COVID-19 aftermath: What things will change forever?

[RobertR]

I kind of think that there's a binary here that's simplifying things in a way that's not reflective of reality. Incurring thousands or tens of thousands in hospital bills is certainly better than dying, but there's going to be a significant impact and hardship from that. It's going to put a large strain on the insurance industry and rates. I don't know precisely how it's going to play out, but coupling insurance with a job seems like it's going to be questioned a lot in the upcoming year.

[bani1717]

Insurers are certainly paying for the COVID treatment costs you referenced, but they also didnt have to pay for a whole bunch of elective services, preventive care, etc the past few months. Some of those services will happen over the next few months (such that insurer costs may exceed normal levels absent the pandemic), but some of them will never happen.

[igor67]

I would currently put actual insurance costs in the 'fog of war' category as well. Given that large percentage of deaths were coming from high cost insurance groups there is potential lower costs short and medium term as well, but with no direct experience with the numbers and system on that scale I can't even begin to ballpark how that would affect things.

[wallus]

Didn't want to put this in the other thread. Anyone else finding it odd that places are still begging for workers while the unemployment rate is high? Not saying it is a conspiracy or political or anything but it is frustrating as someone that is trying to hire right now.

[TURBO]

Too many people making more on unemployment than they would be paid by the jobs that need filling.

 

Everyplace I see is hiring, EVERY place. There are plenty of jobs out there, but when you make more with hand-outs, it's tough to talk people into going back to earning their paychecks.

[stoutdude04]

Too many people making more on unemployment than they would be paid by the jobs that need filling.

 

Everyplace I see is hiring, EVERY place. There are plenty of jobs out there, but when you make more with hand-outs, it's tough to talk people into going back to earning their paychecks.

 

Are you sure this is happening? I only ask because I thought I saw that if you were able to go back to work you had to or your employer could report your name or something.

[wallus]

Too many people making more on unemployment than they would be paid by the jobs that need filling.

 

There is a DC very local to here that starts at almost $20 an hour with full benefits and opportunities for overtime. They are running commercials nonstop which is surprising. I also hear commercials for truck drivers that can make at least $75,000 a year to start. I also hear of stories that people aren't getting their unemployment which stinks but why wouldn't people take these jobs? It's just baffling to me.

 

For me, I am looking to hire for a seasonal job and we pay decent but are only getting high school kid applicants. That is fine to have some of those but we want a mix. Last year, we had tons of applicants and had to turn quite a few people down. What a time to be alive.

[Baldkin]

Too many people making more on unemployment than they would be paid by the jobs that need filling.

 

Everyplace I see is hiring, EVERY place. There are plenty of jobs out there, but when you make more with hand-outs, it's tough to talk people into going back to earning their paychecks.

 

It's almost.... almost... as if paying people to work full time less than $2500 a month might be a systematic problem.

[tmwiese55]

I'm no expert on unemployment. But doesn't the relief program pay like 600/wk in unemployment? Which is significantly more than what unemployment was beforehand. So yea you're better off with that than the basic/minimum type level stuff, especially once you factor in not having to work.

 

For truck drivers, not sure where you're located but in WI a big problem is DUI. Also, I'd assume DMV stuff has been shutdown-ish so not easy for someone without a CDL to get one either.

[hawing]

I am not an expert on unemployment either, but the federal $600/week (for those who qualify for it) is currently scheduled to last through the end of July.

 

If I were idled from a job that I like but wasn't reactivated yet, and/or I had kids at home who'd otherwise need child care, and/or were among those at higher risk for bad COVID complications (or had people in my household who are)...taking the extra $ in the immediate term might make sense for reasons other than "I like a handout."

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Too many people making more on unemployment than they would be paid by the jobs that need filling.

 

Everyplace I see is hiring, EVERY place. There are plenty of jobs out there, but when you make more with hand-outs, it's tough to talk people into going back to earning their paychecks.

 

Are you sure this is happening? I only ask because I thought I saw that if you were able to go back to work you had to or your employer could report your name or something.

