Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 266 posts

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#91

Post by tombert »

PeterStuer wrote: post #71
tombert wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree; the only caveat I'd give is that it's tough to say how much longer any of us are going to be yuppies right now; I work for one of the many big megacorporations whose stock is tanking right now. If the stock doesn't pick up soonish, there's a non-zero probability of me being laid off. While I'm not that worried (I've been able to find work in bad economies in the past), I also do feel a bit of paranoia…

Can you explain how your job is directly related to the company's stock trading price? Not being sarcastic are something, just genuinely curious?

I mean, I don't know that it should, but my understanding is that when the stock price dips, and investors start wanting a return for their investment, executives look for quick ways to decrease spending, thus increasing profit (at least in the short term).

One of the easiest thing to do to lower spending is to cut some workers and push their work onto the remaining workers. It's not an ideal situation for anyone, except maybe the executives.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#92

Post by abfan1127 »

ekidd wrote: post #74
abfan1127 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important aspect of the claim about spending money is the broken window fallacy. Henry Hazlitt wrote a great book on the subject called Economics in One lesson. The simple example is that we can't go around breaking windows to stimulate the economy. Sure, the window manufacturer and the window replacement companies might benefit, however that money which went towards the window could have gone elsewhere. Eng…

> Engineering taught me one very important lesson. We can never get something for nothing. There is always a trade off. If the government is handing out money, it has to come from somewhere. Its either taxes, which means that tax money collected can't be spent elsewhere. Or it has to be printed, which is inflation. If we leave the money aside for a moment, what we're looking at here is the need to massively reorganiz…

there is so much hyperbole here. Massively reorganize our way of life? Lets keep perspective. We're talking about building some temporary hospitals, temporarily increasing our respiratory support. This isn't the Spanish Flu. We have months of data showing so. Millions won't die.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#93

Post by francisofascii »

Sitting at home reading a book may not feel like a real job, but it is a job! In this unique situation, the government is asking/requiring people to stay home and alter behaviors. It is not a free handout for doing nothing. People giving up jobs and staying home and doing nothing is serving a purpose of not spreading the virus. People should be compensated for that service.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#94

Post by droopyEyelids »

quickthrowman wrote: post #79
PeterStuer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how your job is directly related to the company's stock trading price? Not being sarcastic are something, just genuinely curious?

Stock prices are an expectation of future cash flows, the rest explains itself.

There is a bit more to be said about how wall st places more value on layoffs than other adjustments to a company's balance sheet. Employees are seen as a generally ugly long term money sink.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#95

Post by wonderwonder »

PeterStuer wrote: post #71
tombert wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree; the only caveat I'd give is that it's tough to say how much longer any of us are going to be yuppies right now; I work for one of the many big megacorporations whose stock is tanking right now. If the stock doesn't pick up soonish, there's a non-zero probability of me being laid off. While I'm not that worried (I've been able to find work in bad economies in the past), I also do feel a bit of paranoia…

Can you explain how your job is directly related to the company's stock trading price? Not being sarcastic are something, just genuinely curious?

All jobs at a publicly traded company are related to stock price. When a company goes public its primary duty is to the stockholders. So in times of hardship it has to reduce cost to increase income / stock price. The primary way of doing this is layoffs.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#96

Post by 9uq34aofgh »

The media/political response is a giant hoax.

Read the source paper from the CDC our corporate and political leaders are using to justify the panic: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm and appendix 5 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44314

From the evidence section of appendix 5:

"Mandatory quarantine delayed the peak of the pandemic, but when cost was taken into account, mandatory quarantine was not an economically effective intervention against the 2009 H1N1 pandemic"

Isolations only delay the peak, they don't prevent it, and the wreak havoc on the economy. Plus all the curve flattening talk are just poorly written computer simulations. Zero evidence it will happen.

From the paper here are the key objectives of isolation, none of which apply to covid-19 in the USA (unless hospitals are adding tens of thousands of new beds, respirators, and nurses in the next few weeks).

"Objective 1: To gain time for an initial assessment of transmissibility and clinical severity of the pandemic virus in the very early stage of its circulation in humans (closures for up to 2 weeks)

Objective 2: To slow down the spread of the pandemic virus in areas that are beginning to experience local outbreaks and thereby allow time for the local health care system to prepare additional resources for responding to increased demand for health care services (closures up to 6 weeks)

Objective 3: To allow time for pandemic vaccine production and distribution (closures up to 6 months)"

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#97

Post by seneca »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #48
seneca wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, in current proposals, would a UBI be limited to citizens only? I'm guessing not, given the "universal" nature of it. If that's the case, I can't say I see support for a UBI gaining wide-spread support, or economic viability, in the US without first securing our boarders. It seems mutually exclusive, given that it would result in an unprecedented flood of economic migrants. I may be misunderstanding the s…

Andrew Yang’s proposal was targeting UBI at American adults[1] which means citizens. [1] https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

Thanks for the reference, that's a very succinct explanation. For those on mobile, here's the answer from Yang's plan:

> Every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 would receive $1,000 a month, regardless of income or employment status...

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#98

Post by piokoch »

tombert wrote: post #40
shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

I mostly agree; the only caveat I'd give is that it's tough to say how much longer any of us are going to be yuppies right now; I work for one of the many big megacorporations whose stock is tanking right now. If the stock doesn't pick up soonish, there's a non-zero probability of me being laid off. While I'm not that worried (I've been able to find work in bad economies in the past), I also do feel a bit of paranoia…

Why? The price of the stocks does not affect company in any way. If the company sales are going down or clients stop coming this is an issue, stock value is important only for those who hold/speculate using them. You company has already got the money from selling stocks, nobody is going to take them away.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#99

Post by wonderwonder »

shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

Issue with not giving it to everyone is that a large portion of people with a good, financially secure job could find themselves unemployed in a week or so as layoffs ramp up. We are going to see massive layoffs in the next few weeks, especially in retail, food services, travel and entertainment.

In addition, we should be flooding individuals and households with money right now to ensure survival. An over payment of 10% is far less harmful than an underpayment of the same amount.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#100

Post by jkhdigital »

abfan1127 wrote: post #29
duxup wrote: post #19

Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such. However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly. I'm all for it.

The most important aspect of the claim about spending money is the broken window fallacy. Henry Hazlitt wrote a great book on the subject called Economics in One lesson. The simple example is that we can't go around breaking windows to stimulate the economy. Sure, the window manufacturer and the window replacement companies might benefit, however that money which went towards the window could have gone elsewhere. Eng…

It's hard to be an Austrian and a decent human being. Moral hazard is real, but it's hard to stand by and watch humans suffer in a world full of abundance.
Post reply on HN