Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf](dol.gov)
dol.gov
Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]
https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf
561 comments
I'm also hearing this morning that we've hit the 10% mark. I also heard the same economist say "The economy is collapsing, and it's a global collapse". I don't even need coffee to be alert the rest of the day...
Would you have a link to more reading from that economist about this?
Not really, sadly. I just heard him on an internal conference call we have twice a week, so don't really have a link to provide but don't think he's published his views in writing just yet. I expect a lot of similar predictions to come out now that the unemployment claims number is out (as of ~1 hour ago)
For general views of very smart people on the economy and markets, I recommend Bloomberg Surveillance every morning on the Bloomberg app, radio and on your favorite podcast app
For general views of very smart people on the economy and markets, I recommend Bloomberg Surveillance every morning on the Bloomberg app, radio and on your favorite podcast app
Ah I see, okay thank you.
This kind of info usually circulates in the corporate world for a week before it hits the wider media zeitgeist. My company has been holding weekly analyst briefings on what to expect.
Right now, the sources I have say to expect to be WFH and "socially distanced" until July or August at the earliest. Restaurants will probably start slowly opening back up around then, but conferences or sporting events are going to be cancelled through at least the end of the year. A single sporting event or conference can lead to thousands of new infections, so none of that stuff is coming back for a long time.
Past that, we were told to expect 3 waves of economic pain: one right now when everyone loses their job, another big layoff cycle in 3 months once companies that can WFH start to adjust for structural changes, and a third wave near the end of the year after people start to seriously curtail consumption in response to the first two waves and global demand falls off a cliff.
This information has been getting priced into the market for a few weeks, so none of it is new. But these numbers are just starting to hit the wider media and your average American is starting to panic because we're looking at a decade or more of hurt before this is all over.
Right now, the sources I have say to expect to be WFH and "socially distanced" until July or August at the earliest. Restaurants will probably start slowly opening back up around then, but conferences or sporting events are going to be cancelled through at least the end of the year. A single sporting event or conference can lead to thousands of new infections, so none of that stuff is coming back for a long time.
Past that, we were told to expect 3 waves of economic pain: one right now when everyone loses their job, another big layoff cycle in 3 months once companies that can WFH start to adjust for structural changes, and a third wave near the end of the year after people start to seriously curtail consumption in response to the first two waves and global demand falls off a cliff.
This information has been getting priced into the market for a few weeks, so none of it is new. But these numbers are just starting to hit the wider media and your average American is starting to panic because we're looking at a decade or more of hurt before this is all over.
Great info (and scary), thank you. Is this based on assumptions that have a decent potential to not hold true, like e.g. lack of vaccines and adequate testing? Or does this assume those will happen in the next (say) ~year? And would you know if there are predictions on whether e.g. housing prices might fall?
I'm more pessimistic in the short term than this (particularly for the US, which still doesn't have a national lockdown), but more optimistic in the long term.
Despite our best efforts, this thing is burning through entire populations, and will do so quickly (within a couple of months globally, except some places in asia who escaped the first wave but are now seeing more). Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order, thus infecting their household, and even in lockdowns people need to eat. Almost every country waited too long to lock down, and large countries still haven't effectively done so.
The downside of that is a horrific global death toll (1 million confirmed cases this month, maybe 10 million infected? megadeath next month?). The upside is that we will at some point reach herd immunity and/or develop and manufacture a vaccine and economies will restart.
Looking at Italy I find it hard to believe that almost every household has not been exposed by now - all it takes is one infected during the lockdown and the entire household gets it. Their new cases are declining and their deaths are flat already.
There will be substantial economic damage but I think the recovery may be quite fast as there will be a clear cause which has been addressed (probably by a rushed vaccine currently in trials - there are lots globally). I don't believe a lockdown of more than 2 months is acceptable to most, even with a 1% risk of death, and such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.
Despite our best efforts, this thing is burning through entire populations, and will do so quickly (within a couple of months globally, except some places in asia who escaped the first wave but are now seeing more). Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order, thus infecting their household, and even in lockdowns people need to eat. Almost every country waited too long to lock down, and large countries still haven't effectively done so.
The downside of that is a horrific global death toll (1 million confirmed cases this month, maybe 10 million infected? megadeath next month?). The upside is that we will at some point reach herd immunity and/or develop and manufacture a vaccine and economies will restart.
Looking at Italy I find it hard to believe that almost every household has not been exposed by now - all it takes is one infected during the lockdown and the entire household gets it. Their new cases are declining and their deaths are flat already.
There will be substantial economic damage but I think the recovery may be quite fast as there will be a clear cause which has been addressed (probably by a rushed vaccine currently in trials - there are lots globally). I don't believe a lockdown of more than 2 months is acceptable to most, even with a 1% risk of death, and such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.
"Every active person leaving home is going to be exposed in short order"
This virus is not transmitted via magic. Even basic precautions lower the transmission rate considerable. Most places are now taking precautions that are far beyond basic.
This virus is not transmitted via magic. Even basic precautions lower the transmission rate considerable. Most places are now taking precautions that are far beyond basic.
Most places are seeing increasing rates of infection, even in spite of extreme measures. I'm not suggesting it's magic, just that it's more infectious than a common cold, which is pretty hard to avoid in winter where I live at least.
I agree that could be worded better (I'll leave it up since you've replied), but I meant it's hard to avoid if you're going shopping every few days - people are not good at infection control and many are pretty much asymptomatic for a long period. Lockdowns are controlling the rate of spread, not stopping it, despite best efforts, and will I suspect be released after a few months for that reason - because it has infected > 50% anyway and those people are allowed out after testing.
I agree that could be worded better (I'll leave it up since you've replied), but I meant it's hard to avoid if you're going shopping every few days - people are not good at infection control and many are pretty much asymptomatic for a long period. Lockdowns are controlling the rate of spread, not stopping it, despite best efforts, and will I suspect be released after a few months for that reason - because it has infected > 50% anyway and those people are allowed out after testing.
Unfortunately, it's really, really hard to say anything concrete about the transmission rate. Testing is different everywhere, and usually far too limited, and we know there are a lot of asymptomatic cases. But, if we accept some big caveats, it certainly looks like the transmission rates in locked down regions are dramatically reduced. People are still going to the store, ordering food delivery, going for walks and jogs, etc. A big chunk of people are actually still going to work everyday for essential services. But nonetheless, transmission appears to be way down, even in Italy, which had one of the worst starts of any country.
Yes sure, probably we won't know much concrete till well after this is past.
I'm encouraged by the progress in Italy, but don't see how you can avoid having most of the population catch this in the long term without a vaccine. It appears to be very hard to control even with really draconian quarantines which only have an impact after weeks and cannot realistically hold for more than a a few months, esp in poorer countries. I'm not saying don't quarantine, it's essential to avoid really horrific deaths, just that it may not stop the majority getting it in within a year or so.
If it mutates of course that's another problem but this disease is so virulent and the economic damage of effective countermeasures is so disastrous that I cannot believe the world will not prioritise mass vaccinations when that arrives and eliminate it whatever the cost.
I'm encouraged by the progress in Italy, but don't see how you can avoid having most of the population catch this in the long term without a vaccine. It appears to be very hard to control even with really draconian quarantines which only have an impact after weeks and cannot realistically hold for more than a a few months, esp in poorer countries. I'm not saying don't quarantine, it's essential to avoid really horrific deaths, just that it may not stop the majority getting it in within a year or so.
If it mutates of course that's another problem but this disease is so virulent and the economic damage of effective countermeasures is so disastrous that I cannot believe the world will not prioritise mass vaccinations when that arrives and eliminate it whatever the cost.
Im even way more pessimistic than this...
>such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.
NO, they require they compliance of a population when faced with the military and martial law -- Which was already intimated directly as not being needed "just yet" by Trump.
Massive rumors of troop deployments and getting ready - videos of trains with tons of equipment being moved around the country.
Videos of the suposed "testing centers" setup at various places were the military setup huge tents - and they are completely empty, as well as fema delivering refridgerated trailers to these places...
They are planning on mass death coming very soon.
Media claiming that the hospitals are a "war zone" and guys went to these hospitals and they were empty.
>such lockdowns require the consent of the population to function.
NO, they require they compliance of a population when faced with the military and martial law -- Which was already intimated directly as not being needed "just yet" by Trump.
Massive rumors of troop deployments and getting ready - videos of trains with tons of equipment being moved around the country.
Videos of the suposed "testing centers" setup at various places were the military setup huge tents - and they are completely empty, as well as fema delivering refridgerated trailers to these places...
They are planning on mass death coming very soon.
Media claiming that the hospitals are a "war zone" and guys went to these hospitals and they were empty.
Any speculations on how bad is this going to get? Should I stock up on TP, on food, or on vodka and ammo?
Remember that 100 years ago, and then again 80 years ago, large percentages of men in Europe were removed from their own countries and sent somewhere else; ships transporting food and supplies were actively sunk, houses and factories were bombed to smithereens. In spite of the massive economic damage that caused, civilization did not descend into anarchy, and very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death.
COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.
COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.
>very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death [during WWII].
If it's relevant, 3 million people in India died due to widespread starvation during World War 2 caused by British colonial and war-time policies. Additionally all their cloth production was used by the British war effort, so many Indians went without clothes during that period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Cloth_fa...
If it's relevant, 3 million people in India died due to widespread starvation during World War 2 caused by British colonial and war-time policies. Additionally all their cloth production was used by the British war effort, so many Indians went without clothes during that period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Cloth_fa...
Right, I remember listening to an episode of Revisionist History about that [1]. Outrageous and shameful.
I'd have to listen to the episode again, but I think the most outrageous and shameful thing about it is that it wasn't actually necessary. The way Gladwell portrays it, they died mostly due to the personal spite of one person.
[1] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/15-the-prime-minister...
I'd have to listen to the episode again, but I think the most outrageous and shameful thing about it is that it wasn't actually necessary. The way Gladwell portrays it, they died mostly due to the personal spite of one person.
[1] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/15-the-prime-minister...
> Remember that 100 years ago, and then again 80 years ago, large percentages of men in Europe were removed from their own countries and sent somewhere else; ships transporting food and supplies were actively sunk, houses and factories were bombed to smithereens. In spite of the massive economic damage that caused, civilization did not descend into anarchy, and very few people who weren't prisoners starved to death.
> COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.
In The U.S., WWII was funded by the savings of that generation, which is really amazing considering they had been in the longest, deepest economic depression in the nation's history prior to the start of the war.
After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country.
Going into what we are doing right now, Americans don't have any savings plus many private and nearly all public institutions have a lot of debt.
There is no indication that the government will permit such a freely flowing economy even after whatever it is we are doing has ended, so I don't find direct comparisons relevant.
> COVID-19 isn't going to destroy any of our infrastructure, and if we mobilize properly, isn't going to kill nearly as many people. If our [great-]grandparents made it through WWII, there's no reason we can't make it through this.
In The U.S., WWII was funded by the savings of that generation, which is really amazing considering they had been in the longest, deepest economic depression in the nation's history prior to the start of the war.
After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country.
Going into what we are doing right now, Americans don't have any savings plus many private and nearly all public institutions have a lot of debt.
There is no indication that the government will permit such a freely flowing economy even after whatever it is we are doing has ended, so I don't find direct comparisons relevant.
> After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country
the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.
Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.
The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.
Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.
the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.
Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.
The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.
Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.
> > After the war ended, cooler heads prevailed and all wartime orders were lifted and capital and labor could reform, as it saw fit, and as such, the year immediately following the war produced the greatest annualized economic gains in the history of the country
> the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.
> Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.
> The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.
> Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.
Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
The Marshall Plan was passed in 1948.
> the reason the US was ably to basically jump start it's economy after ww2 was mainly because all of its competitors got either got their industries and cities literally leveled, or their nation/people nearly utterly destroyed.
> Even the UK, which was a victor of world war 2 had an economy which was basically dead in the water until the late 70's.
> The US got incredibly "lucky" during world war 2 in the sense that it didn't fight the conflict on its own continent.
> Also, the marshall plan was a smart policy in an economic sense because it allowed the war economy to transistion back into civilian goods thanks to having a massive (subsidized) export market.
Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
The Marshall Plan was passed in 1948.
> Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.
Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.
> > Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
> Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.
What does this have to do with post-WWII economic recovery in the U.S.?
> Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.
What does this have to do with post-WWII economic recovery in the U.S.?
US got favorable deals in many countries using its military might, i guess that is what the comment is implying.
>Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.
These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.
> >Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners.
> These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.
Well, taken out of context of the discussion, you can say lots of things.
> These are not mutually exclusive. See China v USA right now.
Well, taken out of context of the discussion, you can say lots of things.
Do you have any sources that compare government and private savings at the two time points? I am surprised by your claim that savings were higher at the height of the great depression
> Do you have any sources that compare government and private savings at the two time points? I am surprised by your claim that savings were higher at the height of the great depression
Not immediately, but the U.S. was on a gold standard at the time and funded the war through war bonds (and establishment of income taxes) which were largely purchased domestically.
The gold standard bit is important because the government was not able to simply print money to fund the war.
Not immediately, but the U.S. was on a gold standard at the time and funded the war through war bonds (and establishment of income taxes) which were largely purchased domestically.
The gold standard bit is important because the government was not able to simply print money to fund the war.
It sounds like you're arguing against the idea of debt altogether. Debt is a great, great thing that's allowed us to accomplish way more as a society than we ever could before. Way faster too.
Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.
But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.
Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.
But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.
> It sounds like you're arguing against the idea of debt altogether. Debt is a great, great thing that's allowed us to accomplish way more as a society than we ever could before. Way faster too.
> Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.
> But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.
There is no argument for or against debt. You are inserting something not there.
It is notable, however, that to create debt there must be a creditor.
> Yes, there is irresponsible lending that winds up in temporary value being created that we later find out was fake, and yes it's scary when the government is that lender. Maybe ironically, gold now works as a store of value that hedges against government money going bad.
> But debt it still a great system that will continue to work well after COVID-19.
There is no argument for or against debt. You are inserting something not there.
It is notable, however, that to create debt there must be a creditor.
You know those signs we memed the hell out of last decade? They're so cliched that they don't mean anything anymore, but think of those.
Two global wars, the use of nuclear weapons, and a 50 year cold war with the ever present threat of nuclear apocalypse didn't cause society to break down last century, a flu won't cause it to fall apart this century either.
Keep calm and carry on
Two global wars, the use of nuclear weapons, and a 50 year cold war with the ever present threat of nuclear apocalypse didn't cause society to break down last century, a flu won't cause it to fall apart this century either.
While all of that is true, it can be very painful for most people. These types of events almost invariably lead to social unrest which compounds the problem. Ambitious and unscrupulous leaders in government and businesses will use this to undermine many of the norms we take for granted.
What is clear is that people are underestimating this crisis, no one wants to think we are in a WWII level moment, and so we don’t activate the appropriate level of response. But it is and will be a world altering period.
Once consistent pattern is that countries seem to feel like you do, it’s just a flu, then doctors see patients gasping for breath and literally drowning as their lungs fill up with fluid, and the true dread sets in. My friend is a doctor in NYC. She said this feels like war, and the nature of death experienced by people is horrific. If people were bleeding from their eyeballs like a movie maybe that would capture people’s attention but on the front lines people are terrified because this is an awful awful way to die.
What is clear is that people are underestimating this crisis, no one wants to think we are in a WWII level moment, and so we don’t activate the appropriate level of response. But it is and will be a world altering period.
Once consistent pattern is that countries seem to feel like you do, it’s just a flu, then doctors see patients gasping for breath and literally drowning as their lungs fill up with fluid, and the true dread sets in. My friend is a doctor in NYC. She said this feels like war, and the nature of death experienced by people is horrific. If people were bleeding from their eyeballs like a movie maybe that would capture people’s attention but on the front lines people are terrified because this is an awful awful way to die.
Hopefully we have the chance to undermine the horrific norm of employer-based private healthcare in the US
I agree with you, but still would like to point out that the same line of argument (we’ve been fine before) would be as valid if society were to actually collapse. No species has ever gone extinct before... until it does!
So you're saying -- if things now return to conditions that were present during "Two global wars, the use of nuclear weapons" of last century... no cause for alarm?
Civilization can withstand alarming situations.
Civilization can; personally... I'm somewhat concerned about my next (and possibly last) 20-30 years.
This isn't a flu. Stop repeating misinformation.
You know what he means, don't be pedantic.
It's not pedantic, a lot of people will die because people were saying, "It's just a flu" and not properly preparing or isolating.
Context and audience matter. If you're getting up in front of a bunch of people and advising them that it's "just like the Flu" you're doing damage.
If you're invoking the flu as a parallel for illustrative purposes with an informed audience then it's pedantic to call it out.
If you're invoking the flu as a parallel for illustrative purposes with an informed audience then it's pedantic to call it out.
1. HN is not "an informed audience", it's literally the public. And it's common for software developers to mistake themselves for domain experts on any domain but they aren't.
2. It's not an informed audience if misinformation is not challenged, it's a misinformed audience.
3. The flu is a bad parallel. The flu, while annually killing lots of people, does not overwhelm hospitals like a novel virus does. At best it makes people think this is like swine flu, while it has quickly shown to be nothing like swine flu.
2. It's not an informed audience if misinformation is not challenged, it's a misinformed audience.
3. The flu is a bad parallel. The flu, while annually killing lots of people, does not overwhelm hospitals like a novel virus does. At best it makes people think this is like swine flu, while it has quickly shown to be nothing like swine flu.
Regarding 3, upper estimates for the 2009 swine flu are north of 500k deaths and the 1918 Spanish flu is 50 million.
Flus can be very deadly and the poster obviously did not intend to use the word in a diminutive way. You added that interpretation, knowing it is wrong, and then challenged it.
Flus can be very deadly and the poster obviously did not intend to use the word in a diminutive way. You added that interpretation, knowing it is wrong, and then challenged it.
The whole post was playing down the effects of the current pandemic on society. The whole conclusion was that "a flu won't cause [society to break down]".
So yes, the poster was using flu in a diminutive sense. And yes, flu is deadly and a lot worse than a lot of people (who've probably never had flu) realise. But even given that, even recent novel flu strains haven't stressed and shut down the global economy like this pandemic has.
So yes, the poster was using flu in a diminutive sense. And yes, flu is deadly and a lot worse than a lot of people (who've probably never had flu) realise. But even given that, even recent novel flu strains haven't stressed and shut down the global economy like this pandemic has.
>The whole conclusion was that "a flu won't cause [society to break down]"
This does not minimize the harm a flu can do, it puts it in perspective. Nuclear bombs going off over LA, London, New York, and Beijing probably would not cause society to break down. That does not mean that does not mean that it wouldn't be terrible, deadly, and disruptive.
When planning for how to prepare and deal with this pandemic, people should not be preparing for some Mad-Max scenario where an assault rifle is their most valuable possession.
This does not minimize the harm a flu can do, it puts it in perspective. Nuclear bombs going off over LA, London, New York, and Beijing probably would not cause society to break down. That does not mean that does not mean that it wouldn't be terrible, deadly, and disruptive.
When planning for how to prepare and deal with this pandemic, people should not be preparing for some Mad-Max scenario where an assault rifle is their most valuable possession.
To be accurate, the government(s) have shut down the economy.
We had several options for how to respond to this, and chose the most invasive, drastic and potentially economically catastrophic one.
We had several options for how to respond to this, and chose the most invasive, drastic and potentially economically catastrophic one.
To respond to "Clayton" in this thread, we did not have much of an option for reacting to the virus once it got to our land. Legally, the federal government cannot shut down the country and order lockdowns, only cities and states can do that. We could have taken the need for testing and equipment preparation more seriously, but we didn't.
In the absence of data around who is sick, who is not, and who is immune, there is no way to slow the spread of the virus during an outbreak except to keep everyone away from everyone else.
In the absence of data around who is sick, who is not, and who is immune, there is no way to slow the spread of the virus during an outbreak except to keep everyone away from everyone else.
This is juxtaposition, a form of literary style. He is sarcastically downplaying the _flu_ in comparison to the world wars because the _flu_ is already significantly lesser than the holocaust or an atomic bomb landing in Japan.
except the Spanish Flu killed more than World War 1 and 2 combined (est. 50 million dead from Spanish Flu)...
World War II alone killed 70MM - 85MM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Also, 50MM for the Spanish flu is the top end of reasonable estimates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe
Also, 50MM for the Spanish flu is the top end of reasonable estimates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe
you're right. Thanks for the correction.
> Keep calm and carry on
You know that that meme originated from a campaign designed by the British government for motivation in the face of mass bombing anticipated in England before the onset of WWII right? I think saying that "this won't be any worse than being bombed by nazis" is not a particularly motivated slogan.
> a flu won't cause it to fall apart this century either.
If you think this is just a freak thing that is happening, som e flu what will pass, then you don't understand what is happening. What we're seeing is the way this pandemic is exposing vulnerabilities in our global capitalist system.
And finally, plenty of societies of collapse in those time periods. Of course humans and societies continue to exist, but there are more an enough examples of societies that have ceases to exist and the transition is a painful process.
