Playing the numbers 2

Yesterday I requested that those who are discussing and debating the policies we should follow during the current crisis surrounding the COVD-19 virus, should detail the number of people that their plan is prepared to accept that will die.  In other words, to keep the economy from crashing, how soon should we expect to return to "normal" and how many deaths will that plan accept.  While I recognize that, in reality, there is no way to know how many lives will be saved or lost with any course of action, we will know how many have died when we reach May.  We will have a base line which will tell us that whatever protocol we chose to follow between now and then, it resulted in x amount of deaths and then can partially extrapolate that more drastic measures would have saved more, and less measures will have saved less. I know this will be an after the fact exercise, but it may at least provide guidance for future pandemics. 

I also hope that the lessons we learned already are that more testing needs to be done sooner, more people need to take such a situation more serious sooner, and that, perhaps, we should maintain a stockpile of medical supplies more in conjunction with the number of Americans, or, at least have a structure in place so that when 10 or 20 or even 100 times the amount of these materials is needed quickly, it is easier to turn on the process, and that it is less dependent on one person to make it so.  Perhaps we might have valves in multiple hands across America that can act when needed.

For this post, I would like to discuss the massive stimulus and rescue packages that are being rolled out.  I heard the president say that about 160 million Americans were working before this crisis.  My brief research before beginning this post confirms that number, but let's just say that 150 million people were working since that number is a bit easier to manipulate.

Some people estimate that millions of people will be out of work, either already or soon.  Let's use 20% of 150 million.  That means that 30 million people will be not working while 120 million people will still be working.  Now, I know that unemployment creates a cycle that feeds on itself, but for now, the vast majority of Americans are still working, or some, like myself, are not working but still being paid.  Why do we all need a check in the mail?  Giving everyone money, now, seems to be admitting that the virus will get worse, and that even more people will lose their pay.  But doesn't that fly in the face of targeting Easter to get back to work?

It seems that we are working at cross purposes, doling out a large sum of money to people who don't need it yet, while painting a hopeful picture that we are nearing the end.

Let's be clear.  I support the theory that the federal government should intervene in times of distress, whether that distress be from storm or disease or other natural disaster.  I expect that those who have been asked to stay home, who have been asked to shutter or vastly alter the working of their business,
should certainly be compensated.  It would be nice if everyone could continue to be paid regardless of whether they are working but for many small businesses that is not reality, not if we are expecting 4-6 weeks of closure.  Get them money, as fast as possible, via whatever means we can create or expand upon.  I am even OK if we establish a fund for this purpose, knowing it is there as more people lose their jobs, but hoping it is not necessary to disburse.  It is that kind of structure that I think is missing, and that will hopefully be one of the things we address after this is over.  We shouldn't need Congress to debate the details again, but probably will as this progresses.  Why?

Also, for the majority of those of us who are either still working or getting paid to stay at home, what sacrifice are we being asked to make?  Can a percentage of us donate 5 or 10 percent of our salary to offset the cost of those who do not have that luxury?  I would imagine that there are many people who earn over 1 million a year who could get by on $900,000, and would do so if asked.  I also think that there are countless middle class Americans like myself who would accept a slightly smaller check to see America through this crisis.  Why isn't anyone asking us?

#letsallgivealittle

My assumption is that I need a check so that I can spend that money and keep the economy going.  But spend it where?  There are no entertainment or sporting events happening now.  I certainly shouldn't be hoarding food, and since there is limited food supply anyway with posted restrictions, I couldn't spend it there if I wanted.  Am I supposed to buy a car or boat?  Frankly, for those of use who really don't need the money now, it would be more prudent to save it just in case circumstances change, not immediately spend it.  Let's be honest, saving money is anathema to a system built on rampant consumerism yet this situation doesn't really lend itself, like perhaps the aftermath of 911 did, to handing out money to everyone at this time.  Let's use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

As for corporations getting helped, those who read me know I am not a fan.  If a large company hasn't created an emergency plan to address a 4 week shutdown, or doesn't have the resources to pay their employees during such a time, or can't manipulate its expenses so that while revenue may be dropping so are some costs associated with inventory and distribution which may be funneled to help shore up the salary outlays, or even, as I mentioned earlier, ask those at the top of the pay scale within their organizations to take a bit less so those at the bottom can be helped, not to mention, borrowing at zero interest on a temporary basis using the assets that they own as collateral, well, I guess I am unsympathetic. 

As for the cruise line industry.  No way.  Spend a bit of time researching these companies and you will find that they avoid paying taxes in America through a variety of ways, including registering their boats in other countries, regardless of where their headquarters might be.  They employ a small percentage of Americans and pay their employees poor wages.  In other words, they use American tourists to fund their businesses but return a very small percent of their income to the American taxpayer.  They don't even build their boats in America, let alone employ Americans on them.  And, frankly, while I actually would like to take a cruise one day, specifically to Alaska, if they did not exist tomorrow, the world would not be any worse off.  Let them go bankrupt and restructure but don't give them a penny

I am not sure why Americans who voted for a businessman to lead our country thought he would balance the budget or reduce the deficit.  Extremely rich business folk have ways and means to expand their wealth that regular people do not.  They use tax laws to cover their mistakes in one part of their business, to avoid paying taxes on their profits in another.  They declare bankruptcy without it effecting their ability to borrow large sums of money on their next scheme.  And, when push comes to shove, they abandon their so called love of individualism and capitalism, and come running to the American taxpayer for help, under the guise of too big to fail.  It seems pretty clear by the action of politicians on both sides, but especially those who lambasted Obama when the federal debt grew so much after the 2008 economic meltdown, that we love capitalism when we get to keep all the profits, but equally love socialism when we need help from the American taxpayer. 

Frankly, there is one sentiment that the president keeps trying to push, despite his denial of the magnitude of the problem in the beginning, and his slow response to the spread of the disease in February, and that is that we will recover from this crisis.  America, for all its problems and blindness to income inequality and wealth distribution, will see a rebound when this is all over.  Sure, the rich who are buying up stocks now at bargain basement prices will be even richer.  And we will pretend that a  health care system that is tied to employment is a good idea, even though even more people will be without health coverage after all this is over and even more people will face the prospect of getting health care of buying food.  (What, you think that just because some insurance companies say they will cover the cost of virus testing, that they will also take on the cost of any other malady that might strike a furloughed or laid off person during these times?)

Yes, we will survive this.  The question is, will we have learned anything?