“The problem is that our non-policy hurts the poor. Rich people can stay home when they are sick or when their children are sick, which means the rate of transmission in rich communities will be lower. Poor people can’t, so the rate of transmission in poor communities will be higher.”
Source: http://baselinescenario.com/2009/11/04/free-markets-and-h1n1/
What’s wrong with this logic? Interventionist are using this arguement for a reason for intervention.
Lol. Rich people mingle with the lower classes as well. [:P]
My friend got swine flu when he went to Mexico. He rents a room in my house, and so sleeps right next to me. I talked to him and he coughed and sneezed around me before I found out what he had, and I never got sick. So much for the dire threat.
My little brother got it. We played video games together, ate chips out of the same basket, hung out, and I was perfectly fine. He was better in a few days. Yawn.
ROFL. You guys are funny.
Here is an argumentum ad absurdum, If sick “rich” people stay home, they have there “poor” maids and butlers come in and do errands for them, thus getting sick and spreading it to there family’s.
Anyhow, what are the more straightforward arguments against mandating such a policy of sick pay?
Mandated sick pay will, insofar as it forces employers to offer sick pay when they otherwise wouldn’t have anyway, reduce the marginal productivity of labor, which will impoverish society. It would particularly hurt workers, who will find their services in lower demand due to their reduced marginal productivity. They will then be less wealthy, and thus less capable of protecting their health.
19 confirmed swine flu deaths in 2009 supposedly [link] (1.6 per month)
22 Flue deaths in 2009 [link] (1.8 per month)
39,800 confirmed deaths related to car accidents in 2008. (3316 per month) [link]
So why do we need to be spending all these millions of dollars to save 20 people? What about the 40 thousand that die in cars every day. Why can’t we hold the road owners responsible?