You know that that meme originated from a campaign designed by the British government for motivation in the face of mass bombing anticipated in England before the onset of WWII right? I think saying that "this won't be any worse than being bombed by nazis" is not a particularly motivated slogan.
> a flu won't cause it to fall apart this century either.
If you think this is just a freak thing that is happening, som e flu what will pass, then you don't understand what is happening. What we're seeing is the way this pandemic is exposing vulnerabilities in our global capitalist system.
And finally, plenty of societies of collapse in those time periods. Of course humans and societies continue to exist, but there are more an enough examples of societies that have ceases to exist and the transition is a painful process.
It's actually way more ironic than that. It's traced back to the public stance of the British government during the spanish flu pandemic in WW1, where they decided that keeping the economy going was more important than trying to slow the spread of the flu.
"According to Dr Honigsbaum, the “carry on” advice may well have been responsible for thousands of the 250,000 Britons who ultimately died in the Spanish flu pandemic."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/coronavirus-...
"According to Dr Honigsbaum, the “carry on” advice may well have been responsible for thousands of the 250,000 Britons who ultimately died in the Spanish flu pandemic."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/coronavirus-...
The irony is almost palpable! Thank you for sharing this.
While many people will likely get very sick, they only stay that way for ~2-6 weeks. Further, around half of people below 50 will show minimal if any symptoms. So, while most non essential jobs are shut down we are likely to see a surplus of labor in terms of trucking etc.
My guess is plenty of essential jobs will have heavy overtime while many people are unemployed. Simply because the disruptions are going to cascade through individual factories very quickly. The economic impact is largely going to be a question of how much do we shut down to save lives?
My guess is plenty of essential jobs will have heavy overtime while many people are unemployed. Simply because the disruptions are going to cascade through individual factories very quickly. The economic impact is largely going to be a question of how much do we shut down to save lives?
"The economic impact is largely going to be a question of how much do we shut down to save lives?"
i think about that a lot. I have so much respect for the task force setup to work on this, but man, i'm glad i'm not on it.
i think about that a lot. I have so much respect for the task force setup to work on this, but man, i'm glad i'm not on it.
That thinking negates the economic impact that a bunch of people dying is going to have on the economy. There are really two options here.
1) A huge impact on the economy and fewer people die.
2) A huge impact on the economy and lots of people die.
Nobody has the capability to predict the real outcome of one scenario over the other from an economic perspective.
If the US does everything perfectly, we'll probably lose 200k people to COVID-19. If we "reopen the economy" prematurely, the number could easily be 5x to 10x that figure.
Loss of human life has a very tangible impact on the economy, so folks should not be thinking of this as a binary decision ("do we save lives vs do we save the economy").
1) A huge impact on the economy and fewer people die.
2) A huge impact on the economy and lots of people die.
Nobody has the capability to predict the real outcome of one scenario over the other from an economic perspective.
If the US does everything perfectly, we'll probably lose 200k people to COVID-19. If we "reopen the economy" prematurely, the number could easily be 5x to 10x that figure.
Loss of human life has a very tangible impact on the economy, so folks should not be thinking of this as a binary decision ("do we save lives vs do we save the economy").
That’s incredibly simplified. Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome. Nobody wants millions of Americans to die or for another outbreak to happen in 6+ months. Unfortunately, avoiding both without shutting everything down until a vaccine is developed is tricky.
I'm pointing at the fact that it keeps getting presented like a binary decision in the media over and over again, and that's not an appropriate characterization.
If that’s what your thinking don’t say: There are really two options here.
Frankly, the US with effective leadership could have less than 1/10th your quoted 200,000 deaths, just look at South Korea. Any time someone says their are two options on a complex issue it’s a straw man argument which is what I objected to.
Frankly, the US with effective leadership could have less than 1/10th your quoted 200,000 deaths, just look at South Korea. Any time someone says their are two options on a complex issue it’s a straw man argument which is what I objected to.
>Policy makers don’t have a simple switch to which results in some specific known outcome
BS: Donald Trump was specifically asked yesterday how he feels about the poor and especially illegal immigrants who will have zero access to help, both financial and medical.
He litaerally tilted his head and said "what are you gunna do?" knowing what that outcome is going to result in.
BS: Donald Trump was specifically asked yesterday how he feels about the poor and especially illegal immigrants who will have zero access to help, both financial and medical.
He litaerally tilted his head and said "what are you gunna do?" knowing what that outcome is going to result in.
[deleted]
> around half of people below 50 will show minimal if any symptoms.
I have a middle finger for you for how cold hearted you sound. As though “it’s no big deal”. My wife went through this (previously healthy 34 year old) and it was terrible. The docs just said: “there’s nothing more we can do”
I have a middle finger for you for how cold hearted you sound. As though “it’s no big deal”. My wife went through this (previously healthy 34 year old) and it was terrible. The docs just said: “there’s nothing more we can do”
I'm sorry for what you're going through. Maybe reading a thread on the economic implications of this disaster -- which will inevitably discuss both the terrible parts and the silver linings -- isn't the healthiest thing for you right now?
Unfortunately in mitigating a national crisis it is a balance - and largely a dehumanized balance where everyone is diminished to a statistic.
How is your wife now? Sorry if that’s too personal.
She's doing better now, thanks for asking! She's still got a bit of a cough, but will almost surely make a 100% recovery.
Great to hear.
"Forecasting is hard, especially when it's about the future"
Whether or not you need ammo probably depends on where you live... but I'd stock up on non-perishables and necessities if you can afford it.
Not sure you need vodka at all, but I think that's a matter of personal preference. I'm actually trying to be as healthy and fit as possible to fight the weirdness that is self-isolation and to be ready for the virus when it inevitably comes (if 80% of us really are going to be infected...)
Am also hearing PE funds are forecasting anything between "18 months until we're back to normal" to "it will never be the same"..
Whether or not you need ammo probably depends on where you live... but I'd stock up on non-perishables and necessities if you can afford it.
Not sure you need vodka at all, but I think that's a matter of personal preference. I'm actually trying to be as healthy and fit as possible to fight the weirdness that is self-isolation and to be ready for the virus when it inevitably comes (if 80% of us really are going to be infected...)
Am also hearing PE funds are forecasting anything between "18 months until we're back to normal" to "it will never be the same"..
The vodka and ammo was a bit of the joke (though I think the saying goes that post-apocalypse currency is fuel, ammo and cigarettes).
I've stocked up a month ago for a minor supply chain disruption. But the more I read the news every day, the more it seems to me that it isn't going to be a minor disruption. I'm starting to worry about survival even if neither myself nor anyone around me actually catches COVID-19.
I've stocked up a month ago for a minor supply chain disruption. But the more I read the news every day, the more it seems to me that it isn't going to be a minor disruption. I'm starting to worry about survival even if neither myself nor anyone around me actually catches COVID-19.
What are you going to shoot? Food or people?
Technically that's not an either/or, you know.
For now, I'm hoping it's an xor.
If you're a cannibal, things just got complicated.
Right, either shoot people or animals. Shooting both groups may be a recipe for total loneliness.
Definitely stockpile TP and food, if you're in an area where the shelves haven't been stripped already. But don't overdo it and leave none for others.
(UK already into "one large pack of TP per customer" territory, which is an improvement from bare shelves)
(UK already into "one large pack of TP per customer" territory, which is an improvement from bare shelves)
Where I live, there's a sign that says "limit 1 per customer" in front of a shelf that's been completely empty for over two weeks now.
Yeah, anecdotal reports here are that stores sell out of TP within hours of opening after a restock in spite of quantity limits.
Stockpiling has caused absolutely nothing but problems.
Food, non-perishables, fuel? Yes. Firearms and ammo? To each their own. We did, but we're more rural.
Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick. I would rather be prepared and not need something, then need something and not be prepared.
Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick. I would rather be prepared and not need something, then need something and not be prepared.
> Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick.
This is an absurdist prediction - we are looking at maximum 2 million 75+ year olds dying with some much smaller number of people of different ages. This is the group least likely to be involved in the day-to-day functioning of our supply chains.
Honestly, where are people coming up with these doomsday predictions?
This is an absurdist prediction - we are looking at maximum 2 million 75+ year olds dying with some much smaller number of people of different ages. This is the group least likely to be involved in the day-to-day functioning of our supply chains.
Honestly, where are people coming up with these doomsday predictions?
Have you watched the supply chains? Spikes in demand followed by demand collapse have already wreaked havoc. From what I read from people from that business, there's total chaos.
And even if the elderly bear most of the risk, countries are shutting down completely for their sake - and that means companies stopping operations, leading to further disruptions. Also this article: US already has 10 million unemployed, and it barely started to consider doing anything about the virus.
I think this is closest to actual doomsday since the peak of Cold War.
And even if the elderly bear most of the risk, countries are shutting down completely for their sake - and that means companies stopping operations, leading to further disruptions. Also this article: US already has 10 million unemployed, and it barely started to consider doing anything about the virus.
I think this is closest to actual doomsday since the peak of Cold War.
If you were to value all human lives equally, the Cold War potential threat was far greater than this. The actual realized causality count is of course orders of magnitude lower for the Cold War.
In terms of being an existential threat to human life, this virus as we currently understand it (ignoring all the unknowns) isn't a real Doomsday. Historically it's merely a blip on the radar of awful things humanity has went through, endured, and survived leading to where we are now. People survived the bubonic plague and continued on. It was awful and they lacked much of the knowledge and understanding we now have to better curb these threats.
The vast majority of the population is going to be fine, healthy, and moving along. There may be economic restructuring after this (I don't see it as likely though). You're probably going to see a drop in quality/standard of living at large no matter what, but the majority of our infrastructure will still be there and the majority of the people who operate it will still be there. It's not like humans won't be around, infrastructure will be destroyed, our acquired knowledge and skills are lost...
The absolute worst case scenario is that this virus mutates regularly (perhaps with higher mortality rates) and we aren't able to manage it. Each mutation comes with significant risk of death. Although the risk could low for many, multiple exposures to relatively low risk leads to higher more realized unwelcome outcomes. This would absolutely force a complete systematic restructuring of societies, how we interact, how we work, etc. long term.
Based on what we currently know this will be a fairly long decline in productivity that most will be immune to and life will probably continue on mostly as is. It all boils down to questions about who deserves what, who takes the hit on losses, etc. Right now it looks like your average US citizen will see a larger decline in standards of living and our economic system will further consolidate/concentrate wealth and power barring some sort of (hopefully non-violent) social revolution.
In terms of being an existential threat to human life, this virus as we currently understand it (ignoring all the unknowns) isn't a real Doomsday. Historically it's merely a blip on the radar of awful things humanity has went through, endured, and survived leading to where we are now. People survived the bubonic plague and continued on. It was awful and they lacked much of the knowledge and understanding we now have to better curb these threats.
The vast majority of the population is going to be fine, healthy, and moving along. There may be economic restructuring after this (I don't see it as likely though). You're probably going to see a drop in quality/standard of living at large no matter what, but the majority of our infrastructure will still be there and the majority of the people who operate it will still be there. It's not like humans won't be around, infrastructure will be destroyed, our acquired knowledge and skills are lost...
The absolute worst case scenario is that this virus mutates regularly (perhaps with higher mortality rates) and we aren't able to manage it. Each mutation comes with significant risk of death. Although the risk could low for many, multiple exposures to relatively low risk leads to higher more realized unwelcome outcomes. This would absolutely force a complete systematic restructuring of societies, how we interact, how we work, etc. long term.
Based on what we currently know this will be a fairly long decline in productivity that most will be immune to and life will probably continue on mostly as is. It all boils down to questions about who deserves what, who takes the hit on losses, etc. Right now it looks like your average US citizen will see a larger decline in standards of living and our economic system will further consolidate/concentrate wealth and power barring some sort of (hopefully non-violent) social revolution.
As isolation habits go, it's slightly safer to overindulge in news than in liquor, but not much less unhealthy.
If you're worried about a real collapse, then do what you can to prepare, sure - ideally remembering that, by all the accounts of people who've been through such collapses and later told the tale, what really gets you through in the long run isn't liquor, smokes, or bullets, but relationships.
You don't need to soak in the news to do that. Indeed, soaking in the news probably makes it harder. Anxiety can get paralyzing, and there's a lot in the news to be anxious about. But it's also worth remembering that what's going to happen is going to happen whether you obsess over it or not. It can't be hurried, helped, or fought. It can only be dealt with as best you can, and from here it seems like you're not really helping yourself by what you're doing just now. So, maybe consider trying doing something else for a while? You know, just to see if it feels any different.
If you're worried about a real collapse, then do what you can to prepare, sure - ideally remembering that, by all the accounts of people who've been through such collapses and later told the tale, what really gets you through in the long run isn't liquor, smokes, or bullets, but relationships.
You don't need to soak in the news to do that. Indeed, soaking in the news probably makes it harder. Anxiety can get paralyzing, and there's a lot in the news to be anxious about. But it's also worth remembering that what's going to happen is going to happen whether you obsess over it or not. It can't be hurried, helped, or fought. It can only be dealt with as best you can, and from here it seems like you're not really helping yourself by what you're doing just now. So, maybe consider trying doing something else for a while? You know, just to see if it feels any different.
For food, fuel, and other essentials? If stuff like that starts getting disrupted to the point that people are actually dying, you can bet that we are going to lift our shelter-in-place. I have seen no evidence of that being borne out at all.
> I think this is closest to actual doomsday since the peak of Cold War
I agree, but I think that more speaks to the relative safety and stability of the post-Cold War era than any particularly huge danger from the pandemic. 2 million deaths is terrifying and we should do what we can to prevent it - I don't see any evidence that this is the lead up to general societal collapse or even substantial supply chain disruption for things you need to survive.
> I think this is closest to actual doomsday since the peak of Cold War
I agree, but I think that more speaks to the relative safety and stability of the post-Cold War era than any particularly huge danger from the pandemic. 2 million deaths is terrifying and we should do what we can to prevent it - I don't see any evidence that this is the lead up to general societal collapse or even substantial supply chain disruption for things you need to survive.
Because countries are shutting their borders and we have a tightly coupled network. Add to that decades of streamlining logistics to avoid any inventory and consistent dividends and stock buy backs that make scaling up additional capacity difficult and you can quickly see disruption.
If this triggers a financial crisis, then working capital can disappear so even if capacity exists liquidity won’t and there won’t be enough purchase power to float inventory.
I worked at the best corporate bankruptcy law firm in the country in 2008. I can tell you there was a real concern that lack of liquidity would result in grocery stores not having food for extended periods from lacking working capital. That can happen fast.
If this triggers a financial crisis, then working capital can disappear so even if capacity exists liquidity won’t and there won’t be enough purchase power to float inventory.
I worked at the best corporate bankruptcy law firm in the country in 2008. I can tell you there was a real concern that lack of liquidity would result in grocery stores not having food for extended periods from lacking working capital. That can happen fast.
That's a reasonable concern, IMO.
My predictions:
The curve will barely flatten, before 'peak infection' is reached. At the current rate, we have only 1 or 2 months to accomplish this, and no progress so far.
Many folks will get sick; the oldest will die at home. For others it will suck, and there will be no help even from neighbors, churches etc (like the last time, they quit functioning entirely)
Some will not notice at all, apparently. They will survive into a world changed by loss, conservatism, suspicion and paranoia.
An initial recession, while paradoxically goods are plentiful due to the reduced demand
The Social Security fund will disappear entirely as a topic of discussion
Civilization won't fall, and public order will only be occasionally disrupted in small localities
I'd recommend establishing a network of close friends who will support one another during this time. It's about the only support we can expect.
The curve will barely flatten, before 'peak infection' is reached. At the current rate, we have only 1 or 2 months to accomplish this, and no progress so far.
Many folks will get sick; the oldest will die at home. For others it will suck, and there will be no help even from neighbors, churches etc (like the last time, they quit functioning entirely)
Some will not notice at all, apparently. They will survive into a world changed by loss, conservatism, suspicion and paranoia.
An initial recession, while paradoxically goods are plentiful due to the reduced demand
The Social Security fund will disappear entirely as a topic of discussion
Civilization won't fall, and public order will only be occasionally disrupted in small localities
I'd recommend establishing a network of close friends who will support one another during this time. It's about the only support we can expect.
> The curve will barely flatten, before 'peak infection' is reached. At the current rate, we have only 1 or 2 months to accomplish this, and no progress so far.
The curve is flat (at least the new "X" curve) in both Seattle and the Bay Area. That's definitely progress.
The curve is flat (at least the new "X" curve) in both Seattle and the Bay Area. That's definitely progress.
No.
Stock up on cash, to survive being laid off if you have to.
The time to do that was a month ago.
Yeah, well, I unnecessarily asked my question in the indirect way. What I meant is: what do we expect to see? Wars and famines, or just little hardship? Or something in between?
I've done some preparations over a month ago, but these were preparations for a short-term supply chain disruption. Not for what increasingly seems like a global economic meltdown.
I've done some preparations over a month ago, but these were preparations for a short-term supply chain disruption. Not for what increasingly seems like a global economic meltdown.
Obviously it's impossible to say for certain. This was/is a relatively controlled economic crash landing. The decision was made to take the plane from 30,000 feet to the runway in record time. So everyone has bumps and bruises, some are going to have broken bones and a few may die as a result of their injuries... but that was the best option available at the time.
Personally, I find this a lot less scary than '08. The main objective of the current exercise is to ensure the healthcare system does not collapse... because if that happens, things could get dicey. (i.e. blind terror would likely cause more damage than the virus itself) Once we get to the point where the medical community feels like 'OK, we've got this under control' things should start looking up since we'll know for sure what the bottom looks like from a health/mortality standpoint. Then people can start sorting out the economic side of the equation. Right now there's fear because no one knows where the bottom is for either situation.
Personally, I find this a lot less scary than '08. The main objective of the current exercise is to ensure the healthcare system does not collapse... because if that happens, things could get dicey. (i.e. blind terror would likely cause more damage than the virus itself) Once we get to the point where the medical community feels like 'OK, we've got this under control' things should start looking up since we'll know for sure what the bottom looks like from a health/mortality standpoint. Then people can start sorting out the economic side of the equation. Right now there's fear because no one knows where the bottom is for either situation.
2008 started in 2007, things move slow until they don’t. Banks are just as leveraged as they were then. They started doing many of the same things they did then in recent years. They are stronger in part because of the stress tests and implications fed back stop they are counting on so luckily the won’t likely panic and stop lending to each other. But make no mistake. If mortgages and credit cards start to default their balance sheets have limits on what they can with stand. Tightly coupled systems implode quickly even with small changes.
You talk as if there are currently shortages of essential supplies. There are not. You could stock up tomorrow if you wanted.
I live in a state barely touched by COVID-19. Since Mar 15, I've never seen a roll of TP in any of the stores in town. Not Costco, Sam's Club, Target or the local grocery chain. I feel bad for people who didn't manage to stock up.
You speak as if the toilet paper factories have shut down and the delivery trucks are all sitting idle. Everyone decided to rush the stores and buy up all of the toilet paper, and unsurprisingly the stores don't stock enough for every household to buy 200 rolls in the same week.
All you need to do is wait for the next delivery to show up (which it will). The problem is, people like you will continue to buy up everything as quickly as possible, so after the first couple hundred customers the shelves will be empty again. Until the next delivery. That is the problem, not supply shortages.
Don't feel bad for people who didn't horde resources at everyone else's expense. Help those people by buying what you need plus only a little extra.
All you need to do is wait for the next delivery to show up (which it will). The problem is, people like you will continue to buy up everything as quickly as possible, so after the first couple hundred customers the shelves will be empty again. Until the next delivery. That is the problem, not supply shortages.
Don't feel bad for people who didn't horde resources at everyone else's expense. Help those people by buying what you need plus only a little extra.
Thanks for the ad hominem and patronizing reply. I haven't been trying to buy TP, I just noticed it was missing every time. There may be plenty of TP (and other goods) in the pipeline, but that doesn't matter to the end user. They're just SOL because there's so little slack in supply chain management anymore.
Your post was completely and factually incorrect, then you not only blame me, but blame the people trying to adjust to a supply issue. How do you determine "what you need plus only a little extra" when you can't determine when TP will be in stock? It's been weeks now, and it's perfectly rational to buy more than you need since you can't count on the supply chain.
Your post was completely and factually incorrect, then you not only blame me, but blame the people trying to adjust to a supply issue. How do you determine "what you need plus only a little extra" when you can't determine when TP will be in stock? It's been weeks now, and it's perfectly rational to buy more than you need since you can't count on the supply chain.
Stock up on cocaine and girlfriend instead
Afaik Norway was one of the first countries that made similar numbers public, as about a week ago they had announced that unemployment had risen from app. 2% to 10.4%. The article is here [1]. My ballpark estimate is GDP going down by 20-30% for the next two quarters at least.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/norway-jo...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/norway-jo...
Austria 8.1% Feb 2020 -> 12.2% Mar 2020
Philippines 4.5% -> 5.3%
Belarus 0.3% -> 0.2% (???)
per https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/unemployment-rate
Israel 18.6% 3/24 to 24.4% today - https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-unemployment-in-israel-up... and https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/The-number-of-unemployed...
I'm not sure why Israel has their numbers available so quickly.
