That’s only if your employer has laid you off. If they continued your employment or called you back to work for $12/hour, you aren’t eligible for unemployment anymore. And if you refuse to go back to work, then you are also not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Many managers like their employees and don’t want to stiff them like that.

My point was the argument that the government design PPP as an effort to perpetuate an existing system that reduces employees bargaining power and prefers businesses can’t be supported when the government specifically strengthen employees bargaining power.

I contend it didn’t strengthen the employees’ bargaining power, for the reasons I stated above. Unconditional cash would have.

The powers that be know that loans obligations have been made that can only be satisfied if labor costs remain contained. Their primary objective is to make sure the mortgages keep getting paid, and paying employees double would endanger that.

An easy illustration is the fact that “essential” employees at much higher risk of getting the virus are getting paid with their old near minimum wage per hour jobs with signs that say “heroes work here”, and their management bosses are working safely at home with minimal risk of covid earning the same pay.

White collar employees continue to earn higher salaries from the safety of their home, and “hero” janitors and housekeepers are getting the same $10 to $15 they received as before, except they get to deal with higher chances of coronavirus.

There are no “powers that be” if you don’t like the system then change it. Start a company, pay people higher wages, build a competitive advantage. Or run for office. If you think there is some coordinated effort to oppress then build a counter effort.

I suspect what you would find is not some grand conspiracy but emergent properties from competitive forces.

I know there isn’t a grand conspiracy. It’s just a consequence of capital owners also being the decision makers. Why would the capital owners make a decision to reduce their power?

And a lone businessman can’t just pay workers more and make the world right. If I decide to pay people more, and run the numbers and figure out I can afford to spend $5M on a piece of land to develop, and my competitor decides to project paying people much less, they can afford to spend $6M for the same piece of land. So guess which business ends up existing? The one that doesn’t pay higher wages. Same situation with people choosing to shop at stores that offer lower prices.

It would have to be a nationwide effort to transfer wealth, such as UBI or higher minimum wages. Otherwise we keep going as is with an ever widening wealth/income gap.