Kudlow says $600 additional unemployment checks will end in July

[ansible]

Source: politico

National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow reiterated Sunday the $600 additional weekly unemployment benefit created to aid those who lost their jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic will end in late July. "I mean, we're paying people not to work. It's better than their salaries would get," he said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"That might have worked for the first couple of months. It'll end in late July," he added, saying the extra benefit was necessary during the height of the coronavirus lockdowns. Kudlow said that "almost all businesses" understand the $600 additional benefit is "a disincentive." He said the Trump administration is instead "looking at a reform measure" that will provide an incentive for returning to work, but it will not be as substantial.

"It will not be as large, and it will create an incentive to work," he said. "That goes along with the other incentives we've generated, the tax rebates and, most particularly ... the Payroll Protection Program, which I think was a huge success." Kudlow was pressed by CNN host Jake Tapper on the idea that Americans don't want to return to work. Tapper pointed out that some Americans' jobs aren't coming back — a point Kudlow called "fair."

"I personally agree with you. I think people want to go back to work," Kudlow responded. "I think they welcome the reopening of the economy, and I think they're anxious to get out and about." "However, at the margin, incentives do matter," he added. "We have heard from business after business, industry after industry, and there's already some evidence that this effect is taking place." The House-passed Heroes Act would extend the $600 additional weekly unemployment benefit through the end of January 2021. The Senate has not passed similar legislation.



Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/14/kudlow-unemployment-checks-end-317641

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yes, that $600 per week translates to the unimaginable wealth

of a $31,200 per year salary. We can't have folks sitting around eating lobster and buying Maseratis with those insanely generous checks when they ought to be back at their old jobs serving their betters as hotel maids or fast-food workers.

[Igel]

17. Yes, it does.

Assuming that you were gainfully employed at $0.00/hr at your regular job.

It's in addition to unemployment. (I continue to say this: In Texas, not known for generous benefits, you'd have to have a salary of $59k/year or so to break even on unemployment with the bonus. If you make less, then unemployment + bonus > earned income at your job).

If you're making $30k/year at a job, then the bonus may not double your income, but it's going to be 1.5 or 1.6x your pre-COVID income. A 50% or 60% raise is nothing to sneeze at.

One woman was interviewed and, without saying it this way, expressed that unemployment and the stimulus worked out really well for her: She paid off her car loan, other debts, and was in the best financial shape of her adult life. While that's sad in many ways, it's also clearly a disincentive: If she returns to work she takes a big "pay" cut.

[herding cats]

24. However, in your example, if she spent all her money she enriched the weakened economy.

Which was one of the goals, unless I misunderstood. Yes. She benefited, but so did the economy as a whole. It was literally the way it was sold Congress and passed with bipartisan votes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. You could look at it another way, though.

The woman in the example paid off her car loan and other debts, meaning she added a bunch of money to the economy that she couldn't have done without the stimulus payments - and that's what a stimulus is really for. If she remains unemployed and continues to get $600 a month that money will continue to be added to the economy because although it might be enough to live on, it's not enough to live on plus save or invest. The main point is to get money into the economy, not necessarily to make life easier for individuals.

In any event the extent of the "excess" benefit will depend on the individual. In my state the maximum unemployment benefit is $760 per week. Someone who was getting that much (meaning their old job had paid almost $80K) would be worse off even with the stimulus payment (by almost $10K) than if they had remained employed.

[stopbush]

31. Here in CA, the highest weekly benefit is only $450, and we have one of the highest

COLs in the country.

[cannabis_flower]

36. Not quite..

I'm in Texas. I was making about $360 a week as a substitute teacher and about $350 a week from Uber. With Texas and Federal Unemployment I'm making $168 from Texas and $600 from Federal. So basically I'm making just a little more. I'm not paying for as much gas so I might be making about $50 a week more than when I was working. If my Uber job had not been an independent contractor job Texas would have paid me for that one too and I would have made more money.

[More_Cowbell]

2. If people don't need the extra help, then neither do corporations

My job is GONE; my company laid off 10% of employees in May. I'm 60 and facing this job market. I gave away the $1200 I got to two food banks, thinking I didn't need it.

I hope that the Democrats refuse to enact more welfare for corporations unless it includes vote-by-mail protection for voters in all states.

[Igel]

19. The PPP works like this.

You can use up to 25% of the money for your business. The rest goes to workers.

So 75% of the amount goes to the workers. The workers benefit. Ideally, it's to keep people from being laid off--that may not be the case, but it's how the law, bipartisan, was written. And both sides boasted at the time that it was what they wanted, it was a victory. Intimations of horrible defeat are revisionist.

If you don't use at least 75% for payroll, it's a loan.

If corporations don't need the loan, then workers getting that $600/week also don't need the loan. (Wait. Do people really think $600/week is a loan? Or do they not realize that the PPP is a loan that's only converted to a grant if the companies--not just corporations--not only met but can document that they met the preconditions for the conversion? Seems that one of the two misconceptions is COVID-rampant. Then again, many still think that TARP was a gift, not a loan, and that the government lost money instead of earning profit on the TARP funding.)

[stopwastingmymoney]

35. It might have worked that way if it were a well run program

As it was, by the time the money came through, most employees were already on unemployment

Among my clients who got the loan, only two are actually operating and running payroll

The others are just grateful for some low cost financing and don’t expect it to be forgiven

There are still no solid guidelines about what will be required for loan forgiveness

It’s just another example of piss poor administration, big surprise

[Newest Reality]

3. Then...

Then why are we paying CEOs and various corporations and entities NOT TO WORK?

They don't seem to be doing anything extra or out of the ordinary to deserve the welfare thanks to our corporate socialism agenda.

