CSNbbs

Full Version: The economy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Today, I noted that my retirement funds, which I rely upon to pay my monthly bills, is back to 93% of the pre-virus high-water mark.

Considering that I have made withdrawals to pay bills, that is a pretty good result in my opinion, given the problems that the virus and the protests have caused in American business.

I also note that in today's news, jobless claims are down.

What can we do to make things worse?

We can impose new taxes on the builders, hirers, and investors, reducing their incentives to build, hire, and invest.

We can give the jobless oodles of cash, reducing their incentive to work.

We can reinstate all sorts of regulations on oil production, ensuring that gasoline rises again to pre-Trump levels.

In short, we can enact the Democratic agenda.

If the goal was to help the American people, we would not do these things.

But that is not the goal.
(08-06-2020 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Today, I noted that my retirement funds, which I rely upon to pay my monthly bills, is back to 93% of the pre-virus high-water mark.
Considering that I have made withdrawals to pay bills, that is a pretty good result in my opinion, given the problems that the virus and the protests have caused in American business.
I also note that in today's news, jobless claims are down.
What can we do to make things worse?
We can impose new taxes on the builders, hirers, and investors, reducing their incentives to build, hire, and invest.
We can give the jobless oodles of cash, reducing their incentive to work.
We can reinstate all sorts of regulations on oil production, ensuring that gasoline rises again to pre-Trump levels.
In short, we can enact the Democratic agenda.
If the goal was to help the American people, we would not do these things.
But that is not the goal.

Spot on.
(08-06-2020 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Today, I noted that my retirement funds, which I rely upon to pay my monthly bills, is back to 93% of the pre-virus high-water mark.
Considering that I have made withdrawals to pay bills, that is a pretty good result in my opinion, given the problems that the virus and the protests have caused in American business.
I also note that in today's news, jobless claims are down.
What can we do to make things worse?
We can impose new taxes on the builders, hirers, and investors, reducing their incentives to build, hire, and invest.
We can give the jobless oodles of cash, reducing their incentive to work.
We can reinstate all sorts of regulations on oil production, ensuring that gasoline rises again to pre-Trump levels.
In short, we can enact the Democratic agenda.
If the goal was to help the American people, we would not do these things.
But that is not the goal.

Spot on.

I thought you were for a UBI?

Doesn't that make the bolded not spot on?
(08-06-2020 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Today, I noted that my retirement funds, which I rely upon to pay my monthly bills, is back to 93% of the pre-virus high-water mark.
Considering that I have made withdrawals to pay bills, that is a pretty good result in my opinion, given the problems that the virus and the protests have caused in American business.
I also note that in today's news, jobless claims are down.
What can we do to make things worse?
We can impose new taxes on the builders, hirers, and investors, reducing their incentives to build, hire, and invest.
We can give the jobless oodles of cash, reducing their incentive to work.
We can reinstate all sorts of regulations on oil production, ensuring that gasoline rises again to pre-Trump levels.
In short, we can enact the Democratic agenda.
If the goal was to help the American people, we would not do these things.
But that is not the goal.

Spot on.

I thought you were for a UBI?

Doesn't that make the bolded not spot on?

The U stands for universal.
(08-06-2020 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Today, I noted that my retirement funds, which I rely upon to pay my monthly bills, is back to 93% of the pre-virus high-water mark.
Considering that I have made withdrawals to pay bills, that is a pretty good result in my opinion, given the problems that the virus and the protests have caused in American business.
I also note that in today's news, jobless claims are down.
What can we do to make things worse?
We can impose new taxes on the builders, hirers, and investors, reducing their incentives to build, hire, and invest.
We can give the jobless oodles of cash, reducing their incentive to work.
We can reinstate all sorts of regulations on oil production, ensuring that gasoline rises again to pre-Trump levels.
In short, we can enact the Democratic agenda.
If the goal was to help the American people, we would not do these things.
But that is not the goal.

Spot on.

I thought you were for a UBI?

Doesn't that make the bolded not spot on?

The U stands for universal.

