Indiana to cut off federal unemployment benefits
June 2, 2021 9:21 AM Subscribe
There are just too many jobs out there, freeloaders- so you're cut off!! Indiana is joining a handful of Republican-led states in ending the state's participation in federal unemployment insurance programs that provide an additional $300 per week to jobless claimants nationwide, extend benefits beyond the normal six months of eligibility and make benefits to people who normally would not be eligible.
Indiana is ending its participation in the four programs created or extended by the latest stimulus bill, the American Rescue Plan Act, adopted earlier this year. The programs are:
- Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), which provides a $300 weekly add-on to recipients of unemployment insurance
- Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), which provides recipients extended benefits after their traditional 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits have been exhausted
- Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which provides benefits to individuals who do not normally qualify for unemployment benefits, such as self-employed, gig workers, and independent contractors
- Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensation (MEUC), which provides a $100 additional weekly benefit for individuals who are eligible for regular unemployment benefits but also earned at least $5,000 in self-employment income
It's estimated that 286,000+ Hoosiers will miss out on a collective $1.6 billion in federally funded benefits if Indiana ends the programs before their federal expiration of Sept. 6. Of that, more than $1 billion is the extra $300 weekly supplement that will no longer be paid.
Indiana is ending its participation in the four programs created or extended by the latest stimulus bill, the American Rescue Plan Act, adopted earlier this year. The programs are:
- Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), which provides a $300 weekly add-on to recipients of unemployment insurance
- Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), which provides recipients extended benefits after their traditional 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits have been exhausted
- Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which provides benefits to individuals who do not normally qualify for unemployment benefits, such as self-employed, gig workers, and independent contractors
- Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensation (MEUC), which provides a $100 additional weekly benefit for individuals who are eligible for regular unemployment benefits but also earned at least $5,000 in self-employment income
It's estimated that 286,000+ Hoosiers will miss out on a collective $1.6 billion in federally funded benefits if Indiana ends the programs before their federal expiration of Sept. 6. Of that, more than $1 billion is the extra $300 weekly supplement that will no longer be paid.
I initially thought this was a good idea. BUT, I no longer do. The problem is that, obviously, not everyone is the same. Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home. The problem is that it also ecompasses many people who truly need the UI, who are unable to get employment or who are out of the work force for reasons beyond their control like ageism. Either some people get paid money they otherwise would not get and don't "deserve" or folks who do need the money and cannot get employment, the very people UI was designed to help get put in a financially precarious position.
The argument I have heard that tries to address or offset that is that there are other safety net programs such as EBT/food stamps, disability, etc. Maybe. But it is not like anyone is getting rich off of that.
To me, I would rather some get over on me than cut off some that will be put in a position to fail or be literally broke. If the Federal government is going to cause inflation with their trillions in deficit spending, it is going to make it even harder on the unemployed. Why not take the federal money?
posted by AugustWest at 9:54 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
The argument I have heard that tries to address or offset that is that there are other safety net programs such as EBT/food stamps, disability, etc. Maybe. But it is not like anyone is getting rich off of that.
To me, I would rather some get over on me than cut off some that will be put in a position to fail or be literally broke. If the Federal government is going to cause inflation with their trillions in deficit spending, it is going to make it even harder on the unemployed. Why not take the federal money?
posted by AugustWest at 9:54 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
I hope they are reminded of it every election cycle for the rest of their lives. We need to make that happen.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:54 AM on June 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:54 AM on June 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home.
Is it really "loafing" though, if the amount of money is so small that it's not a living wage anyway? I think this is part of the narrative problem—we have a cultural idea that it's better to be working a job, any job, rather than be unemployed. And I've come around to the idea that it's not the case; it's better both for individuals and for society at large to let people say no to jobs that aren't paying a living wage.
Since we apparently can't get a living-wage Federal minimum politically, raising the bar below which people just aren't going to take your grotty "starter job" seems like a good thing.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:00 AM on June 2, 2021 [117 favorites]
Is it really "loafing" though, if the amount of money is so small that it's not a living wage anyway? I think this is part of the narrative problem—we have a cultural idea that it's better to be working a job, any job, rather than be unemployed. And I've come around to the idea that it's not the case; it's better both for individuals and for society at large to let people say no to jobs that aren't paying a living wage.
Since we apparently can't get a living-wage Federal minimum politically, raising the bar below which people just aren't going to take your grotty "starter job" seems like a good thing.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:00 AM on June 2, 2021 [117 favorites]
And I hope they specifically bring the receipts that lower-income households were most likely to have possibly multiple loved ones die from COVID, their childcare is in shambles, and their officials told them to... think of the poor Arby's franchises.
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:03 AM on June 2, 2021 [17 favorites]
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:03 AM on June 2, 2021 [17 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home.
Unless you can cite a specific person who has expressed this, I am going to push back. I have been in constant communication with a number of people who are in the pandemic-caused UI boat, and this is what I see -- people who have taken the opportunity to take on additional education or certifications to move out of poverty wages. People who are NOT taking the first job offered them at wages that they couldn't keep afloat on before. People who are delaying looking for a job so they can avail themselves of full medical coverage and finally address serious health issues that they could not when they had high-deductible health insurance (if any) and no paid days off while working at subsistence-wage hourly jobs. I know of one person who is looking for work, but has serious mixed feelings about it, because they have been eating predominantly PBJs and rice for months and using the UI bonus to create a first-in-their-lifetime 3-month-living-expenses emergency fund.
