What impact has the COVID-19 pandemic had on your job?

[Hsopitalist]

I work as a hospital physician North of Boston. The pandemic has obviously changed my workflow. Everyone has had to re-evaluate their priorities. We had one elderly physician with an immunocompromised family member literally clock out, turn around and say goodbye I won't be coming back. As for me, I'm in my 50s. when this pandemic is over the house is going on the market, I'm moving down south, cutting my hours in half and relaxing a hell of a lot more than I planned

 

[Dr Transport]

It will take years to recover, the recession of 2008-9 took a decade and this is much worse. I see it taking 15+ years to get back to the employment percentage levels we saw at the end of last year. The market is starting to recover, but the bear market will continue.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It will take years to recover, the recession of 2008-9 took a decade and this is much worse. I see it taking 15+ years to get back to the employment percentage levels we saw at the end of last year. The market is starting to recover, but the bear market will continue.

On what basis are you estimating that the economic damage will take 15+ years to recover to the levels we saw last year?

The 2008-2009 recession was triggered by a near-collapse of the financial sector, and these types of event have historically led to longer economic downturns (the best example of this was the Great Depression of the 1920s). The closest parallel to our present situation was the 1918 flu pandemic (which lasted 1918-1919), but given the relative lack of economic data, it's difficult to ascertain what economic impact the pandemic had. But most scholars conclude that the relative impact on the US and world economies were comparatively short-lived.

 

[Dr Transport]

The recession of 2008-9 wasn't nearly as bad as this economic contraction. Yes, that was due to the banking industry, but in this case you have many other factors contributing. I don't recall having the wide ranging effects, for example, closed businesses, like we have now. Sure, we are in a lock-down situation, but, where i live, even though we might start to open up, some of the local businesses are talking about liquidating and not coming back at all.

And right now, my gut feelings are about as good as anything. I could be wrong, I could be right.

 

[homeylova223]

@mfb

My prediction is based on the fact that the second quarter will not be be good. Because so many business have closed. My prediction is also based on the fact that "unemployed " only counts as people actively seeking work. Right now people say there is between 14%-18% unemployed but that only counts as people who seeks jobs right be now but people who give up so we might have 25% real unemployment, I saw a chart on the bls website saying how jobs cuts have gone down the past ten years.

 

[mfb]

That's not a scientific way to make an estimate. That's not much better than rolling dice.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Didn't anybody teach you anything? You don't roll dice. You read tea leaves.

 

[gmax137]

It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future

 

[dcheme7373]

I sell chemicals for rubber and plastics mixing. I work from home. Since we only sell American made chemicals, along with the 25% chinese tariffs, the Covid situation has improved business.

 

[some bloke]

I'm a technician in a filters company, we make filters for the pharma trade so we're still going. Some people are furloughed for health reasons, most of the office staff are "working" from home (we had an email about netflix use on the network!) and the many, many meetings we had each and every day have been stopped due to the virus.

consequently, productivity is up!

 

[russ_watters]

The 2008-2009 recession was triggered by a near-collapse of the financial sector, and these types of event have historically led to longer economic downturns (the best example of this was the Great Depression of the 1920s).

There's a big difference between a "near-collapse" and a "collapse" - a big difference between losing your life savings due to a bank failure and not losing your life savings due to a bank failure.

The 2008-9 recession was just a bad recession and bad recessions take longer to recover from than less bad recessions simply because they are worse; more ground lost means more ground to make-up.

I'm generally an optimistic guy, but I'm not optimistic right now. I think the way that the pandemic is being managed is a dismal failure, the plans for how to manage it for the next year can't possibly succeed, and so until we see a vaccine or the pandemic naturally burns itself out, we're going to see a lot more death and a protracted quasi-shut-down state or cycles of openings and closings.

Hopes for a "V-shaped" recovery are based on the idea that with immense stimulus you can keep people economically health so when the economy re-opens in a month, everything goes almost back to normal. I don't think either premises is likely. There's a lot of real damage being done that will take time to undo, and I don't think we'll be able to go back to normal anyway due to the continuing pandemic. Add to that trillions of dollars of new debt on an already high debt load, and we may see a long recession and a new normal that is decades of stagnation due to a need to pay-back all of our debt (including the medicare and social security shortfalls that already threaten the 2030s+).

