, experts say. Other factors include continued health concerns, trouble finding child care and an increased interest in switching careers. Also, it may take time for the impact of the benefits' withdrawal to become clear.

Are you losing your pandemic unemployment benefits? Tell us about it.

The country got an early look at the effect of ceasing this generous lifeline after roughly two dozen states opted to stop at least one of the federal unemployment benefits programs in June and July. The governors -- all Republicans but one -- argued that the move would help alleviate the worker shortage that businesses in their states were facing.
"That's what they were hoping for, but it didn't happen," said Peter Ganong, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Chicago who has studied unemployment benefits throughout the pandemic.

Cutting off the benefits had minimal, if any, impact on pushing people back to work, experts said. But it did force the jobless to cut back their spending, which likely hurt local economies.

While the early termination of benefits may not have had much influence on job growth, it likely had a bigger impact on spending.

The jobless cut their spending by $145 a week, or 20%, after their payments were terminated early, Stepner found.

That has big implications for local economies, which were propped up by the pandemic compensation and other relief measures Congress enacted. The states that ended the programs early gave up $4 billion in federal benefits as of early August, which prompted spending to fall by $2 billion, he said.

"That's money that would have been flowing to local businesses, who may turn around and hire workers," Stepner said, noting that earnings only rose by $270 million.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/29/politics ... index.html

It doesn't appear this republican strategy worked to get more people back to work. It did however, harm the economy.

[B0ycey]

The only thing that harmed the economy was the Lockdown. This was said on here two years ago. But people were all, 'but what about Covid' at the time and basically dismissed this point until it was too late. The payments were needed when everyone was at home unproductive. And today they are just something that delays people going back to work so should be cut actually. But given people don't spend if they are worried about losing their job, that perhaps explains this more than policy.

Also, if people are unemployed and there are job vacancies, then what does that say? Nobody would work if you are better off not working and I suspect government handouts are better paid than these jobs who want workers but will only pay minimum wage.

[late]

The only thing that harmed the economy was the Lockdown. This was said on here two years ago. But people were all, 'but what about Covid' at the time and basically dismissed this point until it was too late. The payments were needed when everyone was at home unproductive. And today they are just something that delays people going back to work so should be cut actually. But given people don't spend if they are worried about losing their job, that perhaps explains this more than policy.

Also, if people are unemployed and there are job vacancies, then what does that say? Nobody would work if you are better off not working and I suspect government handouts are better paid than these jobs who want workers but will only pay minimum wage.

Nope.

[Steve_American]

The only thing that harmed the economy was the Lockdown. This was said on here two years ago. But people were all, 'but what about Covid' at the time and basically dismissed this point until it was too late. The payments were needed when everyone was at home unproductive. And today they are just something that delays people going back to work so should be cut actually. But given people don't spend if they are worried about losing their job, that perhaps explains this more than policy.

Also, if people are unemployed and there are job vacancies, then what does that say? Nobody would work if you are better off not working and I suspect government handouts are better paid than these jobs who want workers but will only pay minimum wage.

Covid-19 with the promise of vaccines in 10 months would also have harmed the economy.
Would people go to the movies in even half the numbers? No.
Would people go to resturants in even half the numbers? No.
Would people fly in even half the numbers? No.
Would people go on cruise ships in even half the numbers? No.
Would people go fly to other nations in even half the numbers? No, not even 5% the num.
Etc., ect.
Would people with jobs spend as much if they are worried about medical bills and maybe loosing their job? No.

Maybe one reason people are not taking s**t jobs is --- they are living in their car and don't need to pay rent any more. And, they can't get a job if they have no address because they are living in their car.
.

[B0ycey]

Covid-19 with the promise of vaccines in 10 months would lso have harmed the economy.
Would people go to the movies in even half the numbers? No.
Would people go to resturants in even half the numbers? No.
Would people fly in even half the numbers? No.
Would people go on cruise ships in even half the numbers? No.
Would people go fly to other nations in even half the numbers? No, not even 5% the num.
Etc., ect.
Would people with jobs spend as much if they are worried about medical bills and maybe loosing their job? No.

Maybe one reason people are not taking s**t jobs is --- they are living in their car and don't need to pay rent any more. And, they can't get a job if they have no address because they are living in their car.
.

Steve, people were going about their business despite the headlines without any loss of trade before lockdown. What happened was the government enacted FearPorn which changed habits. Lockdown changed everything. People then feared the virus and now they have doubled down on this belief so not to feel that their months locked up were for nothing. In other words, we cannot rebound to levels before lockdown because we have changed the way we think and businesses have had to adapt their models for a great cost to them with a reduction in footfall.

