Right, between flagging and downvoting and moderation we don't get those sentiments showing up at the top of the discussion here. It gets buried.
C2 suffers from being editable and generally staying linear in flow (people added downward, and less frequently edited the top portions). There are some clear trolling/flame war content that was moved, there was also a culture of avoiding deletion though so even when it was moved it wasn't removed.
Disappointed yet again with upvoted comments on hacker news defending murderers and terrorists. There's defending free speech then there's defending terrorism. This is not ok.
It's harder to afford stable housing with a stable mailing address than it is to afford internet access.
And those without internet access can go to public libraries or even get free public wifi in many cities. Even some homeless shelters provide wifi now, which is much easier for them than providing mail service. Technically, I think those without a permanent address can register to still receive mail at a post office, but that seems more difficult to manage and more limiting than finding internet access.
This is not a wall Street bail out. This is a main Street bail out. Every American's life savings is in the stock market... Don't conflate the two please.
"Even when you consider indirect ownership via 401(k) retirement accounts and similar vehicles, fewer than half of American households own any stock at all."
Nope, sorry - this is literally an injection of cash into Wall Street. Political spin can do massively crazy things but this particular injection is specifically going straight into Wall Street - saying otherwise is extremely disingenuous.
Just plain wrong. There are financial markets (stock, bond markets, etc..) and there are financial market companies that operate in that market. The two are distinct.
This is analogous to: oil in the ground (the financial market) and companies like Exxon and Chevron (financial market companies).
The financial markets are connected to every aspect of the "average" American's life. 65%+ of working-age Americans are invested in some way through the markets - either a brokerage account or a retirement account (401k, IRA, defined benefit plan, etc...).
So if the US Government steps in to stabilize the markets with an injection of capital, yes, you can argue ad infinitum that this helps the Goldman Sachs of the world. But guess what, financial market companies love volatility. That's when the real money is made. So sure, theyll make money on the way up, but they will also make plenty of money on the way down as well.
An injection of capital into the markets helps the average American. It brings stability to people's nest eggs and retirement funds. It puts a floor on panic selling.
There's nothing disingenuous in my distinction of financial markets vs financial market companies. I a merely pointing out that the market is way more complex and interconnected than is being portrayed in this thread.
>Every American's life savings is in the stock market
First, you are exaggerating. Secondly, why is this a good thing? Maybe the whole damn world should re-evaluate this.
99% of people are not "investing", they are throwing money in something that should magically keep going up over time because everyone wants it to magically go up over time.
This isn't about the stock market, it's about the banking system and bond market. A side effect is the market feeling better that the banking system isn't going to collapse. However, the market will do whatever it does, this move wasn't about the stock market.
I've commented to this effect maybe 4 times now, does no one remember 2008/2009? Does no one remember the credit markets freezing? Forget about the stock market, it's child play compared to what would unfold.
Exactly. The fed controls monetary policy and acts independently. The US Executive + Legislative branch control fiscal policy, which would be where they could spend on virus programs.
The fed is independent precisely so it can act fast in times like these. It's a limited scope but it's something, whereas the extremely partisan congress + Trump likely won't move as fast if at all.
The point is that young people are more likely to think "Oh this won't affect me, I'll continue as normal" because the severity and mortality of this illness is statistically higher for older people.
I don't see it as blaming young people, just pointing out that even if you aren't in the statistically "at risk" part of the age curve, you can still play a part in the spread and effects of this epidemic.
Who is more likely to read and listen to a Newsweek article, an arbitrary individual reading the article making a decision for themselves, or a governmental policy maker when deciding what to tell the country?
If not being poor was as simple as washing your hands and avoiding necessary travel then that might have more merit.
It's quite possible for both "the systemic response is inadequate" and "we should not take personal actions that cause unnecessary risk for others when possible" to both be true and fit in one's head at the same time. One does not negate the other.
Let's try to reduce the damage on all levels, by all people? There's no need to choose between one or the other, government action and personal responsibility.
Ideally, sure, but I don't think that that federal government is really going to do better in the near-to-medium term no matter how many such articles are written.
Individual (and state government) action is mostly what we have, so that's more important than ever.
This scenario is playing out today in a family member's office on the East Coast.
A 30-something in the office, despite the fact that Washington state is a major COVID-19 hotspot with community spread and multiple deaths, nevertheless decided to book tickets to see a grunge band concert in Seattle, along with multiple parties.
Returning last night sent emails from the plane marveling at how empty it was. Clearly missed the memo or DGAF.
Moreover, in the office where he works, the senior partners are over 70, so in a major risk group.
This is now a big issue of how long to keep the guy home.
So, yes, everyone (young and old) needs to get smart, take precautions, and stop risking killing people.
You're 30 and want to take the risk? Fine. Just stay the F away from everyone else who didn't sign up for your risks.
And to the GP's point, no one is being 'ageist' about this.
It's an ageist and offensive narrative to say that young people are saying that phrase and acting it out like they don't care about killing their elders.
I would agree with you, if only I would have not heard this exact "actually it's not so bad, mortality is super low unless you are old or sick already" in the real life way too many times.
Not all young people! But I have personally witnessed many young people speaking openly this way.
When I saw the statistics for my age cohort, my first reaction was to feel cavalier. It was a few minutes before I thought about the harm I could accidentally do to people in their 70s
Sorry, I thought that was the beginning of this whole discussion about ageist comments and blaming young people.
We're so many levels down into discussing claims that nobody is explicitly making in the article or this comment thread that it's hard to keep track of.
I've witnessed online discussions about how this is a "boomer cull" and had to point out that we all have family or friends that are not likely to survive it.
It's been well-established for some millennia that young people think they're indestructible. Here's some anecdata for you [1] including the following illustrative Twitter quote from a 27-year-old:
> Okay I know the world is in a state of panic but flights are cheap AF. I definitely just booked a flight to see my grams for her birthday.
(Her grams is 71 and well into the COVID danger zone.)
This is not blaming young people, though admittedly it's keeping its context implicit, which isn't helpful. This is a reaction to _way_ too many articles and posts that went "don't worry, coronavirus ain't so bad, only people who already aren't healthy are at any real risk," which a) not true, and b) is kinda scary in how it dismisses the less-than-healthy-people.
Granted, the title is gratuitous click bait but the message is on point and from someone on the front-lines in a country further along the curve than most others.
