Macy’s to Furlough 100k Employees
idahoreporter.com
idahoreporter.com
In China, companies responded to this shift in demand by having the online-retail/logistics companies (demand way up, not enough workers) contract with the physical-retail companies (demand way down, too many workers) for their workers' time. You'd still be a Macy's employee, but you'd be doing Amazon's work, and Amazon would send Macy's a big pile of cash.
Somehow that seems better for all involved than the way we appear to be going.
Hopefully in the long run we can all find a place for in person retail. I buy a lot online but still like going to stores sometimes too. We will likely see the industry re-invent instead a bit with smaller footprints and a focus on things that sell better in person than online.
- The demise of many traditional retail businesses
- The concentration of surviving retail businesses into big box stores and higher-end retailers (like the stores at Westfield malls)
- Increased usage of online shopping and gig delivery services
- Even more growth for Amazon, Walmart, and Target
I would expect, in general, to see more concentration in most industries after the virus shutdowns end. Retail is the most obvious example.
Why Walmart and Target? Aren't they also traditional retail?
Amazon delivery times are currently 1 week+ in many locations.
Both have been adapting pretty well to Amazon and offer 2 day shipping options as well.
They are also benefitting from another trend, which is that big-box stores in general are outlasting smaller stores. Another example would be Home Depot and Lowes thriving while smaller hardware stores fail. Shopping at a big box store is often more convenient than making multiple trips to smaller or more specialized retailers.
Walmart is the #2 e-commerce retailer after Amazon.
$/ft^2 is the metric to look for. That correlates with "high end" retail (high dollar items that take up less floor/warehouse space).
I think we could see a boon of brick and mortars that are smaller and more optimized. Just an anecdote, I know of a local music shop that cut its floorspace in half about 5 years ago and started offering staple items as a subscription service (e.g. reeds, guitar strings, bow rosin, whatever), while the bigger items had their shelf space rented out to vendors rather than taking commission on sales. Another anecdote, StitchFix and Bonobos have both provided solutions to the problem of selling clothes without stocking various sizes at a retail location.
There's a lot of opportunity to innovate retail in my opinion. The issue has always been the sales model, and I think that focusing on "big box" stores is wrong - they're just more equipped to weather the storm. Department stores died a decade ago, it just took this long for their bodies to hit the ground. Same for big box retail.
Maybe it made sense in the world of easy access to middle class jobs that was the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, etc. But today things are significantly different and we haven't adapted to reflect that reality.
This may end up being the most important silver lining of the COVID19 situation.
> Maybe it made sense in the world of easy access to middle class jobs that was the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, etc.
It made sense for those who could get those jobs, but US society of the 1950s-1970s was pretty selective as to to whom it availed such jobs and attached health benefits.
I don’t disagree that the system was still selective as to who had access, but the Reagan-era attack on organized labor and workers rights had sweeping, sweeping impact that continues today.
The problem is that many boomers (sorry mom and dad), who had more entry-level or even middle-class jobs in the 70s and then went on to big corporate jobs in the 80s, either are unaware of this shift or are unwilling to acknowledge it happened. People say, “well when I was your age my health insurance was free or super cheap” — as if that is applicable 40+ years later. It’s similar to my uncle not understanding why someone like me, who makes well into six figures a year, has no aspirations of home ownership, not understanding that the only cities I’m willing to live don’t have housing equivalent to my rent for under $1m. He just thinks, “I bought a house at your age” — not realizing his house was $80k and even with inflation, wouldn’t be possible now. Or like how I had to explain to my mother that no, despite working for the second-most valuable company in the world (technically it has the highest market cap today), I do not have a pension. I laughed when she asked.
Marginally. His plan was basically the same as Buttigieg's: Medicare for all who want it.
Of course, they never talked about how that would actually reduce your choices as employers opted to stop covering health insurance and you were stuck with the smaller Medicare provider pool.
One of the big structural advantages of the real Medicare for All plan is that it would eliminate "networks" all providers would be required to accept the M4A single-payer.
It would really help if we had a politican who was somehow electable in the primary and didn't hold policies which are deal breakers for the other sides voters. For example, on gun rights or (god forbid) abortion
Unfortunately, if you try to be pro gun in the democratic party they will eviscerate you in the primary. Just look at Bernie sanders in 2016 vs Clinton on the Brady Bill. Until we can convince republicans that the dems won't take their guns away, it's basically impossible to convince a good portion of Trumps base to abandon their support. I don't advocate for pro-life dems but if you really want republican votes you may have to at least pretend to be pro-life.
None of these are easy, but it must be done or else it's more of the same crap.
Because if you get it through your work, you don't have to pay tax on it. Also, getting it through work also decreases the risk of adverse section on the part of the insurer, making it cheaper.
That’s not a natural law but something that should be changed immediately. There is no justification for this.
I think that the health industry itself is a scam, and over priced by bureaucracy but that doesnt mean that another person should take your burden. Your health is your responsibility not your employers.
