I vote for telework increasing, and other jobs disappearing entirely when businesses send the folks who currently do those jobs home and realize the company is able to get along without them.I agree with this. Most of our colleagues could work from home but were not permitted because of information sharing on the workfloor and such. Inside of a week from our governments ban _everyone_ that could technically work from home _is_ working from home. Me and colleagues from IT support had a hell of a job there but got it done.
- Online courses / e-learning / homeschooling. For both K-12 and universities, I think the sudden wide availability of school at home will continue. .
I really think this will usher in a new 'normal' for remote work. My company, prior to this, was cool with one WFH day per week and a very very small handful of FT remote workers.
Pro sports - I can see that they may struggle after a boomlet at the beginning when it comes back. People may see their is more to life than slavishly following a team?
I think people are going to be incredibly eager to send their kids back to school, and delighted to get back to the office.
Pro sports - I can see that they may struggle after a boomlet at the beginning when it comes back. People may see their is more to life than slavishly following a team?
Ha! Now that's rich, considering your user name. :)
Movies - the enforced move to streaming may mean the end for theaters?
I'd argue that the WFH will actually reveal that companies have way more people than they need, or that computers have increased efficiency to a degree that they don't need as many people around.
I foresee another decrease in the civilian worker participation rate (US Metric) that remains fairly permanent.
In the long run, insurance is a scam.
I'm not calling it a scam because the "expected value" of a claim is less than what people expect to pay in premiums. That's to be expected, and is valuable to an individual, on an individual basis, to insure against an unexpected event.
The reason I call it a scam is, it doesn't protect against the "[insert-large-number]-standard-deviation" tail-risk black swan events, where the insurance company just goes belly up and says "thanks for the fish. we're bankrupt now! Good luck to all." And that's kind of what we could be seeing now.
Another reason why I'll never buy an "annuity" from an insurance company. You'd get a far better effective yield (and have less risk) by just buying a basket of insurance company stocks, and collecting the dividends.
I think people are going to be incredibly eager to send their kids back to school, and delighted to get back to the office.
I don’t think grocery delivery/pickup is going all that smoothly for a lot of people, and personally will never again have less than 50lbs of flour in my house.
There's going to be a desperate shortage of good rock and metal albums in about a year's time
You were supposed to talk about things that were going to be different. :P
There have been others, and maybe it's a milennial/genz attitude, but she really gets a lot of negativity because of it. She was also 'left out' of the local moms group because she doesn't work or volunteer. Not everyone has the luxury to have one parent at home, and some people just plain see it as old-fashioned. It would be cool after all this for the SAHP naysayers (at least the ones we know) to change their tune a bit.
I really think this will usher in a new 'normal' for remote work. My company, prior to this, was cool with one WFH day per week and a very very small handful of FT remote workers.
I'm going to bet that in the future, they encourage more WFH days - less electricity/water/supplies consumed at the office for nearly the same level of productivity.
I can imagine many other companies are discovering that virtual work really isn't all that bad.
I think home grocery delivery is going to continue to be popular post-plague. I think that so many people in North America have basically been unaware of its existence until very recently. Certainly when I used it several years ago, the most common response was "What the hell, you can actually do that?"Agreed. I used to have a CSA membership, but it closed. Then I tested out home delivery of produce (from a company that was started by the former CSA manager), and it is so great. So great.
- Universities closing? No way. Look at all the seniors that are saddened about missing their last semester. Going to a U is not only about an education; it's also about interacting with thousands of your peers. There will always be people willing to pay for that. There are also many people that just don't do well with distance education.
I think people are going to be incredibly eager to send their kids back to school, and delighted to get back to the office.
I don’t think grocery delivery/pickup is going all that smoothly for a lot of people, and personally will never again have less than 50lbs of flour in my house.
Re: bulk purchases. I realized a couple of weeks ago that I had maybe 2-week supplies of my gluten-free rolled oats (which I eat almost every morning) and chow for our pet rabbits. Somehow during my prep purchasing, I missed those two items. Checked online stocks at local stores. No luck. Checked the website of the company that produces the oats and an online pet supplies website, and the only options were 25-lb bags of each. Both were cheaper per pound than the smaller sizes, even after shipping. I never would have bought the bulk bags before, but now I will always buy them.
- More people will install and use bidets.
I imagine we will see a spike in divorces too as spouses are spending a lot more time together under stressful circumstances.
I don't think much will change. People said 9/11 would change the world forever.The people of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan may feel differently.
It might become taboo to go out in public while sick.
Oh, I almost forgot: insurance companies are absolutely fucked.
Some will avoid paying out on Covid-19 deaths by claiming force majeure. But a lot will spend a fortune defending themselves in court on that front, and a lot will spend a fortune paying out to the estates of people who die of cancer or blood loss while the hospitals are overrun, and I'd be willing to bet a sizeable amount of money that there isn't a single major insurer on the planet who took the time to work out their likely liabilities in a situation like this and made sure they were adequately funded.
With the obvious exceptions of things like flood insurance, the assumption for an insurance company is that liabilities are idiosyncratic rather than systemic, unlike banks. Bank defaults come in waves, because they're driven by crashes and recessions, but historically insurance liabilities have been mostly driven by individual circumstances. There are slow, sweeping changes, but nothing that can't be caught with careful annual assessment of the numbers. Insurance companies don't carry anything like the same level of assets on their books as banks, because they've never needed to and nobody's ever made them. Now they're going to see a spectacular, shocking systemic healthcare crisis, and the assets they hold to fund their suddenly exploding liabilities are going down the toilet along with the rest of the stock and bond markets.
+1I don't think much will change. People said 9/11 would change the world forever.The people of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan may feel differently.
I do not know how it is outside Europe, but pandemic and mortality shocks are taken into account in the determination of the capital European insurance companies have to hold.
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/IandF_SA2_SolvencyII_2016.pdf
I've been thinking. I wonder if this pandemic really will be the downfall of the "American Empire". There's been arguments that the USA's influence has been waning for a while, but given how poorly we're responding to the pandemic, it's quite possible that we will be the ones being isolated from the rest of the world. Nature abhors a vacuum. If the US loses the world superpower status, then someone or something else will eventually step into that void.
Those changes would be both subtle and profound, and cut across pretty much everything. Though it would be quite amusing that Trump, who's so obsessed with with winning, power, money, status, etc - would go down in history as the guy who finished it all off.
How public transportation will fare will be an interesting question. In Asia and Europe particularly, but also in places like NY, trains and subways are essential. An increase in wfh might reduce passenger load somewhat, but there will still be many needing to commute. But will people still be ok with being in a packed train with hundreds of strangers? Is there a viable alternative? The roads certainly won't be able to handle everyone suddenly trying to commute in cars, and the distances involved will make bicycles unfeasible for many.
- Insisting on working from home anytime I have any symptoms of anything. No more giving into pressure to be at the office while "getting over" a cold and still sniffly. I will see you when it is 100% over. This one particularly I hope sticks as a societal norm; you are not being brave or a good worker by coming into work sick. And now everybody has the infrastructure to work from home, so we should use it for this more often.
Arabic eye makeup gaining popularity
This is so far outside my area I just have to ask.
What makes a kind eye makeup distinctly arabic and why do you think it's popularity will increase during/after coronavirus, @Fru-Gal ?
I've been thinking. I wonder if this pandemic really will be the downfall of the "American Empire". There's been arguments that the USA's influence has been waning for a while, but given how poorly we're responding to the pandemic, it's quite possible that we will be the ones being isolated from the rest of the world. Nature abhors a vacuum. If the US loses the world superpower status, then someone or something else will eventually step into that void.
Those changes would be both subtle and profound, and cut across pretty much everything. Though it would be quite amusing that Trump, who's so obsessed with with winning, power, money, status, etc - would go down in history as the guy who finished it all off.
Unlikely, I think. The only two other real competitors would be the EU and China. There's not really evidence that the EU on a whole has been handling this a whole lot better. Some places in the EU have been more responsible than others, but you could say the same about US states. Ditto China. I've seen too many horrifying videos of China (check out PhD Parody on Twitter or the video archive at archive.nothingburger.today) to believe for one second that everything in China is as the CCP says it is.
I think a lot of people on this forum are misperceiving things due to their hatred of Trump. The reality is there have been an enormous amount of screw ups from various actors (WHO, CDC, EU, major news outlets for not covering human rights abuses in China, wall street for not reacting to obvious news in February). My county in the USA has been locked down for two weeks (and I've been self-isolating for longer) and we have fewer cases per capita than Sweden or London where folks have been much slower to respond. Remember it was the UK that came up with the "do nothing herd immunity" plan and it was the Mexican President just a few days ago told everyone to live their lives like normal, etc. There are also issues in many, many countries with testing (inc. some places where it is purposefully to being done to make the party in power look good) and misclassification of deaths. This list includes first world countries such as Germany and Spain.
I am not saying Trump is great or the US has done a good job. I just think you are misperceiving how equally shitty of a job many other paces have done, and you are probably erroneously relying on the official statistics of confirmed cases and deaths even though there are systemic issues with undercounting almost everywhere. Whether left-wing or right-wing, I find it useful to get my news from international sources and not just US-centric left wing or US-centric right wing forums. USA response has been middle of the road compared to some of the more proactive places and some of the less proactive ones.
EU / China / Japan / Russia also have issues with age structure due to many years of depressed birth rates and lower immigration. So notice in the financial world the flight to safety to U.S. treasuries has continued despite our many, obvious mistakes. Economics is really a dismal science and everywhere has problems.
QuoteThis is so far outside my area I just have to ask.
What makes a kind eye makeup distinctly arabic and why do you think it's popularity will increase during/after coronavirus, @Fru-Gal ?
Arabic eye makeup is very beautiful and detailed with the entire focus on eyes and eyebrows because most of the face is covered with a scarf. The scarves are colorful and part of a coordinated head-to-toe fashion statement.
Changes in makeup are common in times of economic uncertainty, and makeup artist ingenuity quite high.
It's also likely that the reverse will be true with a trend toward natural or no makeup. However, if mask wearing becomes commonplace, focusing on just eye makeup will save a lot of time.
Also, beauty is a major source of social power that women wield over both sexes, for those who think it only frivolous. It's also a major industry.
Permanent eyebrow and eyeliner may become even more popular, just as false lashes and lash serums have. It's possible that colored contact wearing would increase.
Plastic surgery might decrease if mask wearing became popular enough, along with fear of infection and less disposable income.
Finally, masks themselves might be an area of innovation. Technology built in? Fashion choices? Filter and oxygen (or other gas LOL like vaping) choices?
I've been thinking. I wonder if this pandemic really will be the downfall of the "American Empire". There's been arguments that the USA's influence has been waning for a while, but given how poorly we're responding to the pandemic, it's quite possible that we will be the ones being isolated from the rest of the world. Nature abhors a vacuum. If the US loses the world superpower status, then someone or something else will eventually step into that void.
Those changes would be both subtle and profound, and cut across pretty much everything. Though it would be quite amusing that Trump, who's so obsessed with with winning, power, money, status, etc - would go down in history as the guy who finished it all off.
Unlikely, I think. The only two other real competitors would be the EU and China. There's not really evidence that the EU on a whole has been handling this a whole lot better. Some places in the EU have been more responsible than others, but you could say the same about US states. Ditto China. I've seen too many horrifying videos of China (check out PhD Parody on Twitter or the video archive at archive.nothingburger.today) to believe for one second that everything in China is as the CCP says it is.
I think a lot of people on this forum are misperceiving things due to their hatred of Trump. The reality is there have been an enormous amount of screw ups from various actors (WHO, CDC, EU, major news outlets for not covering human rights abuses in China, wall street for not reacting to obvious news in February). My county in the USA has been locked down for two weeks (and I've been self-isolating for longer) and we have fewer cases per capita than Sweden or London where folks have been much slower to respond. Remember it was the UK that came up with the "do nothing herd immunity" plan and it was the Mexican President just a few days ago told everyone to live their lives like normal, etc. There are also issues in many, many countries with testing (inc. some places where it is purposefully to being done to make the party in power look good) and misclassification of deaths. This list includes first world countries such as Germany and Spain.
I am not saying Trump is great or the US has done a good job. I just think you are misperceiving how equally shitty of a job many other paces have done, and you are probably erroneously relying on the official statistics of confirmed cases and deaths even though there are systemic issues with undercounting almost everywhere. Whether left-wing or right-wing, I find it useful to get my news from international sources and not just US-centric left wing or US-centric right wing forums. USA response has been middle of the road compared to some of the more proactive places and some of the less proactive ones.
EU / China / Japan / Russia also have issues with age structure due to many years of depressed birth rates and lower immigration. So notice in the financial world the flight to safety to U.S. treasuries has continued despite our many, obvious mistakes. Economics is really a dismal science and everywhere has problems.
Agree with these and would add, VOTING!
We already mail in our ballots in Washington state. It doesn't make sense to have people take time away from their day to go to a central location to vote. Some states have already delayed their primaries due to social distancing. All states will move to a mail-in model.
Agree with these and would add, VOTING!
We already mail in our ballots in Washington state. It doesn't make sense to have people take time away from their day to go to a central location to vote. Some states have already delayed their primaries due to social distancing. All states will move to a mail-in model.
Yup - I lived in California for 14 years..up until a few months ago. I always voted by mail and loved it. To actually see the ballot and have time to do some research and think about it was great. I know their are those who argue against it - this is just my personal experience.
I am curious to see what happens with the gym. I, and many other people, purchased exercise equipment when the gym shut down. Will these people continue with home workouts and cancel their memberships? Personally I will go to the gym for certain things, and keep doing other exercise at home.The home gym equipment purchased now will suffer the same fate home gym equipment purchased in the past: collecting dust in a corner somewhere.
Most of us need some sort of structure, some guidance and company along the way - classes to go to at scheduled times with an instructor who offers a planned curriculum and expects assignments at certain times, and so on. .
The academics I know tell me their online courses have a much lower completion rate. We humans are social animals - we need in-person accountability. "The class is at 9, the teacher / my friend expects me there, I'd better get moving."
I doubt we will see any long-term societal level behavior change. There will be some who choose to shift their habits, but most will be back to business as usual. It's like the old adage about a near-death experience changing you forever...for about 8 weeks.
I do agree with the increase in birth and divorce rate though.
I've thought a bit about the desirability of the social, in-person aspect of education so I favor a hybrid model.Seems fair to me. It'd get rid of those boring lectures where the lecturer just shows you a video. "Okay, watch this at home and we'll discuss it next time."
As long as it ends by July with little to no rebound in the fall, we'll have a vaccine more than likely next year. All in time to make sure that everyone forgets this ever happened by 2022, and we all go back to consuming as much as we ever did before.
I am curious to see what happens with the gym. I, and many other people, purchased exercise equipment when the gym shut down. Will these people continue with home workouts and cancel their memberships? Personally I will go to the gym for certain things, and keep doing other exercise at home.
I don’t think many things will change with such a big swing. There may be small differences, but most people will go back to their normal life.
I’m surprised the most by the people think international travel is going to disappear. It may take a hit for a while during the beginning while people get back into their work habits and build up more PTO, but almost everyone I know still has an international trip planned within the next year and I have personally been browsing cheap tickets for trips I have been wanting to take.
I'm really surprised how many people expect this to have large sweeping changes as a result.
Oh one thing I definitely expect to see: prepping will be very cool going forward. When you can’t rely on politicians or industrial leaders to exercise leadership, it falls to individuals, families and smaller social units like churches to do so.
Oh one thing I definitely expect to see: prepping will be very cool going forward. When you can’t rely on politicians or industrial leaders to exercise leadership, it falls to individuals, families and smaller social units like churches to do so.
I don't agree that videos will replace the experience of traditional, in-person college education. From what I've seen, students have mourned the loss of community as everything was abruptly cancelled. Ideally college isn't just about absorbing facts. It's a social world with a texture to it, and a telecommuting app is a pretty pale substitute. If anything, the coronavirus may delay the embrace of distance learning as in-person interaction becomes more prized and valued.
Baby boom in 9 months
Baby boom in 9 months
I do not know how it is outside Europe, but pandemic and mortality shocks are taken into account in the determination of the capital European insurance companies have to hold.
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/IandF_SA2_SolvencyII_2016.pdf
This is somewhat reassuring. I assume the references to tier one/two/three capital are at least broadly equivalent to the same headings in banking regulation.
Now we get to see who did their risk modelling properly, and who did their risk modelling to get the regulators off their backs. That 99.5% confidence interval makes me think there will be at least a couple of insurers who put this type of scenario at a less than one in 200 probability.
I'm not convinced a baby boom will happen. Do baby booms happen during recessions or depressions? There was a boom after WW2 but not in the early 30s, when >20% were unemployed and had plenty of time.
Baby boom in 9 months
Only for people currently without children...
I agree about telehealth and cruise ships. The cruise ship industry is in for a long contraction.
- Re: telehealth, will we be able to talk with foreign doctors that have been vetted by our insurance provider? I.e., can I chat with a less expensive German doctor about my cough?
- Universities closing? No way. Look at all the seniors that are saddened about missing their last semester. Going to a U is not only about an education; it's also about interacting with thousands of your peers. There will always be people willing to pay for that. There are also many people that just don't do well with distance education.
- Hospitals will be propped up with government funds if necessary. There might even be a short spike of medical equipment purchasing as hospitals and local governments prepare for the next pandemic.
Other things:
- Travel will decline. Not only will the recession decrease travel but so will the desire to spend time in exotic locales with limited medical coverage.
- Will telework increase?
Yeah, not sure about a baby boom in the midst of a pandemic. For one thing, it's not good to run a fever while pregnant, so given the choice, a lot of people might avoid conceiving at this time.
I'd like to believe that telework will become more common. Now that most employers have been forced to give it a trial run, they will hopefully see that it works just fine, and may even save them money in the long run. Hopefully when we are back to mostly normal, hopefully employers will offer at least things like once-per-week telework.
Yes.
A reporter for Bloomberg News said the genie is out of the bottle and not easily going back in.
WFH is LONG overdue.
If I were brought in as a new CEO my first priority would be a WFH experiment for as many employees as possible.
Yeah, not sure about a baby boom in the midst of a pandemic. For one thing, it's not good to run a fever while pregnant, so given the choice, a lot of people might avoid conceiving at this time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-28/the-world-could-be-running-out-of-condoms-because-of-pandemic
Yeah, not sure about a baby boom in the midst of a pandemic. For one thing, it's not good to run a fever while pregnant, so given the choice, a lot of people might avoid conceiving at this time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-28/the-world-could-be-running-out-of-condoms-because-of-pandemic
Well, that's not good!
Thinking more about this, pregnant women also need to worry about the medical system being overwhelmed. It would be a very scary time to be having a baby.
I have heard that infertility treatments are getting cancelled, so in nine months there will definitely be fewer babies born through IVF, etc.
It's going to be the same for any country that manages to arrest the spread of the virus. Once the lockdown succeeds, the next step is to rigorously control and monitor all entrants to ensure that any new vectors are found and isolated as fast as possible before they have a chance to restart the process. And if getting on a plane this summer means I have to spend two weeks in isolation at my destination, and two weeks in isolation when I get home, I'll get in a car and head to the Atlantic coast to visit some of my favourite breweries and go for a few runs in one of the most beautiful places in the world - and support the Irish economy and tourist industry by keeping my money within Ireland.
It's going to be the same for any country that manages to arrest the spread of the virus. Once the lockdown succeeds, the next step is to rigorously control and monitor all entrants to ensure that any new vectors are found and isolated as fast as possible before they have a chance to restart the process. And if getting on a plane this summer means I have to spend two weeks in isolation at my destination, and two weeks in isolation when I get home, I'll get in a car and head to the Atlantic coast to visit some of my favourite breweries and go for a few runs in one of the most beautiful places in the world - and support the Irish economy and tourist industry by keeping my money within Ireland.
I agree - I just don't see international travel returning to the old levels in a short time. For the next year and a half, I expect that all travel will be constrained to those who have a real need. Eventually after a vaccine is created and memories fade, perhaps some level of leisure travel will return.
It's going to be the same for any country that manages to arrest the spread of the virus. Once the lockdown succeeds, the next step is to rigorously control and monitor all entrants to ensure that any new vectors are found and isolated as fast as possible before they have a chance to restart the process. And if getting on a plane this summer means I have to spend two weeks in isolation at my destination, and two weeks in isolation when I get home, I'll get in a car and head to the Atlantic coast to visit some of my favourite breweries and go for a few runs in one of the most beautiful places in the world - and support the Irish economy and tourist industry by keeping my money within Ireland.
I agree - I just don't see international travel returning to the old levels in a short time. For the next year and a half, I expect that all travel will be constrained to those who have a real need. Eventually after a vaccine is created and memories fade, perhaps some level of leisure travel will return.
Maybe I'm missing something, but once the virus is pretty much everywhere, why would travel still be an issue?
I'm not convinced a baby boom will happen. Do baby booms happen during recessions or depressions? There was a boom after WW2 but not in the early 30s, when >20% were unemployed and had plenty of time.
There will definitely be a baby boom due to the close contact of couples combined with boredom. I've been a newborn photographer in south Louisiana for 16 years. There was a HUGE baby boom (aka business boom) nine months after Hurricane Katrina as well as another one nine months after the Saints won the Super Bowl.
Baby boom in 9 months
...
...
- Anti-vaxxers will largely disappear, and those who don't will be heavily ostracized
I truly hope this is the case, but the number of people who are resisting science and public health experts tooth and nail right now (including sometimes on this very forum) is very disheartening. If we can at least just reduce their number, and more people who believe in vaccines generally but don't bother to get their flu shots, I'll be happy.
"Rodney Howard-Browne of The River at Tampa Bay Church in Florida mocked people concerned about the disease as 'pansies' and insisted he would only shutter the doors to his packed church 'when the rapture is taking place.'" Katherine Stewart
In a clip posted to Twitter, pastor Rodney Howard-Browne, leader of the Florida-based Revival Ministries International, told his congregation that "this should be a time of supernatural sustenance, where what you have in your hand will multiply."
"And every day there will be multiplications," he continued. "You look at your toilet paper and you think I'm going to run out of toilet paper, but you have another roll where that one was and you don't know how did that even take place."
Howard-Brown added: "Are the toilet paper rolls getting together and having families now? What is taking place? When you look again, there's still enough. You think you're going to run out but when you look again there's still enough. That's supernatural sustenance."
I don't see people social-distancing in my neighborhood, despite the soft lock-down. Delivery drivers are more abundant around here than ever, so people aren't cooking from home either. People are itching to return to their normal lives.
The virus has simply hastened the end of a lot of service jobs that were doomed anyway.
A fundamental question will be your medical privacy vs. the public right to know. At what point does your health history and your current condition become part of the surveillance state, the transit process.
"Rodney Howard-Browne of The River at Tampa Bay Church in Florida mocked people concerned about the disease as 'pansies' and insisted he would only shutter the doors to his packed church 'when the rapture is taking place.'" Katherine Stewart
I'd like to note that this was the same pastor who told his congregants that God would multiply their toilet rolls.
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-pastor-who-refused-close-church-amid-coronavirus-pandemic-suggests-god-will-help-1494903 (https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-pastor-who-refused-close-church-amid-coronavirus-pandemic-suggests-god-will-help-1494903)QuoteIn a clip posted to Twitter, pastor Rodney Howard-Browne, leader of the Florida-based Revival Ministries International, told his congregation that "this should be a time of supernatural sustenance, where what you have in your hand will multiply."
"And every day there will be multiplications," he continued. "You look at your toilet paper and you think I'm going to run out of toilet paper, but you have another roll where that one was and you don't know how did that even take place."
Howard-Brown added: "Are the toilet paper rolls getting together and having families now? What is taking place? When you look again, there's still enough. You think you're going to run out but when you look again there's still enough. That's supernatural sustenance."
There's really not much hope other than that people like this do not constitute the majority.
I admit this one is wishful thinking:
Research on coronavirus results in a cure for the common cold, leading to the elimination of those viruses and the bankruptcy of cold medication companies.
I imagine we will see a spike in divorces too as spouses are spending a lot more time together under stressful circumstances.
So some people have all day free, and others are now more productive without the distraction of the open plan office, and they don't have the commute. This gives people more spare time.
The academics I know tell me their online courses have a much lower completion rate. We humans are social animals - we need in-person accountability. "The class is at 9, the teacher / my friend expects me there, I'd better get moving."Yep. I'm pretty self-motivated (back to the gym topic). But this is how I manage:
I don't see people social-distancing in my neighborhood, despite the soft lock-down. Delivery drivers are more abundant around here than ever, so people aren't cooking from home either. People are itching to return to their normal lives.
