FORD FURTHER POSTPONES NA PRODUCTION RESTART TO PROTECT WORKFORCE - UNKNOWN RESTART DATE

[timbop]

In the end it is a case of balancing a healthcare disaster against getting a car later than one would have hoped. While it would be nice to at least hear the results of how things are going with the testing, I can wait to get a car I don't actually need.

Of course there is a huge financial component to BOTH CASES, which somehow is getting missed by the "lets's all get back to work" proponents. An assembly line crippled for weeks or months due to unexpected cases of coronavirus among significant numbers of employees hampers production just as much as just closing it; even more so from the daily uncertainty of who won't show up each day. The added expense of the healthcare costs and increased fatality rate because there wasn't enough treatment to go around also seems to be under appreciated. Without adequate protections in place (and there aren't enough to go around), putting too many people to work too quickly multiplies the impact and makes the pain of the current quarantine useless. Everyone needs to get back to work, but rushing in with inadequate planning and an ignorance of the consequences is just stupid. Learning what works and what doesn't before rolling it out nationwide is smart.

Sponsored

 

[pbojanoski]

In the end it is a case of balancing a healthcare disaster against getting a car later than one would have hoped. While it would be nice to at least hear the results of how things are going with the testing, I can wait to get a car I don't actually need.

Of course there is a huge financial component to BOTH CASES, which somehow is getting missed by the "lets's all get back to work" proponents. An assembly line crippled for weeks or months due to unexpected cases of coronavirus among significant numbers of employees hampers production just as much as just closing it; even more so from the daily uncertainty of who won't show up each day. The added expense of the healthcare costs and increased fatality rate because there wasn't enough treatment to go around also seems to be under appreciated. Without adequate protections in place (and there aren't enough to go around), putting too many people to work too quickly multiplies the impact and makes the pain of the current quarantine useless. Everyone needs to get back to work, but rushing in with inadequate planning and an ignorance of the consequences is just stupid. Learning what works and what doesn't before rolling it out nationwide is smart.

I don't think anyone has suggested rushing anything. Pretty much everything I've said and heard has been to prudently reopen with every mitigation possible and then react as needed to the results of that reopening. Nobody said this would be simple or without missteps, but a failed economy is not something we should be risking either. Did you see this article? This is something we all need to be aware of:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine-un-warning-intl/index.html

Continuing a worldwide shutdown will result in a devistated population in more and more countries and we are not immune from this outcome in the USA.

 

[ChasingCoral]

In the end it is a case of balancing a healthcare disaster against getting a car later than one would have hoped. While it would be nice to at least hear the results of how things are going with the testing, I can wait to get a car I don't actually need.

Of course there is a huge financial component to BOTH CASES, which somehow is getting missed by the "lets's all get back to work" proponents. An assembly line crippled for weeks or months due to unexpected cases of coronavirus among significant numbers of employees hampers production just as much as just closing it; even more so from the daily uncertainty of who won't show up each day. The added expense of the healthcare costs and increased fatality rate because there wasn't enough treatment to go around also seems to be under appreciated. Without adequate protections in place (and there aren't enough to go around), putting too many people to work too quickly multiplies the impact and makes the pain of the current quarantine useless. Everyone needs to get back to work, but rushing in with inadequate planning and an ignorance of the consequences is just stupid. Learning what works and what doesn't before rolling it out nationwide is smart.

Remember, this isn't the first epidemic we've encountered. In the case of the 1918 influenza, the economic costs of the disease and loss of life were far greater than the impacts of temporary restrictions of the economy due to shutdowns. To quote Correia et al. 2020:
"We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over. Our findings thus indicate that NPIs {non-pharmaceutical interventions, i.e. shutdowns and social distancing} not only lower mortality; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic."
Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560

FYI: Authors are with the Federal Reserve and the MIT Sloan School of Management

There are definitely costs on both sides, closure and non-closure. However, during the 1918 influenza, the economic impacts of closures were shorter-lived and have less impact than the losses of life. We need to be smart about how we reopen. Too fast can be more costly than too slow. However, slow requires patience, something that is wearing very thin.

