Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

I think a lot of people envision workers being given a choice to go back to work or stay on unemployment, but that is seldom a choice. You can't legally turn down your old job and stay on unemployment (at least in every state of which I'm aware, but every state's unemployment system is slightly different). Certainly there will be some people who do it, but you would basically have to commit fraud to do it.

This causes the states' perverse incentives that you mentioned. Many people believe a big push to reopen has been motivated by states trying to get people off unemployment as they know some workers would rather stay safe at home and lose unemployment benefits than return to work in an unsafe environment.

View on HN

Really the "avoiding work" is fundamentally a motivated lie because they don't want to pay period but especially not during the retail and tourist apocalypse that is covid-19. It is as usual incredibly short sighted and stupid as the impatient reopeners think if they ignore the fire it will just fizzle out and people will continue shopping like normal.

I know a ton of employees who have declined employment because of unemployment paying better. If Employers rat out these employees, then they come back angry. its a nasty spot to be in.

Like I said:

>Certainly there will be some people who do it, but you would basically have to commit fraud to do it.

Also the extra unemployment benefits expired so anyone still doing this is not making more than they would at their job. Their only incentive to continue this fraud is for their own personal safety. You can't call a preference for one's own personal safety "perverse".

While it wasn't my statement, I think its perverse as the "free money" distorted those employees from making "normal decisions". For those employees, its a perfectly reasonable (short term) decision to prefer the larger payout. I'd argue its a bad long term decision.

The money isn't "free" if you have to commit fraud to get it. I get that the temporary boost in benefits skewed the incentives a little bit more towards committing unemployment fraud and that might have been enough to sway some people who wouldn't do it under "normal" circumstances, but unemployment fraud is not a new option and this incentive to commit fraud has always existed.

I wonder if that says more about the employer than anything else.

what would it say about employers? They don't want to jeopardize relations, but they need employees back... I personally know small mom/pop restaurants, a small private security (rent-a-cop) firm, and a large casino that can't get people to come back because the $600/week bonus. These aren't 6 figure engineering jobs. these are low skill jobs where the most important skill is showing up on time consistently.

Well, cry me a river for the casino, which could afford to pay a living / more competitive wage, but I see your point about the other ones.

Maybe then it says more about our current economic system as a whole.

But my point was it seems like if $600 / week is enough for folks to choose not to work, that says more about the work not being meaningful or the employer being unable to (or choosing not to) pay the worker well.

while I can't speak for other casinos. This particular one paid them full wages for the 6 weeks they were originally shut down. it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI.

If $600/wk is enough not to work, then it can also speak to the quality of the worker and their lack of skills. Spending time complaining about how hard life is, rather than doing something about it. Not everyone is like that, and not no-one is like that either.

> it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI

Severance is counted against eligibility for unemployment in most states.

Source; had a friend not understand this, to wonder where their unemployment was, to get their first check after their severance ran out.

these particular people were furloughed with pay. I won't speak for all people because obviously there are many diverse situations.

the $600/month is already gone and businesses still can't get employees. It's not the boogeyman you're looking for, you need to take a deeper look at why that might be.

two of your three examples are plague-pit jobs that will involve the employee interfacing with the public and getting sick, probably bankrupting themselves with medical bills. that's the real problem.

it's a free market, and if you can't retain employees that's because you're not offering enough. Offer someone $1m a year to work in your casino, they'll take it (even during a pandemic) and you know it. Now we're just negotiating over the price.

Start offering $60k, maybe $70k, and full health coverage to balance out, you know, risking your life and long term financial health so Karen can get her gyro, and people will take it.