Please be cautious in ascribing laziness to far deeper and much more systemic issues. Please also be cautious in ascribing laziness to decent and conscientious people who are their own personal work ethics with long-term care for themselves and their families in a society that didn't care enough to pass a $15/hr minimum wage.
posted by Silvery Fish at 10:08 AM on June 2, 2021 [151 favorites]
Unless you can cite a specific person who has expressed this, I am going to push back. I have been in constant communication with a number of people who are in the pandemic-caused UI boat, and this is what I see -- people who have taken the opportunity to take on additional education or certifications to move out of poverty wages. People who are NOT taking the first job offered them at wages that they couldn't keep afloat on before. People who are delaying looking for a job so they can avail themselves of full medical coverage and finally address serious health issues that they could not when they had high-deductible health insurance (if any) and no paid days off while working at subsistence-wage hourly jobs. I know of one person who is looking for work, but has serious mixed feelings about it, because they have been eating predominantly PBJs and rice for months and using the UI bonus to create a first-in-their-lifetime 3-month-living-expenses emergency fund.
Please be cautious in ascribing laziness to far deeper and much more systemic issues. Please also be cautious in ascribing laziness to decent and conscientious people who are their own personal work ethics with long-term care for themselves and their families in a society that didn't care enough to pass a $15/hr minimum wage.
posted by Silvery Fish at 10:08 AM on June 2, 2021 [151 favorites]
It shouldn't be possible for the state to get between a citizen and their federal benefits. That is federal money, and whatever your bumfuck governor thinks, it shouldn't be up to him whether you get it.
(my bumfuck governor included)
posted by emjaybee at 10:14 AM on June 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
(my bumfuck governor included)
posted by emjaybee at 10:14 AM on June 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
I would rather my taxes subsidize a million shiftless layabouts than for a single child to go hungry.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:14 AM on June 2, 2021 [172 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:14 AM on June 2, 2021 [172 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home.
Oooooh this made me see red.
I work in a small business in Canada. I, like a lot of my staff, was completely laid off in the first wave (after my company kept paying everyone to stay home for 3 weeks) and went on emergency benefits of $2,000/mo which I think have been reduced to something closer to $1,600/mo (don't quote me). A lot of my staff were part-time due to the nature of our business - 5 hrs a day in childcare, that kind of thing.
In the fall, we all came back on (thanks in part to federal wage subsidies). Then we've closed/reopened/closed.
Every single time I've picked up the phone, my team has come back. Right now I have two people working with me who are working extremely reduced hours which they get taken off their benefits DOLLAR for DOLLAR and they still show up. People have shown up with less than 42 hours notice. And honestly the part time jobs are not great jobs by corporate standards - they are above minimum and we do our best but we're still working on it.
What has my boss done for the last 2-3 years? Raised wages. Provided benefits. Treated people like human beings. Given them as much flexibility as we can (not always a lot when 100 kids are showing up at 2:15.) Paid them when we shut down. Checked in on them. Is he perfect? No fucking way. But that's the way.
If people felt valued and didn't have childcare responsibilities/eldercare responsibilities/health issues/already lost their home and had to move home/got sick/scared/etc., they would show up. My team does.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:19 AM on June 2, 2021 [90 favorites]
Oooooh this made me see red.
I work in a small business in Canada. I, like a lot of my staff, was completely laid off in the first wave (after my company kept paying everyone to stay home for 3 weeks) and went on emergency benefits of $2,000/mo which I think have been reduced to something closer to $1,600/mo (don't quote me). A lot of my staff were part-time due to the nature of our business - 5 hrs a day in childcare, that kind of thing.
In the fall, we all came back on (thanks in part to federal wage subsidies). Then we've closed/reopened/closed.
Every single time I've picked up the phone, my team has come back. Right now I have two people working with me who are working extremely reduced hours which they get taken off their benefits DOLLAR for DOLLAR and they still show up. People have shown up with less than 42 hours notice. And honestly the part time jobs are not great jobs by corporate standards - they are above minimum and we do our best but we're still working on it.
What has my boss done for the last 2-3 years? Raised wages. Provided benefits. Treated people like human beings. Given them as much flexibility as we can (not always a lot when 100 kids are showing up at 2:15.) Paid them when we shut down. Checked in on them. Is he perfect? No fucking way. But that's the way.
If people felt valued and didn't have childcare responsibilities/eldercare responsibilities/health issues/already lost their home and had to move home/got sick/scared/etc., they would show up. My team does.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:19 AM on June 2, 2021 [90 favorites]
I would rather my taxes subsidize a million shiftless layabouts than for a single child to go hungry.
I would also rather Jeff Bezos' taxes did the same.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:20 AM on June 2, 2021 [87 favorites]
I would also rather Jeff Bezos' taxes did the same.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:20 AM on June 2, 2021 [87 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home
Sorry to add on, but how is that a problem, in all sincerity? Like even leaving aside that being not true, if it was how is it a problem?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 10:20 AM on June 2, 2021 [62 favorites]
Sorry to add on, but how is that a problem, in all sincerity? Like even leaving aside that being not true, if it was how is it a problem?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 10:20 AM on June 2, 2021 [62 favorites]
I think it should be a requirement of accepting federal funds that if you prematurely end benefits you need to notify everyone in your state who is currently receiving the money by mail with a signed letter and include a voter registration form.
But enough fantasy. Why the fuck did we give states the option of prematurely ending benefits?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:21 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
But enough fantasy. Why the fuck did we give states the option of prematurely ending benefits?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:21 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
These kinds of provisions, where states can "opt out," are almost always the GOP's contribution in the name of bipartisanship. It's pretty hard to find a piece of modern legislation that isn't bound up with these sorts of exceptions.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:24 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:24 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
These moves are essentially a colossally inefficient wealth transfer from the working class to business owners that depend on an exploitable workforce, the same business owners who were themselves the recipients of massive government welfare programs throughout the pandemic.
It's also taking that money out of the pockets not only of its direct recipients, but those who work where that money would eventually be spent. No doubt the Republicans will blame Biden for the economic harm done, but there differences between the way Republican states and others manage their economies should be starkly obvious. Hopefully enough so that even the media will take note.
posted by Gelatin at 10:28 AM on June 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's also taking that money out of the pockets not only of its direct recipients, but those who work where that money would eventually be spent. No doubt the Republicans will blame Biden for the economic harm done, but there differences between the way Republican states and others manage their economies should be starkly obvious. Hopefully enough so that even the media will take note.
posted by Gelatin at 10:28 AM on June 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Am I right in thinking that these kinds of laws tend to go hand-in-hand with shitty minimum wages and poor worker protections? They certainly do in Wyoming.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:29 AM on June 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 10:29 AM on June 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
These kinds of provisions, where states can "opt out," are almost always the GOP's contribution in the name of bipartisanship. It's pretty hard to find a piece of modern legislation that isn't bound up with these sorts of exceptions.
