51 ms·

40M Americans are at risk of eviction without a stimulus bill

44 points by LinuxBender 6y ago

janesvilleseo 6y ago
Off topic, but the lite version of CNN is a welcomed change. It was so easy to read. No distractions or funky formatted text.
- frockington1 6y ago
  Such a welcome change from the normal media site. The best part was not having click bait headlines or ads on the side, made the article feel more authentic.
jetpackjoe 6y ago
I know "stimulus" is in the CNN title, but I really hate that term. If the money is going towards rent and necessities, its not stimulus, its a life-line.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  One party believes anything you get from the government for free should be a 'stimulus' and not ongoing.
  - r2b2 6y ago
    What can a government provide for free that neither causes inflation, nor requires tax dollars? -- • The above stands whether temporary or ongoing. • Land distribution is kind of free as long as it's unclaimed and there's plenty.
  - ykevinator 6y ago
    Members of the party that dismisses social services as "handouts" should not get free rent
- roenxi 6y ago
  What gets me is surely, surely there is some better solution here than handing out money to everyone who has a problem. How many assumptions can be clumped into one headline. Can't let rents drop under market forces, can't let banks go bankrupt, landlords can't take a hit. Only the taxpayer can bear these burdens. This is the part that should really upset the free marketeers. The market wants to change and CNN wants government to step in and promote stasis. Some might call it stability. I don't think people should be out on the street, but someone responsible has to feel the pain for the mistakes here otherwise the root cause, whatever it is, will not be fixed.
  - josho 6y ago
    > feel the pain for the mistakes here otherwise the root cause, whatever it is, will not be fixed. In my opinion the mistakes are the decades long eroding of public services paired with the tolerance for growing inequality in society. Unfortunately neither party seems genuinely interested in addressing these root causes.
  - justin66 6y ago
    Dogmatism.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    The solution was not to go into quarantine in the first place like Sweden who has basically beaten Coronavirus at this point. Now we pay the price for poor decisions.
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    > Can't let rents drop under market forces, can't let banks go bankrupt, landlords can't take a hit. Sure, that'd be fine (well, it probably wouldn't be, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument) if we had months or years for the market to react. But it doesn't work that fast. By the time rents correct you'll have millions of homeless. But I guess that's better because... reasons? > I don't think people should be out on the street, but someone responsible has to feel the pain for the mistakes here otherwise the root cause, whatever it is, will not be fixed. Huh? The root cause is a once in a hundred year pandemic. What other solution would you propose, other than a time machine?
- tootahe45 6y ago
  Except the prices for rent and necessities would drop without the 'stimulus', so it's not like people would just die without it. All the stimulus achieves is stock market maintenance for the socialist in chief to be re-elected.
  - jetpackjoe 6y ago
    But then you enter into a dangerous deflationary cycle.
  - sixothree 6y ago
    > so it's not like people would just die without it People will go without medicine.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    it's somewhat reasonable argument for rent in regions where landlords have siphoned off huge economic rents, but for everyone else in the economy falling prices means economic damage as well, people are being paid with the money you pay for groceries and coffee.
Mvandenbergh 6y ago
If you're being evicted, you have a problem. If 40m people are being evicted, the landlord has a problem.
- coldcode 6y ago
  The bank that the landlord owes money to has the real problem, but they are backed by the Fed printing press. So in the end future generations have the real problem, dealing with the debt. But 40M homeless people is everyone's problem. In reality just paying the rent of 40M people is cheaper than anything else, assuming you care about society. Assuming a national average of $1000 per month rent, that's $40B a month, which is chump change compared to what the Fed is printing. Or, you can kick all these people out on the street, and give the money to the banks directly. Of course its 40M people being evicted, not 40M apartments. So these numbers will be closer to $10B a month.
  - formercoder 6y ago
    Banks don’t have much of that risk. MBS holders have the real problem.
- rbecker 6y ago
  Really a stimulus is just subsidizing inflated rents. And landlords are using the threat of mass homelessness to coerce the government into that subsidy.
  - steffan 6y ago
    That's a simplistic view that doesn't take into account property prices; not every landlord has owned property since the beginning of time, taking advantage of price increases. Imagine a retired teacher who decides to rent out a garage apartment to supplement her pension - is she taking advantage of 'inflated rents' if the rent amount barely covers a proportional amount of the mortgage? Additionally, landlords have to pay 'inflated property taxes', 'inflated utilities', and 'inflated garbage service' - these aren't discretionary costs for a property owner unless you advocate letting people stay in their apartments, but without landlord contributions to water, heat, cooling, garbage.
quattrofan 6y ago
Call me cynical but the fact white voters less badly affected surely must be in Republican calculations. Trump nonsense on mail-in voting is one thing but if you've got no address in the first place...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I think the level of political gamesmanship and "do anything to win" has long surpassed that point. I think the people making the decisions for the republican party care far more about blue ballots than black skin. The fact that blue voters are darker on average is just a coincidence to them.
  - mercer 6y ago
    Why yes, a history of overt racism in the republican party probably just suddenly disappeared! This stuff by no means lasts a full lifetime or propagates through generations!
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      The other side is always going to have the most racists because the manifestation of racism in politics is pushing public policy that is bad for minorities and what is bad for people in general (of which minorities are a subset) depends on what side you're on. The racists on the left think that we need to pump minorities full of welfare and government services in order to better subjugate them for their own benefit. The non-racists on the left think welfare and whatnot will help those people. The racists on the right think that the minorities are a lost cause, dead weight to society and that we shouldn't waste a penny on them. The non-racists on the right think that we we got the government out of their business as much as possible these people would be able to help themselves. Whichever group of non-racists someone's world view aligns with you will have a hard time spotting them on your own side because their racism just looks like good policy and you will see many more on the other side because their bad policy looks like racism. The republicans probably do have more racists in their base because they're the whiter party and for historical "convince the poor white man he's better than the black man" reasons but IMO when it comes to actually pushing policy the racist party is whichever one has more policy you think is bad.
bzb4 6y ago
Shouldn’t prices just go down according to basic market rules?
- megiddo 6y ago
  Yes. I would imagine prices would fall rather steeply as the amount of available housing shot through the roof. I bet good money that the decrease in rental prices after a eviction-pocalypse would be significantly more than a stimulus check.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The issue is that millions are out of work, meaning they have no income and therefore no way to pay rent. Landlords depend on rental income to meet their expenses running the property, so they’re faced with either letting people stay rent-free and losing income, or kicking people out so those who still have jobs are able to come in. Rents are coming down, but markets aren’t good at handling major financial crises like this, and lower rents mean nothing to those who are unemployed and can’t find work.
crims0n 6y ago
Federal protections expired on July 24th, that means the courts are about to be hit with 40M eviction cases at once? I can't even begin to imagine how long it would take to process that through the system.

