Pelosi Crazy Bill

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coro...lief-bill.html

And while we know this won't be approved as is, it's just too laughable not to pick apart.

Nearly $1 trillion in relief for state and local governments

The needs of each state is different - let's let the states raise revenue and decide what to spend where.

A second round of direct payments of $1,200 per person, and up to $6,000 for a household

If we're going to spend money this is the least bad politically palatable way to do it. Though I'd prefer payroll tax cuts instead to incentive work.

About $200 billion for hazard pay for essential workers who face heightened health risks during the crisis

While feel good - market prices will reflect it. I actually have doubts that most medical field jobs will face higher mortality rates than say those in the logging industry.

$75 billion for coronavirus testing and contact tracing — a key effort to restart businesses

I'm OK with this one.

An extension of the $600 per week federal unemployment insurance benefit through January (the provision approved in March is set to expire after July)

FUCK NO. You want to pay people *MORE* than what would normally earn to do nothing? Really? Why would they even make any serious effort to try to find work when they will get paid more for the next 8 months than they would if they found a job? The worst part of the bill.

$175 billion in rent, mortgage and utility assistance

No. See the unemployment giving people more money than they were previously earning - why would people need more on top of that?

Subsidies and a special Affordable Care Act enrollment period to people who lose their employer-sponsored health coverage

Didn't see a price tag but I thought most plans you were allowed to keep for a period of time after you were laid off.

More money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, including a 15% increase in the maximum benefit

Why? We're already paying people a shit ton on unemployment.

Measures designed to buoy small businesses and help them keep employees on payroll, such as $10 billion in emergency disaster assistance grants and a strengthened employee retention tax credit

Decent - keeping employees on the payroll is good. Getting people to work even if its remotely or in less than 100% effectiveness is better than being idle at home sucking on the government's tit.

Money for election safety during the pandemic and provisions to make voting by mail easier

Only if elder abuse protections are increased and additional precautions taking place. While wide spread centralized voter fraud is rare, decentralized fraud exists and vote by mail makes it easier.

Relief for the U.S. Postal Service


No. Postal workers already enjoy much greater benefits and compensation than many private sector jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coro...lief-bill.html

A second round of direct payments of $1,200 per person, and up to $6,000 for a household

If we're going to spend money this is the least bad politically palatable way to do it. Though I'd prefer payroll tax cuts instead to incentive work.

---

It doesn't do a thing to incentivize work. And it's useless for all those (including myself now) who are "furloughed." We have jobs but we're not getting paid and can't come in. But we need to be available to come in. And it doesn't actually incentivize employers to hire or keep workers on either, even assuming you're allowed to be open and make money. You can't force 40% of the economy to close and then expect the people working in those areas to just be able to find work.
That said, I really don't like direct payments to everyone, particularly not those who aren't being fiscally impacted. What a surprise that you find this one the "least bad" method, it's one you actually get. Half your problem with "socialism" is that you typically wouldn't be one of the ones collecting.

Quote:

---

About $200 billion for hazard pay for essential workers who face heightened health risks during the crisis

While feel good - market prices will reflect it. I actually have doubts that most medical field jobs will face higher mortality rates than say those in the logging industry.

---

Yeah, you've already demonstrated that your instinct on who is at risk and how much is WILDLY disconnected from reality.

Quote:

---

An extension of the $600 per week federal unemployment insurance benefit through January (the provision approved in March is set to expire after July)

FUCK NO. You want to pay people *MORE* than what would normally earn to do nothing? Really? Why would they even make any serious effort to try to find work when they will get paid more for the next 8 months than they would if they found a job? The worst part of the bill.

---

I don't mind an extension but it A) really ought to be more limited than what was passed. Absolutely cannot and should not exceed prior total wages, and it really should come with a requirement that you be actively looking for work even if you're just furloughed. But I would also want it to allow you to still meet your prior total wages if you're underemployed

Quote:

---

$175 billion in rent, mortgage and utility assistance

No. See the unemployment giving people more money than they were previously earning - why would people need more on top of that?

