Nearly 8M Americans have fallen into poverty since summer(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Nearly 8M Americans have fallen into poverty since summer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/16/poverty-rising/
256 comments
The fear of "looking poor" is so real in the US, which makes it harder to see who's struggling. It also creates this cognitive dissonance I've noticed here on HN where an article gets posted with pictures of the extended lines at food banks and people point out that most people seem to be driving relatively new cars, therefore why are they in line at a food bank?
I think a lot of people don't understand how poverty really looks because we're socially motivated to project wealth and status wherever we can.
I think a lot of people don't understand how poverty really looks because we're socially motivated to project wealth and status wherever we can.
It is very real, but if you can somehow escape from it there are huge advantages.
Not caring that we might look poor has been the biggest factor enabling me and my wife to build a good, stable life for ourselves while peers who out-earn us perpetually struggle on the brink of ruin.
Not caring that we might look poor has been the biggest factor enabling me and my wife to build a good, stable life for ourselves while peers who out-earn us perpetually struggle on the brink of ruin.
> but if you can somehow escape from it
Not sure what you mean by this. There's nothing to escape from. The word we have for superficial consumerist social strivers who spend conspicuously to soothe their ego and signal their status is "asshole". Don't be an asshole. It's not that hard.
Not sure what you mean by this. There's nothing to escape from. The word we have for superficial consumerist social strivers who spend conspicuously to soothe their ego and signal their status is "asshole". Don't be an asshole. It's not that hard.
Another aspect is that selling used stuff doesn’t bring much money in, especially clothing. I don’t even know whether it’s sellable.
Apart from my car, if I sell all my belongings, I might get one month worth of rent. Hardly seems worth it, unless there is a way to use that money to earn more money.
Apart from my car, if I sell all my belongings, I might get one month worth of rent. Hardly seems worth it, unless there is a way to use that money to earn more money.
Also can’t sell or trade your car to downgrade if you need a car, as if you need financing to get the next car, you’re not going to qualify for the loan if you’re without employment. Your car is a trailing indicator of your financial situation, not necessarily present state.
The fact that most jobs require a car is a huge deterrent for most low income people to actually find a job. Great public transit is not just something to help the poor, it's also a way to make workers be able to get to work, it's good for the economy and yet we look at it almost as charity.
Public transit spreads viruses, both old and new. It helped put us in this mess. It'll spread the next virus too. We have a huge problem if people get used to relying on a transportation method that needs to be shut down when a virus spreads.
Financing cars is a poverty trap. There are cars in the 1-2k range that work perfectly fine and will reliably work with minimal maintenance, and there are sub 1k cars that run ok enough that you can use as a bridge to save enough for a slightly better car.
Financing a car is a double whammy because you pay interest and have a deprecating asset. At the low end cars really don't deprecate much. The act of not having a car payment is a great first step to building wealth.
Financing a car is a double whammy because you pay interest and have a deprecating asset. At the low end cars really don't deprecate much. The act of not having a car payment is a great first step to building wealth.
> There are cars in the 1-2k range that work perfectly fine and will reliably work with minimal maintenance
> At the low end cars really don't deprecate much
I tried the whole Tropical MBA buy-an-old-car thing. Went with a 10-year-old Camry that KBB'd around $5k, had it inspected before I purchased it, and everything seemed fine. 6 months in, I ran into an issue that required the entire electrical system to be replaced which pretty much totaled the car. I wound up getting about 15% of what I paid for the car back out of it after 6 months of ownership.
Bottom line is that the old car napkin math works as long as the vehicle doesn't run into serious issues, because the moment it does, it really doesn't make much sense unless you're willing and able to do serious work on your own car.
> At the low end cars really don't deprecate much
I tried the whole Tropical MBA buy-an-old-car thing. Went with a 10-year-old Camry that KBB'd around $5k, had it inspected before I purchased it, and everything seemed fine. 6 months in, I ran into an issue that required the entire electrical system to be replaced which pretty much totaled the car. I wound up getting about 15% of what I paid for the car back out of it after 6 months of ownership.
Bottom line is that the old car napkin math works as long as the vehicle doesn't run into serious issues, because the moment it does, it really doesn't make much sense unless you're willing and able to do serious work on your own car.
Financing part of a $10,000 vehicle is incredibly cheap right now. A few hundred dollars total to borrow for several years.
Financing a 10k car is "cheap" if you have decent credit and aren't rolling negative equity from another car into that. Using average rates it represents a 10-15% additional cost over the principal, and you end up with a car worth about half that. With a 60 month loan you "spent" $6-7k to have a car for those 5 years, if you keep it another 5 years the numbers look better.
aren't rolling negative equity from another car into that.
Yes, that would not anymore fit into the description of financing part of a 10k car.
Yes, that would not anymore fit into the description of financing part of a 10k car.
Charities barely even want used clothes donations any more. Only a few top designer labels have any significant resale value.
> Charities barely even want used clothes donations any more. Only a few top designer labels have any significant resale value.
Long ago, I volunteered once at a thrift store. IIRC, they actually bailed up a significant fraction of their clothing donations and sent them Africa.
Long ago, I volunteered once at a thrift store. IIRC, they actually bailed up a significant fraction of their clothing donations and sent them Africa.
cars made in the last 15 years don’t look that different from each other. You can purchase a 7-8 yo mass market vehicle for 2-6k that will run alright.
Having used cars older than that as a daily driver, the cost of repairs/downtime outstrip the cost of replacing the vehicle more often than not. Not driving isn’t really an option in the US, and driving a clunker will raise some flags to coworkers/other parents in the parking lot.
The other cash poor option is to grab a lease with good incentives, it’s a terrible deal - but it’s the best if you need to conserve cash flow month to month ( particularly if you can’t afford fixing a breakdown )
Which is all to say, if your poor - driving a half broken down car would be a terrible investment.
Having used cars older than that as a daily driver, the cost of repairs/downtime outstrip the cost of replacing the vehicle more often than not. Not driving isn’t really an option in the US, and driving a clunker will raise some flags to coworkers/other parents in the parking lot.
The other cash poor option is to grab a lease with good incentives, it’s a terrible deal - but it’s the best if you need to conserve cash flow month to month ( particularly if you can’t afford fixing a breakdown )
Which is all to say, if your poor - driving a half broken down car would be a terrible investment.
Glancing at craigslist here, the first 3 vehicles under $6000 are a 2010, a 2008 and a 2006. The low mileage of the group is 133,000. They are dealer listings also, so probably not the best deals, but there aren't many others at the price.
Not sure what is wrong with a 200x car that has 133K miles. With diligent routine maintenance, most cars from that era should last another 133K miles easily. I remember the days when it was good advice to avoid cars with over 100K miles on them, but that time is in the distant past. I would buy a 200K mile 2006 Toyota Camry today without any hesitation.
Nothing particularly wrong with them, they just (completely) fail the 8 year old, $6,000 bar set by the poster I replied to. Looking, I see 2006 Camry's with 100,000+ miles pricing out at $6,000.
I was questioning their characterization of the used vehicle market.
I was questioning their characterization of the used vehicle market.
That is because the cash-for-clunkers program, intended to help the automobile industry, sent the older cars to be destroyed. We crushed perfectly usable vehicles. That's like breaking windows to help the glass industry; it is not so nice for the poor or for the environment.
It was tiny (relative to the US vehicle market, ~700,000 vehicles vs ~15 million annually) and obviously didn't remove 2010+ cars from the market.
Which those more recent vehicles are the vehicles the other poster alluded to, that I did not find with a real basic search.
Which those more recent vehicles are the vehicles the other poster alluded to, that I did not find with a real basic search.
This is talking cars in last decade. Not cash for clunkers. Which likely isn’t a big enough of a dent to mess with cars made after it
[deleted]
I always find myself surprised that people respond to this kind of writing. What part resonates with you? When I read this, I just roll my eyes at an author unabashedly looking to tug at heartstrings.
I would be moved by a real person's story, but this not only is pure fantasy, it even creates a stereotype that all poor people are timid and frail. And again, I know some people do become broken by poverty, so why not share their real story?
I would be moved by a real person's story, but this not only is pure fantasy, it even creates a stereotype that all poor people are timid and frail. And again, I know some people do become broken by poverty, so why not share their real story?
I responded because I am empathetic.
> What part resonates with you?
Her losing her job, not being able to be re-hired at a similar salary, spending her savings, and winding up in poverty despite doing everything 'right'. At 55, she has an uphill battle to get another job. Why hire her when someone with 15 YOE costs less and will work for more than 5 years? Employees are not that unique.
Ageism is also a large problem in tech, but we just don't talk about it much. How common is it to be on track to retire for 25+ years after aging out? What if someone forgot to change their 401(K) investment strategy and happen to be 'retired' (laid off due to age) during a market downturn? Does everyone know that's a thing you should do about 5 years before retirement?
There are too many 'gotchas' that can seriously alter retirement plans. I think it is cruel to treat people this way, and I can see it happening to myself. Even if I do everything 'right' (and I certainly have not). That is what I respond to - the warning that even if you play your hand well, you can still lose and have miserable twilight years.
> What part resonates with you?
Her losing her job, not being able to be re-hired at a similar salary, spending her savings, and winding up in poverty despite doing everything 'right'. At 55, she has an uphill battle to get another job. Why hire her when someone with 15 YOE costs less and will work for more than 5 years? Employees are not that unique.
Ageism is also a large problem in tech, but we just don't talk about it much. How common is it to be on track to retire for 25+ years after aging out? What if someone forgot to change their 401(K) investment strategy and happen to be 'retired' (laid off due to age) during a market downturn? Does everyone know that's a thing you should do about 5 years before retirement?
There are too many 'gotchas' that can seriously alter retirement plans. I think it is cruel to treat people this way, and I can see it happening to myself. Even if I do everything 'right' (and I certainly have not). That is what I respond to - the warning that even if you play your hand well, you can still lose and have miserable twilight years.
I am also empathetic, but I find the author's writing in poor taste. She's still able to afford eating at expensive restaurants, but writes with the tone of a martyr because she has to get seltzer water instead of chardonnay.
I grew up quite poor and still have loved ones who are poor, often even more than I was. Poor in the sense of born poor, a life of labor into age 60 or 70 poor. I'm also aware that this isn't unique, lots of people out there are anywhere between very poor to obscenely indigent, so I and other poor or formerly poor people don't generally tend towards unabashed self pity. Because of that, this author's story just makes me roll my eyes. Here are some examples of what I mean:
> WHITE: You know, I have all the props and credentials. I have a Harvard MBA. I have a master's in international studies from Hopkins. I went to Oberlin undergraduate. You know, I worked at the World Bank.
> But if you paid attention, you would see the sadness in my eyes, hear that hint of fear in my otherwise self-assured voice.
> You invite me to the same expensive restaurants that the two of us have always enjoyed. But I order mineral water now with a twist of lemon instead of the $12 glass of chardonnay.
> There are no media stories about me. My slide out of the middle class is not sensational enough
I can empathize that the change is difficult, but I won't cry for her having to skip a chardonnay that's worth more than what many people spend on food (or earn) in a day. She's obviously a very intelligent and accomplished person and almost certainly has connections; I'd rather save my attention and empathy for the people who don't have a list of degrees and accomplishments. So when I see people do respond to this kind of story, I can't help but wonder if they have ever personally experienced poverty, let alone the lifelong and encompassing poverty (in the sense that everyone around you is poor and you have no connections somewhere higher up) that I saw so often growing up.
I grew up quite poor and still have loved ones who are poor, often even more than I was. Poor in the sense of born poor, a life of labor into age 60 or 70 poor. I'm also aware that this isn't unique, lots of people out there are anywhere between very poor to obscenely indigent, so I and other poor or formerly poor people don't generally tend towards unabashed self pity. Because of that, this author's story just makes me roll my eyes. Here are some examples of what I mean:
> WHITE: You know, I have all the props and credentials. I have a Harvard MBA. I have a master's in international studies from Hopkins. I went to Oberlin undergraduate. You know, I worked at the World Bank.
> But if you paid attention, you would see the sadness in my eyes, hear that hint of fear in my otherwise self-assured voice.
> You invite me to the same expensive restaurants that the two of us have always enjoyed. But I order mineral water now with a twist of lemon instead of the $12 glass of chardonnay.
> There are no media stories about me. My slide out of the middle class is not sensational enough
I can empathize that the change is difficult, but I won't cry for her having to skip a chardonnay that's worth more than what many people spend on food (or earn) in a day. She's obviously a very intelligent and accomplished person and almost certainly has connections; I'd rather save my attention and empathy for the people who don't have a list of degrees and accomplishments. So when I see people do respond to this kind of story, I can't help but wonder if they have ever personally experienced poverty, let alone the lifelong and encompassing poverty (in the sense that everyone around you is poor and you have no connections somewhere higher up) that I saw so often growing up.
Yeah I felt similarly at parts.
I’ve been in way worse situations and I don’t think I’ve ever been exceptionally poor.
Reading her account especially that Chardonnay instance made my eyes roll all the way back.
I’ve been in way worse situations and I don’t think I’ve ever been exceptionally poor.
Reading her account especially that Chardonnay instance made my eyes roll all the way back.
That's why I'm for a career replacement income measure. That way, obsolete/aged out individuals would still get paid in full.
Employers could continue the status quo, but would have a portion going to obsolete/aged out individuals. The only alternative would be for them to outcompete the replacement income with a better job.
Employers could continue the status quo, but would have a portion going to obsolete/aged out individuals. The only alternative would be for them to outcompete the replacement income with a better job.
I wouldn't like it nearly as much if I thought it was fantasy, but I believe it is based on the author's real experience. I like it because people generally like to present themselves in the best possible light; sharing one's very personal struggles and suffering takes a lot of courage. It always gets me when people open up like this.