 

[PAllen]

T I think the way that the pandemic is being managed is a dismal failure,

What would you recommend? There is a notion of a black swan event that has no reasonable solution approach. For example, a large asteroid hitting Earth in the next year, way before there are any technological prevention approaches.

 

[russ_watters]

What would you recommend?

Compulsory digital contact tracing.

 

[PAllen]

Compulsory digital contact tracing.

Well, that might be nice back at the beginning of March if the US didn’t flub testing role out. It is completely irrelevant now. The hard problem is what to do from where we are now. Even though I am on a high risk group due to age, I lean toward isolating those at risk, providing services to the at risk using the unemployed, and letting the virus rip through the rest of population. I think this would still produce two or three time the current number of deaths, with many serious cases (e.g. the 7 times womens US chess champion, in her mid 30s, with no risk factors, spent 3 days in the hospital before recovering from covid19). However, I discount the pessimistic fears about no immunity. Even the common cold Coronavirus produces one to two years immunity to that strain. SARS and MERS had 2 to 4 years immunity. So I think a managed herd immunity approach is the only plausible way out of this crisis within 6 months.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, that might be nice back at the beginning of March if the US didn’t flub testing role out. It is completely irrelevant now. The hard problem is what to do from where we are now.

It isn't irrelevant for the next year of our response to the virus. We're currently ramping-up an army of potentially hundreds of thousands of manual contact tracers. The death toll moving forward from today depends heavily on how effective the contact tracing is going to be.

Even though I am on a high risk group due to age, I lean toward isolating those at risk, providing services to the at risk using the unemployed, and letting the virus rip through the rest of population. I think this would still produce two or three time the current number of deaths...

I don't think that's necessarily a bad strategy as long as it is really possible to keep the high risk people well isolated, which I'm not sure is realistic.

 

[atyy]

It isn't irrelevant for the next year of our response to the virus. We're currently ramping-up an army of potentially hundreds of thousands of manual contact tracers. The death toll moving forward from today depends heavily on how effective the contact tracing is going to be.

Not a discussion, but an interesting piece of public health messaging, which includes the recruitment of contact tracers that you mention:
https://uthealthaustin.org/blog/the-importance-of-contact-tracing

Your point seems to be supported by these back-of-the-envelope estimates and discussion by Trevor Bedford (there's an error in tweet #6 which he corrects later).

But in another discussion, he also says "However, the main point of the report was that given IFR, we should be pursuing suppression rather than mitigation. This implies a strict lockdown for suppression followed by #TestTraceIsolate to keep epidemic suppressed. Notably, this is exactly what countries like South Korea and New Zealand have been able to achieve. The US was not able to reach suppression with our lockdown and so we're left with agonizing decisions about how to keep society functioning while holding the virus in check. "

 

[StatGuy2000]

There's a big difference between a "near-collapse" and a "collapse" - a big difference between losing your life savings due to a bank failure and not losing your life savings due to a bank failure.

The 2008-9 recession was just a bad recession and bad recessions take longer to recover from than less bad recessions simply because they are worse; more ground lost means more ground to make-up.

I'm generally an optimistic guy, but I'm not optimistic right now. I think the way that the pandemic is being managed is a dismal failure, the plans for how to manage it for the next year can't possibly succeed, and so until we see a vaccine or the pandemic naturally burns itself out, we're going to see a lot more death and a protracted quasi-shut-down state or cycles of openings and closings.

Hopes for a "V-shaped" recovery are based on the idea that with immense stimulus you can keep people economically health so when the economy re-opens in a month, everything goes almost back to normal. I don't think either premises is likely. There's a lot of real damage being done that will take time to undo, and I don't think we'll be able to go back to normal anyway due to the continuing pandemic. Add to that trillions of dollars of new debt on an already high debt load, and we may see a long recession and a new normal that is decades of stagnation due to a need to pay-back all of our debt (including the medicare and social security shortfalls that already threaten the 2030s+).

Perhaps because I live in Canada (which, from all the information I've seen thus far, has handled the COVID-19 pandemic far more effectively than the US), my views from this differs from yours. While I agree that as long as the pandemic is ongoing (which will likely continue into either 2021, when a vaccine will likely be available, or into 2022, when enough herd immunity will take place that the pandemic will die down), the economic costs will continue to have an impact.

That being said, in spite of the real damage done, the economic fundamentals of Canada and many other countries (including the US) are still fundamentally sound, and pent-up demand for goods and services will just as likely push for stronger economic growth which will undo much of the damage you speak of.

