5 ms·

The argument that we should find a balance between saving lives and maintaining a strong economy is reasonable, but seems to have a catch-22 to me. If our econo

The argument that we should find a balance between saving lives and maintaining a strong economy is reasonable, but seems to have a catch-22 to me. If our economy is truly "strong" it seems it should survive a few months of "social distancing", right? Perhaps the argument would be better stated: We need to balance saving lives and maintaining the thin veneer that is our economy. That isn't quite as inspiring, but perhaps that is reality? Even if our economy is a "veneer" we still need it. I find it less compelling though. I'm far more willing to trade lives for a "strong economy" than I am to trade lives for "the illusion of a strong economy". "Grandma and Grandpa died at home without medical support, but at least our economy is 'strong', so strong it could probably survive weeks of social distancing!" If our "prize" for sacrificing hundreds of thousands of elderly to an exceptionally uncomfortable death is an economy we all know can't handle even a minor pandemic and is incapable of doing what China and other countries have done, that will be a sad trade.

techntoke 7y ago
People not having jobs means they could end up homeless and vulnerable. Hard to practice social distancing in a homeless shelter and get access to adequate nutrition, especially if they become overpopulated, and there could be a huge amount of deaths as a result as well. Is the government going to suddenly pay everyone's rent that loses a job? $1000 checks won't pay rent in many part of the country.
- mirimir 7y ago
  They can ban eviction, however.
  - blackrock 7y ago
    Socialized housing for everyone?
    - Buttons840 7y ago
      Maybe. It seems likely that the optimal economic and societal systems are going to be different during these unusual and temporary circumstances. Thus, to not make temporary changes would be sub-optimal.
  - techntoke 7y ago
    Temporarily banning evictions until things improve (possibly temporarily) is only going to help people stay in their homes in the short term, and they will still be required to pay rent for those periods.
- Buttons840 7y ago
  You're right that human lives are on both sides of the balance. It's interesting that paying people's rent for them is on the table, but denying rent to the literal rent-seekers isn't. As though ensuring those who collect rent get their rent is more important than keeping people in homes.
  - sigstoat 7y ago
    > It's interesting that paying people's rent for them is on the table, but denying rent to the literal rent-seekers isn't. As though ensuring those who collect rent get their rent is more important than keeping people in homes. do you imagine every tenant's landlord is a literal scrooge mcduck? my elderly neighbors rent their basement out. should they just be told they don't get paid for a few months? my retired parents own REITs, and pay their bills with those dividends. if the real estate companies don't get paid, there's no dividends, and then my parents are buying cat food. pensions and retirement funds across the country rely on rents coming in. this "just suspend rents" line would be less insane if you'd acknowledge there are trade-offs to it.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > People not having jobs means they could end up homeless and vulnerable. Eviction/foreclosure bans have in many places been adopted along with shelter-in-place orders. > Hard to practice social distancing in a homeless shelter and get access to adequate nutrition, especially if they become overpopulated Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.)
  - techntoke 7y ago
    > Eviction/foreclosure bans have in many places been adopted along with shelter-in-place orders. They are simply pausing evictions. So, you lose your job due to the pandemic and as soon as it has improved then you still get kicked out. I don't think that is much relief, especially if there is another wave. Here is the order: https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-522509--,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-52... > Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.) All I've seen is for quarantine sites, not for shelters.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    Seattle / Wa state has already been buying hotels around here too. And we started building temporary hospitals on soccer fields.
int_19h 7y ago
"Strong" is usually defined in terms of output. And I think we tend to forget that economy is literally people going around their day-to-day things - we tend to forget about that because our abstract models of it are, well, abstract. But if you, say, tell half of your population to not work, that's half of your economy. Not only that, but it's the half that actually produces physical goods. Take a strong man, and paralyze them waist down - are they still strong? Does it mean they weren't strong before? The more interesting question is how much of our economy is literally waste. I suspect we'll find out.
- formercoder 7y ago
  Before the internet (and still, but less so), you could measure the GDP impact of building a bridge because it would allow people to drive back and forth faster and all that moving around leads to more commerce. You’re right, the economy literally is people moving around doing stuff.
- meheleventyone 7y ago
  I think rather than strong what we’d expect is resilient. It’s why people are joking about businesses eating less avocado toast. The advice given to a lot of people in financial hardship is often well meaning but unhelpful. Why didn’t you have three months cost of living saved? Why do you buy frivolous things? Etc. then when it’s business expected to take a few months off suddenly these ideals are no longer important. Why do profitable companies have no ‘rainy day fund’? How is an economy ‘strong’ if it is not resilient to disruption? What we’re learning globally to a greater or lesser extent is that our economies are not resilient. That capitalism of various kinds has failed us. And that when it comes down to it we need one another to give a shit about each other.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    On the contrary, we're learning that our economies are incredibly resilient. Nobody's concerned that we'll stop being able to deliver food, water, toilet paper, Netflix - the businesses which provide those basic necessities (and imagine telling someone even 30 years ago that on-demand home video is a basic necessity!) are almost entirely unaffected. This is a success story of capitalism by any reasonable metric - I would not have predicted that Amazon could keep making deliveries and Costco could continually restock their shelves in the middle of a global pandemic. Unfortunately, even the best economic system can't disguise the fact that fewer people working means fewer products and services are available.
jacquesc 7y ago
Do you expect these segments of the economy to survive 2mo+ of their business collapsing to near zero? Airlines, Bars, Restaurants, Hotels, Cruises, Conferences, Taxies, Hair Salons, Chiropractors, dozens more... That's 10s of millions of jobs. Livelihoods ruined. Maybe your job is safe. Mine too. But you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is being financially ruined, and whose life expectancy will likely be greatly diminished as a result. There are major tradeoffs here.
- greedo 7y ago
  Airlines are essential, and will be bailed out despite their past financial misbehavior. Bars and restaurants will re-open, those are always in high demand, and easy to start. Hotels have facilities and real estate that are valuable, and should bounce back once people feel comfortable traveling again. Cruises can die in a fire. They've always been hotbeds of disease, and are now pretty much tainted. Conferences might switch permanently to a virtual methodology as Apple is doing with WWDC. This could increase the reach of the conference since it's insanely expensive, as well as hard to get tickets. Taxis (including Uber/Lyft), hair salons, all easy to restart, and demand will bounce back. Chiropractors are frauds, so I don't care if they fail.
  - yiyus 7y ago
    > Conferences might switch permanently to a virtual methodology A conference means people travelling, hotel rooms, meals in restaurants, good dresses, presents for the family... It may be better for society to make them on-line (it would be better for the environment, for example), but the economic impact would be huge.
  - torgian 7y ago
    Agreed. Chiropractors are not helpful; better to go to an actual hospital and get a real expert for back problems.
  - jacquesc 7y ago
    Very sympathetic. Points taken
calf 7y ago
It's interesting contrast to read Krugman's piece in the nytimes just yesterday. He ignores the "economy", he says that layoffs are necessary, which is to basically suggest that the economy will adapt. And everywhere you have internet commenters "But what about the economy?" and citing serious consequences of recession/depression in order to criticize isolation/quarantine/lockdown.

