Overheard on Facebook

[DadJokes]

Rant and rave page. I like that. It's frequently accurate.

Recently, lots of posts on my town's FB page (unofficial page) revolve around the fast food chain stores. Arby's ran out of roast beef! Popeye's was really slow! Something was closed due to lack of staff! OMG! How terrible, we're going to die!!!!

Housing in my area has kitchens. It's not NYC where you'll have a mini fridge and a hot plate.

There was also a bunch of posts about people being lazy and not going back to work because of the extra unemployment. My state is stopping that I guess, so people were gloating that the "lazy bums" would have to go back to work. Um, I'm really hoping many of those "lazy bums" were able to get training and get a better job. It will be interesting to see what happens in a month or so.

I've seen similar complaints on my town's "hip" Facebook page (all the FB pages for towns around here are "Hip [Town Name]" - is that universal?). People complain that service is slow or nonexistent, and business owners complain that they can't find decent employees due to unemployment benefits.

[Proud Foot]

Rant and rave page. I like that. It's frequently accurate.

Recently, lots of posts on my town's FB page (unofficial page) revolve around the fast food chain stores. Arby's ran out of roast beef! Popeye's was really slow! Something was closed due to lack of staff! OMG! How terrible, we're going to die!!!!

Housing in my area has kitchens. It's not NYC where you'll have a mini fridge and a hot plate.

There was also a bunch of posts about people being lazy and not going back to work because of the extra unemployment. My state is stopping that I guess, so people were gloating that the "lazy bums" would have to go back to work. Um, I'm really hoping many of those "lazy bums" were able to get training and get a better job. It will be interesting to see what happens in a month or so.

I've seen similar complaints on my town's "hip" Facebook page (all the FB pages for towns around here are "Hip [Town Name]" - is that universal?). People complain that service is slow or nonexistent, and business owners complain that they can't find decent employees due to unemployment benefits.

I see the same things in my state as well. However we are currently at a lower unemployment rate than we were pre-pandemic so it isn't so much lack of available workers due to unemployment benefits. People are pivoting out of those low wage jobs and finding different jobs for better pay.

[Sibley]

Rant and rave page. I like that. It's frequently accurate.

Recently, lots of posts on my town's FB page (unofficial page) revolve around the fast food chain stores. Arby's ran out of roast beef! Popeye's was really slow! Something was closed due to lack of staff! OMG! How terrible, we're going to die!!!!

Housing in my area has kitchens. It's not NYC where you'll have a mini fridge and a hot plate.

There was also a bunch of posts about people being lazy and not going back to work because of the extra unemployment. My state is stopping that I guess, so people were gloating that the "lazy bums" would have to go back to work. Um, I'm really hoping many of those "lazy bums" were able to get training and get a better job. It will be interesting to see what happens in a month or so.

I've seen similar complaints on my town's "hip" Facebook page (all the FB pages for towns around here are "Hip [Town Name]" - is that universal?). People complain that service is slow or nonexistent, and business owners complain that they can't find decent employees due to unemployment benefits.

I see the same things in my state as well. However we are currently at a lower unemployment rate than we were pre-pandemic so it isn't so much lack of available workers due to unemployment benefits. People are pivoting out of those low wage jobs and finding different jobs for better pay.

I'm cool with that. It might convince certain people in this country to act more like decent human beings. Wonder how much affordable, quality child care would free parents to work? Or maybe some idiots could be reminded that immigrants actually aren't the devil.

[PDXTabs]

Rant and rave page. I like that. It's frequently accurate.

Recently, lots of posts on my town's FB page (unofficial page) revolve around the fast food chain stores. Arby's ran out of roast beef! Popeye's was really slow! Something was closed due to lack of staff! OMG! How terrible, we're going to die!!!!

Housing in my area has kitchens. It's not NYC where you'll have a mini fridge and a hot plate.

There was also a bunch of posts about people being lazy and not going back to work because of the extra unemployment. My state is stopping that I guess, so people were gloating that the "lazy bums" would have to go back to work. Um, I'm really hoping many of those "lazy bums" were able to get training and get a better job. It will be interesting to see what happens in a month or so.

I'm not going to lie. If I was on enhanced unemployment I'd milk that until the very end. $23.70/hr to sit on my ass? Don't mind if I do.

[Sugaree]

Rant and rave page. I like that. It's frequently accurate.

Recently, lots of posts on my town's FB page (unofficial page) revolve around the fast food chain stores. Arby's ran out of roast beef! Popeye's was really slow! Something was closed due to lack of staff! OMG! How terrible, we're going to die!!!!

Housing in my area has kitchens. It's not NYC where you'll have a mini fridge and a hot plate.

There was also a bunch of posts about people being lazy and not going back to work because of the extra unemployment. My state is stopping that I guess, so people were gloating that the "lazy bums" would have to go back to work. Um, I'm really hoping many of those "lazy bums" were able to get training and get a better job. It will be interesting to see what happens in a month or so.

I'm so disgusted  by these people.  One woman went so far as to creating a list of everywhere that was hiring.  As it turned out, a majority of the list were hiring minimum wage for very, very few hours a week.  One restaurant was looking for someone to work ~12 hours a week with no guaranteed set schedule.  It's hard to get multiple jobs without a set schedule and hard to make ends meet working 12 hours a week.

[zolotiyeruki]

Rant and rave page. I like that. It's frequently accurate.

Recently, lots of posts on my town's FB page (unofficial page) revolve around the fast food chain stores. Arby's ran out of roast beef! Popeye's was really slow! Something was closed due to lack of staff! OMG! How terrible, we're going to die!!!!

Housing in my area has kitchens. It's not NYC where you'll have a mini fridge and a hot plate.

There was also a bunch of posts about people being lazy and not going back to work because of the extra unemployment. My state is stopping that I guess, so people were gloating that the "lazy bums" would have to go back to work. Um, I'm really hoping many of those "lazy bums" were able to get training and get a better job. It will be interesting to see what happens in a month or so.

I'm so disgusted  by these people.  One woman went so far as to creating a list of everywhere that was hiring.  As it turned out, a majority of the list were hiring minimum wage for very, very few hours a week.  One restaurant was looking for someone to work ~12 hours a week with no guaranteed set schedule.  It's hard to get multiple jobs without a set schedule and hard to make ends meet working 12 hours a week.

As a counterpoint anecdote, the company I work for is hiring people for up to full-time work, with flexible hours, paying more than 1.5x minimum wage, in a fairly LCOL area, and is having trouble finding people.  One of our suppliers, in the same town, is in a similar situation.  No prior skills needed, just show up, get trained, and work.  You can say "well, just offer more money" all you want, but the expanded unemployment benefits are having a very real impact.  When Uncle Sam is offering folks $15/hour (tax-free!) to not work, one should not be surprised that a significant number of people take him up on that offer.

[SwordGuy]

paying more than 1.5x minimum wage, in a fairly LCOL area, and is having trouble finding people.  ...  When Uncle Sam is offering folks $15/hour (tax-free!) to not work, one should not be surprised that a significant number of people take him up on that offer.

Well, let's see.   $7.25 federal minimum wage times 1.5 = 10.87 an hour.    That's poverty wages. 

NO ONE should be forced into a situation where they work for a decent living but are paid poverty wages instead.    The fact that our country has a term for it, "Working Poor", and a host of our fellow citizens think that's perfectly acceptable -- in fact will rail against ending that abomination of a situation -- is a damning indictment of our culture.

Offer wages that provide a decent living and decent working conditions (i.e., proper safety precautions, health insurance, and fire jackasses in management for a start) and then your company has a fair reason to complain about lazy folks.

I wouldn't work for those wages unless I damn well had to.    And I wouldn't blame someone in those shoes who followed the old saying, "They pretend to pay me so I pretend to work."

[Jenny Wren]

I saw a FB post declaring that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's for kids that want to work fast food to earn money - if you're an adult working those jobs then you are a loser. Basically blaming low skill workers if they need to take a fast food job. Even the "teen jobs should pay minimum wage argument" doesn't hold water. These same people love to go on about how kids should work their way through college. Working the fed minimum of $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year is $14, 500 less taxes. Average in-state tuition is $9,000, before room, board, books, and fees. How can they even pay their way through college if the jobs available to them don't pay a sufficient wage in order to do so?

The same people that complain about expanded unemployment are usually the same ones that like to share urban legends about welfare queens. (Having actually been on welfare and unemployment  in the past, it's almost laughable how these people don't even understand how these programs actually work...)

