4 ms·
That’s a narrative that is very convenient for companies big companies, who can very cheaply pay people to spread it around. There’s a different narrative that
by otikik 4y ago
That’s a narrative that is very convenient for companies big companies, who can very cheaply pay people to spread it around.
There’s a different narrative that goes like this: those companies fired a bunch of people during lockdown, and the government decided to intervene and give them money (not enough to cover the rent and food expenses while lockdown)
Have some “profiteered” from that? Probably. It’s a big number of people. For a lot of people it wasn’t enough. So they found other ways to survive.
Now the companies (who let’s remember, shacked everyone in the first place) want to go back to how things were before. With same rates. And the pandemic hasn’t finished yet (there’s new variants going on). In this context, would it be wise for people to go back? A lot of them have been forced into finding something else (which is more pandemic-resilient). Cutting expenses, moving out of big cities, etc. Another lockdown and they would be fired again.
It looks like a bad deal to me.
- newfriend 4y ago> those companies fired a bunch of people during lockdown Oh you mean when the government essentially shut down their businesses?
- true_religion 4y agoA global pandemic caused the lockdown that made it harder to operate their businesses in the same way as before. They are unable or unwilling to adapt, and did not have enough savings to continue fulfilling their workers employment contracts. Then the government took care of its citizens financial welfare. I am not seeing any governmental missteps here. Can you make it more clear where they went wrong?
- bluescrn 4y ago> A global pandemic caused the lockdown No. A global pandemic caused disease and death. Governments imposed lockdowns. Maybe that was the right course of action, maybe it wasn't. But it's done now, and now we have to pay for the cost of the Covid response, something we'll probably be doing for the rest of our lives.
- canucklady 4y agoOver a million people in the US died of COVID (officially), and untold more developed permanent injuries as a side effect of being infected. What "cost" are we paying from lockdowns, compared to the cost in lives and lost potential?
- piva00 4y agoAs I read before, this article[0] summarises quite well what I think about people who spout this bullshit about economies and markets during a fucking pandemic. It's their Moloch. For this kind of people, capitalist supremacists, sacrifice of human lives to the market is ok, might be "sad" but it's necessary in their worldview. [0] https://kitanyaharrison.medium.com/the-economy-of-moloch-human-sacrifice-demanded-to-appease-the-markets-d52040f39418 https://kitanyaharrison.medium.com/the-economy-of-moloch-hum...
- treeman79 4y ago[flagged]
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago>Evil capitalist are the ones generating obscene amounts of food Hold on now, there is just not that many of the rich to eat!
- treeman79 4y agoAnd a lot of people died or suffered injuries due to lack of routine medical care. The mental health problems for many have been enormous. There are huge educational gaps that have been created due to missed school. Inflation from overspending is ruining many peoples lives.
- nradov 4y agoThat's a non sequitur. There's no reliable evidence that more people would have died without lockdowns. The lockdowns were an irrational overreaction and largely ineffective.
- piva00 4y agoHere in Sweden the government didn't shut down much of the economy. Guess what happens during a pandemic? People don't go shopping, to restaurants, or consume much outside of their homes. It's a bullshit argument, the pandemic causes a downturn for in-person businesses anyway. Also, offices and other businesses that kept open had issues with staffing due to sickness. Go figure...