As for why people aren't taking these jobs, the reason is mainly due to low pay. Why would anyone work when you don't have to? I only say this because the cost of working includes expenses like childcare and travel as well as the loss of time and the government is paying you to stay home. Low pay should be addressed. I am an advocate of better pay and conditions. But this is a side issue for why people aren't working today. You need to cut the non working payments. Not just because it builds up debt (although I know you support the money tree), but because you need to give incentive to work. And although people are living in cars, this isn't a factor for why people are staying at home (the word here is home), but a reason of low housing stock. Although perhaps the government could address this anyway. In the UK, anyone without an address can use their Job Centre address and that solve that problem and if the US doesn't do that, well they can start.

We need to move on.

[JohnRawls]

The only thing that harmed the economy was the Lockdown. This was said on here two years ago. But people were all, 'but what about Covid' at the time and basically dismissed this point until it was too late. The payments were needed when everyone was at home unproductive. And today they are just something that delays people going back to work so should be cut actually. But given people don't spend if they are worried about losing their job, that perhaps explains this more than policy.

Also, if people are unemployed and there are job vacancies, then what does that say? Nobody would work if you are better off not working and I suspect government handouts are better paid than these jobs who want workers but will only pay minimum wage.

We are in a phase of structural unemployment caused by Covid and this is not necessarily a bad thing if you can manage the labour shortage over a period of time.

There are 2 causes of this:
1) People do not want to go to cheap jobs.
2) People do not have the skills to do the needed work. (This is ultimately the bigger problem)

This drives wages everywhere up which makes point 1 more problematic and increases inflation.

The problem with what the Republicans did is that they haven't learned from the mistakes of 2008. Europe sure as hell did and the federal government in US did but not the republicans. Europe should have invested even more in to the economies I think, US did very good in this regard. EU focused on benefits a lot which will cushion or eliminate the social impact better than the US. Economically US did a bit better but more or less EU and US are comparable.

Right now as @Steve_American said the more problem is the attitude and the general rhetoric. People are currently being Bearish in their behaviour. Covid needs to get fully resolved or normalise before things get even better.

Overal Covid is a positive shock to the economy overall. Medium and long term perspective speaking it allowed to re-adjust the labour force within companies, increase productivity with remote work and created a labour shock that is currently driving up wages. All 3 are positives in my book and were a bit overdue.

[B0ycey]

There are 2 causes of this:
1) People do not want to go to cheap jobs.
2) People do not have the skills to do the needed work. (This is ultimately the bigger problem)

I don't actually disagree with this, but people will work if they aren't paid to stay home. And the UK is having a huge issue with labor shortages right now where people would rather stay on furlough in a job they have no intention in returning to (or may never return) whilst on 80% pay. As the benefits reduced, people went back to work. That is just the way it is.

As for your second point, this is true. We are having a huge issue with lorry drivers today (and warehouse workers in general) due to mainly people moving online, but also due to Brexit workers going home. And these jobs are easily trainable. Most jobs that need skills can train people with average intelligence. We have come custom to hiring from afar rather than train them up and the government could easily force people to train for these jobs whilst claiming welfare. As someone said to me once before and I agree with them completely (before Brexit), claiming job seekers should be a job in itself. If you aren't working, you should be training and that would solve point two.

This drives wages everywhere up which makes point 1 more problematic and increases inflation.

The problem with what the Republicans did is that they haven't learned from the mistakes of 2008. Europe sure as hell did and the federal government in US did but not the republicans. Europe should have invested even more in to the economies I think, US did very good in this regard. EU focused on benefits a lot which will cushion or eliminate the social impact better than the US. Economically US did a bit better but more or less EU and US are comparable.

The thing with the EU and the US, is they are similar in many ways in terms of people, economy and problems. But their outcomes are way different. And that is not due to Covid but politics. And as such, the people who benefit in the US are the same people who did well before Covid and the people who lose, were losing anyway. The EU however is a Liberal project with social programs and this makes a huge difference in terms of who is and isn't better off.

Right now as @Steve_American said the more problem is the attitude and the general rhetoric. People are currently being Bearish in their behaviour. Covid needs to get fully resolved or normalise before things get even better.

Overal Covid is a positive shock to the economy overall. Medium and long term perspective speaking it allowed to re-adjust the labour force within companies, increase productivity with remote work and created a labour shock that is currently driving up wages. All 3 are positives in my book and were a bit overdue.

Well I don't disagree with this, however this is only fine if you want a model that is based online. I prefer going to restaurants and having shops. There is a belief that Covid19 has just sped up this process and that shops and restaurants were always going to close down eventually. But I disagree. There would always going to be a demand for dining out and outdoor shopping and as such these things would remain if we could look after them and use them. Today we are actually reducing the demand not due to desire but fear and habits. That is fine, but businesses can't survive on a reduced footfall forever and we may lose a lot of business because of that. And that reduced competition would then increases price and that would then reduce affordability which then reduces custom. That is a symptom of lockdown.

[JohnRawls]

I don't actually disagree with this, but people will work if they aren't paid to stay home. And the UK is having a huge issue with labor shortages right now where people would rather stay on furlough in a job they have no intention in returning to (or may never return) whilst on 80% pay. As the benefits reduced, people went back to work. That is just the way it is.

As for your second point, this is true. We are having a huge issue with lorry drivers today (and warehouse workers in general) due to mainly people moving online, but also due to Brexit workers going home. And these jobs are easily trainable. Most jobs that need skills can train people with average intelligence. We have come custom to hiring from afar rather than train them up and the government could easily force people to train for these jobs whilst claiming welfare. As someone said to me once before and I agree with them completely (before Brexit), claiming job seekers should be a job in itself. If you aren't working, you should be training and that would solve point two.



The thing with the EU and the US, is they are similar in many ways in terms of people, economy and problems. But their outcomes are way different. And that is not due to Covid but politics. And as such, the people who benefit in the US are the same people who did well before Covid and the people who lose, were losing anyway. The EU however is a Liberal project with social programs and this makes a huge difference in terms of who is and isn't better off.



Well I don't disagree with this, however this is only fine if you want a model that is based online. I prefer going to restaurants and having shops. There is a belief that Covid19 has just sped up this process and that shops and restaurants were always going to close down eventually. But I disagree. There would always going to be a demand for dining out and outdoor shopping and as such these things would remain if we could look after them and use them. Today we are actually reducing the demand not due to desire but fear and habits. That is fine, but businesses can't survive on a reduced footfall forever and we may lose a lot of business because of that. And that reduced competition would then increases price and that would then reduce affordability which then reduces custom. That is a symptom of lockdown.

Both models have their benefits and negatives to be honest. You can't simply dismiss the US model because you personally don't like it. Loosing economic growth or social cohesion is both bad. EU lost in 1 a bit while the US lost in another but it has always been historically that way.

The subject of Social cohesion is a way out of this Covid labour shortage though. Ultimately EU is at a bigger advantage labour wise compared to any other places in the world perhaps besides Australia and NZ. So I am pretty sure that the growth that we lost by not focusing squarely on business, we will get back in our own way.

The funny thing is that Brexiteers complained about "they took our jobs" so we must Brexit but now this is going to cripple the UK economy over all perspectives. At the same time, Germany who had more right to whine about "they took our jobs" has lower unemployment by a large margin by the way and also will not have its economy crippled by the labour shortages in the same sense.

[Steve_American]

Steve, people were going about their business despite the headlines without any loss of trade before lockdown. What happened was the government enacted FearPorn which changed habits. Lockdown changed everything. People then feared the virus and now they have doubled down on this belief so not to feel that their months locked up were for nothing. In other words, we cannot rebound to levels before lockdown because we have changed the way we think and businesses have had to adapt their models for a great cost to them with a reduction in footfall.

As for why people aren't taking these jobs, the reason is mainly due to low pay. Why would anyone work when you don't have to? I only say this because the cost of working includes expenses like childcare and travel as well as the loss of time and the government is paying you to stay home. Low pay should be addressed. I am an advocate of better pay and conditions. But this is a side issue for why people aren't working today. You need to cut the non working payments. Not just because it builds up debt (although I know you support the money tree), but because you need to give incentive to work. And although people are living in cars, this isn't a factor for why people are staying at home (the word here is home), but a reason of low housing stock. Although perhaps the government could address this anyway. In the UK, anyone without an address can use their Job Centre address and that solve that problem and if the US doesn't do that, well they can start.

We need to move on.

Sir, to the part I highlighted ---
I think you are stopping your thinking when the lockdowns started.
They started as things got bad in terms of cases and hospitalizations.
I predict that if there had been no lock downs, then more people would have started staying home anyway.
Not as many, but a large percentage. Too large for resturants and airlines, etc. to be profitable.
I claim that before the lockdowns, things had not gotten bad enough yet to scare people.
We will never know for sure, although we might look at Sweden as a place that didn't lockdown to see if trade fell in the areas of the economy I listed in my post that you quoted.
.