The Marie Antoinette edition.
This was sent to me by a friend last month in response to California governor Gavin Newsom’s order to shut down salons and even outdoor restaurants.
I talked to my wife last night and she said that she has 3 close friends in the personal care service business (2 hairstylists and 1 esthetician). Only 1 of them kept working underground during the first shutdown in March. My wife said that all 3 are planning to defy the order since they won’t be able to make it financially this time around. Also, my wife talked to one of them this week and she said that she had called the county health office to discuss various options on how to stay afloat. This is how the conversation went:
Friend: Is there anything we could do to stay open (additional safety measures, operating outside, etc.)?
County health office: I’m sorry, no.
Friend: We are on our last legs and don’t have the funds to stay afloat any longer. In fact, we will have to close down permanently if this goes into effect. What should we do?
County health office: You’ll have to apply for food stamps.
End of conversation.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Jan 14 2021 at 7:33pm
In my city in southern China, small businesses were excused three months’ rent during our lockdown, and I believe banks were prevailed upon to suspend collection of mortgage payments for the same period. It was a useful respite.
Jon Murphy
Jan 14 2021 at 7:37pm
That doesn’t solve the problem. It just pushes the can down the road three months. It’s the sort of mindset David is talking about here.
Phil H
Jan 14 2021 at 8:57pm
No, it solved it. We’re back at school and back at work.
Jon Murphy
Jan 14 2021 at 9:19pm
No, getting back to work and school solved it. Don’t confuse the stars reflected in the pond for those in the night sky.
Phil H
Jan 15 2021 at 2:03am
That’s very poetic, but completely wrong. The lockdown solved the epidemic. Going back to work and school solved the economic pain. If you don’t solve the epidemic first (by whatever method: lockdown, vaccine, track and trace), then going back to work won’t solve the economic problems because (a) many people won’t go and patronise businesses because they’re scared of getting sick; (b) those that do will still spread the virus widely causing massive economic losses due to death.
MarkW
Jan 15 2021 at 7:44am
“…those that do will still spread the virus widely causing massive economic losses due to death.”
There is no evidence for this. My wife works in a medical profession that requires her to spend about as much time in close proximity with patients as is involved in a haircut. She does this every day, all day. After working for about 8 months in those circumstances, she was never infected (before being vaccinated a few weeks ago). Nor were any of ~10 colleagues in her group. Nor have there been major outbreaks among the staff in the large university medical center where she works. Barbershops are also open here in Michigan, and I had my 3rd or 4th pandemic-era haircut a couple of weeks ago. I asked, and neither of the barbers have been infected despite working throughout the pandemic (after an initial period when the shops were ordered closed).
Yes, I know, anecdotes. But as far as I’m aware, there’s little evidence that these kinds of services are significant sources of infection and substantial and growing evidence that they can be provided safely. There has been no consideration of again shutting down all non-emergency services at the medical center during the current spike in cases (as was done for several weeks last Spring).
The consensus now seems to be that non-masked private indoor social gatherings are the main problem (as evidenced by the Thanksgiving and Christmas spikes). Which means that shutting down portions of the economy is not only wreaking financial havoc on many people’s lives but is also doing little or nothing to stop the spread and may be making it worse.
Jon Murphy
Jan 15 2021 at 8:55am
You keep asserting this, but you just don’t provide any evidence. All the evidence points in the other way. Even in your own country, you are still subject to extreme lockdowns. That’s not “solving the pandemic.” As I said, you are confusing the stars reflected in the pond for those in the night sky. Again, pushing off rent payments just delays. It doesn’t solve.
J Mann
Jan 19 2021 at 10:28am
I think this is the key. If you’re capable of doing a 3-8 week hard lockdown that all but eliminates the virus, and then putting in border controls that lower the risk of new outbreaks sufficiently, then it’s a different cost/benefit case than if you’re not.
Unlike the Asian countries I’ve read about, we’ve never gotten good at controlling private behavior. You can argue to what extent that’s caused by factors like presidential leadership, compliance/independence of the citizens, experience with prior pandemics, unwillingness to prevent interstate or international travel, unwillingness to suspend privacy rules and start publishing the names of positive patients or allowing public health to track cell phone data, etc., but ordering hair salons to close down until people stop having drinks in their homes with their family and friends doesn’t seem like a great idea, because people apparently aren’t going to stop.
Jon Murphy
Jan 14 2021 at 9:41pm
Something similar happened in my hometown over Christmas. The town made this big announcement: to help with COVID, the due date for property taxes was pushed back a week. The town meeting where this was announced was unintentionally hilarious: it was held outside in a tent during an ice storm (because God knows being in the 500 person auditorium was too dangerous for the 50 or so people there) and the town manager and council acted like this move on taxes was worthy of huge applause.
When one local business owner asked how they were to pay taxes when they couldn’t open, the town manager replied (no joke): “That’s what the extra week is for: so you can figure out how to pay.”
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 15 2021 at 5:28am
Henderson hints at what a better policy might look like: reduce the spread of the virus by regulation how business functions are carried out. But he can’t quite get there and settles back into comfortable nihilism. No wonder government isn’t better if it does not get enough constructive criticism.
Jon Murphy
Jan 15 2021 at 12:55pm
Not sure how you got that message from this post.
David Henderson
Jan 15 2021 at 2:30pm
I don’t see how either.
And I think Thomas Hutcheson qualifies as the first person ever to call me a nihilist.
I’ve been called a Communist, a Socialist, a Nazi, a Marxist, and an anarchist. All are incorrect labels although the anarchist label comes closest. But nihilist, hmm. That’s a new one.
robc
Jan 16 2021 at 8:30am
It happened to me once, back in the late 90s, on, of all places, a baseball forum.
Some peopke associate libertarianism and nihilism. I dont get it either.
Maybe its like fascist, and just means “I dont agree with you.”
MarkW
Jan 16 2021 at 1:03pm
Maybe its like fascist, and just means “I dont agree with you.”
I suspect it’s more like, “If you don’t believe in the state, then you don’t believe in anything”.
MarkW
Jan 15 2021 at 1:08pm
Do you imagine that, absent government regulation, salon owners would not adopt safe practices on their own in order to prevent themselves and any employees from being infected and having to shut down because they’ve gotten sick? Do you think that medical providers would not do the same without government mandates?
A few restaurants around here have had to shutter their restaurants for a couple of weeks at a time because of covid among their staff. Do you think they lack sufficient incentive to prevent recurrences and that the government must step in?
Keep in mind that government advice and mandates have been massively off-target in both directions at various times during the pandemic. During the initial spike, the government’s official advice was the masks were useless (and might even be dangerous) for everyday use. And at the same time, my state (and others) banned many outdoor activities and businesses (e.g. gardening, golf, construction, boating) not because they were unsafe but because they were deemed inessential. When government is in charge, things tend to settle into bureaucratic ass-covering and dosomethingism. That’s the need of politicians to be seen doing something even if that something is unfounded, useless or even counterproductive — exhibit A being Gavin Newsome’s band on outdoor dining.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 16 2021 at 9:15am
No. I just think that instead of merely criticising a particular regulation, one should present an alternative. If Henderson believes that no regulation is best, I think he should argue for that. Even if that were to be his final conclusion, however, I think it would be more persuasive to present the ideal sort of regulation and then show why nothing is likely to be a better approximation than not only the actual policy but any feasible alternative.
Jon Murphy
Jan 18 2021 at 7:40pm
David’s teacher, the great Harold Demsetz, urges us economists to not make that very mistake.
Comments are closed.