vox--2020-12-21--How Instagrammy cookware got so popular

How Instagrammy cookware got so popular

If you ’ ve spent any amount of time scrolling through Instagram lately , you ’ ve probably seen what many have dubbed the “ Instagram Pan.
” The pan , called the “ Always Pan ” and made by the cookware startup Our Place , has become notable because its ads are ubiquitous , following customers around on Instagram relentlessly , displaying noodles being cooked in a lavender-hued vessel .
This holiday season , the pan , which is available in an array of muted tones called spice , sage , blue salt , lavender , and steam , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guides curating home and kitchen products — and it sold out for some time after Black Friday .
Or perhaps you ’ ve seen the dinnerware startup East Fork ’ s distinctive colorful ceramic plates in your Instagram feed , appearing in the background of photos of elaborate work-from-home lunches created by your favorite food writers and chefs .
Or maybe you ’ ve seen electric blue sheet pans and deep green Dutch ovens from the startup Great Jones all over your feed , proudly standing out among the photos of tinier-than-usual Thanksgiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s been a wave of direct-to-consumer kitchenware startups trying to disrupt the cookware and dinnerware categories : Our Place , Great Jones , Caraway , Made In , Milo , Misen , Material Kitchen , East Fork .
They ’ re not exactly brand new — Great Jones launched in 2018 , East Fork has been around since 2015 ; Eater wrote about the rise of a new class of DTC cookware brands in 2018 .
But in 2020 , something new happened : The confluence of a pandemic that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurants , combined with many Americans having a newfound excess of free time to cook , nest , and decorate , has created a moment for these cookware brands to shine .
Why there are so many cookware startups now People have been buying cookware from brands like Calphalon , Cuisinart , Hamilton Beach , and All-Clad for decades ; they were typically sold through big-box retailers like Bed Bath & Beyond , Crate & Barrel , and Williams Sonoma .
So why are so many cookware startups suddenly launching in the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founders of a few of them , and each reported being dissatisfied with the options from big-box retailers — but for different reasons .
For Great Jones co-founder Sierra Tishgart , it was about being able to easily find high-quality products without having to go to multiple retailers and sift through dozens of options .
“ There was so much stuff to sift through , ” Tishgart said .
“ I just remember being like , Okay , I need a stockpot .
I ’ m going to a retailer ’ s website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some have copper cores , some are eight-ply and some are five-ply … it was so overwhelming.
” “ You had to go to one brand for cast iron , and another one for your nonstick , and another for stainless steel , and that was such a pain , ” she added .
Tishgart designed Great Jones to keep those various needs in mind , offering a range of materials with the goal of being a “ one-stop shop ” for cookware needs .
Our Place co-founder and CEO Shiza Shahid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products required for different purposes , and wanted to make the process easier .
Shahid told Vox that in starting Our Place , she wanted to challenge “ the industry norm of selling bulky , difficult to use , expensive cookware sets.
” Shahid said the multipurpose “ Always Pan ” was designed to replace eight other types of cookware : a frying pan , saute pan , steamer , skillet , saucier , saucepan , nonstick pan , spatula , and spoon rest .
Jordan Nathan , the founder of Caraway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nonstick pan on the stove too long and filling his apartment with fumes , he started to learn about the chemicals used in Teflon and nonstick cookware and wanted a safer alternative .
“ There was definitely a gap in the market to create a brand around safety and nontoxic materials , ” Nathan said in an interview .
For Asheville , North Carolina-based East Fork Pottery , kitchenware is a form of art .
The ceramics brand focuses on dinnerware : plates , bowls , mugs , and everything else you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was founded by potter Alex Matisse — the great-grandson of famed French modernist painter Henri Matisse — who , with his wife , Connie , wanted to make high-quality , artisanal ceramic pottery more accessible to a broader range of consumers .
The company has built a legion of devoted fans who anticipate launches of new colors , and their signature mugs have become so popular they ’ ve inspired their own Instagram hashtag ( # TheMug ) .
The most devoted shoppers have tried to collect them in every color .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans have been cooking a lot more because of the extra hours spent at home .
With restaurant shutdowns and social distancing restrictions , they ’ re dining out less — so they ’ re taking some of the budget they previously spent on restaurants and spending it on groceries and cookware instead .