As for the trillions of dollars of new debt -- keep in mind that borrowing has never been cheaper, with interest rates at record lows. And the debt you speak of isn't uniquely high in the US, as many other countries have taken on debt to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, so the US isn't especially in any worse shape in this regard than other countries. So there is still considerable scope for economic stimulus to kick-start the economy, and stronger growth will more than likely also lead to paying down the debt much more quickly.

So, ironically (given my personal tendencies), I'm much more optimistic on the economic prospects for US, Canada, and the rest of the world post-pandemic than you are.

Of course, only time will tell to see who is right on this.

 

[atyy]

That being said, in spite of the real damage done, the economic fundamentals of Canada and many other countries (including the US) are still fundamentally sound, and pent-up demand for goods and services will just as likely push for stronger economic growth which will undo much of the damage you speak of.

I think the concern is that although there may be quite a good recovery, inequality in the US will be worse, which is the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread by @homeylova223.

I think its over for the middle class in the USA for people who live off a salary not the people who have investments.

https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2020/video/will-covid-19-crisis-exacerbate-inequality
https://voxeu.org/article/covid-19-will-raise-inequality-if-past-pandemics-are-guide
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/six-ways-coronavirus-will-make-u-s-inequality-worse

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think the concern is that although there may be quite a good recovery, inequality in the US will be worse, which is the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread by @homeylova223.
https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2020/video/will-covid-19-crisis-exacerbate-inequality
https://voxeu.org/article/covid-19-will-raise-inequality-if-past-pandemics-are-guide
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/six-ways-coronavirus-will-make-u-s-inequality-worse

Inequality in the US has been a long-standing problem pre-pandemic. And whether or not the inequality will be worsened in the US will depend on choices to be made by the state and federal governments in providing relief to their citizens and stimulating the economy. This could serve as an opportunity to tackle inequality head-on.

For reasons related to PF rules on political discussions, I will not go into any more details in this thread.

 

[homeylova223]

Now there are 36 million unemployed according to an article I read on MSNBC. I think a big problem is restaurant closing many people lost their jobs. 36 million is a lot.

 

[gmax137]

Well, when people say "affects the economy" this is what they are talking about. Nobody should be surprised at all.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the concern is that although there may be quite a good recovery, inequality in the US will be worse, which is the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread by @homeylova223.

Inequality in the US has been a long-standing problem pre-pandemic. And whether or not the inequality will be worsened in the US will depend on choices to be made by the state and federal governments in providing relief to their citizens and stimulating the economy. This could serve as an opportunity to tackle inequality head-on.

I don't think it's really possible for inequality to get better as a result of coronavirus. Just like the virus is narrowly focused on killing the elderly, the impact of the shutdown is narrowly focused on harming lower-middle-class and below, wage earners. It's a fundamental feature of the shutdown, so it can't be reversed, it can only be partly mitigated -- barring a seismic shift in the way certain things are done, which would be a completely separate action from the Coronavirus economic impact mitigation efforts themselves.

And while a crisis might motivate the passionate, it doesn't provide much flexibility or attention to making such seismic changes. For example, one common plan for reducing inequality is a $15 minimum wage (that's not even particularly seismic). But this a) doesn't help you if you don't have a job and b) is particularly burdensome on the employers of near minimum wage earners during the phased re-opening. And it's likely that many of the jobs lost won't ever come back and many that do will take years.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the impact of the shutdown is narrowly focused on harming lower-middle-class and below, wage earners

I'm pretty sure that's a side effect and not the intent.

is a $15 minimum wage ... But this ... doesn't help you if you don't have a job

What many people don't recognzie is that a minimum wage says if your labor is not worth $15, it's worth $0.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm pretty sure that's a side effect and not the intent.

I recognize the wink, but regardless I'm not sure that's a hair that needs splitting. The point either way is that the types of jobs being lost are inexorably linked to the shutdown orders. Ask the workers and business owners and a lot will say they feel targeted.

What many people don't recognize is that a minimum wage says if your labor is not worth $15, it's worth $0.

Yes. When unemployment was at near-historic lows, the *hope* would be that there's such a shortage of workers that the job losses would be minimal. But with high unemployment, other steep paths to getting those jobs back (legally mandated half-full restaurants, for example) and business owners learning to live without those workers, adding another barrier against those workers getting their jobs back is not going to be popular/advisable.

