Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


Millions of Americans will fall off an ‘income cliff’ when extra $600 in unemployment benefits ends next month

Recommended Posts


Posted (edited)

The average unemployment benefit is $378 per week. Add $600 per week to that and that's over $50,000 per year if it continues. I sure would pick $50,000 for doing nothing than working at McDonald's, or most other jobs.

Edited by Burgerwars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal $600/week will be renewed. Even Fed chair Powell is saying the congress has to do more, not to mention so many states are reclosing because they opened too soon and Screwed the Pooch.

🤒

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RVR said:

The federal $600/week will be renewed. Even Fed chair Powell is saying the congress has to do more, not to mention so many states are reclosing because they opened too soon and Screwed the Pooch.

🤒

 

I expect helicopter $$$ will flow freely for a few more months. Hopefully if there is more $1200 welfare checks they will send them to every citizen. I know if I got one I'd waste spend it on frivolous meaningful purchases such as DVDs, scotch, and a new dog bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RVR said:

The federal $600/week will be renewed. Even Fed chair Powell is saying the congress has to do more, not to mention so many states are reclosing because they opened too soon and Screwed the Pooch.

🤒

 

If I was high school or college age again, it's a no-brainer. Collect unemployment and the bonus instead of flipping burgers. Starbucks must have a hell of a time finding people to work when they have to compete with these unemployment benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burgerwars said:

If I was high school or college age again, it's a no-brainer. Collect unemployment and the bonus instead of flipping burgers. Starbucks must have a hell of a time finding people to work when they have to compete with these unemployment benefits.

In order to collect unemployment, don't people have to have been separated from their jobs? The $600 isn't available to people who just don't want to work, as far as I know.

They've broadened eligibility for people who have lost income, but it's not just money people can get because they don't want to flip burgers, if they were flipping burgers but the burger store is now open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smartlypretty said:

 it's not just money people can get because they don't want to flip burgers, if they were flipping burgers but the burger store is now open.

Sorry but you're a bit naive. That's exactly how it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What no one whining about this extra $600 UI welfare realizes is that this IS coming out of our pockets later. 
 

In my state, companies pay UI based on rates determined by claims filed. One claim for even a week or two can jack rates for years. Seen it happen first hand where a total $1500 in UI benefits paid over an 8 month period to one person caused the rate to go from 1% to 6.5% for THREE YEARS. Those numbers are calculated on gross payroll for all employees. It cost far, far more than $1500 for just that one claim. 
 

Now any company already paying the max rate won’t see a change unless they raise them max allowed. I expect that to happen. Big corporations won’t be affected much and can absorb the cost more easily. But all the small businesses out there that are facing an upcoming bombshell of higher UI rates don’t have that ability and won’t have it if they’re already struggling now.
 

The cost for all those welfare checks will be getting passed on  to the companies who will in turn be passing the cost onto consumers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who are inclined to refer to the benefits as "helicopter money", I'll point out that most projections are for a sustained 10%+ unemployment rate.  Most likely, there aren't going to be many jobs that go wanting for an employee under most any realistic scenario.  Those who are the least resourceful (or simply least fortunate) will face a very harsh reality.

 

I'm not going to suggest I know how best to address that need.  I don't question that if "enhanced" unemployment benefits are extended, some tweaking is necessary at the lower econ rung to address the degree of "largess" extended to minimum/near-minimum wage unemployed.  But I do know that reducing unemployment benefits in this continued environment that ensures job shortages (to a standard benefit that replaces about 30% of mean work income) is a recipe for economic disaster.

 

Chasing after that hemorrhage, after the fact, with band-aids (or even a tourniquet) will be even more costly.  (And, yeah, ultimately we're all going to have to pay for the extra benefits; we'll also pay dearly for any miscalculation in how best to stem the prospects for a ruinous recession.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, smartlypretty said:

In order to collect unemployment, don't people have to have been separated from their jobs? The $600 isn't available to people who just don't want to work, as far as I know.

They've broadened eligibility for people who have lost income, but it's not just money people can get because they don't want to flip burgers, if they were flipping burgers but the burger store is now open.

In California, in order to collect unemployment, you need to have lost your job, and it was not for cause.  Cause is difficult for employers to prove, so many won't even bother appealing an award of unemployment benefits to an employee they fired for cause (like they intentionally set the building on fire).  If they were let go because they just weren't to the job, or accidentally did something wrong, then they're eligible.  Get a job at McDonald's and just be incompetent at everything you do.  The manager might first have you work at the cash register and never figure that out, Then the manager tries to have you work at the soda machine, and you can never figure that out.  Lastly, the manager tries to have you mop the floor, and you can't figure out the mop.  After that, the manager lets you go.  You're then eligible for unemployment.  Easy-peasy.  This works whether the burger store is open or closed.  ;)

Edited by Burgerwars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Burgerwars said:

In California, in order to collect unemployment, you need to have lost your job, and it was not for cause.  Cause is difficult for employers to prove, so many won't even bother appealing an award of unemployment benefits to an employee they fired for cause (like they intentionally set the building on fire).  If they were let go because they just weren't to the job, or accidentally did something wrong, then they're eligible.  Get a job at McDonald's and just be incompetent at everything you do.  The manager might first have you work at the cash register and never figure that out, Then the manager tries to have you work at the soda machine, and you can never figure that out.  Lastly, the manager tries to have you mop the floor, and you can't figure out the mop.  After that, the manager lets you go.  You're then eligible for unemployment.  Easy-peasy.  This works whether the burger store is open or closed.  ;)

What? Since when did CA allow granting unemployment benefits when the employer fired an employee for incompetency? That has never been the case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, StarkRaven$ said:

What? Since when did CA allow granting unemployment benefits when the employer fired an employee for incompetency? That has never been the case.

