4 ms·

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

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.
    - fao_ 7y ago
      > 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-trial-had-a-huge-effect-on-people-s-health 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_income_recipients_were_food_insecure_survey https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_incom... https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends_nixing_basic_income_after_study_shows_trial_s_benefits https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends...
    - 6510 7y ago
      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?
  - wraithKingPrime 7y ago
    It's borderline irrelevant. I'd want to see things like rent/mortgage payments alleviated or suspended for the duration.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      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.
      - GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
        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.
        eudoxus 7y ago
        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?
        magduf 7y ago
        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.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  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.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    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.
adventured 7y ago
> 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.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Yeah, income inequality is not a uniquely American problem. But it's still worth pointing out that even though $1k probably seems like a piddling amount to most readers of this site, it could still help a lot of people who are significantly less well-off.
  - nickcox 7y ago
    > income inequality is not a uniquely American problem That's true but there are only a handful of countries doing worse: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
- KptMarchewa 7y ago
  There is way higher number of situation where US Americans need to have 1000$ ready.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    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.

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.
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > 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-trial-had-a-huge-effect-on-people-s-health 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_income_recipients_were_food_insecure_survey https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_incom... https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends_nixing_basic_income_after_study_shows_trial_s_benefits https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends...
  - 6510 7y ago
    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?
- wraithKingPrime 7y ago
  It's borderline irrelevant. I'd want to see things like rent/mortgage payments alleviated or suspended for the duration.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    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.
    - GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
      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.
      - eudoxus 7y ago
        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?
        magduf 7y ago
        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.
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
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.
- m0zg 7y ago
  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.

adventured 7y ago

> 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.

leggomylibro 7y ago
Yeah, income inequality is not a uniquely American problem. But it's still worth pointing out that even though $1k probably seems like a piddling amount to most readers of this site, it could still help a lot of people who are significantly less well-off.
- nickcox 7y ago
  > income inequality is not a uniquely American problem That's true but there are only a handful of countries doing worse: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
KptMarchewa 7y ago
There is way higher number of situation where US Americans need to have 1000$ ready.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  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.