The type of seismic shift needed isn't the type typically advocated by people who care about inequality; What's needed is for those people who lost their low-wage jobs to abandon the low-wage workforce and try to get better jobs. And that's not something that can readily be accomplished by government fiat.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't think it's really possible for inequality to get better as a result of coronavirus. Just like the virus is narrowly focused on killing the elderly, the impact of the shutdown is narrowly focused on harming lower-middle-class and below, wage earners. It's a fundamental feature of the shutdown, so it can't be reversed, it can only be partly mitigated -- barring a seismic shift in the way certain things are done, which would be a completely separate action from the Coronavirus economic impact mitigation efforts themselves.

And while a crisis might motivate the passionate, it doesn't provide much flexibility or attention to making such seismic changes. For example, one common plan for reducing inequality is a $15 minimum wage (that's not even particularly seismic). But this a) doesn't help you if you don't have a job and b) is particularly burdensome on the employers of near minimum wage earners during the phased re-opening. And it's likely that many of the jobs lost won't ever come back and many that do will take years.

I recognize that dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will challenge any government in both mitigating the economic effects and the health effects -- at least until new treatments or vaccines will become widely available, with the FDA approval of antiviral medications remdesivir and favipiravir (the most promising possible treatments thus far, based on the research I've been reading and furthest along in terms of clinical trials), along with COVID-19 vaccines.

That being said, I don't agree with you that governments are hampered in dealing with the inequality that may be exacerbated by the pandemic. You specifically address the $15 minimum wage. Another major proposal that is being discussed is a universal basic income (UBI). In Canada at the present time, all people who have been unemployed due to the pandemic are eligible to receive $2000 per month (until June from what I've heard, but which is likely to be extended) as an emergency benefit, on top of whatever unemployment insurance they are eligible for. That is in essence a UBI. The US had a one time payment of $1000, but a $2000/month UBI in perpetuity during the duration of the pandemic (along with suspensions of mortgage and rent payments, and all moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures) could help people in mitigating further inequalities.

[Aside: in terms of remdesivir approval, please see the FDA announcement of emergency approval:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...se-authorization-potential-covid-19-treatment]

 

[russ_watters]

That being said, I don't agree with you that governments are hampered in dealing with the inequality that may be exacerbated by the pandemic. You specifically address the $15 minimum wage. Another major proposal that is being discussed is a universal basic income (UBI). In Canada at the present time, all people who have been unemployed due to the pandemic are eligible to receive $2000 per month (until June from what I've heard, but which is likely to be extended) as an emergency benefit, on top of whatever unemployment insurance they are eligible for. That is in essence a UBI. The US had a one time payment of $1000, but a $2000/month UBI in perpetuity during the duration of the pandemic (along with suspensions of mortgage and rent payments, and all moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures) could help people in mitigating further inequalities.

Well again, that's just a partial mitigation of the impact of the pandemic, not a reversal of the systemic "problem" that existed before the pandemic and will exist after it. As far as I know, there is no significant talk of actually implementing a permanent UBI (not the a UBI necessarily solves inequality anyway...), and unemployment compensation doesn't really resemble a UBI (not that UBI is necessarily a well-defined concept anyway...).

Also, I don't know why misunderstandings of the US benefit system are so common (I see daily memes/threads on facebook and Reddit about it), but the US benefit system is quite generous and not fundamentally different from what people are getting in Canada. The average state benefit is $1,600 a month, and the federal government added another $500 a month on top of it. The primary difference is that in the US the unemployment benefits that always exist are are based on your pre-unemployment income, and generally pay about 80% of it. The added federal benefit was supposed to bring the average income up to 100%, but since it is a flat $500 it means that people with below-average incomes are receiving more than 100% while people with above average incomes are receiving less than 100%. It's causing the problem that welfare advocates don't like to acknowledge: some people are refusing to work because they make more money by not working (even though it is illegal).

The unemployment compensation plans are of course neither "universal" or "basic" as they only apply to the unemployed, when they are unemployed and as I said the payments vary based on pre-employment income. I guess you could argue that Canada's is more "basic" in that everyone gets the same amount, but to me that seems problematic if the goal is to try to maintain the status quo. For the US, the $1200 stimulus check was closer to "universal" as it was given to everyone up to a certain income level that covered something like 90% of all adults.

