Do People Just Not Want To Work Anymore?

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 21:54:58 GMT -5 justme said:

May 17, 2021 21:02:13 GMT -5 Mardi Gras Audrey said:

I think the govt could have done a better job (while saving themselves some $$) pretty easily. They shouldn’t have made it where u make more from staying home than working. They should have made unemployment a percentage of your prior income up to the amount of state unemployment + 300 (or $600 or whatever the fed number is). It shouldn’t have been over 100% of What you made prior. Maybe 90 or 95%?

That would give people a small incentive to get back out there once covid got better while ensuring they didn’t go under during the height of the pandemic. This would have also preserved money to save if we need to extend this because of new virus waves. It wouldn’t have been hard to implement. I know CA UE is based on a percentage of what u made while employed. So just increase the percentage to 90 or 95% and change the. Cap and done.. should be easy to program that in the computer calculating bennies.

It already IS a percentage based on your income. It's just a really low amount. You have to make over a certain amount to get the full amount of UE in your state (which varies by state). If you made less than the certain amount you get less based on some type of calculation. 

But UE is already ridiculously low. Without the additional of federal I couldn't even pay my mortgage with my state's UE and I would get the max amount and I'm in a 2 bedroom condo not anything fnacy. My state's max is equivalent to $14k a year. People really aren't making THAT much on UE even with the max payments. The $300 fed only equates to an additional $15k/year on top of whatever your state provides. California's max UE is equivalent to $23k and New York's is $26k. This is not a ton and a half of money people are getting.

Oh and there's a max amount of money states have on their UE (ignore the fed stimulus payment) so they more money you qualify for the quicker you run out of benefits. 

You and I won’t make out on unemployment. If someone qualifies for even $1 of unemployment, they qualify for the extra $300 (that’s how it worked with the $600, I am assuming no change). That means the part time dishwasher who only worked two nights a week is now making more not working. My daughters friend qualified for $97 from his part time job. He is now getting $397, which was more than he was making.

[justme]

May 17, 2021 21:34:29 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 19:03:53 GMT -5 justme said:

Medicaid is only for those making around $17k assuming it was expanded in your state. But an adult making $30k does not get "fully subsidized healthcare". They might get a good portion of their premiums subsidized - but they'd still need to cover deductibles which can be high. I went to the calculator and put in info for my area - at $30k there's a lot of plans with $0 premiums but you're looking at thousands of dollars deductible or if you want a low/free deductible you're paying hundreds above what your subsidy is. 

I think it's fucked up that in the US we have around 17 million kids that don't get to eat every time they need to. That over 10% of our population lives below poverty wages - and considering that is $17k if you bump it up to 200% of the poverty line (or $34k) that's 29% of our population. So supposedly the richest nation in the world has millions of kids going hungry and damn near a third of their population not making much. If people are so aghast at our government making sure that we don't have people living so poorly - then yes wages need to rise. 

It boggles my mind that people are more upset at someone making $15/hour when there's people out there making millions per hour. That you want to pit those making $20/hour against those making $15/hr instead of those making $13 MILLION an hour and paying very little taxes. 

The problem is that wages have stagnated in this country for decades. That production has increased, efficiency has increased, profits have increased - but businesses neglected to raise wages and instead kept it and passed it onto a share holders and the c-suite.

In 2000 if someone washing dishes was making $10/hour that position SHOULD be making $15/hour in 2021 simply because of inflation. (And actually it should be $15.51). The restaurants sure are charging me more for food now - why shouldn't their workers pay have increased?

There's not a damn thing out there that HASN'T increased in price in the last 12 years except Federal minimum wage.

But you said $15/hr wasn’t sufficient and no one should work 40 hours and live off that? Now you are saying they should be making $15.51? Is that the acceptable wage? In the local businesses that I see struggling because they can’t find staff, none of the owners are making millions a year, let alone per hour. I have no idea what the hourly rate of employees have to do with corporate execs that make crazy salaries. The majority of employees do not work for those large companies.

I agree that no child should starve. I have no idea how that happens, given the welfare and food stamp benefits. I don’t know why we don’t take care of our own before we worry about helping other countries.

Because our welfare isn't as good as you like think - it also has very strict time limits on it. Because trump took millions out of the food stamp system - and the food stamps have low limits. According to USDA's website a family of 4 can't make more than $34k to receive them. You make $35k and you're on your own - how fucked up is that...I'm sure that extra $1000 will buy groceries for a family of 4 for a whole year. They're also expected to spend 30% of their income (!!!!!!!!!!!) on food so that amount is subtracted from the SNAP benefit. This means that the "max benefit" you see if you google is a fucking myth - they subtract 30% of your income from that amount so no one ever receives that much.  

So according to an example on their website a family of 4 making $1,110.5 net a month (so $13k a year) are expected to pay $334 a month towards food so the SNAP they receive is only $448. While it's nothing to sneeze at - it's not a lot of money. Especially if you want to eat healthy. I limit processed foods and cook a lot from scratch and I regularly spend $300/month for just me. 