Living somewhere in the US with few NOW HIRING signs, a near $14 minimum wage, and expanded state Medicaid for health insurance,  it was astounding to me to learn that there are parts of this country that provide what amounts to sweat shop wages in a supposedly first world nation. Anecdata alert: I've traveled the US,and  the cost of goods are no more expensive here than they are in my Aunt's podunk Iowa town ($7.25/hr) or my SIL's Georgia city ($5.15/hr - how is this legal??!?). Housing costs are higher here for a plethora of reasons not related to minimum wage.

[zolotiyeruki]

I saw a FB post declaring that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's for kids that want to work fast food to earn money - if you're an adult working those jobs then you are a loser. Basically blaming low skill workers if they need to take a fast food job. Even the "teen jobs should pay minimum wage argument" doesn't hold water. These same people love to go on about how kids should work their way through college. Working the fed minimum of $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year is $14, 500 less taxes. Average in-state tuition is $9,000, before room, board, books, and fees. How can they even pay their way through college if the jobs available to them don't pay a sufficient wage in order to do so?

The same people that complain about expanded unemployment are usually the same ones that like to share urban legends about welfare queens. (Having actually been on welfare and unemployment  in the past, it's almost laughable how these people don't even understand how these programs actually work...)

Living somewhere in the US with few NOW HIRING signs, a near $14 minimum wage, and expanded state Medicaid for health insurance,  it was astounding to me to learn that there are parts of this country that provide what amounts to sweat shop wages in a supposedly first world nation. Anecdata alert: I've traveled the US,and  the cost of goods are no more expensive here than they are in my Aunt's podunk Iowa town ($7.25/hr) or my SIL's Georgia city ($5.15/hr - how is this legal??!?). Housing costs are higher here for a plethora of reasons not related to minimum wage.

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

[Sibley]

I saw a FB post declaring that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's for kids that want to work fast food to earn money - if you're an adult working those jobs then you are a loser. Basically blaming low skill workers if they need to take a fast food job. Even the "teen jobs should pay minimum wage argument" doesn't hold water. These same people love to go on about how kids should work their way through college. Working the fed minimum of $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year is $14, 500 less taxes. Average in-state tuition is $9,000, before room, board, books, and fees. How can they even pay their way through college if the jobs available to them don't pay a sufficient wage in order to do so?

The same people that complain about expanded unemployment are usually the same ones that like to share urban legends about welfare queens. (Having actually been on welfare and unemployment  in the past, it's almost laughable how these people don't even understand how these programs actually work...)

Living somewhere in the US with few NOW HIRING signs, a near $14 minimum wage, and expanded state Medicaid for health insurance,  it was astounding to me to learn that there are parts of this country that provide what amounts to sweat shop wages in a supposedly first world nation. Anecdata alert: I've traveled the US,and  the cost of goods are no more expensive here than they are in my Aunt's podunk Iowa town ($7.25/hr) or my SIL's Georgia city ($5.15/hr - how is this legal??!?). Housing costs are higher here for a plethora of reasons not related to minimum wage.

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

What that tells me is that we need to train and educate people so that they can get good jobs that lift them over the point where they need to worry about losing those social welfare and tax benefits.

[SwordGuy]

I saw a FB post declaring that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's for kids that want to work fast food to earn money - if you're an adult working those jobs then you are a loser. Basically blaming low skill workers if they need to take a fast food job. Even the "teen jobs should pay minimum wage argument" doesn't hold water. These same people love to go on about how kids should work their way through college. Working the fed minimum of $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year is $14, 500 less taxes. Average in-state tuition is $9,000, before room, board, books, and fees. How can they even pay their way through college if the jobs available to them don't pay a sufficient wage in order to do so?

The same people that complain about expanded unemployment are usually the same ones that like to share urban legends about welfare queens. (Having actually been on welfare and unemployment  in the past, it's almost laughable how these people don't even understand how these programs actually work...)

Living somewhere in the US with few NOW HIRING signs, a near $14 minimum wage, and expanded state Medicaid for health insurance,  it was astounding to me to learn that there are parts of this country that provide what amounts to sweat shop wages in a supposedly first world nation. Anecdata alert: I've traveled the US,and  the cost of goods are no more expensive here than they are in my Aunt's podunk Iowa town ($7.25/hr) or my SIL's Georgia city ($5.15/hr - how is this legal??!?). Housing costs are higher here for a plethora of reasons not related to minimum wage.

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

What that tells me is that we need to train and educate people so that they can get good jobs that lift them over the point where they need to worry about losing those social welfare and tax benefits.

This is what it tells me:

1) Benefits should be FAST AND EASY to sign up for and receive and have a fade-out provision instead of a hard cliff.   That way, you're ALWAYS, 100% BETTER OFF when you earn an extra dollar.     Our current system isn't always set up that way.   Getting benefits can be very hard and very slow, and earning an extra dollar can cost you A LOT.

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have. 

3) The mindset that people should be working poor, i.e., they should work and live in poverty so others can make a profit is DISGUSTING.   It is VILE.    It is SHAMEFUL.    Every single decent American should be disgusted at those who think otherwise.

I'm feeling mellow tonight so I took some care to express that in a mellow, kinder, gentler manner than the topic deserves.

[Taran Wanderer]

I’ve been in multiple states this week, and the prevailing theme is that there are good jobs ($15-$20/hr + benefits) going unfilled in steady, reliable industries. This wasn’t the case prior to Covid-related unemployment benefits. In my own state, where this is also a big problem, people taking unemployment aren’t even required to look for a job until July 31.

If we pay people not to work, it’s totally rational not to work. It’s not rational to continue enhanced unemployment benefits when vaccines and jobs are available.

[gooki]

Well said SwordGuy.

[shelivesthedream]

@SwordGuy I feel like there must be a technological solution to #1. We in the UK have a huge problem with people on urgent need trying to sign on and then there being a weeks long backlog before their case gets looked at, processed and the payments get set up. So these people are supposed to live on air for six weeks? What happens if they're lucky is they have enough credit available to live on debt for those six weeks, getting themselves into a debt spiral that they struggle to pay off.

Surely there are enough "simple cases" that a computer could cross-reference the claim, approve it, set up payments - all within a day or two. And refer anything that needed a human's eyes on. Yes, not everyone can use tech proficiently enough to claim this way, but surely enough people can in this day and age that it would be worth doing.

[MudPuppy]

How dare you suggest making it easier to access dignity!

[Sugaree]

@SwordGuy I feel like there must be a technological solution to #1. We in the UK have a huge problem with people on urgent need trying to sign on and then there being a weeks long backlog before their case gets looked at, processed and the payments get set up. So these people are supposed to live on air for six weeks? What happens if they're lucky is they have enough credit available to live on debt for those six weeks, getting themselves into a debt spiral that they struggle to pay off.

Surely there are enough "simple cases" that a computer could cross-reference the claim, approve it, set up payments - all within a day or two. And refer anything that needed a human's eyes on. Yes, not everyone can use tech proficiently enough to claim this way, but surely enough people can in this day and age that it would be worth doing.

In many states, the outdated and frustrating benefits system is a feature, not a bug.

[shelivesthedream]

This is true for many over here, Sugaree. :( But, much like with UBI, I think there are arguments for streamlining the process on both sides of the political spectrum. One can argue about the best criteria, but both left and right would surely support de-bureaucratising signing on as a good in itself. The left, to make it easier for those on benefits. The right, to reduce government overheads.

Although having briefly worked through a move to a whizz bang shiny new NHS records system that was exactly the fucking same except it took the middle aged women in the admin office with me months to figure out where the new buttons were, I have little confidence in the government's ability to write a good spec and contract it out well.

That admin office was working at a chronic backlog and a lot of the work could have been automated in the system change. Instead of inputting an appointment into the system, getting up a Word template, editing all the fiddly bits, saving it, printing it out, uploading it to the system, and putting it in the post... All to send an appointment letter! Surely it wouldn't have been that hard to make it a few clicks: input appointment into the system, "Generate letter: appointment" (computer autofills correct template for appointment type with correct details and saves it to the patient record), print, post. When your entire job is typing letters like it's the 1930s and 75% of the letters you type could be automated, that would have made a huge difference to the admin workload and therefore patient care.

Excuse me, I'll just tidy this soapbox away...

[Morning Glory]

I saw a FB post declaring that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's for kids that want to work fast food to earn money - if you're an adult working those jobs then you are a loser. Basically blaming low skill workers if they need to take a fast food job. Even the "teen jobs should pay minimum wage argument" doesn't hold water. These same people love to go on about how kids should work their way through college. Working the fed minimum of $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year is $14, 500 less taxes. Average in-state tuition is $9,000, before room, board, books, and fees. How can they even pay their way through college if the jobs available to them don't pay a sufficient wage in order to do so?

