84% of Americans say they need another welfare check

[hegemony]

54 minutes ago, Achillia said:

Lol! I think that is exactly what we have here. Its never a welfare check if it is yours.
 

I would argue that the stimulus *should* go to people who will spend it immediately so that it will actually act as a stimulus— e.g., the folks who are not already wealthy, the jobless, small business owners, etc. That’s how stimulus payments work. I read an article not too long ago by an upper income person who kvetched about how he was missing out on the opportunity to buy more equities. He was truly missing the point in my opinion.

Stop feeding the trolls who want to make this into a personal argument.

 

When you say "That’s how stimulus payments work." can you point to an historical example of stimulus payments to educate us? I mean an example where "stimulus" wasn't merely an advanced on tax liabilities. TIA

[nemo]

1 hour ago, NorCalR1 said:

The economy is driven by "JIT" with little room for error and it does not take much to disrupt their business

That fragility is frustrating, because there have been clues for many years that Just In Time is Too Darned Late.  Now the chickens have come home to roost in a big way.

 

Not that they could have forecast this particular crisis, but I really hope that from now on, those that survive will learn to build some flexibility into the supply chain.

[NorCalR1]

Then what do we call SF minimum wage going to over $16 in less then 2 months. I believe in Santa Clara county, it will go even higher this year. IN addition, all employers in SF are mandated to give employees sick time. Where else does this happen?

 

I saw signs at an In-N-Out in Fremont, California earlier this year where they were hiring immediately starting wage $18 and even then, that is STILL not a livable wage around here.

 

Homes in Monterey, SF, Santa Clara, a plethora of others are being snapped up within a week, but absolutely no negotiation in pricing. What about those just struggling to survive in a shared apt.?

 

Everywhere is different of course, and no disagreement here that the premise of our grandchildren are on the hook for all this debt and it may be that Social Security is no longer able to meet their commitments, coupled with AI and technology putting more and more people out of work.

 

Stimulus or welfare? Depends on who you ask I suppose. 

 

 

 

[hegemony]

8 minutes ago, NorCalR1 said:

Then what do we call SF minimum wage going to over $16 in less then 2 months. I believe in Santa Clara county, it will go even higher this year. IN addition, all employers in SF are mandated to give employees sick time. Where else does this happen?

 

I saw signs at an In-N-Out in Fremont, California earlier this year where they were hiring immediately starting wage $18 and even then, that is STILL not a livable wage around here.

 

Homes in Monterey, SF, Santa Clara, a plethora of others are being snapped up within a week, but absolutely no negotiation in pricing. What about those just struggling to survive in a shared apt.?

 

Everywhere is different of course, and no disagreement here that the premise of our grandchildren are on the hook for all this debt and it may be that Social Security is no longer able to meet their commitments, coupled with AI and technology putting more and more people out of work.

 

Stimulus or welfare? Depends on who you ask I suppose. 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY

[NorCalR1]

32 minutes ago, hegemony said:

 Perhaps the people spitting will change their opinions now that they are recipients of welfare and not "stimulus." Hence the need to acknowledge this is not something people have "earned" but instead is a welfare program they are benefiting from.

 

I've never seen anyone spit or otherwise use physical tactics toward any welfare recipients. Around here, admit it or not, most are just 1 paycheck away from joining the homeless. The eviction moratorium into July is not just some random date. It may very well be extended if the economy does not recover as expected.

 

So, is this the new norm? 

- Can't pay the rent and need a moratorium to avoid losing your home with next to 0 chance to ever get an apt again?

- Wait in line at food banks a couple times a week for food wasting countless hours?

- Rely on the Utility forbearance? Who pays your Medical bills? Dental bills?

- Suck it up, and take a min. wage job to get through this with no guarantees your old job is coming back?

- Watch the rich get richer as you slowly lose everything you worked so hard for?

- We all are required to shop at Dollar General because that is just the way it has to be to avoid welfare?

 

Again, welfare or stimulus. Depends who you talk to.

