Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Should the extra UI benefits be extended?

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* This op-ed by Rachel Greszler, research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, sums up a lot of the opposition to extending the additional $600 per week unemployment insurance benefits beyond the end of this week…

When the COVID-19 pandemic brought the U.S. economy to a partial halt in March, it made sense for Congress to expand unemployment insurance benefits.

It never made sense, however, to provide an across-the-board $600-a-week bonus unemployment benefit as part of that boost. The purpose of unemployment benefits, after all, is to replace a portion of workers’ wages to help them get by after a job loss through no fault of their own. Accordingly, unemployment benefits usually replace between 40 percent and 50 percent of the previous earnings for workers.

If workers can receive more money from unemployment benefits than by working, there’s a clear incentive to remain unemployed. That’s not good for workers or businesses in the long run — as the unintended consequences of the recently added unemployment benefit show. Yet, Democrats are pushing to extend into 2021 the $600 weekly bonus — set to expire July 31 — as Capitol Hill debates a new coronavirus relief package ahead of the deadline.

The other side of the argument is that the pandemic caused the unemployment and the benefits should be extended until it’s reasonably safe for people to go back to work or reopen their small businesses.

* So, I asked some members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation about where they stood on extending the extra benefits. I’ve received three responses so far. This is from US Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s comms director…

The Congressman supports a formula that encourages people to work and not stay on unemployment.

* Darin LaHood’s comms director…

Congressman LaHood supports providing individuals who have lost their jobs because of COVID-19 with the support they need to get them through this difficult time; but it’s clear that the $600 per week unemployment is disincentivizing individuals from returning to work. Congress should phase down the expanded unemployment program as states begin reopening, incentivize returning to work, and pass Rep. LaHood’s Clean Start bill that would provide businesses the tools to open safely, protecting both workers and customers.

Experts also agree it is disincentivizing work:
Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: Extending higher unemployment payments “would lower economic output and employment in 2021.”
Bipartisan Policy Center: The $600/week should be phased down to $400 for two months and then re-evaluated. “As local officials begin to relax stay-at-home orders, however, evidence is increasing that the additional $600 in weekly benefits serves as a disincentive for some people to return to work and inhibits an economic rebound as business activity picks back up.”
In an op-ed from June, some of President Obama’s economic advisers: Extending the benefit “does not make sense now”—it should be phased out.

* Rep. Rodney Davis…

I supported the CARES Act because our country was, and still is, facing a public health and economic crisis of historic proportions. That extra $600 per week payment was never intended to become law. As currently structured, it allows many who are unemployed to earn more while out-of-work than by working. That cannot go on forever.

I have heard from countless small business owners who are having difficulty re-opening their businesses because of this. If the benefit continues in its current form, the federal government will be holding back our economic recovery and incentivizing workers to remain on unemployment. We should focus our time ensuring state unemployment systems are functioning properly and benefit levels do not deter individuals from returning to work. Additionally, I believe we can provide targeted assistance to out-of-work individuals to make sure they have access to vital services like health care, which is why I introduced bipartisan legislation to make COBRA more affordable.

* I always thought that if you refused to return to your job in Illinois you’d lose your unemployment benefits. So, I reached out to IDES via the the governor’s office. Here’s what I got back from the department…

Under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, refusing an offer of suitable work can result in an individual being found ineligible for benefits.

“Suitable” and “can” would be important words there. For instance, if an employer is reopening in defiance of a governor’s EO, then it could conceivably be argued by the worker that the job isn’t suitable. But it’s not exactly a slam dunk.

…Adding… A new IDES rule that took effect July 1 seeks to clarify. Here’s an example of what that could mean..

A claimant who had been a clerk at a retail store is responsible for a minor child who is prevented from attending school due to closures resulting from the COVID-19 virus. The individual must stay home to watch his/her child until school reopens. However, the claimant is able to perform work that could be performed from the isolation of his/her home (e.g., transcribing, data entry, virtual assistant services) and makes himself/herself available to perform that work. While the claimant is not currently available for work at a retail location, he/she is available for work due to his/her availability for work that could be performed from home.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:21 am

Comments

American workers are finding out just how much they are actually valued.

Comment by Dotnonymous Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:30 am
Each of these statements seem to be implying that the crisis is over, despite an uptick in cases and signs that the president is actually starting to take it seriously (urging masks and cancelling his convention). They really want to force low-wage workers back to jobs requiring excessive contact with others? It’s no surprise these are statements from safe GOP districts…

Comment by NIU Grad Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:31 am
“As currently structured, it allows many who are unemployed to earn more while out-of-work than by working. That cannot go on forever.” -Rodney Davis

Our over ruling rich class does exactly that… in perpetuity.