So if you agree that no child should starve which solution do you agree with? 1 - raising wages or 2 - raising taxes so the government can provide better. There is no third option. 

[justme]

May 17, 2021 22:07:11 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 21:54:58 GMT -5 justme said:

It already IS a percentage based on your income. It's just a really low amount. You have to make over a certain amount to get the full amount of UE in your state (which varies by state). If you made less than the certain amount you get less based on some type of calculation. 

But UE is already ridiculously low. Without the additional of federal I couldn't even pay my mortgage with my state's UE and I would get the max amount and I'm in a 2 bedroom condo not anything fnacy. My state's max is equivalent to $14k a year. People really aren't making THAT much on UE even with the max payments. The $300 fed only equates to an additional $15k/year on top of whatever your state provides. California's max UE is equivalent to $23k and New York's is $26k. This is not a ton and a half of money people are getting.

Oh and there's a max amount of money states have on their UE (ignore the fed stimulus payment) so they more money you qualify for the quicker you run out of benefits. 

You and I won’t make out on unemployment. If someone qualifies for even $1 of unemployment, they qualify for the extra $300 (that’s how it worked with the $600, I am assuming no change). That means the part time dishwasher who only worked two nights a week is now making more not working. My daughters friend qualified for $97 from his part time job. He is now getting $397, which was more than he was making.

I'm aware of that.

Do YOU know that the states' unemployment system wasn't equipped to deal with gig workers and get them payments? That the systems also weren't built in a manner where they could make those more complicated decisions so those that made less got less of the bonus payments? That the only way to make the 52 (or maybe 54 I'm guessing DC has their own system and PR was probably included - even more if the Virgin Islands and Guam was included) to be able to handle the payments beyond a simple yes/no would take a lot more time and cost millions? That there was a damn decent chance that any money that could have been "saved" by doing this would have been negated by the expense of suddenly changing to software of that many systems? To say nothing of the time it would have taken to implement a finished product? 

[Opti]

May 17, 2021 21:54:58 GMT -5 justme said:

May 17, 2021 21:02:13 GMT -5 Mardi Gras Audrey said:

I think the govt could have done a better job (while saving themselves some $$) pretty easily. They shouldn’t have made it where u make more from staying home than working. They should have made unemployment a percentage of your prior income up to the amount of state unemployment + 300 (or $600 or whatever the fed number is). It shouldn’t have been over 100% of What you made prior. Maybe 90 or 95%?

That would give people a small incentive to get back out there once covid got better while ensuring they didn’t go under during the height of the pandemic. This would have also preserved money to save if we need to extend this because of new virus waves. It wouldn’t have been hard to implement. I know CA UE is based on a percentage of what u made while employed. So just increase the percentage to 90 or 95% and change the. Cap and done.. should be easy to program that in the computer calculating bennies.

It already IS a percentage based on your income. It's just a really low amount. You have to make over a certain amount to get the full amount of UE in your state (which varies by state). If you made less than the certain amount you get less based on some type of calculation. 

But UE is already ridiculously low. Without the additional of federal I couldn't even pay my mortgage with my state's UE and I would get the max amount and I'm in a 2 bedroom condo not anything fnacy. My state's max is equivalent to $14k a year. People really aren't making THAT much on UE even with the max payments. The $300 fed only equates to an additional $15k/year on top of whatever your state provides. California's max UE is equivalent to $23k and New York's is $26k. This is not a ton and a half of money people are getting.

Oh and there's a max amount of money states have on their UE (ignore the fed stimulus payment) so they more money you qualify for the quicker you run out of benefits. 

I also think its unwise to assume its unemployment pay is the reason or the biggest reason people haven't returned to work or returned to certain types of jobs. Some people may have had to move in with family or friends to survive economically during the pandemic. Many probably do not live in the area they originally lived in. Since no one has actually studied this to my knowledge, we don't know the number of people who have not returned to the workforce ( the US only collects rolling stats, so I'm not sure this info is even available ) compared to who is still available and willing to work. Some have retired, some are dead, some may be on disability due to Covid or other issues, some spouses may not want to return to the workforce if they are surviving on the current spouse's income etc. Add in consolidated households where people have become live in care givers or similar to survive, the pool may have shrunk and its possible employers are unwilling to hire workers brand new to the workforce or ones they deem too old because they believe they should be able to get someone better than that. 

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 22:12:00 GMT -5 justme said:

May 17, 2021 21:34:29 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

But you said $15/hr wasn’t sufficient and no one should work 40 hours and live off that? Now you are saying they should be making $15.51? Is that the acceptable wage? In the local businesses that I see struggling because they can’t find staff, none of the owners are making millions a year, let alone per hour. I have no idea what the hourly rate of employees have to do with corporate execs that make crazy salaries. The majority of employees do not work for those large companies.

I agree that no child should starve. I have no idea how that happens, given the welfare and food stamp benefits. I don’t know why we don’t take care of our own before we worry about helping other countries.