Meanwhile, some of the strongest voices calling for near-permanent lockdowns came from the well-paid professional classes, who could afford to order Uber Eats twice a day and had zero chance of losing their over-inflated incomes.
The continuing erosion of the middle class isn’t a good thing. Expect populist political rhetoric to continue growing.
The continuing erosion of the middle class isn’t a good thing. Expect populist political rhetoric to continue growing.
Whatever the US did was not near permanent lockdowns, what is allowed to continue and be opened is more lenient than almost every country. The only countries with less restrictions than the US are opened exactly because they did a lockdown and kept the virus at bay. What kills the US economy is the virus being out there and making people afraid to get together into public settings.
I would argue the virus itself isn't making people afraid, it's media/government fear-mongering. In reality your average person has little to fear (besides the fear of spreading it to a vulnerable loved one).
And sickness, long term side effects, in addition to the threat to vulnerable loved ones. They have to keep talking about dangerous it is, because people keep insisting it isn't. It's not about just you, it's about the community-wide effect. But to be clear 30 year olds have been killed by covid 19 and people of all ages report long term after effects like shortness of breath, tiredness, and pain. And some people just can't afford to take the time off-- even a week of missed work can result in not making rent. It's happening as we speak-- homelessness is skyrocketing. These are real effects of the virus, it changes peoples lives
> And sickness
Your average person doesn't fear flu-like sicknesses. It's an inconvenience, yes, but that's about it.
> long term side effects
Again... according to CDC/WHO the average person completely recovers in 2 weeks. Yes, there are cases where permanent lung scarring was observed, but AFAIK that's super rare and has to do with the type of pneumonia synergizing with covid, not covid itself. I'm sure you can dig up other cases where long term negative effects are observed... but it seems rare compared to the normal recovery scenario. Do you have a source showing that the average person should fear developing long term side effects?
Your average person doesn't fear flu-like sicknesses. It's an inconvenience, yes, but that's about it.
> long term side effects
Again... according to CDC/WHO the average person completely recovers in 2 weeks. Yes, there are cases where permanent lung scarring was observed, but AFAIK that's super rare and has to do with the type of pneumonia synergizing with covid, not covid itself. I'm sure you can dig up other cases where long term negative effects are observed... but it seems rare compared to the normal recovery scenario. Do you have a source showing that the average person should fear developing long term side effects?
I assume most people have a vulnerable loved one, no? The issue is it's one order removed from self, and most people don't abstract that far.
People are demonstrably not afraid to get together in public places... whatever public places I've been to (mostly in deep blue states, and also Nevada) are as crowded as they can be. Actually, outdoor spaces were overcrowded, more than usual, during complete lockdown in WA where they were literally telling people to not leave the house except for critical tasks.
This argument always seems completely untenable for me. It's highly improbable that the level of fear hits the sweet spot where without lockdowns it's not enough to prevent the spread, but enough to ruin the economy.
This argument always seems completely untenable for me. It's highly improbable that the level of fear hits the sweet spot where without lockdowns it's not enough to prevent the spread, but enough to ruin the economy.
I really don’t think many people are afraid to go into public settings. Maybe not into a crowd, sure, but a restaurant? The holdup there is from the government, not the public.
I think it's safe to say there is a large portion of the population that will continue not eating indoors until they are vaccinated, or the infection numbers in their area go down significantly. I can't find articles to back it up, but I have read from restaurant owners saying that even when they were allowed to expand their indoor capacity, they were never hitting that limit.
With that said, this is going to vary by region. There is absolutely a large percentage of people wanting and willing to go eat indoors at restaurants right now, I just don't think that number represents a majority.
With that said, this is going to vary by region. There is absolutely a large percentage of people wanting and willing to go eat indoors at restaurants right now, I just don't think that number represents a majority.
I may never go back to eating at restaurants. I never really liked them to begin with, they seem like pretty much the least efficient and most expensive way to eat food. I never really understood the allure. Now I look at a crowded restaurant and all I can see is all those mouths and noses in close proximity to each other spraying and snorting god-knows-what into each other. Yuck! I may never look at crowds the same way either. The pandemic has given me a boosted appreciation of personal space and hygiene.
If people are scared to go out then why even have lockdowns?
Schrödinger's virus: We need lockdowns to save everyone but even if we didn't have lockdowns nobody would go anyway but we still need to lockdowns.
Schrödinger's virus: We need lockdowns to save everyone but even if we didn't have lockdowns nobody would go anyway but we still need to lockdowns.
People still go out. Enough to spread infection. But not enough to maintain the economy.
If the virus were actually as deadly as past examples, there wouldn’t be a need to impose lockdowns. People would avoid each other out of sheer self-preservation.
I would be nervous going to a restaurant if it was the same set up as before. i.e. a lot of tables packed next to each other. With the reduced indoors capacity or outdoor seating that's some what spaced out I'm less nervous about it.
The near-permanent lockdowns needed to be offset by government payment programs like they were in every other developed country except the US. If they shut everything down but don't offset it somehow, what do they expect the result to be? The $1200 check was laughable.
I agree we need more cash payments to humans. But we have to be careful not to confuse money with stuff (the goods and services produced by the economy). Giving money does not produce any more stuff, it only increases the competition for and price of the stuff that is being produced.
We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that.
We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that.
> I agree we need more cash payments to humans. But we have to be careful not to confuse money with stuff (the goods and services produced by the economy). Giving money does not produce any more stuff, it only increases the competition for and price of the stuff that is being produced.
> We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that.
A large fraction of that stuff is not strictly necessary for anyone's survival, especially in the short term. It's various degrees of "nice to have." Too see this, look at the kinds of rationing they did in WWII.
A successful COVID containment strategy would have identified the truly essential vs nice-to-have parts of the economy, and temporarily shut the latter parts down while supporting all affected workers in those sectors with payments sufficient to provide all needed access to essential goods and services for the duration (including housing). That wouldn't work as a permanent economic policy, but it would work as a temporary coordinated response to time-limited crisis.
> We are producing less stuff because of the pandemic, which means there is less to go around (however it gets allocated), and no amount of money will change that.
A large fraction of that stuff is not strictly necessary for anyone's survival, especially in the short term. It's various degrees of "nice to have." Too see this, look at the kinds of rationing they did in WWII.
A successful COVID containment strategy would have identified the truly essential vs nice-to-have parts of the economy, and temporarily shut the latter parts down while supporting all affected workers in those sectors with payments sufficient to provide all needed access to essential goods and services for the duration (including housing). That wouldn't work as a permanent economic policy, but it would work as a temporary coordinated response to time-limited crisis.
Too many HN users have no idea how businesses operate outside the software sector. Many of those "non-essential" businesses and the associated supply chains are simply not set up in a way that can be stopped and then successfully restarted months later. If they're shut down for any significant period then they're gone for good. Crashing the economy into another Great Depression would kill more people than the virus. There has to be a sensible balance.
> Many of those "non-essential" businesses and the associated supply chains are simply not set up in a way that can be stopped and then successfully restarted months later. If they're shut down for any significant period then they're gone for good.
Honestly, that sounds like hyperbole. You'll have to give examples, and not something like retail or restaurants. Honestly, with a little imagination and expertise (and most importantly the political will to deal with the problem), I think it doable to make the legal changes necessary to pause most business like that with little damage, just as long as the aid is there. For instance, make 2020 something like an intercalary year. IMHO, this stuff only seems impossible if you tie your hands and restrict yourself to a limited number of first-order interventions.
The situation we have now is something like an ER doctor who's too busy playing on his phone to save the life of someone who's been shot, and who then turns around and loudly blames "guns" for that unnecessary death.
Honestly, that sounds like hyperbole. You'll have to give examples, and not something like retail or restaurants. Honestly, with a little imagination and expertise (and most importantly the political will to deal with the problem), I think it doable to make the legal changes necessary to pause most business like that with little damage, just as long as the aid is there. For instance, make 2020 something like an intercalary year. IMHO, this stuff only seems impossible if you tie your hands and restrict yourself to a limited number of first-order interventions.
The situation we have now is something like an ER doctor who's too busy playing on his phone to save the life of someone who's been shot, and who then turns around and loudly blames "guns" for that unnecessary death.
Example: dry cleaners.
It's what happens when you fixate on optimizing for only one variable (in this case total covid deaths or perhaps hospital ICU capacity). All other variables must be sacrificed to optimize the one variable, even if it means pushing millions into poverty, destroying industries, educationally handicapping multiple generations of students, etc.
If that one variable was actually optimized for in a prompt manner, COVID would already be over in the US. It’s the half-assed waffling that’s causing this to drag on for the better part of a year now.
I sure do hate it when I slip and fall into poverty as if it were some silly accident of my own making and not entirely caused by the actions of state and local governments.
You are that saying herd immunity would be the only option?
It's not like that's the only solution that's been floated. Stimulus checks would have kept people out of poverty too.
> It's not like that's the only solution that's been floated. Stimulus checks would have kept people out of poverty too.
You're right, but the implications of the GGP comment's phrasing imply they wouldn't have liked that solution.
IMHO, in some quarters, the weeping and gnashing of teeth about the costs mandatory social distancing (up to and including stay at home orders) directly flows from the rejection of government relief as a solution to anything. If you take that off the table, you're left with a false choice between pandemic destruction and economic destruction.
You're right, but the implications of the GGP comment's phrasing imply they wouldn't have liked that solution.
IMHO, in some quarters, the weeping and gnashing of teeth about the costs mandatory social distancing (up to and including stay at home orders) directly flows from the rejection of government relief as a solution to anything. If you take that off the table, you're left with a false choice between pandemic destruction and economic destruction.
That's not the only choice. Focusing protection on the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function could've spared us both from the worst of the pandemic's destruction and the economic destruction -- "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer.
> That's not the only choice. Focusing protection on the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function could've spared us both from the worst of the pandemic's destruction and the economic destruction --
That's an unrealistic idea. You can't have unchecked community spread and "focus protection on the vulnerable," without literally imprisoning them in an isolation bubble for a year or more, which is far longer than the successful lockdowns have lasted. There are places in the world that have already opened up, virus free.
The rule with this pandemic seems to be: the more half-ass you are at controlling it, the more pain and expense you get.
> "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer.
If you really cared so much about people's "mental and physical health," why are you advocating a policy that wouldn't lessen it, but rather concentrate the damage and increase the burden to on the vulnerable?
That's an unrealistic idea. You can't have unchecked community spread and "focus protection on the vulnerable," without literally imprisoning them in an isolation bubble for a year or more, which is far longer than the successful lockdowns have lasted. There are places in the world that have already opened up, virus free.
The rule with this pandemic seems to be: the more half-ass you are at controlling it, the more pain and expense you get.
> "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer.
If you really cared so much about people's "mental and physical health," why are you advocating a policy that wouldn't lessen it, but rather concentrate the damage and increase the burden to on the vulnerable?
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The idea that you just throw away all precautions "except for the vulnerable" is complete nonsense as you pointed out. Every healthy person who has the virus is a danger for the vulnerable.
> I'm not sure why you're being downvoted.
I'm sure why. There's a lot of people who've committed themselves to false/wrong/wishful thinking ideas about COVID (the US, to its embarrassment, has a major political faction that's done this). Since those ideas are indefensible, people who point out the flaws are often downvoted.
I'm sure why. There's a lot of people who've committed themselves to false/wrong/wishful thinking ideas about COVID (the US, to its embarrassment, has a major political faction that's done this). Since those ideas are indefensible, people who point out the flaws are often downvoted.
> There are places in the world that have already opened up, virus free.
And every place that qualifies for your description is an island on its own.
And every place that qualifies for your description is an island on its own.
Herd immunity is the end-state (with or without a vaccine) not some policy option to pursue. It is what will eventually happen. The trick is getting to that end-state with the least amount of damage incurred. I would've advocated for something more closely resembling: https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/
In my country (Scotland) the 45 - 64 age group has occupied the most hospital beds during the pandemic:
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker...
Scroll to “Hospital Admissions by Age Group” and select total.
So that would involve shielding everyone 45+ to protect hospital capacity in an unrestricted “shield the vulnerable” scenario.
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker...
Scroll to “Hospital Admissions by Age Group” and select total.
So that would involve shielding everyone 45+ to protect hospital capacity in an unrestricted “shield the vulnerable” scenario.
Who would have guessed that kneecapping the service industry would be bad for the service sector?
The blame for the situation lies squarely at the feet of the federal government. If you are going to shutter businesses and put people out of work, you need to pay the business owners and the employees who you have affected. Staying economically viable vs staying medically viable should have never been a tradeoff people had to make here, and Americans should all remember that when the next election rolls around.
> Americans should all remember that when the next election rolls around
Unfortunately, for most people the truth is that they "like their representatives, it's all the rest that are corrupt"
Plus Washington is close enough to a 50/50 split right now that you can always just say it was the other party holding everything up.
Unfortunately, for most people the truth is that they "like their representatives, it's all the rest that are corrupt"
Plus Washington is close enough to a 50/50 split right now that you can always just say it was the other party holding everything up.
Our election processes have never been fair. Big money has typically been the largest factor. This year solidifies it .. at least for half the population. The American psyche has been split in two by a corrupt and runaway media.
But the federal government didn't shutter any businesses. You can thank the state governors, county officials and big city mayors for that.
My point is that the governors and mayors always had to weigh the economic damage they were doing to people whenever they made a shutdown decision, which resulted in erratic, complicated, and somewhat nonsensical shutdown orders. If the federal government had backstopped the economy properly and compensated any business or person directly affected by a shutdown, then the governors / mayors would have been able to take more coordinated, effective action. You can't maintain aggressive shutdowns if every day of your shutdown is destroying peoples' bank accounts.
Most governors and mayors didn't perform a rigorous cost benefit analysis before making shutdown decisions. Many of the lockdown orders were arbitrary and capricious, full of exemptions for politically favored groups. These were largely faith based policies without proper scientific backing from an evidence-based medicine perspective.
Free money from the federal government wouldn't have improved that situation. If state governors want to shut down businesses then state governments should be issuing relief payments.
Free money from the federal government wouldn't have improved that situation. If state governors want to shut down businesses then state governments should be issuing relief payments.
When we’re talking about 30% of national GDP and millions of lives, then turning it into a state v state issue doesn’t sound like a recipe for long term stability.
A lot of free money went to governments, my state largely squandered that money, and hoped more would come to actually help people. They used it to avoid any sort of budget cuts for the current and previous years, and even set up a tuition grant that helps our governor look better at achieving campaign promises.
What in your view would've been more effective action? Do you not think enough businesses are closed or enough masks are being worn?
The way the US is structured makes this very difficult. We're not a country of countries like the United Kingdom, but the US is a country of States. Despite our federal solidification over the past century, states still have a lot of autonomy. Passing marijuana laws that contradict Federal law, is probably the most prevalent example of this.
The Federal government tried to create PPP programs, but look at what happened. Multi-million dollar franchises pulled in huge chunks while small restaurants got nothing. It's the 2008 bank bailouts all over again. It's like PS5/nvidia graphics cards scalping for businesses.
The corruption flows through every system, and the blame can be focuses on businesses with the means and people and legal staff to take advantage of the situation at the expense of every possible competitor.
The Federal government tried to create PPP programs, but look at what happened. Multi-million dollar franchises pulled in huge chunks while small restaurants got nothing. It's the 2008 bank bailouts all over again. It's like PS5/nvidia graphics cards scalping for businesses.
The corruption flows through every system, and the blame can be focuses on businesses with the means and people and legal staff to take advantage of the situation at the expense of every possible competitor.
They could have done a tiered fund. A PPP pool for businesses under $<1M, $<10M, etc.
Also Trump removed the independent watchdog for the coronavirus funds.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-indep...
Also Trump removed the independent watchdog for the coronavirus funds.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-indep...
The blame for the situation lies squarely at the feet of the state and local governments. The federal government didn't force any businesses to close. There is a huge variance between states in pandemic control measures. If businesses are still open in Florida then why should Floridians pay federal income taxes to subsidize closed businesses in California?
And states do have options for funding relief at the state level. For example they could temporarily raise income taxes on the wealthy for the duration of the pandemic. Or issue pandemic bonds.
And states do have options for funding relief at the state level. For example they could temporarily raise income taxes on the wealthy for the duration of the pandemic. Or issue pandemic bonds.
>The blame for the situation lies squarely at the feet of the state and local governments. The federal government didn't force any businesses to close.
The state and local government had to act entirely because the federal government had no real plan. Someone is going to fill the decision making vacuum, but it is a problem when the people making the decisions don't have the financial power to make the right decision. The federal government is the only government in the US that had the power to pay people to stay home and experts were telling us that was the right decision 9 months ago.
The state and local government had to act entirely because the federal government had no real plan. Someone is going to fill the decision making vacuum, but it is a problem when the people making the decisions don't have the financial power to make the right decision. The federal government is the only government in the US that had the power to pay people to stay home and experts were telling us that was the right decision 9 months ago.
You appear to be laboring under a misconception. The responsibility to act on public health measures has always been primarily at the state and local levels. Under our federal system, the federal government doesn't even really have legal authority to order lockdown measures. Granted the federal response has been an appalling mix of corruption and incompetence, but the federal role is mostly just advisory anyway.
State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so.
State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so.
> State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so.
But they don't have the money to do so. Plans like that require deficit spending, which the federal government can do but the states can't.
Your alternative suggestions are not serious ideas. Do you really think the states could find the money to pay people to stay home by levying taxes on basically those same payments?
But they don't have the money to do so. Plans like that require deficit spending, which the federal government can do but the states can't.
Your alternative suggestions are not serious ideas. Do you really think the states could find the money to pay people to stay home by levying taxes on basically those same payments?
I am seriously suggesting that if states want to pay people to stay home they should find the money by cutting other spending, selling assets, raising taxes on the wealthy (households with an income over about $200K who didn't receive a stimulus payment in the first place), and issuing general obligation bonds. Some states have legal restrictions on those things but those are entirely self imposed and can be removed without any federal intervention. It's time to make tough decisions and decide what to prioritize rather than pretending we can have it all and letting future generations deal with the consequences.
> I am seriously suggesting that if states want to pay people to stay home they should find the money by cutting other spending, selling assets, raising taxes on the wealthy (households with an income over about $200K who didn't receive a stimulus payment in the first place), and issuing general obligation bonds.
So, basically, you think they should do things like finance their house with their credit card (general obligation bonds) instead of taking out a mortgage (federal deficit spending)? And what's your reason for that?
Honestly, this seems more like you're opposed to stay at home orders directly, but expressing that opposition indirectly by demanding arbitrary (unreasonable) policy restrictions to make them seems less desirable by making their implementation unnecessarily painful and difficult.
So, basically, you think they should do things like finance their house with their credit card (general obligation bonds) instead of taking out a mortgage (federal deficit spending)? And what's your reason for that?
Honestly, this seems more like you're opposed to stay at home orders directly, but expressing that opposition indirectly by demanding arbitrary (unreasonable) policy restrictions to make them seems less desirable by making their implementation unnecessarily painful and difficult.
There's not dire future consequences to deficit spending during a demand shock. Austerity is the wrong response to such situations.
The argument isn’t about power in the sense of authority, but power in the sense of having the tools to control the situation.
Where in my comment did I say the federal government should have enacted a national lockdown? My complaint was the lack of a real plan. They left the states to fend for themselves without the level of guidance, coordination, or financial support that was needed for a proper response.
>State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so.
Most states are run on a deficit and several states are already near bankruptcy. There simply isn't a capability at the state level to have the type of financial response that is possible at the federal level with its ability to print money.
>State governments have the power to pay people to stay home. They might have to shift funding from other areas or raise taxes in order to do so.
Most states are run on a deficit and several states are already near bankruptcy. There simply isn't a capability at the state level to have the type of financial response that is possible at the federal level with its ability to print money.
> Most states are run on a deficit
This is not true. All the states except Vermont have a legal requirement of a balanced budget.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-balanced-b...
This is not true. All the states except Vermont have a legal requirement of a balanced budget.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-balanced-b...
I phrased that poorly. However there is also a difference between what these rules require and what you are stating. A proposed balanced budget isn't the same as a balanced budget in practice. And to quote your linked article:
>State balanced budget requirements in practice refer to operating budgets and not to capital budgets. Operating budgets include annual expenditures--such items as salaries and wages, aid to local governments, health and welfare benefits, and other expenditures that are repeated from year to year. State capital expenditure, mainly for land, highways, and buildings, is largely financed by debt
It is much easier to balance the budget when you ignore all those capital expenses.
Also there are other complexities involved. You can look at what happened in Illinois a few years back as an example. They basically didn't have an official state budget for multiple years. That didn't stop them from racking up costs and debt. It contributed to a debt crisis that the state is still trying to claw its way out of.
>State balanced budget requirements in practice refer to operating budgets and not to capital budgets. Operating budgets include annual expenditures--such items as salaries and wages, aid to local governments, health and welfare benefits, and other expenditures that are repeated from year to year. State capital expenditure, mainly for land, highways, and buildings, is largely financed by debt
It is much easier to balance the budget when you ignore all those capital expenses.
Also there are other complexities involved. You can look at what happened in Illinois a few years back as an example. They basically didn't have an official state budget for multiple years. That didn't stop them from racking up costs and debt. It contributed to a debt crisis that the state is still trying to claw its way out of.
>Most states are run on a deficit and several states are already near bankruptcy.
The first isn't true at all. Most US States are forbidden to run deficits[0].
Which is why many states are already cutting services and laying off workers.
What's more, there are significant restrictions in most states on when and how they can raise money by issuing debt obligations (bonds).
With sales and income tax revenues plummeting in many states, that leaves them with few options other than cutting services, laying off workers and slashing public programs.
Without Federal assistance, things are going to get much worse before they get better.
[0] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-state...
The first isn't true at all. Most US States are forbidden to run deficits[0].
Which is why many states are already cutting services and laying off workers.
What's more, there are significant restrictions in most states on when and how they can raise money by issuing debt obligations (bonds).
With sales and income tax revenues plummeting in many states, that leaves them with few options other than cutting services, laying off workers and slashing public programs.
Without Federal assistance, things are going to get much worse before they get better.
[0] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-state...
Florida is already a taker state instead of a giver. Why should we give them more if they can just tax themselves for the difference?
https://rockinst.org/issue-area/new-yorks-balance-of-payment...
https://rockinst.org/issue-area/new-yorks-balance-of-payment...
Seriously, OP's argument makes no sense. It's just distracting from the issue of the federal government's failures. This constant distraction is part of why the government is able to fail so badly without any consequences.
> why should Floridians pay federal income taxes to subsidize closed businesses in California?
Because Florida benefits immensely from supporting a state which has, if it were a country, the 6th highest GDP in the world.
The economy in Florida would be heavily affected if California left the union.
Your question is basically like asking "why do federations exist?"
Because Florida benefits immensely from supporting a state which has, if it were a country, the 6th highest GDP in the world.
The economy in Florida would be heavily affected if California left the union.
Your question is basically like asking "why do federations exist?"
No one has seriously suggested seceding from the union. The survival or bankruptcy of some small businesses in California has very little impact on Florida.
Obviously not literally seceding, I am referring to the impact of economic disruption.
"Some small businesses" is a washy phrase with no substance.
"Some small businesses" is a washy phrase with no substance.
I feel like rural areas are going to keep their small businesses alive and well, while city restaurants and service industry will collapse. Seattle and Portland will be Detroit within 2 years. Even after COIVD, that type of devastation would take a decade to recover from, if they had sound leaders. They don't, and it's only going to make it worse.
It was state governors who shut their states down. Not the federal government.
The state isn't in any position to offer emergency loans / bailouts. The federal government needed to work with the states that were being hit hardest by Coronavirus, when they were being hit. Instead some got a random $1200 check and some PPP loans, when many didn't even need it yet.
States had a choice, leave everything open and deal with the loss of life, and still suffer as people would be going out less. OR shut down to help prevent deaths and hope the federal government would help (which it should have).
Instead it became a political battle to give corporate immunity, and nobody got anything after March.
States had a choice, leave everything open and deal with the loss of life, and still suffer as people would be going out less. OR shut down to help prevent deaths and hope the federal government would help (which it should have).
Instead it became a political battle to give corporate immunity, and nobody got anything after March.
> The blame for the situation lies squarely at the feet of the federal government
It's more complex than that. The UK is keeping things stable/frozen, but with nothing being produced, the value of their money is shifting.
You cannot keep paying people to do nothing. You have people in jobs where they are still employed, saving tons (because there's nothing to spend it on) and record buying of future e-waste (Going back to the 2000s, PS3 prices were back to normal two weeks before x-mas Christmas. PS5s are still $1000+ on eBay), and the income inequality is growing between those who happen to be in safe industries and those who weren't .. and it's arbitrary. Nothing has changed for the manager at a Wal-Mart, or a UPS driver or an engineer, but it has for the restaurant manager or someone who owns a small corner store in California.
The completely arbitrary and almost random lock-down decisions have crushed all small business, giving over their entire customer bases to large big box stores.
The people with their small businesses don't want handouts. They'll take it sure, but they want to work. Some have shifted and found new creative ways to make money. That's the nature of capitalism. You do what you have to, within the limits we've evolved over the past 100 years (no more child labor; pure capitalism without regulation is bad), to offer goods and services people want. But many are struggling.
In contrast, the earlier larger unemployment payments provided a perverse incentive to keep people from returning to jobs that had reopened. Lowering them a bit has helped those return to jobs that were there, but it's been devastating to those who have nothing to go back to.
We cannot just inject money. Social welfare has been a disaster in many respect. Only only need to watch modern documentary that break the bubble: "What Killed Michael Brown" and "Uncle Tom" to see how the perverse incentives from badly constructed government systems actually hurt a lot of low income communities and destroyed families.
There is a lot of talk about "A great reset," used in many countries to indicate a global agenda to fundamentally change economic models. Make no mistake, people at the top with influence are not going to give up or redistribute their wealth. Bezos, Gates and others at the top will hold on to their wealth. But reconstruction could destroy people under a certain income threshold if it's not done correctly.
People need merit and value, and the draconian COVID regulations have removed personal agency from the masses.
It's more complex than that. The UK is keeping things stable/frozen, but with nothing being produced, the value of their money is shifting.
You cannot keep paying people to do nothing. You have people in jobs where they are still employed, saving tons (because there's nothing to spend it on) and record buying of future e-waste (Going back to the 2000s, PS3 prices were back to normal two weeks before x-mas Christmas. PS5s are still $1000+ on eBay), and the income inequality is growing between those who happen to be in safe industries and those who weren't .. and it's arbitrary. Nothing has changed for the manager at a Wal-Mart, or a UPS driver or an engineer, but it has for the restaurant manager or someone who owns a small corner store in California.
The completely arbitrary and almost random lock-down decisions have crushed all small business, giving over their entire customer bases to large big box stores.
The people with their small businesses don't want handouts. They'll take it sure, but they want to work. Some have shifted and found new creative ways to make money. That's the nature of capitalism. You do what you have to, within the limits we've evolved over the past 100 years (no more child labor; pure capitalism without regulation is bad), to offer goods and services people want. But many are struggling.
In contrast, the earlier larger unemployment payments provided a perverse incentive to keep people from returning to jobs that had reopened. Lowering them a bit has helped those return to jobs that were there, but it's been devastating to those who have nothing to go back to.