Employers shouldn't be playing health insurance because that shouldn't be necessary. Minimum wage should cover basic care. Either minimum wage is too low or basic care is too high. We kinda take care of this through taxes but its a bandaid on a corrupt overpriced monopoly industry.
But I agree the connection between health insurance and employment is artificial. I'd rather see some basic universal health, plus a market for better plans.
That kind of skews incentives a fair amount.
How does this work in Denmark? I read they were the gold standard for how a nation should do health care, but I also read they don't do insurance solely as a public option through the government.
Another big aspect is that the amount doctors and hospitals can charge and what insurance reimburses is regulated. So you don’t have the situation where hospitals charge whatever they feel like and the insurance reimburses whatever they feel like and the patient sits in the middle and has to figure it out somehow or potentially go bankrupt.
There is much more detail but I hope I got the basics right. You hear a lot of bad stories too but overall the system is way more predictable and just than the US system. I have experienced both and I can see the US system only making sense for millionaires or healthy people. Otherwise it’s an insanely bureaucratic, expensive and merciless system where every hospital visit is a big gamble. And definitely don’t get any chronic disease or they will bleed yoU dry.
FTA: At least through May
That means people who quit or are laid off will end up having to pay more for their healthcare at a time when they don't have any income.
COBRA also has a lot of hidden "gotchas", like for example if the employer you left stops maintaining any health plan, your COBRA plan can also be terminated. (This means if the company shuts down, all past employees lose any ability to use COBRA. And this can happen even after you leave and are already on COBRA)
Also if you fail to pay the premiums for any reason, your plan can be terminated, and even worse you won't be allowed to sign up for a new plan via the Marketplace until the open enrollment period.
The fact that the United States doesn’t have universal, affordable healthcare is a travesty and the fact that our system has persisted for this long is utterly insane.
This also allows you a little more flexibility than with a traditional plan where you have to prepay. For instance, if you're going to enroll in a new plan as of January, and don't end up using any medical services in December, you can decide in January not to pay for that month and Cobra will terminate coverage.
You don't have that option with a normal plan.
Do affordability tests not apply once you are laid off? I would think your premium subsidies would go up and you can get an ACA plan.
At least living in CA, it generally feels like we have universal, affordable (by some definition) healthcare, but I'm sure there are edge cases where the affordability calculation breaks.
But beyond that, let’s say you anticipate you can make $3000 a month freelancing. Now, this isn’t enough for your rent and your insurance, but it’s still too high, perhaps, to qualify you for a lower-rated ACA plan. And it is certainly too high for Medicaid. So if you live in a high-priced city, you’re now stuck having to decide what you pay for — and that’s not always easy. Remember, it’s not like moving is that easy — you may have to break a lease (which costs money you don’t have), and you’re unemployed so signing a new, less-expensive lease is going to be challenging too.
The safety nets we have in place are really only designed for the very, very poor (and even then, they don’t go far enough). If you are anything but that — you’re really fucked, especially if you live in an medium-size or larger city/urban area.
(ignoring tax issues) They aren't really "paying more", it's just their salary when they were working was higher than the top-line number.
Any analysis / estimate / policy that starts from any assumption of the existence or usage of COBRA is therefore so unrealistic and inaccurate as to be completely ignored.
I spent 12 months on COBRA when I started my startup, and while I didn't enjoy paying close to $2,000 per month for insurance I couldn't buy a comparable plan on the open market for my family for less.
Presumably the existence of COBRA is meant to assist people experiencing a hard time with health coverage. It does not achieve that purpose. If insurance itself is prohibitively expensive that mediating it through COBRA means people are unhelped by COBRA, then replace COBRA with something that pays the cost of the coverage. Take your pick of many options, but shifting the cost burden onto someone who was told to structurally depend on it being tied to employers is not a thing. It’s a non-thing that does not count as an assistance or benefit.
It’s like if you lost your job and suddenly now breathing oxygen costs an extra fee, but it’s OK because you can just pay the oxygen fee you were forced into letting your employer pay on your behalf.
That doesn't change the fact that heath insurance and healthcare is expensive, it's just pointing out that the only way most people can afford to have it is because their employer is paying for most of it. If that cost was more transparent to salaried people, it might spur a more useful conversation about how to bring down the cost of healthcare.
When the letters go out, people open their eyes when they see the institution spent 1/3 of their salary on health insurance. You can tell when someone is on the benefits committee, because they don't complain about salaries for about 3 years.
It was extremely easy to sign up on the healthcare exchange. The coverage wasn't great, but it was free and better than nothing.
On the other hand, being furloughed rather than laid off will mean the workers keep their health insurance.
It totally depends on how long the furlough is. A short furlough means you still have a job to go back to, and you don't have to repeat the whole job search/interviewing process.
The only difference in my (generally worker-unfriendly red) state is that if you're furloughed and apply for unemployment, they waive the requirement to demonstrate that you're looking for work.
Also check out all the WARN notices from businesses in NY posted in the last week [2]. COVID-19 is largest (within the USA) in NY. As a result many businesses are closing / furloughing / laying off people.