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

91–100 of 433 posts

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

#91

Post by ravenstine »

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…

I'm sure the few elites who own the vast majority of the wealth will agree and implement UBI in a way that doesn't enrich them or hollow out the poor and middle class. /s

To be fair, I at least agree in the sense that we need to reexamine this idea of creating/saving jobs as something virtuous in and of itself. I just don't see how there's a lick of chance in overriding human behavior that turns the powerful into opportunists.

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

#92

Post by munk-a »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #72
Aeolun wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a zero sum game. For you to be winning there has to be an similar working class somewhere that is losing.

Outside the problem definition

And that's how we end up with refugee crises.

(amongst a plethora of other moral, ethical and humanitarian issues)

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

#93

Post by wnevets »

chrisseaton wrote: post #82
wnevets wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so I don't think you can claim that no one is worried. No that isn't what I claimed, I claimed no one was worried. Using an article written almost two years after fact as proof against my claim doesn't make a whole a lot of sense. Now obviously my no one claim is hyperbole but the fact the bill's passing was near-unanimous is my point. Using one of the very few no votes in congress as proof against my claim would ma…

> Now obviously my no one claim is hyperbole Code for 'nonsense but I said it anyway and now someone's calling it out so I'll claim it was a prank all along'.

Your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement.

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

#94

Post by MattGaiser »

rory wrote: post #60

I know a few upper-middle class small business owners (all non-retail sectors) whose businesses weren't substantially affected by the pandemic, but who basically got a free handout as part of the program. Two mentioned how they were initially hesitant to apply for money, but then worried that if they didn't, their business could take a downturn after it was too late. Then as long as they spent the money on payroll (w…

A friend worked for a company that used the Canadian equivalent during a period of record growth. As they doubled their headcount, they got the gov to pay for it all.

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

#95

Post by qqqwerty »

gnat wrote: post #64
ericmcer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct cash still has this effect. $1500 to subsidize rent that is $1500 to property owners.

That's exactly what happened with student housing subsidies in NZ. Labour were elected and fulfilled a campaign promise by raising the housing allowance by $150 pw. Rents in Wellington rose $150 pw at the same time.

This is a bad example. Students are tied geographically to their respective campuses. With a UBI, individuals would be incentivized to relocate to lower cost of living areas to stretch their UBI farther.

The fact that housing is in such tight demand in certain areas is not an argument against UBI. To solve that problem we need to build more houses.

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

#96

Post by kingkawn »

ericmcer wrote: post #13
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…

Direct cash still has this effect. $1500 to subsidize rent that is $1500 to property owners.

Those people get a house for the month. That’s what it subsidizes. Landlord gets theirs one way or another.

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

#97

Post by moistly »

commandlinefan wrote: post #36
JohnWhigham wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please enlighten us what proud plan that is brazenly American would you have enacted to keep the country from collapsing when everything was closing?

Well, the best option at the time would have been to not lock down at all and just carry on as usual: lockdowns appear to have had almost no effect on Covid deaths ( https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature... )

> keep the country from collapsing

Unless you have odd ideas about healthcare and hospitals, I think you overlooked a key part of OP’s question. Have you forgotten the horror that went down in NYC, Italy, etc? Hospitals were overwhelmed, patients piled up all over the place, the dead packed into refrigerated trucks, staff working endless hours, equipment shortages… and you suggest not locking down would have been the better course of action?! Wow.

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

#98

Post by wizzwizz4 »

jlmorton wrote: post #89
genousti wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubi would go into homeowners. Hell at some Point they will raise rent by the ammount of the ubi because they know people can afford at least that

It's far too simplistic to say UBI would go to homeowners. In a supply-constrained environment, it's true that a higher capacity to pay would lead to higher prices, but that's not some general truth. If it were, you could say the same thing about wage increases. Any policy goal seeking higher incomes would be useless: it will all just go to homeowners. Why bother with public education? Sure, it will increase incomes,…

Substitute “homeowners” with “farmers”. It'll all go to food costs. (Yet I don't hear anyone making this argument; what's different about food?)

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

#99

Post by kingkawn »

nsxwolf wrote: post #54
asdff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you have no rent control and allow property owners to take as much as they are able to off the table short of starving their tenants.

When I was a landlord I found it very difficult to even cover the mortgage, let alone cover association dues and maintenance. I would try to raise the rent a little in between tenants, and it would greatly reduce interest in the listing.

The amount of rent people are paying is exorbitant if it covers the mortgage for owning the property.

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

#100

Post by jlmorton »

mchusma wrote: post #66

The PPP was designed to obviously benefit the businesses that needed it the least: 1) For any business that is fine or growing with COVID. PPP is free money. 2) Your business is in severe trouble with COVID, so you can't even have employees working productively. You can just give them the money, or use the PPP loan as a bridge loan, but you have to pay it back. It's low interest, but relatively short term and you had…

In hindsight, it should have been structured like Germany's Kurzarbeit ("short-time working") program. Impacted businesses simply furlough employees they don't have work for. Employers continue to pay furloughed employees 70% of their salary, and the government reimburses businesses for the cost of the furloughed employees' salaries.

There are no loans, no unemployment insurance. There is nothing employees need to apply for, and no Byzantine rules. Employees just get furloughed and continue to get 70% of their paycheck in the exact same way they always have, and businesses get reimbursed.

When the crisis is over, businesses bring their employees back to work, and there's no major economic churn. Everyone goes right back to what they were doing before, assuming they still want to.

Post reply on HN