The theory of all of this for the pandemic is that if we keep paying everybody what they were making before they lost their job, then they are in no worse shape at the end of the pandemic than when it started, and they can simply pick right back up where they left off when they get their job back. The problems with that are:
1. The mitigation strategies aren't going to be shut off like a light switch.
2. Many of those jobs aren't coming back.
3. It's expensive.

So we're financing a bridge to nowhere on debt. Despite what the statistics tell us, the actual depression hasn't started yet - it starts after we decide we're finished with the pandemic mitigation. That's when the numbers change from being an interesting spectator sport to having a real impact. That's when, for example, there will be an explosion in home foreclosures and evictions.

 

[homeylova223]

I think there definitely will be more income inequality. WalMart and those big corporations did not shut down. The small business owner who are middle working class people had to shut down their restaurants and business. And people got crowded in supermarket anyway. I think the this is a new type of capitalism where there will be a few really rich people and a poor mass.

 

[homeylova223]

Well again, that's just a partial mitigation of the impact of the pandemic, not a reversal of the systemic "problem" that existed before the pandemic and will exist after it. As far as I know, there is no significant talk of actually implementing a permanent UBI (not the a UBI necessarily solves inequality anyway...), and unemployment compensation doesn't really resemble a UBI (not that UBI is necessarily a well-defined concept anyway...).

Also, I don't know why misunderstandings of the US benefit system are so common (I see daily memes/threads on facebook and Reddit about it), but the US benefit system is quite generous and not fundamentally different from what people are getting in Canada. The average state benefit is $1,600 a month, and the federal government added another $500 a month on top of it. The primary difference is that in the US the unemployment benefits that always exist are are based on your pre-unemployment income, and generally pay about 80% of it. The added federal benefit was supposed to bring the average income up to 100%, but since it is a flat $500 it means that people with below-average incomes are receiving more than 100% while people with above average incomes are receiving less than 100%. It's causing the problem that welfare advocates don't like to acknowledge: some people are refusing to work because they make more money by not working (even though it is illegal).

The unemployment compensation plans are of course neither "universal" or "basic" as they only apply to the unemployed, when they are unemployed and as I said the payments vary based on pre-employment income. I guess you could argue that Canada's is more "basic" in that everyone gets the same amount, but to me that seems problematic if the goal is to try to maintain the status quo. For the US, the $1200 stimulus check was closer to "universal" as it was given to everyone up to a certain income level that covered something like 90% of all adults.

The theory of all of this for the pandemic is that if we keep paying everybody what they were making before they lost their job, then they are in no worse shape at the end of the pandemic than when it started, and they can simply pick right back up where they left off when they get their job back. The problems with that are:
1. The mitigation strategies aren't going to be shut off like a light switch.
2. Many of those jobs aren't coming back.
3. It's expensive.

So we're financing a bridge to nowhere on debt. Despite what the statistics tell us, the actual depression hasn't started yet - it starts after we decide we're finished with the pandemic mitigation. That's when the numbers change from being an interesting spectator sport to having a real impact. That's when, for example, there will be an explosion in home foreclosures and evictions.

I cannot see the government just giving people free money but I think they will have to or face major social unrest or do like in the soviet union and make people do forced labor.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I cannot see the government just giving people free money but I think they will have to or face major social unrest or do like in the soviet union and make people do forced labor.

This is admittedly off topic, but technically speaking, forced labour already exists in the US, in the form of penal (i.e. prison) labour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think there definitely will be more income inequality. WalMart and those big corporations did not shut down. The small business owner who are middle working class people had to shut down their restaurants and business. And people got crowded in supermarket anyway. I think the this is a new type of capitalism where there will be a few really rich people and a poor mass.

WalMart and some big corporations did not shut down, but there are large corporations who have had to close down stores or shops of which they own/operate (at least in person) due to COVID-19. Many retail chains, for example, are owned by large corporations.

And there are small business owners whose businesses are deemed essential that continue to operate (for example, restaurants, who have switched to takeout or delivery).

So what you state isn't actually correct. Although you are not entirely wrong that the small business owners have suffered during the pandemic.

As for a few really rich people and a poor mass -- that is a reality in many parts of the world already prior to the pandemic, and to a certain extent in the US.

[Aside: You strike me as someone who is incredibly bitter. Is that accurate?]