Because our welfare isn't as good as you like think - it also has very strict time limits on it. Because trump took millions out of the food stamp system - and the food stamps have low limits. According to USDA's website a family of 4 can't make more than $34k to receive them. You make $35k and you're on your own - how fucked up is that...I'm sure that extra $1000 will buy groceries for a family of 4 for a whole year. They're also expected to spend 30% of their income (!!!!!!!!!!!) on food so that amount is subtracted from the SNAP benefit. This means that the "max benefit" you see if you google is a fucking myth - they subtract 30% of your income from that amount so no one ever receives that much.  

So according to an example on their website a family of 4 making $1,110.5 net a month (so $13k a year) are expected to pay $334 a month towards food so the SNAP they receive is only $448. While it's nothing to sneeze at - it's not a lot of money. Especially if you want to eat healthy. I limit processed foods and cook a lot from scratch and I regularly spend $300/month for just me. 

So if you agree that no child should starve which solution do you agree with? 1 - raising wages or 2 - raising taxes so the government can provide better. There is no third option. 

This is where the cola matters. In my area, a family could live in a salary of $34k. They qualify for the EIC and our rents are still fairly reasonable. Though with the influx of out of state investors, that might change.

I also do not know how things out of my area work. I’m trying to research on my phone and I’m struggling. So I am going to dig into this more tomorrow. Because if you are telling me that the limit for food stamps is the same in both my area and a HCOLA, then I find that ludicrous.

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 22:21:35 GMT -5 justme said:

May 17, 2021 22:07:11 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

You and I won’t make out on unemployment. If someone qualifies for even $1 of unemployment, they qualify for the extra $300 (that’s how it worked with the $600, I am assuming no change). That means the part time dishwasher who only worked two nights a week is now making more not working. My daughters friend qualified for $97 from his part time job. He is now getting $397, which was more than he was making.

I'm aware of that.

Do YOU know that the states' unemployment system wasn't equipped to deal with gig workers and get them payments? That the systems also weren't built in a manner where they could make those more complicated decisions so those that made less got less of the bonus payments? That the only way to make the 52 (or maybe 54 I'm guessing DC has their own system and PR was probably included - even more if the Virgin Islands and Guam was included) to be able to handle the payments beyond a simple yes/no would take a lot more time and cost millions? That there was a damn decent chance that any money that could have been "saved" by doing this would have been negated by the expense of suddenly changing to software of that many systems? To say nothing of the time it would have taken to implement a finished product? 

And in the midst of the pandemic when our country was shut down, I agreed with that decision. We are now opened up and the supplement needs to end. We are now harming businesses by co finding to pay people more not to work

[justme]

May 17, 2021 22:38:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 22:12:00 GMT -5 justme said:

Because our welfare isn't as good as you like think - it also has very strict time limits on it. Because trump took millions out of the food stamp system - and the food stamps have low limits. According to USDA's website a family of 4 can't make more than $34k to receive them. You make $35k and you're on your own - how fucked up is that...I'm sure that extra $1000 will buy groceries for a family of 4 for a whole year. They're also expected to spend 30% of their income (!!!!!!!!!!!) on food so that amount is subtracted from the SNAP benefit. This means that the "max benefit" you see if you google is a fucking myth - they subtract 30% of your income from that amount so no one ever receives that much.  

So according to an example on their website a family of 4 making $1,110.5 net a month (so $13k a year) are expected to pay $334 a month towards food so the SNAP they receive is only $448. While it's nothing to sneeze at - it's not a lot of money. Especially if you want to eat healthy. I limit processed foods and cook a lot from scratch and I regularly spend $300/month for just me. 

So if you agree that no child should starve which solution do you agree with? 1 - raising wages or 2 - raising taxes so the government can provide better. There is no third option. 

This is where the cola matters. In my area, a family could live in a salary of $34k. They qualify for the EIC and our rents are still fairly reasonable. Though with the influx of out of state investors, that might change.

I also do not know how things out of my area work. I’m trying to research on my phone and I’m struggling. So I am going to dig into this more tomorrow. Because if you are telling me that the limit for food stamps is the same in both my area and a HCOLA, then I find that ludicrous.

All I know is those are the income limits I saw on USDA's website. I know food stamps are some weird fed/state combined thing, but they spelled out those income limits on their website. 

[Lizard Queen]

I thought I lived in a lcola, but I paid $500/month for rent for a 1 bedroom back in 2003. The same place is now $1000-1100/month, which is more than our 15 year mortgage payment.

[Opti]

May 17, 2021 21:58:48 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 21:51:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

I don't know why you want a one size fits all number for hourly pay, since COL varies significantly throughout the US. And you worked in finance or accounting no less. Turns out the majority of workers don't work for small companies either. (I think small company is defined as 50 or fewer employees, one can look it up if they want to check.)

From this moments internet search...

Since 2014, the latest year for which there is census data, this is no longer the case. At this point, 39.2 percent were employed at either a large or very large company, while 26.5 percent worked at mid-sized companies and 34.3 percent worked at small companies. The effect has been sharper in some sectors than others.

Which means the majority of workers do not work at small companies.

Now if one takes the limited view the Fortune 500 or 1000 or whatever defines corporate America, yes not the majority.

