When this is all over, the conservative blondes with liberal arts degrees –MacDonald, Coulter and Ingraham – may have got the lockdown argument much more right than a lot of guys with toney STEM degrees.
Some numbers:
Mickey Kaus cites an NBER paper that estimates that the California lockdown cost 400 jobs per life saved. Okay, all estimates are imperfect and must be qualified, but these are serious guys, so start with this conclusion.
The U.S. economy generates $21.3 trillion in GDP with about 159 million employees.
Assume a lost job cost 70% of $21.3 trillion/159 million, that’s $94,000 a year.
A job lost for one month cost nearly $8,000 in lost output.
400 jobs lost for a month costs $3.15 million in lost output.
That is a substantial portion of the $8-10 million that Federal regulatory agencies now use for the value of a human life in pushing regulations.
But that $8-10 million is for an average life.
The lockdown’s benefits are concentrated among the elderly and unhealthy.
Government agencies use about $130,000 a year for the extension of life.
If, as has been estimated, lockdowns and other measures save 10 years of life, we are at $1.3 million in benefits, about half of costs.
If lockdowns generally extend the life of 80-somethings, as is the case in Italy and Minnesota, we are reaping benefits of perhaps $600,000-$700,000 for $3+ million in costs.
Now take another look at the cost side. Extend the lockdowns for a total of three months, and we are at about $10 million, several times any plausible benefits.
And look at the worst case, which is now being discussed by economists and financial analysts. The increase in unemployment takes ten years to be offset, as did the increase after the financial crisis. My estimates put those 400 lost jobs costing more than $200 million over that decade.
A good portion of that $200 million would otherwise have been spent on keeping Americans alive.
And we are not counting deaths in the second and third world from first-world crash.