Philippines 4.5% -> 5.3%
Belarus 0.3% -> 0.2% (???)
per https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/unemployment-rate
Israel 18.6% 3/24 to 24.4% today - https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-unemployment-in-israel-up... and https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/The-number-of-unemployed...
I'm not sure why Israel has their numbers available so quickly.
Belarus, I suspect agriculture sector is working 110% to provide more food to Russia which started to have food runs.
If the unemployment rate continues to rise at this pace (about 7% every two weeks), it will match the peak during the Great Depression (25%) around the end of April.
That's 40 million people who will have no income and likely no health care in the middle of a pandemic.
Not sure how to process this information honestly.
That's 40 million people who will have no income and likely no health care in the middle of a pandemic.
Not sure how to process this information honestly.
>That's 40 million people who will have no income and likely no health care in the middle of a pandemic.
if the government were to help regular people that would be say $1T/40M = $25K - one can survive a month or two on that (and those money would have naturally trickled promptly up thus also supporting the top of the economy - corporations, banks, etc. - instead of being directly accumulated there like in the current trickle down approach). My understanding that is what they ultimately did in Great Depression - by way of public works and rudimentary safety net - though the things had to get really bad before they did it, and one can only wonder how much things have to get bad this time.
if the government were to help regular people that would be say $1T/40M = $25K - one can survive a month or two on that (and those money would have naturally trickled promptly up thus also supporting the top of the economy - corporations, banks, etc. - instead of being directly accumulated there like in the current trickle down approach). My understanding that is what they ultimately did in Great Depression - by way of public works and rudimentary safety net - though the things had to get really bad before they did it, and one can only wonder how much things have to get bad this time.
>$25K - one can survive a month or two on that
US median yearly household income is about $61k
US median yearly household income is about $61k
You cannot simply extrapolate trends ad infinitum.
You have to look at the vulnerable industries, and assume percentage of those jobs will be lost, up to the limit of that industry.
...but certainly, the longer everyone stays home, the more industries will be sucked into the void.
Ultimately, we will have no choice but to advise people to go back to their lives, despite the risks.
The government does not have the ability to bail out every single industry in the economy.
You have to look at the vulnerable industries, and assume percentage of those jobs will be lost, up to the limit of that industry.
...but certainly, the longer everyone stays home, the more industries will be sucked into the void.
Ultimately, we will have no choice but to advise people to go back to their lives, despite the risks.
The government does not have the ability to bail out every single industry in the economy.
You can't extrapolate trends ad infinitum, and I didn't.
I extrapolated them for four weeks.
All we need is four more weeks of what has happened for the last two (and most authorities are saying that the lockdowns will last at least this long), and we're at the peak of the Great Depression, unemployment-wise at least.
Moreover, by assuming constant linear growth, I was being optimistic about the slope of the curve. The second week of jobless claims was worse than the first.
I extrapolated them for four weeks.
All we need is four more weeks of what has happened for the last two (and most authorities are saying that the lockdowns will last at least this long), and we're at the peak of the Great Depression, unemployment-wise at least.
Moreover, by assuming constant linear growth, I was being optimistic about the slope of the curve. The second week of jobless claims was worse than the first.
108m Americans work in the service sector.
[deleted]
Well, think about it this way, everyone will be 200% unemployed by the end of the year.
Correct. Todays number isn't even much of a surprise, although it's still shocking to see. I thought the consensus estimate was way too low. Some analysts have been kicking around 20%-30% unemployment before this is all over.
The US economy looks more like a pyramid scheme than ever.
The virtuous cycle provided by a functioning market is not a pyramid scheme. Not even close.
Pyramid schemes transfer wealth from the bottom to the top while creating no new additional wealth. America is creating tons of additional wealth and how much each gets from that wealth is proportional to one's leverage and one's leverage is generally proportional to how much one is able to contribute to wealth generation (in either talent or useful capital)
Pyramid schemes transfer wealth from the bottom to the top while creating no new additional wealth. America is creating tons of additional wealth and how much each gets from that wealth is proportional to one's leverage and one's leverage is generally proportional to how much one is able to contribute to wealth generation (in either talent or useful capital)
The US has destroyed nearly one trillion dollars in wealth for the bottom 50% since 1989:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
You're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by "destroyed".
Also, the US isn't a single entity. It's an agglomeration of 330 million people interacting with one another and it's various levels of governance at the local, state and federal level.
Natural disasters can destroy wealth by destroying assets. Individuals can squander their wealth through bad investments. A government can steal wealth through taxes. Wealth can be forfeited through civil or criminal proceedings. Wealth can dwindle in real terms due to inflation. So on and so forth.
But to say that the "US destroyed wealth" makes no sense and isn't either a supportable or falsifiable statement.
Also, the US isn't a single entity. It's an agglomeration of 330 million people interacting with one another and it's various levels of governance at the local, state and federal level.
Natural disasters can destroy wealth by destroying assets. Individuals can squander their wealth through bad investments. A government can steal wealth through taxes. Wealth can be forfeited through civil or criminal proceedings. Wealth can dwindle in real terms due to inflation. So on and so forth.
But to say that the "US destroyed wealth" makes no sense and isn't either a supportable or falsifiable statement.
“Virtuous”. It is fueled by artificial growth. It demands growth and makes sustainable, stable businesses a liability. It is absurd to see companies folding barely two weeks into hardship.
> It is absurd to see companies folding barely two weeks into hardship.
Why? Companies sitting on tons of cash is a bad thing. That cash either needs to be invested through hiring, buying equipment, etc...or paid out to the shareholders (who then spend, invest, etc...). Sitting on cash traps capital that could be doing something else to create value.
And before you say companies need to plan better, companies do plan for downturns. But, no company plans for their revenues to go to near zero overnight.
Why? Companies sitting on tons of cash is a bad thing. That cash either needs to be invested through hiring, buying equipment, etc...or paid out to the shareholders (who then spend, invest, etc...). Sitting on cash traps capital that could be doing something else to create value.
And before you say companies need to plan better, companies do plan for downturns. But, no company plans for their revenues to go to near zero overnight.
Data released in New York alone is that they are getting 250-300k successful initial claim calls per day, and many people are not successful.
This is going to be the most profund economic event of our lives. Hopefully more like 1893 than 1929.
This is going to be the most profund economic event of our lives. Hopefully more like 1893 than 1929.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
^ for anyone who doesn't know, 1893 seemed to be the first of many Argentine financial crises, caused by a wheat crop failure, which caused a negative feedback loop as (mostly) European investors pulled out of South Africa and Australia. The effects spilled over into the US and UK financial systems, led to runs on the banks, and caused a severe recession for 2 years.
^ for anyone who doesn't know, 1893 seemed to be the first of many Argentine financial crises, caused by a wheat crop failure, which caused a negative feedback loop as (mostly) European investors pulled out of South Africa and Australia. The effects spilled over into the US and UK financial systems, led to runs on the banks, and caused a severe recession for 2 years.
That's not too bad... here in Belgium we currently have half of the working population on unemployment benefits.
Then again for the part of that which is related to corona it’s mostly through the mechanism of temporary unemployment, where the state takes over paying part of the paycheck for the duration of the time that the workers can’t work, and they are expected to return to their jobs once the lockdown is over. Of course not all companies will survive post-corona but it seems like an approach that potentially better preserves the social and economic tissue.
cf https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/business/france-coronavir... (not about Belgium, but the approach is common to multiple EU countries)
cf https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/business/france-coronavir... (not about Belgium, but the approach is common to multiple EU countries)
Canada too, up to 75% of the payroll, for companies with 30%+ decline in revenue. It will take weeks to roll though, it is all promises as of now
The US' unemployment rate was much, much lower than many western European unemployment rates prior to coronavirus, so it doesn't make sense to compare the absolute number here - instead you should be comparing relative figures. The US' unemployment rate has tripled in the past 2 weeks based on this analysis.
This is just a personal opinion, but I think ~15% unemployment peak is far too optimistic.
I believe that 50-75% of restaurants will never reopen. 20-35% of small to mid-size hotels, venues, spas will declare bankruptcy within this year. Both employ a lot of people.
So I'm afraid the number is going to much higher, maybe even double.
I believe that 50-75% of restaurants will never reopen. 20-35% of small to mid-size hotels, venues, spas will declare bankruptcy within this year. Both employ a lot of people.
So I'm afraid the number is going to much higher, maybe even double.
I know it's really not PC to talk about this (how dare you value money over human lives!?), but at what point does the economic damage this causes become too much? 15% joblessness would be ~50M americans. If just 0.1% of them commit suicide as a result of losing their jobs or businesses, that would be 50,000 dead.
Maybe there's some kind of intermediate between forcing everyone to stay home and not having any mitigation measures in place whatsoever? Maybe a midway strategy would be less destructive. Protecting the economy isn't just about protecting the rich. The rich will be fine, they will get huge government bailouts (zero-interest loans). However, as you point out, a large percentage of small businesses will never reopen. If anything, this crisis is hugely benefitting Amazon & co.
Maybe there's some kind of intermediate between forcing everyone to stay home and not having any mitigation measures in place whatsoever? Maybe a midway strategy would be less destructive. Protecting the economy isn't just about protecting the rich. The rich will be fine, they will get huge government bailouts (zero-interest loans). However, as you point out, a large percentage of small businesses will never reopen. If anything, this crisis is hugely benefitting Amazon & co.
the problem with your statement that NOT doing any of the counter measures (like self isolation) would result in the overloading of the healthcare system and many people dying.
(heck, the healthcare system in the US seems to be overloaded already).
When you have no further option for healthcare because the system is broken and overloaded, why would going into work make any sense if it resulted in either an period of illness with structural symptons or even death.
In times of crisis, people want food on the table and a roof over their head, if the cost benefit of doing legal work and following the rule of law turns negative, people might aswell just steal food and stop paying rent, who is there to stop them?
When you have no further option for healthcare because the system is broken and overloaded, why would going into work make any sense if it resulted in either an period of illness with structural symptons or even death.
In times of crisis, people want food on the table and a roof over their head, if the cost benefit of doing legal work and following the rule of law turns negative, people might aswell just steal food and stop paying rent, who is there to stop them?
Because the vast majority of people under the retirement age resolve the illness in a week or two without the need for healthcare assistance.
The people who need to be locked-down are those over 60 - not the entire population.
The people who need to be locked-down are those over 60 - not the entire population.
There are also measures that can be taken that are not a complete lockdown, eg: limiting public events, temperature monitoring in workplaces, etc.
We're not going to hold stay at home forever - even Wuhan is exiting lockdown (after 2.5 months).
Unfortunately not really https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/chinese-c...
I mean, I hope not, it certainly doesn't seem realistic to do so, but I see people pushing for multi-month lockdowns until mid-summer.
I think the difference here is that virus bring death to us. Suicides can be reduced if governments create the correct stimulus.
Again, it's super easy to criticize when not in charge, but my reaction would have been to shut down any means of travels to and from the country, shut down the country for 45 days completely, slowly restart the economy from crucial business to less and introduce couple of strong measurements to compensate workers for lost income.
Again, it's super easy to criticize when not in charge, but my reaction would have been to shut down any means of travels to and from the country, shut down the country for 45 days completely, slowly restart the economy from crucial business to less and introduce couple of strong measurements to compensate workers for lost income.
Hard to say.
At start of year, situation normal, the economy we had was unsustainable. We were collectively waging war on our environment and winning. Folks mostly had jobs, which was good, but income inequality was nuts and lots of jobs didn't pay a living wage. Housing costs, healthcare and college were out of control.
In short, the world could really use a correction. The pollution reduction from this shutdown has been dramatic and wonderful.
This will hit the economy very hard. The rich will be livid and will push hard to return to business as usual. The rest of us will suffer terribly. Maybe so terribly, and in such numbers, that we have to address it. Maybe we'll come out the other end with something more sustainable for everyone.
(Probably not.)
At start of year, situation normal, the economy we had was unsustainable. We were collectively waging war on our environment and winning. Folks mostly had jobs, which was good, but income inequality was nuts and lots of jobs didn't pay a living wage. Housing costs, healthcare and college were out of control.
In short, the world could really use a correction. The pollution reduction from this shutdown has been dramatic and wonderful.
This will hit the economy very hard. The rich will be livid and will push hard to return to business as usual. The rest of us will suffer terribly. Maybe so terribly, and in such numbers, that we have to address it. Maybe we'll come out the other end with something more sustainable for everyone.
(Probably not.)
> Maybe so terribly, and in such numbers, that we have to address it
That’s unfortunately my reading. There are stores boarding their storefronts in LA [0]. Very very premature but gives you a glimpse into the believes of some.
I’m sure at the end we will come out of it in better place that we entered it, but I’m dreading the path we have to take to get there.
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/tmz/status/1244412908273991680 (I know, I know, it’s TMZ)
That’s unfortunately my reading. There are stores boarding their storefronts in LA [0]. Very very premature but gives you a glimpse into the believes of some.
I’m sure at the end we will come out of it in better place that we entered it, but I’m dreading the path we have to take to get there.
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/tmz/status/1244412908273991680 (I know, I know, it’s TMZ)
After this is over (whenever that is) we expect people to resume eating out and traveling. I agree that it's likely that 50% of restaurants and 25% of hotels/spas would become bankrupt and shut down, but that does not mean a 50% / 25% reduction of employment; I would expect most of the bankrupt restaurants and hotels/spas to be immediately replaced with new ones, employing much of the same people and renting much of the same premises (only cheaper), and ran/owned by the same people. In such an environment, the main impact of a restaurant going bankrupt is that the creditors and investors of that restaurant lose their capital, but it can reopen after a reorganization when there's demand once again.
You are of course correct. There will be a bottom and then a recovery.
The speed of recovery will depend on how much liquidity will be available in the market. And I believe it’s going to be quite low.
You see, all of these business depend on discretionary income and after the shock to the people they will sit on any penny or they will not have it themselves.
I believe we will eventually get out of this but my timeline is 3-5 years. If people are unemployed for more than few months their prospects drop rapidly. People with no options produce ruthless competition that pushes salaries down producing wider inequality and limits the discretionary funds needed to spend in those establishments in the first place producing quite a vicious circle.
The speed of recovery will depend on how much liquidity will be available in the market. And I believe it’s going to be quite low.
You see, all of these business depend on discretionary income and after the shock to the people they will sit on any penny or they will not have it themselves.
I believe we will eventually get out of this but my timeline is 3-5 years. If people are unemployed for more than few months their prospects drop rapidly. People with no options produce ruthless competition that pushes salaries down producing wider inequality and limits the discretionary funds needed to spend in those establishments in the first place producing quite a vicious circle.
I agree that wider inequality is a likely outcome.
There will be people who won't be able to spend anything because the depression drained them absolutely, and there will be people who are accumulating income that they can't spend due to the lockdown, and will have the funds to resume all the postponed vacations with vigor as soon as they can - in the aftermath, tourism will be cheap for those who have discretionary funds for tourism, because many won't, and the service industry will be agressively competing for any income they can get while having a cheap workforce.
There will be people who won't be able to spend anything because the depression drained them absolutely, and there will be people who are accumulating income that they can't spend due to the lockdown, and will have the funds to resume all the postponed vacations with vigor as soon as they can - in the aftermath, tourism will be cheap for those who have discretionary funds for tourism, because many won't, and the service industry will be agressively competing for any income they can get while having a cheap workforce.
So much of this depends on how the administration handles this. I don't have great confidence based on how they've handled things so far.
Very true. I spoke to a few economists and they believe there are going to be two or three waves of CARE ACT-like packages.
It's easy to criticize the government without having to bear the responsibility but I wish they did this much earlier, with more force to bring confidence to the people rather than markets.
I spoke with a branch manager at a bank day before they announced the extended timeline for shut down up until end of April. She was cheerful because she believed that this will be over in two weeks. I tried to gently tell her that I believe we are looking at months (two at minimum), not weeks of lockdown and even that might be very optimistic. She didn't take it well.
People are confused and scared. I do wish the govs (local and federal) would be the leaders everyone needs them to be, but unfortunately, that's not yet happening (there are some exceptions, but very few unfortunately).
It's easy to criticize the government without having to bear the responsibility but I wish they did this much earlier, with more force to bring confidence to the people rather than markets.
I spoke with a branch manager at a bank day before they announced the extended timeline for shut down up until end of April. She was cheerful because she believed that this will be over in two weeks. I tried to gently tell her that I believe we are looking at months (two at minimum), not weeks of lockdown and even that might be very optimistic. She didn't take it well.
People are confused and scared. I do wish the govs (local and federal) would be the leaders everyone needs them to be, but unfortunately, that's not yet happening (there are some exceptions, but very few unfortunately).
Probably most small(and medium, and big) businesses can hold on for a month or two at this rate but failure rate is going to approach 100% as time goes on.
Half of all restaurants in the US will not reopen? Multi-year depression?
That's my expectation, correct. I'm definitely not the only one [0]
[0] https://www.atlantamagazine.com/dining-news/chef-hugh-acheso...
[0] https://www.atlantamagazine.com/dining-news/chef-hugh-acheso...
What happens to all this commercial rental space? Rents are going to drop through the floor, and any business who signs up will have dramatically lower operating costs than in January.
Landlords are scraping by already. We have multiple offices across the World and our landlord begged us with tears to pay the April rents.
Commercial real estate will be impacted as heavily as any other business.
Commercial real estate will be impacted as heavily as any other business.
Oddly enough, here in the Bay Area (SIP 2.5 weeks in), most restaurants seem open. Take-out is a thing after all.
Travel/conference focused items (hotels, venues, cruises) are much more affected.
Travel/conference focused items (hotels, venues, cruises) are much more affected.
A bunch of Portland restaurants found that they were losing money faster by offering takeout versus simply closing their doors completely. Obviously, a number of factors play into whether this is true for any given restaurant but takeout business isn't necessarily a panacea.
That is interesting but probably not indicative of elsewhere.
Portland OR is a bit techy and boogie but even then it has still been hit HARD. The places I frequent all have had drastically reduced hours and business. I haven’t heard of any closed for good but more and more and just on a long hiatus or boarded over...
Portland OR is a bit techy and boogie but even then it has still been hit HARD. The places I frequent all have had drastically reduced hours and business. I haven’t heard of any closed for good but more and more and just on a long hiatus or boarded over...
I live in LA. It's not that different. I did talk to some owners of the restaurants and they said that their revenue is down by around 80% even with takeouts. Most people are not spending money. So it's something, but hardly enough.
Goldman Sach may estimate the unemployment rate peaking at 15%, but the Fed said it could reach 32% by summer.
And also there are still a few states that aren't in lockdown yet.
And meanwhile markets are up!
And meanwhile markets are up!
The forecasted unemployment rate is weird: economists are not forecasting a major increase for April 03s release. Do you happen to know why?
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
April unemployment is probably only measured mid-March, so it predates all these claims.
They do the monthly survey in the middle of the month. Most of the state shutdowns happened after the surveys were completed.
Don’t ask me why they don’t just use the weekly numbers.
Don’t ask me why they don’t just use the weekly numbers.
The weekly numbers are unemployment benefit claims, whereas I think the monthly employment statistics are based on surveying the population and counting the actual number of people who are employed, seeking work, etc.
Yeah I understand the distinction but the weekly numbers capture much of the same information and are more accurate. The monthly survey is just something we do because we’ve done it for a long time.
The weekly numbers are number of newly unemployed.
The unemployment survey is measuring how many people are currently unemployed.
The former is correlated with the rate of change in the latter, but is not the same thing.
The unemployment survey is measuring how many people are currently unemployed.
The former is correlated with the rate of change in the latter, but is not the same thing.
To save everyone the search, here's the link to parent's analysis from last week:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22693012
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22693012
You may be interested in these predictions:
* https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3922/what-will-be-the-us...
* https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3933/what-will-be-the-us...
* https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3922/what-will-be-the-us...
* https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3933/what-will-be-the-us...
Is there a state wise breakdown?
I would guess NYC is contributing a big chunk, and if things turn around there in a month or two should be okay.
I would guess NYC is contributing a big chunk, and if things turn around there in a month or two should be okay.
Do you have any reason to think we're not going to see the situation in NYC play out in numerous other US cities over the coming weeks and months?
Not really. I have been thinking its going to play out like China, Italy, Spain etc where certain regions take disproportionate hits.
Texas and California don't seem to have been hit as hard as NY-NJ. So was just wondering if the unemployment filings have jumped equally in all 3.
Texas and California don't seem to have been hit as hard as NY-NJ. So was just wondering if the unemployment filings have jumped equally in all 3.
Everything that is non essential in California is closed and only companies that can function with only working from home are still operating AFAIK. It doesn't matter how bad the outbreak is here, we've been on a shutdown for longer than anywhere in the USA, at least here in Northern California. Many restaurants have closed, only some are open for take out, but that probably depends on area. This last week they finally told many construction/lawn maintenance workers to stay home as well, depending upon circumstances.
Florida could worse, they just shut things down yesterday(!) and they have more cases than WA today which has been effectively shut down for a month or so.
Most businesses/restaurants are closed here. I would imagine the #'s are the same.