There’s no doubt that when it comes to providing jobs, the Fortune 500 is a vital cog in the nation’s economic engine. All together, companies on the list employed nearly 27 million people last year, which represents about 17% of the nation’s overall workforce—a figure that’s been relatively constant for the last 20 years.
www.bing.com/search?q=percent+of+the+us+workforce+employed+by+the+fortune+500&form=ANNTH1&refig=6f0f4c1c322b40b68e47e55d29ef9b3b

Funny that you are accusing me of wanting a one size fits all when it comes to hourly pay, since I actually wasn’t the one that thought that. It was another person who is in Finance no less. I understand that you live in a HCOLA and I don’t. Yet the same subsidy is given to all unemployed workers. And in MY area, that is causing an issue because a single person can live ok on unemployment now. There is no incentive to go back to work.

You are assuming its because of unemployment pay jobs are goin unfilled. I am not convinced that is a correct assumption given the pandemic lockdown and job loss started around February last year. I'm not sure what the maximum allowable weeks are on unemployment, but the usual max is only half a year. Even in extraordinary circumstances, I have never heard or read of unemployment being in excess of a year. 

I no longer volunteer with an unemployed employment organization, so I'm not up on the current state of unemployment lengths and benefits. This link though shows the various programs and laws that did exist. The link is from January so current law probably has changed again. Lastly, jobs advertised does not equal jobs available to be hired to in the near future. 

blog.dol.gov/2021/01/11/unemployment-benefits-answering-common-questions#:~:text=No%20PUA%20is%20payable%20for%20any%20week%20of,PEUC%20program%20is%20extended%20to%20March%2014%2C%202021.

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 22:49:30 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

I thought I lived in a lcola, but I paid $500/month for rent for a 1 bedroom back in 2003. The same place is now $1000-1100/month, which is more than our 15 year mortgage payment.

My area runs the gamut. I’m buying a 3 unit and the first floor apartment is a one bedroom and that rent is $1k. It could probably get $1200. It has hard wood, a fire place, new kitchen, driveway and is just really nice. In the same building is an apartment that I could probably get $450-$500 for. Current tens t pays $390 because she takes care of the snow and grass. The middle unit gets $625. So three one bedroom apartments but all over the place with rents.

I own another building with four 1 bedroom apartments. 2 are quite small but are nice. I inherited the tenants and one is paying $400 and the other one is $460. There are two other one bedrooms that are bigger. They get $695.

These two buildings are 7 minutes from each other and in very safe neighborhoods. I won’t buy in the “city” because I won’t own wear I won’t live. You can get bigger apartments cheaper there but the areas are definitely not that safe.

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 22:53:20 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 17, 2021 21:58:48 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Funny that you are accusing me of wanting a one size fits all when it comes to hourly pay, since I actually wasn’t the one that thought that. It was another person who is in Finance no less. I understand that you live in a HCOLA and I don’t. Yet the same subsidy is given to all unemployed workers. And in MY area, that is causing an issue because a single person can live ok on unemployment now. There is no incentive to go back to work.

You are assuming its because of unemployment pay jobs are goin unfilled. I am not convinced that is a correct assumption given the pandemic lockdown and job loss started around February last year. I'm not sure what the maximum allowable weeks are on unemployment, but the usual max is only half a year. Even in extraordinary circumstances, I have never heard or read of unemployment being in excess of a year. 

I no longer volunteer with an unemployed employment organization, so I'm not up on the current state of unemployment lengths and benefits. This link though shows the various programs and laws that did exist. The link is from January so current law probably has changed again. Lastly, jobs advertised does not equal jobs available to be hired to in the near future. 

blog.dol.gov/2021/01/11/unemployment-benefits-answering-common-questions#:~:text=No%20PUA%20is%20payable%20for%20any%20week%20of,PEUC%20program%20is%20extended%20to%20March%2014%2C%202021.

Because you are quoting an article from January. Google ARPA. Unemployment was extended.

[minnesotapaintlady]

May 17, 2021 22:49:30 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

I thought I lived in a lcola, but I paid $500/month for rent for a 1 bedroom back in 2003. The same place is now $1000-1100/month, which is more than our 15 year mortgage payment.

There are definitely $500/month apartments around here.  Three colleges in a small town might have something to do with it.  Lots of old huge Victorian houses that have been converted to multiple units and small studios for sub $500.  We have $1200/month luxury apartments too, but there are also cheap housing options. 

[Lizard Queen]

May 17, 2021 23:32:56 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 17, 2021 22:49:30 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

I thought I lived in a lcola, but I paid $500/month for rent for a 1 bedroom back in 2003. The same place is now $1000-1100/month, which is more than our 15 year mortgage payment.

There are definitely $500/month apartments around here.  Three colleges in a small town might have something to do with it.  Lots of old huge Victorian houses that have been converted to multiple units and small studios for sub $500.  We have $1200/month luxury apartments too, but there are also cheap housing options. 

Poking around CL, I found a senior apartment for a little over $500. Nearby, there's a dumpier complex for $710. We have some bad areas that are likely cheap, but I don't even see those advertised.

