Carmina Shoes - Definitive Thread (reviews, advice, sizing, etc...) - official thread.

[stook1]

You are to hot headed to read my post No where did I say not to give unemployed people a stipend.

What I said is that the stipend should not have been a fixed amount and been a percentage of your original pay.

Read what I posted again after you chill out.

I even gave examples but let me go over it again.

Current plan everyone on UI gets $300 extra per week no matter what. I said it should have been X% whatever that is even say 50% so you make $200 a week you get an extra $100 a week you make $500 a week you get an extra $250 a week.

So I Never Ever said that people on unemployment should not get anything. I clearly said it should have been a percentage and not a fixed number.

Yes and for sure on the original plan of fixed $600 I think it is insane that.

Worker A who was making $10 per hour so total $400 a week now gets to take home $1000 per week. You see this is 2.5 times his original take home pay yes insane.
Worker B who was making $30 per hour so total $1200 is now taking home $1800 per week.
How is this fair??? why does worker B not also get to take home 2.5 times his original pay??? Why not??? He has bills too probably more bills and same chance of losing that roof over his family.

Should have been a percentage like I said say 50%.
Worker A who was making $10 per hour so total $400 a week now gets to take home $600 per week.
Worker B who was making $30 per hour so total $1200 is now taking home $1800 per week.

The more you make the more you get this is fair and encourages everyone at any level to get back to work while also helping them out in a time of need.

The original political rationale was that red states generally offered stingy unemployment benefits (and min wage) which created a negative incentive during the pandemic when the public health motivation at the time as to ensure citizens' safety. Could it have been more targeted to be less beneficial for higher wager earners? Perhaps. But what you are complaining about at the bottom end of the pay scale is primarily a function of there not being a living min wage in some/many parts of the country and also not having a substantial enough safety net for unemployed people.

I don't think your proposal sufficiently addresses these inconsistencies at the state level.

 

[Blastwice]

You are to hot headed to read my post No where did I say not to give unemployed people a stipend.

What I said is that the stipend should not have been a fixed amount and been a percentage of your original pay.

Read what I posted again after you chill out.

I even gave examples but let me go over it again.

Current plan everyone on UI gets $300 extra per week no matter what. I said it should have been X% whatever that is even say 50% so you make $200 a week you get an extra $100 a week you make $500 a week you get an extra $250 a week.

So I Never Ever said that people on unemployment should not get anything. I clearly said it should have been a percentage and not a fixed number.

Yes and for sure on the original plan of fixed $600 I think it is insane that.

Worker A who was making $10 per hour so total $400 a week now gets to take home $1000 per week. You see this is 2.5 times his original take home pay yes insane.
Worker B who was making $30 per hour so total $1200 is now taking home $1800 per week.
How is this fair??? why does worker B not also get to take home 2.5 times his origiaon pay??? Why not??? He has bills too probably more bills and same chance of losing that roof over his family.

Should have been a percentage like I said say 50%.
Worker A who was making $10 per hour so total $400 a week now gets to take home $600 per week.
Worker B who was making $30 per hour so total $1200 is now taking home $1800 per week.

The more you make the more you get this is fair and encourages everyone at any level to get back to work while also helping them out in a time of need.

Well I mean how is it fair that two workers living in the same economic conditions have such disparate wages in the first place that such a thing can occur?

The idea that I'm hot-headed about this is also laughable.

You are treating people as "units of work" instead of as people and you're confused that we don't see eye to eye.

I hope in the future you are worth an appropriate amount of units of work to your employers and that you never find yourself down on your luck.

 

[stephenaf2003]

Well don't forget that the $600 was in addition to state unemployment. Even the state that pays the lowest (MS) it's still an additional $235 week

My understanding was her state funding was capped, and she only brought in the $600, but regardless, them staying home was a great idea and had zero to do with her taking advantage of making more money at home. There was a freaking pandemic running amok.

 

[zag73]

I think your being quite generous with your calculations, for most it’s was more like $30-$35,000 a year as most on qualified for the $600 a week. I have a niece that’s a food service manager, and only qualified for that amount, her situation was quite typical of most people. Which is still quite laughable as a living wage.