Unemployment benefits have been significantly expanded under the Coronavirus aid bill. The benefit amounts will sound small if you're living in an expensive city like SF or Seattle, but $600/week from the federal government and a similar amount from state unemployment insurance means that unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now. That goes a long way in most parts of the country, especially when you're stuck at home. Of course companies are going to opt to shift people to unemployment benefits while they're forced into downtime.
In some situations, people can actually earn more from unemployment benefits by being laid off due to some hasty oversights in the aid package (Reference: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could... ). This doesn't account for lost benefits or the risk involved in losing a job, but it could disincentivize people returning to work if it means their income will go down.
Of the many people I know who have been “laid off”, all of them have been told they’ll be first in line to be re-hired the moment quarantine ends.
If a business can’t make money, it makes more sense for them to let employees collect unemployment during the downtime than to overextend the business’s balance sheet. During normal times, this is a common tactic for seasonal businesses. I have friends in seasonal tourism industries who received training on applying for unemployment benefits during their annual off-season layoffs each year. They even have an explicit system for tracking seniority in the re-hires.
Of course, the longer this quarantine lasts, the more likely their businesses are to disappear before they can re-open. Unfortunately we won’t know this number for many months. For now, the initial unemployment claims number can't discriminate between jobs that have been temporarily paused and jobs that have been eliminated.
In some situations, people can actually earn more from unemployment benefits by being laid off due to some hasty oversights in the aid package (Reference: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could... ). This doesn't account for lost benefits or the risk involved in losing a job, but it could disincentivize people returning to work if it means their income will go down.
Of the many people I know who have been “laid off”, all of them have been told they’ll be first in line to be re-hired the moment quarantine ends.
If a business can’t make money, it makes more sense for them to let employees collect unemployment during the downtime than to overextend the business’s balance sheet. During normal times, this is a common tactic for seasonal businesses. I have friends in seasonal tourism industries who received training on applying for unemployment benefits during their annual off-season layoffs each year. They even have an explicit system for tracking seniority in the re-hires.
Of course, the longer this quarantine lasts, the more likely their businesses are to disappear before they can re-open. Unfortunately we won’t know this number for many months. For now, the initial unemployment claims number can't discriminate between jobs that have been temporarily paused and jobs that have been eliminated.
What will the employees, in the US at least, do for health insurance? A pandemic is when you need it. These employees will be strained to pay for COBRA.
I fear that we will see revolutions in countries where this is not contained, from either a health or economic perspective. An old saying is that you should buy stocks when there is blood in the streets. I hope that doesn't become literal.
I fear that we will see revolutions in countries where this is not contained, from either a health or economic perspective. An old saying is that you should buy stocks when there is blood in the streets. I hope that doesn't become literal.
> What will the employees, in the US at least, do for health insurance? A pandemic is when you need it. These employees will be strained to pay for COBRA.
Strongly agree that health care coverage is a major concern. We have a long way to go toward an ideal situation.
Sadly, many of the people who are first to be laid off are least likely to have employer-sponsored insurance benefits in the first place (hourly jobs). If they already had ACA-subsidized healthcare plans, nothing really changes for them.
For everyone else, there are some mitigating factors:
COBRA coverage has a grace period following termination. If you opt in to COBRA coverage during this grace period, the coverage is retroactive up to your date of termination. Please check with your insurance, but I believe the minimum grace period is 30 days, although I've personally seen higher numbers listed in my plans.
Many insurers have indicated that they will waive costs for COVID19 testing, and some have even waived copays for COVID19 treatment. I expect we'll see more pressure on this as time goes on.
This is a good time to remind everyone that a job less event triggers a special enrollment period for the ACA. Visit healthcare.gov to evaluate your insurance options. COBRA isn't the only option.
Strongly agree that health care coverage is a major concern. We have a long way to go toward an ideal situation.
Sadly, many of the people who are first to be laid off are least likely to have employer-sponsored insurance benefits in the first place (hourly jobs). If they already had ACA-subsidized healthcare plans, nothing really changes for them.
For everyone else, there are some mitigating factors:
COBRA coverage has a grace period following termination. If you opt in to COBRA coverage during this grace period, the coverage is retroactive up to your date of termination. Please check with your insurance, but I believe the minimum grace period is 30 days, although I've personally seen higher numbers listed in my plans.
Many insurers have indicated that they will waive costs for COVID19 testing, and some have even waived copays for COVID19 treatment. I expect we'll see more pressure on this as time goes on.
This is a good time to remind everyone that a job less event triggers a special enrollment period for the ACA. Visit healthcare.gov to evaluate your insurance options. COBRA isn't the only option.
Just experienced this with my spouse leaving Google in February. COBRA window was 60 days from last date of employment. We weren't going to go with COBRA until the pandemic expanded to the US, then we paid for two months.
The money saving move is to pay for the insurance via COBRA only after you need healthcare, since it’s retroactive.
Yes, you can "float" for 60 days without signing up for and paying for COBRA and wait until you are in need of healthcare. After the need you can sign up but you will have to "back"pay the coverage too. So waiting to the last day will mean you owe the two previous months of premiums.
Problem with that plan is (was, as we discovered) you can't get medications filled at the discount price, and you can't get 90 day scripts filled at all in case you need to hide from the world. Given the spread of the pandemic we decided to take the hit and get the coverage ahead of potentially needing it.
Its sounds like that's what they were holding out to do, but their 60 day window was closing so even though they didn't need healthcare they figured with what's happening they needed to execute the option and keep their insurance before losing it.
Be careful with that, you have a grace period to start paying for COBRA but it's only a couple of months. (the exact date will be on the letter you get from your employer when you're terminated)
If you go entirely without coverage you'll likely still have to pay a fine on your taxes, though it's probably less than COBRA.
I'm pretty certain this fine has been removed from the Affordable Care Act:
https://web.blockadvisors.com/tax-reform-removes-the-afforda...
https://web.blockadvisors.com/tax-reform-removes-the-afforda...
[deleted]
>> If they already had ACA-subsidized healthcare plans, nothing really changes for them.
just a reminder for the audience though: the Trump admin is currently trying to get the supreme court to rule the entire ACA unconstitutional.
just a reminder for the audience though: the Trump admin is currently trying to get the supreme court to rule the entire ACA unconstitutional.
"These employees will be strained to pay for COBRA."
That is a huge understatement. Especially for anyone that needs family coverage. The rates I paid when self-employed were more money per month than my entire paycheck until I was in my late 20's.
That is a huge understatement. Especially for anyone that needs family coverage. The rates I paid when self-employed were more money per month than my entire paycheck until I was in my late 20's.
Exactly, I worked at a Fortune 500 tech company and family coverage for COBRA was close to $2000/month. Many employers pay 80%+ of the share, and suddenly taking that all on yourself can be extremely onerous.
Same. Not just $2000, but 2000 for what was an extension of my otherwise mediocre work plan.
Same, self-employed and the rates were so extreme I went without health insurance.
We need Medicare for all, desperately. Health insurance should not be tied to employment.
I even had to skip COBRA during one period because that was out of reach.
We need Medicare for all, desperately. Health insurance should not be tied to employment.
I even had to skip COBRA during one period because that was out of reach.
[deleted]
I don’t wish a bad outcome but if it happens, hopefully people realize we need a different system for healthcare.
Almost every American agree that the current system is bad.
There is wild disagreement about what a better system would be.
There is wild disagreement about what a better system would be.
Already most Americans support Medicare for all – it’s our bought elected officials who don’t.
eh. Most Americans support a public option.
M4A is down to about 26% support as of yesterday. https://i.imgur.com/H9bAwV9.png
M4A is down to about 26% support as of yesterday. https://i.imgur.com/H9bAwV9.png
55% in the latest Morning Consult poll[1]. And this is after a heavy push from the healthcare industry against it, as well as strong opposition from all of the Republican leadership and most of the Democratic leadership. Before the recent blitz against it, polling was 70%[2].
[1] https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...
[1] https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...
Why republicans hate universal healthcare so much, even when facing unprecedented pandemic?
In the 2018 poll the majority of Republicans (52%) actually supported it. There's just been a lot of effort pushing against it by most of the leadership in America (the media, the Republican party, most of the Democratic party leadership). The media plays a big role in this - they often only focus on the cost of one particular implementation of single-payer, and not on the 10's of thousands who die each year due to lack of insurance. There's no mention that the U.S. government is currently spending more on health insurance than the U.K. government spends on its single-payer system (and the total government and private spending in the U.S. is much, much higher).
And even though Democrat voters support this the most, the majority of Democratic Presidential candidates this year were opposed to single-payer and pushed some attacks on it that were mostly false (arguing that it removes choice). And a lot of polls on it will mention things many Americans view as negative (a single government run system) and not mention ones that they would view as positive (no out of network doctors, never being uninsured, never switching insurance, no medical billing issues, no healthcare bankruptcies, lower healthcare expenditures, etc.).
And even though Democrat voters support this the most, the majority of Democratic Presidential candidates this year were opposed to single-payer and pushed some attacks on it that were mostly false (arguing that it removes choice). And a lot of polls on it will mention things many Americans view as negative (a single government run system) and not mention ones that they would view as positive (no out of network doctors, never being uninsured, never switching insurance, no medical billing issues, no healthcare bankruptcies, lower healthcare expenditures, etc.).
Have you seen the federal government lately? It's totally understandable not to want that to be in charge of your healthcare.
"Americans' satisfaction with the way the healthcare system works for them varies by the type of insurance they have. Satisfaction is highest among those with veterans or military health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, and is lower among those with employer-paid and self-paid insurance. Americans with no health insurance are least satisfied of all." [1]
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-hea...
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-hea...
That's an argument for improving the federal government, not accepting the status quo as the natural order of the universe.
Eh, the poll is "net support" of 55%, whatever that means. The Republican share is negative percentage points. It's a real shitty way to force a poll to tell the story you want it to tell.
They linked the results [1] (starts on page 402). 30% "Strongly support" and 25% "Somewhat support" so the net support is 55%. And among Republicans, the net support is 31%, I don't know what you mean by 'negative percentage points'.
[1] https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/200310... (pdf)
[1] https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/200310... (pdf)
80% like their healthcare. I think a significant part of that 55% doesn’t realize that Medicare for all takes away their health insurance. It seems when people get educated on Medicare for all, it declines in popularity.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcar...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcar...
They like the quality of their healthcare - the "seeing a doctor and getting healthy" aspect. If the question was "do you like working with your health insurance" the answers would be different.
I've never met a single person who feels their health insurance is good or useful. R=close to zero if the hypothesis is the super majority like theirs.
I've never met a single person who feels their health insurance is good or useful. R=close to zero if the hypothesis is the super majority like theirs.
Ask anyone who has Kaiser. It’s one most well liked insurance/healthcare providers in the nation.
I had Kaiser for many years and it was trash. Sure it's efficient and relatively cost effective, but the quality of service was terrible.
The worst part was if you needed anything mental health related, their services were so bad to the point of being virtually nonexistent.
Want to see a therapist? How about a group therapy session with 30 other people from 1-2pm every other Wednesday on the opposite side of town from where you work. Want to see a psychiatrist? Call five different numbers and wait for a few weeks for Kaiser to tell you tough shit.
Have an addiction problem and want treatment? Tough shit. It breaks my heart to think of the number of people who finally got to the point in their lives where they actively sought out help, only to be basically turned away by Kaiser. I would imagine many of those people never got a second chance.
Have an addiction problem and want treatment? Tough shit. It breaks my heart to think of the number of people who finally got to the point in their lives where they actively sought out help, only to be basically turned away by Kaiser. I would imagine many of those people never got a second chance.
Kaiser's insurance wing is a nightmare. They'll find any possible way to kick you off or refuse to pay for essential services. They did it to me twice.
On the other hand, ACA put a dent into their ability to do that.
The non-insurance wing of KP is great, aside from some administrative problems - the main one being that they don't allow some specialists to limit how many patients get referred to them, so they can get overloaded. The alternative is presumably not being able to get a specialist at all, but many of the ones I deal with have waitlists 6 weeks long or longer. Specialist turnover is also quite bad, I've had 4 of my specialists quit in the last 5 years.
On the other hand, ACA put a dent into their ability to do that.
The non-insurance wing of KP is great, aside from some administrative problems - the main one being that they don't allow some specialists to limit how many patients get referred to them, so they can get overloaded. The alternative is presumably not being able to get a specialist at all, but many of the ones I deal with have waitlists 6 weeks long or longer. Specialist turnover is also quite bad, I've had 4 of my specialists quit in the last 5 years.
My parents had Kaiser growing up, I took my current job in part because they offered it. Kaiser is awesome.
Of the people who come of age and are eligible for Medicare, what percentage of those people turn it down? I personally know of zero.
Health Insurance is not health care.
No one likes their health insurance. They like having health insurance given the horrifying alternative.
No one (except those on the ACA) gets to really "choose" their insurance either. Your employer offers a few plans. Those can change completely based on their whims.
Why would I care if M4A takes away my health insurance? Please, by all means, take it away! I don't care who pays the bills. In the last 10 years, I haven't been able to keep a primary doctor for a stretch longer than 2 years. Every year for the last 5 years, I have to critically look at my own health needs and try to guess as to what plan on the ACA is going to rob me the least. My taxes would have to go up at least $20,000 a year for it to even approach what I'm spending on a plan that I'm terrified that I might actually have to use.
No one likes their health insurance. They like having health insurance given the horrifying alternative.
No one (except those on the ACA) gets to really "choose" their insurance either. Your employer offers a few plans. Those can change completely based on their whims.
Why would I care if M4A takes away my health insurance? Please, by all means, take it away! I don't care who pays the bills. In the last 10 years, I haven't been able to keep a primary doctor for a stretch longer than 2 years. Every year for the last 5 years, I have to critically look at my own health needs and try to guess as to what plan on the ACA is going to rob me the least. My taxes would have to go up at least $20,000 a year for it to even approach what I'm spending on a plan that I'm terrified that I might actually have to use.
There seems to be a meme that the plan is to ban private insurance entirely? When even the UK system allows you to have it, it's just not grated huge tax breaks and is generally something only higher-paid professionals and those working for US employers have.
> I think a significant part of that 55% doesn’t realize that Medicare for all takes away their health insurance.
Do you 'like' Walmart, the company? Or do you just want your groceries and don't really care what the store is called?
Do you 'like' Walmart, the company? Or do you just want your groceries and don't really care what the store is called?
[deleted]
I am not sure how how people like their health care. It seems like every big company is moving toward High Deductible plan. Even Microsft has a high deductible plan. Even if you think you are covered there will be a doctors who you think is in network because you go to an in network hospital who really is out of network.
Unions negotiated great Cadillac plans for their members. I can’t believe MSFT doesn’t have a platinum plan with a $300 deductible, every tech company has great medical insurance benefits to be competitive in the employment market.
HDHP and HSA are the same playbook as moving from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution 401k accounts.
It’s a lot easier to reason about on the company balance sheet with the later at the cost of increased complexity and less safety for the employees. But they do love to spin the “triple tax benefits!!!!” (In the case of HSA) to try and convince people this is a great change.
The old Microsoft Premera plan was stupendous as in you never thought about it, (nearly) everything was covered.
It’s a lot easier to reason about on the company balance sheet with the later at the cost of increased complexity and less safety for the employees. But they do love to spin the “triple tax benefits!!!!” (In the case of HSA) to try and convince people this is a great change.
The old Microsoft Premera plan was stupendous as in you never thought about it, (nearly) everything was covered.
Believe it. My deductible is 2500 of which Microsoft pays 1k. Lots of more senior folks bemoan the lack fo the Cadillac plan they used to get.
Maybe they should start doing polls about a medical system that’s very expensive, leaves a lot of people uninsured, sends random bills for procedures that never happened, can’t give estimates for procedures while still requiring the patient to pay for whatever they eventually decide to charge. Let’s see what the numbers will be then :)
...in Wisconsin. https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/04/01/new-marquette-law-...
What is the source of that imgur meme? Here is an article with a link to the pdf which claims 55% of voters are in support of M4A
https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron...
https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron...
Eh. That poll is just for
Wisconsin. Nationally it's up to 55%
You're right, and Wisconsin alone isn't representative, but in our current political system a state by state breakdown would be more predictive of election outcomes than a national figure.
Edit: looking into it further, I think the WI number is more interesting than I thought given the 2016 election result:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/...
Edit: looking into it further, I think the WI number is more interesting than I thought given the 2016 election result:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/...
https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/200310...
All registered voters supported M4A with ~55% (see POL19) according to a recent poll. I'm not really sure what to do with a twitter image, but I'd be interested in seeing their numbers.
All registered voters supported M4A with ~55% (see POL19) according to a recent poll. I'm not really sure what to do with a twitter image, but I'd be interested in seeing their numbers.
It doesn't matter what most Americans support, nor what "bought elected officials" support. It matters what most voters in swing states support.
Seeing how they voted for Joe Biden who openly mocks the idea, as a non-American, I am very skeptical of how the support is manifesting.
The worst part is talking to people who think he supports it. The Dem primary about a year ago looked like the CPUSA primary; M4A was table stakes for every candidate. But nah, everyone had asterisks on what they actually meant by that.
a lot of biden primary voters actually do like bernie and his policies (including m4a) but they are voting out of fear that bernie couldn’t win (among other reasons) [0]
[0] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/11/sanders-voters-ele...
[0] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/11/sanders-voters-ele...
Biden is the candidate even of 'the righteous' . Highly doubt your statement.
Biden is primarily supported by voters over 65, who already qualify for Medicare and have no incentive to support a Medicare For All candidate. Good luck holding onto that voting cohort through an unmitigated pandemic.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-03-06/biden-older...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/young-democrats-have-re...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20943879/i...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/politics/joe-biden-you...
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-03-06/biden-older...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/young-democrats-have-re...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20943879/i...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/politics/joe-biden-you...
What about African american and latino vote
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/black-voters-biden-...
"already have medicare" theory isn't the explanation.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/black-voters-biden-...
"already have medicare" theory isn't the explanation.
Latinx are overwhelming swinging to Sanders (per your link), people of color swing Biden due to his riding on Obama's coat tails [1] (IMHO; he has no policies that benefit them with his "status quo" stance).
If Biden runs, Trump wins reelection. Not enough voter support for Biden besides older voters and people of color, younger voters will sit out before voting for Biden in a general election. That's not my opinion, that's what the polling data shows.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/joe-biden-black-vot... (“In South Carolina we were taught to vote straight party. You see black people [on the ballot], you see Democrat, you vote straight party. You’re not used to seeing 10 damn candidates in the first place,” added Robinson. The menu of choices plays to Biden’s benefit because he’s a known commodity, Robinson said.)
If Biden runs, Trump wins reelection. Not enough voter support for Biden besides older voters and people of color, younger voters will sit out before voting for Biden in a general election. That's not my opinion, that's what the polling data shows.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/joe-biden-black-vot... (“In South Carolina we were taught to vote straight party. You see black people [on the ballot], you see Democrat, you vote straight party. You’re not used to seeing 10 damn candidates in the first place,” added Robinson. The menu of choices plays to Biden’s benefit because he’s a known commodity, Robinson said.)
> If Biden runs, Trump wins reelection. Not enough voter support for Biden besides older voters and people of color, younger voters will sit out before voting for Biden in a general election. That's not my opinion, that's what the polling data shows.
Young people don't vote, so no one cares what they think. Latino's and African American's will vote for Biden since Trump is pretty damn racist and if they don't, they are basically screwed for another generation. Minorities don't have the luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate like White College Kids can.
Young people don't vote, so no one cares what they think. Latino's and African American's will vote for Biden since Trump is pretty damn racist and if they don't, they are basically screwed for another generation. Minorities don't have the luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate like White College Kids can.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not here with opinions, just data. I'm not responsible for the choices of others. Everyone is at the mercy of swing states and voting cohorts that vote consistently. If you're not a majority of some sort, and not in a state with an outsized amount of influence due to the Electoral College, it's very unlikely you get what you want.
> Latino's and African American's will vote for Biden since Trump is pretty damn racist
There are still many Latinx [1] and people of color [2] voting for Trump (or desire a candidate besides Trump and Biden), despite his character. Never underestimate a Cult of Personality.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/latino-sup... ("President Donald Trump has done almost everything he can to anger Latino voters. And yet, his support among this crucial portion of the electorate remains surprisingly consistent. After the 2016 election, exit polls analyzed by the Pew Research Center showed that 28 percent of Latino voters supported Trump; today, 30 percent support him.")
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/24/blackpac-poll-democ... (Poll: Democrats underperforming with black voters | More than one-third of those surveyed expressed a desire for ‘someone else’ to run for president.)
> Latino's and African American's will vote for Biden since Trump is pretty damn racist
There are still many Latinx [1] and people of color [2] voting for Trump (or desire a candidate besides Trump and Biden), despite his character. Never underestimate a Cult of Personality.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/latino-sup... ("President Donald Trump has done almost everything he can to anger Latino voters. And yet, his support among this crucial portion of the electorate remains surprisingly consistent. After the 2016 election, exit polls analyzed by the Pew Research Center showed that 28 percent of Latino voters supported Trump; today, 30 percent support him.")
