# Are you willing to go broke to maintain the present lockdown? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2020, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471 "2020-04-23T22:27:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/141 "2020-04-26T16:42:57Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As for this, can we agree that your nonsensical comparison to Sweden is to be discarded, so we can focus on nursing homes instead? population density is a factor in the spread of the disease but it doesn’t fully explain the differences between cities within countries. If you’d like to talk about an approach involving nursing homes and explain why you think you’ve got a better understanding of epidemics than epidemiologists, please do so, with details of your alternative plan (including how you’re going to keep disease from spreading in the general population) [/QUOTE] Epidemiologists understand resource management. You can spend X dollars on 345 million people or you can focus a greater portion of the money on the people most vulnerable. It’s far easier to isolate people already confined in one location and use funds to maintain a higher level of care. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/142 "2020-04-26T17:03:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I thought my meaning was plain, but apparently not. So let me make it plainer. > > I am in favor of sacrifices **that make a difference** , and I am willing to make such sacrifices myself, and to ask them of others. > > But you’re fundamentally misunderstanding cause and effect here. “Going broke” isn’t the cause of “maintaining the present lockdown.” Nor is it the cause of reducing deaths. > > Rather, reducing deaths and SOME PEOPLE going broke both are the effects of similar causes, i.e., extreme social distancing. One effect is good, the other is bad, and we should be working like hell to maximize the good effect and minimize the bad effect. > > When you ask me if I’m willing to get an extreme version of one effect in order to get the version of the other, you’re jumbling everything up into nonsense. > > Now, your OP could be fixed. One way to fix it would be to ask the question something like this: > > Under those parameters, yes, I would be willing to make that sacrifice. It would really suck, but would be better than the alternative. > > HOWEVER, I strongly dispute premise 2 and 3: they assume late-stage unregulated capitalism to an extreme degree unmatched even by Mitch McConnell. I’m willing to bet the person you hand your paycheck to will see a benefit to it. You seem to be taking it as a given that you donating most, if not all, of your paycheck won’t help. It is rationalizing why sacrificing is something that must be done, just by others. Actually, you going broke could easily be the cause of fewer deaths. Studies have shown a link between a lack of health insurance and death rates. You giving up most of your paycheck to someone who can use it to pay for healthcare would be saving lives. I don’t know how to parse “going broke” being the cause of maintaining the present lockdown, so I don’t know how to answer that. Of course going broke isn’t causing the present lockdown. It is an effect. For millions of people. Why did you stress SOME people going broke and not stress SOME people dying? You do realize that even with all this social distancing we are still going to have a large number of people dying? It can easily be argued that we can have far fewer people losing their jobs and not have a huge spike in those dying. We are putting TRILLIONS into this and costing millions of jobs and thousands of lives. People like you are arguing it is worth it because of the lives we are saving. Pretty noble to let others do all the sacrificing. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/143 "2020-04-26T18:28:26Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’m willing to bet the person you hand your paycheck to will see a benefit to it. > > You seem to be taking it as a given that you donating most, if not all, of your paycheck won’t help. It is rationalizing why sacrificing is something that must be done, just by others. This is ridiculous goalposting combined with petulant ad hominems, and I’m not willing to dignify it with further responses. If you won’t engage in the conversation with the lowest baseline of reasonable premises, there’s no point. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/144 "2020-04-26T19:12:26Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I’m willing to bet the person you hand your paycheck to will see a benefit to it. > > You seem to be taking it as a given that you donating most, if not all, of your paycheck won’t help. It is rationalizing why sacrificing is something that must be done, just by others. > > Actually, you going broke could easily be the cause of fewer deaths. Studies have shown a link between a lack of health insurance and death rates. You giving up most of your paycheck to someone who can use it to pay for healthcare would be saving lives. > > I don’t know how to parse “going broke” being the cause of maintaining the present lockdown, so I don’t know how to answer that. Of course going broke isn’t causing the present lockdown. It is an effect. For millions of people. > > Why did you stress SOME people going broke and not stress SOME people dying? You do realize that even with all this social distancing we are still going to have a large number of people dying? It can easily be argued that we can have far fewer people losing their jobs and not have a huge spike in those dying. > > We are putting TRILLIONS into this and costing millions of jobs and thousands of lives. People like you are arguing it is worth it because of the lives we are saving. Pretty noble to let others do all the sacrificing. Honest question here: let’s say we open up the economy to get people back earning more paychecks. Then, someone gets COVID at some non-essential business that was reopened. Does the person who got sick deserve compensation from the business that made them sick? After all, you’re arguing that people who are in favor of sustaining the current policy should put their money where their mouth is. By the same measure, shouldn’t people in favor of changing the current policy also put their money where their mouths are? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/145 "2020-04-26T19:37:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Honest question here: let’s say we open up the economy to get people back earning more paychecks. Then, someone gets COVID at some non-essential business that was reopened. > > Does the person who got sick deserve compensation from the business that made them sick? After all, you’re arguing that people who are in favor of sustaining the current policy should put their money where their mouth is. Here’s an honest answer. They get the same compensation that “essential” workers get. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/146 "2020-04-26T20:13:12Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Argument from authority is also a fallacy. Speaking of piles where you are the one actually tossing your arguments, it is clear that you are not aware of when an argument from authority is not a fallacy. > **[Nonreligious Questions](https://www.patheos.com/nonreligious-questions/)** > > Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer. > [@](#): > > The Argument from Authority is not a fallacy when the person indicated (1) is an expert in the field and (2) is arguing for the consensus. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily make you right, but being in line with the relevant consensus is the best that we can hope for. > **[Appeal to Authority Fallacy: When and How Is It Wrong to Rely on Experts?](https://finmasters.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/)** > > The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when one misuses the testimonies of perceived authorities in an attempt to back up a certain claim or position. As for the rest, it also points to another item I proposed that was one factor with the difference: the use of masks. As even **Magiver** agrees on the masks, your insistence on tossing that also in “the pile” is not reasonable when that is also part of my argument. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/147 "2020-04-26T22:15:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Here’s an honest answer. They get the same compensation that “essential” workers get. I don’t understand. Nothing? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/148 "2020-04-26T22:45:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t understand. Nothing? They get the same thing anybody with a job gets when they get the flu. The thread is about the willingness of people to go broke to maintain the present lock-down. If the answer is no and you want to go to work, go take a job as an essential worker and you won’t kill anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/149 "2020-04-26T22:50:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The thread is about the willingness of people to go broke to maintain the present lock-down. If the answer is no and you want to go to work, _go take a job as an essential worker and you won’t kill anyone_. (emphasis mine) I don’t understand. Are essential workers forced to wear hazmat suits? ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/150 "2020-04-26T23:08:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is ridiculous goalposting combined with petulant ad hominems, and I’m not willing to dignify it with further responses. If you won’t engage in the conversation with the lowest baseline of reasonable premises, there’s no point. Serious question. What goalpost do you think I moved? I’m sorry if it came across as goalpost moving. You probably have a point, but I truly don’t see it that way. I started this by asking why people feel they don’t have to sacrifice anything. I can see your point about it looking like an ad hominem attack. It wasn’t meant to be, but you have a point it could be interpreted that way. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/151 "2020-04-26T23:19:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Honest question here: let’s say we open up the economy to get people back earning more paychecks. Then, someone gets COVID at some non-essential business that was reopened. > > Does the person who got sick deserve compensation from the business that made them sick? After all, you’re arguing that people who are in favor of sustaining the current policy should put their money where their mouth is. > > By the same measure, shouldn’t people in favor of changing the current policy also put their money where their mouths are? No, I don’t see where a business is responsible for someone that gets sick. No more than I think businesses should be responsible to pay punitive damages if I get the flu at work or any other disease. I don’t know of a single company who has ever mandated precautions about spreading the flu. The flu kills upwards of 60k people a year. Would you hold a company responsible for employees getting the flu at work? If not, why not? From what I’m seeing, the definition of “essential” is extremely loose. Why is Home Depot essential but a medical clinic not? Makes no sense. Are you suggesting that a place like Home Depot, deemed essential, gets a pass if an employee gets Covid19 at work but a clinic worker, a nurse, does get ill? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2020, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/152 "2020-04-26T23:29:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > (emphasis mine) I don’t understand. > Are essential workers forced to wear hazmat suits? I’m just paraphrasing what the [Governor of NY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biorRAQJhH8) said and applying it to the thread. I’m sure it was said in frustration but it was also a very real statement. There is ZERO chance of wiping this virus out. So somewhere between a lock-down with only “essential” workers and financial ruin lies a number we can afford to spend. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/153 "2020-04-27T00:07:44Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > No, I don’t see where a business is responsible for someone that gets sick. No more than I think businesses should be responsible to pay punitive damages if I get the flu at work or any other disease. I don’t know of a single company who has ever mandated precautions about spreading the flu. The flu kills upwards of 60k people a year. **Would you hold a company responsible for employees getting the flu at work? If not, why not?