The same people that complain about expanded unemployment are usually the same ones that like to share urban legends about welfare queens. (Having actually been on welfare and unemployment  in the past, it's almost laughable how these people don't even understand how these programs actually work...)

Living somewhere in the US with few NOW HIRING signs, a near $14 minimum wage, and expanded state Medicaid for health insurance,  it was astounding to me to learn that there are parts of this country that provide what amounts to sweat shop wages in a supposedly first world nation. Anecdata alert: I've traveled the US,and  the cost of goods are no more expensive here than they are in my Aunt's podunk Iowa town ($7.25/hr) or my SIL's Georgia city ($5.15/hr - how is this legal??!?). Housing costs are higher here for a plethora of reasons not related to minimum wage.

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

What that tells me is that we need to train and educate people so that they can get good jobs that lift them over the point where they need to worry about losing those social welfare and tax benefits.

This is what it tells me:

1) Benefits should be FAST AND EASY to sign up for and receive and have a fade-out provision instead of a hard cliff.   That way, you're ALWAYS, 100% BETTER OFF when you earn an extra dollar.     Our current system isn't always set up that way.   Getting benefits can be very hard and very slow, and earning an extra dollar can cost you A LOT.

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have. 

3) The mindset that people should be working poor, i.e., they should work and live in poverty so others can make a profit is DISGUSTING.   It is VILE.    It is SHAMEFUL.    Every single decent American should be disgusted at those who think otherwise.

I'm feeling mellow tonight so I took some care to express that in a mellow, kinder, gentler manner than the topic deserves.

+1 to all of you!!!

[Morning Glory]

I’ve been in multiple states this week, and the prevailing theme is that there are good jobs ($15-$20/hr + benefits) going unfilled in steady, reliable industries. This wasn’t the case prior to Covid-related unemployment benefits. In my own state, where this is also a big problem, people taking unemployment aren’t even required to look for a job until July 31.

If we pay people not to work, it’s totally rational not to work. It’s not rational to continue enhanced unemployment benefits when vaccines and jobs are available.

In my area there is a childcare shortage. Over $1000/month per kid is common, and most of them are only open 6-6. Those "good" jobs are usually manufacturing or healthcare which are 24 hour operations. I've known plenty of people who had to take lower paying work because they needed something during daycare hours.

 20/hr is 3200/month, so say 2500 after taxes and insurance. A person with just one child would have 1500 left to cover housing, transportation, food, and everything else.

[SwordGuy]

This is true for many over here, Sugaree. :( But, much like with UBI, I think there are arguments for streamlining the process on both sides of the political spectrum. One can argue about the best criteria, but both left and right would surely support de-bureaucratising signing on as a good in itself. The left, to make it easier for those on benefits. The right, to reduce government overheads.

The right's point of view is that these are mostly lazy, undeserving poor and the only proper way to de-bureaucratise is to shut down the program and let those worthless wretches died in the gutter or (better yet!) slave away as a member of the working poor in order to make money for the deserving wealthy.   

[shelivesthedream]

I don't think that's the general view of the right in the UK. I think the general view of the right in the UK is that most people on benefits are lazy undeserving scumbags who keep popping out babies or exaggerating their alleged disability so they can sit around smoking, drinking and watching their cinema-sized plasma screen TVs, but you do get the odd heroic army veteran or widowed mother who has worked her whole life and now fallen on hard times who is thoroughly deserving of limited state support. How wonderful if a faceless computer screen could deliver the necessary moral outrage to the former group and well-earned benefits payment to the latter group in a few clicks, rather than having to underpay actual humans to do it.

[SwordGuy]

I don't think that's the general view of the right in the UK. I think the general view of the right in the UK is that most people on benefits are lazy undeserving scumbags who keep popping out babies or exaggerating their alleged disability so they can sit around smoking, drinking and watching their cinema-sized plasma screen TVs, but you do get the odd heroic army veteran or widowed mother who has worked her whole life and now fallen on hard times who is thoroughly deserving of limited state support. How wonderful if a faceless computer screen could deliver the necessary moral outrage to the former group and well-earned benefits payment to the latter group in a few clicks, rather than having to underpay actual humans to do it.

Well, your conservatives are more enlightened than US ones.   Sadly, Boris Johnson seems to be proof they are moving in Trump's direction, God help you.

[LaineyAZ]

SwordGuy,
I'm so glad you mentioned the "hard cliff" of our benefits system vs. the fade-out of benefits as your earnings increase.

Stephanie Land discusses this in her book "Maid" where, as a single mother of one, she's trying to avoid going over the dollar limit at which point she'd no longer receive medical or housing subsidies.  It was a delicate dance.  She also outlines how burdensome the rules and regulations are for the relative paltry amounts of cash or other help that the government might provide.  And of course eligibility requirements could change with any new elected administration. 

Contrast that with the grifting that occurs at the higher end of the financial spectrum in this country, e.g., corporations with billions in profits who pay no taxes, and how bizarre it is that we continue to focus so much time and taxpayer dollars to micro-manage the lives of the poor. 

[Imma]

This is true for many over here, Sugaree. :( But, much like with UBI, I think there are arguments for streamlining the process on both sides of the political spectrum. One can argue about the best criteria, but both left and right would surely support de-bureaucratising signing on as a good in itself. The left, to make it easier for those on benefits. The right, to reduce government overheads.

Although having briefly worked through a move to a whizz bang shiny new NHS records system that was exactly the fucking same except it took the middle aged women in the admin office with me months to figure out where the new buttons were, I have little confidence in the government's ability to write a good spec and contract it out well.

That admin office was working at a chronic backlog and a lot of the work could have been automated in the system change. Instead of inputting an appointment into the system, getting up a Word template, editing all the fiddly bits, saving it, printing it out, uploading it to the system, and putting it in the post... All to send an appointment letter! Surely it wouldn't have been that hard to make it a few clicks: input appointment into the system, "Generate letter: appointment" (computer autofills correct template for appointment type with correct details and saves it to the patient record), print, post. When your entire job is typing letters like it's the 1930s and 75% of the letters you type could be automated, that would have made a huge difference to the admin workload and therefore patient care.

Excuse me, I'll just tidy this soapbox away...

I have exactly the same experience, about a decade ago. At that point, we sent people on benefits a form on Mondays, they had to fill in how much they had earned the previous period, sign it and return it to us by Friday, and we were only opened from 9 to 1 every day. Some of our clients asked why they could not just set up a web form? It would be quicker and easier and less mistakes would be made - the forms were processed manually and not everyone's handwriting is great, or there'd be typo's. Well, the whole point of it was to make it a hassle for people wanting to claim, so maybe they would stop doing it, so they definitely wouldn't consider setting up an easy web form.

In our town there were issues with the mail, so not everyone always received the forms. If they didn't fill them in, their benefits would be cut. Some people are disabled or seriously ill, so they'd have to pay for bus tickets because they couldn't walk, or would have to re-schedule hospital appointments to hand it in. Many people on benefits have debts and we'd refer them to a debt relief charity. The charity would make them reroute all their mail directly to their office so things wouldn't get lost. But that meant the charity had to send back the form to the person in time and that didn't always happen, and, as I said, mail sometimes got lost in our town.

But the very worst affected category were the working poor. Some people did actually work but weren't able to find a steady fulltime job. They worked all the hours they could get and sometimes that would be 10 hours a week and other weeks 50. Basically they were eternally on benefits, but some weeks their benefits payment was 0. In good weeks, when these people would be able to work enough hours, they would still have to fill in their form, and they'd have to hand it in during office hours. They would have to get time off work to handle the paperwork. In theory if they worked around the corner they could drop in during their breaks, but not everyone gets breaks and many people worked out of time. Those people were punished by the bureaucracy for working. It would have been more rational for them to just quit working eternally, but most of our claimants were hardworking people who believed they'd get a steady job someday if they just proved their worth to their employer - honestly, that rarely happened. Many low wage employers loved that they had an army of workers they could call in when they needed them and send away when they were no longer necessary. But sometimes the work experience from those jobs would land our claimants jobs with reasonable employers.

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

I’ve been in multiple states this week, and the prevailing theme is that there are good jobs ($15-$20/hr + benefits) going unfilled in steady, reliable industries. This wasn’t the case prior to Covid-related unemployment benefits. In my own state, where this is also a big problem, people taking unemployment aren’t even required to look for a job until July 31.

If we pay people not to work, it’s totally rational not to work. It’s not rational to continue enhanced unemployment benefits when vaccines and jobs are available.

In my area there is a childcare shortage. Over $1000/month per kid is common, and most of them are only open 6-6. Those "good" jobs are usually manufacturing or healthcare which are 24 hour operations. I've known plenty of people who had to take lower paying work because they needed something during daycare hours.

