So, the despicables, namely Chuck Shumer, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet and Jack Reed have introduced legislation to reinstate the $600 bonus unemployment jackpot. This is completely separate from any of the other stimulus programs that Congress is cooking up.
And, what's not to like, right?

A bit of background; Unemployment benefits are intended to help people get by when they lose their job "through no fault of their own". The benefits are intentionally not supposed to replace ones wages, in fact, on average, unemployment benefits only cover about half of one's wage.
That's intentional.

Now, when the Covid thingy showed up, Congress and President Trump decided they could help all those people losing their jobs because of Covid by giving them a $600 a week bonus.
On top of their unemployment benefits.

So, without putting people in a trance with the math, what it meant was, if one made about $50,000 a year, that $600 bonus pretty much meant that with unemployment benefits, you were still getting about what you would have gotten if you were working.

But, if you were say, a minimum wage food server at McDonalds, you got the equivalent of hitting the lottery every week. Say you were working 35 hours a week and making the federal minimum wage of $10.80. Your gross pay (before taxes) would be around $375. Your net (after taxes) would be about $250. Which, depending on your state and earnings history for the last couple of years, would get you around $175 a week in unemployment.
Plus, $600 additional.
A week.
All of a sudden, your take home is around $775 or 3 times your normal take home.

So yeah, whats not to like?

Well, couple of things.
First, when they did this in March and the program expired in June, the despicables wanted to ram through an extension of the program. The deplorables said "but fraud" and the despicables twirled and howled.
NO FRAUD!! they said; a job refusal will stop benefits!!

Here's the reality.
Unemployment agencies in every state are reporting huge increases in fraud, partly because of the overwhelming volume of claims, but also because JACKPOT!!
In California, they've gotten so confused that they're suspending whole blocks of claims AND getting the money back directly from the banks, and in the process sucking the last source of income right out of the bank accounts of legitimately unemployed claim filers. Really. Google it.
Oh, and the guys already in prison? Idle hands and all that; the state discovered that enterprising prisoners managed to collect $400 MILLION in fraudulent claims before the state caught on (pun intended). Oh, and one of the prisoners involved? Scott Peterson, he who killed his wife and child.

In Florida so many fraudulent claims have been filed that people still employed are finding unemployment checks being sent to them, probably because a bug in the unemployment system doesn't always accept the new address fraudsters use when they file a claim using stolen identities.

In Louisiana the state had to create a special unit to investigate 32,000 suspected fraudulent claims. And over half of them will be receiving their checks even though the state has good reason to suspect fraud.

Now, the unemployment system has worked well for over 85 years, except when the legislators start fucking with it.
Like the Obama administration did in 2009 and 2010. The "normal" time a claim can be paid is 6 months. The Obama administration extended that to two fucking years, AND removed the requirement that one be looking for work, you know, so the unemployed could go to school and update their qualifications. What in reality happened was that an estimated 1.5 MILLION Americans discovered that if one is unemployed for 2 years, one is all but unemployable. You know, cause a pesky "why couldn't you find work for 2 years" question is hard to answer.
It took the Trump economy to bring those folks back to work almost a decade later.

So, is a $600 weekly bonus a good idea just now?
In Shooters opinion, not only no, but HELL NO!

 

Saw this first hand back in 2010 and again this passed spring. Lost a bunch of laborers and trainees to the unemployment boondoggle. They could make more money by collecting benefits and then work for cash under the table at a reduced rate.

 

I'm going to go back to work so I can get laid off and collect. Thanks for the info!
Although, if people are forced to stop working to help end the pandemic, they should get a helping hand through this. Some people like me get through it just fine. Others in industries that have been shut down are in danger of losing everything. Some people will abuse the system, no doubt. For most of them it's a much needed lifeline.

 

It's all about making a profit

 

If you help the workers it's socialism if you help businesses it's capitalism

 

And here we have our first post from the "Gimme Free Shit" crowd folks...

 

There are two sides to every coin. Those who want to commit fraud will do it, regardless of their socio-economic background. White collar crimes have, will and continue to exist. Covered part of this in that asinine thread asking if minimum wage should be $15 so wont bother again. Personally have no problem with more stimulus check/s for people......people not corporates, not banks, not politicians, not lobbyists or other such entities even with fraud present.

 

Well, should government pay people more than they would earn if they were working?

How can that be justified?

