In what borders on tragic irony, the very inflation of which you write was in large part brought on by the increased government funding that was triggered by the covid pandemic. From mid-2019 until just a few months ago, Trillions of dollars were pumped into the economy. We could debate whether this was good or bad policy, but the reality is that the large input of cash, including the CTC expansion singled out above, caused people to make economic decisions that could not be sustained if the program was terminated -- or rather, WHEN the program was terminated.
In hindsight, policy decisions that looked necessary and even generous, have proven ultimately to be destructive. The families who will now be forced out of rental property, and thus face enormous hardship, made decisions when money was more available than it soon will be, and when rents had not yet responded to the increased money supply, or were frozen.
I know, "if the government had not overprimed the economy" is a counterfactual statement, but people with even a basic level of economic understanding will recognize that consumers make different decisions when government intervenes by doing things like freezing rents or pumping money into the economy.
It is, as I said at the beginning, a sad irony that government trying to make things better ends up making things worse. But we are seeing that now. Perpetuating programs like CTC only distorts the market and leads consumers to make poor decisions.
I have to admit that I found myself questioning a lot of this, too. Student loan forgiveness is something I’m completely against. I might feel differently if they wanted to look at it on an individual basis, but most of these loans were for advanced degrees for people who can afford to pay them. What’s also maddening is my nephew, who dropped out before completing his BA, owes $10,000. He could not pay on it while all of this “loan forgiveness” has been going on. Personally, I would have been putting that money aside each month, and maybe he did. He can afford to make the payments, and he will. But, the fact is, there is a lot of this kind of thing and worse.
Also, there are states that are sitting on a lot of Covid money because they, obviously, didn’t need it. It infuriates me just thinking about the money that was thrown at Covid relief, and how much has been wasted.
My main goal was to point out the reality that this squeeze is coming. And I don't think many appreciate the extent of it.
Yes, lots of waste in these programs, which were gamed by both individuals and businesses.
And certainly all the money that was pumped into the system was one of the causes of inflation.
And I agree that it was always unrealistic to expect people to put aside the extra money they were getting.
The expanded CTC was effective at reducing poverty which would have had a long time payoff if it had been made permanent at the cost of other programs whose efficacy and efficiency were inferior.
But we are where we are and many people are going to be under a lot of financial stress. And that will be a factor affecting the economic and political near future no matter how we judge the behavior and decisions of our government or of people who received the benefits.
Ah, the reason as I noted in another comment, is that this was not some inanimate "government" taking action. It was politicians who were buying votes. "I'm giving money to the poor, including many of you who are not poor. Remember to vote for me." Of course, no one dared say that, but the singular lack of exercising any forethought, of creating a means test, said it all. I'll grant that probably no one could have estimated the effects of the global supply problems, but we could have anticipated much of what happened if real thought had gone into these government actions.
This isn't hindsight. At the time, I said we should not have received any benefit and people close to me, surely some who would be described as privileged, did so.
I’m sorry David, this one really bothers me. We had a lot of assistance programs before Covid, and if they weren’t working because of lack of money, then that’s another problem. I don’t know if the best way to handle this is at the state or community level, but it sure isn’t the federal government.
I agree with Flier. Way too much money was thrown into the economy. I still see businesses having trouble finding workers. A lot of restaurants have stopped serving lunch, and have even cut back on the evenings they’re open. We are seeing a lot of people standing at street lights with signs, but there are still a lot of places that need employees. Some of these people look mentally ill, possibly, but the majority are young, physically fit, smoke cigarettes, have cellphones, and are dressed quite well. What’s that about?
I don’t know what to say about people who can’t pay their rent, but telling the home and apartment owners that they aren’t going to get paid is not a solution either.
Sorry, my thoughts aren’t all that cohesive, and I don’t have any overall strong arguments one way or the other. However, I know a mess when I see one, and this one is big.
My main goal was to point out the reality that this squeeze is coming. And I don't think many appreciate the extent of it.
Yes, lots of waste in these programs, which were gamed by both individuals and businesses.
And certainly all the money that was pumped into the system was one of the causes of inflation.
And I agree that it was always unrealistic to expect people to put aside the extra money they were getting.
The expanded CTC was effective at reducing poverty which would have had a long time payoff if it had been made permanent at the cost of other programs whose efficacy and efficiency were inferior.