---

Depends on the form it takes.

Quote:

---

Subsidies and a special Affordable Care Act enrollment period to people who lose their employer-sponsored health coverage

Didn't see a price tag but I thought most plans you were allowed to keep for a period of time after you were laid off.

---

Yeah, via Cobra Continuation which can get incredibly expensive, particularly with dependents to cover. At a time when you're suddenly bringing in way less money or no money.

Quote:

---

More money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, including a 15% increase in the maximum benefit

Why? We're already paying people a shit ton on unemployment.

---

Unemployment which you want them to not have either. What, precisely, is your objection to food stamps, Lewk?

I don't get why the USA hasn't gone for some sort of furlough scheme like has been adopted over here. Why pay people more than their normal wages (that's just plain odd) through unemployment benefits rather than a furlough payment to the employer to pass on thus keeping people in situ for when the restrictions are lifted?

A) It would have taken longer, which would have upset the Dems. B) It would involve the federal government more heavily into every business, upsetting the GOP. As far as the Republicans are concerned, any money going to businesses needs to be theirs to spend as they wish.

To give everyone a bespoke amount would probably cost more in administration than to risk paying some people more than they actually earned. If you keep the benefit time limited not putting up checks can actually make perfect sense.

Except the states already are doing all that administration with their UA programs. The federal UA just shoved a bunch of additional dollars at the states and told them to pay it out in full to anyone receiving UA from the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't get why the USA hasn't gone for some sort of furlough scheme like has been adopted over here. Why pay people more than their normal wages (that's just plain odd) through unemployment benefits rather than a furlough payment to the employer to pass on thus keeping people in situ for when the restrictions are lifted?

---

I suspect there is a way to make this work, but there's two issues with furlough payments (which were also adopted widely in some European countries in the 2008 financial crisis but NOT in the US). One is that it's a pretty open ended commitment if our labor market and economy continue to be soft for an extended period. When do you decide to withdraw the support? The second is that it makes the labor market far less dynamic. We have to be honest that a bunch of businesses and jobs aren't going to be coming back anytime soon, or ever. If we keep all of them on life support, we aren't able to get people into new jobs that are actually needed.

Anyone willing to save me from doing my own research and tell me how the UK/European furlough scheme works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't get why the USA hasn't gone for some sort of furlough scheme like has been adopted over here. Why pay people more than their normal wages (that's just plain odd) through unemployment benefits rather than a furlough payment to the employer to pass on thus keeping people in situ for when the restrictions are lifted?

---

We've seen a bit of the issues that come up with this. The rule makers don't know how much funding is needed. This was the intent of the first stimulus, but banks favored their large national customers, so very little funding went to small business owners. Also, if you pay the business owner anything less than 100% of the workers wage you risk employers forcing employees to come back before proper precautions are taken to protect them. We already have states like Ohio wanting employers to rat out employees who don't feel safe to return to work so they can cut them off of unemployment and the GOP wants to put protections in this bill to shield employers from lawsuits related to unsafe working conditions connected to covid spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Anyone willing to save me from doing my own research and tell me how the UK/European furlough scheme works?

---

The furlough scheme the UK has adopted (many EU nations have one too) is unprecedented in this country and specifically introduced when lockdown was introduced as if the government is saying businesses aren't allowed to trade then its not reasonable to expect businesses to pay wages when they can't get revenues. Also when people are locked down we don't want them going out and about looking for work and when the lockdown ends then hopefully as many businesses as possible can resume trading rather than expecting everyone to get new skills and new jobs when previously healthy businesses are only not trading because of the lockdown - I think this is quite different to a financial recession where unhealthy businesses fail.

