Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How do you identify politically (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Captain Cranks
- Start date
msudaisy26
Footballguy
In reality they are getting more than 600. That 600 is onto of whatever the state has their unemployment set at.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Benefits? The fact that if they don't go back to work their job might not be there when they get back?
The Commish
Footballguy
I get that. In reality they are "paid" more than their wage too. Various Insurances, pre tax FSA dollars (for childcare and health needs), HSA dollars, payments into retirement all need to be considered as well. To my knowledge, there are no gov't options for those that are "free".
My only point was, I don't see the point of government overhead where it's not necessary. So if I can do, through one program what is being achieved in two separate programs, maybe it's better to do it through one and cut out the duplication of overhead. That's all.
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I agree, but it is 2 separate funds. State government and Federal government. I am not sure how you combine them without the overhead.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Would definitely fix the non incentive to work angle some love to press. Work and make as much money as you want, but that minimum will always be there during times like this when there is little work to be had for some.Bottomfeeder Sports said:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think that is a big factor.Don't Noonan said:
ETA: not saying educated/intelligent wouldn't be a factor.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I am speaking of one agency that is on top of the eviction statutes and then the other that is on top of the payments. If we didn't have to worry about evictions (i.e. we give them enough money, so if they don't pay their rent it's on them) and allowed that to be handled by normal "rules of engagement" if you will, that's one less thing on the gov't plate. It takes care of itself via normal means.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
I don't doubt your anecdotal experience. I know plenty of well educated Trump supporters myself. However, poll after poll shows a large gap in Trump's favorability between college educated and those without a college education. If FBG is just a random sample of mostly college educated people, there's a good chance most won't approve of Trump.Don't Noonan said:
For clarification sake, this does not mean all Trump supporters don't have a college education. Simply, there's a greater percentage of those who won't.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
That stat never has made any sense to me at all. College educated folks have more money. Wealthy people are mostly Republicans. Furthermore, college educated folks likely have taken economics courses which show Republican policies are far greater for the economy than Democratic policies.
Most of my Republican friends (and Democratic friends) be long to a church and are very gracious in giving to charities.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
College educated and making more money doesn't equal wealthy.
I would love to see some evidence of the bolded.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
I don't agree with this at all. We have lots of wealthy Democrats here in MA. I'm talking hard-core Democrats with some serious scratch. They have hospital wings and college buildings named after them. I'm pretty sure California and New York have their share of wealthy Democrats too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
Agreed...no one puts the limousine in limousine liberal quite like people from a Newton, Concord or Wellesley.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
When you say it doesn't make sense, do you mean that you don't believe that it's true that college educated people support Democrats more? Or that you concede the statistic is true but it seems counter-intuitive to you because you would expect the opposite?
dkp993
Footballguy
Yeah I call BS on the wealthy people are mostly R’s stuff. As with everything they are a mix too.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Oh I know many wealthy Democrats too. I agree there is a mix. I am saying a majority of wealthy (over 50%, probably 65%) are Republicans.
shadrap
Footballguy
msudaisy26
Footballguy
That goes against studies and polls. So he is entitled to it and people are free to point out that just because it is his personal experience doesn't make it true for everyone or even the majority.
Last edited by a moderator:
shadrap
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
No, I have lived in over 7 states so I don't live in a bubble. In fact, I grew up in a very liberal state, Oregon. My Dad was a CPA in Eugene and it was his experience most folks with money/business owners are Republicans. I manage assets for folks over 20 states with average investable assets of $1 million and I would guess at least 80% are Republican.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
So not a great sample size and you are guessing.No, I have lived in over 7 states so I don't live in a bubble. In fact, I grew up in a very liberal state, Oregon. My Dad was a CPA in Eugene and it was his experience most folks with money/business owners are Republicans. I manage assets for folks over 20 states with average investable assets of $1 million and I would guess at least 80% are Republican.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Something that doesn't use only investors with average investments of a million dollars. Sorry, but that group of people doesn't give a fair representation.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Yeah, but this highlights a pretty big issue for a lot us when discussing politics, here or in other places. If we're having a conversation and I'm referring to objective evidence to support my claim, it's not sufficient to casually wave it off with anecdotes. I see it time and time again with those from the right: Anecdotes trump polling results. Anecdotes trump scientific studies. What kind of conversation are we supposed to have if a person can casually dismiss what is said without a valid reason? It's just a big waste of time for everyone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Fair enough, but how about a CPA in a very liberal city and his experience over 40 years doing taxes?
msudaisy26
Footballguy
It is still just one city/state/region of the country. Plus how did this CPA find their clients? Non-profit? How does Eugene compare with the rest of the country? So many variables.
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnycakes
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I have a good friend that works at BassPro. At the start of this they offered furlough to anyone not wanting to work due to the pandemic. Those people are now making more than my friend. So many have left they are now trying to hire replacements, but no one wants to work when they can stay at home and make more or better yet, do side jobs for cash and still collect unemployment. We are still in stage 2 here, but pretty much everything is open and there are help wanted signs everywhere. With school not going back to in class, you'll have parents that need child care help. Many of those folks would be better off getting laid off then working and paying for child care. Those people are more deserving of help than paying people more than they were making to stay at home.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
2016 Election Results
Here's an interesting article that segments the 2016 election results by education and income.
Here's an interesting article that segments the 2016 election results by education and income.
dkp993
Footballguy
In all fairness I could combat your dad’s viewpoint with my mothers. She lives in Eugene and runs a 30 doctor practice. In our discussions her experience is the opposite of your fathers. That was no surprise to me in our prior discussions as Eugene is very liberal, but to my point its counterpoints your dad‘s experience.
The Commish
Footballguy
If one is getting a college education in economics and the professors are lecturing on political policy rather than economic theory, the student should ask for their money back. 
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I have no doubt that there are people better off not working than working. This still doesn't factor in benefits and other things. Have those people that took the layoff lost health benefits and now have to pay for out of pocket? When the 600 dollar stipend is over will they have a job to go back to? Are there other benefits the furloughed employees aren't getting that people still working are?
I completely disagree here because you don't know why they aren't working. They could have kids at home and no way to care for them, they could be high risk for covid 19 or members of their family are high risk.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
No, we can't afford to pay everyone more than they would make if they got a job. Perhaps offering a one time bonus to them when they get a job makes sense.
dkp993
Footballguy
As a business operator in Cali ( I run 12 locations) it has been extremely difficult to get some employees back to work.
While as a human being I want everyone to be as whole through this process as humanly possible. As a business operator struggling to serve clients because I don’t have enough people to work the extra $600 a week has been a challenge in an already unprecedentedly difficult time.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
So if I hear you correctly your former employees are choosing to stay unemployed rather than come back to work? If so, this is the problem we have with the $600 extra benefits and they have to end.
dkp993
Footballguy
Yes.
A back to work bonus like you suggested has been what I would like to see in this new plan. The 70% that the GOP has floated makes sense too.
It seems like there is a leap from combining two thoughts - college educated people make more money on average (true), and people who can invest 7 figures trend Republican even in liberal cities (seems reasonable), therefore college educated people trend Republican (this goes against almost all current stats). There is a massive chasm between making more money by being college educated and having $1,000,000 to invest, and I would guess less than 1% of people with college degrees having a million just sitting around liquid to invest. Also since you mention that it is the Economic classes that turn college students Republican, I guess it would be interesting to see if there is a bias towards conservatives taking economics vs economics turning non-conservatives into conservatives.
Tying into how hard would it be to raise wages above or equal to $600 a week - Wages are not a majority of the cost for many places that hire minimum wage workers, going by this article (there are others with similar numbers):
https://upserve.com/restaurant-insider/labor-cost-guidelines-restaurant/
Wages are something between 20-30% for fast food places that are likely going to have the most minimum wage employees. If minimum wage is $8 in a state, and you double it to $16, that should only increase the cost of a $5 hamburger meal to ~ $6.25 or so. I often see people argue as if it is linear, where if you double minimum wage you double costs, but that does not effect costs of leasing, products, or people that already make more than minimum wage.
There are also unseen costs of employees that are making minimum wage now, such as a bunch of them being on government assistance programs like food stamps because they do not make enough money to live, but it is forgotten because it comes out of your taxes rather than at the drive through window.
This site:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs
Points out that over half of people on welfare benefits like food stamps have jobs.
That is also recapitulated with this older article, which talks about Walmart holding employee donation drives for food for other employees, so at least some employees of Walmart are not being paid enough, again, the government subsidizing a massive corporation by allowing them to underpay the workers and forcing our tax dollars to cover the difference:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/18/walmart-store-holding-thanksgiving-charity-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/#4bc3f02c2ee5
Also, not to speak for Joe or try or be a backseat mod, but these topics could potentially be their own threads since they are somewhat beyond the scope of this threads title. These topics seem like they might be "better" topics to increase the balance of discussion since they are not really Trump dependent topics (so anti-Trump conservatives can join with their pro-Trump friends).