The real underlying problem is that a lot of these businesses are essentially bankrupt already, they are the walking dead, their business model will no longer work due to the pandemic (they relied on not paying for their employees' health care and that's no longer a viable scheme with the pandemic on) and they're demanding what amount to subsidies (artificial reductions on the cost of labor, for which the clearing price has risen due to increased personal risk) in order to stay afloat.

taking away unemployment benefits isn't going to bring customers back to your subway, it's over for a significant number of businesses and the owners are pleading to delay the inevitable. This is the economic impact that people wanted to pretend didn't exist, there is no reason the stock market should be bouncing against an all-time high when our economy dived 33% annualized rate this quarter and the pandemic is spreading faster than ever.

the $600/month just ran out, and now they are returning. But its been months. plague pit? risking your life? that's pretty dramatic. They're not mid 90s LA inner city police officers. They're not 1900s sky scraper metal workers. The drive to work is about as risky as the work itself. Many of these businesses will die (if they haven't already), and these people will have no jobs to go back to...

The unemployment boost isn't going to fix the economy. Unemployment only distorts the economy by competing for labor if we're at full economic output, which we're not. The economy is collapsing at a 33% annualized rate, the fastest in recorded economic history.

You're looking at a crashing economy and suggesting that the real problem is the only brace still propping it up, and suggesting that we knock it out.

Many of these businesses are going to die regardless, because of the failed pandemic response, the failure to enact a sufficient degree of stimulus, and because these businesses are no longer viable with an ongoing pandemic.

And yes, I said plague pit. How in the world do you think it's reasonable for an employee that is not provided with any health insurance (or a bronze plan or whatever) to risk an infection that can stick you with a $1.1m bill, for $7.50 an hour? Employees are, shall we say, not going to respond to that economic incentive, that's not a reasonable trade from any perspective.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/breaking-down-this-miracle...

Instead, they will stay at home, and 33% of renters are going to miss their payment this month, just as the article says. As they said in 2008: if you don't pay your mortgage this month, you have a problem. If 33% of people don't pay their mortgage this month... the bank has a problem.

The reality is that businesses that require interfacing with the public are going to see a downturn in customers no matter what, and are going to have to start paying for their employees' health care, no matter what. You can't expect people to take on a near-certainty of an extraordinarily expensive hospital stay for $7.50 per hour. People won't do that, and customers aren't coming into the business at the same rate they used to anyway. Those businesses are walking dead and forcing employees to accept sub-market wages to get them back to work won't help that.

I agree the boost isn't going to fix the economy and that it distorts it. I also agree that the crashing economy has real problems well beyond this boost. I agree these businesses will die. I agree the response was wrong. I think the stimulus was the wrong way to go.

The drive to work can get you a $500k doctor bill, and at similar risks for Covid $500k doctor bill. Both of which these demographics will not pay at all. They will either just leave it in collections or use bankruptcy to eliminate it.

Getting in a car accident doesn't risk causing exponentially increasing car accidents in your family and community though.

Your argument is "people tolerate some risk, therefore they will tolerate a hugely increased amount of risk at the same clearance price". That's not how the market works.

It's how business owners paying minimum wage want the market to work, but it's not how it does. Shit, a lot of businesses aren't even trying to mitigate the risks, not providing PPE, etc - they just expect minimum-wage workers to absorb all that risk and cost if they don't want to die.

That's not my argument at all. I agree with you that some businesses are trying to "do as they did" and that may not work in the new workplace. However, they aren't competing in a marketplace when the alternative is "not work and get paid".

1. The drive to work is a known risk. Much is still unknown about Covid-19 plus it is novel and (legitimately) scary.

2. It's not just you, you could infect your friends and family and children.

3. If someone actually compared the actual odds (i.e. real numbers) of getting in a card accident with getting Covid-19 working in one of these public-facing jobs we are discussing, under current conditions, then we'd be able to tell if the comparison you're proposing is reasonable or not.

Anecdote. Where I live a lot of the school bus drivers were doing it just for supplemental income not for their livelihood. Many quit. My wife was a bus driver and we decided for her not to go back to work. They could have paid her double or triple and the answer would be no.

Serious question, do they even have customers?

Everyone is talking about the employees not wanting to go back to work, but as far as I can tell, I don't think the customers want to go to the businesses either.

of the employers I know - Restaurants - low levels of demand, but not zero. private security - still high demand for services. casino - regular gamblers + all of the people with new money ($600/wk).