 

 

Believe me, employees get fired for incompetence all the time and are still eligible.  I've seen this.  If mere incompetence were a reason to not be eligible, any employer can then tell the unemployment insurance commission that "Joe was fired from his job doing such-and-such and couldn't do it."  Nobody would then be able to collect unemployment insurance for anything but the business shutting down or lay-offs, and the employer's unemployment insurance account/insurance would never get charged.  Measuring incompetence isn't a science.  I stick by what I've said, because I've seen it.  I've worked at places like this (company owned Taco Bells), many, many years ago.  Front line employees, managers, etc., got fired all the time because the company thought they were incompetent.  They went on to collect unemployment.  This stuff isn't worth companies arguing about.  They might be able to prove a point once in a great while, but why bother with all the expenses to litigate this, when the odds of winning in an unemployment insurance hearing are so remote.  Companies move on.  It's the cost of doing business.

 

That said, I'm not going to mention the company, but a long time ago (and I mean decades) I was personally let go from a job, and I collected unemployment for about two months.  I had to go to an unemployment insurance hearing because this litigious company did actually want to deny my benefits.  They went in, saying all this stuff about me being terminated for cause, that I 100% disagreed with.  They lost.  After that, they appealed the decision to the unemployment insurance appeals board, saying the judge "errored on the facts."  The appeals board immediately denied their argument, rightly stating that the judge, who was there to witness everything in the hearing, is the arbiter of the facts, not the appeals board!  No second chances or do-overs!  I don't know how much the company spent trying to argue about two months of unemployment benefits, but it was obviously many, many times more.  

Edited by Burgerwars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Burgerwars said:

Believe me, employees get fired for incompetence all the time and are still eligible.  I've seen this.  If mere incompetence were a reason to not be eligible, any employer can then tell the unemployment insurance commission that "Joe was fired from his job doing such-and-such and couldn't do it."  Nobody would then be able to collect unemployment insurance for anything but the business shutting down or lay-offs, and the employer's unemployment insurance account/insurance would never get charged.  Measuring incompetence isn't a science.  I stick by what I've said, because I've seen it.  I've worked at places like this (company owned Taco Bells), many, many years ago.  Front line employees, managers, etc., got fired all the time because the company thought they were incompetent.  They went on to collect unemployment.  This stuff isn't worth companies arguing about.  They might be able to prove a point once in a great while, but why bother with all the expenses to litigate this, when the odds of winning in an unemployment insurance hearing are so remote.  Companies move on.  It's the cost of doing business.

 

That said, I'm not going to mention the company, but a long time ago (and I mean decades) I was personally let go from a job, and I collected unemployment for about two months.  I had to go to an unemployment insurance hearing because this litigious company did actually want to deny my benefits.  They went in, saying all this stuff about me being terminated for cause, that I 100% disagreed with.  They lost.  After that, they appealed the decision to the unemployment insurance appeals board, saying the judge "errored on the facts."  The appeals board immediately denied their argument, rightly stating that the judge, who was there to witness everything in the hearing, is the arbiter of the facts, not the appeals board!  No second chances or do-overs!  I don't know how much the company spent trying to argue about two months of unemployment benefits, but it was obviously many, many times more.  

Documentation in performance reviews has always been the employer's friend. This is where HR and the manager intervenes for a paper trail to protect themselves. I have seen that numerous times. Now if they didn't have a paper trail with the employee's signature then shame on the employer.

 

I filed for unemployment when my client died but the day after I filed online I got another client so I immediately called the unemployment dept in CA and told them to ignore the claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, shifter said:

Sorry but you're a bit naive. That's exactly how it works. 

... no, it is not.

10 hours ago, Burgerwars said:

In California, in order to collect unemployment, you need to have lost your job, and it was not for cause.  Cause is difficult for employers to prove, so many won't even bother appealing an award of unemployment benefits to an employee they fired for cause (like they intentionally set the building on fire).  If they were let go because they just weren't to the job, or accidentally did something wrong, then they're eligible.  Get a job at McDonald's and just be incompetent at everything you do.  The manager might first have you work at the cash register and never figure that out, Then the manager tries to have you work at the soda machine, and you can never figure that out.  Lastly, the manager tries to have you mop the floor, and you can't figure out the mop.  After that, the manager lets you go.  You're then eligible for unemployment.  Easy-peasy.  This works whether the burger store is open or closed.  ;)

This is the case everywhere AFAIK. Also unemployment is temporary.

