The world after the pandemic

[maarsen]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe I’m not understanding your point but how are these people getting paid long term if they don’t have jobs?

How does anyone without a job get paid in the long term? Industries and vocations disappear all the time. Are we still paying farriers who are out of work? 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

How does anyone without a job get paid in the long term? Industries and vocations disappear all the time. Are we still paying farriers who are out of work? 

It was a genuine question. The assumption being that people out of work is cool and all cos there is such a thing as benefits. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Niquab, Burkas and general veiling or masking isn't going away anytime soon. I think those conversations can be put to rest in the post/recovery period of the pandemic. Many will cautiously guard for a second wave of outbreaks.

At our workplace we are allowed one of the n95 er m95 whatever's a week as most of the supplies have all been allocated to HC workers and rightly so imo. All employees also have the filter type fitted respirators as well and I'm seeing a much higher rate of usage of those. 

The doors, gates, turnstiles are all hands free and counters all have sneeze guards. The cleaning crews have all doubled and there's much more disinfecting happening. The lunch breaks and workforce manning has been staggered in attempts to put in place as much social distancing as possible. 

All travel intra company has been suspended meaning employees cannot go from one site to another within the company and those that are able have to work remotely offsite.

Additionally anyone wishing to take a leave of absence can have one right now. It's not paid leave but we do have vacation time that people have available.  I believe only about 50 of over a 1000 people took the leave. We have been fortunate in the area with only 3 cases countywide and only 1 case in the adjoing county so most people are trudging to and from work hoping the safeguards in place will continue to be enough.

Our parent company is located in Italy and has closed all their sites, but I also think it helped the company realize that precautions were paramount.

I'm a little nervous how bad the economy is going to be damaged. This pandemic is coming for everyone whether they are healthy or succumb to the infection, there will still be a pound of flesh taken, for the healthy it will be paid in economic pain.

So in other words, pandemic/ post pandemic, it's likely to be a long bleak year for millions. I'm grateful for now as I've been allowed to keep working due to the nature of our business, but I'm mindful things could easily turn southward, especially if numerous companies start going bankrupt.

[Altherion]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

What if instead of trying to save those jobs we... didn't? As long as people get paid there's no reason to panic about some industries dying, methinks.

I would rate this as very unlikely to nearly impossible. First, if you look at any given modern airplane, it's a small miracle of technology and tremendous amount of effort goes into making and maintaining it. To mothball a substantial fraction of airline fleets would be a massive loss -- not a paper one as in the markets, but one of some very large number of hours of skilled labor and also of expensive materials.

Second, yes, industries die -- but they die when either something better replaces them or the circumstances that require them change. There is no replacement for air travel; nothing else gets you across oceans and continents in a matter of hours. As to the circumstances... there are some reasons to believe in a reduction (see below), but our society has grown around these structures and cutting them out altogether would be extremely painful. For example, many families (including mine) are spread out across the US and children often go to college quite far from their parents knowing that they can fly back for the holidays. Also, I suspect just as most people will come back to restaurants and bars, most will also still want to vacation some place where one can comfortably swim or look at ancient buildings or something of the sort.

Third, most of the reduction in greenhouses gases is not because of these industries, but because many people are either working from home or have lost their jobs and thus are not commuting to work and because factories that are not essential in the short-term have shut down. There will probably be some reduction as companies realize that working from home does not make such a big difference, but the current level of inactivity is not sustainable.

All of that said, it's almost certain that even with the bailouts, the tourism industry (aviation, hotels, etc.) is in for a painful year and it's not possible to rule out permanent consequences. Tourism will come back, but for the next year or two, it will not come back in the same quantity as before the pandemic. It's quite likely that the airlines will be asking for another bailout next year.

[Rippounet]

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

I would rate this as very unlikely to nearly impossible.

[....]