We cannot just inject money. Social welfare has been a disaster in many respect. Only only need to watch modern documentary that break the bubble: "What Killed Michael Brown" and "Uncle Tom" to see how the perverse incentives from badly constructed government systems actually hurt a lot of low income communities and destroyed families.
There is a lot of talk about "A great reset," used in many countries to indicate a global agenda to fundamentally change economic models. Make no mistake, people at the top with influence are not going to give up or redistribute their wealth. Bezos, Gates and others at the top will hold on to their wealth. But reconstruction could destroy people under a certain income threshold if it's not done correctly.
People need merit and value, and the draconian COVID regulations have removed personal agency from the masses.
What has been gradually removing personal agency from the masses is this ever-growing debt black hole, accumulating for decades.
Small business owners aren't feeling some pressing desire to continue their craft during the pandemic, beyond that of anyone with a passion. What's really driving their desperation is needing to pay rent, as the banks continue operating as normal, demanding their periodic tribute, and threatening to confiscate businesses if they don't find some way to pay up.
You said "people with their small businesses don't want handouts". The problem is that they've internalized rent as some inherent fact of life, while viewing anything that could mitigate rent as a "government handout" - despite decades of government financial meddling being responsible for this jam!
The direct solution was/is to suspend all rent/mortgages denominated in USD, and let the pain accrue to those who are usually benefiting from vacuum-up economics. Instead, as always, disinvolved capital was given a pass (along with a huge bailout!) while the political machine went to work dividing the productive members of society to distract from their real enemy.
Small business owners aren't feeling some pressing desire to continue their craft during the pandemic, beyond that of anyone with a passion. What's really driving their desperation is needing to pay rent, as the banks continue operating as normal, demanding their periodic tribute, and threatening to confiscate businesses if they don't find some way to pay up.
You said "people with their small businesses don't want handouts". The problem is that they've internalized rent as some inherent fact of life, while viewing anything that could mitigate rent as a "government handout" - despite decades of government financial meddling being responsible for this jam!
The direct solution was/is to suspend all rent/mortgages denominated in USD, and let the pain accrue to those who are usually benefiting from vacuum-up economics. Instead, as always, disinvolved capital was given a pass (along with a huge bailout!) while the political machine went to work dividing the productive members of society to distract from their real enemy.
> The completely arbitrary and almost random lock-down decisions have crushed all small business, giving over their entire customer bases to large big box stores.
The response here in Washington State has resulted in permanent closure of more businesses than deaths with covid within the state.
The response here in Washington State has resulted in permanent closure of more businesses than deaths with covid within the state.
The whole game for the social sociopaths is to pretend that the federal government had no obligation to provide for people's livelihoods during lockdown - which they absolutely did, obviously. This was wholly intentional, to sabotage health-and-safety conscious Democratic local governments, and force them into the Sophie's choice of mass unemployment or mass death among their constituents (local GOP leaders, for the most part, of course didn't actually care about mass death OR mass employment, since their constituency is the handful of billionaires who fund the whole party and right-wing ideological apparatus; so they were able to further sabotage the health-and-safety efforts by simply refusing to implement any).
The state and local governments that shutdown did the right thing - they put the health and safety of their populations first. The federal government failed them by defaulting on its obligations. It did this intentionally.
The state and local governments that shutdown did the right thing - they put the health and safety of their populations first. The federal government failed them by defaulting on its obligations. It did this intentionally.
The issue is that the US government has refused to help people during a time when they should absolutely not be forced to work face to face jobs to pay the bills.
Instead Republicans have held aid hostage in exchange for legislation allowing businesses to force employees to work in unsafe environments with no recourse[1]. Even so far as a measure that would allow the US attorney general to penalized employees up to $50k for having the audacity to sue businesses for creating unsafe environments.[2]
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/15/disturbin... 2. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/12/covid-liability-shield-la...
Instead Republicans have held aid hostage in exchange for legislation allowing businesses to force employees to work in unsafe environments with no recourse[1]. Even so far as a measure that would allow the US attorney general to penalized employees up to $50k for having the audacity to sue businesses for creating unsafe environments.[2]
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/15/disturbin... 2. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/12/covid-liability-shield-la...
Load of crap.
Republicans were willing to negotiate on a smaller package.
It was held up by the speaker because it made Trump look bad.
Republicans were willing to negotiate on a smaller package.
It was held up by the speaker because it made Trump look bad.
Source? I'd prefer a reputable one, if you please
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC Nov 24
If you want to know why COVID relief is tied up in Congress, one key reason is that Republicans are demanding legal immunity for corporations so they can expose their workers to COVID without repercussions.
Dems don’t want you to die for a check. That’s what we’re fighting over.
https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1331322923534213120?lang=en
If you want to know why COVID relief is tied up in Congress, one key reason is that Republicans are demanding legal immunity for corporations so they can expose their workers to COVID without repercussions.
Dems don’t want you to die for a check. That’s what we’re fighting over.
https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1331322923534213120?lang=en
> Source? I'd prefer a reputable one, if you please
Here you go[0]. Although it says the opposite of what GP claimed.
[0] https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus-stimulus-negotiation...
Here you go[0]. Although it says the opposite of what GP claimed.
[0] https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus-stimulus-negotiation...
Republicans refused to remove a liability shield for companies from the bill.
That's a good reason to refuse to pass the bill.
That's a good reason to refuse to pass the bill.
Is it? Why is that so important that it's worth not aiding millions of people who are dropping into poverty?
I can't tell if this is a question posed in earnest, because I wouldn't expect a reaction like that to "corporations are designing and feeding Congress a liability shield so that they don't have to spend money protecting their workers."
The "aid" is a red herring if you are setting up those same people for dangerous situations with zero accountability from the people who are forcing them to put themselves in hazard's way.
It is myopic to think that a smaller stimulus bill (that would barely cover 1 month's expenses for the average American -- recall that it's been 8 months since the first stimulus) would be proposed for anything except to stave off the fervor of mass civil unrest for a short while longer.
The "aid" is a red herring if you are setting up those same people for dangerous situations with zero accountability from the people who are forcing them to put themselves in hazard's way.
It is myopic to think that a smaller stimulus bill (that would barely cover 1 month's expenses for the average American -- recall that it's been 8 months since the first stimulus) would be proposed for anything except to stave off the fervor of mass civil unrest for a short while longer.
The standard is OSHA writing rules that govern workplace safety. What we have now is a bunch of soft "when feasible" and "if possible" recommendations and no rules save for what each state/county give on their own, which are usually also pretty squishy.
Absent a written standard from the government body in charge of these things, it's a free-for-all of liability. So I open my restaurant following local standards and a customer gets COVID and sues me because I used disinfectant X when I should have used Y, or the staff was wearing mask A instead of mask B, or whatever.
I don't think its unreasonable whatsoever to - again, absent the proper rules - ask for protection in this case. Folks like to characterize this as "protecting big corporations" but if you read the proposal it protects school, universities, hospitals, and so forth as well.
Absent a written standard from the government body in charge of these things, it's a free-for-all of liability. So I open my restaurant following local standards and a customer gets COVID and sues me because I used disinfectant X when I should have used Y, or the staff was wearing mask A instead of mask B, or whatever.
I don't think its unreasonable whatsoever to - again, absent the proper rules - ask for protection in this case. Folks like to characterize this as "protecting big corporations" but if you read the proposal it protects school, universities, hospitals, and so forth as well.
It shifts the risk from business to employees without commiserate compensation. For an economy built around risk-reward, why should employees have to assume more risk while their reward remains the same?
Wrong.
A reminder that Nancy Pelosi turned down not one but two $1 trillion+ stimulus offer from the White House before the election.
Trump makes $1.8 trillion economic relief offer, but deal with Pelosi remains elusive (Oct 09 2020)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/09/trump-ec...
Nancy Pelosi blasts the White House's $1.6 trillion stimulus plan, saying it's not even 'half a loaf' (Oct 01 2020)
https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-blasts-white-ho...
A reminder that Nancy Pelosi turned down not one but two $1 trillion+ stimulus offer from the White House before the election.
Trump makes $1.8 trillion economic relief offer, but deal with Pelosi remains elusive (Oct 09 2020)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/09/trump-ec...
Nancy Pelosi blasts the White House's $1.6 trillion stimulus plan, saying it's not even 'half a loaf' (Oct 01 2020)
https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-blasts-white-ho...
I notice folks getting starry-eyed in the face of these big numbers.
But if you look at how that money is allocated, it won't be very good for anyone except those who are milking this crisis for all they can.
The bill needs to be much bigger to have any considerable impact.
Remember -- the economy only works if people are spending money, and people are only spending money when they have money in their pockets. Trickle-up economics is real and it works.
But if you look at how that money is allocated, it won't be very good for anyone except those who are milking this crisis for all they can.
The bill needs to be much bigger to have any considerable impact.
Remember -- the economy only works if people are spending money, and people are only spending money when they have money in their pockets. Trickle-up economics is real and it works.
Dont move the goal post.
Excuse me? The goal post has been moved so far already by the Republicans and you're tut-tutting this perspective?
Those bills were DOA in the Senate. This was all posturing on both sides.
Most reasonable people that asked for lockdowns also asked for stimulus packages to give those people who couldn't work money while they're out of work so they could survive.
And yet they didn't stop the lockdowns once it was clear the stimulus was not going to happen.
Given a virus that requires hospitalization at a certain rate, there is a certain point where the hospitals end up overrun for all other activities.
In an effort to stave off that danger, local governments enacted lockdowns with the intent of reducing the spread of the virus.
The virus, in the United States, has an established death rate of around 1.5% and a hospitalization rate higher than that.
It also experiences exponential growth.
Our hospitals didn't have the capacity to handle all the _potential_ load; and, once they're approaching that capacity, it's already too late and they'll blow past it. That's the danger of exponential growth.
Let's imagine doublings:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.
If total capacity is 100, the moment that capacity is less than 20% used up, we're 2-3 timesteps away from using over 100%. It is a very dangerous gamble, and controversial decisions are made or not made and the worst part is that, when you do the safe thing, you have no way of being certain or explaining that the bad thing would have or could have happened, because "it's only 20%" and that looks small.
In an effort to stave off that danger, local governments enacted lockdowns with the intent of reducing the spread of the virus.
The virus, in the United States, has an established death rate of around 1.5% and a hospitalization rate higher than that.
It also experiences exponential growth.
Our hospitals didn't have the capacity to handle all the _potential_ load; and, once they're approaching that capacity, it's already too late and they'll blow past it. That's the danger of exponential growth.
Let's imagine doublings:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.
If total capacity is 100, the moment that capacity is less than 20% used up, we're 2-3 timesteps away from using over 100%. It is a very dangerous gamble, and controversial decisions are made or not made and the worst part is that, when you do the safe thing, you have no way of being certain or explaining that the bad thing would have or could have happened, because "it's only 20%" and that looks small.
The established death rate in the US is nowhere near 1.5%. Best current population IFR estimate is somewhere in the 0.6% range. That's bad enough, no need to exaggerate.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.11.20209627v...
I wasn’t.
https://covidusa.net/
https://covidusa.net/
No, you were. Please stop spreading misinformation about a serious subject. You appear to have confused case fatality rate with the population infection fatality rate. CFR is largely meaningless because so many infections are never counted. Look at the results from antibody seroprevalence studies.
Florida, Texas, and Sweden seem to be doing fine.
Edit: also, the military, FEMA, and non-profits built temporary hospitals in spring, but they weren't needed.
Edit: also, the military, FEMA, and non-profits built temporary hospitals in spring, but they weren't needed.
We had months and months to build temporary hospitals... Why didn't we?
We, in many places, did.
Federally, there was no strategy because federal powers were devoted to promoting the pandemic (e.g., via the Defense Production Act invocation to shield the meat packing industry from state safety efforts) rather than fighting it.
OTOH, hospitals also require skilled staff, which takes longer to build.
Federally, there was no strategy because federal powers were devoted to promoting the pandemic (e.g., via the Defense Production Act invocation to shield the meat packing industry from state safety efforts) rather than fighting it.
OTOH, hospitals also require skilled staff, which takes longer to build.
Who were you planning to staff all of your temporary hospitals with?
So you are saying our hospital beds and staff are fixed immutable resources and that in an emergency all other variables must be sacrificed in order to not exceed those fixed immutable resources?
> So you are saying our hospital beds and staff are fixed immutable resources and that in an emergency all other variables must be sacrificed in order to not exceed those fixed immutable resources?
Absolutely. Steve the UberEats delivery driver can be moved into the ICU, putting folks on ventilators and providing critical care in a week or so, right?
And Gustavo, the busboy can be out providing EMT services in just a few days, right?
A doctor requires 8+ years of post-secondary education, in addition to several years of on-the-job training.
An RN requires at least 6+ years of post-secondary education, plus several years of on-the-job training. LPNs even longer.
So, yes. In the short term (~6-18 months), staff are most certainly fairly fixed resources.
As for hospital beds, those are limited to the square footage available for them. Sure, temporary hospital wards can be constructed and put in place fairly quickly, but unless Steve and Gustavo are staffing them, you still have a big problem.
Absolutely. Steve the UberEats delivery driver can be moved into the ICU, putting folks on ventilators and providing critical care in a week or so, right?
And Gustavo, the busboy can be out providing EMT services in just a few days, right?
A doctor requires 8+ years of post-secondary education, in addition to several years of on-the-job training.
An RN requires at least 6+ years of post-secondary education, plus several years of on-the-job training. LPNs even longer.
So, yes. In the short term (~6-18 months), staff are most certainly fairly fixed resources.
As for hospital beds, those are limited to the square footage available for them. Sure, temporary hospital wards can be constructed and put in place fairly quickly, but unless Steve and Gustavo are staffing them, you still have a big problem.
This is just throwing your arms up in the air and saying it's unsolvable.