Comment by Dotnonymous Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:35 am
Looking at a lot of states that are seeing an increase in COVID cases – and Illinois might be on that list now – paying people who don’t need to leave the house to stay home for a few more weeks would probably have a net benefit and help get COVID under control faster, which at this point is really the only thing that can get our economy back to any semblance of normal.

Comment by Sterling Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:36 am
== paying people who don’t need to leave the house to stay home for a few more weeks==

It’s my understanding that the debate centers partly on some wanting to extend the extra benefit until next year. That’s not “a few more weeks”.

Comment by fs Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:41 am
For those for extending the benefits. What do you suggest employers who cannot find workers do?

Some small factories with essential products and care giver facilities like CILAs and nursing homes are in desperate need of employees, but no one will apply because they are making 2x as much at home.

Comment by the Patriot Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:46 am
===I have heard from countless small business owners who are having difficulty re-opening their businesses because of this.===

Well Rodney, maybe it’s not the benefit amount. Maybe workers don’t have child care, or they have someone with a compromised immune system so are afraid to return to work.

Maybe you could talk with some of these workers next time and not just their employers?

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:47 am
=== It’s my understanding that the debate centers partly on some wanting to extend the extra benefit until next year. That’s not “a few more weeks”.===

You know something we all don’t know?

This is going to end… shortly… like magically disappear?

To all that too…

The same people trying to put educators and those in schools in any capacity in harms way because “0.04%” of children… die… the lack of understanding workers’ safety is real, other companies aren’t hiring back, and this pandemic ain’t ending anytime soon.

Normally.. a FIRST WORLD country would fight the pandemic because you can’t have an economy with a pandemic raging, and it’s a pandemic that’s causing unemployment, not “lazy” workers.

It’s THIRD WORLD countries that see workers not working during a global pandemic as a crisis… of economy.

That’s how *messed up* this administration is handling the pandemic whole “worried” about jobs.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:49 am
== it allows many who are unemployed to earn more while out-of-work than by working. ==

And

== the federal government will be holding back our economic recovery and incentivizing workers to remain on unemployment. ==

Wow. When Rodney Davis tells you he only cares about the rich and could care less about working people, believe him. The worst part is I doubt he has any clue just how ridiculous his statement is.

But hey, capitalism baby (banned punctuation).

Comment by Can Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:50 am
Does any politician in either party ever have an opinion that goes against their party’s line?

Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:51 am
=== Some small factories with essential products and care giver facilities like CILAs and nursing homes are in desperate need of employees, but no one will apply because they are making 2x as much at home.===

Cite please, thanks.

Also, what price do you put on *your* own health, as nursing homes and factories (like meat packers) are the biggest hot spots for spread.

But… “earn the money, risk your health you lazy so and so”

Amirite?

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:53 am
- What do you suggest employers who cannot find workers do? -

- no one will apply because they are making 2x as much at home. -

Gee, I don’t know, maybe offer a wage that makes the risk and strain of those jobs worth it to potential workers?

These people don’t give a d@#n about the workers. They make it very clear, if you aren’t willing to risk your life for the meager wages offered to you, we’re willing to starve you out.

Sickening.

Comment by Excitable Boy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:54 am
I’ve applied for pua on the first day independent contractors were allowed to. Still to this day I haven’t received anything. My case been in adjudication since June 8th. I’ve called way too many times with no answers. I’m hoping I get approved before the dead line. I’m really depending on that money to pay my mortgage and bills for all these months.

Comment by Unemployment Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:54 am
I think the unemployment and PPP did a good job of throwing money in the right area for those most directly effected. It’s too much money to continue for too long, but through the EOY feels about right to see how things play out this winter with schools and vaccines. Maybe lower it some to give people more incentive to work.

Comment by 44th Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:54 am
=== but no one will apply because they are making 2x as much at home===

That’s an assumption. The fact is there are several reasons that employees aren’t willing to go back to jobs in the middle of this pandemic. Most people want the dignity of work rather than relying on the dole. But your assumption ignores that.

Also, maybe it’s time to consider an increase in the federal minimum wage?

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 9:58 am
This is a tough call. People who are out of work due to COVID probably can’t survive on 40%-50% of their normal wages for long. But the extra $600 per week is definitely disincentivizing recipients to return to work. Businesses that can reopen are having to postpone because they can’t find employees. The idea from the Bipartisan Policy Center makes the most sense to me. Extend the benefits temporarily and then reassess. Recipients will be more motivated to return to work when they know there’s an end date to their benefits.