Interesting. My feelings are, restaurants just don't have the demand anyways, and if private security and casinos do, why can't they raise their wages?

I still personally think the crux is lack of demand. I don't think the customers exist anymore that would be willing to pay enough to account for the extra cost of the business given Covid. And one of those cost include safety precautions to their employees.

As an example, Amazon was able to hire 175000 additional workers through the pandemic, even though they were getting unemployment checks.

So I think it's naive to think that removing unemployment is what will save those business. But I'm not a zealot on this, that's just my current rationale. I'm welcoming counter points.

I don't think removing unemployment will save these particular businesses. I just acknowledge the moral hazard of paying such high unemployment. I also think many (if not most) people would rather work. I also know personally many people (but not most) who would rather sit on the butts than work.

I recall (long time ago) that Germany's unemployment included a list that employers could use to find workers. If an unemployed person was offered a job, they were cut from unemployment. Our current system has people claiming unemployment, getting more money that working. This created a situation that employer could complain to the government, but then the employee feels "cheated" and brings those negative feelings back to work... not exactly a good situation.

The current system has all sorts of moral hazard and unintended consequences. I could provide a policy recommendation, but that's really out of scope for a small discussion forum.

I do appreciate your discussion though!

It says that the jobs and/or payment are bad enough that people would procrastinate actually taking them when unemployment is sky high.

Not your point but I think there is a definite issue here with perceptions around workplace safety.

The US has a very good level of testing/mask usage. And, to be blunt, just wear a mask and wash your hands...you will be okay. I understand why some groups of people are very worried: if you are obese, if you are over 60, if you work in a hospital/care home...but if you work in an office, it isn't a "Hunger Games" situation.

I don't think furlough/unemployment schemes necessarily created that incentive though. People in some places are clearly being very cautious (I am in the UK, people aren't wearing masks and not being cautious at all...I have seen larger crowds at pubs than ever...no masks) anyway.

So I think the solution to the unemployment problem is a change in message from govt. If you take precautions, you will be okay (again, where I am the message was very urgent and serious...this worked at first but some people are ignoring totally and others are staying at home terrified of their own shadow...so who knows? But I think it would have success generally).

>The US has a very good level of testing/mask usage. And, to be blunt, just wear a mask and wash your hands...you will be okay.

If this is true, why is the outbreak here so much worse than basically any of our peer countries?

How do you define worse? Number of deaths? If so, the US is doing better than many countries.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/8993658...

Totals are misleading due to each countries varied handling of the initial pandemic. Our peers are not still struggling with this the way we continue to struggle. I did some quick math based off the numbers here as an example[1][2]. The UK has had 3.0 COVID-19 deaths over the last three days per million people. The US has had nearly four times that many deaths with 11.8 per million people in that same 3 day time frame.

[1] - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

[2] - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Sure, that might tell you how it’s going right now, but in the end you just care about the total impacted.

And looking in the last 3 days is misleading since we know the pandemic hits in waves, at different times, across different countries.

>Sure, that might tell you how it’s going right now, but in the end you just care about the total impacted.

The problem is we aren't at the end yet. Any time frame you use is therefore going to give you an incomplete picture. I used the last three days because it shows that the US is clearly in a worse current position. That means we will continue creeping up that initial per capita list you linked. Maybe the UK, Spain, France, or Italy experience a second wave at some point down the line, but at least they have gotten past the first wave that the US still hasn't been able to stop.

Gotcha. I agree we're not at the end (or even close) so it's premature to start naming winners and losers.

Instead of saying "better" I should have said "has fewer per capita deaths so far".

There are about 50 countries with cases over 50k, 40 of which are missing from that chart. Being 8/50 is I think indicative of being worse. I think the statistic that shows just how bad the US is doing is that they account for 23% of the world's total Covid deaths but only 3% of the world total population. How can a country doing a good job have those kinds of numbers?