I don't give up. Make a temporary hospital with ip web cams pointed at all the vitals. Build a quick and dirty dashboard that lets doctors/nurses monitor dozens of patients at once instead of having to physically walk around everywhere. If engineers can get more done with less using automation, medical professionals can do it too.
I don't give up. Make a temporary hospital with ip web cams pointed at all the vitals. Build a quick and dirty dashboard that lets doctors/nurses monitor dozens of patients at once instead of having to physically walk around everywhere. If engineers can get more done with less using automation, medical professionals can do it too.
>This is just throwing your arms up in the air and saying it's unsolvable.
You're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them. I think that's called a 'strawman argument'.
You're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them. I think that's called a 'strawman argument'.
At some point, you're experiencing runway problems. 9 women can't produce a baby in a month, after all.
They can, however, collectively produce 9 babies, 9 months after the start date.
They can, however, collectively produce 9 babies, 9 months after the start date.
In an emergency situation, you make do. Train temporary workers to man the temporary hospitals. Teach them how to know when to defer to a medical professional. You can hire a bunch of boy scouts to do the repetitive stuff, and have them call in a real doctor or nurse if symptom progression isn't matching their training.
> Train temporary workers to man the temporary hospitals. Teach them how to know when to defer to a medical professional.
Normal hospitals are already staffed at pretty close to the maximum rate of less qualified to more expert staff for their caseload, and the easy caseload that requires less expert share of time is pushed out of hospitals entirely by the crisis. Surging additional minimally trained staff doesn't help anything.
Normal hospitals are already staffed at pretty close to the maximum rate of less qualified to more expert staff for their caseload, and the easy caseload that requires less expert share of time is pushed out of hospitals entirely by the crisis. Surging additional minimally trained staff doesn't help anything.
Ok, then use technology to help the current staff do more. How many inefficiencies are preventing nurses and doctors from servicing more patients? Build a dashboard with the vitals of dozens of covid patients that a single qualified nurse can monitor instead of making a half dozen nurses all walk around to all the different beds and manually check everything
> How many inefficiencies are preventing nurses and doctors from servicing more patients? Build a dashboard with the vitals of dozens of covid patients that a single qualified nurse can monitor instead of making a half dozen nurses all walk around to all the different beds and manually check everything
I believe ICU nursing stations already use such dashboards routinely.
If they didn't, developing and testing new software to a level where it was reliable enough for such use without being checked up around, and training staff and adapting processes for it, would not be a quick process and, perhaps more importantly, would take staff time of clinical staff to participate in consultation and validation instead of clinical duties while it progressed.
I believe ICU nursing stations already use such dashboards routinely.
If they didn't, developing and testing new software to a level where it was reliable enough for such use without being checked up around, and training staff and adapting processes for it, would not be a quick process and, perhaps more importantly, would take staff time of clinical staff to participate in consultation and validation instead of clinical duties while it progressed.
I don't recall saying that, no. I'd wager that nobody would seriously say that, since it's obviously false.
I interpreted the question as you implying temporary hospitals are absurd because there wouldn't be staff to man them.
[deleted]
I don't see how that would be a reason to stop the lockdowns. Remember that there is a severe respiratory contagion going around that spreads from breathing the same air as infected folks.
Florida, Texas, and Sweden seem to be doing fine enough.
Are you being serious? I am seriously baffled that you think that is true.
Tell that to the ICU nurses and doctors in Florida who have to code several people a day due to Covid...
Heart disease and cancer combined kill four times as many people every year, than what covid-19 has done this year.
About 10% of all the people who died in the US this year will have died from covid-19. Why are those 10% of deaths so much more terrible, so unimaginably horrible, that we're focusing exclusively on those, and completely ignoring the remaining 90% of deaths?
About 10% of all the people who died in the US this year will have died from covid-19. Why are those 10% of deaths so much more terrible, so unimaginably horrible, that we're focusing exclusively on those, and completely ignoring the remaining 90% of deaths?
You can't catch heart disease and cancer by standing for 10 minutes in the same room as someone who is afflicted by either of those.
Because it's an infectious disease spread through droplets in the air; because it's abnormal and therefore new and scary; and because it's more deadly than our other regular disease, the seasonal flu.
Tell that to the family that lost their job and is now homeless. Tell that to the people who've lost love ones to suicide, overdose, alcoholism. (see I can be snarky and unhelpful, too)
The broader point is that it's not clear that lockdowns are beneficial or necessary. They have real costs. Nobody is talking about how we weigh those costs and benefits. And despite the lockdowns, California still has a swamped medical system.
To move the conversation forward: people will never give up their sacred cows. The lockdowns were never about COVID, they're about control and rewarding political allies. Texas tried to ban abortion. California tried to ban religion. And nobody cares if the lockdowns work or not.
The broader point is that it's not clear that lockdowns are beneficial or necessary. They have real costs. Nobody is talking about how we weigh those costs and benefits. And despite the lockdowns, California still has a swamped medical system.
To move the conversation forward: people will never give up their sacred cows. The lockdowns were never about COVID, they're about control and rewarding political allies. Texas tried to ban abortion. California tried to ban religion. And nobody cares if the lockdowns work or not.
The lockdowns were more essential than the stimulus payments, though no sane government would fail to do both in the circumstances.
(Our government failed on both the lockdowns, which were scattered, too late in many places, and too poorly enforced in most places, and stimulus, but then our government, at many levels, has not been sane.)
(Our government failed on both the lockdowns, which were scattered, too late in many places, and too poorly enforced in most places, and stimulus, but then our government, at many levels, has not been sane.)
And other reasonable people are concerned with the side effects of printing 3+ trillion dollars
A very frustrating thing with this statement is that it's very arguable that financing the survival of this country's citizens during a lockdown is _exactly_ the sort of thing the government should be doing, as well as minimizing the duration of the lockdown. It enables the status quo to return quickly and minimizes the change to the social fabric. Those are things I would have imagined conservatives would want: stability.
It's very strange that we couldn't move money around and hadn't been saving money "for a rainy day" exactly like this one.
It's very strange that we couldn't move money around and hadn't been saving money "for a rainy day" exactly like this one.
As I understand it, we have no saved money, we are just going deeper into debt. In 2020 alone we took on at least 4T of debt when in past years we only take on ~1T debt per year. And all we have to show for 2T was a "woefully inadequate" $1000 check. In order to pay everyone's rent for a year, we would need at least 12x as much, in other words a cool 24 Trillion which would more than double the entire debt the US current has. And for what? To save a few lives, the majority of whom will be dead before 2030 anyway? Mask and social distancing are huge low cost public health wins, no doubt, but suggesting going 24 trillion dollars into debt to save more lives is a huge red flag to me and I would push back.
In a very real sense, what more have the "lockdowns" in the US been than "masks and social distancing"?
In places where "social distancing" minimums have been impossible, the places have closed.
I'm in one of the most strict places in the entire United States, but I can still go to most every store I want, including hair salons. I'm only barred from places where there's a LOT of breathing (gym, church with singing), tight confines where social distancing can't be done (bars, restaurants) or staying in a singular location for a long time (church, clubs, sporting events).
In places where "social distancing" minimums have been impossible, the places have closed.
I'm in one of the most strict places in the entire United States, but I can still go to most every store I want, including hair salons. I'm only barred from places where there's a LOT of breathing (gym, church with singing), tight confines where social distancing can't be done (bars, restaurants) or staying in a singular location for a long time (church, clubs, sporting events).
> what more have the "lockdowns" in the US been than "masks and social distancing"?
Destruction of the service industries? Educational handicaps on multiple generations of students?
My point is that it's cheap to wear a mask and socially distance yourself while otherwise carrying on with life. It's extremely expensive on society to force everyone to stay home as much as possible and avoid certain businesses. It's expensive because it pushes the country more rapidly into debt, it pushes millions into poverty, it drives up suicide rates, and dozens more second and third order effects we won't find out about until the coming years.
Destruction of the service industries? Educational handicaps on multiple generations of students?
My point is that it's cheap to wear a mask and socially distance yourself while otherwise carrying on with life. It's extremely expensive on society to force everyone to stay home as much as possible and avoid certain businesses. It's expensive because it pushes the country more rapidly into debt, it pushes millions into poverty, it drives up suicide rates, and dozens more second and third order effects we won't find out about until the coming years.
I would put schools under "places you can't reasonably social distance".
That's why online school has been such a common thing; but, the United States isn't very good at it, and we haven't built out the appropriate social support structures and patterns (and have gone against those patterns in many cases), so it hasn't been especially viable.
Remote learning was considered better than cancelling school altogether; but, then we ran into the problem of parents and children working and going to school in the same place and that came with its own burdens.
That's why online school has been such a common thing; but, the United States isn't very good at it, and we haven't built out the appropriate social support structures and patterns (and have gone against those patterns in many cases), so it hasn't been especially viable.
Remote learning was considered better than cancelling school altogether; but, then we ran into the problem of parents and children working and going to school in the same place and that came with its own burdens.
> Remote learning was considered better than cancelling school altogether
But did we give enough thought to the third possibility? Just sending them to school normally with masks, periodically testing everyone, and contact tracing anyone who tests positive? Young people are surprisingly resilient to the disease, really just the teachers need to take extra precautions.
But did we give enough thought to the third possibility? Just sending them to school normally with masks, periodically testing everyone, and contact tracing anyone who tests positive? Young people are surprisingly resilient to the disease, really just the teachers need to take extra precautions.
I admit that I know a teacher in that predicament in a school district that's been actively hiding their covid infection rate (fake testing, ignoring symptomatic children, etc) and several other of my family members are teachers working in hybrid situations, so I'm having a bit of trouble responding to this usefully as I know and hear from a teacher actively in harm's way.
I don't think the math is quite right on this.
Assuming there are 200,000,000 people in the US over the age of 18, and assuming that each of them gets $1000/month for 12 months, we have 200,000,000 * 1000 * 12 = 2.4 Trillion, which is similar to what we actually spent. The problem is, instead of uniformly distributing that 2.4 trillion among our citizens, we added complexity (and waste due to overhead) by giving money to special interests (airlines for example) and big businesses in various ways.
Assuming there are 200,000,000 people in the US over the age of 18, and assuming that each of them gets $1000/month for 12 months, we have 200,000,000 * 1000 * 12 = 2.4 Trillion, which is similar to what we actually spent. The problem is, instead of uniformly distributing that 2.4 trillion among our citizens, we added complexity (and waste due to overhead) by giving money to special interests (airlines for example) and big businesses in various ways.
Yeah, I just multiplied CARES by 12 to get my number. I'm assuming you don't want to just let all the airline companies crash and burn along with all the restaurants, gyms, etc. Because then after the 12 months are up you find that millions are out of jobs and need another 12 months of rent while they look for new jobs, etc.
This pandemic is getting to all of us, for sure; and, I'm definitely one of the first to notice in myself when I'm being this way, but is there a way this could be reworded so it doesn't have the bite to it that I'm perceiving in it?
I perceive the "I'm assuming you don't want ..." part as incredibly sarcastic and belittling, as though you're putting yourself on a pedestal of knowledge and belittling your fellows having a conversation.
I know I've not been the most polite in many of these conversations; and I need to work on that, too; but, perhaps you haven't noticed it and I wanted to bring it to your attention so you don't snap at people and in conversations that actually matter.
I perceive the "I'm assuming you don't want ..." part as incredibly sarcastic and belittling, as though you're putting yourself on a pedestal of knowledge and belittling your fellows having a conversation.
I know I've not been the most polite in many of these conversations; and I need to work on that, too; but, perhaps you haven't noticed it and I wanted to bring it to your attention so you don't snap at people and in conversations that actually matter.
Didn't intend to be sarcastic or biting at all. "I assume you don't want" was meant to mean "I'm assume we (collectively) don't want...". Basically, was just trying to say if we only give people rent money and ignore all businesses/let them crash and burn then that 2.4T will not be enough because now all the people that used to work for the companies that are now gone have no work.
> To save a few lives, the majority of whom will be dead before 2030 anyway?
The majority of whom were already older than the average life expectancy. We'll see excess deaths this year, but are going to see a shortfall for the next few after that.
The majority of whom were already older than the average life expectancy. We'll see excess deaths this year, but are going to see a shortfall for the next few after that.
Yet the rich get richer as Congress passes 'relief' plans that allow the wealthy to sneak massive chunks of cash directly into their pockets.
Here's just one example:
"According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), about 85% of all the approved Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were for less than $150,000...The bipartisan bill holds the intention of automatically forgiving loans of less than $150,000." [1]
85% of so called 'paycheck protection' loans didn't/won't actually have to go to paying staff after all. Up to $22,000 per employee directly in the owner's pocket regardless of how the business was doing at all.
[1]https://www.solo401k.com/blog/news-ppp-forgiveness-for-loans...
Here's just one example:
"According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), about 85% of all the approved Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were for less than $150,000...The bipartisan bill holds the intention of automatically forgiving loans of less than $150,000." [1]
85% of so called 'paycheck protection' loans didn't/won't actually have to go to paying staff after all. Up to $22,000 per employee directly in the owner's pocket regardless of how the business was doing at all.
[1]https://www.solo401k.com/blog/news-ppp-forgiveness-for-loans...
You combined a source with a follow-up statement that appears nowhere in that article and is factually incorrect.
I don't know where you came up with your made up number of $22,000, but this isn't some big conspiracy, what is forgivable is directly viewable in the SBA's PPP Loan Forgiveness Application: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/PPP%20Loan%2...
I don't know where you came up with your made up number of $22,000, but this isn't some big conspiracy, what is forgivable is directly viewable in the SBA's PPP Loan Forgiveness Application: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/PPP%20Loan%2...
The 22,000 number is off of the original caps per employee. 2.5 months of salary capped at $100,000 = 21,000. I misremembered the number.