The virus has simply hastened the end of a lot of service jobs that were doomed anyway.
A fundamental question will be your medical privacy vs. the public right to know. At what point does your health history and your current condition become part of the surveillance state, the transit process.
I really feel like they should start naming and shaming those who break their quarantine. If anything it might help act as a deterrent to others thinking of doing the same.
There's no way anyone's getting into Ireland at that point without a very thorough examination.
Baby boom in 9 months
Men keep saying this but absolutely no women I know think this lol. A lot of my friends were actually trying to get pregnant before this and now 100% of them have stopped because:
(1) being pregnant compromises your immune system. Who wants to compromise their immune system during a global pandemic??
(2)WHO ON EARTH wants to have to go to the doctor's regularly for all of the pre-natal check ups you need right now
(3) and then you'd have to go to an overwhelmed hospital to give birth or take your chances at home and pray nothing goes wrong. The United States had one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world before this and now it will only get worse. Hard pass.
I really feel like they should start naming and shaming those who break their quarantine. If anything it might help act as a deterrent to others thinking of doing the same.
Getting that vasectomy two and a half years ago at 26 remains some of my best-spent dollars.Yeah, not sure about a baby boom in the midst of a pandemic. For one thing, it's not good to run a fever while pregnant, so given the choice, a lot of people might avoid conceiving at this time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-28/the-world-could-be-running-out-of-condoms-because-of-pandemic
(https://odditymall.com/includes/content/upload/no-ragrets-temporary-tattoo-2663.jpg)I don't see people social-distancing in my neighborhood, despite the soft lock-down. Delivery drivers are more abundant around here than ever, so people aren't cooking from home either. People are itching to return to their normal lives.
The virus has simply hastened the end of a lot of service jobs that were doomed anyway.
A fundamental question will be your medical privacy vs. the public right to know. At what point does your health history and your current condition become part of the surveillance state, the transit process.
I really feel like they should start naming and shaming those who break their quarantine. If anything it might help act as a deterrent to others thinking of doing the same.
Two words for you:
Face Tattoos
/snip
Figure that would solve the problem right quickly.
I admit this one is wishful thinking:
Research on coronavirus results in a cure for the common cold, leading to the elimination of those viruses and the bankruptcy of cold medication companies.
I'd love to see that happening - my wife is a teacher in primary school, and brings home every cold anyone in her class has (except somehow without actually contracting it herself), so I spend October to April with a sniffle.
I really don't mean to be provocative, but depending on how the US responds to the next phases of the pandemic, I wonder how that will impact the gun rights movement in America. Over here, we are in country-wide lockdown enforced (in different ways in different areas) by the police. New crimes have been created, such as "coronavirus coughing" (deliberately coughing at people and claiming you have coronavirus). I know other countries are tracking mobile data to track transmission.
This seems to me like a classic case of the kind of tyrannical government gun supporters want the right to fight against. Will the lack of such controls be painted as a win by gun supporters? Or, if they come in, will the gun supporters take to the streets to fight it? If not, will their tyrannical government argument no longer hold as much weight?
I think that companies are working harder than normal on automization. Our Norwegian office that pays out unemployement money now has an awful lot to do and said they were automating what they could.
But I can also imagine that factories that are missing employees that are at home are now thinking about automating.
Yeah, not sure about a baby boom in the midst of a pandemic. For one thing, it's not good to run a fever while pregnant, so given the choice, a lot of people might avoid conceiving at this time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-28/the-world-could-be-running-out-of-condoms-because-of-pandemic
Well, that's not good!
Thinking more about this, pregnant women also need to worry about the medical system being overwhelmed. It would be a very scary time to be having a baby.
I have heard that infertility treatments are getting cancelled, so in nine months there will definitely be fewer babies born through IVF, etc.
I have a friend due in about 3 weeks. She seems to be taking it all fairly in stride, but I'd be terrified. Even just having to go to the hospital (and have a tiny, vulnerable baby spend any time there) would be scary. It seems hospitals are limiting it to one person in the delivery room as kind of an attempt at social distancing, which sucks for those who hoped to use a doula.
I think open floor plan houses are going to be a lot less popular.
Nothing to do with the virus itself . . .I think open floor plan houses are going to be a lot less popular.
Meh. If any person in your house has coronavirus, every person in your house does. Don't think the floor plan is going to have any bearing on that.
Nothing to do with the virus itself . . .I think open floor plan houses are going to be a lot less popular.
Meh. If any person in your house has coronavirus, every person in your house does. Don't think the floor plan is going to have any bearing on that.
No commercial air travel should be allowed moving forward.
I mean, if we're serious about wanting to prevent future pandemics. That's how these things spread.
I think that companies are working harder than normal on automization. Our Norwegian office that pays out unemployement money now has an awful lot to do and said they were automating what they could.
But I can also imagine that factories that are missing employees that are at home are now thinking about automating.
This is the ugly side of increased teleworking and benching "non essential" personnel. How many of them will continue to have jobs when the dust settles? If I'm a corporate HR manager or bean counter I'd be looking at whether these people kept home were ever really necessary for the business to operate.
On a more realistic not, i think there will be some kind of EI equivalent program brought in for self employed folks in Canada. The amount the government is shelling out to keep those people afloat to the same level as those who have been paying into EI all along is quite shocking and I think lessons will need to be learned from that. As I understand it, those folks are expected to pay into CPP, paying both the employee and employer portion, I don't understand why they have been exempt from EI.
I admit this one is wishful thinking:
Research on coronavirus results in a cure for the common cold, leading to the elimination of those viruses and the bankruptcy of cold medication companies.
I'd love to see that happening - my wife is a teacher in primary school, and brings home every cold anyone in her class has (except somehow without actually contracting it herself), so I spend October to April with a sniffle.
Yes, us teachers get sick a lot in the early years of teaching. Now we rarely get sick even though we basically work in a germ factory.
I think there will be a new industry in the US (US = any country without universal health care) for people to own their own ventilators, it will start with the 1%ers (who probably already own them likely) and will eventually migrate down to the upper middle classes.
I think what @Zette is referring to is research that reveals how viruses mutate into various strains. Being able to simulate and predict would lead to faster vaccine development and follow-on effects.I admit this one is wishful thinking:
Research on coronavirus results in a cure for the common cold, leading to the elimination of those viruses and the bankruptcy of cold medication companies.
I'd love to see that happening - my wife is a teacher in primary school, and brings home every cold anyone in her class has (except somehow without actually contracting it herself), so I spend October to April with a sniffle.
Yes, us teachers get sick a lot in the early years of teaching. Now we rarely get sick even though we basically work in a germ factory.
Sorry, this "novel coronavirus" is very distinct from the viruses that cause minor colds. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Also, for most people fighting minor colds is good for the immune system.
I think home grocery delivery is going to continue to be popular post-plague. I think that so many people in North America have basically been unaware of its existence until very recently. Certainly when I used it several years ago, the most common response was "What the hell, you can actually do that?"Having joined the essential worked of Instacart in the last week to help in our community, I agree. The number of first time orders is about 80% of what I see and I am doing this only as a side hustle along with food delivery. Unlike food delivery, grocery shopping is a chore people must do and can outsource and pay a hefty sum (tips) to do because they understand how much they hate it. Knowing they can avoid the lines and the hassle of shopping will stick with people for a long time after and I will keep adding to my stash because of it.
Face masks - I hope not as I hope the research explaining what they are actually for will prevail and people will realize that wearing a mask does not lower your chance of infection, it lowers your chance of infecting others, and therefore people will assume you are sick and ask why you are outside.
- Wearing face masks in public will become more socially accepted in Western countries
- Restaurants will reorganize the physical layout of their dining areas to include greater distance between tables
Face masks - I hope not as I hope the research explaining what they are actually for will prevail and people will realize that wearing a mask does not lower your chance of infection, it lowers your chance of infecting others, and therefore people will assume you are sick and ask why you are outside.
Face masks - I hope not as I hope the research explaining what they are actually for will prevail and people will realize that wearing a mask does not lower your chance of infection, it lowers your chance of infecting others
Having spent a good time working in Asia most of the masking there was done for air pollution not for viruses. So people were used to wearing them for that and honestly have no idea if any increase happened with the virus or just the people already wearing them for air pollution.Face masks - I hope not as I hope the research explaining what they are actually for will prevail and people will realize that wearing a mask does not lower your chance of infection, it lowers your chance of infecting others, and therefore people will assume you are sick and ask why you are outside.
Given that people infected with coronavirus shed virus before they show symptoms, anyone who is "healthy" could be spreading it. Plus anything else that is spreading before symptoms start; a person with the common flu is thought to be contagious the day before symptoms start. That person has no idea they have the flu, but they are shedding flu virus. We bundle up in cold weather, why not mask up when we are in a crowd? We would all know we were protecting each other, just in case.
Seriously, this is not something I am used to, but seeing so many Asians in Australian and New Zealand airports before this even started made me realise that our view of what is socially acceptable is not universal, and that other views might have merit. Masks during flu season are starting to seem like a good idea, even when the pandemic is over.
People here are talking about what virus factories little kids are, but I caught so many colds from my College students. We are all potential vectors.
Having spent a good time working in Asia most of the masking there was done for air pollution not for viruses. So people were used to wearing them for that and honestly have no idea if any increase happened with the virus or just the people already wearing them for air pollution.Face masks - I hope not as I hope the research explaining what they are actually for will prevail and people will realize that wearing a mask does not lower your chance of infection, it lowers your chance of infecting others, and therefore people will assume you are sick and ask why you are outside.
Given that people infected with coronavirus shed virus before they show symptoms, anyone who is "healthy" could be spreading it. Plus anything else that is spreading before symptoms start; a person with the common flu is thought to be contagious the day before symptoms start. That person has no idea they have the flu, but they are shedding flu virus. We bundle up in cold weather, why not mask up when we are in a crowd? We would all know we were protecting each other, just in case.
Seriously, this is not something I am used to, but seeing so many Asians in Australian and New Zealand airports before this even started made me realise that our view of what is socially acceptable is not universal, and that other views might have merit. Masks during flu season are starting to seem like a good idea, even when the pandemic is over.
People here are talking about what virus factories little kids are, but I caught so many colds from my College students. We are all potential vectors.
And in the situation we have now, we have a vast shortage of masks, so right now it is the WRONG thing to do. The healthcare community needs them to be available, and ordinary citizens need to stand down. Next fall? Sure, then we can start your method.
ETA: And no sooner do I say this and this appears:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/asia/coronavirus-mask-messaging-intl-hnk/index.html
So looks like things may be changing but the shortage still needs to be thought about.
I think open floor plan houses are going to be a lot less popular.
Meh. If any person in your house has coronavirus, every person in your house does. Don't think the floor plan is going to have any bearing on that.
And I think that food delivery has been an absolute flop, at least in my area.
Having spent a good time working in Asia most of the masking there was done for air pollution not for viruses. So people were used to wearing them for that and honestly have no idea if any increase happened with the virus or just the people already wearing them for air pollution.Face masks - I hope not as I hope the research explaining what they are actually for will prevail and people will realize that wearing a mask does not lower your chance of infection, it lowers your chance of infecting others, and therefore people will assume you are sick and ask why you are outside.
Given that people infected with coronavirus shed virus before they show symptoms, anyone who is "healthy" could be spreading it. Plus anything else that is spreading before symptoms start; a person with the common flu is thought to be contagious the day before symptoms start. That person has no idea they have the flu, but they are shedding flu virus. We bundle up in cold weather, why not mask up when we are in a crowd? We would all know we were protecting each other, just in case.
Seriously, this is not something I am used to, but seeing so many Asians in Australian and New Zealand airports before this even started made me realise that our view of what is socially acceptable is not universal, and that other views might have merit. Masks during flu season are starting to seem like a good idea, even when the pandemic is over.
People here are talking about what virus factories little kids are, but I caught so many colds from my College students. We are all potential vectors.
And in the situation we have now, we have a vast shortage of masks, so right now it is the WRONG thing to do. The healthcare community needs them to be available, and ordinary citizens need to stand down. Next fall? Sure, then we can start your method.
ETA: And no sooner do I say this and this appears:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/asia/coronavirus-mask-messaging-intl-hnk/index.html
So looks like things may be changing but the shortage still needs to be thought about.
And I think that food delivery has been an absolute flop, at least in my area.
I've tried four types of grocery delivery (Costco, Amazon, and two grocery stores) they all suck.
And I think that food delivery has been an absolute flop, at least in my area.
I've tried four types of grocery delivery (Costco, Amazon, and two grocery stores) they all suck.
What sucks? I haven't been to a grocery store in more than a month (Amazon Fresh) and it's been great. I am going to have a hard time giving it up.
And I think that food delivery has been an absolute flop, at least in my area.
I've tried four types of grocery delivery (Costco, Amazon, and two grocery stores) they all suck.
What sucks? I haven't been to a grocery store in more than a month (Amazon Fresh) and it's been great. I am going to have a hard time giving it up.
Earliest delivery was 2+ weeks for any service. Costco is out of supplies of pretty much any staple (you can get caviar and elk meat delivered though). Amazon is sold out of most staples, or is charging crazy prices. The local grocery stores don't have functional websites.
I am hoping that in the US it will lead to allowing nationwide mail in ballots for all elections.
The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again. -President Trump
I love my produce delivery (I have two), but they are SLAMMED. Because of course they are. Both of them hit their max capacity this week.And I think that food delivery has been an absolute flop, at least in my area.
I've tried four types of grocery delivery (Costco, Amazon, and two grocery stores) they all suck.
It would be nice if the US adopted a universal healthcare OR detached healthcare insurance from employment. That just makes people vulnerable.
This is obviously a stupid question, because if it were that easy people in the USA would do it..... but why don't people buy their own health insurance?
In NZ we have universal healthcare, as well as a no fault insurance scheme for accidents that everyone is automatically eligible for - it's not linked to employment or citizenship or anything. If you step off a plane on a tourist visa and twist your ankle, you're covered. It's funded by levies on petrol, cigarettes, employment based levies that come out of your taxes etc. BUT, we can also buy health insurance which basically means you can possibly avoid any public waiting lists, publicly funded treatment criteria (some things are only funded if you meet age or symptom criteria), as well as bet with your insurance company whether you will break your glasses etc. Why do americans not buy their own?
It would be nice if the US adopted a universal healthcare OR detached healthcare insurance from employment. That just makes people vulnerable.
This is obviously a stupid question, because if it were that easy people in the USA would do it..... but why don't people buy their own health insurance?
In NZ we have universal healthcare, as well as a no fault insurance scheme for accidents that everyone is automatically eligible for - it's not linked to employment or citizenship or anything. If you step off a plane on a tourist visa and twist your ankle, you're covered. It's funded by levies on petrol, cigarettes, employment based levies that come out of your taxes etc. BUT, we can also buy health insurance which basically means you can possibly avoid any public waiting lists, publicly funded treatment criteria (some things are only funded if you meet age or symptom criteria), as well as bet with your insurance company whether you will break your glasses etc. Why do americans not buy their own?
Many people do, but it's pretty expensive. For example the cheapest plan we could find for my wife is about $335/month. At that price you still have co-pays every time you get anything done and a $7,900 deductible.
"Cheap" insurance like this still requires paying out of pocket quite a bit too. For example, last year she had a couple of ear infections that required going to urgent care. The bill for those visits, after insurance paid their part, was $700.
It would be nice if the US adopted a universal healthcare OR detached healthcare insurance from employment. That just makes people vulnerable.
This is obviously a stupid question, because if it were that easy people in the USA would do it..... but why don't people buy their own health insurance?
In NZ we have universal healthcare, as well as a no fault insurance scheme for accidents that everyone is automatically eligible for - it's not linked to employment or citizenship or anything. If you step off a plane on a tourist visa and twist your ankle, you're covered. It's funded by levies on petrol, cigarettes, employment based levies that come out of your taxes etc. BUT, we can also buy health insurance which basically means you can possibly avoid any public waiting lists, publicly funded treatment criteria (some things are only funded if you meet age or symptom criteria), as well as bet with your insurance company whether you will break your glasses etc. Why do americans not buy their own?
I eat our rarely, but I could see smart restaurant owners converting to a scaled down delivery/takeout model exclusively. Not just for big city centers but also for suburban communities. Just think, you could convert a strip mall into a string of 10 small take-out/delivery options. You could have a delivery company that handles delivery for all the restaurants and when things get back to normal you could include a decent patio for those who would like to set and eat. Kind of like a mall food court that is outside and offers delivery. Now if only if I had the capital and know how. Oh well. I'm sure I'm not the first with that idea.
It would be nice if the US adopted a universal healthcare OR detached healthcare insurance from employment. That just makes people vulnerable.
This is obviously a stupid question, because if it were that easy people in the USA would do it..... but why don't people buy their own health insurance?
In NZ we have universal healthcare, as well as a no fault insurance scheme for accidents that everyone is automatically eligible for - it's not linked to employment or citizenship or anything. If you step off a plane on a tourist visa and twist your ankle, you're covered. It's funded by levies on petrol, cigarettes, employment based levies that come out of your taxes etc. BUT, we can also buy health insurance which basically means you can possibly avoid any public waiting lists, publicly funded treatment criteria (some things are only funded if you meet age or symptom criteria), as well as bet with your insurance company whether you will break your glasses etc. Why do americans not buy their own?
Many people do, but it's pretty expensive. For example the cheapest plan we could find for my wife is about $335/month. At that price you still have co-pays every time you get anything done and a $7,900 deductible.
"Cheap" insurance like this still requires paying out of pocket quite a bit too. For example, last year she had a couple of ear infections that required going to urgent care. The bill for those visits, after insurance paid their part, was $700.
Most food doesn’t travel well and isn’t hot by the time you get it home. I doubt carry out will replace dining in a restaurant.
I eat our rarely, but I could see smart restaurant owners converting to a scaled down delivery/takeout model exclusively. Not just for big city centers but also for suburban communities. Just think, you could convert a strip mall into a string of 10 small take-out/delivery options. You could have a delivery company that handles delivery for all the restaurants and when things get back to normal you could include a decent patio for those who would like to set and eat. Kind of like a mall food court that is outside and offers delivery. Now if only if I had the capital and know how. Oh well. I'm sure I'm not the first with that idea.
It's to your frugal credit (or low-information diet) that you're just thinking about this now. :)
Ghost kitchen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_kitchen)
Most food doesn’t travel well and isn’t hot by the time you get it home. I doubt carry out will replace dining in a restaurant.
I concur. If I'm going to splurge on eating out, I want to experience of having it prepared well and eating it when it's at its peak. I couldn't imagine paying to eat out at anything like a "sit down" restaurant but doing it take out. I don't even see many people doing it now when there's no option to eat in the restaurant.
Most food doesn’t travel well and isn’t hot by the time you get it home. I doubt carry out will replace dining in a restaurant.
I concur. If I'm going to splurge on eating out, I want to experience of having it prepared well and eating it when it's at its peak. I couldn't imagine paying to eat out at anything like a "sit down" restaurant but doing it take out. I don't even see many people doing it now when there's no option to eat in the restaurant.
I see Outback advertising take-out. The closest one to me is 20 minutes away (on a good day traffic-wise) and eating a steak that's been sitting out that long does not sound appealing.
I think there will be a new industry in the US (US = any country without universal health care) for people to own their own ventilators, it will start with the 1%ers (who probably already own them likely) and will eventually migrate down to the upper middle classes.
I also think that tourism to US will be really limited from a risk point.
Economists will tell us that it's more efficient to do the manufacturing where it's cheapest, but I think it would also be much more robust if we could do everything in North America and Europe as well as Asia.
Distributing global industry more evenly would actually make the world economy more robust, would it not? For example, most technology manufacturing is done in Taiwan and China. Most of the wealthier countries no longer have the ability to manufacture state of the art integrated circuits. This would lead to more trade barriers and increased nationalism. Economists will tell us that it's more efficient to do the manufacturing where it's cheapest, but I think it would also be much more robust if we could do everything in North America and Europe as well as Asia.
Another topic, the reduction in air travel has got to help the climate change situation. I've never liked air travel much and the 30 year trend of packing passengers in tighter and tighter makes me actively avoid air travel if at all possible. Aside from consolidation and bankruptcies, I wonder how this will affect the airline industry in the long term. I would think people will consider paying more for more personal space next year.
Now that the majority of commercial gyms in my area are closed and a lot of the high rises with gyms are now locking them down, I’m wondering if we’ll see more trails built out for exercise use. I’ve seen more people exercising in the streets in my commute this week for sure. Look out for traffic when crossing the street, Runners!
I eat our rarely, but I could see smart restaurant owners converting to a scaled down delivery/takeout model exclusively. Not just for big city centers but also for suburban communities. Just think, you could convert a strip mall into a string of 10 small take-out/delivery options. You could have a delivery company that handles delivery for all the restaurants and when things get back to normal you could include a decent patio for those who would like to set and eat. Kind of like a mall food court that is outside and offers delivery. Now if only if I had the capital and know how. Oh well. I'm sure I'm not the first with that idea.
I also think that tourism to US will be really limited from a risk point.
Just curious, what risk are you referring to? As one who lives here, maybe it's equivalent to that saying about how fish don't notice the water because they live in it? The only thing I can think of is that I've heard some people outside the US mention that they're concerned about the cost of healthcare here, but wouldn't travel health insurance cover that?
I also think that tourism to US will be really limited from a risk point.
Just curious, what risk are you referring to? As one who lives here, maybe it's equivalent to that saying about how fish don't notice the water because they live in it? The only thing I can think of is that I've heard some people outside the US mention that they're concerned about the cost of healthcare here, but wouldn't travel health insurance cover that?
The health care cost is dealt with insurance but before the Coronavirus has dissappeared totally you have a large portion of population that has no health insurance or really high cost of health insurance that will deterr people from seeking help, has no sickdays and maybe no financial means to stay home if they are sick. I would also guess that if the virus continues to spread as it is doing now the travel ban to US will not be lifted in a while.
I also think that tourism to US will be really limited from a risk point.
Just curious, what risk are you referring to? As one who lives here, maybe it's equivalent to that saying about how fish don't notice the water because they live in it? The only thing I can think of is that I've heard some people outside the US mention that they're concerned about the cost of healthcare here, but wouldn't travel health insurance cover that?
The health care cost is dealt with insurance but before the Coronavirus has dissappeared totally you have a large portion of population that has no health insurance or really high cost of health insurance that will deterr people from seeking help, has no sickdays and maybe no financial means to stay home if they are sick. I would also guess that if the virus continues to spread as it is doing now the travel ban to US will not be lifted in a while.
I see. I was thinking post-COVID, since that's in the title of the thread.
Several of ours are doing this. One Mexican place selling family meal kits, but also 1-25 lb bags of rice, beans. Tortillas, tomatoes, eggs, avocados.I eat our rarely, but I could see smart restaurant owners converting to a scaled down delivery/takeout model exclusively. Not just for big city centers but also for suburban communities. Just think, you could convert a strip mall into a string of 10 small take-out/delivery options. You could have a delivery company that handles delivery for all the restaurants and when things get back to normal you could include a decent patio for those who would like to set and eat. Kind of like a mall food court that is outside and offers delivery. Now if only if I had the capital and know how. Oh well. I'm sure I'm not the first with that idea.
I read an article about restaurants branching out and selling meal kits and even just straight up groceries. They can still get things from their suppliers, and they are reselling them. Sometimes it is a 25 pound bag of flour, but sometimes it is an individual can of beans. (Now, whether those beans and that flour are labeled for legal individual sale, I don't know.) At a time when many stores are sold out of basics, it's a way to get more of them to people, and for these small businesses to get some revenue.
There's a taco shop near us selling home taco kits (and including a roll of toilet paper with each one).
I eat our rarely, but I could see smart restaurant owners converting to a scaled down delivery/takeout model exclusively. Not just for big city centers but also for suburban communities. Just think, you could convert a strip mall into a string of 10 small take-out/delivery options. You could have a delivery company that handles delivery for all the restaurants and when things get back to normal you could include a decent patio for those who would like to set and eat. Kind of like a mall food court that is outside and offers delivery. Now if only if I had the capital and know how. Oh well. I'm sure I'm not the first with that idea.
I read an article about restaurants branching out and selling meal kits and even just straight up groceries. They can still get things from their suppliers, and they are reselling them. Sometimes it is a 25 pound bag of flour, but sometimes it is an individual can of beans. (Now, whether those beans and that flour are labeled for legal individual sale, I don't know.) At a time when many stores are sold out of basics, it's a way to get more of them to people, and for these small businesses to get some revenue.
There's a taco shop near us selling home taco kits (and including a roll of toilet paper with each one).
