Texas Re-Opening Announced

[Rougarou 594]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm curious, what do you do for a living?

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/14584-texas-re-opening-announced/page/6/&tab=comments#comment-2225825

[Brian Fantana 6689]

I think the greater point this thread has missed is the travesty that is someone bragging about taking their family to Chuy's. @GRHorn, you should be ashamed. Man up and grill some fajitas like a true Texan instead of feeding your family dog food Tex Mex.

[gmr548 16585]

When I say "you", I meant us UT-degreed professionals of still-somehow-abundant privilege on this website.
Yes, some folks might have to go to an office before they are ready or willing and in this climate there really isn't a choice because there aren't a lot of job openings.
I do think that a law should be passed folks can work from home on their decision, up until the date a vaccine is ready. If they choose to come to the office because they just have to have the social interaction and bad coffee, that's on them, but an employer shouldn't make that call for them.
As for me, someone who consults and someone who pre-covid flew every Monday morning to a client site and flew back home every Thursday afternoon; I'm not ready to start flying around the country again. Not sure when I will be, but I won't be jet-setting around until I feel comfortable to do so. And I'm sure the first time back in the saddle is going to be weird and I won't be "fully" ready.

All that is great but it doesn't address the point. Millions do not have that choice. This debate really shows how far we've strayed from a sense of common good.

You argument for opening up is basically "this government is never going to get up to speed," and while I absolutely agree with that, your solution is a law more worker/consumer-friendly than anything passed in the US in the past 50 years.

So it's unrealistic to demand the government to meet its own guidance when it comes to reopening, but we should have law that tells corporations to go fuck themselves. Jlawokay.gif.

Here in reality, where the government will continue to attempt to please corporations first and foremost, workers will not have that choice. Many will be faced with going on when they have rain to feel unsafe, or losing their income in an impossible job market. I'm glad you can hold off on the flying though. I guess that means we're ready.

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

24 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

but an employer shouldn't make that call for them.

Have you seen anything in the last six weeks three decades that would lead you to believe government will do something that favors employees over employers?

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I think the greater point this thread has missed is the travesty that is someone bragging about taking their family to Chuy's. @GRHorn, you should be ashamed. Man up and grill some fajitas like a true Texan instead of feeding your family dog food Tex Mex.

Not bragging. It’s the wife and kids’ fave. I humor them. 

[mchookem 16338]

13 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I think the greater point this thread has missed is the travesty that is someone bragging about taking their family to Chuy's. @GRHorn, you should be ashamed. Man up and grill some fajitas like a true Texan instead of feeding your family dog food Tex Mex.

whatever man...Chuychanga with deluxe tomatillo sauce is a treat! 😁

[Ghost of LL 15539]

The real issue in Texas and elsewhere is that the state is running out of money to pay all the unemployment claims.  So a big motivator for this is to get people off unemployment, either by getting them back to work or by cutting them off when they refuse.

The problem with this is that you're then going to have even less money flowing into the economy.  That is compounded when you have business trying to open, but no customers.  So those businesses have even less money until they ultimately fail.

So with this poorly thought-out plan, you're going to have the very worst of both worlds.  You're going to have a spike in infections.  And at the same time, you're actually going to damage the economy even further.

[Red Five 40875]

Flautas with green chile sauce. 

[GRHorn 105]

I’ve heard from a concierge medicine contact that has middle aged healthy patients that intend to shut in completely until a vaccine is produced. Like, their adult children are bringing them groceries. So for probably another year at least. That was surprising to me.

 

Anyone here this serious?

[wildcat09 29355]

18 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

 

All that is great but it doesn't address the point. Millions do not have that choice. This debate really shows how far we've strayed from a sense of common good.

You argument for opening up is basically "this government is never going to get up to speed," and while I absolutely agree with that, your solution is a law more worker/consumer-friendly than anything passed in the US in the past 50 years.

So it's unrealistic to demand the government to meet its own guidance when it comes to reopening, but we should have law that tells corporations to go fuck themselves. Jlawokay.gif.

Here in reality, where the government will continue to attempt to please corporations first and foremost, workers will not have that choice. Many will be faced with going on when they have rain to feel unsafe, or losing their income in an impossible job market. I'm glad you can hold off on the flying though. I guess that means we're ready.