But presumably these benefits were created by the most recent covid relief bill which was passed through reconciliation after bipartisan negotiations fell apart.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:31 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
But presumably these benefits were created by the most recent covid relief bill which was passed through reconciliation after bipartisan negotiations fell apart.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:31 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
> No doubt the Republicans will blame Biden for the economic harm done...
They will, and it will work.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:39 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
They will, and it will work.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:39 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Utah's governor simultaneously touted the lowest unemployment in the nation (2.6%) at the same time they cut off these benefits. Which gave away the game, because we clearly don't have a large population of people who are "loafing" to drive up that 2.6% number. It's purely spite and a pat on the back for the business donor class, who are griping about finding workers at unsavory wages. Capitalists love supply and demand when it benefits them, but when the labor market simply runs out of labor, they're going to have to raise wages to get the workers they want. Cutting off extra UI benefits is a cudgel to force people back into that supply who otherwise wouldn't be, for whatever reason that might be.
posted by msbutah at 10:55 AM on June 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by msbutah at 10:55 AM on June 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing making rational economic choices because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home.
posted by klanawa at 10:55 AM on June 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
posted by klanawa at 10:55 AM on June 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
i wonder what they're going to do when they find out that most of their workers STILL aren't going to come back
posted by pyramid termite at 11:03 AM on June 2, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 11:03 AM on June 2, 2021 [11 favorites]
But presumably these benefits were created by the most recent covid relief bill which was passed through reconciliation after bipartisan negotiations fell apart.
I think it still had most/all of the bipartisan compromises left in it, though.
posted by Gadarene at 11:10 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think it still had most/all of the bipartisan compromises left in it, though.
posted by Gadarene at 11:10 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
So you're solving the labor shortage for exploitative businesses by starving people.
And people think only prisons have slave labor
posted by tigrrrlily at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
And people think only prisons have slave labor
posted by tigrrrlily at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
Sure can tell who only has rich friends in this thread.
posted by fluttering hellfire at 11:23 AM on June 2, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by fluttering hellfire at 11:23 AM on June 2, 2021 [18 favorites]
The less people do, the better. "Loafing about at home" means they aren't out there burning fossil fuels to get somewhere pointless, doing wasteful or harmful work that isn't necessary - for wages that don't even begin to cover the true costs nor the personal expense of working there. Nobody ever got hurt from paying taxes and everybody benefits when taxes go to helping folks.
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:35 AM on June 2, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:35 AM on June 2, 2021 [15 favorites]
"I hope they are reminded of it every election cycle for the rest of their lives. We need to make that happen."
Good luck. It's Indiana. The crueler and stupider the policy proposals, the bigger the voter consensus on the GOP side will be. I love Indiana, but whenever I think, "Surely THIS is so damaging to the state economy that Republicans won't do it just to spite poor people/gay people/women ..." I turn out to be wrong. There is no bottom.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:37 AM on June 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Good luck. It's Indiana. The crueler and stupider the policy proposals, the bigger the voter consensus on the GOP side will be. I love Indiana, but whenever I think, "Surely THIS is so damaging to the state economy that Republicans won't do it just to spite poor people/gay people/women ..." I turn out to be wrong. There is no bottom.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:37 AM on June 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
If "people loafing because the extra money is worth it" is something that concerns you please do not ever get involved in public policy. There's always going to be people that benefit from assistance that don't deserve it, that's completely normal and acceptable. The alternative is allowing a system where people that deserve it miss out on assistance because they're incorrectly screened out as a "undeserving loafer."
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2021 [25 favorites]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2021 [25 favorites]
Once again, if people would rather be on unemployment than work for the wages you're offering, your problem isn't unemployment.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2021 [51 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2021 [51 favorites]
If "people loafing because the extra money is worth it" is something that concerns you please do not ever get involved in public policy.
With that opening, I totally thought you were going to make a comment about useless politicians getting paid to do nothing.
posted by nickmark at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
With that opening, I totally thought you were going to make a comment about useless politicians getting paid to do nothing.
posted by nickmark at 11:52 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
I love Indiana, but whenever I think, "Surely THIS is so damaging to the state economy that Republicans won't do it just to spite poor people/gay people/women ..." I turn out to be wrong. There is no bottom.
If you think it's bad now, just wait until Todd Rokita (currently Indiana's atty.gen.) climbs into the governorship. Even other republicans will tell you (off the record, of course) that he's effin' dangerous. They'll still support him, of course. Rokita will make Mississippi look like a liberal wonderland in comparison.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:57 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
If you think it's bad now, just wait until Todd Rokita (currently Indiana's atty.gen.) climbs into the governorship. Even other republicans will tell you (off the record, of course) that he's effin' dangerous. They'll still support him, of course. Rokita will make Mississippi look like a liberal wonderland in comparison.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:57 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's funny how these business owners started complaining right after the PPP funds ran out.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:00 PM on June 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:00 PM on June 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home. The problem is that it also encompasses many people who truly need the UI, who are unable to get employment or who are out of the work force for reasons beyond their control like ageism.
No system is perfect. If you optimize for kicking loafers off the dole, you will for sure abandon people who really need help. If nobody is successfully scamming the system, the system is definitely failing people in need.
[Sorry, I'm just repeating what Mr.Encyclopedia said.]
posted by straight at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
No system is perfect. If you optimize for kicking loafers off the dole, you will for sure abandon people who really need help. If nobody is successfully scamming the system, the system is definitely failing people in need.
