Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjr225 | Hacker News Reader

Am I way out of band or does that seem like a comically small amount of money for the average American?

I live in an extremely low COL area and live well within my current means. Assuming my work dries up and I don't have any savings, 3k$ would buy me two months tops.

Just to give you an idea of how cheaply I live: Mortgage is ~800$/mo, Car is a paid off 2006 Toyota Highlander, Student loan minimums of ~400$/mo, My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still need to eat.

The average one bedroom rental in any given metro area, even in mid sized cities, probably lands somewhere around my basic monthy costs. So, if you're a single person in the city you might get one month out of 1k$.

And I am VERY lucky to have a bunch of cashed packed away. I assume at least a large portion of this country is living paycheck to paycheck.

View on HN

You can't live off of $1000/mo in most cities without making some real sacrifices, but a $1000 supplement would still be a huge help to people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and may not get paid for a few weeks. It'll buffer out what might otherwise turn into an inability to pay basic bills like food and medicine.

After all, only 40% of Americans are able to cover an unexpected $1000 expense. That's the really sobering number, in my view:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the...

> but a $1000 supplement would be a huge help to people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and may not get paid for a few weeks.

There is zero reason to believe that the service and retail industry will be back to normal in a few weeks.

Well, policymakers could re-asses at that point in time if they decided to take an action like this.

If you really believe that things will remain disrupted for a long time, it seems like you could see this as a great opportunity for a basic income experiment, huh?

One of the interesting questions would be how much a basic income would affect people's willingness to work, and we would not be getting that out of this experiment. In fact, I can't imagine anything useful we'd be getting out of that experiment, except for its effects in similar very dramatic circumstances.

Still a useful data point. It would be nice to add this sort of action to the same toolbox which already contains quantitative easing.

> I can't imagine anything useful we'd be getting out of that experiment

I uhhhh. People's ability to work and live is important. That's what we get out of it. People not starving or living in poverty is, surprisingly enough, pretty important to the economy and the ability to sell luxury goods. Regarding 'useful data':

https://www.inverse.com/article/53466-basic-income-canada-s-...

And articles from the institute that performed the study:

https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_incom...

https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends...

How would the data from any experiment reach you? (there have been lots of experiments) And not to offend you but what point is there in informing people?

I would like to see an 1 euro/month basic income. Then we get a good idea what it costs to distribute. Then we should gradually increase it by an equally insignificant amount so that we can gradually observe who should but doesn't get it and how much fraud we have to deal with.

With 100 euro extra we can at least silence the folk who for the last 100 years barricaded the discussion by saying they would continue to work themselves but others... others will do this and that. Popular variations: Wimmen will stop obeying their husband. Men will use the extra money to buy alcohol. Kids wont seek jobs. etc

I think Keynes 15 hour work week provides a good hint. Wealthy people actually work more.

I think the silver bullet basic income is silly for other reasons. Our economic model is to optimize for wealth extraction. Give people 50, 500 or 1000 extra and rent will go up by exactly the same amount.

I'd still be willing to pay for the distribution experiment.

But does it actually matter what I think?

It's borderline irrelevant. I'd want to see things like rent/mortgage payments alleviated or suspended for the duration.

Pretty much everybody has either rent or a mortgage. Therefore giving someone $1000 towards their rent/mortgage is basically equivalent to just giving them $1000, except that it's a ton of extra administrative complexity and it also screws over a few people who somehow don't qualify but still need help.

Whereas if you make the assistance "we pay the amount of your mortgage" instead of "we pay $1000" then you're giving much more of the money to affluent people, who presumably need it less.

That's not what he said. He didn't say, "give everyone $1000 towards their rent or mortgage". He said, temporarily suspend all rent and mortgage payments. As in, nobody pays any of it. Recurring expenses are what's going to destroy the economy so thoroughly that the great depression will look like a minor downtown. If nobody gets kicked out because they can't pay rent, or their mortgage, or the lease on their business, things might actually be able to resume once there's a handle on this.

