Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

3.3. million filed for unemployment last week

Suddenly $2 trillion in stimulus doesn't seem like enough. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821580191/unemployment-claims-expected-to-shatter-records

 

A record 3.28 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week as the coronavirus pandemic shut down much of the country. The Labor Department's report Thursday was one of the first official indicators of how many people have suddenly been forced out of work nationally.

"This marks the highest level of seasonally adjusted initial claims in the history of the seasonally adjusted series," the department said. "The previous high was 695,000 in October of 1982." The Labor Department's records go back to 1967.

 

The staggering claims figure was well above the levels seen during the darkest days of the Great Recession, and the worst isn't over yet, economic forecasters say.

The crisis has cut a giant swath through the energy, travel, transportation, hotel and restaurant sectors, with large and small companies suddenly forced to furlough employees.

 

States that depend heavily on tourism, such as Nevada and Florida, as well as oil-and-gas towns like Midland, Texas, will be especially hard hit, but the damage will be felt almost everywhere, according to a Brookings Institution report.

The hotel industry alone has lost as many as 1 million jobs this month, the American Hotel and Lodging Association says.

 

"It is a huge shock and we are trying to cope with it and keep it under control," says James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Earlier this week, he said unemployment would hit 30%. But he tempered those remarks Wednesday, saying he expected the number to fall again quickly.

 

The Economic Policy Institute had estimated 3.4 million people filed for first-time claims during the week ending March 21. That compares with an average of 225,000 a week during the past six months.

 

The projected number is nearly five times the number of initial claims recorded during the peak of the Great Recession. In the week that ended March 28, 2009, about 665,000 new claims were filed. That was second only to the week that ended Oct. 2, 1982, when 695,000 first-time claims were filed. The Labor Department's records go back to 1967.

Honored Social Butterfly

    Wowzer, the ignoble donald supporters are not holding back on their racist tropes today.    They must really be listening to Gaetz or any of the other racist republicans....Surely these writers know they are repeating racist tropes....

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
0 Kudos
144 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Trump said the virus was a hoax. And only last week, he said the virus was under "Tremendous Control".

Honored Social Butterfly

3.2 million apllied for unemployment. That number will go up in coming weeks.

 

Compare these numbers to the Great Recession of 2008...

 

unemployment this week.jpg

 

Honored Social Butterfly

Because ObamaCare (The ACA) ties your health insurance to your job, then roughly 3.3 million people just lost their health insurance. Many of their "family members" are also on the employer health insurance policy.

 

Canada had a huge increase in unemployment this past week, too, but nobody lost their healthcare. Just a reminder...

Honored Social Butterfly

B4EB4180-D475-43A1-9A05-BE59438191CD.jpeg

 

Honored Social Butterfly

That viewpoint always fascinates me.   I assume you wouldn't work if you had another source of income?  Because most people will still work if they can find a job.  Yes, people need to put a roof over their heads, and need income, but most people work for more than money.   For a sense of purpose, for a challenge, for the socialization, for the empowerment, for the structure it gives their day.  I've got a 93 year old coworker.  He is certainly not working for the money.  He's got two pensions that include retiree health benefits.  Plus his wife still works.  But he makes a difference for others every day. 

 

https://billmoyers.com/2013/12/04/study-unemployment-benefits-dont-discourage-people-from-finding-wo...

Honored Social Butterfly

ManicProgressive:   That viewpoint always fascinates me. 

 

 

Republicans have used that view for decades with success. They insinuate that helping those at the bottom encourages laziness, and most of all, the help is going to "those people". It's a devisive message and goes back at least to Reagan telling whoppers about Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs and strapping young bucks eating steak and lobster while hard working people financed them. It's disgusting, but the base believes it.

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

ManicProgressive:   That viewpoint always fascinates me. 

 

 

Republicans have used that view for decades with success. They insinuate that helping those at the bottom encourages laziness, and most of all, the help is going to "those people". It's a devisive message and goes back at least to Reagan telling whoppers about Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs and strapping young bucks eating steak and lobster while hard working people financed them. It's disgusting, but the base believes it.

