[lotsofpulp]

How nice of the governments to help businesses afford to eat instead of people.

There is no reason assistance to people has to go through business. The reason governments do that is because leaders own equity in the current hierarchy and definitely don’t want to disturb that by giving the lower classes leverage to demand better terms.

[tekknik]

Do you not understand that if there are not jobs to go back to there will be no eating tomorrow either? If businesses start to go under, and this cascades as it usually does, we could be seeing serious recession, or even economic failure? What do we do about food then? Also what happened to the economic stimulus checks and unemployment system? The systems are definitely taxed but that only shows you how big we’re getting hit atm.

[mc32]

If businesses employed robots you’d have a point. But most today provide people gainful employment. No businesses left means no one to hire you.

[Avicebron]

Except "gainful employment" has been quietly eroded year after year with things like institutionalizing contract work/gig economy/worship of hustle/eroding worker's rights to organize and bargain with employers...

[lotsofpulp]

The businesses don't disappear because the doors close for a few months. People will still have their colleagues’ contact information to be able to re hire and start again.

[jl6]

Some businesses can be easily put on hold and restarted later. I’d wager it’s not that easy for most.

[lotsofpulp]

I’d wager those businesses are already classified as essential and kept operating. And if not, that can be a separate issue the government can tackle, but there’s no need for it to be conflated with the issue of keeping people fed and housed.

[tekknik]

just like keeping people fed shouldn’t be conflated with keeping businesses operating and solvent. your logic cuts both ways and businesses shouldn’t have been brought up by the grandparent in the first place