Coronavirus (political)

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

Just saying, there's a bigger argument here

Yes there is but it doesn't fit the republican narrative that helping Americans is bad.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes there is but it doesn't fit the republican narrative that helping Americans is bad.

Jesus g1 I think it’s been a bipartisan effort to help individuals and businesses...

But your general dishonesty is on par per the usual

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Jesus g1 I think it’s been a bipartisan effort to help individuals and businesses...

But your general dishonesty is on par per the usual

Not according to your buddy Mitch (turtel head ) McConnell

[MTK]

It's easy to say people are just being lazy, but it's just not realistic to think someone is going to say yeah I want to return to work for $500 a week vs staying home for $900.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by MTK

It's easy to say people are just being lazy, but it's just not realistic to think someone is going to say yeah I want to return to work for $500 a week vs staying home for $900.

I think what it will come down to is the unemployment benefits being tied to being "active and able for work".

I would think at some point the state(s) are figuring out what is going on and is making sure to change / enforce the language to stipulate that you must be willing to work to continue your benefits.

So, if your job calls you and says they are opening back up but you say no thanks, that should end your unemployment right there at the moment that you had your job offered back to you, and you chose to remain unemployed.

As time goes on i would have to think they enact something like that to keep people from blatantly / purposefully abusing / exploiting the system.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I think what it will come down to is the unemployment benefits being tied to being "active and able for work".

I would think at some point the state(s) are figuring out what is going on and is making sure to change / enforce the language to stipulate that you must be willing to work to continue your benefits.

So, if your job calls you and says they are opening back up but you say no thanks, that should end your unemployment right there at the moment that you had your job offered back to you, and you chose to remain unemployed.

As time goes on i would have to think they enact something like that to keep people from blatantly / purposefully abusing / exploiting the system.

They already have that in place, and yes it is enforced. If an employer knows a (former) employee is refusing work it benefits the employer to report it, and Unemployment, at least in Md, will defer to the employer a lot of the time unless there is an obvious negligence/issue.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

They already have that in place, and yes it is enforced. If an employer knows a (former) employee is refusing work it benefits the employer to report it, and Unemployment, at least in Md, will defer to the employer a lot of the time unless there is an obvious negligence/issue.

Yeah that's why I'm not understanding a lot of the chatter on this subject. If an employer is offering the employee their job back and they refuse, the benefits will end. It's not as if employees can just willingly sit home and collect unemployment.

*edit apparently some states aren't enforcing the job search requirement, hence this issue exists. But if they turn down their prior job, it can end their benefits.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

Yeah that's why I'm not understanding a lot of the chatter on this subject. If an employer is offering the employee their job back and they refuse, the benefits will end. It's not as if employees can just willingly sit home and collect unemployment.

*edit apparently some states aren't enforcing the job search requirement, hence this issue exists. But if they turn down their prior job, it can end their benefits.

The chatter of why...it’s putting unnecessary pressure on welfare system, affects the economy and unemployment numbers, it affects the business owner with qualified help, and it’s the ethics of those using the system is out of wack.

People shouldn’t be getting fired for refusing their job to be on a welfare system. That’s the big fucking problem

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

It's easy to say people are just being lazy, but it's just not realistic to think someone is going to say yeah I want to return to work for $500 a week vs staying home for $900.

I agree...it just puts the business owner in a terrible spot...the actually job creator. And unfortunately, the longer it goes on it becomes dependency on the system and the tax payer. It’s not right...it’s not “in the spirit” of what the system should be...it’s a helping hand for those in need, when that need appears. It’s not a lifestyle period.

[MTK]

To be fair this is an unusual time. The additional benefits aren't going to last forever. And it still comes back to our country having a wage issue when it comes to jobs that we didn't even appreciate were essential before all this, like grocery store workers. The fact that so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are a step away from a disaster is a problem.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by MTK

To be fair this is an unusual time. The additional benefits aren't going to last forever. And it still comes back to our country having a wage issue when it comes to jobs that we didn't even appreciate were essential before all this, like grocery store workers. The fact that so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are a step away from a disaster is a problem.

Does that mean you support things like fighting countries like China who force their people to make our cheap goods on slave labor wages, lowering business tax rates, limiting legal immigration, eliminating illegal immigration, etc.? Because all those things decrease wages. This whole businesses should just pay more thing is not realistic. The money has to come from somewhere and business owners need to make a profit.

We need to make more things in America and Americans have to be willing to pay more for the products they use. I am 100% fine with that. Short term I would have to make some cutbacks on discretionary spending if prices increased, but in the long run we'd all hopefully make more money due to wage increases and competition for employees, to at least offset the price increases.

There are many things that go into increasing wages. I don't think most people are willing to accept all of them. Only the things that already fall in line with our beliefs.

[MTK]

We should definitely be less dependent on China for goods. We don't make shit here anymore. But I really don't buy the idea that large companies can't pay more. How much more $$ does Bezos need? Wage inequality has steadily only increased over the last few decades.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by MTK

We should definitely be less dependent on China for goods. We don't make shit here anymore. But I really don't buy the idea that large companies can't pay more. How much more $$ does Bezos need? Wage inequality has steadily only increased over the last few decades.

Unfortunately greed is a human condition. Capitalism is the best system in the world but it would be way better if all business owners/management would operate in, for lack of a better term, good faith.

I don't know how you fix the wage inequality thing in a way that doesn't involve way too much government regulation or being anti-capitalist.

I'd like to think that if I ever own a business that I'd have a ratio I'm not willing to exceed, from what I make compared to what the lowest paid person makes.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

We should definitely be less dependent on China for goods. We don't make shit here anymore. But I really don't buy the idea that large companies can't pay more. How much more $$ does Bezos need? Wage inequality has steadily only increased over the last few decades.

Use to be the people would invest in Companies that were good profitable Companies but the investors would stay out of running the Company. You invested in IBM or Standard Oil becuase they were good run Companies and if they weren't you take your money and put it somewhere else,now not only do the investors want to be rich immediately but they want to run the company without knowing a damn bit about it.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

We should definitely be less dependent on China for goods.

The rich get richer.

https://apnews.com/0a3283036d2f4e699da4aa3c6dd01727

China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter


and.........,five more in Jan.2019

https://fortune.com/2019/01/21/ivank...na-trademarks/

Ivanka Trump’s shuttered fashion brand received preliminary approval on five trademarks in China this month while the U.S. and China continue to undergo tense trade negotiations.