I understand how that would work for Mortgage payments as they are controlled/facilitated by banks, and the government has the ability to coordinate with banks (in an ideal case). But how might the federal government enforce suspension of rent payments? Rent just goes to landlords (regular people) and is part of their gross income filed on their taxes. If you don't have to pay your rent, wouldn't we just be moving the buck from renters to landlords in terms of finnancial needs?

The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more.

If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property.

> If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's the argument for that? On its surface, the proclamation that they 'don't deserve to own their property' seems a little draconian to me. What if a repair is required that was unforeseen and not basic?

That's what insurance is for, or maybe a loan.

If the repair is not basic, then it sounds like it's going to be very costly. If it's very costly, then the tenants missing a month or two of rent is not going to be enough to make a difference on the landlord being able to afford it. After all, the amount of money they should be raking in above the mortgage on the property is not generally going to be a large fraction of the total rent. So if the landlord can't swing a few hundred dollars for an unforeseen repair, then they aren't in sufficient financial shape to be owning and renting out that property, since the landlord (in normal circumstances) is fully responsible for keeping the property in good repair at all times. "I can't afford it" is not a valid excuse for not doing repairs, and the court system agrees with me.

> The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more.

How do you know it goes to a mortgage? The property could be owned by a retired couple and the rent is the income they live on, or a charity and the rent is how they fund their operations.

Or it could be owned by a regular old smelly landlord who just takes the rent money and invests it in the S&P 500 -- which, if you take it away multiplied by millions of landlords, does a Bad Thing to the stock market right when you want the opposite of that.

Sometimes rent includes utilities. What does the landlord pay that with?

I imagine you also expect to waive property tax or the landlords would have nothing to pay that with either, but then what are you using to fund local governments?

You can't just delete an industry and expect it to have no untoward effect.

Landlords do not need to invest in the S&P 500 right now; keeping the stock market going is not more important than people who can't pay rent.

If the landlords are retired, they have Social Security and probably other sources of income. If they can't live on that, then they're living beyond their means and don't need to be landlords.

If landlords can't float a little money to pay utilities, then they're in desperately bad financial shape, and shouldn't be landlords. What are they going to do when one of their tenants doesn't pay rent? Just let the utilities for other tenants get turned off? I'd be OK with simply seizing the properties from landlords that can't manage their properties properly.

> Recurring expenses

Then what about all the other ones? Are we also suspending utility bills? Car loans? Property tax? Grocery bills?

Why should someone paying the same total amount in recurring expenses have more of them waived just because they happen to pay more in rent and less in transportation and utilities than somebody else?

Whenever the current situation has subsided to the point where we are no longer asked to engage in social distancing, perhaps local governments should make it a priority to allow a bunch of festivals and other large public events to take place. This will create work for the service industry which will help bootstrap their sector back into motion and also give the public a sense of normalcy so they'll start going out again.

Terrible idea. Unless there's herd immunity, this will just restart the epidemic anew, this time in the people who managed to dodge the virus the first time. Social distancing can be lifted in those who recovered from the virus though, maybe they'll be able to attend.

> only 40% of Americans are able to cover an unexpected $1000 expense. That's the really sobering number, in my view

This is pretty common everywhere across the developed world. The majority of OECD nations have a lower median wealth figure than the US, including Sweden and Germany (their median wealth figures are particularly shockingly low, given the affluence those nations should have vs their national output and given the high German savings rate).

The OECD labor force participation rate is such that about 28% of persons 15-64 do not work. Of the 72% group, a solid 1/3 are typically working jobs where they struggle to make ends meet month to month. The only way a lot of people will have a spare $1,000 in cash for random emergency expense, is if you directly transfer cash to them, and even in that case they will inevitably need to spend it sooner than later.

Yeah, income inequality is not a uniquely American problem. But it's still worth pointing out that even though $1k probably seems like a piddling amount to most readers of this site, it could still help a lot of people who are significantly less well-off.

> income inequality is not a uniquely American problem

That's true but there are only a handful of countries doing worse: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

There is way higher number of situation where US Americans need to have 1000$ ready.