Which has no effect on the issue you denote - UBI would also give people “oodles” of cash, reducing their incentive to work...
(08-06-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Today, I noted that my retirement funds, which I rely upon to pay my monthly bills, is back to 93% of the pre-virus high-water mark.
Considering that I have made withdrawals to pay bills, that is a pretty good result in my opinion, given the problems that the virus and the protests have caused in American business.
I also note that in today's news, jobless claims are down.
What can we do to make things worse?
We can impose new taxes on the builders, hirers, and investors, reducing their incentives to build, hire, and invest.
We can give the jobless oodles of cash, reducing their incentive to work.
We can reinstate all sorts of regulations on oil production, ensuring that gasoline rises again to pre-Trump levels.
In short, we can enact the Democratic agenda.
If the goal was to help the American people, we would not do these things.
But that is not the goal.

Spot on.

I thought you were for a UBI?

Doesn't that make the bolded not spot on?

The U stands for universal.

Which has no effect on the issue you denote - UBI would also give people “oodles” of cash, reducing their incentive to work...

Read it again - I said "jobless", not "people".

For the jobless, the decision now is to stay home and collect $1450/week, or go back to work for $1000/week.

But for UBI, everybody gets $15K a year. If you want to live on that, OK, stay home, but if not, go to work, make more money.

One way you make more by working, the other you make more by not working. Guess which one is the Democratic way.

All numbers for illustrative purposes only.
(08-06-2020 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Spot on.

I thought you were for a UBI?

Doesn't that make the bolded not spot on?

The U stands for universal.

Which has no effect on the issue you denote - UBI would also give people “oodles” of cash, reducing their incentive to work...

Read it again - I said "jobless", not "people".

For the jobless, the decision now is to stay home and collect $1450/week, or go back to work for $1000/week.

But for UBI, everybody gets $15K a year. If you want to live on that, OK, stay home, but if not, go to work, make more money.

One way you make more by working, the other you make more by not working. Guess which one is the Democratic way.

All numbers for illustrative purposes only.

Show me the magical math that got you to that illustrative number. Oh, I get it, you just wanted to make it a big number to help prove your point. Carry on.
(08-06-2020 06:29 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I thought you were for a UBI?

Doesn't that make the bolded not spot on?

The U stands for universal.

Which has no effect on the issue you denote - UBI would also give people “oodles” of cash, reducing their incentive to work...

Read it again - I said "jobless", not "people".

For the jobless, the decision now is to stay home and collect $1450/week, or go back to work for $1000/week.

But for UBI, everybody gets $15K a year. If you want to live on that, OK, stay home, but if not, go to work, make more money.

One way you make more by working, the other you make more by not working. Guess which one is the Democratic way.

All numbers for illustrative purposes only.

Show me the magical math that got you to that illustrative number. Oh, I get it, you just wanted to make it a big number to help prove your point. Carry on.

Man, I SAID the numbers for just for illustration(did you get that far before your knee jerked?), but for the Rice mind, X+600 > y, where X is unemployment benefits and y is wages.

The differential may vary from state to state, and case to case.

As long as the equation is true, it doesn't much matter if the numbers are big or little.
(08-06-2020 06:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 06:29 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The U stands for universal.

Which has no effect on the issue you denote - UBI would also give people “oodles” of cash, reducing their incentive to work...

Read it again - I said "jobless", not "people".

For the jobless, the decision now is to stay home and collect $1450/week, or go back to work for $1000/week.

But for UBI, everybody gets $15K a year. If you want to live on that, OK, stay home, but if not, go to work, make more money.

One way you make more by working, the other you make more by not working. Guess which one is the Democratic way.

All numbers for illustrative purposes only.

Show me the magical math that got you to that illustrative number. Oh, I get it, you just wanted to make it a big number to help prove your point. Carry on.

Man, I SAID the numbers for just for illustration(did you get that far before your knee jerked?), but for the Rice mind, X+600 > y, where X is unemployment benefits and y is wages.

The differential may vary from state to state, and case to case.

As long as the equation is true, it doesn't much matter if the numbers are big or little.

From the breakfast place in Fredericksburg ----

weekly salary is 1000 for a server

unemployment 520

Pelosi boost = 600

total unemployment 1120

Same principle holds

Diner has been operating at -25% worker load / shift. That is, up until this week where magically they have enough people to operate at full load.

----------

shift manager -- 1250 weekly

unemployment -- 530

Pelosi boost -- 600

total not working benefit -- 1130, or 90% of wages.

Same diner --- can only bring 50% of its shift managers into work with the Pelosi boost in place. Again, magically, up until this week where the 'no shows' have elected to come back.

