gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,303
|
Post by gs11rmb on Sept 26, 2020 17:03:56 GMT -5
I have a lot of compassion for folks who've lost their jobs during this pandemic. And while I think it's always important to "save for a rainy day", I feel bad that these folks are now in this situation. What I'm struggling with feeling bad about, however, is people who have multiple car leases (and one at $820/month?!) and a $4400 monthly mortgage, when prior to this they were making enough to pay for all of that, instead of saving more for this type of scenario.
Or, maybe everyone in this story had a health e-fund, but now they are finding it's just not enough. Because unlike during "normal" times, jobs are kinda hard to come by right now. I interviewed for 2 jobs this summer, was a final candidate both times, and both times, they company didn't hire me. Not because they hired someone else - no, they didn't hire ANYONE because of hiring freeze's and other things going on at those institutions. Now, in normal times, I just as likely would not have gotten those jobs, but I applied to both in March and I haven't seen another one in my career area, at my level, since.
I'm lucky I still have a job (that's super stable) but if I had lost my job due to the pandemic, with no end to the pandemic in sight, I have no idea what I'd do, 6, 8, 10 months or more out. My e-fund is healthy, I'm married, so we have another income. But even with a budget and living within my means, I can't be without a job for an indeterminate amount of time. And that's what I see as being different about this. As far as I can tell, there is no end in sight to the pandemic and everything it entails.
I must admit my sympathy was sorely tested when I read that one of their drastic actions was to reduce that $820 lease by "about $100". A roughly $720 car lease is apparently a significant cost saving .
|
|
flamingo
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 10:38:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,905
Mini-Profile Name Color: 7c65d4
|
Post by flamingo on Sept 26, 2020 17:25:37 GMT -5
gs11rmb - yeah, even in normal times that seems excessive. If the car lease is that big a strain, why not just get rid of it completely or downgrade for real, to a cheap beater? I mean, I bought a brand new car last summer and it was not a cheap, base model one, and my car payment is about $400/month. Which is more than I want it to be. BUT, if I lost my job due to the pandemic, that would be the first thing to go. Like completely go. I'd sell it and be done with the whole thing. We could be a 1 car family if we had to. There are a lot of other bills/needs I could use my limited funds on other than a super expensive car!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 17:32:11 GMT -5
gs11rmb - yeah, even in normal times that seems excessive. If the car lease is that big a strain, why not just get rid of it completely or downgrade for real, to a cheap beater? I mean, I bought a brand new car last summer and it was not a cheap, base model one, and my car payment is about $400/month. Which is more than I want it to be. BUT, if I lost my job due to the pandemic, that would be the first thing to go. Like completely go. I'd sell it and be done with the whole thing. We could be a 1 car family if we had to. There are a lot of other bills/needs I could use my limited funds on other than a super expensive car! I'm guessing that there were penalties for getting out of the lease and maybe even charges for wear and tear and mileage. Many lease agreements have pretty limited mileage and charge through the nose if you go over. All of that would be folded into the lease payment on the new car, of course.
|
|
flamingo
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 10:38:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,905
Mini-Profile Name Color: 7c65d4
|
Post by flamingo on Sept 26, 2020 17:35:42 GMT -5
Yep, all true. It just seems like an overall questionable decision to me.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,222
|
Post by saveinla on Sept 26, 2020 19:48:10 GMT -5
There are ways to sell a leased car - I think Carmax does it. Someone was talking about it the other day, but I was not paying attention.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 21:49:51 GMT -5
In other countries, they pay people so they can maintain their lives. Here in the US we don't. I think that would be really helpful for all of the people who have lost jobs and will end up on the streets. That's just going to make things worse for everyone. This doesn't work for me. We have safety nets like unemployment, Aid to Dependent Children (Alabama's version of welfare), Medicaid, SNAP, etc. There are free and reduced breakfasts and lunches. There is basically free cell phone service. Oh, and Section 8 housing and other subsidized housing. We don't need to simply pay people to "maintain their lives." I don't even know what that means. Guaranteed income? I believe in a helping hand, which what I list above provides. But I drive a 14-year-old car (low mileage). I don't want to pay for someone else's Acura.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,299
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 26, 2020 22:38:58 GMT -5
In other countries, they pay people so they can maintain their lives. Here in the US we don't. I think that would be really helpful for all of the people who have lost jobs and will end up on the streets. That's just going to make things worse for everyone. This doesn't work for me. We have safety nets like unemployment, Aid to Dependent Children (Alabama's version of welfare), Medicaid, SNAP, etc. There are free and reduced breakfasts and lunches. There is basically free cell phone service. Oh, and Section 8 housing and other subsidized housing. We don't need to simply pay people to "maintain their lives." I don't even know what that means. Guaranteed income? I believe in a helping hand, which what I list above provides. But I drive a 14-year-old car (low mileage). I don't want to pay for someone else's Acura. Maybe Universal Basic Income? Two things strike me: 1) it seems like folks really aren't incentivized to stay under/un employed and 2) the amount of money isn't enough to allow folks to drive Acuras.