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/24/blackpac-poll-democ... (Poll: Democrats underperforming with black voters | More than one-third of those surveyed expressed a desire for ‘someone else’ to run for president.)
I enrolled in ACA via job loss exception when I got let go last year. COBRA is too expensive.
In my state, a health insurance plan can be bought of the market place for one person for a few hundred dollars / month. I'd hope that they get the stimulus checks out soon so people can pay, or that states are willing to accept IOUs of the stimulus check in exchange for a cash advance.
Keep in mind that a lot of these workers were already uninsured or underinsured.
> What will the employees, in the US at least, do for health insurance? A pandemic is when you need it. These employees will be strained to pay for COBRA.
Put it on a credit card and only make minimum payments, most likely
Put it on a credit card and only make minimum payments, most likely
If you can afford it, loss of employment should be a qualifying event for buying insurance on the health exchanges as well.
In an ideal scenario, we would re-open the ACA enrollment to provide reasonably priced health insurance. Unfortunately, our current administration doesn't want to do that. [1]
==The Trump administration has decided against reopening Obamacare enrollment to uninsured Americans during the coronavirus pandemic, defying calls from health insurers and Democrats to create a special sign-up window amid the health crisis.==
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/trump-obamacare-cor...
==The Trump administration has decided against reopening Obamacare enrollment to uninsured Americans during the coronavirus pandemic, defying calls from health insurers and Democrats to create a special sign-up window amid the health crisis.==
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/trump-obamacare-cor...
> In an ideal scenario, we would re-open the ACA enrollment to provide reasonably priced health insurance.
To clarify: ACA enrollment is open for anyone who has been laid off. They don't need to wait until the next enrollment period to get health coverage again.
Making ACA open enrollment for an extended period of time would create a perverse incentive for people to avoid enrolling until they feel like they need it. Counterintuitively, this could decrease ACA enrollment rather than increase it.
To clarify: ACA enrollment is open for anyone who has been laid off. They don't need to wait until the next enrollment period to get health coverage again.
Making ACA open enrollment for an extended period of time would create a perverse incentive for people to avoid enrolling until they feel like they need it. Counterintuitively, this could decrease ACA enrollment rather than increase it.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid don't seem to be on the same page.
"Insurers said they had expected Trump to announce a special enrollment period last Friday based on conversations they had with officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs HealthCare.gov enrollment. It wasn’t immediately clear why the Trump administration decided against the special enrollment period. CMS deferred comment to the White House."
==Making ACA open enrollment for an extended period of time would create a perverse incentive for people to avoid enrolling until they feel like they need it. Counterintuitively, this could decrease ACA enrollment rather than increase it. ==
Giving free money to people could create a perverse incentive for people to avoid working, but we just did that. Giving businesses grants for payroll might incentive them not to maintain cash reserves in the future, but we jut did that. I don't see why this would be any different. It's a national emergency, every potential solution should be on the table.
"Insurers said they had expected Trump to announce a special enrollment period last Friday based on conversations they had with officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs HealthCare.gov enrollment. It wasn’t immediately clear why the Trump administration decided against the special enrollment period. CMS deferred comment to the White House."
==Making ACA open enrollment for an extended period of time would create a perverse incentive for people to avoid enrolling until they feel like they need it. Counterintuitively, this could decrease ACA enrollment rather than increase it. ==
Giving free money to people could create a perverse incentive for people to avoid working, but we just did that. Giving businesses grants for payroll might incentive them not to maintain cash reserves in the future, but we jut did that. I don't see why this would be any different. It's a national emergency, every potential solution should be on the table.
This exaggerates the problem. You can enroll in ACA outside of open-enrollment if you have a qualifying event, such as losing coverage through a job. You just have to submit paperwork that you lost a job.
I'm not saying open-enrollment wouldn't be preferable, or that the administration might not be trying to encourage people to enroll, but the option is still open for many, in theory.
I'm not saying open-enrollment wouldn't be preferable, or that the administration might not be trying to encourage people to enroll, but the option is still open for many, in theory.
> What will the employees, in the US at least, do for health insurance?
Struggle under the weight of the debt, become impoverished and many may become homeless. All the while being told to just find a more lucrative job, like say, coding.
Struggle under the weight of the debt, become impoverished and many may become homeless. All the while being told to just find a more lucrative job, like say, coding.
There will no revolution by the utterly destroyed middle and lower classes lining up to get state handouts from the military to live. I'm sure Rand corporation or some such has detailed operational plans to roll out to deal with these perfectly predictable societal disturbances.
You fear a revolution towards healthcare, housing, food, etc. as human rights?
Personally that revolution can't come fast enough. This country has betrayed its constitutional duties to its people for decades (supporting the general welfare, anyone?).
We NEED revolution at this point since it seems both of our two parties are on the same side when it comes to Working Class America.
Personally that revolution can't come fast enough. This country has betrayed its constitutional duties to its people for decades (supporting the general welfare, anyone?).
We NEED revolution at this point since it seems both of our two parties are on the same side when it comes to Working Class America.
Agreed. Both most of our elected officials are neoliberal (dems/Republicans). Economically, neither party is working for the middle class
At no points have the courts ever taken anywhere near as broad an interpretation of the welfare clause as you're suggesting it to be. And such a broad interpretation would be incongruous with the views of its primary authors (Jefferson and Hamilton).
The framers would more likely to suggest that we NEED a revolution over the expansion of the federal government beyond their limited enumerated powers. They'd also certainly disagree with income taxes as well.
The framers would more likely to suggest that we NEED a revolution over the expansion of the federal government beyond their limited enumerated powers. They'd also certainly disagree with income taxes as well.
I would love to see what they would think of the last 250 years of history. I think it's naive to suggest that they wouldn't have anything to learn. They were writing in one world, and people have found many new ways to abuse their countrymen since then.
It's rather fantastic that congress spends $2,000,000,000,000 to handle a virus, where $0 of that goes to paying for treatment of those infected by that virus...
That isn't true. Large chunks of that money are going directly to public services and healthcare initiatives.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-anatomy-of-the-2-trilli...
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-anatomy-of-the-2-trilli...
I see nothing that pays the hospital bills for those infected.
I do see $100B paid to hospitals.
I do see $100B paid to hospitals.
If expanding Medicare benefits and giving cash directly to people doesn't count in your book, I'm not sure what does.
Even the small business loans have a provision that they are forgiven only if they keep employees on payroll. That is the difference between keeping insurance and losing it for a lot of people.
Even the small business loans have a provision that they are forgiven only if they keep employees on payroll. That is the difference between keeping insurance and losing it for a lot of people.
I was thinking the government could simply pay the hospital bills for every Covid-19 patient.
Maybe the most obvious and direct way to help those affected. If that was the intent.
Giving cash directly to everyone, sick or poor, is a very different thing. "Expanding Medicare" might help a few.
Maybe the most obvious and direct way to help those affected. If that was the intent.
Giving cash directly to everyone, sick or poor, is a very different thing. "Expanding Medicare" might help a few.
The most obvious and direct way to help people is to send them cash payments. The IRS is already set up to be capable of doing this, and to do so at the scale required.
Paying hospital bills would be exponentially more complex of an operation, and there isn't an organization already set up to administer something like that at this scale.
Paying hospital bills would be exponentially more complex of an operation, and there isn't an organization already set up to administer something like that at this scale.
> ...to help people
Sure, but I was talking about helping the infected people.
Yeah, it's more complex, but if it was a priority, it could be arranged. It's not like it has to be done quickly. Bills can be settled months later.
My cynical explanation is that Covid infected do not have a lobbyist at the table when these things are decided.
Sure, but I was talking about helping the infected people.
Yeah, it's more complex, but if it was a priority, it could be arranged. It's not like it has to be done quickly. Bills can be settled months later.
My cynical explanation is that Covid infected do not have a lobbyist at the table when these things are decided.
The US is helping infected people. Infected people are a subset of all people.
But, how or why would any infection requirement be necessary or a good idea?
1. The economic toll that is happening is not even remotely limited to those who are infected.
2. We aren't testing everyone and we don't have the resources to do so, so how would you accurately allocate the funds to those who are infected?
3. Those 10 million people who lost their jobs over the last two weeks mostly aren't infected (yet) but still have healthcare needs.
4. Much/most of the population is projected to contract the virus at some point anyway.
But, how or why would any infection requirement be necessary or a good idea?
1. The economic toll that is happening is not even remotely limited to those who are infected.
2. We aren't testing everyone and we don't have the resources to do so, so how would you accurately allocate the funds to those who are infected?
3. Those 10 million people who lost their jobs over the last two weeks mostly aren't infected (yet) but still have healthcare needs.
4. Much/most of the population is projected to contract the virus at some point anyway.
If we don't agree that the infected are the primary victims, that might be our primary disagreement, and there isn't much left to say.
The economic toll is also important, but people are dying by the thousands.
I assume many infected will come out of this with 6 digit hospital bills.
We do have the resources to test everyone. Banning most tests is a regulatory decision.
If a goal is to stop virus spreading, encouraging testing should be a primary goal. If people have to pay thousands out of pocket to be tested, that won't happen.
The economic toll is also important, but people are dying by the thousands.
I assume many infected will come out of this with 6 digit hospital bills.
We do have the resources to test everyone. Banning most tests is a regulatory decision.
If a goal is to stop virus spreading, encouraging testing should be a primary goal. If people have to pay thousands out of pocket to be tested, that won't happen.
I think you might be drawing a lot of your conclusions from premises that are untrue.
> If we don't agree that the infected are the primary victims, that might be our primary disagreement, and there isn't much left to say.
Most people who cannot pay their health insurance today are not people who are infected. We have 40 times as many people unemployed as we do infected.
> The economic toll is also important, but people are dying by the thousands.
Health insurance or healthcare bills aren't a factor in the death rates of this virus. People won't even be receiving those bills until the virus has either run its course or have killed the patient.
Those who need inpatient care cannot be turned away by law, regardless of insurance status.
Those who do not need inpatient care are being told to go home, regardless of insurance status.
> We do have the resources to test everyone.
This is factually false, and has been repeatedly confirmed by health officials and test manufacturers.
> Banning most tests is a regulatory decision.
.. and it's a decision which the regulators have already undone.
> If people have to pay thousands out of pocket to be tested, that won't happen.
This is not an issue any longer. The test has been determined by HHS to be an essential health benefit which must be covered under ACA compliant public and private insurance plans. State, local, and federal testing facilities are offering the test for free on a widespread basis to those without insurance as well.
> If we don't agree that the infected are the primary victims, that might be our primary disagreement, and there isn't much left to say.
Most people who cannot pay their health insurance today are not people who are infected. We have 40 times as many people unemployed as we do infected.
> The economic toll is also important, but people are dying by the thousands.
Health insurance or healthcare bills aren't a factor in the death rates of this virus. People won't even be receiving those bills until the virus has either run its course or have killed the patient.
Those who need inpatient care cannot be turned away by law, regardless of insurance status.
Those who do not need inpatient care are being told to go home, regardless of insurance status.
> We do have the resources to test everyone.
This is factually false, and has been repeatedly confirmed by health officials and test manufacturers.
> Banning most tests is a regulatory decision.
.. and it's a decision which the regulators have already undone.
> If people have to pay thousands out of pocket to be tested, that won't happen.
This is not an issue any longer. The test has been determined by HHS to be an essential health benefit which must be covered under ACA compliant public and private insurance plans. State, local, and federal testing facilities are offering the test for free on a widespread basis to those without insurance as well.
pjc50(1)
Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. If you're promoting businesses push people to unemployment instead of first trying to cover them during hardship and also taking a loss (as everyone else is), you're pushing for more tax subsidies to businesses indirectly.
Unemployment is a safety net that needs to exist but it shouldn't, IMHO, be the first option to jump to. That's irresponsible unless of course you can't cover your employees at the rate unemployment can--then it's reasonable for everyone's sake.
You should look at supporting employees part time if possible, especially those who have many years association with your business that are valued players. Your first order should be to take care of yourself and those around you, not immediately jump to social safety nets and pass the hardship. Let's re-establish long term employee and employer relationships and get rid if this "everyone's constantly disposable" economic mindset.
If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. If not, let's take a bit more of their stimulus money back and chuck it to other businesses and people that don't run away at the sight of a loss and try to persevere through difficult situations.
Unemployment is a safety net that needs to exist but it shouldn't, IMHO, be the first option to jump to. That's irresponsible unless of course you can't cover your employees at the rate unemployment can--then it's reasonable for everyone's sake.
You should look at supporting employees part time if possible, especially those who have many years association with your business that are valued players. Your first order should be to take care of yourself and those around you, not immediately jump to social safety nets and pass the hardship. Let's re-establish long term employee and employer relationships and get rid if this "everyone's constantly disposable" economic mindset.
If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. If not, let's take a bit more of their stimulus money back and chuck it to other businesses and people that don't run away at the sight of a loss and try to persevere through difficult situations.
> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment.
This is a great case of “the world doesn’t revolve around you.”
1. Most states only give you a few weeks to apply.
2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to.
3. It’s income. You still pay taxes on it. It’s not free money out of nowhere.
Use the tiny social net that you have instead of waiting too late and out of money and having to rely on family or friends.
This is a great case of “the world doesn’t revolve around you.”
1. Most states only give you a few weeks to apply.
2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to.
3. It’s income. You still pay taxes on it. It’s not free money out of nowhere.
Use the tiny social net that you have instead of waiting too late and out of money and having to rely on family or friends.
1. Which is a problem if you're immediately unemployed. If you're instead working part time at a rate greater than unemployment and still retaining healthcare benefits, you don't have to worry about unemployment (depending on what sort of healthcare policies the employer stipulates). This can be a discussion employers have with employers: allowing people to have choices between working part time, taking a temporary pay cut (depending on the situation--aceoss the board including upper management), or being laid off.
2. That's pretty much verifiably false. That's fundamentally trickle down economics which everyone knows simply doesn't work. Employers could take that money and increase your compensation. Historically, that hasn't happened. Any breaks given on those expenses temporarily go to an employee then disappear quickly after because there's nothing the business gains by shifting that to labor expenses. The most recent example to look at is the 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' which translated to almost no increase in labor rates aside from initial PR compensation packages that people received, forgot about, and continued on with stagnant compensation rates.
3. I never said it's free money, I pointed out in the first paragraph it's not free money. Employees pay a large portion of unemployment as taxes, as I said. Businesses also contribute to that in taxes but the lionshare comes from labor taxes.
2. That's pretty much verifiably false. That's fundamentally trickle down economics which everyone knows simply doesn't work. Employers could take that money and increase your compensation. Historically, that hasn't happened. Any breaks given on those expenses temporarily go to an employee then disappear quickly after because there's nothing the business gains by shifting that to labor expenses. The most recent example to look at is the 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' which translated to almost no increase in labor rates aside from initial PR compensation packages that people received, forgot about, and continued on with stagnant compensation rates.
3. I never said it's free money, I pointed out in the first paragraph it's not free money. Employees pay a large portion of unemployment as taxes, as I said. Businesses also contribute to that in taxes but the lionshare comes from labor taxes.
"2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to."
Do you have any data on this assertion?
Do you have any data on this assertion?
If you assume a 1.55% tax rate for UI, you will contribute about a week of unemployment per year of work (at least in S.C.) at 70k taxable income after a modest administrative overhead of 60%.
If you manage to work from 25 to 65 at an average of $70k per year, that’s almost a year worth of unemployment.
If you manage to work from 25 to 65 at an average of $70k per year, that’s almost a year worth of unemployment.
OK going with your assumptions, I wonder what % of people collecting unemployment benefits have worked for 40 years at an average of $70k/yr? I am not aware of a single individual, but maybe just don't know the right people.
It should scale out at about 1 week per year of work, no matter how much you make. $70k per year is how much you need to max out unemployment in S.C., where I used to live. If you make less than that, you'll have less per week, if you make more than that, you're pretty royally screwed.
Ok say that is true...do you know:
1. Are unemployment employment benefits only extended to those who have already themselves paid a certain amount in UI taxes AND that amount is the extent of the benefits available to them?
2. If the answer above is no - do you know what % of end up receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they have 'pre-paid' or will 'reimburse' thus a net cost to the system over the course of their living/working lives?
3. What happens to the unemployment taxes paid by people who choose not/never to file for unemployment benefits, even when unemployed? Do those individuals ever get their money back?
4. This line of questioning leads me to wonder why in the US is UI/UB not just directly linked to each individual?
1. Are unemployment employment benefits only extended to those who have already themselves paid a certain amount in UI taxes AND that amount is the extent of the benefits available to them?
2. If the answer above is no - do you know what % of end up receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they have 'pre-paid' or will 'reimburse' thus a net cost to the system over the course of their living/working lives?
3. What happens to the unemployment taxes paid by people who choose not/never to file for unemployment benefits, even when unemployed? Do those individuals ever get their money back?
4. This line of questioning leads me to wonder why in the US is UI/UB not just directly linked to each individual?
1. Sort-of-but-not-really. Usually, you have to work a certain number of months or weeks at the place you get laid off, before you are eligible. However, there's not a "lifetime minimum." If you get fired for doing something "bad" (at-fault) then you may not be eligible at all.
2. Usually, there's a cap for how long you can be on unemployment. You can't be on it forever. You also have to provide proof that you're looking for a job. Some states require signatures from those companies, some just require a list of companies you've applied to and they do their own random validation.
3. Companies pay the unemployment insurance tax on your behalf, and if you're unemployed and don't file, you don't get to use your benefits.
4. 100% agree
2. Usually, there's a cap for how long you can be on unemployment. You can't be on it forever. You also have to provide proof that you're looking for a job. Some states require signatures from those companies, some just require a list of companies you've applied to and they do their own random validation.
3. Companies pay the unemployment insurance tax on your behalf, and if you're unemployed and don't file, you don't get to use your benefits.
4. 100% agree
>Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment.
I think everyone definitely understands academically that the actuarial models underpinning unemployment collapse in that kind of environment.
>I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society.
Here's the issue game theoretically speaking. I'm pretty sure most businesses and people are likely not going to settle on your strategy as being optimal. (Even though, as you've pointed out, it is the communally optimal strategy given the system we have.) I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy.
I think everyone definitely understands academically that the actuarial models underpinning unemployment collapse in that kind of environment.
>I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society.
Here's the issue game theoretically speaking. I'm pretty sure most businesses and people are likely not going to settle on your strategy as being optimal. (Even though, as you've pointed out, it is the communally optimal strategy given the system we have.) I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy.
"I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy. "
Yes, even if quick and easy way out may not be in their best long term interests.
Yes, even if quick and easy way out may not be in their best long term interests.
In California, unemployment benefits are a form of insurance that is paid by the employees of your previous employer (caveat at end). If the company went bankrupt, I'd assume that the costs are spread out among all the employees of all companies in that state. If your employer has more claims, it's employees are charged a higher amount per paycheck.
In the sense of insurance, not claiming unemployment benefits is like laying for insurance and not using it when you have a claim. A personal choice for you to make.
In most cases, you also have to prove you are actively looking for work to get benefits.
However, the recent CARES Act does supplement unemployment benefits from federal taxes.
In the sense of insurance, not claiming unemployment benefits is like laying for insurance and not using it when you have a claim. A personal choice for you to make.
In most cases, you also have to prove you are actively looking for work to get benefits.
However, the recent CARES Act does supplement unemployment benefits from federal taxes.
"you also have to prove you are actively looking for work"
This is easy to defraud, unfortunately, seen it firsthand in many instances and it's at national scale.
This is easy to defraud, unfortunately, seen it firsthand in many instances and it's at national scale.
> Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off.
No. Unemployment is a mandatory insurance that all employed people must contribute to based on their income level. It's not a tax. It's an insurance.
> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment.
That's silly, but okay. Would you not tell your home insurance that your house burnt down? I guess you may worry about a higher premium, but you don't need to worry about that with unemployment.
No. Unemployment is a mandatory insurance that all employed people must contribute to based on their income level. It's not a tax. It's an insurance.
> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment.
That's silly, but okay. Would you not tell your home insurance that your house burnt down? I guess you may worry about a higher premium, but you don't need to worry about that with unemployment.
The longer companies hold out on pushing employees onto unemployment and dig into their reserve funds to pay them, the more risk there is that the companies will no longer exist to employ them whenever the country exits lockdown. Very few businesses are exactly well equipped to handle the entire economy being brought to a halt in the first place.
[deleted]
"If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment."
Seek and you shall find.
Seek and you shall find.
This "economy is paused" idea is getting more and more unjustifiable by the day, weeks, and months.
We're not going to emerge from this and just hit the unpause button. Yes some industries will bounce back quickly, but 9 million people over two weeks losing their jobs is an absolutely massive number, and we haven't hit peak yet.
There's no way they'll just be simply rehired when this is "done".
We're not going to emerge from this and just hit the unpause button. Yes some industries will bounce back quickly, but 9 million people over two weeks losing their jobs is an absolutely massive number, and we haven't hit peak yet.
There's no way they'll just be simply rehired when this is "done".
I don't think anyone serious thinks that this is just hitting "unpause" after this. The world has changed.
This will be the news for the next 2 years. India and Africa are only just starting on this journey.
