Giving everyone money makes sense as fiscal stimulus once the economy is back to normal. It does not make sense now because people are avoiding spending and many will not need the $1000 and not spend it.
Sure but then isn't it better to take this approach - 80% of your salary for people out of work and nothing for people still employed - than to give an arbitrary amount of $1000 to everyone regardless of local cost of living?
While that supports people, which is the most important thing, it does not preserve the status quo jobs.
That means that when we are able to restart the economy, we start with massive unemployment and with companies which have simply ceased to exist. Much better to just put everything in the deep-freeze and then pull it out, ready to go when we can.
You can easily save 10 to 20% when unemployed because you don't have to pay for daily transportation (tube/train/car), lunch outdoors every day and a few other things. So the difference in disposable income is about null in most cases.
You can take lunch from home and eat that. I know enough people who do that. People who bought yearly or other long term tickets (majority of frequent travellers) dont save.
Even if that is the case, it's not your choice, as I said before - it does not apply to those voluntarily unemployed. You are projecting arguments of basic income onto an economic solution for a pandemic where people are suddenly forced into unemployment or unpaid leave for a very specific reason...
Given a lack of choice how can paying wages make any difference to their employment behavior. I'll repeat: this is not basic income.
Yes of course, that's exactly what's happening at the minute. Everybody who can't work is having the most terrific fun on this unplanned holiday time they've suddenly been handed where they don't have to pay bills or buy food or support dependents./s
You're surely just being deliberately naïve here, playing the naif? I just don't really see the point I guess
The point of paying everyone, or at least every adult, as that it's a lot easier to check for double-dipping (especially later when people know you will pursue them after finding out), than to spend weeks or months checking for all the zillions of corner cases and rules and demanding complex proof needed in ordinary benefits / social security schemes.
In the UK it is known, by government studies, that a huge amount of money that people are entitled to in benefits is never claimed because people either don't know about it or are put off by bureaucratic hurdles. Government officials generally don't draw people's attention to what they are entitled too, and often make mistakes, occasionally fatal (people have starved to death). And some people get what they are entitled to only by appealing bad decisions, with the appeal success rate being rather high.
Right now, especially for people such as those who are self-employed or with complex finances (savings and debt at the same time, etc), proving elegibility to benefits is very difficult, especially if done from scratch when they don't have well organised documentation to hand. (Normally it's a once-a-year thing, to file taxes.)
But the need for urgent finance in the current crisis is the same for everyone without enough cash.
Some self-employed or gig economy people are panicking about affording food right now, and retaining shelter; let alone bills, and that's a terrible situation to suddenly happen, especially to large numbers of people.
What I would advocate for, in a crisis such as this, is helicopter money to everyone at first, and then gradually introduce more nuanced systems that take a bit longer, and give people time to plan for. So that at least nearly everyone can be safe with regards to food and shelter in the short term.
To be honest, a small amount of double dipping doesn't matter a whole lot. Like oops, you changed your name and we sent cash to both names. shrug mistakes happen, keep it. The total expenditure is negligibly affected. Mistakes can be ironed out in time. Sneaky bastards will be caught with their hand in the cookie jar and prosecuted.
The money is meant to keep the economy working by encouraging spending, not specifically to help the recipient (though that will be a side effect in many cases).
Targeted help now and then a jolt when it's over.