 

You're crazy!! Quit being a ass! Ohbuma was and the worst Pres we ever had. That's why sleepy has got a bunch of the same people!!! Fuck the dems

 

There are times when I cant help but wonder.....but thats my private musings and doesnt answer your question. It depends on context. Should govt pay people more than they would earn if they were working? IF the reason for that is something like a pandemic definitely and will even take it a step further and expand on the question. Those who are essential workers (actual essential workers) should even be paid more as hazard pay.

Lets put the essential workers aside, lets talk about small businesses, mom and pop stores. Should govt. bail them out? Why shouldnt they? How are they different from corporations?

Never mind them after all they will be insured and if they arent, thats their fault. Truckers, every day working class right? Deliver goods across the nation for us to consume. Shouldnt they be paid hazard pay?

Remember I said I will expand on the question shooter asked ? We are coming to the meat of it. There have already been confirmed reports and stories about how some of the big corporations or even small ones for that matter laid of workforce in spite of getting stimulus checks, you (the you here is both the reader other than shooter and shooter) wouldnt say those are fake news would you? If you said its fake news well what I say next wouldnt matter but if you agree that at least some of them true then what I say next will matter. Now among those laid of workforce there will be handful who would have made more than what the unemployment+$600 amount would be, after all the benefits have a cap. Inversing the question should the govt. pay them in full? How can that be justified?

Can go on and on but eh not like going to change set opinions right? So moving to my reasoning as to why it is justified?

Main reason is to keep the people calm, it should be the govt.'s way of saying have faith in those you choose to lead you. To put it in another way to keep the populace calm...keep the sheeple calm. Joking aside yes should pay more to that people will have faith in their govts. Know what happens when people lose faith during uncertain times? History has lots of examples of what happens. I suppose should be some measure of comfort that we are tad bit more civilized compared to those times.

Another reason, most families barely live from paycheck to paycheck even more so for some with kids. Kids being at home all the time means more food and other essential things will be consumed and so more expenses. Especially food, even if diet is poor if body is robust enough, then have better chances of surviving. So having extra money means that everyone will be fed fully. The argument that they should be able to better their lives is dumb....no one is born equal, never ever have the arrogance to try to compare circumstances.

People will hate me for this next part....even if am speaking objectively. In a way we were fortunate, fortunate that this virus isnt virulent and also unfortunate that it isnt. Fortunate in that loss of life is always tragic no matter the reasons or circumstances or even if it makes you happy. Its also unfortunate, in that in spite of the loss of life so far if another pandemic occurs people will remain as ignorant.

 

Unemployment should just be a short term insurance benefit while in between employment, no doubt. The fact that there are some people who are taking advantage during these times isn't surprising, and plenty of others are in desperate times, and I can't and won't assume intentions. There are situations when rubber stamping things like this and worrying about paying it later are called for, but these horribly inefficient programs make matters even worse.

 

I ain't complaining.
I busted my ass for Caterpillar for almost 20 years before they closed the plant and I was able to "retire" and get a small monthly pension (God bless unions, @Rixer )
I paid into the system ...as far as I'm concerned, I'm just temporarily being reimbursed.

 

I keep my resume updated online with IDES like I'm required to every 90 days.
I get almost daily e-mails from ZipRecruiter for jobs which I apply for and keep records of.
It's a mess...that's all I have to say about that.

 

My cup runneth over, and it's all Trump's fault. Damn that man.

 

You are fucking delusional, Obama’s economy was the worst since Jimmy Carter

- heads-up

------------

During the Carter administration the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) declined from 34% to 32%. Under Ronald Reagan it grew to 50%.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

During the Carter administration there was a shallow six month recession. The unemployment rate reached 7.8%. During the Reagan administrfation there was a deep sixteen month recession. The unemployment rate reached 10.8%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

During the Carter administratin an average of 2,586,250 jobs were created every year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,016,375 jobs.

https://www.bushtoll.com/2012/03/05/the-george-w-bush-job-creation-failure/

 

Well, but @Valspar, are you thinking you paid into unemployment?
You didn't.

 

Trump is still president and the Republicans control the Senate so there's no way they can pass it unless Republicans vote for it and Trump signs it.

