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

Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#131

Post by defterGoose »

nightski wrote: post #99
Paradox0 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't make sense that people should have greater voting power based on their location in the same polity. Your argument is equally valid in reverse -- there's no reason why rural dwellers should decide what happens in cities. Why should your vote count for more because I have more neighbors than you do?

While city dwellers vote may be technically less powerful on a per capita basis, they make up for it in numbers. There are simply more of you with similar needs/wants. Not to mention far more money to achieve those needs and wants. In a city an individual's needs from his/her government are just less unique.

| In a city an individual's needs from his/her government are just less unique

So...rural snowflake status confirmed?

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#133

Post by mjayhn »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #110
mjayhn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're trying to really portend here but this is a huge, huge part of that article considering it's almost the entirety of the current working class parents; Sixty-eight percent of adults 70 and older are mortgage-free, while 15.9% of Millennials are free and clear of mortgage payments. I'm in my mid-30s and I hardly have any friends that own houses and if they do they're tech workers with decades l…

Purchasing homes in low CoL areas is much easier.

I started my career in 2008. Millennials had to go where the jobs where, and they weren't in low COL areas. Hopefully covid opens up the market for far more remote work. I'm remote now, finally, but in a high COL area, which feels especially dumb now that I'm locked inside.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#134

Post by paulmd »

charwalker wrote: post #81
paulmd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly 1 in 3 american households are behind on their housing payments. Most states (and all federally backed mortgages) have temporarily suspended evictions so the short answer is that people in financial distress dropped that expense, which is usually the single largest on most people's budgets (for low-income people this can often be 50% or more of take-home depending on the city - yes, the rule of thumb is that…

I work within a financial institution (CU) and I can say they have no wish to actually evict/foreclose/etc. After the 2008 crash they bumped their reserve % 3-5 points higher than required to insulate from the next recession (here today). But for mortgages, internal notices appear to suggest it's better for the CU if they keep people in their homes and have the same level of payments resume in a few months vs auction…

I think local credit unions are a bit different than banks. I don't think JP Morgan or whatever would probably give that same consideration.

But I do take your point that banks don't necessarily want to immediately boot everybody out, foreclose, and crash the market at a time when potentially not a lot of people are buying.

Do bear in mind that the Fed has injected a shit-ton of cash into the market right now, and there actually would be more buyers than you think - it's just that they would be rental companies looking for more assets to snap up at firesale prices.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#135

Post by fzeroracer »

ninkendo wrote: post #125
Proziam wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The populous centers have more people, so it makes sense that they have more say. This is a rather short-sighted position. There's a reason the tyranny of the majority was avoided, and it's because the majority will always vote for their own benefit. If they do so, it almost always hurts the 49%. You have to balance the needs of a state as if it were a living organism. You can't simply optimize everything for the h…

> tyranny of the majority I keep hearing people say this, and it baffles me. If the majority of people feel a certain way, who's to say it's not the right way? If you start picking this apart it really just comes down to "yeah but the majority can sometimes be wrong", which, I have news for you, applies to the minority as well . At the end of the day, representative democracy exists instead of "pure" democracy becaus…

I think the great irony of the arguments I see surrounding the tyranny of the majority is that often in rural areas or with rural politicians you'll see them employ this argument. Something like 'we need to protect our way of life from city folk' or 'we're not bothering anyone and want to be left alone'.

But then those same rural politicians will then make the opposite argument against other minority populations (such as people whom are LGBT or among race lines) and that we shouldn't let a small minority control our state or that who cares what they think. They switch rapidly from 'tyranny of the majority is bad' to 'tyranny of the minority is bad'.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#136

Post by selimthegrim »

silisili wrote: post #61
roamerz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is by design. I wish our state (Oregon) was of similar design so that all interests are represented. As it is now the populous centers, mostly Portland and Eugene, dictate their values to the rest of the state.

I've met two 40-50 something ex-Oregoners who've said the same thing. They were extremely libertarian, and truly unlike anyone I'd met before. Almost like they came from some foreign(to me) culture. Both complained about how the population influx of Portland ruined the state, whatever that means, and both left looking for new adventures. I'm really curious what Oregon in the 70's-80's was like. The way they described…

You will still find those types in Roseburg, Medford, parts of Clackamas county (I'm looking at you, Damascus), etc, where they refuse to pay for things like local libraries. Ask them why Coos Bay is full of drugs and see what sort of look you get from them.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#137

Post by mnm1 »

Answerawake wrote: post #38
claudeganon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean, but this failure extends across both parties in the United States. The refusal by politicians to take on Capital owners is pushing people into homelessness, loss of healthcare, or danger in low wage jobs, all of which further exacerbate the pandemic. The mainstream of the Democratic Party has advanced little that would address any of this, mostly quibbling over means testin…

This is what boggles my mind. We had progressive candidates running this cycle that were outright commiting to trying something different. Yet the majority of the voter base ran towards people promising the same strategy as previous administrations. Either this crisis is magnified on HN and the majority of the voter base is unaffected by the pandemic or something else is going on.

Lots of early votes didn't count because they were cast for politicians who dropped out. Actually, no votes other than Biden's counted since Bernie dropped out before the race ended as well. Yes, the odds were stacked against him by the party, but that doesn't change the fact that he did have a chance and could have given Biden a good run. So when you don't actually have a race and everyone drops out, what do you expect? The party will simply not allow progressive candidates to rise to any position of power. Maybe once the current old guard dies out, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#138

Post by raziel2701 »

landryraccoon wrote: post #42
raziel2701 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic data ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPILFESL#0 ) is showing deflation. The quantitative easing has so far been deflationary. The Fed can lower interest rates, but it cannot make people spend. People are unemployed and scared, they are not borrowing money, and it shows in the lending data as well ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.h... ) where we can see falling numbers in…

I am speaking anecdotally here but.. Deflation? I can’t think of a single product that has gone down in price and numerous things are more expensive. In particular, virtually every single food item at the grocery store is more expensive than it was in March. Am I the only one who has experienced this? It seems like basic staples (milk, eggs, flour) are substantially more expensive than a few months ago.

Food and oil prices are volatile and can mask inflationary and deflationary periods, which is why I linked to the consumer price index minus food and energy as that is more accurate.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#139

Post by charwalker »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #68
imchillyb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can UBI scheme help to overcome Unemployment crisis ? @varbhat You realize that UBI requires monies, right? The US Federal government, and most states, are bankrupt. There is no money for this years bills. There was no money for last years bills, and we keep borrowing at exorbitant interest rates. Our deficit (shortfall for this year) is -more than- 2.7 trillion dollars. Our debt (shortfall for previous years) is -…

> Where the hell is anyone getting monies for UBI?!?!?! In times of crisis like this you just print it and claw it back through higher tax rates .

If MAGA means 1950's values and culture, does that mean 40%+ tax rate for the wealthy?

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#140

Post by axaxs »

sangnoir wrote: post #127
axaxs wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making that argument, either. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. I honestly don't think either scenario is correct, so what's the solution?

You're implicitly making that argument though - pitting raw number of people vs land owned as a measure of who gets more say.

I'm making the argument that one concentrated area should not control the fate of a much larger area. I'm not, however, asserting that the larger area should control the fate of the concentrated area, either.
Post reply on HN