It's interesting that NOW people are concerned with this impact from the economy, yet when people became alcoholics from getting fired when the economy was good, no one seems to care.
It is about the volumes I guess , millions are filing unemployment claims now , the impact is going to much higher on these issues , lot more people will suffer due to this, so more people have been talking about it .
A healthy and growing economy with low unemployment is a boon to the poor, sick, and alcoholic. The entire purpose of pursuing a healthy economy is that improves the quality of life for the citizens. Continuing to hold this position now is not hypocritical.
There is always a tradeoff.
The virus will kill X and reduce the quality of life for Y people. The economic disruption will kill Z people and reduce the quality of life for Z2.
Ignoring quality of life, there is still a death tradeoff to be considered.
Economic conditions have real and immediate health consequences too.
For example, in 2010 US unemployment briefly grew about 6% to a total of 10% in the US and there were 40,000 additional deaths from cancer alone[1]. When you consider heart disease, other indications, drug abuse, and suicide, the numbers are much greater. The often cited number of 40k for each percent unemployment may not be far off if these factors are taken together.
This trend also holds true in the OECD where social programs are more common because there are still budgetary constraints on centralized healthcare.
It's a matter of size. If you have 1% "falling through the cracks", it's individually tragic but not something that will negatively impact the economy that much. If you have 30% falling, you're going to be in for a rough time.
One friend I had in school qualified for free school lunch, so presumably below the poverty line.
His parents had a house, with a yard. There was air conditioning, cable TV, and each child had his own room. I distinctly remember a nearly-server-class PC much better specced than anything my family owned (a dual-processor desktop in the 1990's!)
Poverty stats don't tell the whole story, especially if they're only based on income levels. A wage that would have you living out of your car in SF might allow a squarely lower-middle-class lifestyle in the rural Rust Belt.
You just proved that though - owning a house, with a yard, is not a sign of wealth in most of the US. There are plenty of cheap houses, with yards, to go around. Just not in places most people want to live, leading to less wages and less opportunity because of the lack of jobs.
