Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 183 posts

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#81

Post by AntonStratiev »

majc2 wrote: post #43
AntonStratiev wrote: post #24

Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here? The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses. 510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS. Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. Th…

> This seems... completely unjustified. Um, no. Firstly, not everything is about rational economics. No sane and functioning democracy is going to allow 500k people to die if it can stop it.

500,000 people with an average age of 79, the vast majority of whom are in poor health with existing conditions. This is what the data from Italy shows.

Coronavirus is just the last nail in the coffin - it brings forward the deaths that would have occurred over the next 1-2 years into the present. The panic is irrational.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#82

Post by michaelmrose »

AntonStratiev wrote: post #79
michaelmrose wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show me how you calculated the 3 trillion dollar cost? Are you for example counting loans to businesses as if none will be paid back? Are we talking about the economic impact or direct costs or both? To be clear the UK has 29 million workers who make an average of 28k pounds. If 60% of them are off work and can't work from home paying 80% of that wage to 60% of them would appear to cost about 32 billion pound…

What does a pound or a dollar even represent anymore? They are being printed and given out with little consideration to the impact. I think we are going to see hyperinflation at some point, particularly if this is dragged on for the 18 months necessary for a vaccine. Why would I go in to work and stack shelves when the Government will just give me money to sit at home? Why would I even go into the hospital to operate…

People might not go in to stack shelves but they will go in to save their fellow citizens lives. 1 in 3333 20 somethings and 1 in 1250 30 somethings is still a fuck ton of people. This is basically the base of your economy.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#83

Post by zxienin »

SilasX wrote: post #39
Ididntdothis wrote: post #6

This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.

Because it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?

Essential occupation folks can be paid at the top. Premium for weathering challenging times on the front.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#84

Post by monadic2 »

SilasX wrote: post #39
Ididntdothis wrote: post #6

This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.

Because it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?

How so? Their money still buys things, they keep living. What else matters?

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#85

Post by user5994461 »

tomxor wrote: post #71
SilasX wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.

What penalty? it's the other way around, you take a 20% penalty if you stop working, and note that it's not for people who voluntarily stop working.

You can easily save 10 to 20% when unemployed because you don't have to pay for daily transportation (tube/train/car), lunch outdoors every day and a few other things. So the difference in disposable income is about null in most cases.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#86

Post by michaelmrose »

majc2 wrote: post #43
AntonStratiev wrote: post #24

Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here? The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses. 510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS. Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. Th…

> This seems... completely unjustified. Um, no. Firstly, not everything is about rational economics. No sane and functioning democracy is going to allow 500k people to die if it can stop it.

Damn right and no people who watch 500k people die for nothing is going to tolerate the continued rule of such a government.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#88

Post by SilasX »

tomxor wrote: post #71
SilasX wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.

What penalty? it's the other way around, you take a 20% penalty if you stop working, and note that it's not for people who voluntarily stop working.

When you stop working, you also get a lot of time back.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#89

Post by slyfocks »

AntonStratiev wrote: post #24

Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here? The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses. 510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS. Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. Th…

It’s quite alarming that no country (as far as I’m aware) is taking a more rational approach towards coronavirus policy.

Any attempt to make an argument of this sort in the current panic is being seen as insensitive and met with outrage (“you don’t care about me/someone’s parents/grandparents”).

If the consensus ends up being that we need to put an 18 month hold on all activity and spend trillions of dollars to extend the lives of a few hundred thousand octogenarians, this will be a mistake that resonates for generations.

Also, the current policy being pursued isn’t a simple “spend x, save y lives” trade-off. An extended period of isolation will not only have economic effects (greater poverty, on average, will reduce life expectancy for many), it’ll also result in a higher incidence of mental health issues and suicide. Children will have their educational development severely disrupted. When the calculus on this policy becomes clear, it could be possible that we end up trading many millions of years of aggregate future life to save a million people who’ve already lived very full lives.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#90

Post by michaelmrose »

user5994461 wrote: post #62
majc2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems... completely unjustified. Um, no. Firstly, not everything is about rational economics. No sane and functioning democracy is going to allow 500k people to die if it can stop it.

Some of the tens of millions of people under 40 who will have to cover all that debt over the next decades might beg to differ.

You are already covering debt for a lot stupider reasons at least you can console yourself that the money was worth spending.
Post reply on HN