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

Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–266 of 266 posts

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#261

Post by sershe »

pingyong wrote: post #30

Hmm. A lot of businesses will get into big trouble over the coming weeks and potentially months. Bars, event organizers, even shopping malls. They're all going to go down to almost zero profit for a while. The problem is if you just give people money right now, they literally can't spend it on those things because they are or will be closed during that time. Money isn't the reason they're not going, Corona is. The mo…

Corona isn't the reason, the government response is. I'd like to keep reminding people of this denotation, even if you currently disagree with the connotations.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#262

Post by sershe »

samsquire wrote: post #12

The case for unconditional basic income has never been stronger. Especially with disease precluding work.

The disease doesn't preclude work, the government response to the disease does. Whether it's the right response is a separate question; I just want people to keep the distinction in mind so they can look clearer at the evidence either way.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#263

Post by ramjams »

bsanr2 wrote: post #257
ModernMech wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gross $100k Net after tax: $74k Monthly take home: $6166 Rent: $3000 ($3166) Health insurance + meds: $600 ($2566) Student loans: $1000 ($1566) Muni: $196 ($1370) Groceries: $400 ($970) Electricity: $90 ($880) Internet: $80 ($800) Cell: $150 ($650) Debt: $300 ($350) So that's $350 for a family of two at the end of the day to spend on life, in a city where two cheeseburgers can cost $50. A lot of times for me this wou…

First, thank you. Now, I'll make cuts according to how people without means would. Rent: There are studios and 1-bedrooms to be had. Depending on who your +1 is, share a bed or put someone on the couch. $3166->$1500-$2000 Health insurance: Hah. Order your meds from overseas and cross your fingers. Or go without. $600->$0-$200 Groceries: Everyone on HN keeps telling me healthy food is cheap, you just have to be respon…

I agree with you that most people can, and should, make some cuts, however, some of your listed cuts aren't feasible in the short term.

Rent: From my experience (n=1) most lease agreements force the remainder of the terms rent due within 30 days of early cancellations, making it infeasible to drastically reduce in the short term.

Health Insurance - If you are getting it through your employer most follow open enrollment periods and cannot be reduced/eliminated in the short term

Groceries: Fairly accurate for a single person, but in the context of the nCov situation many of the more affordable options are out of stock leaving more expensive alternatives.

Cell: Simple expense to cut in the short term, I would add non-essential subscriptions (streaming, etc.)

In order to live a fiscally responsible life, you cannot have such high expenses you are forced to live paycheck to paycheck. Hopefully this will be a catalyst for people to live within their means, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect extremely drastic cuts in the short-term (though I am not saying it was a prudent idea to put oneself in this financial position in the first place).

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#264

Post by JoeAltmaier »

9uq34aofgh wrote: post #231
DanBC wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Covid-19 is 99.9999% survivable for those under 70 with no pre-existing conditions. No, your six 9s are wrong. So far, the best quality evidence we have says: https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1239693272311828483/... If you are aged 10-19 you have a 0.006% chance of death 20-29 0.03% 30-39 0.08% 40-49 0.15% 50-59 0.60% 60-69 2.20% > If you have scientific evidence supporting mass isolation for a pandemic like…

I appreciate the correction from 99.9% to 97% survival rate for those under 70. Thank you for sharing the link to the imperial college article. Here are some of my key take aways: - 100,000's of people will still die even under ideal isolation conditions (didn't see an exact #). - Isolation must happen until a vaccine is available (likely 12-18+ months). - If isolation ends before a vaccine is found infections will q…

Things will change. Isolation will give time to devise and deliver better tests, helpful drugs, better processes.

Nobody wants this to last forever. That strawman is not worth discussing.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#265

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

kube-system wrote: post #250
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not clear. Give mandatory breaks to all renters in for profit apartments. Give breaks on primary residences up to the median home value less the top 10% of homes. No breaks for people holding vacant, second, vacation, rental, speculative, or comical I commercial for profit properties. If they can't weather the storm they don't deserve to keep the properties.

> Give mandatory breaks to all renters in for profit apartments. > No breaks for people holding [...] rental [...] properties. Some of those rental properties might no longer be rental properties if their owners are insolvent, particularly in the case of 1 or 2 family homes. Banks do not want tenants.

Banks can find tenants, sit, or sell. All are fine with me as long as the countries housing markets see much needed correction.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#266

Post by dpcan »

unknown_library wrote: post #125
dpcan wrote: post #72

Chasing our own tails. If this virus does very little to zero damage in the US, I’m afraid it will become the worst “cry wolf” situation in the history of humanity.... when the truly dangerous bug arrives.

If it does very little damage, then mission accomplished.

Yes, I am 100% on board with this. Nothing happens is exactly what we want, and WHY we are doing what we are doing.

But there are too many people in this world that are painfully illogical and will think it's a "hoax" or "fake" if nothing actually happens.

Post reply on HN