Ski area bankruptcies

[kingslug]

Driving into NYC to man my building..lot of cars on the road. NYC is going to explode with new cases.

 

[Jcb890]

The european models make much more sense. Direct loans to businesses to pay 75% of laid off workers wages. Loans then forgiven if used for that purpose

Currently the bill has/had nothing in it to protect or help employees. That's why it didn't get passed. Are we supposed to believe these companies are going to get bailed out and 'do the right thing' and take care of their employees like they should? There is almost zero chance of that happening.

 

[EPB]

To get more goodies? The bill as it was constructed would allow companies to be bailed out, yet still fire/lay employees off. It is/was basically a bill completely company-centric and not looking at people/workers at all. Also, Trump's hotels and properties will be allowed to be bailed out, etc.
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1241728461313581057?s=20

I'd be careful what you wish for on this one. I'm an investments employee, and I'd much rather see money go to employers (my company) rather than employees (people like me). Giving individuals money does nothing to protect their jobs. It will make it easier for them to buy groceries and pay rent. That's about it. It's incredibly shortsighted.

If you want the economy to be ready to go when this is over, keeping companies well capitalized and, to the extent possible, fully employed is best. That way, as many consumers and companies are ready to get back to normal as possible. We have unemployment insurance in this country and further relief could come (potential loan or rent/mortgage forbearance). Every day that goes by without a deal means more uncertainty for business and more layoffs.

Job guarantees are tricky. Nobody knows how long this will last. What type of financial guarantee are you willing to make right now? That isn't meant to be patronizing, but in great uncertainty, you should expect guarantees to be hard to come by. I get that 40-45% of the population is excited to criticize everything the White House is doing, but these specific measures are appropriate.

Regarding the Trump hotels, that's a tough one. They probably should receive proportionate bailouts to their industry peers - and someone unrelated to Trump should determine what's proportionate (e.g. an arbitrator). Hotels are going to get whacked as long as this lasts. I don't see why it's ethical to provide a band-aid to help everyone else keep their staff and not Trump hotels. Think about if you chose to work at his property instead of the Hilton down the street. Why should you get kicked to the curb? I get that it's easy political fodder, but it's actually a very complicated issue.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[kingslug]

And what are people going to do when their money runs out...credit cards max out...food runs out. This is going to happen to a big percentage of people who live paycheck to paycheck. Its why gun stores are out of guns and ammo. Very scary.

 

[Jcb890]

I'd be careful what you wish for on this one. I'm an investments employee, and I'd much rather see money go to employers (my company) rather than employees (people like me). Giving individuals money does nothing to protect their jobs. It will make it easier for them to buy groceries and pay rent. That's about it. It's incredibly shortsighted.

If you want the economy to be ready to go when this is over, keeping companies well capitalized and, to the extent possible, fully employed is best. That way, as many consumers and companies are ready to get back to normal as possible. We have unemployment insurance in this country and further relief could come (potential loan or rent/mortgage forbearance). Every day that goes by without a deal means more uncertainty for business and more layoffs.

Job guarantees are tricky. Nobody knows how long this will last. What type of financial guarantee are you willing to make right now? That isn't meant to be patronizing, but in great uncertainty, you should expect guarantees to be hard to come by. I get that 40-45% of the population is excited to criticize everything the White House is doing, but these specific measures are appropriate.

Regarding the Trump hotels, that's a tough one. They probably should receive proportionate bailouts to their industry peers - and someone unrelated to Trump should determine what's proportionate (e.g. an arbitrator). Hotels are going to get whacked as long as this lasts. I don't see why it's ethical to provide a band-aid to help everyone else keep their staff and not Trump hotels. Think about if you chose to work at his property instead of the Hilton down the street. Why should you get kicked to the curb? I get that it's easy political fodder, but it's actually a very complicated issue.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

I never said money should actually go to employees over employers. I'm just saying those companies who are getting all this money shouldn't be able to turn around and have lay-offs or fire people since the bailouts are generally meant to keep people employed and keep the economy going. I don't think the government should go with the original idea of sending each adult $1,000. That is pointless for the most part and will do nothing to jump-start and/or fix the economy.

 

[EPB]

I never said money should actually go to employees over employers. I'm just saying those companies who are getting all this money shouldn't be able to turn around and have lay-offs or fire people since the bailouts are generally meant to keep people employed and keep the economy going. I don't think the government should go with the original idea of sending each adult $1,000. That is pointless for the most part and will do nothing to jump-start and/or fix the economy.

Thanks that's helpful.

The guarantee that you're not going to do layoffs is the hard part. What would you prefer in this scenario: provide bailouts and keep 90% of employees (and have 10% layoffs), or do nothing and see 30% layoffs? Obviously my numbers are hypothetical, but this is the general problem at hand.

The economy is shrinking as we speak. Getting upset that businesses don't keep the exact number of employees they had before the pandemic is likely to be an unrealistically high standard. Again, I get that it's in some politicians' interests to hold this high standard (administration/economomy is guaranteed to fail to meet the standard), but we need to understand what we're up against and what can be done.

There are plenty of things to criticize (not taking coronavirus more seriously earlier is a legit second guess), but this measure seems largely appropriate.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

Jim Cramer is on CNBC & he just stated my exact idea of quarantining everyone over 60 (most likely 63 or 64 depending on the data break) & allowing everyone else to get back to work. He reads AlpineZone!

 

[machski]

I never said money should actually go to employees over employers. I'm just saying those companies who are getting all this money shouldn't be able to turn around and have lay-offs or fire people since the bailouts are generally meant to keep people employed and keep the economy going. I don't think the government should go with the original idea of sending each adult $1,000. That is pointless for the most part and will do nothing to jump-start and/or fix the economy.

JCB, let me put this into perspective from my industry, aviation. Right now, Delta has come and said due to the galactic cliff drop of travel, they are burning $10 million a day to stay afloat. In a 30 day month, that's $300 million!! Now, at that burn rate and given future bookings are negative and dropping daily, in the past they would hae already given notice of massive impending layoffs. They have not done so yet (yes, they have asked for employees to take unpaid leave and 13000 have done so which still keeps their health benefits going), and they are likely best positioned of the big 3 to weather this. But United is probably the weakest (due in part to their big international routes being bigger transpacific) and already has stated, without Government assistance by the end of March, they will begin the process to pair down their employment levels to match their reduced schedule, in other words more than half the company could be let go. I don't think they want to do that either, but I bet United's burn rate is higher than Delta's. How do you expect them to keep their 10's of thousands employed with burn rates like that without government money?? Especially when pretty much no one wants to fly now, tomorrrow or three months from now at the moment???

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

The only good thing I see coming out out of this pandemic is that hopefully there is:
[*]An acknowledgement within the government that science is real, and that we can't just fire our pandemic response team and hope for the best.

You've fallen prey to fake news.


https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ities-are-sharing-misleading-post-about-trum/

 

[Jcb890]

Thanks that's helpful.

The guarantee that you're not going to do layoffs is the hard part. What would you prefer in this scenario: provide bailouts and keep 90% of employees (and have 10% layoffs), or do nothing and see 30% layoffs? Obviously my numbers are hypothetical, but this is the general problem at hand.

The economy is shrinking as we speak. Getting upset that businesses don't keep the exact number of employees they had before the pandemic is likely to be an unrealistically high standard. Again, I get that it's in some politicians' interests to hold this high standard (administration/economomy is guaranteed to fail to meet the standard), but we need to understand what we're up against and what can be done.

There are plenty of things to criticize (not taking coronavirus more seriously earlier is a legit second guess), but this measure seems largely appropriate.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

I think your 'scenario' is a little too black and white. The government is not going to 'do nothing' either way. Something is going to get passed and some bailout is going to happen. That much is obvious.

If a company (or companies) are getting millions or billions to keep the status quo, why should said company be able to then turn around and lay off or fire workers? At that point, they don't need to have layoffs or fire workers because they have been bailed out. I'm not saying they need to keep 100% of all workers, but I think there should be some type of protection for employees of companies which are getting all of this financial aid money.

 

[BenedictGomez]

To get more goodies? The bill as it was constructed would allow companies to be bailed out, yet still fire/lay employees off. It is/was basically a bill completely company-centric and not looking at people/workers at all. Also, Trump's hotels and properties will be allowed to be bailed out, etc.
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1241728461313581057?s=20

Why are people this mentally pliable?

This bill was DONE. It was worked on for days by Democrats & Republicans. It was about to be voted on & pretty much everybody on both sides of the aisle thought it would pass. Schumer (he's the top Democrat in the Senate) said he thought it would pass

It got blown up literally at the very last minute.

Why?

Because Pelosi parachuted in and destroyed it at the last minute...... the bipartisan bill..... yes, to hopefully get more goodies during a biological disaster. She intentionally waited till' the last minute to exact as much pressure as possible. Here are some of the things Pelosi's hostage-taking crew wants added this morning.

1) New collective bargaining powers for unions
2) Increased fuel emissions standards for the airlines
3) Expansion of wind & solar tax credits

Tell me what ANY of that last minute **** has to do with coronavirus safety or preventing Americans from getting laid off today?!?!?! Literally thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every hour in America. Literally. There are thousands getting pink slips as we speak because this bill didnt pass last night like everyone thought it would. You could watch DOW & S&P futures plunge (I did) in real-time when this happened.

https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/1241933483980750852?s=20

 

[Jcb890]

Why are people this mentally pliable? Has the world become so partisan that people cant even think?

This bill was DONE. It was worked on for days by Democrats & Republicans. It was about to be voted on & pretty much everybody thought it would pass.

It got blown up literally at the very last minute.

Why?

Because Pelosi parachuted in and destroyed it...... the bipartisan bill..... yes, to hopefully get more goodies. Here are some of the things Pelosi's adding this morning.

1) New collective bargaining powers for unions
2) Increased fuel emissions standards for the airlines
3) Expansion of wind & solar tax credits $$$

Tell me what ANY of that last minute **** has to do with coronavirus safety or getting preventing Americans from getting laid off today?!?!?!