 

 

 

 

[cv91915]

 

[smartlypretty]

5 hours ago, Achillia said:

This is another reason why you should not call it “welfare” in my opinion. It is not in any way the same thing. It is a stimulus designed to save the economy and to prevent a huge portion of our population from being ruined in this pandemic. This actually is a major emergency. My gripe is only that it does not do enough. We need to make a longer and more thoughtful plan, preferably one that doesn’t get us killed.

 

To me, it looked as if not doing enough/arguably anything at all was the plan. Under 36 hours into the stay-at-home orders, there was crowing from high up about this damaging the economy.

 

And it is my position COVID-19 damaged the economy, not the orders. It's impossible to ... expecting the cogs in the economy to produce profits is like expecting fishermen to go out and fish during a hurricane. They're not gonna get fish and might drown. 

 

It is also my guess that the nothing stimulus and its slow dispersal was a tactic to incite people to protest the safety measures, which arguably worked.

 

There was an initial and still present idea the illness could just "wash over" the country and we'd be done with it, which was never going to happen the way people arguing for it expected. What we're doing now is a soft version of that, and it isn't good. 

3 hours ago, NorCalR1 said:

 

I've never seen anyone spit or otherwise use physical tactics toward any welfare recipients. Around here, admit it or not, most are just 1 paycheck away from joining the homeless. 

Not sure if anyone watches Contrapoints, but she recently did a video (which is long) called "Cringe," which touched on how people will hate people one step away from them the most, as a means of deflecting shame/blame/judgment.

 

If I'm poor + $10,000, I might project all the insecurity I have about my financial situation onto people who are poor + $0. At least I'm not like them. I have $10,000 more dollars.

 

Humans do that, project that way, primarily when we feel threatened by a life circumstance. By hating the poor, we feel more immune from becoming them. People might fail to qualify for benefits by being just over the line, and rail against it going to people who game the system. I see that a lot in social media comments, people who say "families like mine really need this, and we don't qualify, it makes me sick the people who get it don't really need it." 

[centex]

22 hours ago, Achillia said:

Lol! I think that is exactly what we have here. Its never a welfare check if it is yours.
 

I would argue that the stimulus *should* go to people who will spend it immediately so that it will actually act as a stimulus— e.g., the folks who are not already wealthy, the jobless, small business owners, etc. That’s how stimulus payments work. I read an article not too long ago by an upper income person who kvetched about how he was missing out on the opportunity to buy more equities. He was truly missing the point in my opinion.

Except that the whole point of THIS particular helicoptering of funds was not to get people to go buy overpriced crap from stores...it was because of the whining about the inability to have saved even enough to cover a few weeks of essentials.  And the government deemed it SO important that they could not even revise their records to screen out the dead people.  Instead, if you were over a threshold, no funds...under that arbitrary number and you get free money.  MANY who got it did not use it to pay bills or buy food...they took it the same as if they had won a scratch-off at the local corner store...

 

And now we are wasting even MORE tax dollars...

[smartlypretty]

3 hours ago, centex said:

Except that the whole point of THIS particular helicoptering of funds was not to get people to go buy overpriced crap from stores...it was because of the whining about the inability to have saved even enough to cover a few weeks of essentials.  And the government deemed it SO important that they could not even revise their records to screen out the dead people.  Instead, if you were over a threshold, no funds...under that arbitrary number and you get free money.  MANY who got it did not use it to pay bills or buy food...they took it the same as if they had won a scratch-off at the local corner store...

 

And now we are wasting even MORE tax dollars...

Do we have data which indicate that the stimulus money was spent primarily on televisions or phones or gaming consoles? Is this just speculation? 

 

This is just a random handful of anecdotes which are not meaningful in the aggregate.

 

I saw Business Insider ran a clickbait piece, and I've done a lot of work on "surveys" like this, and they are terribly damaging to serious journalism. At the beginning of the pandemic, one such "survey" went incredibly viral, claiming sales of Corona had plummeted because people were too stupid to know the difference. 

 

But that was a "survey" commissioned by a PR firm trying to get viral news mentions for free (and succeeding), and it did not reflect reality. The survey was also poorly structured. In the BI article, the "survey" was also commissioned by a PR firm seeking press mentions. 

