
One way to fight a coronavirus recession: $1k for every American - spking
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-recession-direct-payments-americans-ubi-c3393d14-33ad-47c2-a739-f2fec150b212.html
======
tjr225
Am I way out of band or does that seem like a comically small amount of money
for the average American?

I live in an extremely low COL area and live well within my current means.
Assuming my work dries up and I don't have any savings, 3k$ would buy me two
months tops.

Just to give you an idea of how cheaply I live: Mortgage is ~800$/mo, Car is a
paid off 2006 Toyota Highlander, Student loan minimums of ~400$/mo, My wife
and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still
need to eat.

The average one bedroom rental in any given metro area, even in mid sized
cities, probably lands somewhere around my basic monthy costs. So, if you're a
single person in the city you might get one month out of 1k$.

And I am VERY lucky to have a bunch of cashed packed away. I assume at least a
large portion of this country is living paycheck to paycheck.

~~~
maratd
I think this is a profoundly bad idea. It's just as dumb as the fed trying to
prop things up. You're not going to solve this problem with money, but with a
strong response to the root cause, the pandemic. That said ...

> My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we
> all still need to eat

I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.

~~~
wonderwonder
People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot
afford to take unpaid time off. So they go to work and spread the virus.
Providing them and others with enough money to at least cover their most dire
bills reduces that need to go to work sick. If money is not provided to these
people, the odds that they are soon homeless if their work closes down is very
real.

~40% of America cannot afford a $400 emergency, all of those people are at
real risk of hunger and homelessness.

Giving everyone cash allows the country the freedom to implement programs that
run a real chance of preventing the spread. It also goes a long way towards
preventing societal chaos as people without savings and suddenly no income are
now provided a way to continue living and feeding their families.

~~~
maratd
> People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot
> afford to take unpaid time off.

Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular
channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches,
synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance.

Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it. That's just
redistribution of wealth by another means. Don't shove your political agenda
down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic.

~~~
wonderwonder
"Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular
channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches,
synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance."

This probably works well in upper class neighborhoods, but a good portion of
the US don't live in communities with much to spare. People unable to afford a
$400 emergency or who rely on schools to ensure their children have at least
one good meal a day generally dont have much to share with their neighbor.
Most of the community organizations that serve those communities are in the
same boat. Your suggestion also removes a good portion of people who don't
attend religious services. Charities are limited in what they can provide.

Unemployment is difficult. For example to be eligible, Florida requires "You
must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work. This
includes being able to get to a job and have child care if necessary." Not
many people hiring in the middle of a pandemic and further complicated by the
closing of schools.

"Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it." ~75% of
Americans live paycheck to paycheck and 40% of US citizens cant afford a $400
emergency meaning that most of them do indeed need it.

"Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a
pandemic." \- You seem upset which I can completely understand in this
stressful time but please note; looking to ensure that people, especially
children have food to eat and can afford their most basic of bill should not
be seen as a political agenda, its simply trying to be a good human.

~~~
maratd
Your point is absolutely valid, but there is no reason why the same doesn't
apply to this new scheme as well. You would need to distribute the money and
the same distribution problems apply. People are people.

Give everybody $1k? Who's everybody? If you're in this country illegally, do
you get $1k? What about people who got stranded here due to border closures?
How are you going to identify people? How will you stop fraud, double dipping,
etc?

Maybe instead of creating a new bureaucracy in the middle of a crisis, use the
existing systems that are already in place and just pump more cash into them?

~~~
wonderwonder
I think focusing on 1, 10 or 100 people double dipping or potentially getting
funds they should not have is besides the point. We implement this to keep
people from starving and going hungry. Plenty of time to track down people who
abuse the system after the crisis. As far as distribution that's not an
impediment. The IRS already has a list of people and addresses and we can mail
them a check. Is it complete? who knows but its a start and probably covers
95% of people. Not doing anything because of bleeding edge cases is not a
solution.

The existing systems you mentioned before are not setup for mass distribution.
There is no way the local unemployment office can scale up to 100x. In
addition we are not going to just give money to the other private entities to
distribute as they are not equipped to do so.

~~~
coredog64
This. The purpose of the money is to address the immediate demand shortfall.
We have until December to figure out who might have gotten more than their
fair share and claw it back. Hell, even if a fair chunk is wired to Central
America it will mean _those people_ won’t starve.

We need to be A-10 Warthogging cash now and not let the perfect be the enemy
of the good.

------
vearwhershuh
This is how we should manage the money supply, and it should be monthly.
Direct, debt free issuance of a citizens dividend to every US citizen. Coupled
with a wind-down of the debt bubble. Maybe take Steve Keen's idea and require
that a certain portion of the payment be used to extinguish any debts.

Unfortunately whenever a president starts talking about this, he has a
tendency to be shot.