Examples:

- don't need to keep beating the dead horse about American healthcare

- cars. In most European countries a car is not absolutely vital. A lot of America is "drive til you qualify", and car issues can easily be above a grand. You need a car to go even to the closest store many times, so quarantine would not really get rid of your need for a car.

> cars. In most European countries a car is not absolutely vital

you're talking about cities, in rural places, europe is not different than the US.

The thing about rural areas, is that not many people live there.

We live just ouside a mid-sized UK town (and cities down to small/mid sized towns covers a really high % of the population). Between public transport and good cycle/pedestrian routes, a car is not a major living requirement for many.

Smaller wealth, but larger safety nets.

Swedes and Germans aren't going to have to pay a $13k deductible if they have an unexpected surgery, for example.

I think you're talking about apples and oranges.

Sure, these nations might have lower median "wealth" figures, but they also typically have lower costs of living (maybe not Sweden, but Germany does). These countries also have much better safety nets than the US. And if the German savings rate is high, that means they can weather a crisis better than the average American. Americans may make more money, but when they blow it all on an enormous car payment for a giant SUV and a mortgage for the biggest house they could possibly get given their salary, and don't save anything, that leaves them in a precarious position when they have a temporary loss of income.

>This is pretty common everywhere across the developed world

How much does a trip to the ER in an ambulance cost the patient in those countries?

I don't think the intent is to make everything go smoothly for the average American. Instead, it's to keep the gears of the economy turning.

People who have money saved will just dip into their savings and keep spending. At a reduced rate, but not at a rate that falls off a cliff.

But people who live paycheck to paycheck will just stop spending. Because they can't spend. And the money they didn't spend means reduced cash flow for someone else. Which means that other person (or business) won't spend.

In many cases, it will be a huge domino effect. Enough people take the paycheck-to-paycheck approach that there are essentially large numbers of people who have been moving synchronously, in lock step with each other. If one stops moving (spending), they all stop.

If spending stops, that means economic activity stops. Which is close to saying the same thing as saying recession.

Putting cash into people's hands counteracts this. The people who operate paycheck-to-paycheck are the main problem area that needs to be addressed to achieve the goal of keeping the gears turning. And when they receive $1K, they will spend every cent immediately, which is exactly what you need them to do. (People with savings aren't the main problem area, but they will also spend some of it.)

Economically, this is going to be very ugly for a lot of people, but putting $1K into people's hands could make it a lot less ugly compared to the alternative of not doing it, and I think that's all this is aiming for.

For context, the US has 330M people. So $1k per person is a $330B expense.

The Fed, which has no legislative oversight on this kind of thing, lowered interest rates to 0% and is buying $700B of treasuries to stabilize the banks. So you know, only twice that much authorized to make things marginally better for banks and the stock market.

So I think maybe pretend that it was actually $2k per person. Other than losing your job this seems like a reasonable amount to hunker down and not eat out or go to events for 6 weeks. But if you lose your job long term... I think the effect is going to be much longer than a few weeks of people working from home.

It is $1k per adult which would be $253B. Families would get $2k...unless you are in Utah.

This is $2500 for your family as a whole, not $1k, sounds like it would get you through at least a month.

$1000 per adult and $500 per kid.

It's unclear to me why most arguments leave this data point out -- it drastically changes the entire equation!

The answer to your question is obvious: You have to read the article to get that information, it's not in the headline.

Its also not about paying mortgages.

In fact if you go for any sort of loan they are not allowed to factor the $1k into your income.

If they do that, the costs of living goes up by $1k universally and it's a waste of time.

> Am I way out of band or does that seem like a comically small amount of money for the average American?

You are way out of band. The average American can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, lives pay-check-to-pay-check and doesn't have education beyond high school. $1k month would be HUGE for the average American.

Most common jobs are truck driving, retail workers, food prep and service.

You probably just live in an echo chamber where most people you live around and associate with are college educated people in professions like IT, Marketing, Accounting, etc.