But as you said in your other reply, we understand Covid to be a regional disease that comes in waves, washing over a region and then subsiding. For smaller, denser countries in Europe, it is easier for this disease to reach all regions. America is vast with a much lower population density, and the virus is taking its time finding its way around.

However, if you break the US down into regions you can see how bad it is. NY state has a comparable population density to Italy (162 vs 200 for Italy), and both were hard hit at the beginning of this thing. New York state suffered 1,687 deaths per million, while Italy only suffered 582 deaths per million so far. This I think provides a more nuanced picture rather than just looking at deaths per million by country. Population density is really a factor here.

Exactly this, we need heat maps that are per capita focused so people can gauge risk.

That's not true. I know several people that work in the restaurant industry who have gotten COVID-19 while wearing PPE, probably because of how many people refuse to wear masks, or don't wear them properly. And it isn't just about getting infected yourself. How would you feel if you got infected and ended up accidentally infecting someone you love who ends up dying? There needs to be a national mandate and actual enforcement of mask wearing to stop the spread.

> There needs to be a national mandate and actual enforcement of mask wearing to stop the spread.

That assumes that the masks are as effective as claimed, that mass enforcement is even feasible, and that the Federal govt. has the right to create such a mandate. I don't believe we have enough data to know the efficacy of masks, especially handmade masks out in the field. Mass enforcement of mask wearing, even if it was somehow cost affordable to task law enforcement with, would likely be met with heavy protest or open revolt in the United States by various civil rights groups.

There's nothing wrong with being concerned about safety, especially these days. However, it's not so simple as 'pass a mask law', and if you really think about it ... there's a silver lining there. Do you want to be ruled by a government who can tell you what to wear, when to wear it, how to wear it — even if you dissent? Once there is a precedent for a national mask law, the Federal government can use that to push for further loss of freedoms for individuals and states. I'm not saying the mask law concept is intentionally being pushed to erode freedoms, rather, that it has the potential to do so.

Businesses can already refuse service for any reason not protected by Federal/State law. That's plenty of grounds to kick out a non mask wearer. I don't see the need for additional laws, enforcement, or government spending. Let businesses and employees decide the level of risk they are willing to take.

Enough research is showing that aerosol covid is a major risk. If they weren’t wearing N95 masks...

Correct, which is why I didn't say that no-one should be worried. I am saying that this doesn't apply for most people in most situations.

And you want a national mandate to wear masks but you said that people wearing them got infected. Interesting take.

A surgical mask protects other people more than the person wearing it.[1]

[1] https://www.bryanhealth.com/app/files/public/4953/wear-a-mas...

something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the US is obese, so...

moreover, many office workers, those with seats roughly 6 feet apart or with a partition of some sort, don't even need the mask. the people who need masks are front-line workers of all sorts, from grocery clerks to medical workers, who interact with strangers for extended periods of time, not people sitting at computers for most of the day. sure, when you have a meeting, wear a mask, but an LED screen won't give you covid.

If everyone in the office is clean, sure, but what about the HVAC technician you had to call in? The UPS driver who interacted with the mail room employees? What if your cube neighbor is exposed by a family member who is asymptomatic and ends up spreading it to half the row before they get their results back? Unless you want to test your employees every day and hope the test is accurate, you need masks.

no, none of those potential exposures are significant enough to warrant anything more than some distance. the virus falls to the ground and dies (even in the air) in droves all by itself. these aren't hardy viruses.

you'd need to take an unnecessary risk like eating lunch in a group to create a significant exposure in that environment.

What my company has said (when the office is currently slated to reopen in September) is that you need to wear a mask while walking around the office or talking to people, but not when you're sitting at your desk/computer. Our seating arrangements will be laid out such that everyone's desk has at least six feet of space.

I'm... not sure... whether the science on this holds up, but it struck me as a good compromise. People expressed concern that wearing a mask for nine hours straight, without any breaks, would become very uncomfortable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com