Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#461

Post by mmm_grayons » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #143

mmm_grayons wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like either and think both are largely wastes of money. In both cases there are always the very few poorest who need help from others and there are always a very few situations where we need to go to war. Would you please stop with the tu quoque now?

Why do we have to stop with the tu quoque, it's a relevant point especially how we are posting anti-drug ships outside of Venezuela and talking about Iran sneak attacking us. Even in the throes of a pandemic we haven't missed a step in trying to throw billion dollar military platforms into useless trillion dollar wars.

Because we're in a thread discussing the virus problem? This is an attempt to derail the very reasonable cost concerns about these gov't bail-outs. Besides, "helping people" already accounts for a much greater portion of our spending and of the national debt. Also, in terms of debt contributed, first bail-out alone is $2T while the military budget is less than one.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#462

Post by cycop » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

Private health care will try to collect on all of their costs in regards to this pandemic, if the US government allows that it will kill the economy even further. How long until the US Government nationalizes Health Care?

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#463

Post by kazen44 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #336

greedo wrote: post #323

The long term scars of this upcoming Depression will be unlike anything anyone under 70 has experienced. And the scars will be long lasting. My mother in law used to use Cool Whip containers for leftovers. When we'd visit, she'd send us home with food packed in them. Usually stuff like mashed potatoes, but often good stuff too. And when we'd visit her in a few weeks/month, she'd ask where her containers were. This wa…

A 70 year old today was born in 1950. What have they experienced that's worse than this? I think this is going to be unlike anything in living memory.

my grandfather was a teen during ww2.

This behaviour was common with him aswell. Saving even the bones of chicken/cows to make stock.

when a was a smile child and was nagging him for something to eat, he used to tell me i have never experienced hunger, only "trek". (which would be roughly translated to snackish).

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#464

Post by grey-area » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #393

mehrdadn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I see, okay thank you.

This kind of info usually circulates in the corporate world for a week before it hits the wider media zeitgeist. My company has been holding weekly analyst briefings on what to expect. Right now, the sources I have say to expect to be WFH and "socially distanced" until July or August at the earliest. Restaurants will probably start slowly opening back up around then, but conferences or sporting events are going to be…

I'm more pessimistic in the short term than this (particularly for the US, which still doesn't have a national lockdown), but more optimistic in the long term.

Despite our best efforts, this thing is burning through entire populations, and will do so quickly (within a couple of months globally, except some places in asia who escaped the first wave but are now seeing more). Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order, thus infecting their household, and even in lockdowns people need to eat. Almost every country waited too long to lock down, and large countries still haven't effectively done so.

The downside of that is a horrific global death toll (1 million confirmed cases this month, maybe 10 million infected? megadeath next month?). The upside is that we will at some point reach herd immunity and/or develop and manufacture a vaccine and economies will restart.

Looking at Italy I find it hard to believe that almost every household has not been exposed by now - all it takes is one infected during the lockdown and the entire household gets it. Their new cases are declining and their deaths are flat already.

There will be substantial economic damage but I think the recovery may be quite fast as there will be a clear cause which has been addressed (probably by a rushed vaccine currently in trials - there are lots globally). I don't believe a lockdown of more than 2 months is acceptable to most, even with a 1% risk of death, and such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#465

Post by ghettoimp » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

tachyonbeam wrote: post #426

doh wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a personal opinion, but I think ~15% unemployment peak is far too optimistic. I believe that 50-75% of restaurants will never reopen. 20-35% of small to mid-size hotels, venues, spas will declare bankruptcy within this year. Both employ a lot of people. So I'm afraid the number is going to much higher, maybe even double.

I know it's really not PC to talk about this (how dare you value money over human lives!?), but at what point does the economic damage this causes become too much? 15% joblessness would be ~50M americans. If just 0.1% of them commit suicide as a result of losing their jobs or businesses, that would be 50,000 dead. Maybe there's some kind of intermediate between forcing everyone to stay home and not having any mitigat…

Hard to say.

At start of year, situation normal, the economy we had was unsustainable. We were collectively waging war on our environment and winning. Folks mostly had jobs, which was good, but income inequality was nuts and lots of jobs didn't pay a living wage. Housing costs, healthcare and college were out of control.