 20/hr is 3200/month, so say 2500 after taxes and insurance. A person with just one child would have 1500 left to cover housing, transportation, food, and everything else.

Yep. We lost a good shelver (pays less than $15/hour, but the benefits are good and it's mostly daytime hours) because she had a new baby and couldn't afford childcare. She did get another job--she is partnered so she was doing to do custodial work at night and her husband would work during the day.

[SwordGuy]

Money makes people evil according to one person I interacted with this week.   Rich people become evil because the money makes them evil.

I countered with money doesn't change people, it just gives them more ability to be who they already are.   
I'll allow that rich people in western capitalist society probably have a higher percentage of sociopaths than the average population because those who want power over others will be more strongly motivated to go make money than folks who are happy with their lives as is.   Sociopaths in a communist state would tend to gravitate to the communist party because that's where the power is.

They aren't buying it.   Money makes you evil.    Just so you know.

[zolotiyeruki]

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

What that tells me is that we need to train and educate people so that they can get good jobs that lift them over the point where they need to worry about losing those social welfare and tax benefits.

This is what it tells me:

1) Benefits should be FAST AND EASY to sign up for and receive and have a fade-out provision instead of a hard cliff.   That way, you're ALWAYS, 100% BETTER OFF when you earn an extra dollar.     Our current system isn't always set up that way.   Getting benefits can be very hard and very slow, and earning an extra dollar can cost you A LOT.

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have. 

3) The mindset that people should be working poor, i.e., they should work and live in poverty so others can make a profit is DISGUSTING.   It is VILE.    It is SHAMEFUL.    Every single decent American should be disgusted at those who think otherwise.

I'm feeling mellow tonight so I took some care to express that in a mellow, kinder, gentler manner than the topic deserves.

I appreciate you putting forth the effort to maintain civility :) Especially since we probably disagree strenuously on some of these topics.  As someone wisely pointed out in a different thread, 90% of disagreements are due to either misunderstanding or a difference in values that is smaller than you think.

1) ABSOLUTELY AGREE.  Government bureaucracy and inefficiency is a tremendous drag on everyone!  And I also agree that every benefit should have a phase-out instead of a cliff, and the process should be efficient/fast/straightforward.  I think part of the problem is that there is zero political benefit to making the process efficient, and zero self-interest on the part of the bureaucracy

2) Every job providing a living wage is a fantastic ideal, but unfortunately, the law of supply and demand is pretty ruthless, and you tamper with it at your peril.  Set a higher minimum wage, and you get fewer jobs, period.  So really, you have to choose a point on a sliding scale of unemployment rate vs minimum wage.  Are we better off as a society with three people making $10/hour, or two people making $15/hour? (datapoints just made up, but hopefully illustrate the point)

In a rip-roaring economy, minimum wage loses some relevance, since (broadly speaking) workers can find a higher-paying job.  In a downturn, however, a minimum wage actually hurts those whom it is intended to assist, by restricting the supply of jobs below a certain price point.  In a recession, given the choice between Joe Shmoe working for $5/hour and getting partial support via welfare, versus Joe sitting at home earning nothing and being fully supported by the government, I don't see how the latter would be preferable.

This is true for many over here, Sugaree. :( But, much like with UBI, I think there are arguments for streamlining the process on both sides of the political spectrum. One can argue about the best criteria, but both left and right would surely support de-bureaucratising signing on as a good in itself. The left, to make it easier for those on benefits. The right, to reduce government overheads.

The right's point of view is that these are mostly lazy, undeserving poor and the only proper way to de-bureaucratise is to shut down the program and let those worthless wretches died in the gutter or (better yet!) slave away as a member of the working poor in order to make money for the deserving wealthy.   

There's a strong tendency on both sides of the political spectrum, particularly in the media, to hyperbolize and generalize those with whom we disagree, and ascribe the most despicable motivations and attitudes to them, so that our position feels more justified.  When discussing politics, such statements are distracting, unhelpful, and almost always untrue.  I try to avoid doing so, and respectfully request that you do the same.

[shelivesthedream]

@SwordGuy Eh, I don't think BoJo is the British Trump. He has actually had a substantial political career, and while he plays the buffoon I think it's no more than the general media-pandering that has emerged over the last few parliaments. I'm 30, so I haven't lived through that much British political history, but he strikes me as coming from the old mould rather than a new one. Might be painted in a different design, but the Tory party machinery marches on.

I'm much more concerned personally by the BNP and UKIP types. They get a lot of attention, and I think people are increasingly saying, "He's got a point, that Nigel Farage, though. I'm not a racist, but there are a lot of immigrants around these days..."

@Imma I'm sorry, I was going to write a reply to you and then my head exploded. I think it's very valuable to explain to the electorate how one actually claims benefits. I've been reading about food banks in the UK lately, and various politicians mendaciously implying that you can just rock up to one and get a car full of shopping for free.

[SwordGuy]

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

What that tells me is that we need to train and educate people so that they can get good jobs that lift them over the point where they need to worry about losing those social welfare and tax benefits.

This is what it tells me:

1) Benefits should be FAST AND EASY to sign up for and receive and have a fade-out provision instead of a hard cliff.   That way, you're ALWAYS, 100% BETTER OFF when you earn an extra dollar.     Our current system isn't always set up that way.   Getting benefits can be very hard and very slow, and earning an extra dollar can cost you A LOT.

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have. 

3) The mindset that people should be working poor, i.e., they should work and live in poverty so others can make a profit is DISGUSTING.   It is VILE.    It is SHAMEFUL.    Every single decent American should be disgusted at those who think otherwise.

I'm feeling mellow tonight so I took some care to express that in a mellow, kinder, gentler manner than the topic deserves.

I appreciate you putting forth the effort to maintain civility :) Especially since we probably disagree strenuously on some of these topics.  As someone wisely pointed out in a different thread, 90% of disagreements are due to either misunderstanding or a difference in values that is smaller than you think.

1) ABSOLUTELY AGREE.  Government bureaucracy and inefficiency is a tremendous drag on everyone!  And I also agree that every benefit should have a phase-out instead of a cliff, and the process should be efficient/fast/straightforward.  I think part of the problem is that there is zero political benefit to making the process efficient, and zero self-interest on the part of the bureaucracy

2) Every job providing a living wage is a fantastic ideal, but unfortunately, the law of supply and demand is pretty ruthless, and you tamper with it at your peril.  Set a higher minimum wage, and you get fewer jobs, period.  So really, you have to choose a point on a sliding scale of unemployment rate vs minimum wage.  Are we better off as a society with three people making $10/hour, or two people making $15/hour? (datapoints just made up, but hopefully illustrate the point)

In a rip-roaring economy, minimum wage loses some relevance, since (broadly speaking) workers can find a higher-paying job.  In a downturn, however, a minimum wage actually hurts those whom it is intended to assist, by restricting the supply of jobs below a certain price point.  In a recession, given the choice between Joe Shmoe working for $5/hour and getting partial support via welfare, versus Joe sitting at home earning nothing and being fully supported by the government, I don't see how the latter would be preferable.

First of all, if a business cannot afford to pay its employees a decent wage, then there is no excuse for its management making huge salaries or its shareholders making dividends.    I'll wager that if top management's salaries and bonuses were capped at a multiple of their lowest paid employees (and we publicly draw and quartered those managers who tried to subvert the system by subcontracting out that work), we would suddenly find ourselves inundated with studies that show well paid and well treated workers produce more profits.    If the reason for giving extra perks to job creators is that they create jobs, then they should not get any perks if they fail to create jobs that pay decent wages.

Yes, some businesses that are set up to only be profitable by exploiting their employees would cease being profitable and possibly go under.  Or, if the public truly valued those products, they would be willing to pay more to cover the higher prices.  However, the increased buying power of the folks making decent wages would compensate for that by producing demand in other businesses.   

This is not an either or.   If our society cannot provide enough jobs that provide a decent living, then it is our societal duty to provide a decent living for those who cannot find that work.   Either that, or we need to change our society so that no one labors in poverty.   The current system of having a large segment of "working poor" is indefensible in a society that can produce more than enough to meet everyone's needs.   

The single best ways to improve things for regular people would be:

1) Require a minimum wage that provides a decent living.
2) A national health service so that everyone can afford health care.
3) Fast, efficient social support systems that don't have subsidy cliffs.
4) Child care subsidies.   If nothing else, lots of the people who can't find jobs per your belief that higher minimum wages would interfere with job creation have the necessary skills to act as day care workers.
5) Very affordable higher education with zero-interest loans and quality k-12 schools for ALL school districts, not just the wealthy ones.
6) Put tariffs on imported manufactured goods and foodstuffs from countries that do not have (and enforce) quality labor protection laws and anti-pollution laws that are at least as good as ours, regardless of any other criteria, and let them charge equivalent tariffs on us if we don't live up to their laws.  Convince Europe, Japan and Korea to pass similar laws and all of them will be better able to compete against companies who are set up in countries where they can pollute at will and mistreat their workers as they please.
7) Tax the wealthy and upper middle class to cover those costs.

