Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
> I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
I'm sorry, I was just replying to what you wrote, and you were telling me that the issue is earning a living. Now you changed your argument entirely. So you're saying this isn't even about making a living then, given that paying people would clearly solve that problem? That means you're concluding it's really a political protest then? Isn't that a pretty strong, rational reason for everyone else to actively ignore the protesters in that case? Rather than "show a little more compassion" for something they're not protesting about?
Is the quantity of risk identical to all populations?
The answer is no. But people like you never mention this.
I'm curious:
What is, in your opinion, the trigger for reopening? What metric? Is that metric at a city, county, or state level?
I'd like to hear specifics, because I have yet to hear them from the cowardly ass covering politicians who say there is no cost that can be put on a human life. The same people who choose not to put a guardrail on a dangerous rural road because the cost isn't worth the number of lives lost per year on said road.
Well ask me something about it and I'll answer it (or tell you if I don't know). There are a million things I haven't mentioned. Just like you. We're not writing dissertations on COVID-19 here. I can only address so many things that I find relevant to the discussion.
What are you even expecting me to say about this? Of course the elderly and the vulnerable are worse off. How is that against anything I was saying? I was suggesting we make more economic impact payments rather than pack together into a crowd and protest. Does it look like there was some obvious connection between that and people's age that I somehow deliberately omitted and that would've hurt my argument? If so please enlighten me and I'll address it.
Meanwhile the one thing I don't hear from "people like you" (since you like painting people with one broad stroke like that) is a single acknowledgment that the experts might know more than you (and me), and this isn't about your opinion vs. mine. Which is funny, though not in a humorous way. To you nobody knows what they're doing. To us, there are people who know what they're doing somewhat better than us laypeople, so we're trying to at least give them and their opinions that much credit and weight.
> What is, in your opinion, the trigger for reopening? What metric? Is that metric at a city, county, or state level? I'd like to hear specifics, because I have yet to hear them from the cowardly ass covering politicians who say there is no cost that can be put on a human life
Well that might be because you haven't been listening to them. I know Cuomo has answered your question quite precisely... same guy whom you're mocking for saying every life is priceless. He said (and this is not his opinion or mine, this is the opinion of the experts advising him) that when the infection rates become constant (i.e. when the derivative reaches 0), you can start to reopen. That is the trigger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyOnfK_UMV4&t=4m38s
Also, FYI, experts have put costs on human life and they have come to the conclusion (sorry if this isn't what you're hoping to hear) that it's very much worth it to shut down the economy. If you're interested, listen here. I imagine you'll disagree anyway (the experts are blind etc.) but at least you can't accuse them of not having tried to do the analyses that you appear to believe you have done. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
You are correct. I don't know all of your opinions on this virus response, and shouldn't have characterized it so.
In that note, I certainly don't HOPE to hear anything from experts. I just want to make sure the experts are being consulted on all sides, to better weigh the costs vs. the benefits.
Regarding the NPR article you sent, a rather grim detail that I didn't see addressed in that conversation (but maybe I missed it!!) is how that valuation changes for people when they are near the end of their life.
Is a person's life more "valuable" (putting it in the harsh aspects of policy decision making, that frankly cause me great discomfort) if they are younger, and in prime earning years, than a person in a nursing home who has a rich social life with their grandkids and other patients in their assisted care facility?
It's a horrible thing to try to quantify things that, to me, are objectively valuable, and even sacred. However, our decisions are doing just that, but on the side of people at highest risk vs. others.
I've just come back from my barber after her shop reopened. She's not the owner, just an employee. The visit was very interesting.
I had to wait outside, and a woman (87 years old, but looked MUCH younger) came out of the shop. My son and I both were wearing masks and keeping distant, but we spoke to her and asked how she was. It was her first time leaving her facility since the lockdown, and she told us a good friend of hers had died of the virus. She was a wonderful person to talk to, and had visited my same stylist for years.
My stylist/barber (she is licensed for both in my state) then told me she is leaving the state and moving back to the east coast. Her husband is a mechanic, and they have been financially ruined by this. She applied for benefits right away, but only received them 3 days before the shop was allowed to reopen. She has 3 children, 1 of them special needs. They are good working class people, but they didn't have the savings to weather this shut down, and now have to move in with family on the east coast. Today was my last time seeing her. She'll be gone in 2 weeks.
She expressed frustration at not being able to have the shop opened weeks ago in a controlled manner, with her and the owners radically changing how they operate the business to protect the high-risk populations. She stated that the high cost of housing here also exacerbated the issue, so it's not 100% covid, but the shutdown, she said, was the tipping point. She and her family are all alive, and I'm hoping they do ok on the east coast, but I thought this little visit to the barber shop captured an interesting moment. BTW, when she applied for her unemployment benefits in Colorado, an apalling thing with the legislation: Her tip income, which is 40% of her total, was legally not included with her unemployment payout. So she got a reduced amount of what she normally earns, AND she got it late. Other states probably did a far superior job, but I don't have any ideas if that's the case.