[Sorry, I'm just repeating what Mr.Encyclopedia said.]
posted by straight at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
People have to work eventually, you can't have people unemployed forever. People need jobs to make a living....and the wage should be $15/hr federally
Here in NJ where I live most of the New Jersey Republican governor candidates want the unemployment benefits to be cut to $100, if Chris Christie was still governor he would cut it to $50.00....
People need to work, but people who are unemployed should get benefits up to $700 dollars to pay their bills.....
A lot of suburban Republican voters like this stuff, especially in my neck of the woods....
posted by Broncos 1999 at 12:11 PM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Here in NJ where I live most of the New Jersey Republican governor candidates want the unemployment benefits to be cut to $100, if Chris Christie was still governor he would cut it to $50.00....
People need to work, but people who are unemployed should get benefits up to $700 dollars to pay their bills.....
A lot of suburban Republican voters like this stuff, especially in my neck of the woods....
posted by Broncos 1999 at 12:11 PM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you're a Calvinist, please, please, please, stop. It's a disease.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2021 [31 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2021 [31 favorites]
Us: "A rising tide lifts all boats!"
Them: "Some of those boats might already have been floating! DRAIN THE OCEAN!"
posted by nickmark at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2021 [30 favorites]
Them: "Some of those boats might already have been floating! DRAIN THE OCEAN!"
posted by nickmark at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2021 [30 favorites]
Funny how this is coming from same people saying, "Oh no! You simply cannot raise taxes on the wealthy or make them pay what they owe. If you cost them money they'll move out of state and then you'll lose population and your tax base. Quelle horreur!"
I guess it's okay for the state to take money away from folks after all, just so long as they're not rich.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
I guess it's okay for the state to take money away from folks after all, just so long as they're not rich.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
The more things change... (hint, they never change)
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
Scrooge-"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
Scrooge-"And the Union workhouses." . "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
Scrooge- "If they would rather die," "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
... But there aren't any union workhouses anymore even ...
posted by rozcakj at 1:00 PM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
Scrooge-"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
Scrooge-"And the Union workhouses." . "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
Scrooge- "If they would rather die," "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
... But there aren't any union workhouses anymore even ...
posted by rozcakj at 1:00 PM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Fortunately, we have data.
Yale study finds expanded jobless benefits did not reduce employment
I hope every Democratic candidate in these states runs ads saying "Congress voted for $1.6 billion dollars to help unemployed Hoosiers (/ Floridians / Texans ) get back on their feet after the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. Your governor turned down $1.6 billion dollars that could have helped your neighbors re-open, your kid take a class for a better chance at finding a new job. This money was on its way to you. Don't forget who took that opportunity out of your pocket."
posted by kristi at 1:01 PM on June 2, 2021 [47 favorites]
Yale study finds expanded jobless benefits did not reduce employment
People with more generously expanded benefits also resumed working at a similar or slightly quicker rate than others did, according to the report.Stockton’s Basic-Income Experiment Pays Off, The Atlantic
The researchers also found that the guaranteed income did not dissuade participants from working—adding to a large body of evidence showing that cash benefits do not dramatically shrink the labor force and in some cases help people work by giving them the stability they need to find and take a new job. In the Stockton study, the share of participants with a full-time job rose 12 percentage points, versus five percentage points in the control group. In an interview, Martin-West and Castro Baker suggested that the money created capacity for goal setting, risk taking, and personal investment.Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration - Key Finding: Employment
Guaranteed income recipients leveraged the $500 to find full-time employment.(And that's just employment. There's clearly benefit in people being able to improve their mental health and well-being in numerous ways.)
In February 2019, 28% of recipients had full-time employment. One year later, 40% of recipients were employed full-time.
In contrast, the control group saw only a 5% increase in full-time employment over the same one- year period -- 32% of those in the control group were employed full-time in February 2019; one year later, 37% of control group participants were employed full-time.
I hope every Democratic candidate in these states runs ads saying "Congress voted for $1.6 billion dollars to help unemployed Hoosiers (/ Floridians / Texans ) get back on their feet after the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. Your governor turned down $1.6 billion dollars that could have helped your neighbors re-open, your kid take a class for a better chance at finding a new job. This money was on its way to you. Don't forget who took that opportunity out of your pocket."
posted by kristi at 1:01 PM on June 2, 2021 [47 favorites]
Christ, what a bunch of assholes, these Indiana Republicans.
Also, way up top of this thread, AugustWest admitted that they had had a change of heart, but everyone is shitting on their old opinion. AugustWest, you're right: it is better that we err on the side of generosity.
This idea is oooold: Blackstone's Law from the 1700s, or Abraham pleading for Sodom in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:16-33), and in between Shakespeare in the 1590s ("The quality of mercy is not strained" from Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1).
We don't become better by being cruel.
(On preview: jinx, rozcakj!)
posted by wenestvedt at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
Also, way up top of this thread, AugustWest admitted that they had had a change of heart, but everyone is shitting on their old opinion. AugustWest, you're right: it is better that we err on the side of generosity.
This idea is oooold: Blackstone's Law from the 1700s, or Abraham pleading for Sodom in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:16-33), and in between Shakespeare in the 1590s ("The quality of mercy is not strained" from Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1).
We don't become better by being cruel.
(On preview: jinx, rozcakj!)
posted by wenestvedt at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
People don't need to work. People need to survive and thrive.
Work is part of that for some people—maybe even most people. But it doesn't and shouldn't have to be.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Work is part of that for some people—maybe even most people. But it doesn't and shouldn't have to be.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
The bit I don't understand is, how come it's morally OK for me to decide to retire early and loaf for the next forty years on a passive income that I'm doing nothing to earn since spending what I had left over from working to buy shares in a bunch of companies, but it's somehow not morally OK for some kid to look at the fifty other applicants for every job that could be potentially open to him and say, fuck it, I'll go surfing instead, somebody else clearly needs those paycheques more than I do?
