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

3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 711 posts

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#531

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

luckylion wrote: post #501
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that NOW people are concerned with this impact from the economy, yet when people became alcoholics from getting fired when the economy was good, no one seems to care.

It's a matter of size. If you have 1% "falling through the cracks", it's individually tragic but not something that will negatively impact the economy that much. If you have 30% falling, you're going to be in for a rough time.

A lot more are falling through the cracks in a good economy than 1%. About what, 10% are poor in the US?

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#532

Post by GordonS »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #303
onion2k wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't take many resources to show the user a form, validate it, and save to a DB. I bet that's what the previous developers thought. What happens if you need to validate the form data against an external service that's coming and going due to the traffic spike? What if your database is rejecting transactions occasionally? What happens when your backup process locks all the database tables? How do you reject dupl…

Or it's a much simpler problem that they didn't make it semi-fast because it didn't need to be semi-fast. When "hundreds of times the usual level" is still only 50 page loads per second, and 10 milliseconds of CPU per page would be extreme overkill for anything written in a reasonable way, it actually is straightforward.

It's not just CPU though, but IO - I've worked with horrible enterprise systems before that had response times measured in seconds.

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#533

Post by jimbokun »

commandlinefan wrote: post #333
toomuchtodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They won't take back those jobs, they'll push for agreements that guarantee a safety net. This event forcing America to adopt more progressive policies after experiencing suffering without them wouldn’t be a bad thing. Sometimes things must get worse for them to get better.

> wouldn’t be a bad thing. Well, unless we libertarians were right all along and these progressive policies are unmaintainable over a longer period of time. At this point, I think we're about to find out one way or another.

Those policies have been maintained for decades in many European nations.

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#534

Post by lgleason »

big_chungus wrote: post #498
jahaja wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be the most unethical thread I've ever read on HN, and that takes a lot. Shame on you.

Where do you get that conclusion? You think crashing the economy won't hurt people? > Shame on you. Seriously?

I agree, things get heated when people start to moralize about things without considering the other side. On one hand, people affected by a death or very sick family member are going to feel one way, especially if they are not feeling a lot of economic pain. That said a small restaurant owner, or worker who is living on the edge who is facing the real possibility of losing everything is, understandably going to feel differently. Both have VERY valid points and there is not an easy answer because both options have very bad outcomes for a group of people.

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#535

Post by x0x0 »

ardy42 wrote: post #491
x0x0 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that backend pain shouldn't stop you from accepting it on the front end and putting it into a queue. Making the problem of getting the application through backend systems the states' to deal with, not the applicants'.

> The point is that backend pain shouldn't stop you from accepting it on the front end and putting it into a queue. What if the backend rejects the form? The user's already moved on before their form made it through the queue. So then you're stuck re-implementing all the validations the backend needs in order to give the user feedback (which you may not even be able to do) or trying to get the user to come back later…

You can pick a balance between some validations and 100%, and I don't think it's that hard unless you're invested in saying this is just UNPOSSIBLE.

There is already processes (a workforce and/or outbound written letters) to reach out to applicants in the case of eg a dispute (terminated for cause vs laid off).

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#536

Post by Arainach »

tstewart161 wrote: post #410
marvin wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is passing relief package of 18,000 dollars for every citizen of the USA. That's more than enough money to tide things over if it's distributed well, in a way that incentivizes the right things. Unforunately, a very small portion of that money will go to individuals who have lost their jobs, and a very large portion will go to companies that were run on razor-thin balance sheets, ready to topple at the…

I’ve heard this point made a lot, that these “bailouts” are in any way equivalent to previous bailouts based on poor management and immoral business practices. These aren’t the same. This shutdown (however justified) is because of the govt. If the government demands you shut down your business, or that you can’t go to work, you deserve to be compensated for that. If the government hadn’t mandated it, young people wou…

Businesses (including many of those demanding bailouts) have spent unprecedented amounts of money on stock buybacks in the last decade. If citizens are expected to have a reserve fund to handle unexpected crises, so should businesses.

