5 ms·

Sure people in the top 10% are not likely to need this money, but giving it to everyone is a lot easier and faster than figuring out who needs it the most. Eve

Sure people in the top 10% are not likely to need this money, but giving it to everyone is a lot easier and faster than figuring out who needs it the most. Even in that top 10% there are still people that live paycheck-to-paycheck. I was there not long ago. It's a lot better to give everyone the money and be wrong about ~10% of the people needing it then delay it for people who have bill past due right now.

ModernMech 7y ago
Yes, a lot of times you'll hear $100,000 as a cutoff for aid. I made $100,000 in the Bay Area. It doesn't go as far as people might think.
- newhotelowner 7y ago
  I lived in the bay area with a family and moved to Ohio in the middle of 2018. 1/3 of the population living on minimum wage in a 50k population town in Ohio. That is $18,000 per year. $100,000 has much more purchasing power than $18,000. For you saving $5000 is easy. For someone making minimum wage, saving $500 by the end of the year is impossible. If you have a car, your deductible might be 250-500. The majority of the minimum wage earners deductible is 500. They usually don't have that when accident happens. When the boiler goes out, it usually cost same to fix it for high earners and minimum wage earners.
  - ModernMech 7y ago
    Yes, $18,000 has less purchasing power than $100,000, but a lot of people still have this conception that people making $100,000 can't possibly be living paycheck to paycheck.
    - bsanr2 7y ago
      I generally challenge anyone who claims this to post a detailed budget. SF is expensive, but if it were so expensive that someone making $100k could not cut any expenses, it would not be able to function. Stop contributing to your 401k or something.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - ModernMech 7y ago
        Gross $100k Net after tax: $74k Monthly take home: $6166 Rent: $3000 ($3166) Health insurance + meds: $600 ($2566) Student loans: $1000 ($1566) Muni: $196 ($1370) Groceries: $400 ($970) Electricity: $90 ($880) Internet: $80 ($800) Cell: $150 ($650) Debt: $300 ($350) So that's $350 for a family of two at the end of the day to spend on life, in a city where two cheeseburgers can cost $50. A lot of times for me this would be spent flying home for holidays. It would take about 8 years to save up enough of an emergency fund to cover 6 months of expenses if 100% of that were put into savings, which isn't realistic. This is a salary that provides a comfortable life, but like I said, it's paycheck to paycheck. If I had a disruption in my income, I would be out on the streets in short order. None of that can really be cut except cell and internet.
        bsanr2 7y ago
        First, thank you. Now, I'll make cuts according to how people without means would. Rent: There are studios and 1-bedrooms to be had. Depending on who your +1 is, share a bed or put someone on the couch. $3166->$1500-$2000 Health insurance: Hah. Order your meds from overseas and cross your fingers. Or go without. $600->$0-$200 Groceries: Everyone on HN keeps telling me healthy food is cheap, you just have to be responsible enough to cook. $400->$250-$300 Cell: Budget plan and wifi. $150->$50-$80 Cut a few bucks from electricity by being super thrifty on energy usage, and save a bit of that debt for your tax refund. Looks like a few thousand dollars a month in "fat," and you still don't have creditors hounding you. Nice. I'm not saying that it's ideal to make these kinds of cuts. In fact, in the richest country on the planet, it's practically unconscionable that someone would work full-time and not live with the kind of stability, if minor uncertainty, you currently enjoy. I'm just saying that some of us also dropped half their paycheck into rent, at a quarter the pay, and made due. Well, lost ~$150 a month. With all due respect, there's zero chance I'd be irresponsible enough to be making 6 figures and still be living paycheck-to-paycheck. I say this not as an attack, but as a call for you to maybe interrogate and recalibrate your expectations for your spending and, by extension, your expectations for other people's spending.
- andbberger 7y ago
  Maybe if you have family, but that's a comfortable range for an individual.
  - guenthert 7y ago
    I was in the same situation. Comfortable? Well, worry free in a sense, but forget about buying a home. No American dream for ya.
  - ModernMech 7y ago
    I have a family. Lots of people have families.
SubuSS 7y ago
Why isn't it a direct credit towards rent and free food/water/meds instead of cash? Wouldn't that be a way to ensure it isn't stowed away?
- macintux 7y ago
  Setting up the bureaucracy to manage indirect funding would take significantly more time than we have. People are losing their jobs as we speak, and weeks-long quarantines are happening right now too. I have a couple of friends who have literally no idea how they’re going to stay housed and fed.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  Well, it's not the government that vends those things. So that's much much harder to administrate than stuffing and mailing millions of plain old paper checks, or even dealing with direct deposit. (Granted that checks have their own problems -- thousands of people don't have banks.)
- slantyyz 7y ago
  It's probably just simpler to administer if it's just universal vs having layers of red tape to manage and police it. You're never going to get 100% of it put back in the economy immediately, but I think a very large percentage of it will.
- iak8god 7y ago
  If I'm a person who doesn't actually need this to pay my rent, then I'm just going to use the rent voucher and take the cash I was going to use to pay my rent and stash that instead.
- egypturnash 7y ago
  Why do you care if some people just save it instead of spending on the necessities? What about people for whom this is pretty close to their rent/food/entertainment budget anyway? You want them to sit in their houses staring at each other with no way to pay their bills for [insert streaming entertainment service here]?
- 7y ago

