49 ms·

That seems pretty silly. Me and probably a lot of other people would just put it aside and save because we don’t need the money. And for the people in some indu

That seems pretty silly. Me and probably a lot of other people would just put it aside and save because we don’t need the money. And for the people in some industries who are at risk of losing their jobs this is laughably little money. In Germany there is a concept called “Kurzarbeit”. Companies reduce work hours and salaries across the board and unemployment insurance makes up for some of it. This way mass layoffs are avoided. That’s the way to go in my view. But I guess the US will either do nothing or hand a lot of money over to the top income earners in the hope that they will “create ” jobs.

imperialdrive 7y ago
You, me, others may not need it, but then again we'd be paying for it with assets getting hit because if I understand correctly, this would be in place of bigger bail-outs so our stock/401k/real estate etc would take a hefty hit knowing we won't starve even with big losses.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dlhavema 7y ago
About 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So you are in the minority [1] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-in-5-us-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that...
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
> hand a lot of money over to the top income earners They just got their loan interest rates reduced. All with a nice excuse to cover for it.
mattmanser 7y ago
This is classic "me and my friends are rich, therefore everyone else is". You just don't realize you're in the top 10-20% of earners, and the difficulties of those underneath you.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  What I am saying is that more money should be given to people who really need it and no money to people like me (and a lot of HN readers) who don’t need it.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> just put it aside and save You'd better put it aside and save it, because they're going to raise your taxes by $2000 to pay for it.
triceratops 7y ago
> Companies reduce work hours and salaries across the board and unemployment insurance makes up for some of it. Isn't that the same overall effect as a lockdown and a direct cash payment?
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  People don’t get laid off.

imperialdrive 7y ago

You, me, others may not need it, but then again we'd be paying for it with assets getting hit because if I understand correctly, this would be in place of bigger bail-outs so our stock/401k/real estate etc would take a hefty hit knowing we won't starve even with big losses.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dlhavema 7y ago

About 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. So you are in the minority [1] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-in-5-us-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that...

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

> hand a lot of money over to the top income earners They just got their loan interest rates reduced. All with a nice excuse to cover for it.

mattmanser 7y ago

This is classic "me and my friends are rich, therefore everyone else is". You just don't realize you're in the top 10-20% of earners, and the difficulties of those underneath you.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
What I am saying is that more money should be given to people who really need it and no money to people like me (and a lot of HN readers) who don’t need it.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> just put it aside and save You'd better put it aside and save it, because they're going to raise your taxes by $2000 to pay for it.

triceratops 7y ago

> Companies reduce work hours and salaries across the board and unemployment insurance makes up for some of it. Isn't that the same overall effect as a lockdown and a direct cash payment?

Ididntdothis 7y ago
People don’t get laid off.