Data from the food industry association FMI confirms that Americans shifted a sizable chunk of their food spending toward groceries and cookware instead of restaurants as a result of the pandemic .
In February , Americans spent 52 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores and supermarkets ; by April , that number was down to just 34 percent — approximately $ 23 billion in spending on restaurants and dining was redirected toward cooking at home within a matter of two months .
And cookware sales have been way up in 2020 : The Cookware Manufacturers Association reported that US cookware sales were up 36.2 percent in Q3 of 2020 versus 2019 , and that overall from January to September , cookware sales were up 20.7 percent in 2020 versus 2019 .
Julian Thomas , a 30-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox that although he spent the first few months of the pandemic relying on takeout , he eventually decided he had to start cooking more as the months wore on , so he bought Our Place ’ s “ Always Pan ” in September because of its multifunctionality and aesthetics .
“ I don ’ t have a lot of space in my NYC apartment , so I wanted to avoid a full 8-12 piece cooking set , ” Thomas , who describes himself as a “ sucker for aesthetics , ” told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that would match my laid-back bachelor style.
” He also reports that the pan helps him feel better about his “ non-existent cooking skills , ” saying , “ I have a fancy pan that makes my sub-par meals look at least somewhat attractive.
” Founders of some of the most popular cookware startups told Vox they had seen significant growth during the pandemic .
Caraway founder Jordan Nathan said that in the few months immediately after the pandemic hit the US in March , the company saw close to a 300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launched in late 2019 , so co-founder and CEO Shiza Shahid told Vox that “ we ’ re too young to be able to isolate the impact ( positive or negative ) of the pandemic in our data , ” but said that Our Place has seen growth every month since they launched , both before and after the pandemic .
Tishgart , the Great Jones founder , also reported that her company had hit record numbers this year , seeing particularly high sales in April and November .
“ At our peak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1000 % on an average sales day , ” Tishgart said via email .
Chip Malt , co-founder and CEO of Made In , told Vox via email that his company was seeing buyers who are “ much more engaged at home , particularly with cooking , ” calling home entertainment — including cooking — “ definitely a consumer interest area.
” Made In reports that its customers have also become more loyal — the repeat purchase rate is up by 20 to 30 percent since the pandemic began .
And East Fork @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 was their biggest sales month in company history , twice as big as the previous holiday season in November 2019 .
But when the pandemic forced them to shut down their factory for seven weeks in March and April , the company was forced to switch to a preorder model .
Now they periodically open up sales for preorders , close them when they sell the exact amount of product they felt they could make , and ship items to customers within six to eight weeks .
If anything , the preorder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s allure : Customers followed East Fork ’ s social media and newsletter updates breathlessly to see when the next preorder sale would begin .
A recent preorder sale lasted only 32 minutes before the company noted on Instagram that it had sold out yet again .
“ With everyone spending so much more time at home with their stuff , and a lot of people do still have money in the bank right now , home is where we ’ re spending it , ” Matisse said .
Why so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s impossible to talk about the proliferation of new cookware brands without talking about how many of them look like they belong on Instagram .
They offer their products in a range of bright colors and pastel shades previously never seen in the cookware category , and as a result , they have become ubiquitous on the platform .
They are not just functional — they also look beautiful on the stove or the dinner table .
Nathan says he found that the color options in traditional cookware were lacking ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of colors that aligned with the way modern consumers think about designing their homes today , and he wanted cookware to be something that fit into their overall home design aesthetic .
“ When you did want color in the kitchen category , you typically had to choose like a bright red or really desaturated baby blue and nothing that really you ’ d find in the rest of your home , ” Nathan says .
“ We ’ ve definitely taken an approach of offering colors that exist in the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aiming to create cookware that “ matches your personality.
” “ It matches what you ’ re looking to build your home around , ” he explains , taking a “ home decor lens to kitchenware.
” And color plays a huge role at East Fork , where the company treats new color launches with the same fanfare another company might reserve for new product launches .
They eventually retire some glaze colors , which further contributes to the exclusive , collector ’ s-item feel that East Fork has built around its color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially , the concept of color launches was an economic choice : “ Ultimately , why we leaned so heavily into this color launch thing was really basically out of necessity — because we make our own products , our marketing budget compared to our competitors ’ marketing budget is just pathetic , ” she said .
