5 ms·

$1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS

39 points by diogenescynic 15y ago

nodata 15y ago
So liquid cash, not assets, not investments? Seems pretty good to me, during a terrible recession.
- jtolle 15y ago
  Actually the article is talking about income. The current HN title is wrong. According to the linked article: "Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics." I do wonder what the figure would be for actual assets. Surely much lower than 20%, but I guess that would be hard to even calculate.
  - diogenescynic 15y ago
    I tried to use: Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability But it was still way too long, so I had edit the title down to fit it in.
    - jtolle 15y ago
      I don't know, maybe "20% of 2010 U.S. income came from..."? I don't have editing powers, though.
gaius 15y ago
Well as I said when Northern Rock collapsed, the best financial stimulus would be to refund everyone the income tax they paid for the last 12 months.
- jbooth 15y ago
  What exactly does that do for the people who've been out of work? 100% rebate on 0 is still 0, right? Not to make a political statement out of things but you're saying you'd prefer they didn't get their unemployment, giving that money back to me and you as tax rebates instead? Trying to see how your suggestion is relevant to the article.
  - gaius 15y ago
    In this scenario, anyone who'd just lost their job would have a lump sum of 40% of their previous salary, plus whatever entitlements they had for unemployment. Anyone still in a job would have that cash to either pay down their debts or to spend on goods and services that would sustain/create more jobs. It's a win/win scenario.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      So, cut taxes while increasing benefits? You should run for Congress :)
      - gaius 15y ago
        The money would come from not bailing out the banks. Or rather, bailing them out via individual bank accounts. Power to the people!
        jbooth 15y ago
        We turned a profit on bailing out the banks, actually. Or close to one, maybe lost a negligible amount when you weigh AIG against the profitable bailouts. The issue with stimulus via tax cuts (which actually constituted 1/3 of the stimulus bill we did get, you don't hear about that much, because it undercuts the obama as devil-socialist narrative), is that, as pointed out above, you're primarily putting money back in the pockets of rich people. They'll invest it and maybe that will trickle down a little but it's nowhere near the multiplier effect for the economy that direct consumer spending gets you. Poorer people spend the money, that gets it bouncing around in the economy. As a general ideological predisposition, tax cuts for the rich as a primary policy goal could theoretically make sense (although I'd suggest a hard look at the last 30 years first), but as fiscal stimulus for a down economy it just plain doesn't add up.
antidaily 15y ago
The article says "Close to $2 of every $10". No need to editorialize it.
- tjic 15y ago
  God forbid anyone reduce a fraction!
  - adolph 15y ago
    The fraction reduction seems inflationary.
    - seabee 15y ago
      Reading this thread you'd think the difference between 20% and 19% is as great as life and death.
      - antidaily 15y ago
        you're right, it's probably only a couple billion dollars.
    - Eliezer 15y ago
      This reminds me of that experiment where subjects who got $10 (or something) if they picked a red jellybean, preferred to pick from a bowl containing 7 red jellybeans out of 100 rather than 1 red jellybean out of 10, because they figured there were more red jellybeans in the first one. Some of them said they knew they were being irrational and then picked from the first bowl anyway. Yes, this is a real experiment. Apparently the concept of reducing a fraction is as genuinely foreign to Muggles as the concept of "well, if it's irrational maybe I shouldn't do it then".
paulpaul12 15y ago
With a growing poor population via the influx of immigrants getting out of our financial crisis will be an even slower process. This population is the 2nd largest and the fastest growing. They currently have minimal buying power. Case in point go to your local state park and witness America's future. The face of America in 30 to 50 years and the language we speak will be remarkably different. Im sure this will be downvoted as it's totally NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. But for me Im all about assimilation vs a massive population changing American culture. We are a melting pot and that's great but one who speaks English. I dont view myself as a racist(im sure this sounds otherwise) ... but if you go to one of your local US state parks you just might get the slap in the face I did(i live in PA). Again this new culture currently has no buying power just sucking off our systems and it will be years before they have buying power as a population to help our economy.
- maxharris 15y ago
  as a population Racism is a form of collectivism, and that phrase is indisputably collectivist: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html I agree that America should be a melting pot once again, but if you're going to champion American culture consistently, you must wipe collectivist ideas from your mind. We are all individuals, independent from one another, and we must be judged and thought of individually. Edit: to those that voted this down, why?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - chc 15y ago
    I'm not one of the downvoters, but my guess: 1. It's really irrelevant political squabbling. It's annoying, but even worse, that kind of sidetrack can ruin sites by bringing in people who seek nothing more than to argue. I've seen it on other sites. Probably a lot of people want to avoid that kind of slide. 2. Your apparent argument is illogical. "Racism is a form of collectivism, and that phrase is indisputably collectivist [and thus that phrase is probably racist]" reduces to "X is a form of Y, and Z is indisputably Y [and thus Z is probably X]," which can be substituted with "A murderer is a form of human, and you are indisputably human [and thus you are probably a murderer]." And if you didn't mean to imply that the phrase was tinged with racism because it was collectivist, then it's an irrelevant reference to Ayn Rand, and many people find Ayn Rand references annoying enough when they're on topic. It doesn't demonstrate anything either way.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lojack 15y ago
so is this why my $10 only has $8 of buying power?
ratsbane 15y ago
How many dollars in wallets came from programs like the Department of Defense and the TSA? And how many came from programs related to research and teaching?