The way the scheme works in the UK is that employers furlough the employees meaning they're no longer working or allowed to work for the employer, apart from training, and the employer continues to pay the employee their normal wages at 80%. The employer then registers with HMRC (our version of IRS) that they've furloughed those employees and HMRC then pays the employer the wages paid out to the employee. The employer can top up wages to 100% if they wish to do so but they're not legally obliged to do so. If the employer requires some employees but not others (eg no need for a receptionist but factory workers are still working) then they can furlough some but not others - with an encouragement to furlough those who are medically most at risk of the virus first then if they are doing that. People still working or working from home etc can not be furloughed.

It was announced yesterday that the scheme will be extended to October as the lockdown has been extended for many industries (eg hospitality apart from deliveries is entirely shut down currently until at least 4 July) but from August the scheme will be changed to permit employers to get workers to work part time while still being furloughed part time and the government will cease to pay all the furloughed wages and instead the government and employers will "share" the cost of the furloughed wages (at what split has yet to be announced). At that point I expect companies unable to reopen to make their staff redundant but hopefully healthy businesses will be able to reopen, part time at first while they get back to normal if need be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Anyone willing to save me from doing my own research and tell me how the UK/European furlough scheme works?

---

Sweden doesn't have a lockdown, but employers can cut hours for any or all of their employees, in a stepwise manner.

At the highest level—80% reduction in hours—employees take a 12% on their regular salary, the govt pays 60% of the total cost of employment (salary, payroll taxes and fees, etc), and the employer pays 8%, which somehow works out to a 72% lower total cost of employment. The govt. pays the employer, who pays their employees. Employees have to be available for those 20% of the time that they're supposed to work, but the remaining 80% of the time they can do whatever they like—including working somewhere else. The govt. support applies to salaries up to around $4500/mo. Employers can participate in this scheme for 6 months with possibility of extension for a further 3 months, after which they must wait 24 months before they can use it again. Employees who were hired less than three months before an employer's application for support is approved are not eligible, but employees on zero-hour contracts, people with time-limited employments etc are eligible.

Unfortunately, many employers don't have the margins to make use of this scheme, so around 60,000 people in Sweden have been been given notice of redundancy (they're still eligible for support during the notice period though). The govt. support doesn't apply to sole proprietors, but they have other forms of support instead; those who are employed by their own company are eligible, however. Companies are not permitted to pay out dividends this year if they accept govt. support. Companies with substantial and lasting difficulties with paying off debts are not eligible. The portion of your salary that is used to calculate future disability pay/paid sick-leave is protected. Absence due to illness or parental leave (or leave to care for a sick child) affects the calculation, but the govt. already pays for most of that anyway.

These rules are just our regular rules for technical unemployment, slightly modified due to the crisis. They are separate from the stimulus/business protection measures that were authorized at the beginning of the crisis.

Lewk, it wasn't a "stimulus" but a "relief" package. The federal $600/week supplement was meant to keep workers home and contain viral spread. It was sent to anyone impacted, with income limits, to get it done quickly. Catch 22 that it was funneled thru state Unemployment admin....because most state's weren't prepared to handle the 36.5 million applicants in just 8 weeks, and millions of people are still waiting. That could be tweaked if extended beyond July, and just go to "low wage" workers, but that's still around 45% of the total US work force.

More money for SNAP and increasing the max benefit are good ideas....unless you think 10,000 cars lining up at food banks (in Austin, Texas on a single day) is the better way to handle food insecurity. And we should expand Medicaid and the ACA since at least 20 million *more* people now have NO health insurance, and couldn't afford COBRA anyway.

These are Depression era unemployment numbers. The economy won't magically rebound when states "open up"....because the virus is still circulating and affecting consumer confidence and spending, especially in leisure/hospitality/tourism/travel. It's crazy to think places like Vegas will be able to pay their police, fire, teachers on tax revenue, without some federal funding.

Where's the GOP plan for comparison? Hooverville? :bored:

$75 billion for coronavirus testing and contact tracing — a key effort to restart businesses

There should be a National Plan for testing *first*.