As a result , “ the colors have become a big differentiator ” for East Fork , and the enthusiasm about the color launches on social media helped them grow as a brand .
Great Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s view of kitchenware as art — Tishgart described how the company prioritized color and aesthetics because they see cookware as not just a purely functional item but something that ’ s meant to be put on display in one ’ s home , to be seen and admired , elevating cookware to the status of a piece of art .
“ To me , the aesthetics are about taking pride in it , ” Tishgart said .
“ If I keep something out on my stove and I ’ m proud of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m gon na use it more , and it ’ s gon na be a part of my life .
I think that design element was missing from the majority of brands.
” Our Place ’ s Shiza Shahid believes the same .
“ We made colors that brought us and our community joy , ” she said via email .
“ Because the Always Pan is so beautiful , people leave it out on their stovetop .
And that makes them more likely to cook a nourishing meal for themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color of your cookware truly spark joy and impact how you feel ?
“ The association between color and mood is less well established in the scientific literature than one might think , ” said Susana Martinez-Conde , a medical scientist and professor who studies neurology and perception , and author of the book Champions of Illusion .
“ There are some studies that do point to a certain universality of experience in terms of associating certain colors with warmth , and also connecting the brightness of colors with positivity — which one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colors can inspire people to cook more is yet to be determined !
” Other studies have also shown that colors can play a role in purchasing decisions .
A 2006 study on the impact of color in marketing from the University of Winnipeg found that consumers make snap judgments about products within 90 seconds of their initial interactions , and a large majority of these assessments seem to be based on colors alone .
Many marketers invest heavily in the concept of color psychology , strategizing on how to use colors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and products to influence consumers to make a purchase .
In the end , certain colors probably can spark joy for some people — seeing bright colors in their kitchen may make them feel happy or calm .
But the people who see the most benefit from the use of bright colors in cookware may be the companies themselves — because seeing a lavender pan or a pine-green cutting board on their Instagram feed may influence a shopper to purchase that item , regardless of what else they know about the product .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , home cooking has gone from novelty to drudgery If there is one thing that has defined the past eight months , a nearly universal experience many have shared , it ’ s the never-ending daily drudgery of having to feed ourselves .
In the Before Times , breakfast might have been on the go while commuting , coffee was grabbed at a coffee shop or at work , and lunch was from the salad joint near the office .
But now , many Americans have found themselves responsible for preparing three meals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task that never ends — and with it comes endless rounds of washing dishes and cleaning the kitchen , all so you can begin the cycle over again the next day .
Early on in the pandemic , many Americans tried to make quarantine cooking feel novel and exciting .
They baked bread and grew scallions and made shallot pasta and tried new and adventurous recipes to pass the hours spent at home .
Eight months later , however , Americans who aren ’ t used to all this cooking are growing tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge in sales of prepared food items as consumers lose patience with preparing three meals a day from scratch .
Tejal Rao wrote in the New York Times about feeling home cooking burnout : “ People all over the country are exhausted by the losses of the pandemic , police violence and continuing protests against it , and the tensions of the election , ” Rao wrote .
“ Even nerdy cooks who found pleasure in freezing sheets of pie dough a week ahead of time ( yes , that ’ s me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holiday overwhelming.
” In the New Yorker , Helen Rosner wrote that the obligation of needing to cook every day had sucked all the joy out of the act : “ I ’ ve made hundreds of dishes for hundreds of meals .
And I am so bored .
I am so tired .
In theory , I love to cook .
But I am so , so sick of cooking.
” It ’ s easy , and common , to make fun of Instagram-friendly , colorful cookware — peruse the Twitter search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you ’ ll see lots of Twitter users mocking it for its Instagram aesthetic , or others guiltily admitting that they just caved in and bought it .
The unspoken assumption seems to be that purchasing decisions should be based purely on the quality and functionality of a product , not on aesthetics or whether it will make good content for your Instagram account .
Self-deprecating tweets admitting to purchasing an “ Instagram pan ” are a product of a culture where it ’ s seen as uncool to care or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ basic , ” even if you enjoy it .
Many of these startup founders would argue that quality and aesthetics don ’ t have to be mutually exclusive — a pan doesn ’ t have to be black , or be ugly , in order to work well .
Cookware can be both functional and beautiful ; it can cook well and be an item that people are proud to display in their homes .