~~~
xyzzyz
> Direct, debt free issuance of a citizens dividend to every US citizen.
> Coupled with a wind-down of the debt bubble.

There are three ways to make it possible: 1) issue government debt to pay for
it 2) increase taxes to cover it 3) print money to cover it.

Number 3) will cause significant inflation, so it will effectively be paid for
by tax on cash savings. High inflation is really bad, it’s a terrible idea.

1) has the problem of only working temporarily: you cannot indebt yourself
indefinitely, at some point the service payments will become simply untenable.

2) is the only one practical, but the only way to make it work in practice is
to increase taxes all across the population. In result, this will be $1000
monthly only for the very poor. For people around the median, this will
balance out to zero or negative.

So, the only way this destroys debt bubble is by 1), inflation destroying cash
debt. This is _terrible_ : businesses will not have access to debt to finance
operations, mortgages will not be accessible for people without significant
savings to buy houses, etc. All around, a terrible idea.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term
we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. Those
(many of us on here) who won't use it for goods and services, but instead to
further prop up your asset bubble of choice. Ie not improve the economy much,
but make the appearance of improvement via higher asset pricess.

Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed. Both back in September,
and again last week, and why yet again just 30 mins ago. While we call them
short term loans, they still haven't been paid back since the start of the
GFC. And not only have we continued printing more via the Fed, when the fed
finally tried to get some companies to pay them back a year ago the repo
market siezed up last fall. The fact that there was a flood of Treasury
Securities on the market to pay for item #1 (it increased supply by 50%)
likely had a lot to do with it.

If you want the economy to function, then get money in the people who will
spend it. What's the factor? For lower incomes every extra dollar they have,
introduces 1.5x or 2x or something into the economy. And for every dollar
given to middle-high and high incomes only 0.4x or less actually goes into the
economy.

Propping up assets isn't a functioning economy.

~~~
xyzzyz
> You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term
> we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy.

$4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans
is much wilder than $1T of tax not collected over 10 years, yes. The former
number is 40 times larger than the latter.

> Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed.

No, we've done only small part of 3) via QE. QE over its history had bought
around $4T of assets, which is a far cry from what's required to pay every
American $12k/year. QE also doesn't directly "print money", and so Fed buying
$4T of assets has much smaller inflationary impact than actually printing $4T
and giving it to the government or people.

What I want is for people to be honest about how much basic income actually
costs, and where will that money actually come from. Quite simply, you cannot
double federal government spending overnight by some clever accounting trick
or increasing taxes on "the wealthy": there aren't nearly enough wealthy
people to cover that.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
> $4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans
> is much wilder...

"one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a
taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria."

You're arguing against something nobody proposed. Please compare the numbers
with whats actually being proposed.

~~~
xyzzyz
Nobody, except the commenter I directly responded to:

> This is how we should manage the money supply, and _it should be monthly_.

------
Red_Leaves_Flyy
I'm sure there are many Americans for whom this would be insufficient.
However, for my partner and I, and our immediate family this amount would
allow all of us to keep our heads above water without catastrophic financial
fallout, until society has restarted. I may be laid off this week. If I am,
and if unemployment is less than 50% my expected take home, and lasts more
than two months, then I am going to have to make decisions that will adversely
effect my credit through no fault of my own, except not having a sufficient
emergency fund built up. 1000/mo, even just for my entire household would
allow us to stave off entering arrears indefinitely.

------
maximente
i just don't see how UBI survives a highly polarized, segregated society
pumped out by the US media. imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they
find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or
etc.

in a weird way it dangerously exposes people as, according to "the economy",
particularly not valuable. the framing will go: these people are literally
doing nothing and we're supporting them financially, no questions asked. that
will draw a fair amount of outrage, i assume, given that the US can't even get
that done for older and poorer people.

that's why i think if you buy in to UBI, you sort of need whatever else Yang
brought with it - measuring societal value differently, etc. otherwise you are
looking at a situation where certain persons are going to be portrayed as
truly valueless, bc in the US the economy dominates so much. and i don't think
that bodes well for those people.

~~~
dionidium
_imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living
together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc._

You're right that it'll require a pretty fundamental shift in attitude. Some
folks will still think people like that are losers. That's fine. But maybe
we'll get to a point where they won't think such people, losers that they may
be, are doing anything they're not entitled to be doing. That's the kind of
shift in perception that's required to make it work.

We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that
they're entitled to those choices.