Sure, it is huge if you have your regular paycheck. But as a paycheck replacement because the preschool you work at has closed for 6 weeks? It isn't so large. It might be what you bring home every couple of weeks. (Preschool teachers often need a 2-year degree and get paid minimum wage or just a bit more).

That $1k only works if it is on top of normal wages.

Last I checked for someone getting $0, vs they now get $1k every month, that is a pretty big deal. Even if it by no means covers all expenses. It is the difference of being absolutely fucked, vs being kinda fucked, but you now have a much better chance of transitioning or making things work. Also if it is 1k for every adult, then a household with 2 adults (a spouse or significant other), now is getting (as a unit) $2k a month, that is not insignificant and can easily cover mortgage/rent and then some for most Americans.

Sure, it is better than nothing, and might cover expenses for the month. Or might not. But people are acting like folks are going to go on a spending spree - this only works if you are getting a regular paycheck anyway. This isn't gonna happen. It is survival money if it replaces regular wages, and maybe less than that if they are taking taes out.

It won't go very far in replacing income, but it could push a lot of people from a high risk category into a low risk category.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

– David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens

Demand-side stimulus, especially to middle- and lower-class citizens tends to have very high multipliers. The intent isn't simply to say "here's $1000 so you can live the high life" it's $300B worth of fresh aggregate demand to keep businesses in business that will turn into more $500B once it's finished circulating.

Even in China, lockdowns are starting to be lifted now after like 2 months. So buying people two months is a HUGE deal.

There are other measures in talks too, like eviction protection during the duration of the outbreak as a state-wide in California. Utility companies have agreed not to shut off power and water for those late on their bills. So $1000 would go a long way keeping people from not starving, and maybe even go further to cover all costs like you mention in your case.

Two adults working 40/hours a week for minimum wage would bring in 30,160 /year.

If we apply this article's suggestions to your situation: 2,500 (2 adults, 1 child) * 12 months is 30,000 /year.

Like you said, too many people live paycheck to paycheck and our minimum wage keeps it that way. You can barely survive on it.

My interpretation was that flat $ amounts are leaving a lot on the table, with the extreme divergence of COL in cities vs. suburban vs. rural areas.

And I agree. I don't think the federal government should frame these things in terms of absolute $ amounts (I see the same thing in e.g. tax brackets and tax credits). The amounts should ideally be adjusted based on the COL and the dollar's purchasing power in the citizen's local area.

>Am I way out of band or does that seem like a comically small amount of money for the average American?

I take home $465.62 a week so it would be a little over 2 weeks of take home pay for me. I could absolutely use that.

To add to this, I am extremely stressed right now. I have an immune-compromised 67 year old parent, I work in international freight, I have a GED so am not too marketable if I lose my job, I've got a few hundred dollars in savings, I've got enough food for a couple of months for my mother and I, that $1000 even just once would help markedly in reducing my stress.

Add to that I'm supposed to be getting married in 68 days and who knows what's going to happen now. I don't even know if the courthouse will be open to get the marriage license (it's only good for 60 days).

None of this is good for my sobriety. 7 months 25 days, 15 hours. I got this. I can keep that number growing.

> I have a GED so am not too marketable if I lose my job

I'm the GP who started this huge thread but I just want you to know I got my GED in 2007 right before the last recession. Don't be so hard on yourself - you could have a remote job working for a company in SF like me :). It took a lot to get here but almost anyone can do it.

> Add to that I'm supposed to be getting married in 68 days and who knows what's going to happen now. I don't even know if the courthouse will be open to get the marriage license (it's only good for 60 days).

Why not just go down to the courthouse tomorrow and get married? Can you think of a better time? You're not going to disappoint anyone by cancelling the event.

> None of this is good for my sobriety. 7 months 25 days, 15 hours. I got this. I can keep that number growing.

Every day I wish I could get sober so in a way you have a wealth that I deeply desire :) Keep it up, it has got to be worth it.

Good luck and don't wait for the dust to settle to find yourself in a better position. I'll try to do the same thing.

