[Mick]

Now that weekly initial unemployment claims have dropped to merely 7x the pre-pandemic average, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia says the COVID-19 pandemic-related $600 weekly stipend for those who have gone on unemployment should end because those jobless benefits are no longer necessary.

https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2020/labo...er-needed/

The 31,491,627 unemployed currently drawing an unemployment check (increase of 916,722) as of June 13 will be relieved to hear that.  Presumably they will all be granted jobs.  Senate Republicans don't want to extend the stimulus, Democrats favor extending it through January.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

Seeya, Don.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Mick]

Now that weekly initial unemployment claims have dropped to merely 7x the pre-pandemic average, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia says the COVID-19 pandemic-related $600 weekly stipend for those who have gone on unemployment should end because those jobless benefits are no longer necessary.

https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2020/labo...er-needed/

The 31,491,627 unemployed currently drawing an unemployment check (increase of 916,722) as of June 13 will be relieved to hear that.  Presumably they will all be granted jobs.  Senate Republicans don't want to extend the stimulus, Democrats favor extending it through January.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

Seeya, Don.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[BostonCard]

Now that weekly initial unemployment claims have dropped to merely 7x the pre-pandemic average, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia says the COVID-19 pandemic-related $600 weekly stipend for those who have gone on unemployment should end because those jobless benefits are no longer necessary.



https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2020/labo...er-needed/



The 31,491,627 unemployed currently drawing an unemployment check (increase of 916,722) as of June 13 will be relieved to hear that.  Presumably they will all be granted jobs.  Senate Republicans don't want to extend the stimulus, Democrats favor extending it through January.



https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf



Seeya, Don.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

There are anecdotal reports that some people are preferring to stay on unemployment than to return to work, because the extra $2400/month makes it financially more lucrative to stay unemployed.  I think that's a dumb reason to pull the supplement from everyone.  If you are really worried, you can slowly transition the extra money down; say $400 until October, then $200 until January, then off.  Even better, trigger it based on the unemployment level, so that it goes down to $400 once the unemployment rate gets down to 10%, $200 when the unemployment gets down to 8.5%, and then off when the unemployment gets down to 6%.

I think they will come to some sort of compromise; as you point out, Trump's re-election chances would be further hurt by an abrupt discontinuation of the extra unemployment benefits.

BC

[BostonCard]

Now that weekly initial unemployment claims have dropped to merely 7x the pre-pandemic average, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia says the COVID-19 pandemic-related $600 weekly stipend for those who have gone on unemployment should end because those jobless benefits are no longer necessary.



https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2020/labo...er-needed/



The 31,491,627 unemployed currently drawing an unemployment check (increase of 916,722) as of June 13 will be relieved to hear that.  Presumably they will all be granted jobs.  Senate Republicans don't want to extend the stimulus, Democrats favor extending it through January.



https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf



Seeya, Don.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

There are anecdotal reports that some people are preferring to stay on unemployment than to return to work, because the extra $2400/month makes it financially more lucrative to stay unemployed.  I think that's a dumb reason to pull the supplement from everyone.  If you are really worried, you can slowly transition the extra money down; say $400 until October, then $200 until January, then off.  Even better, trigger it based on the unemployment level, so that it goes down to $400 once the unemployment rate gets down to 10%, $200 when the unemployment gets down to 8.5%, and then off when the unemployment gets down to 6%.

I think they will come to some sort of compromise; as you point out, Trump's re-election chances would be further hurt by an abrupt discontinuation of the extra unemployment benefits.

BC

[Mick]

There are anecdotal reports that some people are preferring to stay on unemployment than to return to work, because the extra $2400/month makes it financially more lucrative to stay unemployed.  I think that's a dumb reason to pull the supplement from everyone.  If you are really worried, you can slowly transition the extra money down; say $400 until October, then $200 until January, then off.  Even better, trigger it based on the unemployment level, so that it goes down to $400 once the unemployment rate gets down to 10%, $200 when the unemployment gets down to 8.5%, and then off when the unemployment gets down to 6%.

I think they will come to some sort of compromise; as you point out, Trump's re-election chances would be further hurt by an abrupt discontinuation of the extra unemployment benefits.

BC

People preferring to remain on the dole sounds like a Republican talking point, like welfare queens.  If that's true, it's only true on a very marginal level.  Admittedly, when I furloughed my eight, five of them will make (on a weekly basis) in the general neighborhood of what they made for our firm.  Every single one of them would be preferred to be in the office and working, rather than taking a dole check that is 2% to 5% higher than their former check.

