NY Times Wonders Why We’re Choosing Mass Unemployment

I actually sort of agree where the NY Times editorial board has gone with this piece, though, they are missing a few pieces, and take the obligatory shots at Trump

Why Is America Choosing Mass Unemployment?

Thursday’s news that more than three million Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, a total far higher than in any previous week in the modern history of the United States, has been greeted with surprising equanimity by the nation’s political leaders.

They appear to regard mass unemployment as an unfortunate but unavoidable symptom of the coronavirus. “It’s nobody’s fault, certainly not in this country,” President Trump said Thursday. The federal government’s primary response is a bill that passed the Senate late Wednesday night that would provide larger cash payments to those who have lost their jobs.

But the sudden collapse of employment was not inevitable. It is instead a disastrous failure of public policy that has caused immediate harm to the lives of millions of Americans, and that is likely to leave a lasting mark on their future, on the economy and on our society.

The federal government’s first and best chance to prevent mass unemployment was to keep the new coronavirus under control through a system of testing and targeted quarantines like those implemented by a number of Asian nations. But even after it became clear that the Trump administration had failed to prepare for the pandemic, policymakers still could have chosen to prioritize employment by paying companies to keep workers on the job during the period of lockdown.

A couple quick points. The Times itself was mad at Trump ordering that no flights would come in from China and Europe, at least not with foreigners. They were upset over people on those flights and on cruise ships being quarantined. So were other Credentialed Media outlets, along with Democrat politicians and pundits. Further, while the Obama admin offered warnings of potential pandemic, they didn’t actually leave the nation ready. And left the nation well short on respirators and N95 masks. But, see, I won’t directly blame Obama, because the federal bureaucracy is a bloated organ that does what it does, and there’s no possible way for the POTUS, or even his cabinet, to know everything.

And, let’s not forget how the media, including the Times, along with those same Democrat politicians and pundits, have fearmongered non-stop, talked about doom, demanded everything be shut down. That’s kinda how we got here, with counties, cities, and states still implementing shut-downs

Anyhow, after a bit of Trump Blamestorming, we get

A number of European countries, after similarly failing to control the spread of the virus, and thus being forced to lock down large parts of their economies, have chosen to protect jobs. Denmark has agreed to compensate Danish employers for up to 90 percent of their workers’ salaries. In the Netherlands, companies facing a loss of at least 20 percent of their revenue can similarly apply for the government to cover 90 percent of payroll. And the United Kingdom announced that it would pay up to 80 percent of the wage bill for as many companies as needed the help, with no cap on the total amount of public spending.

Some countries only pay employers for workers who aren’t working. Under Germany’s Kurzarbeit scheme, the government chips in even for workers kept on part time. The German government predicts that 2.35 million workers will draw benefits during the crisis. In either case, the goal is to preserve people in existing jobs — to preserve the antediluvian fabric of the economy to the greatest extent possible, for the benefit of workers and firms.

I hate to say it, but, this kinda makes sense, does it not? As a Classical Liberal, there’s the old saying that the government that governs least governs best. That best describes Classical Liberalism (which is way different than the people we call liberals today, who aren’t even close to be a political science definition liberal). But, CL also notes when a government should get involved, and this is one of those points, meant to protect the citizens

Preserving jobs is important because a job isn’t merely about the money. Compensated labor provides a sense of independence, identity and purpose; an unemployment check does not replace any of those things. People who lose jobs also lose their benefits — and in the United States, that includes their health insurance. And a substantial body of research on earlier economic downturns documents that people who lose jobs, even if they eventually find new ones, suffer lasting damage to their earnings potential, health and even the prospects of their children. The longer it takes to find a new job, the deeper the damage tends to be.

They’re actually making a good point. Wouldn’t it be better to preserve the jobs, rather than compensate for the loss of one? And be a heck of a lot easier for those people to jump right back in when things start moving again?

…This economic contraction was not caused by too much housing construction or too much gambling on Wall Street. It was caused by the arrival of a virus, and preserving ties between companies and workers could help to accelerate the eventual economic recovery once the pandemic passes. Companies could keep trained and experienced employees, averting the need for people to look for jobs and for companies to look for workers.

See? What’s up with the NY Times editorial board making economic sense?

The United States has made some efforts to preserve jobs, particularly at small businesses. The bailout bill includes $367 billion for loans to small businesses that would be forgiven if recipients avoid job and wage cuts. But that is less than a third of the amount that experts estimate would be required to provide comprehensive support for small businesses.

