Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 12:20:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 12:08:18 GMT -5
I saw one of the famous chefs on the news the other night talking about how he won't reopen because he's afraid of being labeled as the next center of an outbreak and it permanently killing his business. I think there's something to be said for that.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,451
|
Post by thyme4change on May 12, 2020 12:10:51 GMT -5
Many places here in Phoenix reopened yesterday. Near our house, there is a brewery / bar (they sell a little food, but mostly I just see people hanging out and drinking beer - so I'd guess their liquor license is the type that bars have). They removed 2 of their 5 outdoor tables. They are the big picnic type tables. They also removed some inside tables. We went past and people were at the 3 outdoor tables. In only an empirical measurement fantasy land were those people 6 feet apart. They also had social distancing stickers to stand on for while you are waiting - those are closer to 4 feet apart, when you measure from the center of the sticker to the center of the next sticker. No one was wearing a mask, and I didn't see hand sanitizer on the tables. So - my personal experience 1 out of 1 restaurants get a fail on following directions.
The next restaurant over had workers there, but no people. I'm not sure if they were open or what. All their employees were in masks.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,234
|
Post by saveinla on May 12, 2020 12:10:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 12:20:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 12:16:39 GMT -5
I thought people were talking about terminally ill, bed ridden folks that are in constant pain. I don't believe anyone was referring to those with a good quality of life that happen to have a few health issues. That's what I thought too. My grandfather was in his upper 70's when it was discovered he had a brain tumor. He entered a clinical trial for a new treatment for that particular form of brain cancer and was in remission for 7 years. His was one of the longest remissions in the study. The normal time between diagnosis and death is 3 months. Meanwhile someone my age my parents knew, in the same study with the same treatment only made it six months. My grandfather went on to beat it for another 3 years after that. It was the third time it came back that he made the decision not to see any more treatment. At the time he was being moved into hospice something happened with his intestines I can't remember what and my grandmother had him rushed to the ER. The ER doctor wanted to do immediate surgery. My grandmother and father refused. The ER doctor refused to let them leave unless they agreed to surgery so my dad called his bluff and told him to call the surgeon down. Surgeon tore that ER doctor a new one and my grandfather was made comfortable till he passed. My grandfather was in absolutely no condition to survive a surgery like that, his relatives recognized it but the ER doctor refused to budge. That was extreme live saving measures IMO that shouldn't have even been brought up. My dad said he would not have been able to live with himself if he had agreed to put my grandfather through that surgery. Grandpa was very clear about his wishes and at that point wasn't all there he would have been terrified out of his mind and likely died on the operating table. And for what so the ER doctor could make a buck? So we could say at least we could live with ourselves? He passed away peacefully in hospice a few days later. That's what I thought we were discussing, not my grandfather's initial diagnosis where he may have been in his upper 70s but was in perfect physical health otherwise.Few people in their upper 70s are in "perfect physical health."Actually, few people period meet that metric, but that's not the point. It should be your grandfather's and/or your family's decision about the final "life-saving" surgery, not the ER doctor. Just as he had no right to force surgery on your grandfather, I don't believe he had the right to deny it to him either. We (those of us in this thread) are talking about rationing healthcare. Right now it is about those either terminally ill or with Alzheimer's/dementia or simply too old by someone's standards to benefit from medical services. That's a slippery slope. I understand that health care dollars are not a bottomless pit, but society spends a lot of those dollars to try to save premature babies, many with almost impossible odds of survival. Should we stop that as well? We spend a lot health care dollars on fertility. The family pays a lot as well, but so does insurance. Is that a "best use" of healthcare dollars? What about people in comas? Should the plug be pulled sooner rather than later? Or maybe not plugged in at all if the prognosis is sufficiently bad enough? I guess rationing healthcare scares me. And it isn't that I think there will be "death panels."
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,058
|
Post by teen persuasion on May 12, 2020 12:22:07 GMT -5
Cuomo announced that 3 of 10 regions of the state are greenlighted to begin phase 1 reopening Saturday. Not my region (still red on 2 of 7 metrics, both about hospitalization rates declining), but an adjoining region (containing 3 counties that everyone HERE considers in our region, and 2/3 of my library system).