 

 

There's merit to the argument that all of us yelling "STAY THE FUCK AT HOME" have that luxury, but the critics of that argument tend to be people who also have that luxury. If you look at the polls, nobody who works a real goddamned job is itching at the bit to get back to work, regardless of their dire financial situations, because they know the danger and they know their financial situations will be even more fucked if they get sick. The overwhelming majority of the "REOPEN!!!!" crowd are retired or near-retired boomers who want to be able to force someone to wait on them at Cracker Barrel.  

There's actually an easy solution to the problem that a lot of people need money that doesn't require taking the risk of everyone getting sick: just pay them. We should be paying everyone who can stay home to stay home until the government is able to stand up a workable testing and tracing system, and we should be paying the people who have to work the essential jobs hazard pay. And if they get sick, we should cover their health care. Instead, we're using the threat of cutting them off from unemployment to force everyone back to work in dangerous conditions, with nothing remotely close to the containment capability that we need in place, and we're telling their employers not to worry about maintaining safe working conditions because they'll get immunity for killing their employees.

Edited April 29, 2020 by wildcat09

[GRHorn 105]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

The real issue in Texas and elsewhere is that the state is running out of money to pay all the unemployment claims.  So a big motivator for this is to get people off unemployment, either by getting them back to work or by cutting them off when they refuse.

The problem with this is that you're then going to have even less money flowing into the economy.  That is compounded when you have business trying to open, but no customers.  So those businesses have even less money until they ultimately fail.

So with this poorly thought-out plan, you're going to have the very worst of both worlds.  You're going to have a spike in infections.  And at the same time, you're actually going to damage the economy even further.

Everybody is getting bailed out eventually in the fallout. 

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, GRHorn said:

Everybody is getting bailed out eventually in the fallout. 

This might be dumber than anything EMAW has ever posted. We're literally going to work people to death rather than pay them unemployment. 

[Storm the Field 5296]

Well, this wouldn't suck.

 

[GRHorn 105]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This might be dumber than anything EMAW has ever posted. We're literally going to work people to death rather than pay them unemployment. 

What is dumb about it? I was referring to LL concerns about unemployment money running out. These states are all gonna be fucked after tax revenues have cratered. There will be Fed/US Gov bailout for every single state that needs it. You can’t bail out big shitty corps and not the state governments. We’re gonna print money on a massive scale. A topic for another thread probably. 

[Rougarou 594]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

 

All that is great but it doesn't address the point. Millions do not have that choice. This debate really shows how far we've strayed from a sense of common good.

You argument for opening up is basically "this government is never going to get up to speed," and while I absolutely agree with that, your solution is a law more worker/consumer-friendly than anything passed in the US in the past 50 years.

So it's unrealistic to demand the government to meet its own guidance when it comes to reopening, but we should have law that tells corporations to go fuck themselves. Jlawokay.gif.

Here in reality, where the government will continue to attempt to please corporations first and foremost, workers will not have that choice. Many will be faced with going on when they have rain to feel unsafe, or losing their income in an impossible job market. I'm glad you can hold off on the flying though. I guess that means we're ready.

 

 

I feel like there is a false choice in our minds, which might seem to contradict what I said earlier, but it doesn't.

The essential worker who is not privileged to work from home-- they cannot provide their value over the internet and their value is derived from physical interactions e.g. police officer, construction worker, bar tender, etc.-- and is mandated to come into an office or the field before they feel emotionally/mentally/physically ready is no worse off than they would be if they remained furloughed, laid off or otherwise not working due to the economy being shut down. Their choice is no income due to not being able to work and no near term prospects or quitting a job and having no income or near term prospects. It's functionally the same thing.

To the privileged works from home and the government not a) being competent enough to ever roll out a safe opening and b) not caring about people over corps, I really do agree with you.

I don't see passing a law like that as the government telling companies to go f themselves. Just like giving people a couple of grand; the government isn't doing it because it cares about you, it's doing it to prop up the house of cards that is our service economy driven GDP. A metric crap ton of human beings work in the services version of a bridge to nowhere, which we are finding are fundamentally luxuries and of elastic demand. While they might inform your quality of life and how you value our time on earth, nobody really needs to eat Chuy enchiladas or drink at bars or go to sporting events or buy a new wardrobe every season. These people need to make some basic income money and pay basic bills to survive, so I argue too that keeping all those who can work from home is also in the government's interest in the name of keeping what productivity and industry humming that is still capable of fixing it's lips and passing air through them, doing so. 

