COVID Economy

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

This article claims that all 1.6 million moms of children under 17 "have not been able to return to work."  I am sure that many of these moms *could* return to work.  They are just choosing not to for various reasons - including the virus, the high cost of day care and the enhanced and immediate tax credits.

[forgetful]

This article claims that all 1.6 million moms of children under 17 "have not been able to return to work."  I am sure that many of these moms *could* return to work.  They are just choosing not to for various reasons - including the virus, the high cost of day care and the enhanced and immediate tax credits.

I think you are missing the point that there is a massive shortage of available child care, meaning, they cannot return to work as there is no where to place their children.

[forgetful]

A major problem in some metro areas right now is housing costs.

In my area, many are seeing that as their leases expire that the cost of their rentals is going through the roof. An average of a 38% increase with many far far higher.

A family I know just had their lease go to month to month. They received a notification that if they want to stay in their rental they will need to sign a new lease, where their rent increases from $1500 to $2200 a month. $700 a month increase.

They are fortunate that they can afford it, albeit, with now no longer being able to put anything towards savings...and vacations are likely out the window. Most cannot absorb these types of increases.

The result, they will either go bankrupt, or homeless.

Housing costs through the roof in part because older more affordable apartments have been torn down and replaced with more expensive rentals, and investment firms have bought up whole blocks of houses that are prime rental properties. They then immediately corner the market and jack up prices.

Question: Why should these people take a $7.50 an hour job, only to still be bankrupt or homeless? They would need to work 68 hours a week (and that is with no taxes being taken out) just to afford the rent on a $2200 a month property. And there aren't enough cheaper options for all the low paying jobs.

[4everwarriors]

Back in da Fortran 4 daze der wuz an error message dat red..."garbage in, garbage out," hey?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think you are missing the point that there is a massive shortage of available child care, meaning, they cannot return to work as there is no where to place their children.

No I am not missing it.  I am saying that claiming that ALL mothers who have not returned to the workforce for that reason is likely not accurate. 

[warriorchick]

They are fortunate that they can afford it, albeit, with now no longer being able to put anything towards savings...and vacations are likely out the window. Most cannot absorb these types of increases.

The result, they will either go bankrupt, or homeless.

Housing costs through the roof in part because older more affordable apartments have been torn down and replaced with more expensive rentals, and investment firms have bought up whole blocks of houses that are prime rental properties. They then immediately corner the market and jack up prices.

Question: Why should these people take a $7.50 an hour job, only to still be bankrupt or homeless? They would need to work 68 hours a week (and that is with no taxes being taken out) just to afford the rent on a $2200 a month property. And there aren't enough cheaper options for all the low paying jobs.

Anyone who is working for $7.50 an hour right now hasn't bothered to look for a higher-paying job.

[Hards Alumni]

*hearing about labor shortages everywhere*

*looks at border "problem"*

*sees a simple solution*

*waits on rest of US to come to similar conclusion*

But really, if we have a labor shortage, and a human surplus... why are we not allowing more immigration into the US to fill these jobs?  Birth rates have been declining for decades, and people are living longer.  If we're not going to have children to replenish the population, then we need to adjust our immigration standards to compensate.

[tower912]

Logical.

Cue the great replacement crowd.

[jesmu84]

*hearing about labor shortages everywhere*

*looks at border "problem"*

*sees a simple solution*

*waits on rest of US to come to similar conclusion*

But really, if we have a labor shortage, and a human surplus... why are we not allowing more immigration into the US to fill these jobs?  Birth rates have been declining for decades, and people are living longer.  If we're not going to have children to replenish the population, then we need to adjust our immigration standards to compensate.

I can't believe you support immigrants stealing our jobs.

[warriorchick]

What needs to happen is real immigration reform with an increased  quota and an efficient, organized, and ethical method of processing applications, as opposed to refusing to enforce the current laws.

[tower912]

Agreed.

[MU82]

What needs to happen is real immigration reform with an increased  quota and an efficient, organized, and ethical method of processing applications, as opposed to refusing to enforce the current laws.

Agreed. That's why this sucks:

During George W. Bush’s presidency the push for bipartisan immigration reform was defeated by a conservative revolt against amnesty for unauthorized immigrants. In 2013 another bipartisan effort failed, with the bill passing the Senate but never coming up for a vote in the GOP-led House. Since then polarization around the issue has only increased.

It's hard to imagine today's GOP, which has been co-opted by a xenophobe, agreeing on any immigration reform policy. Throw in the fact that many of the loudest Dem voices are on the far left, and there would seem to be very little appetite for middle ground.

[Hards Alumni]

Agreed. That's why this sucks:

During George W. Bush’s presidency the push for bipartisan immigration reform was defeated by a conservative revolt against amnesty for unauthorized immigrants. In 2013 another bipartisan effort failed, with the bill passing the Senate but never coming up for a vote in the GOP-led House. Since then polarization around the issue has only increased.

It's hard to imagine today's GOP, which has been co-opted by a xenophobe, agreeing on any immigration reform policy. Throw in the fact that many of the loudest Dem voices are on the far left, and there would seem to be very little appetite for middle ground.

Pretending Democrats are better at this will get you nowhere.

What needs to happen is real immigration reform with an increased  quota and an efficient, organized, and ethical method of processing applications, as opposed to refusing to enforce the current laws.

*checks notes*

Biden has deported 690k asylum seekers using title 42.  Trump only made it to 440k

But I agree, we need to fix immigration and make it much easier.