But I'm confused by all the talk about opening up restaurants. They don't reopen until phase 3 and 4 (there's at least 2 weeks between phases).
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,451
|
Post by thyme4change on May 12, 2020 12:22:57 GMT -5
I saw that on John Oliver. We had a good laugh about it because it is 100+ degrees here, and inside a glass box it would be 150 degrees when the sun is out. So, Phoenix won't be implementing that any time soon. 😄
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,341
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 12, 2020 12:26:35 GMT -5
I don't know about rationing health care. I do think we need to have more talks about quality/end of life than we do. We afford more dignity to our pets than we do our human relatives sometimes. The fact does remain 100% of us will die eventually and we need to be comfortable with the conversation as people live longer and medical technology advances. I am glad that my dad, grandmother and grandfather were comfortable with each other enough to discuss that and that at the end my dad/grandma had the strength to follow through. WAY better than what happened with my maternal grandmother. Granted my grandmother's death was unexpected but she NEVER had a conversation with my mother about these things. She had it in her head that we'd bump her off on purpose to get the house (because without a living will we couldn't do that?). So when what happened happened my mom had no clue what to do. She still doesn't know if she made the right decisions or not. I know I cannot if I am in that situation actually control what my relatives do but I do believe the conversation needs to happen. We need to get comfortable talking about end of life care with each other. Speaking of comas I read this book not to long ago www.amazon.com/Into-Grey-Zone-Neuroscientist-Explores/dp/1783350989It was both fascinating and disturbing because if his studies are correct then that throws the whole concept of living wills out the window.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,420
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 12, 2020 13:38:51 GMT -5
That's what I thought too. My grandfather was in his upper 70's when it was discovered he had a brain tumor. He entered a clinical trial for a new treatment for that particular form of brain cancer and was in remission for 7 years. His was one of the longest remissions in the study. The normal time between diagnosis and death is 3 months. Meanwhile someone my age my parents knew, in the same study with the same treatment only made it six months. My grandfather went on to beat it for another 3 years after that. It was the third time it came back that he made the decision not to see any more treatment. At the time he was being moved into hospice something happened with his intestines I can't remember what and my grandmother had him rushed to the ER. The ER doctor wanted to do immediate surgery. My grandmother and father refused. The ER doctor refused to let them leave unless they agreed to surgery so my dad called his bluff and told him to call the surgeon down. Surgeon tore that ER doctor a new one and my grandfather was made comfortable till he passed. My grandfather was in absolutely no condition to survive a surgery like that, his relatives recognized it but the ER doctor refused to budge. That was extreme live saving measures IMO that shouldn't have even been brought up. My dad said he would not have been able to live with himself if he had agreed to put my grandfather through that surgery. Grandpa was very clear about his wishes and at that point wasn't all there he would have been terrified out of his mind and likely died on the operating table. And for what so the ER doctor could make a buck? So we could say at least we could live with ourselves? He passed away peacefully in hospice a few days later. That's what I thought we were discussing, not my grandfather's initial diagnosis where he may have been in his upper 70s but was in perfect physical health otherwise.Few people in their upper 70s are in "perfect physical health."Actually, few people period meet that metric, but that's not the point. It should be your grandfather's and/or your family's decision about the final "life-saving" surgery, not the ER doctor. Just as he had no right to force surgery on your grandfather, I don't believe he had the right to deny it to him either. We (those of us in this thread) are talking about rationing healthcare. Right now it is about those either terminally ill or with Alzheimer's/dementia or simply too old by someone's standards to benefit from medical services. That's a slippery slope. I understand that health care dollars are not a bottomless pit, but society spends a lot of those dollars to try to save premature babies, many with almost impossible odds of survival. Should we stop that as well? We spend a lot health care dollars on fertility. The family pays a lot as well, but so does insurance. Is that a "best use" of healthcare dollars? What about people in comas? Should the plug be pulled sooner rather than later? Or maybe not plugged in at all if the prognosis is sufficiently bad enough? I guess rationing healthcare scares me. And it isn't that I think there will be "death panels." Then be prepared for healthcare spending to continue to increase at a higher rate than all other spending, and to take an increasing percentage of gdp. We can’t have it both ways. Medicine advances, and that alone drives up spending, as we can treat things we couldn’t treat before. And if you can’t see the difference between spending on a premature infant. Wo could live 60+ years, and doing a bypass on a 90 year old, I do not know what to say. Every country rations care. Most do it overtly, we do it based on ability to pay, and insurance coverage. If bless the unemployment rate drastically improves, a whole lot of people who had good insurance are in for a rude awakening
