5 ms·

Just looking through my home town for businesses I know about... A fair number of them I know carried on with business as usual and had no financial problems (

Just looking through my home town for businesses I know about... A fair number of them I know carried on with business as usual and had no financial problems (one I used to work for). Seems wrong when there are lots of people in the same town lining up outside the unemployment office every day...

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Because the goal wasn’t to help the people most affected. It was to maintain the socioeconomic order so that people would be incentivized to continue doing menial work for low wages. If you give people at the bottom a choice to not work, by giving them cash directly, then they would have better negotiating power versus employers. The employers would then have to raise wages, and therefore prices. That means consumers who were proportionally consuming more than others have to consume less as more of the wealth goes towards paying higher wages. And we don’t want that as a society. So we make the aid contingent upon an employer who might bless you with a furlough so you can collect the temporary generous unemployment, but also yank it away in case your menial work is necessary and they can go back to paying you near minimum living wages.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  I don’t think you can make this argument when at the same time the government was paying an extra $600 per week on top of regular pay for unemployment.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That’s only if your employer has laid you off. If they continued your employment or called you back to work for $12/hour, you aren’t eligible for unemployment anymore. And if you refuse to go back to work, then you are also not eligible for unemployment benefits.
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      Many managers like their employees and don’t want to stiff them like that. My point was the argument that the government design PPP as an effort to perpetuate an existing system that reduces employees bargaining power and prefers businesses can’t be supported when the government specifically strengthen employees bargaining power.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I contend it didn’t strengthen the employees’ bargaining power, for the reasons I stated above. Unconditional cash would have. The powers that be know that loans obligations have been made that can only be satisfied if labor costs remain contained. Their primary objective is to make sure the mortgages keep getting paid, and paying employees double would endanger that. An easy illustration is the fact that “essential” employees at much higher risk of getting the virus are getting paid with their old near minimum wage per hour jobs with signs that say “heroes work here”, and their management bosses are working safely at home with minimal risk of covid earning the same pay. White collar employees continue to earn higher salaries from the safety of their home, and “hero” janitors and housekeepers are getting the same $10 to $15 they received as before, except they get to deal with higher chances of coronavirus.
        digitaltrees 6y ago
        There are no “powers that be” if you don’t like the system then change it. Start a company, pay people higher wages, build a competitive advantage. Or run for office. If you think there is some coordinated effort to oppress then build a counter effort. I suspect what you would find is not some grand conspiracy but emergent properties from competitive forces.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I know there isn’t a grand conspiracy. It’s just a consequence of capital owners also being the decision makers. Why would the capital owners make a decision to reduce their power? And a lone businessman can’t just pay workers more and make the world right. If I decide to pay people more, and run the numbers and figure out I can afford to spend $5M on a piece of land to develop, and my competitor decides to project paying people much less, they can afford to spend $6M for the same piece of land. So guess which business ends up existing? The one that doesn’t pay higher wages. Same situation with people choosing to shop at stores that offer lower prices. It would have to be a nationwide effort to transfer wealth, such as UBI or higher minimum wages. Otherwise we keep going as is with an ever widening wealth/income gap.
cj 6y ago
Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. I just searched my local city and noticed that our (for profit) ambulance service received a loan: > DIAZ MEMORIAL AMBULANCE SERVICE INC I definitely don't think they saw the number of ambulance rides go down. And also don't think their profits suffered.
- eli 6y ago
  With all elective surgeries cancelled? I dunno but I’d be careful making assumptions.
  - troebr 6y ago
    I agree with not making assumptions. However I don't think you'd take an ambulance for an elective surgery since it's not an emergency.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      Ambulances aren't only used for emergencies. They're used to transport people who can't otherwise get around, or who need medical equipment with them, or who are recovering from surgery, or to move patients from hospital to hospital, and a hundred other uses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that emergencies are a small portion of what ambulances are used for, but I don't have access to that data.
- derision 6y ago
  There's been a number of articles floating around about people avoiding hospitals / emergency rooms for non-COVID related reasons because of concerns about COVID, and that people were suffering (and sometimes dying) at home rather than going to the hospital like they normally would. I'm sure a good portion of those include times when an ambulance would have been called
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >I definitely don't think they saw the number of ambulance rides go down. I'm friends with an ER nurse and she was saying that the ER was almost completely empty during the first few weeks of COVID-19 because everyone was staying home out of fear.
havelhovel 6y ago
Maybe the loans helped those businesses carry on despite drops in revenue, as intended. In that case, the unemployment line is shorter than it might have been. Neither of us know without seeing financials, but it’s important to acknowledge both possibilities.
vmception 6y ago
What is that supposed to mean? I would never announce a financial problem or ever publicly announce employees let go. It would harm my contracts with vendors.
jacobsenscott 6y ago
You wouldn't know if companies you don't work for are having financial problems. Most of the time you don't know even when working there until it all crashes down. These loans don't cause unemployment. Those same people would be unemployed even if those same businesses didn't apply for the loan. We are only a few months into a multi year pandemic, so even if a company isn't suffering yet, they most likely will be soon. Getting a loan while it is available to preserve jobs as long as possible as the pandemic gets worse sounds like a sensible and ethical thing to do.
- tfandango 6y ago
  This is a good point I had not thought of, and I appreciate you saying it without any extra snark! The reason that company stood out was that I know half the people that work there and they have told me that things are going well (they are in the online learning business). But as you said perhaps they don't know, and even if not it would be wise to inoculate your company from unknown impacts later if you have the opportunity... thx.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Because the goal wasn’t to help the people most affected. It was to maintain the socioeconomic order so that people would be incentivized to continue doing menial work for low wages. If you give people at the bottom a choice to not work, by giving them cash directly, then they would have better negotiating power versus employers. The employers would then have to raise wages, and therefore prices. That means consumers who were proportionally consuming more than others have to consume less as more of the wealth goes towards paying higher wages. And we don’t want that as a society. So we make the aid contingent upon an employer who might bless you with a furlough so you can collect the temporary generous unemployment, but also yank it away in case your menial work is necessary and they can go back to paying you near minimum living wages.