This is true for many over here, Sugaree. :( But, much like with UBI, I think there are arguments for streamlining the process on both sides of the political spectrum. One can argue about the best criteria, but both left and right would surely support de-bureaucratising signing on as a good in itself. The left, to make it easier for those on benefits. The right, to reduce government overheads.

The right's point of view is that these are mostly lazy, undeserving poor and the only proper way to de-bureaucratise is to shut down the program and let those worthless wretches died in the gutter or (better yet!) slave away as a member of the working poor in order to make money for the deserving wealthy.   

There's a strong tendency on both sides of the political spectrum, particularly in the media, to hyperbolize and generalize those with whom we disagree, and ascribe the most despicable motivations and attitudes to them, so that our position feels more justified.  When discussing politics, such statements are distracting, unhelpful, and almost always untrue.  I try to avoid doing so, and respectfully request that you do the same.

Except that I personally know a lot of people who think exactly what I described.  They aren't "some media" or "some politicians", they are run-of-the-mill Americans.   Those same people are HAPPY when they read about ICE or the Border Patrol committing some atrocity against immigrants, too.   I know they are because I've questioned them about it.   They LIKE the brutality towards immigrants.

I'm not sorry that you find their opinions as disgusting and offensive as I do, I'm quite happy about it.  It means you're a decent human being.

[SwordGuy]

@SwordGuy Eh, I don't think BoJo is the British Trump. He has actually had a substantial political career, and while he plays the buffoon I think it's no more than the general media-pandering that has emerged over the last few parliaments. I'm 30, so I haven't lived through that much British political history, but he strikes me as coming from the old mould rather than a new one. Might be painted in a different design, but the Tory party machinery marches on.

I'm much more concerned personally by the BNP and UKIP types. They get a lot of attention, and I think people are increasingly saying, "He's got a point, that Nigel Farage, though. I'm not a racist, but there are a lot of immigrants around these days..."

@Imma I'm sorry, I was going to write a reply to you and then my head exploded. I think it's very valuable to explain to the electorate how one actually claims benefits. I've been reading about food banks in the UK lately, and various politicians mendaciously implying that you can just rock up to one and get a car full of shopping for free.

Glad to hear it about BoJo.  I'm sorry you've got more of the damned racist fascist nationalists becoming prominent (again).    We do too.

[bill1827]

@SwordGuy Eh, I don't think BoJo is the British Trump. He has actually had a substantial political career, and while he plays the buffoon I think it's no more than the general media-pandering that has emerged over the last few parliaments. I'm 30, so I haven't lived through that much British political history, but he strikes me as coming from the old mould rather than a new one. Might be painted in a different design, but the Tory party machinery marches on.

I'm much more concerned personally by the BNP and UKIP types. They get a lot of attention, and I think people are increasingly saying, "He's got a point, that Nigel Farage, though. I'm not a racist, but there are a lot of immigrants around these days..."

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is very much the English Trump. I wouldn't describe his political career as substantial. He certainly comes from the Eton educated political elite class but he hasn't actually achieved anything worthwhile politically, except for the Tory party and that was probably due to Cummings. He has, however, done an enormous amount of damage to the UK.

He is in the process of dismantling what vestiges of democracy are left in this country. He illegally prorogued parliament. He's intending to remove the rights of the courts to review government policies. He's intending to introduce voter ID when there is no justification. This is gerrymandering in exactly the same vein as the Republicans are in the US; the intention is to disenfranchise populations who aren't likely to vote for him.

It's notable that the second EU leader he's meeting since Brexit is the right wing, racist, populist authoritarian Viktor Orban.

Yes, he has a little more polish than Trump and his corruption is on a small scale comparatively, but he's made in the image of Trump.

I'm old; the earliest prime minster that I was aware of was Macmillan (although I was alive when Churchill was PM) and I can confidently assert that Johnson is not in the mould of Tory PMs of the 20th century, who by and large made some pretence of fairness. He's in a class of nastiness of his own. Even the appalling Thatcher looks almost humane besides Johnson.

I wouldn't worry about the BNP and Farage, they don't have much appeal these days as the Tories have adopted their insular and racist attitudes.

[zolotiyeruki]

First of all, if a business cannot afford to pay its employees a decent wage, then there is no excuse for its management making huge salaries or its shareholders making dividends.    I'll wager that if top management's salaries and bonuses were capped at a multiple of their lowest paid employees (and we publicly draw and quartered those managers who tried to subvert the system by subcontracting out that work), we would suddenly find ourselves inundated with studies that show well paid and well treated workers produce more profits.    If the reason for giving extra perks to job creators is that they create jobs, then they should not get any perks if they fail to create jobs that pay decent wages.

Yes, some businesses that are set up to only be profitable by exploiting their employees would cease being profitable and possibly go under.  Or, if the public truly valued those products, they would be willing to pay more to cover the higher prices.  However, the increased buying power of the folks making decent wages would compensate for that by producing demand in other businesses.   

This is not an either or.   If our society cannot provide enough jobs that provide a decent living, then it is our societal duty to provide a decent living for those who cannot find that work.   Either that, or we need to change our society so that no one labors in poverty.   The current system of having a large segment of "working poor" is indefensible in a society that can produce more than enough to meet everyone's needs.   

The single best ways to improve things for regular people would be:

1) Require a minimum wage that provides a decent living.
2) A national health service so that everyone can afford health care.
3) Fast, efficient social support systems that don't have subsidy cliffs.
4) Child care subsidies.   If nothing else, lots of the people who can't find jobs per your belief that higher minimum wages would interfere with job creation have the necessary skills to act as day care workers.
5) Very affordable higher education with zero-interest loans and quality k-12 schools for ALL school districts, not just the wealthy ones.
6) Put tariffs on imported manufactured goods and foodstuffs from countries that do not have (and enforce) quality labor protection laws and anti-pollution laws that are at least as good as ours, regardless of any other criteria, and let them charge equivalent tariffs on us if we don't live up to their laws.  Convince Europe, Japan and Korea to pass similar laws and all of them will be better able to compete against companies who are set up in countries where they can pollute at will and mistreat their workers as they please.
7) Tax the wealthy and upper middle class to cover those costs.

This is true for many over here, Sugaree. :( But, much like with UBI, I think there are arguments for streamlining the process on both sides of the political spectrum. One can argue about the best criteria, but both left and right would surely support de-bureaucratising signing on as a good in itself. The left, to make it easier for those on benefits. The right, to reduce government overheads.

The right's point of view is that these are mostly lazy, undeserving poor and the only proper way to de-bureaucratise is to shut down the program and let those worthless wretches died in the gutter or (better yet!) slave away as a member of the working poor in order to make money for the deserving wealthy.   

There's a strong tendency on both sides of the political spectrum, particularly in the media, to hyperbolize and generalize those with whom we disagree, and ascribe the most despicable motivations and attitudes to them, so that our position feels more justified.  When discussing politics, such statements are distracting, unhelpful, and almost always untrue.  I try to avoid doing so, and respectfully request that you do the same.

Except that I personally know a lot of people who think exactly what I described.  They aren't "some media" or "some politicians", they are run-of-the-mill Americans.   Those same people are HAPPY when they read about ICE or the Border Patrol committing some atrocity against immigrants, too.   I know they are because I've questioned them about it.   They LIKE the brutality towards immigrants.

I'm not sorry that you find their opinions as disgusting and offensive as I do, I'm quite happy about it.  It means you're a decent human being.

I've snipped a bunch of the quotes for brevity, I hope you don't mind.

It feels like we're talking past each other a bit.  I raised the point that I find it preferable to have someone employed at, say $7/hour, than unemployed.  From your second paragraph above, it sounds like you would prefer that the employees of those low-paying businesses be unemployed than be working for low wages.  And from your third paragraph, it sounds like you would prefer someone to be supported entirely by welfare than to be partially self-sufficient by working at a lower pay rate.  Is that right, or am I missing something?