To that end I think that the government attempting to please corporations, and allowing people by law to continue to work from home, is one in the same until a vaccine is ready.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45692]

5 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Well, this wouldn't suck.

 

Yep.  And first response:

 

Central Park Party Planning Committee

 

@space_man_z

·

11h

 

Replying to

@GregAbbott_TX

Get rid of blue laws and legalize weed while you're at it.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

5 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Well, this wouldn't suck.

 

Yep.  And first response:

 

Central Park Party Planning Committee

 

@space_man_z

·

11h

 

Replying to

@GregAbbott_TX

Get rid of blue laws and legalize weed while you're at it.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What is dumb about it? I was referring to LL concerns about unemployment money running out. These states are all gonna be fucked after tax revenues have cratered. There will be Fed/US Gov bailout for every single state that needs it. You can’t bail out big shitty corps and not the state governments. We’re gonna print money on a massive scale. A topic for another thread probably. 

Since when can the State of Texas print money?

There may be a bailout for state and local governments at some point in the future--though Moscow Mitch says he'll oppose one--but it's not going to happen today.  And that's when the Workforce Commission's money is running out.

And we can observe that the Workforce Commission is going to run out of money because Texas charges employers a scandalously low rate for unemployment insurance.  And I'm sure that won't be addressed in the next legislative session.  Because we love bidness!

But absolutely none of that addresses the cash-crunch that is facing Texas and other states right now.

[Guest Lobo]

I still say let grocery stores sell beer/wine on Sunday mornings.  You fucking Baptists with your non-stop hypocrisy.  

We find that Sunday mornings are the shortest lines to get into Trader Joe's/Randall's.  But we can't do our monthly stock-up on wine because we're at checkout at 10am at the latest.  

The law no longer serves any fucking purpose.  I'm not asking you to sell liquor at gas stations or school supply stores.  I'm asking for beer/wine sales to just follow the grocer's normal Sunday business hours (usually around 9am).  A lot of people over 21+ are only doing their shopping on Sundays during lockdown/gradual reopening.  Having people make a separate trip after 12pm literally doubles the exposure risk.  I know Baptists think Math is the Devil's Handiwork, but grow the fuck up.  

[Rougarou 594]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

There's actually an easy solution to the problem that a lot of people need money that doesn't require taking the risk of everyone getting sick: just pay them. We should be paying everyone who can stay home to stay home until the government is able to stand up a workable testing and tracing system, and we should be paying the people who have to work the essential jobs hazard pay. And if they get sick, we should cover their health care. Instead, we're using the threat of cutting them off from unemployment to force everyone back to work in dangerous conditions, with nothing remotely close to the containment capability that we need in place, and we're telling their employers not to worry about maintaining safe working conditions because they'll get immunity for killing their employees.

Full disclosure: I was/am a Yang Gang'er.

I think this pandemic has-- at least, should-- have done more to advance the UBI than anythings. It's a real life case study of why we need one. 

[kevwun 15808]

I don't know how the Workforce Commission managed to run out of money because anyone I talked to who tried to call them never got through to an actual person.

Edited April 29, 2020 by kevwun

[gmr548 16585]

The real issue in Texas and elsewhere is that the state is running out of money to pay all the unemployment claims.  So a big motivator for this is to get people off unemployment, either by getting them back to work or by cutting them off when they refuse.
The problem with this is that you're then going to have even less money flowing into the economy.  That is compounded when you have business trying to open, but no customers.  So those businesses have even less money until they ultimately fail.
So with this poorly thought-out plan, you're going to have the very worst of both worlds.  You're going to have a spike in infections.  And at the same time, you're actually going to damage the economy even further.

Which is really not that hard to see coming. Smh.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Which is really not that hard to see coming. Smh.

I know, right?  I mean, if I can figure this out, then it's pretty fucking obvious.

[gmr548 16585]

I'm not asking you to sell liquor at gas stations or school supply stores.

You may not be, but I am.

[Rougarou 594]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The real issue in Texas and elsewhere is that the state is running out of money to pay all the unemployment claims.  So a big motivator for this is to get people off unemployment, either by getting them back to work or by cutting them off when they refuse.

