6 ms·

So at the risk of asking a dumb question: why aren't protesters demanding e.g. more economic aid instead of a reopening? It's not like giving money to people in

So at the risk of asking a dumb question: why aren't protesters demanding e.g. more economic aid instead of a reopening? It's not like giving money to people in this crisis is a taboo anymore... it was one thing both the Congress and the White House agreed on for once. And it's not like if everything reopens then they're going to be instantly back in business. A lot of people will still stay home anyway. Wouldn't it be a lot more logical to demand payments or some other form of direct aid so that they can actually survive both economically and medically? Instead of making it a zero-sum game demanding everyone trade off a dubious-at-best chance at economic survival for a far more certain chance of a public health crisis (if not worse)?

JPKab 6y ago
Maybe because the protesters don't want handouts from agencies which have done a very poor job dispersing said handouts already. I can go to a superstore which is deemed essential because it sells groceries and buy all sorts of items that specialty stores aren't able to sell me because they're closed. any member of the public can enter these superstores with no screening whatsoever. The small business owners would screen customers much more effectively than a large store would. It's almost like we've taken steps that are arbitrary in nature and aren't actually scientifically valid because we don't have enough data on this virus and how it actually spreads. these arbitrary measures are then doubled down upon by the local governments in the name of preserving their authority and looking good to the press. what really bugs me is the level of certainty that people seem to have about this. I'm coming from a position of uncertainty. Anyone being honest right now is doing the same. Look at your comment: you are absolutely certain that a dubious at best chance of economic survival for small businesses is being traded against a certain chance of a public health crisis. I don't think you're being honest with yourself with a level of certainty like that. You're just like the rest of us flying blind, but you are just positive that you are right and that businesses should be closed to support your preconceived notions. It's real easy to do that when you have a job that allows you to work remotely. It's not costing you anything just let those Walmart shopping losers go out and deal with the unemployment system. In the meantime a percentage of all of our tax dollars goes to paying off interest on the national debt and that percentage is going to have to increase as a result of this. I'm not a moron or a science denier. I'm fine with taking on debt to the degree necessary to maximize public health. But there are multiple dimensions to public health not just this virus. My brother's business is in jeopardy and it was growing fast before this pandemic hit. Now I'm deeply concerned that he's going to fall back to an addiction that he beat 10 years ago. That's a tiny story that represents something that's going to happen in this country when young people who would otherwise be unaffected by the virus or going to suffer economic calamity. By the way my brother always voted Democratic. Due to the false partisan positioning of opening versus reopening pushed by the media, he is now never going to vote Democrat again and plans to vote for Trump in November. He voted for Clinton last time think about that. In the meantime people on keyboards who were going to vote for Biden anyway are now pushing policies that are going to hand this election to Trump. Maybe the elderly will carry Biden since many appear to be switching their votes. But when they're dead in a few years the young people who have lost their businesses will still be voting. It's not going to go well.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I can't tell if you're ranting or just upset at all this or at the fact that HNers commenting are on topics that you feel they're disconnected from (though I'm sorry about your family's situation), but your reply is quite incoherent. I can't reply to every point, but I can't even make sense of the fact that you're calling me out for being so certain that reopening proposal comes with a lot of... uncertainty in giving people their income? Especially compared to just handing them money? So your position is I should be less confident in the uncertainty? Because you yourself are absolutely certain about... the uncertainty? What? At a high level though: surely you understand not everything is equally uncertain here, and that not everything is being flown blindly? We have like 200 other countries in the world to observe and draw conclusions from, both socioeconomically and medically. We have ourselves to draw conclusions from, given the preceding shutdown and its effects. And we have experts who know and analyze quite a bit more than either you or me being quite united in their opinions. You can't seriously be so confident that their opinions are just coin tosses in a vacuum, come on. Especially not when you're the one preaching uncertainty!
  - apostacy 6y ago
    The cost of the shelter in place order is doing more harm than good. When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result. I'm on pretty solid ground here. The costs of poverty and economic collapse are arguably better researched than pandemics. And it is hard not to be disgusted by the attitude of many people on HN, who are least affected by this. Having some relatives in that part of the country, I would compare this to the dust bowl. A complete economic collapse that will over the next year require millions of people to flee to cities, as they have absolutely nothing left. What are people supposed to do when every single business has gone from their town? But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?
    - eropple 6y ago
      "Economic collapse" is, one, overstated, and two, not likely with functioning economic policy. The answer to this one really is actually simple. Just write the checks. "But but but debt--" Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional. Just write the checks. "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks. I realize, of course, I am shouting into the wind. I understand that it isn't actually about the economically underprivileged, because we'd write the checks. And it isn't actually about the Small Business Owner--service industry small business owner checking in, doing fine, thanks--being threatened, because we'd write the checks. It's about something much darker and much more mendacious and the rhetoric that is so readily adopted by useful idiots who want their haircuts or whatever. We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks. And that is the downfall of civic society before all else.
Press2forEN 6y ago
This goes back to the culture point OP made. Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I don't believe this. In fact I can't even make sense of it. You're saying when families' and people's lives are at stake in the US, they'd legitimately rather risk dying than just getting handed checks that their own leaders approved of practically unanimously during a crisis? Isn't this completely at odds with the sheer demand there has been for the economic aid so far? And also at odds with how politicians have been trying to claim credit for the aid? You're saying the protesters are somehow so deeply tied to these values and so morally offended by being paid "unearned" money during a globally acknowledged crisis that they're willing to go out to protest this repulsive act while packing together within 6 feet out of spite(?) and then... take the money ASAP and continue to support the politicians who are giving them the money? What?
  - Press2forEN 6y ago
    I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. The choice of staying home and dying is a false dichotomy, and many see the lockdown as a unjust assumption of power by governments that don't have the right to take such actions. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      >> Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living. > I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue. I'm sorry, I was just replying to what you wrote, and you were telling me that the issue is earning a living. Now you changed your argument entirely. So you're saying this isn't even about making a living then, given that paying people would clearly solve that problem? That means you're concluding it's really a political protest then? Isn't that a pretty strong, rational reason for everyone else to actively ignore the protesters in that case? Rather than "show a little more compassion" for something they're not protesting about?
nonford150 6y ago
Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work. In addition, for the most part, folks in the US want to return to work. The vast majority find pride and comfort in work, even if they bitch about. They know eventually the payouts will come back out of their pocket. The mixed signals from the CDC and governmental agencies add to the confusion (everything is fine/stay inside until a vaccine is available, don't wear masks/cover up you face once you step outside, etc.) only add to the feeling the government really dosn't have a clue.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work. I'm confused. I was saying people could demand more money instead of going back to work... precisely because the $1200 they got clearly wasn't enough (like you also said) and because clearly going back to work is otherwise riskier. You just jumped from "$1200 isn't enough" to "the only solution is to go back to work"?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    If the country has shelter in place orders, transportation has ground to a halt, and everyone is economically challenged, how would they assemble in DC to protest at the Capital Building? This is where you would have to protest for additional economic relief from the federal government. I would not be opposed to constituents showing up at the personal homes of Congressional representatives to protest, but that requires resources as well.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      You don't need to show up in front of the US Congress to protest. Thankfully if there's one thing the US knows how to do, it's for people to protest wherever they find standing room, and still get their attention. I'm not sure about you but I vividly recall this happening during Occupy Wall Street. People protested (even overnight) in all sorts of settings around the country that had no obvious relevance to Washington (or NYC).
Noos 6y ago
because economic aid on this scale is unsustainable anyways, if the current shutdown continues. The government can't just keep on printing money.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I don't believe they've financed these by printing money so far, though please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

