Status
Not open for further replies.

luka

Well-known member
This from that Sunday Times article is something they're going to have to deal with soon,

This is exactly what comelately said the other day. No one stuck up for him though. Is putting your life on hold for a few months that big a deal? It's not really is it. Get born at the wrong time and place and you're sent to die in a foreign field at that age.
 

version

Well-known member
I buggered up that post and couldn't repost before luka replied, so here's what it said:

This from that Sunday Times article is something they're going to have to deal with soon,

“It’s the intergenerational question. It is unsustainable to have people in their youth put their whole life on hold for months while the economy tanks to save a 91-year-old who would have died six months later anyway.”
 

luka

Well-known member
They'll find a way to have sex and take drugs still. It'll make it seem more exciting. They're going to absolutely love this.
 

version

Well-known member
So they're saying a youth's inconvenience is equivalent to an old person's death... interesting.

I don't know whether they think it themselves or whether they've just recognised that it's an issue. And it is. People are selfish. It's difficult to get them to sacrifice things for others, particularly others they have no direct connection or contact with.
 

version

Well-known member
Cos you can't go to work for a bit and you might have to put your business studies diploma on hold.

You've changed your tune a bit from this,

Ultimately you can't ask individuals to take responsibility for the collective if the collective is not protecting them. That's what the streets will tell you in London.

How are you gonna convince millions of people scraping a living or saddled with debt to make their lives even more difficult for the sake of the society that's forced them into that position in the first place?
 

luka

Well-known member
I was talking about where our priorities should lie. I think all individuals should be provided for so if the govt says stay indoors no one is going to to starve or accrue debts. They're not doing that but they should.
 

luka

Well-known member
So I haven't changed my tune just scoffing at the idea that postponing your business studies diploma is, as rich say, equivilant to an old persons death. It's not.
 

version

Well-known member
I was talking about where our priorities should lie. I think all individuals should be provided for so if the govt says stay indoors no one is going to to starve or accrue debts. They're not doing that but they should.

Ah, fair enough. That I agree with. It sounded like you were saying it was a trivial thing for people to just suspend their education or not work. It should be a trivial thng in a situation like this, but the system as it is doesn't allow for that. Obviously a death is much more serious, but it's difficult to convince people to care about anything outside their immediate environment.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I'm looking at this website reporting the number of cases (and deaths) the way it's climbing today is really scary. Almost 8,000 new cases in US alone apparently.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I think all individuals should be provided for so if the govt says stay indoors no one is going to to starve or accrue debts
of course I agree

I don't think that will happen. moreover I think many governments can't do that even if they wanted to.

or rather; some kind of UBI during lockdown, mortgage/rent freezes, moratoriums on govt debt collection - probably

what governments even begin can't to do is head off the brutal recession we'll be in (already are in, only it hasn't quite caught up to us yet)

or compensate - barring massive changes which I don't see coming - for the long-term economic dislocation of huge numbers of people

the 2008 financial crisis effected the financial outlook of many younger people's entire lives. this will be worse, probably much worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top