And a Third thing: there seem to be some positives of trying to lift folks out of poverty. In here, they also mentioned that folks that got UBI as part of Finland's experiment received cuts in other support.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2020 23:03:07 GMT -5
"Stimulus packages around the world: UK: 80% of workers' salaries Denmark: 75% of workers' salaries S Korea: 70% of workers' salaries Netherlands: 90% of workers' salaries Canada: $2k per month Australia: $1k per month US: One time $1200 check that may take months to arrive" This is what I meant by pay people. People shouldn't be forced to work or send their kids to school so they can work during a pandemic or get evicted/end up bankrupt because they are out of work. www.newsweek.com/heres-how-us-coronavirus-stimulus-package-compares-other-countries-around-world-1497360
|
|
adela76
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 29, 2011 19:15:12 GMT -5
Posts: 125
|
Post by adela76 on Sept 26, 2020 23:13:06 GMT -5
"Stimulus packages around the world: UK: 80% of workers' salaries Denmark: 75% of workers' salaries S Korea: 70% of workers' salaries Netherlands: 90% of workers' salaries Canada: $2k per month Australia: $1k per month US: One time $1200 check that may take months to arrive" This is what I meant by pay people. People shouldn't be forced to work or send their kids to school so they can work during a pandemic or get evicted/end up bankrupt because they are out of work. www.newsweek.com/heres-how-us-coronavirus-stimulus-package-compares-other-countries-around-world-1497360Ok, but the article is actually making the opposite point that you are: "While the tweet lists a rundown of the benefits 6 other countries are providing their unemployed workers below, the data from the viral post is somewhat misleading since it only compares the U.S. stimulus check to what are essentially the unemployment benefits offered in foreign countries."
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,157
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Sept 27, 2020 7:26:08 GMT -5
If you have ever tried living on only unemployment, you will find that it is very difficult. It takes a while to get on SNAP or Section 8 housing if that needs to happen.
I saw people in the 2008 recession who could not make it on unemployment alone.
Single people with no children generally don't qualify for a lot of benefits.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 27, 2020 8:02:52 GMT -5
"Stimulus packages around the world: UK: 80% of workers' salaries Denmark: 75% of workers' salaries S Korea: 70% of workers' salaries Netherlands: 90% of workers' salaries Canada: $2k per month Australia: $1k per month US: One time $1200 check that may take months to arrive" This is what I meant by pay people. People shouldn't be forced to work or send their kids to school so they can work during a pandemic or get evicted/end up bankrupt because they are out of work. www.newsweek.com/heres-how-us-coronavirus-stimulus-package-compares-other-countries-around-world-1497360[ For Canada and Australia that monthly amount is miserably small Don’t know about the % countries but the US pandemic unemployment was $600/wk or $2400 month plus state unemployment from April to end June More $ than about 70% unemployed people usually made. So way more - till it ended www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1234603Now federal assistance is $300/wk (plus state UEI) but some states not giving this, NJ does. Gig workers also included. Plus the huge amount given to small businesses to pass on to workers Of course there were many problems - does anyone think the problems were only in the US? Remember those $$ don’t magically appear but will add to our tax bill for years
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 8:23:45 GMT -5
If you have ever tried living on only unemployment, you will find that it is very difficult. It takes a while to get on SNAP or Section 8 housing if that needs to happen. I saw people in the 2008 recession who could not make it on unemployment alone. Single people with no children generally don't qualify for a lot of benefits. Of course, you can't make it on unemployment alone. That isn't its purpose. It's a safety net, temporary help. If you lived large before you lost your job, you are going to be hit the hardest. And "universal basic income," on the scale that is discussed in the first article that Gira posted isn't going to help, either. That's a few thousand dollars. Surely, if we were going to provide a basic income, it would at least be at 100% of the poverty level. That's $12,760 for a one-person household. You really can't live off that, either. At least you would earn $15,080 at minimum wage full-time. If what is being suggested is that a few thousand dollars on top of full-time minimum wage would make a difference, don't we already almost do that with the EITC? I'm not an economist so I try to stay out of threads like this one.