JPKab 6y ago

Maybe because the protesters don't want handouts from agencies which have done a very poor job dispersing said handouts already. I can go to a superstore which is deemed essential because it sells groceries and buy all sorts of items that specialty stores aren't able to sell me because they're closed. any member of the public can enter these superstores with no screening whatsoever. The small business owners would screen customers much more effectively than a large store would. It's almost like we've taken steps that are arbitrary in nature and aren't actually scientifically valid because we don't have enough data on this virus and how it actually spreads. these arbitrary measures are then doubled down upon by the local governments in the name of preserving their authority and looking good to the press. what really bugs me is the level of certainty that people seem to have about this. I'm coming from a position of uncertainty. Anyone being honest right now is doing the same. Look at your comment: you are absolutely certain that a dubious at best chance of economic survival for small businesses is being traded against a certain chance of a public health crisis. I don't think you're being honest with yourself with a level of certainty like that. You're just like the rest of us flying blind, but you are just positive that you are right and that businesses should be closed to support your preconceived notions. It's real easy to do that when you have a job that allows you to work remotely. It's not costing you anything just let those Walmart shopping losers go out and deal with the unemployment system. In the meantime a percentage of all of our tax dollars goes to paying off interest on the national debt and that percentage is going to have to increase as a result of this. I'm not a moron or a science denier. I'm fine with taking on debt to the degree necessary to maximize public health. But there are multiple dimensions to public health not just this virus. My brother's business is in jeopardy and it was growing fast before this pandemic hit. Now I'm deeply concerned that he's going to fall back to an addiction that he beat 10 years ago. That's a tiny story that represents something that's going to happen in this country when young people who would otherwise be unaffected by the virus or going to suffer economic calamity. By the way my brother always voted Democratic. Due to the false partisan positioning of opening versus reopening pushed by the media, he is now never going to vote Democrat again and plans to vote for Trump in November. He voted for Clinton last time think about that. In the meantime people on keyboards who were going to vote for Biden anyway are now pushing policies that are going to hand this election to Trump. Maybe the elderly will carry Biden since many appear to be switching their votes. But when they're dead in a few years the young people who have lost their businesses will still be voting. It's not going to go well.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I can't tell if you're ranting or just upset at all this or at the fact that HNers commenting are on topics that you feel they're disconnected from (though I'm sorry about your family's situation), but your reply is quite incoherent. I can't reply to every point, but I can't even make sense of the fact that you're calling me out for being so certain that reopening proposal comes with a lot of... uncertainty in giving people their income? Especially compared to just handing them money? So your position is I should be less confident in the uncertainty? Because you yourself are absolutely certain about... the uncertainty? What? At a high level though: surely you understand not everything is equally uncertain here, and that not everything is being flown blindly? We have like 200 other countries in the world to observe and draw conclusions from, both socioeconomically and medically. We have ourselves to draw conclusions from, given the preceding shutdown and its effects. And we have experts who know and analyze quite a bit more than either you or me being quite united in their opinions. You can't seriously be so confident that their opinions are just coin tosses in a vacuum, come on. Especially not when you're the one preaching uncertainty!
- apostacy 6y ago
  The cost of the shelter in place order is doing more harm than good. When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result. I'm on pretty solid ground here. The costs of poverty and economic collapse are arguably better researched than pandemics. And it is hard not to be disgusted by the attitude of many people on HN, who are least affected by this. Having some relatives in that part of the country, I would compare this to the dust bowl. A complete economic collapse that will over the next year require millions of people to flee to cities, as they have absolutely nothing left. What are people supposed to do when every single business has gone from their town? But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?
  - eropple 6y ago
    "Economic collapse" is, one, overstated, and two, not likely with functioning economic policy. The answer to this one really is actually simple. Just write the checks. "But but but debt--" Debt is denominated in our own currency and it's the reserve currency of the world, that debt is fucking fictional. Just write the checks. "But but but undeserving poors--" No. Just write the checks. I realize, of course, I am shouting into the wind. I understand that it isn't actually about the economically underprivileged, because we'd write the checks. And it isn't actually about the Small Business Owner--service industry small business owner checking in, doing fine, thanks--being threatened, because we'd write the checks. It's about something much darker and much more mendacious and the rhetoric that is so readily adopted by useful idiots who want their haircuts or whatever. We will have to come to grips with the understanding that in many parts of modern America it is more acceptable to have Grandma drown in her own goddamned lungs than it is to just write the checks. And that is the downfall of civic society before all else.