ModernMech 7y ago

Yes, a lot of times you'll hear $100,000 as a cutoff for aid. I made $100,000 in the Bay Area. It doesn't go as far as people might think.

newhotelowner 7y ago
I lived in the bay area with a family and moved to Ohio in the middle of 2018. 1/3 of the population living on minimum wage in a 50k population town in Ohio. That is $18,000 per year. $100,000 has much more purchasing power than $18,000. For you saving $5000 is easy. For someone making minimum wage, saving $500 by the end of the year is impossible. If you have a car, your deductible might be 250-500. The majority of the minimum wage earners deductible is 500. They usually don't have that when accident happens. When the boiler goes out, it usually cost same to fix it for high earners and minimum wage earners.
- ModernMech 7y ago
  Yes, $18,000 has less purchasing power than $100,000, but a lot of people still have this conception that people making $100,000 can't possibly be living paycheck to paycheck.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    I generally challenge anyone who claims this to post a detailed budget. SF is expensive, but if it were so expensive that someone making $100k could not cut any expenses, it would not be able to function. Stop contributing to your 401k or something.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - ModernMech 7y ago
      Gross $100k Net after tax: $74k Monthly take home: $6166 Rent: $3000 ($3166) Health insurance + meds: $600 ($2566) Student loans: $1000 ($1566) Muni: $196 ($1370) Groceries: $400 ($970) Electricity: $90 ($880) Internet: $80 ($800) Cell: $150 ($650) Debt: $300 ($350) So that's $350 for a family of two at the end of the day to spend on life, in a city where two cheeseburgers can cost $50. A lot of times for me this would be spent flying home for holidays. It would take about 8 years to save up enough of an emergency fund to cover 6 months of expenses if 100% of that were put into savings, which isn't realistic. This is a salary that provides a comfortable life, but like I said, it's paycheck to paycheck. If I had a disruption in my income, I would be out on the streets in short order. None of that can really be cut except cell and internet.
      - bsanr2 7y ago
        First, thank you. Now, I'll make cuts according to how people without means would. Rent: There are studios and 1-bedrooms to be had. Depending on who your +1 is, share a bed or put someone on the couch. $3166->$1500-$2000 Health insurance: Hah. Order your meds from overseas and cross your fingers. Or go without. $600->$0-$200 Groceries: Everyone on HN keeps telling me healthy food is cheap, you just have to be responsible enough to cook. $400->$250-$300 Cell: Budget plan and wifi. $150->$50-$80 Cut a few bucks from electricity by being super thrifty on energy usage, and save a bit of that debt for your tax refund. Looks like a few thousand dollars a month in "fat," and you still don't have creditors hounding you. Nice. I'm not saying that it's ideal to make these kinds of cuts. In fact, in the richest country on the planet, it's practically unconscionable that someone would work full-time and not live with the kind of stability, if minor uncertainty, you currently enjoy. I'm just saying that some of us also dropped half their paycheck into rent, at a quarter the pay, and made due. Well, lost ~$150 a month. With all due respect, there's zero chance I'd be irresponsible enough to be making 6 figures and still be living paycheck-to-paycheck. I say this not as an attack, but as a call for you to maybe interrogate and recalibrate your expectations for your spending and, by extension, your expectations for other people's spending.
andbberger 7y ago
Maybe if you have family, but that's a comfortable range for an individual.
- guenthert 7y ago
  I was in the same situation. Comfortable? Well, worry free in a sense, but forget about buying a home. No American dream for ya.
- ModernMech 7y ago
  I have a family. Lots of people have families.

SubuSS 7y ago

Why isn't it a direct credit towards rent and free food/water/meds instead of cash? Wouldn't that be a way to ensure it isn't stowed away?

macintux 7y ago
Setting up the bureaucracy to manage indirect funding would take significantly more time than we have. People are losing their jobs as we speak, and weeks-long quarantines are happening right now too. I have a couple of friends who have literally no idea how they’re going to stay housed and fed.
wool_gather 7y ago
Well, it's not the government that vends those things. So that's much much harder to administrate than stuffing and mailing millions of plain old paper checks, or even dealing with direct deposit. (Granted that checks have their own problems -- thousands of people don't have banks.)
slantyyz 7y ago
It's probably just simpler to administer if it's just universal vs having layers of red tape to manage and police it. You're never going to get 100% of it put back in the economy immediately, but I think a very large percentage of it will.
iak8god 7y ago
If I'm a person who doesn't actually need this to pay my rent, then I'm just going to use the rent voucher and take the cash I was going to use to pay my rent and stash that instead.
egypturnash 7y ago
Why do you care if some people just save it instead of spending on the necessities? What about people for whom this is pretty close to their rent/food/entertainment budget anyway? You want them to sit in their houses staring at each other with no way to pay their bills for [insert streaming entertainment service here]?
7y ago