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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 433 posts

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

#181

Post by geoduck14 »

wonderwonder wrote: post #147
geoduck14 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>current programs incentivize people to not do things that increase their income. At what point do they have "enough" income? At what point can we stop chasing more money? The USA already has a really high average income. Why do we need more?

When the top 1% makes more income than the entire bottom 50% that average can look pretty skewed.

If you are going to compare income of different people, can you please indicate the geographical region you pick, and how you decided on the size?

For instance, the income distribution of people within Beverly Hills is probably pretty OK - no need to redistribute anything there!

But if you zoom out, you can look at the entire world and realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare

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

#182

Post by eric_b »

anonporridge wrote: post #6

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 is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have.

The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land, products and myriad other things still follow supply and demand. If you increase demand, and supply stays the same, you will get higher prices. And no, UBI will not encourage companies to increase supply - with what workers will they do it?

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

#183

Post by ChrisLomont »

anonporridge wrote: post #6

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…

The countries with the best outcomes, as noted in the article, did not give money to individuals, but to businesses.

Direct payments to people let them squander it while businesses failed, leaving people unemployed.

UBI feeds consumption, not production, and they are not the same thing. Lots of production is B2B and other aspects far removed from the consumption of the pipeline.

Throwing a few trillion directly at people is popular but demonstrably not as well spent as other countries showed.

"Many governments staved off damage by paying businesses to keep workers employed"

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

anonporridge wrote: post #6

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…

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by nsxwolf »

giaour wrote: post #119
ethangarofolo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it? We're talking about a mortgage on the rental property itself not on the landlord's personal residence.

Because that's how it normally works? Why would any renter pay that much? If they have that much disposable income each month, they could just buy instead of renting.

In my neighborhood now, people rent for considerably more than they would pay per month if they bought here. They want to live here but nothing is for sale. It’s large single family homes. Renters tend to be people who have frequent job transfers and people who are having custom homes built nearby.

Also I’ve never rented anything for less than what I could own something comparable. Maybe you can in some markets. But generally I expect to pay more monthly. It’s a trade off for avoiding everything that comes with home ownership. Down payments, maintenance, and the overall commitment. It’s hard to just pick up and move when you have to go through the process of selling, making contingent offers on another place, multiple closings, all that.

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

#186

Post by ChrisLomont »

hogrider wrote: post #143
hammock wrote: post #107

Devil's advocate: is this altogether a bad thing? Hear me out (thought experiment). COVID relief wasn't supposed to be welfare. Its purpose could be viewed as being not a safety net, but rather compensation for allowing the economy to be shut down. In that sense, it makes sense that much of the recompense goes to the people who were asked to shutter their businesses, put up signage and buy new equipment and reduce ca…

Sure, if you agree with socialism for the rich and for the rich only this was great just like 2008.

Citizens took home trillions this time around. The 2008 money was loans, that were paid back with interest. The citizens this time around got socialism (and related inflation). 2008 had neither.

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

#187

Post by keyboardCowBoy »

anonporridge wrote: post #24
ericmcer wrote: post #13

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.

Landlords in collusion? What kind of landlords, like mom and pop? My small apartment complex raised my rent 25%. Is this collusion?

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

#188

Post by [deleted] »

systemvoltage wrote: post #106
commandlinefan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... )

Were you around in March 2020? You could have been banned from most communities for suggesting this.

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by sbelskie »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #183
anonporridge wrote: post #6

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…

The countries with the best outcomes, as noted in the article, did not give money to individuals, but to businesses. Direct payments to people let them squander it while businesses failed, leaving people unemployed. UBI feeds consumption, not production, and they are not the same thing. Lots of production is B2B and other aspects far removed from the consumption of the pipeline. Throwing a few trillion directly at pe…

What country has GDP on a better trend compared to pre-pandemic than the US?

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

#190

Post by akgoel »

rory wrote: post #60

I know a few upper-middle class small business owners (all non-retail sectors) whose businesses weren't substantially affected by the pandemic, but who basically got a free handout as part of the program. Two mentioned how they were initially hesitant to apply for money, but then worried that if they didn't, their business could take a downturn after it was too late. Then as long as they spent the money on payroll (w…

If you don’t show losses, and the loan was forgiven, it becomes taxable revenue. As a C corp, Trump got those taxes down to 21%, so it was only mostly free.
Post reply on HN