Press2forEN 6y ago

This goes back to the culture point OP made. Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I don't believe this. In fact I can't even make sense of it. You're saying when families' and people's lives are at stake in the US, they'd legitimately rather risk dying than just getting handed checks that their own leaders approved of practically unanimously during a crisis? Isn't this completely at odds with the sheer demand there has been for the economic aid so far? And also at odds with how politicians have been trying to claim credit for the aid? You're saying the protesters are somehow so deeply tied to these values and so morally offended by being paid "unearned" money during a globally acknowledged crisis that they're willing to go out to protest this repulsive act while packing together within 6 feet out of spite(?) and then... take the money ASAP and continue to support the politicians who are giving them the money? What?
- Press2forEN 6y ago
  I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. The choice of staying home and dying is a false dichotomy, and many see the lockdown as a unjust assumption of power by governments that don't have the right to take such actions. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    >> Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living. > I don't think you're accurately representing what the protesters are angry about. Earning a living vs being provided one isn't even really the issue. I'm sorry, I was just replying to what you wrote, and you were telling me that the issue is earning a living. Now you changed your argument entirely. So you're saying this isn't even about making a living then, given that paying people would clearly solve that problem? That means you're concluding it's really a political protest then? Isn't that a pretty strong, rational reason for everyone else to actively ignore the protesters in that case? Rather than "show a little more compassion" for something they're not protesting about?

nonford150 6y ago

Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work. In addition, for the most part, folks in the US want to return to work. The vast majority find pride and comfort in work, even if they bitch about. They know eventually the payouts will come back out of their pocket. The mixed signals from the CDC and governmental agencies add to the confusion (everything is fine/stay inside until a vaccine is available, don't wear masks/cover up you face once you step outside, etc.) only add to the feeling the government really dosn't have a clue.

mehrdadn 6y ago
> Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work. I'm confused. I was saying people could demand more money instead of going back to work... precisely because the $1200 they got clearly wasn't enough (like you also said) and because clearly going back to work is otherwise riskier. You just jumped from "$1200 isn't enough" to "the only solution is to go back to work"?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  If the country has shelter in place orders, transportation has ground to a halt, and everyone is economically challenged, how would they assemble in DC to protest at the Capital Building? This is where you would have to protest for additional economic relief from the federal government. I would not be opposed to constituents showing up at the personal homes of Congressional representatives to protest, but that requires resources as well.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    You don't need to show up in front of the US Congress to protest. Thankfully if there's one thing the US knows how to do, it's for people to protest wherever they find standing room, and still get their attention. I'm not sure about you but I vividly recall this happening during Occupy Wall Street. People protested (even overnight) in all sorts of settings around the country that had no obvious relevance to Washington (or NYC).

Noos 6y ago

because economic aid on this scale is unsustainable anyways, if the current shutdown continues. The government can't just keep on printing money.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I don't believe they've financed these by printing money so far, though please correct me if my understanding is wrong.