Should we bring back lockdowns?

mellowskipper said:In my opinion, this is a matter for the Supreme Court. People are being stripped of their right to work without even a two-thirds vote from Congress—which is the only body actually authorized to amend the Constitution.
Instead, we have this quasi-governmental entity calling itself a task force dictating everything to us.

The same Supreme Court that ruled everything was fine, even though Article 17 couldn't be any clearer?

Maybe one day the majority will finally wake up and realize what that task force and a few political cronies in that court have actually done. I doubt it, but I'll leave that possibility open.

wearypilot34 said:Naturally, economic fallout leaves its mark on life expectancy. It isn't the patrons of the breweries who suffer from their closure, but certainly the owners and the staff. And it isn't just breweries shutting down...

Unemployment leads to shorter lifespans:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sci.../2016/8290435/

The economic crisis will also result in lower incomes for most of the population. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest spans a full 14 years, covering the entire spectrum.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2733322

Life Expectancy by Household Income
Higher household income was associated with higher life expectancy (Figure 1A). For the years 2011 to 2015, men with income in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 70.6 years (95% CI, 69.6-71.6), while men in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 84.4 years (95% CI, 83.4-85.4 years), a difference of 13.8 years (95% CI, 12.3-15.2) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Women in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 78.0 years (95% CI, 77.1-78.9) and women in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 86.4 years (95% CI, 85.7-87.1), a difference of 8.4 years (95% CI, 7.2-9.6) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Of individuals with income in the lowest 1%, 50.6% (95% CI, 50.4%-50.8%) lived in single-person households (Figure 2), while only 9% (95% CI, 8.9%-9.1%) of individuals in the top 1% of income were single-person households. Of individuals in the bottom 1% of income, 18.2% (95% CI, 18.0%-18.4%) had a university education, and of individuals in the top 1% of income, 53.9% (95% CI, 53.6%-54.1%) had a university education. Life expectancy was higher for individuals with higher education in All levels of income (Figure 1B and C), and the shape of the curves showing life expectancy by income were similar when stratifying by level of education.

All that's true, but you gotta be poor your entire life for it to actually shorten your lifespan, not just deal with 2 or 3 bad years out of 78. Plus, I think this shows the government stepping up in the economy more, which maybe isn't all bad (not talking about America specifically, just globally). Look, I think the measures are ridiculous, especially how they play out here, but globally we might be seeing a shift that isn't necessarily a total disaster. Even imperial empires collapsed and things ended up better for the little guy than before. Plenty of examples out there...

Economic crises leave permanent scars. There is no such thing as a temporary dip followed by a seamless return to the previous trajectory. We will undoubtedly see a loss of life driven solely by economic fallout—not even mentioning the secondary effects, particularly those hitting young people and children.

The actual scale of that loss of life... well, that is perhaps a conversation for another time.

Chloe Robinson5 said:All that's true, but you gotta be poor your entire life for it to actually shorten your lifespan, not just deal with 2 or 3 bad years out of 78. Plus, I think this shows the government stepping up in the economy more, which maybe isn't all bad (not talking about America specifically, just globally). Look, I think the measures are ridiculous, especially how they play out here, but globally we might be seeing a shift that isn't necessarily a total disaster. Even imperial empires collapsed and things ended up better for the little guy than before. Plenty of examples out there...

Yeah, right, because everyone is just dying to have the government stick its nose even deeper into their hard-earned money and businesses 😵 are you guys for real? especially here in the States.

And honestly, do you really think this impoverishment is only going to last for two or three years? How many people had totally solid businesses that are now teetering on the edge? And they definitely won't bounce back that fast, especially with all that "help" and government meddling you're calling for.

Politics needs to get the hell out of the economy.

