9 ms·
It's a class divide, unfortunately. The people who are getting hit hardest are the people who were already getting hit hardest. Most of those don't frequent the
by blast 6y ago
It's a class divide, unfortunately. The people who are getting hit hardest are the people who were already getting hit hardest. Most of those don't frequent the same internet forums we do.
- maerF0x0 6y agoAny suggestions on which they do frequent?
- nerfhammer 6y agofacebook
- sbassi 6y agoyes, FB is poor man's internet.
- exhilaration 6y agoReddit. My state's subreddit has a massive discussion about how the unemployment system is failing, completely unable to handle the enormous number of people trying to file claims. There's a lot of desperation in those threads.
- zone411 6y agoWe have many discussions on our forum https://www.city-data.com/forum/ https://www.city-data.com/forum/
- muzz 6y agoSome politicians have pointed out that some lower income people are getting paid more to _not_ work now, due to unemployment benefits and the CARES Act. I'm not saying that I agree with those politicians. It seems like the concern for lower income people runs the gamut from them not being able to make it to them living high on the benefits hog. Edit: It's not just politicians-- similar stories are on CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protection-loan-her-employees-hate-her-for-it.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protectio...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWell, there's a very real systems level concern there. There are anecdotes - just anecdotes, but it'll already be a disaster if we start getting data - of workers yelling at business owners for securing the PPP funds to save their jobs.
- rayiner 6y agoWhy would you not agree? It’s simple math. In most states, your weekly unemployment is half your salary, up to a cap. Under the CARES Act, you then add $600/week. So if that extra $600 is more than half your weekly paycheck, you earn more on unemployment. It works out to everyone earning less than about $62,000, which is more than half of people in most of the country. Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.” It’s not that we’re talking about a ton of money. It’s that we do need most of the country to return to work eventually. And if even white collar workers making $60,000 a year are getting paid more in unemployment, that is a pickle we’re going to have to resolve at some point.
- lalaithion 6y agoBut is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine? If we can get out the other side without millions of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and evictions, certainly that will contribute to a faster economic recovery. Sure, some white collar workers will be disincentivized from working... as long as the CARES act stays in effect. And you don't get unemployment if you quit, so no one will actively leave their jobs under this scheme.
- khazhoux 6y agoThis is why "We're in this together" is just not true. Oprah has it better than me right now. But we both have it way better than my hairdresser (who knows if her salon will survive). And all three of us have it better than a Silicon Valley janitor. I'm filled every day with deep, deep sadness for everyone whose refrigerators are running out with their bank account at zero.
- collectedparts 6y agoNot to be pedantic but "Silicon Valley janitor" (at least if it's for a big enough tech co) _might_ be doing OK. Various tech companies have publicly committed to paying their own hourly staff and subcontracted workers like food service / janitorial at full standard pre-shutdown rates: https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/big-tech-commits-to-paying-wages-for-hourly-employees-affected-by-coronavirus-plans/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/big-tech-commits-to-paying... (Though I have no insight into whether or not they've actually followed through on these public commitments).
- DevKoala 6y agoI talk to the janitor that services our offices at a really high end space near the Moscone. No way dude, those poor people are contracted by a bigger firm, they lost all sources of income over a month ago.
- masonic 6y agoVarious tech companies I don't know of a single SV tech company that employs any janitorial staff directly.
- joshuamorton 6y agoMicrosoft, Google, and Twitter at least (and I believe Facebook and others as well) committed to paying their vendor staff for their normally expected hours: https://www.axios.com/tech-giants-promise-to-pay-hourly-workers-while-employees-telecommute-7c1dce8b-8522-4ada-90f2-fb7c30c74288.html https://www.axios.com/tech-giants-promise-to-pay-hourly-work...
- icelancer 6y agoAlso sector divide. Small business owners are getting killed. PPP and EIDL will be a drop in the bucket. Mass conglomerations are coming and in 12 months we'll wonder why Amazon and Walmart and other multinational corps bought everything up.
- blast 6y agoYou're right. Another issue is the age divide. Younger people: harder hit economically, less so by the virus; older people: harder hit by the virus, less so economically. This can only worsen the class fissure which had already developed along generational lines.
- icelancer 6y agoMedian age of death is well over 70 years of age. It's obvious who this virus strikes.
- blast 6y agoYes, that's partly what I meant to say.
- dragonwriter 6y agoYounger people are less likely to die as quickly from acute respiratory failure from the virus, but if the indications of various delayed and lasting effects are at all accurate, probably are, on average, losing more QALYs to the virus, and so are arguably harder, if less obviously so, hit.
- kharak 6y agoCould you link to some studies or articles about this? I've heard speculations, but haven't seen evidence to back it up.
- frockington1 6y agoI haven;t seen any non sensationalized evidence regarding long term effects of this virus (health, economically this will permanently cripple many nations). Can you link some health articles?
- usaar333 6y agoIt's an incredible class divide: * Essential workers (who make less) required to work and get infected at higher rates, both at work and from their essential worker housemates. * We permit anyone (even non-essential workers) to hire a nanny, but let no one drop their kid off at a friend's house. * Deep pocketed businesses like Broadcom can just declare themselves an essential business and mandate employees perfectly capable of working from home come into the office.
- vkou 6y ago> * We permit anyone (even non-essential workers) to hire a nanny, but let no one drop their kid off at a friend's house. This is hyperbole. The KGB isn't going to come and arrest you if you do so.
- usaar333 6y agoLegal enforcement is weak but it is absolutely against the rules (I actually verified this with the health office) and social pressure (neighbors, each other) encourages parents to comply.
- vkou 6y agoYour neighbours must be incredibly shitty people, then. I think the problem in this case are not the rules, but the neighbours. As for against the rules, so is going over 60 on an interstate... Yet four fifths of my regular morning commute would be doing it. Back when I had one.
- dehrmann 6y ago> Essential workers (who make less) required to work and get infected at higher rates Honest question: has anyone published infection rates by occupation? Obviously medical staff reusing face masks in NYC are more likely to contract it, but I'm not as sure about grocery store workers, delivery drivers, pickers at Amazon, etc. Some essential workers in food production (think farmers) are probably pretty low-risk.
- hajile 6y ago