techntoke 7y ago

People not having jobs means they could end up homeless and vulnerable. Hard to practice social distancing in a homeless shelter and get access to adequate nutrition, especially if they become overpopulated, and there could be a huge amount of deaths as a result as well. Is the government going to suddenly pay everyone's rent that loses a job? $1000 checks won't pay rent in many part of the country.

mirimir 7y ago
They can ban eviction, however.
- blackrock 7y ago
  Socialized housing for everyone?
  - Buttons840 7y ago
    Maybe. It seems likely that the optimal economic and societal systems are going to be different during these unusual and temporary circumstances. Thus, to not make temporary changes would be sub-optimal.
- techntoke 7y ago
  Temporarily banning evictions until things improve (possibly temporarily) is only going to help people stay in their homes in the short term, and they will still be required to pay rent for those periods.
Buttons840 7y ago
You're right that human lives are on both sides of the balance. It's interesting that paying people's rent for them is on the table, but denying rent to the literal rent-seekers isn't. As though ensuring those who collect rent get their rent is more important than keeping people in homes.
- sigstoat 7y ago
  > It's interesting that paying people's rent for them is on the table, but denying rent to the literal rent-seekers isn't. As though ensuring those who collect rent get their rent is more important than keeping people in homes. do you imagine every tenant's landlord is a literal scrooge mcduck? my elderly neighbors rent their basement out. should they just be told they don't get paid for a few months? my retired parents own REITs, and pay their bills with those dividends. if the real estate companies don't get paid, there's no dividends, and then my parents are buying cat food. pensions and retirement funds across the country rely on rents coming in. this "just suspend rents" line would be less insane if you'd acknowledge there are trade-offs to it.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> People not having jobs means they could end up homeless and vulnerable. Eviction/foreclosure bans have in many places been adopted along with shelter-in-place orders. > Hard to practice social distancing in a homeless shelter and get access to adequate nutrition, especially if they become overpopulated Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.)
- techntoke 7y ago
  > Eviction/foreclosure bans have in many places been adopted along with shelter-in-place orders. They are simply pausing evictions. So, you lose your job due to the pandemic and as soon as it has improved then you still get kicked out. I don't think that is much relief, especially if there is another wave. Here is the order: https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-522509--,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-52... > Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.) All I've seen is for quarantine sites, not for shelters.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Seattle / Wa state has already been buying hotels around here too. And we started building temporary hospitals on soccer fields.