Third, most of the reduction in greenhouses gases is not because of these industries, but because many people are either working from home or have lost their jobs and thus are not commuting to work and because factories that are not essential in the short-term have shut down. There will probably be some reduction as companies realize that working from home does not make such a big difference, but the current level of inactivity is not sustainable.

Some things are indeed highly unlikely.

However, there is a push for "socialism" (for lack of a better word) in various countries.

Spain especially has: i) forbidden companies from firing anyone (while the state pays unemployment benefits), ii) allowed poorest households not to pay rent and energy services and iii) implemented a first type of UBI for some workers.

In France 19 socialist presidents of "départements" (counties) have called for the implementation of UBI.

UBI could drastically alter our societies and make killing off some industries (the more polluting ones) eminently doable.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

UBI could drastically alter our societies and make killing off some industries (the more polluting ones) eminently doable.

I still don’t understand this point. How is closing down entire industries, obviously a very expensive action, more doable once you there is UBI, which is also expensive. 

[Rippounet]

30 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I still don’t understand this point. How is closing down entire industries, obviously a very expensive action, more doable once you there is UBI, which is also expensive. 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm reluctant to answer your questions or objections because I now assume you're trolling most of the time.
Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of doubt this once.

What you actually don't understand is that "expensive" is very rarely an objective notion. Money is a fiction and its value depends on the trust that we put into it. What inflation really represents is a lack of trust in the value of money. But within the parameters of a "trusting public" governments can do whatever the fuck they want.

We are now in a situation where all states (or at least all developed ones) are going to inject massive amounts of money in the system. There will be a risk of inflation I suppose, but for various reasons it shouldn't be immediate because the system needs that money. Inflation might be a problem further down the line, and then I'm not even sure.

So now the question is what we do with that money.
There is the possibility of supporting businesses (including the financial and banking sectors). That is the right-wing view that we should support offer first, because offer means employment, and employment means purchasing power upon which rests the market.
OTOH the left-wing view is that we should support demand first, because employment and businesses spring from demand, and that the economic structure will always recreate itself around human necessities, and our societies should really be focused on those first and foremost.
I'm grossly simplifying of course, but this is the gist of what the political debate is going to look like in the next months with different states trying different approaches.
Some will support offer, some will support demand, and some will try to do a bit of both. Ideologies matter of course (right-wing governments are more likely to stimulate offer, but they also have to take into account national cultures and mentalities).

All I'm doing is pointing out that it's also possible for states to take this opportunity to attack the industries or economic structures that are most responsible for climate change by offering UBI to workers and subsidising alternatives. Right now most industries are going to need the help of government ; government thus has the choice of refusing that help to some industries.
For instance governments have no imperative to save the airlines. None whatsoever. I also have family living abroad (both my parents at the moment), but I still think that it is desirable for our societies to now let air traffic die.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, because most governments adhere to some form of neo-liberalism or the other, but it is technically possible, and it might even happen in some places.

 

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

However, there is a push for "socialism" (for lack of a better word) in various countries.

Spain especially has: i) forbidden companies from firing anyone (while the state pays unemployment benefits), ii) allowed poorest households not to pay rent and energy services and iii) implemented a first type of UBI for some workers.

In France 19 socialist presidents of "départements" (counties) have called for the implementation of UBI.

UBI could drastically alter our societies and make killing off some industries (the more polluting ones) eminently doable.

The US has done something similar, but I don't see how this is sustainable. Behind all financial instruments (including, but certainly not limited to, money) is the work done by people in the society that uses a given currency as well as the existing infrastructure (where I use the term in its broadest possible form which includes all human-made objects as well as natural resources). You can give people money or other financial instruments, but it won't ultimately result in an increased standard of living unless either someone (or something) is doing extra work or stuff is being redistributed (the latter has limits).