39 points by diogenescynic 15y ago

nodata 15y ago

So liquid cash, not assets, not investments? Seems pretty good to me, during a terrible recession.

jtolle 15y ago
Actually the article is talking about income. The current HN title is wrong. According to the linked article: "Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics." I do wonder what the figure would be for actual assets. Surely much lower than 20%, but I guess that would be hard to even calculate.
- diogenescynic 15y ago
  I tried to use: Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans’ wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability But it was still way too long, so I had edit the title down to fit it in.
  - jtolle 15y ago
    I don't know, maybe "20% of 2010 U.S. income came from..."? I don't have editing powers, though.

gaius 15y ago

Well as I said when Northern Rock collapsed, the best financial stimulus would be to refund everyone the income tax they paid for the last 12 months.

jbooth 15y ago
What exactly does that do for the people who've been out of work? 100% rebate on 0 is still 0, right? Not to make a political statement out of things but you're saying you'd prefer they didn't get their unemployment, giving that money back to me and you as tax rebates instead? Trying to see how your suggestion is relevant to the article.
- gaius 15y ago
  In this scenario, anyone who'd just lost their job would have a lump sum of 40% of their previous salary, plus whatever entitlements they had for unemployment. Anyone still in a job would have that cash to either pay down their debts or to spend on goods and services that would sustain/create more jobs. It's a win/win scenario.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    So, cut taxes while increasing benefits? You should run for Congress :)
    - gaius 15y ago
      The money would come from not bailing out the banks. Or rather, bailing them out via individual bank accounts. Power to the people!
      - jbooth 15y ago
        We turned a profit on bailing out the banks, actually. Or close to one, maybe lost a negligible amount when you weigh AIG against the profitable bailouts. The issue with stimulus via tax cuts (which actually constituted 1/3 of the stimulus bill we did get, you don't hear about that much, because it undercuts the obama as devil-socialist narrative), is that, as pointed out above, you're primarily putting money back in the pockets of rich people. They'll invest it and maybe that will trickle down a little but it's nowhere near the multiplier effect for the economy that direct consumer spending gets you. Poorer people spend the money, that gets it bouncing around in the economy. As a general ideological predisposition, tax cuts for the rich as a primary policy goal could theoretically make sense (although I'd suggest a hard look at the last 30 years first), but as fiscal stimulus for a down economy it just plain doesn't add up.

antidaily 15y ago

The article says "Close to $2 of every $10". No need to editorialize it.

tjic 15y ago
God forbid anyone reduce a fraction!
- adolph 15y ago
  The fraction reduction seems inflationary.
  - seabee 15y ago
    Reading this thread you'd think the difference between 20% and 19% is as great as life and death.
    - antidaily 15y ago
      you're right, it's probably only a couple billion dollars.
  - Eliezer 15y ago
    This reminds me of that experiment where subjects who got $10 (or something) if they picked a red jellybean, preferred to pick from a bowl containing 7 red jellybeans out of 100 rather than 1 red jellybean out of 10, because they figured there were more red jellybeans in the first one. Some of them said they knew they were being irrational and then picked from the first bowl anyway. Yes, this is a real experiment. Apparently the concept of reducing a fraction is as genuinely foreign to Muggles as the concept of "well, if it's irrational maybe I shouldn't do it then".

paulpaul12 15y ago

With a growing poor population via the influx of immigrants getting out of our financial crisis will be an even slower process. This population is the 2nd largest and the fastest growing. They currently have minimal buying power. Case in point go to your local state park and witness America's future. The face of America in 30 to 50 years and the language we speak will be remarkably different. Im sure this will be downvoted as it's totally NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. But for me Im all about assimilation vs a massive population changing American culture. We are a melting pot and that's great but one who speaks English. I dont view myself as a racist(im sure this sounds otherwise) ... but if you go to one of your local US state parks you just might get the slap in the face I did(i live in PA). Again this new culture currently has no buying power just sucking off our systems and it will be years before they have buying power as a population to help our economy.

maxharris 15y ago
as a population Racism is a form of collectivism, and that phrase is indisputably collectivist: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html I agree that America should be a melting pot once again, but if you're going to champion American culture consistently, you must wipe collectivist ideas from your mind. We are all individuals, independent from one another, and we must be judged and thought of individually. Edit: to those that voted this down, why?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- chc 15y ago
  I'm not one of the downvoters, but my guess: 1. It's really irrelevant political squabbling. It's annoying, but even worse, that kind of sidetrack can ruin sites by bringing in people who seek nothing more than to argue. I've seen it on other sites. Probably a lot of people want to avoid that kind of slide. 2. Your apparent argument is illogical. "Racism is a form of collectivism, and that phrase is indisputably collectivist [and thus that phrase is probably racist]" reduces to "X is a form of Y, and Z is indisputably Y [and thus Z is probably X]," which can be substituted with "A murderer is a form of human, and you are indisputably human [and thus you are probably a murderer]." And if you didn't mean to imply that the phrase was tinged with racism because it was collectivist, then it's an irrelevant reference to Ayn Rand, and many people find Ayn Rand references annoying enough when they're on topic. It doesn't demonstrate anything either way.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

lojack 15y ago

so is this why my $10 only has $8 of buying power?

ratsbane 15y ago

How many dollars in wallets came from programs like the Department of Defense and the TSA? And how many came from programs related to research and teaching?