An electric blue sheet pan or deep red plates won ’ t solve all your cooking burnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring a little more joy into what can otherwise be a tedious daily chore .
“ We live in small apartments , and you want your kitchenware to look good on your stove because that ’ s often the only place you can store it , ” Tishgart said .
“ And yes , there ’ s a superficial element to that ; you like how it looks and maybe want to post it to Instagram , but that ’ s actually going to encourage you to cook more , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people so strongly and been a part of the Great Jones story — the use of color and the joy there.
” But what ’ s really wrong with Instagramming your cooking and featuring your seafoam green Dutch oven ?
Instagram used to be a place where we curated only the most glamorous moments of our lives , like parties , vacations , and dining out at restaurants .
But none of those activities are possible in the current pandemic reality , and our worlds have shrunk dramatically .
Many Americans are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and endless cycles of cooking , cleaning , and commuting from the bed to the desk to the couch are not quite glamorous enough for documenting on Instagram .
So maybe changing things up in the kitchen with some colorful new cookware — and , yes , Instagramming it — can bring a little joy into the monotony of our daily pandemic routines .

If you’ve spent any amount of time scrolling through Instagram lately, you’ve probably seen what many have dubbed the “Instagram Pan.” The pan, called the “Always Pan” and made by the cookware startup Our Place, has become notable because its ads are ubiquitous, following customers around on Instagram relentlessly, displaying noodles being cooked in a lavender-hued vessel. This holiday season, the pan, which is available in an array of muted tones called spice, sage, blue salt, lavender, and steam, has popped up on dozens of gift guides curating home and kitchen products — and it sold out for some time after Black Friday.
Or perhaps you’ve seen the dinnerware startup East Fork’s distinctive colorful ceramic plates in your Instagram feed, appearing in the background of photos of elaborate work-from-home lunches created by your favorite food writers and chefs. Or maybe you’ve seen electric blue sheet pans and deep green Dutch ovens from the startup Great Jones all over your feed, proudly standing out among the photos of tinier-than-usual Thanksgiving tablescapes.
In the past few years, there’s been a wave of direct-to-consumer kitchenware startups trying to disrupt the cookware and dinnerware categories: Our Place, Great Jones, Caraway, Made In, Milo, Misen, Material Kitchen, East Fork. They’re not exactly brand new — Great Jones launched in 2018, East Fork has been around since 2015; Eater wrote about the rise of a new class of DTC cookware brands in 2018. But in 2020, something new happened: The confluence of a pandemic that drove everyone indoors and shut down many restaurants, combined with many Americans having a newfound excess of free time to cook, nest, and decorate, has created a moment for these cookware brands to shine.
Why there are so many cookware startups now
People have been buying cookware from brands like Calphalon, Cuisinart, Hamilton Beach, and All-Clad for decades; they were typically sold through big-box retailers like Bed Bath & Beyond, Crate & Barrel, and Williams Sonoma.
So why are so many cookware startups suddenly launching in the last few years? I talked to the founders of a few of them, and each reported being dissatisfied with the options from big-box retailers — but for different reasons.
For Great Jones co-founder Sierra Tishgart, it was about being able to easily find high-quality products without having to go to multiple retailers and sift through dozens of options. “There was so much stuff to sift through,” Tishgart said. “I just remember being like, Okay, I need a stockpot. I’m going to a retailer’s website and scrolling through 20 pages of stockpots. Some have copper cores, some are eight-ply and some are five-ply … it was so overwhelming.”
“You had to go to one brand for cast iron, and another one for your nonstick, and another for stainless steel, and that was such a pain,” she added. Tishgart designed Great Jones to keep those various needs in mind, offering a range of materials with the goal of being a “one-stop shop” for cookware needs.
Our Place co-founder and CEO Shiza Shahid also felt there were too many cookware products required for different purposes, and wanted to make the process easier. Shahid told Vox that in starting Our Place, she wanted to challenge “the industry norm of selling bulky, difficult to use, expensive cookware sets.” Shahid said the multipurpose “Always Pan” was designed to replace eight other types of cookware: a frying pan, saute pan, steamer, skillet, saucier, saucepan, nonstick pan, spatula, and spoon rest.