Neither one of us is contributing more to society than the other. How come society keeps me comfortable and only labels him the bludger?
posted by flabdablet at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2021 [53 favorites]
Neither one of us is contributing more to society than the other. How come society keeps me comfortable and only labels him the bludger?
posted by flabdablet at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2021 [53 favorites]
How come society keeps me comfortable and only labels him the bludger?
Because it's all a racket. It started with religion moralizing on "idle hands" and continues with every governing and moral system people have invented. A few want control and to reap the rewards - by keeping everyone else fighting and moralizing and scrambling for scraps, humanity has been controlled for centuries (forever... really - perhaps it is hardwired into the male primate genetics). When people band together to better themselves, those things are broken systematically...
posted by rozcakj at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
Because it's all a racket. It started with religion moralizing on "idle hands" and continues with every governing and moral system people have invented. A few want control and to reap the rewards - by keeping everyone else fighting and moralizing and scrambling for scraps, humanity has been controlled for centuries (forever... really - perhaps it is hardwired into the male primate genetics). When people band together to better themselves, those things are broken systematically...
posted by rozcakj at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
It started with religion moralizing on "idle hands" and continues with every governing and moral system people have invented.
I'd argue that it continues with every governing and moral system that colonial powers have invented. There are loads of indigenous cultures all over the world that do not have this particular flaw.
posted by flabdablet at 2:05 PM on June 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
I'd argue that it continues with every governing and moral system that colonial powers have invented. There are loads of indigenous cultures all over the world that do not have this particular flaw.
posted by flabdablet at 2:05 PM on June 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
The last 5 or so years have left me absolutely, 100% convinced that "the cruelty is the point" is at the root of every major conservative political motivation. It's really that simple. There are no underlying principles, moral or intellectual. It's just sheer malice and cruelty all the way down
posted by treepour at 2:58 PM on June 2, 2021 [31 favorites]
posted by treepour at 2:58 PM on June 2, 2021 [31 favorites]
Sure there are people that are loafing because the extra money is worth it to them to stay home.
Unless you can cite a specific person who has expressed this, I am going to push back.
IDK if this story meets your criteria but: my brother was laid off from his dishwasher factory job, and the bonus UI benefits were more than he earned when he was working full time, and he didn't even have to look for new work. His version of loafing was basically a lot of Netflix and arm twisted handiwork / house repairs for mom. No college coursework, no audiobooks, no looking for a better job -- that would come with a risk of having to turn down work and lose UI. In his own telling, the most stressful part of the week was the time spent trying to use an antiquated UI website run by a state wholly unprepared for the scale of the event.
Eventually his factory repurposed into making a different kind of sanitation equipment (UV cleaners for PPE I think?) and brought him back. And he didn't complain very long about it because the boredom was intense and any excuse to leave a lonely apartment was welcome (I heard more complaints from mom, who suddenly had to pay someone to install her IKEA cabinetry, or wait for him to work on it over the weekends). Since then, the factory has offered him overtime, a promotion, and an across the board raise at the factory.
Is "loafing" pejorative? Yes, and. I don't endorse the phrasing. Many have argued that staying home until a vaccine was approved was the intended purpose, and I don't think that's necessarily bad. Is working in a pandemic hard for people with families? Objectively yes, and it will be until we can figure out how childcare can resume. But it's pretty clear that the UI benefit provides a floor above what unskilled labor in low cost of living cities earn.
Also: it's damn weird that your old job has the right to take UI away when every other employer must promise outbid it before you bother to apply.
posted by pwnguin at 2:58 PM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Unless you can cite a specific person who has expressed this, I am going to push back.
IDK if this story meets your criteria but: my brother was laid off from his dishwasher factory job, and the bonus UI benefits were more than he earned when he was working full time, and he didn't even have to look for new work. His version of loafing was basically a lot of Netflix and arm twisted handiwork / house repairs for mom. No college coursework, no audiobooks, no looking for a better job -- that would come with a risk of having to turn down work and lose UI. In his own telling, the most stressful part of the week was the time spent trying to use an antiquated UI website run by a state wholly unprepared for the scale of the event.
Eventually his factory repurposed into making a different kind of sanitation equipment (UV cleaners for PPE I think?) and brought him back. And he didn't complain very long about it because the boredom was intense and any excuse to leave a lonely apartment was welcome (I heard more complaints from mom, who suddenly had to pay someone to install her IKEA cabinetry, or wait for him to work on it over the weekends). Since then, the factory has offered him overtime, a promotion, and an across the board raise at the factory.
Is "loafing" pejorative? Yes, and. I don't endorse the phrasing. Many have argued that staying home until a vaccine was approved was the intended purpose, and I don't think that's necessarily bad. Is working in a pandemic hard for people with families? Objectively yes, and it will be until we can figure out how childcare can resume. But it's pretty clear that the UI benefit provides a floor above what unskilled labor in low cost of living cities earn.
Also: it's damn weird that your old job has the right to take UI away when every other employer must promise outbid it before you bother to apply.
posted by pwnguin at 2:58 PM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
IDK if this story meets your criteria but: my brother was laid off from his dishwasher factory job, and the bonus UI benefits were more than he earned when he was working full time, and he didn't even have to look for new work.
What kind of work did you expect him to find? What would something similar have paid? Why is receiving enough money to live on seen as such an awful thing? Why wouldn't you automatically assume he was barely making enough to live on with the original job? Why must he perform trying to find another dead-end job when his needs are finally taken care of without worry? 'Dishwasher factory job' doesn't exactly sound like a lovely profession people would love to do, or could do into old age. This is what runs through my head.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:49 PM on June 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
What kind of work did you expect him to find? What would something similar have paid? Why is receiving enough money to live on seen as such an awful thing? Why wouldn't you automatically assume he was barely making enough to live on with the original job? Why must he perform trying to find another dead-end job when his needs are finally taken care of without worry? 'Dishwasher factory job' doesn't exactly sound like a lovely profession people would love to do, or could do into old age. This is what runs through my head.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:49 PM on June 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
IDK if this story meets your criteria... Eventually his factory repurposed into making a different kind of sanitation equipment and brought him back.
pwnguin -- in your brother's case, it sounds like UI acted exactly as designed: his company laid him off; he qualified for UI; at some point, they needed him again; he went back to work; which terminated his UI.