>Don't be so hard on yourself - you could have a remote job working for a company in SF like me :). It took a lot to get here but almost anyone can do it.

Unlikely. I'm not a programmer and have no desire for it. Everything else remote wants people with years of experience and a degree in something like marketing or only hires via short term contracts for stuff like customer service/support and doesn't actually want to make you a proper employee. At least in my experience over the past few years.

A lot of places just flat out require a bachelors degree (especially startups once they get some investor money).

I might shoot you an email based on your contact info because this conversation doesn’t really suit itself to this type of forum.

I am not a programmer(but do computer things) but I didn’t do this stuff when I got my ged. Anyways I want to emphasize that your sobriety is really amazing and I genuinely look up to people such as yourself who can make it happen.

>Anyways I want to emphasize that your sobriety is really amazing and I genuinely look up to people such as yourself who can make it happen.

To get to this length I had lots of shorter ones building up to it. The previous 5 being 69 days, 27 days, 38 days, 127 days, 33 days, now into this stretch.

I've actually found this most recent stretch fairly easy, I avoid the liquor aisle like the plague at the grocery, I stopped using one drugstore because the liquor is kept at the counter and I stopped eating out (although that was rare anyway).

It's definitely a struggle most days still, sometimes even catching a whiff of hand sanitizer will put me in that mental space but since I've been basically bathing in hand sanitizer as we hot bunk desks at work with another shift, I've not had it trigger me since COVID-19 started popping up in the United States.

I think most of my success is just pure laziness. If I'm at home and get the urge for a drink, I'd have to get dressed and go out and then it becomes a 30 minute chore and I find I can talk myself out of going.

Using an app has helped a lot too, it gives me notification every morning and I can open it when I want a drink and watch the seconds tick by.

It is comically small, both in terms of impact and necessity.

It costs about $75 billion a week to pay the hourly workers of America. We can do that, even if it's only a fraction for the companies that don't have the cash on hand to do it for 4-5 weeks.

> And I am VERY lucky to have a bunch of cashed packed away.

Luck may not be the only factor. It sounds like you live responsibly/frugally as well, and reaping the benefit from it now.

I'm in a similar situation as the OP, and have heard that argument used for me. I don't like it. In order to live frugally and responsibly, I was lucky to have the upbringing that taught me to do it, and to not have anyone depend on me so that I could focus on getting to this point. I was lucky to live in a relatively wealthy country during a relatively stable time.

I made a couple of good decisions, and put in some effort, sure. But a lot of people work harder than me and make harder decisions every day, and they are doing a lot worse than me. What separates me from those people? Luck, mostly.

What you call luck is actually a set of economic signals that has incentivized good behavior and teaching good behavior.

If your Ferrari-renting, living above their means counterparts are bailed out while your frugal living means are not rewarded, then you are incentivized to live above your means when things return to normal.

There’s also just straight up luck. I was fortunate enough to get a decent job that paid well largely because I knew the right people; I have friends with similar levels of education who aren’t so well off.

They’re not any less thoughtful with their money than I am (in fact probably more so), it’s just a matter of circumstance.

"Knowing the right people" isn't exactly pure luck either. People do have a certain amount of influence over the social connections they (or their family) choose to cultivate.

It might not be "luck" but it certainly is privilege, I would call it "Economic/Wealth privilege". Which isn't to say it means purely rich vs poor, but it's much easier to be in an environment that fosters "knowing the right people" if you have economic privilege. Although not impossible, certainly unequal.

Let's add some more context: high school, the guy in question was a former student of one of my teachers from a few years before who visited from time to time. I chatted with him occasionally in class. Later in college I found out he worked for a local tech company, which was pretty rare in that area. Got a recommendation, got the job.

It was luck.

You apparently found him interesting enough to keep up on his activities after graduating, put enough effort into making a good impression that he was willing to recommend you, and took advantage of the opportunity when it presented itself. Not everyone would. Was there some luck involved? Sure. There always is. But it wasn't all luck.

I am certainly very lucky, but you are correct. I suppose a better word would be grateful, rather than lucky.