But we are where we are and many people are going to be under a lot of financial stress. And that will be a factor affecting the economic and political near future no matter how we judge the behavior and decisions of our government or of people who received the benefits.
That sums it up much better, I think. Unfortunately, the government is just not very good at dealing with poverty. There are a multitude of problems contributing to this, and one that is really hurting everyone is mental health. There are more and more people living on the streets, and no one seems to have a workable plan on where to put them or how to realistically help them.
I’d be thrilled to see the people in charge do ONE thing, and get it mostly right. Instead it feels like whack a mole. You had a list of things Covid relief was supposed to help with, but it didn’t. It helped some people in the short term, but then what?
And, what you are doing is exemplary. This is often where people get the most and best help, at the grass roots. I also imagine that when you’re in the thick of it, you see it everywhere, and it’s overwhelming. I wish I had some good answers; I wish someone in government had some good answers. Right now it feels like we’re really floundering.
I had to stop at the second paragraph to offer a comment. The continuing and expanding use of "privileged" is, in and of itself, a problem -- at least to me. It is divisive and will surely create a backlash, if it has not already done so. It is, of course, imprecise and in that imprecision lies a major problem, but the greater problem is that many who the warriors call privileged resent the word because they have reached their economic status through a great deal of hard work. Were they born into circumstances that started them off on a better path. Some. Many. However, it is being used as a guilt lever. If you want allies, beating them with a guilt lever is, I think, likely to turn them away from you and possibly against you. Enough.
As to the use of privileged in writings about poverty, I think we must find another term. If not, we, too, are wielding the lever, however well-intentioned our writing may be. English has a lot of words. (Oxford lists 600,000). Surely we can find a better way to have this discussion, especially as it is intended to serve a good purpose.
Sorry for the interruption. Now back to our regular programming.
(Best Sponge Bob Narrator Voice) Four minutes later;
I have no argument with this. It does remind me of my feelings when the temporary programs were put in place. There was no means test so many, many folks who did receive some supplement didn't need it and that money could have gone to better help for the poor. (Yes, I called them poor, not under-privileged.) It also fed inflation which was totally foreseeable. This was all about politicians buying votes, of course, but we are left with the consequences. Money that might have been available to help those in need is gone.
There were means tests of varying degrees. The CTC was very generous where phase-outs didn't start until Gross Income was $75k per parent, so $150k for two parents. Medicaid has always been a means test.
The most popular programs with staying power tend to go up quite high on the economic ladder. The most efficient ones are based on direct payments. The more complicated the program the more fraud. The idealogical issue with the CTC was that it did not have a work requirement.
As for terminology, I admit to using shorthand (and perhaps revealing a bit of my own self-assessment) by using"privileged." A longer definition of those I was thinking about would have been "recipients of aid under these programs where such aid had a material effect on preventing their downward financial spiral."
Finally, I'm not familiar with the Sponge-Bob voice!
I cannot let this deficiency in your otherwise fine education go unaddressed. SpongeBob was a cartoon I watched with my grandson (now 25) and a narrator, in a faux french accent, would occasionally announce some passage of time: https://youtu.be/wiHYx9NX4DM
What would we do without YouTube?
As to the less important matter, I always thought the $75k mark for STARTING phase out assistance was ridiculously high. I also knew families in which both parents continued to work and earn full-time salaries and benefits while receiving thousands of dollars. Other than to buy votes, why was that necessary? We are retired. Covid did not hurt us financially. Why should we have qualified? Nonsense. Wasteful. Left less for those in real need.
I appreciated the "story" here to question my biased views. What I did not hear is how the native born US citizen is impacted? Or did I miss that. It started with those in the shadows. And what about my friend who is 62, body worn out from a life of manual labor, losing his food assistance benefits? He took is choosing between rent and food. Who is worried about helping him in the community? Or are we worried about the illegals who are in the shadows, or the people of Ukraine where another chunk of money was found to have been sent off somehow stuffed in a small pocket unannounced to us (I read this a day or so ago...money found to have been sent unknowingly?). I have compassion and I am fed up with the federal and state government putting illegal aliens ahead of US born people who are struggling. I agree none of these people out money away. How could they? They were on the razor's edge pre pandemic. I think that would be Polly Anna thinking to assume people would have saved money. Plus our dollar buys so much less that even if you saved, you're not going to make it easily through skyrocketing food gas, living prices. It's ludicrous and overwhelming. I don't know the answer. But I would like to stop paying for Ukraine (and other senseless money policies that we have no need to be paying for) and tighten our borders. Our Americans need our help, do they not?