If you have been laid off, your company calls you back, and you DON'T go, you also lose your UI benefits. You can't say "no" to a reasonable work offer and keep collecting.
Which, now that I am typing this out, makes the "lazy bums!" argument seem even more questionable. People who HAVE employers to return to are either (a) being recalled and losing their benefits, or (b) choosing to not return and also losing their benefits.
That leaves people who do NOT have jobs to return to, who are choosing to NOT take crap jobs because of all of the wage / child care / health & safety / etc. reasons mentioned above.
Was your brother "loafing"? I honestly can't say! For some workers in seasonal occupations, this is the norm. I know seasonal workers for whom this pattern is an annual thing, and I think they are rather Netflix-heavy during the off-season - but who also return to work when their season starts up.
posted by Silvery Fish at 4:59 PM on June 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
pwnguin -- in your brother's case, it sounds like UI acted exactly as designed: his company laid him off; he qualified for UI; at some point, they needed him again; he went back to work; which terminated his UI.
If you have been laid off, your company calls you back, and you DON'T go, you also lose your UI benefits. You can't say "no" to a reasonable work offer and keep collecting.
Which, now that I am typing this out, makes the "lazy bums!" argument seem even more questionable. People who HAVE employers to return to are either (a) being recalled and losing their benefits, or (b) choosing to not return and also losing their benefits.
That leaves people who do NOT have jobs to return to, who are choosing to NOT take crap jobs because of all of the wage / child care / health & safety / etc. reasons mentioned above.
Was your brother "loafing"? I honestly can't say! For some workers in seasonal occupations, this is the norm. I know seasonal workers for whom this pattern is an annual thing, and I think they are rather Netflix-heavy during the off-season - but who also return to work when their season starts up.
posted by Silvery Fish at 4:59 PM on June 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
Why wouldn't you automatically assume he was barely making enough to live on with the original job
Why would I assume anything when I can just talk to him? In the past two years, I've helped him reboot his life: write down a budget, set up a Roth IRA, acquire a used car, start paying off his student loan, open his own credit card, and start funding his 401k. Sometimes cash transfers are involved, but at this point he's self-sufficient -- he's got enough spare cash now to deck out his home with internet of things crap than I have, but his apt is also 2x the size of mine so fair enough.
'Dishwasher factory job' doesn't exactly sound like a lovely profession people would love to do, or could do into old age.
I suspect you don't intend to say that factory jobs aren't for old people but:
1. Much of the manufacturing in the US is handled by machines. His most recent promotion is from a station balancing impellers to a station running a steel press. In either case most of the repetitive tasks are done by machines. It's still an active job but a bit less RSI inducing than the factories you may imagine.
2. Management and supervision is an option, depending on how you envision population growth and physical decline. A society of only managers is not possible, and sounds like hell on earth if it were. But still, manufacturing is not the dead end job you imply it is.
3. This is (partially) why we have Social Security in the US. And why he started saving into his 401k when the job resumed. We can't rely on boomer parents to leave us anything, and they in fact rely on us to support them in retirement.
posted by pwnguin at 5:04 PM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Why would I assume anything when I can just talk to him? In the past two years, I've helped him reboot his life: write down a budget, set up a Roth IRA, acquire a used car, start paying off his student loan, open his own credit card, and start funding his 401k. Sometimes cash transfers are involved, but at this point he's self-sufficient -- he's got enough spare cash now to deck out his home with internet of things crap than I have, but his apt is also 2x the size of mine so fair enough.
'Dishwasher factory job' doesn't exactly sound like a lovely profession people would love to do, or could do into old age.
I suspect you don't intend to say that factory jobs aren't for old people but:
1. Much of the manufacturing in the US is handled by machines. His most recent promotion is from a station balancing impellers to a station running a steel press. In either case most of the repetitive tasks are done by machines. It's still an active job but a bit less RSI inducing than the factories you may imagine.
2. Management and supervision is an option, depending on how you envision population growth and physical decline. A society of only managers is not possible, and sounds like hell on earth if it were. But still, manufacturing is not the dead end job you imply it is.
3. This is (partially) why we have Social Security in the US. And why he started saving into his 401k when the job resumed. We can't rely on boomer parents to leave us anything, and they in fact rely on us to support them in retirement.
posted by pwnguin at 5:04 PM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Montana plugged the faucet too - just like Indiana.
posted by Mesaverdian at 6:23 PM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Mesaverdian at 6:23 PM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Republicans simultaneously profess to believe that the way to motivate wealthy people is to give them more money, and the way to motivate poor people is to take it away.
I'd call that class warfare.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 6:33 PM on June 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
I'd call that class warfare.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 6:33 PM on June 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
Republicans simultaneously profess to believe that the way to motivate wealthy people is to give them more money, and the way to motivate poor people is to take it away.
I'd call that class warfare.
Yep. I wish we could do something about it.
posted by Gadarene at 7:22 PM on June 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'd call that class warfare.
Yep. I wish we could do something about it.
posted by Gadarene at 7:22 PM on June 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
The last 5 or so years have left me absolutely, 100% convinced that "the cruelty is the point" is at the root of every major conservative political motivation. It's really that simple. There are no underlying principles, moral or intellectual.
I think there is an underlying principle, the nub of which Frank Wilhoit has put his finger squarely on.
The point of the cruelty directed against members of out-groups is to keep them in the out-groups, thereby maintaining the distinction between the in-group and the out-groups. People are fundamentally just people, so that distinction would collapse over time without active maintenance by the in-group.
posted by flabdablet at 9:49 PM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
I think there is an underlying principle, the nub of which Frank Wilhoit has put his finger squarely on.
