3 ms·

On point one, that's just the thing. If I got 1000$ right now from the government, I'd pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway, or I'd save it becau

On point one, that's just the thing. If I got 1000$ right now from the government, I'd pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway, or I'd save it because the economy is bad. I'd imagine most people would do something similar.

PeterisP 7y ago
> pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway That's kind of the point. With a nearly imminent lockdown, many people would not be able to pay for things that they have been paying all the time, and that will bankrupt companies and break the economy. A cash injection that allows you to pay for things that you're already paying for - and get the basic things you were already getting before - would be quite helpful.
- ntsplnkv2 7y ago
  It's a one time payment. It just delays everything by a month. I fail to see how this solves the problem.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The goal is create as many delays as possible, to maximize the duration and number of people who can stay home instead of spreading the virus. It doesn't address the root problem because we can't solve the problem - people will have to go back to work eventually. We're not a post-scarcity society yet.
    - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
      I don't think 1 month of safety is enough to convince people who need to work to not work. they'll simply say "what about next month."
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        My understanding was that it's a proposal to help people who'll be devastated by not being allowed to work. If we're trying to get people to stay home on a voluntary basis, yeah, I agree it won't help much there.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        You're trying to convince people who are sick not to work. Nearly everyone who is sick this month won't be sick next month.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    It gives a month to implement more complex measures. This is something that can be done pretty much instantly, a better solution needs time, this gives time.

PeterisP 7y ago

> pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway That's kind of the point. With a nearly imminent lockdown, many people would not be able to pay for things that they have been paying all the time, and that will bankrupt companies and break the economy. A cash injection that allows you to pay for things that you're already paying for - and get the basic things you were already getting before - would be quite helpful.

ntsplnkv2 7y ago
It's a one time payment. It just delays everything by a month. I fail to see how this solves the problem.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The goal is create as many delays as possible, to maximize the duration and number of people who can stay home instead of spreading the virus. It doesn't address the root problem because we can't solve the problem - people will have to go back to work eventually. We're not a post-scarcity society yet.
  - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
    I don't think 1 month of safety is enough to convince people who need to work to not work. they'll simply say "what about next month."
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      My understanding was that it's a proposal to help people who'll be devastated by not being allowed to work. If we're trying to get people to stay home on a voluntary basis, yeah, I agree it won't help much there.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      You're trying to convince people who are sick not to work. Nearly everyone who is sick this month won't be sick next month.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  It gives a month to implement more complex measures. This is something that can be done pretty much instantly, a better solution needs time, this gives time.