Chloe Robinson5 said:All that's true, but you gotta be poor your entire life for it to actually shorten your lifespan, not just deal with 2 or 3 bad years out of 78. Plus, I think this shows the government stepping up in the economy more, which maybe isn't all bad (not talking about America specifically, just globally). Look, I think the measures are ridiculous, especially how they play out here, but globally we might be seeing a shift that isn't necessarily a total disaster. Even imperial empires collapsed and things ended up better for the little guy than before. Plenty of examples out there...

Oh, sure. Because clearly, the wealthiest nations on Earth are the ones where the government runs the show. You know, like America, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea... Why would a single owner of an HS product even bother thinking about their business when someone like Plenković can take better care of it for them?

People are literally lining up just to get a glimpse of those "paradises" where capitalism is left completely unchecked.

Maybe try actually studying some 20th-century history... Corporations haven't exactly been doing us any favors, and that wealth gap just keeps getting wider every single year because everyone is obsessed with growth. You can't sustain that long-term without some regulation. HS is basically just a small family business, and the government should be protecting outfits like that. But looking at how things are headed? That "free market" you guys love so much is gonna end up being nothing more than a cheap knockoff produced by some massive conglomerate...

Amanda Diaz said:Oh, sure. Because clearly, the wealthiest nations on Earth are the ones where the government runs the show. You know, like America, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea... Why would a single owner of an HS product even bother thinking about their business when someone like Plenković can take better care of it for them?

People are literally lining up just to get a glimpse of those "paradises" where capitalism is left completely unchecked.

Yeah, totally. China is screwed too, along with Norway and Switzerland... you can just go ahead and do whatever you want under those "free market" rules there. Just try it...

Chloe Robinson5 said:Maybe try actually studying some 20th-century history... Corporations haven't exactly been doing us any favors, and that wealth gap just keeps getting wider every single year because everyone is obsessed with growth. You can't sustain that long-term without some regulation. HS is basically just a small family business, and the government should be protecting outfits like that. But looking at how things are headed? That "free market" you guys love so much is gonna end up being nothing more than a cheap knockoff produced by some massive conglomerate...

Yeah, it’s awful.

Honestly? I'm rooting for my own company to just stall out or go belly up. 😵

Chloe Robinson5 said:Yeah, totally. China is screwed too, along with Norway and Switzerland... you can just go ahead and do whatever you want under those "free market" rules there. Just try it...

Who even said they weren't screwed?
Personally, I find the propaganda coming out of China and Scandinavia absolutely creepy.

Switzerland is alright, though.

I’ve been digging into some 20th-century history lately. It turns out that almost every nation that stayed out of people's private business ended up seeing a massive explosion in social programs by the end of the century—levels of spending we've never seen before because they actually had the capital to back it up.

The others? They couldn't afford a damn thing.

Take a small family business making a billion dollars a year; those owners are probably praying to whatever higher power they believe in just to keep the government's hands off their money.*

*I might be biased here, speaking from my own experience.

Chloe Robinson5 said:Yeah, totally. China is screwed too, along with Norway and Switzerland... you can just go ahead and do whatever you want under those "free market" rules there. Just try it...

Switzerland is ranked 5th globally for economic freedom—I mean, their citizens literally use referendums to stop the government from taxing capitalists. Hilarious, right?
Norway sits at a respectable 28th.

America, meanwhile, ranks 84th—sandwiched right between Saudi Arabia and Bhutan. Does anyone even know where Bhutan is? 🤔

Chloe Robinson5 said:Yeah, totally. China is screwed too, along with Norway and Switzerland... you can just go ahead and do whatever you want under those "free market" rules there. Just try it...

What are you even talking about? A free market doesn't mean you get to act like there are no rules. A free market means the government sets consistent laws and then stays out of your private business. That’s exactly how it works in places like Norway and Switzerland.

Sure, China is in deep trouble. But why don't you try thinking for a second? Why do you think every single worker on the Golden Gate Bridge construction crew could live comfortably on an average American salary?