This whole thing is a tragedy, one way or another.
Yeah you did miss it. The question is asked directly ("Did we factor in the age...?") answered quite directly ("Valuing people differently was kind of tried once in 2003..."). I would suggest listening to the whole thing. It's quite eye-opening.
> She expressed frustration at not being able to have the shop opened weeks ago in a control+the owners radically changing how they operate the business to protect the high-risk populations.
It must be incredibly frustrating. I do imagine if she'd gotten checks in the mail to keep life her going, she'd have appreciated that at least as much as having to come to work in the middle of the pandemic, if not more.
> BTW, when she applied for her unemployment benefits in Colorado, an apalling thing with the legislation: Her tip income, which is 40% of her total, was legally not included with her unemployment payout. So she got a reduced amount of what she normally earns, AND she got it late. Other states probably did a far superior job, but I don't have any ideas if that's the case.
This is yet another reason why we need to get rid of tipping and just pay people better instead. And why we need to just mail everyone a check for the pandemic instead of having them rely on unemployment benefits.
> This whole thing is a tragedy, one way or another.
It is definitely a tragedy. However it doesn't need to be this much of a tragedy. If they sent people payments and changed laws accordingly then at least the only thing ruining lives would be the virus, not the economy. It's very tough to say the alternatives people are fighting about are all equally awful with equal certainty here.
And it's not only about the paycheck/stimulus check. Its also about going out to eat, going to the movies, enjoying life. A stimulus check doesn't compensate for this.
I can't recall meeting many people who get substantially more conservative with age, but I do know many who shift more liberal. I believe there is a correlation with open-mindedness.
You haven't been to a Trump rally and visited with people waiting in line, have you? Lots of people at them have crossed the party lines.
In addition, for the most part, folks in the US want to return to work. The vast majority find pride and comfort in work, even if they bitch about. They know eventually the payouts will come back out of their pocket.
The mixed signals from the CDC and governmental agencies add to the confusion (everything is fine/stay inside until a vaccine is available, don't wear masks/cover up you face once you step outside, etc.) only add to the feeling the government really dosn't have a clue.
I'm confused. I was saying people could demand more money instead of going back to work... precisely because the $1200 they got clearly wasn't enough (like you also said) and because clearly going back to work is otherwise riskier. You just jumped from "$1200 isn't enough" to "the only solution is to go back to work"?
I would not be opposed to constituents showing up at the personal homes of Congressional representatives to protest, but that requires resources as well.
OWS protests resulted in zero legislation. Zero.
I can go to a superstore which is deemed essential because it sells groceries and buy all sorts of items that specialty stores aren't able to sell me because they're closed. any member of the public can enter these superstores with no screening whatsoever. The small business owners would screen customers much more effectively than a large store would.
It's almost like we've taken steps that are arbitrary in nature and aren't actually scientifically valid because we don't have enough data on this virus and how it actually spreads. these arbitrary measures are then doubled down upon by the local governments in the name of preserving their authority and looking good to the press.
what really bugs me is the level of certainty that people seem to have about this. I'm coming from a position of uncertainty. Anyone being honest right now is doing the same.
Look at your comment: you are absolutely certain that a dubious at best chance of economic survival for small businesses is being traded against a certain chance of a public health crisis. I don't think you're being honest with yourself with a level of certainty like that. You're just like the rest of us flying blind, but you are just positive that you are right and that businesses should be closed to support your preconceived notions.
It's real easy to do that when you have a job that allows you to work remotely. It's not costing you anything just let those Walmart shopping losers go out and deal with the unemployment system. In the meantime a percentage of all of our tax dollars goes to paying off interest on the national debt and that percentage is going to have to increase as a result of this.
I'm not a moron or a science denier. I'm fine with taking on debt to the degree necessary to maximize public health. But there are multiple dimensions to public health not just this virus. My brother's business is in jeopardy and it was growing fast before this pandemic hit. Now I'm deeply concerned that he's going to fall back to an addiction that he beat 10 years ago. That's a tiny story that represents something that's going to happen in this country when young people who would otherwise be unaffected by the virus or going to suffer economic calamity.
By the way my brother always voted Democratic. Due to the false partisan positioning of opening versus reopening pushed by the media, he is now never going to vote Democrat again and plans to vote for Trump in November. He voted for Clinton last time think about that.
In the meantime people on keyboards who were going to vote for Biden anyway are now pushing policies that are going to hand this election to Trump. Maybe the elderly will carry Biden since many appear to be switching their votes. But when they're dead in a few years the young people who have lost their businesses will still be voting. It's not going to go well.
At a high level though: surely you understand not everything is equally uncertain here, and that not everything is being flown blindly? We have like 200 other countries in the world to observe and draw conclusions from, both socioeconomically and medically. We have ourselves to draw conclusions from, given the preceding shutdown and its effects. And we have experts who know and analyze quite a bit more than either you or me being quite united in their opinions. You can't seriously be so confident that their opinions are just coin tosses in a vacuum, come on. Especially not when you're the one preaching uncertainty!