The point of the cruelty directed against members of out-groups is to keep them in the out-groups, thereby maintaining the distinction between the in-group and the out-groups. People are fundamentally just people, so that distinction would collapse over time without active maintenance by the in-group.
posted by flabdablet at 9:49 PM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
The PBS NewsHour aired an article about this topic today (10 minute video with transcript). The article includes a range of comments from individuals at different levels of the business realm.
posted by JDC8 at 9:58 PM on June 2, 2021
posted by JDC8 at 9:58 PM on June 2, 2021
The system is brutal. We’ve had a huge problem hiring at our healthcare organization where entry level positions are substantially above minimum wage. We got paid during closures, every stimulus dollar my company received was transferred almost directly to employees in order to reduce attrition at a company that is providing direct care to the community during a health crisis.
The problem is that we also compete in a market place where even the best intentioned leadership comes up against hard limits imposed by the successful hospital downtown run by exploitative assholes and when I suggested we needed to increase pay further to attract talent I received a stern lecture about the fragile economic environment in which we carry out our mission. So it seems like our choices are 1. Be cool to employees and go out of business 2. Find ways to exploit an anxious insecure labor force so you can grow market share and profit or 3. Uphold universal basic employee protections across the board so that everyone has to deal with treating employees with the same “constraint” of treating them with dignity and a living wage and then companies compete on things like how well you’re managed, and the relative value your output provides to the community.
And all of these discussions fail to address the big systemic things that really stand in the way of employment. Like people having to stay home to care for children still not in school or taking care of sick and disabled family members. Or maybe they’re not trained for the jobs that are available and need more school available. Or maybe they can’t commute 2 hours from where housing is affordable to the places where the jobs are. Or maybe they have their own health issues that require attention and they can’t afford the risk of taking a job they’ll just get fired from due to absences attending to any of the above issues.
This is why we have homelessness. Because barriers to becoming good, compliant workers still exist even when you don’t have good unemployment benefits. It’s a complex issue, one that capitalism utterly fails to address and the cudgel not only creates a permanent underclass that can’t work 40 hours a week at minimum wage, but it also ties an anchor around the growth of good, innovative companies we want to succeed. Taking away the basic means of self support without addressing any of these other problems is just creating generational problems with poverty, crime, substance abuse, lack of education. Maybe if we’d been aggressively dealing with the true barriers to employment for decades and there will still people “loafing about” on welfare, I’d entertain the idea of how to kick someone off welfare as something more than an act of pure misanthropy. But then again if we’d been doing that, we’d be talking about a lot less no strings attached money going to “loafers” and our tolerance for a few Jeff Lebowski’s in the world would be much higher.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:15 AM on June 3, 2021 [11 favorites]
The problem is that we also compete in a market place where even the best intentioned leadership comes up against hard limits imposed by the successful hospital downtown run by exploitative assholes and when I suggested we needed to increase pay further to attract talent I received a stern lecture about the fragile economic environment in which we carry out our mission. So it seems like our choices are 1. Be cool to employees and go out of business 2. Find ways to exploit an anxious insecure labor force so you can grow market share and profit or 3. Uphold universal basic employee protections across the board so that everyone has to deal with treating employees with the same “constraint” of treating them with dignity and a living wage and then companies compete on things like how well you’re managed, and the relative value your output provides to the community.
And all of these discussions fail to address the big systemic things that really stand in the way of employment. Like people having to stay home to care for children still not in school or taking care of sick and disabled family members. Or maybe they’re not trained for the jobs that are available and need more school available. Or maybe they can’t commute 2 hours from where housing is affordable to the places where the jobs are. Or maybe they have their own health issues that require attention and they can’t afford the risk of taking a job they’ll just get fired from due to absences attending to any of the above issues.
This is why we have homelessness. Because barriers to becoming good, compliant workers still exist even when you don’t have good unemployment benefits. It’s a complex issue, one that capitalism utterly fails to address and the cudgel not only creates a permanent underclass that can’t work 40 hours a week at minimum wage, but it also ties an anchor around the growth of good, innovative companies we want to succeed. Taking away the basic means of self support without addressing any of these other problems is just creating generational problems with poverty, crime, substance abuse, lack of education. Maybe if we’d been aggressively dealing with the true barriers to employment for decades and there will still people “loafing about” on welfare, I’d entertain the idea of how to kick someone off welfare as something more than an act of pure misanthropy. But then again if we’d been doing that, we’d be talking about a lot less no strings attached money going to “loafers” and our tolerance for a few Jeff Lebowski’s in the world would be much higher.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:15 AM on June 3, 2021 [11 favorites]
I've long argued that a higher proportion of Lebowskis than currently exists would be a good thing. Every community can use a bit of sound moral leadership.
posted by flabdablet at 5:09 AM on June 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 5:09 AM on June 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
Or the principle that society is a pyramid-shaped hierarchy, in which (a) everyone must know their place, and (b) everyone must feel the weight of those above them.
posted by acb at 6:04 AM on June 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by acb at 6:04 AM on June 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
Explains tidily why the conservative noise machine has recently got behind shoving the idea of banning Dr Seuss into the public discourse.
posted by flabdablet at 6:13 AM on June 3, 2021
posted by flabdablet at 6:13 AM on June 3, 2021
From a capitalism/consumption perspective, the only loafers are those not spending their money. This sounds so dehumanizing but essentially my worth to society is not what I earn, but what I buy. My buying things keeps the economy going. Anyone who gets a UI and spends it is not loafing.
What harm is there if someone sits around and collects a check? All the food that they can now buy, possibly delivery and eating out. Being able to buy goods and replace those that break. Those things are what helps the economy.
posted by LizBoBiz at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
What harm is there if someone sits around and collects a check? All the food that they can now buy, possibly delivery and eating out. Being able to buy goods and replace those that break. Those things are what helps the economy.
posted by LizBoBiz at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
From a capitalism/consumption perspective, the only loafers are those not spending their money. This sounds so dehumanizing but essentially my worth to society is not what I earn, but what I buy. My buying things keeps the economy going. Anyone who gets a UI and spends it is not loafing.
