Ka-pi96 said:
Nah, I wasn't being silly. Pretending economic issues aren't "real" is what's silly. I'm not pretending there's only 1 important issue and I'm not saying human lives are worthless. But I will point out that economic issues are typically longer lasting and affect many more people than disease outbreaks do. Oh, and the state offering 100% compensation really isn't all they have to do, or even should do. Most countries simply wouldn't be able to afford that. I don't know what the result of a country going bankrupt would be, but I'm certain it wouldn't be good. And a lot of those people would still end up losing their jobs anyway. Even when the virus is gone business isn't just going to jump back to how it was before. It's going to take awhile to build back up, and while it does many companies simply won't be able to afford (or have a need for) as many staff as they currently do. Especially true for the travel industry, in the short term they're going to be in a very bad way! Recovery will still be possible one day, but there are going to be a lot of job changes and a fair few companies going bust in the mean time. What they should do is offer a statutory minimum amount of pay for those that aren't able to work and/or lose their jobs (which most developed countries already do) as well as make temporary exceptions to loan/mortgage etc. payments (which I believe at least France has said they will do so far). It'll still hurt economically for awhile (especially for the countries that have been stupidly running at a deficit for ages now), but it shouldn't even require much deviation from the current system and while certainly not sustainable long term will hopefully only be required as a short term measure. |
Yes the economic issues are real.
However they are fixable by the state, if your leadership chooses to do so.
"Oh, and the state offering 100% compensation really isn't all they have to do, or even should do. Most countries simply wouldn't be able to afford that. I don't know what the result of a country going bankrupt would be, but I'm certain it wouldn't be good. And a lot of those people would still end up losing their jobs anyway."
Why would anyone lose their jobs, if everything is covered for by the state?
Why would any company choose to fire anyone, if it costs them nothing to keep them on? That doesnt make sense.
Backrupt a country? nah... I bet USA could easily do it for a few months, and it would be less than what they spend on military every year.
(to balance it out, next year just cut military budget in half, that should more than make up for it, after that things are back to normal)
Maybe set a upper limit though, so you dont have the state paying anyone obscene amounts, but enough to cover the essentials.
The thing is, its workable, and you can manage the damage to the economy and lost jobs, by doing meassures such as these (without bankrupting countries).
"What they should do is offer a statutory minimum amount of pay for those that aren't able to work and/or lose their jobs (which most developed countries already do) as well as make temporary exceptions to loan/mortgage etc. payments (which I believe at least France has said they will do so far). It'll still hurt economically for awhile (especially for the countries that have been stupidly running at a deficit for ages now), but it shouldn't even require much deviation from the current system and while certainly not sustainable long term will hopefully only be required as a short term measure."
^ not as drastic a meassure as I mentioned but again, a way to solve the issues of the ecomic impact this virus will have.
This entire debate, started over someone saying something akin to "the ecomony will kill us before the virus does".
(so it doesnt make sense to keep spread down, it costs to much - my interpretation of the meaning of those words)
My counter was theres work arounds, to the job losses and impacts of such.
Also it seems most of us agree on this matter, so we re really argueing over nothing.
Essay Pro