As for the wish list above (points 1-7), there are some about which I'm not sufficiently educated or opinionated to comment.  But I'd like to make a few points:
5) The government has been promoting and heavily subsidizing higher education for a few decades now.  What has been the result?  Well, we have a lot more people going to college.  That's good in that it has opened doors for many where financial limitations would have held them back.  However, the law of unintended consequences continues to be in force.  We've seen huge numbers of young people rack up enormous student debt, often  for degrees of limited value.  As badly as we've seen healthcare costs rise over the last several decades, higher education costs have increased twice as quickly.
7) You have to consider the opportunity cost.  It's easy to say that money is better spent on a childcare subsidy than Uncle Scrooge's caviar, but is that childcare subsidy a better use than opening a restaurant?  Do we want government subsidies to do the same "good" to childcare costs as they've done to college costs?

The more extreme political views tend to also be the most vocal, and the most attention-grabbing, but also (thankfully!) the least numerous.  I have friends who are way off in right-wing nutty <insert pejorative here> land, and other friends who are way off in left-wing nutty <insert pejorative here> land, and I find that conversations with both are stimulating and enlightening (I appreciate understanding where they're coming from), but also ultimately unproductive.  Often, they are so wrapped up in their own echo chambers that they've lost touch with the other 95%+ of the political spectrum, and have fallen prey to hyperbole and generalization.  Most of the folks in my social circles are conservative, some *very* conservative, and even a few that are nuts.  I can't think of a single one who would take pleasure in police brutality.

It's important not to generalize people, and it's also important not to jump to conclusions about people's attitudes, values, or beliefs, based on their position on a particular issue.  For example, I disagree with extended unemployment benefits, but that doesn't mean I want people to go hungry.  Similarly, you appear to favor a higher minimum wage, but that doesn't mean you want businesses to shut down.

[SwordGuy]

It feels like we're talking past each other a bit.  I raised the point that I find it preferable to have someone employed at, say $7/hour, than unemployed.  From your second paragraph above, it sounds like you would prefer that the employees of those low-paying businesses be unemployed than be working for low wages.  And from your third paragraph, it sounds like you would prefer someone to be supported entirely by welfare than to be partially self-sufficient by working at a lower pay rate.  Is that right, or am I missing something?

I know how the greedy management mind works.  If we put in subsidies for jobs that "aren't worth enough" then lots more jobs will suddenly be "not worth enough".    So, no, I don't want to go down that path.   

Our system produced a huge amount of wealth, it's just not fairly shared among all the parties creating the wealth.   There's God's plenty of wealth to go around and make everyone better off.   Force the businesses to share the wealth more equitably.

As for the wish list above (points 1-7), there are some about which I'm not sufficiently educated or opinionated to comment.  But I'd like to make a few points:
5) The government has been promoting and heavily subsidizing higher education for a few decades now.  What has been the result?  Well, we have a lot more people going to college.  That's good in that it has opened doors for many where financial limitations would have held them back.  However, the law of unintended consequences continues to be in force.  We've seen huge numbers of young people rack up enormous student debt, often  for degrees of limited value.  As badly as we've seen healthcare costs rise over the last several decades, higher education costs have increased twice as quickly.

That's because we did not set up subsidies, we set up a for-profit a for-profit industry with a captive audience (i.e., we made it very hard to discharge student loan debt).    Had we just put the money into funding the state universities and state trade schools and kept tuition low, the market distortion would not have been present.

As for child care, if you're right, we'll have a lot of low-skilled people out of jobs.   Put them to work doing childcare in federal child care centers.   Don't charge parents for the children they have in the first two successful pregnancies.   (That way, if they have triplets they're still ok.)   Make an exception if children die young for a third pregnancy.

If you're wrong, we'll have a bunch more people with decently paying jobs who can afford to cover child care costs and we can just give them a fixed amount per child to cover child care costs on the same basis as before.   Adjust the subsidy for inflation and that's it.

7) You have to consider the opportunity cost.  It's easy to say that money is better spent on a childcare subsidy than Uncle Scrooge's caviar, but is that childcare subsidy a better use than opening a restaurant?  Do we want government subsidies to do the same "good" to childcare costs as they've done to college costs?

Yes, childcare subsidies ARE better than opening a restaurant.   They would benefit a huge percentage of the population whereas opening a few restaurants would only benefit a few -- and truly benefit a very small number of owners.

The more extreme political views tend to also be the most vocal, and the most attention-grabbing, but also (thankfully!) the least numerous.  I have friends who are way off in right-wing nutty <insert pejorative here> land, and other friends who are way off in left-wing nutty <insert pejorative here> land, and I find that conversations with both are stimulating and enlightening (I appreciate understanding where they're coming from), but also ultimately unproductive.  Often, they are so wrapped up in their own echo chambers that they've lost touch with the other 95%+ of the political spectrum, and have fallen prey to hyperbole and generalization.  Most of the folks in my social circles are conservative, some *very* conservative, and even a few that are nuts.  I can't think of a single one who would take pleasure in police brutality.

It's important not to generalize people, and it's also important not to jump to conclusions about people's attitudes, values, or beliefs, based on their position on a particular issue.  For example, I disagree with extended unemployment benefits, but that doesn't mean I want people to go hungry.  Similarly, you appear to favor a higher minimum wage, but that doesn't mean you want businesses to shut down.

Agreed.

People claim that "low skilled people" or "lazy people" working those jobs deserve poverty wages and that if they don't want to live in poverty they should get better skills and then a better paying job.    They also simultaneously claim that they system simply cannot support paying everyone a decent living -- just as you are doing.   And they simultaneously fight changing things so that we don't have working poor anymore.

Whether they actually want a subset of our population to live AND work in poverty or not really doesn't matter to the working poor.  Either way, the result is still evil.   People are working for a living and being cheated out of a decent living for that work.

And don't get me started on how hard it can be to get out of poverty when you've got a shitty poverty-wage job.  Never enough hours because full time work causes certain benefit costs to kick in and employers won't let that happen.  So your income is piss-poor, it's not uncommon for it to be even pisser-poor, it's never better because the companies simply WILL NOT work you enough hours to have to pay you overtime.   

No set hours, so getting a 2nd job is hard and getting training for a better job is hard because you can't count on not losing that job when they want to schedule you during your schooling or 2nd job time slots.

[Imma]

@SwordGuy Eh, I don't think BoJo is the British Trump. He has actually had a substantial political career, and while he plays the buffoon I think it's no more than the general media-pandering that has emerged over the last few parliaments. I'm 30, so I haven't lived through that much British political history, but he strikes me as coming from the old mould rather than a new one. Might be painted in a different design, but the Tory party machinery marches on.

I'm much more concerned personally by the BNP and UKIP types. They get a lot of attention, and I think people are increasingly saying, "He's got a point, that Nigel Farage, though. I'm not a racist, but there are a lot of immigrants around these days..."

@Imma I'm sorry, I was going to write a reply to you and then my head exploded. I think it's very valuable to explain to the electorate how one actually claims benefits. I've been reading about food banks in the UK lately, and various politicians mendaciously implying that you can just rock up to one and get a car full of shopping for free.

My friend tried applying for the foodbank and they rejected her at first, because she is below the poverty line but not in debt, so they figured she was a fraud. She is not in debt because she was heating her house to 12C (the minimum her lease allows) to save money. When we had that cold spell this winter, she stayed with someone else for a few days. Otherwise she just sat in bed under all her blankets all winter long. Eventually someone at the foodbank took pity on her and made an exception. My friend is not on benefits but is living under the poverty line because claiming benefits is a hassle and if you make the smallest mistake you're in big trouble. She would literally rather be cold and hungry rather than dealing with the benefits people. That says something about how awful that whole organisation is. I'm sure there are thousands of people like her. She has great friends that sometimes help her out by giving her some food or inviting her for dinner and people have gotten in trouble with the benefits office for getting free groceries because that's income in kind. I mean, technically, it is, but it feels rather unfair that she could get in trouble if I give her a few courgettes from my garden or invite her for dinner and pack up the leftovers.

I think it's shocking that foodbanks are such an accepted fact of life these days. When I was in primary school, we would watch the news in class every week. We watched something about poor people in the US once, and one the kids in my class had lived there for a couple of years, and she explained to us that there's no such thing as a national health service in America, that not everyone has money to go to hospital, and that they don't have much of a welfare state. They even have food banks there where poor people get food parcels so they don't starve! We thought that was insane. Foodbanks didn't exist in the 90s in the Netherlands. My grandparents had told me about soup kitchens during the war, but that was a very long time ago.

20-ish years later, every Dutch town has a foodbank and no one bats an eyelid. We now have a permanent underclass of working poor who work a ton of hours doing awful work and still rely on the state to keep them afloat. It's shocking how fast this has happened.

[SwordGuy]

Money makes people evil according to one person I interacted with this week.   Rich people become evil because the money makes them evil.

