In California, gig workers pretty much automatically qualify for $767 every two weeks. $600 is from the feds and the state decided to throw in $167. It is possible for a gig worker who claims very high income to get more than $167 but you have to show proof.

The state's contribution of $167 has nothing to do with W-2 wages. They are simply giving gig workers more than the feds allowed because cost of living is so high.

If a gig worker also has W-2 income, then they will get regular unemployment and the $600 fed money. I don't think they get the $167 in addition but I could be wrong.

It's a good question, though -- are gig workers filing inflating the numbers?

If I do MSing as a gig, and file for unemployment....well, it's confusing. I've always considered my MSing as "part-time" -- I rarely work over 10 days a month (I mean on the road actual work; I tend to not count my time on the computer, because, frankly, I might be on the computer an hour, but only spent 10 minutes actually signing up with a new company or searching job boards). Normally, I would never even think about filing for unemployment, like after my car broke down last year. I missed at least two full months of MSing before I could arrange transportation. Legally, I'm not "in" the "workforce", I'm just part of the "gig economy". My work, or lack of it, wouldn't ordinarily show up in any statistics.

But I applied, because I'm eligible to apply. Does that mean I'm part of that 17.4% unemployment rate? In that case, the figure is inflated.

There are plenty of shops. Unfortunately, I can't drive 6 hours roundtrip and spend $40 on gas to complete one $14 shop. I'm sincerely hoping that doesn't count as a "refusal of work", which would disqualify me from the unemployment.

@whiterosie wrote:

If a gig worker also has W-2 income, then they will get regular unemployment and the $600 fed money. I don't think they get the $167 in addition but I could be wrong.

That is correct. You can't get both, or even the higher of the two.

I have a friend who makes most of their money from IC work, but works 1 day a week as a regular employee teaching at a school. She qualified for $87 weekly as an employee/teacher, so her weekly payment is set at $687.....even though she has over $50k of verifiable IC income from teaching.

people not working b/c unemployment is better might be good for COVID-19....as an unintended consequence

staying home could flatten the curve

buy time for better treatments and vaccine too

My understanding is that was exactly the reason it was set so high-- to encourage people to stay home longer, with no advantage to returning to work early for financial reasons. Perhaps the unintended consequence of that is all the businesses going under because they can't get their employees to come back to work. It is truly a paradox that has no perfect solution.

It is difficult to know what "the govenment" is thinking as we get mixed messages and sometimes no messages. I had not thought too much about why the higher figure but if they were encouraging people to stay home it seems to me they would have made the regular UI match the higher figure. I believe they came to the conclusion of the "higher figure" by doing some averaging to see what the average gig economy person might qualify for. Because it is much harder to prove your current income just with a form you fill in if you are in the gig economy as you do not have one employer sending you a weekly paycheck stub with all those figures on it that the irs can link to. So my understanding is they came upon a figure that would be closer to the average bottom person and they would adjust later. They are trying, or so they say, to get people back to work. It is the older and underlying condition people who are the most risk and should definitely stay home. At this point I am just now hearing some things to indicate they may make special considerations for the more at risk people. The school district is talking about what to do about the older teachers who would have more risk. But overall most of the government seems to be caving to demands to get back to work.
Many people who have not been reporting (and therefore paying tax on) all of their gig economy income to the IRS each year have been burned. My parents always told me that those not following the rules would be caught in the end. For my mom that usually applied to people who ate a lot and never gained an ounce. Personally this is the first time I am really seeing that crime does not pay.if you can consider having a body type that seems to burn fat easily a crime. I have been waiting all my life for my friends who can easily eat to get fat and me to get thin. ..in this instance it is the crime of pocketing pay without reporting it. For most of those people though they still have the chance to file an amended return so perhaps they will not get burned after all.

K. Thanks for that information.

The reason that the $600 was added has everything to do with how antiquated state unemployment systems are. In order to incentivize everyone to stay home in a timely manner, waiting for state systems to be upgraded would not have been an option. Therefore, they figured out what the average income should be and added that as the $600 payment. It does put the lie to the argument that a living wage is not somehow deserved, however. I also don't think that the current unemployment rate is somehow inflated because gig and IC workers are now included. Rather, the unemployment rate now being reported is more accurate than what has been reported over the last few years because ICs and gig workers are included. It speaks to how many people are working those types of jobs because they have no choice (and how close to the edge many folks are because staying home while being paid a living wage through PUIA and that being more lucrative than previously killing themselves with multiple IC gigs).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2020 09:04PM by KarenMSW.

@whiterosie wrote:

I am so not worried about this. The $1534 every two weeks checks started to hit accounts last week. I don't think many are going to jeopardize those for a mystery shop or two.

Twenty-two Jack in the Box shops in my immediate area (100s relatively local) hit the board yesterday and not a single one picked up. Same with those Presto shops for IPSOS. Eighty-seven in my immediate area and not a single one picked up. I considered it but we are close to 100 degrees right now. I prefer staying in AC.

When the postal shops and red-white-and-blue-customer-first shops hit too, I will hit the road on my routes. Until then, I will enjoy the time off.

The purple pins for IPSOS have almost all been claimed in Houston in the last 6 hours...once they opened it up so you could do more than two, they flew off the app....I was not expecting that.

Someone from a diff. thread a long time ago mentioned that people taking shops at base that they knew of were people working min. wage jobs at places like Walmart and grocery stores. They do the jobs on the way to and coming home from work to supplement their incomes.

Perhaps you're seeing people who work these "essential," yet lower paying, jobs taking them?

Unlike other positions, they have to work and cannot just collect unemployment at home thru August. *just a random guess*

There is now talk of a second round of stimulus and $1,200 checks. .....Who knows if they'll ever get that passed. I'm all for it!

Another reason, which is none of our business, is that each shopper has a unique financial setup. Some might not mind low pay if it does not upset the financial apple cart, so to speak. But that is just more speculation about strangers. I need to find something else to do now.....

Several people I know didn't even get the first one yet!

Yeah. I've heard. Not sure what the system is to get them out....does anyone know?