Opening Up...

I am seeing more studies that suggest that the portion of the population that is infected is at least an order of magnitude higher than the official number of confirmed cases. If this is true, then the lethality rate is much lower than reported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt ... um=partner

On the gripping hand, South Korea has by far the most comprehensive testing program which seems to validate the lethality numbers.

Whatever the case, the economic damage is becoming just as serious a threat to public health as the virus. Your pension plans and wellfare programs will be of no benefit to anyone if there is no wealth being created that can be redistributed. We are actually seeing reduced food supply in the US!

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:E, there is something fundamental here that you seem to be missing. This seems to be a "socialist" blind spot. A social security check (which I have), a form of universal income, etc. does no good if the economy is not producing the goods and services we need. In that event, all you are doing is shoveling money that is worthless for anything but papering walls or wiping our arsses.

For us all to prosper, there has to be a pie to divide. I agree that things are far from being equitable here. It's far from an ideal world. But the point is that unless people can get back to work in a reasonably short period of time, the pie will shrink to the point where talk about how we divide it will seem pretty silly.

Don

-

If I become unemployed (this is bit simplified though), my union will pay me 80% of what I earned monthly for a year plus I have an income insurance to cover the last 20% (for which the premium is like $30/month). After that year have passed, I get 65% and my insurance then covers the rest up to 80% for another year.

This money must come from somewhere, right? Well, it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked.

I'm glad to hear that. I wish everyone here had as good a cushion. E is right to stand for a suitable cushion for everyone.

But, as I stated in my point, without a productive economy, none of it matters. That is an ironclad statement. Not only do we need money to spend, we need stuff to buy. Imagine empty shelves in the grocery stores. No appliances or cars to buy. No gas at the pump. We end up with subsistence living...if that.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I'm glad to hear that. I wish everyone here had as good a cushion. E is right to stand for a suitable cushion for everyone.

But, as I stated in my point, without a productive economy, none of it matters. That is an ironclad statement. Not only do we need money to spend, we need stuff to buy. Imagine empty shelves in the grocery stores. No appliances or cars to buy. No gas at the pump. We end up with subsistence living...if that.

Don

-

If you have a society that doesn't allow for everyone (almost anyway) to have a social safety-net in good times, the bad times well be severely exacerbated.

There's money in abundance, but it's locked up by the 1% richest people and they are increasing the extraction of it from the rest.


(Source: Oxfam via Wikimedia)

SNIP

Joat42 wrote:If I become unemployed (this is bit simplified though), my union will pay me 80% of what I earned monthly for a year plus I have an income insurance to cover the last 20% (for which the premium is like $30/month). After that year have passed, I get 65% and my insurance then covers the rest up to 80% for another year.

This money must come from somewhere, right? Well, it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked.

Joat:

I REALLY hope it works out as well as you state.

BUT...

What happens when there are so many claims from people just like you who purchased the income insurance that the insurance company runs out of money to pay the claims?

The whole notion of insurance is that they're spreading the risk over a large population to pay the claims of a few. They can get away with it until the number of people with claims hits a critical mass - like the US Social Security program. At some point, the benefits being paid out exceed the available revenues. At that point, the only available solution is to reduce the amount paid out.

Not pretty, but it's real.

You state that "...it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked." Very true. But the potential amount that you would be getting paid out to you (likely) far exceeds the total value of the premiums that you've paid in, even when interest/investment returns are factored in.

Again, I really, really hope it works out for you as you expect. But I'm less confident... If I were you, I'd be saving like a madman while you can, just in case my pollyanna prediction comes true!

Good points all. In my case, I'm retired with income from several sources. A couple of investment rental houses, a superannuation scheme that is diversified (owns Edinburgh Scotland's airport, the freehold on Microsoft's Washington office, etc), and a pension from my work paid out of our National Future Fund, plus several small other earners.
All good and secure. However in a total armegeddon situation it's no good having money if there is no food to buy, or no security to keep you safe. That's where my eight acres with an orchard, and a legal gun collection come in.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I am seeing more studies that suggest that the portion of the population that is infected is at least an order of magnitude higher than the official number of confirmed cases. If this is true, then the lethality rate is much lower than reported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt ... um=partner

On the gripping hand, South Korea has by far the most comprehensive testing program which seems to validate the lethality numbers.

Whatever the case, the economic damage is becoming just as serious a threat to public health as the virus. Your pension plans and wellfare programs will be of no benefit to anyone if there is no wealth being created that can be redistributed. We are actually seeing reduced food supply in the US!

It stands to reason that if your testing is limited to the point where we are finding only a limited number of positives, then if you are detecting 100% of the deaths due to the virus, then the percentage of deaths will go down compared to the positives because you are finding more positives as you test more.

In reality we are not finding 100% of the deaths or the positives. But it seems safe to say that we are aware of a much stronger percentage of deaths than positives. After all. deaths are rather obvious.

Don

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I am seeing more studies that suggest that the portion of the population that is infected is at least an order of magnitude higher than the official number of confirmed cases. If this is true, then the lethality rate is much lower than reported.

There are also strong indications the deaths are largely under reported as well since accurately diagnosing them as Covid caused requires, you know, testing.

(Trump has been pretty transparent about that influencing his refusal to more strongly push more testing.)

WeberFan wrote:SNIP

Joat42 wrote:If I become unemployed (this is bit simplified though), my union will pay me 80% of what I earned monthly for a year plus I have an income insurance to cover the last 20% (for which the premium is like $30/month). After that year have passed, I get 65% and my insurance then covers the rest up to 80% for another year.

This money must come from somewhere, right? Well, it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked.

Joat:

I REALLY hope it works out as well as you state.

BUT...

What happens when there are so many claims from people just like you who purchased the income insurance that the insurance company runs out of money to pay the claims?

The whole notion of insurance is that they're spreading the risk over a large population to pay the claims of a few. They can get away with it until the number of people with claims hits a critical mass - like the US Social Security program. At some point, the benefits being paid out exceed the available revenues. At that point, the only available solution is to reduce the amount paid out.

Not pretty, but it's real.

You state that "...it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked." Very true. But the potential amount that you would be getting paid out to you (likely) far exceeds the total value of the premiums that you've paid in, even when interest/investment returns are factored in.

Again, I really, really hope it works out for you as you expect. But I'm less confident... If I were you, I'd be saving like a madman while you can, just in case my pollyanna prediction comes true!

The actuarial tables can be darned dictators. Actually, the social security system here is not an insurance program. It is instead an agreement where one generation foots the bill for the generation who has gone before it. In turn that generation enjoys the same benefit when it's turn comes. Between that and Medicare, most seniors who have had a normal working life are kept out of poverty Once in a while social security does have to be rescued since it disposes more money than it takes in. So far that has been done if for no other reason than it would be politically toxic not to. My pension is on top of social security.

Don

-

WeberFan wrote:SNIP

Joat42 wrote:If I become unemployed (this is bit simplified though), my union will pay me 80% of what I earned monthly for a year plus I have an income insurance to cover the last 20% (for which the premium is like $30/month). After that year have passed, I get 65% and my insurance then covers the rest up to 80% for another year.

This money must come from somewhere, right? Well, it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked.

Joat:

I REALLY hope it works out as well as you state.

BUT...

What happens when there are so many claims from people just like you who purchased the income insurance that the insurance company runs out of money to pay the claims?

The whole notion of insurance is that they're spreading the risk over a large population to pay the claims of a few. They can get away with it until the number of people with claims hits a critical mass - like the US Social Security program. At some point, the benefits being paid out exceed the available revenues. At that point, the only available solution is to reduce the amount paid out.

Not pretty, but it's real.

You state that "...it's money that I've already paid through my union and insurance company every month I have worked." Very true. But the potential amount that you would be getting paid out to you (likely) far exceeds the total value of the premiums that you've paid in, even when interest/investment returns are factored in.

Again, I really, really hope it works out for you as you expect. But I'm less confident... If I were you, I'd be saving like a madman while you can, just in case my pollyanna prediction comes true!

Many people don't have the insurance, they rely on the money from the unions only when they get unemployed - and trust me on this - most unions have a lot of money. Another factor that makes your prediction unlikely is that all this is regulated in law - which means that the insurance companies must have capital (in one form or another) available to be able to cover a large percentage of their clients.

My explanation above was a bit simplistic and it would get a bit convoluted if we are going to talk about income-brackets, taxation and union fees which is used to fund the unemployment assistance.

Although, I doubt I will be out work in the foreseeable future since I work as an contractor for the government and my workload has increased since the effects of COVID-19 directly impacts what we do and the services we provide.