The world's economy and every nation's economic structure will be completely changed.
This will be the news for the next 2 years. India and Africa are only just starting on this journey.
The world's economy and every nation's economic structure will be completely changed.
If the economy bounced back to what it was on Feb 28th, what is your acceptable number of dead? Would you trade 9 million unemployed for 9 million dead? Do you think that wouldn't have an effect on the market as well?
We're in it now, and no amount of wanting to hit the abort button will change anything. It's a fantasy to assume people will just go back to work, the economy will get better, and everything will return to normal, aside from a hot new opportunity for mass body disposal services.
We're in it now, and no amount of wanting to hit the abort button will change anything. It's a fantasy to assume people will just go back to work, the economy will get better, and everything will return to normal, aside from a hot new opportunity for mass body disposal services.
>Would you trade 9 million unemployed for 9 million dead?
No, I'm not advocating to abort a quarantine and have people return to work.
>It's a fantasy to assume people will just go back to work, the economy will get better, and everything will return to normal
Agreed. I'm advocating we stop believing in this fantasy and face reality that this is the start of a long term recession.
No, I'm not advocating to abort a quarantine and have people return to work.
>It's a fantasy to assume people will just go back to work, the economy will get better, and everything will return to normal
Agreed. I'm advocating we stop believing in this fantasy and face reality that this is the start of a long term recession.
Gotcha, sorry, I read your comment as a "we all need to unpause and return to work" message, when it wasn't.
This is definitely the start of interesting times - we don't know how things are going to look at the end of all this. The best economics times have come on the tail end of adversity.
This is definitely the start of interesting times - we don't know how things are going to look at the end of all this. The best economics times have come on the tail end of adversity.
> The best economics times have come on the tail end of adversity.
That can be a long, long time too. The black plague was a boon for workers who survived it since the labor pool was small and consequently wages were higher. Plenty of free land, too. The downside was, you know, the black plague...
That can be a long, long time too. The black plague was a boon for workers who survived it since the labor pool was small and consequently wages were higher. Plenty of free land, too. The downside was, you know, the black plague...
>If the economy bounced back to what it was on Feb 28th, what is your acceptable number of dead? Would you trade 9 million unemployed for 9 million dead? Do you think that wouldn't have an effect on the market as well?
The vast majority of those dead are going to be 65+. Maybe I'm just feeling salty this morning, but considering how much that generation has stuck it to my generation I'm not even a little bit interested in trading economic collapse for their lives.
The vast majority of those dead are going to be 65+. Maybe I'm just feeling salty this morning, but considering how much that generation has stuck it to my generation I'm not even a little bit interested in trading economic collapse for their lives.
Is this sort of framing not a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face?
I don't really see that analogy. The situation is more along the lines of choosing between losing my nose or my face.
Not to mention all the assets that would be freed up for younger generations.
Is that really freeing anything up, or just accelerating inheritance? It's not as though we'll find ourselves with a magical new land of free cash for all - it'll just get passed down as it was going to anyways. Boomers are already leaving the workforce in droves, I don't expect it'd be any sort of revolution.
It frees up all the homes they live in, cars they drive, etc. We won't have to provide them health care, food, clothing, and luxury items. Once you retire you're a drain on the economy because you are consuming stuff but not producing anything.
> We won't have to provide them health care, food, clothing, and luxury items.
With the exception of health care, aren't they buying that stuff from their own savings? Do we hand out luxury items? Am I saving for my retirement for no reason?
Are the immune compromised also simply drains?
With the exception of health care, aren't they buying that stuff from their own savings? Do we hand out luxury items? Am I saving for my retirement for no reason?
Are the immune compromised also simply drains?
>With the exception of health care, aren't they buying that stuff from their own savings?
How much wheat does your savings grow? How many pairs of pants does it make?
How much wheat does your savings grow? How many pairs of pants does it make?
I guess it depend on where my bank currently has the savings invested. That seems to be a pretty common problem with all savings - stock investment at best being an abstraction of a companies value and in no ways actually linked to how much wheat is produced by said company.
Either way, you dodged my question about the immune compromised. If you're trying to sanitize this whole thing as simply economic numbers, where those who take should be removed for those who produce, you're forgetting about those people, as well as all the other producers who will die.
Either way, you dodged my question about the immune compromised. If you're trying to sanitize this whole thing as simply economic numbers, where those who take should be removed for those who produce, you're forgetting about those people, as well as all the other producers who will die.
Boomers have fewer children. Many have none, so yes, many assets will be liquidated.
Dead people can't go back to work.
But there will be a lot more job openings for those that can.
Yeah, honestly, people always forget to note that the black plague resulted in significantly higher wages for peasants and artisans.
Restaurant and event business was shrinking quickly before official shutdowns. You want all those jobs to come back, you have to bring back that demand.
Good luck doing that before this is all over.
Good luck doing that before this is all over.
What do you base that on?
That's assuming that 1) the said business will still be around after the lockdown (after 2-6 months without revenues), and 2) consumers will not have changed behavior, and I am concerned that people who spent several months watching the economy collapse, and wondering how long before they get laid off, will not start consuming like if there was no tomorrow when the lockdown ends.
I'd be more worried about lots of low cost consumption. If all these business collapse then land, good, and other things may be super cheap -- we're seeing $10/barrel, even negative, oil -- so you could consume as much as you need, even consume aggressively, but the supply is out of control and won't bridge the gap caused by 6 months of capital starvation.
Agreed though I think you hit the nail on the head...how much demand will there be after the pandemic passes(?). We were at the apex of a bull market, now we're heading towards a deep depression. A lot of those jobs won't exist sadly. This goes for current markets impacted but the ripple effects are pretty large.
And lots of people don't realize how long this will last. They say we're going to reopen in a month, but right now the curve doesn't seem to be bending significantly. We're not going to reopen when there's way more cases, and that's where we're heading.
Also, when we reopen, it will be short term and still pretty locked down. It's absolutely not the end, but a slight reprieve.
Also, when we reopen, it will be short term and still pretty locked down. It's absolutely not the end, but a slight reprieve.
Plan and prepare for a year and if things clear up sooner, great!
Good points. I would agree that when we do open up (which we will have to) it will be to a very different landscape of people who are much more cautious and have much less disposable income to spend. Without a vaccine, I would be think that infections around the world will keep bouncing around and reinfect countries without significantly coordinated efforts between countries to manage outbreaks or there would be long term shutdowns of trade, people flow amongst countries.
Those of us who manage to keep our income will have a lot of disposable income, since we're basically removed transit, eating out, entertainment or vacations from our budgets.
But there will definitely be fewer places to spend it.
But there will definitely be fewer places to spend it.
The risk is that the economy might behave like any complex machine, or the electric grid: once it’s turned off, it might take a really complicated sequence of steps to turn it back on again. And unlike machines, nobody knows that sequence for the economy.
It seems like the benefits are there for unemployment (except for the whole healthcare debate) but at the same time, our unemployment systems have never experienced such a stress test. My father and a few close friends have all applied but are still waiting to hear anything back from the offices. I hope the process goes quickly for them and anybody else who is going through this right now.
Yeah, I was laid off 3/20 (California) and applied immediately. Got a confirmation number but still haven’t heard anything else. The site was already bugging out and I made it in before the majority of people.
> $600/week from the federal government and a similar amount from state unemployment insurance benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now
LOL. My state maxes at $330/wk and that's taxable income. IDK if the Fed is taxing their payout, pulling other shenanigans (remember Bush II's stimulus checks were a "tax prebate"), or how long they'll pay.
$3,720/m is about 60% of my net income, after taxes and benefits. It'll pay my mortgage, utilities, and keep me out of jail for driving without car insurance. That's about it. In a "WAY lower COL area than SF/Seattle."
Thankfully not unemployed. Yet.
LOL. My state maxes at $330/wk and that's taxable income. IDK if the Fed is taxing their payout, pulling other shenanigans (remember Bush II's stimulus checks were a "tax prebate"), or how long they'll pay.
$3,720/m is about 60% of my net income, after taxes and benefits. It'll pay my mortgage, utilities, and keep me out of jail for driving without car insurance. That's about it. In a "WAY lower COL area than SF/Seattle."
Thankfully not unemployed. Yet.
> It'll pay my mortgage, utilities, and keep me out of jail for driving without car insurance. That's about it.
That's the point.
It's not intended to replace your job. It's there to keep you afloat until you find your next job.
That's the point.
It's not intended to replace your job. It's there to keep you afloat until you find your next job.
Isn't the point to be able to sustain someone until they can get another job? What's the point of giving someone enough money to pay their mortgage but not enough to eat, or enough to feed kids?
There's more expenses to living than mortgage and utilities. Food, health care, home repairs, funerals, car repairs, etc.
There's more expenses to living than mortgage and utilities. Food, health care, home repairs, funerals, car repairs, etc.
> Isn't the point to be able to sustain someone until they can get another job?
Yes, that's the point. It's not designed to enable (or even encourage) everyone to live paycheck-to-paycheck during the good times. The value is less than 100% of replacement income for several reasons:
- The system must maintain an incentive to return to work. Paying people 100% of their replacement income to not work will reduce the incentive to return to work. That's the last thing we need when trying to restart the economy as quickly as possible.
- The system should incentivize people to maintain their jobs. If someone can reliably get 100% of their income by being laid off, the incentive to maintain your job is reduced.
- People should share some of the burden for carrying themselves through hard times. This includes maintaining savings to help cover expenses in the event of an emergency and reducing lifestyle spending to reduce expenses. This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country. It's not realistic to expect that we can maintain everyone's previous lifestyle unchanged during unemployment.
- The money must come from somewhere. The more we pay out now, the larger our deficits and the higher our taxes will be in the future. The incentive structures must be aligned to minimize the amount of time people spend on unemployment. It's not designed to be comfortable. It's designed to be a little bit uncomfortable without triggering financial ruin for the majority. I know that sounds harsh, but it's necessary for incentive alignment.
Yes, that's the point. It's not designed to enable (or even encourage) everyone to live paycheck-to-paycheck during the good times. The value is less than 100% of replacement income for several reasons:
- The system must maintain an incentive to return to work. Paying people 100% of their replacement income to not work will reduce the incentive to return to work. That's the last thing we need when trying to restart the economy as quickly as possible.
- The system should incentivize people to maintain their jobs. If someone can reliably get 100% of their income by being laid off, the incentive to maintain your job is reduced.
- People should share some of the burden for carrying themselves through hard times. This includes maintaining savings to help cover expenses in the event of an emergency and reducing lifestyle spending to reduce expenses. This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country. It's not realistic to expect that we can maintain everyone's previous lifestyle unchanged during unemployment.
- The money must come from somewhere. The more we pay out now, the larger our deficits and the higher our taxes will be in the future. The incentive structures must be aligned to minimize the amount of time people spend on unemployment. It's not designed to be comfortable. It's designed to be a little bit uncomfortable without triggering financial ruin for the majority. I know that sounds harsh, but it's necessary for incentive alignment.
> - The system must maintain an incentive to return to work. Paying people 100% of their replacement income to not work will reduce the incentive to return to work.
Is there any evidence that shows this? I would think 4 months of 100% replacement income followed by no longer receiving unemployment benefits provides plenty of incentive to return to work.
>This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country.
I mean, the median household income in 2018 was 62k, and an estimated 78% of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Yeah plenty of people can survive fine on it, plenty of other middle class people would be unable to afford their mortgage on it. Forcing people to sell their houses due to job loss from a pandemic seems like a pretty morally unfair system, as well as a poor economic outlook for the country.
Is there any evidence that shows this? I would think 4 months of 100% replacement income followed by no longer receiving unemployment benefits provides plenty of incentive to return to work.
>This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country.
I mean, the median household income in 2018 was 62k, and an estimated 78% of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Yeah plenty of people can survive fine on it, plenty of other middle class people would be unable to afford their mortgage on it. Forcing people to sell their houses due to job loss from a pandemic seems like a pretty morally unfair system, as well as a poor economic outlook for the country.
> What's the point of giving someone enough money to pay their mortgage but not enough to eat, or enough to feed kids?
Because the banks care if you don't pay your mortgage. They don't mind if your kids go hungry.
Because the banks care if you don't pay your mortgage. They don't mind if your kids go hungry.
His state pays $330/week, which is $1320/month
The other figure was $600/week, which is $2400/month. Neither of which would meet his needs.
The other figure was $600/week, which is $2400/month. Neither of which would meet his needs.
> His state pays $330/week, which is $1320/month
> The other figure was $600/week, which is $2400/month.
The values are cumulative, not mutually exclusive.
You don't have to choose one or the other. You get both.
> The other figure was $600/week, which is $2400/month.
The values are cumulative, not mutually exclusive.
You don't have to choose one or the other. You get both.
I don’t understand the 600$/week? Does everyone get that? Will it be back paid if my state doesn’t process me for weeks?
Does my state have to apply for this?
Does my state have to apply for this?
In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed.
Not sure why the downvotes. It’s literally true for the first time ever. The way the new benefits work out your unemployment check STARTS at the equivalent of $15/hr x 40hr/week = $600/wk. In California, for example, you can get up to $1,050/wk instead of the old maximum of $450/wk.
Not sure why the downvotes. It’s literally true for the first time ever. The way the new benefits work out your unemployment check STARTS at the equivalent of $15/hr x 40hr/week = $600/wk. In California, for example, you can get up to $1,050/wk instead of the old maximum of $450/wk.
> In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed.
You're being downvoted because you overgeneralized ("many places"), but this is actually true in some scenarios.
See "Unemployed workers could get more than 100% of their paycheck under the coronavirus bill" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could...
It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work, so I expect this loophole will be closed soon.
You're being downvoted because you overgeneralized ("many places"), but this is actually true in some scenarios.
See "Unemployed workers could get more than 100% of their paycheck under the coronavirus bill" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could...
It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work, so I expect this loophole will be closed soon.
> It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work
Unemployment isn't forever and the additional $600/week is only for the current pandemic situation and expires as of July 31. This is not a windfall for those who are now suddenly without a job.
But more importantly, someone who has just been laid off has close to zero employment options right now. They might be able to find a short-term job at a grocery store or Amazon but if they're over 50 or have any sort of health issues that's probably unwise. And even if someone is willing to risk it they're unlikely to get the position anyway, no matter how qualified, because those few positions are absolutely flooded with applicants[1].
There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option.
[1] https://abc13.com/heb-who's-hiring-houston-jobs-covid-19/606...
Unemployment isn't forever and the additional $600/week is only for the current pandemic situation and expires as of July 31. This is not a windfall for those who are now suddenly without a job.
But more importantly, someone who has just been laid off has close to zero employment options right now. They might be able to find a short-term job at a grocery store or Amazon but if they're over 50 or have any sort of health issues that's probably unwise. And even if someone is willing to risk it they're unlikely to get the position anyway, no matter how qualified, because those few positions are absolutely flooded with applicants[1].
There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option.
[1] https://abc13.com/heb-who's-hiring-houston-jobs-covid-19/606...
> There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option.
The economy isn't all-or-nothing. This situation is bad, but it's an exaggeration to suggest that no one is hiring.
The perverse incentive comes into play when people start turning down $20/hr jobs because they're making $23/hr on unemployment insurance. They'll want to go back to work eventually, yes, but they won't rush into it will literally cost them money to do so.
I'm not suggesting that unemployment insurance is comfortable or ideal, but I think it's important that we avoid situations where people must deliberately choose to reduce their income to return to work.
The economy isn't all-or-nothing. This situation is bad, but it's an exaggeration to suggest that no one is hiring.
The perverse incentive comes into play when people start turning down $20/hr jobs because they're making $23/hr on unemployment insurance. They'll want to go back to work eventually, yes, but they won't rush into it will literally cost them money to do so.
I'm not suggesting that unemployment insurance is comfortable or ideal, but I think it's important that we avoid situations where people must deliberately choose to reduce their income to return to work.
Sure, a few people will be hired. But it is absolutely delusional to think that any significant percentage of people laid off will be able to get a new job anytime soon. There simply aren't enough jobs. Everyone really, really wanting it will just make those jobs harder to get, and will lead to lower pay and reduced safety.
This is not a time to be talking about bootstraps.
This is not a time to be talking about bootstraps.
People probably haven’t figured it out yet. Why work for $15/hr at a grocery store when you can make $20/hr sitting at home? Sure, not forever. But that grocery store job ain’t forever either. The UI benefits go until at least July 31. That’s probably longer than most of these temp jobs.
We want people to be staying home and not working right now. Other countries are smart enough to encourage this. Only the US seems to be missing the entire point of this whole exercise.
It’s true in a LOT of scenarios. It’s true for anyone making under $15/hr anywhere, and in some states the break even is $20/hr or more.
"I expect this loophole will be closed soon" What makes you think that?
When I was unemployed after my first job out of college, I was making a little over $420/week on unemployment. I ended up taking a manufacturing job where I made $10/hour for a 40hr/week job. So I made less money by working than if I had stayed on unemployment. And that hourly wage was quite a bit higher than minimum wage.
So you worked 100% more/harder and still made less...what a perverse system.
Most people just wouldn't have taken that job. You could argue that would be better because it leaves it open for someone who needs it more.
"You could argue that would be better because it leaves it open for someone who needs it more." The generosity! Who could need it more than someone who literally does not have any job?
"In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed." Could this be a tipping point?
Go ahead and name them, please?
Most places. California, New York, anywhere with a decent unemployment insurance program.
If you made $15 an hour in California you were making $600/wk. On unemployment you now make $877/wk. That’s a 46% increase. It’s huge.
If you made $15 an hour in California you were making $600/wk. On unemployment you now make $877/wk. That’s a 46% increase. It’s huge.
$600/week after tax is surely a massive amount and enough to give a family a very comfortable lifestyle. I always thought it was cheaper to live in the US than in the UK. That amount here would give you a luxurious lifestyle. What am I missing?
Is $600/week enough to live comfortably in London? It’s not enough to live comfortably in most large cities in the US. Our mortgage payment is $2200/month. And we live in the most affordable large city on the West Coast (Portland, Oregon). LA, SF, and Seattle would all be much more.
If by we, you mean two people, then it's $1200/week for the both of you. So that leaves you $2600/month after housing (maybe not including taxes, utilities, repairs). That doesn't seem too bad.
Also, you're talking about a mortgage for a property worth over $400k. It's unreasonable to expect that unemployment would be enough to pay everyone's mortgage, regardless of how much it is.
Also, you're talking about a mortgage for a property worth over $400k. It's unreasonable to expect that unemployment would be enough to pay everyone's mortgage, regardless of how much it is.
Not everyone's spouse would automatically qualify for unemployment. For example, if I make enough to cover the $2600/month rent on my own and my wife is a full-time caregiver for our aging parents, if I lose my job we would only collect one unemployment check.
Yeah, if I were planning for that level of income, then we could probably comfortable cover our bills. My wife would have to already have a job. And we'd have a pretty sizable commute to get to work. So, bills would get covered, but life would be a lot less comfortable (though comfortable when compared to not being able to afford the basics).
But Portland is pretty affordable. $400k doesn't get you much in California (there are foreclosures in South Central listed for that much on Zillow right now).
But Portland is pretty affordable. $400k doesn't get you much in California (there are foreclosures in South Central listed for that much on Zillow right now).
600 USD per week is just under £500 quid GBP per week, or about 2000 pounds a month, or 24K GBP a year.
Quick google search shows that the median income for the UK is £585 per week, which works out at around £30,420 a year (or $37,647.03 USD).
Hardly luxurious in the UK or US. Probably enough to get by, but nothing amazing.
Quick google search shows that the median income for the UK is £585 per week, which works out at around £30,420 a year (or $37,647.03 USD).
Hardly luxurious in the UK or US. Probably enough to get by, but nothing amazing.
Where are you getting these figures from? Is that before tax? Median household disposal of income is about 28k. And that's household, not individual. Many households are earning two incomes.
Can't believe how out of touch with reality some of the people on here are. My post is sitting on -4 right now. 24KGBP per year, after tax, for being unemployed. You've got to be kidding me.
Can't believe how out of touch with reality some of the people on here are. My post is sitting on -4 right now. 24KGBP per year, after tax, for being unemployed. You've got to be kidding me.
A person with no dependents and no health issues can easily live on that pretty much anywhere in the US. However, if you have to support children, or need health insurance, or health care, then it could be difficult.
This is such an insane post. Do you literally have no idea how much things cost?
I do my accounts quite carefully and I'm very well aware how much things cost. My rent for a nice flat in a city is 650GBP per month. You can double that for rough monthly expenditure, and that's an expensive month.
"What am I missing?" American citizenship?
"unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now."
Wow. It's bizarre one can neither create nor add value yet proceed to receive thousands of dollars for an extended period of time (often multiples more than they will ever "pay in" to the system).
I know too many people already milking it before the pandemic (including family & friends). I accept that it is their personal choice and I don't get emotionally wound up in it or treat them different, though I do feel sorry for them. Learned helplessness combined with ego/entitlement must be a painful state of cognitive dissonance in which to live.
Hard to imagine what this looks like afterwards; it seems like each unemployment instance or broader "depression" further demotivates many Americans while dis-incentivizing the immutable values of knowledge acquisition/application, hard work, sacrifice, risk taking, etc.
There is no such thing as free money. Those who think and act as as if are merely being stripped of their human spirit in exchange. Change my view.
Edit to add: ya'll can downvote but can't share your own views or debate otherwise?
Wow. It's bizarre one can neither create nor add value yet proceed to receive thousands of dollars for an extended period of time (often multiples more than they will ever "pay in" to the system).
I know too many people already milking it before the pandemic (including family & friends). I accept that it is their personal choice and I don't get emotionally wound up in it or treat them different, though I do feel sorry for them. Learned helplessness combined with ego/entitlement must be a painful state of cognitive dissonance in which to live.
Hard to imagine what this looks like afterwards; it seems like each unemployment instance or broader "depression" further demotivates many Americans while dis-incentivizing the immutable values of knowledge acquisition/application, hard work, sacrifice, risk taking, etc.
There is no such thing as free money. Those who think and act as as if are merely being stripped of their human spirit in exchange. Change my view.
Edit to add: ya'll can downvote but can't share your own views or debate otherwise?
Perhaps the full name of the benefit, "Unemployment Insurance", will clear things up for you. It's insurance that everyone pays into, so that those who do happen to lose their jobs have an insurance to fall back on until they find another job.
You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment benefits are.
Your commentary is the equivalent of arguing that receiving thousands of dollars to replace your car after it gets totaled is a "hand out", when in reality that's quite literally what insurance is for.
You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment benefits are.
Your commentary is the equivalent of arguing that receiving thousands of dollars to replace your car after it gets totaled is a "hand out", when in reality that's quite literally what insurance is for.
Thanks for commenting even if you don't agree with me! Allow me to respond:
"It's insurance that everyone pays into, so that those who do happen to lose their jobs have an insurance to fall back on until they find another job."
It's a TAX that everyone pays and not everyone uses - even if and when they could because they elect not to sell out their dignity by accepting money they never earned rather was taken off the backs of others.
"You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment benefits are."
I never said it was luxurious, from what I can tell it's a state of living hell...just look at/talk to anyone on welfare they are by-in-large a broken peoples stripped of self-reliance, self-esteem, and self-agency.
"Your commentary is the equivalent of arguing that receiving thousands of dollars to replace your car after it gets totaled is a "hand out", when in reality that's quite literally what insurance is for. "
I don't think it is equivalent...car insurance is optional if you don't want to pay it, don't own a car (many people who opt-out). UI tax is not optional, is it?
"It's insurance that everyone pays into, so that those who do happen to lose their jobs have an insurance to fall back on until they find another job."
It's a TAX that everyone pays and not everyone uses - even if and when they could because they elect not to sell out their dignity by accepting money they never earned rather was taken off the backs of others.
"You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment benefits are."
I never said it was luxurious, from what I can tell it's a state of living hell...just look at/talk to anyone on welfare they are by-in-large a broken peoples stripped of self-reliance, self-esteem, and self-agency.
"Your commentary is the equivalent of arguing that receiving thousands of dollars to replace your car after it gets totaled is a "hand out", when in reality that's quite literally what insurance is for. "
I don't think it is equivalent...car insurance is optional if you don't want to pay it, don't own a car (many people who opt-out). UI tax is not optional, is it?
[deleted]
hacker news is a hivemind. I don't agree with everything you say (one can argue there is economic value in staying home during an outbreak of a highly transmissible virus) but I do think you are right in a lot of ways (it's a perverse incentive, and unproductivity should not be subsidized in general).
"hacker news is a hivemind." Hm. I've heard this said before but I don't know what it means?
"I don't agree with everything you say (one can argue there is economic value in staying home during an outbreak of a highly transmissible virus) but I do think you are right in a lot of ways (it's a perverse incentive, and unproductivity should not be subsidized in general)."
Cool. I would advise against agreeing with everything I say ha. Look if people want to pay their own way in terms of UI over their working years and save up some sort of 'emergency/flex account' managed by the gov for when the inevitable storms roll through I think that's a fine idea.
The fact that it is forced upon all earners individual and businesses, and ultimately only used by some and then abused by a chunk of those who use is a different story. It's the equivalent of stealing money from your neighbor and their family! Just because the gov sits in between the two parties and forces the transaction somehow socially acceptable, even laudable? WTF.
As I've mentioned above, beyond normalizing this behavior is the sneaky side effects it has on the unemployed recipient...backward incentives, dependencies via erosion of self reliance.
"I don't agree with everything you say (one can argue there is economic value in staying home during an outbreak of a highly transmissible virus) but I do think you are right in a lot of ways (it's a perverse incentive, and unproductivity should not be subsidized in general)."
Cool. I would advise against agreeing with everything I say ha. Look if people want to pay their own way in terms of UI over their working years and save up some sort of 'emergency/flex account' managed by the gov for when the inevitable storms roll through I think that's a fine idea.
The fact that it is forced upon all earners individual and businesses, and ultimately only used by some and then abused by a chunk of those who use is a different story. It's the equivalent of stealing money from your neighbor and their family! Just because the gov sits in between the two parties and forces the transaction somehow socially acceptable, even laudable? WTF.
As I've mentioned above, beyond normalizing this behavior is the sneaky side effects it has on the unemployed recipient...backward incentives, dependencies via erosion of self reliance.
Staying home is productive though. It slows the spread of the virus and adds value (in terms of capacity) to our hospitals and healthcare system. You can think of unemployment benefits as the government purchasing that time from employees and instructing them to use it in the most valuable way to us as a society: do nothing.
The person's time is valuable (and so they should be compensated) but the most valuable use of their time in the short-term is to not use it at all. Tech does this all the time. We just call it "rest and vest".
The person's time is valuable (and so they should be compensated) but the most valuable use of their time in the short-term is to not use it at all. Tech does this all the time. We just call it "rest and vest".
OK thanks for sharing!
For those living in cities that are locked down, what do yall do about daycare? In NYC, my daycare isn't reimbursing fees, so we're continuing to be charged with a promise of "if insurance pays out, we'll pass it down." With 2 kids, that’s $5,000. Assuming they’re closed for 3 months total, that’s $15,000 down the drain. Now, I get that they're a small business, but their problem is that they can't exactly layoff their daycare workers because the governing body for daycares are pretty strict and getting new employees take a lot of time. On top of that, they have rents due. So, I get it.
But this begs a more fundamental question: When are we going to start pressuring insurance companies and rent-seekers to provide relief? Time and time again, all the bailouts of the past seem to benefit them, but during a time when we need insurance companies to pay out for business interruption instead of claiming "act of God, we exclude pandemics...etc.," we fail to bring them into the conversation.
But this begs a more fundamental question: When are we going to start pressuring insurance companies and rent-seekers to provide relief? Time and time again, all the bailouts of the past seem to benefit them, but during a time when we need insurance companies to pay out for business interruption instead of claiming "act of God, we exclude pandemics...etc.," we fail to bring them into the conversation.
The best situation all around here possibly is the concept of "Kurzarbeit", or short work system, that exists in Germany (Denmark also has a similar one, I believe). It basically allows employers to reduce hours they pay workers, while the gov't helps cover the shortfall to the employee, up to some maximum amount.
This prevents companies from having to layoff people, and allows them to pickup the slack and rehire everyone again when things get better.
This prevents companies from having to layoff people, and allows them to pickup the slack and rehire everyone again when things get better.
A similar concept is found in the CARE Act related to employers that reduce the hours or wages of employment.
this doesn't address that in this crisis at the end of all "we need money to pay the bills" problems, there are actual people getting the money on top of their existing pile. If we could identify these individuals, we could essentially just freeze everything in place (rents, industry bonds,...) and the fed only had to print money for the ag/energy/medical sector (and even there we could just use some of the individual savings to pay the bills...). Once it's over, noone will be bankrupt, the Gini coefficient will be lower and the recession will be small. Problem: some individuals will have lost a lot of power.
At my company the kids have become an addition to our meetings. Babies on laps and toddlers drawing on the whiteboard in the background.
It's definitely making changes to productivity and I feel for the new parents.
It's definitely making changes to productivity and I feel for the new parents.
It's one of those moments where I'm glad my kids are past the toddler stage. I'm in 'bad parent' mode right now and letting them have entirely too much screen time and too little direct supervision, but at 7 & 9 they can handle being mostly on their own all day as long as they have something to do. Biggest problem is that they'd not choose schoolwork on their own :)
This too shall pass, and they probably won't be too much worse for wear as a result. I tend to think primary school is 80% day care anyway :)
This too shall pass, and they probably won't be too much worse for wear as a result. I tend to think primary school is 80% day care anyway :)
Our daycare here in NC has now stopped charging fees and I assume laid off / furloughed some staff because of it. I've not heard of them getting assistance but I've not researched it either. They had not decided to do that out of the gate and we were OK with still paying because my wife and I were still being paid and the employees at the daycare work very hard.
I'm sure it's higher in NYC but at ~$750 / month average it's a significant budget item in our house.
I'm sure it's higher in NYC but at ~$750 / month average it's a significant budget item in our house.
I’m paying $2,500 per month per child (I have 2) in NYC so that’s $5,000 down the drain. And that’s considered cheap.
I don't understand- they are not providing the service but also not reimbursing fees? That makes zero sense to me- do you pay monthly, and ahead of time?
Monthly on the first of every month for services to be rendered that month. It makes sense that they charge, but I just don’t like it. Similar to if you don’t use your apartment- your landlord isn’t refunding you for that.
Right- but if I was unable to enter my home, I would not be paying rent. This isn't a "the service is there, but I am choosing not to use it" situation, unless I am misunderstanding something- this is a "I am legally not allowed to use this service" or another way to look at it- they are legally not allowed to provide this service.
I know in nyc, lining up childcare can be a crazy process involving waitlists and such- but I can't imagine paying them in months they are unable to provide service by law.
I know in nyc, lining up childcare can be a crazy process involving waitlists and such- but I can't imagine paying them in months they are unable to provide service by law.
Imagine not paying and losing access to childcare when you need it again.
I live in the Bay Area and childcare has been shut down for a few weeks out here as well.
It’s taxing but also pretty cool to be able to work and spend time with your kid. I just wish she could interact with people when she sees them outside, she used to pick random strangers and ask for a hug (she’s 1). She’s adapting, but you can tell she’s trying to understand why she can’t run up and play with little kids she sees outside.
It’s also hard to know she sees you ignoring her from time to time. I hope this doesn’t negatively impact her long term development.
It’s taxing but also pretty cool to be able to work and spend time with your kid. I just wish she could interact with people when she sees them outside, she used to pick random strangers and ask for a hug (she’s 1). She’s adapting, but you can tell she’s trying to understand why she can’t run up and play with little kids she sees outside.
It’s also hard to know she sees you ignoring her from time to time. I hope this doesn’t negatively impact her long term development.
If you're paying for a service they are not providing, that's extremely clear grounds for a CC charge back, or surely similar in court.
And then what happens next month? The daycare will either kick us out, or ask to get their money. This isn't a type of "service" that's easy to replace. The waitlists in NYC are often 6+ months.
> so we're continuing to be charged with a promise of "if insurance pays out, we'll pass it down."
It's very unlikely most business interruption insurance policies would cover a pandemic. I'm sure there are many small businesses who think they've planned for this situation whose insurance claims will be immediately denied.
It's very unlikely most business interruption insurance policies would cover a pandemic. I'm sure there are many small businesses who think they've planned for this situation whose insurance claims will be immediately denied.
We need a different unemployment system than the one we have. We need criteria for unpaid leave but makes you eligible for unemployment benefits. Then when the issue is resolved the employees continue as usual with no laps in work history or anything else. This is also the reason one of the biggest thing we need to do to fix healthcare costs is to detach it from employment (this was the case pre WW2). This would allow people to accrue money in the HSA over time and still be able to pay premiums during an unemployment window.
I’m curious, if the city is locked down why are the kids in daycare and not at home? Are you working as a healthcare provider?
I never said the kids are in daycare. They are not. I am still being charged for it, however.
This chart is just getting crazier and crazier: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUmW1PgXYAEdggm?format=png&name=...
There's a sense that once "lockdown" ends, thing go back to normal. In other words, the "V" shaped recovery is the dominant mental model.
Should that not materialize, the disappointment and anger will reach level not seen in most people's lifetimes.
One reason the V-scenario might not play out is that the US still doesn't have a handle on the testing problem. Without testing, you have no way to estimate the danger to the public of normalizing economic activity. At the first sign of a new outbreak, the entire lockdown cycle will repeat.
Too few people will have gained immunity, and the disease is far too contagious and deadly to take any chances. We still don't know what "immunity" looks like at any rate.
Alternatively, the lies about testing may have burned people so badly by the time the "all clear" is given (whatever that looks like), that few will believe it. The effect would be a national strike/boycott.
Should that not materialize, the disappointment and anger will reach level not seen in most people's lifetimes.
One reason the V-scenario might not play out is that the US still doesn't have a handle on the testing problem. Without testing, you have no way to estimate the danger to the public of normalizing economic activity. At the first sign of a new outbreak, the entire lockdown cycle will repeat.
Too few people will have gained immunity, and the disease is far too contagious and deadly to take any chances. We still don't know what "immunity" looks like at any rate.
Alternatively, the lies about testing may have burned people so badly by the time the "all clear" is given (whatever that looks like), that few will believe it. The effect would be a national strike/boycott.
> Should that not materialize
And soon. A great many people have a low tolerance for indefinite lockdowns. The longer we go without any kind of plan, the more likely it becomes that people will begin disregarding it. I already see that the amount of traffic on the roads is increasing over time.
What we need are leaders, and it's glaringly obvious that in most states we don't have that. During peacetime nobody notices, but when the SHTF the leadership vacuum is palpable.
And soon. A great many people have a low tolerance for indefinite lockdowns. The longer we go without any kind of plan, the more likely it becomes that people will begin disregarding it. I already see that the amount of traffic on the roads is increasing over time.
What we need are leaders, and it's glaringly obvious that in most states we don't have that. During peacetime nobody notices, but when the SHTF the leadership vacuum is palpable.
My job has been inundated with applications from people who are not even in tech in any way (think like barbers & home depot workers). I see now why so many companies use automation to filter out resumes.
One of the requirements for unemployment is to show proof of actively applying for jobs.
If workers are not interested in actually resuming work for the time being, they would apply jobs for which they would not qualify for, preferably ones that won’t even contact them back.
This is a very cynical view, but could be a partial explaination.
If workers are not interested in actually resuming work for the time being, they would apply jobs for which they would not qualify for, preferably ones that won’t even contact them back.
This is a very cynical view, but could be a partial explaination.
"If workers are not interested in actually resuming work for the time being, they would apply jobs for which they would not qualify for, preferably ones that won’t even contact them back."
It's not cynical - it's real.
It's not cynical - it's real.
[deleted]
To what type of positions ? So like a barber for a random secretary or mail room etc? Or just all up and down the chain
To Software Engineer, lvl 3 support, Data Scientist, etc. Roles that they would almost certainly fail in without previous experience.
One of the requirements for unemployment benefits is that you are actually looking for work and can proof a certain number of applications per week. It makes sense to just randomly apply as long as the applications count towards the minimum number needed to stay eligible.
In Sweden we have temporarily removed this requirement during COVID-19, presumably to avoid swamping employers with pointless applications.
I am aware of this, but that doesn't mean people should waste others time, and if it gets bad enough I am going to put automation in front of it.
Everyone loses in these scenarios.
Everyone loses in these scenarios.
This sounds like an unfortunate domino effect, where our legislation forces the unemployed to jump through ridiculous hoops, and in desperation to get $$ they start passing out resumes like hotcakes. To me they are a symptom of a broken system, and I want to direct my ire at the government rather than them.
Does unemployment benefits still demand you apply for X number of jobs?
Could be a cause.
Could be a cause.
If you're going to apply to something for which you have no experience, why not go big? CTO, CEO, VP of Bizdev?
I used to complain about automated job systems, then I saw a raw stack of applicants. In a good job market, roughly 90% don't get more than a few seconds - people not even remotely in the correct field for what they applied for. I can't imagine what it's going to be like for the next year or so.
I can attest to this. I got an application this week for my company's senior software engineer position from someone whose only experience has been in residential flooring. And dozens more with similar qualifications from all over the country despite it being an onsite position in Chicago.
And zip recruiter just laid off a bunch of employees...
Edit - covered by dakna below.
I've seen a lot of small businesses do the math, and realize that with the additional $600 provided by the stimulus bill, it actually works out better for some lower paid workers to lay them off (and presumably rehire later). I wonder if this might explain higher than expected numbers.
We just did that yesterday. It actually works out better for a lot of people. The break even point in California is around $25/hr. If you made under $25/hr it pays more to be unemployed. For some people who were part time at $15/hr or less they will actually see paychecks double. And you no longer have to even be looking for work to keep getting the money, at least through July 31.
Maybe, but demand just evaporated and might not return so why put the risk on their balance sheet if the fed govt will take it on in the meantime.
That and almost no business can keep paying employees when literally no income is coming in for a month or three.
This was the point of the $600. It keeps people afloat and home.
Expected 3M. This new figure is about 10x financial crisis high.
And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and state unemployment benefits....
> And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and state unemployment benefits....
Not true. The unemployment benefits have also been augmented by up to $600/week above state unemployment benefits. This amount applies even if your state benefits have been exhausted.
The $1200 is an extra stimulus check for people whether or not they’re still employed. Not to be confused with the unemployment benefits.
Not true. The unemployment benefits have also been augmented by up to $600/week above state unemployment benefits. This amount applies even if your state benefits have been exhausted.
The $1200 is an extra stimulus check for people whether or not they’re still employed. Not to be confused with the unemployment benefits.
I don't think the $1200 goes to everyone, though, right? There's an income threshold.
I mean, the number is almost irrelevant given the extent of the crisis. Might as well make it a million a person because some fundamental truths of the economy are going to completely change.
I mean, the number is almost irrelevant given the extent of the crisis. Might as well make it a million a person because some fundamental truths of the economy are going to completely change.
It starts phasing out at $75,000 AGI. Decreases 5% for every dollar over. For example, if you make $84,000 AGI, you would get $1200-.05*(84000-75000) = $750.
It decreases to $0 at $99,000.
Edit: double everything for a married couple - potential for $2400 that begins phasing out at $150,000 and drops to $0 at $198,000.
It decreases to $0 at $99,000.
Edit: double everything for a married couple - potential for $2400 that begins phasing out at $150,000 and drops to $0 at $198,000.
Yes, this is true. The check amount decreases for individuals making between 75k and 100k. Over 100k you get nothing. Double those numbers for couples.
Yes, the federal government is providing more stimulus juice (one time cash payment and unemployment top up), but no, it is absolutely not going to be enough for the economic challenge we're facing.
You say that with such conviction when you don't have any better info on what the future holds than anyone else.
The unemployment benefits (which for many of the unemployed will actually be higher than their regular pay) last for the next four months. If the quarantine lifts by the end of May and businesses reopen then it will be enough. Obviously that's a big if, but for you to come out here and act like you know something with 100% certainty is absurd.
The unemployment benefits (which for many of the unemployed will actually be higher than their regular pay) last for the next four months. If the quarantine lifts by the end of May and businesses reopen then it will be enough. Obviously that's a big if, but for you to come out here and act like you know something with 100% certainty is absurd.
We've had plenty of recessions before and not once has the economy simply been restarted. To use an example, I work on software for a company in the dental field. The circle is:
Nobody is going to the dentist because of Covid -> Dentist stops using my client's services -> Client cancels my project -> I get laid off -> I can't afford to go to the dentist -> Nobody goes to the dentist because they can't afford it.
That story is true for every industry. And it gets worse. In anticipation of the economic storm coming we have stopped all non-essential purchases. Which means a whole lot of businesses are out of revenue. Multiply that across the economy and everything but essentials is grinding to a halt.
The only way out of it, that I see, is the government stepping in and guaranteeing, without a salary cap, unemployment benefits at 80-90% of salary for as long as the crisis lasts. Even then I'm not sure it's enough to fix the actual damage that has happened.
Nobody is going to the dentist because of Covid -> Dentist stops using my client's services -> Client cancels my project -> I get laid off -> I can't afford to go to the dentist -> Nobody goes to the dentist because they can't afford it.
That story is true for every industry. And it gets worse. In anticipation of the economic storm coming we have stopped all non-essential purchases. Which means a whole lot of businesses are out of revenue. Multiply that across the economy and everything but essentials is grinding to a halt.
The only way out of it, that I see, is the government stepping in and guaranteeing, without a salary cap, unemployment benefits at 80-90% of salary for as long as the crisis lasts. Even then I'm not sure it's enough to fix the actual damage that has happened.
Exactly, and because everyone is leveraged, unless they magically extend the terms on your mortgage (not just delay them) your going to be behind by a month or two for a lot longer than 3 months. Many people have been saying for the last decade+ that a huge portion of the population is working paycheck to paycheck. That means that they don't have enough savings to absorb an extra rent payment, and they won't have them if/when they start working again. either.
This might have worked for a couple days, but no way it works for multiple weeks.
