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

311–320 of 433 posts

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

#311

Post by wonderwonder »

geoduck14 wrote: post #181
wonderwonder wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the top 1% makes more income than the entire bottom 50% that average can look pretty skewed.

If you are going to compare income of different people, can you please indicate the geographical region you pick, and how you decided on the size? For instance, the income distribution of people within Beverly Hills is probably pretty OK - no need to redistribute anything there! But if you zoom out, you can look at the entire world and realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world a…

Since we are speaking about the US, the numbers I provided were us specific and anything that is done would be financed via us taxes, I'm pretty confident everyone knows I'm referring to the US as a whole.

"realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare"

Why should us taxes subsidize world welfare (not that it already doesn't)?

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

#312

Post by mlyle »

koolba wrote: post #200
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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.

Well, parents aren't legally obligated to provide support past age 18, which means many don't. And youths that are wards of the state because of abuse or their parents becoming incarcerated, dying, etc, are not supported beyond age 18. So this is at least a frequent corner case we'll have to deal with, even if social norms change so that more parents support kids past 18.

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

#313

Post by mlyle »

wonderwonder wrote: post #311
geoduck14 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to compare income of different people, can you please indicate the geographical region you pick, and how you decided on the size? For instance, the income distribution of people within Beverly Hills is probably pretty OK - no need to redistribute anything there! But if you zoom out, you can look at the entire world and realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world a…

Since we are speaking about the US, the numbers I provided were us specific and anything that is done would be financed via us taxes, I'm pretty confident everyone knows I'm referring to the US as a whole. "realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare" Why should us taxes subsidize world welfare (not that it already doesn't)?

Of course, when we're talking about a UBI, there are always some geographic distributions of wealth that one might quibble with: from large urban states to rural states. Taxes paying for UBI flowing out of California will exceed UBI flowing into California; taxes paying for UBI flowing out of Wyoming will be dwarfed by UBI flowing into Wyoming.

And, further, beyond the balance of transfers in absolute dollars-- $1000/mo in California impacts resident life less than $1000/mo in Wyoming.

I don't think this is a strong reason to not do UBI, but it's a confound.

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

#314

Post by ryandrake »

hibikir wrote: post #33

The US lacks the state capacity to tell who was going to have trouble with COVID-19 closures, and who wouldn't, so a whole lot of money just had to go to people that had no need for it whatsoever. Regarding PPP, every local tech staff augmentation company got a few months worth of payroll out of it. For those of you not in the know, their model involves hiring developers at $x an hour, and then placing them at large…

> The US lacks the state capacity to tell who was going to have trouble with COVID-19 closures, and who wouldn't, so a whole lot of money just had to go to people that had no need for it whatsoever.

I love how it’s so critical that we means-test individual welfare so that no dollar can possibly go to someone who doesn’t need it, but when it comes to means-testing corporations for handouts, all of a sudden it’s impossible to determine which corporations need the help and which ones don’t. So just dump money on anyone who fills out the paperwork. If welfare and food stamps just went to anyone who applied, politicians would be up in arms.

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

#315

Post by fastball »

kristopolous wrote: post #301
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that suffering wasn't increased by paying off the former slave owners. If anything, it may have reduced it by making it politically feasible to end slavery earlier.

Have any evidence? For example, a parliamentary compromise where such a trade-off is documented or something like that

Do you?

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

#316

Post by smegsicle »

xmprt wrote: post #308
abakker wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is bad to keep citing 2008 money as if it were a handout. Much of the money was paid back with interest, and the government MADE money on those loans. Look up the “maiden lane” loans for an example.

Why is spending money on the rich considered an investment whereas spending money on the poor is considered welfare? For example, it is clear that investments made in public school education has much higher returns.

> it is clear that investments made in public school education has much higher returns

do you have evidence of increasing funding to public education directly resulting in better outcomes in general? obviously better schools are usually better funded, but i can't imagine how throwing money at a bad school would result in better education...

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

#317

Post by paraph1n »

smegsicle wrote: post #316
xmprt wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is spending money on the rich considered an investment whereas spending money on the poor is considered welfare? For example, it is clear that investments made in public school education has much higher returns.

> it is clear that investments made in public school education has much higher returns do you have evidence of increasing funding to public education directly resulting in better outcomes in general? obviously better schools are usually better funded, but i can't imagine how throwing money at a bad school would result in better education...

> but i can't imagine how throwing money at a bad school would result in better education...

...what?

How about hiring better teachers. Building nicer facilities. Funding extracurricular/after-school activities. Smaller class sizes. Better equipment (computers, technology, textbooks). Better/more support staff (counselors, etc).

The list goes on... I would much rather go to a school that had plenty of money than go to a school that was on a tight budget. And yes, I would almost certainly get a better education at the former.

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

#318

Post by kristopolous »

fastball wrote: post #315
kristopolous wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have any evidence? For example, a parliamentary compromise where such a trade-off is documented or something like that

Do you?

Of what? I'm not making any claims.

We've got the internet at our fingertips. I'd hope progressing beyond speculation would be valued

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

#319

Post by therealdrag0 »

sbelskie wrote: post #250
BiggsHoson wrote: post #241

No surprise there. Who are the rich? The politicians and bureaucrats who implemented these ideas, along with their buddies who fund their campaigns and junkets, and offer cushy board positions and lobbying gigs if they ever do leave their government posts.

Were there countries that did a better job than the US in regards to the economic response the pandemic, particularly with respect to fiscal stimulus? Is any other country as close the the US to prepandemic GDP trendlines? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are but I’m honestly not aware of them.

The posts article says,

> European countries did better: governments encouraged struggling employers to keep workers on their payrolls with reduced hours, and then made up some or all of the pay gap. Unlike the ppp, such programmes were usually aimed only at struggling firms that needed to cut salaries (though they were not always well targeted: a share of beneficiaries in Britain continued to pay dividends). Yet despite the flaws in America’s programme, the study’s authors argue that Congress was incapable of doing better. Crafting a targeted policy would have been hard, expensive and slow. Many countries that kept workers in jobs had programmes in place already: some of the most successful—including France, Japan and Germany—simply increased coverage and benefits at the onset of the pandemic. If America hopes to waste less money in future crises, it should plan ahead.

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

#320

Post by fastball »

kristopolous wrote: post #318
fastball wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you?

Of what? I'm not making any claims. We've got the internet at our fingertips. I'd hope progressing beyond speculation would be valued

The entire thread is speculation, doesn't seem very useful to ask one side for evidence without asking the other. If all you care about is people evidencing their claims, you probably should've asked at the first assertion, not the 2nd/3rd.
Post reply on HN