600 extra neetbux

I don't blame you for taking it,

you are now earning more than I do, and Im working a hard ass 40 hours a week.

it quite simple faggots monetary policy has failed the only thing left is fiscal policy

Attached: file.png (1035x532, 220.65K)

I would also like to add it seems like it's working.
They are also using the jealousy tactic that the USSR used on their citizens.
Some people are forced to work while others get an extended vacation that is not only paid, but a lot of people will actually make more sitting home.

I work construction, and I've seen so many hardcore right wingers turn around recently, and say "Man I was I was getting paid to sit at home"
Like all it took was some one waving a check in front of their face for them to COMPLETELY forget their own view points on economics.
Really a mind blowing situation.
Just remember if everything does eventually go back to "normal" there are power hungry people out there that will never forget how easy it was to make the populace do their bidding.

That's a good point. I don't even want to get a job if I'm getting more for doing nothing.
Minimum wage is $13x8x5=$520 bucks a week, before taxes. On unemployment we're getting 800 a week.

its not simple... why would you 'stimulate' only the unemployed people?

think about this.... a household of 2 unemployed people could be getting 1200 a week EACH on unemployment, that's $9600 a month for nothing?

Then consider that each of those people get a 1200 check as well....

that's $12k/month household income...

im just being real here... in my house... if we had a monthly income of $12k.... then we would save $10k of it.... because our monthly expenses are only around 2k.

I make 1.4k biweekly after taxes. Unironically, how do I get them to let me go in a way that makes me eligible. Was going to quit this job anyways, so I might as well collect as much as possible in place of slaving away.

more info or links on the USSR jealousy tactic? sounds interesting

I also work in construction, and I'm hardcore right wing...

I literally don't even work for the money, I work because I'm proud... I don't care if I get called a wagie or a bootlicker. I've got to do something with my time, and I enjoy working, theres nothing worse to me personally than having to stay home and not work... I understand that is not everyones philosophy... but it is mine, as fucked up as that might be.

ask them to let you go...?

I don't know, I would never do that personally.

>Can someone explain why we need to be giving unemployed people 600 a week (2400 a month) MORE than what they were getting before?
Sure, as soon as you explain to us why the government should bail out private banks.

Look into the Kulaks and redistribution of land and resources. Jordan Peterson summed the situation up accurately, but he's one of nu/pol/'s bogeymen, so we have to ignore it.

In my state, to be eligible for unemployment they state that you "must be unemployed through no fault of your own". That's weasel language, so if I just had them let me go I'm pretty sure they would make it tough or impossible on me to get benefits.

I cant explain that, because that is not what I believe in, and that is not my point.. at all.

let them fail

ah, yes. those lazy ingrates who got fired because we shut down the entire economy need to be punished with bankruptcy and eviction. that'll teach them damned dirty poors.

i really hope you lose your job one day. protip: your employer isn't going to give you 2 weeks notice and a golden parachute.

That's not the argument, though. Why do the unemployed need to make more than they were making whilst working? What motivation have I to continue to slave at my job while I could be making 2x what I am with unemployment checks?

The same reason they give welfare to niggers. The US economy is to remain in this contracted state until the whole system completely collapses, and you are to take the gibs and smile without asking questions. Be a good little Tom and maybe Uncle Sam will remember you when supply chains collapse.

you're missing the finer points of the mathematics here:

IF you get made unemployed, you get 50 - 100 % of your salary, PLUS 600.

so if you made 600 a week before ( like I do ) … then you will now get 1200 a week...

do you not see that that seems excessive?

I am totally used to being paid 600 a week, and I still save money... why would I need to be given 1200 a week to be unemployed? my costs wouldn't have risen... im actually spending less because there is less places open to spend my money at

basically, you failed at answering

Don't you remember that you're in Weimar? Soon a candybar will cost hundreds of dollars. Look at the price of consumer goods like the Nintendo Switch

Yeah but the man doesn’t want you to save. He wants your money. All of your savings after your allowed back outside will not be worth the same as they are now. Massively so. By giving money to everyone you dilute the pool for everyone, human habit will ensure that those who can’t handle money will just give it back in return for “normality”. Would you look at that, lots more cash in the coffers but no real stimulus. It’s a cheap way of convincing your populous that all is well, when in reality, for most people, your literally one bank check from poverty and financial ruin.