I countered with money doesn't change people, it just gives them more ability to be who they already are.   
I'll allow that rich people in western capitalist society probably have a higher percentage of sociopaths than the average population because those who want power over others will be more strongly motivated to go make money than folks who are happy with their lives as is.   Sociopaths in a communist state would tend to gravitate to the communist party because that's where the power is.

They aren't buying it.   Money makes you evil.    Just so you know.

So I told this story:
"I hired a fellow I knew had some money issues to remove some carpet for me from a house we had just purchased. We were going to renovate and rent it out. I offered to pay him $17 an hour to remove that carpeting. His wife ran a cleaning firm (just her working in it) and we also hired her to clean the place up at the price her business specified. (I forget, but I didn't bargain or try to reduce the price.)
They were supposed to start on Monday morning, a federal holiday. He (and I) both had regular day jobs so weekends, nights and holidays were when he would have to do the work. I woke up at 7am on Monday to get dressed and drive over there. There was an email from his wife that he wanted to sleep in on his day off. Okey-dokey, if that's how he feels. I'm not in a terrible rush but it would have been nice to know the day before.
So, I get there and let her in. She's brought their passel of kids - 4 to 6 - to hang out with her while they work. That's ok as it's not a dangerous job site. It's just a house in need of some cleaning and fixing up. She's stopped at McDonalds and bought that many breakfasts on the way over. Remember, I'm in no hurry and she's set the starting time, not me.
I leave to go buy some new locks for the doors and buy some other materials for work I'll be doing after he finishes getting rid of the carpet. It takes me about 2 hours. When I get back the fellow is on the phone -- his brand new Iphone -- trying to convince some friend of his to come over and do half the work I've hired him to do. They have money problems and I'm paying him $17 an hour, but he's trying to hire someone else to do have the work. I say nothing. By the way, I only have a $19.95 flip phone.
I change the locks and head home.
The wife calls me that evening and asks if I could pay them for that day's wages even though the job isn't finished yet because -- and I quote -- they owed rent the next day and they didn't have enough money to pay it.
I'm paying the guy $17 an hour -- he doesn't have enough to pay rent to keep his family and too many kids housed -- and he's not only showing up to work hours late he's trying to subcontract out half the work -- and his family is eating out!
What he didn't understand was I wasn't paying him $17 an hour to do that work. I was paying him $17 an hour to interview him for a business partnership. He failed his interview spectacularly. Talk about clueless personal finance skills.
The next guy I hired to work with me on renovating houses was a real go-getter. He did about 4 weekends work on one house before I had a surprise offer to purchase it. He made $10,000 on that deal right up front. (I made about $9k over the next 8 months.) I then paid him $2000 a month to help me renovate two houses, which took us about 8 months. I let him work part time elsewhere as well and let him choose his hours. As each house was rented out, he got all the rent (less taxes, insurance and the property management fee) for the next 12 months. So, all told, he received about $28,000 in direct cash payments from us for about 6 months work. At the end of those two houses, I bought a duplex and funded the costs for he and his wife to renovate it. Then I sold it to him for cost on a 30 year mortgage, no money down, and he didn't have to make a payment for 2 years after he bought it, with no interest accrued that entire time. That would enable him to build up a nice reserve fund for any repairs that were needed. That interest savings adds up to over another $9000 for those two years, plus, of course, he's collecting rent on the property, so I've increased his income as well.
That first couple? This could have been their deal instead.
Oh, yeah, I also did necessary repairs on the one half that was rented out when I bought it, let the guy live there at the same rent and with the understanding that when we finished renovating one side, he could move to the nicer side (at the same rent) until everything was finished. We had a delay before we could start on renovating the vacant side so I let a young couple stay in it rent free for a couple of months.
'Cause we're some of those evil rich folks, who incidentally let medical people working with covid patients -- who didn't want to infect their family -- occupy 25% of our rental properties rent free for a year during the pandemic. We even paid their utilities for the first six months.
Cause all that wealth we earned and saved and invested turned us evil through and through.
Now, I told that story for a number of reasons.
1) Sometimes people are their own worst enemies and just squander opportunities that are handed to them on top of the ones they are too unmotivated to look for. That family could have earned enough to pay 1/2 their rent removing all the carpet over the weekend if he had started on Saturday instead of Monday and done it himself. I don't know whether his wife was free two days earlier or not.
That Iphone was over a month's rent. That's a lot of squandered income.
2) I made money on all 3 houses of mine. (Not on his duplex, that was at cost.). I didn't need to be greedy to do it. The person who worked for me got a hell of a good deal and now they have a long term source of incomes on top of that.
4) The renovation efforts for all our rentals provided income for hardware and appliance stores, attorneys, electricians, plumbers, roofers, hvac installers, well maintenance folks, cleaners, carpet installers, gutter installers, property managers and others I'm sure I've forgotten to mention. Most of the tradespeople are either independent tradespeople or small businesses employees, just regular folks.
5) All three of those houses (plus others we renovated ourselves before that) were eyesores and run down when we bought them. Now they are well maintained and an asset to their neighborhood. We provide a quality place to live at a reasonable price. Our tenants send us thank you notes.
6) In conclusion, it's possible to provide a service, take care of people who work for you, and make money. There's nothing in the capitalist system that requires people to treat workers and others like shit.
Could I have squeezed even more money out of those deals by mistreating people working for me and my tenants. Sure. But there's no need to do that. This country is chock full of opportunities to make money. There's no shortage of money to be made. The difference between us and some capitalists is that we're self-regulating. Other folks need to be forced not to be rapacious greedy bastards and I fully support forcing them not to be."


According to this guy, this story just proves how evil and judgmental I am.

 

[Fomerly known as something]

I’ve been in multiple states this week, and the prevailing theme is that there are good jobs ($15-$20/hr + benefits) going unfilled in steady, reliable industries. This wasn’t the case prior to Covid-related unemployment benefits. In my own state, where this is also a big problem, people taking unemployment aren’t even required to look for a job until July 31.

If we pay people not to work, it’s totally rational not to work. It’s not rational to continue enhanced unemployment benefits when vaccines and jobs are available.

Funny, there were news stories of these jobs going I filled pre Covid in my area.  Maybe $15-20 plus benefits  isn’t good enough.

[Morning Glory]

I’ve been in multiple states this week, and the prevailing theme is that there are good jobs ($15-$20/hr + benefits) going unfilled in steady, reliable industries. This wasn’t the case prior to Covid-related unemployment benefits. In my own state, where this is also a big problem, people taking unemployment aren’t even required to look for a job until July 31.

If we pay people not to work, it’s totally rational not to work. It’s not rational to continue enhanced unemployment benefits when vaccines and jobs are available.

Funny, there were news stories of these jobs going I filled pre Covid in my area.  Maybe $15-20 plus benefits  isn’t good enough.

My husband left a $15-ish job because the cost of daycare made it no longer worthwhile with the first kid. After the second kid it would have cost us more for him to work than stay home.

[Weisass]

I’ve been in multiple states this week, and the prevailing theme is that there are good jobs ($15-$20/hr + benefits) going unfilled in steady, reliable industries. This wasn’t the case prior to Covid-related unemployment benefits. In my own state, where this is also a big problem, people taking unemployment aren’t even required to look for a job until July 31.

If we pay people not to work, it’s totally rational not to work. It’s not rational to continue enhanced unemployment benefits when vaccines and jobs are available.

Funny, there were news stories of these jobs going I filled pre Covid in my area.  Maybe $15-20 plus benefits  isn’t good enough.

My husband left a $15-ish job because the cost of daycare made it no longer worthwhile with the first kid. After the second kid it would have cost us more for him to work than stay home.

YUP. and many of these jobs are scheduled by an insane computer that won't let you have any semblance of a predictable schedule, so there's also that. Not worth it if you are juggling kids, too. I definitely went through a few years where it wasn't worth it to work, an it was entirely about balancing work and family.

[Sibley]

I saw a FB post declaring that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's for kids that want to work fast food to earn money - if you're an adult working those jobs then you are a loser. Basically blaming low skill workers if they need to take a fast food job. Even the "teen jobs should pay minimum wage argument" doesn't hold water. These same people love to go on about how kids should work their way through college. Working the fed minimum of $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year is $14, 500 less taxes. Average in-state tuition is $9,000, before room, board, books, and fees. How can they even pay their way through college if the jobs available to them don't pay a sufficient wage in order to do so?

The same people that complain about expanded unemployment are usually the same ones that like to share urban legends about welfare queens. (Having actually been on welfare and unemployment  in the past, it's almost laughable how these people don't even understand how these programs actually work...)