Too bad, since the best floor people who worked in the preceding 2.5 months were just now made managers. And those new 'extra' floor openings are now filled.

It is like people dont want to recognize the magical 'dont work at all for equal or 90% pay' **** bomb that Pelosi tossed at many businesses.
(08-06-2020 07:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 06:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 06:29 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Which has no effect on the issue you denote - UBI would also give people “oodles” of cash, reducing their incentive to work...

Read it again - I said "jobless", not "people".

For the jobless, the decision now is to stay home and collect $1450/week, or go back to work for $1000/week.

But for UBI, everybody gets $15K a year. If you want to live on that, OK, stay home, but if not, go to work, make more money.

One way you make more by working, the other you make more by not working. Guess which one is the Democratic way.

All numbers for illustrative purposes only.

Show me the magical math that got you to that illustrative number. Oh, I get it, you just wanted to make it a big number to help prove your point. Carry on.

Man, I SAID the numbers for just for illustration(did you get that far before your knee jerked?), but for the Rice mind, X+600 > y, where X is unemployment benefits and y is wages.

The differential may vary from state to state, and case to case.

As long as the equation is true, it doesn't much matter if the numbers are big or little.

From the breakfast place in Fredericksburg ----

weekly salary is 1000 for a server

unemployment 520

Pelosi boost = 600

total unemployment 1120

Same principle holds

Diner has been operating at -25% worker load / shift. That is, up until this week where magically they have enough people to operate at full load.

----------

shift manager -- 1250 weekly

unemployment -- 530

Pelosi boost -- 600

total not working benefit -- 1130, or 90% of wages.

Same diner --- can only bring 50% of its shift managers into work with the Pelosi boost in place. Again, magically, up until this week where the 'no shows' have elected to come back.

Too bad, since the best floor people who worked in the preceding 2.5 months were just now made managers. And those new 'extra' floor openings are now filled.

It is like people dont want to recognize the magical 'dont work at all for equal or 90% pay' **** bomb that Pelosi tossed at many businesses.

1250 - 1130 = 120

120 / 40 hours = $3.00/hour extra if you choose to work. I can see why some would choose to stay home and watch soap operas.

My numbers weren't so big after all.

I had a worker I had to let go when times were tough. She had 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, so she sat at home for 25 weeks, then in the last week went out and got a job at the first place she applied, starting on Monday of the 27th week.

As the employer, I had to reimburse the state of Texas for every penny of her 26 week vacation. My tax rate went up from .1% to 8.4% of payroll until it was paid off.
Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...

A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?
(08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...

A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?

It's a really good diner, I bet.


What do they make where you live?
(08-07-2020 12:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...

A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?

It's a really good diner, I bet.


What do they make where you live?

I have never, ever, ever, in my many years on this earth, met a diner server who makes that kind of money. The ones I know make a few bucks an hour plus tips.

You guys obviously know better people and hang out in better diners.
(08-07-2020 12:11 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-07-2020 12:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...

A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?

It's a really good diner, I bet.


What do they make where you live?

I have never, ever, ever, in my many years on this earth, met a diner server who makes that kind of money. The ones I know make a few bucks an hour plus tips.

You guys obviously know better people and hang out in better diners.

We only hang out in the best diners, with the best and most expensive food, and since servers get tipped on a percentage... we have linen place mats at the counter, Thunderbird in long stemmed crystal and TWO forks per place setting.

Seriously, though, what difference does it make, as long as x+600 > y?

Substitute roofer, or hotel clerk, or poker dealer for diner server. As long as x+600 > y, what's the difference?

The whole point of the subsidy is to keep the unemployment numbers high - we have an election coming up. One side wants as many people working as possible. The other side is offering incentives to not work. $600/week incentives. The incentive alone is probably more than diner servers in your area make annually. 52 x 600 = $31,200.
(08-07-2020 12:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-07-2020 12:11 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-07-2020 12:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...

A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?

It's a really good diner, I bet.


What do they make where you live?

I have never, ever, ever, in my many years on this earth, met a diner server who makes that kind of money. The ones I know make a few bucks an hour plus tips.

You guys obviously know better people and hang out in better diners.

We only hang out in the best diners, with the best and most expensive food, and since servers get tipped on a percentage... we have linen place mats at the counter, Thunderbird in long stemmed crystal and TWO forks per place setting.

