The $600 Was So You Could Stay Home And Not Die From Working

[DanieRains]

For people who don't actually want to die from working.

Everyone seems to forget this part.

Remember that stay at home to save lives thing?

I do.

[TEB]

1. Repigs don't care

They just want trumpig re elected on our corpses and our children’s dead bodies.

[Sherman A1]

2. Precisely

It was just that. Unfortunately many of the jobs will not be coming back and those folks are going to need assistance well after the crisis fades.

[FakeNoose]

38. This! We're not facing the long-term consequences

Many of these jobs are gone forever. We're heading into social revolution and basically none of us are ready for it. Certainly the younger, still-working-age people aren't.

I'll also suggest that those who spent the last 10 years buying guns and joining survival groups, are no better prepared than the rest of us.

[Shermann]

3. Stay home and not work?? Find Something Else! nt

[calimary]

15. "Find something New!"

Hopefully soon, Ivanka and company will be forced to do the same.

[handmade34]

4. one of the ironies...

so many of the people continuing to work (at grocery stores, etc.) don't make as much as $600/week... everything about this is unfair, crazy, not thought out as well as should have been

so many people suffering

[gab13by13]

18. It's actually more than 600/week

it's on top of their regular unemployment correct? Even that is not enough compared with the trillions trump has given to the rich.

[Wounded Bear]

24. Yes, it is an add-on to the normal benefits...nt

[handmade34]

25. yup...

and to address this on a personal note... I have a son who is self employed and getting $800+ unemployment checks weekly and my daughter who works full time (in the health care field) only brings home about $400.

also know of a number of people who are getting the $600. and still working "under the table" ...there is so much, so wrong about all of this

[Igel]

34. Unemployment benefits are taxable.

In early 2020 people who received the bonus unemployment might find they've been pushed into a tax bracket that actually requires they pay income tax. It won't affect a lot of workers who below the cutoff for fed income tax.

Don't know if it's subject to payroll taxes.

[MichMan]

35. It is not subject to payroll taxes

[BComplex]

42. Handmade34, I see you posting against the $600 extra unemployment on a lot of these threads,

and you take issue because many people who ARE working critical jobs are getting less. My husband is one of those making less than the $600 extra the congress approved for others in addition to their state's unemployment.

There is no way for congress to pass something that is fair across the board, because the research would have taken way longer, than we had to get some money flowing into the economy. I'm sorry it isn't fair, but you should not wish to take money away from unemployed people just because some people aren't getting that much.

Instead, you should argue that people making less need to be paid an extra amount to make up for the danger of their jobs. Jealousy and resentment from disgruntled citizens isn't going to get the congress to reinstate the extra $600 that so many people desperately need. People making money isn't "so wrong about all of this". People not getting paid enough to begin with is what is "so wrong about all of this".

[handmade34]

43. I have never argued against the $600

that is keeping so many people afloat... my argument is that the minimum wage should be increased to meet reality

it is absurd that people having to/choosing to go out everyday (essential workers- "putting their lives on the line" ) often make less than those not working and Congress has done little to address it

I can't imagine how anyone could argue against people getting the extra money who are out of work due to Covid-19

[Karma13612]

5. I'm curious how they came up with $600

Per week.

Is this what the check is, or are taxes taken out.

I ask because I recall my unemployment back a few years ago was about half that.

Do people need the money? Yes, of course. To pay for everything. I understand that. But, not everyone’s living expenses are the same.

As a retired person, living on SS alone, I am getting $1700 per month. My expenses are more than that per month. I guess I see a disconnect.

Yes, I got the $1200 for COVID relief. That’s apparently equal to two weeks of support to anyone who was working. My expenses have not changed from working in 2018 to now. But, my SS doesn’t meet what I was making before retirement. When I was working, up to retirement, my take home pay was $2600 per month.

Again, $600 per week to everyone that was working before COVID hit?
How did they arrive at this figure? How do they decide how much everyone gets if everyone’s expenses are different?