digitaltrees 6y ago
I don’t think you can make this argument when at the same time the government was paying an extra $600 per week on top of regular pay for unemployment.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  That’s only if your employer has laid you off. If they continued your employment or called you back to work for $12/hour, you aren’t eligible for unemployment anymore. And if you refuse to go back to work, then you are also not eligible for unemployment benefits.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    Many managers like their employees and don’t want to stiff them like that. My point was the argument that the government design PPP as an effort to perpetuate an existing system that reduces employees bargaining power and prefers businesses can’t be supported when the government specifically strengthen employees bargaining power.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I contend it didn’t strengthen the employees’ bargaining power, for the reasons I stated above. Unconditional cash would have. The powers that be know that loans obligations have been made that can only be satisfied if labor costs remain contained. Their primary objective is to make sure the mortgages keep getting paid, and paying employees double would endanger that. An easy illustration is the fact that “essential” employees at much higher risk of getting the virus are getting paid with their old near minimum wage per hour jobs with signs that say “heroes work here”, and their management bosses are working safely at home with minimal risk of covid earning the same pay. White collar employees continue to earn higher salaries from the safety of their home, and “hero” janitors and housekeepers are getting the same $10 to $15 they received as before, except they get to deal with higher chances of coronavirus.
      - digitaltrees 6y ago
        There are no “powers that be” if you don’t like the system then change it. Start a company, pay people higher wages, build a competitive advantage. Or run for office. If you think there is some coordinated effort to oppress then build a counter effort. I suspect what you would find is not some grand conspiracy but emergent properties from competitive forces.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        I know there isn’t a grand conspiracy. It’s just a consequence of capital owners also being the decision makers. Why would the capital owners make a decision to reduce their power? And a lone businessman can’t just pay workers more and make the world right. If I decide to pay people more, and run the numbers and figure out I can afford to spend $5M on a piece of land to develop, and my competitor decides to project paying people much less, they can afford to spend $6M for the same piece of land. So guess which business ends up existing? The one that doesn’t pay higher wages. Same situation with people choosing to shop at stores that offer lower prices. It would have to be a nationwide effort to transfer wealth, such as UBI or higher minimum wages. Otherwise we keep going as is with an ever widening wealth/income gap.

cj 6y ago

Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. I just searched my local city and noticed that our (for profit) ambulance service received a loan: > DIAZ MEMORIAL AMBULANCE SERVICE INC I definitely don't think they saw the number of ambulance rides go down. And also don't think their profits suffered.

eli 6y ago
With all elective surgeries cancelled? I dunno but I’d be careful making assumptions.
- troebr 6y ago
  I agree with not making assumptions. However I don't think you'd take an ambulance for an elective surgery since it's not an emergency.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Ambulances aren't only used for emergencies. They're used to transport people who can't otherwise get around, or who need medical equipment with them, or who are recovering from surgery, or to move patients from hospital to hospital, and a hundred other uses. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that emergencies are a small portion of what ambulances are used for, but I don't have access to that data.
derision 6y ago
There's been a number of articles floating around about people avoiding hospitals / emergency rooms for non-COVID related reasons because of concerns about COVID, and that people were suffering (and sometimes dying) at home rather than going to the hospital like they normally would. I'm sure a good portion of those include times when an ambulance would have been called
alasdair_ 6y ago
>I definitely don't think they saw the number of ambulance rides go down. I'm friends with an ER nurse and she was saying that the ER was almost completely empty during the first few weeks of COVID-19 because everyone was staying home out of fear.

havelhovel 6y ago

Maybe the loans helped those businesses carry on despite drops in revenue, as intended. In that case, the unemployment line is shorter than it might have been. Neither of us know without seeing financials, but it’s important to acknowledge both possibilities.

vmception 6y ago

What is that supposed to mean? I would never announce a financial problem or ever publicly announce employees let go. It would harm my contracts with vendors.

jacobsenscott 6y ago

You wouldn't know if companies you don't work for are having financial problems. Most of the time you don't know even when working there until it all crashes down. These loans don't cause unemployment. Those same people would be unemployed even if those same businesses didn't apply for the loan. We are only a few months into a multi year pandemic, so even if a company isn't suffering yet, they most likely will be soon. Getting a loan while it is available to preserve jobs as long as possible as the pandemic gets worse sounds like a sensible and ethical thing to do.

tfandango 6y ago
This is a good point I had not thought of, and I appreciate you saying it without any extra snark! The reason that company stood out was that I know half the people that work there and they have told me that things are going well (they are in the online learning business). But as you said perhaps they don't know, and even if not it would be wise to inoculate your company from unknown impacts later if you have the opportunity... thx.