As for forgiveness, the forgiveness is part of the latest, yet to be passed, bill. My point is that PPP loans were sold as something, and are now being revised to be not that all, for the benefit of employers and not employees.
>While until the SBA issues revisions to that IFR the final answer can’t be known for sure, one likely option is that the SBA limits owner-employees to 2.5/12 of their 2019 employee cash compensation and employer retirement and health care contributions made on their behalf, with a likely cap at $20,833 across all businesses.
https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/6/16...
As for forgiveness, the forgiveness is part of the latest, yet to be passed, bill. My point is that PPP loans were sold as something, and are now being revised to be not that all, for the benefit of employers and not employees.
>While until the SBA issues revisions to that IFR the final answer can’t be known for sure, one likely option is that the SBA limits owner-employees to 2.5/12 of their 2019 employee cash compensation and employer retirement and health care contributions made on their behalf, with a likely cap at $20,833 across all businesses.
https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/6/16...
They were a bad idea from the get go, and calling them loans was a scam - they were handouts.
Class warfare is pointless. Businesses are shuttering. Sure, make accusations of fraud (do you have any proof?) - but those expenses can't be frivolous unless you want a huge issue with the IRS. Should relief be so strict and policed (its own cost) or should it be flexible for businesses that may have had to build outdoor accomodations?
> Class warfare is pointless.
The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false.
As, for that matter, does the (arguably modest, but still very real) progress of the working class from the height of the system first described as “capitalism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through its replacement by the modern mixed economy from the mid-20th century to today as a result of class warfare by the working classes against the entrenched capitalist class.
Though “class warfare is pointless” is always what those defending class warfare by the capitalist class say when the working classes fight back.
The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false.
As, for that matter, does the (arguably modest, but still very real) progress of the working class from the height of the system first described as “capitalism” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through its replacement by the modern mixed economy from the mid-20th century to today as a result of class warfare by the working classes against the entrenched capitalist class.
Though “class warfare is pointless” is always what those defending class warfare by the capitalist class say when the working classes fight back.
>The position of the capitalist class, built on successful class warfare first against the pre-capitalist aristocracy and then against the working classes within capitalism, proves this to be false.
Name me a socialist/communist gov that did any better. Each implementation grew the class divides even more. So far China, I would say, is the most economically viable model due to their opening to international market practice. However, the party still controls it and divvies out the work to a select few. Their social credit system helps them determine who is more worthy by putting people in different categories... oh wait that's just a class system with extra steps.
It's not a capitalist fault. It's a human fault. We've done it for not hundreds of years, but thousands upon thousands. Long before Adam's or Marx parents were a twinkle in anyone's nethers. Finding a scapegoat for problems you dont quite understand and refuse to research beyond a 10min youtube cartoon does not constitute as good logic.
Name me a socialist/communist gov that did any better. Each implementation grew the class divides even more. So far China, I would say, is the most economically viable model due to their opening to international market practice. However, the party still controls it and divvies out the work to a select few. Their social credit system helps them determine who is more worthy by putting people in different categories... oh wait that's just a class system with extra steps.
It's not a capitalist fault. It's a human fault. We've done it for not hundreds of years, but thousands upon thousands. Long before Adam's or Marx parents were a twinkle in anyone's nethers. Finding a scapegoat for problems you dont quite understand and refuse to research beyond a 10min youtube cartoon does not constitute as good logic.
> Name me a socialist/communist gov that did any better
I did. The “bourgeois socialism”, as Marx described it, of the reforms from the capitalism that Marx described to the modern mixed economy that has replaced it pretty much everywhere in the developed world. (Now, admittedly, Marx saw bourgeois socialism as ultimately doomed to reinforce or regress into capitalism, but, while there is always pressure from capitalists back toward classic capitalism, the doom he saw for it isn't clearly inevitable in practice.)
Maybe you are confused because rather than “bourgeois socialism” people tend to still describe these regimes as simply “capitalist”, despite the extensive role of public institutions limiting private property rights and diverting the returns from private gains into providing public goods.
I did. The “bourgeois socialism”, as Marx described it, of the reforms from the capitalism that Marx described to the modern mixed economy that has replaced it pretty much everywhere in the developed world. (Now, admittedly, Marx saw bourgeois socialism as ultimately doomed to reinforce or regress into capitalism, but, while there is always pressure from capitalists back toward classic capitalism, the doom he saw for it isn't clearly inevitable in practice.)
Maybe you are confused because rather than “bourgeois socialism” people tend to still describe these regimes as simply “capitalist”, despite the extensive role of public institutions limiting private property rights and diverting the returns from private gains into providing public goods.
> Name me a socialist/communist gov that did any better.
America has done everything in their power to destroy democratic populist movements. If you do your research you'll find that anytime a South or Central American country attempted democratic socialist movements they were destroyed by the CIA. This pattern has been repeated throughout the world.
So, yeh, it is rare to find a successful socialist example because the largest capitalist economy destroys emerging socialist movements.
America has done everything in their power to destroy democratic populist movements. If you do your research you'll find that anytime a South or Central American country attempted democratic socialist movements they were destroyed by the CIA. This pattern has been repeated throughout the world.
So, yeh, it is rare to find a successful socialist example because the largest capitalist economy destroys emerging socialist movements.
[deleted]
Most socialist Scandinavian countries are doing better than the US by most measures of societal wellness (life expectancy, divorce rates, crime, etc).
Which Scandinavian countries are socialist? The workers don't own the means of production. In general the Scandinavian countries are capitalist with strong safety nets.
> Which Scandinavian countries are socialist? The workers don't own the means of production. In general the Scandinavian countries are capitalist with strong safety nets.
That's what we're calling socialism nowadays (e.g. pretty much anything that's not laissez faire capitalism). That mushiness is what leads some people to think they can condemn social democracy with the example of Soviet central planning.
That's what we're calling socialism nowadays (e.g. pretty much anything that's not laissez faire capitalism). That mushiness is what leads some people to think they can condemn social democracy with the example of Soviet central planning.
> That's what we're calling socialism nowadays
It is (and even the more moderate forms found in other parts of the developed West including the US are) also what Karl Marx called “socialism”, though of a subtype (“bourgeois socialism”) of which he explicitly disapproved as doomed to reinforce and revert to, rather than defeat, the dominant system of his day which he labelled “capitalism”.
It is (and even the more moderate forms found in other parts of the developed West including the US are) also what Karl Marx called “socialism”, though of a subtype (“bourgeois socialism”) of which he explicitly disapproved as doomed to reinforce and revert to, rather than defeat, the dominant system of his day which he labelled “capitalism”.
Also extremely high dependence on oil. They are also not as socialist as people imagine. I think it was Sweden that implemented a bunch of socialist laws in the 70s, their econ tanked and they back peddled on a lot of it. The myth they're still as socialist remains today. Check out Norway's expenditure on welfare programs. It's like 136m euro or something like that per year. I researched this a year or two ago. Then check out how much their state oil brings in. I want you to do it so you can see for yourself how much "norway hates fossil fuels and capitalism". Because without the free market on oil, there would be zero Norwegian welfare system.
Yes, Americans call the Scandinavians socialists, the same way dry rub BBQ pit masters call BBQ sauces the devil's abomination to food. It's either anachronistic hyperbole or just plain hyperbolic. Steps toward socialism sure, but we're not talking about comrade level stuff.
Yes, Americans call the Scandinavians socialists, the same way dry rub BBQ pit masters call BBQ sauces the devil's abomination to food. It's either anachronistic hyperbole or just plain hyperbolic. Steps toward socialism sure, but we're not talking about comrade level stuff.
Sure, make accusations of fraud
The OP didn't allege fraud. He stated two facts... relief loans were not required to cover wages. Loans <$150k can be forgiven.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require some % of the loans to cover wages of employee's whose hours were cut or were furloughed completely.
That said, a better option would have been direct payments to employees from the government. The $1200 check model but on a larger scale (ie, $1200/month or similar).
The OP didn't allege fraud. He stated two facts... relief loans were not required to cover wages. Loans <$150k can be forgiven.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require some % of the loans to cover wages of employee's whose hours were cut or were furloughed completely.
That said, a better option would have been direct payments to employees from the government. The $1200 check model but on a larger scale (ie, $1200/month or similar).
There were several months of direct Federal payments made to people collecting state unemployment.
In May and June, many of the people hot to open things back up were partly motivated by unemployment, they didn't want states making the payments.
In May and June, many of the people hot to open things back up were partly motivated by unemployment, they didn't want states making the payments.
It seems correct as a matter of policy to not earmark PPP loans directly to employee wages. We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills.
> It seems correct as a matter of policy to not earmark PPP loans directly to employee wages.
At a minimum, it should be tied to maintenance of payroll, since that's the entire theory of the Paycheck Protection Program.
Alternatively, it should just not have existed, and direct individual aid should have been increased instead.
> We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills.
The fungibility of money means that earmarked funds for payroll frees up any other funds for other uses. It might make sense to earmark less than 100% for paychecks, or to have a separate relief mechanism, to account for ongoing fixed costs. If business is reduced so that revenue is not available for marginal costs, than those marginal costs should also not exist.
At a minimum, it should be tied to maintenance of payroll, since that's the entire theory of the Paycheck Protection Program.
Alternatively, it should just not have existed, and direct individual aid should have been increased instead.
> We don't want to set up a scenario where a bunch of small businesses fail the instant the PPP ends because they haven't been paying the bills.
The fungibility of money means that earmarked funds for payroll frees up any other funds for other uses. It might make sense to earmark less than 100% for paychecks, or to have a separate relief mechanism, to account for ongoing fixed costs. If business is reduced so that revenue is not available for marginal costs, than those marginal costs should also not exist.
You can debate it, but the reality is paying businesses to pay employees was what the PPP loans were sold as. And it was sold with a lot of exploitable flaws under the premise that it would ultimately help employees from getting laid off.
I wonder how anyone at all expected this to turn out. So, businesses had to stop operating. GDP and income earned and spent, dropped. This by definition results in someone becoming poor - with or without bailout - the government does not have any of "its own" money - all money it can possibly distribute is taken from taxpayer's pockets.
Call me cynical, but people working in the service industry were the safest ones to let fail without causing domino effect - they are already poor so they don't have mortgages to default onto - they can't afford even in good times - and that avoids a major risk of repeating 2008.
Call me cynical, but people working in the service industry were the safest ones to let fail without causing domino effect - they are already poor so they don't have mortgages to default onto - they can't afford even in good times - and that avoids a major risk of repeating 2008.
> all money it can possibly distribute is taken from taxpayer's pockets.
This is the insanely reductive view of government spending that allows the Republican party to float austerity measures in the worst economic times since the Depression.
Taxes are not the only place that government money comes from. How would that even make sense? What do you think the Federal Reserve even does? Why do you think we have a national debt?
The government is absolutely able to create money out of essentially thin air when called for -- the question is whether we need to wring our hands about increasing the national debt of the largest economy on earth while people are starving in the streets.
This is the insanely reductive view of government spending that allows the Republican party to float austerity measures in the worst economic times since the Depression.
Taxes are not the only place that government money comes from. How would that even make sense? What do you think the Federal Reserve even does? Why do you think we have a national debt?
The government is absolutely able to create money out of essentially thin air when called for -- the question is whether we need to wring our hands about increasing the national debt of the largest economy on earth while people are starving in the streets.
Taxes are not the place where government money comes from, period. Taxes are charges to pull money out of circulation so inflation doesn't fall into a positive feedback loop. Taxes have nothing to do with the amount of money that the government can spend at one time. The only thing limiting that is the threat of a sharp devaluation of the currency, and even that is not as big an issue as you might think because countries all over the world are still filling their reserves with dollars.
Well there is a limit on that amount of money. I mean, currently only around 100% of one annual GDP has been printed this way. And this money is still debt - it eats into wealth and incomes of the future retirees i.e. those same people who are now going unemployed - they are borrowing from themselves by getting those benefits - because a larger debt now means higher interest payments later (and these of course go to the rich, included but not limited, rich Chinese, but mainly rich Americans), and limiting what the government can pay to the same people in form of say, social security payments when they get old. This money still doesn't come from nowhere.
Or, it increases risk of default when everyone's savings will be wiped out - except most of the money the rich have are again, in stocks so these won't be impacted nearly as much...
Whatever way it goes, these are not free money. Call me a conservative but stuff just doesn't come for free.
I wonder why is this difficult to grasp - i mean OK, the virtual capital (e.g. startup valuations, or even stock market values) MAY come from nowhere, because they can just equally return to nowhere - these can be pumped to infinity. But we are speaking of consumption money for people living hand to mouth - whatever dollar is given to them, goes to very material consumption. Where this extra stuff will come from, if people don't work more for them to be created? It just doesn't appear out of nowhere if Fed prints some bucks.
Or, it increases risk of default when everyone's savings will be wiped out - except most of the money the rich have are again, in stocks so these won't be impacted nearly as much...
Whatever way it goes, these are not free money. Call me a conservative but stuff just doesn't come for free.
I wonder why is this difficult to grasp - i mean OK, the virtual capital (e.g. startup valuations, or even stock market values) MAY come from nowhere, because they can just equally return to nowhere - these can be pumped to infinity. But we are speaking of consumption money for people living hand to mouth - whatever dollar is given to them, goes to very material consumption. Where this extra stuff will come from, if people don't work more for them to be created? It just doesn't appear out of nowhere if Fed prints some bucks.
> all money it can possibly distribute is taken from taxpayer's pockets.
This is a facile understanding of how government spending actually works. The US Federal government _creates_ money. Just up and makes it, essentially out of thin air. Congress could have, had they felt like cooperating, printed ten trillion dollars and given every single person in the US a semi-weekly $1000 direct deposit to get everyone through. Keynesian spending is only a problem during inflationary times, but in the middle of a pandemic when tens of millions of people are told they cannot work _is not one of those times_.