int_19h 7y ago

"Strong" is usually defined in terms of output. And I think we tend to forget that economy is literally people going around their day-to-day things - we tend to forget about that because our abstract models of it are, well, abstract. But if you, say, tell half of your population to not work, that's half of your economy. Not only that, but it's the half that actually produces physical goods. Take a strong man, and paralyze them waist down - are they still strong? Does it mean they weren't strong before? The more interesting question is how much of our economy is literally waste. I suspect we'll find out.

formercoder 7y ago
Before the internet (and still, but less so), you could measure the GDP impact of building a bridge because it would allow people to drive back and forth faster and all that moving around leads to more commerce. You’re right, the economy literally is people moving around doing stuff.
meheleventyone 7y ago
I think rather than strong what we’d expect is resilient. It’s why people are joking about businesses eating less avocado toast. The advice given to a lot of people in financial hardship is often well meaning but unhelpful. Why didn’t you have three months cost of living saved? Why do you buy frivolous things? Etc. then when it’s business expected to take a few months off suddenly these ideals are no longer important. Why do profitable companies have no ‘rainy day fund’? How is an economy ‘strong’ if it is not resilient to disruption? What we’re learning globally to a greater or lesser extent is that our economies are not resilient. That capitalism of various kinds has failed us. And that when it comes down to it we need one another to give a shit about each other.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  On the contrary, we're learning that our economies are incredibly resilient. Nobody's concerned that we'll stop being able to deliver food, water, toilet paper, Netflix - the businesses which provide those basic necessities (and imagine telling someone even 30 years ago that on-demand home video is a basic necessity!) are almost entirely unaffected. This is a success story of capitalism by any reasonable metric - I would not have predicted that Amazon could keep making deliveries and Costco could continually restock their shelves in the middle of a global pandemic. Unfortunately, even the best economic system can't disguise the fact that fewer people working means fewer products and services are available.

jacquesc 7y ago

Do you expect these segments of the economy to survive 2mo+ of their business collapsing to near zero? Airlines, Bars, Restaurants, Hotels, Cruises, Conferences, Taxies, Hair Salons, Chiropractors, dozens more... That's 10s of millions of jobs. Livelihoods ruined. Maybe your job is safe. Mine too. But you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is being financially ruined, and whose life expectancy will likely be greatly diminished as a result. There are major tradeoffs here.

greedo 7y ago
Airlines are essential, and will be bailed out despite their past financial misbehavior. Bars and restaurants will re-open, those are always in high demand, and easy to start. Hotels have facilities and real estate that are valuable, and should bounce back once people feel comfortable traveling again. Cruises can die in a fire. They've always been hotbeds of disease, and are now pretty much tainted. Conferences might switch permanently to a virtual methodology as Apple is doing with WWDC. This could increase the reach of the conference since it's insanely expensive, as well as hard to get tickets. Taxis (including Uber/Lyft), hair salons, all easy to restart, and demand will bounce back. Chiropractors are frauds, so I don't care if they fail.
- yiyus 7y ago
  > Conferences might switch permanently to a virtual methodology A conference means people travelling, hotel rooms, meals in restaurants, good dresses, presents for the family... It may be better for society to make them on-line (it would be better for the environment, for example), but the economic impact would be huge.
- torgian 7y ago
  Agreed. Chiropractors are not helpful; better to go to an actual hospital and get a real expert for back problems.
- jacquesc 7y ago
  Very sympathetic. Points taken

calf 7y ago

It's interesting contrast to read Krugman's piece in the nytimes just yesterday. He ignores the "economy", he says that layoffs are necessary, which is to basically suggest that the economy will adapt. And everywhere you have internet commenters "But what about the economy?" and citing serious consequences of recession/depression in order to criticize isolation/quarantine/lockdown.