• FrChazzz@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    4 days ago

    To be fair, the stay-home orders and all that REALLY screwed over lots of small businesses. But the bigger issue there is the expectation that the US economy is predicated on tiny margins (saw a post around that time that said we work paycheck-to-paycheck for a paycheck-to-paycheck business, with a paycheck-to-paycheck landlord, that all answer to a paycheck-to-paycheck government and pretend that this is all sustainable). If basic needs were provided apart from employment, then I highly doubt that people would’ve been as angry about stay-at-home orders. That and the fact that “it’ll be 14 days, folks!” began to stretch into months.

    There’s also the fact that, in the US, there is no guarantee that a government order will ever be rescinded. Case in point: the theater we all have to participate in when we try to fly.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      since when are businesses important? if they can’t handle stay at home orders and fail, that’s just the market they pretend to love. seriously. fuck capitalists. pandemic safety for humans trumps people thinking businesses are important.

      solution: get good. or maybe running a business is not for you.

      • aquovie@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        You’re arguing that, to buffer against a black swan event, businesses should be making significant extra profit.

        I think you’re creating a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

        • flandish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          no. i am arguing that a black swan event taking out a business is fine if it means that the humans are given the proper attention. but instead we got “save the businesses” rules and whatnot.

          businesses are not more important than humans even if they hire humans they’ll then need to fire because they failed. this is because businesses are designed to exploit already.

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          There’s a way that businesses can mitigate risks of low-probability, high-impact events. That’s called insurance, and it’s not so expensive that it requires “significant extra profit” to pay for it.

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Having most of your customer base die in a pandemic would’ve also screwed the businesses. The only math was “short term gain” vs “human life.”

    • KeithD@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      That and the fact that “it’ll be 14 days, folks!” began to stretch into months.

      That’d be at least partly because of all the fucktards going against sensible advice for “muh freedumbs!” That really stretched things out a lot.

    • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      saw a post around that time that said we work paycheck-to-paycheck for a paycheck-to-paycheck business, with a paycheck-to-paycheck landlord, that all answer to a paycheck-to-paycheck government and pretend that this is all sustainable).

      In an economy based even the slightest minor disruption will result is a significant collapse.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s almost as though there are downsides to operating finely-tuned just-in-time supply chains without contingencies being taken into account.

        Resiliency isn’t free, so beancounters are always resisting any change to improve it.