Seriously, though, what difference does it make, as long as x+600 > y?

Substitute roofer, or hotel clerk, or poker dealer for diner server. As long as x+600 > y, what's the difference?

The whole point of the subsidy is to keep the unemployment numbers high - we have an election coming up. One side wants as many people working as possible. The other side is offering incentives to not work. $600/week incentives. The incentive alone is probably more than diner servers in your area make annually. 52 x 600 = $31,200.

The point of the $600 was to try and make up lost wages for people who lost their job without means testing for income level.

Quote: The idea behind a $600 payment was simple: In 2019, the national average unemployment payment was $370 per week and the national average salary for unemployment recipients was $970 per week. 3 The additional $600 per week is meant to make up the difference, providing enough money on a weekly basis to fully replace the average unemployment recipient’s salary.

It was a brute force method meant to more quickly get relief to out-of-work citizens. Should a more focused solution be implemented this time, since months have passed between the initial passage? You betcha - in a perfect world we could quickly and easily implement something that scaled with salary.

I’ll note two thoughts: 1) perhaps this is a sign that many jobs are barely providing a living wage? 2) while the pandemic is still going strong, and the virus is actively spreading, is it a bad policy to provide economic support for people that would allow them to reduce the amount of exposure they have with others?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtye...-jobs/amp/
(08-07-2020 05:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I’ll note two thoughts: 1) perhaps this is a sign that many jobs are barely providing a living wage?

Many jobs aren't worth "a living wage." If employers have to start paying $15/hour for someone whose productivity is worth only $5-10/hour, what do you expect them to do?

1) eliminate the position and save money, or
2) automate the function and get the work done for less, or
3) raise prices, or
4) eat the loss.

Hint: They're not doing 4). If they were forced to do so, then many businesses close down. If they do 3) then after inflation works its way through the system, the $15/hour is now worth what $7.50/hour used to be. If they do 1) or 2), now you have made the employee, which you were trying to help, worse off.

The left needs to learn to look at economic issues from both the employee and employer perspectives. It's easy to say, "Oh the employer can just pay a higher wage, and provide more benefits, and yadda, yada, yada," but the employer does not have unlimited means, and when putting bread on the employee's table means taking it off the employer's, that's not happening.

If we had the prebate/prefund that I have proposed, then the current minimum wage would be a "living wage" when added to the prebate/prefund. And I think that is an appropriate way to handle it if society believes that everyone should get a "living wage"--employers pat workers what their work is worth, and taxpayers augment it up to that "living wage."

Quote:2) while the pandemic is still going strong, and the virus is actively spreading, is it a bad policy to provide economic support for people that would allow them to reduce the amount of exposure they have with others?

Depends. If they are at high risk, their exposure to anyone should probably be reduced or eliminated. But at some point you have to look at the tradeoff between the virus and lost economic activity. At 150,000 dead versus 20 million jobs lost, I'm not sure where the most damage lies. I'm not minimizing death, just saying that it's not a slam dunk.

If we had the things that I have proposed, the prebate/prefund would have been sending everyone checks (or, more properly, electronic deposits) every month--not $600/week, but more than zero--and kurzarbeit would have provided a way for employers to keep more people working. It would not have solved the problem, but it would have made it less severe.
(08-07-2020 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-07-2020 05:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I’ll note two thoughts: 1) perhaps this is a sign that many jobs are barely providing a living wage?

Many jobs aren't worth "a living wage." If employers have to start paying $15/hour for someone whose productivity is worth only $5-10/hour, what do you expect them to do?

1) eliminate the position and save money, or
2) automate the function and get the work done for less, or
3) raise prices, or
4) eat the loss.

Hint: They're not doing 4). If they were forced to do so, then many businesses close down. If they do 3) then after inflation works its way through the system, the $15/hour is now worth what $7.50/hour used to be. If they do 1) or 2), now you have made the employee, which you were trying to help, worse off.

The left needs to learn to look at economic issues from both the employee and employer perspectives. It's easy to say, "Oh the employer can just pay a higher wage, and provide more benefits, and yadda, yada, yada," but the employer does not have unlimited means, and when putting bread on the employee's table means taking it off the employer's, that's not happening.