I'm on pretty solid ground here. The costs of poverty and economic collapse are arguably better researched than pandemics.
And it is hard not to be disgusted by the attitude of many people on HN, who are least affected by this.
Having some relatives in that part of the country, I would compare this to the dust bowl. A complete economic collapse that will over the next year require millions of people to flee to cities, as they have absolutely nothing left. What are people supposed to do when every single business has gone from their town?
But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?
I realize, of course, I am shouting into the wind. I understand that it isn't actually about the economically underprivileged, because we'd write the checks. And it isn't actually about the Small Business Owner--service industry small business owner checking in, doing fine, thanks--being threatened, because we'd write the checks. It's about something much darker and much more mendacious and the rhetoric that is so readily adopted by useful idiots who want their haircuts or whatever.
We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks.
And that is the downfall of civic society before all else.
This is a generality and of course it's more nuanced than just this, but "spend in bad times, tax in good times" is a reasonable place to start. Where we have problems is that the "tax in good times" side of this keeps getting dropped for one reason or another. Cynically, I notice that this "for one reason or another" coincides strongly with a particular political party being elected once good times are back so that they can proceed to drive it off the nearest hillside yet again and somehow blame "government" for it.
I mean, I'm not arguing about how to avoid inflation. My question is about the debt being fictional. When you say "debt is fictional" that means that you can rack it up endlessly without consequences, but this clearly means there are consequences that you have to mitigate in another way. To argue that it's fictional you'd need to argue those problems don't come up at all. Otherwise you might as well say heart attacks are fictional because we can treat them, snake bites are fictional because we can treat them, etc...
Nobody in this thread said anything about that.
"Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional."
I studied economics. I can assure you, that's a radical oversimplification of how international debt works.
Are you aware of how US government debt is taken on? I don't think you are. You are acting as if the risk profile remains unchanged as policies are pursued.
I'm not debating Keynesian economics here. If the economy is in a deflationary spiral, then creating money isn't going to be destructive in pure terms, provided it's done correctly.
"We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks."
Again, I'm not against writing the checks. I'm against writing the checks if it's not necessary and there isn't a benefit to doing so. The same callousness you highlight in that line could also be said about allowing small businesses to fail (ruining young people's lives) to protect grandma, who had elderly people in previous generations just accept deadly diseases as a part of reality rather than shutting down whole economies to protect themselves.
Glad you, as a small service business owner, are doing fine. But every day, the percentage of business owners who aren't doing fine goes up.
What's the stop criteria for this in your opinion? What is the signal that SHOULD be used for opening back up?
Waiting for a vaccine relies on hope, and that as we all know, is not a strategy.
> But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?
Wow. You're putting a lot of words in people's mouths.
That's also quite a bit coming from someone who just claimed such confidence in his own prediction of the future. I assume this means you're more of an expert in this than the ones in the government we're all familiar with and who are predicting the opposite?
But in case you're actually interested in what actual experts (not me) think about the whole "minimizing harm" thing, you might enjoy reading/listening to this, which evaluates at what point it's worth shutting down the economy. It might shake your solid ground: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
The economy was going to collapse no matter what - that's not because of government giving an order to stay home, it's because the reality is that the virus infects everyone and leads to horrific health deterioration. Furthermore, our government has provided our economy nearly zero safety net to account for something like this.
Pandemics are scary. Suffering severe health deterioration or maybe even dying are existentially scary. No amount of shutting our ears and screaming "HOAX!" is going to change how most people view the risk - it only increases the chaos and lengthens the crisis. You want the economy to come back? Then figure out how to make people feel safe, which means getting rid of the virus, because no amount of weird charts or saying "it's just the flu" is going to work now that people realize how bad it really is. Ignoring the problem isn't a solution.
Open the stores and nobody comes?
"At a high level though: surely you understand not everything is equally uncertain here, and that not everything is being flown blindly? We have like 200 other countries in the world to observe and draw conclusions from, both socioeconomically and medically. "
Yes, you are 100% correct, and I appreciate you taking a charitable view of my comment.
The issue I see here is that the 200 countries we can observe provide a massive stream of data that then gets applied through a tribal filter.
Those who advocate for continued, strict shutdowns look at Sweden and compare it to Finland/Norway negatively. Those who advocate for moderated, easing shutdowns for economy look at Sweden and compare it to other countries with internationally connected economies in Europe in a positive framing.
I see this constantly playing out, with endless justifications/explanations for why "I'm still right."
"They had more testing, and they are better people and can be trusted to wear masks, so no, we're not like South Korea"
"The Swedes are culturally less individualist, and can be trusted more"
"Georgia and Texas are going to be disasters. It hasn't been a full 2 weeks, but just wait, the incubation period..."