I don't want to sound obtuse, but I am not sure we need to differentiate between US citizens, whether native born or naturalized, and immigrants, whether legal or not. Let me explain. . .
Citizenship surely comes with certain responsibilities and benefits, no question. But being a non-citizen resident in a place is a good reason to consider a person also has some of the same responsibilities and benefits. Because he or she is a noncitizen, can someone ignore your traffic laws? Of course not. If your neighbor (an illegal immigrant, let's say) has an infectious disease, do you want to leave him untreated? Do you want to leave his children uneducated, with all the social costs that come with that? Those are pretty straightforward considerations, especially when you know that education in America is locally funded, and your neighbor either pays property tax directly or pays rent to someone who pays property tax.
But let me pose an existential question, meaning it has to do with life or death, at least for our civilization. A demographer would tell you that a couple has to produce more than two children in order for the population to remain stable. Our population is now reproducing at less than two births per couple, on average. That means our civilization is losing population. Worse, our population is aging, meaning the general population is getting older as fewer children are being born. As a population ages it has fewer consumers, and with retirements, fewer producers. What this means is that without a constantly renewing population, we are facing an uncertain future.
Immigration is mostly a young phenomenon. That is, people are coming across our border are predominantly of working age or younger. Yes, some of them are mowing lawns and raking leaves, but many are starting entry-level jobs in supermarkets or the hospitality industry. They will be in management in a dozen years or so.
In short, immigration is not only a social cost, it ultimately adds to our nation. You might resent "freeloaders," but eventually many of them (most?) become productive citizens. And they replace others who are aging out of the workforce and not being replaced by native-born people. Don't tell me they're all gang-bangers: that's just not true.
Should we try to filter immigrants? We do that with LEGAL immigrants: they have to be healthy and have some skills. We even have a visa program called something like "treaty traders," for people who have enough money to buy a business. This explains, in part, the people with heavy accents working in hotels, convenience stores and filling stations. Many of those places are owned by someone who qualified for an immigrant visa by buying the business.
It is not a simple answer because humanity is not simple, especially when elected officials see opportunity to "buy votes," as someone has (rightly) said above. And even honest people make mistakes that are not always the result of evil intent.
So I suggest we look long and hard at economic and immigration decisions. They are not as simple as just saying "good" and "bad".
I would not think it's simple by any means. It's certainly complex, layered and no easy solution. My point was to draw attention that the changing policies affect those (of any reason who reside here...call that what works for you) on the razor's edge. It's all of them/us/you/inclusively speaking if that makes sense. And I don't have the data, but I do know people who are struggling and aren't included in programs that target people who have come here (illegally, legally, again however you want to label it because we have to have words to have the discussion). I am not advocating nothing for some, rather some for all. And maybe there.are.better ways we can do that which I think what the point of the original post was. That loss of benefits is not good. I agree with losing benefits/programs/assistance can be detrimental.
I went to college with a few people who lived parts of their lives below the poverty line and none the less took out student loans to go study philosophy.
I don’t know how you consider that anything but privilege. Did they not get to choose their study and the course of their life? Were countless options not open to them?
The option to take on debt is a privilege we deny to many people. I’m sorry for anyone who has been scammed, but it’s just pandering to the elite class (intentionally or not) to claim student loan debt is somehow a lack of privilege.
I think we’re talking about different groups of people
Completion rates at community colleges are very low. Over all completion rates at all colleges including all the top tier schools is only about 60 per cent
So many people incur debt but do not get a degree
This is a huge problem with inner city kids whose high schools have not prepared them for basic college math
Excellent compilation of issues creating a "cliff." Certainly affects many. Add the ongoing repricing of assets and debt which affects most. Not to mention an economic recession (if/when it finally happens) which will impact everyone. Fed must walk a tightrope to avoid a lot of economic pain.
In what borders on tragic irony, the very inflation of which you write was in large part brought on by the increased government funding that was triggered by the covid pandemic. From mid-2019 until just a few months ago, Trillions of dollars were pumped into the economy. We could debate whether this was good or bad policy, but the reality is that the large input of cash, including the CTC expansion singled out above, caused people to make economic decisions that could not be sustained if the program was terminated -- or rather, WHEN the program was terminated.
