50 bps cut, initial rally, faded super fast and now down for the day. Would be interested to see if Fed cuts further.
The first order effects weren't so large to stem the selloff (first order meaning the PV effect of lowering discount rate).
As for second order effects (rate cuts to spur economic activity), I'm not even bullish about the mechanism to transmit rate cuts to the real economy normally, but I think in a quarantine situation, those mechanisms are even more diminished as there's less economic activity. Thinking out loud, demand will probably just hit a wall--there's no elasticity here when people are worried about their lives.
The only mechanism that sounds plausible to flow through to the real economy is fiscal. Government buys Pampers, burns them, buys them again. Or keep lowering rates to raise asset prices by a purely mechanical lowering of discount factor.
The message seems to be: this is a nice thing, I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it. Like the kid taking his ball away after losing at soccer. Except this is someone else's ball?
Comparing being in a wheelchair to losing at soccer seems reductive to me. Being in a wheelchair is completely life-changing and having public spaces being accessible is a very good thing for the quality of life of people being in this terrible situation.
The ADA has dramatically improved accessibility for those with mobility impairments:
" When asked whether access to public facilities had improved, 75 percent or more of respondents in 1994, 1998, and 2000 reported that they had perceived improvement. Not surprisingly, the percentage of people with disabilities going out to restaurants regularly has increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 57 percent in 2004."[0]
The defendant is a small business = real humans you can talk to. Maybe they could have explained that they did not have the money yet but could gladly bring coffee outside with more service in the meantime. It's easy to hide being legalism (especially for us engineers who like logical systems) and ignore the human factor and individual moral choices. Yes legally the plaintiff has the right to ruin a small business. But it's not necessary the right choice.
Totally. For example, if your neighbors are having a party that's breaking noise laws, it's always better to go talk to them, then if they are jerks, report them to the police.
All the law does is provide a cause to sue. The plaintiff is the one who chose to pursue the case and demand either a crippling settlement or crippling renovation. This was completely the plaintiff's choice.
If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open.
And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
> I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it
Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it.
> a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable
with readily achievable meaning:
> easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities
In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades").
There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.
One side is the ADA is from 1990, and 30 years is a long time to wait for public places of business to be accessible. It is compelling to say you must be open for business for all people, if you're open for business.
On the other side, sometimes the required renovations are expensive. Part of the problem is that building modifications may trigger compliance requirements, but many jurisdictions don't check for accessibility (or not properly) as part of a modification permit. It would be good for accessibility to be checked as part of occupancy permits as well.
Another part of the problem is that the enforcement structure of private lawsuits is by nature very adversarial. There's pros and cons, but it means business owners need to budget for renovation and legal fees in response to a complaint filed by lawsuit.
I wish there was a better way to acheive compliance, though. If you can't afford the renovations now, make the plan now, and a binding commitment to set aside funds for it, and make the renovations when funds are ready, or within the 18? months. And the commitment follows the occupancy of the building --- like a lien. If the renovation is not done as comitted, the premises are no longer a legal place of business until they are. This may help encourage landlords to participate in making their spaces accessible --- it will need to be done before they can rent to another business if the current business is forced to leave.
We decided as a country to not discriminate based on certain qualities. One of those is physical disability. Those with physical disability is a small part of the population, so businesses can easily ignore them. What’s the alternative? You’re fucked if you use a wheelchair?
The alternative is that the kid never has to share their ball with people with disabilities? I think everyone's ideal outcome is that the business makes itself accessible.
The impression I get is that women are more expected to want children, so not wanting them is seen as more transgressive. Additionally, women have a shorter timeframe in which to have children, so the pressure intensifies after age 30 in a way that it may not for men.
However, parents want grandchildren from their male and female children equally, and pressure from friends is applied to a couple as a couple, not as individuals.
First is the pressure from my partner(she is very much into having children), then the family and then there is the fact that most of my friends have kinds or at least are looking to have kids. When I meet old friends I find that most of them married and have kids too...you are told now it's the time to have kinds and later you will regret it. You won't be able to have kinds anymore(due biological issues) or you will be more like an grandpa than a father to them. I can understand their arguments but I have no desire to have children(yet).
"Rather, the increase in inflation was due to things like tax increases, exchange rate fluctuations, oil price moves, etc."
It seems to me that tax cutting could lead to increased consumption and therefore a reduction in GDP slack and upward pressure on prices (inflation). Why is it that tax increases would lead to inflation?
It depends on what the tax increase or tax decrease affect. If a tax cut goes predominantly to those who invest in greater productivity, then increased supply can drop prices - but only if that investment is more efficient than consequently relinquished government investment. These things are horribly difficult to measure. Perhaps Ukrainian defense spending is a total waste, and should cease with a corresponding tax cut. Perhaps it is preventing a transfer of common wealth to an oligarch, and is the most important investment the country makes. I'm quite sure I don't know.
An increase in sales tax or more likely VAT in the UK will immediately show up in prices as inflation. You may be thinking of income tax which may indeed have a different effect depending on the circumstances.
The language barrier is a huge thing - especially if you're trying to live like a local (as opposed to being a tourist). I've been to Spain and England on that particular trip, and the latter was ten times easier simply because I could communicate more or less freely. Now, some people can get by even if they barely know the language - but make sure you're one of them if you decide to go that route. And no, being barely able to order a hamburger is not sufficient for comfortable living.
It's hard, but you can learn to communicate. I spent a year in South Korea without much more than 'hello' & 'thank you' at the beginning (was 'conversational' by the time I left). Just don't be afraid to make an idiot of yourself.