 

Cutting off the $600 boost to unemployment benefits would be both cruel and bad economicsNew personal income data show just how steep the coming fiscal cliff will be
Congress passed the CARE Act in March to provide relief and recovery from the economic effects of the coronavirus. By far the best part of the CARES Act was a significant expansion of the unemployment insurance (UI) system, which included a $600 per week boost to UI benefits. Congress settled on a flat $600 top-up to weekly benefits because the antiquated state UI administrative capacity could not handle more tailored ways to increase UI benefit generosity, and giving everybody an extra $600 guaranteed that most workers would receive at least as much in UI benefits as they did from their previous employment.

In normal times, economists and policymakers have focused a lot of attention (almost surely too much) on the incentive effects of UI benefits. If these benefits were too generous, the worry was that this would blunt workers’ incentives to actively search for new jobs. The negative economic impacts of these incentive effects have always been exaggerated, but these effects become truly trivial during times when the economy’s growth is clearly constrained by insufficient aggregate demand (spending by households, businesses, and governments).

When growth is demand-constrained, there are more potential workers than available jobs, so hounding these potential workers into more intense job-searching by making UI benefits less generous doesn’t result in more jobs being created, it just results in more frustrated job searches. This logic became even more compelling during the first phase of the economic collapse caused by the coronavirus. Not only were there not enough jobs to employ willing workers, for public health reasons we didn’t want enough jobs to employ these workers, as the shutdown in economic activity and employment was the point of lockdown measures. Even as official lockdowns ease in coming months (often prematurely), jobs will be sharply constrained by demand, not workers’ incentives.


Further, when the economy’s growth is demand-constrained, anything that keeps households from cutting back on spending actually supports growth. UI benefits are by definition laser-targeted on households that have suffered a severe shock to income by losing their job. Research shows definitively that spending falls much further in those households afflicted by job loss when they do not receive UI benefits. In the current crisis, UI benefits have kept the cutback in spending in closed sectors from leading more catastrophically to cutbacks in spending in other sectors. For example, as restaurant and airline employees lost their jobs early in the coronavirus crisis due to social distancing measures, UI benefits provided income to spend in still-going sectors like grocery stores, and contained some of the economic collapse.

In past recessions, UI benefits have been among the most efficient sources of support for aggregate demand, with each dollar spent on these benefits boosting economywide spending by as much as $2. But compared with other policy efforts to support aggregate demand, UI has been relatively small simply because we didn’t spend all that much in providing these benefits, both because each individual benefit was relatively stingy (replacing on average about half of a worker’s previous salary) or because eligibility criteria were stringent and only a small share of all unemployed workers received benefits.

The CARES Act UI expansions, however, have boosted the macroeconomic impact of the UI system enormously, particularly the extra $600 weekly payment (though the expanded eligibility requirements are also helping enormously). The last payment of the extra $600, however, will be for the week ending July 25. (The CARES Act states that the extra $600 applies to weeks of unemployment “ending on or before July 31, 2020,” which is a Friday. Since, in the UI world, weeks typically end on Saturday, the last payment will be for the week ending July 25.) Currently, unemployment rate forecasts for the third quarter of this year (July, August, and September) indicate that unemployment will still be higher than it was during the worst months of the Great Recession in 2008–2009. In coming months, the economy’s growth will continue to be tightly constrained by insufficient aggregate demand, and cutting off a policy support that helps households maintain spending is a terrible idea, both for these households’ welfare and for macroeconomic stabilization.

Today, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released data on personal income showing that the $600 benefit top-up boosted incomes by $842 billion (at an annualized rate) in May. The historic nature of this boost coming from UI is shown in Figure A below, which displays total UI benefits divided by total wage and salary income. In May of 2020, UI benefits were 14.6% of total wage and salary income, several times larger than the pre-coronavirus historical high of 2.5% that was registered during 2010.

ChartData
Note: Data is quarterly for all years before 2020 and monthly for 2020 year-to-date.

Source: Author’s analysis of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data.

Share Tweet
Embed Download image
In recent congressional testimony, economist Jason Furman projected how much continuation of these extra benefits would boost gross domestic product (GDP) and employment by 2022. To do this, he assumed that the relationship between the unemployment rate and total unemployment benefits would hold if the extra $600 benefit payments were extended. Furman finds that at peak levels (in the third quarter of 2020) the extra $600 top-up by itself is projected to boost GDP by 2.8% and to support just under three million jobs. In short, letting this extra $600 in UI benefits expire at the end of July would by itself cause more job loss than was seen in either of the recessions of the early 1990s or early 2000s.

