zlacker

>>hhs+(OP)
Glad to see this from Amazon, although I see it heading off the inevitable. Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do?

With all this war rhetoric thrown around, it seems a reasonable jump to declare essential workers troops on the frontline deserving of what we give other troops (free health care, pension, heavily subsidized secondary education)

>>bdefor+T7
Striking in order to exploit a global disaster for personal gain would be a great way for organized labor to turn many people against them for a life time. It may work in the short term, but even that is debatable. Many people would gladly see the national guard break a strike if it's between them and basic essentials. Long term, the optics of that kind of move are so damning that it would likely be a net-loss.

>>seneca+Ib
There are already enough people unemployed just over the past week that would fill those jobs in a heartbeat...

I'm not sure it's understood yet what kind of devastation is unfolding with small businesses, which make up ~50% of the workforce.

>>Reedx+In
This is going to have long term lasting effects that further suppress labor rates and further concentrate wealth/capital in the US. It's accelerating a problem we already had.

>>Frost1+tt
40% of the wealth in the stock market was wiped out over the last few weeks which drastically impacts the upper middle class and rich the most. Negative returns on capital do not promote wealth inequality.

>>kortil+3z
Any good financial manager would have went cash or established a short position. Even if you held, as long as you don't realize your losses you will be right back to pre crash levels in 2-3 years, just like in 2008 or any other recession.

The wealthy have the capital to take advantage of the stock market, but are also insulated from the effects of downturns due to diversified financial investments and cash on hand. Recessions are also when the wealthy expand their property holdings.

>>asdff+oA
Their net worth is down if they held. The wealthy were just as unlikely to sell out before the crash as anyone else, they don’t have A magic future prediction machine.

> The wealthy have the capital to take advantage of the stock market, but are also insulated from the effects of downturns due to diversified financial investments and cash on hand. Recessions are also when the wealthy expand their property holdings.

None of this negates the fact that the crash wiped a significant chunk of their net worth out. Either they were invested in the market (real estate, stocks, bonds, etc) and they were accumulating wealth in a Picketty fashion until they got slammed by the crash or they missed the crash because they weren’t accumulating. You can’t have it both ways.