44 points by LinuxBender 6y ago

Off topic, but the lite version of CNN is a welcomed change. It was so easy to read. No distractions or funky formatted text.

frockington1 6y ago
Such a welcome change from the normal media site. The best part was not having click bait headlines or ads on the side, made the article feel more authentic.

jetpackjoe 6y ago

I know "stimulus" is in the CNN title, but I really hate that term. If the money is going towards rent and necessities, its not stimulus, its a life-line.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
One party believes anything you get from the government for free should be a 'stimulus' and not ongoing.
- r2b2 6y ago
  What can a government provide for free that neither causes inflation, nor requires tax dollars? -- • The above stands whether temporary or ongoing. • Land distribution is kind of free as long as it's unclaimed and there's plenty.
- ykevinator 6y ago
  Members of the party that dismisses social services as "handouts" should not get free rent
roenxi 6y ago
What gets me is surely, surely there is some better solution here than handing out money to everyone who has a problem. How many assumptions can be clumped into one headline. Can't let rents drop under market forces, can't let banks go bankrupt, landlords can't take a hit. Only the taxpayer can bear these burdens. This is the part that should really upset the free marketeers. The market wants to change and CNN wants government to step in and promote stasis. Some might call it stability. I don't think people should be out on the street, but someone responsible has to feel the pain for the mistakes here otherwise the root cause, whatever it is, will not be fixed.
- josho 6y ago
  > feel the pain for the mistakes here otherwise the root cause, whatever it is, will not be fixed. In my opinion the mistakes are the decades long eroding of public services paired with the tolerance for growing inequality in society. Unfortunately neither party seems genuinely interested in addressing these root causes.
- justin66 6y ago
  Dogmatism.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  The solution was not to go into quarantine in the first place like Sweden who has basically beaten Coronavirus at this point. Now we pay the price for poor decisions.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > Can't let rents drop under market forces, can't let banks go bankrupt, landlords can't take a hit. Sure, that'd be fine (well, it probably wouldn't be, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument) if we had months or years for the market to react. But it doesn't work that fast. By the time rents correct you'll have millions of homeless. But I guess that's better because... reasons? > I don't think people should be out on the street, but someone responsible has to feel the pain for the mistakes here otherwise the root cause, whatever it is, will not be fixed. Huh? The root cause is a once in a hundred year pandemic. What other solution would you propose, other than a time machine?
tootahe45 6y ago
Except the prices for rent and necessities would drop without the 'stimulus', so it's not like people would just die without it. All the stimulus achieves is stock market maintenance for the socialist in chief to be re-elected.
- jetpackjoe 6y ago
  But then you enter into a dangerous deflationary cycle.
- sixothree 6y ago
  > so it's not like people would just die without it People will go without medicine.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  it's somewhat reasonable argument for rent in regions where landlords have siphoned off huge economic rents, but for everyone else in the economy falling prices means economic damage as well, people are being paid with the money you pay for groceries and coffee.

