171–180 of 348 posts
[flagged]
It's funny how everyone always misses the point Marx was making, in that he was thinking about post-capitalism, not a replacement for capitalism. There are 3 components to the economy (simplifying a bit) - labor, capital, and resources. What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. He was just a century or two before that would be technologically possi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...
Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands. If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...
What fraction are retirees who have rolled over their 401k into an IRA?
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...
Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands. If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these p…
That $18,000 check would have given me the ability to pay off my medical debts immediately, and have complete economic security and peace of mind through COVID.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 I am assuming you don't know a single person in the 40% that don't have $400 saved up for emergencies. >it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move. It isn't without merit...until you look behind the curtain at OZ. The stock market was already in a bubble and we…
> I am assuming you don't know a single person in the 40% that don't have $400 saved up for emergencies. This is an oft misunderstood stat[1][2]. The actual stats from the survey show that 61% of Americans would choose to pay a surprise $400 bill in cash. The remaining people would prefer to use a credit card or other ways of paying. Only around 12% of respondents said they would actually have a hard time paying the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They're in the form of low-interest loans, they aren't just handing out money to corporations. This is false as related to the PPP loans ($700B program, to put that in perspective during the 2008 financial crisis law makers passed an $800B stimulus to prevent total financial collapse). Its argued the banks paid that 2008 money back with interest (I won't touch that claim), but the PPP loans ($700B) are intended to b…
>>> Our Quantitative easing and corporate bailouts >> Because bailouts (usually) make the government money in the long run. They're in the form of low-interest loans, they aren't just handing out money to corporations. > This is false as related to the PPP loans GP was comparing unemployment to QE and "corporate bailouts". Forgiveness of PPP loans is contingent on keeping staff on payroll and salary levels constant.…
Helps main street? Businesses just got free money from taxpayers. Sure for the forgiveness you have to spend 75% on payroll, in many instances what the amounts to is a business owner paying themselves 8 weeks of salary with taxpayer money and then that loan being forgiven. In the instance it actually goes to employees, again taxpayers basically just paid for 8 weeks of your payroll (these helps politicians by keeping unemployment numbers artificially low for 2 months, and keeping people off the temporary Covid unemployment benefits), the jury is still out if any of these employees will remain employed after 8 weeks (or we will see unemployment again be flooded with millions of applicants, only the extra $600/week won't be there).
>my impression is that that's mostly worked out
Its as much of a scam as the NINJA (no income no job applications) were leading to the financial crisis, people just formed businesses made up salaries and got a free 8 weeks of said salary (up to $100k salary). Or the fact that law makers and their families have specifically been exempt from any ethics review for conflict of interest, and in some cases law makers set up brand new companies just to obtain PPP loans.
> When she got her unemployment benefits, she realized something unheard of: She was making more money not working. The temporary COVID unemployment bill was so rushed that they didn’t index the unemployment to the person’s earnings. If you lost your job or had your hours reduced, you get an extra $600/week on top of state unemployment. About half of people receiving this are receiving more from the combined unemploy…
Our Quantitative easing and corporate bailouts are in the trillions, why would we not pay out significantly less for people who are struggling to find jobs? Why does the till start counting when its normal people affected?
Stimulus payments are gifts, and the government loses money on them.
To be clear, the stimulus payments are essential for helping people and are a great thing for the wider economy. But you can't compare them dollar-for-dollar, as they are not like each other.
The fact that you could easily earn more on unemployment than not was a bizarre feature of the US COVID response. Most, if not all state unemployment schemes cover part of your wages if unemployed, not more than you made before. It creates a strong incentive to be considered partially or fully laid off. I'm pro basic income, but definitely don't support paying more to be unproductive than productive. This benefit end…
I have seen friends who went on unemployment and made more than they were making employed. They were not unproductive, in fact they were more productive than when they just checked people in to a airline.
If you were, today, paid more to not have a job would you sit and do nothing? My guess is your answer is no, so why are you the exception but people who are actually in the position to be paid more to not work, expected to be lazy and unproductive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you clarify why it's not a valid comparison? My lay understanding is that if you recycle your debt at 3%, and now you can recycle it at 1%, that is a 2% "bailout". You quite literally have a lower cost of funds (cost of doing business), and it is artificially low due to government intervention.
They're both handouts, yes. But a $100 cash handout is $100, while a $100 loan at 2% below prevailing rates is $2. It becomes an invalid comparison when you compare nominal values without making the appropriate cost adjustment (multiplying the loan by 2% in this hypothetical).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It was also controversial from the beginning, with the Right raising moral hazard arguments that it would encourage people to become and remain unemployed, as if that were an option for most recipients. I don't get it -- you're talking like the concern was dubious, even as we see that prediction came exactly true.[2] And yes, not seeking re-employment, or not asking to return to work is an option; see all the storie…
Is there a number for the "real resources" you note? What is the limit and who's keeping track? Also maybe the issue is the sad state of low-income jobs, and the lack of hazard pay continuing to encourage people to risk their lives . Again, risk their lives , because the pandemic is NOT over. "Come back for low pay, no medical benefits and be at serious risk of dying or being maimed yourself, or infecting a loved one…
Why do you ask? I was just making (what should be) an uncontroversial point that there's a bound at all, because someone was dismissing all concerns of affordability of any program on the grounds that:
>>>Federal spending doesn't come from money laying around, in the first place, it comes from money the government decides to have because it wants to spend it.
i.e. trivializing those concerns the federal government can (in several senses) print money. So why the extreme scrutiny and demand for rigor? Is it that bad to concede this very minor point? Remember, it allows that we could have plenty of slack to cover situations like this, just that you can't totally dismiss the concern because of a complex variant of "lol money printer go brr".
>Also maybe the issue is the sad state of low-income jobs, and the lack of hazard pay continuing to encourage people to risk their lives.
I think I addressed that:
>>And, to be sure, that may be the desired outcome, that people stay away from work while receiving some income, so as to mitigate the epidemic risk, while preserving financial security. That's a fair argument to make.
But either way, we shouldn't be creating situations in a position where working more reduces your net pay.