This chart shows the biggest difference between the Great Recession and the pandemic recession:
Starting at the beginning of the Great Recession, personal income declined and didn't regain its old level for three years. But during the pandemic recession, thanks to trillions of dollars in direct aid, personal income rose. This is why NBER officially dated the recession from February to March 2020, a period of only two months. From April 2020 forward there was no recession, and income has been up substantially ever since then.
This is one reason that I'm skeptical about extending the eviction moratorium. It's true that no matter how universal, some people will fall through the cracks of any aid program. In this case, though, I'll bet it wasn't very many. That's one of the reasons that states have been so slow to distribute rental assistance: most of it just wasn't needed.
This seems a classic case of averages being skewed by the well-to-do. Everybody in a job that they didn't lose any income from and made under the cap for the stimulus checks ($2000!).... and whattaya know, it looks like the difference between the start of 2020 and right now is... about $2000.
Not saying that's the only reason, but the struggles of the lower quintile and renters in general (who tend to be lower income) are real.
Looking at this without looking at anything to do with renters in particular is not really worth anything.
Precisely. Billionaires are dancing....
And the fact that Wall Street is turning more of us INTO renters, rather than property owners, is left out entirely.
Enhanced unemployment made a big difference, too, though. A non-trivial number of moderately-paid workers actually saw income gains when they lost their jobs. Mind you, I vociferously disagree with the opponents of such measures (for starters, during the peak of the crisis we wanted workers to eschew employment and stay home). But they weren't wrong to point out quite a few people got raises when they got their pink slips.
All of the above. KD's post amounts to the kind of innumeracy typical of modern journalism.
Well, we can directly see the effects of the two stimulus acts, but, this is the sum average of all persons in the US. But, don't you want to see what the real median personal income is, rather than per personal income per capita? This would be a better representation of the people most at-risk of living paycheck to paycheck, likely to fall through the cracks that you don't seem to be worried about.
That is because it wasn't a recession. The shadows of recession in 2020 was the indebted subprime banking system and declining real corporate profits. The large transfers destroyed a good deal of those issues.....for now.
2008-11 was a correction that had been building since the late 90's.
"That's one of the reasons that states have been so slow to distribute rental assistance: most of it just wasn't needed."
Boy oh boy, if that's not a shot across the liberal's bow I don't know what is. What if this is more common than we think? What if some of our social welfare programs just aren't needed as much as the liberal tweeters think it is?
There surely are lots of poor people and poor children especially (so goes the conventional liberal wisdom anyway) but what if they get on just fine with the support they have already? Lefty progressives want to help more, right wingers don't want to help at all, but what if we already help enough? Is the status quo good enough?
Alternatively it’s an argument that people having money solves a lot of problems, and we should hand out more of it more often.
Ha! Well that is always the standard argument. Helping more is always the default position even if there is evidence suggesting it isn't needed. It is difficult, I think, to look and see what sort of circumstances lead to poverty in people's lives. Give them a good paying job and the problem will be solved. On the other hand, some really don't have the skills or abilities to work in some kinds of jobs. I see this every day where I work. Some people just can't do it even though they are making $25 an hour. It's amazing how many people crash out.
Hopefully they find some better fit elsewhere.
' Give them a good paying job and the problem will be solved.'
Yeah, progressives never think about getting people trained, employed, and making a livable wage. Never.
BAD PROGRESSIVES!
IIRC, conservatives properly decry such expenditures as wasteful, when they properly hold be going to cutting capital gains taxes.
"Helping" more? People who usually work had to stay home to save the economy and we paid them to do so. I wouldn't call that "helping". I'd call that being paid to do a job.
An interesting thing about the pandemic is that after 40 years of being told if workers made enough to live decently it would cause social disaster we were forced to try an experiment in people having a bit more money and the result was fine.
Federal aid provided to Americans is a joke, compared to actually modern nations. The status quo sucks, not just for poor people, but the 99% as a whole.
Why don't we put you on $600 a month and see how well you do?
And what the hell is a "lefty progressive"? A southpaw?
I'm going to give you a completely different reason why NY state, for one, has been so slow to distribute rental assistance here in NYC: because it pays to evict long-term tenants, my office is fielding a lot of complaints from tenants who've applied but whose landlords are not cooperating with the program by acknowledging that they are tenants. Because the program only distributes money if the landlord admits that the tenant applying for it is a tenant, any landlord can just opt out if it feels like it.
Reasons for a landlord to opt out? Evicting a long-term tenant is an excuse for a paint job and a new rental to a new tenant who'll pay more. Even where there isn't rent stabilization, getting a tenant out can be costly. A tenant who can't pay the rent due to covid is an easy eviction, as long as the landlord refuses to cooperate with the rental assistance.
Respectful I disagree with "That's one of the reasons that states have been so slow to distribute rental assistance: most of it just wasn't needed."
The impact of the Covid recession is lumpy: there are a robust number of renters who lost their primary source of income during the pandemic. While the various stimulus programs were robust (based on US historical standards) this aid was still inadequate to sustain many renters.
I also disagree with: "That's one of the reasons that states have been so slow to distribute rental assistance: most of it just wasn't needed."
I think the problem was, in most cases, governments had had no experience in delivering benefits to renters (other than Section 8 which is a separate issue). They didn't have established relationships and databases to work from.
Compare the problems with rental aid with the ability of USDA to get Trump's trade war benefits to farmers--the difference is USDA has a (long) history of dealing with farmers and even when Congress in its wisdom comes up with new programs for new problems it's able to deliver. "Infrastructure" isn't just concrete and steel, it's working governmental institutions.
Up Vote.
Like others, I think Kevin is being fooled by the "average" income. It is quite easy to find podcasts and articles describing people who have much lower incomes now. One of the biggest factors is families who were doing OK, but when Covid hit had to have one person stop working because they could no longer get child care.
I'm curious if the "per capita" is only for employed workers. I assume it is, but don't know. If it is then it is really hiding that millions of families had their incomes cut in half by the pandemic.
I think is my first post here. I work in the utility industry in the upper Midwest. Utilities can be recipients of some rental assistance money. I've dealt with 3 different jurisdictions trying to distribute rental assistance. One was quick to give benefits, two are still working it out. The difference was having an infrastructure already in place to distribute the cash. It's another piece of the puzzle.
Kevin, you clearly haven't done your research on the rental assistance and eviction moratorium if you think it wasn't needed. The delay in funding has nothing to do with a lack of applications and everything to do with an overwhelmed system, uncooperative landlords and applicants who are stretched beyond comprehension and about to snap. Case workers manage 50 to 100 cases at one time. Even after landlord compensation changed from 80% to 100%, many landlords have rejected the payments because they don't like government intervention or they don't want to do the paperwork or because they don't like dealing with people in financial distress. I've been working with these programs and I can assure you the need is enormous, even in generally prosperous Orange County. I'm very disappointed to see you blithely passing along incorrect information and pretending that all boats have risen with the most recent tide. That's not how things work for low income people.
Or because refusing tenant renal assistance is an easy way to evict tenants on the margin without too much effort.
"I'll bet it wasn't very many."
They say anecdotes are not data. True. But if anecdotes are not data what the hell are bets?
Another point: If everybody can afford the rent how come so many evictions are predicted by people who know what they are talking about?
In other words: If an eviction moratorium is not necessary it won't have much of an impact anyway.
Pingback: How much trouble are renters in these days? – Kevin Drum