[forgetful]

*hearing about labor shortages everywhere*

*looks at border "problem"*

*sees a simple solution*

*waits on rest of US to come to similar conclusion*

But really, if we have a labor shortage, and a human surplus... why are we not allowing more immigration into the US to fill these jobs?  Birth rates have been declining for decades, and people are living longer.  If we're not going to have children to replenish the population, then we need to adjust our immigration standards to compensate.

We also have the technology and ability to automate probably upwards of 50% of labor.

If labor shortage is a problem, then invest in automation.

[jesmu84]

All good discussion.

Of course, we all know they won't actually fix anything or provide meaningful funding to existing programs to solve problems. Why? Cause then they'll have nothing to argue about/divide us about.

[Jockey]

Pretending Democrats are better at this will get you nowhere.

They may be or maybe they aren't. But, even you have to admit that they try - and have tried - to get something done.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

https://www.ft.com/content/d13b204d-a0c0-4eeb-bbfa-a4b0ce1d1c3f

“The view that unemployment benefits were restraining labour supply and labour growth is completely misguided,” said Gregory Daco, chief US economist at Oxford Economics. “It was certainly one factor but it is not the only one.”

[pacearrow02]

https://www.ft.com/content/d13b204d-a0c0-4eeb-bbfa-a4b0ce1d1c3f

“The view that unemployment benefits were restraining labour supply and labour growth is completely misguided,” said Gregory Daco, chief US economist at Oxford Economics. “It was certainly one factor but it is not the only one.”

If it was a factor how can the view be misguided?  I don’t remember anyone saying it was the only factor.

[tower912]

Chip shortage is projected to cost auto manufacturers $210 billion in lost revenue.

[JWags85]

Chip shortage is projected to cost auto manufacturers $210 billion in lost revenue.

Just wait until China positions their invasion of Taiwan

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Chip shortage is projected to cost auto manufacturers $210 billion in lost revenue.

I was reading about this over the weekend.

The automakers basically use a 20 year old chip design.  The chip makers see it as "old technology" and refuse to invest in new machines to increase output of them.  The chip makers are telling the automakers to switch to the new designs as they already make in extreme high volume for all electronics.  The automakers are all about "reliability" and don't move to new things "quickly" without lots of process validation and they know the "old tech" works and are taking their time moving to the latest and greatest chips.

[Billy Hoyle]

A major problem in some metro areas right now is housing costs.

In my area, many are seeing that as their leases expire that the cost of their rentals is going through the roof. An average of a 38% increase with many far far higher.

A family I know just had their lease go to month to month. They received a notification that if they want to stay in their rental they will need to sign a new lease, where their rent increases from $1500 to $2200 a month. $700 a month increase.

They are fortunate that they can afford it, albeit, with now no longer being able to put anything towards savings...and vacations are likely out the window. Most cannot absorb these types of increases.

The result, they will either go bankrupt, or homeless.

Housing costs through the roof in part because older more affordable apartments have been torn down and replaced with more expensive rentals, and investment firms have bought up whole blocks of houses that are prime rental properties. They then immediately corner the market and jack up prices.

Question: Why should these people take a $7.50 an hour job, only to still be bankrupt or homeless? They would need to work 68 hours a week (and that is with no taxes being taken out) just to afford the rent on a $2200 a month property. And there aren't enough cheaper options for all the low paying jobs.

teenagers aren't even making $7.50 an hour. I was driving through a couple small, rural towns last weekend and saw fast food establishments and convenience stores advertising positions for $13 an hour and higher. Higher in cities (I'm seeing up to $2000 signing bonuses for restaurants and as high as $28/hour at a local restaurant/bar). No luxury buildings in those small towns either.

[Pakuni]

teenagers aren't even making $7.50 an hour. I was driving through a couple small, rural towns last weekend and saw fast food establishments and convenience stores advertising positions for $13 an hour and higher. Higher in cities (I'm seeing up to $2000 signing bonuses for restaurants and as high as $28/hour at a local restaurant/bar). No luxury buildings in those small towns either.

Hooray for the free market, right?

Anyhow, the average full-time fast food worker in the U.S. earns a shade under $24,000 a year.
Sticking to the maxim that you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing, that's about $667 a month for rent.
Good luck with that in any major metro market.
 

[jficke13]

teenagers aren't even making $7.50 an hour. I was driving through a couple small, rural towns last weekend and saw fast food establishments and convenience stores advertising positions for $13 an hour and higher. Higher in cities (I'm seeing up to $2000 signing bonuses for restaurants and as high as $28/hour at a local restaurant/bar). No luxury buildings in those small towns either.

Assuming that's true (and I see no reason to doubt it is), then the more inexplicable thing is why the Rs don't trip all over themselves to raise the minimum wage to a level that's still below whatever the practical floor of wages being paid right now is but is above it's current level. Why the heck not claim the free PR win unless part of your core message is "keeping the boot on necks of the serfs no matter what."

[rocky_warrior]

Hooray for the free market, right?

Anyhow, the average fast food worker in the U.S. earns a shade under $24,000 a year.
Sticking to the maxim that you should spend no more than 30% of your income on housing, that's about $667 a month for rent.
Good luck with that in any major metro market.

I mean, I know Chicago is "cheap" for a metro market, but running a quick search for 2BR apartments under $1250 I came up with 525 available in the city right now.  Get one of your fast food  coworkers to join you as a roommate, and you can be living large.