|
|
bobosensei
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by bobosensei on Sept 28, 2020 9:48:44 GMT -5
"Stimulus packages around the world: UK: 80% of workers' salaries Denmark: 75% of workers' salaries S Korea: 70% of workers' salaries Netherlands: 90% of workers' salaries Canada: $2k per month Australia: $1k per month US: One time $1200 check that may take months to arrive" This is what I meant by pay people. People shouldn't be forced to work or send their kids to school so they can work during a pandemic or get evicted/end up bankrupt because they are out of work. www.newsweek.com/heres-how-us-coronavirus-stimulus-package-compares-other-countries-around-world-1497360[ For Canada and Australia that monthly amount is miserably small Don’t know about the % countries but the US pandemic unemployment was $600/wk or $2400 month plus state unemployment from April to end June More $ than about 70% unemployed people usually made. So way more - till it ended www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1234603Now federal assistance is $300/wk (plus state UEI) but some states not giving this, NJ does. Gig workers also included. Plus the huge amount given to small businesses to pass on to workers Of course there were many problems - does anyone think the problems were only in the US? Remember those $$ don’t magically appear but will add to our tax bill for years The 300 a week was only available for 6 weeks. So people are only getting their unemployment benefits from their state now. www.cnbc.com/2020/09/11/lost-wages-assistance-pays-up-to-1800-in-extra-unemployment-benefits.html
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Sept 28, 2020 11:04:36 GMT -5
We are a white collar family hit by cutbacks because of Covid. It was NOT a great year to move into a new house that we knew was going to be a bit of a stretch. By stretch I mean we knew it was going to eat into some of our normal disposable income.
Cue March and suddenly husband is cut to 80% wages, then July I was cut to 80%. One thing we learned is that we can still get by on that without too much discomfort. I did have to put off some extra savings I had been planning and some debt repayments i was planning to make.
I'm currently reworking my budget now that we have gotten used to doing with 20% less, to put that 20% toward more useful things.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Sept 28, 2020 11:06:06 GMT -5
[ For Canada and Australia that monthly amount is miserably small Don’t know about the % countries but the US pandemic unemployment was $600/wk or $2400 month plus state unemployment from April to end June More $ than about 70% unemployed people usually made. So way more - till it ended www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1234603Now federal assistance is $300/wk (plus state UEI) but some states not giving this, NJ does. Gig workers also included. Plus the huge amount given to small businesses to pass on to workers Of course there were many problems - does anyone think the problems were only in the US? Remember those $$ don’t magically appear but will add to our tax bill for years The 300 a week was only available for 6 weeks. So people are only getting their unemployment benefits from their state now. www.cnbc.com/2020/09/11/lost-wages-assistance-pays-up-to-1800-in-extra-unemployment-benefits.html If they have received it at all... some states have yet to disbursed the funds. DC only paid everyone last week and it was only for 4 weeks per my neighbor. I checked the DC website and it backed up what he said: mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-announces-federal-approval-dc’s-application-additional-unemploymentSo he only received 4 weeks back dated till August 1... and it is a ? If they will receive more since it is first come first served and may run out of money anytime .