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 12:20:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 14:18:50 GMT -5
Few people in their upper 70s are in "perfect physical health."Actually, few people period meet that metric, but that's not the point. It should be your grandfather's and/or your family's decision about the final "life-saving" surgery, not the ER doctor. Just as he had no right to force surgery on your grandfather, I don't believe he had the right to deny it to him either. We (those of us in this thread) are talking about rationing healthcare. Right now it is about those either terminally ill or with Alzheimer's/dementia or simply too old by someone's standards to benefit from medical services. That's a slippery slope. I understand that health care dollars are not a bottomless pit, but society spends a lot of those dollars to try to save premature babies, many with almost impossible odds of survival. Should we stop that as well? We spend a lot health care dollars on fertility. The family pays a lot as well, but so does insurance. Is that a "best use" of healthcare dollars? What about people in comas? Should the plug be pulled sooner rather than later? Or maybe not plugged in at all if the prognosis is sufficiently bad enough? I guess rationing healthcare scares me. And it isn't that I think there will be "death panels." Then be prepared for healthcare spending to continue to increase at a higher rate than all other spending, and to take an increasing percentage of gdp. We can’t have it both ways. Medicine advances, and that alone drives up spending, as we can treat things we couldn’t treat before. And if you can’t see the difference between spending on a premature infant. Wo could live 60+ years, and doing a bypass on a 90 year old, I do not know what to say. Every country rations care. Most do it overtly, we do it based on ability to pay, and insurance coverage. If bless the unemployment rate drastically improves, a whole lot of people who had good insurance are in for a rude awakening I've known several sad situations where a premature baby spent many months in NiCU with outcomes that don't support 60+ years of quality life. And I had an aunt who was denied a mammogram (by her insurance company) in her 80s who lived to be almost 101. She lived with a slightly younger brother with just the two of them until she was in her late 90s. We can both point at exceptions. That isn't the point. I have expressed my viewpoint, and you have expressed yours. We aren't going to change our point of view so let's call it quits on this poor, dead horse of an argument.
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,823
Member is Online
|
Post by jerseygirl on May 12, 2020 14:34:36 GMT -5
My county just hit 720 confirmed cases (expanded testing, to meet state requirements for reopening the region). Then they announce this: "County Public Health Director says the county "would continue to reach out to those who came in close, direct contact with a positive case..." but, "will no longer be doing full-scale community contact tracing as it has little to no clinical value at this point." Contact tracing is the whole point of another of the state's reopening metrics: 30 contact tracers per 100k residents. Why increase contact tracers numbers, if you are no longer doing it? The Public Health Officer here in my county mentioned people who had direct, extended contact with positive cases are notified and asked to watch for symptoms. They said it wasn't possible to notify stores they shopped in, other shoppers, etc... and that they can't legally make someone quarantine at home even if they are positive or believed to have been exposed. They will be called every day for 14 days and encouraged not to leave home or expose others. I really do think the US is going for herd immunity with no/few tests, but that just isn't being openly shared with the public. I saw a form for tracing/tracking. It was just questions about other people in the household- think it was for NY Very superficial and probably waste of time and money
|
|
jerseygirl
Senior Member
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,823
Member is Online
|
Post by jerseygirl on May 12, 2020 14:38:52 GMT -5
Very nice. There are an amazing number of greenhouses in Holland. When flying into Shipol Amsterdam in early muring you can see all the lighted glass greenhouses Dutch people are very practical and elegant
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,420
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 12, 2020 14:46:17 GMT -5
