3 ms·

If you ignore that the whole goal of this was to prevent evicting people during a novel virus pandemic that killed over 600,000 Americans, sure, it might be "wo

If you ignore that the whole goal of this was to prevent evicting people during a novel virus pandemic that killed over 600,000 Americans, sure, it might be "worse". Something like 20 million people lost their jobs in March/April/May of 2020 - arguing that it would have been "better" for them to lose their houses too is beyond parody. Edit rather than replying to 5 people saying the same dumb thing: Sure, some people got assistance, many people even did, but when something like 1/4 of Americans have less than $5k in savings and the government stimulus payments took several months to reach bank accounts (more if you hadn't filed in prior years) -- maybe, just maybe further interventions were important to keep people off the street and out of communal housing?

ericmcer 5y ago
They lost their jobs but not their income. unemployment benefits and stimulus allowed all my service industry friends to come out ahead. I don’t understand why the strategy was to give people cash to cover their rent and also allow them to not pay it. That is obviously going to lead to a scenario where benefits get spent while rents go unpaid.
Unklejoe 5y ago
Most of the people who lost their jobs due to COVID were eligible for unemployment, and some even made more on unemployment than their job.
bdowling 5y ago
> arguing that it would have been "better" for them to lose their houses too is beyond parody. Homelessness was not the only outcome. Many of those unable to pay rent would have been able to borrow money, sell off assets, receive government assistance, make forbearance agreements with their landlords, or move to lower cost housing. The burden could have been shared among tenants, landlords, lenders, and governments. With the moratoria, however, all of the burden fell on landlords. Edit: Also unemployment (often expanded beyond normal payment amounts and extended for longer durations) and federal stimulus checks.
spookthesunset 5y ago
> If you ignore that the whole goal of this was to prevent evicting people during a novel virus pandemic that killed over 600,000 Americans, sure, it might be "worse" And the beauty is absolutely nobody can look at the data and truly say any of these massive government mitigations did a single bit of good at all. They, in my opinion, took something bad (600,000 people dead in the USA) and made it 100x worse.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  The rental market not clearing evictions for a year is "100x worse" than 600,000 people dying? This website is the worst.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    You are implying that messing with the rental market had anything to do with 600,000 people dying. The fact that 600,000 tragically died of covid doesn't mean any of these non pharmaceutical interventions helped at all. I fully expect history to show that it would have been vastly better to do absolutely nothing than what we did over the last 18 months.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      I'm not at all implying that. 600,000 people is a tragedy, I can't think of anything 100x worse than that, especially when given a list of "evictions were prevented for a year" and "people got stimulus payments that were maybe too generous". In your mind, what specific outcomes are 100x worse than they would have been without intervention?
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
        Show me that these non-pharmaceutical interventions actually worked at all? They were untested and completely unproven going into this mess and so far I've yet to see any evidence they have done anything more harm society for a year and a half. We've been running an uncontrolled experiment against unconsenting people--pretty damn unethical and immoral if you ask me. Again... all these health "experts" did is take something bad and make it 100x worse. Pretending these interventions didn't have any costs and gaslighting the hell out of anybody who brought up objections was one of the more evil things society has done over the last 1.5 years. Perhaps only topped by forcing people to die alone in the hospital because of "covid policy" or keeping kids out of school for more than a year and then forcing them to wear masks all day when they return all for a disease they aren't at all affected by... This last 1.5 years has been an absolutely shameful display of humanity at its worst.

ericmcer 5y ago

They lost their jobs but not their income. unemployment benefits and stimulus allowed all my service industry friends to come out ahead. I don’t understand why the strategy was to give people cash to cover their rent and also allow them to not pay it. That is obviously going to lead to a scenario where benefits get spent while rents go unpaid.

Unklejoe 5y ago

Most of the people who lost their jobs due to COVID were eligible for unemployment, and some even made more on unemployment than their job.

bdowling 5y ago

> arguing that it would have been "better" for them to lose their houses too is beyond parody. Homelessness was not the only outcome. Many of those unable to pay rent would have been able to borrow money, sell off assets, receive government assistance, make forbearance agreements with their landlords, or move to lower cost housing. The burden could have been shared among tenants, landlords, lenders, and governments. With the moratoria, however, all of the burden fell on landlords. Edit: Also unemployment (often expanded beyond normal payment amounts and extended for longer durations) and federal stimulus checks.

spookthesunset 5y ago

> If you ignore that the whole goal of this was to prevent evicting people during a novel virus pandemic that killed over 600,000 Americans, sure, it might be "worse" And the beauty is absolutely nobody can look at the data and truly say any of these massive government mitigations did a single bit of good at all. They, in my opinion, took something bad (600,000 people dead in the USA) and made it 100x worse.

mikeyouse 5y ago
The rental market not clearing evictions for a year is "100x worse" than 600,000 people dying? This website is the worst.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  You are implying that messing with the rental market had anything to do with 600,000 people dying. The fact that 600,000 tragically died of covid doesn't mean any of these non pharmaceutical interventions helped at all. I fully expect history to show that it would have been vastly better to do absolutely nothing than what we did over the last 18 months.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    I'm not at all implying that. 600,000 people is a tragedy, I can't think of anything 100x worse than that, especially when given a list of "evictions were prevented for a year" and "people got stimulus payments that were maybe too generous". In your mind, what specific outcomes are 100x worse than they would have been without intervention?
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      Show me that these non-pharmaceutical interventions actually worked at all? They were untested and completely unproven going into this mess and so far I've yet to see any evidence they have done anything more harm society for a year and a half. We've been running an uncontrolled experiment against unconsenting people--pretty damn unethical and immoral if you ask me. Again... all these health "experts" did is take something bad and make it 100x worse. Pretending these interventions didn't have any costs and gaslighting the hell out of anybody who brought up objections was one of the more evil things society has done over the last 1.5 years. Perhaps only topped by forcing people to die alone in the hospital because of "covid policy" or keeping kids out of school for more than a year and then forcing them to wear masks all day when they return all for a disease they aren't at all affected by... This last 1.5 years has been an absolutely shameful display of humanity at its worst.