COVID-19 Discussion (UPD: NHL Suspended/AHL Cancelled/California Shelter-at-Home)

[TheWayToRefJose]

Yes, and I did for a long time. I do it because it's fulfilling for me and it's what I'd be doing either way. Hell, if I won the Powerball, I'd spend all that money on stuff to help me do my job better.

You're probably less than 1% of Americans then and congrats you have a job you like so much.
Think the office secretary would rather be at work than at home?
The accountants?
Store Clerks?
Warehouse Employees?
HR?
Truck Drivers?
Guys on a manufacturing line?
Mechanics?
Machinists?
Welders?
Trash Man?
Janitors?
Salesmen?
IT department?
Construction Workers?
Pharmacists?

 

[Pavelski2112]

You're probably less than 1% of Americans then and congrats you have a job you like so much.
Think the office secretary would rather be at work than at home?
The accountants?
Store Clerks?
Warehouse Employees?
HR?
Truck Drivers?
Guys on a manufacturing line?
Mechanics?
Machinists?
Welders?
Trash Man?
Janitors?
Salesmen?
IT department?
Construction Workers?
Pharmacists?

I never said that people would rather do their current jobs than do nothing; that wasn't my point. My point was that if people could actually do what was fulfilling rather than being forced into menial labor that could easily just be automated in the near future, people would choose that over doing nothing.

And sure, there are some jobs we do just need and probably always will, like sanitation workers and doctors. So pay them well. Hell, we're on a forum dedicated to a sport that pays its players millions of dollars every single year. There's money to go around.

We have so many resources at our disposal; we create so much more than we use every single day. Value is no longer predicated on scarcity, so the only impediments to people getting what they need are entirely artificial.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

I never said that people would rather do their current jobs than do nothing; that wasn't my point. My point was that if people could actually do what was fulfilling rather than being forced into menial labor that could easily just be automated in the near future, people would choose that over doing nothing.

And sure, there are some jobs we do just need and probably always will, like sanitation workers and doctors. So pay them well. Hell, we're on a forum dedicated to a sport that pays its players millions of dollars every single year. There's money to go around.

We have so many resources at our disposal; we create so much more than we use every single day. Value is no longer predicated on scarcity, so the only impediments to people getting what they need are entirely artificial.

I'm not fully disagreeing with that, but the debate was about whether or not if COVID unemployment at current rates was offered to every single person and it was your choice with no repercussions, there would be almost no one left working.

But regarding your statement, if almost everything was automated and therefore everything was "free", then what incentive would the robot technicians have? or the engineers? the coders? Work has to be incentivized. No one wants to do all the work while everyone else gets to reap the benefits. Just paying them more will stop working if everything is free. Eventually we could get to that point if we have self replicating, repairing, and engineering robots, but I think we're still very far from reaching that.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I'm not disagreeing with that, but the debate was about whether or not if COVID unemployment at current rates was offered to every single person and it was your choice with no repercussions, there would be almost no one left working.

I mean, I just don't agree entirely. Sure there would be people who take advantage of it, but to me that's just more evidence that people just aren't being paid enough as is, and I still think those people wouldn't just be sitting around and doing nothing. Even $600/week in unemployment in the Bay Area really isn't that much, seeing as average rent hovers around $2500 in San Jose.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

I mean, I just don't agree entirely. Sure there would be people who take advantage of it, but to me that's just more evidence that people just aren't being paid enough as is, and I still think those people wouldn't just be sitting around and doing nothing. Even $600/week in unemployment in the Bay Area really isn't that much, seeing as average rent hovers around $2500 in San Jose.

Maybe not in big cities, depending on the job, but unemployment is paying out the equivalent of 26.50 an hour right now. I'm sure there's quite a few people that are making less than that working.
Unemployment would be $54,600 a year, which is more than 31/52 counties' median household incomes in California. The average household size is 2.57. That would make the "Median COVID unemployment Household income" at 140K a year, which is higher than any county in California. This obviously wouldn't be every household, but there would be an extremely large number over people (over 50%) would make more money off of unemployment than working, so unless they were in a rare position such as yourself, what reason would they have to work? A lot of people would literally be paying to work and I don't see why anyone would voluntarily do that.

I've never said they'd be sitting around doing nothing either. They'd just be doing whatever they wanted. Whether that's camping, fishing, learning new skills, working on projects around the house, trying to start a side business, etc.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Maybe not in big cities, depending on the job, but unemployment is paying out the equivalent of 26.50 an hour right now. I'm sure there's quite a few people that are making less than that working.
Unemployment would be $54,600 a year, which is more than 31/52 counties' median household incomes in California. The average household size is 2.57. That would make the "Median COVID unemployment Household income" at 140K a year, which is higher than any county in California. This obviously wouldn't be every household, but there would be an extremely large number over people (over 50%) would make more money off of unemployment than working, so unless they were in a rare position such as yourself, what reason would they have to work? A lot of people would literally be paying to work and I don't see why anyone would voluntarily do that.