It’s estimated here that 70% of work cannot be WFH. The MMM forum tends to include more of the 30%, so we tend to think that a WFH blitz is feasible.
My dh is WFH and not enjoying it one bit. He says everything takes a million times longer. He’s pretty crabby about the whole thing.
We love cruises and go once or twice a year. Don’t know if I will ever get on one again.
My dh is WFH and not enjoying it one bit. He says everything takes a million times longer. He’s pretty crabby about the whole thing.
I know what has changed for me:
1. No longer as interested in international travel. Permanent change in my view. Lots of beautiful things to see locally and sanitation and environmental control and management are way more important to me.
2. Even more interested in permaculture and gardening.
3. I have permanently lost some faith in the ability of a significant proportion of our population to exercise critical thought and embrace logical steps for survival. I have realized that a lot of people don't know how to research and make good decisions - or have no inclination to do so and just follow whatever someone in charge says. No, seriously. The whole face mask thing. WTF? I spent a lot of time raising awareness about this in my local community, had all the research and contacted the right people. Only now is there a start to community change on this topic because the CDC has indicated they may recommend cloth masks. I still get angry push-back from people who are convinced that face masks are dangerous for the general public to wear because they'll infect themselves. And the information is readily available for anyone to review on the internet. I've now stopped advocating because I think we've reached a critical mass of awareness, but man was a lot of that a thankless waste of time beyond my immediate family and friends and perhaps some of those in leadership.
4. Leading directly from point 3, I am more interested in developing greater self-sufficiency and connection within a small circle of family and friends. Not a crazy prepper type thing, but a circle of people who make sense. I will probably not advocate for anything again except to higher levels of government or through the legal system.
I think there will be some changes but I don't think skipping sporting events, concerts, cruises will be part of that.
Why? We had to close parks and beaches with gates and cops to keep people from congregating. We've had to threaten large fines and even jail time to get some affected people to stay the fuck home out of it. Based on that, I think people will go right back to their old ways as soon as it is socially acceptable to do so.
I have permanently lost some faith in the ability of a significant proportion of our population to exercise critical thought and embrace logical steps for survival. I have realized that a lot of people don't know how to research and make good decisions
2, depression and suicide will increase. I predict the opposite, because a universal crisis is a focusing moment like no other. Of course not every severely mentally ill person will be improved, but many who were suffering mental illness due to affluenza (and whether we realize it or not, we are all suffering from this in one degree or another be it WRT food, entertainment, stuff or money), loneliness, lack of purpose, addiction, societal violence/trauma, school shootings, will be.
2, depression and suicide will increase. I predict the opposite, because a universal crisis is a focusing moment like no other.When you're broke, hungry, and essentially locked inside your home, it's kind of hard to be thinking about how it's all for the public good.
2, depression and suicide will increase. I predict the opposite, because a universal crisis is a focusing moment like no other.When you're broke, hungry, and essentially locked inside your home, it's kind of hard to be thinking about how it's all for the public good.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
I think America has burned a of bridges over the last few years. I think that even your administration might be unaware of just how many, because other countries are still using a little thing called diplomacy. It's kind of like bad service in a restaurant - you might not complain, but you won't go back and you'll tell your friends. Whether Trump gets in or not, the USA might find far fewer countries willing to get involved in whatever the USA is wanting to do. If Trump does get in, that effect will be ten fold. This thing with Canada and the masks? Trudeau isn't a complete arse, so he won't be retaliating...... but I bet he won't be backing the USA for much in the future.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
I think America has burned a of bridges over the last few years. I think that even your administration might be unaware of just how many, because other countries are still using a little thing called diplomacy. It's kind of like bad service in a restaurant - you might not complain, but you won't go back and you'll tell your friends. Whether Trump gets in or not, the USA might find far fewer countries willing to get involved in whatever the USA is wanting to do. If Trump does get in, that effect will be ten fold. This thing with Canada and the masks? Trudeau isn't a complete arse, so he won't be retaliating...... but I bet he won't be backing the USA for much in the future.
Except that all these other countries have done the exact same thing:
France seizes masks: https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/france-seizes-millions-of-masks-gloves-intended-for-spain-and-italy
Germany seizes masks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/germany-faces-backlash-from-neighbors-over-mask-export-ban
Germany bans export of medical supplies: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-germany-exports/germany-bans-export-of-medical-protection-gear-due-to-coronavirus-idUSL8N2AX3D9
Germany, again, seizing medical supplies going to Switzerland: https://www.rt.com/news/483582-germany--switzerland-medical-supplies-coronavirus/
India reducing pharma exports: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-drugs/europe-panicking-over-indias-pharmaceutical-export-curbs-industry-group-idUSKBN20R1MD
China nationalizing 3M factory: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html
I could go on. I found all of these with like three minutes of google searching, with slightly more effort there are hundreds of such articles
It's amazing how 50 people will do something and Trump is one of them and then all of a sudden it's like everyone suddenly comes down with selective short term memory loss.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
I think America has burned a of bridges over the last few years. I think that even your administration might be unaware of just how many, because other countries are still using a little thing called diplomacy. It's kind of like bad service in a restaurant - you might not complain, but you won't go back and you'll tell your friends. Whether Trump gets in or not, the USA might find far fewer countries willing to get involved in whatever the USA is wanting to do. If Trump does get in, that effect will be ten fold. This thing with Canada and the masks? Trudeau isn't a complete arse, so he won't be retaliating...... but I bet he won't be backing the USA for much in the future.
Except that all these other countries have done the exact same thing:
France seizes masks: https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/france-seizes-millions-of-masks-gloves-intended-for-spain-and-italy
Germany seizes masks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/germany-faces-backlash-from-neighbors-over-mask-export-ban
Germany bans export of medical supplies: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-germany-exports/germany-bans-export-of-medical-protection-gear-due-to-coronavirus-idUSL8N2AX3D9
Germany, again, seizing medical supplies going to Switzerland: https://www.rt.com/news/483582-germany--switzerland-medical-supplies-coronavirus/
India reducing pharma exports: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-drugs/europe-panicking-over-indias-pharmaceutical-export-curbs-industry-group-idUSKBN20R1MD
China nationalizing 3M factory: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html
I could go on. I found all of these with like three minutes of google searching, with slightly more effort there are hundreds of such articles
It's amazing how 50 people will do something and Trump is one of them and then all of a sudden it's like everyone suddenly comes down with selective short term memory loss.
Have you read those articles? I followed the articles about Germany back to their sources and it seems the shipments were illegal. That's why they were seized. No one is suggesting that countries don't have the right to limit exports of items they need domestically. That's different from taking goods that had been paid for by another country while they were being moved from one plane to another in a third country.
You don't have to worry about what's true and what isn't. It will all come out in the years and years of analysis after this pandemic. Courses will be taught in universities about how it was handled. I personally don't think the USA will come out looking too neighbourly, but that's just my opinion.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
This pisses me off. How could we be so sloppy as to rely on foreign sources for things like N95 masks?
We had a huge stockpile (55M) of masks from the sars outbreak 15 years ago and nobody was managing them. (Most of them have expired)
I wonder if they're really useless now.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
I think America has burned a of bridges over the last few years. I think that even your administration might be unaware of just how many, because other countries are still using a little thing called diplomacy. It's kind of like bad service in a restaurant - you might not complain, but you won't go back and you'll tell your friends. Whether Trump gets in or not, the USA might find far fewer countries willing to get involved in whatever the USA is wanting to do. If Trump does get in, that effect will be ten fold. This thing with Canada and the masks? Trudeau isn't a complete arse, so he won't be retaliating...... but I bet he won't be backing the USA for much in the future.
Except that all these other countries have done the exact same thing:
France seizes masks: https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/france-seizes-millions-of-masks-gloves-intended-for-spain-and-italy
Germany seizes masks: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/germany-faces-backlash-from-neighbors-over-mask-export-ban
Germany bans export of medical supplies: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-germany-exports/germany-bans-export-of-medical-protection-gear-due-to-coronavirus-idUSL8N2AX3D9
Germany, again, seizing medical supplies going to Switzerland: https://www.rt.com/news/483582-germany--switzerland-medical-supplies-coronavirus/
India reducing pharma exports: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-drugs/europe-panicking-over-indias-pharmaceutical-export-curbs-industry-group-idUSKBN20R1MD
China nationalizing 3M factory: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html
I could go on. I found all of these with like three minutes of google searching, with slightly more effort there are hundreds of such articles
It's amazing how 50 people will do something and Trump is one of them and then all of a sudden it's like everyone suddenly comes down with selective short term memory loss.
Have you read those articles? I followed the articles about Germany back to their sources and it seems the shipments were illegal. That's why they were seized. No one is suggesting that countries don't have the right to limit exports of items they need domestically. That's different from taking goods that had been paid for by another country while they were being moved from one plane to another in a third country.
You don't have to worry about what's true and what isn't. It will all come out in the years and years of analysis after this pandemic. Courses will be taught in universities about how it was handled. I personally don't think the USA will come out looking too neighbourly, but that's just my opinion.
If I had to guess, the truth will be in the eye of the beholder, and the version told by the CCP, Russia, USA, Europe, etc. will all be very different. And they will all contain some truths and some distortions, either intentionally or due to the blinders of ideological bias.
My understanding is that it is the feeling of a loss of social/economic status and being on the wrong side of significant societal inequality that drives a lot of mental health issues and suicides. When economic pain is generalised among a large group of people then that is less of a factor. The big issue will be how societies come out of this: will those who have lost most from the shutdown have a ladder back to prosperity and will there be measures to help lessen economic inequalities, or will the fat cats and the profiteers be allowed to get even richer while the working classes get left behind?QuoteWhen you're broke, hungry, and essentially locked inside your home, it's kind of hard to be thinking about how it's all for the public good.
Yeah, we're not broke or hungry yet, but my husband did lose his job because of this. He's happy about that because it was a dangerous job with a shitty employer and they were taking advantage of him, and he'd rather be alive than going into virus-filled areas with no protection. But he's itching to get back to work, and will likely not have trouble (the shitty folks are begging already) since he does work most people are relying on right now.
The question of whether a pandemic and/or global crisis is positively or negatively correlated with depression and suicide is not easily answered. Poverty is not associated with suicide, but unemployment is, and the Depression did have a high suicide rate. War tends to have a lower rate. And I can't find anything that studies how a pandemic affects suicide and mental health. However, part of the reason I made a prediction that mental health would improve is because suicide rates have been unusually high in the last few years and no one knows the reason (social media, drugs, mental health). So if they were high already, the pandemic might cause them to fall.
My understanding is that it is the feeling of a loss of social/economic status and being on the wrong side of significant societal inequality that drives a lot of mental health issues and suicides. When economic pain is generalised among a large group of people then that is less of a factor. The big issue will be how societies come out of this: will those who have lost most from the shutdown have a ladder back to prosperity and will there be measures to help lessen economic inequalities, or will the fat cats and the profiteers be allowed to get even richer while the working classes get left behind?QuoteWhen you're broke, hungry, and essentially locked inside your home, it's kind of hard to be thinking about how it's all for the public good.
Yeah, we're not broke or hungry yet, but my husband did lose his job because of this. He's happy about that because it was a dangerous job with a shitty employer and they were taking advantage of him, and he'd rather be alive than going into virus-filled areas with no protection. But he's itching to get back to work, and will likely not have trouble (the shitty folks are begging already) since he does work most people are relying on right now.
The question of whether a pandemic and/or global crisis is positively or negatively correlated with depression and suicide is not easily answered. Poverty is not associated with suicide, but unemployment is, and the Depression did have a high suicide rate. War tends to have a lower rate. And I can't find anything that studies how a pandemic affects suicide and mental health. However, part of the reason I made a prediction that mental health would improve is because suicide rates have been unusually high in the last few years and no one knows the reason (social media, drugs, mental health). So if they were high already, the pandemic might cause them to fall.
Interestingly, suicide is not correlated with socio-economic status. It's highly correlated with gun ownership (not the only factor of course). In America, white males comprise 70% of all suicides, while African Americans have the lowest rate of all ethnicities. Latin America has high poverty and inequality and the lowest suicide rates in the world.
Sources:
1. https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
2. work I completed for a public health agency
Interestingly, suicide is not correlated with socio-economic status. It's highly correlated with gun ownership (not the only factor of course). In America, white males comprise 70% of all suicides, while African Americans have the lowest rate of all ethnicities. Latin America has high poverty and inequality and the lowest suicide rates in the world.
Sources:
1. https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
2. work I completed for a public health agency
OT
Malcom Gladwell's latest book Talking to Strangers talks about the link of the rate of suicide to the individual's preferred method of suicide. It is pretty fascinating. He talks about how the UK switching from coal gas to natural gas eliminated the option of sticking your head in an oven, and how as a result suicide deaths plummeted. The argument is that if the preferred method of suicide is not available, people don't go out and find another method, contrary to what is common belief. He made the same argument about putting rails up on the Golden Gate Bridge.
Thought you might enjoy the book.
Somewhat more people, but not most people, will remember being short on money when they were out of a job and will start spending less.
This will be good for them, but not good for the economy as a whole as it will make it harder for businesses who (barely) got through the upcoming bad times to ever recover.
Will the concept of checking in on our isolated mentally ill/unstable cohort remain once we’ve returned to business as usual? I had been in a lot of communication with a college friend who is now schizophrenic and oh my gosh call me a villain but I had to stop communicating with her. I’m afraid telehealth is not going to be enough support for her but she also needs to take some responsibility and do what she needs to do. Don’t be arguing with schizophrenics, lesson learned.
- Online courses / e-learning / homeschooling. For both K-12 and universities, I think the sudden wide availability of school at home will continue. Many people may permanently pull their kids out of school over ongoing illness issues now that they've been forced to learn to homeschool.
- Universities will go bankrupt eventually. Lots of money is tied up in having a fancy campus. With universities being closed we are learning the optics of those fancy buildings do little to contribute to the education of students. Please note, I am not arguing that university buildings themselves are pointless. Many hours spent in science labs were the fundamentals of my education. The $$$ spent on optics for a university may no longer be valued as much.
I really don't mean to be provocative, but depending on how the US responds to the next phases of the pandemic, I wonder how that will impact the gun rights movement in America. Over here, we are in country-wide lockdown enforced (in different ways in different areas) by the police. New crimes have been created, such as "coronavirus coughing" (deliberately coughing at people and claiming you have coronavirus). I know other countries are tracking mobile data to track transmission.
This seems to me like a classic case of the kind of tyrannical government gun supporters want the right to fight against. Will the lack of such controls be painted as a win by gun supporters? Or, if they come in, will the gun supporters take to the streets to fight it? If not, will their tyrannical government argument no longer hold as much weight?
The pandemic might spell the end of the typical movie theater.I don't really see that happening. I like watching movies in the comfort of my own home, when I can pause and go pee.
With theaters closed for COVID, studios are releasing their new films onto streaming platforms. For a long time the theaters were able to combat streaming and give themselves a window of exclusive time. But that might not be the case in the future.
The theaters that survive will have some sort of gimmick. Like an interesting atmosphere or other entertainments to go along with the film which you can't experience at home.
The average suburban multiplexes probably aren't going to hack it. They might struggle to survive for a few more years, but ultimately they will go the way of Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.
The pandemic might spell the end of the typical movie theater.I don't really see that happening. I like watching movies in the comfort of my own home, when I can pause and go pee.
With theaters closed for COVID, studios are releasing their new films onto streaming platforms. For a long time the theaters were able to combat streaming and give themselves a window of exclusive time. But that might not be the case in the future.
The theaters that survive will have some sort of gimmick. Like an interesting atmosphere or other entertainments to go along with the film which you can't experience at home.
The average suburban multiplexes probably aren't going to hack it. They might struggle to survive for a few more years, but ultimately they will go the way of Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.
But my husband LOVES the theater. It's his thing. He goes often (compared to me anyway, maybe 6 movies a year), and with our kid, and I bought him a gift card for Christmas. What's more, I know several people who see a LOT of movies. Weekly, at least.
Added to that, there are now (in several metro areas) "fancy" theaters where they serve food and drinks (I remember in the 1990s, we had one small theater that did that). I see the popularity of those growing, not reducing.
Cash will probably go away. I know most here don't use cash but I imagine the look of horror and disgust a cashier will have when someone tried to pay with virus encrusted dollars that they must touch and return in change. I wonder if pole dancers, strippers, etc take Am Ex.They'll wear NFC payment system like Square's reader for contactless. Wonder if they'll accept chip insertion or mag stripe... hmmm... only one way to find out.
Cash will probably go away. I know most here don't use cash but I imagine the look of horror and disgust a cashier will have when someone tried to pay with virus encrusted dollars that they must touch and return in change. I wonder if pole dancers, strippers, etc take Am Ex.They'll wear NFC payment system like Square's reader for contactless. Wonder if they'll accept chip insertion or mag stripe... hmmm... only one way to find out.
"Honey, this is a research trip to Club de Tetas."
Will people try to move to jobs/careers that are more 'essential'?
2, depression and suicide will increase. I predict the opposite, because a universal crisis is a focusing moment like no other. Of course not every severely mentally ill person will be improved, but many who were suffering mental illness due to affluenza (and whether we realize it or not, we are all suffering from this in one degree or another be it WRT food, entertainment, stuff or money), loneliness, lack of purpose, addiction, societal violence/trauma, school shootings, will be.
I think there will unfortunately be many suicides of healthcare workers relating to this. Some remembrances have already been shared on some of my wife's closed physicians groups.
Will people try to move to jobs/careers that are more 'essential'?
I am luckily in a job that pays no matter what happens (well almost, but pretty close). I've stuck with this job primarily because of the stability it provides. I've abandoned dreams and hopes of turning something I love into a job that pays enough, because nothing I'm interested in doing pays enough to support me and my ex wife and my kids like this job does. Now, this 'sacrifice' is paying off, I don't have to stress about unemployment at all, even if I'm doing zero work.
I see others who are self-employed or in businesses that don't provide anything essential to a society in an emergency, and many are SOL as their businesses can't operate.
This isn't a judgement on their choices, there are pros and cons to each side. But will this event push those who took risks to do things they love that aren't really necessary back to bland grinding jobs with more security?
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
This pisses me off. How could we be so sloppy as to rely on foreign sources for things like N95 masks?
We had a huge stockpile (55M) of masks from the sars outbreak 15 years ago and nobody was managing them. (Most of them have expired)
I wonder if they're really useless now.
I'm going to try to state this in as neutral a way as possible:
If Trump is reelected, or comes quite close, then there will be substantial changes to both world politics and to corporate structures.
The news from 3M that the Trump administration had tried to stop them from exporting masks to Canada, and the reports about shipments to other countries being redirected to the States and Trump's efforts to gain sole access to a vaccine, will probably spur other countries to plan for a different future in which their economies and supply chains are separated as much as possible from the US. There is at this point little benefit to being allied to the US as long as Trump remains in charge.
For similar reasons, a lot of global corporations will either seriously consider splitting themselves up or else shifting their headquarters elsewhere to avoid being caught between two competing countries. If an American company's factory in Germany, for example, can be ordered to export all essential supplies to the US, then forced nationalisation of the facility by Germany becomes a real risk. Shift HQ to Dublin, though, and the company is now an EU firm with American operations.
This pisses me off. How could we be so sloppy as to rely on foreign sources for things like N95 masks?
We had a huge stockpile (55M) of masks from the sars outbreak 15 years ago and nobody was managing them. (Most of them have expired)
I wonder if they're really useless now.
Regarding expiration: I believe the main risk is that the elastic straps degraded. If they were properly stored there is a chance they are ok.
I think pre-trump it was reasonable for the is and Canada to say: hey you make masks, we'll make gowns, we can each make our thing cheaper, and we'll swap.
Personal side note: I have been spending less because how much we are staying indoors.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
Personal side note: I have been spending less because how much we are staying indoors.Post COVID, I don't think anything will change. Although I'd like it to. I believe that once this lockdown comes to an end, we'll simply see people flooding back into the shops and restaurants and ramping consumption, pollution and spending back up to previous levels.
Sadly I don't think many people will reflect on the fact that in many ways they may well be happier and more content, but they simply don't realise it because they have been robbed of watching sport on the TV and sitting around in a bar getting drunk or hitting the drive-thru McDonald's twice a day.
I would add that the world of sports is ripe for a change. People may recognize that it is not an important part of their lives, they may not be as comfortable with large gatherings and the economics of big sports will shift.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
This is like reading a book from 30 years ago.
I can understand that some elderly people don't have computers or smartphones but then I am talking about people that are in their 80s or 90s like my grandfather. But even they have debit cards and bank accounts. Can't low income people get bank accounts or why do they not have bank accounts? How do you get your pension or salary paid out? Here you can't even get your pension or salary paid out if you don't have a bank account. Everyone can get a debit card but I guess not a credit card and internet banking is the norm and the cheapest option for paying your bills.
You can do your taxes by text message or internet if you need to do deductions. We have some talk about digitalization going to fast for elderly but I haven't seen any talk about problems for low income-people because most of the people have smartphones. There has also been some talk about that the updates in phones are forcing people to update their phones too often and that is a problem for low income earners and those with low pensions.
Organisations for retired, libraries and some institutions are offering courses for elderly to learn to use smartphones, iPads and computers.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
This is like reading a book from 30 years ago.
I can understand that some elderly people don't have computers or smartphones but then I am talking about people that are in their 80s or 90s like my grandfather. But even they have debit cards and bank accounts. Can't low income people get bank accounts or why do they not have bank accounts? How do you get your pension or salary paid out? Here you can't even get your pension or salary paid out if you don't have a bank account. Everyone can get a debit card but I guess not a credit card and internet banking is the norm and the cheapest option for paying your bills.
You can do your taxes by text message or internet if you need to do deductions. We have some talk about digitalization going to fast for elderly but I haven't seen any talk about problems for low income-people because most of the people have smartphones. There has also been some talk about that the updates in phones are forcing people to update their phones too often and that is a problem for low income earners and those with low pensions.
Organisations for retired, libraries and some institutions are offering courses for elderly to learn to use smartphones, iPads and computers.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
This is like reading a book from 30 years ago.
I can understand that some elderly people don't have computers or smartphones but then I am talking about people that are in their 80s or 90s like my grandfather. But even they have debit cards and bank accounts. Can't low income people get bank accounts or why do they not have bank accounts? How do you get your pension or salary paid out? Here you can't even get your pension or salary paid out if you don't have a bank account. Everyone can get a debit card but I guess not a credit card and internet banking is the norm and the cheapest option for paying your bills.
You can do your taxes by text message or internet if you need to do deductions. We have some talk about digitalization going to fast for elderly but I haven't seen any talk about problems for low income-people because most of the people have smartphones. There has also been some talk about that the updates in phones are forcing people to update their phones too often and that is a problem for low income earners and those with low pensions.
Organisations for retired, libraries and some institutions are offering courses for elderly to learn to use smartphones, iPads and computers.
It can be $25/ month or more to get a bank account. A debit card might require a certain balance, in addition to monthly or transaction fees. For a while low wage places like McDonald's were trying to pay employees with these high fee debit cards.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.A friend of mine was in the process of writing an article about all the things you could no longer pay for with cash if you don't have a bank account, debt or CC and finding alternate ways to pay for things. This was before the pandemic and even then it was a fairly long list of essential things. Now, and into the future, that list is likely to grow if basics (like food) can't be bought with cash.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
For most of the people he interviewed it was difficult to even get their employer to give them a paper check to cash at a check cashing place instead of direct deposit to a bank account they didn't have. Most other things like utilities could be paid with Money Orders (those still exist with a fee) but paying rent, mortgage, etc were close to impossible as landlords and loan places move to accepting online payment only. These are people that have no internet, computer, CC, bank accounts or debit cards. It was already tough for them and I think now and going forward it may be impossible. Throw in the "don't trust the internet with my financial stuff" people and the older non-tech users and people like me who never buy anything online and are Luddites for the most part (no I don't own a computer and normally don't have home internet) and those people will need to make a big shift in order to keep functioning.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
This is like reading a book from 30 years ago.
I can understand that some elderly people don't have computers or smartphones but then I am talking about people that are in their 80s or 90s like my grandfather. But even they have debit cards and bank accounts. Can't low income people get bank accounts or why do they not have bank accounts? How do you get your pension or salary paid out? Here you can't even get your pension or salary paid out if you don't have a bank account. Everyone can get a debit card but I guess not a credit card and internet banking is the norm and the cheapest option for paying your bills.
You can do your taxes by text message or internet if you need to do deductions. We have some talk about digitalization going to fast for elderly but I haven't seen any talk about problems for low income-people because most of the people have smartphones. There has also been some talk about that the updates in phones are forcing people to update their phones too often and that is a problem for low income earners and those with low pensions.