This. Why has the money supply quadrupled since 2008 but inflation has yet to be seen? Because it's been locked up for the sport of the Forbes Richest List. Economic activity is the velocity of money and billionaires bring it to a complete dead stop while the poor accelerate it to warp speed.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
This. Why has the money supply quadrupled since 2008 but inflation has yet to be seen? Because it's been locked up for the sport of the Forbes Richest List. Economic activity is the velocity of money and billionaires bring it to a complete dead stop while the poor accelerate it to warp speed.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Iowa did this and also sent back federal money that would've paid for school COVID testing. Just pointless denying money that would boost our economy. Our unemployment number is incredibly low, like 3.7%. The pain is the point with these people.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
my worth to society is not what I earn, but what I buy
I got CERB payments from Canada (it turned out I didn't need them -- I thought they'd claw them back but they didn't). I was hoping they'd have a program where, if you could show that you spent the money at independent local businesses or service orgs, they'd just let it go.
But now they're all pretending to be surprised that $10m of the bailout money they gave to Air Canada has been forwarded to executives in the form of a bonus and, well... fuck 'em.
posted by klanawa at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
I got CERB payments from Canada (it turned out I didn't need them -- I thought they'd claw them back but they didn't). I was hoping they'd have a program where, if you could show that you spent the money at independent local businesses or service orgs, they'd just let it go.
But now they're all pretending to be surprised that $10m of the bailout money they gave to Air Canada has been forwarded to executives in the form of a bonus and, well... fuck 'em.
posted by klanawa at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
The pain is the point with these people.
They cloak it in being "principled". Most of conservatism, like corporatism, involves being penny wise and pound foolish.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
They cloak it in being "principled". Most of conservatism, like corporatism, involves being penny wise and pound foolish.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
I've worked since I was 16, more or less full-time, even when I went back to school. I've always left jobs on my own volition, and I'd never been unemployed until Covid. After I got sent home in March 2020 (and officially laid off at the end of that April), I was incredibly privileged that my landlord (a family friend) only asked that I pay the monthly utilities. Did I loaf? You fucking bet your ass I loafed. I gardened, read, spent time at home with my dog, worked on art projects, picked up food for protesters, biked around town, and caught up with my friends as we stood ten feet away on each other's lawns or sidewalks.
It. Is. A. Global. Pandemic. Because of UI and extended benefits, I didn't have to RISK MY HEALTH or take a massive step backwards in my career out of financial desperation. Instead, I was able to build up a tiny amount of savings, and around November, started seriously looking for full-time positions that would make sense for my skill set. After a two month process, I finally started work last week at a role that is a perfect fit for me, with compensation and benefits in line with industry standards and my own career.
I have a former manager who wasn't so fortunate: they took a lower paying job in a different field because UI wasn't enough to take care of their mortgage and kids. Now, 8 months later, they're finding it incredibly difficult to dedicate the time and energy to finding a better paying position while working full-time and taking care of their children (especially with the increased complexity of a pandemic schooling system.).
I'd worked for 20 years straight up until 2020, paying taxes the whole time, and I will never regret my Year of (mostly) Loafing. I am so glad that I was able to stay safe IN A GLOBAL PANDEMIC and not fear for my life and housing. I am incredibly lucky and incredibly privileged, and I wish everyone had my advantages.
posted by redsparkler at 11:41 AM on June 3, 2021 [13 favorites]
It. Is. A. Global. Pandemic. Because of UI and extended benefits, I didn't have to RISK MY HEALTH or take a massive step backwards in my career out of financial desperation. Instead, I was able to build up a tiny amount of savings, and around November, started seriously looking for full-time positions that would make sense for my skill set. After a two month process, I finally started work last week at a role that is a perfect fit for me, with compensation and benefits in line with industry standards and my own career.
I have a former manager who wasn't so fortunate: they took a lower paying job in a different field because UI wasn't enough to take care of their mortgage and kids. Now, 8 months later, they're finding it incredibly difficult to dedicate the time and energy to finding a better paying position while working full-time and taking care of their children (especially with the increased complexity of a pandemic schooling system.).
I'd worked for 20 years straight up until 2020, paying taxes the whole time, and I will never regret my Year of (mostly) Loafing. I am so glad that I was able to stay safe IN A GLOBAL PANDEMIC and not fear for my life and housing. I am incredibly lucky and incredibly privileged, and I wish everyone had my advantages.
posted by redsparkler at 11:41 AM on June 3, 2021 [13 favorites]
They cloak it in being "principled". Most of conservatism, like corporatism, involves being penny wise and pound foolish.
The principles, whether drafted by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman or some well-remunerated hack in a thinktank with an anodyne name, are just a fig leaf; a confabulated rationalisation for the visceral drive to dominate.
posted by acb at 1:48 PM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
The principles, whether drafted by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman or some well-remunerated hack in a thinktank with an anodyne name, are just a fig leaf; a confabulated rationalisation for the visceral drive to dominate.
posted by acb at 1:48 PM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Wilhoit on that:
posted by flabdablet at 3:08 PM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr. All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.Right on the nub.
posted by flabdablet at 3:08 PM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
The Road To Serfdom: it's a cookbook.
posted by acb at 3:19 PM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by acb at 3:19 PM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older Remote work proving very popular | "If places aren’t adapting, they’re not magically... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
For perspective, that's fully half a percent of Indiana's GDP. Half a percent may not sound like a lot, but it's very big at the scale of a state's GDP.
These moves are essentially a colossally inefficient wealth transfer from the working class to business owners that depend on an exploitable workforce, the same business owners who were themselves the recipients of massive government welfare programs throughout the pandemic. It is hypocritical and economically short-sighted, and I hope every single person harmed by these policies (and their families!) remember it every November for the rest of their lives.
posted by jedicus at 9:52 AM on June 2, 2021 [60 favorites]