3 ms·

I'm in the fashion industry right now, I get the layoff worries. But, okay, worst case, I get laid off and then I get a less cushy job in an industry that's les

I'm in the fashion industry right now, I get the layoff worries. But, okay, worst case, I get laid off and then I get a less cushy job in an industry that's less affected. Maybe I draw down my savings for a couple of months before I find one. It's not the end of the world. That's a major benefit of having a skillset as portable as ours. I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the course of a few months - 1% of 70% of 320M, and that's just in the US. What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that?

rootusrootus 7y ago
> What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that? On the economy? Very little. Most of the people dying are not in the job market any more nor are they big consumers. It might even reduce the load slightly on Social Security and Medicare. No, the risk of letting a couple million extra people die this year is a social/moral one, not an economic one IMO.
- Leherenn 7y ago
  Even in countries with no lockdown in place, economic activity is way down. For instance in Sweden, at least when I read about it a few days ago, restaurants and everything were still open. If I remember correctly, they had between 10-20% of the usual activity. Even if it's not mandated, people don't want to take the risk, either for others or for themselves. All of this to say: I don't think the options are between close the economy to save people (at least short term), and don't close the economy and bear the hit. The latest one is not an option, the economy will mostly shut down by itself
buzzkillington 7y ago
>I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the course of a few months - 1% of 70% of 320M, and that's just in the US. What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that? A hugely positive one because the deaths are for people who no longer work and generally are net drains on the economy, with either multiple diseases, old age or some other disability. The effect of wealth transfer between generations alone would be amazing, with 20-40 year olds inheriting housing for the first time since the 90s in large numbers.

rootusrootus 7y ago

> What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that? On the economy? Very little. Most of the people dying are not in the job market any more nor are they big consumers. It might even reduce the load slightly on Social Security and Medicare. No, the risk of letting a couple million extra people die this year is a social/moral one, not an economic one IMO.

Leherenn 7y ago
Even in countries with no lockdown in place, economic activity is way down. For instance in Sweden, at least when I read about it a few days ago, restaurants and everything were still open. If I remember correctly, they had between 10-20% of the usual activity. Even if it's not mandated, people don't want to take the risk, either for others or for themselves. All of this to say: I don't think the options are between close the economy to save people (at least short term), and don't close the economy and bear the hit. The latest one is not an option, the economy will mostly shut down by itself

buzzkillington 7y ago

>I'd definitely rather risk that than risk a couple million people dying over the course of a few months - 1% of 70% of 320M, and that's just in the US. What effect on the economy do you expect would come of that? A hugely positive one because the deaths are for people who no longer work and generally are net drains on the economy, with either multiple diseases, old age or some other disability. The effect of wealth transfer between generations alone would be amazing, with 20-40 year olds inheriting housing for the first time since the 90s in large numbers.