~~~
baumy
This comment is very weird to me.

The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled
to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how
it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax
dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively
contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will
continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I
truly hope that does not change.

Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize
this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for
those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is
hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment.

People have choices, and choices have consequences.

~~~
dionidium
_Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I 'm genuinely curious._

Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually
trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of
"freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly
demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path
for it, anyway.

------
Gunax
I too think this is silly. Everyone wants to use this disaster to achieve the
policy goals they wanted anyway. Republicans want to use it as an excuse for
tax cuts. Democrats want to expand public healthcare and benefits. Everyone is
trying to attach riders for domestic violence victims or pork spending or
whatever pet issue they have.

And now the Ubi folks want this.

Nothing changes. Same BS.

~~~
NamTaf
This is hardly a UBI. It's also been done before, for example in Australia
during the GFC.

The idea is to get money into the hands of people who will actually spend it -
the poor will tend to go buy their kid a desperately needed new pair of school
shoes, for example, whereas the rich will just throw it in with their other
savings. Only one of those stimulates the economy in the short term.

~~~
Gunax
While I agree it isn't UBI, I think it's UBI-light.

I am not necessarily saying it's a bad idea, I am just jaded that solutions
always follow existing political ties.

I am sure there are logical arguments for it. But there are also logical
arguments for tax cuts right now.

I am just an idiot on the internet. All I can say is I get skeptical whenever
an idea purports to solve any situation that arises.

------
salimmadjd
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard put a bill last week on the house.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
resolutio...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
resolution/897/text?r=5&s=1)

------
FabHK
Hong Kong will distribute HKD 10,000 to every citizen (about USD 1300).

USD 1000 for every American (while low) strikes me as a sensible, effective,
efficient, fast measure that helps the poor more than the rich. As such,
unlikely it will come to pass in today’s USA.

------
skandl
Simple, direct, democratic. $1000 is a good amount - for those in need it can
be stretched to go a long way (just imagine the status quo alternative). For
those who are more comfortable, it's an easy amount that can be saved,
donated, or spent on discretionary items, all wins for us.

------
Proziam
Can someone please answer this for me:

Why not simply _not tax_ individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and
taxes would have a much greater benefit as far as I can tell. This topic reeks
of political opportunism.

It looks like everyone in favor of 'UBI' (including politicians and
'influencers') is clamoring for this despite not considering (or, in the case
of the politicians, ignoring intentionally) any of the drawbacks.

1\. The money isn't 'free' it's coming out of tax dollars.

2\. Once a UBI concept exists, people begin to plan their lives around it. Any
changes to the system that aren't _increasing_ the amounts received then have
a huge negative impact on a large population.

3\. The average American household now carries significant debt, in the tens
of thousands of dollars range. They won't be stimulating the economy if they
are just paying back (part of) prior debts.

4\. Do we seriously trust the US Government to _not_ mess this up? California
is the [0] _world 's fifth-largest economy_ and still spends more than it
takes in, despite placing enormous tax burdens on its residents. The federal
government hasn't been any better, historically. At what point does the
economic house of cards come crashing down? Who gets crushed first if it does?

[0][https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-
ranks-5th...](https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th-in-
the-world-beating-the-uk-2018-5)

~~~
chadlavi
Or why not _appropriately tax_ them, especially the ultra high income ones who
sneak out of paying with dodgy capital gains and shell company plots, then use
_that_ money to give appropriate stimulus?

~~~
Proziam
If we assume that we need 1,000 dollars per month for every adult in the
country that means we'd have to increase taxes on "the ultra-high-income" to
the tune of [0]209,128,094 * 1000 = $209,128,094,000 per month. Or,
$2,509,537,128,000‬ per year.

We're talking about 'giving away' (using the term loosely here) 25% more than
the combined market cap of FAANG every other year.

Put another way, that is 76% of annual federal tax revenue at [1]current
levels.

No way that's sustainable.

[0][https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-
stat...](https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-
state/demographic-statistics-342)

[1.1][https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-
ta...](https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-
revenue-3305762)

[1.2][https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-
would-c...](https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-cost-
taxpayers-3-8t-per-year-study/)

------
bmj
_Romney said that the idea would "help ensure families and workers can meet
their short-term obligations and increase spending in the economy."_

Given that many states are closing all non-essential businesses, where,
exactly would the economy be stimulated? Stockpiling more toilet paper? I
realize that online retailers are currently still delivering, but how long
will that last?