And since I was not employed at the time of the relief checks, why did I qualify for one?

No wonder some people don’t want to return to work. They are making more money by staying home as long as the benefits continue. And I DO understand that some jobs will not return. Those people should continue to receive support.


I know the flaming is going to start, but I’m not clear on any of this. It doesn’t seem equitable.

[Demsrule86]

7. The not returning to to work is GOP BS.

[dixiechiken1]

16. Actually, it's not BS...

I work at a food distribution company. We sell meat, seafood, poultry, etc. to restaurants, casinos and the like. When the restaurants and casinos in my area (Midwest, not NV) started to slowly re-open after the shut down, they had a helluva time getting people to come back to work. They were specifically told that, no, they didn't want to come back because they were making more on unemployment. They said to call them back when the $600 federal "kicker" ran out.

Now, I'm not saying I blame them. My hours were cut and, up til now, anyone/everyone collecting UI was making more than me. I consider myself lucky to still have a job, however.

I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. But it's not BS, at least in my personal experience. What it says to me, though, is that we need a livable wage in this country. Especially for all those workers now deemed "essential" who, not coincidentally, are among the lowest paid. Go figure...

🙄

[gab13by13]

20. What kind of company rules do they have?

When I worked, people who were on lay off had to return to work or be terminated. I don't think many companies give their employees a choice.

[dixiechiken1]

23. You're right...

But I think many of them forgot that part. Until they were cut off. 😕

[EarthFirst]

26. It is bullshit.

It’s clear that they are exploiting labor.

If an employee is better off with a mere $600 in additional benefits per week; it’s obvious that their employer is exploiting their labor and creating financial hardships for their employees.

Good on the employees to calling out their bullshit wages!

[MichMan]

28. Minimum wage needs to be raised to $25 per hour now.

That would be $1000 a week gross and after taxes would be what people are getting now with the extra $600 unemployment.

Hopefully that will be the first bill that president Biden signs into law

[Doremus]

41. One little problem with that. You can't refuse to go back to your job & still stay on unemployment

At least in Ohio, there's a line on the application form that asks if you've refused to return to work.

Unless there are actually states that allow people to stay on unemployment at their own will, I think this BS rightwing talking point ranks right up there with 'welfare queens' in evil intent and accuracy.

[Demsrule86]

8. Pretty nuch every word you said is a Gop talking point .

[Luz]

9. "As long as the benifits continue" is key. As long as they

continue I can continue to pay my rent, my insurance, my car note, my electricity and food. That's the part everyone forgets about. We didn't win the $600 a week for life prize. In the end, we lost. We lost our jobs. Now we'll have no income. It sucks.

[Karma13612]

13. Thank you for your honesty. nt

[Generic Brad]

12. It comes out to $15.00 an hour

It helps make the case for a permanent increase in the minimum wage or a minimum standard of living.

[Karma13612]

14. Makes sense. Thanks. nt

[MichMan]

30. It is added to regular unemployment and since there is no FICA and Medicare taxes, equates to $23/hr

[stopbush]

21. $600 is equal to being paid $15 an hour for a 40-hour work week.

It’s a subtle message about what Americans SHOULD be making were the minimum wage raised to $15-an-hour, a goal that has been out there for more than a decade.

[stopbush]

27. It's difficult and expensive to be "equitable" when one is in an emergency situation.

The Congress critters who came up with the $600-a-week figure knew that the figure wasn’t equitable, but they knew that they could get it passed, and that for most unemployed Americans it would make a real difference.

Here in CA we have one of the highest CoLs in the country. Yet the max state UI benefit is only $450-a-week, and it’s been stuck there for years. Unemployed workers in OH get more than us. That $600 in Fed aid also goes a lot further in OH than it does in CA. If the Rs really wanted to make things “equitable,” people in CA should be getting perhaps $700-800 a week in Fed aid while those in OH got $300-400 a week. That would be more equitable when it comes to CoL and spending power. To be further equitable, it’s cheaper to live in rural CA than in LA. Just how exacting does the Fed government want or need to get to distribute resources and relief in a truly equitable way?