 


I guess businesses are lazy because they get bailed out all the time....they also haven't learned to save for an emergency....hm.....

0 Kudos
176 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist


@ManicProgressive wrote:

@Panjandrum wrote:

ManicProgressive:   That viewpoint always fascinates me. 

 

 

It's a devisive message and goes back at least to Reagan telling whoppers about Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs and strapping young bucks eating steak and lobster while hard working people financed them. It's disgusting, but the base believes it.

 


 

I can't tell you how many times (multiple times) I've been in a grocery store in line behind a couple with at least 2 kids and an overflowing grocery basket, just to watch the cashier have to break up the purchases in at least 3 seperate billings. 1 paid for by a SNAP food assistance card (welfare) - groceries, 1 paid for by a personal credit card - clothing and the the last paid for by the husband? pulling out a wad of cash big enough to choke a horse for alcohol and cigarettes. Then watch them load everything into an Escalade with at least 10k worth of wheels and tires installed. So President Ronald Reagan was correct in his statement.    

0 Kudos
160 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Suddenly $2 trillion in stimulus doesn't seem like enough.

 

 

No, it doesn't when you have Bernie Sanders trying to sabotage the bill by making it more lucrative to file for unemployment than work?

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-coronavirus-rescue-package-bernie-sanders-steroids-tr...

0 Kudos
211 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

NOTHAPPENING:  No, it doesn't when you have Bernie Sanders trying to sabotage the bill by making it more lucrative to file for unemployment than work?

 

 

I'd love to hear your answer.....................what work?

Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

NOTHAPPENING:  No, it doesn't when you have Bernie Sanders trying to sabotage the bill by making it more lucrative to file for unemployment than work?

 

 

I'd love to hear your answer.....................what work?


The "work" they had previously, but you already knew that.  The other answer I have for liberals is work is unknown to most liberals and they would just prefer excessive pay for nothing!

0 Kudos
230 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

NOTHAPPENING:  The "work" they had previously, but you already knew that.

 

 

Ok....I see. Now tell me how people would still have their previous jobs with companies closed for business? 

Honored Social Butterfly

Well, there go trump's unemployment numbers from all time low to all time high...must be his new economic strategy...run our Country totally into the ground!...trump having helped with the spread of the virus due to his incompetence and self absorbed personality...and does trump really care about those who have lost jobs, gotten sick, or died?

0 Kudos
262 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

NOTHAPPENING:  The "work" they had previously, but you already knew that.

 

 

Ok....I see. Now tell me how people would still have their previous jobs with companies closed for business? 


They won't temporarily until businesses start running again.  So, remind me of why you think (along with most liberals) why you think they should get more on unemployment than on their previous jobs?  Could it be to provide a disincentive to ever working again?

0 Kudos
264 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

NOTHAPPENING:  They won't temporarily until businesses start running again.  So, remind me of why you think (along with most liberals) why you think they should get more on unemployment than on their previous jobs?  Could it be to provide a disincentive to ever working again?

 

 

First, no one knows how long this will go on, but it's very predictable that people still have bills to pay. Three months of unemployment during a five month shutdown leaves them where? Btw, the three and five months I used are not facts, but speculation.

 

Second, this is a castastrophic event that that will leave millions destitute without enough help. The last thing on our worry list should be that some losers out there may decide to not work and try to stay on unemployment.

Third, unemployment help will not be an indefinite thing, so how do you figure people will stay on it forever instead of going to work again?

Fourth, you are not using sound logic, this is just ideological (and nonsensical) dogma.

0 Kudos
243 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

NOTHAPPENING:  They won't temporarily until businesses start running again.  So, remind me of why you think (along with most liberals) why you think they should get more on unemployment than on their previous jobs?  Could it be to provide a disincentive to ever working again?

 

 

First, no one knows how long this will go on, but it's very predictable that people still have bills to pay. Three months of unemployment during a five month shutdown leaves them where? Btw, the three and five months I used are not facts, but speculation.

 

Second, this is a castastrophic event that that will leave millions destitute without enough help. The last thing on our worry list should be that some losers out there may decide to not work and try to stay on unemployment.