>and that is not my point.. at all
Sure, but it's my point. Tough to complain about the government reimbursing taxpayers a negligible percentage of what they've already paid in during a crisis when they manipulate the stock market by picking and choosing the winners. Not only banks, but other companies as well. It's ludicrous.

I understand hyperinflation, but hyperinflation doesn't explain why we would double or triple the weekly income of unemployed people - and do nothing for the employed people...

I kind of see what you are getting at, and maybe there is something there...

like: if we give the newly printed money to the poor people who are financially irresponsible.. it will definitely make its way back into the economy …

whereas, I'll be honest, if they gave me 600 extra a week right now, i'd be buying gold and waiting for this baby to blow the fuck up

because they shouldn't be punished for something that isn't their fault. is that so god damned hard for you to understand?
>but they make more than me and i feel bad
you're a poorfaggot and have you forgotten jewish/elite whores born as trust fund kids who "earn" $10,000 a week and never work a day in their lives? holy fuck you're pathetic. you're a guy with 0 shoes getting asspained about the guy with 1 shoe while ignoring the people with 100 shoes. grow up you faggot, that's probably why your salary is teenager tier.

>reimbursing taxpayers

then by your own theory... employed people should also be receiving a 'negligible percentage of what they've already paid'...

Why Just the UNEMPLOYED ones , is my question?

>IF you get made unemployed, you get 50 - 100 % of your salary, PLUS 600.
no you don't you stupid nigger. i was making 1k/week while working. unemployment without the 600 boost was offering $230 a week, less than 1/4 of my former salary. jesus you're a retarded faggot. did you learn how to read from a cereal box? did you grow up eating paint chips?

Well have you considered lube, you silly goose?

what you are stating is not what I am finding elsewhere,

it seems that it is possible to get 100% of your previous salary, plus 600... in a number of states.

sorry if your state isn't one of those, but my question is mainly regarding Those states

Because those who are collecting unemployment as a result of the jobs lost due to corona aren't receiving their full pay via unemployment benefits, it's something like half if I'm not mistaken and it's not as though they can go out and immediately get another job as they normally would given that the everything is shut down.

based humor

ok... so if I got HALF of my current pay, that would be 300 a week... plus my 600 extra, that's 900 a week...

that would be 150% of what I currently get paid...

Im just saying that maybe … just maybe... people could just be OK to receive 100% of what they were getting before? and not 150% or 200%?

and that doesn't include the $1200 checks...

why do normies need 3k per month when they expect autists to live off of 600 for the entire month?

because you only get more below a certain amount which means it a raise, which in turn means they should waste it due to the increase in their means.
Poorer you are the more likely you are to spend that money given and in turn multiply more.

Stimulate the economy dumbass

eat my peepee

>so if I got HALF of my current pay, that would be 300 a week... plus my 600 extra, that's 900 a week
Yet if you were previously making $1,202/week, half would be $601, add in the $600 and you're coming up short. That said, a quick search with 'average individual income us' params returns $31,099/year, which is ~$600/week so I can see your point. $300 would be a more logical figure. That said, if we weren't giving it to the unemployed it would go to Israel or some other bullshit cause so I'd rather US citizens get as much as they can out of the deal. In all honesty it sounds like you're just salty that you aren't getting an extra $600 while maintaining employment, which sort of invalidates your argument. You're question is why aren't I getting it too, rather than why they're getting it to begin with.

Man I hope that hazard pay comes through, being an essential worker must suck

>he didn't even read the thread

my god you're retarded, 600 a week is 2400 a month... and its EXTRA, that's ON TOP of the previous benefits...

Pretty much, and let’s be fair, giving vulnerable people more funding to enjoy those little releases from the day to day is only going to lead to cash generation in other areas once those habits have reached unprecedented levels.
People think shits bad now. Wait till you’ve met a government funded $600 a month meth head who’s been locked up for weeks and no longer gets their check. Also, as the meme above my original post pointed out, with hyperinflation, you aren’t saving anything now either.