It's a way to prevent revolts from starvation, not to maintain your current living standards.

I believe Romney's proposal was $1000 per month.

I spend more than $1000/mo in Austin, but my essential costs (rent, food, utilities) have always been <$1000/mo.

$1000 won't cut it for everyone, but it will be enough for a lot of people, and disproportionately enough for people living from paycheck-to-paycheck. They've already had financial pressures to keep their standing expenses low. And keep in mind that this is per adult, not per household.

I believe that that is the point of UBI. It’s a huge benefit for almost every American, but it’s not enough to live on as that’s the point. It allows you to pay for the things you need and maybe go out a bit to help stimulate the economy, but you couldn’t just be a “free loader.” You’d still need to work. In the current pandemic that obviously presents some challenges, but it’s better than nothing.

That's the compromise: An idealized UBI would allow folks to live without working if they so choose. You might need to be slightly frugal, but you'd have normal things (phone, internet, car, etc). Most folks simply would keep working, though. It would allow folks to retire on their own terms and stop working for sickness if they choose.

It's a start. Americans will like it. They'll demand it again. And the government should keep giving it.

This is our opportunity to get basic income perpetually.

We should've had it decades ago already.

I mean, yes and no. It isn't enough to live for any significant length of time, but it would make a material difference for those living paycheck to paycheck.

You are correct. Especially given that expenses are hightened right now. People are stocking up all at once, which requires upfront money - something most of the country does not have.

1k is considerably less than even unemployment, which is also not enough for a huge portion of society. I would say 3k is probably the bare minimum for 1 month of self-isolation. Essentially expanding unemployment (just over 2k) to everyone.

I think its likely this would turn into $1K per month for a while. And, yes, for some people it would make an enormous difference.

1k/mo would make a huge difference for me even, but it sounded like a one time payment in the article.

I think this is a profoundly bad idea. It's just as dumb as the fed trying to prop things up. You're not going to solve this problem with money, but with a strong response to the root cause, the pandemic. That said ...

> My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still need to eat

I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.

> I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.

* facepalm * I'll edit to clarify.

$2500. Kids were worth $500 I guess.

A strong response to the pandemic will leave millions of people with no income. Many have zero in savings. These issues are tightly coupled: we can't expect people to make the right choices for everyone if doing so threatens their survival.

People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot afford to take unpaid time off. So they go to work and spread the virus. Providing them and others with enough money to at least cover their most dire bills reduces that need to go to work sick. If money is not provided to these people, the odds that they are soon homeless if their work closes down is very real.

~40% of America cannot afford a $400 emergency, all of those people are at real risk of hunger and homelessness.

Giving everyone cash allows the country the freedom to implement programs that run a real chance of preventing the spread. It also goes a long way towards preventing societal chaos as people without savings and suddenly no income are now provided a way to continue living and feeding their families.

> People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot afford to take unpaid time off.

Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance.

Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it. That's just redistribution of wealth by another means. Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic.

> charities ... churches, synagogues, etc., and frankly good old fashioned neighborly assistance

All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda. Charities have also come under fire for spending much of their funds raised on high executive salaries and not so much on actual aid to the needy. It is no surprise that much of the developed world no longer considers them a reasonable social safety net. (Indeed, in the Nordic countries the churches have largely given up their historical niche as a distributor of charity, since they feel the state can do a better job of taking care of the needy than they can.)

>> charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc.

> All of those things have displayed discrimination against groups they don't like in the past, or have an overt or covert missionary agenda.

The welfare office discriminates against groups they don't like? It has an overt missionary agenda? This is news to me.

You could cut out the vast majority of giving people $1000 they don't need by only giving it to people that ask for it. If you wanted to go further you could check the persons last tax return. If they exceed some threshold then you could deny them.

"Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance."

This probably works well in upper class neighborhoods, but a good portion of the US don't live in communities with much to spare. People unable to afford a $400 emergency or who rely on schools to ensure their children have at least one good meal a day generally dont have much to share with their neighbor. Most of the community organizations that serve those communities are in the same boat. Your suggestion also removes a good portion of people who don't attend religious services. Charities are limited in what they can provide.