Living somewhere in the US with few NOW HIRING signs, a near $14 minimum wage, and expanded state Medicaid for health insurance,  it was astounding to me to learn that there are parts of this country that provide what amounts to sweat shop wages in a supposedly first world nation. Anecdata alert: I've traveled the US,and  the cost of goods are no more expensive here than they are in my Aunt's podunk Iowa town ($7.25/hr) or my SIL's Georgia city ($5.15/hr - how is this legal??!?). Housing costs are higher here for a plethora of reasons not related to minimum wage.

It's worth pointing out that beyond the current unemployment benefits, there is a significant disincentive to earn above a certain threshold, due to the broad range of social welfare and tax benefits given to low-earners, and the various phase-outs of those programs.

What that tells me is that we need to train and educate people so that they can get good jobs that lift them over the point where they need to worry about losing those social welfare and tax benefits.

This is what it tells me:

1) Benefits should be FAST AND EASY to sign up for and receive and have a fade-out provision instead of a hard cliff.   That way, you're ALWAYS, 100% BETTER OFF when you earn an extra dollar.     Our current system isn't always set up that way.   Getting benefits can be very hard and very slow, and earning an extra dollar can cost you A LOT.

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have. 

3) The mindset that people should be working poor, i.e., they should work and live in poverty so others can make a profit is DISGUSTING.   It is VILE.    It is SHAMEFUL.    Every single decent American should be disgusted at those who think otherwise.

I'm feeling mellow tonight so I took some care to express that in a mellow, kinder, gentler manner than the topic deserves.

Lot of good points. And I agree. Except we're really talking about slightly different things.

If you're talking about low skill, burger flipping or similar jobs, yes they should pay $15 an hour (or whatever is a fair, actually can survive on minimum wage). Because I want the people who have no other options to have food and housing and necessary medical care. But the better jobs where you can do more than just survive and make all the social net cliffs irrelevant require skills. And skills require education and training.

I want McDonalds to be scrambling for teens and whoever they can get because there is literally no one else who has to work there because they have the skills and training and education to have jobs and careers that are GOOD. So McDonalds has to pay $15 or more just to survive. You make labor scarce and you have to treat people well. How the heck do you think Europe got out of the feudal system?

[shelivesthedream]

How the heck do you think Europe got out of the feudal system?

Multiple plagues? Oh, wait...

[RetiredAt63]

How the heck do you think Europe got out of the feudal system?

Multiple plagues? Oh, wait...

Didn't the Black Death help a bit?  Shortage of serfs?

[shelivesthedream]

How the heck do you think Europe got out of the feudal system?

Multiple plagues? Oh, wait...

Didn't the Black Death help a bit?  Shortage of serfs?

Yeah, exactly. The "Oh wait..." was about our current covid plague.

[Chris22]

The real problem is, if you make wages too high for menial jobs, those jobs will cease to exist. Automated checkout kiosks in stores and self-order machines at McD’s are two very real examples of where wage inflation makes feasible technological investment when it isn’t feasible at lower wage levels. So do we want $7.50/hr checkout people or $15/hr minimum wage and no checkout people?  It’s not a right or wrong or moral question, it’s just economics.

[SwordGuy]

The real problem is, if you make wages too high for menial jobs, those jobs will cease to exist. Automated checkout kiosks in stores and self-order machines at McD’s are two very real examples of where wage inflation makes feasible technological investment when it isn’t feasible at lower wage levels. So do we want $7.50/hr checkout people or $15/hr minimum wage and no checkout people?  It’s not a right or wrong or moral question, it’s just economics.

We can either require McDs to pay decent living wages or we can tax those making the profits at McDs to pay for welfare.   Either way, they can pay for it.   One way they get workers, the other way they don't.

If capitalism is INCAPABLE of providing employment at a decent wage for everyone willing and able to work, then it either needs to be supplemented by taxes to support those it cannot hire -- or we need to replace it with a system that provides a decent living for everyone willing and able to work.

I personally believe it's CAPABLE of doing so and just chooses not to.   

And if some businesses cannot afford to charge enough to support those decent wages, then we the people have decided those businesses aren't important enough to us, so good riddance to them.   Capital can then invest in those businesses that CAN support decent wages.

[johndoe]

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have.

I saw this post and a list of changes you'd like to see.  Let's pretend the other things stay as-is and you're crowned "king of minimum wage" and allowed to set the value.  What would it be?  (Looking for a numeric answer)

[SpinWave0704]

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have.

I saw this post and a list of changes you'd like to see.  Let's pretend the other things stay as-is and you're crowned "king of minimum wage" and allowed to set the value.  What would it be?  (Looking for a numeric answer)

Oooh I'm anticipating an interesting and thoughtful response from @SwordGuy!
If you reply, can you also consider:

• Cost of living varies a lot by region, so to simplify, maybe you can reply for one region (and extrapolate from there?)
• Can you also provide an estimated monthly budget on the minimum wage, based on the main spending categories of Housing, Food, Transportation, Healthcare, Childcare? 

I've been thinking about similar topics recently (with no real conclusions yet). I'll make a first attempt to solve the numerical puzzle! 

I'll state my assumptions here:
Region: San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA (HCOL)
Family size: 2 working adults, 2 children
Total Monthly Budget: $9000

• Housing: $3000 (after rent decreased by ~25% during Covid)
• Food: $1000
• Transportation: $1000 (2 Civics, 1 paid off, 1 with a $400 payment. Plus, gas, insurance, maintenance, annual car registration)
• Healthcare: $1000
• Childcare: $2000 (Child 1: toddler in daycare; Child 2: school-age kid)
• Taxes: $1000 (wild guess)

Working schedule: 100 hours/week (Adult 1: 40 hrs/wk, Adult 2: 60 hrs/wk) * 50 weeks/yr

Minimum wage: $21.60/hour

Feel free to correct me if my calculations are incorrect and/or come from a place of financial privilege (I don't know the cost of ACA subsidies, daycare, etc).

Would anyone else like to calculate a minimum wage for your own region?

[SwordGuy]

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have.

I saw this post and a list of changes you'd like to see.  Let's pretend the other things stay as-is and you're crowned "king of minimum wage" and allowed to set the value.  What would it be?  (Looking for a numeric answer)

I don't pretend to have that level of precision in my personal knowledge.   That would be best determined by a combination of activists and economists.    The number that's been put forward for several years is in the $15 to $17 dollar range.   It should be indexed to inflation just like social security is or we'll have to fight every year to get it raised.    Benefits from the employer should be pro-rated based on a 30 hour work week.   If someone works 30 hours or more then they get whatever benefits are offered to full time employees.   If they work half that, they get 1/2 those benefits.   1/4 of that, 1/4 of the benefits.   (Right now, if you work less than X hours (I forget the exact number), the employer doesn't have to pay benefits.   So, employers work the employees less than that, i.e., they have full time part time workers.   Part time workers working two jobs put in enough hours but don't get any benefits because they are split between two employers.   Let's remove this loophole.   

With the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Korea, and Australia/NZ setting up strong tariffs that are based on meeting (and enforcing) decent labor and environmental protections, the incentive to move factories to the country that allows the shittiest treatment of their workers and the most pollution would be greatly mitigated.   It's in the benefit of all those areas to break those economic incentives to produce elsewhere.    The rest of the world, to be competitive in the biggest markets, would need to improve their labor and pollution standards.  Our current arrangement rewards a race to the bottom.    This kind of arrangement would also put us on a more level playing field because we do have those protections (and not enough of them).

[SpinWave0704]

2) ALL jobs should pay decent wages.  EVERY.  SINGLE.   JOB.   If a job needs doing, then the person doing that job FOR A LIVING should receive A DECENT LIVING and NOT POVERTY WAGES.   Period.      There are no "lesser jobs" that only people deserving to live in poverty should have.

I saw this post and a list of changes you'd like to see.  Let's pretend the other things stay as-is and you're crowned "king of minimum wage" and allowed to set the value.  What would it be?  (Looking for a numeric answer)

Snip

Part time workers working two jobs put in enough hours but don't get any benefits because they are split between two employers.   Let's remove this loophole.   

+1 to that. Even further, decoupling employment with healthcare benefits might be another improvement to our current system. (Although it's probably too tangled up now.)

[SwordGuy]

I would love to see a national health service and decouple health care from employment completely.

We would have more small businesses start up.   (Lower costs to get going and less risk due to crazy health insurance or care costs.)
That would drive the creation of more jobs.   That would also mean that more people would know entrepreneurs and thus have a greater chance of first-hand learning about the benefits of being one -- so even more businesses starting up over time.

And, of course, nobody would have to die or be crippled because they couldn't afford medical treatment.

[DadJokes]

Hurray, another thread that has turned into a political debate