The more interesting question is how much of our economy is literally waste. I suspect we'll find out.
What we’re learning globally to a greater or lesser extent is that our economies are not resilient. That capitalism of various kinds has failed us. And that when it comes down to it we need one another to give a shit about each other.
Unfortunately, even the best economic system can't disguise the fact that fewer people working means fewer products and services are available.
There are going to be trillions of dollars spent attempting to bail out the economies of the world.
Airlines, Bars, Restaurants, Hotels, Cruises, Conferences, Taxies, Hair Salons, Chiropractors, dozens more...
That's 10s of millions of jobs. Livelihoods ruined.
Maybe your job is safe. Mine too. But you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is being financially ruined, and whose life expectancy will likely be greatly diminished as a result.
There are major tradeoffs here.
Bars and restaurants will re-open, those are always in high demand, and easy to start.
Hotels have facilities and real estate that are valuable, and should bounce back once people feel comfortable traveling again.
Cruises can die in a fire. They've always been hotbeds of disease, and are now pretty much tainted.
Conferences might switch permanently to a virtual methodology as Apple is doing with WWDC. This could increase the reach of the conference since it's insanely expensive, as well as hard to get tickets.
Taxis (including Uber/Lyft), hair salons, all easy to restart, and demand will bounce back. Chiropractors are frauds, so I don't care if they fail.
A conference means people travelling, hotel rooms, meals in restaurants, good dresses, presents for the family... It may be better for society to make them on-line (it would be better for the environment, for example), but the economic impact would be huge.
It's interesting that paying people's rent for them is on the table, but denying rent to the literal rent-seekers isn't. As though ensuring those who collect rent get their rent is more important than keeping people in homes.
do you imagine every tenant's landlord is a literal scrooge mcduck?
my elderly neighbors rent their basement out. should they just be told they don't get paid for a few months?
my retired parents own REITs, and pay their bills with those dividends. if the real estate companies don't get paid, there's no dividends, and then my parents are buying cat food.
pensions and retirement funds across the country rely on rents coming in.
this "just suspend rents" line would be less insane if you'd acknowledge there are trade-offs to it.
Eviction/foreclosure bans have in many places been adopted along with shelter-in-place orders.
> Hard to practice social distancing in a homeless shelter and get access to adequate nutrition, especially if they become overpopulated
Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.)
They are simply pausing evictions. So, you lose your job due to the pandemic and as soon as it has improved then you still get kicked out. I don't think that is much relief, especially if there is another wave.
Here is the order:
https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-52...
> Why California’s emergency approach includes the power to seize hotels to rapidly expand shelter capacity (and why SF is in negotiations to buy hotel space for an extended time for that purpose.)
All I've seen is for quarantine sites, not for shelters.
He ignores the "economy", he says that layoffs are necessary, which is to basically suggest that the economy will adapt.
And everywhere you have internet commenters "But what about the economy?" and citing serious consequences of recession/depression in order to criticize isolation/quarantine/lockdown.
Perhaps the argument would be better stated: We need to balance saving lives and maintaining the thin veneer that is our economy.
That isn't quite as inspiring, but perhaps that is reality? Even if our economy is a "veneer" we still need it. I find it less compelling though. I'm far more willing to trade lives for a "strong economy" than I am to trade lives for "the illusion of a strong economy".
"Grandma and Grandpa died at home without medical support, but at least our economy is 'strong', so strong it could probably survive weeks of social distancing!"
If our "prize" for sacrificing hundreds of thousands of elderly to an exceptionally uncomfortable death is an economy we all know can't handle even a minor pandemic and is incapable of doing what China and other countries have done, that will be a sad trade.