11 ms·

I really think we should not call these loans, as that obscures what they are. Like it or not, the vast majority of these will be forgiven. We could argue that

I really think we should not call these loans, as that obscures what they are. Like it or not, the vast majority of these will be forgiven. We could argue that it was a good use a stimulus funds, or a bad use, but it was basically fre money funneled through businesses in a fairly un-transparent way. Of particular reference here - startups that laid off employees and /then/ applied for a PPP loan https://layoffs.fyi/2020/07/06/these-startups-received-ppp-bailout-loans-but-still-laid-off-employees/ https://layoffs.fyi/2020/07/06/these-startups-received-ppp-b...

JackFr 6y ago
It's really not stimulus either. It's more correctly characterized as relief.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Arguably it's a pretty transparent way: We're looking at a database of companies that got them.
- xenospn 6y ago
  After they already got them.
  - otoburb 6y ago
    Better late than never? Some level of open retrospective analysis might allow for more carefully crafted policies in the future.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    We don’t know anything about their business. For all we know PPP prevented 100% layoffs and a company shutting down. Recruiting and hiring is hard. No one wants to lay people off. The rules of PPP also require maintaining the same number of full time employees in order to receive full forgiveness. Any company that received funds and then reduced staff will not have full amount forgivable.
marcinzm 6y ago
>Of particular reference here - startups that laid off employees and /then/ applied for a PPP loan Aren't these exactly the companies that SHOULD have received PPP? They were clearly struggling and without the money were reducing head count already.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  Why should taxpayers have bailed out businesses that couldn’t keep employees on payroll though? There is no end in sight to either corona virus or the economic downturn, so it’s just throwing 8 weeks worth of taxpayer money into bad investments. What’s going to happen within 8 weeks to ensure these employees won’t just be let go again?
  - revnode 6y ago
    > Why should taxpayers have bailed out businesses that couldn’t keep employees on payroll though? Because those same taxpayers voted in a government that prohibited many of those businesses from operating. > There is no end in sight to either corona virus or the economic downturn, so it’s just throwing 8 weeks worth of taxpayer money into bad investments. What’s going to happen within 8 weeks to ensure these employees won’t just be let go again? The purpose of the funds isn't to prevent future unemployment. It's to funnel funds to individuals who would otherwise be unemployed. The funds can only be used for payroll to be forgiven. So this is an unemployment payout by other means, in addition to the federal unemployment benefits that were expanded.
    - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
      Taxpayers owe businesses nothing, if a business can’t survive 8 weeks without a taxpayer bailout then it’s a bad investment and at this scale it is a fundamental weakness of the entire economy that should be fixed not propped up with taxpayer money. > The funds can only be used for payroll to be forgiven. That an odd way to say up to 25% of the loan can be used for non-payroll expenses like business rent...why are businesses getting loans to pay rent if it’s about employees? Employees didn’t get money for rent. If it was truly about “funneling funds to individuals” they could have just done that, not given it to businesses first with a 25% extra for non-payroll expenses.

JackFr 6y ago

It's really not stimulus either. It's more correctly characterized as relief.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Arguably it's a pretty transparent way: We're looking at a database of companies that got them.

xenospn 6y ago
After they already got them.
- otoburb 6y ago
  Better late than never? Some level of open retrospective analysis might allow for more carefully crafted policies in the future.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  We don’t know anything about their business. For all we know PPP prevented 100% layoffs and a company shutting down. Recruiting and hiring is hard. No one wants to lay people off. The rules of PPP also require maintaining the same number of full time employees in order to receive full forgiveness. Any company that received funds and then reduced staff will not have full amount forgivable.

marcinzm 6y ago

>Of particular reference here - startups that laid off employees and /then/ applied for a PPP loan Aren't these exactly the companies that SHOULD have received PPP? They were clearly struggling and without the money were reducing head count already.

throwaway_kufu 6y ago
Why should taxpayers have bailed out businesses that couldn’t keep employees on payroll though? There is no end in sight to either corona virus or the economic downturn, so it’s just throwing 8 weeks worth of taxpayer money into bad investments. What’s going to happen within 8 weeks to ensure these employees won’t just be let go again?
- revnode 6y ago
  > Why should taxpayers have bailed out businesses that couldn’t keep employees on payroll though? Because those same taxpayers voted in a government that prohibited many of those businesses from operating. > There is no end in sight to either corona virus or the economic downturn, so it’s just throwing 8 weeks worth of taxpayer money into bad investments. What’s going to happen within 8 weeks to ensure these employees won’t just be let go again? The purpose of the funds isn't to prevent future unemployment. It's to funnel funds to individuals who would otherwise be unemployed. The funds can only be used for payroll to be forgiven. So this is an unemployment payout by other means, in addition to the federal unemployment benefits that were expanded.
  - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
    Taxpayers owe businesses nothing, if a business can’t survive 8 weeks without a taxpayer bailout then it’s a bad investment and at this scale it is a fundamental weakness of the entire economy that should be fixed not propped up with taxpayer money. > The funds can only be used for payroll to be forgiven. That an odd way to say up to 25% of the loan can be used for non-payroll expenses like business rent...why are businesses getting loans to pay rent if it’s about employees? Employees didn’t get money for rent. If it was truly about “funneling funds to individuals” they could have just done that, not given it to businesses first with a 25% extra for non-payroll expenses.