Ultimately Congress (i.e. Senate Republicans) decided that 8 million people thrown into poverty and 300,000 needless deaths are better than actually doing anything.
This is a facile understanding of how government spending actually works. The US Federal government _creates_ money. Just up and makes it, essentially out of thin air. Congress could have, had they felt like cooperating, printed ten trillion dollars and given every single person in the US a semi-weekly $1000 direct deposit to get everyone through. Keynesian spending is only a problem during inflationary times, but in the middle of a pandemic when tens of millions of people are told they cannot work _is not one of those times_.
Ultimately Congress (i.e. Senate Republicans) decided that 8 million people thrown into poverty and 300,000 needless deaths are better than actually doing anything.
It's been commented already, but I have to say you have, not a simplistic way of viewing how the federal government handles spending and money, but a completely wrong view of it.
It's appalling this comment hasn't been downvoted into oblivion with how wrong and uninformed it is. I think you should start reading here and consider an economics textbook to follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy_of_the_United_...
It's appalling this comment hasn't been downvoted into oblivion with how wrong and uninformed it is. I think you should start reading here and consider an economics textbook to follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy_of_the_United_...
> they are already poor so they don't have mortgages to default onto - they can't afford even in good times - and that avoids a major risk of repeating 2008.
Yeah, well you are forgetting the people they were renting from have mortgages… 2008 will be a cake walk compared to this… can't "extend and pretend" forever…
Yeah, well you are forgetting the people they were renting from have mortgages… 2008 will be a cake walk compared to this… can't "extend and pretend" forever…
[deleted]
> the government does not have any of "its own" money - all money it can possibly distribute is taken from taxpayer's pockets
This is absolutely not the case. The government owns and operates a mint, and we haven't been on the gold standard since Nixon. There is no zero-sum double-entry accounting when it comes to sovereign fiat currencies.
If you analyze the monetary policy of the federal government like it's a family balancing a checkbook, you are buying right into the rhetoric that keeps the peanut gallery shrieking "but the deficit!" and prevents us from actually investing in the public's health and needs.
Federal deficit is public surplus. It is the federal government investing in its citizens in the most literal way possible.
> Call me cynical, but people working in the service industry were the safest ones to let fail without causing domino effect - they are already poor so they don't have mortgages to default onto - they can't afford even in good times - and that avoids a major risk of repeating 2008.
That's not cynical, that's sociopathic.
This is absolutely not the case. The government owns and operates a mint, and we haven't been on the gold standard since Nixon. There is no zero-sum double-entry accounting when it comes to sovereign fiat currencies.
If you analyze the monetary policy of the federal government like it's a family balancing a checkbook, you are buying right into the rhetoric that keeps the peanut gallery shrieking "but the deficit!" and prevents us from actually investing in the public's health and needs.
Federal deficit is public surplus. It is the federal government investing in its citizens in the most literal way possible.
> Call me cynical, but people working in the service industry were the safest ones to let fail without causing domino effect - they are already poor so they don't have mortgages to default onto - they can't afford even in good times - and that avoids a major risk of repeating 2008.
That's not cynical, that's sociopathic.
I'm glad the left has moved right on over to "money doesn't exist." That'll end well.
Every dollar bill is an IOU from the federal government. It says so right on the paper bill: "This note is legal tender." Money only means something if people believe it means something. I can make up a new currency but if no one believes it has value, then it does not. Any and every economist you find will tell you the same.
With this sort of flexibility you are forced to abandon the zero-sum style of monetary policy, and you open up a lot of new possibilities for how to interact with the flows of monies. Republicans who shriek about the deficit know this, too, but keep their rhetoric the same because they and their friends benefit from the general public believing that the federal government works like "a family at the kitchen table," because they can shut down any talk of federal spending by pointing to that boogeyman.
With this sort of flexibility you are forced to abandon the zero-sum style of monetary policy, and you open up a lot of new possibilities for how to interact with the flows of monies. Republicans who shriek about the deficit know this, too, but keep their rhetoric the same because they and their friends benefit from the general public believing that the federal government works like "a family at the kitchen table," because they can shut down any talk of federal spending by pointing to that boogeyman.
Explain why the EU (and countries like Germany) impose tight limits on budget deficits.
Sure! First you will have to support your claim that they do so.
Those limits exist for the same reason the US can't just spend as much money as we want it to -- the threat of runaway inflation. If one member state spends "too much" (i.e., injects "too much" money into circulation), it challenges and threatens the economic capacity of other member states because it devalues the Euro because the Euro is less scarce than it was. And there are no "EU taxes," only taxes paid to each member state separately. So controlling the monetary policy, and particularly the amount of money in circulation, is a little more complex than would be expected in a homogenous economy. So tolerances for "errant" behavior are a little tighter. But I wouldn't call those limits "tight" in the grand scheme of things.
It's a bit like telling people to stay home during the pandemic -- most people will do it faithfully so that the few that act out can be accounted for and will have a smaller impact than if no controls were in place.
We should note that the economy before the pandemic started is very differently managed to the one after. The economy was relatively predictable compared to today, so the tolerances shrunk somewhat to reflect that. You will note that the EU lifted those limits at the start of the pandemic and have come together to redefine a short- and medium-term policy to account for the circumstances.
It's a bit like telling people to stay home during the pandemic -- most people will do it faithfully so that the few that act out can be accounted for and will have a smaller impact than if no controls were in place.
We should note that the economy before the pandemic started is very differently managed to the one after. The economy was relatively predictable compared to today, so the tolerances shrunk somewhat to reflect that. You will note that the EU lifted those limits at the start of the pandemic and have come together to redefine a short- and medium-term policy to account for the circumstances.
> If one member state spends "too much" (i.e., injects "too much" money into circulation), it challenges and threatens the economic capacity of other member states because it devalues the Euro because the Euro is less scarce than it was.
This would make sense if only Eurozone members were part of the Stability and Growth pact, but as it turns out, other EU countries like Sweden or Poland, which neither are part of nor intend to join Eurozone any time soon, are also subject to these very same debt limit obligations stemming from the pact. Poland in fact has its own debt limit written into its national constitution.
This would make sense if only Eurozone members were part of the Stability and Growth pact, but as it turns out, other EU countries like Sweden or Poland, which neither are part of nor intend to join Eurozone any time soon, are also subject to these very same debt limit obligations stemming from the pact. Poland in fact has its own debt limit written into its national constitution.
They participate in much the same economy, however, so money flows even across currency lines must be managed.
It is like trade agreements anywhere else, but internalized into the EU's bureaucratic infrastructure.
It is like trade agreements anywhere else, but internalized into the EU's bureaucratic infrastructure.
This is a real and serious problem and I wish people would take it more seriously. The actual solution is addressing the barriers to work created by Covid.
I actively promoted the local Little Caesar's. At one point, they had so little business they were afraid they would go out of business, but they are unusually well-positioned to move to less risk of infection because they already had a pizza portal, it just wasn't being used by anyone.
I made sure to start using it and to promote to other people and to promote online ordering and ordering by phone. They soon were wicked busy and all orders had wait times and they began hiring new people.
I'm not against stimulus checks, but that's crisis management. It's not a real solution.
A real solution is solving the problems in the way work is structured that is keeping so many people from pursuing an earned income right now. And we aren't taking that seriously enough.
If you are in any position whatsoever to work on that, please do. I do what little I can with a small reddit called r/GigWorks, though I don't know that I'm accomplishing anything at all.
To try to limit the degree to which people get depressed over this: Keep in mind that we don't have hard numbers for comparing this with confidence to a scenario where people just kept working and more people died as a consequence or ended up permanently maimed by Covid.
Humans are terrible at counting the disasters that should have happened but didn't. High unemployment was the short-term cost for trying to lower the death toll.
Please take high unemployment seriously as a real problem and work on finding ways to employ people safely via remote work, contactless delivery methods, etc. The cure for this is getting people back to work. The way to do that while the pandemic is still ongoing is to take germ control seriously as a real need in every single job.
I actively promoted the local Little Caesar's. At one point, they had so little business they were afraid they would go out of business, but they are unusually well-positioned to move to less risk of infection because they already had a pizza portal, it just wasn't being used by anyone.
I made sure to start using it and to promote to other people and to promote online ordering and ordering by phone. They soon were wicked busy and all orders had wait times and they began hiring new people.
I'm not against stimulus checks, but that's crisis management. It's not a real solution.
A real solution is solving the problems in the way work is structured that is keeping so many people from pursuing an earned income right now. And we aren't taking that seriously enough.
If you are in any position whatsoever to work on that, please do. I do what little I can with a small reddit called r/GigWorks, though I don't know that I'm accomplishing anything at all.
To try to limit the degree to which people get depressed over this: Keep in mind that we don't have hard numbers for comparing this with confidence to a scenario where people just kept working and more people died as a consequence or ended up permanently maimed by Covid.
Humans are terrible at counting the disasters that should have happened but didn't. High unemployment was the short-term cost for trying to lower the death toll.
Please take high unemployment seriously as a real problem and work on finding ways to employ people safely via remote work, contactless delivery methods, etc. The cure for this is getting people back to work. The way to do that while the pandemic is still ongoing is to take germ control seriously as a real need in every single job.
Do you live in a rural place with a small, connected community? That's the only way your "promotions" would have had any impact. I find it hard to believe that posting on social media single-handedly saved that business. I find it much more likely that people started getting more acquainted with the new reality of the pandemic and after re-budgeting started buying food at places where you get lots of calories for cheap (like Little Caesar's).
[deleted]
One issue people don't necessarily know about is many restaurants and similar businesses still had to pay their full tax and regulatory fees; the most common being able to sell alcohol. So when your local government tells you cannot operate or must operated severely restricted there should be some adjustment of the fees and taxes paid by affected businesses.
In America every failure is collective and every success is individual.
The other thing not being mentioned is alot of families who could never afford to buy homes can now buy homes.
It has also allowed alot of people to move into nicer areas of NYC that could not afford to before.
Alot of people's quality of life has increased, and alot of people who lost their income on paper also lost their requirement to pay rent and avoid being evicted or just moved into their parents homes.
There are some who have lost their income but also still have to pay bills and their quality of life has not improved. I think those numbers are not reflected in this article especially in relation to all of the people who could not afford to live in nice areas or buy homes who have now been able to.
In NYC when asian demographic no longer could come to the u.s. To invest $300k into an empty apartment building that they will never inhabit to expedite their green card process, are now being inhabited by hardworking Americans who were able to buy condos that previously they were not able to compete with with international millionaires using real estate for tax and legal loopholes.
None of this is reflected in the article.
It has also allowed alot of people to move into nicer areas of NYC that could not afford to before.
Alot of people's quality of life has increased, and alot of people who lost their income on paper also lost their requirement to pay rent and avoid being evicted or just moved into their parents homes.
There are some who have lost their income but also still have to pay bills and their quality of life has not improved. I think those numbers are not reflected in this article especially in relation to all of the people who could not afford to live in nice areas or buy homes who have now been able to.
In NYC when asian demographic no longer could come to the u.s. To invest $300k into an empty apartment building that they will never inhabit to expedite their green card process, are now being inhabited by hardworking Americans who were able to buy condos that previously they were not able to compete with with international millionaires using real estate for tax and legal loopholes.
None of this is reflected in the article.
Do you have a link for real estate prices going down? From what I saw it was mainly the rents that decreased.
Not directly in line with OP’s comment but interest rates are stupidly low right now. Wouldn’t surprise me if this enables a lot of people to buy homes. I know several people (late 20s, early 30s Boston area) who have bought homes recently and I myself am refinancing.
Interest rates don't mean anything if the down payment (or requirements for a loan) are still high for new buyers.
Interest rates only matter if you already have money. Most people don't.
Interest rates only matter if you already have money. Most people don't.
Requirements are pretty low for loans. I have a friend with not too much income who secured one. I myself was able to get a house with something like 5% down which on a house in Texas was like ~$10k.
Lower interest rates equate to a noticeably lower monthly payment so I wouldn’t toss it out completely as a factor.
Lower interest rates equate to a noticeably lower monthly payment so I wouldn’t toss it out completely as a factor.
I don't know all of the dynamics of real estate pricing in NYC so I won't surmise too much but here's what I can say:
Alot of people I know who were living in the city got mortgages and bought houses for great prices in really upscale suburbs outside of the city, the final push to realize they needed more space when working at home when their kids are also not leaving for school, when otherwise a family with an middle or upper middle class income might be able to scrap by in NYC. So the real estate prices may not be changing much in NYC because people are not willing to sell right now because they know it won't be like this forever, but definitely mortgages are "free money" in the words of my mentor ( a hardworking devops guy for twenty years who was born and up till now raised a family in a nice neighborhood in brooklyn just moved to a suburb ) and in those cases there has actually been a surge of competitive real estate pricing in the suburbs of big cities that it has become competitive.
I can't say for NYC itself as most people I know who were in the position to buy a house but waiting for the right time decided to move outside of the city. In my building the number of units for sale has quadrupled since covid but I didn't track what buy priced were before. I rent in a nice condo building and my apartment was $3700 before covid and the same floorplans are going for $2250 right now with a quadruple in vacancy in the building.
I think one thing I know is commerical leases are not dropping the way residential is so restaurants really cannot pay rent. I am not sure how commercial and residential pricing is averaged together to reflect overall real estate pricing in NYC.
I know for the few of my younger friends / aka single without kids buying their first condo in the city it became much easier without the competition of international millionaires. I am not sure if they got the places for cheaper or just ended up being the best option over someone with millions in the bank already/mostly asian millionaires.
Wish I had a better breakdown but that has been my experience.
In brooklyn there are alot of midwesterners who don't have careers that are otherwise service industry workers who have used the drop in rent to move into the city when otherwise it was too competitive. My chiropractors assistants who lived in brooklyn their whole lives now have nice one bedrooms in manhattan and can walk to work.
Homeless people for a while are being put up in nice hotels to stop the spread of covid and have experienced a higher quality of life than they have before.
I would say I've seen a net move up in quality of life even if the richest people with vacation homes fled because they had somewhere to flee to.
Alot of people I know who were living in the city got mortgages and bought houses for great prices in really upscale suburbs outside of the city, the final push to realize they needed more space when working at home when their kids are also not leaving for school, when otherwise a family with an middle or upper middle class income might be able to scrap by in NYC. So the real estate prices may not be changing much in NYC because people are not willing to sell right now because they know it won't be like this forever, but definitely mortgages are "free money" in the words of my mentor ( a hardworking devops guy for twenty years who was born and up till now raised a family in a nice neighborhood in brooklyn just moved to a suburb ) and in those cases there has actually been a surge of competitive real estate pricing in the suburbs of big cities that it has become competitive.
I can't say for NYC itself as most people I know who were in the position to buy a house but waiting for the right time decided to move outside of the city. In my building the number of units for sale has quadrupled since covid but I didn't track what buy priced were before. I rent in a nice condo building and my apartment was $3700 before covid and the same floorplans are going for $2250 right now with a quadruple in vacancy in the building.
I think one thing I know is commerical leases are not dropping the way residential is so restaurants really cannot pay rent. I am not sure how commercial and residential pricing is averaged together to reflect overall real estate pricing in NYC.
I know for the few of my younger friends / aka single without kids buying their first condo in the city it became much easier without the competition of international millionaires. I am not sure if they got the places for cheaper or just ended up being the best option over someone with millions in the bank already/mostly asian millionaires.
Wish I had a better breakdown but that has been my experience.
In brooklyn there are alot of midwesterners who don't have careers that are otherwise service industry workers who have used the drop in rent to move into the city when otherwise it was too competitive. My chiropractors assistants who lived in brooklyn their whole lives now have nice one bedrooms in manhattan and can walk to work.
Homeless people for a while are being put up in nice hotels to stop the spread of covid and have experienced a higher quality of life than they have before.
I would say I've seen a net move up in quality of life even if the richest people with vacation homes fled because they had somewhere to flee to.
Real estate prices are absolutely not going down. There was a dip at the onset of the pandemic, but prices started going back up in May and normalized over the summer.
There is speculation house prices will continue to rise into next year due to supply constraints (new house construction slowed from March-May and is still recovering, houses that do on the market are picked up quick, etc), but we will see how it plays out.
[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPNHSUS
There is speculation house prices will continue to rise into next year due to supply constraints (new house construction slowed from March-May and is still recovering, houses that do on the market are picked up quick, etc), but we will see how it plays out.
[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPNHSUS
> None of this is reflected in the article.
Well, you haven't supported any of your claims with data, unlike the article.
Well, you haven't supported any of your claims with data, unlike the article.
That raises the US poverty rate from around 14% to around 16%.
Perhaps any steps we take to help the newly impoverished could also be extended to help the 45 million Americans who were living in poverty before COVID?
Perhaps any steps we take to help the newly impoverished could also be extended to help the 45 million Americans who were living in poverty before COVID?
But hey, the NASDAQ and DOW are setting historical records. Nothing to see here, move along.
We need UBI
I use to believe in UBI, but I think introducing UBI now would be an absolutely and complete disaster. UBI makes sense if there is zero resource scarcity. If we had working Fission reactors and were pulling asteroids into orbit to mine, it might make sense.
I think UBI implemented now would turn into the "Basic" seen in The Expanse books. We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
I think UBI implemented now would turn into the "Basic" seen in The Expanse books. We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI.
What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
>Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI.
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
I'd argue that significantly enhancing the social safety net, significantly increasing minimum wages and, most importantly, providing strong incentives toward reduced incomes at the very high end, would provides significant long term economic advantages.
Why do I say this? For a variety of reasons:
1. >70% of US GDP is consumer spending. Increasing the amount and number of folks with discretionary income will boost demand significantly;
2. Enhancing the social safety net would encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. When you have an idea that you want to develop, but most folks don't even have a few hundred dollars available in an emergency will stop those folks from doing so -- In the current environment, unless there's immediate success, it's likely that such a person, and their family, will be sleeping rough and eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. With a robust social safety net, those folks can pursue their entrepreneurial ideas without worrying about starving in the street;
3. Incentivizing lower incomes at the very high end, via income taxes (cf. the 1950s), write offs for new business formation/development and other, similar incentives can boost employment, new business creation and focus resources on an ecosystem of smaller companies with real competition in many (if not most) industries;
4. Raising wages at the low end dovetails nicely with (1) above. Spreading wealth more widely (I am emphatically not suggesting forced wealth redistribution) among the population won't harm those at the top. How many houses, cars, dishwashers, pizza pies, miniskirts, throw rugs, yachts, toaster ovens, ball gags, window fans, telephones, snow globes, etc., etc., etc. can one family reasonably buy/use? Significantly increasing the incomes of those at the bottom will increase demand for all manner of products and services, strengthening the broader economy over the long term.
5. Finally, I'll wonder out loud how much "poorer" or "worse off" someone earning $5,000,000/annum is vs. someone earning $15,000,000/annum?
Having wealth/income more widely distributed across the population would create a stronger, more resilient economy over the long term -- one which would benefit those at the top and the bottom -- and lead to significantly better outcomes for everyone over the long term.
I'd note note that my reasoning doesn't include any arguments for "socialism." Rather, every single one focuses on how to strengthen and enhance a society and economy based on market principles.
Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure many of you will. I'd be interested to hear your arguments and will attempt to respond thoughtfully.
Edit: Fixed numbering.
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
I'd argue that significantly enhancing the social safety net, significantly increasing minimum wages and, most importantly, providing strong incentives toward reduced incomes at the very high end, would provides significant long term economic advantages.
Why do I say this? For a variety of reasons:
1. >70% of US GDP is consumer spending. Increasing the amount and number of folks with discretionary income will boost demand significantly;
2. Enhancing the social safety net would encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. When you have an idea that you want to develop, but most folks don't even have a few hundred dollars available in an emergency will stop those folks from doing so -- In the current environment, unless there's immediate success, it's likely that such a person, and their family, will be sleeping rough and eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. With a robust social safety net, those folks can pursue their entrepreneurial ideas without worrying about starving in the street;
3. Incentivizing lower incomes at the very high end, via income taxes (cf. the 1950s), write offs for new business formation/development and other, similar incentives can boost employment, new business creation and focus resources on an ecosystem of smaller companies with real competition in many (if not most) industries;
4. Raising wages at the low end dovetails nicely with (1) above. Spreading wealth more widely (I am emphatically not suggesting forced wealth redistribution) among the population won't harm those at the top. How many houses, cars, dishwashers, pizza pies, miniskirts, throw rugs, yachts, toaster ovens, ball gags, window fans, telephones, snow globes, etc., etc., etc. can one family reasonably buy/use? Significantly increasing the incomes of those at the bottom will increase demand for all manner of products and services, strengthening the broader economy over the long term.
5. Finally, I'll wonder out loud how much "poorer" or "worse off" someone earning $5,000,000/annum is vs. someone earning $15,000,000/annum?
Having wealth/income more widely distributed across the population would create a stronger, more resilient economy over the long term -- one which would benefit those at the top and the bottom -- and lead to significantly better outcomes for everyone over the long term.
I'd note note that my reasoning doesn't include any arguments for "socialism." Rather, every single one focuses on how to strengthen and enhance a society and economy based on market principles.
Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure many of you will. I'd be interested to hear your arguments and will attempt to respond thoughtfully.
Edit: Fixed numbering.
I guess I'm not seeing the difference between "the social safety net" and "money in people's hands." Technocratic means-tested programs are no substitute for giving people money and letting them spend it organically. Isn't that the point of a "free market" anyway? To let the market decide what is valuable? It's hard to accept any claim that constructing barriers makes social safety nets more effective.
Giving people money and raising minimum wages is indistinguishable to me. The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. That is the Randian perspective I am referring to.
Giving people money and raising minimum wages is indistinguishable to me. The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. That is the Randian perspective I am referring to.
>The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income.
I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around."
A broader base of consumers will consume more.
A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development.
Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote.
My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements.
My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality.
I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least.
And that's somehow "Randian?"
I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.
I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around."
A broader base of consumers will consume more.
A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development.
Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote.
My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements.
My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality.
I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least.
And that's somehow "Randian?"
I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.
... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.
>Well that wasn't made clear.
>I was reacting to:
>> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
>Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it?
I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here.
Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."?
I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to.
And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours.
Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion.
Is that not kind of the whole point of this site?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323
>I was reacting to:
>> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
>Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it?
I can't reply to comment that contains the above, so I'll do so here.
Where did I say anything even remotely approaching "We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty."?
I wasn't "defending" anyone or anything. I am not the user who posted the comment[0] you replied to.
And it seems strange that you found my comment adversarial, as it was at worst orthogonal to yours.
Upon reading the your reply to djsumdog's comment, I thought I'd add my own (related, and I thought, relevant) thoughts to the discussion.
Is that not kind of the whole point of this site?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25446323
I mean, kind of, but the style of quoting at the head of your comments is typically used on this site to address specific points as part of a back-and-forth, not just "I'm introducing my own thoughts to this discussion, divorced from the course of conversation this has followed so far." You don't need to quote the comment you're replying to because your reply hangs off my comment already.
If you had posted your comment without that header I would not have immediately thought you were part of the conversation, and instead taken the comment as an aside and not a direct reply.
If you had posted your comment without that header I would not have immediately thought you were part of the conversation, and instead taken the comment as an aside and not a direct reply.
You asked:
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
And so I answered your question.
If that was confusing to you, that's unfortunate and I'm sorry that the way I quoted you made you unable to comprehend the next twelve paragraphs of my post.
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
And so I answered your question.
If that was confusing to you, that's unfortunate and I'm sorry that the way I quoted you made you unable to comprehend the next twelve paragraphs of my post.
>... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.
I'm not GGP who argued against UBI. Nor did I make any argument for or against UBI.
And I didn't make any argument even approaching "if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence."
In fact, my argument was that if we make the safety net robust, we will allow people to be more productive and entrepreneurial.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
I'm not GGP who argued against UBI. Nor did I make any argument for or against UBI.
And I didn't make any argument even approaching "if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence."
In fact, my argument was that if we make the safety net robust, we will allow people to be more productive and entrepreneurial.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
Well that wasn't made clear.
I was reacting to:
> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? Why are you injecting yourself into that conversation if you're not supporting the claim that I explicitly referenced, and making it look like you're replying to the things I'm saying by quoting me directly?
I was reacting to:
> We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
Why would you reply to my comment defending your stance as if I had challenged it? Why are you injecting yourself into that conversation if you're not supporting the claim that I explicitly referenced, and making it look like you're replying to the things I'm saying by quoting me directly?
I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings.
We need to take money from everyone so we can charge handling fees and pay people to send their own money back to them.
Yeh in some cases. In others what is poverty.
Moving back in with your parents so not having an income but also not having to pay rent. Alot of people I know in NYC have just chosen not to pay rent and are not being evicted so they are living in poverty but in fancy areas of brooklyn and not having to work.
Poverty to me is being homeless despite working and your income doesn't or barely covers the bills.
In the covid case many have lost their income but they have also lost their responsibility to pay the bills.
I don't say this to be mean nor do I include restaurant owners who have to pay commercial rent while the doors are closed.
I say this about kids who moved into their parents second vacation homes but lost income on paper.
I feel bad for people who have lost their jobs and have to pay rent. Not so much for people who have lost their jobs and their requirement to pay bills.
Moving back in with your parents so not having an income but also not having to pay rent. Alot of people I know in NYC have just chosen not to pay rent and are not being evicted so they are living in poverty but in fancy areas of brooklyn and not having to work.
Poverty to me is being homeless despite working and your income doesn't or barely covers the bills.
In the covid case many have lost their income but they have also lost their responsibility to pay the bills.
I don't say this to be mean nor do I include restaurant owners who have to pay commercial rent while the doors are closed.
I say this about kids who moved into their parents second vacation homes but lost income on paper.
I feel bad for people who have lost their jobs and have to pay rent. Not so much for people who have lost their jobs and their requirement to pay bills.
This reads sort of tone deaf to me. There is a clear definition of what it means to be impoverished. In the US it's income relative to dependents, [defined by HHS](https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). TO say that someone isn't impoverished because they are living rent-free (legally or illegally) or don't have obligations to pay bills misses the point altogether; and quite frankly, is flat out insincere. It doesn't matter if the child moves back in with their parent and doesn't have bills to pay. I'm curious to know, what if the person that loses their job is 40 and moves in with their parents? My point is, I don't think it matters if it's a child moving in to their parent's second house -- they may never be able to recover from this, and that is the larger, systemic problem at hand.
How we, as a collective society, address issues pertaining to the poor, disenfranchised, forgotten, downtrodden, speaks volumes about our priorities and interests. And I think, given the types of relief that has happened during this moment, and looking at how society answers this historically, we are not doing well.
How we, as a collective society, address issues pertaining to the poor, disenfranchised, forgotten, downtrodden, speaks volumes about our priorities and interests. And I think, given the types of relief that has happened during this moment, and looking at how society answers this historically, we are not doing well.
> You know me. I'm in your friendship circle, hidden in plain sight. My clothes are still impeccable, bought in the good years when I was still making money. To look at me, you would not know that my electricity was cut off last week for non-payment or that I meet the eligibility requirements for food stamps. But if you paid attention, you would see the sadness in my eyes, hear that hint of fear in my otherwise self-assured voice.
[1] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/945092228