They need to be introduced to the dignity of work and stop slacking by having companies that can't weather an economic sneeze, let alone a crisis.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

37. Why are we paying Trump to golf, watch television,

and fantasize about screwing Ivanka?

[BamaRefugee]

4. With that over, as soon as courts allow evictions again, you will see entire families living in

their cars and the sidewalk beside it.
Thousands and thousands of people are already behind on their rent, and no way ANYONE will have some "balloon payment" magically socked away under their mattress to pay for the last 3 months.
I know because the unlawful detainer process is part of my business, which has been closed since March, but it will, unfortunately, explode as soon as courts reopen and the process begins.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. All part of a distraction by

the White House. Remember,Moscow Mitch and his Gang have already said,they plan on a mega money bomb sometime on or before October. October surprise anyone?

[tom_kelly]

14. Yep. Buying the vote

[George II]

6. Kudlow doesn't have the final say. Thinking Congress has something to do about it, too.

[HotTeaBag]

10. Not even sure if he has ANY say, it's not up to him.

But, because he's saying it it's a good bet that this is the thinking in the minds of 'R' congress folk.

I wish they'd stop with the 'people are making more money not working than when they were working' bit, as it's true in some instances - but not for me and many others, I am on UI and making less than when I was working and my bills haven't gone down any. Trouble is, my job (if it comes back at all) won't come back until late in the year so I will have to find something waaaaay out of my lane in order to have a job at all.

[George II]

11. Idiots have been saying that since I was a teenager (we're talking 60 years ago!)...

People do NOT make more money not working. I'd like to know who lost their job making less than $600 / month.

That has been a fallacy about unemployment compensation and a phony excuse to eliminate it or reduce it for decades.

[former9thward]

18. It is $600 a week.

Plus the state unemployment. So it works out to be about $25 a hour for a 40 hour week in most states.

[MoonchildCA]

20. That $600 is in addition to what the state pays.

With the $600, plus my normal unemployment of over $400 a month, I’m making slightly more than my usual salary. I have to admit, because I don’t particularly like my job, it is a bit of a disincentive.
But it is temporary, and I have no intention of taking advantage of it.
My company has said I can come back now, if I want, but our numbers are starting to rise in CA, so that doesn’t make me very comfortable either. I’m compromising by starting to work a few hours from home. This will be the first time I report hours to unemployment. I’ll see how it is affected.

[Blasphemer]

27. I know several people making more money not working....

But, as stated above, that was the point. They could have figured out a way to tie it to pre-unemployment earnings so it made everyone whole as opposed to increasing their earnings. They didn't because the surplus would boost the economy. Either through direct spending or through additional savings to keep people afloat longer.

[rickford66]

7. How much should it be increased so it will trickle down ?

[CountAllVotes]

8. That $1200 was gone before I got it!

Hot water heater went out.

[keithbvadu2]

9. Paying people not to be forced to work in a breeding ground for disease.

Paying people not to be forced to work in a breeding ground for disease.

[roamer65]

12. It's going to start looking like 1931 and 1932.

Time for a green energy jobs act.

[Doug.Goodall]

29. +1

Don't just bring back old jobs, create new ones while you have the opportunity.

[roamer65]

34. Perfect time to address global climate change.

We need a war on GHG emissions.

[airplaneman]

13. And in the Cares act there was also:

Over 43,000 US millionaires will get ‘stimulus’ averaging $1.6 million each

https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/43k-us-millionaires-will-get-stimulus-averaging-1-6m-each/

So explain why if we get $600 a week it is an unnecessary giveaway

-Airplane

[Crowman2009]

15. We should end Kudlow's cocaine stipend this November!

[yaesu]

16. millions can't get unemployment and those who are being forced to work for pennies putting

their lives in danger aren't getting any help. the fascists think they hold the purse string, the House does and the House needs to get their shit together and defund tRump, the JD, everything until we get the same kind of stimulus the fat banksters got.

[truthisfreedom]

21. "Go die, plebes."

Our administration of the moment, ruled by a game show host who fires his subjects moment by moment to foment fear, has no knowledge of pandemics.

[Giordano Bruno]

22. Kudlow works?

Larry Kudlow has been getting for not working his whole life.

[louis-t]

23. Mitch McConnell is paid over 200k a year to not work.

The lump in the White House gets 400k and by some accounts, he's not even a functioning human being. All republics can go fuck themselves.

[King_Klonopin]

25. It's the standard GOP talking point about relief for INDIVIDUALS.

"Getting paid to NOT work." The hefty sum of $600 = $15/hr which is exhorbitant.

The $500 billion that went to corporations? Don't know where it went; don't care; don't ask.

So, if you stop this emergency measure, where are the 12 million jobs that are waiting for
these people who are "not working"? Up your ass, I would ASSume?

Whenever someone uses the term "elitist", Kudlow's face is the first image I see in my mind.

[KPN]

28. The House better stand up to the administration and GOP on this or we are in for an economic

depression, not recession. Incentives are fine, so long as they don't force people to put their lives on the line for $15 an hour. COVID-19 has elevated Yang's argument for UBI. It makes good sense and the Democratic House should stand behind the concept now when it's sensibility is crystal clear. Anything less and the country as well as the party will suffer unnecessarily down the line. Use UBI as an incentive, fine, but don't discount it as an equitable means to a sustainable economic future and certainly don't eliminate support for those who cannot return to work either or both at an income level that is drastically below what they lived on pre-COVID or without incurring obviously unacceptable health risks.

[dexdah]

30. But tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy go on and on and on, n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

32. The shit is really gonna hit the fan in August

That's when we'll move from a recession to a full fledged depression.

Mostly due to the way the federal government has handled everything.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

33. WTF kind of jackals would look at relief payments as leverage against the vulnerable? nt