Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i never said they were a sign of luxery.
i got samsung 75 inch a few years ago, triple dipped on a great deal and paid about 1100 all in (amex had deal with dell 100 dollars cash back so i split the payment across 3 amex cards) plus i got 10 or 12 percent back from ebates.
In 2008 i bought a 52 inch samsung lcd for 2,000 dollars which besides my car is the most expensive thing i've ever bought.and that was after several months of waiting for a good deal as tvs were way more expensive back then.
But I wasn't complaining about not being able to pay my food or rent. In 2005 i was broke recent college graduate and I wasn't out buying expensive tvs. It might not be a sign of luxery but if someone can't pay their rent or put food on the table they're idiots for buying 700 dollar tvs they don't need. Their poor financial decisions over and over again are a big reason they have nothing saved when **** hits the fan. If i went out and 200k on a car like a moron I would have no right to complain if i can't pay my bills.
If someone is working hard, struggling gets his with unexpected medical bills that wipe out their savings and then get hit with job loss i feel bad for them. If someone just blows all of their money on crap they don't need then cries when they lose their job about how screwed they are i don't.
My point is, if you can get a name brand for 700 you can get a knock-off for 350. TVs are cheap now. So much cheaper than they used to be. They last 10 years at least so on a month by month basis they are really cheap.
Plus you don't know that the people buying TVs and the ones who can't make rent are one and the same.
My point is, if you can get a name brand for 700 you can get a knock-off for 350. TVs are cheap now. So much cheaper than they used to be. They last 10 years at least so on a month by month basis they are really cheap.
Plus you don't know that the people buying TVs and the ones who can't make rent are one and the same.
Computers as well.
I last purchased a computer in 2014, an Alienware X51 at over $2,200. I've recently been looking into getting a new computer and I can get a top of the line gaming desktop for well under $1,500 ... I'm talking liquid cooling, i7 processor, RTX 2080 graphics card, etc. I've been kicking myself for waiting so long.
I last purchased a computer in 2014, an Alienware X51 at over $2,200. I've recently been looking into getting a new computer and I can get a top of the line gaming desktop for well under $1,500 ... I'm talking liquid cooling, i7 processor, RTX 2080 graphics card, etc. I've been kicking myself for waiting so long.
And monitors.
I noticed that too and am probably going to buy a new rig in the next year or so. I think they've hit a bit of a wall in terms of making gaming rigs more powerful, which is to say - video display technology. Yeah, we are in a kind of peak video performance, so it's getting cheaper as they're not able to exponentially improve anymore.
Stupid, stupid idea.
As another poster has commented, the $$ will simply fund whatever the family was buying anyway, like food and booze!
I am in the process of a bathroom renovation, with or without free money. So I'll just buy my shower door with that dough.
After that it will pay for the toilet and a Japanese washlet!
See how it works?
People will simply funnel the cash into their normal spending pipeline because money is fungible.
And what's left over will be saved or pay down debt, like much of the last 'stimulus money' was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Yes, that's exactly what the stimulus is designed to do -- to encourage your spending. When you buy that shower door, the supplier makes money. The shower door maker sees an uptick in orders. The shower door maker has to hire up to make more doors, and they order more raw materials.
This is called the "multiplier effect." One dollar of stimulus given to the middle and lower classes causes more than $1 in increased GDP. "Trickle up."
You clearly did not understand my post. I was spending the money REGARDLESS OF ANY STIMULUS !
And having gone to graduate school for economics I fully understand what the multiplier effect is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
Must be nice to have the funds to finance a bathroom renovation at a time of economic catastrophe and the stimulus check was not necessary. It's as if you are totally unaware that there are millions of Americans are not in your situation. They find themselves out of work through no fault of their own and those initial checks have long ago been spent on things like rent and food.
Yes, of course it's nice to be financially independent.
But I was trying to point out that the stimulus has been way too generous and much of the money was unneeded and therefore, unspent. Households under $50k should be the target demographic.. not $100k or $200k as the latest vote buyers are suggesting.
Of course everyone LOVES free money but really, is rampant, mindless consumerism the way to solve an economic crisis caused by a pandemic?
People need their jobs back, especially those in the service sector which have been closed down!
It's those people who need help the most, and except in the 'off the books' underground economy they are getting it.
P.S. I neither receive nor crave free money and it cannot goose my consumption because I have it well under control.
How do you think I got to this place, anyway?
Last edited by PamelaIamela; 05-20-2020 at 08:17 PM..
You clearly did not understand my post. I was spending the money REGARDLESS OF ANY STIMULUS !
And having gone to graduate school for economics I fully understand what the multiplier effect is.
Yes, of course it's nice to be financially independent.
But I was trying to point out that the stimulus has been way too generous and much of the money was unneeded and therefore, unspent. Households under $50k should be the target demographic.. not $100k or $200k as the latest vote buyers are suggesting.
Of course everyone LOVES free money but really, is rampant, mindless consumerism the way to solve an economic crisis caused by a pandemic?
People need their jobs back, especially those in the service sector which have been closed down!
It's those people who need help the most, and except in the 'off the books' underground economy they are getting it.
P.S. I neither receive nor crave free money and it cannot goose my consumption because I have it well under control.
How do you think I got to this place, anyway?
those making under 50k are making more not working, in many cases a lot more.
you are correct in that there are millions of people are in bad financial situations.
that doesn't mean someone who has money saved and doesn't need a stimulus can't recognize how stupid this proposal is. the restriction on when the money would have to be spent is idiotic. it won't stimulate the economy anymore than giving out that same money without the restriction.
the millions of people who are in bad financial shape- how does forcing them to spend the money in a certain time period stimulate the economy any more than just giving them that money? it doesn't. they'd spend it anyway.
there are also people making more money not working than they were working. there are people who should be fine but aren't bc they spend money like drunken sailors when times are good and save nothing for when times are bad.
it would be disingenuous to not mention them if you're going to mention the people who are in bad shape through no fault of their own.
All of this is true, there are certainly many in this category. But they didn't have the time to sort out just who is in need and who is not, or who saved and who spent prior to the pandemic. Millions of people needed those checks immediately, and yes they were meant to be spent on immediate needs. For you to dismiss the immediate need for funds to cover such luxuries as rent and food for so many Americans because some "didn't save enough" is pretty insensitive.
But people who are crying they can't pay for food and rent should not be buying tvs
To assume the people who are struggling to pay their rent are the ones shopping for TVs is utter nonsense. As we know, and have seen in this thread, many people did not need the checks. So this was free money to them and they made a purchase, which helps the economy.
I think a lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around what's going on. They're deluded by the markets doing alright, failing to realize the markets are dominated by a handful of tech companies and the Fed has propped them up to an extraordinary degree.
2.4 million more unemployment claims were announced today. Remember how we thought it was so awful during 2008-09 when the job losses were 800k a week for about a month? Well, now it's MILLIONS per week for TWO months!
And not all the jobs are coming back. Possibly up to around half of them are permanently gone. We've never had a recession that hit the service and entertainment sectors like this first. But this stuff will trickle up eventually.
If giving people 2K a month helps the economy and can indirectly create more jobs I don't have a problem with it. The only restrictions should be by income. No more than 100K per individual; they should have enough savings to get them by regardless of location.
At least 30 million are unemployed. Businesses have shut down for good. Rumors of a severe meat shortage are circulating. Something drastic needs to be done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