** > > From what I’m seeing, the definition of “essential” is extremely loose. Why is Home Depot essential but a medical clinic not? Makes no sense. Are you suggesting that a place like Home Depot, deemed essential, gets a pass if an employee gets Covid19 at work but a clinic worker, a nurse, does get ill? See bolded part. Some years ago I worked for a company where one group, the group I happened to be in, was doing a big project. Lots of overtime and our boss pretty much assured us that if we took a day off for any reason we were fired. So the flu was going around, and one person on the team after another would call in. You’d hear it on the voicemail, a hoarse weak voice saying “Okay fire me. Not coming in.” But of course they had been coming in, until they couldn’t. So one person after another fell, and when we fell we needed 3 to 5 days before we were able to come back to work. And we didn’t feel good again for…weeks. In that case I would absolutely blame the employer. That particular flu killed people, too (although none of my coworkers). So yes. Businesses can be blamed when people get sick. Could they be sued? Sure they could. Could the plaintiff in such a case win? I don’t know. I’m pretty sure someone who got fired for not showing up while sick would have a pretty good employment case though. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/154 "2020-04-27T00:20:38Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > See bolded part. Some years ago I worked for a company where one group, the group I happened to be in, was doing a big project. Lots of overtime and our boss pretty much assured us that if we took a day off for any reason we were fired. So the flu was going around, and one person on the team after another would call in. You’d hear it on the voicemail, a hoarse weak voice saying “Okay fire me. Not coming in.” But of course they had been coming in, until they couldn’t. So one person after another fell, and when we fell we needed 3 to 5 days before we were able to come back to work. And we didn’t feel good again for…weeks. In that case I would absolutely blame the employer. > > That particular flu killed people, too (although none of my coworkers). > > So yes. Businesses can be blamed when people get sick. Could they be sued? Sure they could. Could the plaintiff in such a case win? I don’t know. > > I’m pretty sure someone who got fired for not showing up while sick would have a pretty good employment case though. You’re right in a world of absolutes. There are exceptions and they focus on negligence. But the discussion was about whether you could hold a business liable if you got the virus and not firing someone who doesn’t show up. I believe I heard state or federal provisions that addressed this specifically with the coronavirus but I don’t have them in front of me. We’re getting the “big announcement” tomorrow in my state. I suspect the first businesses to open up will be required to use masks and separation guidelines. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/155 "2020-04-27T00:50:59Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > See bolded part. Some years ago I worked for a company where one group, the group I happened to be in, was doing a big project. Lots of overtime and our boss pretty much assured us that if we took a day off for any reason we were fired. So the flu was going around, and one person on the team after another would call in. You’d hear it on the voicemail, a hoarse weak voice saying “Okay fire me. Not coming in.” But of course they had been coming in, until they couldn’t. So one person after another fell, and when we fell we needed 3 to 5 days before we were able to come back to work. And we didn’t feel good again for…weeks. In that case I would absolutely blame the employer. > > That particular flu killed people, too (although none of my coworkers). > > So yes. Businesses can be blamed when people get sick. Could they be sued? Sure they could. Could the plaintiff in such a case win? I don’t know. > > I’m pretty sure someone who got fired for not showing up while sick would have a pretty good employment case though. When I indicated responsible, I meant legally. It would be unconscionable for an employer to fire someone because they were sick. I’m not advocating that at all. Did you get that impression from what I’ve said? I was more talking about whether an employer can be sued by an employee who, somehow, could prove they got sick at work. You said they likely couldn’t win, but I’m not sure a case like that could go to court at all. I used the flu as an example. Can you think of any situation in which an employer can be held legally responsible for employee getting the flu? COVID19 is quite several time more deadly than a normal flu, so I think an employer has a higher obligation than doing nothing. Providing proper PPE, training and barriers to keep employees safe, for example. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I’ve read in several places where all the social distancing isn’t going to affect the total number of people that will get sick. It just lessens the number of people at any given time. So why should the employer be held responsible for getting people sick when they are going to get sick eventually from somewhere? Should you be able to sue the grocery store if you get it there from a cart that isn’t sanitized? How about from the atm that a bank doesn’t keep sanitized? Should UPS or the post office be liable if you pick up the virus from a package they deliver from an employee that is asymptomatic? ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/156 "2020-04-27T01:34:12Z")
I think some small-business people are hesitant to reopen because of the fear of spreading the virus. I don’t think their fear is of being sued if someone does get it. But who knows? I don’t think most employers need to be responsible for their employees’ PPE but if they have the kind of policy that encourages their employees to come in anyway if they’re sick, and a lot of them do, that needs to end. Maybe the threat of litigation will bring that about. I don’t see the bank being responsible for sanitizing the ATMs after each use either. I also think it’s extremely unlikely that anyone has gotten COVID 19 from a grocery cart but if they have, at least at the grocery stores I go to there have been disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer there in the cart area for some time (before the current stuff) and I would think that would be enough to get the store off the hook as far as customer lawsuits. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/157 "2020-04-27T01:55:49Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Serious question. What goalpost do you think I moved? > > I’m sorry if it came across as goalpost moving. You probably have a point, but I truly don’t see it that way. I started this by asking why people feel they don’t have to sacrifice anything. > > I can see your point about it looking like an ad hominem attack. It wasn’t meant to be, but you have a point it could be interpreted that way. This entire thread is an ad hominem, with its implication that all of us want other people to sacrifice, but not sacrifice ourselves. You start off suggesting that we’re unwilling to go broke because that would mean personal sacrifice, implying that we’re hypocrites. When I and others point out that going broke won’t make things better, you shift to some making the world’s widest argument, an argument that applies to nearly every problem on the planet: that we could spend some of our money to fix it, and because we don’t, we still must be hypocrites. If you’re interested in a genuine discussion, this dumpster fire of a thread isn’t the way to go about it. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/158 "2020-04-27T01:58:20Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > I think some small-business people are hesitant to reopen because of the fear of spreading the virus. I don’t think their fear is of being sued if someone does get it. But who knows? > > I don’t think most employers need to be responsible for their employees’ PPE but if they have the kind of policy that encourages their employees to come in anyway if they’re sick, and a lot of them do, that needs to end. Maybe the threat of litigation will bring that about. > > I don’t see the bank being responsible for sanitizing the ATMs after each use either. I also think it’s extremely unlikely that anyone has gotten COVID 19 from a grocery cart but if they have, at least at the grocery stores I go to there have been disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer there in the cart area for some time (before the current stuff) and I would think that would be enough to get the store off the hook as far as customer lawsuits. Small businesses that are not opening because of their own choice is really up to them. But the question was whether a business that does open is responsible for an employee that gets sick. We seem to be on the same page for that, I think. My grocery store ran out of disinfectant wipes two months ago. Hand sanitizer is extremely scarce around here and I imagine it would get quickly stolen if the store left it out and available for customers. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/159 "2020-04-27T02:09:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This entire thread is an ad hominem, with its implication that all of us want other people to sacrifice, but not sacrifice ourselves. You start off suggesting that we’re unwilling to go broke because that would mean personal sacrifice, implying that we’re hypocrites. When I and others point out that going broke won’t make things better, you shift to some making the world’s widest argument, an argument that applies to nearly every problem on the planet: that we could spend some of our money to fix it, and because we don’t, we still must be hypocrites. > > If you’re interested in a genuine discussion, this dumpster fire of a thread isn’t the way to go about it. Thanks for clarifying. But you aren’t wrong. I do see people that aren’t willing to sacrifice themselves while telling others to sacrifice as hypocritical. It is kinda the definition of hypocritical. The problem, obviously, is whether or not others sacrificing will do any good. There are those saying it wouldn’t do any good. I happen to disagree with that. As I’ve said, if you give your paycheck to someone who is unemployed I just don’t see how it can be argued that wouldn’t do good for the unemployed. [There was another thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22211119&postcount=107) where someone had a very, very similar argument to what you are saying. They claimed they’d gladly give up their pub money to someone else who is unemployed if it would do any good, but they felt their measly money wouldn’t help. A poster then chimed in and said they’d gladly take it because they were just furloughed with a family of 4 and could really use the money. I don’t know what to tell you. Giving up your money will, demonstrably, help others. I’m at a loss to see how it isn’t hypocritical to say you don’t need to sacrifice and when the argument for not doing it is proven false. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2020, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471/160 "2020-04-27T02:19:12Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > [There was another thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22211119&postcount=107) where someone had a very, very similar argument to what you are saying. They claimed they’d gladly give up their pub money to someone else who is unemployed if it would do any good, but they felt their measly money wouldn’t help. A poster then chimed in and said they’d gladly take it because they were just furloughed with a family of 4 and could really use the money. Probably bad form to quote myself. But I need to correct what I said. In that thread JayZ said he would give pub money to others and be willing to do so and get nothing rather than sit in a pub right now and risk Covid19. So it really wasn’t about being unwilling to give up money to others. However, the reply from Chassic Sense still stands. He was very eager to accept pub money, even $20, because of the situation he is in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-willing-to-go-broke-to-maintain-the-present-lockdown/852471.md?page=9)