In hindsight, policy decisions that looked necessary and even generous, have proven ultimately to be destructive. The families who will now be forced out of rental property, and thus face enormous hardship, made decisions when money was more available than it soon will be, and when rents had not yet responded to the increased money supply, or were frozen.
I know, "if the government had not overprimed the economy" is a counterfactual statement, but people with even a basic level of economic understanding will recognize that consumers make different decisions when government intervenes by doing things like freezing rents or pumping money into the economy.
It is, as I said at the beginning, a sad irony that government trying to make things better ends up making things worse. But we are seeing that now. Perpetuating programs like CTC only distorts the market and leads consumers to make poor decisions.
I have to admit that I found myself questioning a lot of this, too. Student loan forgiveness is something I’m completely against. I might feel differently if they wanted to look at it on an individual basis, but most of these loans were for advanced degrees for people who can afford to pay them. What’s also maddening is my nephew, who dropped out before completing his BA, owes $10,000. He could not pay on it while all of this “loan forgiveness” has been going on. Personally, I would have been putting that money aside each month, and maybe he did. He can afford to make the payments, and he will. But, the fact is, there is a lot of this kind of thing and worse.
Also, there are states that are sitting on a lot of Covid money because they, obviously, didn’t need it. It infuriates me just thinking about the money that was thrown at Covid relief, and how much has been wasted.
To both Anne and Flier,
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback!
My main goal was to point out the reality that this squeeze is coming. And I don't think many appreciate the extent of it.
Yes, lots of waste in these programs, which were gamed by both individuals and businesses.
And certainly all the money that was pumped into the system was one of the causes of inflation.
And I agree that it was always unrealistic to expect people to put aside the extra money they were getting.
The expanded CTC was effective at reducing poverty which would have had a long time payoff if it had been made permanent at the cost of other programs whose efficacy and efficiency were inferior.
But we are where we are and many people are going to be under a lot of financial stress. And that will be a factor affecting the economic and political near future no matter how we judge the behavior and decisions of our government or of people who received the benefits.
Ah, the reason as I noted in another comment, is that this was not some inanimate "government" taking action. It was politicians who were buying votes. "I'm giving money to the poor, including many of you who are not poor. Remember to vote for me." Of course, no one dared say that, but the singular lack of exercising any forethought, of creating a means test, said it all. I'll grant that probably no one could have estimated the effects of the global supply problems, but we could have anticipated much of what happened if real thought had gone into these government actions.
This isn't hindsight. At the time, I said we should not have received any benefit and people close to me, surely some who would be described as privileged, did so.
No, you did not buy my vote.
I’m sorry David, this one really bothers me. We had a lot of assistance programs before Covid, and if they weren’t working because of lack of money, then that’s another problem. I don’t know if the best way to handle this is at the state or community level, but it sure isn’t the federal government.
I agree with Flier. Way too much money was thrown into the economy. I still see businesses having trouble finding workers. A lot of restaurants have stopped serving lunch, and have even cut back on the evenings they’re open. We are seeing a lot of people standing at street lights with signs, but there are still a lot of places that need employees. Some of these people look mentally ill, possibly, but the majority are young, physically fit, smoke cigarettes, have cellphones, and are dressed quite well. What’s that about?
I don’t know what to say about people who can’t pay their rent, but telling the home and apartment owners that they aren’t going to get paid is not a solution either.
Sorry, my thoughts aren’t all that cohesive, and I don’t have any overall strong arguments one way or the other. However, I know a mess when I see one, and this one is big.
To both Anne and Flier,
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback!
My main goal was to point out the reality that this squeeze is coming. And I don't think many appreciate the extent of it.
Yes, lots of waste in these programs, which were gamed by both individuals and businesses.
And certainly all the money that was pumped into the system was one of the causes of inflation.
And I agree that it was always unrealistic to expect people to put aside the extra money they were getting.
The expanded CTC was effective at reducing poverty which would have had a long time payoff if it had been made permanent at the cost of other programs whose efficacy and efficiency were inferior.
But we are where we are and many people are going to be under a lot of financial stress. And that will be a factor affecting the economic and political near future no matter how we judge the behavior and decisions of our government or of people who received the benefits.