[justme]

May 17, 2021 23:44:19 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

May 17, 2021 23:32:56 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

There are definitely $500/month apartments around here.  Three colleges in a small town might have something to do with it.  Lots of old huge Victorian houses that have been converted to multiple units and small studios for sub $500.  We have $1200/month luxury apartments too, but there are also cheap housing options. 

Poking around CL, I found a senior apartment for a little over $500. Nearby, there's a dumpier complex for $710. We have some bad areas that are likely cheap, but I don't even see those advertised.

Reminds me of when my last job was trying to relocate me. All the apartments that were similarly priced to my current city were literally where every future coworker I met there said they would never tell their daughter or gf to live there. If I have 5 guys telling me not to live in a certain area as a single female my ass isn't considering them viable areas. The places they recommended were at least 300 more a month even though they were at most 3 miles away since it was a smaller town.

[minnesotapaintlady]

We don't really have any "bad" areas here as far as crime goes unless you count the government housing area which I wouldn't live near. Most of the price difference is just in the apartments themselves. You're not going to get granite countertops, underground parking and other niceties with a $500 studio. Maybe not even AC unless it's a window unit. It probably be an older house made into apartments or a place above one of the downtown stores. They're converting the old schools into apartments and they're really neat, with the old high ceilings and archtecture. My brother pays $650 for a large 1 bedroom.

[nidena]

May 17, 2021 19:03:53 GMT -5 justme said:

May 17, 2021 18:28:42 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I’m pretty sure if an adult is making $30k, they are getting fully subsidized healthcare.

Again, no one is going to want to work if they can make as much not working. I would sit home, too. We need to stop incentivizing people not to work.

You didn’t answer my question, though. How much should a dishwasher make? How much should a fry cook make? How much should a cashier make? $15/hr isn’t sufficient so what is? $20/hr? And then what happens to the people who have more skills and are currently making $20/hr? Do they also get a raise?

Medicaid is only for those making around $17k assuming it was expanded in your state. But an adult making $30k does not get "fully subsidized healthcare". They might get a good portion of their premiums subsidized - but they'd still need to cover deductibles which can be high. I went to the calculator and put in info for my area - at $30k there's a lot of plans with $0 premiums but you're looking at thousands of dollars deductible or if you want a low/free deductible you're paying hundreds above what your subsidy is. 

I think it's fucked up that in the US we have around 17 million kids that don't get to eat every time they need to. That over 10% of our population lives below poverty wages - and considering that is $17k if you bump it up to 200% of the poverty line (or $34k) that's 29% of our population. So supposedly the richest nation in the world has millions of kids going hungry and damn near a third of their population not making much. If people are so aghast at our government making sure that we don't have people living so poorly - then yes wages need to rise. 

It boggles my mind that people are more upset at someone making $15/hour when there's people out there making millions per hour. That you want to pit those making $20/hour against those making $15/hr instead of those making $13 MILLION an hour and paying very little taxes. 

The problem is that wages have stagnated in this country for decades. That production has increased, efficiency has increased, profits have increased - but businesses neglected to raise wages and instead kept it and passed it onto a share holders and the c-suite.

In 2000 if someone washing dishes was making $10/hour that position SHOULD be making $15/hour in 2021 simply because of inflation. (And actually it should be $15.51). The restaurants sure are charging me more for food now - why shouldn't their workers pay have increased?

There's not a damn thing out there that HASN'T increased in price in the last 12 years except Federal minimum wage.

When I was looking at the minimum wage chart, I discerned that it should have been, roughly, $7.60 in 2004 and $15.20 by 2018 which means it should be nearing $20 at this point.  That's just me looking at how many years it took for the wage to double which was seven year, give or take.

[Opti]

May 17, 2021 23:11:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 22:53:20 GMT -5 Opti said:

You are assuming its because of unemployment pay jobs are goin unfilled. I am not convinced that is a correct assumption given the pandemic lockdown and job loss started around February last year. I'm not sure what the maximum allowable weeks are on unemployment, but the usual max is only half a year. Even in extraordinary circumstances, I have never heard or read of unemployment being in excess of a year. 

I no longer volunteer with an unemployed employment organization, so I'm not up on the current state of unemployment lengths and benefits. This link though shows the various programs and laws that did exist. The link is from January so current law probably has changed again. Lastly, jobs advertised does not equal jobs available to be hired to in the near future. 

blog.dol.gov/2021/01/11/unemployment-benefits-answering-common-questions#:~:text=No%20PUA%20is%20payable%20for%20any%20week%20of,PEUC%20program%20is%20extended%20to%20March%2014%2C%202021.

Because you are quoting an article from January. Google ARPA. Unemployment was extended.

Yes unemployment was extended, but were the additional payments extended as well?  Its a knee jerk reaction to the employer seeking employee situation to always assume the reason must be we pay out too much in unemployment or federal assistance benefits are too high. You are out of the workforce by choice from the pandemic. Is there any amount of money employers can offer to entice you back?