|
|
gacpa
Familiar Member
Joined: Nov 19, 2013 16:08:06 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by gacpa on Sept 28, 2020 12:33:13 GMT -5
The problem I have with the theory of Universal Basic Income is the same problem others have encountered once they retire and try to live off their skimpy Social Security checks. Once you put a floor under what people can afford to pay for food, shelter and healthcare, the price of everything goes up. Businesses are going to price their goods and services according to how much money they think you have to spend. So in the end, a universal basic income is no longer enough, because the market will price goods and services just beyond what we can comfortably afford. The market will make sure your cash finds its way into their coffers. It sounds great in theory, but the reality is the market will price it in to what we pay for everything we need to live. I think the idea behind Social Security was great, but once we created a means for senior citizens to get a retirement check and healthcare, the market responded by raising the costs of healthcare and senior services. Please don't flame me, but this is my thought.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 28, 2020 12:49:16 GMT -5
The problem I have with the theory of Universal Basic Income is the same problem others have encountered once they retire and try to live off their skimpy Social Security checks. Once you put a floor under what people can afford to pay for food, shelter and healthcare, the price of everything goes up. Businesses are going to price their goods and services according to how much money they think you have to spend. So in the end, a universal basic income is no longer enough, because the market will price goods and services just beyond what we can comfortably afford. The market will make sure your cash finds its way into their coffers. It sounds great in theory, but the reality is the market will price it in to what we pay for everything we need to live. I think the idea behind Social Security was great, but once we created a means for senior citizens to get a retirement check and healthcare, the market responded by raising the costs of healthcare and senior services. Please don't flame me, but this is my thought.Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of retirement income. Back when it came into existence, it supplemented pensions and savings. When most pensions went the way of the dodo bird, 401k/403b/IRA were supposed to be additional sources of income. The difference is that employees needed to stay on top of things, they couldn't just show up and work for XX number of years, retire, get their gold watch and collect their pension. My grandmother lived with us during retirement. She had 3 sources of income, her SS, her pension from working and the spousal pension from her dead husband. Together, they provided a sufficient income for her to live well. She lived with my parents from the late 1970s through mid 1980s.
|
|
gacpa
Familiar Member
Joined: Nov 19, 2013 16:08:06 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by gacpa on Sept 28, 2020 12:55:15 GMT -5
I agree SS was never meant to be a sole source of income during retirement. However, I grew up in a small, very poor town and the fact is SS was all most people had. Too many have it as their sole source of income. My mother has an 88 year old friend who lives off less than 20 grand SS a year.
My main point is the markets will soak up whatever cash flow they can by raising the prices of goods and services. It happened with SS and it would happen with Universal Basic Income.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 13:15:46 GMT -5
UBI will likely be a thing of the future. But, what I was talking about is paying people some sort of UBI/stimulus during the pandemic to allow people who can't work to pay their bills, keep a roof over their heads, etc... just as other countries have successfully done.
Right now, the US isn't doing so because the Administration wants to brag about how many people they are forcing to work and risk their lives for the "great" US economy. This is perpetuating the pandemic... and killing people unnecessarily.
It's wonderful to mention things like Section 8 housing, except in states like CA there are multi-year waiting lists just to apply. Food stamps and other programs often require you have no assets or that you completely spend yourself into poverty before you can qualify for. If the ACA is overturned, this will be a serious problem for people who have too many assets for Medicaid and can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Nearly every adult has been ill at some point...
My previous area had become overrun by homeless in the last few years. Where my mom lives south of Sacramento they now have multiple tent cities and people living all up and down the railroad tracks. It's already crazy and very unsafe, and it's expected to get much, much worse.
There's a reason celebrities and people with means are leaving big cities in droves right now.
|
|
readergirl
New Member
Joined: May 2, 2013 8:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 33
|
Post by readergirl on Sept 28, 2020 13:17:51 GMT -5
I agree with SouthernSusana about paying people to maintain their lifestyle. Even before the pandemic, we rarely ate out, have our cars until their 10th birthday, bought a reasonably priced house we could well afford to be able to save money. Now if you won't to spend to the max of your income, I am not saying you should not. I just don't want to have my taxes raised to help you have a better lifestyle than I do. We all have choices.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 13:25:33 GMT -5
My mom lives on SS now and is starting to struggle as we all expected she would.
In her case, she and my late-step-father made a ton of money but chose to spend all of it plus. He had a pension but chose the option where she got nothing when he died.
When he died, she also lost his SS. She went from something like 6K a month to about 2K.
He left her with a paid-off house and as soon as they paid it off, she went out and bought a Cadillac SUV that was about 80K. She "wanted a decent car" for when she was a widow... In 4 years, the car has 6K miles on it.
