In the US, at least, an incredibly common opinion is that those people are scum
I've literally never heard this opinion expressed.
Certainly one can criticize the people you describe - they could work, but due to their pride or whatever, they refuse jobs because the nominal wage is too low. They refuse to solve their own problems so we need stimulus to trick them into doing so.
But this is a fairly uncommon position - most people have no understanding of sticky wages and don't understand that stimulus is about lowering real wages, or that people could find a job if they lowered their nominal wage demands.
> I've literally never heard this opinion expressed.
Pretty much everyone who thinks that the unemployed don't deserve state entitlements (Typically, because of the poverty of their character).
Nominal wage demands are held up at the bottom end by people needing to make a living wage. Yes, a skilled computer programmer asking for $7/hour could easily find work at the height of the dot-com bust - however, they'd still depend on handouts, be it from the state, or their relatives for survival.
And when we move down the wage track, things don't get any better. How would people already receiving close to minimal wage attain employability by lowering their wage demands?
This also only solve a problem for the individual, rather then society as a whole - it largely shifts unemployment around, and pulls everyone's standard of living down.
Pretty much everyone who thinks that the unemployed don't deserve state entitlements (Typically, because of the poverty of their character).
That's a completely different claim. It's also a claim you agreed with - you just acknowledged a few sentences down that many unemployed people could work if they chose to. Does this mean you also believe such people are "scum"?
Nominal wage demands are held up at the bottom end by people needing to make a living wage. Yes, a skilled computer programmer asking for $7/hour could easily find work at the height of the dot-com bust - however, they'd still depend on handouts, be it from the state, or their relatives for survival.
Where I am right now many computer programmers survive easily on $7/hour. It's considered a good wage except in tech hubs (Bangalore, Pune, Gurgaon). If your theory were right I should be surrounded by about a billion corpses.
But lets assume that one can't survive on $7. Suppose we adopted stimulus and inflation caused $10 post-stimulus to buy the same goods and services as $7 pre-stimulus. Isn't the person who suddenly became willing to work due to this trickery still failing to survive?
How would people already receiving close to minimal wage attain employability by lowering their wage demands?
You are correct that minimum wage can cause unemployment, particularly during recessions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_unemployment
In the US, at least, an incredibly common opinion is that those people are scum
I've literally never heard this opinion expressed.
Certainly one can criticize the people you describe - they could work, but due to their pride or whatever, they refuse jobs because the nominal wage is too low. They refuse to solve their own problems so we need stimulus to trick them into doing so.
But this is a fairly uncommon position - most people have no understanding of sticky wages and don't understand that stimulus is about lowering real wages, or that people could find a job if they lowered their nominal wage demands.