Organisations for retired, libraries and some institutions are offering courses for elderly to learn to use smartphones, iPads and computers.
It can be $25/ month or more to get a bank account. A debit card might require a certain balance, in addition to monthly or transaction fees. For a while low wage places like McDonald's were trying to pay employees with these high fee debit cards.
It is like the banks are robbing people. So, cost of banking is a problem. The articles talked a lot about loans but I figured you could use services like paying bills etc. You should look into banking in Africa as a model instead of the postal office. They manage a lot of the banking through cellphones.
I pay about 45 USD per year to get the internet banking, a debit and a credit card. I would ditch the cards, that I don't use because I use a credit card that gets me bonus points for flights, it would drop to 15 USD per year. 30-45 USD is a pretty average cost for internetbanking, accounts, cards etc here. Actually, it is really expensive if you want to pay your bills at the bank and don't do it through internet or trough autopay, where they make an automatic withdrawal from your account.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
Lightning-fast transitions away from cash, away from in-person shopping, etc. (yes I know we're already moving in that direction) will REALLY hurt the poor and elderly.
I don't know if most technophiles/high income earners think about this or not?
I have a LOT of low-income clients who don't even have email addresses, much less electronic ways to order stuff, pay for stuff, etc. Yes, they already struggle in society in a multitude of ways, but we have to be careful not to leave more "off the grid" people totally behind. The older guy in front of me at the grocery last week paid with a check. Yes, he did. I don't think I've paid in person with a check for a decade or more, maybe 15 years?
Many of my clients don't have bank accounts. They don't have debit cards or credit cards, they have cash and that's how they make transactions. They have to physically go to a store and use it. And these folks aren't going away any time soon.
The school district for my city is trying to distribute chromebooks to families because SO many families don't even have a SINGLE pc/ipad/chromebook (whereas the "typical middle class family" these days probably has between 5-10 devices of different kinds at home)
I've found it odd that we don't, as a nation, offer ongoing technology education to our citizens. If we want to help teach people to "get on the grid," and then to actually stay up to date with all the constant changes, we are going to have to provide education and probably the devices to help them do that. And tech changes sooooo rapidly, what we learn now may be totally different in 2 years. I'd love to see some sort of "tech rollout" with the next administration.
So yes, I worry about who will be left even further behind if we go LIGHTSPEED with all of these changes.
This is like reading a book from 30 years ago.
I can understand that some elderly people don't have computers or smartphones but then I am talking about people that are in their 80s or 90s like my grandfather. But even they have debit cards and bank accounts. Can't low income people get bank accounts or why do they not have bank accounts? How do you get your pension or salary paid out? Here you can't even get your pension or salary paid out if you don't have a bank account. Everyone can get a debit card but I guess not a credit card and internet banking is the norm and the cheapest option for paying your bills.
You can do your taxes by text message or internet if you need to do deductions. We have some talk about digitalization going to fast for elderly but I haven't seen any talk about problems for low income-people because most of the people have smartphones. There has also been some talk about that the updates in phones are forcing people to update their phones too often and that is a problem for low income earners and those with low pensions.
Organisations for retired, libraries and some institutions are offering courses for elderly to learn to use smartphones, iPads and computers.
It can be $25/ month or more to get a bank account. A debit card might require a certain balance, in addition to monthly or transaction fees. For a while low wage places like McDonald's were trying to pay employees with these high fee debit cards.
It is like the banks are robbing people. So, cost of banking is a problem. The articles talked a lot about loans but I figured you could use services like paying bills etc. You should look into banking in Africa as a model instead of the postal office. They manage a lot of the banking through cellphones.
I pay about 45 USD per year to get the internet banking, a debit and a credit card. I would ditch the cards, that I don't use because I use a credit card that gets me bonus points for flights, it would drop to 15 USD per year. 30-45 USD is a pretty average cost for internetbanking, accounts, cards etc here. Actually, it is really expensive if you want to pay your bills at the bank and don't do it through internet or trough autopay, where they make an automatic withdrawal from your account.
I have banked with a dozen or so banks in my life. Aside from an insufficient balance one time and the cost of ordering checks, I've never paid a bank fee.
I have banked with a dozen or so banks in my life. Aside from an insufficient balance one time and the cost of ordering checks, I've never paid a bank fee.
Many banks require something like a $100 balance to avoid a fee. It sounds crazy to us, but for lots of people that's a real problem.
But back to the topic, I personally don't see how we can allow any large crowds for at least 1.5 years, until there is widespread distribution of a vaccine.
Now, will some events go on? Maybe?
MLB is trying to roll out an interesting form of play for May/June, which sounds potentially workable (all games in AZ, players/staff essentially quarantined to hotels/game sites, shorter games, lots of doublehitters, no one in stands, not even conferences with catcher/pitcher) but we'll see. I mean, baseball has advantages over sports like basketball, soccer, and especially football that all involve so much physical contact.
But back to the topic, I personally don't see how we can allow any large crowds for at least 1.5 years, until there is widespread distribution of a vaccine.
Now, will some events go on? Maybe?
MLB is trying to roll out an interesting form of play for May/June, which sounds potentially workable (all games in AZ, players/staff essentially quarantined to hotels/game sites, shorter games, lots of doublehitters, no one in stands, not even conferences with catcher/pitcher) but we'll see. I mean, baseball has advantages over sports like basketball, soccer, and especially football that all involve so much physical contact.
Do you really feel like that will be implemented for that long of a timespan? It feels to me like the quarantine measures we have now are fraying at the edges for a few weeks of it. I guess if you mean large enough for tens of thousands, if the government truly banned things it could work. If we're talking in the hundreds, I sincerely doubt that will happen.
Quick story:
Usually, my clients just take their settlement checks at our final meeting and roll out. I mean, I never see "what happens next."
BUT...one time last year I did.
The client was going to our firm's bank to cash his settlement check. I decided to go to the bank for some personal banking. It's right down the street. Long story short, we end up in line together in the bank lobby.
The bank won't cash my client's settlement check because he doesn't have "enough" ID. He needs two forms of ID, which is from a rather limited list (license, credit card, debit card, military ID, student ID, etc). The teller tells me this is to prevent fraud. My client has his license, but not any of the others. He has a whole stack of paycheck stubs in his car, AND I am literally right there telling the bank, "This is a check drawn on our account. He is the intended recipient. I can vouch he is John Doe."
But nope. They won't do it.
But WILL they do?
They will cash the check, with ONLY his ONE ID, IF he opens an account (which costs $50). So he's forced to do that.
So I am like, "What? Wait. You said that the 'Two ID' rule is intended to prevent fraud, but you'll let him open up an account with just ONE form of ID?"
Obviously the bank just wanted to squeeze $50 from this unbanked individual. I don't see how it had anything to do with concerns about fraud. I was very pissed about the situation and my boss spoke with the bank but it's not like they are going to change their policies. All we can do now is warn clients ahead of time of the hoops they need to jump through if they don't have a bank of their own.
I can't imagine how much shit low-income people have to deal with on a daily basis.
But back to the topic, I personally don't see how we can allow any large crowds for at least 1.5 years, until there is widespread distribution of a vaccine.
Now, will some events go on? Maybe?
MLB is trying to roll out an interesting form of play for May/June, which sounds potentially workable (all games in AZ, players/staff essentially quarantined to hotels/game sites, shorter games, lots of doublehitters, no one in stands, not even conferences with catcher/pitcher) but we'll see. I mean, baseball has advantages over sports like basketball, soccer, and especially football that all involve so much physical contact.
Do you really feel like that will be implemented for that long of a timespan? It feels to me like the quarantine measures we have now are fraying at the edges for a few weeks of it. I guess if you mean large enough for tens of thousands, if the government truly banned things it could work. If we're talking in the hundreds, I sincerely doubt that will happen.
Well, ultimately you do what the experts advise, but yeah I acknowledge you have to consider peoples' "breaking points" since compliance is essentially voluntary.
But yeah I just don't see any way you can have big crowds allowed, so big concerts, NASCAR, NFL, soccer, even big political rallies, all of it. I just don't see how you allow it without restarting the whole spiral.
Now can some of this go on without crowds? Maybe!
I honestly think that is the best we can hope for this summer, is that we can have some cookouts in our back yards with small groups of friends. I mean, I would take that in a heart beat! Wouldn't you?
Big question to me is how do schools reopen in August/Sept? I mean, you can only do so much "social distancing" when you pack all these kids in a building, and especially the "littles" are going to struggle with whatever mitigation measures authorities would try to roll out.
Thankfully, we have 4 months to figure this out. But you can't just start schools on a dime. They are going to have to know by June or so what is feasible.
I think people are going to push back a lot more as this continues.
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
I've stuck with this job primarily because of the stability it provides. I've abandoned dreams and hopes of turning something I love into a job that pays enough, because nothing I'm interested in doing pays enough to support me
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
Is contactless pay not a thing in the US?
It's everywhere here, to the point that people get really irritated when there's no tap.
I'm rarely in the US, but I was there 4 years ago when chip cards were ubiquitous here in Canada and absolutely nowhere that I went in the US had them, it was still swipe everywhere.
Can anyone explain this to me?
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
Is contactless pay not a thing in the US?
It's everywhere here, to the point that people get really irritated when there's no tap.
I'm rarely in the US, but I was there 4 years ago when chip cards were ubiquitous here in Canada and absolutely nowhere that I went in the US had them, it was still swipe everywhere.
Can anyone explain this to me?
I think people are going to push back a lot more as this continues.
Weirdly, the more people push back, the longer this goes on for, the longer the virus continues to spread. Remember, we don't have a vaccine at the moment and probably won't do until some time in 2021. People can push back all they want, but it will just result in the death toll being higher and the government cracking down harder. It might seem counter-intuitive, but the more you can sacrifice your personal freedom in the short term, the quicker we can return to something approaching normal. Short term pain for long term gain. The numbers coming out of Italy now really do suggest that if you adhere t the rules, things start to improve quite quickly.
On a very dark and morbid note, I think what a lot of the COVIDiots out there need, is for someone they know who isn't high risk (friend, family, neighbour, colleague) to die of COVID. They need a hard reality check. It's this overwhelming attitude of being untouchable and that it happens to people on the news and not to them, that keeps them flouting the rules.
If you were to add up the death toll of all the terrorist attacks that have occurred in the US and Europe, and all the school shottings in the US, (9/11, 7/7, Paris attacks, people being run over with trucks) this pandemic is quickly surpassing that total every few days in US alone, and the thing doing the killing, is arguably far harder to stop than terrorists or disgruntled/mentally ill students with guns, yet many people seem to be oblivious as if it's no big deal.
The cost of moving to a new technology is higher, due to sheer size. Consider number of terminals to upgrade, new cards to issue etc. Cost per card or terminal would be lower, but total cost to move would be higher.
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
Is contactless pay not a thing in the US?
It's everywhere here, to the point that people get really irritated when there's no tap.
I'm rarely in the US, but I was there 4 years ago when chip cards were ubiquitous here in Canada and absolutely nowhere that I went in the US had them, it was still swipe everywhere.
Can anyone explain this to me?
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
Is contactless pay not a thing in the US?
It's everywhere here, to the point that people get really irritated when there's no tap.
I'm rarely in the US, but I was there 4 years ago when chip cards were ubiquitous here in Canada and absolutely nowhere that I went in the US had them, it was still swipe everywhere.
Can anyone explain this to me?
We use chip readers most places I go, but I still have to tap the screen to confirm the amount (and occasionally for my receipt option). It's an annoyance even when there isn't a contagion sitting on surfaces. Of course I am confirming the amount; that's why I decided to put my card in.
The cost of moving to a new technology is higher, due to sheer size. Consider number of terminals to upgrade, new cards to issue etc. Cost per card or terminal would be lower, but total cost to move would be higher.
I've heard this argument before, but I'm not actually convinced it makes much sense. Total costs are irrelevant, what matters is cost per capita or cost per revenue dollar. Which should be about the same here as it is everywhere else.
I think it more boils down to two things:
1) I've heard that in the CC-stripe days the US had relatively low per-capita rates of CC fraud, so the impetus to move would be lower here than other places.
2) I've heard that the merchant contracts with the CC companies are radically different here than they are other places, where in the US the CC company bears the responsibility for fraud, not the merchant.
And in that environment it's hard to get the merchants to upgrade their terminals when it doesn't benefit them directly. And we only just managed to switch to chip-and-sign, so it would be doubly hard to get people to upgrade again for contactless.
My credit cards do all have the contactless chip, but a lot of terminals still don't support it. And yes they do all still have the magnetic stripe.
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
Is contactless pay not a thing in the US?
It's everywhere here, to the point that people get really irritated when there's no tap.
I'm rarely in the US, but I was there 4 years ago when chip cards were ubiquitous here in Canada and absolutely nowhere that I went in the US had them, it was still swipe everywhere.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Explanation: The US is not nearly as much of a leader in technology as it thinks it is.
We do now have chips in our cards, but they still have the stripe. Making the safety features of the chip... not all that useful.
Contactless exists here, but it's definitely not ubiquitous at all. Of all the credit and debit cards I have, not a single one has contactless payment enabled. The next time I'm due to get a new/updated card is August 2020. We'll see if that one has it.
I'm not really sure what the US federal government was supposed to do differently. They don't have the power to shut down businesses. They don't manage the hospitals. They actually made a smart move in shutting down travel from China pretty early in the game. I guess they could have forced businesses to start producing masks and ventilators sooner than they did.
The US is way behind in banking. Card use and technology. This has been the case for at least a decade. The banks in this country just did not want to spend the money, and people here who do not travel abroad know no different.
I'm not really sure what the US federal government was supposed to do differently. They don't have the power to shut down businesses. They don't manage the hospitals. They actually made a smart move in shutting down travel from China pretty early in the game. I guess they could have forced businesses to start producing masks and ventilators sooner than they did.
I'm not really sure what the US federal government was supposed to do differently. They don't have the power to shut down businesses. They don't manage the hospitals. They actually made a smart move in shutting down travel from China pretty early in the game. I guess they could have forced businesses to start producing masks and ventilators sooner than they did.
The big mistakes I think the federal government made:
1) Not restocking the national stockpile after the H1N1 flu.
2) Letting coronavirus testing get locked up by mess ups at the CDC (which was both blocking the WHO developed test AND blocking public and academic labs from running their own testing) rather than pushing every competent facility to start rolling out lab developed tests right away.
2B) They should have been doing a lot more contact tracing from confirmed cases, but this would only have been possible with more testing.
3) Ramp up mask production in early February. Ventilators are expensive to make and have long lead times. With 4-6 weeks and tens of millions (not billions) of dollars we'd be swimming in surgical masks right now. (Taiwan did exactly this.)
4) Refusing to recommend regular americans wear masks until a few days ago.
There are other bigger changes that I think they had enough information to make the call on (like shutting down international travel more generally, we now know the outbreak in NYC mostly came from Europe, not China directly), but other country's didn't make that call either and had access to the same information.
Items #1-4 many other countries DID do and are in much better situations than we are today as a result.
The US is way behind in banking. Card use and technology. This has been the case for at least a decade. The banks in this country just did not want to spend the money, and people here who do not travel abroad know no different.
Yes, at least in terms with Canada. I went to the US almost yearly for shopping from about 2000-2010. From about 2000 on, I was able to use debit for a very large % of my purchases in Canada. I remember on one of these trips probably about 2005, someone used a personal cheque at a major retailer in front of me in the checkout line, I was shocked! I was even more shocked when the cashier accepted it without blinking an eye! Everyplace in Canada that I knew of stopped accepting personal cheques at some point in the late 1990s.
I now use tap for any purchase I can on my cc, which has been pretty widely accepted here for the last 3 years or so.
The US is way behind in banking. Card use and technology. This has been the case for at least a decade. The banks in this country just did not want to spend the money, and people here who do not travel abroad know no different.
Yes, at least in terms with Canada. I went to the US almost yearly for shopping from about 2000-2010. From about 2000 on, I was able to use debit for a very large % of my purchases in Canada. I remember on one of these trips probably about 2005, someone used a personal cheque at a major retailer in front of me in the checkout line, I was shocked! I was even more shocked when the cashier accepted it without blinking an eye! Everyplace in Canada that I knew of stopped accepting personal cheques at some point in the late 1990s.
I now use tap for any purchase I can on my cc, which has been pretty widely accepted here for the last 3 years or so.
And I had no trouble using my Canadian credit card in New Zealand (mostly tap, some charges were over my limit and I had to swipe), and taking cash out of ATMs with CIRRUS.
My DD even pays for little things (like a coffee) with tap, instead of cash.
The US is way behind in banking. Card use and technology. This has been the case for at least a decade. The banks in this country just did not want to spend the money, and people here who do not travel abroad know no different.
Yes, at least in terms with Canada. I went to the US almost yearly for shopping from about 2000-2010. From about 2000 on, I was able to use debit for a very large % of my purchases in Canada. I remember on one of these trips probably about 2005, someone used a personal cheque at a major retailer in front of me in the checkout line, I was shocked! I was even more shocked when the cashier accepted it without blinking an eye! Everyplace in Canada that I knew of stopped accepting personal cheques at some point in the late 1990s.
I now use tap for any purchase I can on my cc, which has been pretty widely accepted here for the last 3 years or so.
And I had no trouble using my Canadian credit card in New Zealand (mostly tap, some charges were over my limit and I had to swipe), and taking cash out of ATMs with CIRRUS.
My DD even pays for little things (like a coffee) with tap, instead of cash.
I actually had to Google how the current cash bills looked about two years ago when I sold my sofa. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of places that don’t accept cash at all. Even the local athletic club in my small village accepts cards or mobilepayments. I pay everything with a card or with a mobile payment and that is how most of the people do it. The tap has become a norm here during the last years so much that there is a note on the machine if it has not the tap function. But above a certain limit you have to use the pin. I think they have upped the limit to 40 USD now during the coronacrisis.
Order people, in their 80-90ies still use some cash.
We are kind of living a post-COVID life right now in China. There have been no local cases in Shanghai for the past few weeks and we have only had imported cases. Right now, everyone is still wearing masks and the government has stepped up its use of big data to track public health data. Everyone has a health QR code which you have to show to prove that you are healthy before being allowed enter public places.
I'm of the opinion that not much will change, at least in the US, as a result of this. I'm *hoping* the government will pull their heads out of their asses and be more prepared for the next time this happens. But I'm not optimistic.
One thing I really do hope will change is an increase in contactless forms of payment. We were in the UK right when this hit, and were struck by how many people had contactless credit cards. I know Apple Pay is a thing, but I think the credit card technology is going to be where it has to go to make it widespread. Crossing my fingers that when all of my cards renew, they'll be contactless-enabled.
Is contactless pay not a thing in the US?
It's everywhere here, to the point that people get really irritated when there's no tap.
I'm rarely in the US, but I was there 4 years ago when chip cards were ubiquitous here in Canada and absolutely nowhere that I went in the US had them, it was still swipe everywhere.
Can anyone explain this to me?
We use chip readers most places I go, but I still have to tap the screen to confirm the amount (and occasionally for my receipt option). It's an annoyance even when there isn't a contagion sitting on surfaces. Of course I am confirming the amount; that's why I decided to put my card in.
We are kind of living a post-COVID life right now in China. There have been no local cases in Shanghai for the past few weeks and we have only had imported cases. Right now, everyone is still wearing masks and the government has stepped up its use of big data to track public health data. Everyone has a health QR code which you have to show to prove that you are healthy before being allowed enter public places.
The health QR code I don't understand. You could be exposed 2 minutes after getting it. It really means nothing.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
Some posters have mentioned they've gone entirely cashless...how do you handle private transactions (garage sales, FB Marketplace, Craigslist?). Both as a buyer and a seller.1. Venmo, paypal
What do you put in little Johnny's birthday card? If you drop in for a beer at the local watering hole, do you run your card for a $3 purchase knowing they'll get stuck with the fee? When the envelope gets passed around the office, how do you handle that? Eggs for sale at the local farmhouse? A pickup truck load of firewood?
The local courthouse is happy to take a CC for property tax payments...along with a processing fee + 2% on a 4-figure bill. No thanks. Just write a check and drop it in the mail. Though from what I understand, not many EU countries have mail pickup at the home (as a German friend asked, what are those red flags on the boxes?). I was paying our electric bill by CC for points, but being a publicly owned utility, they now also charge a fee in the interest of overhead, so this got moved to a recurring transfer. One more automated payment I have to keep track of.
Some posters have mentioned they've gone entirely cashless...how do you handle private transactions (garage sales, FB Marketplace, Craigslist?). Both as a buyer and a seller.
What do you put in little Johnny's birthday card? If you drop in for a beer at the local watering hole, do you run your card for a $3 purchase knowing they'll get stuck with the fee? When the envelope gets passed around the office, how do you handle that? Eggs for sale at the local farmhouse? A pickup truck load of firewood?
The local courthouse is happy to take a CC for property tax payments...along with a processing fee + 2% on a 4-figure bill. No thanks. Just write a check and drop it in the mail. Though from what I understand, not many EU countries have mail pickup at the home (as a German friend asked, what are those red flags on the boxes?). I was paying our electric bill by CC for points, but being a publicly owned utility, they now also charge a fee in the interest of overhead, so this got moved to a recurring transfer. One more automated payment I have to keep track of.
Some posters have mentioned they've gone entirely cashless...how do you handle private transactions (garage sales, FB Marketplace, Craigslist?). Both as a buyer and a seller.1. Venmo, paypal
What do you put in little Johnny's birthday card? If you drop in for a beer at the local watering hole, do you run your card for a $3 purchase knowing they'll get stuck with the fee? When the envelope gets passed around the office, how do you handle that? Eggs for sale at the local farmhouse? A pickup truck load of firewood?
The local courthouse is happy to take a CC for property tax payments...along with a processing fee + 2% on a 4-figure bill. No thanks. Just write a check and drop it in the mail. Though from what I understand, not many EU countries have mail pickup at the home (as a German friend asked, what are those red flags on the boxes?). I was paying our electric bill by CC for points, but being a publicly owned utility, they now also charge a fee in the interest of overhead, so this got moved to a recurring transfer. One more automated payment I have to keep track of.
2. Gift card, check (not exactly cashless)
When we were in Denmark this summer, parking in Copenhagen was all cashless. App only. Annoying at first but really cool once you got the hang of it.
The US standing in the world orderwill behas been diminished.
The US Government response to Hurricane Katrina was met with dismay in many parts of the developed world. I travel a fair bit, and a consistent refrain was "How could this happen in America?" - referring to the disaster response. The Covid 19 federal response has been met with even more international dismay. The US and the rest of the world is looking at Germany, South Korea - and others - but not the US, for leadership, and a plan for how to get out of this mess.
They'll come calling the good old US of A the next time they need any military assistance, though.The US standing in the world orderwill behas been diminished.
The US Government response to Hurricane Katrina was met with dismay in many parts of the developed world. I travel a fair bit, and a consistent refrain was "How could this happen in America?" - referring to the disaster response. The Covid 19 federal response has been met with even more international dismay. The US and the rest of the world is looking at Germany, South Korea - and others - but not the US, for leadership, and a plan for how to get out of this mess.
FTFY.
African countries shunning USA, Europe, World Bank and embracing China's Belt and Road Initiative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
I’m pretty sure that my most recent cc has tapping capabilities, but I’ve never set it up or tried it. I really only use it for online purchases. What is the advantage of tapping?
Possibly, but given that Trump has spent a significant part of the last 3 years threatening to pull out of NATO and saying we all owe the USA money for Nato, and given his utter cowardice and kowtowing in the face of dictators, I'm not sure any of us think we can rely on y'all providing it any more.They'll come calling the good old US of A the next time they need any military assistance, though.The US standing in the world orderwill behas been diminished.
The US Government response to Hurricane Katrina was met with dismay in many parts of the developed world. I travel a fair bit, and a consistent refrain was "How could this happen in America?" - referring to the disaster response. The Covid 19 federal response has been met with even more international dismay. The US and the rest of the world is looking at Germany, South Korea - and others - but not the US, for leadership, and a plan for how to get out of this mess.
FTFY.
African countries shunning USA, Europe, World Bank and embracing China's Belt and Road Initiative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
Some factions of Evangelical Christianity believe that microchips are the mark of the beast (i.e., the devil). Unfortunately, I spent my teenage years hearing about this due to a parent who had converted to an insane church and took up watching televangelists as a hobby. Given the influence of that cultural background over the US (see the entire GOP), it isn't surprising to me at all that we're more than a decade behind other countries in terms of banking/payment tech.
Some factions of Evangelical Christianity believe that microchips are the mark of the beast (i.e., the devil). Unfortunately, I spent my teenage years hearing about this due to a parent who had converted to an insane church and took up watching televangelists as a hobby. Given the influence of that cultural background over the US (see the entire GOP), it isn't surprising to me at all that we're more than a decade behind other countries in terms of banking/payment tech.
Is it really necessary to malign 30-40% of the US population here*?
There is another big reason why US currency persists notwithstanding political affiliations : the underground economy. Both in the US and abroad. If you want to buy drugs or your employer insists on paying you under the table, then nothing works quite as well as the greenback.
*(lest you think I’m favoring one US political faction over the other, Ideteststrongly dislike both and I don’t vote.)
I’m pretty sure that my most recent cc has tapping capabilities, but I’ve never set it up or tried it. I really only use it for online purchases. What is the advantage of tapping?
In the context of this thread, not having to touch a credit card payment terminal that hundreds of other people have recently touched before you. It’s contactless.
I’m pretty sure that my most recent cc has tapping capabilities, but I’ve never set it up or tried it. I really only use it for online purchases. What is the advantage of tapping?
In the context of this thread, not having to touch a credit card payment terminal that hundreds of other people have recently touched before you. It’s contactless.
At this point, I’ve been to the store 3 times in the past month. I’ve worn gloves every time and honestly - by the time I get to the register, I’ve touched plenty of other things.
I did use hand sanitizer after ungloving and I did disinfect my card.
But in a general way I don’t feel that tapping my card would add a lot of value to my life. ;-)
I've been thinking about the in-person transactions we make most frequently and why I love contactless so much, and actually the main way we use contactless is on public transport. All Tube stations and buses in London are contactless so you just tap your card and you've paid for your journey. No queue, no ticket to hang onto. Buses don't take cash any more which saves soooooo much time getting on when people can't try to pay their fare in farthings or "forget" to have enough money. If you don't have contactless on the Tube, you can queue up at a machine in the station, buy an Oyster card, and top it up with a card or cash, but then you have to keep an eye on how much money is on it and queue to top it up all the time. It's only for tourists now. That's the real value of contactless for me - it's removed an entire category of life admin from my life which I used to have to interact with on a frequent basis.
But even in other contexts I have appreciated how quick it is. Literally two seconds. It makes a difference when you're doing a quick transaction in a long queue. Sometimes I have gone so long only doing contactless I have been on the verge of forgetting my pin! (I only use an ATM every few months.)
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
I've been thinking about the in-person transactions we make most frequently and why I love contactless so much, and actually the main way we use contactless is on public transport. All Tube stations and buses in London are contactless so you just tap your card and you've paid for your journey. No queue, no ticket to hang onto. Buses don't take cash any more which saves soooooo much time getting on when people can't try to pay their fare in farthings or "forget" to have enough money. If you don't have contactless on the Tube, you can queue up at a machine in the station, buy an Oyster card, and top it up with a card or cash, but then you have to keep an eye on how much money is on it and queue to top it up all the time. It's only for tourists now. That's the real value of contactless for me - it's removed an entire category of life admin from my life which I used to have to interact with on a frequent basis.
But even in other contexts I have appreciated how quick it is. Literally two seconds. It makes a difference when you're doing a quick transaction in a long queue. Sometimes I have gone so long only doing contactless I have been on the verge of forgetting my pin! (I only use an ATM every few months.)
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
I'd like to believe that too. Unfortunately all of US history shows that American culture is more short sighted than many of the old-world cultures.
We can see clear improvement in the air quality.
We can see the need for individuals to be financially prudent.
We can see clear problems in labor equity.
We can see clear problems in the health system.
We can see clear problems with nepotism and government incompetence.
We can see clear advantages to listening to the experts.
What I think will happen is in 6 months when the strict quarantines are lifted is that people will forget about all of the above. Politicians and policy makers won't look to how we can reduce pollution overall with less economic impact, or even study how the environmental improvements from a brief economic pause helps us. People won't save more and will blow all of their money. The richest folks will get richer because we socialize business failures but privatize the gains. Anti-vaxxers will refuse the coronavirus vaccine if and when one becomes available leading to more outbreaks later - I don't think we could eradicate smallpox today. And ain't nobody puttin' no commie health care up in here.
Sigh.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
The same way you you organize anything: by talking. Most of the current US unions don’t seem terribly interested in organizing and labor busting seems to be a well oiled machine. Still, I think events of the past few weeks can safely put lie to the myth that companies will bend over backwards to keep their staff employed. Nope, at the first sign of adversity they will lay people off as quickly as they can. So from a marketing perspective I do think that unions have a pretty good story to tell. I also think that given the large number of foreign born and raised Americans that there is a little less of the bootstrap idea that an individual has as good of an opportunity to negotiate with management as a union does.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
Some posters have mentioned they've gone entirely cashless...how do you handle private transactions (garage sales, FB Marketplace, Craigslist?). Both as a buyer and a seller.
What do you put in little Johnny's birthday card? If you drop in for a beer at the local watering hole, do you run your card for a $3 purchase knowing they'll get stuck with the fee? When the envelope gets passed around the office, how do you handle that? Eggs for sale at the local farmhouse? A pickup truck load of firewood?
The local courthouse is happy to take a CC for property tax payments...along with a processing fee + 2% on a 4-figure bill. No thanks. Just write a check and drop it in the mail. Though from what I understand, not many EU countries have mail pickup at the home (as a German friend asked, what are those red flags on the boxes?). I was paying our electric bill by CC for points, but being a publicly owned utility, they now also charge a fee in the interest of overhead, so this got moved to a recurring transfer. One more automated payment I have to keep track of.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
The same way you you organize anything: by talking. Most of the current US unions don’t seem terribly interested in organizing and labor busting seems to be a well oiled machine. Still, I think events of the past few weeks can safely put lie to the myth that companies will bend over backwards to keep their staff employed. Nope, at the first sign of adversity they will lay people off as quickly as they can. So from a marketing perspective I do think that unions have a pretty good story to tell. I also think that given the large number of foreign born and raised Americans that there is a little less of the bootstrap idea that an individual has as good of an opportunity to negotiate with management as a union does.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
You bring up a very good point. I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that currency isn't going away. I do think it will be used less and less over time, at least for most "legitimate" transactions. However the grey and black markets will keep currency going for a good long time. Especially the greenback which has international acceptance. And then there are the poor who often don't have access to the financial sector, or pay a steep price for it. The US is not going to give up having the world reserve money voluntarily, and if that means printing currency, that'll just be the price paid.
As for myself, while I do use credit cards for most things, I still use currency as well. It's just easier for transactions among friends and purchases from very small vendors. Currency is also a great bargaining tool. Finally, I have a moral aversion to businesses NOT accepting cash as what they're really saying is "poor people need not shop here."
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
You bring up a very good point. I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that currency isn't going away. I do think it will be used less and less over time, at least for most "legitimate" transactions. However the grey and black markets will keep currency going for a good long time. Especially the greenback which has international acceptance. And then there are the poor who often don't have access to the financial sector, or pay a steep price for it. The US is not going to give up having the world reserve money voluntarily, and if that means printing currency, that'll just be the price paid.
As for myself, while I do use credit cards for most things, I still use currency as well. It's just easier for transactions among friends and purchases from very small vendors. Currency is also a great bargaining tool. Finally, I have a moral aversion to businesses NOT accepting cash as what they're really saying is "poor people need not shop here."
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
You bring up a very good point. I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that currency isn't going away. I do think it will be used less and less over time, at least for most "legitimate" transactions. However the grey and black markets will keep currency going for a good long time. Especially the greenback which has international acceptance. And then there are the poor who often don't have access to the financial sector, or pay a steep price for it. The US is not going to give up having the world reserve money voluntarily, and if that means printing currency, that'll just be the price paid.
As for myself, while I do use credit cards for most things, I still use currency as well. It's just easier for transactions among friends and purchases from very small vendors. Currency is also a great bargaining tool. Finally, I have a moral aversion to businesses NOT accepting cash as what they're really saying is "poor people need not shop here."
I have never even considered not accepting cash would mean ”poor people need not shop here”. Here everybody can get a debit card and getting a bank account is not a financial decision.
Sometimes the discussions threads give a really sad picture about the american society.
If you have an address in the UK, you can get a free basic bank account. It is a problem for people who don't have an address at all, but they tend to have big problems that are more than just trying to live life without a debit card.
I agree with the PP that it's not like all transactions ever have been cash. Particularly that in less anonymous times it used to be common for shops to give credit so you could buy things on account and settle up monthly or quarterly. Just like... a credit card!
I spend cash more freely than card because it's already been deducted from my mental tally of how much I have in my account. In my mind the "spending" happens at the ATM. Different strokes for different folks.
I think the US is really behind western Europe on a lot of things. Sure, it's a bigger and more complicated country, but it's still kinda backward on things like banking and healthcare. It would be nice if coronavirus gave the politicians a kick up the arse, but... I doubt it. My dream for the UK is that it significantly advances the case for UBI (it's on my list to write letters to various people about it) but again... I doubt it.
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
You bring up a very good point. I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that currency isn't going away. I do think it will be used less and less over time, at least for most "legitimate" transactions. However the grey and black markets will keep currency going for a good long time. Especially the greenback which has international acceptance. And then there are the poor who often don't have access to the financial sector, or pay a steep price for it. The US is not going to give up having the world reserve money voluntarily, and if that means printing currency, that'll just be the price paid.
As for myself, while I do use credit cards for most things, I still use currency as well. It's just easier for transactions among friends and purchases from very small vendors. Currency is also a great bargaining tool. Finally, I have a moral aversion to businesses NOT accepting cash as what they're really saying is "poor people need not shop here."
I have never even considered not accepting cash would mean ”poor people need not shop here”. Here everybody can get a debit card and getting a bank account is not a financial decision.
Sometimes the discussions threads give a really sad picture about the american society.
Honestly, I don’t think this particular problem is an American phenomenon. Not sure where you live, but very poor or homeless people anywhere are unlikely to have bank accounts and debit cards.
If you have an address in the UK, you can get a free basic bank account. It is a problem for people who don't have an address at all, but they tend to have big problems that are more than just trying to live life without a debit card.
I agree with the PP that it's not like all transactions ever have been cash. Particularly that in less anonymous times it used to be common for shops to give credit so you could buy things on account and settle up monthly or quarterly. Just like... a credit card!
I spend cash more freely than card because it's already been deducted from my mental tally of how much I have in my account. In my mind the "spending" happens at the ATM. Different strokes for different folks.
I think the US is really behind western Europe on a lot of things. Sure, it's a bigger and more complicated country, but it's still kinda backward on things like banking and healthcare. It would be nice if coronavirus gave the politicians a kick up the arse, but... I doubt it. My dream for the UK is that it significantly advances the case for UBI (it's on my list to write letters to various people about it) but again... I doubt it.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
The same way you you organize anything: by talking. Most of the current US unions don’t seem terribly interested in organizing and labor busting seems to be a well oiled machine. Still, I think events of the past few weeks can safely put lie to the myth that companies will bend over backwards to keep their staff employed. Nope, at the first sign of adversity they will lay people off as quickly as they can. So from a marketing perspective I do think that unions have a pretty good story to tell. I also think that given the large number of foreign born and raised Americans that there is a little less of the bootstrap idea that an individual has as good of an opportunity to negotiate with management as a union does.
Problem is, a very large chunk of the people who will need to be convinced by this are Trump supporters.
They have been taught to think everything is Great(tm) and that talk like that is socialism.
I don’t think the story will sell well to them.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
The same way you you organize anything: by talking. Most of the current US unions don’t seem terribly interested in organizing and labor busting seems to be a well oiled machine. Still, I think events of the past few weeks can safely put lie to the myth that companies will bend over backwards to keep their staff employed. Nope, at the first sign of adversity they will lay people off as quickly as they can. So from a marketing perspective I do think that unions have a pretty good story to tell. I also think that given the large number of foreign born and raised Americans that there is a little less of the bootstrap idea that an individual has as good of an opportunity to negotiate with management as a union does.
Problem is, a very large chunk of the people who will need to be convinced by this are Trump supporters.
They have been taught to think everything is Great(tm) and that talk like that is socialism.
I don’t think the story will sell well to them.
The idea that everything that is wrong with with society is caused by “Trump Supporters” has become a tired canard. It’s also code-speak for saying that we, the “wise and enlightened” shouldn’t even give it a go. With respect, can we give the partisan politics a rest? Our obsession with it over the last 40 years has landed us where we find ourselves today. It’s also counterproductive because one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
If you have an address in the UK, you can get a free basic bank account. It is a problem for people who don't have an address at all, but they tend to have big problems that are more than just trying to live life without a debit card.
I agree with the PP that it's not like all transactions ever have been cash. Particularly that in less anonymous times it used to be common for shops to give credit so you could buy things on account and settle up monthly or quarterly. Just like... a credit card!
I spend cash more freely than card because it's already been deducted from my mental tally of how much I have in my account. In my mind the "spending" happens at the ATM. Different strokes for different folks.
I think the US is really behind western Europe on a lot of things. Sure, it's a bigger and more complicated country, but it's still kinda backward on things like banking and healthcare. It would be nice if coronavirus gave the politicians a kick up the arse, but... I doubt it. My dream for the UK is that it significantly advances the case for UBI (it's on my list to write letters to various people about it) but again... I doubt it.
Bank accounts in the US are pretty easy to get. It’s not a question of can get. It’s a question of have.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
The same way you you organize anything: by talking. Most of the current US unions don’t seem terribly interested in organizing and labor busting seems to be a well oiled machine. Still, I think events of the past few weeks can safely put lie to the myth that companies will bend over backwards to keep their staff employed. Nope, at the first sign of adversity they will lay people off as quickly as they can. So from a marketing perspective I do think that unions have a pretty good story to tell. I also think that given the large number of foreign born and raised Americans that there is a little less of the bootstrap idea that an individual has as good of an opportunity to negotiate with management as a union does.
Problem is, a very large chunk of the people who will need to be convinced by this are Trump supporters.
They have been taught to think everything is Great(tm) and that talk like that is socialism.
I don’t think the story will sell well to them.
The idea that everything that is wrong with with society is caused by “Trump Supporters” has become a tired canard. It’s also code-speak for saying that we, the “wise and enlightened” shouldn’t even give it a go. With respect, can we give the partisan politics a rest? Our obsession with it over the last 40 years has landed us where we find ourselves today. It’s also counterproductive because one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Sigh.
I’m not saying everything that’s wrong with the country is caused by Trump supporters.
I’m saying Trump supporters have been taught to believe that those ideas you suggest — which are associated with the politics of the left — are non-starters, because they are evil.
And the demographic of many Trump supporters — many aspects of which are the very demographics who need these changes the most — mean that their support is pretty much essential to any of this actually changing.
If you have an address in the UK, you can get a free basic bank account. It is a problem for people who don't have an address at all, but they tend to have big problems that are more than just trying to live life without a debit card.
I agree with the PP that it's not like all transactions ever have been cash. Particularly that in less anonymous times it used to be common for shops to give credit so you could buy things on account and settle up monthly or quarterly. Just like... a credit card!
I spend cash more freely than card because it's already been deducted from my mental tally of how much I have in my account. In my mind the "spending" happens at the ATM. Different strokes for different folks.
I think the US is really behind western Europe on a lot of things. Sure, it's a bigger and more complicated country, but it's still kinda backward on things like banking and healthcare. It would be nice if coronavirus gave the politicians a kick up the arse, but... I doubt it. My dream for the UK is that it significantly advances the case for UBI (it's on my list to write letters to various people about it) but again... I doubt it.
Bank accounts in the US are pretty easy to get. It’s not a question of can get. It’s a question of have.
Then why don't people have them if it's so easy? There's clearly some barrier here. Is it just the "pain point" hasn't been reached in American society? As Plina said, in the UK you need a bank account for your benefits to be paid into even if nothing else. And while some small employers would pay you in cash, the stories I hear of people getting literal cheques even for middle class white collar jobs are mind-boggling to me. If things like that started to change (e.g. need a bank account for benefits), would large numbers of previously unbanked people skip happily to the bank to sign up? If not, why not?
.. one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Yes some people are made for unions some like to be unleashed and earn what they are worth. I worked for awhile as a member of a union and the whole place felt dead--just man your post and STFU and collect your pay. Don't make others look bad with enthusiasm or excessive production. Now I get paid for what I produce and I work twice as hard as anybody else and reap the rewards. Some aren't wired for that though which is a motivation problem... one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
Are you sure you don't have the cause and effect swapped? AFAIK - unions formed and organized over strong objections of "pro-business conservatives" - i.e. the faction that most closely identify today with the Republicans.
I'm not sure Unions were the ones who did any "tying their fate" at all. They never had any realistic option otherwise.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Unions did a load of good 100 years ago when basic rights were in question.
What do you hope to achieve today with unions - in this day of automation? The way union shops operate seem very counter-innovation to me. Would it not be a lot more efficient and effective to let the businesses operate in the most brutal, cutthroat and efficient manner that they choose and produce the most economic value they can, as long as the shareholders and management have to fork over a fair share of their take - realized and unrealized - in the form of taxes. You use that to form a safety net.
Isn't that approach economically more efficient rather than having unions force businesses to keep unproductive headcount on the staff? Whenever you have more people than work - the corporate culture tends to become very anti-innovation and the economic competitiveness of that organization nosedives!
I am a knowledge worker used to a massive degree of autonomy and flexibility at my work. This is how it has always been after the first 1 to 2 years at my career. I can't imagine working in a union shop with the associated "card punching" culture. I used to make it a point to push back against anyone asking me to put accurate hours on time cards (Actual statement I made once - "If you want to treat me like an hour-wage worker - please give me overtime. Here is a 8-hour-flat-every-day timecard for you. You don't need to worry if I need to work 2 hours or 20 hours on any day to get my work done.").
I've been thinking about the in-person transactions we make most frequently and why I love contactless so much, and actually the main way we use contactless is on public transport. All Tube stations and buses in London are contactless so you just tap your card and you've paid for your journey. No queue, no ticket to hang onto. Buses don't take cash any more which saves soooooo much time getting on when people can't try to pay their fare in farthings or "forget" to have enough money. If you don't have contactless on the Tube, you can queue up at a machine in the station, buy an Oyster card, and top it up with a card or cash, but then you have to keep an eye on how much money is on it and queue to top it up all the time. It's only for tourists now. That's the real value of contactless for me - it's removed an entire category of life admin from my life which I used to have to interact with on a frequent basis.Reading this and other posts showed me the vast difference between life in Europe and in rural America. Even rural America in NYS, not the sparsely populated West.
But even in other contexts I have appreciated how quick it is. Literally two seconds. It makes a difference when you're doing a quick transaction in a long queue. Sometimes I have gone so long only doing contactless I have been on the verge of forgetting my pin! (I only use an ATM every few months.)
Yes some people are made for unions some like to be unleashed and earn what they are worth. I worked for awhile as a member of a union and the whole place felt dead--just man your post and STFU and collect your pay. Don't make others look bad with enthusiasm or excessive production. Now I get paid for what I produce and I work twice as hard as anybody else and reap the rewards. Some aren't wired for that though which is a motivation problem... one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
Are you sure you don't have the cause and effect swapped? AFAIK - unions formed and organized over strong objections of "pro-business conservatives" - i.e. the faction that most closely identify today with the Republicans.
I'm not sure Unions were the ones who did any "tying their fate" at all. They never had any realistic option otherwise.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Unions did a load of good 100 years ago when basic rights were in question.
What do you hope to achieve today with unions - in this day of automation? The way union shops operate seem very counter-innovation to me. Would it not be a lot more efficient and effective to let the businesses operate in the most brutal, cutthroat and efficient manner that they choose and produce the most economic value they can, as long as the shareholders and management have to fork over a fair share of their take - realized and unrealized - in the form of taxes. You use that to form a safety net.
Isn't that approach economically more efficient rather than having unions force businesses to keep unproductive headcount on the staff? Whenever you have more people than work - the corporate culture tends to become very anti-innovation and the economic competitiveness of that organization nosedives!
I am a knowledge worker used to a massive degree of autonomy and flexibility at my work. This is how it has always been after the first 1 to 2 years at my career. I can't imagine working in a union shop with the associated "card punching" culture. I used to make it a point to push back against anyone asking me to put accurate hours on time cards (Actual statement I made once - "If you want to treat me like an hour-wage worker - please give me overtime. Here is a 8-hour-flat-every-day timecard for you. You don't need to worry if I need to work 2 hours or 20 hours on any day to get my work done.").
Yes some people are made for unions some like to be unleashed and earn what they are worth. I worked for awhile as a member of a union and the whole place felt dead--just man your post and STFU and collect your pay. Don't make others look bad with enthusiasm or excessive production. Now I get paid for what I produce and I work twice as hard as anybody else and reap the rewards. Some aren't wired for that though which is a motivation problem... one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
Are you sure you don't have the cause and effect swapped? AFAIK - unions formed and organized over strong objections of "pro-business conservatives" - i.e. the faction that most closely identify today with the Republicans.
I'm not sure Unions were the ones who did any "tying their fate" at all. They never had any realistic option otherwise.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Unions did a load of good 100 years ago when basic rights were in question.
What do you hope to achieve today with unions - in this day of automation? The way union shops operate seem very counter-innovation to me. Would it not be a lot more efficient and effective to let the businesses operate in the most brutal, cutthroat and efficient manner that they choose and produce the most economic value they can, as long as the shareholders and management have to fork over a fair share of their take - realized and unrealized - in the form of taxes. You use that to form a safety net.
Isn't that approach economically more efficient rather than having unions force businesses to keep unproductive headcount on the staff? Whenever you have more people than work - the corporate culture tends to become very anti-innovation and the economic competitiveness of that organization nosedives!
I am a knowledge worker used to a massive degree of autonomy and flexibility at my work. This is how it has always been after the first 1 to 2 years at my career. I can't imagine working in a union shop with the associated "card punching" culture. I used to make it a point to push back against anyone asking me to put accurate hours on time cards (Actual statement I made once - "If you want to treat me like an hour-wage worker - please give me overtime. Here is a 8-hour-flat-every-day timecard for you. You don't need to worry if I need to work 2 hours or 20 hours on any day to get my work done.").
That's a huge generalization about unions though.
DH works in a heavily unionized environment, and there is absolutely no stifling of personal ambition whatsoever. If anything, because of it being so staunchly union, each individual has a better chance of being promoted based on merit because the systems in place practically make cronyism and nepotism impossible.
It will really depend on the specific workplace and union culture.
That's a huge generalization about unions though.
DH works in a heavily unionized environment, and there is absolutely no stifling of personal ambition whatsoever. If anything, because of it being so staunchly union, each individual has a better chance of being promoted based on merit because the systems in place practically make cronyism and nepotism impossible.
It will really depend on the specific workplace and union culture.
Yes just my experience. Also, my father was a union tradesman and when there wasn't work for them sometimes for weeks on end they would be issued LBKs (Look Busy Kits, consisting of a clipboard and a pencil etc) and were told "just don't get caught reading." They could wander the job site all day. Good work if you can get it.
That's a huge generalization about unions though.
DH works in a heavily unionized environment, and there is absolutely no stifling of personal ambition whatsoever. If anything, because of it being so staunchly union, each individual has a better chance of being promoted based on merit because the systems in place practically make cronyism and nepotism impossible.
It will really depend on the specific workplace and union culture.
Yes just my experience. Also, my father was a union tradesman and when there wasn't work for them sometimes for weeks on end they would be issued LBKs (Look Busy Kits, consisting of a clipboard and a pencil etc) and were told "just don't get caught reading." They could wander the job site all day. Good work if you can get it.
Yep, I used to work in staffing and I'm familiar with that type of union environment, but I'm also familiar with how different union environments can be.
A factory union will differ from a university union will differ from an actor's union will differ from a teacher's union will differ from an engineer union and so on and so on.
I've been thinking about the in-person transactions we make most frequently and why I love contactless so much, and actually the main way we use contactless is on public transport. All Tube stations and buses in London are contactless so you just tap your card and you've paid for your journey. No queue, no ticket to hang onto. Buses don't take cash any more which saves soooooo much time getting on when people can't try to pay their fare in farthings or "forget" to have enough money. If you don't have contactless on the Tube, you can queue up at a machine in the station, buy an Oyster card, and top it up with a card or cash, but then you have to keep an eye on how much money is on it and queue to top it up all the time. It's only for tourists now. That's the real value of contactless for me - it's removed an entire category of life admin from my life which I used to have to interact with on a frequent basis.Reading this and other posts showed me the vast difference between life in Europe and in rural America. Even rural America in NYS, not the sparsely populated West.