When he died, the first thing she did was consolidate the car and another 60K in debt into a mortgage. The mortgage took more than half her SS and she's a total shopaholic.
Her house has land, a pool, etc... She pays hundreds of dollars per month to care for a pool she never uses. She's had one repair after another in the house. And, rather than attempt to fix anything or shop around, she calls in a "pro" and pays whatever they tell her is necessary.
She replaced the AC less than 10 years ago. She just replaced it again with monthly payments because she was told it wasn't fixable. She decided she can't afford the $200 a month payments and tried to re-fi her house. She had a whole list of things she would do with the money (resurface the pool, fix it's pump, pay off the AC, etc...) but was denied any cash out.
So, she's refi-ing now for a bit lower rate and paying nearly 6K in closing costs.
I gave up long ago. She has plenty of money she could live on. But, she refuses to do anything to lower her COL. She has On Star, the best insurance possible on every car, the house, etc... It's crazy, but she refuses to change.
|
|
gacpa
Familiar Member
Joined: Nov 19, 2013 16:08:06 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by gacpa on Sept 28, 2020 13:53:00 GMT -5
LifePartTwo, I feel for you. My mom is the exact opposite. She has plenty of money, but won't spend a penny of it, even when she needs to. Her home has not been updated since the 90's. There are things that need fixing or updating, but she will not turn loose of the money. If she really needs something, or I want her to have something, I just pay for it myself. I gave up getting frustrated with her. She will not ever change and there is no sense in me upsetting myself. I don't know why our parents can't be a little more "middle of the road" when it comes to money. She just carries it way too far.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,766
|
Post by jerseygirl on Sept 28, 2020 15:41:45 GMT -5
Good overview of UBI and possible scenarios and problems - links Looks at some European countries and US In US some winners but surprisingly over 65 might lose Also to pay for UBI, might need to remove all the present programs such as food, utility, EITC help etc Would there be enough to pay for programs for the disabled adults that can’t understand or manage their lives without help? All of the existing programs have lots of people working for them, they’d lose their jobs? Also medical insurance might be a bigger problem !?! Thinking now in the US the health insurance companies and lobby are soaking up major funding and causing lots of money and time from physicians, hospitals and pharmacies . They’ve done a ‘scam job’ on the US population making them think health insurance is health care - it’s not Anyway, info on UBI in link interesting www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15712160/basic-income-oecd-aei-replace-welfare-state
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Sept 28, 2020 16:00:39 GMT -5
Yes, part of the appeal of UBI is getting rid of the patchwork of various programs with their corresponding administrative costs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 16:47:29 GMT -5
I don't understand how we would really pay for UBI . . . not the version that Shasta is talking about, which is an extension of unemployment. And actually I think there is a form of that already helps besides the extra unemployment dollars. It is called the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and lasts until December 31. It provides pay if you are quarantined or school closes, etc. Here's the link. It doesn't apply to small employers (less than 50) and certain professions like Healthcare are exempted, but it is worth knowing about. But some of us are talking about Universal Basic Income in the truer sense. And I don't know how we would pay for it. Our tax rate simply isn't high enough. Nor is the political climate right for such a program. SS and Medicare are being condemned as entitlement programs even though people paid into these programs. What I do wonder is whether Universal Basic Employment would work. That is, everyone who is able but can't find a job is provided one at minimum wage. Daycare would be provided . . . that would be one of the jobs that people who can't find a job would work. These people might become our cafeteria workers and groundspeople at public buildings. And so on. It would sort of be like WPA. You would be encouraged to find a better job, of course, and some of the "jobs" might be apprenticeships for the trades. I'm just think aloud for a minute so be kind when you punch holes in the idea. Disclaimer again: I am not an economist. But Universal Basic Employment makes more sense to me than just handing out checks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 16:50:16 GMT -5
The purpose of UBI is to replace income lost due to automation. We are losing jobs for unskilled labor and there is expected to not be enough jobs to go around.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 28, 2020 17:59:43 GMT -5