Assuming is easy but it rarely gives an accurate look at a situation. You aren't staying away from the workforce because of pay. You are staying out due to your encounter with Covid. Why do you assume the majority are staying out because of unemployment and not because they choose not to go back? Did you know we dropped an entire year of life expectancy in this country because of Covid in 2020? I expect another drop in 2021 given the spike around the holidays would have put a significant amount of those 600K deaths in this calendar year, 

Lets face it, its a combination of things. That dishwasher making $97 a week wasn't self supporting anyway, so he does not need to return to work anymore than you do living off your rental income. You can't solve a problem unless you truly understand what the scope of the problem is. And I know assuming its just because of unemployment is wrong at best and highly inaccurate at worst. My library for example pays about $17 hr. for PT help. The catch is you can work a max of 19 hours a week. You can't live on that alone. The number of FT jobs drops every year and the number of PT ones go up as employers organize employment for their convenience, not for what the workforce prefers or needs. That alone causes employment gaps. I think its a likely guess that many jobs that were FT that were lost in the pandemic are not coming back whole right away. Libraries are still booting up around here as are more expected places like brick and mortar retailers and restaurants. 

[Opti]

May 18, 2021 0:21:45 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

We don't really have any "bad" areas here as far as crime goes unless you count the government housing area which I wouldn't live near. Most of the price difference is just in the apartments themselves. You're not going to get granite countertops, underground parking and other niceties with a $500 studio. Maybe not even AC unless it's a window unit. It probably be an older house made into apartments or a place above one of the downtown stores. They're converting the old schools into apartments and they're really neat, with the old high ceilings and archtecture. My brother pays $650 for a large 1 bedroom.

Still nice. My area always skews to commuters to NYC, so every economic disaster housing prices rise and commuters displace lower paid NJ folk. Some of the latter will move out of state because of it.

Granite countertops and parking garages here included in the price would mean you are paying at least $2000K month for a one bedroom probably closer to the $3500/mo I've seen advertised in some newer properties. 

[Miss Tequila]

May 18, 2021 6:37:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 17, 2021 23:11:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Because you are quoting an article from January. Google ARPA. Unemployment was extended.

Yes unemployment was extended, but were the additional payments extended as well?  Its a knee jerk reaction to the employer seeking employee situation to always assume the reason must be we pay out too much in unemployment or federal assistance benefits are too high. You are out of the workforce by choice from the pandemic. Is there any amount of money employers can offer to entice you back?

Assuming is easy but it rarely gives an accurate look at a situation. You aren't staying away from the workforce because of pay. You are staying out due to your encounter with Covid. Why do you assume the majority are staying out because of unemployment and not because they choose not to go back? Did you know we dropped an entire year of life expectancy in this country because of Covid in 2020? I expect another drop in 2021 given the spike around the holidays would have put a significant amount of those 600K deaths in this calendar year, 

Lets face it, its a combination of things. That dishwasher making $97 a week wasn't self supporting anyway, so he does not need to return to work anymore than you do living off your rental income. You can't solve a problem unless you truly understand what the scope of the problem is. And I know assuming its just because of unemployment is wrong at best and highly inaccurate at worst. My library for example pays about $17 hr. for PT help. The catch is you can work a max of 19 hours a week. You can't live on that alone. The number of FT jobs drops every year and the number of PT ones go up as employers organize employment for their convenience, not for what the workforce prefers or needs. That alone causes employment gaps. I think its a likely guess that many jobs that were FT that were lost in the pandemic are not coming back whole right away. Libraries are still booting up around here as are more expected places like brick and mortar retailers and restaurants. 

You like to point out that others don’t do research but you refuse to do your own. Yes, the $300 was extended. The fact that someone that was making $97 prior to the pandemic and that is not e ought to support someone, has zero bearing in the fact that the person is now making way more than they did working and has zero incentive to go back. I use the $97 because that was what my daughter’s unemployment was when she was laid off. That turned into just shy of $700. When they opened back up, her employer couldn’t get people to return because they made more not working. These are part time jobs so it was a LOT of money for them. Even at just under $400, it is a lot of money for people that had those part time gigs.

You refuse to acknowledge that people are lazy by nature and if we pay them more than they make working, they aren’t going to work.

I’m very cool with people having enough money so they don’t need to work. I’m not cool with the taxpayers supporting able bodied adults who choose not to work.

[Miss Tequila]

May 18, 2021 6:37:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 17, 2021 23:11:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Because you are quoting an article from January. Google ARPA. Unemployment was extended.

Yes unemployment was extended, but were the additional payments extended as well?  Its a knee jerk reaction to the employer seeking employee situation to always assume the reason must be we pay out too much in unemployment or federal assistance benefits are too high. You are out of the workforce by choice from the pandemic. Is there any amount of money employers can offer to entice you back?