Then be prepared for healthcare spending to continue to increase at a higher rate than all other spending, and to take an increasing percentage of gdp. We can’t have it both ways. Medicine advances, and that alone drives up spending, as we can treat things we couldn’t treat before. And if you can’t see the difference between spending on a premature infant. Wo could live 60+ years, and doing a bypass on a 90 year old, I do not know what to say. Every country rations care. Most do it overtly, we do it based on ability to pay, and insurance coverage. If bless the unemployment rate drastically improves, a whole lot of people who had good insurance are in for a rude awakening I've known several sad situations where a premature baby spent many months in NiCU with outcomes that don't support 60+ years of quality life. And I had an aunt who was denied a mammogram (by her insurance company) in her 80s who lived to be almost 101. She lived with a slightly younger brother with just the two of them until she was in her late 90s. We can both point at exceptions. That isn't the point. I have expressed my viewpoint, and you have expressed yours. We aren't going to change our point of view so let's call it quits on this poor, dead horse of an argument. If you feel that way, fo YOU complain about healthcare costs. If you do, how do we get y th hem under controlthdn?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,451
|
Post by thyme4change on May 12, 2020 15:48:32 GMT -5
Few people in their upper 70s are in "perfect physical health."Actually, few people period meet that metric, but that's not the point. It should be your grandfather's and/or your family's decision about the final "life-saving" surgery, not the ER doctor. Just as he had no right to force surgery on your grandfather, I don't believe he had the right to deny it to him either. We (those of us in this thread) are talking about rationing healthcare. Right now it is about those either terminally ill or with Alzheimer's/dementia or simply too old by someone's standards to benefit from medical services. That's a slippery slope. I understand that health care dollars are not a bottomless pit, but society spends a lot of those dollars to try to save premature babies, many with almost impossible odds of survival. Should we stop that as well? We spend a lot health care dollars on fertility. The family pays a lot as well, but so does insurance. Is that a "best use" of healthcare dollars? What about people in comas? Should the plug be pulled sooner rather than later? Or maybe not plugged in at all if the prognosis is sufficiently bad enough? I guess rationing healthcare scares me. And it isn't that I think there will be "death panels." Then be prepared for healthcare spending to continue to increase at a higher rate than all other spending, and to take an increasing percentage of gdp. We can’t have it both ways. Medicine advances, and that alone drives up spending, as we can treat things we couldn’t treat before. And if you can’t see the difference between spending on a premature infant. Wo could live 60+ years, and doing a bypass on a 90 year old, I do not know what to say. Every country rations care. Most do it overtly, we do it based on ability to pay, and insurance coverage. If bless the unemployment rate drastically improves, a whole lot of people who had good insurance are in for a rude awakening I suspect the bulk of the people who are now unemployed and may continue to be unemployed weren't covered (or weren't covered well) by their employer. Restaurant staff, retail, hotel staff, casino workers, etc. I also think business is harsh for beauty and gig workers. Uber wasn't giving health insurance, and I doubt the majority of stylists, nail technicians and estheticians are covered by a corporation.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,420
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 12, 2020 15:58:56 GMT -5
Then be prepared for healthcare spending to continue to increase at a higher rate than all other spending, and to take an increasing percentage of gdp. We can’t have it both ways. Medicine advances, and that alone drives up spending, as we can treat things we couldn’t treat before. And if you can’t see the difference between spending on a premature infant. Wo could live 60+ years, and doing a bypass on a 90 year old, I do not know what to say. Every country rations care. Most do it overtly, we do it based on ability to pay, and insurance coverage. If bless the unemployment rate drastically improves, a whole lot of people who had good insurance are in for a rude awakening I suspect the bulk of the people who are now unemployed and may continue to be unemployed weren't covered (or weren't covered well) by their employer. Restaurant staff, retail, hotel staff, casino workers, etc. I also think business is harsh for beauty and gig workers. Uber wasn't giving health insurance, and I doubt the majority of stylists, nail technicians and estheticians are covered by a corporation. There are a fair amount of better compensated workers who will lose there job as well. Carnage is widespread
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 12:20:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 16:03:17 GMT -5
Many gig or low-wage workers qualify for expanded Medicaid.
|
|
bobosensei
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by bobosensei on May 12, 2020 16:21:23 GMT -5
Georgia says childcare in the form of day camps is open as of May 14th. But I am not sure any parents will send their kids. Those that are working from home still won't be back in the office because of limits to how many people can be in one area together at a time. Will be interesting to see how this works.