[Mick]

There are anecdotal reports that some people are preferring to stay on unemployment than to return to work, because the extra $2400/month makes it financially more lucrative to stay unemployed.  I think that's a dumb reason to pull the supplement from everyone.  If you are really worried, you can slowly transition the extra money down; say $400 until October, then $200 until January, then off.  Even better, trigger it based on the unemployment level, so that it goes down to $400 once the unemployment rate gets down to 10%, $200 when the unemployment gets down to 8.5%, and then off when the unemployment gets down to 6%.

I think they will come to some sort of compromise; as you point out, Trump's re-election chances would be further hurt by an abrupt discontinuation of the extra unemployment benefits.

BC

People preferring to remain on the dole sounds like a Republican talking point, like welfare queens.  If that's true, it's only true on a very marginal level.  Admittedly, when I furloughed my eight, five of them will make (on a weekly basis) in the general neighborhood of what they made for our firm.  Every single one of them would be preferred to be in the office and working, rather than taking a dole check that is 2% to 5% higher than their former check.

[BostonCard]

People preferring to remain on the dole sounds like a Republican talking point, like welfare queens.  If that's true, it's only true on a very marginal level.  Admittedly, when I furloughed my eight, five of them will make (on a weekly basis) in the general neighborhood of what they made for our firm.  Every single one of them would be preferred to be in the office and working, rather than taking a dole check that is 2% to 5% higher than their former check.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I think unless the gap was very large, most people would rather the security of an ongoing job than a little more money coupled to the uncertainty that it may not last beyond July.  It may be a marginal issue for a few, but for most of the unemployed, the benefit of the enhanced unemployment checks in keeping them afloat while the economy is in dire straights and they can't go back to work outweighs the small risk that they would chose to remain unemployed.

As I said, you can also slowly taper the unemployment supplement to decrease the risk as the economy recovers.  You can also encourage re-employment by committing yourself to continuing the unemployment supplements for a reasonable time period after they are hired.

BC

[BostonCard]

People preferring to remain on the dole sounds like a Republican talking point, like welfare queens.  If that's true, it's only true on a very marginal level.  Admittedly, when I furloughed my eight, five of them will make (on a weekly basis) in the general neighborhood of what they made for our firm.  Every single one of them would be preferred to be in the office and working, rather than taking a dole check that is 2% to 5% higher than their former check.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I think unless the gap was very large, most people would rather the security of an ongoing job than a little more money coupled to the uncertainty that it may not last beyond July.  It may be a marginal issue for a few, but for most of the unemployed, the benefit of the enhanced unemployment checks in keeping them afloat while the economy is in dire straights and they can't go back to work outweighs the small risk that they would chose to remain unemployed.

As I said, you can also slowly taper the unemployment supplement to decrease the risk as the economy recovers.  You can also encourage re-employment by committing yourself to continuing the unemployment supplements for a reasonable time period after they are hired.

BC

[Goose]

You can also encourage re-employment by committing yourself to continuing the unemployment supplements for a reasonable time period after they are hired.

BC

I think there is another factor that needs to be considered. If you are unsure that the employment you are offered is pretty stable, it may be that you want to stick with the money you are getting for sure and worry about getting a job when/if it stops. If the unemployment money went into an account that you could access if you got furloughed within say three months you would be much more likely to take the job. Continuing the payments to you even if you get a job seems unfair, but providing some "job security" seems very fair. If all goes well, the money isn't spent. If another SIP shows up and you are let go, the money is guaranteed available to you.

[Goose]

You can also encourage re-employment by committing yourself to continuing the unemployment supplements for a reasonable time period after they are hired.

BC

I think there is another factor that needs to be considered. If you are unsure that the employment you are offered is pretty stable, it may be that you want to stick with the money you are getting for sure and worry about getting a job when/if it stops. If the unemployment money went into an account that you could access if you got furloughed within say three months you would be much more likely to take the job. Continuing the payments to you even if you get a job seems unfair, but providing some "job security" seems very fair. If all goes well, the money isn't spent. If another SIP shows up and you are let go, the money is guaranteed available to you.

[teejers1]

People preferring to remain on the dole sounds like a Republican talking point, like welfare queens.  If that's true, it's only true on a very marginal level.  Admittedly, when I furloughed my eight, five of them will make (on a weekly basis) in the general neighborhood of what they made for our firm.  Every single one of them would be preferred to be in the office and working, rather than taking a dole check that is 2% to 5% higher than their former check.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I think unless the gap was very large, most people would rather the security of an ongoing job than a little more money coupled to the uncertainty that it may not last beyond July.  It may be a marginal issue for a few, but for most of the unemployed, the benefit of the enhanced unemployment checks in keeping them afloat while the economy is in dire straights and they can't go back to work outweighs the small risk that they would chose to remain unemployed.

