Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, it also seems to be how capitalist designs work. I ask: What designs actually help the working class?
Universal Basic Income.
[deleted]
America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
11–20 of 433 posts
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#12[EDIT] - Ignore. The article summary and the article are unrelated so my comment is unrelated.
I can't read beyond the summary, but this is true in my experience:
> Its hastly designed scheme sent much of its relief money to people who didn't need it
My neighbor's granddaughter (age 18 or so) got relief money to the tune of more than she had ever earned in her life. She got purses. Many of them.
My wife's friend got relief money atop unemployment. She was a waitress and stopped working during the time and she was making more than she could if she was working.
A buddy's friend's work strategically cut hours so employees could get the relief checks atop their pay for a net pay increase.
On the other side, my dad's work dried up and he was able to stretch things due to the checks.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#13Anything 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…
Direct cash still has this effect. $1500 to subsidize rent that is $1500 to property owners.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#14This 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?
Democratic socialism seems to be the label for the best mix of elements we've founds so far.
"Capitalism" doesn't mean "anything to do with markets", and tells you exactly who it's for right there in the name. Capitalism vs. not letting free markets exist to any substantial degree, is a false choice. Relying on that label as if approaches that aren't at least pretty close to what the US does are all diametrically opposed to capitalism and necessarily share nothing with it, is a way to end up arguing over things that aren't real and don't matter.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universal Basic Income.
UBI has the potential to shift the cost of ubi into everything else, then you are back to the starting point
This is not very great logic. People try and argue the same about minimum wage and it falls in its face, because economists who practice critical thinking note that when minimum wage has been raised historically, inflation generally did not follow.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#16Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#17Anything 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…
Direct cash still has this effect. $1500 to subsidize rent that is $1500 to property owners.
Only if you have no rent control and allow property owners to take as much as they are able to off the table short of starving their tenants.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, it also seems to be how capitalist designs work. I ask: What designs actually help the working class?
None, because you can't get around markets even if you try to regulate them out of existence. As seen in the article countries with good unemployment benefits also have higher rates of unemployment during normal times. And don't forget every job being outsourced to China/Vietnam/Africa. If you confiscated all of Jeff Bezos' net worth you'd get something like $1000 for each American, once. The way to help the working…
> The way to help the working class is to ensure economic growth happens, because a rising tide lifts all boats.
This is just trickle down economics. The same catchphrase as "grow the pie to share it".
It simply fuels money to the rich as well, in a larger proportion than to workers. We are actually experiencing the results of 40 years of that ideology and it doesn't look pretty.
Growth is also looking like a very unsustainable way to support civilization.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#19This is generally how socialist govt programs work. Give money to the rich and advertise it as helping the poor.
"trickle down economics" for general economic policy, and straight bribing the rich to act well during social programs.
The problem is "a fool and their money are soon parted", and the rich don't stay rich by parting with their money easily.
I don't see an easy answer.
Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich
#20[EDIT] - Ignore. The article summary and the article are unrelated so my comment is unrelated. I can't read beyond the summary, but this is true in my experience: > Its hastly designed scheme sent much of its relief money to people who didn't need it My neighbor's granddaughter (age 18 or so) got relief money to the tune of more than she had ever earned in her life. She got purses. Many of them. My wife's friend got…
The article is about PPP, which gave out forgivable loans in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to businesses and self-employed individuals. The total cost of this was about the same as the direct payment stimulus checks, but went to about 10m borrowers rather than the ~150m who received the checks.
As for your anecdotes, it was sort of the point of giving people money that they would spend it, "stimulating" the economy. It was not intended to become a nest egg or to satisfy some cosmically appropriate amount of money for an 18 year old to have. It's macroeconomic policy, not moral policy. In many cases, the cost of doing means testing so you don't accidentally overpay someone you think is undeserving is more than the amount saved.