We already have multiple tests with questionable reliability, and shortages in components and lab capacity. Now the pro sports teams are talking about testing players and staff daily or weekly -- when healthcare workers still can't get one! The last thing we need are bidding wars (and hoarding) causing more shortages and price hikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Except the states already are doing all that administration with their UA programs. The federal UA just shoved a bunch of additional dollars at the states and told them to pay it out in full to anyone receiving UA from the state.

---

Ok, but that doesn't change the argument. I think it is a given that if you invoke cardiac arrest on your economy and you don't have an extensive safety net but no time you do attempts at saving it quick and dirty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Anyone willing to save me from doing my own research and tell me how the UK/European furlough scheme works?

---

Dutch system is put in place for the first three months. Companies that have a fall out of turnover of 20% or more get 90% of the wages of their employees reimbursed on the condition they don't fire anyone. Self employed workers get an amount between €1000 and €1500 without any checks on savings or property. An additional scheme for people with zero hour contracts is in the making. Renewal of the program for businesses will remove the prohibition on lay offs for necessary reorganization. I have the impression that the impact of the crisis over the economy is very uneven. Big swathes of the economy made the switch to wfh overnight. I understand the intranet structure of the country is well geared towards this. I saw an interview with a network provider who didn't really get the decision of streaming services to lower the quality of their programs. He thought it was wholly unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Sweden doesn't have a lockdown, but employers can cut hours for any or all of their employees, in a stepwise manner.

At the highest level—80% reduction in hours—employees take a 12% on their regular salary, the govt pays 60% of the total cost of employment (salary, payroll taxes and fees, etc), and the employer pays 8%, which somehow works out to a 72% lower total cost of employment. The govt. pays the employer, who pays their employees. Employees have to be available for those 20% of the time that they're supposed to work, but the remaining 80% of the time they can do whatever they like—including working somewhere else. The govt. support applies to salaries up to around $4500/mo. Employers can participate in this scheme for 6 months with possibility of extension for a further 3 months, after which they must wait 24 months before they can use it again. Employees who were hired less than three months before an employer's application for support is approved are not eligible, but employees on zero-hour contracts, people with time-limited employments etc are eligible.

Unfortunately, many employers don't have the margins to make use of this scheme, so around 60,000 people in Sweden have been been given notice of redundancy (they're still eligible for support during the notice period though). The govt. support doesn't apply to sole proprietors, but they have other forms of support instead; those who are employed by their own company are eligible, however. Companies are not permitted to pay out dividends this year if they accept govt. support. Companies with substantial and lasting difficulties with paying off debts are not eligible. The portion of your salary that is used to calculate future disability pay/paid sick-leave is protected. Absence due to illness or parental leave (or leave to care for a sick child) affects the calculation, but the govt. already pays for most of that anyway.

These rules are just our regular rules for technical unemployment, slightly modified due to the crisis. They are separate from the stimulus/business protection measures that were authorized at the beginning of the crisis.

---

Do I understand correctly that Swedish workers are supposed to accept a pay cut?

In a discussion with a Dutch person I said that I wasn't so certain that a restaurant (or any business in hospitality) would not necessarily be better of being open with a limited clientèle over being closed altogether. Your comment seems to confirm that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Ok, but that doesn't change the argument. I think it is a given that if you invoke cardiac arrest on your economy and you don't have an extensive safety net but no time you do attempts at saving it quick and dirty.

---

Right, the US does NOT have an extensive safety net. Even our 50-state Unemployment systems aren't designed (or funded) very well.

I wonder if it's because Americans generally think of safety nets as "welfare", even tho workers lose a chunk of their wages by paying into Unemployment and Worker's Compensation Insurance? :bulb:

My son in NC is *still* waiting for his Unemployment claim to move out of "pending" status -- which means he can't receive any CARES Act federal funds, either.

FUBAR!