“Will cost America”
Haha no. It will not cost working class people a cent. Which is most of America.
Well you know capitalism. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
When corporate is losing money it’s “All of us in America lost 700 million in productivity”
But when profits are higher than ever before it’s “Sorry there’s no bonus this year, we’re giving our CEO a 50 million dollar parachute. We know you worked hard so here’s a thank you card and a candy bar”
If the eclipse lost 700 million dollars, imagine what we can do if we did a general strike. The oligarchy would shit themselves.
Imagine if we blot out the sun for good!
Truly sad part? The tourism benefit from it was estimated at 6$ billion… but NBC doesn’t want that.
So, over 300 million people enjoying a once in a lifetime natural event cost “the economy” about as much money as a typical CEO steals in a day?
Sounds like misdirected anger.
It’s like we forgot why we have an economy in the first place. Wasn’t it to enjoy our lives in this planet.
No only for the select few, the rest of us are serfs. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the billionaires started calling themselves Ramesses XXVI or something.
It’s the “avocado toast” people all over again. “Why are you enjoying anything in your life right now when you could be waiting to enjoy things in the last 10-20 years of your life (if you live that long)?”
once in a lifetime
2017 was only seven years ago but okay
You do realize that the path of an eclipse isn’t the same every time, right?
In Canada, some places last saw a solar eclipse in the 1920s and won’t see another one until after 2140.
Nothing was lost. Not a single penny!
People aren’t being paid for every moment they remain on task. They’re getting paid for works completed! They’re getting paid for doing their job. They don’t have to be at their desk/station/site every single moment to remain productive!
This idea that people need to be paid less if they do less work is absolute Insanity. People need to be paid a fair wage for completing jobs, whatever that may be.
People aren’t being paid for every moment they remain on task. They’re getting paid for works completed!
There are lots of jobs that need to be on task on an hourly basis, this ignores a huge class of people and assumes everyone is where you are in life.
Security guards and cashiers are two immediate examples. Cashiers need to be ready to perform the entire time they are working and can’t just work random flex hours as customers are relying on them. If customers show up during the stores hours they should expect a cashier to be working. Even if there are no customers in your line or store, there could be some in a minute or two. The “works completed” are transactions completed, but also the act of being available.
Security guards are paid explicitly to be present at specific times, the “works completed” is literally sitting there the entire time.
Lifeguards need to be present even if no one is swimming at the moment.
Right. Sure. I agree with you. But you’re totally missing the point of what I was saying.
If the cashier/life guard/security personal left for a few minutes or maybe longer the company that person works for didn’t “loose” money because they weren’t at their station.
Being productive 100% isn’t possible and anything less than 100% isn’t a loss.
Companies aren’t paying people for works performed but for works completed. The life guard being there at all constitutes them being at work. Just because they left and watched the eclipse for 10 minutes or went to the bathroom or took a personal call isn’t a loss!
Which is why the only thing that matters is what work was completed not how much work they did in the time it took to complete.
We need to change the way business interpret what constitutes paid labor.
If the cashier/life guard/security personal left for a few minutes or maybe longer the company that person works for didn’t “loose” money because they weren’t at their station.
If a cashier abandons their post, a nonzero amount of people will leave without purchase instead of waiting an unknown time for them to return.
If a commercial pilot takes a detour to see the eclipse better they can cause huge ripple effects on other flights causing significant costs.
If a security guard skips out on their post for a bit the business can be robbed or otherwise liable for issues during the lapse.
If a lifeguard leaves their post unrelieved or isn’t fully paying attention and someone gets injured or dies that’s a serious financial liability (at least in the USA)
If a cashier abandons their post, a nonzero amount of people will leave without purchase instead of waiting an unknown time for them to return.
Even if there’s no one in the store because everyone is outside looking at the eclipse?
Every single person is looking at the eclipse? I traveled during the eclipse and the majority of people around us didn’t care to go outside during the peak.
Its easy to think that everyone cares about what we do.
The commenter ive replied to was stressing that not even a single dollar was lost, and believing not a single person in the entire eclipse area was trying to make a transaction during this time is silly.
Ok so you’re simultaneously assuming 0% of customers are looking at the eclipse and 100% of the cashiers want to go out and look at it?
It feels like you’re just making up scenarios here. Seems more likely similar proportions of both cashiers and customers would be out looking at it.
Now take for example a grocery store. Did the eclipse mean that people are going to eat less? Like because there were fewer cashiers, they suddenly decided they aren’t going to buy food this week? I’m pretty sure demand for food (or any other good) disappeared because the eclipse. So what’s the actual economic cost? Some businesses would have been less busy for about 20 minutes but then more busy later on.
Thinking that a 20 minute pause in production is going to significantly impact demand is what seems silly to me. But then all of this supply side economics style of thinking is silly to me.