Assuming is easy but it rarely gives an accurate look at a situation. You aren't staying away from the workforce because of pay. You are staying out due to your encounter with Covid. Why do you assume the majority are staying out because of unemployment and not because they choose not to go back? Did you know we dropped an entire year of life expectancy in this country because of Covid in 2020? I expect another drop in 2021 given the spike around the holidays would have put a significant amount of those 600K deaths in this calendar year, 

Lets face it, its a combination of things. That dishwasher making $97 a week wasn't self supporting anyway, so he does not need to return to work anymore than you do living off your rental income. You can't solve a problem unless you truly understand what the scope of the problem is. And I know assuming its just because of unemployment is wrong at best and highly inaccurate at worst. My library for example pays about $17 hr. for PT help. The catch is you can work a max of 19 hours a week. You can't live on that alone. The number of FT jobs drops every year and the number of PT ones go up as employers organize employment for their convenience, not for what the workforce prefers or needs. That alone causes employment gaps. I think its a likely guess that many jobs that were FT that were lost in the pandemic are not coming back whole right away. Libraries are still booting up around here as are more expected places like brick and mortar retailers and restaurants. 

As for why I quit working, it wasn’t due to Covid. At that point I had antibodies. My husband is an essential business so he was out in it every day. I realized that life was short and I had enough passive income so that I didn’t need to work. So while my decision was because of my experience, it wasn’t because of fear of Covid. I had that every day while my husband was out there in the trenches. He just didn’t whine and bitch about it like a lot of others.

[thyme4change]

May 17, 2021 18:15:52 GMT -5 justme said:

May 17, 2021 17:49:05 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

It is different in every state, so it is possible that some states have this problem. And then, as we all tend to do, it gets applied to every job, every employee, every state.

True. But I'm not in a normally considered expensive city and our economy here is largely service/hospitality based. Which is the industry you most see complaints about not being able to find people. 

The cost of living matters, but the state max unemployment benefits matter more. My state is $240 per week - less than minimum wage if you worked 40 hours. Throw on the extra 300, and you only need to get a smidgen above minimum wage to beat that.

If anyone in AZ says their job is being stunted by unemployment, it is low paying and/or very part-time.

[wvugurl26]

Just like misstequila decided life is short and left her pre covid job, a portion of that labor force has decided no more. If some of those places can't get employees then they probably need to pay more or offer more hours/set schedule. The places I'm seeing hiring and complaining they can't get help are not what I would consider a good job.

I'm seeing people training for different careers and people going out on their own. I can't blame them if they went and found a job they viewed as better/more stable.

There's a local restaurant near me that was very slow to adapt to the carry out model. Prior to COVID, their carry out sucked. It was only available limited hours and ordering was super difficult. They were completely closed for over a month while other places hit the ground running and perfected their carry out operation. So all the employees were laid off.

In Maryland, the unemployment software was very out of date and couldn't handle the surge. They issued a new contract to fix it and the fix was an epic disaster too. Those people they laid off had bills to pay and families to support. I don't blame them one bit for deciding to go to work somewhere else. People have taken different jobs and are not interested in returning to that restaurant.

[minnesotapaintlady]

May 18, 2021 8:14:55 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

May 17, 2021 18:15:52 GMT -5 justme said:

True. But I'm not in a normally considered expensive city and our economy here is largely service/hospitality based. Which is the industry you most see complaints about not being able to find people. 

The cost of living matters, but the state max unemployment benefits matter more. My state is $240 per week - less than minimum wage if you worked 40 hours. Throw on the extra 300, and you only need to get a smidgen above minimum wage to beat that.

If anyone in AZ says their job is being stunted by unemployment, it is low paying and/or very part-time.

Yeah, the state matters.  Here unemployment max is $740/week, so anyone making up to $21/hour is making more on UE with the extra $300.  Someone that was making 63K year is taking a paycut to 52K, but might be coming out ahead without childcare.  If you're covered under someone else's insurance it's pretty darn tempting to not work rather than work.  I know I sure wouldn't.  I'd take my chances on getting something else in 18 months. 

[jerseygirl]

Well should know soon
21 states are stopping the federal supplement this summer

www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/economy/states-ending-boosted-unemployment-benefits-hiring-concerns.amp

[Deleted]

I wonder how many of the non-returners are HS or college kids who decided they didn't need the money. Some do, of course, but for the ones who were working for a little spending money, or whose parents wanted them to dip their toes into the working word and learn some responsibilities, they may have decided the potential exposure to COVID wasn't worth it. A friend on FB reported last year that her 18-year old daughter got COVID from a food service job. Mom and the 15-year old son got it, too. It took Mom, one of the most bouncy, high-energy people I know, a long time to get her groove back, and the brother was sidelined from soccer for 6 months because of lingering cardiac issues.

I know that if DS had been living with me and working food service or retail for spending money I would have told him to quit.

[Lizard Queen]

May 18, 2021 9:09:20 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

May 18, 2021 8:14:55 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

The cost of living matters, but the state max unemployment benefits matter more. My state is $240 per week - less than minimum wage if you worked 40 hours. Throw on the extra 300, and you only need to get a smidgen above minimum wage to beat that.

If anyone in AZ says their job is being stunted by unemployment, it is low paying and/or very part-time.

