How large corporations are exploiting this crisis

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s not hypocritical.  The owner of the restaurant used the money because NO MONEY was coming in.  He/she was forced to close his business.  PPE was supposed to be used to continue to pay bills and pay employees.  Is business still getting the PPE?  

 

Now, extended unemployment is for people who had no job prospects because of the pandemic.  They had no money coming in.  That is no longer the case, plenty of jobs available, most paying more than pre-pandemic levels. No need for extended unemployment.  Owner is making that argument.  

Both got money from the government. One of them is complaining about how the other "got handouts". It's hypocritical no matter how much other stuff you try to make the argument about.

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Both got money from the government. One of them is complaining about how the other "got handouts". It's hypocritical no matter how much other stuff you try to make the argument about.

One is complaining that the other is “still” getting “handouts” when they are not needed anymore.   That is the argument the restaurant owner is making.  One other thing, is this restaurant in question a large corporation exploiting Covid?  

[BigRedBuster]

29 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Both got money from the government. One of them is complaining about how the other "got handouts". It's hypocritical no matter how much other stuff you try to make the argument about.

Both got money. One used it to sustain the business so there was a job for him and the unemployed when the pandemic is over.  The other took money to sustain themselves while they were unemployed during the pandemic.  Both took money.  One is not taking money now that the pandemic is over.  The other is.

[knapplc]

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Both got money. One used it to sustain the business so there was a job for him and the unemployed when the pandemic is over.  The other took money to sustain themselves while they were unemployed during the pandemic.  Both took money.  One is not taking money now that the pandemic is over.  The other is.

 

 

I'm guessing there's something else at play at the restaurant in question. Current UI benefits in Minnesota make up 79% of the average wage, when you include the extra $300 per week from the CARES Act. If this restaurant even pays their employees average wages, people on UI are making 21% less by staying on those benefits. 

 

Of course that's tied to pre-layoff wages, so if this restaurant were paying lower wages, those UI benefits would necessarily be lower as well. 

 

But there's something else going on as well. The federal benefits only last 52 weeks. That means anyone this restaurant laid off around May, 2020 - a pretty common time for COVID layoffs - the people they laid off are no longer receiving the extra $300, and likely not receiving UI at all. 

 

So what gives? Why can't this restaurant hire workers if their benefits are running out? Why would anyone choose no income rather than working for a place like this?

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

One is complaining that the other is “still” getting “handouts” when they are not needed anymore.   That is the argument the restaurant owner is making.  One other thing, is this restaurant in question a large corporation exploiting Covid?  

 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Both got money. One used it to sustain the business so there was a job for him and the unemployed when the pandemic is over.  The other took money to sustain themselves while they were unemployed during the pandemic.  Both took money.  One is not taking money now that the pandemic is over.  The other is.

You're making a silly timing argument. PPP was a lump sum payment. Unemployment is not. What you're really arguing for with this timing argument is that the businesses should have gotten partial payments and not gotten them all, or that unemployment should be a lump payment for all the possible weeks at once.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

You're making a silly timing argument. PPP was a lump sum payment. Unemployment is not. What you're really arguing for with this timing argument is that the businesses should have gotten partial payments and not gotten them all, or that unemployment should be a lump payment for all the possible weeks at once.

No that’s not at all what anyone is arguing.  I was pretty clear and I thought @BigRedBusterwas too in agreeing 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

No that’s not at all what anyone is arguing.  I was pretty clear and I thought @BigRedBusterwas too in agreeing 

Your use of "still" and "anymore" means that is what you're arguing.

[BigRedBuster]

50 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I'm guessing there's something else at play at the restaurant in question. Current UI benefits in Minnesota make up 79% of the average wage, when you include the extra $300 per week from the CARES Act. If this restaurant even pays their employees average wages, people on UI are making 21% less by staying on those benefits. 

 

Of course that's tied to pre-layoff wages, so if this restaurant were paying lower wages, those UI benefits would necessarily be lower as well. 

 

But there's something else going on as well. The federal benefits only last 52 weeks. That means anyone this restaurant laid off around May, 2020 - a pretty common time for COVID layoffs - the people they laid off are no longer receiving the extra $300, and likely not receiving UI at all. 

 

So what gives? Why can't this restaurant hire workers if their benefits are running out? Why would anyone choose no income rather than working for a place like this?

Those are all pertinent questions that none of us know.  I was simply commenting on the hypocrisy/no hypocrisy discussion.

[BigRedBuster]

21 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're making a silly timing argument. PPP was a lump sum payment. Unemployment is not. What you're really arguing for with this timing argument is that the businesses should have gotten partial payments and not gotten them all, or that unemployment should be a lump payment for all the possible weeks at once.

No, that's not what I'm arguing.

 

I'm simply saying that what both received before, was valid.  If one is receiving payments because of the pandemic now, I feel it's not needed and should stop.  And, just because both got payments before, saying that isn't hypocritical.  

[RedDenver]

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, that's not what I'm arguing.

 

I'm simply saying that what both received before, was valid.  If one is receiving payments because of the pandemic now, I feel it's not needed and should stop.  And, just because both got payments before, saying that isn't hypocritical.  

So if the unemployment had been paid in a lump sum like the PPP was, then you'd be fine with it?

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

So if the unemployment had been paid in a lump sum like the PPP was, then you'd be fine with it?

  No....that's not what I said....no matter how many times you try to say it is.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

  No....that's not what I said....no matter how many times you try to say it is.

So then should the business have to return part of the PPP since the pandemic ended?

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, RedDenver said:

So then should the business have to return part of the PPP since the pandemic ended?

No.....and where in the world did you get that?

 

You are really trying hard with this by reading more into what I'm saying than what I am.  

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

No.....and where in the world did you get that?

 

You are really trying hard with this by reading more into what I'm saying than what I am.  

No, I'm trying to show you the hypocrisy. Both the business and the unemployed got "handout" money from the government. The business got money from the government as a lump sum. The unemployed did not. The employer would be in the same boat of still getting "handouts" if the PPP had been monthly payments, but the business got a better deal than the unemployed. It's hypocritical to complain about someone else when it's just good fortune you aren't in the same boat because you got a better deal. You can see that, right?

[RedDenver]

I posted this in the Economy thread, but applies to the current discussion here as well, particularly the last tweet:

1 minute ago, RedDenver said: