General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMSM is missing the point about re-opening, it is used to lower the unemployment rate/claims
When your employer is opened (and your business owner doesn't have the excuse to remain closed), you have to go to work. If you refuse to go to work when your work place is opened, you do not qualify for unemployment. There is a specific questions when you apply for unemployment (or a few actually) that asks if you can go to work and if your work place is opened.
This move isn't just ignoring the people lives. But it's a specific move to lower the unemployment rate. They want to reject people's unemployment claims.
msongs
(67,381 posts)Claustrum
(4,845 posts)The red states will use this (the business is no longer closed because of COVID-19) and reject people's unemployment claims.
Not to mention, those red states will have at least some business owners who will open, then you will have to choose to go to work against your will, or you quit (without unemployment).
Igel
(35,293 posts)By the time de Santis spoke they had approved X number, which somebody said was something like 5-10% of the claims submitted.
If you've only approved 10% by a given date, that might mean you rejected the other 90% or you just didn't have time to approve them--or a combination of the two.
rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)should her employer reopen, is she supposed to go to work when the government is still saying she should stay home?
TheBlackAdder
(28,179 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)First of all they know the States do not have the Funds to pay UI for more than a month or two,and as on said,you open up and there goes the UI payments.
jojog
(372 posts)Claustrum
(4,845 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,256 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,618 posts)getting companies (preferably small comapanies) to keep furloughed workers on their payroll so they don't need to file unemployment.
Igel
(35,293 posts)"Lower the unemployment rate" means "people are working."
If they're working, it won't exhaust the unemployment benefits pool. You pay into it, but like any insurance assumptions are made about how many have to pay how much to cover expenses. This is sucking them dry. Then the state will have to find money for the rest, or we'll just have more federal deficit (it was bad at $1 trillion, now at $3 trillion it's okay?).
A lot of people find structure and meaning in their work. It's good for mental health.
If more people are working, it means there'll be more tax revenue. Think about it--your state has to pay for schools, Medicaid, roads, government workers, numerous other programs. If things are 50% shut for 2 months, that might be a 9% hole in the budget.
That "bailout" people keep babbling about is primarily pass-through money for the employees of small storefronts. Not the owners. The owners still have rent, utilities, various loans--plus their own expenses. The longer this goes on, the more business failures you'll have. And with those comes depressed rental prices, longer term unemployment. More loans have to be written off, meaning banks take losses and have less money to loan for new start ups.
Claustrum
(4,845 posts)I don't think anyone is suggesting unemployment forever or closing down forever. Though, the problem is that they are rushing before the pandemic is fully passed. I have no problem with re-opening, no one does, matter of fact, everyone wants it. But, you do it in a safe way and when the pandemic calms down.
And if we get a second wave because of the rushed re-opening, that will take a much bigger hit to the economy and the total death toll.
Once again, the problem is that the re-opened business employees now have to make a choice to go to work (even if it's against their will when the pandemic is still pretty bad) or quit their job (without unemployment benefits).