You think that unemployment is going to keep people in homes? 20% unemployment is going to see crime rates like you wouldn't even believe. Homeless shelters packed to the brim with increasingly...
You think that unemployment is going to keep people in homes?
20% unemployment is going to see crime rates like you wouldn't even believe. Homeless shelters packed to the brim with increasingly sick people. It quickly becomes a hard decision of brutal police and national guard clampdown or at least partial social collapse. Only fast and effective social support stands any hope of heading that off.
The vast, VAST majority of people in the US are not 2 months of no salary from megafucked, they're more like 1 - 2 paychecks away. And those people will be statistically more likely to be the ones...
The vast, VAST majority of people in the US are not 2 months of no salary from megafucked, they're more like 1 - 2 paychecks away. And those people will be statistically more likely to be the ones out of work (basically 95% of the hospitality and related industries).
Sitting at home only works if you still have a home, and if you can get food, water, and electricity into that home. Miss any one of those and you have people on the streets. Hell, miss the internet and you probably have people on the streets.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there is 20% unemployment then there is less demand for labour in the market. That 20% will have zero impact vs the sizeable impact it would have if...
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there is 20% unemployment then there is less demand for labour in the market. That 20% will have zero impact vs the sizeable impact it would have if there were a normal demand for labour in the market.
You would need to go 20% under whatever the demand was for it to have that level impact.
The majority of Americans couldn't afford an unexpected $400 bill. No way in hell the average person could survive a couple months without pay or legislation to provide a safety net.
The majority of Americans couldn't afford an unexpected $400 bill. No way in hell the average person could survive a couple months without pay or legislation to provide a safety net.
The shutdown is affecting trump's earnings I don't see how Trump has a say in this however. He left the shutdown on the shoulders of the Governors, so I think it will be their decision to reopen.
I don't see how Trump has a say in this however. He left the shutdown on the shoulders of the Governors, so I think it will be their decision to reopen.
He sees this as a good thing. I read it and was horrified. If he was deliberately trying to spread the coronavirus, this would be a great way to do it. I thought I couldn't be surprised by his...
“Wouldn’t it be great to have all of the churches full?” Trump said in a subsequent interview. “You’ll have packed churches all over our country.”
He sees this as a good thing. I read it and was horrified. If he was deliberately trying to spread the coronavirus, this would be a great way to do it.
I thought I couldn't be surprised by his stupidity any more. I was wrong. He's finding new heights of ignorance.
I've mentioned before that there's an ugly feedback loop between Fox News and the Trump administration - they ferment and distill each other's worst ideas. The Nation magazine opines here that...
I've mentioned before that there's an ugly feedback loop between Fox News and the Trump administration - they ferment and distill each other's worst ideas. The Nation magazine opines here that Trump is going to roll back the quarantine measures to keep the business community (a/k/a Fox and Friends) happy, and devil take the death toll.
Yeah, Jonathan Swan's article this morning on Axios mentions: It's also been mentioned that a major factor in getting Trump to take it somewhat seriously was that Tucker Carlson believed it was...
Remember that Trump has no public health professionals in his circle of informal advisers. Those are not his go-to calls when he's in the residence late at night. They’re all business or media folks.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to rate source domains independently of the post. Or even just tag them. For instance, if OP went to create this post and it warned them:
I wonder if it would be a good idea to rate source domains independently of the post. Or even just tag them. For instance, if OP went to create this post and it warned them:
This domain has been tagged with the following: sensationalist, unreliable. Please consider using a different source if one is available.
I think so. When Qassem Soleimani was assassinated the article posted here was from AlJazeera, a Qatari government publication. That should never happen.
I think so. When Qassem Soleimani was assassinated the article posted here was from AlJazeera, a Qatari government publication. That should never happen.
In cases like this I've gone to find the C-SPAN YouTube version and just link the specific time so that the questionable news source is removed if there is no other opinion piece needed as part of...
In cases like this I've gone to find the C-SPAN YouTube version and just link the specific time so that the questionable news source is removed if there is no other opinion piece needed as part of the reference. I know this isn't always the easiest to do but I try to reduce the fake-news spin on things.
#GeneralStrike is now trending on twitter. There is a lot of talk from people saying they refuse to die for the wealth of others.
You think that unemployment is going to keep people in homes?
20% unemployment is going to see crime rates like you wouldn't even believe. Homeless shelters packed to the brim with increasingly sick people. It quickly becomes a hard decision of brutal police and national guard clampdown or at least partial social collapse. Only fast and effective social support stands any hope of heading that off.
The vast, VAST majority of people in the US are not 2 months of no salary from megafucked, they're more like 1 - 2 paychecks away. And those people will be statistically more likely to be the ones out of work (basically 95% of the hospitality and related industries).
Sitting at home only works if you still have a home, and if you can get food, water, and electricity into that home. Miss any one of those and you have people on the streets. Hell, miss the internet and you probably have people on the streets.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there is 20% unemployment then there is less demand for labour in the market. That 20% will have zero impact vs the sizeable impact it would have if there were a normal demand for labour in the market.
You would need to go 20% under whatever the demand was for it to have that level impact.
The majority of Americans couldn't afford an unexpected $400 bill. No way in hell the average person could survive a couple months without pay or legislation to provide a safety net.
The shutdown is affecting trump's earnings
I don't see how Trump has a say in this however. He left the shutdown on the shoulders of the Governors, so I think it will be their decision to reopen.
He sees this as a good thing. I read it and was horrified. If he was deliberately trying to spread the coronavirus, this would be a great way to do it.
I thought I couldn't be surprised by his stupidity any more. I was wrong. He's finding new heights of ignorance.
I've mentioned before that there's an ugly feedback loop between Fox News and the Trump administration - they ferment and distill each other's worst ideas. The Nation magazine opines here that Trump is going to roll back the quarantine measures to keep the business community (a/k/a Fox and Friends) happy, and devil take the death toll.
Yeah, Jonathan Swan's article this morning on Axios mentions:
It's also been mentioned that a major factor in getting Trump to take it somewhat seriously was that Tucker Carlson believed it was dangerous, broke ranks with the overall message on Fox and went to talk to Trump in person about it.
Jesus, he literally said it, lol.
noise
Based and double-pilled.
Is this really the only source? The fucking shit sun?
I edited the link to a better source/article.
Thanks Deimos, sorry about the poor source. I'll steer clear of that site from here on out
No problem - I don't think the story was false or anything, it's just usually a very tabloid-like, sensationalized source.
Thanks!
I wonder if it would be a good idea to rate source domains independently of the post. Or even just tag them. For instance, if OP went to create this post and it warned them:
I think so. When Qassem Soleimani was assassinated the article posted here was from AlJazeera, a Qatari government publication. That should never happen.
In cases like this I've gone to find the C-SPAN YouTube version and just link the specific time so that the questionable news source is removed if there is no other opinion piece needed as part of the reference. I know this isn't always the easiest to do but I try to reduce the fake-news spin on things.
For example, here is the source clip without a media company specifically behind it.