[oregontim]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

I get what you're saying and basically agree, but I'm having trouble with how narrow the focus here. Why just a million personal care people? What about gig workers, drivers, landscapers, massage therapists, and so many others. Could we broaden this to self employed? Or self employed whose trade can't be executed online?

[oregontim]

I’ve mentioned many times we should be particularly sensitive about industries and workers whose work and specialized training could not be used in a lockdown, and on many occasions I’ve mentioned we should craft specialized programs to assist these people.

It would be tremendously beneficial to all of society — red states, blue states — if we could provide incentives for personal care professionals not to work for the next year, or to alter work to safer situations, like working outdoors, eliminating longer procedures (like complicating coloring), or taking a year off, and permit them to pocket their “not doing nails” funds while also freeing them to also keep money from any work from any other work they might do for a year.


The number of tattooists + licensed hair professionals + licensed manicurists in the US is about 1 million people. Most of the hair stylists would be out of work for just a few months. We could pay them double unemployment — which is what many pf them make anyway — for a year and it’d cost $40B, or I think less than 1% of the current packages thus far. Not only would it help people particularly hard hit, but it would also serve the added benefit of making the re-openings and the country safer.

I get what you're saying and basically agree, but I'm having trouble with how narrow the focus here. Why just a million personal care people? What about gig workers, drivers, landscapers, massage therapists, and so many others. Could we broaden this to self employed? Or self employed whose trade can't be executed online?