Comment by Cubs in '16 Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:02 am
To The Patriot: people are not applying to jobs at nursing homes because of the spread of the virus in close quarters like nursing homes, prisons. Etc.

Comment by Teach Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:04 am
From my understanding, the extra $600 a week was inserted to fill the gap between the wages that UI replaces (40%-50%) and what the person made when working. On average, the UI system falls $600 a week short of making the unemployed person whole. And it was easier to give everybody a flat amount, opposed to tweaking all of the UI systems to replace 100% of the wages or even 90% of the wages. But since the average person needs $600 to be made whole, there are a number of people that are made more than whole with that extra $600 (and some less). Ideally, UI systems could be changed to increase the percentage of wages the person receives while on UI. But as we know, the systems are ancient, it isn’t an easy change, and the UI employees currently have their hands full with claimants.

Comment by Numbers Guy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:05 am
=== But the extra $600 per week is definitely disincentivizing recipients to return to work.===

Cite please.

As you cite, if all this seems like gravy, then there shouldn’t be a worry about evictions, homelessnes…

… yet the crisis of evictions… homelessness.., yeah, that *is* real.

Where are all these “people” gleefully enjoying unemployment with “easy money” rolling in?

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:06 am
Maybe start with paying people a living wage, and not expect people to literally risk their lives just going to work.

And yes, I do know there are jobs where people risk their lives as part of their daily work. Those people should be paid more than they make, probably.

Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:06 am
If $600 makes it too rich for workers to be recruited by other firms maybe those other firms are offering too little $. I mean, they are expecting people to go out and risk their health for peanuts.

If we weren’t in the middle of a pandemic I would suggest that the feds restructure the plan to give workers an extra $600 for a year if they took an essential job. And after a year, 200 of the 600 is to be paid by the employer and 400 by the feds. After 2 years, it would be 400 of the 600 by the employer and 200 by the feds and after 3 years all by the employer. The businesses would probably benefit from the experienced workers they would have by the end too. of course, responsible firms do this anyway (give raises for seniority)

But during a pandemic, especially one raging like in some counties of IL and Florida and Texas, I would think that keeping bodies at home would be better. The losses an obese person or type II diabetic person (for instance, not unusual conditions) is accruing due to not being in the job market is not worth the high risk of death in case of contracting COVID.

Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:11 am
Encouraging low-wage workers–who disproportionately work in service and retail jobs where they’re exposed to the public–to stay home in a pandemic is a feature, not a bug.

Comment by Benjamin Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:13 am
There are a lot of industries that are still decimated. We still had more than 1 million people apply for unemployment last week. Just because we are tired of COVID and the stressors that it brings does not mean it will listen and just go away.

People need some more help. If $600 is a non-started, maybe drop the number to $450 - $500?

Comment by nua Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:17 am
As others seem to think “get back to work you lazy so and so” is a real smart way to get the “economy rolling”

Ask Mr. Davis… as his take is this…

=== I have heard from countless small business owners who are having difficulty re-opening their businesses because of this. If the benefit continues in its current form, the federal government will be holding back our economic recovery and incentivizing workers to remain on unemployment.===

… are you Mr. Davis also going to vote FOR immunity from liability for employers who’s employees get infected too?

See..

Trumpkins want people back to work, call them “lazy”, and not worthy of that $600… but.. Trumpkins are requiring immunity for employers… absolving those *forcing* work to *make* money… but those employers need legal immunity?

Huh?

So, Mr. Davis… you in favor of that immunity for employers too… while calling workers “lazy” because working during a pandemic is more important than stopping the spread during a pandemic?

This is the United States, not a 3rd World country Trump looks down upon…

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:18 am
What good are the Trump tax cuts doing now that the economy tanked? Nothing, just like before the COVID-19 crisis. Republicans don’t want to repeal those, since we’re having a financial crisis piled on top of our already-astronomical deficits and debt and need the extra money.

But boy do they want to slake that extra penny out of workers’ pockets, lest it corrupts the workers. That’s not at all the attitude toward those who were already super-rich, whom they’ve lavished with huge tax cuts.

Trump made the pandemic worse with his utter lack of action and leadership. Republicans support him but want workers to go back to work and risk lives as the pandemic keeps growing. Nope. Bring on the extra unemployment until we have leadership that makes it safer.

Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:43 am
Teach-

I am sure there are some that don’t want to go there because of the risk, but that is not the reasons they are giving.

There are clearly areas and employers that cannot reopen. But there are also employers that can’t find workers. The only way to see what is needed is to let the extra money lapse to see who can find a job when they versus those in areas or industries that need assistance.

BTW, it is not lost on me the number of those who declare they are libertarians and can’t be forced to wear a mask, but don’t want to go back to work and give up the extra $600 a month.

Comment by the Patriot Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:46 am
Show up to work for miserable wages and possiby die or stay home and starve. The pro-life reps own their hypocrisy one more time. How about employers pay a living wage and provide the right equipment to keep their employees safe? The virus is the problem not the UI benefits. Controling the virus and keeping money in working peoples’ hands is the only way to fix the economy. A simple formula that is working throughout the world.

Comment by Froganon Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:49 am
=== I am sure there are some that don’t want to go there because of the risk, but that is not the reasons they are giving.===

Cite please. Where are these takes?

=== But there are also employers that can’t find workers.===

Where? You need to be better here. Where are these places… and factor in safety and health concerns.

=== it is not lost on me the number of those who declare they are libertarians and can’t be forced to wear a mask, but don’t want to go back to work and give up the extra $600 a month.===

It must be lost on you… where are they?

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:49 am
The sacrifice granny for the sake of the economy people want low wage workers to get back to work so their businesses can make more money? Color me shocked.

Comment by Fixer Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:50 am
The Republicans are approaching the problem backwards. The economy will never recover until the virus is under control. Extend the unemployment insurance and couple it with a strong mandatory national mask requirement. It’s the only way forward. One will not work without the other.

Comment by striketoo Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:58 am
One should probably take anything released by LaHood’s comms team with about a zillion grains of salt; he lives in a village with a median family income of more than $120,000 and a poverty rate of around 2%.

There are various approaches that could be taken here, but use of a sliding scale isn’t practicable due to the problems with legacy unemployment software; state unemployment rates vary considerably (some are far more generous; most are pretty paltry), but scaling the benefit to individual states would have been contrary to a federal-style benefit (and also harder to implement).

Employers who are claiming nobody will come to work for them might consider (a) paying more or (b) looking for candidates among the unemployed who are ineligible for the benefit.

In any case, this may all be moot - the figure being bandied about by R’s today is between $100-$200 per week, which should do nicely to force people back into poverty-level jobs, contribute to further community spread of the virus, ensure public schools can’t open, etc.

Comment by dbk Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 10:59 am
The less money the federal government gives to people the worse the economic and social crisis will become… This has nothing to do with incentivizing people to go back to work. We are in the middle of a global pandemic. The government should be paying people to stay home and continue to expand the PPP. The problem is not overspending. It is inadequate spending by the federal government. We’ve had extremely low interest rates for the past 10 years. We do not have to worry about inflationary pressure in the current environment because of the historically low interest rates couple with the massive unemployment and under employment. Give people more money. The government can always claw it back in taxes if it gives it to the wrong people. These idealogical positions that right wing people and organizations hold are immoral and lack any economic rationale. They actually illustrate how poorly much of the mainstream right wing fails to understand monetary policy.

Comment by Frisco Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 11:00 am
All this coming from people who make more than $3,300 per week, whether they are working, sitting at home doing nothing, or out on the campaign trail.

Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 11:02 am
One should probably take anything released by LaHood’s comms team with about a zillion grains of salt; he lives in a village with a median family income of more than $120,000 and a poverty rate of around 2%.

So how should we take anything from JB or his comms team?

Comment by Birds on the Bat Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 11:19 am
== The pro-life reps own their hypocrisy one more time. How about employers pay a living wage and provide the right equipment to keep their employees safe? ==. Froganon.

My reaction EXACTLY. These so called “pro-life” reps are so full of it it’s incredible. Ive been making that point for years.

Comment by low level Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 11:23 am
I’m looking forward to reading Davis’s list of all the places people can get jobs in this pandemic. With the virus raging, the choice isn’t between taking unemployment and being employed. The choice is between paying rent and paying for food.

Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 11:24 am
–So how should we take anything from JB or his comms team?–

Good point and I’ll retract what I said about Darin’s neighborhood/neighbors. However, the million grains of salt - that stands.

Comment by dbk Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 11:45 am
I think it needs to be extended to keep the economy from completely cratering. Perhaps at a lower rate, say $400-500/week, in exchange for a longer extension makes it a little more palatable.

