@richondapelzer@Aid_B@Freakonomics I believe that would generally be the case, but I’m not entirely sure with the CARES act expansion. Assume for our purposes that it would, it would still put the employer in the position of holding employees hostage against the more lucrative unemployment program.
@Aid_B@Freakonomics Talked to an employer today that attempted to bring back employees that took a voluntary layoff last week. They declined saying they’d make more money on unemployment. Now he’s in the position of having to challenge their unemployment?
For example, individual making 2x minimum wage, 14.50 for my example. Individual was recently laid off. Pay while working $580/wk. Regular UC $290+$600, $890/wk for 4 months. Sadly, this same math would apply up to over 4x minimum wage.
@paulkrugman issue: incentive towards employment. Make the assumption that workers presently employed are sufficiently incentivized to remain on the job by maintaining healthcare and job security, which is an overly ambitious assumption.
Now, focus on those that are recently laid off. Assume their UC is approximately half of their regular pay. Add to that the $600s under CARES act. What is the marginal rate at which they are incentivized to re-enter the workforce prior to end of $600 supplement?
@NFIB I hope I’m wrong, but didn’t the expansion of the unemployment benefits completely gut the intention of the 7a loan? Employees incentivized towards unemployment. If employer doesn’t maintain employee levels, forgiveness reduced on 7a loan. Puts EE and EO at odds.
@SenSchumer@NFIB @GovernorTomWolf I hope that I’m missing something. Even with Sasse amendment, there is disincentive to work. Small business in PA. Max UC $572x2x52=59,488. Those making that or less are better off unemployed?