Posted on 03/30/2020 6:33:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
In terms of social pressure, its hard to imagine a more important must-pass piece of legislation than the recently passed $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill. Right or wrong, the government is essentially forcing businesses to close and people to be out of work in order to fight the spread of coronavirus, and thus any shred of morality on the part of said government officials would dictate that the government has a responsibility to at least help care for those out of work folks until the crisis has passed, even if that means borrowing trillions to do so.
Still, there are plenty of things we already know are wrong with this bill (did we really need a few extra million for the Kennedy Center right now?) and plenty of faults yet to be discovered, especially given that most legislators wouldnt have had time to fully examine its contents before being forced to vote on it. One thing we do know about, however, is a supposed drafting error that gives an extra $600 per week for four months to anyone drawing unemployment compensation ON TOP of what they would ordinarily make in unemployment. This drafting error, as Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse explained in a statement, would create a perverse incentive for Americans to not work.
As its currently drafted, Sasse said, the bill threatens to cripple the supply chain for many different categories of workers, some in healthcare, some in food prep and food delivery and creates a perverse incentive for men and women who are sidelined to then not leave the sidelines and come back to work.
Sasse and others, including South Carolina Sens. Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham, tried to fix the issue by including a simple amendment that would have prevented unemployment benefits from actually exceeding what someone previously earned, but it was summarily shot down well short of the 60 votes it would have taken for passage. So were left with an issue that, according to Sasse, will exacerbate our problems and force Congress to be back here in a month and in two months trying to fix them. Yeah, good luck with that.
Granted, those who voted to keep the $600 likely found it difficult to bend against the politics of helping those in need during a critical time in our history. After all, never before have so many Americans been denied their livelihoods by their own government. However, when the coronavirus crisis does pass, and it will, what happens when businesses try to ramp up their workforces in order to meet the inevitable demand surge? Will lower-skilled yet crucial laid-off workers resent being called back to work to take a pay cut? And if/when additional help is needed, good luck trying to coax anyone out of the house with the tempting sales pitch of hard work AND less money than they are currently making sitting on the couch watching Netflix.
Before you try to argue that most people would always choose a permanent job, remember that low skilled employers had enough difficulties hiring and keeping people during normal times. This is a workforce that can leave at the drop of a hat only to walk in somewhere else and begin working the next day, and yet they are absolutely crucial to maintaining the underpinnings of a strong U.S. economy.
In a piece about the issue for liberal website Slate, Jordan Weissmann argued that the issue is actually not a drafting error, but rather a design feature of the bill that conservative lawmakers simply are unhappy with. While the writer isnt overly concerned about incentivizing service workers to stay home during a plague, he does acknowledge that the qualms of those concerned about the future ramifications of the bill arent entirely insane.
Usually, Americans cant collect unemployment if they walk out on their jobs, Weissmann writes. But the coronavirus billor at least a draft version that a Hill aide told me was current makes an individual who has to quit his or her job as a direct result of COVID-19 eligible. Direct result isnt super well defined in that section (and Im not sure how itd be policed), so you can definitely imagine a scenario where some important workers decide to go on unemployment insurance rather than keep working for a business that cant afford to give them a raise at the moment.
In other words, not only will hiring and rehiring become a future problem when this crisis has passed, but keeping ones workers RIGHT NOW if you need them to, you know, stay in business, could be a tremendously devastating unintended consequence. How many lower-wage people will simply choose to quit their jobs because they are concerned about contracting coronavirus? How is a restaurant trying to stay afloat by doing take-out, a factory trying to produce much-needed goods, or a farmer trying to get the crops planted supposed to do all those things if our government will pay their workers more money to simply stay home?
The Slate writer called Lindsey Grahams alternative idea of simply giving laid-off workers 100 percent of their salary during the crisis a pretty reasonable approach that he would be kind of tempted to accept if he were a congressional Democrat. However, the ancient IT systems currently used to administer state unemployment benefits make such a common-sense approach impossible.
Somehow though, I doubt Democrats would have accepted such a reasonable solution, even if it were technically possible. Theyre too keen on taking full advantage of this crisis. And such a scenario, where workers are literally better off on the government dole than working, is just too perfect for those who want to someday turn the entire United States into a socialist hellscape.
My prediction is that this will not cause much harm at all. I say this mainly because I believe most of those low-wage jobs lost in this fiasco are never coming back anyway. I hate to any businesses close, but some sectors of our economy were very unstable to begin with. Restaurants, for example, are notoriously marginal often even in GOOD times.
Massie made it clear when he launched his crusade that he had every intention of voting FOR the bill.
“I believe most of those low-wage jobs lost in this fiasco are never coming back anyway.”
I think so, too, but there are lots of jobs left and we’re seeing people ditch them for unemployment insurance.
I dont know of any jurisdiction where someone can collect unemployment after leaving a job on their own.
He should NOT have signed it, he should have redlined everything in it that was NOT virus related and held it up for the cameras to see.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I want(ed) him to go one better than that...
READ THE ENTIRE Bill, to the public, no grimaces, no theatrics (would be ‘hard’), just word for word, let it sink in then go back and point out what WILL come out return it and give them a few hours.
PDJT has to let the PUBLIC know what these ‘so called’ representatives are doing to US.
Wouldn’t be a bad idea to name who is FOR THE PUBLIC and who isn’t.
They told us to stay home so take advantage of the ‘audience at ‘gun point’’....<: <: <:
Amen,..President Trump should not have signed it.. Never that kind of pork..
I worked for decades at the unemployment office. This is true, even without the extra $600 per week.
“I dont know of any jurisdiction where someone can collect unemployment after leaving a job on their own.”
It’s what we were talking about upthread. The new law seems to allow people to leave their job due to the corona virus. It’s a bit vague, but I do know people are quoting it in the real world right now.
This kind of makes me more convinced that the intent of this provision is to provide that "unemployment incentive" for millions of people who are NEVER getting their old jobs back.
This is why many FReepers need to quit looking at Trump like he is a god, and pull your head out of your third point of contact.
This is total and complete horse crap. Trump has allowed the nanny-staters and drama queens too much pull.
Fed min wage is $7.25/hr. A work week for a full time employee is 40 hours. This works out to be $290.
Unemployment is not 100% of the previous wage. But add the $600 help to the wage and you have $890.00. Divide by the 40 hours for the work week and you get $22.25/hr.
The Dems will never again try to get a $15 minimum wage, they will loudly protest Republican attempts to reduce the established minimum....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.