There was a thread early on asking if people were willing to die for the economy. A bit hyperbolic, completely mischaracterizing many of the arguments in favor of loosening lockdown orders, but most said they thought this lockdown was completely necessary and if we didn’t do it our hospitals and medical system would be completely overrun. We locked down and we didn’t overrun any healthcare systems. NY, the worst of it, used 800 beds out of a possible 2500 in the converted convention center. I think I heard 179 people were treated on “Comfort”, a 1000 bed medical ship.
Now it is time for the other side of this question.
Are you willing to give up your paycheck until the lockdowns are lifted?
If not, why not? If you are in favor of keeping the lockdown in place “to protect those that are at risk”, shouldn’t you be sacrificing in a way you can help support others? We are asking millions upon millions to give up their job, their insurance, their security so we don’t infect others. Why are you not willing to give up your money? You’ll still have a job and whatever insurance you have through your job and you can resume keeping your paycheck when the lockdowns are lifted.
If you have already been laid off, do you feel it is time for the restrictions to be partially lifted?
At least 16 million have filed for unemployment since this began. The St. Louis Fed Chair is predicting millions more, with a short lived unemployment rate of 30%. For those millions who have lost their job or are about to lose their job, it is scary. Especially when there is seemingly no one in control.
"*1) Keep the economy closed in order to save the lives of some worthless old people and sick people, while those doing the sacrificing for these worthless old/sick people lose their livelihoods, or
“2) Open the economy so that the vast majority of people, who are all immune to anything other than ‘a bad flu,’ can work (while the old/sick people, unfortunately, do die).*”
This is a fake “choice.”
First, there is ample evidence refuting the claim that this is ‘only a bad flu for everyone except [worthless] old people or [worthless] sick people.’
Second, there is no ‘back to an open economy’ that guarantees that ‘most people’ will return to financial normal, no matter how many fallacious things the minority choose to believe. Go ahead, open up the casinos and restaurants. See how many people show up.
The fallacious thinking exhibited in the OP is being promoted by those who do NOT plan to put themselves at risk----the risks will be borne by others. Though any profits–that may or may not materialize–will, of course, be appropriated by those urging others to endanger themselves.
Nope, I never made any claim about anything you said. I asked if you are willing to give up your paycheck as a shared sacrifice to help protect others. If you aren’t, why?
I never pretended there is a guarantee that opening things will return the economy to normal. That is why the requirement you give up your paycheck is contingent on the lockdowns being lifted, not that jobs are recovered.
It is one thing to have an open economy that is depressed because people are restricting themselves. It is another to be forced to close the economy because it is for the good of us all. If it is for the good of us all, those still working should, likewise, be doing so for the good of us all. If not, you are a hypocrite.
I never said anything about old and worthless and other characterizations you proffered. Just answer the question. It is simple. Are you willing to give up your paycheck until the lockdowns are lifted? If you are unemployed, would you prefer lockdowns start to be lifted?
I will not give up a paycheck to help others. I need food, shelter, and so on.
I also do not think that reopening commerce in the near term is in any way a good idea.
I think the right thing to do is follow advice of scientists and to use government to help Americans who need help, whether that means healthcare or paying bills. It’s a radical policy that we have not tried yet.
You realize that NY didn’t end up needing all that capacity precisely due to social distancing, right?
But still, if we accept the hypothetical, it’s a tough call. This is why a government backstop for the masses is necessary. A federal government that can create $4 Trillion out of thin air has the ability to provide basic necessities to support its citizens through a crisis… if it wanted to.
I’m lucky enough that my job has not been impacted at all. Which means that I continue to pay into the unemployment fund, and other taxes that eventually will go to people that need them.
Giving up my job would be worse for everyone. I would not cry if taxes were increased temporarily to help support the out of work, but simply giving up my paycheck doesn’t make any sense at all. And while I would not claim that my job is in any way “essential”, it does contribute in some minor way to people enjoying their increased time at home (relates to video games).
There’s nothing fair about the situation; the people who have lost their jobs just happened to be unlucky enough to be in ones that are not essential and also cannot be done remotely. But enforcing some weird fairness by putting the rest of us out of work is nonsense. The more people that can continue business as usual, the better off everyone is.