The problem with this is that you're then going to have even less money flowing into the economy.  That is compounded when you have business trying to open, but no customers.  So those businesses have even less money until they ultimately fail.

So with this poorly thought-out plan, you're going to have the very worst of both worlds.  You're going to have a spike in infections.  And at the same time, you're actually going to damage the economy even further.

Questions:

1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 

2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.

Commentary:

I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:

- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable

- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others

- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house

- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

29 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You can’t bail out big shitty corps and not the state governments. We’re gonna print money on a massive scale. 

McConnell says hold my beer.

[gmr548 16585]

This might be dumber than anything EMAW has ever posted.

Woah woah woah

[CooterBrown 18015]

There's already litigation over that issue -- requiring people to come to work and expose themselves to a dangerous illness.  And there's still-developing guidance, which will surely change.  In short, it's a mess already, and will only get messier.

Governors Office did clarify no unemployment insurance for you if you decide it’s not safe to work since the state declared it is safe. It didn’t specify but I’d guess there’s no no protection either if you run out of PTO to burn.

[CooterBrown 18015]

Questions:
1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 
2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.
Commentary:
I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:
- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable
- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others
- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house
- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

[CooterBrown 18015]

Questions:
1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 
2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.
Commentary:
I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:
- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable
- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others
- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house
- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

[Rougarou 594]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

Governors Office did clarify no unemployment insurance for you if you decide it’s not safe to work since the state declared it is safe. It didn’t specify but I’d guess there’s no no protection either if you run out of PTO to burn.

I think, to clarify,:

* You quit your job because you feel it's unsafe to work, no benefits for you

* You get fired from your job because of *reasons*, benefits for you

I think it goes back to the age old gaming of the system that boils down to the rule of thumb: Don't quit your job, you should get fired, if you want to be eligible for unemployment

[Rougarou 594]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Questions:
1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 
2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.
Commentary:
I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:
- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable
- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others
- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house
- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

Are you trying to answer inline with red or something?

[CooterBrown 18015]

Questions:
1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 
2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.
Commentary:
I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:
- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable
- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others
- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house
- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

Governors Office clarified yesterday you don’t get unemployment insurance if you don’t go to work now because you feel it’s unsafe.

The Comptrollers State budget was based on an average of $52/BBL for oil. That’s all shot to hell. State is most likely going to have layoffs in addition to pay and hiring freezes.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

Would be nice if we lived in a state with a massive amount of money in a "rainy day" fund or something like that.  Oh wait.

[kevwun 15808]

The rainy day fund exists solely for the Governor to brag about.  It's like the fancy dinnerware set your wife has that can't actually be used.

[Rougarou 594]

6 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Governors Office clarified yesterday you don’t get unemployment insurance if you don’t go to work now because you feel it’s unsafe.

The Comptrollers State budget was based on an average of $52/BBL for oil. That’s all shot to hell. State is most likely going to have layoffs in addition to pay and hiring freezes.

* You quit your job because you feel it's unsafe to work, no benefits for you

* You get fired from your job because of *reasons*, benefits for you

I think it goes back to the age old gaming of the system that boils down to the rule of thumb: Don't quit your job, you should get fired, if you want to be eligible for unemployment

[GRHorn 105]

44 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Since when can the State of Texas print money?

There may be a bailout for state and local governments at some point in the future--though Moscow Mitch says he'll oppose one--but it's not going to happen today.  And that's when the Workforce Commission's money is running out.

And we can observe that the Workforce Commission is going to run out of money because Texas charges employers a scandalously low rate for unemployment insurance.  And I'm sure that won't be addressed in the next legislative session.  Because we love bidness!

But absolutely none of that addresses the cash-crunch that is facing Texas and other states right now.

Obviously states can’t print money. 

This will all be another acute phase of the crisis. They will pass some emergency funding for states. Red states will need help as well. Mitch will stfu. 

[Ghost of LL 15539]

39 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.

When you can only open to 25%, most people aren't going to be called back to work.  So now they're out of work, and they can't get employment.

And of course, it's basic economic theory that the loss of that money has a multiplier effect throughout the economy.  Rents aren't going to get paid.  Any discretionary spending is going to dry up.

[Prepuce of Doom 21091]

25 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Obviously states can’t print money. 