10 hours ago, StarkRaven$ said:

What? Since when did CA allow granting unemployment benefits when the employer fired an employee for incompetency? That has never been the case.

 

A colleague of mine in CA was unjustly fired and said it's a pain to attempt to file for it in CA. And their firing was, again, iffy.

9 hours ago, Burgerwars said:

Believe me, employees get fired for incompetence all the time and are still eligible.  I've seen this.  If mere incompetence were a reason to not be eligible, any employer can then tell the unemployment insurance commission that "Joe was fired from his job doing such-and-such and couldn't do it."  Nobody would then be able to collect unemployment insurance for anything but the business shutting down or lay-offs, and the employer's unemployment insurance account/insurance would never get charged.  Measuring incompetence isn't a science.  I stick by what I've said, because I've seen it.  I've worked at places like this (company owned Taco Bells), many, many years ago.  Front line employees, managers, etc., got fired all the time because the company thought they were incompetent.  They went on to collect unemployment.  This stuff isn't worth companies arguing about.  They might be able to prove a point once in a great while, but why bother with all the expenses to litigate this, when the odds of winning in an unemployment insurance hearing are so remote.  Companies move on.  It's the cost of doing business.

 

That said, I'm not going to mention the company, but a long time ago (and I mean decades) I was personally let go from a job, and I collected unemployment for about two months.  I had to go to an unemployment insurance hearing because this litigious company did actually want to deny my benefits.  They went in, saying all this stuff about me being terminated for cause, that I 100% disagreed with.  They lost.  After that, they appealed the decision to the unemployment insurance appeals board, saying the judge "errored on the facts."  The appeals board immediately denied their argument, rightly stating that the judge, who was there to witness everything in the hearing, is the arbiter of the facts, not the appeals board!  No second chances or do-overs!  I don't know how much the company spent trying to argue about two months of unemployment benefits, but it was obviously many, many times more.  

This is so highly variable. Small companies can and do fight it. There's no guarantee anyone will receive it, or be able to afford contesting it. 

 

This is a fantasy about how people live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, smartlypretty said:

... no, it is not.

Of course it is. There are also employers who are specifically working this system to get their employees the extra $600/week by hiring them back but less than full time so they can double dip. Unemployment right now is filed by the employer. Everyone is working the system together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 6:27 PM, shifter said:

Of course it is. There are also employers who are specifically working this system to get their employees the extra $600/week by hiring them back but less than full time so they can double dip. Unemployment right now is filed by the employer. Everyone is working the system together. 

8XrngQQg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 6:27 PM, shifter said:

Unemployment right now is filed by the employer.

Never heard of this and not how it works in my state. Filing is up to the former employee. 
 

As an aside, I successfully fought a claim against my employer right after the $600 weekly welfare took effect. Former employee was not happy I busted their attempted scam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



An initial grant will be available to all states to help administer unemployment insurance, so long as the state requires employers to provide notification of the availability of unemployment compensation at the time of separation from work.

In addition, the FFCRA requires states to amend unemployment rules to allow greater access by impacted workers and encourages states to hasten the pace of payment. As a result, state unemployment agencies around the country have reacted at a dizzying pace updating and amending their unemployment eligibility criteria. All but seven states no longer have a waiting week period to become eligible for unemployment related to COVID-19, and several of those are actively considering a waiver with changes expected. In addition, most states have loosened or eliminated job search requirements to be eligible for unemployment related to COVID-19.

 

 

As of mid-May, 26 states and the District of Columbia have declared—mostly through executive order or labor department guidance—that COVID-19-related layoffs will not be charged against employers for purposes of calculating the experience ratings that determine their UI tax rates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kaylee34 said:

Never heard of this and not how it works in my state. Filing is up to the former employee. 

Not any more. With the special COVID related unemployment the employer files and let's the state know it's COVID related. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shifter said:

Not any more. With the special COVID related unemployment the employer files and let's the state know it's COVID related. 

You mean someone actually has a heart and is sparing newly unemployed the humbling experience of sitting in the unemployment office with the great unwashed masses in order to file their claim?  There is a god after all!  (24 years since my one time claim and I still grit my teeth when I think of it ... I prayed, that never again, I'd find myself sitting in a government office of any sort while living in Center City Philly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hdporter said:

You mean someone actually has a heart and is sparing newly unemployed the humbling experience of sitting in the unemployment office with the great unwashed masses in order to file their claim?  There is a god after all!  (24 years since my one time claim and I still grit my teeth when I think of it ... I prayed, that never again, I'd find myself sitting in a government office of any sort while living in Center City Philly.)

And here in New York State it was taking weeks or months to get through to certify. Of the people I know who ought to have been getting it, they had to wait 6-8 weeks for it.

 

It was intended to be less onerous, but the requirement to certify with a human was impossible to fulfill given the volume of people out of work. The person who does my lashes had two rents (business and residential) to pay and it was super stressful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      178,884
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Mrplantato
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines