America but a worthwhile discussion

The problem with this is that any argument made by those that suggest economic damage will be worse is an unfalsifiable one.

So, if not a lot of people die in the US (≤ 100k) or the UK (≤25k), then quarantine/lockdown will have been a success.

Great news!

If this happens, however, the virus skeptics — who all appear to be a) uniformly right wing and financially reliant on the umbrage of their "content devourers", e.g. Toby Young, and/or b) on the conspiracy theory nutjob side of genuine skepticism, e.g. Alex Jones — they can now say, "Ha it wasn't that bad! We said all along! We are so smart!"

This claim is now impossible to prove false; ergo, we should continue as we are and follow the lockdown and hope that it keeps deaths to a minimum.

On the other side of this whole shebang — given that we know joblessness causes deaths — we should try and create meaningful work, and implement a proper living wage. We should also improve mental health provision to mitigate the fallout. To be clear, I am not denying that economic downturns correlate almost exactly with upturns in suicide rates and a host of other terrible sh**t.

 

If you increase the minimum wage you'll cause yet more job losses. Happens every time it goes up

 

Given that they're already at almost 40 000 covid deaths I doubt those will stop at 77,000. It's a **** situation but carrying on regardless just isnt an option.

 

Universal Basic Income, then.

 

Funded by who?

 

Increased borrowing

 

Funded by who?

 

No but protecting the lives of the vulnerable and the livelihood hood of the fitnand healthy surely has to be an option? An option that was seemingly rules out here very quickly when large numbers of the vulnerable said no

 

It really doesn't.

 

It does. The government admits it has a "minimal negative impact" which means it does. I know it's 5% of the workforce at my company this year anyway and at my previous company a significant NMW increase directly led to a cut of around 15 members of staff at one location alone.

 

The low pay commission study into the living wage seemed to suggest the opposite.

 

No it didn't. It admitted there would be a minimal negative impact on job levels but that they believed that would be countered by better wages for those still employed.

 

In the Great Depression, deaths actually fell by most causes, except for suicide which had a slight increase but only accounted for 2% of deaths. It isn't the depression/recession itself that causes the deaths, but the response of the government to the situation.

 

It's an economic theory that is rarely if ever born out in reality. People have more money, they buy more things, they go out more and eat out more, all of which creates jobs. Individual businesses like yours may choose to release staff, like they may at any time for a number of reasons, but employment figures aren't looking at one company, they're looking at the entire population.

 

I blame that bitch Carole Baskin.

 

Dont think it was put to them like that we it? If there was a clear message , then I didn't hear it. If your plan was as easy as you think then I'm sure the Tories would have implemented it.

 

There have been several reports which indicate that (in the UK) universal Basic Income would actually cost less than the current system where we pay a huge army of benefit office staff to try to save money by denying claims.

 

Double post

 

You’re talking about predictions; I’m talking about results.

Employment has outperformed forecasts since the NLW was introduced

https://assets.publishing.service.g...data/file/877174/LPC_2020_uprating_report.pdf