This might have worked for a couple days, but no way it works for multiple weeks.
My statement was based on an interview with Congressional representatives aired on NPR yesterday afternoon after APM's Marketplace. They were the ones who said what has already been passed is woefully insufficient, and I agree.
> If the quarantine lifts by the end of May and businesses reopen then it will be enough.
> Obviously that's a big if
Show your work. Forecasting does not align with your statements.
> If the quarantine lifts by the end of May and businesses reopen then it will be enough.
> Obviously that's a big if
Show your work. Forecasting does not align with your statements.
We do know that things will get worse as we've seen how things have tracked in China, Iran and Italy. And if this quarantine lasts till May, I foresee many small businesses won't be around by then.
> I foresee many small businesses won't be around by then
And I wouldn't be surprised if it starts to hit some mid-size businesses as well. A lot of places are getting hit hard right now, and that just flows up the chain. My company hasn't announced any layoffs or cashflow problems, but I can do the math -- most of our customers are relatively small businesses. Pretty quickly their problem becomes our problem.
And I wouldn't be surprised if it starts to hit some mid-size businesses as well. A lot of places are getting hit hard right now, and that just flows up the chain. My company hasn't announced any layoffs or cashflow problems, but I can do the math -- most of our customers are relatively small businesses. Pretty quickly their problem becomes our problem.
Wasn't unemployment boosted by $600 a week plus state unemployment? Or is my linked NYT article wrong[1]? Because even if it were $600 a week that's the equivalent of $15 an hour. For NY it appears the max state unemployment benefit of $504 per week, for a total max possible of $27.6 an hour, assuming a 40 hour workweek. That's quite substantial, no? Or maybe I'm wrong, and you could enlighten me.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-stimulus-package...
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-stimulus-package...
No you're right. A lot of people are going to make more on unemployment than they would employed. I'm a junior software engineer and I wouldn't be making that much less on unemployment than I do right now.
No one that wasn't already starving should be starving at this point. Except perhaps gig workers.
No one that wasn't already starving should be starving at this point. Except perhaps gig workers.
Well, I suppose I should be happy for others then. But working on my own project with no income kinda makes that sting a tiny bit. So goes the startup hustle I guess.
The safety net has never been more robust than right now. With the additional $600/week through the end of July people can expect to receive an annualized amount of nearly $60,000. Add on to that food and other benefits and people who were laid off should not be struggling.
..and an additional $60,0000 national debt per household.
It's weird how the national debt is only a problem when the proposal is helping ordinary people and never a problem when the proposal is to go to war overseas.
12.5% of the $2T is "helping ordinary people". And some of us have been teargassed protesting wars..
Why is it only 12.5%? Why not 50%? Or 80%?
2,000,000,000,000 / 250,000,000,000 = 12.5%
That's the amount which will be sent out in checks directly to families.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-seeking-85...
That's the amount which will be sent out in checks directly to families.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-seeking-85...
Yes, I'm asking why the amount is not larger than that, because it needs to be much larger.
I don't like either and think both are largely wastes of money. In both cases there are always the very few poorest who need help from others and there are always a very few situations where we need to go to war. Would you please stop with the tu quoque now?
Why do we have to stop with the tu quoque, it's a relevant point especially how we are posting anti-drug ships outside of Venezuela and talking about Iran sneak attacking us. Even in the throes of a pandemic we haven't missed a step in trying to throw billion dollar military platforms into useless trillion dollar wars.
Because we're in a thread discussing the virus problem? This is an attempt to derail the very reasonable cost concerns about these gov't bail-outs. Besides, "helping people" already accounts for a much greater portion of our spending and of the national debt. Also, in terms of debt contributed, first bail-out alone is $2T while the military budget is less than one.
You have very few people who agree with you. 95% of the time "the national debt" is only used a cudgel against proposals to help the working class.
Yeah... $1,200 advanced from next years tax return nonetheless. Normative economics (how should things be allocated equitably) are frowned upon, but it’s clear that our system needs to be refactored. The fact that Bernie Sanders has only a 1% chance of winning the primaries show the severe disconnect between what we want and what we need.
I have heard people say that it was an advance but found conflicting info, can you source?
It is free money, which is technically a tax credit for the 2020 tax year. Since that would not be filed for another year, they advanced the issue date based on previous tax returns. If you made $150k last year as a single person but just lost your job and end up out of work for 6 months, you won’t see your credit until you do your taxes next year. It is not an advance on your normal tax return.
> These rebates are structured as tax credits automatically advanced to households in 2020 if you filed a 2019 income tax return and would be received as a direct deposit or check by mail.
https://lacyclay.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congr...
https://lacyclay.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congr...
Note for anyone who's not aware, a "tax credit" is basically free money. It's not the same as a deduction, which only reduces your taxable income. A credit directly reduces the amount of taxes you owe, and in most cases if the credit reduces the amount you owe to a negative number the IRS will pay you that money.
It is misinformation. It becomes an advance if your normal income suddenly skyrockets to a point where you wouldn’t have been eligible for the $1,200. That won’t be the case for almost anybody.
You have it backwards. If and only if your income sky rockets, you don’t get it taken out next year. If your income is high now and you don’t get $1,200, you’ll get it when you pay next year under the condition your income drops. For everyone else, it’s a simple advance.
> For example, a single taxpayer with $100,000 in 2019 income would not receive an advance rebate but would receive the $1,200 credit on their 2020 return if their income for the year fell below the phaseout. On the other hand, a single taxpayer with $35,000 in income receives a $1,200 advance rebate but would not have to pay the rebate back on the 2020 return if they make $100,000 this year.
https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-senate-coronavirus-bill-...
> For example, a single taxpayer with $100,000 in 2019 income would not receive an advance rebate but would receive the $1,200 credit on their 2020 return if their income for the year fell below the phaseout. On the other hand, a single taxpayer with $35,000 in income receives a $1,200 advance rebate but would not have to pay the rebate back on the 2020 return if they make $100,000 this year.
https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-senate-coronavirus-bill-...
And you want us to believe it will be okay if the government just "does something"? When will people quit turning to the federal government to solve their problems and take responsibility for themselves? Everyone ought to make his own decision whether to stay home or go to work and deal with the consequences accordingly.
Well lets see, you go engage in unnecessary activities in an area where the infection is spreading. .. and as a result you become an asymptomatic carrier and infect three people. Those three people infect three more each, those nine people infect 27 more, those people infect 81 people... who go on to infect 243 people...
And not so far down the line your actions have resulted in the deaths of-- say-- 80 people (including a few people who didn't die of covid19, but because they couldn't get treatment due to hospital overloads that you created). People who wouldn't have died if they weren't infected or if the infection came later when treatments were improved or hospitals weren't overloaded-- who wouldn't have died if you'd avoided creating an unnecessary exposure.
So, on that basis, since you're planning on taking responsibility for your actions, we can assume that you're prepared to pay out about a half a billion dollars (OMB values a human life at 7-9 million dollars) to the surviving families of the people your actions were responsible for killing?
I knew that there were some high rollers on HN, but I find myself surprised to encounter someone so eager to "take responsibility" for the consequences of choosing to expose other people to a deadly contagion.
I imagine most people, instead, would find it much more attractive to obey the mandated best practices and thereby be morally and legally absolved of the consequences of whatever infection they inadvertently spread in spite of those efforts. And... hopefully spare themselves an excruciating (and potentially debilitating or deadly) illness at the same time.
And not so far down the line your actions have resulted in the deaths of-- say-- 80 people (including a few people who didn't die of covid19, but because they couldn't get treatment due to hospital overloads that you created). People who wouldn't have died if they weren't infected or if the infection came later when treatments were improved or hospitals weren't overloaded-- who wouldn't have died if you'd avoided creating an unnecessary exposure.
So, on that basis, since you're planning on taking responsibility for your actions, we can assume that you're prepared to pay out about a half a billion dollars (OMB values a human life at 7-9 million dollars) to the surviving families of the people your actions were responsible for killing?
I knew that there were some high rollers on HN, but I find myself surprised to encounter someone so eager to "take responsibility" for the consequences of choosing to expose other people to a deadly contagion.
I imagine most people, instead, would find it much more attractive to obey the mandated best practices and thereby be morally and legally absolved of the consequences of whatever infection they inadvertently spread in spite of those efforts. And... hopefully spare themselves an excruciating (and potentially debilitating or deadly) illness at the same time.
I hope that tech industry employees do not feel immune to this.
I encourage you to take a look at your customer base and think very critically about where that money is actually coming from.
I encourage you to take a look at your customer base and think very critically about where that money is actually coming from.
I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance for tech employees partially because tech thrived in the 2008 crisis. Investors looking to make high risk/reward investments had no where else to go but SV. If you aren't old enough to remember the dot-com boom it's understandable you might feel tech is invincible.
Tech will not be insulated from this and in general I think we'll see a major contraction of the tech labour force. There are so many non-tech companies that want in on the VC and other investor money so they are rapidly building out expensive tech teams to create illusion that they are the next tech giant.
Not to mention the other weakness in tech: RSUs as the main factor of total comp. If the market continues to drop, especially if it hits hards, a huge number of SV workers will be getting automatic pay cuts due to rapidly decreased values in RSU. A lot of expensive real estate in SV is paid for by RSUs.
This crisis is going to be insane.
Tech will not be insulated from this and in general I think we'll see a major contraction of the tech labour force. There are so many non-tech companies that want in on the VC and other investor money so they are rapidly building out expensive tech teams to create illusion that they are the next tech giant.
Not to mention the other weakness in tech: RSUs as the main factor of total comp. If the market continues to drop, especially if it hits hards, a huge number of SV workers will be getting automatic pay cuts due to rapidly decreased values in RSU. A lot of expensive real estate in SV is paid for by RSUs.
This crisis is going to be insane.
VCs, possibly. The larger tech companies are selling 1 and 3 year deals for software, which will see some impact, but largely distance them from the deep V because of the length of the terms.
Sure, but what if you sold your 3 year deal to an airline that is now effectively stuck in bankruptcy for the next 10 years. Or any of the 100 other industries/sub-industries that are completely shut down right now. If I can't afford to pay rent on my office I sure as heck am not paying Microsoft either.
> Sure, but what if you sold your 3 year deal to an airline that is now effectively stuck in bankruptcy for the next 10 years. Or any of the 100 other industries/sub-industries that are completely shut down right now. If I can't afford to pay rent on my office I sure as heck am not paying Microsoft either.
I'm not clear such contracts make it through bankruptcy court.
I'm not clear such contracts make it through bankruptcy court.
Yep, our business requires other business. Without users, servers are complicated heaters that require cooling.
We're down to a one income household now and my company has already let people go. I've been foolish with my money and kept it all liquid until now so the market drop didn't hurt my reserves, but I'm painfully aware I'm one job loss away from slowly going destitue and homeless.
You have been very wise with your money. The stock market has been over-valued for years and now you have a safety net.
Thank you. I hope so.
I work at a MSP that specializes in large enterprise workloads (SAP, Hyperion etc).
I just don't know what the future holds for us, I'm sure the company will survive in some form due to our hospital, pharma and defense clients. But we also have a ton of clients in manufacturing, and I have no idea how they are going to manage this.
The thing we have going for us is we run workloads that they absolutely need to run to exist as a business, but if they go completely under there is no avoiding the pain.
So far I feel relatively secure, and they are even cutting us a bonus next week which shocked me. Scary times though, really makes you realize how little you actually control - you just gotta let go and deal with what hits you.
I just don't know what the future holds for us, I'm sure the company will survive in some form due to our hospital, pharma and defense clients. But we also have a ton of clients in manufacturing, and I have no idea how they are going to manage this.
The thing we have going for us is we run workloads that they absolutely need to run to exist as a business, but if they go completely under there is no avoiding the pain.
So far I feel relatively secure, and they are even cutting us a bonus next week which shocked me. Scary times though, really makes you realize how little you actually control - you just gotta let go and deal with what hits you.
As leadership at my institution meets to discuss long-term impacts of other people not spending money on us, the first items on the chopping blocks are the super-convenient, but not super-mission critical SaaS that can be replaced by slower, but still effective processes.
The first items. Really, the only items right now. We're 100% not looking at cutting the people working here. This is new and different. 2011 was the last reduction in our labor force, and we only considered human cuts at that time.
The first items. Really, the only items right now. We're 100% not looking at cutting the people working here. This is new and different. 2011 was the last reduction in our labor force, and we only considered human cuts at that time.
I also encourage to look at all the business rushing to have online presence/sales. When online suddenly becomes the only way to sell your stuff… When online suddenly become the only way for you to teach new skills...
> I also encourage to look at all the business rushing to have online presence/sales. When online suddenly becomes the only way to sell your stuff… When online suddenly become the only way for you to teach new skills...
True, but selling implies buying...
True, but selling implies buying...
> I hope that tech industry employees do not feel immune to this.
Our client services team is in overdrive making sure all our customers are as happy as possible. This is something every company should be doing right now.
Our client services team is in overdrive making sure all our customers are as happy as possible. This is something every company should be doing right now.
Keep in mind that state unemployment websites and call centers are often overloaded and there are many complaints that people can't even file in the first place.
It's is highly likely that these high numbers continue for additional weeks because all the people who couldn't get through will manage to get through in upcoming weeks.
It's is highly likely that these high numbers continue for additional weeks because all the people who couldn't get through will manage to get through in upcoming weeks.
Hopefully most of these people will be re-employed once the crisis has subsided a bit and our ability to handle the likely echo peaks of infections happen over the next year increases. There will certainly be starts and stops as the highly interdependent parts of the economy try to get streamlined again in a rather herky-jerky manner. No doubt some companies and maybe even large portion of industries collapse. Also companies that are healthy might take this situation as an opportunity to cut away what they consider to be dead weight under the cover of the crisis.
Unemployment numbers, if we're lucky, will crash quickly but there's going to be a long tail on the recovery.
Unemployment numbers, if we're lucky, will crash quickly but there's going to be a long tail on the recovery.
The long term scars of this upcoming Depression will be unlike anything anyone under 70 has experienced. And the scars will be long lasting.
My mother in law used to use Cool Whip containers for leftovers. When we'd visit, she'd send us home with food packed in them. Usually stuff like mashed potatoes, but often good stuff too. And when we'd visit her in a few weeks/month, she'd ask where her containers were. This was a generation that saved EVERYTHING. The idea of throwing something out was disrespectful. Waste was the worst of many mortal sins. All because of the Great Depression.
My mother in law used to use Cool Whip containers for leftovers. When we'd visit, she'd send us home with food packed in them. Usually stuff like mashed potatoes, but often good stuff too. And when we'd visit her in a few weeks/month, she'd ask where her containers were. This was a generation that saved EVERYTHING. The idea of throwing something out was disrespectful. Waste was the worst of many mortal sins. All because of the Great Depression.
> And when we'd visit her in a few weeks/month, she'd ask where her containers were.
The correct thing to do here is to return the containers filled with good stuff that you made for her.
Then the reciprocal gestures can continue like an endless game of ping-pong.
The correct thing to do here is to return the containers filled with good stuff that you made for her.
Then the reciprocal gestures can continue like an endless game of ping-pong.
A 70 year old today was born in 1950. What have they experienced that's worse than this? I think this is going to be unlike anything in living memory.
My point is that unless you're really old, this is probably one of the worst things you'll experience. Of course that's a Western-centric view. Off the top of my head I think the Cultural Revolution would be worse, the Partition of India would be up there, and the incessant warring and instability in Africa as decolonization occurred.
my grandfather was a teen during ww2.
This behaviour was common with him aswell. Saving even the bones of chicken/cows to make stock.
when a was a smile child and was nagging him for something to eat, he used to tell me i have never experienced hunger, only "trek". (which would be roughly translated to snackish).
This behaviour was common with him aswell. Saving even the bones of chicken/cows to make stock.
when a was a smile child and was nagging him for something to eat, he used to tell me i have never experienced hunger, only "trek". (which would be roughly translated to snackish).
My father was a butcher's son during the Depression. Whenever someone in the family would say "I'm starving!" he would get mad and explain that you had no idea what you were talking about.
That's not a bad thing.
Reuse > Recycle† > Landfill
†Assuming Recycle is not the same as Landfill, which it often is.
Reuse > Recycle† > Landfill
†Assuming Recycle is not the same as Landfill, which it often is.
Any numbers on what is happening for software engineering unemployment?
Winter is coming.
I don't think you really need to distinguish between industries at this point. It's all bad.
Is it really? I only have two direct data points, but I (government contractor) and my brother (large company) are both still fully employed with no immediate risk of unemployment, reduction in salary, etc.
Just look at the numbers. 20% unemployment, while horrific in both human and economic terms, also implies 80% employment. When nearly everyone in the hospitality industry is out of a job, I have to think that some other industry is doing relatively better or the numbers would be even worse.
Just look at the numbers. 20% unemployment, while horrific in both human and economic terms, also implies 80% employment. When nearly everyone in the hospitality industry is out of a job, I have to think that some other industry is doing relatively better or the numbers would be even worse.
There's going to be a lag but software is an expense to the real-world companies and consumers. Our revenues don't materialize from the ether. Not to even mention what any VC-reliant companies are going to face when their runway is over.
You may have a point with the gov't part, but just because a business is large doesn't mean they're immune (see GM for an easy example). All the money comes from somewhere, so it will depend on the business. My company is pretty big, but the businesses that are our customers are all feeling a huge amount of pain right now as their sales completely tanked. We're doing everything we can to help them stay afloat so we get something, but there's no way this revenue problem doesn't come to us sooner or later.
Just go look on Twitter, in the Clojure hashtag at least, something that rarely sees people needing jobs, there have been a hire me thread, a several individual posts for people asking work, and more and more post about people getting laid off. This will just continue to increase as the virus does it's thing.
Yet you wouldn't know it based on the stock market.
Where is this collapse you all talk about? Donald Pump and Powell will just use infinite QE and monetary policy to fix all of our problems. After all, the US Dollar is still strong due to a liquidity shortage world-wide from everyone being desperate to convert domestic money to USD
Until that liquidity crisis dries up within the world, stonks seem only go up. Money printer goes brrrrr. I've never seen markets behave so effing irrationally before. Investors are pants on head stupid at a level that boggels my mind.
"markets can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent" is being proven to be sage advice with this pandemic.
Where is this collapse you all talk about? Donald Pump and Powell will just use infinite QE and monetary policy to fix all of our problems. After all, the US Dollar is still strong due to a liquidity shortage world-wide from everyone being desperate to convert domestic money to USD
Until that liquidity crisis dries up within the world, stonks seem only go up. Money printer goes brrrrr. I've never seen markets behave so effing irrationally before. Investors are pants on head stupid at a level that boggels my mind.
"markets can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent" is being proven to be sage advice with this pandemic.
Now let's see how the gamblers and con artists who run health care can handle an uninsured nation in plague... smh.
Private health care will try to collect on all of their costs in regards to this pandemic, if the US government allows that it will kill the economy even further. How long until the US Government nationalizes Health Care?
Is there any data on these numbers broken down by industry and profession?
The odd thing to me about it is that futures seem largely positive. Is it because the CAREs act or dropped labor is supposed to equal money not spent and thus meant to shield companies ( and investors )? I honestly do not get how market interprets it as good news.
> The odd thing to me about it is that futures seem largely positive. Is it because the CAREs act or dropped labor is supposed to equal money not spent and thus meant to shield companies ( and investors )? I honestly do not get how market interprets it as good news.
Personally, I think things are happening too fast to gauge what investor activity is actually reacting too. There can be big movers who are still in decision-making stages and their actions have yet to be made, or they acted hastily and sold, then come back and repurchase, etc.
Personally, I think things are happening too fast to gauge what investor activity is actually reacting too. There can be big movers who are still in decision-making stages and their actions have yet to be made, or they acted hastily and sold, then come back and repurchase, etc.
They think it will require more stimulus money.
And they're confident the gov't will provide that.
[deleted]
Is the title incorrect? Reading the article it says an additional 3M, for a total of six million
If I'm understanding the article correctly, the title is correct - there were 6.6M initial unemployment claims filed in the last week alone, which is about 3M more than were filed in the previous week. This would give a total of about 10M new unemployment claims over the two-week period.
1. This week's 6.6M new jobless claims represents ~4% of the estimated ~160-165M US Workforce.
2. This is incremental to the 3.3M new jobless claims filed week ending 3/21, totaling ~10M total jobless claims in the past 2 weeks.
3. The US unemployment rate was ~3.5% as of EOM February [1], so cumulatively that means we've hit ~10% unemployment as of EOW 3/28 (~10M incremental jobless claims = ~6%). That number is likely low and continuing to increase, as new jobless claims do not account for gig workers and many state unemployment sites have been inundated by these claims resulting in site crashes and people unable to file claims. In addition, layoffs have almost certainly continued between 3/28 and today.
4. The consensus estimate for this week's jobless claims was ~3.76M jobless claims, and the 6.6M actual claims blow the consensus estimate out of the water. That said, some analysts such as Goldman Sachs had estimated ~5.5M joblesss claims. Goldman Sachs estimates that unemployment will peak at ~15%. [2]
[1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-update-goldman-s...