U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#11

Post by surge » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #8

larrywright wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social security is based on what you paid in, so the earlier you start withdrawing the lower your monthly check is. You couldn’t allow people to receive the full amount starting at 60 without bankrupting the program.

Ahem. Social security is not self-funded, it's funded by current payroll tax receipts, plus a 2.6 trillion trust fund, plus about 5 trillion in debt owed to it by the rest of the government.

Right, SS is already in a risky position, most millenials question if it'll even be standing when it comes to their turn (especially if population drops since they're having less children who will pay in), what they're suggesting would make it worse.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#12

Post by oxymoran » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

Hopefully all the states implement this as it would help immensely at least in theory. I’d prefer an emergency temporary UBI but bureaucrats gotta bureaucrat.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#13

Post by surge » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #9

larrywright wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social security is based on what you paid in, so the earlier you start withdrawing the lower your monthly check is. You couldn’t allow people to receive the full amount starting at 60 without bankrupting the program.

You say that as if liquidity management in a crisis wasn't a thing. Why, exactly, should free temporary cash be available to investment banks but not entitlement programs?

As mentioned in another comment, its a loan, not free cash. Investment banks will have to pay it back afterwards.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#14

Post by OscarCunningham » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

thrill wrote: post #4

zymhan wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would both put a massive strain on the Social Security trust and not pressure employers at all, since they'd likely be happy to have the most expensive employees retire early.

If we can afford a $1.5 trillion injection into the markets, then we can afford moving the SS retirement age to 60 where the most vulnerable exist.

The money being "injected into the market" is in exchange for assets. They're not just giving it away.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#15

Post by obmelvin » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #9

larrywright wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social security is based on what you paid in, so the earlier you start withdrawing the lower your monthly check is. You couldn’t allow people to receive the full amount starting at 60 without bankrupting the program.

You say that as if liquidity management in a crisis wasn't a thing. Why, exactly, should free temporary cash be available to investment banks but not entitlement programs?

Maybe I misunderstand, but since the money paid out through social security will not be repaid by these 60+ year olds, isn't this a very different thing?

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#16

Post by claudeganon » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

QuesnayJr wrote: post #7

thrill wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can afford a $1.5 trillion injection into the markets, then we can afford moving the SS retirement age to 60 where the most vulnerable exist.

The $1.5 trillion injection doesn't actually cost any money. The Fed is making short-term fully-collateralized loans.

Yes, just like how poor people can get 1.5 trillion in subsidized payday loans to cover the gap between pay checks...oh wait.

It’s absolutely a bailout.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#17

Post by ComputerGuru » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #10

thrill wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can afford a $1.5 trillion injection into the markets, then we can afford moving the SS retirement age to 60 where the most vulnerable exist.

The $1.5 trillion thing is a bit confusing. That came from the Federal Reserve, not the US Treasury so didn't it just essentially chip away a little bit at the value of all dollars in existence instead of adding to the national debt? The Fed just created that money out of thin air (or zooming electrons) as far as I can tell. A small inflationary tax on everyone holding dollars?

They’re technically short-term loans only (like, overnight) to avoid that issue.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#18

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

thrill wrote: post #4

zymhan wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would both put a massive strain on the Social Security trust and not pressure employers at all, since they'd likely be happy to have the most expensive employees retire early.

If we can afford a $1.5 trillion injection into the markets, then we can afford moving the SS retirement age to 60 where the most vulnerable exist.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#19

Post by blurbleblurble » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

surge wrote: post #13

ajross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that as if liquidity management in a crisis wasn't a thing. Why, exactly, should free temporary cash be available to investment banks but not entitlement programs?

As mentioned in another comment, its a loan, not free cash. Investment banks will have to pay it back afterwards.

Sure, but it's basically free money for them because they'll turn around and loan it to the rest of us with higher interest rates.

Re: U.S. Labor Department allows unemployment benefits for coronavirus

#20

Post by ivalm » Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #16

QuesnayJr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $1.5 trillion injection doesn't actually cost any money. The Fed is making short-term fully-collateralized loans.

Yes, just like how poor people can get 1.5 trillion in subsidized payday loans to cover the gap between pay checks...oh wait. It’s absolutely a bailout.

Payday loans are generally not overnight and are typically not collateralized; they are in fact very risky.

Repo's are overnight borrowing collateralized by the US Treasuries. Basically it is borrowing to maintain capitalization requirements in these high volatility times. From the perspective of the US government they have literally 0 risk (you are guaranteed to get back either USD denominated money or US treasury).