So you are saying it is better to have no customers than 25% of your former ones? Interesting logic there.
You don’t need to be a business owner to understand overhead.
Okay, then let me try it another way. Let’s look at Singapore, for example. They never had the goal of completely eradicating the virus from within their boundaries. For now let’s leave aside the question of whether they could have if they’d wanted to – again, New Zealand being in an entirely different class in comparison – and instead focus on what the implications would be, and (presumably, at least) why countries like Singapore didn’t take that tack. It’s because they couldn’t afford to pay that price, because the goal of complete, and sustained, eradication implies giving up exchange with the outside world for as long as the virus exists in that outside world, outside their control. That’s what I mean by thinking it through. I mean having some longer-term vision.
Which we don’t have and won’t have for at least a year. So no, that isn’t a fix.
I don’t understand your numbers. You seem to be saying someone that worked at Jack in the box for minimum wage could bring home more (2876) per month than if they brought home the gross pay (1290)?
Some having to give up most of their net is still getting something, plus benefits and a good chance at continued employment once the lockdown is lifted. Compare that to someone that is now entirely unemployed.
I think in the future, we will get smarter with this lockdown thing. If people know that it will only last a short period of time as long as everyone gets with the social distancing, stay-the-fuck-home program, then I gotta think that will make lockdowns less problematic economic-wise. People really are adaptable and innovative. Like, if this is the new normal, businesses can figure out how to operate under “lockdown” mode by providing curbside and internet services. Instead of shutting down all non-essential businesses, governments will only shut down those without an approved lockdown operating plan. This lockdown has hit us hard because we’re just figuring out a lot of stuff. A lot of us were caught unprepared. But I have hope that we will get better with this as time goes on.
To answer the OP’s question, no. I’m not willing to go broke or starve to maintain the present lockdown. But that doesn’t mean I think we should open things up right now.
I’d still like to hear more about how I don’t have to pay people anymore.
…you are making a lot of assumptions here. Singapore have the most cases of Covid-19 in south-east Asia and they are currently experiencing a surge. Short term visitors are banned and like us they have a compulsory 14 day residents are quarantined or asked to self-isolate for 14 days. They have different goals to us but are doing the same things as us in regards to international travel with worst results.
You say they “can’t afford to pay the price.” But I don’t buy that. They are doing the same as us. But they started later, they backed off earlier and they are “paying the price”, whether they like it or not.
So I still don’t understand your question. We’ve come up with our own calculus on what we need to do to get out of lockdown. Other countries are doing what there own thing. They can do what they like. What we’ve done here will hopefully get our economy going again in the shortest amount of time with the least loss of life. Why would Singapore’s failing strategy change that calculus?
This is the long-term vision. Shut down hard, shut down early. Reopen the local economy in stages based on both the incubation period of the virus and metrics based on any local outbreaks. Consider allowing limited trans tasman flights a bit further down the track. Raise the alert level and lockdown again for new clusters. Wait for a vaccine before we start to open up the borders again.
If you think this is all going to be over in a couple of months then you are very much mistaken. Our government is preparing us for the long-haul. I’m expecting this to last at least a couple of years. If that isn’t the time-frame you are imagining, then perhaps its time for you to reset your expectations.
I have no doubt at all that you are expecting it to last at a couple years in your country, given the tack you are taking. What I’m trying to say, and where it fits in the context of this thread, is that I don’t think the rest of the world could make do with those same kinds of measures. 'Cause in the end, people aren’t going to be willing to go broke to maintain a lockdown they don’t believe in. At least, not in most places not named New Zealand.
…I’m not planning on going broke. And I am probably much less likely to go broke living where I am than I would be if my personal situation was identical but I was living somewhere in America. And even if my business did fall over we’ve got a safety net here, safety nets that aren’t available everywhere else.
I still don’t understand your question. Do you think I’m more likely to “go broke” because we’ve adopted the strategy we have? How did you come to that conclusion? Can you quantify that in any way?
And what the rest of the world are doing now, and what they will be forced to do in a month or two when they don’t get this under control are two different things. We’ve got a plan here. The places that have a plan are going to do better than the places that don’t. And the places that don’t have a plan will be paying the price in blood.
If you are happy to sacrifice your fellow citizens on a gamble that you might be able to reopen the economy and that it might not lead you to going broke then by all means, do so. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
You’re assuming the goal of the response in the united states was to minimize casualties. Let’s look at more “relevant” statistics – what portion of their wealth did the 1% in New Zealand lose in the pandemic? Because that’s what our public response has really been about protecting, not something silly like “human lives”.
And if there’s never a vaccine?
Could you elaborate on what the “compensations” are that people get just for working that would make them want to work without pay, knowing they’re risking their lives if they get the virus?*
*that’s assuming that a test for immunity isn’t found or administered in a wide enough scale which is the situation in the OP.
…then its Plan B.
Yes, I’m comparing a city of 8.8 million to a country of 10 million. And just to put things in leadership perspective, one of those leaders told it’s citizens to go to Chinatown to show support of a country that was isolating it’s own cities because of a pandemic.
Of course we all know that the population density of Stockholm is one fifth that of NYC, and the population density of Sweden is one one-thousandth that of NYC.
This didn’t happen.
Beyond our shambolic Federal response, the biggest difference between the US and effectively unitary states like most European states and New Zealand, is that there’s no authority for a Federal lockdown like you’re proposing. In other words, there’s no ability for the President or Congress to impose a national lockdown. That’s something that has to be done at the state level, and depending on the individual state, may be pushed down even lower to county level.
So even had Trump been on the ball, the best he could have done is strongly recommend that states lockdown early. And despite his actions, some states DID lock down fairly early, and some counties/municipalities even earlier.
New York is very much the outlier in the US- even considering the testing discrepancies, most other states are not having the sort of crisis that New York has undergone. Which is probably why people are starting to agitate for easing of the restrictions- it seems like the distancing has been successful and that we’re just going through the motions at this point to a lot of people.
The problem is, they’re underinformed, or not really understanding things. It’s precisely because we locked down, and have stayed there, that things don’t seem that bad- that second wave that’s being talked about is what’s going to happen if everybody gets out and about.
I said them multiple times in this thread.
Most people will get health insurance, or at least part of it paid for by an employer.
Many jobs offer some sort of retirement benefit, like a matching contribution to a 401(k). While maybe not true for those that were furloughed, it is likely very true for many that are still working.
Trying to find a job in a few months is going to be a nightmare. Imagine what it will be like when the economy is partially opened and some of those millions of jobs are returned. Working now will give you a much, much better chance of having a job later.
These aren’t just far flung, sorta, kinda, benefits to working now. They are real compensations people get just for being employed. Someone furloughed has none of that.
Ah OK, thanks. I was thinking you were talking about something more intrinsic.
Nm technical difficulties