Comment by SAP Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:01 pm
Cite, Cite, Cite…Ok, get out of your parents basement and go talk to people. Try Google, it has been reported by every major media outlet for a month that employers are struggling to get people off the bonus unemployment.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/employers-struggle-compete-600-unemployment-payments/story?id=70800696

https://www.winknews.com/2020/07/24/employers-are-having-trouble-hiring-they-blame-the-federal-600-unemployment-bump/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/small-businesses-struggle-hire-their-workers-back-n1197061

What is your end game, worst case scenario 5% of the country has been infected by January. Do you people even agree that this is not sustainable forever? Do you really believe the government can just keep printing money without consequences?

Comment by the Patriot Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:42 pm
- just keep printing money without consequences? -

That’s a straw man, no one is saying that.

I also don’t recall your outrage at Trump cutting interest rates while the economy was roaring or giving a $2 trillion dollar tax break without offsetting it with budget cuts. Those constitute “printing money” as well.

Comment by Excitable Boy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:49 pm
The Heritage argument - “workers can receive more money from unemployment benefits than by working” - is a feature - not a bug - of expanded unemployment compensation during a widespread contagion. We want to incentive people to stay home and not spread the virus, until public health officials have successful testing, tracing and treatment in place.

Comment by Scott Cross for President Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:52 pm
What is your end game, worst case scenario 5% of the country has been infected by January. Do you people even agree that this is not sustainable forever?

Western Europe and New Zealand didn’t have to sustain it “forever” — they just had to do it big enough for long enough.

Hopeless half-measures are one of the reasons why the U.S. can’t see any end to this crisis.

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:52 pm
=== get out of your parents basement and go talk to people.===

That’s called “An-Ce-Doe-Tal”… yikes, man.

=== What is your end game, worst case scenario 5% of the country has been infected by January.===

I’m not an elected official, but I know a 3rd world country forcing people to choose money over their health when TRILLIONS could be spent, by a first world country that help employers, employees, renters, landlords, home owners fight the virus for 8 weeks of a stay at home would be better than the garbage we’ve got going right now.

Oh, to your links.

The small businesses that pop up, that doesn’t make you wonder what they are paying people if that alleged incentive of $600…

… and their health…

… isn’t “enough” to “come back”?

See, here’s that whole deal… and these small businesses looking for immunity from being sued when these employees are back… and get sick… “no, you can’t sue”

Like this… Your second link, as an example…

=== The eatery wants to hire one or two more workers but is having a hard time finding takers for the positions, which pay between $8.50 and $10 an hour, said Zalak Thakkar, an investor in the shop. Those who send resumes, he said, don’t answer follow-up calls.

It’s hurting the store’s bottom line. The employees are overworked, and sales are down 5% to 10%, in part because customers leave when they see long lines, he said.===

If you personally want to work for $8.50 an hour… at risk…

Your idea of anecdotal instances, along with higher risk employment, it woulda made more sense for a 1st world country for 8 weeks, mask up, spend that Trillion dollars to save the businesses… but…

“I can’t find someone to work for $8.50 an hour at a high risk job, stop paying them, make them desperate… and… give my business immunity once some get sick”

When you go be a server for $8.50 an hour in a high risk area… lemme know.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:56 pm
==Do you really believe the government can just keep printing money without consequences?==

Yes, I do because donald trumps chief of staff told me so in February:
“My party is very interested in deficits when there is a Democrat in the White House … Then Donald Trump became president, and we’re a lot less interested as a party,” Mulvaney said.

Trump is still president, so why should we be concerned?

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:58 pm
==Do you really believe the government can just keep printing money without consequences?==
It can actually. There might be a breaking point but that breaking point is long off. US dollars are used world wide as petrodollars. This shields the dollar from the inflation that might happen when a less prosperous country prints too much currency.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/money/2020/05/12/coronavirushow-u-s-printing-dollars-save-economy-during-crisis-fed/3038117001/

Comment by Fly like an eagle Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 12:58 pm
There is very little evidence especially in current circumstances to show that the extra UI benefits are keeping people artificially unemployed.

https://twitter.com/besttrousers/status/1285661018912444416?s=20

In short the majority of workers who returned to work had been making more on UI in both June and May. There was no link between making more and the probability of returning to work. There aren’t even enough available jobs for everyone to return to work. And wages and falling right now for those who do still have work, possibly permanently, a massive sign that *labor isn’t scarce.*

That republicans and some of their interest groups keep insisting this must be bad really just goes to show their commitment to ideology over any and all contrary evidence.