~~~
ianleeclark
If people see precarious economic conditions, they tend to save more. By
having a semblance of a safety net, they're hopefully able to continue similar
consumption habits. It's likely that the supply shock were seeing today will
die down in a few weeks, which is when this would start to help.

------
fxtentacle
I predict that Americans hate their less wealthy fellow citizens way too much
for this to ever turn into reality.

------
wallflower
The $1.5T injection would have been about 5 months of $1,000 UBI.

~~~
refurb
Except the $1.5B injection was a loan, not an actual expenditure.

------
timwaagh
They tried that in Iran. The result: massive inflation. The system cannot
handle such a massive spike in demand especially if production is under strain
from covid. It surprises me Romney is for it because he was a politician back
when ahmedinejad tried that little stunt.

~~~
throw0101a
When has Iran _not_ have massive (>10%) inflation?

* [https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/inflation-cpi](https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/inflation-cpi)

Not since at least 1970 AFAICT.

------
maliker
There was a $300/person tax rebate during the 2008 recession in the USA. So
it's not that far fetched an idea.

I wonder how these kind of direct-to-consumer payments compare with
traditional monetary policy (cutting interest rates, securities purchases) in
terms of impacts.

~~~
strunz
Wasn;t it determined that no one actually spent that money and just paid of
debt instead?

~~~
jfengel
Not no one, but few. That's what the National Bureau of Economic Research
concluded:

[https://www.nber.org/papers/w15421](https://www.nber.org/papers/w15421)

"Only about one-fifth of respondents in the Reuters/University of Michigan
survey report that the 2008 tax rebates led them to mostly increase spending,
while over half said it would lead them to mostly pay off debt... [T]he
results imply that the rebates provided only a modest stimulus to spending per
dollar of rebate."

------
the_watcher
> He adds that the law "should also specify that the payments would continue
> in 2021 and beyond if the unemployment rate rises to 5.5% and remains there
> or higher. Hopefully this will not happen, but if it does, the money will be
> needed."

If it has this caveat, it's essentially just UBI, not a response to
coronavirus. I'm more sympathetic to UBI than I'd have once expected, but my
observation is that any response that creates a potential post-virus
entitlement is substantially less likely to pass, and at the moment, the
priority should be getting some relief out there. This is suboptimal, but
reality.

------
ouid
It's looking to me like the only way to fight the coronavirus recession is to
have a strong enough testing capacity that we can be relatively sure that the
people we are interacting with in the world do not have the virus.

------
tomcam
I assume my curiousity will be downvoted but I ask in a totally bipartisan
way: How much would it cost? I’m guessing $157 billion/month given that 157
million people are working. How would it be paid for? I assume it’s just put
on the credit card with the other $23 trillion or so we’re in debt?

Both parties have contributed hugely to the debt so don’t assume which side
I’m on here. And while I expect to be downvoted I truly want to understand the
long-term effects. Not saying I’m against it.

------
missedthecue
I think this is silly. The idea behind this is to induce demand, but there
isn't a lack of demand due to lack of purchasing power. People aren't spending
because they aren't leaving the house. (which, in the case of a pandemic, is a
thing to be encouraged)

I sincerely doubt that giving everyone a thousand bucks will save the
restaurants and bars and movie theaters and retailers and cruise ships and
hotels and airlines etc...

~~~
xxandroxygen
You're right, a thousand bucks a person won't save those things. But the
people who /were/ working at those restaurants/bars/etc now have a way to buy
food for the month. People aren't leaving the house but they sure still need
to spend on food, rent, basics.

------
tln
How about a $10k loan instead? Zero interest, paid back through IRS over 10
years, with decreasing amounts available based on last years income.

~~~
NamTaf
A loan may not encourage spending in the same way free, no-strings-attached
money does. For example, if you're poor and struggling pay-to-pay, would you
like the idea of borrowing knowing that it'll bite you later on when you have
to survive on _even less_ money due to paying back the loan?

