You may have seen this map of social distancing, with the commentary on how certain parts of the U.S. are not “getting with the program” about staying at home.
Most of the commentary on why is about politics, despite the other fundamental, underlying issue of income inequality.
When the same data is sorted by income, unsurprisingly the people with the lower incomes are the ones who are still traveling. These are the people who are far more likely to not have an ability to stock up with a month’s worth of food and wait out the arrival of the government checks.
No surprise here, except that the government mandates and mainstream media are one-size-fits-all, without actually fitting everyone.
Before the Federal government decided on their $2 trillion bailout bill, I was advocating a simpler, far fairer solution. $500/mo to every Social Security number not already receiving a government check. $500/mo, every month until the lockdowns are over and life returns to normal.
On top of this, a moratorium on rent and mortgage payments, along with no late fees for any utility bills. That would then focus the economy down to feeding everyone through the duration of the crisis, spending as little as possible to do that, and to make sure that social safety net covers everyone, no matter their income in 2018, no matter their job, no matter how much of a hardship a lockdown would cause.
Alas, the government picked a less equal solution and as a result, we have a less complete lockdown and eventually, more illness, more death, and a longer crisis.