Jordan Nathan, the founder of Caraway, had a different mission: After leaving a nonstick pan on the stove too long and filling his apartment with fumes, he started to learn about the chemicals used in Teflon and nonstick cookware and wanted a safer alternative. “There was definitely a gap in the market to create a brand around safety and nontoxic materials,” Nathan said in an interview.
For Asheville, North Carolina-based East Fork Pottery, kitchenware is a form of art. The ceramics brand focuses on dinnerware: plates, bowls, mugs, and everything else you need for your tabletop. The company was founded by potter Alex Matisse — the great-grandson of famed French modernist painter Henri Matisse — who, with his wife, Connie, wanted to make high-quality, artisanal ceramic pottery more accessible to a broader range of consumers. The company has built a legion of devoted fans who anticipate launches of new colors, and their signature mugs have become so popular they’ve inspired their own Instagram hashtag (#TheMug). The most devoted shoppers have tried to collect them in every color.
Cookware startups are reporting a pandemic-driven rise in sales
Since the beginning of the pandemic, many Americans have been cooking a lot more because of the extra hours spent at home. With restaurant shutdowns and social distancing restrictions, they’re dining out less — so they’re taking some of the budget they previously spent on restaurants and spending it on groceries and cookware instead.
Data from the food industry association FMI confirms that Americans shifted a sizable chunk of their food spending toward groceries and cookware instead of restaurants as a result of the pandemic. In February, Americans spent 52 percent of their food budget outside of grocery stores and supermarkets; by April, that number was down to just 34 percent — approximately $23 billion in spending on restaurants and dining was redirected toward cooking at home within a matter of two months.
And cookware sales have been way up in 2020: The Cookware Manufacturers Association reported that US cookware sales were up 36.2 percent in Q3 of 2020 versus 2019, and that overall from January to September, cookware sales were up 20.7 percent in 2020 versus 2019.
Julian Thomas, a 30-year-old communications consultant in New York, told Vox that although he spent the first few months of the pandemic relying on takeout, he eventually decided he had to start cooking more as the months wore on, so he bought Our Place’s “Always Pan” in September because of its multifunctionality and aesthetics.
“I don’t have a lot of space in my NYC apartment, so I wanted to avoid a full 8-12 piece cooking set,” Thomas, who describes himself as a “sucker for aesthetics,” told Vox by email. “I wanted something that would match my laid-back bachelor style.” He also reports that the pan helps him feel better about his “non-existent cooking skills,” saying, “I have a fancy pan that makes my sub-par meals look at least somewhat attractive.”
Well I caved and bought the Instagram pan
Don’t @ me in this vulnerable time pic.twitter.com/3ERbDDdffl — Ana Ley (@La__Ley) November 18, 2020
Founders of some of the most popular cookware startups told Vox they had seen significant growth during the pandemic. Caraway founder Jordan Nathan said that in the few months immediately after the pandemic hit the US in March, the company saw close to a 300 percent increase in sales.
Our Place launched in late 2019, so co-founder and CEO Shiza Shahid told Vox that “we’re too young to be able to isolate the impact (positive or negative) of the pandemic in our data,” but said that Our Place has seen growth every month since they launched, both before and after the pandemic.
Tishgart, the Great Jones founder, also reported that her company had hit record numbers this year, seeing particularly high sales in April and November. “At our peak, we’ve been up over 1000% on an average sales day,” Tishgart said via email.
Chip Malt, co-founder and CEO of Made In, told Vox via email that his company was seeing buyers who are “much more engaged at home, particularly with cooking,” calling home entertainment — including cooking — “definitely a consumer interest area.” Made In reports that its customers have also become more loyal — the repeat purchase rate is up by 20 to 30 percent since the pandemic began.
And East Fork CMO Connie Matisse told Vox that March 2020 was their biggest sales month in company history, twice as big as the previous holiday season in November 2019. But when the pandemic forced them to shut down their factory for seven weeks in March and April, the company was forced to switch to a preorder model.
Now they periodically open up sales for preorders, close them when they sell the exact amount of product they felt they could make, and ship items to customers within six to eight weeks. If anything, the preorder model may have added to the company’s allure: Customers followed East Fork’s social media and newsletter updates breathlessly to see when the next preorder sale would begin. A recent preorder sale lasted only 32 minutes before the company noted on Instagram that it had sold out yet again.
“With everyone spending so much more time at home with their stuff, and a lot of people do still have money in the bank right now, home is where we’re spending it,” Matisse said.
