9 ms·

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 withi

• CubsFan1060 7y ago
  If they are government student loans, I think the interest on those is gone for awhile.
  • tjr225 7y ago
    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.
    • CubsFan1060 7y ago
      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.
      • basch 7y ago
        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.
    • fortran77 7y ago
      Of course, suspend the payments through this crisis, but why should you not owe it?
      • tjr225 7y ago
        What exactly are you trying to do here? Criticize my life choices? You don't know me or my decisions. What if I did exactly what you said but happened to fall in love with a wonderful woman who happened to have a bunch of student debt? Why should _anyone_ to be expected to pay their student loans if all of the other sectors of the economy are going to shut down? The biggest mistake I making here is even attempting to have a discussion with you. Bugger off.
        • smabie 7y ago
          Because you made the choice? You can’t just decide you don’t like feeling paying because the economy is bad.
  • the_watcher 7y ago
    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-coronavirus-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/business/student-loans-co...
• irishcoffee 7y ago
  No you’re not out of band. ‘A person is smart. People are dumb.’
• maratd 7y ago
  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.
  • tjr225 7y ago
    > I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you. * facepalm * I'll edit to clarify.
  • CubsFan1060 7y ago
    $2500. Kids were worth $500 I guess.
  • danenania 7y ago
    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.
  • wonderwonder 7y ago
    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.
    • maratd 7y ago
      > 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.
• Miner49er 7y ago
  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.
  • abnercoimbre 7y ago
    It's unclear to me why most arguments leave this data point out -- it drastically changes the entire equation!
    • jandrese 7y ago
      The answer to your question is obvious: You have to read the article to get that information, it's not in the headline.
  • senectus1 7y ago
    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.
• leggomylibro 7y ago
  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-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the...
  • vkou 7y ago
    > 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.
    • leggomylibro 7y ago
      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?
      • champagneben 7y ago
        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.
        • leggomylibro 7y ago
          Still a useful data point. It would be nice to add this sort of action to the same toolbox which already contains quantitative easing.
• samayylmao 7y ago
  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.
  • cle 7y ago
    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.
• peterwoerner 7y ago
  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.
• unlinked_dll 7y ago
  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.
• KMnO4 7y ago
  > 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.
  • Fargren 7y ago
    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.
    • corebit 7y ago
      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.
      • ryukafalz 7y ago
        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.
        • nybble41 7y ago
          "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.
• neltnerb 7y ago
  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.
  • NeutronStar 7y ago
    It should be a monthly payment. This single 1k cash handout is a joke. The gov announced over $2T worth of measures to help the "economy", average Joe is about to get less than 1/6th the amount.
  • jhawk28 7y ago
    It is $1k per adult which would be $253B. Families would get $2k...unless you are in Utah.
• adrianmonk 7y ago
  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.
• tnel77 7y ago
  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.
  • Broken_Hippo 7y ago
    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.
• vb6sp6 7y ago
  It's a way to prevent revolts from starvation, not to maintain your current living standards.
• ryanmercer 7y ago
  >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.
  • ryanmercer 7y ago
    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.
    • tjr225 7y ago
      > 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.
      • ryanmercer 7y ago
        >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).
• myhf 7y ago
  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
• tootie 7y ago
  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.
• zarkov99 7y ago
  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.
  • tjr225 7y ago
    1k/mo would make a huge difference for me even, but it sounded like a one time payment in the article.
• staticassertion 7y ago
  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.
• hitpointdrew 7y ago
  > 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.
  • Broken_Hippo 7y ago
    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.
    • hitpointdrew 7y ago
      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.
      • Broken_Hippo 7y ago
        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.
• cactus2093 7y ago
  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.
• craftyguy 7y ago
  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.
• lkbm 7y ago
  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.
• rhizome 7y ago
  Yes, it should be $10-15k, enough to get over the projected 150 day infection cycle.
• true_religion 7y ago
  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.
• Rallerbabs 7y ago
  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.