That got much longer than I set out to post...
While I can see your friend feeling a little burned that people are making more than him by not working, this feels like the crabs in a bucket analogy, where people are just as happy with someones life being worse than theirs rather than making their own life better (other crabs dragging crabs trying to escape back in rather than just letting them escape). Rather than having tons of people lose their $600 and potentially lose their homes, medicine, or anything else they need the money for, why not instead focus on how low wages are for people who are working those types of jobs where $600 a week is higher. If people in the workforce got raises so they made $800 a week, would that make the $600 a week that people out of work are getting more tolerable? There are going to be tons of people who need that money currently while restaurants, retail, tourism related jobs, and others get shut down due to Covid, potentially not coming back any time soon. What do we do with them? For many the jobs are not there for them to work at, other wise they would.
Tying into how hard would it be to raise wages above or equal to $600 a week - Wages are not a majority of the cost for many places that hire minimum wage workers, going by this article (there are others with similar numbers):
https://upserve.com/restaurant-insider/labor-cost-guidelines-restaurant/
Wages are something between 20-30% for fast food places that are likely going to have the most minimum wage employees. If minimum wage is $8 in a state, and you double it to $16, that should only increase the cost of a $5 hamburger meal to ~ $6.25 or so. I often see people argue as if it is linear, where if you double minimum wage you double costs, but that does not effect costs of leasing, products, or people that already make more than minimum wage.
There are also unseen costs of employees that are making minimum wage now, such as a bunch of them being on government assistance programs like food stamps because they do not make enough money to live, but it is forgotten because it comes out of your taxes rather than at the drive through window.
This site:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs
Points out that over half of people on welfare benefits like food stamps have jobs.
That is also recapitulated with this older article, which talks about Walmart holding employee donation drives for food for other employees, so at least some employees of Walmart are not being paid enough, again, the government subsidizing a massive corporation by allowing them to underpay the workers and forcing our tax dollars to cover the difference:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/18/walmart-store-holding-thanksgiving-charity-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/#4bc3f02c2ee5
Also, not to speak for Joe or try or be a backseat mod, but these topics could potentially be their own threads since they are somewhat beyond the scope of this threads title. These topics seem like they might be "better" topics to increase the balance of discussion since they are not really Trump dependent topics (so anti-Trump conservatives can join with their pro-Trump friends).
That got much longer than I set out to post...
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
This is where I disagree. What variables are we working with here? At risk employees? Part time employees? Just dumb employees that don't see the bigger picture?
I am sure there are some people taking advantage of the 600 dollars. I am also very confident that more people aren't abusing it and you don't punish the many for what the few are doing.
Edit : I also like the idea of a back to work bonus so the people that can work do or even something to help the businesses that can't get employees back.
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
It’s certainly been a mix of people to answer your question. But there are more people than you/we/me would like to think who are taking advantage of staying home and getting paid. I’m confident in saying this because I am experiencing it first hand
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Average wage here is $41,250 (roughly $20 an hour) or $793 a week. After social security that's $740 a week.
Unemployment here is $350 plus the $600 federal kicker or $950 a week.
So why would I not hope or take furlough at $950 a week vs. working for $740. Assuming I know my job isn't coming back, why would I seek out work now and take a pay cut?
So no, raising wages to $800 or the state average wouldn't make it more tolerable.
Maybe cut the unemployment kicker to $300 a week and give everyone working a $150 a week heroes kicker. You would see unemployment drop and the help wanted signs go away.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I am sure it is a mix and there are extremes both ways. My husband is a tradesman. There are about 225 people that work where he does. They have 2 people off right now due to covid. Almost everyone had about 6ish weeks off from mid March until the beginning of May and came back despite the fact they were making as much or more with sub pay, Michigan unemployment, and the federal stipend.
I also realize that is rare to have over 99 percent of your work force come back when they were called back. I still believe the majority of the country is using this properly. My guess is it is less than 25 percent of the people collecting unemployment benefits are refusing to go back to work for no reason.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
I would compromise and let people keep the 600 kicker and give the workers a 150 or whatever kick to keep working.
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Not only that, there is so much side work available right now, I know many people double dipping.
If you are a reasonably employable person in decent times, then you would be stupid to pass on unemployment benefits around $1k a week to go to work for lesser money.
Not sure where here is, but I am skeptical that unemployment is due to people not wanting to work vs not having anywhere to work. You could make unemployment $0 right now and unemployment will still be high.
Also, it is unlikely that everyone that lost a job was making less than $600 a week, so some people are losing money but still might not be able to find a job quickly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