Why so many of these cookware brands are so colorful
It’s impossible to talk about the proliferation of new cookware brands without talking about how many of them look like they belong on Instagram. They offer their products in a range of bright colors and pastel shades previously never seen in the cookware category, and as a result, they have become ubiquitous on the platform. They are not just functional — they also look beautiful on the stove or the dinner table.
Nathan says he found that the color options in traditional cookware were lacking; he wanted to offer a broader range of colors that aligned with the way modern consumers think about designing their homes today, and he wanted cookware to be something that fit into their overall home design aesthetic. “When you did want color in the kitchen category, you typically had to choose like a bright red or really desaturated baby blue and nothing that really you’d find in the rest of your home,” Nathan says.
“We’ve definitely taken an approach of offering colors that exist in the rest of your home,” Nathan says, aiming to create cookware that “matches your personality.” “It matches what you’re looking to build your home around,” he explains, taking a “home decor lens to kitchenware.”
And color plays a huge role at East Fork, where the company treats new color launches with the same fanfare another company might reserve for new product launches. They eventually retire some glaze colors, which further contributes to the exclusive, collector’s-item feel that East Fork has built around its color launches.
Connie Matisse told Vox that initially, the concept of color launches was an economic choice: “Ultimately, why we leaned so heavily into this color launch thing was really basically out of necessity — because we make our own products, our marketing budget compared to our competitors’ marketing budget is just pathetic,” she said. As a result, “the colors have become a big differentiator” for East Fork, and the enthusiasm about the color launches on social media helped them grow as a brand.
Great Jones also shares some of East Fork’s view of kitchenware as art — Tishgart described how the company prioritized color and aesthetics because they see cookware as not just a purely functional item but something that’s meant to be put on display in one’s home, to be seen and admired, elevating cookware to the status of a piece of art. “To me, the aesthetics are about taking pride in it,” Tishgart said. “If I keep something out on my stove and I’m proud of how it feels in my home, I’m gonna use it more, and it’s gonna be a part of my life. I think that design element was missing from the majority of brands.”
Our Place’s Shiza Shahid believes the same. “We made colors that brought us and our community joy,” she said via email. “Because the Always Pan is so beautiful, people leave it out on their stovetop. And that makes them more likely to cook a nourishing meal for themselves and those they love.”
Can the color of your cookware truly spark joy and impact how you feel? “The association between color and mood is less well established in the scientific literature than one might think,” said Susana Martinez-Conde, a medical scientist and professor who studies neurology and perception, and author of the book Champions of Illusion. “There are some studies that do point to a certain universality of experience in terms of associating certain colors with warmth, and also connecting the brightness of colors with positivity — which one could relate to joy. Whether some colors can inspire people to cook more is yet to be determined!”
Other studies have also shown that colors can play a role in purchasing decisions. A 2006 study on the impact of color in marketing from the University of Winnipeg found that consumers make snap judgments about products within 90 seconds of their initial interactions, and a large majority of these assessments seem to be based on colors alone. Many marketers invest heavily in the concept of color psychology, strategizing on how to use colors in logos, marketing materials, ads, and products to influence consumers to make a purchase.
In the end, certain colors probably can spark joy for some people — seeing bright colors in their kitchen may make them feel happy or calm. But the people who see the most benefit from the use of bright colors in cookware may be the companies themselves — because seeing a lavender pan or a pine-green cutting board on their Instagram feed may influence a shopper to purchase that item, regardless of what else they know about the product.
In nine months of life at home, home cooking has gone from novelty to drudgery
If there is one thing that has defined the past eight months, a nearly universal experience many have shared, it’s the never-ending daily drudgery of having to feed ourselves. In the Before Times, breakfast might have been on the go while commuting, coffee was grabbed at a coffee shop or at work, and lunch was from the salad joint near the office. But now, many Americans have found themselves responsible for preparing three meals a day at home, a repetitive task that never ends — and with it comes endless rounds of washing dishes and cleaning the kitchen, all so you can begin the cycle over again the next day.
Early on in the pandemic, many Americans tried to make quarantine cooking feel novel and exciting. They baked bread and grew scallions and made shallot pasta and tried new and adventurous recipes to pass the hours spent at home.