I would agree if those are the only 3 things being added, that does nothing to prevent people from being laid off. Pretty dumb to stop the bill if those are the only 3 additions or requests to be added.

 

[Jcb890]

JCB, let me put this into perspective from my industry, aviation. Right now, Delta has come and said due to the galactic cliff drop of travel, they are burning $10 million a day to stay afloat. In a 30 day month, that's $300 million!! Now, at that burn rate and given future bookings are negative and dropping daily, in the past they would hae already given notice of massive impending layoffs. They have not done so yet (yes, they have asked for employees to take unpaid leave and 13000 have done so which still keeps their health benefits going), and they are likely best positioned of the big 3 to weather this. But United is probably the weakest (due in part to their big international routes being bigger transpacific) and already has stated, without Government assistance by the end of March, they will begin the process to pair down their employment levels to match their reduced schedule, in other words more than half the company could be let go. I don't think they want to do that either, but I bet United's burn rate is higher than Delta's. How do you expect them to keep their 10's of thousands employed with burn rates like that without government money?? Especially when pretty much no one wants to fly now, tomorrrow or three months from now at the moment???

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app

I didn't say airlines or other companies don't need or shouldn't get financial aid. It is very clear the airlines are f'd without an influx of money from the government.

 

[icecoast1]

I think your 'scenario' is a little too black and white. The government is not going to 'do nothing' either way. Something is going to get passed and some bailout is going to happen. That much is obvious.

If a company (or companies) are getting millions or billions to keep the status quo, why should said company be able to then turn around and lay off or fire workers? At that point, they don't need to have layoffs or fire workers because they have been bailed out. I'm not saying they need to keep 100% of all workers, but I think there should be some type of protection for employees of companies which are getting all of this financial aid money.

Many businesses are being forced to shut down and lay people off, they have no choice

 

[NYDB]

Jim Cramer is on CNBC & he just stated my exact idea of quarantining everyone over 60 (most likely 63 or 64 depending on the data break) & allowing everyone else to get back to work. He reads AlpineZone!

You'll be seeing more people mainstreaming this idea in the next weeks. My only concern is Cat in January's post.

40% of those hospitalized in US are 20-54 and 12%of those in icu are 20-44. Sure old folks die more, but this affects all population age groups

if this is true then it seems we call just can't go back to work. The healthcare system couldn't handle it

 

[Jcb890]

Many businesses are being forced to shut down and lay people off, they have no choice

Right... because they have not yet been bailed out or received any financial aid. I understand that part of it. You can't save everyone's jobs when the economy is getting completely crushed like it is/has been. I'm not sure what they plan to do with businesses that are being forced to shut down, especially small businesses. Will they be bailed out? Probably not.

 

[icecoast1]

You'll be seeing more people mainstreaming this idea in the next weeks. My only concern is Cat in January's post.



if this is true then it seems we call just can't go back to work. The healthcare system couldn't handle it

Those #s dont indicate those that have underlying conditions already that are under the age of 60. If you are under 60 and healthy, this is no worse than the flu

 

[BenedictGomez]

I'd be careful what you wish for on this one. I'm an investments employee, and I'd much rather see money go to employers (my company) rather than employees (people like me). Giving individuals money does nothing to protect their jobs. It will make it easier for them to buy groceries and pay rent. That's about it. It's incredibly shortsighted.

You're speaking as someone with an understanding of economics & finance. It's useless trying to get that message through to people who dont have the benedict of that education, are 'emo', and ideologically driven by a belief that all business is "evil" as their starting basis. It is futile.

Good post though nonetheless.

 

[Cat in January]

Not sure if you will find evidence to support that. I have seen many anecdotal accounts of young healthy people becoming sick.

Response to icecoast1 above. Without data I think you are just flinging poo

 

[EPB]

I think your 'scenario' is a little too black and white. The government is not going to 'do nothing' either way. Something is going to get passed and some bailout is going to happen. That much is obvious.

If a company (or companies) are getting millions or billions to keep the status quo, why should said company be able to then turn around and lay off or fire workers? At that point, they don't need to have layoffs or fire workers because they have been bailed out. I'm not saying they need to keep 100% of all workers, but I think there should be some type of protection for employees of companies which are getting all of this financial aid money.

I tend to simplify these things a lot because it's easy to miss the forest though the trees. I'm well aware it's impossible to adequately protect everyone in a country and economy this large.

Companies are being bailed out to keep the status quo to the extent possible, which is a very important distinction. If you offer businesses money while telling them you have no idea when they can open again AND you're going to punish them if they lay people off, you're going to get a lot of businesses that would rather go it alone and lay way more people off than necessary. On a macro level, this can cost society much more than it saves (higher unemployment and unreadiness to recover). What you're proposing is a luxury we cannot afford except in specific circumstances (Boeing, for example).

In some cases, this is actually worse than I represented. Boeing is likely to get a massive bailout and will probably lay a ton of people off at the same time. I suspect the c suite will get scrutinized, though, because the company apparently wasn't as sturdy as it should have been. That company would probably get picked apart in bankruptcy if the government doesn't help. Needless to say, that could do real damage to worldwide air travel/cargo.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app