And the bill does not require big companies that get bailouts to make similar efforts.

Instead, the government agreed to give workers who lose their jobs an extra $600 a week.

We’d all be better off if the government had helped those workers keep their jobs instead.

I’ve heard people at work and read others talking about it being better if they were laid off, at least monetarily. Of course, that doesn’t mean the company brings them back. In my industry, though, it would be easy to find another job. In others, not so much. And it costs a lot of money to find a new employee and train them. Moving beyond that, it would have been better for Congress to simply start with a bill that gives real money to citizens so they can pay their rent, mortgages, car bills, and so forth. I’m not worried about big companies: we know they’ll survive. They have plenty of cash.

What is one check for $1,200 going to do? If you’re going to dig a hole, dig a glorious hole. Heck, how about saying “we’re going to give every taxpayer (148 million people, roughly) $3,000 and everyone isolate for 2 weeks, then we’re back to business.” That would be $444 billion.

Instead, they’ve played a few games with the bills. Interestingly, the NYTEB forgot to mention the incredibly leftist pork laden bill from Pelosi, which provided little to actual workers.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “NY Times Wonders Why We’re Choosing Mass Unemployment”

  1. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Just keep believing the “experts”… ya know “science” and shit.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-man-spooked-world-coronavirus-model-walks-back-prediction/

    Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Kye says:

      I was reading about this creep yesterday. Another leftie alarmist manipulating information to manipulate people. They are all fukin’ liars.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach,

    This was about the only mention, direct or indirect, to Trump. Is that what you found so objectionable?

    But even after it became clear that the Trump administration had failed to prepare for the pandemic…

    We understand why you call this Trump-bashing but left it out of your copy-paste. Besides being true it is also pretty bland “bashing”.

    Wouldn’t gov’t backed jobs in private businesses be anathema to conservative philosophy? “Free” markets demand that businesses be free to hire and shed workers based on their acute and long-term business needs, not workers needs. You’re not going soft on capitalism, are you, TEACH?

    Sounds similar to, “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

    Maybe we should rename SARS-CoV-2 the Socialism Virus.

    • formwiz says:

      This was about the only mention, direct or indirect, to Trump. Is that what you found so objectionable?

      Blaming him for a panic engineered by the Left, including the Gray Lady.

      We understand why you call this Trump-bashing but left it out of your copy-paste. Besides being true it is also pretty bland “bashing”.

      Lie.

      And lie squared. How do you prepare for something that came out of nowhere?

      Yeah, Zippy could have replaced the masks used in the bird flu, but that’s on Zippy.

      Wouldn’t gov’t backed jobs in private businesses be anathema to conservative philosophy?

      You mean like the GM bailout that was National Socialism writ small?

      “Free” markets demand that businesses be free to hire and shed workers based on their acute and long-term business needs, not workers needs. You’re not going soft on capitalism, are you, TEACH?

      You’re not going soft in the head, are you?

      An extraordinary circumstance, manufactured by the Left to bring down a President, isn’t capitalism.

      And most of those workers weren’t fired or even laid off. Tyrannical Democrat governors confined them to their homes, a form of house arrest, and deprived them of their jobs.

      As always, you lie.

      Sounds similar to, “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

      Another lie. This is a one-time measure due to a Leftist attempted coup.

      Too bad Trump is merciful. If it were a Democrat having this done to him, people would be in prison.

      Maybe we should rename SARS-CoV-2 the Socialism Virus.

      More accurate, the Democrat Flu.

    • “Wouldn’t gov’t backed jobs in private businesses be anathema to conservative philosophy? “Free” markets demand that businesses be free to hire and shed workers based on their acute and long-term business needs, not workers needs. You’re not going soft on capitalism, are you, TEACH?”

      Even Classical Liberalism doesn’t demand destruction of the nation for principles. It is understood within CL that there are times for the government to step in, and this is one of them. If we’re going to dig a hole, let’s dig a big hole and protect citizens in the short term. Protect them from eviction, losing their homes and cars, make sure they have money for food. At least till it is over. I’d even be willing to waive the balanced budget stuff that most states have for the duration.

      Funny part is, if Trump recommended this, y’all Lefties would then be against helping people out.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9620 access attempts in the last 7 days.