[Snorlax94]

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?

In my view, where things are particularly unfair and where things really break down is in the narrow sliver of specialized, licensed work that I fear is intrinsically dangerous. Their incomes will be ruined and the right thing for society is to stop them from working, and then compensate them for that, and there are so few of them that the overall cost would be relatively small.

Actually, I included licensed massage therapists and forgot to mention them — licensed hair stylists, licensed massage therapists, licensed manicurists, tattooists and massage therapists.

Additionally, I mentioned in another posts that we could help intrinsically dangerous businesses (video game rooms, movie theatres, indoor crowded bars and clubs, museums, live theatre, gyms, restaurants that are deemed incapable for serving outside or spacing, call centers that cannot work from home) cover their rent and cover their outstanding capital loans at 0% for a year.

All of these high risk businesses need to close for the public good, and these are also the areas where there is some “revolution” going on, like the hair stylist who was jailed for opening or the activists who “protect” the opening of tattoo parlors in Texas while carrying assault rifles. While I don’t think we should tolerate or cave in to armed lawbreakers, I am sympathetic to their situation because there is an arbitrary handful of skilled professions that will be ruined, and society should help the individuals in a way very similar to insurance.

You asked about other people — landscapers, drivers, and let’s say retail clerks and waiters. For many, like landscapers, I think their work is safe and is already continuing in most areas I know of. As for the others, I’d argue unemployment works well for them. Their work is not in a specialized, licensed field, they did not invest in training and equipment, and arguably they can switch jobs more easily. A waiter at a restaurant without outdoor seating can get a job at a restaurant with outdoor seating. An Uber driver can become a Door Dash driver. A retail clerk can become an Instacart shopper. The normal unemployment insurance should fit their needs fairly well, although we could extend the maximum duration of unemployment insurance, which we often do during recessions, and we can help them afford health coverage, and we can make sure everyone gets paid sick days and is not ruined paying for getting medical treatment for Covid.

My guess is that the cost for all of this would be the smallest stimulus bill yet, it would address a lot of the fairness issues, and it would also be geared toward helping contain Covid and save lives.

[Snorlax94]

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?

In my view, where things are particularly unfair and where things really break down is in the narrow sliver of specialized, licensed work that I fear is intrinsically dangerous. Their incomes will be ruined and the right thing for society is to stop them from working, and then compensate them for that, and there are so few of them that the overall cost would be relatively small.

Actually, I included licensed massage therapists and forgot to mention them — licensed hair stylists, licensed massage therapists, licensed manicurists, tattooists and massage therapists.

Additionally, I mentioned in another posts that we could help intrinsically dangerous businesses (video game rooms, movie theatres, indoor crowded bars and clubs, museums, live theatre, gyms, restaurants that are deemed incapable for serving outside or spacing, call centers that cannot work from home) cover their rent and cover their outstanding capital loans at 0% for a year.

All of these high risk businesses need to close for the public good, and these are also the areas where there is some “revolution” going on, like the hair stylist who was jailed for opening or the activists who “protect” the opening of tattoo parlors in Texas while carrying assault rifles. While I don’t think we should tolerate or cave in to armed lawbreakers, I am sympathetic to their situation because there is an arbitrary handful of skilled professions that will be ruined, and society should help the individuals in a way very similar to insurance.

You asked about other people — landscapers, drivers, and let’s say retail clerks and waiters. For many, like landscapers, I think their work is safe and is already continuing in most areas I know of. As for the others, I’d argue unemployment works well for them. Their work is not in a specialized, licensed field, they did not invest in training and equipment, and arguably they can switch jobs more easily. A waiter at a restaurant without outdoor seating can get a job at a restaurant with outdoor seating. An Uber driver can become a Door Dash driver. A retail clerk can become an Instacart shopper. The normal unemployment insurance should fit their needs fairly well, although we could extend the maximum duration of unemployment insurance, which we often do during recessions, and we can help them afford health coverage, and we can make sure everyone gets paid sick days and is not ruined paying for getting medical treatment for Covid.

My guess is that the cost for all of this would be the smallest stimulus bill yet, it would address a lot of the fairness issues, and it would also be geared toward helping contain Covid and save lives.