I've never said they'd be sitting around doing nothing either. They'd just be doing whatever they wanted. Whether that's camping, fishing, learning new skills, working on projects around the house, trying to start a side business, etc.

Most of those counties are in rural areas where jobs are limited anyway. It's always a catch-22 - live in a cheaper place where jobs just don't exist or find a way to work online, or live in a city where there are plenty of jobs but rent is exorbitantly expensive. For a family of four in SF, $110,000 or less is considered "low-income". Assuming two parents make $54k each on unemployment, that's barely even scratching that threshold.

Again, I don't think that a lot of people wouldn't rather just get unemployment than work menial jobs, but either way it's still not enough to make ends meet in a lot of places. And all of that is assuming that the majority of people can even get in the system or make what the potential earnings could be under it. Many people just plain can't get it, get bogged down in the bureaucracy, or just don't make a remotely helpful amount relative to their needs.

Going back to the original point: I don't even think purely just giving people money is the right attitude to have toward things - it's a bandaid either way - I just think that in a crisis where people either can't work or are forced to risk themselves or the people around them, we should be able to put things on hold in the richest nation in the history of the world for a while, or at least fix things in our economic system and our infrastructure to allow people access to certain resources. Putting forth individualist ideas of responsibility in a large intertwined society in the midst of a global pandemic that most people either don't understand or care to understand is questionable at best.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Most of those counties are in rural areas where jobs are limited anyway. It's always a catch-22 - live in a cheaper place where jobs just don't exist or find a way to work online, or live in a city where there are plenty of jobs but rent is exorbitantly expensive. For a family of four in SF, $110,000 or less is considered "low-income". Assuming two parents make $54k each on unemployment, that's barely even scratching that threshold.

Again, I don't think that a lot of people wouldn't rather just get unemployment than work menial jobs, but either way it's still not enough to make ends meet in a lot of places. And all of that is assuming that the majority of people can even get in the system or make what the potential earnings could be under it. Many people just plain can't get it, get bogged down in the bureaucracy, or just don't make a remotely helpful amount relative to their needs.

Going back to the original point: I don't even think purely just giving people money is the right attitude to have toward things - it's a bandaid either way - I just think that in a crisis where people either can't work or are forced to risk themselves or the people around them, we should be able to put things on hold in the richest nation in the history of the world for a while, or at least fix things in our economic system and our infrastructure to allow people access to certain resources. Putting forth individualist ideas of responsibility in a large intertwined society in the midst of a global pandemic that most people either don't understand or care to understand is questionable at best.

Outside of the bay area and the majority of LA and San Diego areas, a household income of $110,000 would be either upper middle class or borderline rich. In 2018, 65.02% of californians made 60K a year or less.

Making it optional to take the current unemployment just because you're afraid the virus when you're in the group with a 0.5-1% fatality rate and don't have any responsibilities involving at risk people isn't feasible for the economy. You can't just "press pause" on the economy. There are things that are essential and NEED to get done and the majority of these essential jobs are handled by the people who would lose the most money by working instead of taking the optional unemployment. Now if we could make it an incentive for essential workers to get the COVID unemployment AND their paycheck, that would get your workforce to stay and work, but how could we fund that? It's not even remotely possible to give every worker in CA $55,000 a year.

The way the system is set up now punishes 65% of Californians that work essential jobs and that are keeping things going. How is that fair to them?

Here's the percentages and how much money they'd be losing to work vs a year of COVID unemployment with the CA unemployment benefit for their incomes calculated. The results should show you what I'm trying to say here.
9.8% would lose an average of $8,716 a year
11.7% would lose an average of $13,724 a year
14.2% would lose an average of $18,732 a year
12.5% would lose an average of $23,470 a year
10.3% would lose an average of $28,904 a year.

on the flip side, this is what you'd be "gaining" per hour working versus staying at home for those who make equal to or more than $55K a year

7.24% of people would break even and essentially be working for free
6.33% of people would be gaining $4.81 an hour to go to work vs unemployment (Around an extra $27 a day take home vs sitting at home)

 

[Pavelski2112]

Outside of the bay area and the majority of LA and San Diego areas, a household income of $110,000 would be either upper middle class or borderline rich. In 2018, 65.02% of californians made 60K a year or less.

