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

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#141

Post by TomSwirly »

nitrogen wrote: post #74
paulmd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural areas are already heavily overrepresented in the american system. We certainly don't need to put the thumb on the scale further. The ultimate problem is that "the rest of the state" (for virtually all states) is empty, hardly anybody lives there, and letting a minority override the will of everybody else is tyranny of the minority. Taken to the extreme, this is ultimately what killed South Africa and Rhodesia a…

You don't think the people who live somewhere should have a say in what happens there? Having city dwellers decide what happens in rural areas is the tyranny of imperialism.

Let me get this straight. You think that some people should get effectively more votes, just because of where they live?

And if these people don't get extra votes, it's "the tyranny of imperialism"?

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#142

Post by gizmo686 »

imchillyb wrote: post #40
varbhat wrote: post #32

Can UBI(Universal Basic Income) scheme help to overcome Unemployment crisis ?

> 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 -…

Neither the US Federal government, nor any state government are bankrupt. Under current law, it is impossible for any of those entitys to declare bankruptcy. There was a proposal by McConnell to allow states to declare bancruptcy; but it was widely ridiculed as a stupid idea (and I doubt seriously considered by him).

"No money" is not a meaningful concept for the federal government. It has two options for what to do with the money supply: increase it, or decrease it. Leaving the money supply unchanged is just a degenerate form of these and generally bad economic policy (deflationary).

Currently, there is a massive drop-off in the velicity of money, which, if not countered, would have a deflationary effect. Increasing the money supply has an inflationary effect to counter this. In fact, the federal reserve has been increasing the money supply to maintain target inflation. Currently they do so by giving money to banks (and recently, by buying bonds directly). Why shouldn't they run their monetary policy by giving money to individuals instead.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#143

Post by Proziam »

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…

You seem to assume there is a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. There is not. For example, we have California suffering from catastrophic mismanagement of their water resources. You have one group who wants to move more water into the population centers, essentially taking the precious resource from the rural areas (farmland, which is rather important). You have another group who refuses to build more reservoirs or dams to better manage the water (because NIMBY). And then you have the minority, the folks in the rural areas.

Nobody is right or wrong, they just all have different priorities. Regardless of those priorities, the resources must be allocated to ensure the entire ecosystem can continue to survive. The only solutions to accomplish that are going to be compromises. But unfortunately, the groups in the population centers have managed for an incredibly long time to avoid compromise. So, now California finds itself in an unenviable position of battling drought and fire nonstop.

That is tyranny of the majority.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#144

Post by raincom »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #10
NiekvdMaas wrote: post #3

Meanwhile the S&P 500 is 5% away from an ATH record. Unemployed people = gambling with stocks + FOMO?

No. The government is injecting tons of cash into the market. This props prices up and causes inflation, or at very least avoids deflation.

Well, the Fed is buying corporate junk bonds (bond ETFs) through special vehicles. We are not in the Japan territory where their central banks owns 80% of stock ETFs. This is why no one wanna sell any stocks in the states. Just a psychological boost, not direct stock purchases.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#145

Post by TomSwirly »

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.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how voting should work.

The idea is not "the rules should be set up so people like me get a bigger voice". It's _one person, one vote._

You don't get an extra vote because you're "unique". What?

It strikes me that you basically want the voting system to be be biased to your advantage against a group of people you probably don't like very much.

If this is true, it speaks extremely poorly of your sense of moral fairness.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#146

Post by taylodl »

mindslight wrote: post #94
salmon30salmon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump messed up a ton in this crises, and has a lot to answer for. This is not one of them. Unemployment is almost all within the remit of the individual states. The government approved additional payments to each state, but the state government is responsible for dispersing and managing the unemployment system.

Fiscal and monetary policy are under the purview of the federal government. Individual states are stuck between a rock and a hard place - needing to ramp up spending to respond to the crisis, while receiving much less tax revenue. States can only respond by taking on more debt, further compounding the cause of this financial jam. Hence red states passing the pain downwards by turning the screws on workers. The curren…

Most states are required to have a balanced budget, which makes sense seeing as how they don't have the monetary tools available to the federal government. The state budget has to be balanced at the end of the current budget cycle. States have different budget cycles - 1 year, 2 year and 3 year. Many states have dipped into their rainy day funds. For states whose budget cycle ends this year - this could get really ugly.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#147

Post by dang »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #31

"Government doesn't work. Elect us and we'll prove it!" --One of the two major political parties in the US. We get the government we voted for, so I guess that's the one we deserve.

Please don't take HN threads further into generic political flamewar. These sequences just endlessly repeat, and repetition is what we most try to avoid here.

Consider how much better the top subthread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23859830 is with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23860042 as the top comment instead of this one. The difference is striking.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23859830)

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#148

Post by dfee »

paulmd wrote: post #62
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.

Rural areas are already heavily overrepresented in the american system. We certainly don't need to put the thumb on the scale further. The ultimate problem is that "the rest of the state" (for virtually all states) is empty, hardly anybody lives there, and letting a minority override the will of everybody else is tyranny of the minority. Taken to the extreme, this is ultimately what killed South Africa and Rhodesia a…

I’m not sure the translation of your argument works. America is not Rhodesia (Zimbabwe).

There is often something lost in this argument, which I think is a strength of the system, not a weakness. That is: the US Senate, which was the compromise, is a rejection of utilitarianism as the pinnacle of governing.

You don’t want tyranny of the minority, and I don’t want tyranny of the majority, so let’s have a system of checks and balances that ensures (within limits) that we address both groups.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#149

Post by Proziam »

fzeroracer wrote: post #135
ninkendo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (suc…

Politicians gonna politic. That doesn't mean that the 'tyranny of the majority' doesn't exist, but they're just using the words to try to score points.

I caution people not to let politicians become their mental picture of the constituency.

Re: Another 1.3M Americans File for Unemployment

#150

Post by nightski »

TomSwirly wrote: post #145
nightski wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how voting should work. The idea is not "the rules should be set up so people like me get a bigger voice". It's _one person, one vote._ You don't get an extra vote because you're "unique". What? It strikes me that you basically want the voting system to be be biased to your advantage against a group of people you probably don't like very much. If this is true, it speaks extreme…

No, I want both minority and majority voices heard. What I am saying is that city voices are strong. They get the majority of the funding and influence when it comes to politics, regardless of voting power on a per capita basis.

The difference is you are arguing that rural citizens should get no say whatsoever. I care about everyone instead of only those living in a small geographic circle and understand that the needs of those living outside of that circle are unique from city dwellers themselves.

Post reply on HN