Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SilasX 2282 days ago
Because it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?
5 comments

This is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.
Whether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.
I feel lucky to be working and occupied. It has been a much more sure position, and I'm not left to dwell on the shit storm we're all going through.
What penalty? it's the other way around, you take a 20% penalty if you stop working, and note that it's not for people who voluntarily stop working.
You can easily save 10 to 20% when unemployed because you don't have to pay for daily transportation (tube/train/car), lunch outdoors every day and a few other things. So the difference in disposable income is about null in most cases.
You can take lunch from home and eat that. I know enough people who do that. People who bought yearly or other long term tickets (majority of frequent travellers) dont save.
Even if that is the case, it's not your choice, as I said before - it does not apply to those voluntarily unemployed. You are projecting arguments of basic income onto an economic solution for a pandemic where people are suddenly forced into unemployment or unpaid leave for a very specific reason...

Given a lack of choice how can paying wages make any difference to their employment behavior. I'll repeat: this is not basic income.

This had nothing to do with basic income. We're talking unemployment for people who get laid off from their jobs.
When you stop working, you also get a lot of time back.
Yes of course, that's exactly what's happening at the minute. Everybody who can't work is having the most terrific fun on this unplanned holiday time they've suddenly been handed where they don't have to pay bills or buy food or support dependents./s

You're surely just being deliberately naïve here, playing the naif? I just don't really see the point I guess

Ignoring the penalization of work is being naive? Ignoring the "not having to work" in calculating how well off someone is, because you can make a snarky remark about how mixed a blessing it is to stay home, is naive? I would say the opposite.

I could just as well ask if you're just trying to be clever devil's advocate here.

As someone who can and does work from home, I do not perceive it as punishment and I am fine with people in worst situation then I am getting supper.
Yes, but the goal should not be to treat everyone fairly. The goal should be to help people get through this crisis.
I would rather not get $1000 and not have to fight a large portion of the population for new jobs once this is over.
Are you upset you don’t have a wheelchair?
I don’t understand the question.
Essential occupation folks can be paid at the top. Premium for weathering challenging times on the front.
How so? Their money still buys things, they keep living. What else matters?
It doesn’t penalise anyone. The money goes to those who need it.
No because the money will also be paid to middle class + people who still have jobs and who can WFH or have paid sick leave.