On the other hand, absolutely no-strings-attached money might see you spend it
on something that you've needed for a while but haven't been able to afford.

~~~
tln
Quite true, my thought was that a loan can be a larger amount. $1k one time
on't change much, $10k would help people pay for food etc.

It's always possible to do both.

> Furman proposes Congress pass a "one-time payment of $1,000 to every
> adult..."

------
seemslegit
This won't help a recession one bit as it doesn't incentivize any economic
activity.

An average 1000$-worth of government-backed loan risk subsidy _might_ be worth
considering.

With fed interest rates near-zero people with good credit should already be
able to get pretty good short term loans and this will help those without a
credit score or with a poor one to be able to meet their obligations.

~~~
ianleeclark
> This won't help a recession one bit as it doesn't incentivize any economic
> activity

Please explain to me how, in a country where 76% of the population lives
paycheck to paycheck, putting more cash in their pocket doesn't stimulate
economic activity? When someone loses hours at their job due to no customers
coming through, how does making sure that person can still eat not, at bare
minimum, ensure they can still eat, not help with economic activity?

> With fed interest rates near-zero people with good credit should already be
> able to get pretty good short term loans and this will help those without a
> credit score or with a poor one to be able to meet their obligations.

Oh, cool, we put the fuckers in debt in times of highly uncertain economic
horizons, but we'll say it's helping them.

~~~
seemslegit
A subsidized loan will also put cash in their pocket, will do so more
efficiently because it should only be taken out by those who need it to the
extent needed. A 1000$ for the people who don't need it is basically a luxury
gift in hard times.

~~~
ianleeclark
Whenever you introduce means testing, you can never claim that the people who
truly need it will receive it, as you are explicitly offering avenues through
which they could be excluded.

~~~
seemslegit
I think there are more urgent testings the US is currently struggling to
introduce. Also, this bill is very explicit about "every American"

Look, There is a reason Romney is backing it - he knows this money will very
quickly find its way to high-markup low-value businesses, will not address any
structural problems but could be touted as trillion-dollars gift to the common
man by the Republicans come November.

------
paxys
America's immediate priority needs to be public health, not the stock market.
The economy will recover, dead people won't.

~~~
cscurmudgeon
The stock market is not a magical abstract thing that has no impact on
people's lives.

It has an indirect and huge impact on all of us.

~~~
dumbfoundded
Money in our pockets would also have a direct impact us on. Why include the
middleman? Let bad companies fail.

~~~
tathougies
I think the issue here is that companies could fail without doing anything
wrong. It's not just bad companies that will fail, but also responsible
companies that simply cannot weather a months-long economic standstill.

~~~
dumbfoundded
Other than the logistical difficulties specifically imposed by Covid 19, I
believe good companies should be able to weather a couple of months of double-
digit reductions in sales. Like if airlines or large events are forced to
close down, I could see helping them.

Everyone else who simply has to deal with a reduction in consumer spending
should take some responsibility for overbuilding for an overheated economy.
For whatever cause, the Fed has predicted a recession months ago.

------
davidgh
Using the same total expenditure, quadruple the amount to $4k, give it out
over 4 months ($1k per month), and only give it to those who are likely to
need it (based on current income). Use 2020 income tax returns to reconcile
the payments when actual income is known.

------
malandrew
My guess is that most of this money would be spent on businesses that are
still operating, which means that those businesses that are hurting the most,
because they are shut down, wouldn't see much or any of this stimulus.

------
lsllc
I think something like a $10K tax rebate per person would be more appropriate.

    
    
      1. It'll help people cover their bills
      2. It'll put a shit-ton of money out to help reboot the economy when this all blows over.

~~~
xyzzyz
Tax rebate doesn’t help if you don’t pay any tax, and if you’re out of work,
you’re also not paying tax.

For example, if you normally make the median income of $30k, but quarantine
put you out of work for 3 months, you’re down to $22,500, your federal tax
bill is ~$2700, and so this is most you can get from tax rebate. If you have
children, this is even lower.

While I agree that tax rebates are typically correct approach, here it’s not
the case: they won’t help much those who most need it, and they’ll help most
those who don’t need them at all.

~~~
refurb
Then make it a tax credit. Regardless of what you pays in tax (it could be
zero) you’ll get $X amount as a direct credit.

------
zbyte64
Or we could provide universal healthcare, but that would be crazy.