Yeah, the state matters.  Here unemployment max is $740/week, so anyone making up to $21/hour is making more on UE with the extra $300.  Someone that was making 63K year is taking a paycut to 52K, but might be coming out ahead without childcare.  If you're covered under someone else's insurance it's pretty darn tempting to not work rather than work.  I know I sure wouldn't.  I'd take my chances on getting something else in 18 months. 

I think Minnesota is one of the highest if not the highest. Max in Michigan is $362/week.

[giramomma]

May 18, 2021 9:18:59 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I wonder how many of the non-returners are HS or college kids who decided they didn't need the money. Some do, of course, but for the ones who were working for a little spending money, or whose parents wanted them to dip their toes into the working word and learn some responsibilities, they may have decided the potential exposure to COVID wasn't worth it. A friend on FB reported last year that her 18-year old daughter got COVID from a food service job. Mom and the 15-year old son got it, too. It took Mom, one of the most bouncy, high-energy people I know, a long time to get her groove back, and the brother was sidelined from soccer for 6 months because of lingering cardiac issues.

I know that if DS had been living with me and working food service or retail for spending money I would have told him to quit.

I think this depends.

So. At my son's store. There was one or two case of covid last spring. There were a few cases of covid at store 45 minutes south of us.

That was it.

He also was paid multiple covid bonuses. He was paid retention bonuses the first three months of working. He also got two holiday bonuses. One for thanksgiving, and one for christmas/new years. There were more bonuses on top of that. He also got three raises his first year of working at his job. One for turning 16. One after probation. And another one. I've forgotten why.

His store was handing out face shields to employees that were not comfortable with masks alone. They were one of the first stores to get people moving in one direction and installing plastic barriers between works and patrons.

His store also hired three security guards to deal with patrons not wearing masks. They are now down to one, by the way.

Because of my needs of my son and how the store, IMVHO, did a good job advocating for its employees, quitting wasn't an option. It didn't make sense to insist DS quit, because, say, Carl was having a bad time at his store.

Of course, for my son, it wasn't just an issue of spending money. It's making sure he's paid his dues so that if he doesn't go to school right after graduating high school, he has a way to support himself with full time employment. He should be able to work or $15 an hour with raises, etc by the time he graduates. It will be enough that he can afford to split a two bedroom apartment with someone.

We were careful with covid, but at some point, I still have to make sure my children can launch and be functional in a timeline that also works for me. . I can't work two jobs until I'm 70. Something has to give.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2021 11:54:39 GMT -5 giramomma said:

May 18, 2021 9:18:59 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I wonder how many of the non-returners are HS or college kids who decided they didn't need the money. Some do, of course, but for the ones who were working for a little spending money, or whose parents wanted them to dip their toes into the working word and learn some responsibilities, they may have decided the potential exposure to COVID wasn't worth it. A friend on FB reported last year that her 18-year old daughter got COVID from a food service job. Mom and the 15-year old son got it, too. It took Mom, one of the most bouncy, high-energy people I know, a long time to get her groove back, and the brother was sidelined from soccer for 6 months because of lingering cardiac issues.

I know that if DS had been living with me and working food service or retail for spending money I would have told him to quit.

I think this depends.

So. At my son's store. There was one or two case of covid last spring. There were a few cases of covid at store 45 minutes south of us.

That was it.

He also was paid multiple covid bonuses. He was paid retention bonuses the first three months of working. He also got two holiday bonuses. One for thanksgiving, and one for christmas/new years. There were more bonuses on top of that. He also got three raises his first year of working at his job. One for turning 16. One after probation. And another one. I've forgotten why.

His store was handing out face shields to employees that were not comfortable with masks alone. They were one of the first stores to get people moving in one direction and installing plastic barriers between works and patrons.

His store also hired three security guards to deal with patrons not wearing masks. They are now down to one, by the way.

Because of my needs of my son and how the store, IMVHO, did a good job advocating for its employees, quitting wasn't an option. It didn't make sense to insist DS quit, because, say, Carl was having a bad time at his store.

Of course, for my son, it wasn't just an issue of spending money. It's making sure he's paid his dues so that if he doesn't go to school right after graduating high school, he has a way to support himself with full time employment. He should be able to work or $15 an hour with raises, etc by the time he graduates. It will be enough that he can afford to split a two bedroom apartment with someone.

We were careful with covid, but at some point, I still have to make sure my children can launch and be functional in a timeline that also works for me. . I can't work two jobs until I'm 70. Something has to give.

I don’t think anyone is judging or knocking parents who required their teenage children to continue to work. We’re just saying that some parents likely decided it wasn’t worth the risk of the virus being brought home. Barring extenuating circumstances, I probably would’ve been one of those parents.

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, as with so many things, people have to do what they believe is best for them and their families. 

[wvugurl26]

I don't think my aunt would have demanded her daughter quit her job. They just happened to move last April in the middle of the mess for a new job for my aunt. It made no sense for her to go get a job at that time in the new city.

Now that the household is vaccinated, getting a job is on the table. She's worked and volunteered before. My cousin is also in therapy for depression. School and working through that are the current priorities.

[wvugurl26]

I didn't see it as judging just another explanation for one reason why a segment of workers might be gone. Some employers were good about looking out for their employees and others were not.