Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 11505 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26891
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #225 on: March 22, 2020, 03:17:20 PM »
I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #226 on: March 22, 2020, 07:09:55 PM »
I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Nik.
I took issue with Bates saying that people need to make life choices. My point is, many people are incapable of making those decisions. Many people can't see past the end of their nose.

TMLfans.ca

Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #226 on: March 22, 2020, 07:09:55 PM »

Offline Bates

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1930
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #227 on: March 22, 2020, 07:32:58 PM »
I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Nik.
I took issue with Bates saying that people need to make life choices. My point is, many people are incapable of making those decisions. Many people can't see past the end of their nose.

And for those folks you can only provide so many safety nets. This program would be for the greater good of the vast majority.

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #228 on: March 23, 2020, 07:00:17 AM »
I'm not quite sure what you feel isn't true. With a spouse that is in administration in the local public school board, I can give you first hand accounts of families spending their cheques on the wrong things(Video games, technology, cell phones, booze, etc; ). It's not a one off. You'd be alarmed at the high amounts of people choosing themselves over their children. It's disheartening and disturbing.

I am sure your spouse has anecdotal evidence of that. I would assume that's largely because they would only be privy to information like that in the cases you're talking about but wouldn't be informed of the situations where lower income families are making what you would consider to be "better" decisions. So while I'm sure it can happen, what I don't think is true is that "every one" of the parents of needy children has the luxuries you're talking about or even a majority of them.

And while I think that technology can be a helpful tool(in reference to your smart phone comment), it is not a helpful tool if you're not feeding your children. It is a waste of money. If that phone is a necessity of survival, perhaps getting a $150 a month data package + the best cell phone on the market isn't the right choice. Perhaps getting a small data package with a $100 used smart phone is the better choice. Perhaps sticking with your Xbox 360 or your playstation 3 is the better choice than upgrading the second the new model comes out. People live in a gimme gimme world, and I fear that throwing an extra $1000 at them just feeds their gimme needs as opposed to feeding their real needs. Their dependents.

You can't legislate responsible behaviour and, like you say, bad financial decisions exist with people regardless of income bracket. The prior financial crisis to this one was caused by millionaire bankers being reckless with money, after all. That's why, as it relates to poorer people, I've said that a UBI couldn't just replace the broader social framework that would try to make sure that government still exists to take care of people who, through no real fault of their own, need assistance above and beyond whatever direct financial aid they or their parents receive.

But, again, the responsibility of these purchases is a separate question to just the economic one. Stimulus should be directed at people who will spend the money locally if you want the most bang for your buck.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Nik.
I took issue with Bates saying that people need to make life choices. My point is, many people are incapable of making those decisions. Many people can't see past the end of their nose.

And for those folks you can only provide so many safety nets. This program would be for the greater good of the vast majority.

I agree.

Offline bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21254
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #229 on: March 23, 2020, 03:00:31 PM »
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/ontario-orders-the-mandatory-closure-of-all-non-essential-workplaces-to-fight-spread-of-covid-19.html

Quote
TORONTO — To further contain the spread of COVID-19, the Ontario Government will order the mandatory closure of all non-essential workplaces effective as of Tuesday, March 24th at 11:59 p.m. This closure will be in effect for 14 days with the possibility of extending this order as the situation evolves. A full list of businesses that are permitted to stay open will be released tomorrow.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #230 on: March 23, 2020, 04:22:06 PM »
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/ontario-orders-the-mandatory-closure-of-all-non-essential-workplaces-to-fight-spread-of-covid-19.html

Quote
TORONTO — To further contain the spread of COVID-19, the Ontario Government will order the mandatory closure of all non-essential workplaces effective as of Tuesday, March 24th at 11:59 p.m. This closure will be in effect for 14 days with the possibility of extending this order as the situation evolves. A full list of businesses that are permitted to stay open will be released tomorrow.

Here's what's going to be on that list according to Ford:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-covid19-canada-latest-updates-190048955.html
Quote
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said all non-essential businesses in the province must close. This excludes manufacturers, grocery stores, LCBO shops, pharmacies and take-out restaurants.

Also:
Quote
“The kids won’t be going back to school on Apr. 6,” Ford said. “The reality is April the 6th is not realistic right now.”

Not that that's shocking

Offline Arn

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Gender: Male
  • Belfast Giant, Toronto Maple Leaf
    • View Profile
    • Kingdom of the Giants
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #231 on: March 23, 2020, 04:50:34 PM »
U.K. on compete lock down now too. No gatherings of more than 2 people. Only leave the house to shop for essential items. Leave the house for once per day to exercise alone.

Surreal and unprecedented times.
I Saw Jay McClement Score.

Offline hockeyfan1

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 9510
  • Gender: Female
  • QUIETNESS is GREATNESS
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #232 on: March 24, 2020, 02:51:19 AM »
Prime Minister Trudeau’s message to Canadians:

Quote
You all think you’re invincible. You’re not. Enough is enough,” he warned in an address to Canadians on Monday from Rideau Cottage, where he is currently in self-isolation.

“Go home and stay home.”

Rightly so.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6716919/trudeau-canada-update-coronavirus-march-23/

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #233 on: March 24, 2020, 07:28:10 AM »
Prime Minister Trudeau’s message to Canadians:

Quote
You all think you’re invincible. You’re not. Enough is enough,” he warned in an address to Canadians on Monday from Rideau Cottage, where he is currently in self-isolation.

“Go home and stay home.”

Rightly so.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6716919/trudeau-canada-update-coronavirus-march-23/

He said all that in his stern teacher voice but then when asked how to enforce it, he said, I'm leaving that up to the province.
Someone needs to take charge here. Stop using half measures and start taking control. Don't worry about lost votes. Worry about today, and tomorrow, and next week.

Ford's list of "essential" businesses is also a farce. Just about every business in Canada can find a spot they fit on that list. So far Ontario has basically closed barber shops, brothels and schools.

Offline hockeyfan1

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 9510
  • Gender: Female
  • QUIETNESS is GREATNESS
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #234 on: March 24, 2020, 08:22:36 AM »
Disgracefully irresponsible dumbells:


Offline L K

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 10397
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #235 on: March 24, 2020, 09:41:10 AM »
In fairness to this kid.  Make no mistake, he's an absolute <Insert several verbose explitives> moron but his grandparents generation isn't exactly screaming reasonable through all this.

Trump is mulling lifting restrictions to help the economy.  The Lt Governor of Texas is literally advocating for sacrifice to Supply Side Jesus.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26891
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #236 on: March 24, 2020, 12:11:56 PM »

It's pretty hard to give too much crap to anyone raised in this society that thinks that "Eff you, I got mine" is a perfectly acceptable way of thinking of things. If you want college kids to think that putting collective good ahead of individual desires is the way to go, you can't wait until global pandemics pop up to try and get the message across.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline Highlander

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6900
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #237 on: March 24, 2020, 12:42:32 PM »
Hopefully when he gets home, there is a sleeping bag on the porch and a sign on front door saying "see you in 2 weeks Buddy"
"In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few"
                                           Sunryn Suzuki

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2660
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #238 on: March 24, 2020, 01:09:10 PM »
Hopefully when he gets home, there is a sleeping bag on the porch and a sign on front door saying "see you in 2 weeks Buddy"

I severely doubt it.

Offline Highlander

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6900
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #239 on: March 24, 2020, 01:17:07 PM »
Me too, but a nice thought.
Of course his parents would have 55" TV, game controls, cooler and bbq set up for Bobby. And a big down comforter so he doesn't get to cold at night and of course his bong will be all cleaned up for him.
"In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few"
                                           Sunryn Suzuki