If we had the prebate/prefund that I have proposed, then the current minimum wage would be a "living wage" when added to the prebate/prefund. And I think that is an appropriate way to handle it if society believes that everyone should get a "living wage"--employers pat workers what their work is worth, and taxpayers augment it up to that "living wage."

And in a similar fashion, the right needs to look at labor issues and recognize that wages have not kept up with costs of living. Look at the quote in your signature "People who work should live better than people who don't." The current iteration of the conservative party in America has no interest in developing economic policies that actually make sure that people who are willing to work are able to earn a living wage.

But bickering back and forth about what the left/right do isn't very productive, so I do appreciate that you're interested in proposing solutions to a problem that exists. My point with #1 wasn't to suggestion that THE solution was for employers to pay more, but rather identifying a problem I see as existing in the current economy.

Quote:
Quote:2) while the pandemic is still going strong, and the virus is actively spreading, is it a bad policy to provide economic support for people that would allow them to reduce the amount of exposure they have with others?

Depends. If they are at high risk, their exposure to anyone should probably be reduced or eliminated. But at some point you have to look at the tradeoff between the virus and lost economic activity. At 150,000 dead versus 20 million jobs lost, I'm not sure where the most damage lies. I'm not minimizing death, just saying that it's not a slam dunk.

If we had the things that I have proposed, the prebate/prefund would have been sending everyone checks (or, more properly, electronic deposits) every month--not $600/week, but more than zero--and kurzarbeit would have provided a way for employers to keep more people working. It would not have solved the problem, but it would have made it less severe.

And completely agree with this. Anyone who clearly falls on one side of the fence isn't doing the issue justice. We basically have an existing welfare system (for lack of a better word) that is not nimble and not organized in a way to actually address the problems created by the pandemic. Kurzarbeit is a great example of a government program that both supports the supply and demand side of the equation, in a way that the PPP at least tried to emulate.
(08-07-2020 07:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]We basically have an existing welfare system (for lack of a better word) that is not nimble and not organized in a way to actually address the problems created by the pandemic.

We basically have an existing welfare system that does not actually address the problems created by poverty. It traps people in poverty, rather than helping them get out. It's a handout, not a hand up. And since the whole system was basically designed and championed by democrats, I can only assume that they want it that way. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat."

And republicans just sit and watch and let it happen. It's really hard for me to decide which team angers me more.

Quote:Kurzarbeit is a great example of a government program that both supports the supply and demand side of the equation, in a way that the PPP at least tried to emulate.

No, the PPP didn't try to emulate kurzarbeit. There's nothing in the PPP that emulates it. The PPP was designed to give people incentives to stay unemployed in an election year. And again, republicans just sat and watched and let it happen. It's like they're brain dead.

Evil party versus stupid party was never more evident than in the response to CV-19.
(08-07-2020 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-07-2020 07:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]We basically have an existing welfare system (for lack of a better word) that is not nimble and not organized in a way to actually address the problems created by the pandemic.

We basically have an existing welfare system that does not actually address the problems created by poverty. It traps people in poverty, rather than helping them get out. It's a handout, not a hand up. And since the whole system was basically designed and championed by democrats, I can only assume that they want it that way. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat."

And republicans just sit and watch and let it happen. It's really hard for me to decide which team angers me more.

Quote:Kurzarbeit is a great example of a government program that both supports the supply and demand side of the equation, in a way that the PPP at least tried to emulate.

No, the PPP didn't try to emulate kurzarbeit. There's nothing in the PPP that emulates it. The PPP was designed to give people incentives to stay unemployed in an election year. And again, republicans just sat and watched and let it happen. It's like they're brain dead.

Evil party versus stupid party was never more evident than in the response to CV-19.

Disagree with the PPP comment at the end.

The PPP requires that at least 60% of the loan cover payroll, employers maintain at least 75% of salaries be maintained, and employers maintain staff. So basically the PPP helped employers in the program cover some costs of salaries, in a similar manner to kurzarbeit.
(08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...

A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?

The funny thing is that when you drop that number, it makes the inequality even worse from your point of view.

Fine, call it 500 bucks a week.

Unemployment is 240, pelosi **** bomb is 600 = 840. 168% of wages to go fishing.

Thank you for making the point for me.

And yes, because of the massive amount of people coming to Fredericksburg, hourly wages are equivalent at diners there and for dishwashers in Austin. Roughly at 10.50 - 12 per hour.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's