But even in other contexts I have appreciated how quick it is. Literally two seconds. It makes a difference when you're doing a quick transaction in a long queue. Sometimes I have gone so long only doing contactless I have been on the verge of forgetting my pin! (I only use an ATM every few months.)
We don't have public transport in my county. We have no cell service in the area around my property, so we don't own cell phones as they'd be useless. We do have cable internet (not high speed) at my house, but neighbors a mile away do not have it available. We don't have natural gas down our road (it's available in the village 3 miles away, though), we have to use oil for heating at a much higher price.
The US has large areas that are just like my lovely hometown, interspersed with pockets of the urban centers that have ALL the trappings of modern life.
I'd love to see "tap" credit card payments, we almost never use cash except tips while traveling. I sincerely hope that all Americans stay more interested in sanitary practices everywhere. I also hope that being an anti-vaxxer becomes no longer socially acceptable and that Americans return to valuing experts and intellectuals.
Not to derail, but hi to @Wolfpack Mustachian! I'm assuming Wolfpack is a reference to NC State. My daughter is home from state finishing up her freshman year
Some posters have mentioned they've gone entirely cashless...how do you handle private transactions (garage sales, FB Marketplace, Craigslist?). Both as a buyer and a seller.
What do you put in little Johnny's birthday card? If you drop in for a beer at the local watering hole, do you run your card for a $3 purchase knowing they'll get stuck with the fee? When the envelope gets passed around the office, how do you handle that? Eggs for sale at the local farmhouse? A pickup truck load of firewood?
The local courthouse is happy to take a CC for property tax payments...along with a processing fee + 2% on a 4-figure bill. No thanks. Just write a check and drop it in the mail. Though from what I understand, not many EU countries have mail pickup at the home (as a German friend asked, what are those red flags on the boxes?). I was paying our electric bill by CC for points, but being a publicly owned utility, they now also charge a fee in the interest of overhead, so this got moved to a recurring transfer. One more automated payment I have to keep track of.
I'm in a union. So are my parents, and 90 % of my friends and coworkers. Most of us are in different ones, there is a lot of choice. My union has saved me thousands in cheap insurances and good rates on mortgage loans. Thanks to my union, DH got $2000/month from our insurance company while we waited for the state do decide on his disability. My union believes in individual pay negotiations, and handles everything on my behalf. I only send in a form annually describing what kind of raise I want, and they usually get quite close. I've never been in a strike, but if it happens, the union have saved up enough to cover my full paycheck for months.Yes some people are made for unions some like to be unleashed and earn what they are worth. I worked for awhile as a member of a union and the whole place felt dead--just man your post and STFU and collect your pay. Don't make others look bad with enthusiasm or excessive production. Now I get paid for what I produce and I work twice as hard as anybody else and reap the rewards. Some aren't wired for that though which is a motivation problem... one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
Are you sure you don't have the cause and effect swapped? AFAIK - unions formed and organized over strong objections of "pro-business conservatives" - i.e. the faction that most closely identify today with the Republicans.
I'm not sure Unions were the ones who did any "tying their fate" at all. They never had any realistic option otherwise.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Unions did a load of good 100 years ago when basic rights were in question.
What do you hope to achieve today with unions - in this day of automation? The way union shops operate seem very counter-innovation to me. Would it not be a lot more efficient and effective to let the businesses operate in the most brutal, cutthroat and efficient manner that they choose and produce the most economic value they can, as long as the shareholders and management have to fork over a fair share of their take - realized and unrealized - in the form of taxes. You use that to form a safety net.
Isn't that approach economically more efficient rather than having unions force businesses to keep unproductive headcount on the staff? Whenever you have more people than work - the corporate culture tends to become very anti-innovation and the economic competitiveness of that organization nosedives!
I am a knowledge worker used to a massive degree of autonomy and flexibility at my work. This is how it has always been after the first 1 to 2 years at my career. I can't imagine working in a union shop with the associated "card punching" culture. I used to make it a point to push back against anyone asking me to put accurate hours on time cards (Actual statement I made once - "If you want to treat me like an hour-wage worker - please give me overtime. Here is a 8-hour-flat-every-day timecard for you. You don't need to worry if I need to work 2 hours or 20 hours on any day to get my work done.").
That's a huge generalization about unions though.
DH works in a heavily unionized environment, and there is absolutely no stifling of personal ambition whatsoever. If anything, because of it being so staunchly union, each individual has a better chance of being promoted based on merit because the systems in place practically make cronyism and nepotism impossible.
It will really depend on the specific workplace and union culture.
Yes just my experience. Also, my father was a union tradesman and when there wasn't work for them sometimes for weeks on end they would be issued LBKs (Look Busy Kits, consisting of a clipboard and a pencil etc) and were told "just don't get caught reading." They could wander the job site all day. Good work if you can get it.
Some posters have mentioned they've gone entirely cashless...how do you handle private transactions (garage sales, FB Marketplace, Craigslist?). Both as a buyer and a seller.
What do you put in little Johnny's birthday card? If you drop in for a beer at the local watering hole, do you run your card for a $3 purchase knowing they'll get stuck with the fee? When the envelope gets passed around the office, how do you handle that? Eggs for sale at the local farmhouse? A pickup truck load of firewood?
The local courthouse is happy to take a CC for property tax payments...along with a processing fee + 2% on a 4-figure bill. No thanks. Just write a check and drop it in the mail. Though from what I understand, not many EU countries have mail pickup at the home (as a German friend asked, what are those red flags on the boxes?). I was paying our electric bill by CC for points, but being a publicly owned utility, they now also charge a fee in the interest of overhead, so this got moved to a recurring transfer. One more automated payment I have to keep track of.
Our local variety of Swish/venmo is called Vipps. It has no fees for privat transactions, and a small fee for businesses. But it is so easy that it more than makes up for it. Everything else is done via online banking.I'm in a union. So are my parents, and 90 % of my friends and coworkers. Most of us are in different ones, there is a lot of choice. My union has saved me thousands in cheap insurances and good rates on mortgage loans. Thanks to my union, DH got $2000/month from our insurance company while we waited for the state do decide on his disability. My union believes in individual pay negotiations, and handles everything on my behalf. I only send in a form annually describing what kind of raise I want, and they usually get quite close. I've never been in a strike, but if it happens, the union have saved up enough to cover my full paycheck for months.Yes some people are made for unions some like to be unleashed and earn what they are worth. I worked for awhile as a member of a union and the whole place felt dead--just man your post and STFU and collect your pay. Don't make others look bad with enthusiasm or excessive production. Now I get paid for what I produce and I work twice as hard as anybody else and reap the rewards. Some aren't wired for that though which is a motivation problem... one of the huge errors unions made in the US was in tying their fate to that of one of our political factions.
Are you sure you don't have the cause and effect swapped? AFAIK - unions formed and organized over strong objections of "pro-business conservatives" - i.e. the faction that most closely identify today with the Republicans.
I'm not sure Unions were the ones who did any "tying their fate" at all. They never had any realistic option otherwise.
The folks who will benefit most from unionization are those who are already on the margins. The working poor, the unskilled, and those workers who tend to be considered as most disposable. I also happen to think they’re most receptive to a union message.
Im a unionist. A former steward. And I think it’s time to look up my union compatriots. Sounds like a cool retirement side gig.
Unions did a load of good 100 years ago when basic rights were in question.
What do you hope to achieve today with unions - in this day of automation? The way union shops operate seem very counter-innovation to me. Would it not be a lot more efficient and effective to let the businesses operate in the most brutal, cutthroat and efficient manner that they choose and produce the most economic value they can, as long as the shareholders and management have to fork over a fair share of their take - realized and unrealized - in the form of taxes. You use that to form a safety net.
Isn't that approach economically more efficient rather than having unions force businesses to keep unproductive headcount on the staff? Whenever you have more people than work - the corporate culture tends to become very anti-innovation and the economic competitiveness of that organization nosedives!
I am a knowledge worker used to a massive degree of autonomy and flexibility at my work. This is how it has always been after the first 1 to 2 years at my career. I can't imagine working in a union shop with the associated "card punching" culture. I used to make it a point to push back against anyone asking me to put accurate hours on time cards (Actual statement I made once - "If you want to treat me like an hour-wage worker - please give me overtime. Here is a 8-hour-flat-every-day timecard for you. You don't need to worry if I need to work 2 hours or 20 hours on any day to get my work done.").
That's a huge generalization about unions though.
DH works in a heavily unionized environment, and there is absolutely no stifling of personal ambition whatsoever. If anything, because of it being so staunchly union, each individual has a better chance of being promoted based on merit because the systems in place practically make cronyism and nepotism impossible.
It will really depend on the specific workplace and union culture.
Yes just my experience. Also, my father was a union tradesman and when there wasn't work for them sometimes for weeks on end they would be issued LBKs (Look Busy Kits, consisting of a clipboard and a pencil etc) and were told "just don't get caught reading." They could wander the job site all day. Good work if you can get it.
Thanks to unions, we have 5 weeks vacation, 37.5 hour work week, 1 year parental leave, 10 days PTO for sick kids, up to a year with fully paid sick leave, etc. When my job recently went through a merger, the unions negotiated that most of us should stay working at a office close to home, and get full reimbursement of all travels to the main office. For those that had to switch to the new office, they negotiated increased salaries and that up to 2 hours of travel time should be counted as office time (meaning they only had to be at the office for 5.5 hours/day). The unions have also negotiated flexible time schedules. I'm supposed to be available within a core time, I think it is between 9 and 2(?). The reason I don't really know is that as long as you have accumulated extra hours you can use those to reduce the core time. I have a lot of fun projects, so I usually have a lot of extra hours in the bank.Overtime is supposed to be paid out if the boss orders me to work longer hours. That never happens, but I've gotten paid overtime if the boss would rather have me working than taking PTO. We have theoretical hierarchy, but if I disagree with what comes from the main office I can tell them so directly and loudly without any negative repercussions. And if it is a major thing and they won't listen, I can get help from the union.
The Nordic model works well, in a large part due to the three part cooperation: for all large decisions, the government has meetings with the business owner unions, and the workers unions. That way, large conflicts are settled way in advance. One example was in the early phases of the COVID-19 crisis, where the nurses' union agreed to change the regulations for working hours. No need for open conflicts or strikes, the healthcare system has a little bit better chance of handling the pandemic, and the healthcare workers are a bit more protected from being worked into the ground because the union sets preplanned limits.
Getting back to the topic, something that I've found pretty heartening of late is the number of labor strikes within the US. Maybe organization of labor will be one of the good things that comes out of it?
I'd like to believe that Americans won't forget so quickly. Better labor practices, better sick leave policies, and health insurance reform really all ought to be a result of this wake-up call.
One of the few ways we can get all of the above is through widespread unionization. The politicians certainly aren't going to volunteer to do it, and the corporatists sure aren't going to volunteer to pay for it.
When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
So, how do we organize?
The same way you you organize anything: by talking. Most of the current US unions don’t seem terribly interested in organizing and labor busting seems to be a well oiled machine. Still, I think events of the past few weeks can safely put lie to the myth that companies will bend over backwards to keep their staff employed. Nope, at the first sign of adversity they will lay people off as quickly as they can. So from a marketing perspective I do think that unions have a pretty good story to tell. I also think that given the large number of foreign born and raised Americans that there is a little less of the bootstrap idea that an individual has as good of an opportunity to negotiate with management as a union does.
Why are people surprised by this?? You're only a thing of use to an employer. Stop being of use and you will be replaced. And that works both ways, btw. If they're not working for you, don't work for them.
I think it is making me more motivated to FIRE. Some have posited that this situation will make FIRE less popular. Setting aside for the moment where the market might settle our and what that will do to FIRE plans, I think that in our case, it will make us more aggressive about getting out of the workforce, not more hesitant to do so.
While we are worried and anxious and stir-crazy, being home and together all day has been lovely. A version of this life where we can go on walks and hit up museums and travel and explore and have a picnic? It's always sounded lovely, but now I feel like we've experienced the together-all-day aspects of it, as well as the we-have-all-the-time-we-need aspects.
DH is currently working in the office one day a week, and from home the rest of the time. I think it's going to be difficult for him to go back to an everyday office schedule.
I think it is making me more motivated to FIRE. Some have posited that this situation will make FIRE less popular. Setting aside for the moment where the market might settle our and what that will do to FIRE plans, I think that in our case, it will make us more aggressive about getting out of the workforce, not more hesitant to do so.
While we are worried and anxious and stir-crazy, being home and together all day has been lovely. A version of this life where we can go on walks and hit up museums and travel and explore and have a picnic? It's always sounded lovely, but now I feel like we've experienced the together-all-day aspects of it, as well as the we-have-all-the-time-we-need aspects.
DH is currently working in the office one day a week, and from home the rest of the time. I think it's going to be difficult for him to go back to an everyday office schedule.
I'll just echo this. I must go back to work for 3 days next week after a couple of weeks working at home with my wife home a lot of the time, and I'm like, man, 3 days out is a lot.... I mean, I have gotten stir crazy mostly (I believe) because of the lack of places to go in general, but I'm definitely enjoying the family time.
I’ve been watching a great series on Hulu called “The Food That Built America.” It is all about how many huge brands came about through the industrial revolution. I’m up to the point of manufacturing through and just after WWII. It is amazing to see how many things the US used to make here that is now all made in China. The narrators were praising that US had a better economy post war than before as we were able to make such a variety of products and export during the war.During WWII the US actually didn't suffer any major loss. Europe and Japan got bombed to pieces. Especially the industrial centres. While the US was busy selling weapons to the allies. So after the war, all the competition was wiped out, there was a huge demand for products and America was regarded as the champion of democracy protecting the world from the Nazi's and Russians. So that was a uniquely good situation for the US economy.
Watching this has really been eye opening. So many of these creators took giant risks or went bankrupt several times before getting the right product and distribution. Seeing this in such a time of uncertainty has given me a little hope that perhaps we will raise some great companies or products from this situation.
The UK didn't pay off the debt it owed the USA for equipment supplied in WWII until 2006. Thanks, America.I’ve been watching a great series on Hulu called “The Food That Built America.” It is all about how many huge brands came about through the industrial revolution. I’m up to the point of manufacturing through and just after WWII. It is amazing to see how many things the US used to make here that is now all made in China. The narrators were praising that US had a better economy post war than before as we were able to make such a variety of products and export during the war.During WWII the US actually didn't suffer any major loss. Europe and Japan got bombed to pieces. Especially the industrial centres. While the US was busy selling weapons to the allies. So after the war, all the competition was wiped out, there was a huge demand for products and America was regarded as the champion of democracy protecting the world from the Nazi's and Russians. So that was a uniquely good situation for the US economy.
Watching this has really been eye opening. So many of these creators took giant risks or went bankrupt several times before getting the right product and distribution. Seeing this in such a time of uncertainty has given me a little hope that perhaps we will raise some great companies or products from this situation.
This crisis will be a big reset for the world. Definitely there will be new companies formed, but it is very possible that the west will lose in a big way to the Chinese. In a way many old companies where already on the way down, but due to cheap credit and political support where surviving. I'm thinking Boeing, GE, etc. With stock prices crashing they may get purchased and stripped of talent and IP.
The UK didn't pay off the debt it owed the USA for equipment supplied in WWII until 2006. Thanks, America.
I’ve been watching a great series on Hulu called “The Food That Built America.” It is all about how many huge brands came about through the industrial revolution. I’m up to the point of manufacturing through and just after WWII. It is amazing to see how many things the US used to make here that is now all made in China. The narrators were praising that US had a better economy post war than before as we were able to make such a variety of products and export during the war.During WWII the US actually didn't suffer any major loss. Europe and Japan got bombed to pieces. Especially the industrial centres. While the US was busy selling weapons to the allies. So after the war, all the competition was wiped out, there was a huge demand for products and America was regarded as the champion of democracy protecting the world from the Nazi's and Russians. So that was a uniquely good situation for the US economy.
Watching this has really been eye opening. So many of these creators took giant risks or went bankrupt several times before getting the right product and distribution. Seeing this in such a time of uncertainty has given me a little hope that perhaps we will raise some great companies or products from this situation.
This crisis will be a big reset for the world. Definitely there will be new companies formed, but it is very possible that the west will lose in a big way to the Chinese. In a way many old companies where already on the way down, but due to cheap credit and political support where surviving. I'm thinking Boeing, GE, etc. With stock prices crashing they may get purchased and stripped of talent and IP.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
The fees are included in the price for the purchase as for cash. You are not allowed to take out a separate fee for use of cards. It costs to make cash deposits and there was a fee for checks already 20 years when I worked in retail. Cash has also the cost of counting, making deposits and bank costs to handling deposit. Not to talk about the cost of robberies and security costs related to cash. That is a big driver to a cashless society.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
The fees are included in the price for the purchase as for cash. You are not allowed to take out a separate fee for use of cards. It costs to make cash deposits and there was a fee for checks already 20 years when I worked in retail. Cash has also the cost of counting, making deposits and bank costs to handling deposit. Not to talk about the cost of robberies and security costs related to cash. That is a big driver to a cashless society.
Interesting. So, the government inherently pays for the cost of cash in all systems I am aware of - at least the explicit costs of making it. Does the government create the system and the infrastructure that allows credit cards/debit cards to function in your situation? Or, do they simply regulate the banking industry and make them eat the cost of it?
I’ve been watching a great series on Hulu called “The Food That Built America.” It is all about how many huge brands came about through the industrial revolution. I’m up to the point of manufacturing through and just after WWII. It is amazing to see how many things the US used to make here that is now all made in China. The narrators were praising that US had a better economy post war than before as we were able to make such a variety of products and export during the war.During WWII the US actually didn't suffer any major loss. Europe and Japan got bombed to pieces. Especially the industrial centres. While the US was busy selling weapons to the allies. So after the war, all the competition was wiped out, there was a huge demand for products and America was regarded as the champion of democracy protecting the world from the Nazi's and Russians. So that was a uniquely good situation for the US economy.
Watching this has really been eye opening. So many of these creators took giant risks or went bankrupt several times before getting the right product and distribution. Seeing this in such a time of uncertainty has given me a little hope that perhaps we will raise some great companies or products from this situation.
This crisis will be a big reset for the world. Definitely there will be new companies formed, but it is very possible that the west will lose in a big way to the Chinese. In a way many old companies where already on the way down, but due to cheap credit and political support where surviving. I'm thinking Boeing, GE, etc. With stock prices crashing they may get purchased and stripped of talent and IP.
Our manufacturing sector is very mature, the odds of a new wave of companies is very slim unless there is a technological advance which would cause one. Sure will there be some small companies that can't stay afloat in this environment, thereby opening up areas for entrepreneurship? Yeah. Will some of those smaller companies just become a part of a larger capital investment group? Yeah.
Will this somehow increase the amount of manufacturing done in the US? I doubt it. Many of the things that are manufactured in China are closer to the commodity side of the spectrum (Commodity-------------Custom). Commodities are meant to be cheaper and more disposable. It's tough to make things cheap when you have to pay a workforce much more. When your margins are already razor thin you'll dive out of an expensive place to make things like the US and jump to an overseas location for your commodity like products.
Will there be a wave of anti-globalization talk among people? Sure. I think we were already trending xenophobic in our rhetoric. I also think it's hard for Americans to stop their habit of buying crap regardless of an economic bump in the road. Remember people were talking in '08/'09 about how this might make people start to realize that they need to save more money and not leverage themselves to the hilt with an expensive mortgage. That didn't last too long IMO.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
The fees are included in the price for the purchase as for cash. You are not allowed to take out a separate fee for use of cards. It costs to make cash deposits and there was a fee for checks already 20 years when I worked in retail. Cash has also the cost of counting, making deposits and bank costs to handling deposit. Not to talk about the cost of robberies and security costs related to cash. That is a big driver to a cashless society.
Interesting. So, the government inherently pays for the cost of cash in all systems I am aware of - at least the explicit costs of making it. Does the government create the system and the infrastructure that allows credit cards/debit cards to function in your situation? Or, do they simply regulate the banking industry and make them eat the cost of it?
As Dandarc points it out the cost of printing the cash is the small cost. Government or probably EU regulates the banking industry. You as the customer take the cost of card fees as well as you take the costs of handling cash. The banking industry pushes all the cost to the customers as any other business would do.
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.I hate physical cash. I hate having it in my wallet. I'm way more likely to spend it on something dumb just to make it go away than I ever am to make a conscious swipe of the credit card, creating a transaction record that will exist forever. Cash is fleeting, ethereal. Once it's gone it's like it was never there. My spending definitely feels less "real" when it's physical cash. I'm probably not in the majority there.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.I hate physical cash. I hate having it in my wallet. I'm way more likely to spend it on something dumb just to make it go away than I ever am to make a conscious swipe of the credit card, creating a transaction record that will exist forever. Cash is fleeting, ethereal. Once it's gone it's like it was never there. My spending definitely feels less "real" when it's physical cash. I'm probably not in the majority there.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
The fees are included in the price for the purchase as for cash. You are not allowed to take out a separate fee for use of cards. It costs to make cash deposits and there was a fee for checks already 20 years when I worked in retail. Cash has also the cost of counting, making deposits and bank costs to handling deposit. Not to talk about the cost of robberies and security costs related to cash. That is a big driver to a cashless society.
Interesting. So, the government inherently pays for the cost of cash in all systems I am aware of - at least the explicit costs of making it. Does the government create the system and the infrastructure that allows credit cards/debit cards to function in your situation? Or, do they simply regulate the banking industry and make them eat the cost of it?
As Dandarc points it out the cost of printing the cash is the small cost. Government or probably EU regulates the banking industry. You as the customer take the cost of card fees as well as you take the costs of handling cash. The banking industry pushes all the cost to the customers as any other business would do.
Right, I'm not arguing with the cost of cash outside of printing it, nor was I ever. It has a cost both societally and to the parties involved in the transfer - although I would think the cost is almost certainly smaller on a smaller scale where one person or couple sell personal goods directly, take cash, and then either uses the cash themselves (as people in those situations tend to be live more cash involved lives) or make a single deposit to the bank or whatnot (my theory, may not be true). In that context, 2-3% does certainly seem high to me. I had been simply saying earlier that I still feel that given the current situation where cash exists, for certain situations like farmer's markets or larger donations to a non-profit organization, it still makes sense to use cash or checks if you want to help the people there to avoid fees given our current setup for money. My goal is to talk to farmer's market people whenever I get a chance to see if they see it the same way.
My specific question was that there is an explicit cost of doing business that has to be put on someone. There are implicit costs as well, and they can be weighed by the parties involved in terms of what they accept or at least how they push for one type of payment or the other. Taxpayers as a whole front the cost of printing the money which is the explicit cost of using cash. I was curious if the government had actually created any infrastructure for it (doubt it but was curious) to do the backbone of simple money transactions or if they had simply regulated banks to declare that this will be free as a cost of doing business as a banks, thus where they transfer it on to the consumer. It sounds like the government doesn't charge for the cost it in taxes but forces banks to charge for it to customers in general. No moral judging either way, just curious, and in retrospect, probably a dumb question.
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.I hate physical cash. I hate having it in my wallet. I'm way more likely to spend it on something dumb just to make it go away than I ever am to make a conscious swipe of the credit card, creating a transaction record that will exist forever. Cash is fleeting, ethereal. Once it's gone it's like it was never there. My spending definitely feels less "real" when it's physical cash. I'm probably not in the majority there.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.I hate physical cash. I hate having it in my wallet. I'm way more likely to spend it on something dumb just to make it go away than I ever am to make a conscious swipe of the credit card, creating a transaction record that will exist forever. Cash is fleeting, ethereal. Once it's gone it's like it was never there. My spending definitely feels less "real" when it's physical cash. I'm probably not in the majority there.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.I hate physical cash. I hate having it in my wallet. I'm way more likely to spend it on something dumb just to make it go away than I ever am to make a conscious swipe of the credit card, creating a transaction record that will exist forever. Cash is fleeting, ethereal. Once it's gone it's like it was never there. My spending definitely feels less "real" when it's physical cash. I'm probably not in the majority there.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
+1
My first job I got when I was 15 had DD and I already had a debit card and checking account, so digital money has always been very 'real' for me. I also worked a lot of jobs where we handled a LOT of cash so I never had this mystique of lots of physical money.
The cost of literally printing the currency is not what anyone is talking about when we say "the cost of cash".
Cash has to be inventoried. Counted. Obtained from a bank, deposited at a bank. Need some kind of secure place to keep said cash. You've got even more mistakes made when transacting in cash vs cards. Cash is a lot of work. You know that thing that businesses pay people to do?
People look at a 2 to 3% fee for processing credit cards and think that's really high. Same people usually don't even know what it costs to handle their cash.
