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

191–200 of 433 posts

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

#191

Post by postpawl »

eric_b wrote: post #182
anonporridge wrote: post #6

Anything 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…

UBI is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have. The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land,…

"Rents went up 20-40% across the board"

I don't think you can blame that on the stimulus. There are tons of other forces driving up prices, including iBuyers and the lack of affordable new construction. The stimulus barely paid a month of rent for most people.

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

#192

Post by koolba »

Guest42 wrote: post #50
j_walter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the tenant isn't being required to pay rent. 2 years of government money in the name of COVID assistance and rent help...but nothing that actually meant it went to paying rent. Some tenants simply bought more stuff or saved it while the landlords are still going without rent payments.

Is there a data source for this claim?

There’s many examples of exactly this happening. Here’s one: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1046154251/they-refused-to-pa...

The tenants no doubt received direct stimulus payments and never paid a dime of it in rent. There’s a reason why section 8 et al are paid directly to the landlords.

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

#193

Post by hyperhopper »

eric_b wrote: post #182
anonporridge wrote: post #6

Anything 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…

UBI is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have. The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land,…

> with what workers will they do it?

Fewer workers. That's the whole point.

For years, companies have been investing billions into automation and efficiency improvements. Less and less humans are required to do the same work.

Of course, we aren't at 0 yet, but it's trending lower and lower. It doesn't take doubling a human workforce to double output anymore.

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

#194

Post by eric_b »

postpawl wrote: post #191
eric_b wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have. The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land,…

"Rents went up 20-40% across the board" I don't think you can blame that on the stimulus. There are tons of other forces driving up prices, including iBuyers and the lack of affordable new construction. The stimulus barely paid a month of rent for most people.

The stimulus is absolutely a factor. I agree there are other things pushing on both the demand side of the equation as well as the supply side. But UBI will never increase supply - at best you'd craft it in such a way so as to be neutral (though I don't know how you'd pull this off - someone has to work the crappy jobs)

But UBI absolutely will increase demand - and therefore prices until the same equilibrium is met but at a higher price. Basically, the poor will still be poor, but the rich will be poorer too. If a race to the lowest common quality of life is what you want, UBI is the answer. For any other scenario keep looking.

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

#195

Post by dylan604 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #179
greenshackle2 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't bear any risk of losing money perhaps you should buy money market funds instead of real estate at 20x leverage.

I bought a house just before the financial crisis and a decade later needed to move but I was underwater. I didn’t have enough money to sell it so I rented it out.

how did this not break your mortgage agreement? most private mortgages have a clause that states the mortgaged property will be your primary residence. specifically. it is to prevent private mortgages being obtained for rental properties.

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

#196

Post by eric_b »

hyperhopper wrote: post #193
eric_b wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have. The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land,…

> with what workers will they do it? Fewer workers. That's the whole point. For years, companies have been investing billions into automation and efficiency improvements. Less and less humans are required to do the same work. Of course, we aren't at 0 yet, but it's trending lower and lower. It doesn't take doubling a human workforce to double output anymore.

This is also a pipe-dream. You can't automate plumbing, drywalling, framing and dozens of other construction jobs. They already can't find people to work those jobs - when you add UBI do you think there will be more of those workers? No. So who's going to build the houses? Who's going to make the supplies? Who's going to pick up trash? Moreover, who's going to be a nursing assistant, a home care aid, or even a teacher?

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

#197

Post by umeshunni »

gilbetron wrote: post #173
foolfoolz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except in this timeline i don’t think we avoided any deaths we just delayed them

I don't think we even really delayed them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30167436

No death is avoided.

All deaths are merely delayed.

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

#198

Post by Guest42 »

koolba wrote: post #192
Guest42 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a data source for this claim?

There’s many examples of exactly this happening. Here’s one: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1046154251/they-refused-to-pa... The tenants no doubt received direct stimulus payments and never paid a dime of it in rent. There’s a reason why section 8 et al are paid directly to the landlords.

One anecdote from one website is not a data set that generalizes onto a population.

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

#199

Post by jbay808 »

postpawl wrote: post #191
eric_b wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have. The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land,…

"Rents went up 20-40% across the board" I don't think you can blame that on the stimulus. There are tons of other forces driving up prices, including iBuyers and the lack of affordable new construction. The stimulus barely paid a month of rent for most people.

I agree. I attribute the rent increase mainly to low interest rates. At high interest rates it's unlikely that landlords would have enough bargaining power to capture the UBI through rent increases.

My preferred policy would be to adjust interest rates to control inflation, and adjust UBI to control interest rates to keep them a healthy distance from zero.

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

#200

Post by koolba »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #174
geoduck14 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>current programs incentivize people to not do things that increase their income. At what point do they have "enough" income? At what point can we stop chasing more money? The USA already has a really high average income. Why do we need more?

Think of it this way. You get a subsidized apartment that’s fixed too 30% of your income so long as you make under 150% the federal poverty level. In 21 that was $12,880 for an individual meaning they would pay $322/mo for rent. I’m virtually every area of the country an apartment at that rent is impossible to find. Should this person really make themself homeless to earn more money doing abullshit job? This is a wel…

The real problem here is a society that is brainwashed into thinking it’s “normal” for a 21 year old to move out and get a place of his own, let alone doing it at minimum wage. I don’t even know why anyone would want to live alone at that age. Everything about life is both easier and more pleasant surrounded by close family.

Housing and meals have natural economies of scale. Even tasks like fetching medicine while you’re sick or waiting for package become easier.

It’s a travesty how many people these days think the standard course of action is to try to live as an island.

Post reply on HN