As I said, you can also slowly taper the unemployment supplement to decrease the risk as the economy recovers.  You can also encourage re-employment by committing yourself to continuing the unemployment supplements for a reasonable time period after they are hired.

BC

I happen to agree with you and Mick that most would prefer to work. But I do find it curious that "anecdotal reports" (your words) of some preferring to stay on the dole versus going back to work are presumed to be outliers while the anecdotal reports we see of "Target woman" knocking masks of shelves is seen as representative of a significant portion of Americans.   It's a remarkable dichotomy, really.

P.S.  Glad to see SJ Merc article reporting on hospital capacity problems (in Miami and Houston, most notably).  Again, areas with real or imminent capacity issues need to have the SiP screws tightened (or mask wearing enforced).

[teejers1]

People preferring to remain on the dole sounds like a Republican talking point, like welfare queens.  If that's true, it's only true on a very marginal level.  Admittedly, when I furloughed my eight, five of them will make (on a weekly basis) in the general neighborhood of what they made for our firm.  Every single one of them would be preferred to be in the office and working, rather than taking a dole check that is 2% to 5% higher than their former check.

Yeah, I agree with you.  I think unless the gap was very large, most people would rather the security of an ongoing job than a little more money coupled to the uncertainty that it may not last beyond July.  It may be a marginal issue for a few, but for most of the unemployed, the benefit of the enhanced unemployment checks in keeping them afloat while the economy is in dire straights and they can't go back to work outweighs the small risk that they would chose to remain unemployed.

As I said, you can also slowly taper the unemployment supplement to decrease the risk as the economy recovers.  You can also encourage re-employment by committing yourself to continuing the unemployment supplements for a reasonable time period after they are hired.

BC

I happen to agree with you and Mick that most would prefer to work. But I do find it curious that "anecdotal reports" (your words) of some preferring to stay on the dole versus going back to work are presumed to be outliers while the anecdotal reports we see of "Target woman" knocking masks of shelves is seen as representative of a significant portion of Americans.   It's a remarkable dichotomy, really.

P.S.  Glad to see SJ Merc article reporting on hospital capacity problems (in Miami and Houston, most notably).  Again, areas with real or imminent capacity issues need to have the SiP screws tightened (or mask wearing enforced).

[BostonCard]

I happen to agree with you and Mick that most would prefer to work. But I do find it curious that "anecdotal reports" (your words) of some preferring to stay on the dole versus going back to work are presumed to be outliers while the anecdotal reports we see of "Target woman" knocking masks of shelves is seen as representative of a significant portion of Americans.   It's a remarkable dichotomy, really.


P.S.  Glad to see SJ Merc article reporting on hospital capacity problems (in Miami and Houston, most notably).  Again, areas with real or imminent capacity issues need to have the SiP screws tightened (or mask wearing enforced).

Your point is a good one; I never meant to imply that the Target woman was representative.  In fact, I deliberately titled it "posting without comment", and one of the follow-up comments noted that she may have been a victim of mental illness, in which case I hope she gets the help she needs.

Nor did I mean to imply that the "anecdotal reports" in dismissive way.  It simply meant that I did not have access to hard data on how prevalent this was.  Remember, COVID-19 itself started out with "anecdotal reports" of a strange pneumonia in China.  My intuition here is that it is not a significant number of cases, but if a study came to the conclusion that unemployment would be 1% lower without the unemployment supplement, I would have to re-evaluate.

BC

[BostonCard]

I happen to agree with you and Mick that most would prefer to work. But I do find it curious that "anecdotal reports" (your words) of some preferring to stay on the dole versus going back to work are presumed to be outliers while the anecdotal reports we see of "Target woman" knocking masks of shelves is seen as representative of a significant portion of Americans.   It's a remarkable dichotomy, really.


P.S.  Glad to see SJ Merc article reporting on hospital capacity problems (in Miami and Houston, most notably).  Again, areas with real or imminent capacity issues need to have the SiP screws tightened (or mask wearing enforced).

Your point is a good one; I never meant to imply that the Target woman was representative.  In fact, I deliberately titled it "posting without comment", and one of the follow-up comments noted that she may have been a victim of mental illness, in which case I hope she gets the help she needs.

Nor did I mean to imply that the "anecdotal reports" in dismissive way.  It simply meant that I did not have access to hard data on how prevalent this was.  Remember, COVID-19 itself started out with "anecdotal reports" of a strange pneumonia in China.  My intuition here is that it is not a significant number of cases, but if a study came to the conclusion that unemployment would be 1% lower without the unemployment supplement, I would have to re-evaluate.

BC