That only applies to a small subset, like WFHing techies who are not significantly affected. Economically, regardless of the moral implications of this, people who are impacted are much more likely to go back to work (to take an extreme example, in the developing world the choices for some are already COVID or starvation).
Recreation wise, I've seen lockdowns rolled out in WA. Whatever they didn't close immediately became extremely overcrowded; they even closed city parks for one weekend (2 weeks into stay at home order and with parking lots already closed), because they became insanely crowded, I run in a park nearby (Green Lake) and I've never seen it like that.
Basically, I'm sorry but you are probably privileged, self-righteous or prone to media fear-mongering; I suspect all 3. For the majority of the population, only the 3rd will have some effect, and that less than you'd think.
It’s absolutely true that as a tech worker, I’m blessed that I can work from home. I’m thankful for that.
But you’re missing the point. Sending back my barista to Starbucks isn’t going to help said barista if I am unwilling to go to said coffee shop and spend money. The economy cannot start back up again until people start spending money again; my barista won’t spend money until they’re financially secure, and I won’t spend money on my barista until I feel that doing so won’t endanger my health.
Keep in mind that restaurant bookings were down 50% by mid March according to OpenTable. This is before most states had stay at home orders in place. A non-trivial portion of the economic collapse has been caused by entirely voluntary behavior, which is very hard to reverse.
I do however agree on recreation; governments should find a way to open up public spaces while preserving distance. I personally suspect that opening parks but constraining parking might do the trick, but I’m sure there are some weird caveats to that.
The point is that I was trying to make is that while you may not, I'm going to go out and order that coffee (I'm in the same WFH techie demographic); so will many others if the overcrowding of the trails and park in violation of the stay at home order and with media dialing COVID reporting up to 11 (and not just media, actually; we have signs on the highways all over the place saying stay home) is any indication.
Also, I suspect that the utility of economic activity at this level is kinda like utility of money, i.e. logarithmic - going from 0% to 50% is much more significant, especially for individuals, than going from 50% to 100%.
On the former; I believe you’d be in the clear minority. About 12% of Americans currently think that the lockdowns go too far, the vast majority are more worried about loosening up too quickly. This implies, but does not prove, that most Americans would stay home until they feel safe.
On the latter, this is only true for individuals. Businesses have more variable expenses. If there isn’t enough economic activity to cover the cost of at least staff and electricity, businesses will rationally decide to lay-off or furlough workers to slow down their burn rate. Thus going from 0 to 50 might make literally no difference, depending on the underlying costs. This is particularly problematic for restaurants, with famously thin margins during the best of times.
Recreation wise, I've seen lockdowns rolled out in WA. Whatever they didn't close immediately became extremely overcrowded; they even closed city parks for one weekend (2 weeks into stay at home order and with parking lots already closed), because they became insanely crowded, I run in a park nearby (Green Lake) and I've never seen it like that.
Basically, I'm sorry but you are probably privileged, self-righteous or prone to media fear-mongering; I suspect all 3. For the majority of the population, only the 3rd will have some effect, and that less than you'd think.
reply