Hacker News Reader

Comment by 93po | Hacker News Reader

Also worth noting that many "first world" countries are providing a lot of stimulus for workers - many countries covering 75%-100% of an out of work person's pay.

In the US we've had a single $1200 check. American families don't have the option to stop going to work and have to do anything they can.

It's no wonder this breeds resentment to anything the government says, including to wear masks.

View on HN

I wish that misinformation would stop spreading. The United States had a very generous unemployment benefit of $600/week. A huge number of people came out of the pandemic financially much better off in July (when the stimulus ended) than before.

It was indeed generous if you qualified and were able to access it (a lot of systems were down / not functioning super well early on - especially in states like Florida). That said, it ended in July and there were many people who slipped through the cracks.

It was so generous, in fact, that I personally know many people who purposely delayed getting a job in order to keep collecting the benefit.

So what? Paying people to stay home is good policy during a pandemic.

The pandemic doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not as if we can ignore everything else and just mitigate for the pandemic at all costs. The economy and social infrastructure/interaction is extremely important to the physical and mental health of everyone on the planet.

To take you literally, all of life lives in a vacuum. Your argument is nonsensical in the worst of times. In the best of times, yes we make do and we ignore the plight of man. But I would hope that in war or in pandemics maybe we would in fact help each other out as these times remind of us our humanity where we all suffer for the common good. And when we get back to the the best of times, I would urge you to read up on Keynesian economics; if you want to float all the boats.

I've done plenty of reading on keynesian economics. I understand that it's not always a zero-sum game, etc. etc. Also, I never advocated for ignoring the plight of humans. We should always strive to help and lift each other. But there are always costs. We can all agree that I, for example, probably shouldn't give away my resources to the point that my children go hungry. But I certainly can make sacrifices to help others. I was never arguing that. Just saying that we can't evaluate the benefits we get without taking into account the costs. And just because the costs might be difficult to measure and don't feel as immediately sharp doesn't mean it is wise to be dismissive about them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com