Spain and France actually have a problem with this that becomes apparent pretty quickly: unlike the US, they can't print their own money and their borrowing is limited not just by the interest rates in the markets, but also by EU rules. I think these will be relaxed to enable everyone to deal with the virus, but the latter will eventually go away (one hopes) whereas the reasons for the rules will still be there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 4/8/2020 at 3:10 PM, Altherion said:

I don't think the late 19th to early 20th century nationalism is going to be all that useful (or even realistic), but tighter control of borders and more local production (of at least critical goods, but possibly more than that) would almost certainly have helped here. There is no empirical proof because there are no states that behave like this right now except ones which are radically different in other ways and aren't likely to share any data at all.

Is local production of the stuff of modern life even possible?  Aren’t imports of a fair number of raw materials needed to produce the modern electronics and medicines people are concerned over?  Raw materials that are not necessarily available inside the territory of many nations?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 4/8/2020 at 5:52 PM, Heartofice said:

This is money that is in a lot of cases heavily borrowed and will need to be paid back in some form.

Not sure how you ‘eradicate poverty’.

You realize with fiat currency “debasement” doesn’t really exist.  The only thing that gives currency value is confidence.  Actually that’s true with valued backed currencies too.  You cannot eat gold or silver.  They don’t directly sustain life.  As such they are as imaginary as fiat with less flexibility and utility.
 

 

[Heartofice]

19 hours ago, Rippounet said:

All I'm doing is pointing out that it's also possible for states to take this opportunity to attack the industries or economic structures that are most responsible for climate change by offering UBI to workers and subsidising alternatives. Right now most industries are going to need the help of government ; government thus has the choice of refusing that help to some industries.
For instance governments have no imperative to save the airlines. None whatsoever. I also have family living abroad (both my parents at the moment), but I still think that it is desirable for our societies to now let air traffic die.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, because most governments adhere to some form of neo-liberalism or the other, but it is technically possible, and it might even happen in some places.

Thank you for clarifying.

While I see the logic for using that extra money (although should clarify that money is not infinite , QE isn't a magic money tree and is far from consequence free) to give the economy a push in certain direction, giving incentives to cleaner industry, I'm still not seeing the logic for letting entire industries, let alone vital industries like the aviation sector, die off at a time of huge economic trouble. 

UBI might mitigate some problems for the unemployed (more than unemployment benefits I'm not so sure of) but it doesn't address all the other issues that crop up if you just let all the airlines go out of business. I mean I live next to a major airport and even now a lot of my friends who are dependent on that airport for their businesses and jobs to stay afloat are desperately worried. The whole area would be a desolate wasteland without the airports business coming in, and I'm not even mentioning the general impact air travel has on the overall economy. 


 

[Rippounet]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

The US has done something similar, but I don't see how this is sustainable. Behind all financial instruments (including, but certainly not limited to, money) is the work done by people in the society that uses a given currency as well as the existing infrastructure (where I use the term in its broadest possible form which includes all human-made objects as well as natural resources). You can give people money or other financial instruments, but it won't ultimately result in an increased standard of living unless either someone (or something) is doing extra work or stuff is being redistributed (the latter has limits).

Those are good objections, but I have a few answers to them.
- You present an increased standard of living as the objective. Is it? Or are we in at a time where we have to pause and think about survival and sustainability first (at least for a time, in order to transition)?
- Even assuming increasing our standard of living is the objective, can we be certain that the politics of offer are in fact doing that? What I mean by that is that while our standard of living has in fact been increasing in the last decades (and centuries), there is a case to be made that this was primarily thanks to the politics of demand, or at the very least to a combination of the politics of demand and the politics of offer. In other words, that the standard of living increases precisely when you give people money.
- Do we need "extra work" to increase our standard of living? Aren't automation and digitalization already achieving that?
- How do you define this increase of our standard of living anyway? Are we talking mere production of goods and services? Or aren't there ways to raise that standard that require little labor (culture, gaming, social activites... ) or little production (some services, sharing & exchanging...) ?
- Why would UBI not be sustainable? Yes, it means states run an important deficit... But as long as inflation doesn't ruin it, deficits are not per se a problem. In fact, assuming production keeps increaseing to meet demand (through automation), why would there be inflation? And anyway, don't we want at least a little bit of inflation to progressively rid ourselves of debt?