Making it optional to take the current unemployment just because you're afraid the virus when you're in the group with a 0.5-1% fatality rate and don't have any responsibilities involving at risk people isn't feasible for the economy. You can't just "press pause" on the economy. There are things that are essential and NEED to get done and the majority of these essential jobs are handled by the people who would lose the most money by working instead of taking the optional unemployment. Now if we could make it an incentive for essential workers to get the COVID unemployment AND their paycheck, that would get your workforce to stay and work, but how could we fund that? It's not even remotely possible to give every worker in CA $55,000 a year.

The way the system is set up now punishes 65% of Californians that work essential jobs and that are keeping things going. How is that fair to them?

Here's the percentages and how much money they'd be losing to work vs a year of COVID unemployment with the CA unemployment benefit for their incomes calculated. The results should show you what I'm trying to say here.
9.8% would lose an average of $8,716 a year
11.7% would lose an average of $13,724 a year
14.2% would lose an average of $18,732 a year
12.5% would lose an average of $23,470 a year
10.3% would lose an average of $28,904 a year.

on the flip side, this is what you'd be "gaining" per hour working versus staying at home for those who make equal to or more than $55K a year

7.24% of people would break even and essentially be working for free
6.33% of people would be gaining $4.81 an hour to go to work vs unemployment (Around an extra $27 a day take home vs sitting at home)

So at the very least then, pay them well enough to make it worth essentially risking their lives and the lives around them, or at least require companies to provide benefits such as healthcare. Fund that by either raising taxes on corporations or by just essentially printing it like the Fed just printed almost 3 trillion dollars. Instead of bailing out big companies, bail out regular people. The big boys can afford it. It's not fair to essential workers, you're absolutely right, but it's not because people on unemployment are gaming the system, it's because the system has screwed them more than anyone. Maybe if jobs paid people well, people wouldn't be incentivized to get on unemployment.

And what about non-essential workers? Why shouldn't people be able to get what's needed to survive around here even if they're not "needed"? Tech companies have already been driving up prices of real estate so far to the point where it's driving everyone who's lived here for years out. It's just not sustainable. If everyone moves somewhere else, they'll just drive up those prices as well - it happened in Portland and Seattle, it can happen anywhere else.

Again, the fatality rate also just doesn't take into consideration the rate of long-term health effects of COVID that aren't death, lung damage in particular.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

How is that not an option? Isn't that what everyone has been supposed to be doing the past few months?

So, we should just allow everyone to say at home and collect money, regardless if they're at risk or not? Okay. How do we get that money? Oh, that's right! Taxes. Taxes that are paid by people working. How many people will voluntarily work if given an option to stay at home and get the same or more of a paycheck? No one. Then who is paying the taxes needed to pay everyone to sit at home?

So, unless there is a legitimate reason of why you cannot work due to the virus besides of being afraid, why do you deserve the same paycheck as the person that is still having to work?

Should I just never have to work and still get a paycheck because driving in a car to work is dangerous and I'm afraid that I *might* get injured on the way to work?

It wasn't an option to avoid the virus, man. It was the option taken to limit the risk as much as is feasible. Even those in isolation still need supplies to live which require risk to obtain whether that's going out yourself or having someone else expose themselves to obtain them. What everyone was doing these past few months was limiting that risk as much as possible to lessen the strain that the healthcare system was going to take to try and handle this.

If the public health concern is to such an extent that businesses have to close for extended periods of time without work then the government should be pumping money into their hands to take care of their essentials. Something this country most certainly can afford since others have been doing it on much less in resources. Getting that money is easy if you just look at the stupid things this country spends money on like military and corporate handouts. Plenty of things that aren't working class related that can be taxed or increased in taxes. They could legalize cannabis to open up a revenue stream that would assist. Plenty of options at their disposal if they so choose but they won't because politicians are callous like their donors are.

Plenty of people will still work if given the option because the payment that they'd get from this is likely not enough to pay all the bills so they will need to supplement the income regardless. Plus plenty of people work because they enjoy what they do or just want more money.

I'm not even going to bother breaking down the silly car analogy. There's a big difference between car wrecks and the effects related to it than a freaking pandemic. This attitude is indicative of not caring what happens to others. 119,404 people in the US have died to covid last I saw. Approximately 37,000 people die to car accidents every year in the US. To me, you just don't understand the scope of this issue. The virus is deadly and easily spreads to which there is no vaccine. Until a vaccine is produced, this is likely the way it's going to be because reopening things has already shown that increases will occur.

So that means you have to ask yourself just how you want to handle all the people that are going to be out of a job and subsequently on their own for healthcare. You can either say tough shit and watch people either die or get pissed off at their government for assistance (which is their purpose) or you can implement things to help them get needs covered for the interim until something is produced that can allow for everyone to return to normalcy. Universal healthcare and universal basic income through the crisis is absolutely possible and reasonable. And before you respond likely with more how you gonna pay for it stuff, this country controls its currency. They can deficit spend until the cows come home and have been doing so for decades now. They come up with money out of thin air to help big businesses and the stock market. If you don't think we have capability of including health insurance for everyone and 1000 or 2000 a month for however long it takes to get through this then you should be asking where they find the money to bail out industries and continue to give the military when national health is a higher priority than military spending among many other programs that we blow money on. We have no financial limit. It's merely political will.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

.

I just wanted to respond to something you brought up in the other thread. You can't use any data for countries like Iceland and transfer it to the US. The US is one of, but more likely, the fattest nation in the world and with that comes a whole host of medical conditions that make us vulnerable to the virus. We have the most deaths and cases and the numbers are going to get a much worse. With so many saying this is a hoax or it's just the flu or any other combination of science denying BS, the numbers now put us at likely more than 200k dead by October. This is the absolute dumbest response to something like that that a presidential administration could have provided. The idea that anyone would propose that people can just take the risk if they choose and vulnerable people can just stay home is staggeringly ignorant of science and a saddenly selfish way to view the world and our place in it. I've already seen one family who are big supporters of this president who went to visit their older relatives and now one is in the hospital fighting for their life. If ever there was an instance that it would be appropriate to say "We tried to warn you, idiot!". But hey do what you want, hope you don't accidentally kill someone important to you. A number of people have underlying vulnerabilities to this thing that they don't know about.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

So at the very least then, pay them well enough to make it worth essentially risking their lives and the lives around them, or at least require companies to provide benefits such as healthcare. Fund that by either raising taxes on corporations or by just essentially printing it like the Fed just printed almost 3 trillion dollars. Instead of bailing out big companies, bail out regular people. The big boys can afford it. It's not fair to essential workers, you're absolutely right, but it's not because people on unemployment are gaming the system, it's because the system has screwed them more than anyone. Maybe if jobs paid people well, people wouldn't be incentivized to get on unemployment.

And what about non-essential workers? Why shouldn't people be able to get what's needed to survive around here even if they're not "needed"? Tech companies have already been driving up prices of real estate so far to the point where it's driving everyone who's lived here for years out. It's just not sustainable. If everyone moves somewhere else, they'll just drive up those prices as well - it happened in Portland and Seattle, it can happen anywhere else.

Again, the fatality rate also just doesn't take into consideration the rate of long-term health effects of COVID that aren't death, lung damage in particular.

I can definitely speak to Portland. Moved from San Bruno to Portland in 2001. our rent in SB was $1900 for 800sqft, moved to Portland got a 1050sqft apt for $600. Bought first house a year later for $125k, bought 2nd house 3 times the size for $300k about 10 years ago. Sold the first one, was rental for a long time, a few years back for $350k. Current house now values at around $600k.

About the lung damage... my wife read me an article about a young person who had to have a lung transplant because the damage from cover was so severe. Wasn't even an old person, was some kid around 20 maybe younger?

 

[Mafoofoo]

I can definitely speak to Portland. Moved from San Bruno to Portland in 2001. our rent in SB was $1900 for 800sqft, moved to Portland got a 1050sqft apt for $600. Bought first house a year later for $125k, bought 2nd house 3 times the size for $300k about 10 years ago. Sold the first one, was rental for a long time, a few years back for $350k. Current house now values at around $600k.

About the lung damage... my wife read me an article about a young person who had to have a lung transplant because the damage from cover was so severe. Wasn't even an old person, was some kid around 20 maybe younger?

600k for a house is amazing. That’s around how much condos cost here

 

[hohosaregood]

600k for a house is amazing. That’s around how much condos cost here

There's this townhouse in Morgan Hill that I saw was going for 350k and I was thinking about it until I saw that it was limited to low income households w/ a 45 year resale restriction.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

600k for a house is amazing. That’s around how much condos cost here

House I grew up in in Santa Clara cost $75k when we bought it. Last sold a few years ago at almost 1.5mil.

 

[Mafoofoo]

There's this townhouse in Morgan Hill that I saw was going for 350k and I was thinking about it until I saw that it was limited to low income households w/ a 45 year resale restriction.

Those, the leased land (maybe only relevant in beach areas like Newport) and the 55+ only sales are the biggest troll listings that I come across, get hype and then get sad about

House I grew up in in Santa Clara cost $75k when we bought it. Last sold a few years ago at almost 1.5mil.