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,339
|
Post by azucena on May 12, 2020 17:56:01 GMT -5
Dh's daycare is reopening next week. They only have 13 / 100 kids signed up to come back. Meanwhile all of the teachers come off of furlough so the facility has to be losing more money than if they were closed.
Dh got a doctors note to release him from work indefinitely since he is immunocomprimised. I think they are going to pay him to "work from home" which is what he has been doing which means posting lesson plans and videos a couple times per day.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,451
|
Post by thyme4change on May 12, 2020 17:58:48 GMT -5
Many gig or low-wage workers qualify for expanded Medicaid. In some states. 🙃
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 12:20:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 18:02:51 GMT -5
Many gig or low-wage workers qualify for expanded Medicaid. In some states. 🙃 Yes. Alabama didn't expand Medicaid because the governor said we couldn't afford to pick up the slack when the federal government's subsidy ended.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,451
|
Post by thyme4change on May 12, 2020 18:12:51 GMT -5
Yes. Alabama didn't expand Medicaid because the governor said we couldn't afford to pick up the slack when the federal government's subsidy ended. Arizona, too.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on May 12, 2020 18:17:43 GMT -5
Then be prepared for healthcare spending to continue to increase at a higher rate than all other spending, and to take an increasing percentage of gdp. We can’t have it both ways. Medicine advances, and that alone drives up spending, as we can treat things we couldn’t treat before. And if you can’t see the difference between spending on a premature infant. Wo could live 60+ years, and doing a bypass on a 90 year old, I do not know what to say. Every country rations care. Most do it overtly, we do it based on ability to pay, and insurance coverage. If bless the unemployment rate drastically improves, a whole lot of people who had good insurance are in for a rude awakening I suspect the bulk of the people who are now unemployed and may continue to be unemployed weren't covered (or weren't covered well) by their employer. Restaurant staff, retail, hotel staff, casino workers, etc. I also think business is harsh for beauty and gig workers. Uber wasn't giving health insurance, and I doubt the majority of stylists, nail technicians and estheticians are covered by a corporation. I know multiple full time workers who had 9-5 white collar jobs who were furloughed and are now on unemployment. Some work in industries with very small margins and the companies didn't have a ton of breathing room so they're looking at reduced hours or completely losing their jobs once the companies do open back up while some could end up closed for good. A family member works for a school district as a plumber and with schools being out he has little or no work so he's not getting paid full time right now. I'm sure he still has insurance coverage for his family but if he doesn't pick up enough side jobs at a point they can't pay their mortgage. I don't know what will happen going forward because if schools aren't open employees like him are the first ones districts and cities will furlough or cut. I'm not saying these people are the majority because I know they aren't but as pumonarymd said the carnage from this is widespread. How this impacts restaurants, theme parks, hotels, etc. over the next year or so will be interesting because they're going to be operating at reduced capacity with fewer people going out or traveling which will result in some jobs being lost or hours cut even on the full time side. Our company's T&E budget was cut by about 80% while we're a small company but the impact of reduced business travel is going to be huge as well and have long term effects.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on May 12, 2020 18:25:37 GMT -5
I suspect the bulk of the people who are now unemployed and may continue to be unemployed weren't covered (or weren't covered well) by their employer. Restaurant staff, retail, hotel staff, casino workers, etc. I also think business is harsh for beauty and gig workers. Uber wasn't giving health insurance, and I doubt the majority of stylists, nail technicians and estheticians are covered by a corporation. I know multiple full time workers who had 9-5 white collar jobs who were furloughed and are now on unemployment. Some work in industries with very small margins and the companies didn't have a ton of breathing room so they're looking at reduced hours or completely losing their jobs once the companies do open back up while some could end up closed for good. A family member works for a school district as a plumber and with schools being out he has little or no work so he's not getting paid full time right now. I'm sure he still has insurance coverage for his family but if he doesn't pick up enough side jobs at a point they can't pay their mortgage. I don't know what will happen going forward because if schools aren't open employees like him are the first ones districts and cities will furlough or cut. I'm not saying these people are the majority because I know they aren't but as pumonarymd said the carnage from this is widespread. How this impacts restaurants, theme parks, hotels, etc. over the next year or so will be interesting because they're going to be operating at reduced capacity with fewer people going out or traveling which will result in some jobs being lost or hours cut even on the full time side. Our company's T&E budget was cut by about 80% while we're a small company but the impact of reduced business travel is going to be huge as well and have long term effects. Same here. I know a lot of middle to upper-middle income people that have been either furloughed or downsized. It actually scared the pants off of me when I found out one of our affiliate organizations cut half their staff. I had some sleepless nights, and sometimes I still do...I honestly can't imagine anyone, with the exception of certain industries, feeling all that secure. The PPP and SBA loans have kept a lot of dentists, optometrist, and other private practices/small businesses afloat (and allowed them to pay and retain their employees) for now...I'm not sure what another shut down would do to people. When people aren't make money then they aren't spending so then Apple and other tech companies start letting people go. No homes or cars being sold...
