Thread: CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

I know some people who can be very lazy sometimes, and indeed a lot of the time, but I don't think it's helpful writing people off as "moochers". I know people who have jobs that just don't make much money, and (at my stage in life) often have young kids which means re-training or going back to uni just isn't an option.

Unless there is a miracle cure out of nowhere, this is an unprecedented issue and the economics are complicated. I think you missed the point of Case B. If they're given a stimulus they may not spend more because they're already spending what they need. The people who might spend money they wouldn't otherwise may be the people who have no choice.

Your Case B types might even end up better off, because if they can weather the storm they might be able to snatch up assets like shares and property when the price is low and make a killing, like some did during the GFC. Someone bought all the shares that were sold at the bottom of the market and then lurched back up.

I can understand the view about the morality of it all. But it's not the tale of the ant and the grasshopper. The point of a stimulus isn't to reward moral behaviour but avoid an even worse recession.

Back on topic.

Three days ago Australia had round 300 cases of COVID19, and it's well know the doubling rate appears to be ~3 days
OK its been 3 days and here we are today with 636 cases.

The numbers we see today are because of (a lack of) decisions made around 2 weeks ago.
Projecting that forward, unless something drastic is done today, in 2 weeks time we will have ~20,000 people with this virus.

I guess this is what we get when we let Pollies be in charge of a Public Medical Crisis.

What do you suggest as being "something drastic"

Crown still open, You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany

Back on the 16th I wrote post #279

To which I would add - no non-essential inter-regional travel (at least interstate travel) Tassie's already done this. This would protect some regions better than we are doing now.

Originally Posted by BobL

Back on the 16th I wrote post #279

To which I would add - no non-essential inter-regional travel (at least interstate travel) Tassie's already done this. This would protect some regions better than we are doing now.

Just had a look at your #279 post and yes it's drastic and yes I believe you're on the money.

BobL for PM!

Originally Posted by BobL

Back on the 16th I wrote post #279

To which I would add - no non-essential inter-regional travel (at least interstate travel) Tassie's already done this. This would protect some regions better than we are doing now.

We will see that the definition of non-essential gets stretched for those with affluence and money.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

BobL for PM!

None of these suggestions are original - they all come from epidemiologists less tainted by political pressure.
It's a war and and until the pollies give the reins completely to the experts there will continue to be compromised decisions.
WA just had its biggest reported jump in numbers of (17) cases for one day and only 4 of these can be traced to overseas travellers - this means 13 are from community transmission.
"Road blocks on the state border on both ends of Highway 1" I say!

Wait - one day please - my "recovering from cancer bro" is, as I write, setting out from Melb to drive to WA.

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status. I have worked for all sorts of people from being on welfare to billionaires, some are A holes and others the nicest people you could meet and their financial status has had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Do people honestly believe that the more money you accumulate the worse you become as a human being? If you are an A hole and come into a bit of money you are then a rich A hole.......it is that simple

i dont understand why people who are already on some form of government assistance are part of this stimulus package, aren’t they already being catered for? Surely there are others who are losing their jobs etc who are going to be in far greater financial need that should be looked after. Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by 44Ronin

We will see that the definition of non-essential gets stretched for those with affluence and money.

Yeah always a problem - that probably what's happened in Italy but we have start somewhere.
There's already been some talk about internal tourists, especially grey nomads, being prime carriers as well as potentially clogging up the regional hospitals.

Originally Posted by Beardy

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status. I have worked for all sorts of people from being on welfare to billionaires, some are A holes and others the nicest people you could meet and their financial status has had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Do people honestly believe that the more money you accumulate the worse you become as a human being? If you are an A hole and come into a bit of money you are then a rich A hole.......it is that simple

i dont understand why people who are already on some form of government assistance are part of this stimulus package, aren’t they already being catered for? Surely there are others who are losing their jobs etc who are going to be in far greater financial need that should be looked after. Or am I missing something?

Nothing too mysterious about it, just plain old human envy. He's got more than me - not fair! It doesn't apply to everyone but it certainly applies to some. Why do they get the stimulus package? Because they have learnt to work the system. They manage to insinuate themselves among the genuinely needy whom no one would deny a helping hand.

Those who've lost their jobs and still need to pay the rent? Collateral damage...

Originally Posted by Beardy

I really struggle to understand why people are judged/ categorised by their financial status. I have worked for all sorts of people from being on welfare to billionaires, some are A holes and others the nicest people you could meet and their financial status has had absolutely nothing to do with it?

A few years back I asked my mate who has been a tree surgeon for about 40 years, who are the most difficult clients to get payments from and he said it's mostly from those who have too little or too much. The ones who have too little he has some sympathy, for but the ones who have too much he is quite disparaging about as they usually have no excuse and it's not like they paid any more. In fact they were usually very bargainers and usually paid less. When the financial climate was positive, and he had more work than he could poke a chainsaw at, for a while he even stopped performing tree surgery in some of the wealthier/riverside suburbs of Perth. Sorry, too busy mate.

Another mate who was a cabinet maker told me the same thing and several large jobs nearly sent him broke over dragged out non payments. He said the wealthier the clients were the longer it took to get the payments out of them.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

Nothing too mysterious about it, just plain old human envy. He's got more than me - not fair! It doesn't apply to everyone but it certainly applies to some. Why do they get the stimulus package? Because they have learnt to work the system. They manage to insinuate themselves among the genuinely needy whom no one would deny a helping hand.

Those who've lost their jobs and still need to pay the rent? Collateral damage...

I agree but lets be careful we don't apply the same broad brush as the other blokes.
Amongst these so called "bludgers there are many many pensioners, sole parents, disabled and genuine cases that need to be treated with dignity and respect, and not derision.
Like wise I have every sympathy for the genuine small business owner who has given it a red hot go and has a large debt with a bank and this virus causes him to go belly up and I really do hope the pollies do something for them.

The quality of our society in these times will be judged by how well we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.