The guy who lives next to my parents in the bay pays more per month in property taxes for his one house than they do per month for all of their houses combined. It’s wild up there

 

[hohosaregood]

Those, the leased land (maybe only relevant in beach areas like Newport) and the 55+ only sales are the biggest troll listings that I come across, get hype and then get sad about



The guy who lives next to my parents in the bay pays more per month in property taxes for his one house than they do per month for all of their houses combined. It’s wild up there

Interesting thing is that my sister and a bunch of people she knows are in the process of buying their first homes right now because the mortgage rates are actually low right now.

 

[Mafoofoo]

Interesting thing is that my sister and a bunch of people she knows are in the process of buying their first homes right now because the mortgage rates are actually low right now.

I’m kinda in the same boat, but still deciding how much I want to spend on a house.

 

[slocal]

Interesting thing is that my sister and a bunch of people she knows are in the process of buying their first homes right now because the mortgage rates are actually low right now.

Yup, I just refinanced two weeks ago for a stupidly low rate (sub 3%). Couldn't pass it up.

Pay attention to MBS prices, kids!

 

[LadyStanley]

Bought my Mountain View 2BR condo in 1989 for $105k. Sold it in 2017 for more than seven times that.

Real Estate is (usually) a good (long term) investment.

 

[Mafoofoo]

Yup, I just refinanced two weeks ago for a stupidly low rate (sub 3%). Couldn't pass it up.

Pay attention to MBS prices, kids!

So apparently it's a sellers market according to my realtor friend? Maybe cuz of the low rates? Though I can't really seem to believe that since even places nearby like Costa Mesa or Newport have properties sitting for 25-30+ days.



It's weird because from looking at the listings I see it's telling me to buy buy buy, but then realtors are saying it'll be hard to buy since everyone's trying to buy and most places are getting 10+ offers? But houses are sitting on the market for a long period of time and there's lots of "back on the market! purchase fell through!" listings? I am so confused.

 

[slocal]

So apparently it's a sellers market according to my realtor friend? Maybe cuz of the low rates? Though I can't really seem to believe that since even places nearby like Costa Mesa or Newport have properties sitting for 25-30+ days.



It's weird because from looking at the listings I see it's telling me to buy buy buy, but then realtors are saying it'll be hard to buy since everyone's trying to buy and most places are getting 10+ offers? But houses are sitting on the market for a long period of time and there's lots of "back on the market! purchase fell through!" listings? I am so confused.

A lot can go wrong during the discovery period and securing of financing.

Housing can be hot, but it's usually a certain type of home. In a lot of markets, it's the "starter home". In my area, there are a lot of 2500sq+ homes that sit, even ones on acreage, but homes around 1300sq get snapped up before they hit Zillow and Redfin (get an MLS portal from your realtor). A lot of people are looking for starter homes right now.

Our current home was on the market for 2 days. Sold before a sign could go up, so it was a surprise to the neighbors, hah.

 

[Mafoofoo]

A lot can go wrong during the discovery period and securing of financing.

Housing can be hot, but it's usually a certain type of home. In a lot of markets, it's the "starter home". In my area, there are a lot of 2500sq+ homes that sit, even ones on acreage, but homes around 1300sq get snapped up before they hit Zillow and Redfin (get an MLS portal from your realtor). A lot of people are looking for starter homes right now.

Our current home was on the market for 2 days. Sold before a sign could go up, so it was a surprise to the neighbors, hah.

Damn dude, that's a good tip. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks brah.

 

[slocal]

Damn dude, that's a good tip. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks brah.

Of course, dude! There are realtors who specialize in first-time buyers. Definitely helps because they know the answers to the questions you'll want to ask, and they tend to know loan officers who specialize in the same. I highly recommend that route.

And I'm sure you know because of your friend, but I just want to make sure people know the buyer's realtor splits the commission with the seller's realtor. The buyer doesn't have to pay their realtor anything.

 

[CupfortheSharks]

My wife and I are watching home prices in San Diego. We plan to retire there in about 10 years but may buy something early and rent it. This article, that was published yesterday, does a good job of explaining what is going on.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...go-home-sales-nosedive-price-mostly-unchanged
San Diego home sales nosedive, price mostly unchanged

 

[Reggae Shark]

My wife and I are watching home prices in San Diego. We plan to retire there in about 10 years but may buy something early and rent it. This article, that was published yesterday, does a good job of explaining what is going on.
San Diego home sales nosedive, price mostly unchanged

Where in SD are you looking? We just bought in North County. The market is pretty healthy.