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,058
|
Post by teen persuasion on May 12, 2020 18:36:23 GMT -5
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on May 12, 2020 18:42:39 GMT -5
I know multiple full time workers who had 9-5 white collar jobs who were furloughed and are now on unemployment. Some work in industries with very small margins and the companies didn't have a ton of breathing room so they're looking at reduced hours or completely losing their jobs once the companies do open back up while some could end up closed for good. A family member works for a school district as a plumber and with schools being out he has little or no work so he's not getting paid full time right now. I'm sure he still has insurance coverage for his family but if he doesn't pick up enough side jobs at a point they can't pay their mortgage. I don't know what will happen going forward because if schools aren't open employees like him are the first ones districts and cities will furlough or cut. I'm not saying these people are the majority because I know they aren't but as pumonarymd said the carnage from this is widespread. How this impacts restaurants, theme parks, hotels, etc. over the next year or so will be interesting because they're going to be operating at reduced capacity with fewer people going out or traveling which will result in some jobs being lost or hours cut even on the full time side. Our company's T&E budget was cut by about 80% while we're a small company but the impact of reduced business travel is going to be huge as well and have long term effects. Same here. I know a lot of middle to upper-middle income people that have been either furloughed or downsized. It actually scared the pants off of me when I found out one of our affiliate organizations cut half their staff. I had some sleepless nights, and sometimes I still do...I honestly can't imagine anyone, with the exception of certain industries, feeling all that secure. The PPP and SBA loans have kept a lot of dentists, optometrist, and other private practices/small businesses afloat (and allowed them to pay and retain their employees) for now...I'm not sure what another shut down would do to people. When people aren't make money then they aren't spending so then Apple and other tech companies start letting people go. No homes or cars being sold... One of my best friends and his wife fall in that group. My friend works in IT which is one field where you figure a lot of people can work remotely which he can but the issue is when the stores and warehouses are closed he gets furloughed too because his company is in the retail business. His wife is a designer but with retail mostly closed and just doing online sales people like her are furloughed too. I know someone who works on the corporate side for Disney and he's still got a job but their Q1 numbers took a huge hit while some of their parks only went into lock down the last few weeks of Q1. They're opening some parks but reduced capacity is going to result in less revenue and less need for some of their full time corporate employees even. To your point there was an article the other day saying how much used car prices have been dropped and Toyota came out saying they expect an 80% drop in revenue. Situations like that are going to shrink the need for workforce at a lot of companies. We can adapt in the long run whether it's new industries, jobs or how we work but in the short term this is going to hurt a lot of workers even more than it is now.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 12, 2020 18:59:13 GMT -5
I thought restaurants had really narrow profit margins. Will allowing them to open with a 25% capacity really help them? Even if they still do "carry out"? Is it even worth it in the Big Picture to open a restaurant even at 50% capacity? Will they still be able to met all their expenses? I realize that restaurants in areas that have "seasons" and where it's "off season" now - probably would be ok with 25% capacity... that's probably what they typically have during off season. And as such work their financials around those highs and lows of income. Let's assume it restuarants in an area that doesn't have a "season" - how is being sort of open while still bleeding money (in the form of expenses) going to help them long term? I’ve been ordering takeout pretty frequently from restaurants where we used to sit and eat. Even if my favorite restaurants open up, I have no intention of dining in until I’ve been vaccinated or somehow immune. I doubt my opinion is that unique. So it is quite possible that increased take out orders along with 25% dining in capacity could result the same amount of business.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 12, 2020 19:02:09 GMT -5
Except I’m not ordering takeout from anyone whose dining room is open, at least not first wave. More exposure. More likely to have sick staff...
