I think that just because you lift restrictions, it doesn’t mean that everyone will magically be slung out of their house by a giant rubber band and thence run about by a robot that forces them to behave the same way as they always have.
My expectation would be that, regardless of what the politicos tell us we’re free to do, if you’re not obligated to go out, to work at the office, to travel, etc. then people are going to go with a “feel the water” approach to emerging from their shells.
We’re all aware of the possibility of a spike. Many of us are aware that long-distance travel helps to get things riled up again. It’s unlikely that sports or concert bans will be lifted this year.
Certain sectors of the economy will continue on as normal. Others will vary based on how stable the fatality numbers are tracking. If fatalities keep going down, even as people see more people outside, then they’ll go join. If fatalities start heading up again, as people see more people outside, then they’ll stay inside and the ones who have been going out will be shamed into going back in.
I wouldn’t expect a flash-bang restart to everything. If you work at a hotel, don’t expect any quantity of customers of any size until next winter. You should look for work as a contact tracer or something.
NYC has a death rate of 786 per million and Sweden has a rate of 192 per million.
As of this day in the US there are about 50,000 casualties of which 14,000 are from nursing homes. that’s about a third and that doesn’t count all the elderly and medically challenged who are not in nursing homes.
Had we focused on the people most effected we could have kept the country running and focused resources on protecting the people who need it.
But we didn’t know the exact nature of the virus so we had to plan for the worst.
Since we now know that most people recover from the virus the question is how to maximize the safety of those at risk with the minimum of financial damage. We can’t all stay home forever.
Yes. I get that. I never claimed we would flash bang back into a wonderful economy. But we will be better off than we are now.
“You should look for work as a contract tracer” is just that easy to find another job, eh? Really? That wreaks of the typical arguments for not paying out unemployment benefits. “They should just go out and get a job!! Lazy bums!”
Why am I continuing to work, then? Non-essential workers that have been furloughed are at least getting an unpaid break. I’m expected to continue working and not get paid?
As I said, a tax increase would be acceptable. Even a very substantial one (as long as it was temporary), such as to 80%, if there was reasonable justification for where the funds went (say, to keep the unemployment fund solvent).
But working for no money, and apparently with my income disappearing into the ether? Why?
(Sherrerd is right, of course. It’s a transparent attempt to sow discord, and takes the usual route of completely ignoring context.)
…New Zealand has had 16 deaths in total. Just over a thousand confirmed cases. 8 currently in hospital. We’ve been in lockdown for five weeks and next week we start to open everything up again. I look at America’s numbers, I look at Sweden’s numbers, I look at our numbers and I think its indisputable that if you want a model to follow it isn’t what they did in Sweden: its what they did here.
Had you followed **our **lead (and not attempted to follow Sweden’s, which, IMHO have gotten things deadly wrong) and if you had focused on shutting things down early and hard then America, just like New Zealand, would be looking at opening things back up again now. Instead America ignored the warning signs, ignored the science, and acted too late. “Focusing on the people most effected” isn’t what the science recommends as the best way to combat Covid-19. The best most effective strategy is social distancing.
You knew enough. We all worked with the exact same information.
It’s not an argument against the government doing something to help. It’s advice to those who think the government should do something, when we live in a world where there’s a difference between what you think the government should do and what the government will actually do.
If you’re living life with the expectation that customers will return to the open plains, to be hunted for their money, or that the government will come in and save the day - well, those both might happen, but it’s a hell of a gamble.
It does seem a double sacrifice to have to work and give up the entire paycheck.
Let’s amend the question to be this. You will have your paycheck cut to whatever levels you would get through unemployment benefits plus you have to pay an additional 20% of your paycheck. All proceeds go to unemployment benefits for others. The additional 20% is to cover the benefits you get while being employed that the unemployed do not get.
I’m not trying to so discord, but I can see why it is interpreted that way. No more than the original question was intended to do so. It is intended to ask about the conviction people have to this lockdown.
I’m totally in support of the lockdowns to this point. I’ve been convinced of that through previous discussions.
