Live data from Hacker News

America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

economist.com

31–40 of 433 posts

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#31
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land lords still exist in a competitive market and can't arbitrarily raise rents without collusion. One way to alleviate this problem is to have a harsher tax on vacant properties to punish using housing as a store of value and creating artificial scarcity in the market, e.g. like how the DeBeers corporation made diamonds artificially scarce and scammed the world for the past century selling a shiny rock.

> Land lords still exist in a competitive market and can't arbitrarily raise rents without collusion. Well...kind of. It's pretty bad in a lot of places. There aren't enough homes in the places people want to live.

There's a delicate balance of property owners using their power to prevent new construction and densification in an attempt to keep their property values high by preventing competition and going too far where you destroy your local economy because the people who actually do the work can't afford to live there.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#32

Anything other than direct cash transfers to individual humans is likely to have this effect. Institutions are simply always going to be able to navigate and take advantage of complex government programs better than real human beings. UBI or stfu. Time to try some trickle up economics. Also, for the love of god, let's stop prioritizing saving "jobs" that may or may not be necessary for civilization and start prioriti…

Ubi would go into homeowners. Hell at some Point they will raise rent by the ammount of the ubi because they know people can afford at least that

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#33
The US lacks the state capacity to tell who was going to have trouble with COVID-19 closures, and who wouldn't, so a whole lot of money just had to go to people that had no need for it whatsoever.

Regarding PPP, every local tech staff augmentation company got a few months worth of payroll out of it. For those of you not in the know, their model involves hiring developers at $x an hour, and then placing them at large enterprises for $x+y, often for years at a time, as those companies would rather have contractors than employees.

So where does the money go? Straight to the owner's pockets, as lockdowns only changed staffing needs in a very small number of companies. So if your sole proprietorship staffing company employs 25 of those developer-contractors for, say, 180k and a couple of HR staff, you could get million dollar "loan", that would be forgiven in a few months, as you didn't fire any of them.

Needless to say, the people in charge of that kind of company were very happy about the PPP program.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#34
post #2

This is generally how socialist govt programs work. Give money to the rich and advertise it as helping the poor.

Please enlighten us what proud plan that is brazenly American would you have enacted to keep the country from collapsing when everything was closing?

Maybe we shouldn't have closed down the economy which was the reason why these programs existed in the first place.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#35

Anything other than direct cash transfers to individual humans is likely to have this effect. Institutions are simply always going to be able to navigate and take advantage of complex government programs better than real human beings. UBI or stfu. Time to try some trickle up economics. Also, for the love of god, let's stop prioritizing saving "jobs" that may or may not be necessary for civilization and start prioriti…

"UBI or stfu."

"for the love of god, let's stop prioritizing saving "jobs" th"

Printing money does not create value and we will generally suffer reduced standard living, some worse than others at least over time.

In the long run, the real economy creates vast consumer surpluses which are generally not even really accounted for. We are actually quite a bit richer than we were a generation ago.

'Direct Stimulus' might be better in the very, very short term to stave of serious harm, but in the 'mid term' it can be destructive, and in the long term it will absolutely be destructive.

Since the first wave of COVID in Canada, a lot of industries have been trying to open, but people have preferred to take their 'CERB' (direct payments) than work, which has accounted for reduced service and is one of the key drivers of inflation.

UBI payments are worthless if there's nobody to stock the shelve and nothing to stock them with.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#36
post #2

This is generally how socialist govt programs work. Give money to the rich and advertise it as helping the poor.

Please enlighten us what proud plan that is brazenly American would you have enacted to keep the country from collapsing when everything was closing?

Well, the best option at the time would have been to not lock down at all and just carry on as usual: lockdowns appear to have had almost no effect on Covid deaths (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature...)

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#37
post #2

This is generally how socialist govt programs work. Give money to the rich and advertise it as helping the poor.

Conversely, it also seems to be how capitalist designs work. I ask: What designs actually help the working class?

War (taking place somewhere else, that you're winning)

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#38

Anything other than direct cash transfers to individual humans is likely to have this effect. Institutions are simply always going to be able to navigate and take advantage of complex government programs better than real human beings. UBI or stfu. Time to try some trickle up economics. Also, for the love of god, let's stop prioritizing saving "jobs" that may or may not be necessary for civilization and start prioriti…

"UBI or stfu." "for the love of god, let's stop prioritizing saving "jobs" th" Printing money does not create value and we will generally suffer reduced standard living, some worse than others at least over time. In the long run, the real economy creates vast consumer surpluses which are generally not even really accounted for. We are actually quite a bit richer than we were a generation ago. 'Direct Stimulus' might…

When did I say anything about printing money?

Don't conflate a policy debate about how we spend the commonwealth with the policy debate about how we collect the commonwealth.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct cash still has this effect. $1500 to subsidize rent that is $1500 to property owners.

Land lords still exist in a competitive market and can't arbitrarily raise rents without collusion. One way to alleviate this problem is to have a harsher tax on vacant properties to punish using housing as a store of value and creating artificial scarcity in the market, e.g. like how the DeBeers corporation made diamonds artificially scarce and scammed the world for the past century selling a shiny rock.

"can't arbitrarily raise rents without collusion."

???

There's no need for 'collusion' - term is 'inflation' - which will 100% happen when we start printing money at that scale.

It's unavoidable, almost by definition.

Housing costs are already skyrocketing and this is moving into rents already, at least largely in part because of of massive Fed Stimulus. In the short run it might be better to just give some cheques to people, but not over any period of time.

Post reply on HN