 

Definitely is happening, my brother works for FunJet or whatever it's called now, and is making more while furloughed than he was working. He has not been asked to come back though. I mentioned somewhere else about some family friends who own a brewery in central WI, who cannot get the staff to come back to give up the benefits.

 

It's happening, but like most of things of this nature, probably greatly exaggerated. There are certainly people who game the system and want handouts, but most people, I think, do get bored of having no job, miss the socializing of those kinds of positions, and would go back if they could do so.

 

I'd question the sanity of anyone punting on a guaranteed job because they want the unemployment on steroids for another month, at this point.

[Outlander]

My wife worked at a daycare collecting unemployment but was called back and only worked one day because she didn't like the precautions the center was taking with Covid-19 so no more unemployment for her.

[owbc]

At least in WA state if you made $50,000/year you are getting $500/week from the state plus $600/week from the fed government, or $57,000/year. This is the main issue. Everyone making less than ~$60,000/year is making more off unemployment than they would be working. Then when you add in schools being closed (don't have to pay for childcare if at home), it probably makes sense for most people making less than $70,000/year to not look for work if they are unemployed.

 

If you're wondering why the economy is still humming along, that's the answer.

 

I highly doubt those unemployment benefits are going away prior to the 2nd week in November...

[stoutdude04]

Too many people making more on unemployment than they would be paid by the jobs that need filling.

 

Everyplace I see is hiring, EVERY place. There are plenty of jobs out there, but when you make more with hand-outs, it's tough to talk people into going back to earning their paychecks.

 

Are you sure this is happening? I only ask because I thought I saw that if you were able to go back to work you had to or your employer could report your name or something.

 

Definitely is happening, my brother works for FunJet or whatever it's called now, and is making more while furloughed than he was working. He has not been asked to come back though. I mentioned somewhere else about some family friends who own a brewery in central WI, who cannot get the staff to come back to give up the benefits.

 

It's happening, but like most of things of this nature, probably greatly exaggerated. There are certainly people who game the system and want handouts, but most people, I think, do get bored of having no job, miss the socializing of those kinds of positions, and would go back if they could do so.

 

I'd question the sanity of anyone punting on a guaranteed job because they want the unemployment on steroids for another month, at this point.

 

That's good info, but I was wondering more for those that have been asked to return. Being furloughed is a little different. My wife's company was furloughing employees but they get their position back. That seems different to me. Maybe the bigger issue is adults that are working 40 hour weeks making so little. I agree on the thought about punting a guaranteed job though. Seems shortsighted.

 

My brother didnt want to go back to work right away because his wife is a cancer survivor. His job told him he had to choose. Come back to work or no job. That's why I was curious on how the extra unemployment money worked.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

My brother was furloughed, the other folks I mentioned were not. They are being asked to come back to work by management, and basically saying "I'd like to but I'm making a lot more." They are also in high turnover industries, bars and restaurants, that probably won't ever have a demand shortage as it relates to workers.

[LouisEly]

For truck drivers, not sure where you're located but in WI a big problem is DUI.

For every decent paying blue-ish collar job, passing the drug screen and background check has been a hiring problem for years. A year or two ago I happened to socialize with a recruiter for blue collar jobs, and she said that her clients were talking with their insurance companies about increased liability insurance costs for lowering their drug testing/background check standards because there were having such difficulty filling the positions.

[tmwiese55]

Louis, yup, that is a very big problem. Most companies probably need to take weed out of their testing at this point.

 

Someone else mentioned that people get state unemployment on top of the 600 from the feds that we see in the media. if that's the case, yea you'd need a pretty good job to top that.

 

Just saw a WHO report that some data they've gotten on asymptomatic spread isn't looking bad. Concern is that people have been taking a week-ish to show symptoms so if they're out spreading for a week previous it's a big problem. If more data and other reports come in supporting the same thing I think that's a big deal for being able to open things up and live more. That's been the biggest hiccup in things for me, so if this comes through along with testing finally being up to speed I think it's a huge positive. From what I could read this report/data is purely off tracing efforts, so it's not exactly the most science/virology way of figuring. But either way, it could be a very big thing if it holds true. If we could also get some kind of a quick daily at home test done (similar to a thermometer) I think we'd be sitting in a pretty pretty good spot. Note: it still says its happening and everything, but it's just not nearly as potent this way.