~~~
jakearmitage
How would that help at this point in time? Italy has universal health and it
is not helping. UBI, on the other hand, could make an impact.

~~~
foldr
>Italy has universal health and it is not helping

You can't just sat that universal health care isn't helping in Italy because
things are bad there. Things might be even worse if Italy didn't have
universal health care.

------
tengbretson
$1k per American seems laughably small. Imagine how many people we would save
if we gave $100k to every American?

~~~
magduf
Probably not that many, because that could result in massive inflation. Sure,
QE has shown that we can print some more money and inflation isn't affected
that much, but there have to be some limits to that. You can't just give
everyone $1,000,000,000 (1B) and not have some huge effect on the economy from
that.

~~~
tengbretson
It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. $100k per US household would only cost
~$10 trillion, which seems to be within one order of magnitude of the $1.5
trillion we just dropped without batting an eye.

~~~
magduf
Yeah, but my point is, if you take this to a ridiculous extreme ($1B per
person), this would surely cause a disaster. So somewhere between 0 and this
extreme, it goes from having little effect to having a big one, and I suspect
it may be non-linear.

------
erobbins
Honestly I'd like to see a 1 month quarantine, with the US government
guaranteeing the wages of everyone in the workforce for that time. Something
like 100% up to 50k/year, 75% of 50-100k, and cap it there. It would cost a
few hundred billion dollars but it would keep the "I have to work or be
homeless" people from being homeless and allow them to actually stay home for
that time.

~~~
ptruesdell
Just $10k for every full time employee in the US is over 1.3 trillion dollars,
so your numbers are pretty far off.

~~~
erobbins
1 month salary for every full time employee is not anywhere near that.
Especially capped at 1/12 of 100k/year

------
29athrowaway
Should not be for every American but rather people that need it.

~~~
Cd00d
Adding 'need' criteria is likely to add bloat, expense, and hoops that people
who _do_ need it will not always be able to jump through. Better to create an
emergency benefit with as little bureaucracy and paperwork as possible, even
if it means that some people that won't feel the impact will still benefit.

We get so caught up in keeping benefits away from the wrong people that we end
up simply not providing them broadly enough. It's counterproductive.

------
giarc
This method is good when you want people to go out and shop and spend the
money. What happens when millions of American's now have money to go out and
eat and go on vacation? That's the opposite of what we want.

------
trophycase
Nope, as pointed out by others. This doesn't do anything to solve the systemic
problems that allowed this to happen and us to be woefully unprepared for
this.

~~~
georgemcbay
I don't have any specific opinion on if the proposed action would be a good or
a bad thing (I'm not an economist or policy-wonk type), but it seems silly to
me to dismiss actions taken in a crisis just because they don't solve the
systemic problems that caused the situation.

Sometimes you need to stem the bleeding to buy yourself enough time to fix the
underlying problem.

------
danellis
Misleading headline. The proposal is actually for "every adult who is a U.S.
citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident".

------
selfishgene
I like how Mankiew nonchalantly remarks that $1000 "sounds about right."

Wonder if he consulted any of the models in his widely used Macroeconomics
textbook in order to reach this profound conclusion.

I think an even better way to help people right now would include Congress
putting an end to the price gouging of students who are forced to pay as much
as $200 dollars a pop to purchase textbooks (like Mankiew's Macroeconomics)
for their classes.

And there's an idea for Bernie Sanders too, who is gasping for breath on the
campaign trail now: instead of promising "free tuition" handouts, how about
asking government to play a role in establishing "fair tuition" (much like
Medicare already does in health care for seniors) that reflects the true costs
of educating students (using the latest technologies) in subjects that lead to
real jobs, after universities have been forced to cut the fat (starting from
the top!) out of their bloated university administrations.

~~~
LordOfWolves
Unfortunately, price regulations on textbooks (however possible) would only
affect the individuals "consuming" those textbooks, the majority of which are
traditional students.

This has been a problem for many years. Why the price of a textbook for a
particular course are not paid for via the cost(s) of that particular course
is beyond me. I am all for solving this problem, but it is one of many.

------
tibbydudeza
Well it seems a rather "socialist" a.k.a "handouts" or "welfare" which is an
anathema in GOP circles.

Perhaps they should do some mental gymnastics and rebrand it as "US Families
First Aid".

------
ada1981
That buys a decent amount of whiteclaw, instant lotto tickets and juul pods.