So you’re asking me, an essential worker who’s already exposing himself to infection by continuing to interact with the public on a daily basis, to also do so for free “to help protect others”.
Quite so. The fallacious “choice” posited in the OP is irrelevant to reality; the actual choices we face include options such as you mention.
Indeed it is. And it’s nonsense with a purpose, as illustrated here:
The purpose of promoting the ridiculous idea that ‘all should give up their paychecks, or be judged to be hypocrites’ is to divide; to promote discord and resentment within nations.
The divisiveness is very Putinesque—even though it’s so ham-handed that you’d think he wouldn’t be pleased to be associated with it.
I suspect that if you looked at everyone in the population who would usually be employed at this moment, you’ll have two principal groups:
Unemployed people. They have become unemployed because their business needs middle-and-upper class people to be going out and doing things like normal.
People who are still employed. They can work from home or otherwise weather it out longer because they are largely in white collar jobs.
Group 1 can want to go out and start working again all they want - and might have to even if they don’t want to. But, if group 2 doesn’t show up, group 1 is still screwed because the customers of group 1 is not other members of group 1, it’s members of group 2.
If you’re part of group 1, you can be “boned” or “boned and sick”. “Boned and sick” is worse.
OP, I for one never said the lockdown should remain in place to protect the most vulnerable–not because I don’t think the most vulnerable aren’t worth saving (Heck, I’m in that group!), but because it’s stupid to reopen businesses and expect consumers will flood back in, virus be damned.
So here’s a question for you: would you be willing to wreck the economy far worse than it already is and will be just so ignoramuses who don’t get the economics can feel relieved for a week or two?
And if you get a minute, I’d really like to see your response to Post #7.
Yes, exactly. Which is why the lockdown to date has been integral to getting us to this point. But here we are. Even with all those lockdowns there were estimates of 100k at a minimum that would die. Now it is at 70k. We didn’t overrun NY, so now what? Continue to keep the lockdowns to the point that hospitals and medical centers are bleeding money and talking about closing? How will that help?
People are hurting financially. Severely hurting. We can start to think about trying to ease that. Those saying they’d be okay with higher taxes, how high are you willing to go?
If you want the government to just spend more trillions, where do you think that money is going to come from?
If you’re asking if the lockdown is doing a number on my retirement fund - probably. I haven’t been checking on it. Deliberately. If it’s gutted while we’re waiting for it to be safe to come out, I’ll deal with that somehow.
If you’re asking if I’d be willing to have the government confiscate my paycheck so that they could . . . what? The answer to that would be no because I really wouldn’t trust a program that was slapped together that fast to be anything but sloppy and riddled with holes. I might back programs that could end up raising taxes.
On the other hand, donating to food banks, buying more to go food than is strictly thrifty, and otherwise making strategic purchases and donations is a good thing. In my near family we have people furloughed, people with regular paychecks, and people forced into overtime. If things go on too long, there will be some shifting of funds between us.
I’ve been broke before. It’s no my idea of a good time, but it’s not something I’d be willing to kill people to avoid.
There is an assumption that the economy will still be as bad off if we lift the restrictions. I don’t think that has played that way in Sweden has it? Sweden is an ongoing experiment and has its own thread, so I don’t want to declare Sweden a better or worse path, but for this discussion is the unemployment rate in Sweden spiraling out of control? I had heard they did stay away from public gatherings in droves, so seem better at self isolating than the US might be.
The possibility also exists that if you open back up that NY will be overrun in the near future with a second wave. The unstated assumption that such an event is now behind us seems a little shaky to me.
ETA: I don’t think anyone knows where we stand with herd immunity at this point.
I don’t think customers will flood back in. I think there will be a greatly suppressed economy if restrictions are lifted. But we’ll have more than what we have now.
Post 7: Yes. Those are the options. You are still employed and will likely still have a job at the end of this. For millions, that isn’t true. Your job comes with other benefits the laid off will not have.
Yllaria: You give it to the state who uses it to pay out unemployment benefits and to pay for healthcare for those that have lost theirs.