In the UK, there are families who have not been in employment for several generations. Grandparents, parents and off spring. The benefits system is way too generous here. The unemployed get housing, help with bills and weekly payments for doing nothing ??‍♂️Nuts. Take away man’s fear of starvation and you take away the incentive to work.

 

[007Bond]

How the **** does one unsubscribe from this thread. Jesus.

 

[zag73]

Well don't forget that the $600 was in addition to state unemployment. Even the state that pays the lowest (MS) it's still an additional $235 week

$835 a week? ? I’m in the wrong country ???

 

[Jazzmenco]

How the **** does one unsubscribe from this thread. Jesus.

I hear you....When I see 20 Carmina posts in 5 minutes I don't even bother to go there.....

 

[007Bond]

I hear you....When I see 20 Carmina posts in 5 minutes I don't even bother to go there.....

We are in a competition to have more post per hour then the Allen Edmonds thread

 

[jischwar]

My understanding was her state funding was capped, and she only brought in the $600, but regardless, them staying home was a great idea and had zero to do with her taking advantage of making more money at home. There was a freaking pandemic running amok.

Oh I agree, I was just simply backing up where my calculations came from

 

[miamidoc]

I can only imagine what the folks on the Carmina factory floor would make of this conversation.

Shoes and boots please. There are other places to discuss economic policy more broadly.

 

[stook1]

I can only imagine what the folks on the Carmina factory floor would make of this conversation.

Shoes and boots please. There are other places to discuss economic policy more broadly.

Really we are just trying to lure them back from Friday siesta. Despite the excitement, I'm skeptical that it will have the desired effect.

 

[007Bond]

The original political rationale was that red states generally offered stingy unemployment benefits (and min wage) which created a negative incentive during the pandemic when the public health motivation at the time as to ensure citizens' safety. Could it have been more targeted to be less beneficial for higher wager earners? Perhaps. But what you are complaining about at the bottom end of the pay scale is primarily a function of there not being a living min wage in some/many parts of the country and also not having a substantial enough safety net for unemployed people.

I don't think your proposal sufficiently addresses these inconsistencies at the state level.

I agree that we should have address these items on a state by state level this would have been even more fair.

Here goes another hot topic t eh $15 min wage. This should also be on a state by state case but yes the base level needs to be addressed in many states.

People argue that some states are cheaper to live in this is true to a point. For sure some states have lower car insurance and lower taxes so you could earn a lower wage. Issue is I travel all over and most everywhere what WalMart sells cost the same so putting food on the table cost about the same in most all states. Issue is some states have to low of a min wage and people in that state cannot put food on the table. So this needs to be address in those states but again throwing a single number out there for all 50 states does not make it magically good in all 50 states.

 

[stook1]

I agree that we should have address these items on a state by state level this would have been even more fair.

Here goes another hot topic t eh $15 min wage. This should also be on a state by state case but yes the base level needs to be addressed in many states.

People argue that some states are cheaper to live in this is true to a point. For sure some states have lower car insurance and lower taxes so you could earn a lower wage. Issue is I travel all over and most everywhere what WalMart sells cost the same so putting food on the table cost about the same in most all states. Issue is some states have to low of a min wage and people in that state cannot put food on the table. So this needs to be address in those states but again throwing a single number out there for all 50 states does not make it magically good in all 50 states.

Good luck with that. It was an emergency measure. There was a negative zero percent chance that a majority of states were going to do any of what you were discussing in any time frame ever --- let alone when it was urgently needed.

 

[Blastwice]

In the UK, there are families who have not been in employment for several generations. Grandparents, parents and off spring. The benefits system is way too generous here. The unemployed get housing, help with bills and weekly payments for doing nothing ??‍♂️Nuts. Take away man’s fear of starvation and you take away the incentive to work.

Literally advocating to starve people to death during a pandemic.

 

[miamidoc]

I am going to post something about as relevant to Carmina as this discussion in an attempt to redirect back to footwear.

I give you Viberg Chelsea boots.