 

Whenever someone is trying to sell you an inflammatory story about people doing something stupid like this, always look for the PR firm. If the results are PR, don't believe them. They are designed to create emotion-flaring headlines and get people to repeat their falsified conclusions.

 

Honestly this whole practice is a scourge on journalism and should be banned and any reporter who takes the bait shouldn't be a reporter. Same here, less inflammatory.

 

Also, money is fungible. If sales of TVs went up, that doesn't mean that the same people didn't spend the money on necessities too. A Boston Herald article looks possibly informative, but it's behind a paywall.

 

Most news coverage just talked to a few random people. This seems to be a mashup of survey and economists.

 

If I had to cite something credible, I'd probably check out this very recent NBER [PDF] report on how money got spent ("INCOME, LIQUIDITY, AND THE CONSUMPTION RESPONSE TO THE 2020 ECONOMIC STIMULUS PAYMENTS"):

 

Quote

In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the US government brought about a collection of fiscal stimulus measures: the 2020 CARES Act. Among other provisions, this Act directed cash payments to households. We analyze households’ spending responses using high-frequency transaction data. We also explore heterogeneity by income levels, recent income declines, and liquidity. We find that households respond rapidly to receipt of stimulus payments, with spending increasing by $0.25-$0.35 per dollar of stimulus during the first 10 days. Households with lower incomes, greater income drops, and lower levels of liquidity display stronger responses. Liquidity plays the most important role, with no observed spending response for households with high levels of bank account balances. Relative to the effects of previous economic stimulus programs in 2001 and 2008, we see much smaller increases in durables spending and larger increases in spending on food, likely reflecting the impact of shelter-in-place orders and supply disruptions. We hope that our results inform the current debate about appropriate policy measures.

 

Quote

While they were unable to examine the timing of spending in more detail due to data limitations in previous recessions, we demonstrate that households respond extremely quickly to receiving stimulus checks. Rather than taking weeks or months to spend appreciable portions of their stimulus checks, we show that households react extremely rapidly, with household spending increasing by approximately one third of the stimulus check within the first 10 days. Given that previous stimulus programs saw sustained increases in spending lasting six months or more, we would expect that the long-run impact of the current stimulus program would be much larger than the already sizable short-run effect that we have seen so far.

 

One notable difference from the stimulus program during the 2008 recession is the range of spending responses across categories. Previous research has found strong responses of durables spending to tax rebates and large stimulus programs, especially on automobiles (about 90% of the estimated impact on durables spending in the 2008 stimulus program was driven by auto spending). In contrast, despite a sizable response in non-durables and service spending, we see little immediate impact on durables. Even if we attribute the entirety of our observed response in the ‘Payments’ category to spending on durables, the magnitude is much smaller than the combined response in food and non-durables categories. Moreover, the payments category also includes rent and bill payments which compose a portion of the ‘Payments’ category increase.

 

This difference becomes even starker if we consider the fact that some prior literature has shown that larger payments often result in spending responses that skew more towards durables. Given the size of the 2020 stimulus checks, we might have expected large impacts on categories like automobile spending, electronics, appliances, and home furnishings. Instead it seems that individuals are catching up with rent and bill payments as well as engaging in spending on food, 15 personal care, and non-durables.

 

[Burgerwars]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:48 AM, NorCalR1 said:

Then what do we call SF minimum wage going to over $16 in less then 2 months. I believe in Santa Clara county, it will go even higher this year. IN addition, all employers in SF are mandated to give employees sick time. Where else does this happen?

 

I saw signs at an In-N-Out in Fremont, California earlier this year where they were hiring immediately starting wage $18 and even then, that is STILL not a livable wage around here.

 

Homes in Monterey, SF, Santa Clara, a plethora of others are being snapped up within a week, but absolutely no negotiation in pricing. What about those just struggling to survive in a shared apt.?

 

Everywhere is different of course, and no disagreement here that the premise of our grandchildren are on the hook for all this debt and it may be that Social Security is no longer able to meet their commitments, coupled with AI and technology putting more and more people out of work.