 

ETA: Read some more and it's not as ideal as I hoped. They're distinguishing between pre-symptamtic and asymptomatic. I assumed it was a catch all for everything. Seems people are pre-symptomatic still are spreading before showing symptons. But at least the folks who never show symptoms seem to not be spreading much, still generally positive news. Just not as good as I hoped. Seems they're also trying to make the point that truly asymptomatic people are very rare.

[TURBO]

It's too bad that all the people that are unable to pass drug tests, oh I don't know, stop using drugs?

 

If weed is effecting your life to the point that you are unhireable because you can't pass a drug test, maybe that means you should stop using it?

 

People are just stupid.

[tmwiese55]

Don't get me wrong, yea you know the current state of drug tests cover it. So simply don't when looking, it shouldn't be that hard. Nevertheless, it's outdated and should just get taken out. However, I've had to deal with people who live in legal states/countries applying to jobs in in legal states. Yet the company testing rules still have weed and it becomes a problem. The actual manager and people involved don't care, it's an outdated HR thing that hasn't been updated

[DHonks]

I’ve heard for years from a Wisconsin manufacturer that is self-insured and starts at over $20/hr, that 9 of 10 applicants can’t pass a drug test or show basic literacy needed to run their processes.

 

As for the unemployment, yes, it’s $600 federally on top of your state level. Part time workers only missing out on 10 hours of pay are making far more on unemployment.

[igor67]

I have a number of anecdotal sources that also suggest HR folks screening processes don't accurately reflect them being 'desperate'. As an example of them being too selective my son couldn't get an interview at any of these manufacturing places despite reliable jobs in college and a degree. He eventually went the temp agency route, magically a year later when he started applying he got a new job in 2 weeks. I've known other people who run into variations of the 'over qualified' nonsense. Or even looking at some of these posting these days and oddly specific requirements.

[Baldkin]

It's too bad that all the people that are unable to pass drug tests, oh I don't know, stop using drugs?

 

If weed is effecting your life to the point that you are unhireable because you can't pass a drug test, maybe that means you should stop using it?

 

People are just stupid.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

[LouisEly]

It's too bad that all the people that are unable to pass drug tests, oh I don't know, stop using drugs?

 

If weed is effecting your life to the point that you are unhireable because you can't pass a drug test, maybe that means you should stop using it?

 

People are just stupid.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

It should be more about the specific job that you have, and not the company you work for or state you live in.

 

If you are doing anything that has a chance to put other people's health or safety at risk, there should be drug screening. Don't want anybody driving a truck or performing surgery that tests positive for anything. But if you're stacking boxes in a warehouse or programming computers, can probably have a relaxed drug policy.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's too bad that all the people that are unable to pass drug tests, oh I don't know, stop using drugs?

 

If weed is effecting your life to the point that you are unhireable because you can't pass a drug test, maybe that means you should stop using it?

 

People are just stupid.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

 

These two aren't mutually exclusive. You can say that weed is a dumb thing to screen for, but lots of things are dumb and I go along with them because that's what's best. If you can't lay off it during a job search, knowing you'll be screened, that's probably more of a "you" problem, and I really wouldn't want to hire a person with that lack of discipline. Plenty of places will tolerate weed after the hire with a known commodity.

 

I agree with you completely but we all need to work within the frustration of the rules sometimes.

[tmwiese55]

It's too bad that all the people that are unable to pass drug tests, oh I don't know, stop using drugs?

 

If weed is effecting your life to the point that you are unhireable because you can't pass a drug test, maybe that means you should stop using it?

 

People are just stupid.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

It should be more about the specific job that you have, and not the company you work for or state you live in.

 

If you are doing anything that has a chance to put other people's health or safety at risk, there should be drug screening. Don't want anybody driving a truck or performing surgery that tests positive for anything. But if you're stacking boxes in a warehouse or programming computers, can probably have a relaxed drug policy.

 

Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

As others have said though, everyone knows this is the current state of tests. You know you're looking, it shouldn't be hard to just not during the search.