The US has a famously tattered social safety net. Somewhere around
two-thirds of people live paycheck to paycheck. The median American has
$8000 in the bank account—which mean half have less. Unemployment
benefits are weak and restrictive. Health insurance is inadequate. If
states adopt the most restrictive approach they’re selecting an option
that will immediately drive a large percentage of their citizens into
poverty—like not-able-to-feed-themselves poverty. 25%? More? Whatever it
is, it’s big.
Moreover, this sparks a death spiral. Businesses will close, many permanently. (In Italy the small business failure rate is currently 20-25%.) People with no money don’t buy things. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the US economy. People not buying things further weakens businesses who employ people. State budgets depend on income taxes (and, outside of Oregon, sales taxes). State budgets must be balanced—they can’t run deficits, by law (passed by anti-government activists in the 90s, mostly). State services that support the poor and sick depend on taxes.
Shutting a state down may make sense over a two-week period. But everyone now believes the coronavirus will be around months. Is it the “safe” option to shut a state down until July?
Much of what colors our thinking is a confidence in supply chains, grocery stores, and invisible institutions that support the normal function of life. We take that as a given. They are not a given. Institutions have to be supported.
A holistic approach would be considering how to get the most number of people through this crisis and beyond—not just thinking narrowly about infection rates. If this is going to be a months or years-long crisis, we can't get through it by shutting down entirely. The answers aren’t easy ones, and people will die as a result of the virus—and our response to it.
The Portland mayor seems hell-bent on shutting the city down, whether he’s supported by the county or state. (In my darker moments, I assume its to inoculate himself politically against charges he wasn’t responsive as he rubs for reelection.) Our governor is taking a lot of heat for not following Gavin Newsom by shutting Oregon down. There’s a good chance she’s actually not being craven and shallow in her thinking here, though—she may be thinking more deeply about all the ramifications of that decision than her critics.
Moreover, this sparks a death spiral. Businesses will close, many permanently. (In Italy the small business failure rate is currently 20-25%.) People with no money don’t buy things. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the US economy. People not buying things further weakens businesses who employ people. State budgets depend on income taxes (and, outside of Oregon, sales taxes). State budgets must be balanced—they can’t run deficits, by law (passed by anti-government activists in the 90s, mostly). State services that support the poor and sick depend on taxes.
Shutting a state down may make sense over a two-week period. But everyone now believes the coronavirus will be around months. Is it the “safe” option to shut a state down until July?
Much of what colors our thinking is a confidence in supply chains, grocery stores, and invisible institutions that support the normal function of life. We take that as a given. They are not a given. Institutions have to be supported.
A holistic approach would be considering how to get the most number of people through this crisis and beyond—not just thinking narrowly about infection rates. If this is going to be a months or years-long crisis, we can't get through it by shutting down entirely. The answers aren’t easy ones, and people will die as a result of the virus—and our response to it.
The Portland mayor seems hell-bent on shutting the city down, whether he’s supported by the county or state. (In my darker moments, I assume its to inoculate himself politically against charges he wasn’t responsive as he rubs for reelection.) Our governor is taking a lot of heat for not following Gavin Newsom by shutting Oregon down. There’s a good chance she’s actually not being craven and shallow in her thinking here, though—she may be thinking more deeply about all the ramifications of that decision than her critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment