Insuring workers against lower wages is one of the Left’s better ideas | The Economist

CK MacLeod

WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. Will Truman says:

    This seems as much like an expansion of unemployment insurance as anything. Given that it doesn’t penalize employment (at a lesser pay), though, I think it could really be an improvement.Report

  2. Christopher Carr says:

    I don’t want to do this actual analysis or look for it, but I imagine such a plan would even be cost-saving if it allows for increased aggregate economic stability during downturns.Report

  3. Damon says:

    Wait a sec. This would be an insurance premium or a tax? Cause the last time the administration told us it was a premium the SC said it was a tax even when the bill said it wasn’t a tax. So the supporters are lying about it being a premium?Report

    • Alan Scott in reply to Damon says:

      Wrong precedent, I think. We should be thinking about the way Unemployment benefits are sometimes described as insurance and sometimes as a tax, not healthcare.

      After all, this is basically just an extended version of Unemployment. Not sure about nationwide laws but here in CA, if you’re forced into a lower-paying job, you can still collect benefits based on the difference between your old earnings and your present earnings. Except it only lasts for six months and pay for less than half of the difference.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Alan Scott says:

        The two states where I’ve collected it did have a provision for working for less, but there was a pretty low cap on it. Which meant that if you weren’t pretty low wage, you wouldn’t get anything that way.Report

        • Alan Scott in reply to Will Truman says:

          Yeah. In CA, the cutoff is $600/week. So if you’re making minimum wage, or working less than full time, it’s nothing to sneeze at. But if you went from a good-paying career to a bad-paying-but-still-career-job, you’re not getting anything.Report

  4. Damon says:

    Wrong precedent? It’s the most recent one and therefore the most remembered by the public. Don’t you think that’s important.

    “That means it could be financed with a tax, which supporters would describe as an insurance premium” I take being lied to pretty seriously. Playing semantic games is considered lying.Report