 

Stimulus or welfare? Depends on who you ask I suppose. 

 

 

 

I just looked up a picture I have in my cellphone. The sign in front of the San Francisco Fisherman's Wharf In-N-Out on February 6th said starting pay was $18, up to $20.50.  If I was a teenager I would think I hit pay-dirt earning that. To live in San Francisco on that would be impossible if you plan on living in an average one-bedroom apartment ($3,600 per month).

There is nothing wrong with these jobs, but they're stepping stones (not careers) unless one is looking to go into management. My first job was at a company owned Taco Bell. One thing I learned that fast food was never going to be a career for me. I eventually went into I.T. The pay is good, with no need to run around in a restaurant all day.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Burgerwars

[hegemony]

Americans use their $1,200 welfare checks to splurge at Walmart, Target and Best Buy — here’s what they’re buying

 

Quote

At Walmart and Target, shoppers bought more TVs, electronics, gaming equipment and apparel. Walmart also saw increased demand for adult-sized bikes.

 

At Best Buy, customers used their stimulus checks to buy computing and gaming equipment

 

 

[cv91915]

19 minutes ago, hegemony said:

Americans use their $1,200 welfare checks to splurge at Walmart, Target and Best Buy — here’s what they’re buying

 

 

 

WHO BUYS A TV AT W*****T?

[hegemony]

11 minutes ago, cv91915 said:

WHO BUYS A TV AT W*****T?

well I needed to get some water-based meat-like substance.

[shifter]

I just noticed my welfare check arrived last week! Had it sent to an account I never use so didn't even notice. Time for a trip to Walmart! 

[hegemony]

Car wash worker rescues man's $1,200 IRS welfare check from trash

[cv91915]

56 minutes ago, hegemony said:

Car wash worker rescues man's $1,200 IRS welfare check from trash

Before I click I want to make sure there's a victim in the end.

[cashnocredit]

I feel left out. No checks for me.  😷

[centex]

Saw an article yesterday that the IRS is now sending debit cards instead of checks and that the envelope gives no indication that it is from the IRS...seems people were throwing them away unopened LOL! 

 

I just have to wonder how long before people start whining that they cannot take the money out of the card without paying fees and that this is discriminating against them somehow and therefore THEY are entitled to more helicoptering...

[cputrwz]

My (insert whatever word you want to call it here) check is getting sent right back to the government... lol.  I owe 2,200 bucks on my taxes this year... so thank you government for paying my tax bill heh.

[NorCalR1]

3 hours ago, centex said:

I just have to wonder how long before people start whining that they cannot take the money out of the card without paying fees and that this is discriminating against them somehow and therefore THEY are entitled to more helicoptering...

I was thinking the same thing.

[dvd]

On 5/24/2020 at 12:58 PM, cashnocredit said:

I feel left out. No checks for me.  😷

Me too.

[hegemony]

Another round of $1,200 welfare checks?

[smartlypretty]

On 6/18/2020 at 7:20 PM, hegemony said:

Another round of $1,200 welfare checks?

A few of the credit -y channels I follow on YouTube have been doing daily, no-update videos about the possibility of a second "stimulus."

 

With like ... it's obvious the algos are reflecting desperate demand and people searching YouTube for any sort of news on this. 

[NorCalR1]

On 6/18/2020 at 4:20 PM, hegemony said:

Another round of $1,200 welfare checks?

"Meanwhile, because many people tend to save the money, there isn’t much benefit for the economy."

 

Exactly. You send them more money ($1200 individual, $2400 couples, +$500/per dependent max=3).

 

Some will go out and spend it on non-essential items expecting their will be more. The vast majority are smarter than that and will just leave it in their checking/savings accounts. No real economic benefit. 

 

 

 

[nemo]

56 minutes ago, NorCalR1 said:

The vast majority are smarter than that and will just leave it in their checking/savings accounts. No real economic benefit.

I wouldn't say there is no benefit.  It just isn't immediate.  If this situation goes on for another year, or another two years, or more, the money will be spent, and those who wait will be grateful that they didn't blow the money on nonessentials.