A more-equitable distribution would have much more going to blue states with dense urban populations than to the rural red states.

[MichMan]

31. Why is California so stingy ?

They can raise the benefit amount anytime they desire without any input at all from congress

How can Massachusetts, Iowa, North Dakota manage to pay more than California?

[stopbush]

33. That is an excellent question!

The average median per-week income in CA is $1,211. $450 a week is only 37% of that average income. Raising the benefit to $606 a week would get it up to 50%.

[handmade34]

39. $15./hour n/t

[Demsrule86]

6. No it was part of a stimulus,us package and without it, our economy goes off a cliff,

There are 30 -50 million unemployed workers and very few jobs.

[progree]

10. Meatpackers are, uh, dying to hire brave workers, workers who are concerned

about growing old some day and becoming a burden on their children and grandchildren some day.

For them, a meatpacking job is ideal, since they don't have to worry about growing old, no need for retirement savings, so they can spend spend spend now now now like its the go go years with their extra $2/hour wage boost.

[MichMan]

11. People need to stay home

Except for agricultural & grocery store workers, because I need food. They all have to work.

And Amazon, people shouldn't be out shopping in person, safer to do it on line. Amazon employees need to be working.

Truckers better be working to deliver to all the grocery stores and to/from Amazon.

Post Office and UPS too; they need to bring me my Amazon stuff to my house.

Gas Stations have to be open, so all the people serving me while I stay at home can get to work.

Why are people so selfish that they cant just stay at home?

[Wounded Bear]

17. If unemployment is an incentive to not return to work perhaps wages are too low.

[gab13by13]

22. I don't know of any companies

where an employee can choose whether he/she comes back to work or stays on layoff. The company I worked for when it called you back you either went back or were terminated.

[MichMan]

32. So are you saying they should all be fired and kicked off from unemployment completely ?

[Igel]

36. Except that some employers went on the record as having difficulties.

Some were getting people to come back--then as an employer you're legally required to say if your employee refused to return to work. If so, they get denied further benefits and you wind up hurting the employee that maybe you've had for the last year and know reasonably well. And you're stuck trying to train somebody else using social distancing.

In other words, if employers were the hardhearted assholes that a stereotype says they are all (to a person) then it would be no problem. But employers are no less people than you and me.

[stopbush]

19. Yep. I have pointed that out before on DU, FB and elsewhere.

The fact that some people are getting a little bit more being on unemployment rather than working is no big deal. It’s money well spent. $600 a week or $4,000* a day in a hospital. What option costs less in the long run?

People are also losing their health insurance along with their jobs. There is talk of the government picking up the tab for those who end up in the hospital with COVID. That’s around $28,000 a week per patient.

*average cost in the USA for one day in a hospital

[dickthegrouch]

44. It's a big deal to those working for less than the unemployment checks

My partner puts the whole household at risk to earn less than what the unemployed are receiving.
Walmart could afford to pay their entire staff $25/hour and it wouldn’t dent their holdings.
In the meantime we were better off when he was unemployed. I wrote him too good a resume so now we’re screwed every which way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I do to. Plus the jobs aren't there to fill. It isn't business as usual and can't be with Covid-19

Even the most slavish Trump following Republican Governor's haven't tried to open their states up 100%, instead they are having to start to backtrack. If by drastically cutting back that $600 Republicans "encouraged" a few people to go back into the workplace it would be at the expense of other people who are already out there looking for work who don't have unemployment insurance and are already desperate. If Republicans cut that money off there will be less people in the workplace, not more, because that $600 a week is supporting a lot of consumer spending that is propping up a lot of businesses and the people they employ.

[Amishman]

40. no, it was never to give an option / choice to stay home

it was to prevent extreme financial hardships for those who lose their jobs in an environment where there was no real warning and finding another job is nearly impossible if you are in a shut down industry.

This is why the rules on this say if you refuse to return to work when your job calls you back, you lose all benefits.