There's a deeper point you're raising though when you say that behind financial instruments is "the work done by people in the society."
Yes, in theory that should be the case (less so today methinks). What you're really saying is that the value of money needs to be somewhat tethered to something real (production, labor... ) for it to make sense, for trust in the system to be maintained, and society to keep functioning.
That is the one objection that can never be easily dismissed. Significantly changing the socio-economic strucutre requires finding a way to maintain (or rebuild) the public trust in it.
But that's also why a crisis is in fact the moment when it can be done, because it's when people are the most open to putting trust in alternatives. When we hit our lowest point we are open to the greatest change.

BTW I was agreeing with you that it was unlikely to happen in the US, but you've probably seen the American right-wing media push for "Hawleynomics" lately haven't you?

https://americanpriority.com/news/pinkerton-the-emergence-of-hawleynomics/

Quote

Beginning immediately, the federal government should cover 80 percent of wages for workers at any U.S. business, up to the national median wage, until this emergency is over. Further, it should offer businesses a bonus for rehiring workers laid off over the past month. The goal must be to get unemployment down—now—to secure American workers and their families, and to help businesses get ready to restart as soon as possible.

Hawley speaks of "temporary" measures, but nonetheless, such a proposal is an interesting mix between the politics of demand and the politics of offer.

If even the US right goes in that direction... mamma mia, we could see some actual change.

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

Spain and France actually have a problem with this that becomes apparent pretty quickly: unlike the US, they can't print their own money and their borrowing is limited not just by the interest rates in the markets, but also by EU rules. I think these will be relaxed to enable everyone to deal with the virus, but the latter will eventually go away (one hopes) whereas the reasons for the rules will still be there.

What are those reasons already?

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is local production of the stuff of modern life even possible?  Aren’t imports of a fair number of raw materials needed to produce the modern electronics and medicines people are concerned over?  Raw materials that are not necessarily available inside the territory of many nations?

You're strawmanning. What was said was "more local production," not "no international commerce at all."

56 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

let alone vital industries like the aviation sector,

By definition, whatever has stopped during the coronavirus is not vital...

This crisis is showing us what is indeed vital. There are a few counter-examples (things that we can do without for a few weeks, but not for years), but these can be identified. Conversely some of the activities that are maintained aren't actually vital (there are some variations from country to country).

To be clear, a significant proportion of the aviation sector is dedicated to some form of tourism. That's definitely not vital.

56 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

UBI might mitigate some problems for the unemployed (more than unemployment benefits I'm not so sure of) but it doesn't address all the other issues that crop up if you just let all the airlines go out of business. I mean I live next to a major airport and even now a lot of my friends who are dependent on that airport for their businesses and jobs to stay afloat are desperately worried.

You understand that the "U" in UBI stands for universal, right?

Anyway, two more things:

- There's a debate in France as to how to deal with the fact that many major media companies depend on advertising and might disappear because of this crisis. It's an interesting debate, since advertising is at the heart of the politics of offer. The deeper issue is that we might want the media (and information) not to depend on advertising.
I'm pretty sure many major media companies are not vital. Governments could choose to save journalism and culture, and let the rest die.

- The coronavirus crisis isn't even enough to deal with climate change. We're looking at -4% of greenhouse gases for 2020.
The target should be -6%.
Sobering, uh?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

You're strawmanning. What was said was "more local production," not "no international commerce at all."

I disagree.  Or at least I can make the question more palatable.  Given that raw materials are not evenly distributed how practical is “more local prodction”? That’s really what I’m trying to get to.  I’ve always liked local production I’m curious about its feasibility?

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You understand that the "U" in UBI stands for universal, right?

Point being?

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

By definition, whatever has stopped during the coronavirus is not vital...

This crisis is showing us what is indeed vital. There are a few counter-examples (things that we can do without for a few weeks, but not for years), but these can be identified. Conversely some of the activities that are maintained aren't actually vital (there are some variations from country to country).

Vital in terms of what I need to survive in the middle of a short term pandemic crisis and vital in the long term are two different things. If we now said 'oh well we only really need water to survive so let's just destroy all other drinks'. How about we lose every industry that wouldn't help us survive a zombie apocalypse and just keep the bowie knife and crossbow industries going?

Quote

To be clear, a significant proportion of the aviation sector is dedicated to some form of tourism. That's definitely not vital.

Not vital to who? Tell that to anyone working in tourism. Tell that to any country who relies on tourism to survive and to clothe and feed its residents. Even outside of tourism the airline industry IS vital in terms of commerce and trade. 

[Rippounet]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given that raw materials are not evenly distributed how practical is “more local prodction”.

Why would it not be "practical" ?

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we now said 'oh well we only really need water to survive so let's just destroy all other drinks'. How about we lose every industry that wouldn't help us survive a zombie apocalypse and just keep the bowie knife and crossbow industries going?

Now you're getting it: this is exactly the way we should be thinking about climate change.

This is why UBI is so powerful a tool: it instantly makes workers independent from any specific undustry for their survival and gives them the freedom to either reconvert to a less polluting industry, or to do nothing at all (thus giving them the "right to be lazy" at least).

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Why would it not be "practical" ?

Now you're getting it: this is exactly the way we should be thinking about climate change.

This is why UBI is so powerful a tool: it instantly makes workers independent from any specific undustry for their survival and gives them the freedom to either reconvert to a less polluting industry, or to do nothing at all (thus giving them the "right to be lazy" at least).

None of that really addresses any of the concerns I alluded to. Talking about workers being able to retrain is such a minor issue in comparison.

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

None of that really addresses any of the concerns I alluded to.

And what are those exactly? I genuinely don't see what concerns there are to address.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And what are those exactly? I genuinely don't see what concerns there are to address.

You mean apart from the catastrophic effects to the national economy, local economies, tourist industries, aviation reliant industries.. those concerns?

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

You mean apart from the catastrophic effects to the national economy, local economies, tourist industries, aviation reliant industries.. those concerns?

Since we're entering one of the most devastating depressions in history I have to confess I have no clue what "catastrophic effects" you're imagining exactly. The economic crisis is already happening. One way or the other, the world as we knew it is gone. One way or the other, our governments will be facing tough choices to chart a path toward recovery. One way or the other not all industries and all jobs will be saved.

All I'm saying is that there is the possibility of making choices that are both humane (since UBI allows everyone to maintain a decent standard of living) and environmentally responsible.
Not all industries or corporations will be bailed out anyway, so why not make the choices with climate change in mind this time? From a purely economic perspective the end result would pretty much be the same ; in fact there's a pretty solid case to be made that choosing demand over offer works better to recover from a crisis.

For some reason you remind me of some objections that were heard at the end of the Cold War. When it seemed likely that the Soviet Union would one way or the other agree to a groundbreaking arms reduction treaty with the US, there were some who said "but what of the people employed in the armaments industry?"
The jobs were actually saved with the US invading Iraq.

The next decade is going to be scary. It would be nice to have something else than the status quo ante as an objective.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Why would it not be "practical" ?

Now you're getting it: this is exactly the way we should be thinking about climate change.

This is why UBI is so powerful a tool: it instantly makes workers independent from any specific undustry for their survival and gives them the freedom to either reconvert to a less polluting industry, or to do nothing at all (thus giving them the "right to be lazy" at least).

Because if the raw materials are not locally available it may be prohibitively costly to produce “Item X” locally.

And how “local” do you mean?