That sums it up much better, I think. Unfortunately, the government is just not very good at dealing with poverty. There are a multitude of problems contributing to this, and one that is really hurting everyone is mental health. There are more and more people living on the streets, and no one seems to have a workable plan on where to put them or how to realistically help them.
I’d be thrilled to see the people in charge do ONE thing, and get it mostly right. Instead it feels like whack a mole. You had a list of things Covid relief was supposed to help with, but it didn’t. It helped some people in the short term, but then what?
And, what you are doing is exemplary. This is often where people get the most and best help, at the grass roots. I also imagine that when you’re in the thick of it, you see it everywhere, and it’s overwhelming. I wish I had some good answers; I wish someone in government had some good answers. Right now it feels like we’re really floundering.
I had to stop at the second paragraph to offer a comment. The continuing and expanding use of "privileged" is, in and of itself, a problem -- at least to me. It is divisive and will surely create a backlash, if it has not already done so. It is, of course, imprecise and in that imprecision lies a major problem, but the greater problem is that many who the warriors call privileged resent the word because they have reached their economic status through a great deal of hard work. Were they born into circumstances that started them off on a better path. Some. Many. However, it is being used as a guilt lever. If you want allies, beating them with a guilt lever is, I think, likely to turn them away from you and possibly against you. Enough.
As to the use of privileged in writings about poverty, I think we must find another term. If not, we, too, are wielding the lever, however well-intentioned our writing may be. English has a lot of words. (Oxford lists 600,000). Surely we can find a better way to have this discussion, especially as it is intended to serve a good purpose.
Sorry for the interruption. Now back to our regular programming.
(Best Sponge Bob Narrator Voice) Four minutes later;
I have no argument with this. It does remind me of my feelings when the temporary programs were put in place. There was no means test so many, many folks who did receive some supplement didn't need it and that money could have gone to better help for the poor. (Yes, I called them poor, not under-privileged.) It also fed inflation which was totally foreseeable. This was all about politicians buying votes, of course, but we are left with the consequences. Money that might have been available to help those in need is gone.
There were means tests of varying degrees. The CTC was very generous where phase-outs didn't start until Gross Income was $75k per parent, so $150k for two parents. Medicaid has always been a means test.
The most popular programs with staying power tend to go up quite high on the economic ladder. The most efficient ones are based on direct payments. The more complicated the program the more fraud. The idealogical issue with the CTC was that it did not have a work requirement.
As for terminology, I admit to using shorthand (and perhaps revealing a bit of my own self-assessment) by using"privileged." A longer definition of those I was thinking about would have been "recipients of aid under these programs where such aid had a material effect on preventing their downward financial spiral."
Finally, I'm not familiar with the Sponge-Bob voice!
I cannot let this deficiency in your otherwise fine education go unaddressed. SpongeBob was a cartoon I watched with my grandson (now 25) and a narrator, in a faux french accent, would occasionally announce some passage of time: https://youtu.be/wiHYx9NX4DM
What would we do without YouTube?
As to the less important matter, I always thought the $75k mark for STARTING phase out assistance was ridiculously high. I also knew families in which both parents continued to work and earn full-time salaries and benefits while receiving thousands of dollars. Other than to buy votes, why was that necessary? We are retired. Covid did not hurt us financially. Why should we have qualified? Nonsense. Wasteful. Left less for those in real need.
Agree about $75k, but I guess that was the politically necessary sin. Wish it were otherwise.
More importantly, one glaring gap in my education has now been filled thanks to your YouTube!
I appreciated the "story" here to question my biased views. What I did not hear is how the native born US citizen is impacted? Or did I miss that. It started with those in the shadows. And what about my friend who is 62, body worn out from a life of manual labor, losing his food assistance benefits? He took is choosing between rent and food. Who is worried about helping him in the community? Or are we worried about the illegals who are in the shadows, or the people of Ukraine where another chunk of money was found to have been sent off somehow stuffed in a small pocket unannounced to us (I read this a day or so ago...money found to have been sent unknowingly?). I have compassion and I am fed up with the federal and state government putting illegal aliens ahead of US born people who are struggling. I agree none of these people out money away. How could they? They were on the razor's edge pre pandemic. I think that would be Polly Anna thinking to assume people would have saved money. Plus our dollar buys so much less that even if you saved, you're not going to make it easily through skyrocketing food gas, living prices. It's ludicrous and overwhelming. I don't know the answer. But I would like to stop paying for Ukraine (and other senseless money policies that we have no need to be paying for) and tighten our borders. Our Americans need our help, do they not?
