People might be consuming 10x advertising but 1) people can't go out to the store and buy what's being advertised or use it outside after it's been boughts and 2) a lot of people are freshly unemployed or terrified about being unemployed in the near future and are not going to buy anything nonessential. Therefore, their ad impressions are worth less and so companies are spending much, much less on advertising.
On the other hand, Amazon is going gangbusters. I wonder if covid-19 will ironically prompt a longer term re-alignment away from virtual interaction in favour of real-world connections, as people realize how much they miss real things during lockdown.
I imagine Amazon will do well in some areas (consumers) initially, but overall will see a drop in demand as the crisis really bites - businesses have stopped ordering, and consumers will stop ordering soon to save money. It will be interesting to see how this plays out but I think US markets are far too optimistic at present, and this is going to have a very large impact economically, because it won't be over as soon as say Trump hopes, and premature attempts to reopen will be disastrous.
Strangely enough I think the disease and its impacts will have far less impact on our behaviour than the economic impact of mass layoffs and shuttering the world economy for months. I don't think we've ever seen a drop in consumption of this magnitude and the road back to normality will be slow.
There may be more page views ("supply") right now, especially on certain types of social media, but I suspect that advertising demand has taken a huge hit.
Lots of companies out there, especially retail, are taking huge hits and I would suspect that an advertising budget is one of the first things to be reduced.
> Most Americans (richest country in the world btw) don't know how they will pay their rent next month or buy food. No one's signing up for a new subscription now lmao.
Precisely what part of anything in the preceding paragraph is meant to be modified or somehow accentuated by the "lmao?"
Yeah, if they, as a family, made $198K last year and filed jointly then they won't get a check. But I think you'll agree that it'd be ridiculous to shovel money to families making $200K+ a year. For single earners the cutoff is 99K.
Lower-income Twitter is jubilant at this development, BTW. Something they'll remember in November for sure. And the check is not conditioned on whether you're still employed (which most people are).
TL;DR: a lot of people who are still working are getting what to them is a substantial amount of money. They'll be spending it.
>But I think you'll agree that it'd be ridiculous to shovel money to families making $200K+ a year.
I wouldn't; reality is more nuanced and circumstantial than your blanket generalization would like it to be. While it's true that in many places $200k is a substantial amount of money, there are places (California, for instance, particularly the Bay Area) where the cost of living is high enough that a couple earning $200k may still be living paycheck to paycheck and $2900 doesn't even cover rent. The loss of even one income in that household could be devastating.
>And the check is not conditioned on whether you're still employed (which most people are).
I alluded to that condition by my use of the phrase, "If they're unemployed".
>TL;DR: a lot of people who are still working are getting what to them is a substantial amount of money. They'll be spending it.
While I am sure that many people will spend it in ways that are more recreational than others, I am not so sure that as many people will be doing that as you assume. Jobless claims are expected to reach a whopping 15% soon[1], many people still employed are finding themselves working reduced hours resulting in reduced pay[2], and hiring is down[2]. The current data available is from March, which means we're likely to see data for April reporting even fewer hours worked - which means a continued decrease in take-home pay for many people still working - and even fewer jobs hiring.
The reality is that there is a lot of uncertainty right now. Many people still working are probably on the edge of their seat about their company's long-term prospects - sure they can make it for now, but how does a shutdown that could go on for many more months allow their workplace to continue to sustain itself? It's foolish to assume that the employment numbers we are seeing now have leveled off and won't continue to rise, especially if this continues through summer. More businesses will close or cut back on hours and more people will be out of work.
That thought process is likely playing out across the country in many homes, so I would expect more people to pocket the money and use it wisely than to sign up for new subscriptions that they don't need than you would think.
One time payment. If they were getting $2900 every month, it would be a different story entirely (probably a worse one). Most of that money is going to living expenses.
During recessions, people reel back in their spending, even if they are garbagemen or teachers who don't lose their jobs in recessions. This is shaping up to be the mother of all recessions, so you do the math.