The purpose of UBI is to replace income lost due to automation. We are losing jobs for unskilled labor and there is expected to not be enough jobs to go around. People have been saying that for a century. There are two things I really like about universal basic income. If it’s replacing everything else, or nearly everything else, then you’re getting rid of a lot of overhead. For example I wouldn’t have to apply for unemployment when I lose my job and nobody would have to process my claim. I would just keep receiving my UBI checks and would no longer be paying taxes for it. The other appealing thing about it is that replacing our welfare system with UBI would get rid of the perverse incentives. No more having to worry about getting a $200 a month raise at work will make you lose $1000 a month and benefits,. If my brother-in-law decided to get a job, he wouldn’t have to worry about losing his disability check and then being left with nothing if he lost his job. UB I would be there whether he was working or not, he wouldn’t have to choose.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,388
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 28, 2020 18:00:32 GMT -5
The purpose of UBI is to replace income lost due to automation. We are losing jobs for unskilled labor and there is expected to not be enough jobs to go around. It seems to me that UBI is to supplement wages for things we, as a society, have not automated because the labor is so cheap. Teaching, elderly & medical care, cleaning services, the arts, etc. Maybe we could start by strengthening unions or creating some minimum wages for some jobs.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,692
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 28, 2020 18:33:51 GMT -5
If you have ever tried living on only unemployment, you will find that it is very difficult. It takes a while to get on SNAP or Section 8 housing if that needs to happen. I saw people in the 2008 recession who could not make it on unemployment alone. Single people with no children generally don't qualify for a lot of benefits. Of course, you can't make it on unemployment alone. That isn't its purpose. It's a safety net, temporary help. If you lived large before you lost your job, you are going to be hit the hardest. And "universal basic income," on the scale that is discussed in the first article that Gira posted isn't going to help, either. That's a few thousand dollars. Surely, if we were going to provide a basic income, it would at least be at 100% of the poverty level. That's $12,760 for a one-person household. You really can't live off that, either. At least you would earn $15,080 at minimum wage full-time. If what is being suggested is that a few thousand dollars on top of full-time minimum wage would make a difference, don't we already almost do that with the EITC? I'm not an economist so I try to stay out of threads like this one. Actually you probably would not. Most low paid jobs are not 40 hours a week, including mine. Our policy tries for 37.5 hours max and FT is now defined as 30 hrs or more a week. Not every low paid job pays any vacation time and some places simply close for parts of the year and no one gets paid. At the federal minimum of $7.25/hr. at 30 hours a week, paid work for 50 weeks is just $10, 875.00 . I'm having a hard time finding stats that are useful and perhaps they don't exist. I lost the retail worker URL which gave average hours per week over a span of more than a decade, but I couldn't find whether it only included "FT" workers or it was all workers. Currently the hours have plummeted to under 30 hrs/wk for 2020, but it ranged from just under 32/hrs a week to 30.4/hrs a week prior to 2020. I think the 40 hour work week is a myth for many people, not all of them low paid. Retailers will cut FT employee work weeks under 30 if the demand isn't there. AT my hybrid healthcare facility things live and die on our census. While FT nurses and aides get their hours cut last, that does not mean that there might not be weeks of 3 shifts or less per week when the census is low. My FT stint at a major dept store was a scheduled max of 38 hours a week, and when business dried up I had some weeks at 28 hours. It varied, some did no worse than 32 hours and some went as low as 24 hours.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 19:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 19:03:37 GMT -5
As far as the OP, DBF and I have combined annual income well over $100k. When we first started talking about buying a house together, I kept saying that I didn’t want a mortgage that was more than either of us could pay on our income alone. He makes more money than I do, but if something happened to his job, I could pay the bills on mine alone, including the mortgage I’m still paying on my other house. It would be very tight, and no fun, but I could do it. Realistically though, I still wouldn’t have to pay everything by myself because he has another regular source of income that has nothing to do with his real job and skills/knowledge that will always be needed and can earn extra income.
I felt like since neither of us had a lot of consumer debt (I only had a mortgage, he was renting and had a car payment of ~$300/month) it was the perfect opportunity to set ourselves up to be able to live on just one income and try to save most of the other one. It hasn’t worked out quite like I planned, mostly because of the money he spends on his kids outside of the child support he pays, and one of those kids is now in college, so even more costs. And another will be in college in a couple of years. I don’t begrudge the money he spends on his children. At all. We’re still both able to send enough to our retirement funds and savings accounts to make me happy.
The second couple in the OP made me cringe a little, because our income is a little more than that, but even with both mortgages, our bills don’t total $4400/month.
|
|