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 12, 2020 19:05:23 GMT -5
I know multiple full time workers who had 9-5 white collar jobs who were furloughed and are now on unemployment. Some work in industries with very small margins and the companies didn't have a ton of breathing room so they're looking at reduced hours or completely losing their jobs once the companies do open back up while some could end up closed for good. A family member works for a school district as a plumber and with schools being out he has little or no work so he's not getting paid full time right now. I'm sure he still has insurance coverage for his family but if he doesn't pick up enough side jobs at a point they can't pay their mortgage. I don't know what will happen going forward because if schools aren't open employees like him are the first ones districts and cities will furlough or cut. I'm not saying these people are the majority because I know they aren't but as pumonarymd said the carnage from this is widespread. How this impacts restaurants, theme parks, hotels, etc. over the next year or so will be interesting because they're going to be operating at reduced capacity with fewer people going out or traveling which will result in some jobs being lost or hours cut even on the full time side. Our company's T&E budget was cut by about 80% while we're a small company but the impact of reduced business travel is going to be huge as well and have long term effects. Same here. I know a lot of middle to upper-middle income people that have been either furloughed or downsized. It actually scared the pants off of me when I found out one of our affiliate organizations cut half their staff. I had some sleepless nights, and sometimes I still do...I honestly can't imagine anyone, with the exception of certain industries, feeling all that secure. The PPP and SBA loans have kept a lot of dentists, optometrist, and other private practices/small businesses afloat (and allowed them to pay and retain their employees) for now...I'm not sure what another shut down would do to people. When people aren't make money then they aren't spending so then Apple and other tech companies start letting people go. No homes or cars being sold... This is one reason why being completely against giving any money to corporations could turn out causing more harm than good. I was jobhunting in March and April. A lot of companies whose business took a hit laid off a significant chunk of their staff. And a lot of other places whose business hasn’t been affected immediately did hiring freezes, even though it meant they would be leaving money on the table, because they were so afraid of what the future would hold.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 12, 2020 19:06:49 GMT -5
Except I’m not ordering takeout from anyone whose dining room is open, at least not first wave. More exposure. More likely to have sick staff... If they’re doing takeout business, aren’t they just as likely to interact with sick people?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 12, 2020 19:12:47 GMT -5
Except I’m not ordering takeout from anyone whose dining room is open, at least not first wave. More exposure. More likely to have sick staff... If they’re doing takeout business, aren’t they just as likely to interact with sick people? We do take out at 3 places. One you call when you get there, they put meal on table outside, go back inside, you go pick it up. One you arrange time and it’s sitting in lobby with name on. Both no contact. Third does have a take out window... they sit it down, you pick it up. All pay by cc over the phone when you order.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on May 12, 2020 19:20:53 GMT -5
Same here. I know a lot of middle to upper-middle income people that have been either furloughed or downsized. It actually scared the pants off of me when I found out one of our affiliate organizations cut half their staff. I had some sleepless nights, and sometimes I still do...I honestly can't imagine anyone, with the exception of certain industries, feeling all that secure. The PPP and SBA loans have kept a lot of dentists, optometrist, and other private practices/small businesses afloat (and allowed them to pay and retain their employees) for now...I'm not sure what another shut down would do to people. When people aren't make money then they aren't spending so then Apple and other tech companies start letting people go. No homes or cars being sold... This is one reason why being completely against giving any money to corporations could turn out causing more harm than good. I was jobhunting in March and April. A lot of companies whose business took a hit laid off a significant chunk of their staff. And a lot of other places whose business hasn’t been affected immediately did hiring freezes, even though it meant they would be leaving money on the table, because they were so afraid of what the future would hold. Exactly. The PPP loans let them retain their employees, and in order for them to get the money, they must keep the same amount of workers with the same compensation. It helps people down the road. The extra $600 of unemployment may put some low end workers making more than their original compensation. If they are smart enough to look down the road they will recognize that the extra $600 will end in July and the chances of getting another job will be slim. The PPP loans help protect people's jobs for the future.
|
|