Third, unemployment help will not be an indefinite thing, so how do you figure people will stay on it forever instead of going to work again?

Fourth, you are not using sound logic, this is just ideological (and nonsensical) dogma.


Why are you still dodging the question I asked ( So, remind me of why you think (along with most liberals) why you think they should get more on unemployment than on their previous jobs?)?

 

I know this is serious but more than employed?  Seems like liberals never get done double dipping.

0 Kudos
198 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

No, it doesn't when you have Bernie Sanders trying to sabotage the bill by making it more lucrative to file for unemployment than work?

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-coronavirus-rescue-package-bernie-sanders-steroids-tr...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

If I may borrow from Manic Progressive's link...

 

Chris Murphy (D - CT): “Let’s not over-complicate this. Several Republican senators are holding up the bipartisan Coronavirus emergency bill because they think the bill is too good for laid off Americans.”

 

Taylor Foy, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, pointed out that Graham apparently has no idea how layoffs work, noting that people who voluntarily leave jobs are not eligible for unemployment insurance and that one cannot simply choose to be laid off.

 

Even fellow Republicans have suggested the lawmaker from South Carolina needs to sit down and SHUT UP.

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

(Senator) Graham told reporters that the bill “pays you more not to work than if you were working,” noting that it would provide the equivalent of $24.07 an hour in South Carolina versus the state minimum wage of $7.25 an hour."

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/lindsey-graham-coronavirus-stimulus-bill

0 Kudos
201 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

It's scary.  I'm so lucky.  But I have so many friends -- sole proprietors of different types of business -- who are full stop unemployed now.  No work to be found.  I see people on NextDoor begging for any work there is out there.  And it's only been a week. 

Honored Social Butterfly

It's a lot easier to stop a runaway bike than a runaway train - thanks to Toad's INACTION, we need to pile a whole lot more bodies in the way, and those numbers will get worse way past Easter.

 

How many FEWER endangered lives and livelhoods would we have TODAY if Putin had not slithered the Orange Toad into the White House where he would IGNORE the NSA warnings, rely on his good buddy Xi Jinping and do NOTHING for 62 DAYS?

Conversationalist


@Olderscout66 wrote:

It's a lot easier to stop a runaway bike than a runaway train - thanks to Toad's INACTION, we need to pile a whole lot more bodies in the way, and those numbers will get worse way past Easter.

 

How many FEWER endangered lives and livelhoods would we have TODAY if Putin had not slithered the Orange Toad into the White House where he would IGNORE the NSA warnings, rely on his good buddy Xi Jinping and do NOTHING for 62 DAYS?


I'm confused please explain how if he had enacted this "social distancing policy" earlier this would have made the unemployment numbers lower? Would that not have caused the numbers to be relatively the same but earlier than they are now? And as a result the numbers would be potentially higher by this point? Would we have reopened businesses earlier if enacted earlier? Doesn't the virus run a somewhat predictable lifespan, and even if he had completely stopped travel into the U.S. the virus progress throughout the rest of the world would have kept everyone at home longer, therby causing the layoffs to have happened earlier and potentially last longer, by your numbers 62 days longer?       

0 Kudos
224 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

AzRancher:   I'm confused please explain how if he had enacted this "social distancing policy" earlier this would have made the unemployment numbers lower? 

 

 

It's because early strict social distancing could probably have helped greatly in stopping Covid-19 from becoming a disease raging out of control throughout the country. Look at the outcomes in Asia to see what I mean.

Conversationalist


@Panjandrum wrote:

AzRancher:   I'm confused please explain how if he had enacted this "social distancing policy" earlier this would have made the unemployment numbers lower? 

 

 

It's because early strict social distancing could probably have helped greatly in stopping Covid-19 from becoming a disease raging out of control throughout the country. Look at the outcomes in Asia to see what I mean.

 

But part of the strict social distancing policy included the closing of non-essential businesses. The same businesses closed today would have been closed earlier if the policy had been inacted earlier. Therefore it would appear the same number of people would have been unemployed earlier and would still be unemployed - possibly more.  

0 Kudos
278 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png