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

391–400 of 433 posts

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

#391

Post by hammock »

space_fountain wrote: post #328
cryptonector wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt, but that was what the British did. I made only a statement of fact. Also, as you can see from the other replies, there were other considerations at the time. Compensation to the slave owners is morally repugnant, and yet the alternative might have also had morally repugnant consequences. In any case, that is what they did.

No I agree, and I think it made sense for you to reply with that honestly I might have had you not, but I think it is fair to say that it’s at least morally counter intuitive

>morally counter intuitive

That is the insight that is why I started this comment thread in the first place. Honestly, I was hoping for more interesting discussion on HN from it than I got.

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

#392

Post by greenshackle2 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #390
greenshackle2 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're talking about a mortgage on the rental property itself not on the landlord's personal residence. Yes. Everyone in this conversation understands that. There's no relation between the amount and terms on your mortgage for your rental property and the market price to rent a given unit. If I take a 20 year mortgage does that mean I should charge more rent than if I took 30 years because my payment is higher? Shou…

If the increase in equity should be satisfactory, that's an argument for just letting everyone live in the place for free. I mean, you're coming out ahead. I know other landlords with multiple units. If they don't think something will be an income producing property, they won't buy.

My point is that you charge market price. Because that's how markets work.

Price to rent ratio varies very widely between different markets. If you don't want to buy in a market with a high price to rent ratio that's fine. There's simply no rule that guarantees a price to rent ratio such that rent covers all costs plus the full payment on a 30 year mortgage in all markets at all times.

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

#393

Post by abakker »

naasking wrote: post #388
Aunche wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The cited reason for buying the bank debt instead of the home owner debt was "moral hazard" The moral hazard was the smallest of the problems. The complexity of how to do so seems like the much bigger issue. What does "buying homeowner debt" even mean when much of that debt has been securitized?

I'll describe it by the ultimate objective: most people keep their homes, and the lenders who encouraged and inflated this bad debt lose money on it instead.

Most people kept their homes. People who were far underwater were underwater because the value of their homes fell.

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

#394

Post by sobani »

charvard wrote: post #257

I worked on a paper that showed that the "Paycheck Protection Program loans increased employment at small businesses by only 2%, implying a cost of $377,000 per job saved" in April 2020: https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/t... It still hurts me to read. Over a third of a million, 7 times the average salary, to save a job during the pandemic under this plan

> increased employment at small businesses by only 2%

> implying a cost of $377,000 per job saved

The second doesn't follow from the first at all?

The fact that employment increased doesn't tell you anything about how many jobs were not lost, right?

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

#395

Post by dang »

mrkentutbabi wrote: post #220
jollybean wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN, and please stop using HN for ideological battle? Those things are not what the site is for, and they destroy what it is for. We ban such accounts, regardless of what their ideology is, and regardless of whether we happen to agree or disagree (actually, we don't care—we just want to have an internet forum that doesn't suck).

You're welcome here as long as you use the site as intended. That means using it in the intended spirit (intellectual curiosity), and making posts that are more thoughtful and more substantive. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#396

Post by giaour »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #135
giaour wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You aren't aware that plenty of people rent houses? By renting instead of buying, you don't incur any of the costs or headaches associated with with home ownership or repair. There are also plenty of people who are only living in one place for a limited period of time, and additionally, plenty of corporations will rent out homes in decent locations if their employees need to be there for extended projects.

I am aware; I was a renter until a couple of years ago. I have rented houses in the East Bay (Alameda, CA) and Seattle, and in each case, my rent was 70%-80% of what the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage on the same house would have been. The same was true of apartments I rented in Manhattan.

Maybe it doesn't work that way in other markets, but you'd have to be nuts as a renter to pay enough to cover your landlord's mortgage.

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

#397

Post by giaour »

nsxwolf wrote: post #185
giaour wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What markets have you rented in?

I have been a renter in NYC, Seattle, and the Bay Area; every single time, I looked up how much the property last sold for and calculated how much a mortgage on it would cost me per month. My rent was normally 70%-80% of the expected payment on a 30 year mortgage.

I was never paying below-market-rate rent, either! Maybe it doesn't work out this way if you're renting in an area with lower average property values?

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

#398

Post by giaour »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #133
giaour wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally, rent on a property is significantly less than the monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage on the same property. Where were you renting out spaces where people were willing to tolerate rent that high?

Where does this "normally" occur? A house in my neighborhood would rent for over $3000 a month and cost about $1600 a month in mortgage / insurance / taxes, and that's been my experience when looking at any property anywhere in my entire city.

Manhattan, Seattle, the Bay Area. I haven't rented anywhere other than that, so I don't know how it works outside of those markets (which are admittedly unique as far as market fundamentals go).

I paid $1400/month for rent on a place in Alameda, CA. The last recorded sale of the property was for ~$400,000 a couple years before I moved in. That mortgage would be ~$2400/month given average interest rates at the time.

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

#399

Post by jonas21 »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #376
jonas21 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, trillions. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/covid-relief-bills-us-has-sp...

That is the total amount spent not the amount that citizens took home.

Have a look at the first chart in the article. It shows $844B in stimulus checks and $666B in enhanced unemployment benefits. That alone is $1.5T paid directly to citizens, even without counting anything else.

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

#400

Post by jollybean »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #113
jollybean wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

"term is 'inflation' - which will 100% happen when we start printing money at that scale." So you get 0% inflation when we give money to the rich and bail out the banks, but as soon and you give a hobo $50 the entire economy crumbles and inflation spikes, right? Very conveneint ideology

I didn't remotely imply any of that.

You fabricated a bunch of ideas which have nothing to do with what I said.

'Very convenient fabrication'.

--> If you put a lot more dollars into the real economy by direct distribution, then rents will go up via systematic collusion. Most of that money handed out will be captured by landlords.

That has nothing to do with with what may or may not happen if you concentrate money in the financial sector via whatever means.

Post reply on HN