 

[TheSteelRider]

I hesitate to respond to a political post, this will be my first, and likely my last. But, I feel compelled to point out that "wanting" something is different then "edicting" something. That is to say, I'm not sure it is a bad thing to "want" the economy to rebound quicker. I'm pretty sure most people "want" the economy re-opened. I've been puzzled by the many outlets that have criticized the president for wanting the economy to get back on track. I am left to assume that those that criticize that clearly must want the economy to stay closed and suffer?

 

[Redundant]

I hesitate to respond to a political post, this will be my first, and likely my last. But, I feel compelled to point out that "wanting" something is different then "edicting" something. That is to say, I'm not sure it is a bad thing to "want" the economy to rebound quicker. I'm pretty sure most people "want" the economy re-opened. I've been puzzled by the many outlets that have criticized the president for wanting the economy to get back on track. I am left to assume that those that criticize that clearly must want the economy to stay closed and suffer?

I don't think that is the case. There is so much I could say to this, but probably too political. I will say that what the president says, matters. His job is to lead and to look out for the best interests of the citizens of this country. By saying, like he did, that he wants to open up by Easter and fill the churches, he is sending a message that is contrary to his own experts who are speaking on the same stage as he is. This is confusing to people. And it leads to what we are seeing today, unsafe protests and Governors reopening states without the safeguards in place. We need and people are desperate for consistent messaging, and a plan for getting the country back to work. Really, at this late date, there really is no plan for safely opening the country. So, different governors are handling it their own ways. I really like the analogy I saw to different states having different approaches to staying home being like having a public swimming pool with a designated area to pee in.

 

[TheSteelRider]

Ok, I think I'm seeing what you are saying. If I'm reading between the lines, there is an assumption that when the president says he "wants" something, the average American will interpret that not at hope or optimism, but an edict that is true,

e.g., “I’d love to have it (businesses) open by Easter." is interpreted by the average American like, "I will have it (businesses) open by Easter"? I don't agree that the average american doesn't know the difference between a hope and a declaration of promise of action by a date, but I just want to assure I'm understanding you correctly. Please do let me know if I'm hearing your point of view correctly.

(1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ee-businesses-re-open-by-easter-idUSKBN21B2XW

 

[pbojanoski]

Remember, this isn't the first epidemic we've encountered. In the case of the 1918 influenza, the economic costs of the disease and loss of life were far greater than the impacts of temporary restrictions of the economy due to shutdowns. To quote Correia et al. 2020:
"We find that cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively do not perform worse and, if anything, grow faster after the pandemic is over. Our findings thus indicate that NPIs {non-pharmaceutical interventions, i.e. shutdowns and social distancing} not only lower mortality; they also mitigate the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic."
Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561560

FYI: Authors are with the Federal Reserve and the MIT Sloan School of Management

There are definitely costs on both sides, closure and non-closure. However, during the 1918 influenza, the economic impacts of closures were shorter-lived and have less impact than the losses of life. We need to be smart about how we reopen. Too fast can be more costly than too slow. However, slow requires patience, something that is wearing very thin.

The economy was much different then. Most people got the majority of their economic activity from a decidedly local economy. Most items that were purchased were necessities such as food, medicine, shelter, etc. Those items were sourced locally for most.

Today's economy is much more varied and MANY more people are dependent on money from non-necessities, travel, hospitality, restaurants, electronics, etc. Those areas and more were not a major portion of the 1918 economy. Many people would grow their own food, make there own furniture, build there own home.

While we can learn from 1918, we need to look for what can be translated to 2020. Today we have much better communication, better medicine, more options to protect ourselves, but also a much more vulnerable economy.

We need to be prudent and smart, but also realistic.

 

[pbojanoski]

I don't think that is the case. There is so much I could say to this, but probably too political. I will say that what the president says, matters. His job is to lead and to look out for the best interests of the citizens of this country. By saying, like he did, that he wants to open up by Easter and fill the churches, he is sending a message that is contrary to his own experts who are speaking on the same stage as he is. This is confusing to people. And it leads to what we are seeing today, unsafe protests and Governors reopening states without the safeguards in place. We need and people are desperate for consistent messaging, and a plan for getting the country back to work. Really, at this late date, there really is no plan for safely opening the country. So, different governors are handling it their own ways. I really like the analogy I saw to different states having different approaches to staying home being like having a public swimming pool with a designated area to pee in.