The cost of literally printing the currency is not what anyone is talking about when we say "the cost of cash".
Cash has to be inventoried. Counted. Obtained from a bank, deposited at a bank. Need some kind of secure place to keep said cash. You've got even more mistakes made when transacting in cash vs cards. Cash is a lot of work. You know that thing that businesses pay people to do?
People look at a 2 to 3% fee for processing credit cards and think that's really high. Same people usually don't even know what it costs to handle their cash.
I've never worked in a retail environment but a friend of mine opened a cafe a couple of years back. Electronic transactions only. I asked him this exact question. He said he'd crunched the numbers and the cost of handling cash was just way too high. It blew my mind at the time.
If you have an address in the UK, you can get a free basic bank account. It is a problem for people who don't have an address at all, but they tend to have big problems that are more than just trying to live life without a debit card.
I agree with the PP that it's not like all transactions ever have been cash. Particularly that in less anonymous times it used to be common for shops to give credit so you could buy things on account and settle up monthly or quarterly. Just like... a credit card!
I spend cash more freely than card because it's already been deducted from my mental tally of how much I have in my account. In my mind the "spending" happens at the ATM. Different strokes for different folks.
I think the US is really behind western Europe on a lot of things. Sure, it's a bigger and more complicated country, but it's still kinda backward on things like banking and healthcare. It would be nice if coronavirus gave the politicians a kick up the arse, but... I doubt it. My dream for the UK is that it significantly advances the case for UBI (it's on my list to write letters to various people about it) but again... I doubt it.
Bank accounts in the US are pretty easy to get. It’s not a question of can get. It’s a question of have.
Then why don't people have them if it's so easy? There's clearly some barrier here. Is it just the "pain point" hasn't been reached in American society? As Plina said, in the UK you need a bank account for your benefits to be paid into even if nothing else. And while some small employers would pay you in cash, the stories I hear of people getting literal cheques even for middle class white collar jobs are mind-boggling to me. If things like that started to change (e.g. need a bank account for benefits), would large numbers of previously unbanked people skip happily to the bank to sign up? If not, why not?
I don't think bank accounts are so easy to get in the US, especially at the larger banks. You've got to have ID and a minimum amount of money to deposit, and there are fees, especially if you don't keep a certain amount of $ in that account.
Question for people in the essentially cashless society. Are the fees associated with electronic purchases just a part of life? Are they handled by the government? When I use it at places like the local farmer's market/writing checks to places I want to donate money too/etc. it makes me a little bit happier to realize they are not losing x% of it to fees that are unnecessary. I could care less about it if I buy something at Amazon or Walmart, but it does mean something for certain places that get my money.
The fees are included in the price for the purchase as for cash. You are not allowed to take out a separate fee for use of cards. It costs to make cash deposits and there was a fee for checks already 20 years when I worked in retail. Cash has also the cost of counting, making deposits and bank costs to handling deposit. Not to talk about the cost of robberies and security costs related to cash. That is a big driver to a cashless society.
Interesting. So, the government inherently pays for the cost of cash in all systems I am aware of - at least the explicit costs of making it. Does the government create the system and the infrastructure that allows credit cards/debit cards to function in your situation? Or, do they simply regulate the banking industry and make them eat the cost of it?
As Dandarc points it out the cost of printing the cash is the small cost. Government or probably EU regulates the banking industry. You as the customer take the cost of card fees as well as you take the costs of handling cash. The banking industry pushes all the cost to the customers as any other business would do.
Right, I'm not arguing with the cost of cash outside of printing it, nor was I ever. It has a cost both societally and to the parties involved in the transfer - although I would think the cost is almost certainly smaller on a smaller scale where one person or couple sell personal goods directly, take cash, and then either uses the cash themselves (as people in those situations tend to be live more cash involved lives) or make a single deposit to the bank or whatnot (my theory, may not be true). In that context, 2-3% does certainly seem high to me. I had been simply saying earlier that I still feel that given the current situation where cash exists, for certain situations like farmer's markets or larger donations to a non-profit organization, it still makes sense to use cash or checks if you want to help the people there to avoid fees given our current setup for money. My goal is to talk to farmer's market people whenever I get a chance to see if they see it the same way.
My specific question was that there is an explicit cost of doing business that has to be put on someone. There are implicit costs as well, and they can be weighed by the parties involved in terms of what they accept or at least how they push for one type of payment or the other. Taxpayers as a whole front the cost of printing the money which is the explicit cost of using cash. I was curious if the government had actually created any infrastructure for it (doubt it but was curious) to do the backbone of simple money transactions or if they had simply regulated banks to declare that this will be free as a cost of doing business as a banks, thus where they transfer it on to the consumer. It sounds like the government doesn't charge for the cost it in taxes but forces banks to charge for it to customers in general. No moral judging either way, just curious, and in retrospect, probably a dumb question.
Electronical payments between private persons does not cost anything. The swish option for companies is 6 USD per month and about 25-30 cents per transfer for the seller depending on your setup. That is the system mostly used at farmers markets and by small businesses. You can also use it to give money to charities.
The card payment option for small businesses have a 1,85 % fee.
I realize that most folks here have some self-restraint when it comes to spending money, especially what I'd categorize as "impulse buys." I think I'm in that camp too.I hate physical cash. I hate having it in my wallet. I'm way more likely to spend it on something dumb just to make it go away than I ever am to make a conscious swipe of the credit card, creating a transaction record that will exist forever. Cash is fleeting, ethereal. Once it's gone it's like it was never there. My spending definitely feels less "real" when it's physical cash. I'm probably not in the majority there.
But...
Even I admit that spending cash is psychologically harder for me than just swiping a card. I tend to really be conservative with my spare cash, partially I guess because it's limited, but also because it's more "real" on some level, when I have a $20 bill in my hand, and I tend to question my purchase more.
I know "cashless" or some version near that, is going to happen soon, and I've already pointed out how it will hurt the elderly and lower-income people, but it won't exactly help the "generally middle-class Dave Ramsey caller" types either. By that, I mean the folks with decent jobs who still tend to spend everything they make and save little for retirement.
And the easier we make it to spend money (card swiping becomes just a tap, a tap becomes a wave of your hand, or just looking at something with your eyeballs), the most these people will struggle with their impulses. Cash can slow down people a little. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but there's a reason Dave talks about cash so much, because on some level it DOES create at least a bit of friction.
Is it really a good thing, if in 2 years, you can order from Amazon just by looking at an item and blinking? I mean, isn't SOME level of friction a good thing to balance between convenience and many people spending more recklessly and mindlessly than they already do?
I'm with you ketchup. Cash is already spent in my head. It's not in any accounts that I tally up for net worth. So... it's like "free" spending.
It's the worst :(
The research on this topic suggests that Spartana/Nick_Miller's experience is probably more representative of the general public. People tend to be willing to spend more for the same items when paying with a credit card than when paying with cash. Here's one of the classical early papers (https://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Alwaysleavehome.pdf) in the field in study from back in 2001 (sorry for the PDF link).
Businesses are also aware of this. A more recent paper showed that once states convert from cash tolls to electronic tolls (https://www.nber.org/papers/w12924), they were able to raise toll rates by 20-40%.
So keep in mind that when businesses are pushing people towards electronic payments and trying to reduce and eliminate cash, they aren't just doing it for efficiency, they're doing it because it because it'll cause their customers to spend more.
I mean, I took it to the extreme with a small amount of our cash reserves. $2500 in quarters in my closet, some rolled, some not.
And it's "my" money, left over from my pocket money over a period of like two years. Do you know how many times I would have spent that money on stuff had it not been in quarters? At least three times that I can count.
Yet I haven't, because the friction was too great.
And I haven't deprived myself at all. I mean, I have everything I need. Plus I have $2500 which would almost pay our mortgage for 2 months in case of an extreme emergency.
I don't think bank accounts are so easy to get in the US, especially at the larger banks. You've got to have ID and a minimum amount of money to deposit, and there are fees, especially if you don't keep a certain amount of $ in that account.
You can get around to a lot of those issues at a credit union.
I personally use a big one - DCU. They require $5 "share" deposit. There are many other local ones in Connecticut (and anywhere else I have "lived" - including Cincinnati) where you can have an account for $5.
ID is required. But credit unions will typically work with you if you don't have it.
Is it that credit unions are very uncommon in more rural corners? They aren't in CT - but I realize most of the country are not defined by what is normal in CT.
I’ve been watching a great series on Hulu called “The Food That Built America.” It is all about how many huge brands came about through the industrial revolution. I’m up to the point of manufacturing through and just after WWII. It is amazing to see how many things the US used to make here that is now all made in China. The narrators were praising that US had a better economy post war than before as we were able to make such a variety of products and export during the war.During WWII the US actually didn't suffer any major loss. Europe and Japan got bombed to pieces. Especially the industrial centres. While the US was busy selling weapons to the allies. So after the war, all the competition was wiped out, there was a huge demand for products and America was regarded as the champion of democracy protecting the world from the Nazi's and Russians. So that was a uniquely good situation for the US economy.
Watching this has really been eye opening. So many of these creators took giant risks or went bankrupt several times before getting the right product and distribution. Seeing this in such a time of uncertainty has given me a little hope that perhaps we will raise some great companies or products from this situation.
This crisis will be a big reset for the world. Definitely there will be new companies formed, but it is very possible that the west will lose in a big way to the Chinese. In a way many old companies where already on the way down, but due to cheap credit and political support where surviving. I'm thinking Boeing, GE, etc. With stock prices crashing they may get purchased and stripped of talent and IP.
Our manufacturing sector is very mature, the odds of a new wave of companies is very slim unless there is a technological advance which would cause one. Sure will there be some small companies that can't stay afloat in this environment, thereby opening up areas for entrepreneurship? Yeah. Will some of those smaller companies just become a part of a larger capital investment group? Yeah.
Will this somehow increase the amount of manufacturing done in the US? I doubt it. Many of the things that are manufactured in China are closer to the commodity side of the spectrum (Commodity-------------Custom). Commodities are meant to be cheaper and more disposable. It's tough to make things cheap when you have to pay a workforce much more. When your margins are already razor thin you'll dive out of an expensive place to make things like the US and jump to an overseas location for your commodity like products.
Will there be a wave of anti-globalization talk among people? Sure. I think we were already trending xenophobic in our rhetoric. I also think it's hard for Americans to stop their habit of buying crap regardless of an economic bump in the road. Remember people were talking in '08/'09 about how this might make people start to realize that they need to save more money and not leverage themselves to the hilt with an expensive mortgage. That didn't last too long IMO.
We have some companies that have started making protective gear in the country or are going to ramp up the production. One of them are importing the machinery from China and they are automating the part that is currently sewn by Chinese workers. Another one is today making the fabric to Chinese factories were they sew the gowns. Now they have found a way to weld the gown instead of sewing it in china. So machines are fast replacing the Chinese workers as the cost of the supply chain have gone up. I have also read some articles were companies are talking about automating part of the production and taking it back to europé, mainly eastern europe due to risk we have seen with interrupted supply chains.
I’ve been watching a great series on Hulu called “The Food That Built America.” It is all about how many huge brands came about through the industrial revolution. I’m up to the point of manufacturing through and just after WWII. It is amazing to see how many things the US used to make here that is now all made in China. The narrators were praising that US had a better economy post war than before as we were able to make such a variety of products and export during the war.During WWII the US actually didn't suffer any major loss. Europe and Japan got bombed to pieces. Especially the industrial centres. While the US was busy selling weapons to the allies. So after the war, all the competition was wiped out, there was a huge demand for products and America was regarded as the champion of democracy protecting the world from the Nazi's and Russians. So that was a uniquely good situation for the US economy.
Watching this has really been eye opening. So many of these creators took giant risks or went bankrupt several times before getting the right product and distribution. Seeing this in such a time of uncertainty has given me a little hope that perhaps we will raise some great companies or products from this situation.
This crisis will be a big reset for the world. Definitely there will be new companies formed, but it is very possible that the west will lose in a big way to the Chinese. In a way many old companies where already on the way down, but due to cheap credit and political support where surviving. I'm thinking Boeing, GE, etc. With stock prices crashing they may get purchased and stripped of talent and IP.
Our manufacturing sector is very mature, the odds of a new wave of companies is very slim unless there is a technological advance which would cause one. Sure will there be some small companies that can't stay afloat in this environment, thereby opening up areas for entrepreneurship? Yeah. Will some of those smaller companies just become a part of a larger capital investment group? Yeah.
Will this somehow increase the amount of manufacturing done in the US? I doubt it. Many of the things that are manufactured in China are closer to the commodity side of the spectrum (Commodity-------------Custom). Commodities are meant to be cheaper and more disposable. It's tough to make things cheap when you have to pay a workforce much more. When your margins are already razor thin you'll dive out of an expensive place to make things like the US and jump to an overseas location for your commodity like products.
Will there be a wave of anti-globalization talk among people? Sure. I think we were already trending xenophobic in our rhetoric. I also think it's hard for Americans to stop their habit of buying crap regardless of an economic bump in the road. Remember people were talking in '08/'09 about how this might make people start to realize that they need to save more money and not leverage themselves to the hilt with an expensive mortgage. That didn't last too long IMO.
We have some companies that have started making protective gear in the country or are going to ramp up the production. One of them are importing the machinery from China and they are automating the part that is currently sewn by Chinese workers. Another one is today making the fabric to Chinese factories were they sew the gowns. Now they have found a way to weld the gown instead of sewing it in china. So machines are fast replacing the Chinese workers as the cost of the supply chain have gone up. I have also read some articles were companies are talking about automating part of the production and taking it back to europé, mainly eastern europe due to risk we have seen with interrupted supply chains.
But that is for product that is in exceptional demand due to current temporary circumstances. That PPE isn't going to remain in permanent high demand. When the need for that disappears what happens to those companies?
As for supply chain you do have a point there. I do think that supply chains in general will be impacted by this. How that shakes out will be particular to each thing being made and the availability of the raw materials. I'm not so convinced that a permanent shakeup of how business was done is going to happen. If anything how prepared countries are to respond to illnesses will change but I don't think how things or where things are made is going to rapidly change due to coronavirus.
Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
My daughter is starting high school next year too. She has been really good about the transition to learning at home, but she does not like it. In her mind things will be back to normal by the time school starts in the fall, but if they aren't she is gong to be devastated. My preschooler on the other hand seems to vastly prefer being home vs. going to school, but I think that half day of social interaction, that she is missing out on now, was really good for her development.
@CodingHare - I went to public school my whole life and didn't really develop the social skills until well into my 20's. And I don't recall any time when I was away from school for a super long time for any reason.
Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
I agree there are no easy answers. However, am I the only one that thinks that no matter what health people say, schools will be opened up for next school year? They go hand in hand with bringing America back up into some semblance of production functionality. Are there really that many childless Americans or Americans that can see themselves surviving on one parent's income? Technically, we can probably as a nation do without many of the service industries, but there's still a lot of things that are in some way produced in America and a lot of jobs that need people physically at them. I have no idea how where to start to do the math on what is actually required, but I can't see schools/day cares shut down outside of the short term.
Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
My daughter is starting high school next year too. She has been really good about the transition to learning at home, but she does not like it. In her mind things will be back to normal by the time school starts in the fall, but if they aren't she is gong to be devastated. My preschooler on the other hand seems to vastly prefer being home vs. going to school, but I think that half day of social interaction, that she is missing out on now, was really good for her development.
This one I'll disagree with. I recently read World War Z only because of the pandemic, and every time in the past two months I've looked on JustWatch, Contagion (2010) is trending.
- Zombie movies We're sick of thinking about worldwide contagions and the dangers that lurk outside. It's getting tedious. This trope is dead.
Here are some things I think aren't coming back:
- Zombie movies We're sick of thinking about worldwide contagions and the dangers that lurk outside. It's getting tedious. This trope is dead.
Here are some things I think aren't coming back:
- Movie Theaters. Movie theaters were already on the ropes, since so many people have home entertainment systems that are at least comparable in sound and picture quality, but allow you to pause to use the restroom or get more snacks, and don't cost $12 per showing. Movie theaters were the first thing to be shut down for COVID, and they'll likely be the last to come back, if at all.
- Full-service banking. I've been inside a bank branch exactly once in the last year, and that was because f***g Chase Bank won't let you open their bonus-paying account online. While I was there, I saw the segment of humanity that still values that human touch, and expects velvet ropes, complementary coffee, and chatty tellers. Now, I literally get an email every day from my various banks encouraging me to discover all that their website has to offer. I can assume that those other people are getting these too, and will start to make that mental shift to fully online banking.
- Paper Money Yesterday, I took a ten-dollar bill to the Taco Bell drive through, and I watched as the person in front of me paid with a credit card without ever actually touching the reader. And then I came up with my filthy scrap of paper, and was given three more filthy scraps of paper in change. I don't know where they came from, or who else might have sneezed all over them before me, but next time I'm bringing the plastic. And so is everyone else. There is almost nothing that requires Federal Reserve Notes any more.
- The Office The stay-at-home orders were just the push we needed to force everyone into permanent tele-commuting. Amid all the gripes about the distractions at home, you're not hearing just how wonderful it is not to spend an hour in the car each day. And, you're also not hearing the businesses, as they wonder: If we're being just as productive, why the hell are we paying rent on this building, with all its electricity, window-washing, janitors, and toilet paper stock?
- Zombie movies We're sick of thinking about worldwide contagions and the dangers that lurk outside. It's getting tedious. This trope is dead.
- Bulk Food I love the price; I love the variety. But they're not bringing it back unless they can guarantee perfect sterility, which they can't.
- Mega-cruise-ships Cruises in general will survive. I plan to book one immediately when cruises return with discount rates. But I never understood the appeal of bigger and bigger ships. COVID was not even the first time that a plague has swept through these multi-thousand-passenger floating cities, which seem designed for disease transmission. Look for a return of smaller, less Disney-esque ships with employee servers at the buffet.
- Sick kids at school Elementary and secondary school will remain an in-person activity. Let's face it, learning is a side-benefit to the school's primary purpose of watching your kids all day. Even with working from home, it's nice to have a major government department watching your kids while you try to get something done.. Previously, there was an unspoken agreement that you can send your kid to school sick, but in return, I get to send my kid to school sick. We'll all get sick, but that's the bargain. Well, no more. There will be new school policies that any cough or sniffle is a trip to the nurse, and a call home.
Same. My son starts high school next year. I think he probably thinks it would be fine to do the at home thing like we are currently doing. But I think it would be an absolute shit-show to attempt all the advanced classes that way. Right now, he's fine, because the teachers are (rightfully) phoning it in, a bit. Many of them also have children at home, they are on a weird, reduced schedule. A good % of kids don't have internet access yet. So his math compaction class will NOT get through the amount that he would have normally.Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
My daughter is starting high school next year too. She has been really good about the transition to learning at home, but she does not like it. In her mind things will be back to normal by the time school starts in the fall, but if they aren't she is gong to be devastated. My preschooler on the other hand seems to vastly prefer being home vs. going to school, but I think that half day of social interaction, that she is missing out on now, was really good for her development.
My googling found data from 2016 that suggests that 40% of all households have children, and 61% of those have two working parents. That means we are closer to 25% of the population needing alternative care arrangements. That's significant.I agree there are no easy answers. However, am I the only one that thinks that no matter what health people say, schools will be opened up for next school year? They go hand in hand with bringing America back up into some semblance of production functionality. Are there really that many childless Americans or Americans that can see themselves surviving on one parent's income? Technically, we can probably as a nation do without many of the service industries, but there's still a lot of things that are in some way produced in America and a lot of jobs that need people physically at them. I have no idea how where to start to do the math on what is actually required, but I can't see schools/day cares shut down outside of the short term.
I think the short answer to your question is yes.
About 3/4ths of american households don't have any children living in them (including single person households, married couples without children, and people with adult children).
For the remaining 25% about 1/3 were married couples where only one person works outside the household to begin with.
Some additional number of households among the remaining 16% or so have either children too young to be in school or old enough that they can be trusted home alone (and maybe even watch younger siblings). I couldn't find good numbers for this. Figure 13+ can stay home alone, and once you have at least one teenage at home they could watch younger siblings during the day.
So hand wavey, back of the envelope number, I'd call it about one in ten households that are having to figure out alternative child care arrangements because schools are shutdown. Which is still a lot of people, but I don't think it's enough to drive policy decisions.
Here are some things I think aren't coming back:
- Movie Theaters. Movie theaters were already on the ropes, since so many people have home entertainment systems that are at least comparable in sound and picture quality, but allow you to pause to use the restroom or get more snacks, and don't cost $12 per showing. Movie theaters were the first thing to be shut down for COVID, and they'll likely be the last to come back, if at all.
- Full-service banking. I've been inside a bank branch exactly once in the last year, and that was because f***g Chase Bank won't let you open their bonus-paying account online. While I was there, I saw the segment of humanity that still values that human touch, and expects velvet ropes, complementary coffee, and chatty tellers. Now, I literally get an email every day from my various banks encouraging me to discover all that their website has to offer. I can assume that those other people are getting these too, and will start to make that mental shift to fully online banking.
- Paper Money Yesterday, I took a ten-dollar bill to the Taco Bell drive through, and I watched as the person in front of me paid with a credit card without ever actually touching the reader. And then I came up with my filthy scrap of paper, and was given three more filthy scraps of paper in change. I don't know where they came from, or who else might have sneezed all over them before me, but next time I'm bringing the plastic. And so is everyone else. There is almost nothing that requires Federal Reserve Notes any more.
- The Office The stay-at-home orders were just the push we needed to force everyone into permanent tele-commuting. Amid all the gripes about the distractions at home, you're not hearing just how wonderful it is not to spend an hour in the car each day. And, you're also not hearing the businesses, as they wonder: If we're being just as productive, why the hell are we paying rent on this building, with all its electricity, window-washing, janitors, and toilet paper stock?
- Zombie movies We're sick of thinking about worldwide contagions and the dangers that lurk outside. It's getting tedious. This trope is dead.
- Bulk Food I love the price; I love the variety. But they're not bringing it back unless they can guarantee perfect sterility, which they can't.
- Mega-cruise-ships Cruises in general will survive. I plan to book one immediately when cruises return with discount rates. But I never understood the appeal of bigger and bigger ships. COVID was not even the first time that a plague has swept through these multi-thousand-passenger floating cities, which seem designed for disease transmission. Look for a return of smaller, less Disney-esque ships with employee servers at the buffet.
- Sick kids at school Elementary and secondary school will remain an in-person activity. Let's face it, learning is a side-benefit to the school's primary purpose of watching your kids all day. Even with working from home, it's nice to have a major government department watching your kids while you try to get something done.. Previously, there was an unspoken agreement that you can send your kid to school sick, but in return, I get to send my kid to school sick. We'll all get sick, but that's the bargain. Well, no more. There will be new school policies that any cough or sniffle is a trip to the nurse, and a call home.
I don’t see bulk food dissapearing. There is no such thing as totally sterile food. It would mean that all vegetabled and fruits, except the frozen, would need to disappear. Not to mention food buffets.
My googling found data from 2016 that suggests that 40% of all households have children, and 61% of those have two working parents. That means we are closer to 25% of the population needing alternative care arrangements. That's significant.I agree there are no easy answers. However, am I the only one that thinks that no matter what health people say, schools will be opened up for next school year? They go hand in hand with bringing America back up into some semblance of production functionality. Are there really that many childless Americans or Americans that can see themselves surviving on one parent's income? Technically, we can probably as a nation do without many of the service industries, but there's still a lot of things that are in some way produced in America and a lot of jobs that need people physically at them. I have no idea how where to start to do the math on what is actually required, but I can't see schools/day cares shut down outside of the short term.
I think the short answer to your question is yes.
About 3/4ths of american households don't have any children living in them (including single person households, married couples without children, and people with adult children).
For the remaining 25% about 1/3 were married couples where only one person works outside the household to begin with.
Some additional number of households among the remaining 16% or so have either children too young to be in school or old enough that they can be trusted home alone (and maybe even watch younger siblings). I couldn't find good numbers for this. Figure 13+ can stay home alone, and once you have at least one teenage at home they could watch younger siblings during the day.
So hand wavey, back of the envelope number, I'd call it about one in ten households that are having to figure out alternative child care arrangements because schools are shutdown. Which is still a lot of people, but I don't think it's enough to drive policy decisions.
You cannot just say "well, there's an older teen". Sure, our 14 yo can babysit his 7 yo brother for a few hours but we are NOT talking about child minding, we are talking about SCHOOLING. Both kids need to be getting educated, simultaneously. The teen can't get his schooling done and teach his 2nd grade brother.