~~~
effingwewt
How is that any different from it going to folks better off who don't
immediately need it, and thus stash it in savings, etc.?

The point is it will be going to those who need it. Please don't throw the
baby out with the bath water.

~~~
ada1981
I’m actually a fan of UBI. Comment was more out of frustration as I’ve seen
idiotic behavior en mass from humans.

------
omgwtfbbqhihihi
That will last a week at best

~~~
Jtsummers
That depends on where you live. Prior to a recent move to a high COL area, it
would've lasted me a month, with $50-100 to spare (rent, utilities, and food
if I went for rice and beans and the cheapest meat I could find).

Cut out the optional services (streaming services) and fuel (not driving as
much, $100/month fuel cost gets reduced to maybe $20 for the isolation month),
and it can work in many parts of the country.

It probably wouldn't last long in San Francisco, New York, Seattle, and other
high COL areas. And to make it last, you'd need roommates, which creates a
hazard with regard to trying to create/enforce social distancing. But not
every city or region has crazy high rent. Some places are still sane.

------
Ididntdothis
That seems pretty silly. Me and probably a lot of other people would just put
it aside and save because we don’t need the money. And for the people in some
industries who are at risk of losing their jobs this is laughably little
money. In Germany there is a concept called “Kurzarbeit”. Companies reduce
work hours and salaries across the board and unemployment insurance makes up
for some of it. This way mass layoffs are avoided. That’s the way to go in my
view.

But I guess the US will either do nothing or hand a lot of money over to the
top income earners in the hope that they will “create ” jobs.

~~~
mattmanser
This is classic "me and my friends are rich, therefore everyone else is".

You just don't realize you're in the top 10-20% of earners, and the
difficulties of those underneath you.

~~~
Ididntdothis
What I am saying is that more money should be given to people who really need
it and no money to people like me (and a lot of HN readers) who don’t need it.

------
macinjosh
This makes no sense. Why would we give money to every American instead of just
those that really need help? If you aren’t living paycheck to paycheck just to
cover necessities you should have savings to fallback on. We should be giving
money and help only to people who need it. Not people who have over extended
themselves with credit card or student loan debt and no savings. People with
means could use a lesson in personal responsibility.

~~~
Jtsummers
Because means testing requires a massive, and in this case ad hoc, bureaucracy
established to evaluate who should get money. Good luck establishing that.
Mailing out checks is actually cheaper and technically feasible, in
comparison.

Additionally, not everyone in debt got there by way of lack of personal
responsibility. One ambulance ride and ER would send many minimum wage earners
into debt, even if they were responsible with their earnings.

~~~
belltaco
I think the IRS is much better set up for this than state run welfare
programs. Send a check out to everyone now but collect $950 more in taxes next
year from only folks that made more than $XX,XXX amount of money in 2020. Also
you could make it so that uncashed checks would be cancelled by next year and
you get a $50 extra refund.

------
tomp
I've been railing against this idea as uniquely stupid for the past few days.

1\. For people who are living "paycheck-to-paycheck", this won't even matter.
How far does $1000 get you in the US? A better policy would be a general
amnesty on rent and interest payments for a few months, and temporary free
healthcare.

2\. For industries where it's a demand shock (e.g. travel), no amount of
helicopter money will restart the demand. A better solution would be helping
the companies directly, to the extent the government wants to help them
survive, by e.g. tax write-offs or delays, emergency credit loans, or my
favorite, emergency equity (the free-market solution, if your company cannot
survive because of your poor panic, you don't deserve to own (all of) it).