Unemployment is difficult. For example to be eligible, Florida requires "You must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work. This includes being able to get to a job and have child care if necessary." Not many people hiring in the middle of a pandemic and further complicated by the closing of schools.

"Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it." ~75% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and 40% of US citizens cant afford a $400 emergency meaning that most of them do indeed need it.

"Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic." - You seem upset which I can completely understand in this stressful time but please note; looking to ensure that people, especially children have food to eat and can afford their most basic of bill should not be seen as a political agenda, its simply trying to be a good human.

Your point is absolutely valid, but there is no reason why the same doesn't apply to this new scheme as well. You would need to distribute the money and the same distribution problems apply. People are people.

Give everybody $1k? Who's everybody? If you're in this country illegally, do you get $1k? What about people who got stranded here due to border closures? How are you going to identify people? How will you stop fraud, double dipping, etc?

Maybe instead of creating a new bureaucracy in the middle of a crisis, use the existing systems that are already in place and just pump more cash into them?

I think focusing on 1, 10 or 100 people double dipping or potentially getting funds they should not have is besides the point. We implement this to keep people from starving and going hungry. Plenty of time to track down people who abuse the system after the crisis. As far as distribution that's not an impediment. The IRS already has a list of people and addresses and we can mail them a check. Is it complete? who knows but its a start and probably covers 95% of people. Not doing anything because of bleeding edge cases is not a solution.

The existing systems you mentioned before are not setup for mass distribution. There is no way the local unemployment office can scale up to 100x. In addition we are not going to just give money to the other private entities to distribute as they are not equipped to do so.

This. The purpose of the money is to address the immediate demand shortfall. We have until December to figure out who might have gotten more than their fair share and claw it back. Hell, even if a fair chunk is wired to Central America it will mean those people won’t starve.

We need to be A-10 Warthogging cash now and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What you don't get is Wall St and Corporate America will come up with 2000 different schemes to extract as much of that $1000 by tomorrow morning.

You're right, I don't get it. Its much better to have these people who are suffering under an economic collapse outside of their control go to work sick, and spread the virus before finally losing their jobs and homes and go without food instead of getting money and then using that money to buy necessities and in turn stimulate the economy. In addition the people who's children relied on school lunches should be glad they are not getting money to feed them so as to keep it out of the hands of big industry. Thank you for illuminating my ignorance I was blind to it before.

It wouldn’t be much per person for living alone but it would save families if it were really per person. A family of four would get 4000 per month, which for me would cover all family expenses.

If they are government student loans, I think the interest on those is gone for awhile.

That also seemed like a comically paltry move. I still have to make my payments, after all!

In addition my wife and I have spent the last couple of years with two incomes wiping away our student debt on high incomes in Seattle - so the only loans I have left are pretty low interest.

The only way I can see this working for everyone is to simply halt the economy altogether. No mortgages, no bills, free food, free medical care. Once we get a hold on the disease itself we can deal with the economic impacts.

I suspect the interest will help some quite a bit. Not everyone, of course.

I do think that the money would be better if targeted toward certain people versus peanut-buttered over everyone.

But the payment doesnt go down, it just applies more to principal.

It will benefit people more in the long run, but it's not short term relief.

Of course, suspend the payments through this crisis, but why should you not owe it?

Student loan interest on government loans is suspended? Am I reading this right?

EDIT: Found some info, although it's unclear what exactly qualifies the loan: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/business/student-loans-co...

Yes, it should be $10-15k, enough to get over the projected 150 day infection cycle.

No you’re not out of band. ‘A person is smart. People are dumb.’

Well, it's a stupid fucking idea, to begin with. If donald wants to throw money at something, he should throw it at the actual problem (implementing a vaccine for the virus, improving the shit health care system in the US, etc). Giving people money that they are too scared to go spend will do nothing, except get support for an election. But hey, donald has no interest in actually governing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com