The government’s whole job is being a regulator. I'm talking about laws against corporate tax dodging and white-collar crime, not some petty nonsense... Right now, massive corporations basically run the show, and it should be the other way around. I'm not talking about small family businesses—they'd actually benefit from more oversight. It's like comparing IKEA to some local mom-and-pop shop that the state should be protecting instead of just building highways and toll booths for the big guys to use...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Raymond Fisher98 said:Yeah, it’s awful.

Honestly? I'm rooting for my own company to just stall out or go belly up. 😵

Let things grow, sure, but leave the corporations out of it. How many trillions is enough? Nobody can grow forever...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Chloe Robinson5 said:The government’s whole job is being a regulator. I'm talking about laws against corporate tax dodging and white-collar crime, not some petty nonsense... Right now, massive corporations basically run the show, and it should be the other way around. I'm not talking about small family businesses—they'd actually benefit from more oversight. It's like comparing IKEA to some local mom-and-pop shop that the state should be protecting instead of just building highways and toll booths for the big guys to use...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

The government shouldn't be playing bodyguard for anyone. Their job is to let everyone work and do business without being constantly tripped up (which, honestly, is exactly what the government is doing to tons of people right now).

And yeah, you realize IKEA had to cough up a massive amount of paperwork and cash to make that happen, right? Everyone paid their dues. There are actual laws and regulations in place that dictate how this works. I don't see anything sketchy about it at all. A small producer has the exact same opportunity if they can just get their paperwork in order and come up with the funds.

Amanda Diaz said:I’ve been digging into some 20th-century history lately. It turns out that almost every nation that stayed out of people's private business ended up seeing a massive explosion in social programs by the end of the century—levels of spending we've never seen before because they actually had the capital to back it up.

The others? They couldn't afford a damn thing.

Take a small family business making a billion dollars a year; those owners are probably praying to whatever higher power they believe in just to keep the government's hands off their money.*

*I might be biased here, speaking from my own experience.

And? You ever see when things were actually good for the little guy? In the US, it was like 1950 to the 70s, then everything just tanked again

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Raymond Fisher98 said:The government shouldn't be playing bodyguard for anyone. Their job is to let everyone work and do business without being constantly tripped up (which, honestly, is exactly what the government is doing to tons of people right now).

And yeah, you realize IKEA had to cough up a massive amount of paperwork and cash to make that happen, right? Everyone paid their dues. There are actual laws and regulations in place that dictate how this works. I don't see anything sketchy about it at all. A small producer has the exact same opportunity if they can just get their paperwork in order and come up with the funds.

Not happening in America, that's for sure...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Chloe Robinson5 said:Let things grow, sure, but leave the corporations out of it. How many trillions is enough? Nobody can grow forever...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Why would there be a limit? More cash is always better.

I seriously hope you donate every extra cent you make. And please tell me you aren't such a snob that you own more than two pairs of jeans and some sneakers.

Chloe Robinson5 said:Not happening in America, that's for sure...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Where on earth does it say 'a small manufacturer isn't allowed to build a warehouse the size of an IKEA if they turn in the right paperwork and pay off all their investors'?

Our regulations are honestly so bizarre.

Look, just because a small business can't afford something doesn't mean they aren't allowed to. But I don't see why any tiny producer would need something that massive anyway. Even IKEA's first stores weren't huge like this, and they wouldn't be running giant showrooms today just to sell 200 little cabinets a year.
As a business grows, your needs and investments grow right along with it. That's just how it works!

Chloe Robinson5 said:And? You ever see when things were actually good for the little guy? In the US, it was like 1950 to the 70s, then everything just tanked again

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Corporations have been running the US for the last hundred years, not just since the 70s. So, your whole point is totally off base.

By the way, the biggest winners during these lockdowns are the corporations—they’ve never been richer or more powerful. Lockdowns are destroying small and medium-sized businesses. These are the exact same businesses you so eloquently claimed the government would protect by taking on a larger role—the very same ones the government wiped out by shutting them down.