...it’s a mistake to treat the growing ideological divide over when and how to reopen the country as a matter of class rather than partisanship. The push for a faster reopening, even in places where coronavirus cases are growing, has significant elite support. And many of those who face exposure as they’re ordered back to work are rightly angry and terrified.I know of a case in which a woman whose mother was high-risk because of age and disease was called back to work, and she had to choose between quitting / losing her job / going on unpaid leave, or risking infecting her mother. Unemployment benefits end right away, so if she takes the former path she's joining the 25%* of America who are currently out of work. If she takes the latter path, she's getting paid but every day she's risking her mother's life. It's a tough situation.
Because here’s the thing about reopening: It’s liberation to some, but compulsion to others. If your employer reopens but you don’t feel safe going to work, you can’t continue to collect unemployment benefits.
That said there are definitely class issues at play. It's just that all the members of one class aren't on the same side. As always, I feel for the working class men and women whose interests are rarely fully considered. I don't object to raising this set of concerns for them at all. We probably should consider an exception for people who live with high risk candidates (defined, perhaps, as people over 65 who have a complicating illness). Perhaps we should consider lowering the retirement age to 55 for Social Security and pension purposes, so that people whose parents are in the high-risk age zone will be more likely to be able to retire if they want to do so. Their jobs can then provide room for some of that 25%* to find new employment. Perhaps people who came into this crisis in working class careers should be prioritized for extra help retiring if they want to do so.
I'm open to suggestions. There's no reason we can't make some adjustments to help ensure the worker who wants to work can get back to it, and the ones who have rational concerns are protected or at least have their concerns mitigated.
* See comments.
4 comments:
A quibble. I don't think it's 25%. If one includes the underemployed, which isn't a crazy idea, maybe it gets there. The official number is less than 15%. that may be wrong, but I haven't seen evidence it's that far off. Particular industries are absolutely devastated, because if you are unemployed, all your usual places of looking for work aren't even open. The wall is sheer and high. It's not like when your restaurant closes you can go to another to become a cook.
A similar argument comes up about opening schools. The children are not in much danger, even if they catch C19. (We think. Something ugly long-term could still show up.) It might even be an advantage for future immunity. But children live in homes with grandparents or go there after school, and some are brought up by grandparents. This increases in poorer neighborhoods.
I grant that the 25% number is one that I've seen thrown about lately, rather than something I've carefully examined. I don't think the post relies on it being exact, though; the point is that there are a lot of people who are out of work.
But children live in homes with grandparents or go there after school, and some are brought up by grandparents.
It's beginning to look like children aren't very infectious.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/let-children-go-to-summer-school-11589842866?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=12
Eric Hines
"If your employer reopens but you don’t feel safe going to work, you can’t continue to collect unemployment benefits."
And you shouldn't, especially if the cost to your healthy neighbors is that they continue to be locked out of their workplaces and reduced to unemployment checks. The name for what the medically vulnerable worker needs is "disability," not "unemployment," and it should be limited to people who are peculiarly at risk if they venture back into public, just as if they were post-transplant immunocompromised.
Post a Comment