3\. For industries where it's a supply shock (face masks, hand sanitizers,
possibly soon but hopefully not food), some kind of coupon-based rationing
(with the government paying the producers directly) would be a better
solution, providing just the necessities for survival and ensuring there's
minimal waste.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
On point one, that's just the thing. If I got 1000$ right now from the
government, I'd pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway, or I'd
save it because the economy is bad. I'd imagine most people would do something
similar.

~~~
PeterisP
> pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway

That's kind of the point. With a nearly imminent lockdown, many people would
not be able to pay for things that they have been paying all the time, and
that will bankrupt companies and break the economy. A cash injection that
allows you to pay for things that you're already paying for - and _get_ the
basic things you were already getting before - would be quite helpful.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
It's a one time payment.

It just delays everything by a month.

I fail to see how this solves the problem.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The goal is create as many delays as possible, to maximize the duration and
number of people who can stay home instead of spreading the virus. It doesn't
address the root problem because we can't solve the problem - people will
_have_ to go back to work eventually. We're not a post-scarcity society yet.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
I don't think 1 month of safety is enough to convince people who need to work
to not work. they'll simply say "what about next month."

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You're trying to convince people who are sick not to work. Nearly everyone who
is sick this month won't be sick next month.

------
vkou
This is not going to help.

The people who need the most help are the people who are going to be homeless
in a month. 1k will buy them a second month. This thing will not blow over in
two months.

What would help, is for mortgage and rent payments to be suspended as long as
the state of emergency lasts. Not deferred[1], suspended.

When economic activity stops, we have to stop rent-seeking from bleeding
everything out of the system.

[1] Deferral doesn't work. A bartender living paycheque to paycheque, who lost
his job because all bars were shut down is not going to be able to magic up
six months of back-rent in September. His landlord won't see a penny of that
owed money... But the landlord's bank will be demanding six months of mortgage
payments.

~~~
simonh
Then what happens to the people who's income depends on those rent payments. I
think an approach like this makes sense. The problem is immediate cash flow
for people. This is cash flowing to people. It may not be enough, but it's
moving in the right direction. We're not going to re-engineer the economy in
the next few weeks.

~~~
vkou
> Then what happens to the people who's income depends on those rent payments.

Since they also won't need to pay rent or mortgage, they won't get kicked out
of their homes, too. Which is about the most that people should expect when
the economy grinds to a halt.

Otherwise, tough. We're in a state of emergency, that is preventing their
tenants from getting paid. Just like their tenants, they'll have to deal with
it.

> We're not going to re-engineer the economy in the next few weeks.

1\. This is not going to blow over in a few weeks.

2\. We sure as hell shouldn't empty the treasury into the pockets of landlords
over a few weeks. They should not be the only people to walk out of this
unscathed.

Suspending rents and mortgages is the only fair thing to do. It costs the
state, and the taxpayers nothing, it puts everyone on an even footing, in
terms of continuing to have a roof to sleep under, and it doesn't screw us six
months down the road.

~~~
PeterisP
IIRC "getting kicked out of their homes" is not a thing during an official
state of emergency, it shouldn't be possible to evict renters for nonpayment
right now. The same should apply for mortgage foreclosures, penalty
interest/late fees on loans, etc - so if you can't pay these things because of
the emergency consequences, you simply don't pay.

We need to tackle the financial consequences of the related economic crisis,
but that can be done afterwards when all of this is over; right now what
matters is tackling health issues and also the immediate financial issues of
people being able to obtain core goods and services - and $1000 per person can
buy a decent amount of food and necessities; let's sort out the rent debts
when there's a vaccine available.

------
TheFiend7
The whole idea of UBI is honestly pretty idiotic. Any form of UBI should 1000%
be in the form of benefits, goods, housing, or other physical goods.

I'd much rather have tax cuts to reduce money lost through the middle man, as
the middle man always wants a cut. Meaning you'd lose far more money to the
process than if you were to just reduce taxes.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Any form of UBI should 1000% be in the form of benefits, goods, housing, or
> other physical goods.

We've tried this and it's a dumpster fire. The government builds low income
housing which is 100% people in poverty and it turns into a slum. The
government subsidizes home loans and student loans and it raises the cost of
housing and education. The government subsidizes food and then restaurant
workers who already have access to food can't use the money to fix their car
or whatever it is they really need right now.

People know what they need better than bureaucrats do. If you give them money
and they need food, they buy food. If you give them money and they need
transportation, they buy transportation. If you give them food and they need
transportation, you messed up, which is what consistently happens in practice
when you don't give them money.

~~~
TheFiend7
Fair but you just completely ignored the second half of my comment. Instead of
handing out money, don't take it in the first place?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
In general that's just the same thing. If the per capita average cost of
providing roads and schools etc. is $15,000/year then anybody you're taxing
less than $15,000/year is really getting a subsidy in the amount of the
difference. They get roads and schools and pay less in tax than they cost and
the other taxpayers have to pick up the tab.

Nothing about that changes at the point where the amount of "tax" someone pays
goes negative. They started getting a subsidy from other taxpayers when they
paid less than $15,000, not when they paid less than $0.

So if you want to call a UBI a "tax credit" then go ahead, but changing the
name to "tax credit" makes no mathematical or economic difference at all.

