2 ms·
>it redirects goods from poor people to wealthy people. In this case it's arguably something desirable, as the most at-risk group, the elderly, on average are
by logicchains 7y ago
>it redirects goods from poor people to wealthy people.
In this case it's arguably something desirable, as the most at-risk group, the elderly, on average are much wealthier than young people. Someone over 80 is around 100x more likely to die from the virus than somebody under 40.
- nostrademons 7y agoThink in terms of the survival of the government, not in terms of general social welfare. If you have a lot of pissed off poor young people, they're often fairly socially well-connected, they're more aggressive, they're able-bodied, and they can fight. If you have a lot of pissed off old people, they'll continue to be pissed off but probably won't make a whole lot of trouble. They might make a lot of trouble come election day, but in an emergency the priority is the survival of the government now, so that you can get to the next election. This is not an academic thought exercise, BTW - a lot of the social unrest of 2019 in Venezuela, Chile, Hong Kong, Zimbabwe, Iraq, etc. came from prices rising quickly enough that young people could not afford basic necessities.
- KarlKemp 7y agoYou’re overdoing the “priority of governments is to survive”-shtick. Any number of administrations have lost elections, for example. Very few tried to stay in power. There is absolutely zero risk of a violent overthrow of the California state government right now. Even if politicians were as craven as you suggest, you have already noticed how lame your argument is with regards to age groups: old people have far more power on Election Day.