This will all be another acute phase of the crisis. They will pass some emergency funding for states. Red states will need help as well. Mitch will stfu. 

Mitch will find reasons to only help select confederations of states, and then somehow quite suddenly, we're on the brink of an issue we haven't confronted for about 150 years. 

Edit: to be clear, I don't necessarily think that this will happen, but I also didn't think the possibility would legitimately cross my mind when thinking about this entire situation two months ago. The fact that this is an idea worth even 20 seconds of internal debate and analysis is terrifying and a nauseating indicator of what a mess we've made of things. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Prepuce of Doom

[GRHorn 105]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

When you can only open to 25%, most people aren't going to be called back to work.  So now they're out of work, and they can't get employment.

And of course, it's basic economic theory that the loss of that money has a multiplier effect throughout the economy.  Rents aren't going to get paid.  Any discretionary spending is going to dry up.

I checked on Saturday night possibilities. One place not opening, one already full through open table, got reservation at a third one. All nice places. I guess their margins are better so they can open. 

[4th&Five 41565]

What happened to Chuy’s?

[Ghost of LL 15539]

59 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Questions:

1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 

2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.

Commentary:

I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:

- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable

- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others

- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house

- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

Here's a good rundown of the various problems with Abbott's plan, which captures a lot of my thoughts.  Long story short, this is going to destroy the restaurant and retail industries.

 

[GRHorn 105]

4 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

What happened to Chuy’s?

They don’t take reservations. I’ll let you know if we get in there Friday. Saturday will be masked date night. 

[Guest Lobo]

58 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The rainy day fund exists solely for the Governor to brag about.  It's like the fancy dinnerware set your wife has that can't actually be used.

It reminds me of the Cusack movie, "A Sure Thing" when he and the girl are caught on foot out in a thunderstorm in the middle of nowhere with no money (and before cell phones).  They happen upon a shack and he's trying to pick the lock and she offers him a credit card.  He first remarks, "I don't think I can pick this kind of lock with a credit card."  But she says, "No, you don't understand, I have a credit card we could use.   But my dad said it's only for emergencies."  He looks at her, up at the pouring rain, and at the tiny shack they can't even access and says, "Well, maybe one'll come up."  

[softlynow 1816]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

You may not be, but I am.

 

Yep. For those of us forced to home school for the first time, liquor is an essential school supply.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

57 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

* You quit your job because you feel it's unsafe to work, no benefits for you

* You get fired from your job because of *reasons*, benefits for you

I think it goes back to the age old gaming of the system that boils down to the rule of thumb: Don't quit your job, you should get fired, if you want to be eligible for unemployment

Here is the official eligibility:

Types of Job Separation

To be eligible for benefits based on your job separation, you must be either unemployed or working reduced hours through no fault of your own. Examples include layoff, reduction in hours or wages not related to misconduct, being fired for reasons other than misconduct, or quitting with good cause related to work.

You can probably start screwing around at work, and get fired for incompetency but you can't tell you boss to f-off. It really depends on whether your company wants to fight your claim.

 

[workswithseed 2112]

59 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The rainy day fund exists solely for the Governor to brag about.  It's like the fancy dinnerware set your wife has that can't actually be used.

https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2019/rainy-day-fund/

Apparently they were saying that they should spend some 2.5 billion back in 2019, might as well crank it out again for this occasion.

[4th&Five 41565]

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by 4th&Five

[Prepuce of Doom 21091]

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, Rougarou said:

Questions:

1. What did I miss where you get cut off from unemployment because you refuse to go apply for jobs in good faith (as opposed to just doing it to keep the unemployment coming like folks do now if they don't want to work) and get back in the workplace? 

2. Why or how would you have less money flowing into the economy than you do now, when things are shut down? I don't follow that train of thought.

Commentary:

I don't agree with you that you are going to have businesses  trying to open but no customers. The proof will be in the pudding and the assessment of the data after the first couple of weeks, but my hypothesis is that business will be booming. I am basing this off opinion and conjecture, obviously, as we all are, but mainly because:

- Most people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable

- People are selfish; we want what we want and who cares about others

- People are chomping at the bit to get back to normal and do things and get out of the house

- In the little I've gone out and shopped for groceries and done a Home Depot run, people are already ramping it up and getting back into the swing of things. They just need the formal approval.

Champing at the bit.