In short, the world could really use a correction. The pollution reduction from this shutdown has been dramatic and wonderful.

This will hit the economy very hard. The rich will be livid and will push hard to return to business as usual. The rest of us will suffer terribly. Maybe so terribly, and in such numbers, that we have to address it. Maybe we'll come out the other end with something more sustainable for everyone.

(Probably not.)

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#466

Post by grey-area » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

airstrike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...

Any speculations on how bad is this going to get? Should I stock up on TP, on food, or on vodka and ammo?

Stock up on cash, to survive being laid off if you have to.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#467

Post by matwood » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

jiofih wrote: post #451

malandrew wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The virtuous cycle provided by a functioning market is not a pyramid scheme. Not even close. Pyramid schemes transfer wealth from the bottom to the top while creating no new additional wealth . America is creating tons of additional wealth and how much each gets from that wealth is proportional to one's leverage and one's leverage is generally proportional to how much one is able to contribute to wealth generation (i…

“Virtuous”. It is fueled by artificial growth. It demands growth and makes sustainable, stable businesses a liability. It is absurd to see companies folding barely two weeks into hardship.

> It is absurd to see companies folding barely two weeks into hardship.

Why? Companies sitting on tons of cash is a bad thing. That cash either needs to be invested through hiring, buying equipment, etc...or paid out to the shareholders (who then spend, invest, etc...). Sitting on cash traps capital that could be doing something else to create value.

And before you say companies need to plan better, companies do plan for downturns. But, no company plans for their revenues to go to near zero overnight.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#468

Post by myth_drannon » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

onefuncman wrote: post #96

paganel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik Norway was one of the first countries that made similar numbers public, as about a week ago they had announced that unemployment had risen from app. 2% to 10.4%. The article is here [1]. My ballpark estimate is GDP going down by 20-30% for the next two quarters at least. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/norway-jo...

Austria 8.1% Feb 2020 -> 12.2% Mar 2020 Philippines 4.5% -> 5.3% Belarus 0.3% -> 0.2% (???) per https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/unemployment-rate Israel 18.6% 3/24 to 24.4% today - https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-unemployment-in-israel-up... and https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/The-number-of-unemployed... I'm not sure why Israel has their numbers available so quickly.

Belarus, I suspect agriculture sector is working 110% to provide more food to Russia which started to have food runs.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#469

Post by withinboredom » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

_curious_ wrote: post #376

withinboredom wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume a 1.55% tax rate for UI, you will contribute about a week of unemployment per year of work (at least in S.C.) at 70k taxable income after a modest administrative overhead of 60%. If you manage to work from 25 to 65 at an average of $70k per year, that’s almost a year worth of unemployment.

OK going with your assumptions, I wonder what % of people collecting unemployment benefits have worked for 40 years at an average of $70k/yr? I am not aware of a single individual, but maybe just don't know the right people.

It should scale out at about 1 week per year of work, no matter how much you make. $70k per year is how much you need to max out unemployment in S.C., where I used to live. If you make less than that, you'll have less per week, if you make more than that, you're pretty royally screwed.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#470

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #447

BurningFrog wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...to help people Sure, but I was talking about helping the infected people. Yeah, it's more complex, but if it was a priority, it could be arranged. It's not like it has to be done quickly. Bills can be settled months later. My cynical explanation is that Covid infected do not have a lobbyist at the table when these things are decided.

The US is helping infected people. Infected people are a subset of all people. But, how or why would any infection requirement be necessary or a good idea? 1. The economic toll that is happening is not even remotely limited to those who are infected. 2. We aren't testing everyone and we don't have the resources to do so, so how would you accurately allocate the funds to those who are infected? 3. Those 10 million peo…

If we don't agree that the infected are the primary victims, that might be our primary disagreement, and there isn't much left to say.

The economic toll is also important, but people are dying by the thousands.

I assume many infected will come out of this with 6 digit hospital bills.

We do have the resources to test everyone. Banning most tests is a regulatory decision.

If a goal is to stop virus spreading, encouraging testing should be a primary goal. If people have to pay thousands out of pocket to be tested, that won't happen.