Because that's what happens in the aftermath of a scarcity event; all those people who were hung out to dry don't push harder for more in the future, and those who had it all decide to take less.

This strikes me as child-level naivete.

Which will lead to massive layoffs, starting with the most vulnerable (small businesses, hourly workers, etc)

So, your argument for continuing the current, unsustainable, unfair and in the long run suicidal economic model is that the most vulnerable - given the current economic system - would suffer?

To me it sounds like a perfect reason to rethink the current economic model.

It will also lead to less CO2 emissions.

Which will lead to an explosion of available labour, ready for hiring when things pick back up.

The issue is whether governments will step in to provide sufficient unemployment / welfare benefits to bridge the gap.

Hopefully this will lead to the realization that most labour is in fact useless, and a normalization of that fact would be an incredible step forward, which will enable us to increase our quality of life by working less while sparing the environment.

It probably won't happen.

Ahh yes, the benefits of mass unemployment and businesses shuttering!

Always look on the bright side of life!

https://youtu.be/SJUhlRoBL8M

There's the other extreme as well - being a cynic in all circumstances will leave you consistently feeling burnt out.

Cynicism is the most authentic character that one can take in these circumstances

Finally, a 24-hour work week.

I'm not sure why are you down-voted. I think slowing down, consuming less, is generally good for the whole Earth and its inhabitants.

Pretty sure the downvotes are for ignoring the elephant in the room, if we have a prolonged recession a lot of people in the US are completely fucked from losing healthcare and from losing the paycheck that they depend on. Most Americans do not have an emergency fund.

I'd like to think that if there is a recession, there are still the same number of people, and there are still the same number of hospital beds.

Hospitals will just reduce their prices, because it's preferable to do that than leave beds empty.

The problem isn't admittance or treatment the problem is the bill that comes in the mail 6 months later, as well as massive decline in spending, decline in social interactions, decline in nutritional choices, and the injection of the 2020 political circus towards the end of the year (in the US).

All solvable problems. Even in a recession. With political will...

> All solvable problems. Even in a recession. With political will...

I have some bad news.

I'll tell you what I do really need: one pack of toilet paper, because I just happened to be running out of my last Costco pack right now. Trying to make whats left last.

Maybe now is the time to buy a bidet add-on seat.

I'm mostly hoping people start taking their flu shots...

You know the flu shot is not going to help right? Different virus.

It helps people not get severe cases of the flu, which means fewer healthcare resources, like hospital beds and medical personnel, being devoted to severe flu cases and more can be devoted to severe coronavirus cases.

In this regard, you are right, sorry.

I'm just tired of hearing people around me going "I had my shots, I'm going to that party / going to that event" or "It's just a flu, nothing to worry about".

I for one wouldn't visit a hospital unless i really needed to, considering it is the most high risk place of catching it from. People going to the hospital "presumably" sick only to come out of it with the virus is a popular tale out of wuhan.

This is the most absurdly entitled thing I have read today.

It's not even about a super fancy phone either, it's the bargain bin version of the iPhone.

oh I see, you're just a troll. carry on, then