Of course, it doesn’t have to play out this way. Policymakers can and should extend the extra $600 in UI benefits and allow the amount of the benefit top-up to phase down modestly over time as the unemployment rate falls and the economy begins growing faster. This estimate shows us how enormously important expanded unemployment insurance over the next year will be to aggregate demand, as new job openings are all but guaranteed to be fewer than jobless potential workers over that time, so any incentive effect in keeping workers from searching actively for work will not be the binding constraint on the economy’s growth.

Table 1 shows the potential boost to GDP and employment from extending the $600 top-up through the middle of 2021 nationally and then by state. It essentially replicates the spirit of the Furman methodology for national numbers, but uses data from the May data release on personal income from the BEA rather than projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The national estimates for personal income, GDP, and employment is then allocated to states based on each state’s share of UI claimants in May of this year. The allocation by state, shown in Figure B, is a rough estimate—as a recovery begins, it is likely to be uneven and see a change in the state distribution of joblessness. But it does seem highly likely that states disproportionately hit by the economic slowdown so far will continue to suffer more damage. The key parameter for how much states have suffered so far is the share of their total pre-coronavirus employment that was concentrated in sectors like restaurants and tourism that were the epicenter of the shutdown. It seems clear that recovery will be slowest in precisely these sectors, unless a vaccine or radically effective treatment is discovered very soon.

Share Tweet Embed Download image
TABLE 1
Average boost to personal income, GDP, and employment from extending $600 UI benefit, August 2020 to July 2021
Personal income (millions) GDP Jobs supported
U.S., total $508,619 3.7% 5,083,197
Alabama 4,898 3.2% 43,261
Alaska 1,245 3.4% 12,458
Arizona 5,619 2.3% 55,566
Arkansas 3,060 3.4% 29,984
California 72,959 3.5% 836,142
Colorado 6,597 2.5% 66,898
Connecticut 7,031 3.7% 74,689
Delaware 1,336 2.7% 14,621
District of Columbia 1,821 1.9% 19,611
Florida 27,655 3.8% 244,921
Georgia 19,233 4.7% 186,605
Hawaii 3,390 5.2% 32,751
Idaho 1,394 2.6% 10,049
Illinois 19,119 3.2% 195,149
Indiana 6,328 2.5% 59,443
Iowa 4,422 3.4% 42,580
Kansas 2,613 2.3% 26,089
Kentucky 5,786 4.0% 49,751
Louisiana 8,156 4.6% 81,945
Maine 3,045 6.8% 18,025
Maryland 6,473 2.3% 67,486
Massachusetts 15,243 3.8% 157,162
Michigan 23,719 6.6% 194,520
Minnesota 10,609 4.2% 107,633
Mississippi 4,511 5.7% 42,744
Missouri 6,439 2.9% 59,410
Montana 1,283 3.7% 11,800
Nebraska 1,600 1.9% 15,422
Nevada 8,930 7.5% 84,166
New Hampshire 2,758 4.7% 26,941
New Jersey 14,839 3.5% 147,911
New Mexico 2,731 3.9% 29,012
New York 46,137 4.0% 463,968
North Carolina 14,581 3.7% 142,496
North Dakota 803 2.1% 9,293
Ohio 15,784 3.4% 129,599
Oklahoma 3,902 2.8% 46,018
Oregon 7,213 4.3% 115,599
Pennsylvania 24,454 4.5% 252,642
Rhode Island 2,151 5.1% 20,228
South Carolina 5,986 3.6% 54,484
South Dakota 568 1.6% 5,107
Tennessee 8,357 3.3% 80,269
Texas 33,556 2.7% 364,576
Utah 2,106 1.7% 20,728
Vermont 1,273 5.5% 11,831
Virginia 10,350 2.8% 106,549
Washington 16,529 4.1% 122,224
West Virginia 2,325 4.5% 22,606
Wisconsin 7,277 3.1% 65,635
Wyoming 429 1.6% 4,597





The numbers seem to tell a different story than the blather that the OP is spewing.

 

These Two Charts Prove The $600 Extra Unemployment Benefits Boosted The Economy

Ryan DerousseauSenior Contributor
Retirement
The tactics everyday people use to “FIRE” and pursue their dreams.

• have argued against including the additional benefits in the next round of stimulus, but recent unemployment numbers and increases in COVID-19 could lead them to pare down the benefits, instead of removing them altogether. Based on new research, to protect the economy, they may want to keep the benefits as is, which are set to run out in late July.
  
