3 ms·

This is going to be brutal on working low income parents and their children. It seems no matter what happens there's always some justification for why poor peo

This is going to be brutal on working low income parents and their children. It seems no matter what happens there's always some justification for why poor people end up being the collateral damage.'Prevent the virus no matter what' is a position that's much easier for a well off software engineer (who can work from home and pay for childcare) to hold than for a single mother who gets paid by the hour on a zero hours contract. Many people would prefer to take their chances on the mortality rate than suffer through the measures intended to bring it down.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Sucks to be poor, almost by definition. This isn't some special harm directed at the poor; its a normal result of being poor. Not to say anybody deserves to be poor; save the rhetoric on that. Just that its not some made-up justification; its an expected result just like physics. We can be comforted by the fact that the poor are protected by these measures exactly as much as the wealthy (and everybody in between) - they live.
- threedots 7y ago
  It is a special harm directed at the poor with the justification that it's for the greater good. Much like low interest rates /monetary stimulus policies. They're justified on the basis that they are necessary/for the greater good. There's no law of physics here that ensures poor people get the short end of the stick. Interest rates could be higher, schools could be kept open. They aren't though, maybe for good reasons but it's funny how often 'objectively good reasons' turn out to be conveniently (relatively) better for the rich.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    I think being poor by definition is the short end of the stick.
    - quickthrower2 7y ago
      Yes, but do they need even more of short ends of sticks?
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Again, its because being poor sucks. Not a direct purposeful attack on the poor. And yes, there is a 'law of physics' - they have fewer resources to endure public health measures. Schools can't be kept open if its going to be very bad for a segment of the population - the elderly.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Sucks to be poor, almost by definition. This isn't some special harm directed at the poor; its a normal result of being poor. Not to say anybody deserves to be poor; save the rhetoric on that. Just that its not some made-up justification; its an expected result just like physics. We can be comforted by the fact that the poor are protected by these measures exactly as much as the wealthy (and everybody in between) - they live.

threedots 7y ago
It is a special harm directed at the poor with the justification that it's for the greater good. Much like low interest rates /monetary stimulus policies. They're justified on the basis that they are necessary/for the greater good. There's no law of physics here that ensures poor people get the short end of the stick. Interest rates could be higher, schools could be kept open. They aren't though, maybe for good reasons but it's funny how often 'objectively good reasons' turn out to be conveniently (relatively) better for the rich.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  I think being poor by definition is the short end of the stick.
  - quickthrower2 7y ago
    Yes, but do they need even more of short ends of sticks?
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Again, its because being poor sucks. Not a direct purposeful attack on the poor. And yes, there is a 'law of physics' - they have fewer resources to endure public health measures. Schools can't be kept open if its going to be very bad for a segment of the population - the elderly.