Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#21

Post by enraged_camel » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:00 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #8

treyfitty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... $1,200 advanced from next years tax return nonetheless. Normative economics (how should things be allocated equitably) are frowned upon, but it’s clear that our system needs to be refactored. The fact that Bernie Sanders has only a 1% chance of winning the primaries show the severe disconnect between what we want and what we need.

I have heard people say that it was an advance but found conflicting info, can you source?

It is misinformation. It becomes an advance if your normal income suddenly skyrockets to a point where you wouldn’t have been eligible for the $1,200. That won’t be the case for almost anybody.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#22

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:00 PM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #15

airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

You should check the numbers coming out of Italy. It’s not 1% if the medical system is overwhelmed. Moreover, you do realize that’s 3 million dead in the US alone?

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#23

Post by lukevp » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #15

airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

What do you feel is stupid about the response to this? 1% is a lot of people. The whole point of social distancing and staying at home is to not overwhelm the healthcare system and to give more time to develop proper care procedures.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#24

Post by onepointsixC » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

bearjaws wrote: post #5

treyfitty wrote: post #3

Expected 3M. This new figure is about 10x financial crisis high.

And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and state unemployment benefits....

Wasn't unemployment boosted by $600 a week plus state unemployment? Or is my linked NYT article wrong[1]? Because even if it were $600 a week that's the equivalent of $15 an hour. For NY it appears the max state unemployment benefit of $504 per week, for a total max possible of $27.6 an hour, assuming a 40 hour workweek. That's quite substantial, no? Or maybe I'm wrong, and you could enlighten me.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-stimulus-package...

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#25

Post by prpl » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #8

treyfitty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... $1,200 advanced from next years tax return nonetheless. Normative economics (how should things be allocated equitably) are frowned upon, but it’s clear that our system needs to be refactored. The fact that Bernie Sanders has only a 1% chance of winning the primaries show the severe disconnect between what we want and what we need.

I have heard people say that it was an advance but found conflicting info, can you source?

It is free money, which is technically a tax credit for the 2020 tax year. Since that would not be filed for another year, they advanced the issue date based on previous tax returns. If you made $150k last year as a single person but just lost your job and end up out of work for 6 months, you won’t see your credit until you do your taxes next year. It is not an advance on your normal tax return.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#26

Post by binaryorganic » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #15

airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

Your math doesn't check out. 5% of people that get it (among a wide range of ages) require serious medical care for weeks. And if we send 5% of any population to the hospital in a given month the death rate for ALL diseases goes way up.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#27

Post by haasted » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #15

airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

You're perpetuating several dangerous myths with that comment

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#28

Post by x0x0 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #22

buzzkillington wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

You should check the numbers coming out of Italy. It’s not 1% if the medical system is overwhelmed. Moreover, you do realize that’s 3 million dead in the US alone?

It's universally true that the people eager to feed the olds (and a bunch of non-olds, too) into the wood chipper never seem to have their, and their parents', do-not-treat orders signed.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#29

Post by hurricanetc » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

bearjaws wrote: post #5

treyfitty wrote: post #3

Expected 3M. This new figure is about 10x financial crisis high.

And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and state unemployment benefits....

The safety net has never been more robust than right now. With the additional $600/week through the end of July people can expect to receive an annualized amount of nearly $60,000. Add on to that food and other benefits and people who were laid off should not be struggling.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#30

Post by adrianN » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #15

airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

It kills 1% if ICU care is available. It kills a lot more if the healthcare system is overwhelmed. Look at Spain or Italy. Case fatality rate is around 10%.

Letting it run its course it needs to infect 60-70% of the population before herd immunity kicks in. 1% of 60% of the population of the US is 2 million people. World-wide you're looking at 45 million people for a very optimistic scenario. The numbers could easily be 5 or 10 times larger. If we're lucky and the number of asymptomatic cases is very high, the numbers could also be lower. At this stage we really don't know, but I don't think it's ethical to take that risk.