I did. Post 20. But I see the logic that it seems unfair to take a paycheck, add risk, and make people work. But there are other compensations people get just for working. Not everyone, but most do. Meanwhile, the unemployed get none of that. How is that fair?
The question becomes, would someone who is unemployed be willing to work for benefits only for the next few months, which likely includes healthcare and other benefits, along with a great likelihood they will return to a normal paycheck in a few months, or would they rather stay unemployed, with no benefits at all, and a difficult time finding a job once the lockdown is lifted?
New Zealand is to countries as Pluto is to Planets. It’s small and out of the way. Do you think maybe that your low numbers are a result of a small dispersed population that receives far less travelers than Europe or the US?
How many people should starve to death (or freeze, or any of the other ways lack of resources can kill) so you can avoid being hospitalized?
Yes, the lockdowns save lives. They also kill. If you’re going to recommend a greater degree of lockdown than the professionals are recommending, you’d better be confident that your numbers are more accurate than theirs.
Let me get this straight; per the OP, if someone performs a sevice or sells something to me, I won’t have to pay them. We’re exchanging things of comparable value, but now one person gets nothing. Or I still pay but the government takes all the money, and I get to keep the good or service.
…nope. It did make locking down the country easier. But we aren’t a “dispersed population.” Auckland has a bigger population density than many cities in Australia and the US. Tourism is a substantial part of our GDP. We had just under 4 million tourists last year. 408,000 from China.
When we locked down the numbers were going up. We locked down before the first death. The numbers don’t magically change because we are on the ass end of the world. Exponential growth is exponential growth. If we didn’t lock down when we did the death toll would be looking vastly different to what it does now.
The evidence is crystal clear. Locking down hard and early and maintaining effective social distancing was the best way to combat Covid-19: its the key to both saving lives and to get the economy going as quickly as possible. We are in the process of reopening the country, and hopefully in three weeks time we will be down to Level 2.
This is what you and others don’t seem to get, I assume because you’ve never owned a business. “Better than now” doesn’t mean diddly when you’re trying to keep a business going.As a business owner, you have more or less fixed costs: rent (or mortgage) payments, utilities, phone service, etc. You also have employees to pay, as well as supplies, etc. Upon reopening, 25% of your former customers return. Now you’re getting 25% of your old income and 75% of your old expenses.
Congratulations, you are now out of business, but thanks for playing.
Have you actually done the math? In TX, the max unemployment benefit amount is 521 per week. Add another 600 per week, do the math 1121X4.3=4820 per month. That’s not bad money.
Lets assume the lower end of the scale, 669 per week X 4.3 = 2876 per month.
Min wage is 7.50 per hour. Someone working at a Jack in the Box is lucky to get 40 hours per week, but we will go with that to make things easy. 7.5X40X4.3=1290 take away that 20 percent for benefits and they are getting 1032.00 Now offer to give them the full amount they would get by being unemployed in exchange for that 20 percent, and see how long it is before you will no longer be able to get your groceries.
Critical thinking seems to be lacking in many of the plans being discussed.
This is my response as well. My going broke does nothing useful, not for me, my family, or for society. I’d be willing to accept something on the order of a temporary 40-50% increase in tax payments over current levels for, say, the top 25-33% of individual and business earners. Something that would be in place for the next 3-5 years, to help defray the costs of sending unemployment checks to people stuck at home with no way to generate an income and to float up low-cost loans or other support to crippled businesses.
This comes with the caveat that I would expect the federal, state, and local governments to do their damndest to help get testing and contact tracing services ramped up, as well as to assist in ramping up PPE production. I’m not interested in forking over money to buy additional lockdown time if society is just going to squander that time.
Cool. I’m now actually making negative money. 20% of my paycheck is more than I’d get from unemployment. And I still have to go to work! This deal’s getting worse all the time.
As I said, I would accept a large hike in taxes if it were temporary and could be reasonably justified. I would not approve of a hike just to enforce some arbitrary notion of fairness.