Here are some things I think aren't coming back:
- Movie Theaters. Movie theaters were already on the ropes, since so many people have home entertainment systems that are at least comparable in sound and picture quality, but allow you to pause to use the restroom or get more snacks, and don't cost $12 per showing. Movie theaters were the first thing to be shut down for COVID, and they'll likely be the last to come back, if at all.
- Full-service banking. I've been inside a bank branch exactly once in the last year, and that was because f***g Chase Bank won't let you open their bonus-paying account online. While I was there, I saw the segment of humanity that still values that human touch, and expects velvet ropes, complementary coffee, and chatty tellers. Now, I literally get an email every day from my various banks encouraging me to discover all that their website has to offer. I can assume that those other people are getting these too, and will start to make that mental shift to fully online banking.
- Paper Money Yesterday, I took a ten-dollar bill to the Taco Bell drive through, and I watched as the person in front of me paid with a credit card without ever actually touching the reader. And then I came up with my filthy scrap of paper, and was given three more filthy scraps of paper in change. I don't know where they came from, or who else might have sneezed all over them before me, but next time I'm bringing the plastic. And so is everyone else. There is almost nothing that requires Federal Reserve Notes any more.
- The Office The stay-at-home orders were just the push we needed to force everyone into permanent tele-commuting. Amid all the gripes about the distractions at home, you're not hearing just how wonderful it is not to spend an hour in the car each day. And, you're also not hearing the businesses, as they wonder: If we're being just as productive, why the hell are we paying rent on this building, with all its electricity, window-washing, janitors, and toilet paper stock?
- Zombie movies We're sick of thinking about worldwide contagions and the dangers that lurk outside. It's getting tedious. This trope is dead.
- Bulk Food I love the price; I love the variety. But they're not bringing it back unless they can guarantee perfect sterility, which they can't.
- Mega-cruise-ships Cruises in general will survive. I plan to book one immediately when cruises return with discount rates. But I never understood the appeal of bigger and bigger ships. COVID was not even the first time that a plague has swept through these multi-thousand-passenger floating cities, which seem designed for disease transmission. Look for a return of smaller, less Disney-esque ships with employee servers at the buffet.
- Sick kids at school Elementary and secondary school will remain an in-person activity. Let's face it, learning is a side-benefit to the school's primary purpose of watching your kids all day. Even with working from home, it's nice to have a major government department watching your kids while you try to get something done.. Previously, there was an unspoken agreement that you can send your kid to school sick, but in return, I get to send my kid to school sick. We'll all get sick, but that's the bargain. Well, no more. There will be new school policies that any cough or sniffle is a trip to the nurse, and a call home.
I don’t see bulk food dissapearing. There is no such thing as totally sterile food. It would mean that all vegetabled and fruits, except the frozen, would need to disappear. Not to mention food buffets.
Yeah I agree, I'm not following this one. Why would the bulk food section be any more or less difficult to sterilize than anything else in the grocery store?
I could see greater restrictions on who can access the bulk food containers. Like, all of them would be behind a barrier of some sort, and an employee would have to measure out what customers wanted. Honestly, I'd consider that an improvement. I've heard enough stories about people sticking bare hands into bulk bins to be grossed out, and I'm not particularly squeamish.I think there are low tech solutions for this. The grocery store we go to has the "gravity turnstile" containers for the bulk section. No one's grubby hands touch your food before you (other than the employee filling the containers to begin with) but I guess if someone wanted to be nefarious they could put germs at the bottom part of the chute.
Here are some things I think aren't coming back:
- Movie Theaters. Movie theaters were already on the ropes, since so many people have home entertainment systems that are at least comparable in sound and picture quality, but allow you to pause to use the restroom or get more snacks, and don't cost $12 per showing. Movie theaters were the first thing to be shut down for COVID, and they'll likely be the last to come back, if at all.
- Full-service banking. I've been inside a bank branch exactly once in the last year, and that was because f***g Chase Bank won't let you open their bonus-paying account online. While I was there, I saw the segment of humanity that still values that human touch, and expects velvet ropes, complementary coffee, and chatty tellers. Now, I literally get an email every day from my various banks encouraging me to discover all that their website has to offer. I can assume that those other people are getting these too, and will start to make that mental shift to fully online banking.
- Paper Money Yesterday, I took a ten-dollar bill to the Taco Bell drive through, and I watched as the person in front of me paid with a credit card without ever actually touching the reader. And then I came up with my filthy scrap of paper, and was given three more filthy scraps of paper in change. I don't know where they came from, or who else might have sneezed all over them before me, but next time I'm bringing the plastic. And so is everyone else. There is almost nothing that requires Federal Reserve Notes any more.
- The Office The stay-at-home orders were just the push we needed to force everyone into permanent tele-commuting. Amid all the gripes about the distractions at home, you're not hearing just how wonderful it is not to spend an hour in the car each day. And, you're also not hearing the businesses, as they wonder: If we're being just as productive, why the hell are we paying rent on this building, with all its electricity, window-washing, janitors, and toilet paper stock?
- Zombie movies We're sick of thinking about worldwide contagions and the dangers that lurk outside. It's getting tedious. This trope is dead.
- Bulk Food I love the price; I love the variety. But they're not bringing it back unless they can guarantee perfect sterility, which they can't.
- Mega-cruise-ships Cruises in general will survive. I plan to book one immediately when cruises return with discount rates. But I never understood the appeal of bigger and bigger ships. COVID was not even the first time that a plague has swept through these multi-thousand-passenger floating cities, which seem designed for disease transmission. Look for a return of smaller, less Disney-esque ships with employee servers at the buffet.
- Sick kids at school Elementary and secondary school will remain an in-person activity. Let's face it, learning is a side-benefit to the school's primary purpose of watching your kids all day. Even with working from home, it's nice to have a major government department watching your kids while you try to get something done.. Previously, there was an unspoken agreement that you can send your kid to school sick, but in return, I get to send my kid to school sick. We'll all get sick, but that's the bargain. Well, no more. There will be new school policies that any cough or sniffle is a trip to the nurse, and a call home.
I don’t see bulk food dissapearing. There is no such thing as totally sterile food. It would mean that all vegetabled and fruits, except the frozen, would need to disappear. Not to mention food buffets.
Yeah I agree, I'm not following this one. Why would the bulk food section be any more or less difficult to sterilize than anything else in the grocery store?
Yeah I agree, I'm not following this one. Why would the bulk food section be any more or less difficult to sterilize than anything else in the grocery store?
Some additional number of households among the remaining 16% or so have either children too young to be in school or old enough that they can be trusted home alone (and maybe even watch younger siblings). I couldn't find good numbers for this. Figure 13+ can stay home alone, and once you have at least one teenage at home they could watch younger siblings during the day.
Mailman,
I'm 62, so perhaps completely out of touch (just ask my SO!). But when I was 10, my 13 yo brother and I swapped babysitting my 2 yo brother all summer long (and we made $5/week, too!). The current situation might encourage many families to engage siblings in care giving roles. Of course the Authorities might then charge the entire family with child abuse/neglect, but I'd like to think not.
Individuals and families are going to have to adjust to the new world. And if they can do it, our communities will get stronger as well. This virus is a wake up call that the nanny state will fail you when you most need it. The individuals, and families, will figure it out.
Yeah I agree, I'm not following this one. Why would the bulk food section be any more or less difficult to sterilize than anything else in the grocery store?
It's probably no more difficult to keep clean than, say, the fresh produce. But perception will play a big role. Somehow, it doesn't bother me that someone else has handled all the apples, looking for rotten spots. But the idea of someone running their hands through the cashews is disgusting. People will avoid the bulk food, whether that makes sense or not.
Same. My son starts high school next year. I think he probably thinks it would be fine to do the at home thing like we are currently doing. But I think it would be an absolute shit-show to attempt all the advanced classes that way. Right now, he's fine, because the teachers are (rightfully) phoning it in, a bit. Many of them also have children at home, they are on a weird, reduced schedule. A good % of kids don't have internet access yet. So his math compaction class will NOT get through the amount that he would have normally.Getting away from the cash/card issue, I think another big issue is education, especially for elementary through high school.
I mean, there's a REAL chance that at least some school districts won't open "as normal" this fall, which could mean continued distance learning or staggered schedules or something else. I mean, how can you claim to be adhering to ANY level of "social distancing" if you cram a 1,000+ kids into a school building all day? There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here. Either they're crammed in the building, or they aren't.
Yes it sucks for working parents, but think about how much it sucks for the kids. I have a kiddo starting high school this year and another starting middle school. Those are big milestones for most kids, and the thought that they will start the new phases by doing work alone at home just makes me sad. No making new friends, no meeting the teachers in a real way, no school activities or sports or assemblies or clubs or anything. That's a real possibility at least for the rest of 2020.
I'm glad we're just taking this a week at a time right now, because if my kids knew the rest of 2020 could look a lot like March and April, that would devastate them.
And then I feel horrible when I think about all the kids who have it so much worse. Kids who depend on school for much more than education: for food, a safe place, role models, etc. If we continue with online education for the rest of 2020, LOTS of kids will absolutely fall SO far behind, it will be staggering.
No easy answers here for school districts.
My daughter is starting high school next year too. She has been really good about the transition to learning at home, but she does not like it. In her mind things will be back to normal by the time school starts in the fall, but if they aren't she is gong to be devastated. My preschooler on the other hand seems to vastly prefer being home vs. going to school, but I think that half day of social interaction, that she is missing out on now, was really good for her development.
I do think schools might not start up like we expect. My son is VERY motivated by: challenging teachers and by: getting better grades than everyone else. I think distance learning will muck that up.
In some ways, I think it will be much mentally tougher this summer and this fall (stay with me here)...
Right now, for most of it, there are virtually no options. We stay at home unless working, and we social distance the crap out of everything. It sucks, but the expectations are pretty straightforward. For now.
But what happens let's say in June, when governors start to loosen restrictions a bit? I feel like the real mental anguish will start.
Scenario 1: Your buddy Laura invites to you a cookout at her house in June. There will be 30-40 people there, of all ages, and you won't know 2/3 of them, and you have no idea about their health status, etc. It's a crap shoot. Do you go? It seems you start getting into utilitarian analysis re: the pleasure you might get from a few hours of eating and socializing in the sun versus the potential harm if even one person contracts the virus or spreads it to one other person. I mean, when you look at that "math," I'm not sure how I could convince myself to expose my wife and kids to that potential harm, but EVERYONE is going to want to go, so saying "no" to things once they "open up again" will start WWIII in many households. And hell, it could even ruin friendships if one friend thinks that it's now fine and expected to "hang out" some while the other thinks that non-essential contact with anyone is a ridiculous risk.
Scenario 2: Schools start back up in August, but there's no vaccine (there won't be), and kids will still be stuffed 25-30 students/per classroom. Only changes are widespread availability of hand sanitizer, more thorough cleanings of building, strict "stay home" orders at any sign of sickness. Would you send your kid? I mean, what analysis do you use? The old "Well, everyone else is doing it, so I guess we will" analysis? Would you be afraid of looking like a lunatic if you pulled your kids? Would pulling your kids mean you have to homeschool them? Do you just cross your fingers and tell yourself that they're young and things will probably be fine?"
Scenario 3: You find out that, by going to a totally unneeded activity, like a cookout or party, you unknowingly spread the virus to someone else, who later dies from it. How do you mentally or emotionally handle that? How do you ever forgive yourself, even if you didn't know you had the virus at the time? If you would have just stayed home, that person wouldn't have died.
Can you explain these two statements for me? On the first statement I would understand how lethal a virus is by what percentage of people who catch it are likely to die - ie the number of deaths out of number infected, and for the virus to become less lethal then either the virus has to evolve to become less deadly or the human population has to evolve to become more resistant. If you are proposing the evolution answer to the virus what is the timeline for that?
As the virus spreads (which it will), if it behaves like other coronaviruses there will at the very least be short-term adaptive immunity with the overwhelming majority of those infected and it will likely mutate to something that is even less lethal than it is now.
Basically, the virus won't be as lethal, there will be at least some immunity in circulation and it won't be able to spread as fast.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/16/us/coronavirus-pandemic-new-normal/index.htmlI went to school in a district that did a split schedule because of building overcrowding. It didn't affect my class year, but the years before me had what were essentially long 1/2 days every day. Some students were in class from 7am-12pm and others from 12pm to 5pm. A setup like that could actually work fine with a combo of before/after care offsite and time at school.
Here's an interesting post analyzing some of the ideas we've expressed in this thread.
I guess I could see kids going to the school building on like a split 50/50 basis, to focus on group work, instruction, summative assessments, etc., and then performing a lot of the normal/re-enforcement work at home or through online lessons and programs. It would mitigate exposure if you only had 50% of the normal amount of students in the building, and it could give the kids the much-needed social interactions to strengthen their mental health.
But then you'd still have the issue of who watches the kiddos on "off days." And could school districts realistically handle this setup? You'd still need your full fleet of buses everyday (unless the staggering was geographically-based) and teachers could be pulled in both directions in an already very challenging field.
It seems like the one thing most everyone agrees on is no huge gatherings for the rest of the year. It will be interesting to see if MLB or other sports could make it work economically with no asses in the seats for 2020.
In some ways, I think it will be much mentally tougher this summer and this fall (stay with me here)...
Right now, for most of it, there are virtually no options. We stay at home unless working, and we social distance the crap out of everything. It sucks, but the expectations are pretty straightforward. For now.
But what happens let's say in June, when governors start to loosen restrictions a bit? I feel like the real mental anguish will start.
Scenario 1: Your buddy Laura invites to you a cookout at her house in June. There will be 30-40 people there, of all ages, and you won't know 2/3 of them, and you have no idea about their health status, etc. It's a crap shoot. Do you go? It seems you start getting into utilitarian analysis re: the pleasure you might get from a few hours of eating and socializing in the sun versus the potential harm if even one person contracts the virus or spreads it to one other person. I mean, when you look at that "math," I'm not sure how I could convince myself to expose my wife and kids to that potential harm, but EVERYONE is going to want to go, so saying "no" to things once they "open up again" will start WWIII in many households. And hell, it could even ruin friendships if one friend thinks that it's now fine and expected to "hang out" some while the other thinks that non-essential contact with anyone is a ridiculous risk.
Scenario 2: Schools start back up in August, but there's no vaccine (there won't be), and kids will still be stuffed 25-30 students/per classroom. Only changes are widespread availability of hand sanitizer, more thorough cleanings of building, strict "stay home" orders at any sign of sickness. Would you send your kid? I mean, what analysis do you use? The old "Well, everyone else is doing it, so I guess we will" analysis? Would you be afraid of looking like a lunatic if you pulled your kids? Would pulling your kids mean you have to homeschool them? Do you just cross your fingers and tell yourself that they're young and things will probably be fine?"
Scenario 3: You find out that, by going to a totally unneeded activity, like a cookout or party, you unknowingly spread the virus to someone else, who later dies from it. How do you mentally or emotionally handle that? How do you ever forgive yourself, even if you didn't know you had the virus at the time? If you would have just stayed home, that person wouldn't have died.
Scenario 1: Your buddy Laura invites to you a cookout at her house in June. There will be 30-40 people there, of all ages, and you won't know 2/3 of them, and you have no idea about their health status, etc. It's a crap shoot. Do you go? It seems you start getting into utilitarian analysis re: the pleasure you might get from a few hours of eating and socializing in the sun versus the potential harm if even one person contracts the virus or spreads it to one other person. I mean, when you look at that "math," I'm not sure how I could convince myself to expose my wife and kids to that potential harm, but EVERYONE is going to want to go, so saying "no" to things once they "open up again" will start WWIII in many households. And hell, it could even ruin friendships if one friend thinks that it's now fine and expected to "hang out" some while the other thinks that non-essential contact with anyone is a ridiculous risk.
Scenario 2: Schools start back up in August, but there's no vaccine (there won't be), and kids will still be stuffed 25-30 students/per classroom. Only changes are widespread availability of hand sanitizer, more thorough cleanings of building, strict "stay home" orders at any sign of sickness. Would you send your kid? I mean, what analysis do you use? The old "Well, everyone else is doing it, so I guess we will" analysis? Would you be afraid of looking like a lunatic if you pulled your kids? Would pulling your kids mean you have to homeschool them? Do you just cross your fingers and tell yourself that they're young and things will probably be fine?"
Scenario 3: You find out that, by going to a totally unneeded activity, like a cookout or party, you unknowingly spread the virus to someone else, who later dies from it. How do you mentally or emotionally handle that? How do you ever forgive yourself, even if you didn't know you had the virus at the time? If you would have just stayed home, that person wouldn't have died.
...There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
Also, meetings without singing, because all that deep breathing and projecting sound is likely to have much the same effect in spreading exhalations as coughing....There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
Also, meetings without singing, because all that deep breathing and projecting sound is likely to have much the same effect in spreading exhalations as coughing....There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
Also, meetings without singing, because all that deep breathing and projecting sound is likely to have much the same effect in spreading exhalations as coughing....There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
Was there not a case of a church choir that continued to sing and rehearse a few weeks back, and many of them got infected?
...There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
...There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
The most reasonable approach to services, IMHO, would be a series of abbreviated gatherings. First would be the elderly members (I assume they'd probably be awake earlier. I know I and my parents are). Then however many it takes to maintain distancing for the congregation.
A smaller choir, divvied up for the services, could do the same. Communion isn't an issue with a smaller service. Very easy to maintain distance.
I just read somewhere that social distancing might be the norm until a vaccine comes out. That's a year from now. So, time to experiment with what works, and what doesn't....
Anyone want to predict when Walt Disney World opens up? My prediction is June 1st, which I think is WAY too soon, but I'm just reading tea leaves.
...There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
We definitely don't have enough younger members to support contemporary music... we're strictly an old-timey choir church.
What we'll need to do is come up with a way to artificially separate people in 2 or 3 separate services (our sanctuary is small) and figure out how to do just a small ensemble instead of the choir.
There are options, but I don't know how well-received they will be. Our church is very focused on their history and resists change. It's a small country church and there's definitely a potential for conflict. Hopefully not, but my husband & I are both a little nervous.
The most reasonable approach to services, IMHO, would be a series of abbreviated gatherings. First would be the elderly members (I assume they'd probably be awake earlier. I know I and my parents are). Then however many it takes to maintain distancing for the congregation.
A smaller choir, divvied up for the services, could do the same. Communion isn't an issue with a smaller service. Very easy to maintain distance.
I just read somewhere that social distancing might be the norm until a vaccine comes out. That's a year from now. So, time to experiment with what works, and what doesn't....
...There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
We definitely don't have enough younger members to support contemporary music... we're strictly an old-timey choir church.
What we'll need to do is come up with a way to artificially separate people in 2 or 3 separate services (our sanctuary is small) and figure out how to do just a small ensemble instead of the choir.
There are options, but I don't know how well-received they will be. Our church is very focused on their history and resists change. It's a small country church and there's definitely a potential for conflict. Hopefully not, but my husband & I are both a little nervous.
Wouldn't the congregation listen to the pastor? "God wants us to live - He gave us the will to isolate to save our fellow man."
...There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
We definitely don't have enough younger members to support contemporary music... we're strictly an old-timey choir church.
What we'll need to do is come up with a way to artificially separate people in 2 or 3 separate services (our sanctuary is small) and figure out how to do just a small ensemble instead of the choir.
There are options, but I don't know how well-received they will be. Our church is very focused on their history and resists change. It's a small country church and there's definitely a potential for conflict. Hopefully not, but my husband & I are both a little nervous.
Wouldn't the congregation listen to the pastor? "God wants us to live - He gave us the will to isolate to save our fellow man."
It's complicated.
In some churches, yes, the pastor runs the church.
In our denomination, a committee of elected elders/deacons runs the church. My husband is viewed as an employee, hired by them to carry out certain responsibilities. He's charged with seeing to the spiritual health of the church, yes, but he doesn't get a vote in major church decisions and they have the option to fire him if they disagree with his decisions or performance. When we made the decision to cancel services (based on our state shutting down gatherings), he made the recommendation but the committee had to vote on it and they had the ultimate say.
Another development I will be watching with interest...
Walt Disney World.
I'm not a Disney hater; my family has went twice, and we were planning a fall 2020 trip that is obviously not going to happen.
It looks like Disneyland (in CA) will remain closed for months, but I've read a few articles indicating that WDW (in FL) might reopen sooner than we'd think, perhaps in May.
I don't understand how that is possible. I mean, of all of the upcoming conferences, conventions and concerts I know of have been canceled, even those with June and July dates. And those venues typically hold a few thousand people. Magic Kingdom all by itself has a capacity of around 100,000, and much of that time is spent squished together in lines for rides, but even just walking around it's hard not to constantly brush up against people. Transportation between resorts has lines. The transportation itself squishes people in. Restaurants and gift shops are pretty much always packed.
I guess it's all about money and how crazy policy-makers in FL are? (yes I realized I probably answered my own question). But even if Disney "thinned the herd" by 50% (which I'd doubt they do), and switched to more virtual queues like they are with Galaxy's Edge, how in the hell is anyone supposed to "social distance" to any extent in that environment? Wouldn't they be putting their $15/hr employees in grave danger?
But I can see the Disney folks saying, "You expect us to keep park operations closed for an entire year? We'll lose 2 billion dollars! And we employee thousands of people." And yes, that's a big economic impact. But the whole "theme park model" is just at odds with social distancing.
Anyone want to predict when Walt Disney World opens up? My prediction is June 1st, which I think is WAY too soon, but I'm just reading tea leaves.
In many places, voting will likely be very different this fall. I had a conference call earlier with members of another local voter advocacy group and a local city clerk, and there are real concerns about safety measures and sufficient staffing at polling locations in August.
My group can help by heavily advertising absentee voting and helping to recruit younger poll workers (since many regular workers are in the high-risk age group). I plan to sign up myself and encourage anyone who is younger to consider it. Workers will be needed both at polls and to process absentee ballots.
Also in my city local arts festivals that run at the end of the summer are also being cancelled just in the last couple of weeks, not because we expect to be in lockdown by then, but because the organizations can't take the financial risk of having lower attendance. In the case of the Fringe Festival, most of the acts do a circuit of festivals to make the season and all the costs associated with travel worth while. It doesn't make sense to run an international festival at the end of the summer when all the events leading up to it are cancelled.
In many places, voting will likely be very different this fall. I had a conference call earlier with members of another local voter advocacy group and a local city clerk, and there are real concerns about safety measures and sufficient staffing at polling locations in August.
My group can help by heavily advertising absentee voting and helping to recruit younger poll workers (since many regular workers are in the high-risk age group). I plan to sign up myself and encourage anyone who is younger to consider it. Workers will be needed both at polls and to process absentee ballots.
It should be 100% absentee ballots. It should be that even without a pandemic. It's so absurd to me how that is not just the standard anyway. I've never worked a job that gave you election days off. I know, I know, "it's the law! they have to allow you to vote!", but so are a lot of things like servers always being paid minimum wage, getting paid breaks at specified intervals, not having hazardous work conditions, etc that rarely get enforced. And from the voter's side I don't understand why everyone would not just take the option to do absentee ballots. If you have the option why would you ever bother going to vote in person?
Of course old and new music can be enjoyed by all generations. But if you put a loud rock band with all young people in the one, and an organ with traditional hymns in the other it is my experience that the elderly will prefer tradition and young the rock band. But I guess this is highly dependent on cultural factors....There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
WTF? What a weird thing to say. In my experience it's the middle aged people who are all about guitars, whereas the young adults and proper oldies like a normal choir. I guess that's not what you meant...?
Of course old and new music can be enjoyed by all generations. But if you put a loud rock band with all young people in the one, and an organ with traditional hymns in the other it is my experience that the elderly will prefer tradition and young the rock band. But I guess this is highly dependent on cultural factors....There are in-between options where you do in person services with social distancing in place. You could easily separate the young and elderly members by having different music styles. The thing people are mostly missing is the social interaction. You could facilitate that by organising gatherings of smaller groups which mitigates some risk.
The biggest complication that we're foreseeing is church. My husband is a pastor. Right now, much of the congregation is supportive of him doing virtual services (they have no choice, since our governor mandated it)... but they seem to be growing impatient and getting antsy to return to in-person services. I can see a point coming where he has to choose between a) resuming services before we're comfortable with it or b) leaving his job. Hopefully I'm wrong and some of the questions about this virus will be answered, making the "right" choice more obvious, less controversial, more unanimous, etc... but I can easily see a scenario where we still feel that it's a significant threat to our elderly congregation and they try to force him to resume in-person services anyway.
WTF? What a weird thing to say. In my experience it's the middle aged people who are all about guitars, whereas the young adults and proper oldies like a normal choir. I guess that's not what you meant...?