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#537

Post by dan_quixote »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #462
lbeltrame wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately yes. Even if one wants to keep the quarantine at all costs, it should be a political decision, not only medical, after weighing everything. In Italy, where I'm in my third week being shut in, experts and doctors are being quoted tiredlessly by the news: the problem is that they're doing their job (which is good!) however they do not realize the impact of their suggested measures. Not their fault by any…

The fact is this is a good pandemic to practice on. We are very very lucky, to even be debating the economy right now. If this virus was far deadlier and affected young people, I think the tone on this very site would change in a heartbeat.

Agreed. It's the same reason why I think we'll learn essentially nothing from it and be back to business-as-usual (with poor safety net and tiny stockpile of medical essentials) in just a couple years.

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#538

Post by rubber_duck »

smallgovt wrote: post #512
rubber_duck wrote: post #35

And this is just the start. While I think the US response to Corona was slower than the response in my country I feel the US is the only country that's seriously discussing economic repercussions and debating the medical experts. In EU (at least in my country) it's doctors running things and we are in "stop the pandemic at all cost". Everyone is in panic due to Italy situation. But doctors are only trained to see the…

For those who are willing to go through this thought exercise, if we're purely trying to maximize humankind's total well-being, how much wealth would we have to create to counteract one coronavirus victim's loss of life? Here's a set of 3 questions that I think leads to a possible answer. - How much would someone have to pay you to be put to sleep for 8 years, during which period you have no sensory input or output?…

I think you're framing the question - the tradeoff at this point is not how much value will be created but how much value will be destroyed.

The impacts of corona measures will lead to the economic slowdown and general reduction of wealth - for you this might mean that you lose your job, can't afford to buy a new apartment, car, furniture, electronics, clothes, etc. but for people that live close to poverty level that just got out of that place because of globalisation and increased economic growth this will result in less access to basic infrastructure, medications, food, development opportunities.

And that's not even touching the reduction in R&D and economic activity that would improve the lives of people. For example - consider risky tech companies like Tesla being wiped out by market conditions - who is going to do R&D in things like battery tech in an economy where people are pulling out of capital investment ? Even the established companies with cash reserves will scale back R&D. And this will happen across the board - which will in turn make future crisis more difficult to deal with.

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#539

Post by castratikron »

bearjaws wrote: post #6

Anecdotal but my company is hiring 2x support and 2x QA, yesterday alone we went from receiving 5-10 applicants a day to 53. I just got into work and there is already 21 from last night.

Just curious, did your company get an essential business exemption from any stay at home orders?

Re: 3.28M file for U.S. jobless benefits

#540

Post by cmurf »

pc86 wrote: post #332
tibbydudeza wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the knockon effect on landlords ... many bossiness want some sort of rental relief or those with limited cash flow are saying they are not going to pay.

Small business owners almost always have to personally guarantee commercial rents. "My business doesn't have revenue so I'm not paying" is simply not a valid response unless the owner is willing to take it the whole way to bankruptcy, which I'm sure we'll see a surge of in the coming months from the more aggressive landlords. It varies by state but my state is very forgiving to residential tenants and very unforgivin…

Right. Quite a lot of SBOs never thought this day would come, that they had no choice but to sign such agreements. Tenant ignored the reality of these unfair and untenable agreements. And here we are.

My response to a landlord insisting on 100% rent for property, that just become non-revenue generating by order of the government, or else they will take my personal property? Force majeure, I owe you $0, this contract is null and void. Shall we re-negotiate?

Liens are going to require court judgements. That system is about to get plugged up with cases. Most SBOs and landlords are going to have to re-negotiate. Landlords will talk deferred rents and suggest SBOs get one of these SBA 3.75% loans, in order to make the landlord 100% whole, eventually. SBOs should seek better advice than that which comes from their landlord. SBOs could do much worse than mimicking the likes of Subway, Mattress Firm, etc. by insisting haircuts are coming, fast. And by much worse, I mean, paying the landlord 100% and making them whole.

Post reply on HN