  A new study from JPMorgan Chase Institute has found that the boosted unemployment benefits led to an increase in spending by those receiving the checks. When someone begins taking unemployment insurance, spending typically falls by 7%, on average, during a normal economic period. Those receiving unemployment checks under the CARES Act saw spending increase by 10%.
  
  On average, spending by those employed during the pandemic decreased by 10%.
  
  “The fact that spending by benefit recipients rose during the pandemic instead of falling, like in normal times, suggests that the $600 supplement has helped households to smooth consumption and stabilized aggregate demand,” wrote the JPMorgan researchers.
  

This spending had a dramatic impact on consumption, at a time when the economy needed help.

The Spending Corresponds to the Benefits

JPMorgan’s data shows just how impactful the extra insurance helped during this moment when spending could have declined. Prior to the bill going into effect in March, those facing a layoff saw spending decline by 8%. It’s just beyond the average rate that other studies have found in post-unemployment spending.

MORE FOR YOU
A Twitter Army Of Aggrieved Shareholders Claim They’ve Been Taken Advantage Of In The J.C. Penney Bankruptcy Proceedings By A ‘Rigged System’
$600 Unemployment Checks Could Be Extended — Key Figures Suggest
McConnell: ‘I’m Prepared To Support’ A Coronavirus Stimulus Bill That Includes $600 Unemployment Checks
That number jumps dramatically, rising from an 8% decline to a 22% increase from pre-unemployment spending, following the passage and implementation of the bill.



Assuming spending by the unemployed would have averaged out to a 7% decline from previous spending, like is typically seen during unemployment, then “these numbers suggest that households who receive unemployment benefits are spending 29 percent more during the pandemic than they would in ordinary times,” according to the research.

The spending increased the most for those where the $600 additional dollars provided the largest benefit to typical income and spending. It implies that the lowest wage workers benefited – and spent more – from the boosted income.

Those With Benefit Delays Struggled The Most

It’s also important to understand when those that received unemployment benefits actually started getting the checks to determine the impact of the extra funds. Again, this indicates that spending nationally would have suffered deeper hits without the funds in place.

Those that experienced a substantial delay in insurance benefits saw the most dramatic declines in spending. A household that received the UI benefits starting in late May saw a 20% decline in spending by the time they began to receive checks.




Each week beyond March 29 that the delay occurred, it led to an average 2.25% decline in spending.

Not Re-Upping Unemployment Benefits Could Sting

Based on average spending currently taking place among unemployed households and the standard spending in households, when facing unemployment during a regular period, Congress can expect a 29% decline in spending among this group.

It’s possible that the extra $600 coincided with other benefits, like stimulus checks and rent forbearance, which provided even more liquidity than in typical times. Cutting the benefit could deepen economic concerns.

“Eliminating the $600 supplement could result in large spending cuts and thus potential negative effects on macroeconomic activity,” according to the findings.

Republicans have argued that including such a benefit in the next round of stimulus could discourage people from going back to work. There are, however, clear signs that one of the best tactics Congress took in the initial COVID recession was propping up spending for the over 30 million people that would end up filing for the benefits.

That’s true, not just for those unemployed, but for the economy as well.

 

A certain group of pro-Trumpers are bashing waiters, cooks, hotel maids, taxi drivers, and other employees of businesses considered "non-essential" who lost their jobs due to the pandemic, for using the pandemic benefit of $600 per week to pay their rents, health insurance, medical co-pays, and other necessities of life. Good for them! Reveal your value system to the world!

I will wait, but just for a little while, for those same pro-Trumpers to whine about the millions of dollars business owners are getting from the Payroll Protection Program for the purpose of paying their employees so those same employees won't be laid off. Because being paid off means being forced to accept unemployment benefits - including the pandemic benefits of $600 per week - and incurring the wrath of those same pro-Trumpers.

Oh! Lo and surprise! There are fraudsters making bogus claims to get PPP millions! Business owners, possibly also Trump supporters like the My Pillow guy, falsifying their employment and payroll records in order to get free pandemic money from the federal government! Oh, the horror! The horror!

Will the Trumpettes on this site give equal condemnation to the business owners fraudulently getting PPP money and using it to buy luxury cars rather than pay employees, as they give to the laid-off employees using pandemic unemployment benefits to pay rent?