Comment by Nick Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:19 pm
I can’t really believe I believe this… but I agree with Steve Mnuchin in attempting to replace 70% of income with whatever enhanced unemployment program. Now, that makes the program a lot more difficult to administer vs a set $600. I wish I had the confidence that this government could do anything right. Nonetheless, mark the calendar, I agreed with Mnuchin for the first time (and probably last time).

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:20 pm
== “As currently structured, it allows many who are unemployed to earn more while out-of-work than by working. That cannot go on forever.” -Rodney Davis- ==

I can attest to that. At least 2 restaurants I know of can’t get at least half of their former staff back to work. And they can’t find new hires because the current unemployment pays more … even for cooks and managers.

Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:28 pm
=== And they can’t find new hires because the current unemployment pays more … even for cooks and managers.===

That’s says a great deal to the market AND to the minimum wages or wage rates.

It’s a horrible look for Davis, making people desperate for work by cutting them off… to take jobs at high risk… purposely.

If Londrigan doesn’t pummel Davis with that quote, that’ll be a malpractice.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:32 pm
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/19/wage-cuts-economy-crisis-368508

As we all economists know millions experiencing wage cuts which are probably permanent is the sign of a healthy labor market where the issue is too few workers available to work

Comment by Nick Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:43 pm
===…is the sign of a healthy labor market…===

… in an unhealthy pandemic world?

Right now, unlike normal “labor times”, actual health factors are baked in as well.

Asking people to work in risky work environments, for “same” wages.. and those “same” employers asking for legal immunity for illness… how is any of that “normal”… economically?

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:47 pm
In a tele-town hall meeting on April 28, Rodney said that “unfortunately,” the unemployment benefits would last until July. (He also said that the Democrats had claimed the $600/week was a “drafting error,” which I had certainly never heard. Does anyone know what he was talking about?)

Then a couple of weeks later, Rodney’s brother complained to the News-Gazette that he was having trouble hiring for his several McDonald’s franchises due to PUA.

https://www.news-gazette.com/coronavirus/coronavirus-response-forced-to-keep-evolving-restaurants-soldier-on/article_863ad67c-0a9d-52dc-a939-457b0645475c.html

Just in case you were wondering who has Rodney’s ear and who doesn’t.

Comment by TooManyJens Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 1:52 pm
=Do you people even agree that this is not sustainable forever?=

I’m not sure who “you people” are. But for this person I’d just be happy if we could follow the lead of our former allies in Europe and Asia that have been able to get this under control. Why should we be deciding on how high the body count needs to climb while the economy crashes. Others have figure this out. I thought we were the exceptional ones.

Comment by Pundent Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 2:03 pm
=== Do you people===

I was gonna let that slide as I *attempted* reasonable discussion to the issue…

… but… yikes… it keeps popping up like a sore thumb… highlighting, not that - the Patriot - sees this as something together we should work to solve, that already - the Patriot - sees this as a dividing issue worth keeping us divided.

“Do you people”

Whew.

It’s a global pandemic. Are you not part of the world?

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 2:10 pm
@Patriot

Dr. Gottlieb said on CNBC 50% of the country will have been infected by YE based on current trends. Not 5%

No one said extend “forever”

$25Tn in debt and you are worried about $600 a week destroying the dollar. Do you (or you people) understand deflation?

Comment by 1st Ward Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 2:20 pm
To me the bigger issue is that $600 a week is apparently allowing people to “cash in.” What does that say about how people are paid. If $600 a week is a better wage than actually working then maybe those people aren’t being paid enough in the first place.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 3:05 pm
==Do you people even agree that this is not sustainable forever? ==

That’s funny. I don’t believe I saw forever mentioned once. So can the hyperbole.

And second, do you even care that these people will be in dire straights if this extra unemployment benefit ends? It doesn’t seem like it. You’re too busy complaining about money during the middle of a national emergency. I think you need to get your priorities straight bub.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 3:07 pm
“Congressman LaHood supports providing individuals who have lost their jobs because of COVID-19 with the support they need to get them through this difficult time; but it’s clear that the $600 per week unemployment is disincentivizing individuals from returning to work.”

Wake up! A lot of businesses closed for good - - there is no job to go back to.

Rich, do you know how many businesses in IL have close permanently since March?

Comment by Mama Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 4:49 pm
“When you go be a server for $8.50 an hour in a high risk area… lemme know. ”

OW - Where do servers make $8.50 an hour?

Comment by Mama Friday, Jul 24, 20 @ 4:52 pm