KTon:
I don't want to sound obtuse, but I am not sure we need to differentiate between US citizens, whether native born or naturalized, and immigrants, whether legal or not. Let me explain. . .
Citizenship surely comes with certain responsibilities and benefits, no question. But being a non-citizen resident in a place is a good reason to consider a person also has some of the same responsibilities and benefits. Because he or she is a noncitizen, can someone ignore your traffic laws? Of course not. If your neighbor (an illegal immigrant, let's say) has an infectious disease, do you want to leave him untreated? Do you want to leave his children uneducated, with all the social costs that come with that? Those are pretty straightforward considerations, especially when you know that education in America is locally funded, and your neighbor either pays property tax directly or pays rent to someone who pays property tax.
But let me pose an existential question, meaning it has to do with life or death, at least for our civilization. A demographer would tell you that a couple has to produce more than two children in order for the population to remain stable. Our population is now reproducing at less than two births per couple, on average. That means our civilization is losing population. Worse, our population is aging, meaning the general population is getting older as fewer children are being born. As a population ages it has fewer consumers, and with retirements, fewer producers. What this means is that without a constantly renewing population, we are facing an uncertain future.
Immigration is mostly a young phenomenon. That is, people are coming across our border are predominantly of working age or younger. Yes, some of them are mowing lawns and raking leaves, but many are starting entry-level jobs in supermarkets or the hospitality industry. They will be in management in a dozen years or so.
In short, immigration is not only a social cost, it ultimately adds to our nation. You might resent "freeloaders," but eventually many of them (most?) become productive citizens. And they replace others who are aging out of the workforce and not being replaced by native-born people. Don't tell me they're all gang-bangers: that's just not true.
Should we try to filter immigrants? We do that with LEGAL immigrants: they have to be healthy and have some skills. We even have a visa program called something like "treaty traders," for people who have enough money to buy a business. This explains, in part, the people with heavy accents working in hotels, convenience stores and filling stations. Many of those places are owned by someone who qualified for an immigrant visa by buying the business.
It is not a simple answer because humanity is not simple, especially when elected officials see opportunity to "buy votes," as someone has (rightly) said above. And even honest people make mistakes that are not always the result of evil intent.
So I suggest we look long and hard at economic and immigration decisions. They are not as simple as just saying "good" and "bad".
I would not think it's simple by any means. It's certainly complex, layered and no easy solution. My point was to draw attention that the changing policies affect those (of any reason who reside here...call that what works for you) on the razor's edge. It's all of them/us/you/inclusively speaking if that makes sense. And I don't have the data, but I do know people who are struggling and aren't included in programs that target people who have come here (illegally, legally, again however you want to label it because we have to have words to have the discussion). I am not advocating nothing for some, rather some for all. And maybe there.are.better ways we can do that which I think what the point of the original post was. That loss of benefits is not good. I agree with losing benefits/programs/assistance can be detrimental.
People paying student loans and non-privileged don’t overlap much
Really hard to say. There's a substantial population of people with student debt who have unfinished or scam degrees. How many I don't know.
I went to college with a few people who lived parts of their lives below the poverty line and none the less took out student loans to go study philosophy.
I don’t know how you consider that anything but privilege. Did they not get to choose their study and the course of their life? Were countless options not open to them?
The option to take on debt is a privilege we deny to many people. I’m sorry for anyone who has been scammed, but it’s just pandering to the elite class (intentionally or not) to claim student loan debt is somehow a lack of privilege.
I think we’re talking about different groups of people
Completion rates at community colleges are very low. Over all completion rates at all colleges including all the top tier schools is only about 60 per cent
So many people incur debt but do not get a degree
This is a huge problem with inner city kids whose high schools have not prepared them for basic college math
Excellent compilation of issues creating a "cliff." Certainly affects many. Add the ongoing repricing of assets and debt which affects most. Not to mention an economic recession (if/when it finally happens) which will impact everyone. Fed must walk a tightrope to avoid a lot of economic pain.