Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 21, 2021

The 19 states that canceled the benefits in June saw a $4 billion reduction in federal unemployment payments and a $2 billion drop in consumer spending. At the same time, only $270 million in new earnings came in, representing just 7% of the unemployment benefits that were lost.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The sting of the lash for the proles. Governmental largesse for the job creators.

Wealth=God's Love. Poverty=Forsaken Souls in purgatory.

Get back to work, your betters need more profits and God wants your sacrifice for their riches.

Only losers don't want to make their masters richer. They have lost their understanding of the moral dimension. Slaves owe their masters their best work.

The Bible says so.

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-08-21 01:44 AM | Reply

Forget it, Jake. It's math.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-08-21 10:54 AM | Reply

It's ok because it was cruel so GQP loves it. Doesn't matter that it wasn't effective. No one ever really thought it would be anyway.

#3 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-08-21 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Doesn't matter that it wasn't effective. No one ever really thought it would be anyway."

I think many people thought it would be effective.

I can appreciate a State who is listening to the employers in their state complain about a labor shortage and considering the strategy of ending the federal portion in an effort to get people back to work.

If the idea that maintaining federally funded unemployment in perpetuity is better for everyone then lets just do that.

Keep in forever.

Oh wait...we're not....because.....well....we're not. So ending it early didn't impact the labor shortage as significantly as those states hoped.

One question though...the entire article's premise is based on data related to "18,000 low wage workers".

What does that mean? These workers couldn't find another low wage job?

I think the impact of ending federal unemployment will simply take longer to manifest itself into more people employed.

It's not going to be an immediate impact.

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-21 12:44 PM | Reply

If the idea that maintaining federally funded unemployment in perpetuity is better for everyone then lets just do that

#4 | Posted by eberly

UBI is better for everyone. We can't do that though because people like you elect politicians who don't want to help people who aren't rich.

#5 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-08-21 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does that mean? These workers couldn't find another low wage job?

What it means is that these workers did not return to low wage jobs just because their unemployment benefits were slashed. Instead they adjusted. But in this adjustment, the local/state economies saw a $2 billion drop in consumer spending - businesses lost $2 billion in revenues they would have gotten if the benefits had been kept in place which was supposed to happen in the first place - while on the flipside only 7% of what was lost was actually generated by the newly employed.

I wrote about this in March 2020. The pandemic was going to change the US economy in ways most people did not even think of back then. Some industries would flourish, others would wither, and still others would die altogether while new businesses based on forward-looking metrics would take their place.

Many of the jobs going unfilled are jobs that were not employee friendly, and now that families were forced to prioritize in-home child care/education - most learning to live on one wage instead of two since there wasn't public child care/schools for children to be sent to - pulling bonus unemployment benefits was not the stick so many on the right thought that it would be. In the end, doing so actually hurt businesses, denying them more revenue without forcing people back into jobs they no longer wanted due to their changed lifestyles and a public still openly ignoring the health concerns of workers attempting to stay healthy during this re-raging pandemic.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-21 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-What it means is that these workers did not return to low wage jobs just because their unemployment benefits were slashed. Instead they adjusted

but for how long can they "adjust" to not receiving unemployment and also not working?

Sooner or later they will adjust their way back to working.

-In the end, doing so actually hurt businesses, denying them more revenue

But they are dying for workers.....so business is still good.

But I agree in that the states who ended the federal portion believed it would have a more immediate and significant impact on people returning to work.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-21 02:53 PM | Reply

Just a difference of opinion.
One that cost Republican states two billion dollars.
Nothing worth interrupting a meeting over.
--Eberly

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-21 02:58 PM | Reply

but for how long can they "adjust" to not receiving unemployment and also not working?

You misunderstand what actually happened. Eligible recipients did NOT lose their UE benefits, they only lost the federal kicker amount.

As you know, UE is EARNED, not given, and the state laws dictates its length and qualifications. Politicians cannot pull the rug out from under what their constituents actually funded while they worked regardless of the scorn so many mistakenly view unemployed with. Many of these workers had already adjusted to less income and then got the additional federal benefits which were prematurely taken away by GOP elected politicians - big footing the federal government.

Not everyone benefiting from the added bump were low wage workers. Many are professionals changing careers which often entails acquiring licensing or certifications - continuing education necessary in order to fill jobs requiring such. These people were harmed due to GOP ignorance imo. Sometimes seeking another job is not as simple as filling an application.

But they are dying for workers.....so business is still good.

But business could have been even better. The news has been full of stories where employers have had to increase their pay and benefits, often coming up with creative ways of doing so in the food service industry, passing on some of those costs to their customers by expanding tipping beyond just the wait staff to the entire kitchen.

It still hasn't dawned on most Republicans that child and adult care responsibilities have changed priorities for multiple income households. This is one of the reasons Biden and the Democrats' emphasis on expanding/subsidizing the care industry is a key component to getting more workers into the economy. During the pandemic, people do not have care options and must take care of things themselves, keeping one earner home. And for single parents, far too much of their incomes have to be spent on care responsibilities, something that greater federal funding of human infrastructure will help ameliorate.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-21 03:40 PM | Reply

Women are not returning to the workforce because there is currently NO childcare. Others are staying home for fear of COVID. That puts more pressure on employers to offer fair wages to people who ARE willing to go back to work. It's currently an employees market. Statistics consistently show that employers willing to pay fair wages are finding workers just fine. If your company can't afford to pay fair wages, the market will decide that you shouldn't be in business.

#10 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-08-22 01:03 PM | Reply

I think the impact of ending federal unemployment will simply take longer to manifest itself into more people employed.
It's not going to be an immediate impact.
#4 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Good for you Eberly, you finally figured out what those who said cutting benefits early would not put people back to work were saying all along. The same low wages, health concerns and child care issues that were actually keeping people from returning to work still exist. A lot of people re-evaluated their lives decided it is not worth returning to working in environments that already had health and safety concerns before covid complicated matters further for them. Many decided the extra income did not offset the extra cost and risk of sending their children back to school and day care. Cutting off a few hundred dollars in support a few weeks earlier then than they were already going to expire was never going to change anything except hurt the local economies where they deny their people that little extra supplement.

#11 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-08-22 01:19 PM | Reply

So ending it early didn't impact the labor shortage as significantly as those states hoped

Policy should be made on data and objective information, not hope.

Only partisan morons clung to the benefits = labor shortage, even when studies and existing info cast strong doubt on that line of thinking.

And in the end they ended up hurting more than they helped but will refuse to take ownership of it.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-22 01:45 PM | Reply

"I think the impact of ending federal unemployment will simply take longer to manifest itself into more people employed."

While simply costing those people billions immediately.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-22 02:25 PM | Reply

Isn't a little ironic that the Federal government saved $4 Billion rather than dole it out to red state moochers and the left shows up here to complain about it?

The govt keeps $4 Billion.

And if ending these subsidies is bad then it's bad......but we're doing it anyway.

Is it really that big of a deal that some states ended it a couple months early?

Is really worth a huge distinction considering it all ends on Sept 6?

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-22 03:10 PM | Reply

-Policy should be made on data and objective information, not hope.

then why do all the subsides end Sept 6?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-22 03:11 PM | Reply

" Isn't a little ironic that the Federal government saved $4 Billion rather than dole it out to red state moochers and the left shows up here to complain about it?"

LMAO. Exactly.

#16 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-08-22 07:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort