221–230 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a lot of times you'll hear $100,000 as a cutoff for aid. I made $100,000 in the Bay Area. It doesn't go as far as people might think.
Maybe if you have family, but that's a comfortable range for an individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if the stock price is tanking, there's an incentive to figure out how to either a) increase profits or b) decrease spending. Since the market is tanking, there's a likelihood that people will be spending less, thus leading to less profits for my company; as a result, the only easy way to keep investors happy is to reduce costs, and the easiest way to do that is to start doing layoffs.
That only applies for long-term recession projections where the company is seen as doing a poor job, not now where stock is down because there's a pandemic shutting everything down and market volatility is going batshit. As long as the company has enough cash on hand to ride the pandemic out they'd want to retain everyone so they can ramp up again as fast as possible
I would very much like to be wrong on this; if I am I don't have to constantly worry about being laid off.
Last global pandemic of most compare - the Spanish Flu, we had a society that was savings conscious. Past few decades have seen a turn towards interest rates so low that borrowing over saving has prevailed. So whilst this may help a little and more so for some, it will do nothing for many who are debt rolling from one payday until another. That without intervention upon loans and debt repayments over this period will…
Last global pandemic of most compare - the Spanish Flu, we had a society that was savings conscious. Past few decades have seen a turn towards interest rates so low that borrowing over saving has prevailed. So whilst this may help a little and more so for some, it will do nothing for many who are debt rolling from one payday until another. That without intervention upon loans and debt repayments over this period will…
Savings rates have been going up over the last decade. Some data is available here: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/03/can-personal-...
It's almost as if you could borrow cheap and get interest higher than the interest on the loan, alas an avenue that for many is not as easily accessible, but if you have money, you can make money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a lot of times you'll hear $100,000 as a cutoff for aid. I made $100,000 in the Bay Area. It doesn't go as far as people might think.
Maybe if you have family, but that's a comfortable range for an individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a lot of times you'll hear $100,000 as a cutoff for aid. I made $100,000 in the Bay Area. It doesn't go as far as people might think.
I lived in the bay area with a family and moved to Ohio in the middle of 2018. 1/3 of the population living on minimum wage in a 50k population town in Ohio. That is $18,000 per year. $100,000 has much more purchasing power than $18,000. For you saving $5000 is easy. For someone making minimum wage, saving $500 by the end of the year is impossible. If you have a car, your deductible might be 250-500. The majority of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 'serious correction' would erase the wealth of the home-owning middle class. A pause on mortgage payments and interest simply extends the mortgage schedule by a year.
Exclude all for profit property, and all second homes. All of America is suffering right now. If we protect the land owners we're only lengthening the noose around all of necks.
Eh, a lot of low income people live in for-profit properties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“ The price of the stocks does not affect company in any way” RSU value is lower for employees, harder to retain talent, more incentive to fire and cut costs to keep shareholders happy.
> harder to retain talent, more incentive to fire I struggle to understand how those two things can happen at the same time, to the same company, due to the same cause. I mean, if it's harder to retain talent, presumably this means some people leave the company, leaving the company more dependent on those who stay. Why would they fire them?
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…
Joint statement by conservatives Stephen Moore, Art Laffer, Steve Forbes: "Don’t expand welfare and other income redistribution benefits like paid leave and unemployment benefits that will inhibit growth and discourage work" [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1239938361231585286
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…
No. In this case, monetizing the direct subsidy would be creating less deflation, not inflation. And deflation is something we all want very badly to avoid because of all the concomitant pathologies for monetary velocity and contractionary effect.