3 ms·
> not $1200 for 10 weeks: more like $1200 per week I agree $1200 for 10 weeks is a bit low, but $1200 per week is really high and maybe a bit excessive? Can so
by rejschaap 6y ago
> not $1200 for 10 weeks: more like $1200 per week
I agree $1200 for 10 weeks is a bit low, but $1200 per week is really high and maybe a bit excessive? Can somebody get Andrew Yang back on the case?
- ummwhat 6y agoOnce you cancel out commuting costs, assume rent/mortgage debts have been erased for the relevant time period, and focus only on food, that $1200 could buy you 8 weeks. It works out to a bit over $20 a day. It wouldnt be comfortable living. In fact it would suck having cereal, pasta, and canned whatever 3 times a day. But you would survive. And if you want comfort you can always dip into your savings. This is all assuming the crisis is managed well enough that it actually ends in 8 weeks. Part of that is communicating the plan so people don't think they are choosing a risk of sickness over certain famine. Someone like Newsom or Cuomo needs to do a presser addressing how they are making sure the lockdown does not ruin you if you're living paycheck to paycheck.
- danaris 6y agoIt also assumes that commuting costs and rent are not in the picture, which, for many of those who need it the most, at least one still is. It further assumes that a) enough cereal, pasta, and canned whatever is available to purchase for everyone and b) that everyone is easily able to plan for exactly enough of all of it to get them through. I do not find any of these assumptions to be terribly credible.