It is the job of the President to be optimistic. This is not debatable in my mind. He must be realistic, for sure, but also optimistic. You need to lead the nation and give hope to people that things will be better. I think many on this forum need to take the political blinders off. I would much rather my leader tell me he is doing everything he can to get back to normal soon and is hopeful of that outcome. I don't want to hear from my leader that you might as well go curl up in a corner since it will be a long time before you can come out. Trump clearly said he hoped it would happen and it could happen. He didn't say it would happen.

That Trump is criticized for being optimistic is clearly a political opinion, I'm sorry to say. If you criticize what he actually does, fine, let's talk. But for him to hope that things get better soon is exactly what he should be doing. Only someone with an anti-Trump agenda would think otherwise.

 

[Redundant]

Ok, I think I'm seeing what you are saying. If I'm reading between the lines, there is an assumption that when the president says he "wants" something, the average American will interpret that not at hope or optimism, but an edict that is true,

e.g., “I’d love to have it (businesses) open by Easter." is interpreted by the average American like, "I will have it (businesses) open by Easter"? I don't agree that the average american doesn't know the difference between a hope and a declaration of promise of action by a date, but I just want to assure I'm understanding you correctly. Please do let me know if I'm hearing your point of view correctly.

(1) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ee-businesses-re-open-by-easter-idUSKBN21B2XW

Well, yes, presidential words matter. There is a big difference between you and me saying we want something and the president saying he wants something. He said he wanted a wall between us and Mexico. He then has proceeded to do what he can to get the money and manpower to make that happen. Why, if it is not possible to have businesses open by Easter, is he saying that he wants it? To what ends? What if he said I want a vaccine by August? Sure, we would all love a vaccine by August. If it is not possible, he shouldn't be saying it. He should be discussing facts. Cuomo has been the exemplar of discussing reality, not hopes. And, sharing his "hopes" but not doing the hard work required to achieve those goals is doubly bad in my book.

Don't you agree his words matter a great deal? He has the bully pulpit everyday. Do you think he should say, I hope no-one else dies of this virus? I just think that people who are supporters of Trump tie themselves into knots to justify what he says. But, really, from an objective point of view, his messaging is inconsistent with the facts and with his own experts.

 

[eager2own]

These all sound like excellent points to be discussed on the broader threads of Coronavirus Impact or Reopening America.

 

[Redundant]

It is the job of the President to be optimistic. This is not debatable in my mind. He must be realistic, for sure, but also optimistic. You need to lead the nation and give hope to people that things will be better. I think many on this forum need to take the political blinders off. I would much rather my leader tell me he is doing everything he can to get back to normal soon and is hopeful of that outcome. I don't want to hear from my leader that you might as well go curl up in a corner since it will be a long time before you can come out. Trump clearly said he hoped it would happen and it could happen. He didn't say it would happen.

That Trump is criticized for being optimistic is clearly a political opinion, I'm sorry to say. If you criticize what he actually does, fine, let's talk. But for him to hope that things get better soon is exactly what he should be doing. Only someone with an anti-Trump agenda would think otherwise.

I agree it is critical for the president to be optimistic. But, like you said, also, realistic. You want to give people hope, not false hope. And that is the difference. Saying you want to open up by Easter is false hope. I don't criticize him for optimism, I criticize him for telling us he is doing everything he can while not actually doing everything he can to get us back to normal. And also, better defining what the new normal will be for a while until we get a vaccine. We will not be "normal" until then.

 

[Redundant]

These all sound like excellent points to be discussed on the broader threads of Coronavirus Impact or Reopening America.

Haha, I agree. I have lost track of which forum I am in. I am blathering in both. I will keep my commentary to the reopening America forum from now on.

 

[Billyk24]

Coach Bob Knight, Bill Belichick, Frank Kush, Billy Martin, Sparky Anderson, Mike Ditka, George Halas, Scotty Bowman, are some individuals that come to my mind when reading these threads.

Sponsored