Mvandenbergh 6y ago

If you're being evicted, you have a problem. If 40m people are being evicted, the landlord has a problem.

coldcode 6y ago
The bank that the landlord owes money to has the real problem, but they are backed by the Fed printing press. So in the end future generations have the real problem, dealing with the debt. But 40M homeless people is everyone's problem. In reality just paying the rent of 40M people is cheaper than anything else, assuming you care about society. Assuming a national average of $1000 per month rent, that's $40B a month, which is chump change compared to what the Fed is printing. Or, you can kick all these people out on the street, and give the money to the banks directly. Of course its 40M people being evicted, not 40M apartments. So these numbers will be closer to $10B a month.
- formercoder 6y ago
  Banks don’t have much of that risk. MBS holders have the real problem.
rbecker 6y ago
Really a stimulus is just subsidizing inflated rents. And landlords are using the threat of mass homelessness to coerce the government into that subsidy.
- steffan 6y ago
  That's a simplistic view that doesn't take into account property prices; not every landlord has owned property since the beginning of time, taking advantage of price increases. Imagine a retired teacher who decides to rent out a garage apartment to supplement her pension - is she taking advantage of 'inflated rents' if the rent amount barely covers a proportional amount of the mortgage? Additionally, landlords have to pay 'inflated property taxes', 'inflated utilities', and 'inflated garbage service' - these aren't discretionary costs for a property owner unless you advocate letting people stay in their apartments, but without landlord contributions to water, heat, cooling, garbage.

quattrofan 6y ago

Call me cynical but the fact white voters less badly affected surely must be in Republican calculations. Trump nonsense on mail-in voting is one thing but if you've got no address in the first place...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I think the level of political gamesmanship and "do anything to win" has long surpassed that point. I think the people making the decisions for the republican party care far more about blue ballots than black skin. The fact that blue voters are darker on average is just a coincidence to them.
- mercer 6y ago
  Why yes, a history of overt racism in the republican party probably just suddenly disappeared! This stuff by no means lasts a full lifetime or propagates through generations!
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    The other side is always going to have the most racists because the manifestation of racism in politics is pushing public policy that is bad for minorities and what is bad for people in general (of which minorities are a subset) depends on what side you're on. The racists on the left think that we need to pump minorities full of welfare and government services in order to better subjugate them for their own benefit. The non-racists on the left think welfare and whatnot will help those people. The racists on the right think that the minorities are a lost cause, dead weight to society and that we shouldn't waste a penny on them. The non-racists on the right think that we we got the government out of their business as much as possible these people would be able to help themselves. Whichever group of non-racists someone's world view aligns with you will have a hard time spotting them on your own side because their racism just looks like good policy and you will see many more on the other side because their bad policy looks like racism. The republicans probably do have more racists in their base because they're the whiter party and for historical "convince the poor white man he's better than the black man" reasons but IMO when it comes to actually pushing policy the racist party is whichever one has more policy you think is bad.

bzb4 6y ago

Shouldn’t prices just go down according to basic market rules?

megiddo 6y ago
Yes. I would imagine prices would fall rather steeply as the amount of available housing shot through the roof. I bet good money that the decrease in rental prices after a eviction-pocalypse would be significantly more than a stimulus check.
save_ferris 6y ago
The issue is that millions are out of work, meaning they have no income and therefore no way to pay rent. Landlords depend on rental income to meet their expenses running the property, so they’re faced with either letting people stay rent-free and losing income, or kicking people out so those who still have jobs are able to come in. Rents are coming down, but markets aren’t good at handling major financial crises like this, and lower rents mean nothing to those who are unemployed and can’t find work.

crims0n 6y ago

Federal protections expired on July 24th, that means the courts are about to be hit with 40M eviction cases at once? I can't even begin to imagine how long it would take to process that through the system.