Eight months later, however, Americans who aren’t used to all this cooking are growing tired of it. Tyson Foods reported a surge in sales of prepared food items as consumers lose patience with preparing three meals a day from scratch. Tejal Rao wrote in the New York Times about feeling home cooking burnout: “People all over the country are exhausted by the losses of the pandemic, police violence and continuing protests against it, and the tensions of the election,” Rao wrote. “Even nerdy cooks who found pleasure in freezing sheets of pie dough a week ahead of time (yes, that’s me) might find the approach of the holiday overwhelming.”
In the New Yorker, Helen Rosner wrote that the obligation of needing to cook every day had sucked all the joy out of the act: “I’ve made hundreds of dishes for hundreds of meals. And I am so bored. I am so tired. In theory, I love to cook. But I am so, so sick of cooking.”
We’ve hit the point of the pandemic where I finally caved and ordered the Instagram pan. — Lauren Alexis Fisher (@LaurenAlexis) November 18, 2020
It’s easy, and common, to make fun of Instagram-friendly, colorful cookware — peruse the Twitter search results for the “Instagram Pan” and you’ll see lots of Twitter users mocking it for its Instagram aesthetic, or others guiltily admitting that they just caved in and bought it.
The unspoken assumption seems to be that purchasing decisions should be based purely on the quality and functionality of a product, not on aesthetics or whether it will make good content for your Instagram account. Self-deprecating tweets admitting to purchasing an “Instagram pan” are a product of a culture where it’s seen as uncool to care or to purchase something that’s viewed as “basic,” even if you enjoy it.
Many of these startup founders would argue that quality and aesthetics don’t have to be mutually exclusive — a pan doesn’t have to be black, or be ugly, in order to work well. Cookware can be both functional and beautiful; it can cook well and be an item that people are proud to display in their homes. An electric blue sheet pan or deep red plates won’t solve all your cooking burnout woes, but they might be able to bring a little more joy into what can otherwise be a tedious daily chore.
“We live in small apartments, and you want your kitchenware to look good on your stove because that’s often the only place you can store it,” Tishgart said. “And yes, there’s a superficial element to that; you like how it looks and maybe want to post it to Instagram, but that’s actually going to encourage you to cook more,” she added. “That has resonated with people so strongly and been a part of the Great Jones story — the use of color and the joy there.”
But what’s really wrong with Instagramming your cooking and featuring your seafoam green Dutch oven? Instagram used to be a place where we curated only the most glamorous moments of our lives, like parties, vacations, and dining out at restaurants. But none of those activities are possible in the current pandemic reality, and our worlds have shrunk dramatically.
Many Americans are now spending more time than ever at home, and endless cycles of cooking, cleaning, and commuting from the bed to the desk to the couch are not quite glamorous enough for documenting on Instagram. So maybe changing things up in the kitchen with some colorful new cookware — and, yes, Instagramming it — can bring a little joy into the monotony of our daily pandemic routines.


vox--2020-12-21--Why America can’t rely solely on individuals to stop Covid-19

Americans have spent much of the Covid-19 pandemic blaming one another for the coronavirus ’ s spread .
Don ’ t go to that beach or park .
Don ’ t go to that bar or restaurant .
Don ’ t do anything for Thanksgiving or Christmas .
Wear a mask !
You don ’ t want to kill Grandma , do you ?
Public officials have joined in .
Increasingly , they are blaming private gatherings , not the restaurants and bars they insist on keeping open , for the spread of the disease .
In some places , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevention as an individual responsibility became the core of the strategy to fight Covid-19 .
As cases and deaths climbed to among the highest rates in the world , South Dakota ’ s leaders preached “ personal responsibility ” and refused to require masks , much less stricter measures .
Ian Fury , a spokesperson for Gov .
Kristi Noem ( R ) , told me his boss gave citizens “ up-to-date science , facts , and data , and then trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals have an important role in fighting Covid-19 .
Everyone should wear a mask , and , unfortunately , everyone should reconsider big family gatherings this holiday season .
But relying on individual action to fight a deadly virus — an approach that the US has leveraged for problems ranging from the opioid crisis to global warming — simply hasn ’ t worked .
Today , America is among the worst performers at fighting Covid-19 .
Despite recent surges in Europe and Israel , the US remains within the top 20 percent for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations , with more than twice the death rate as the median developed country .
If the US managed the same Covid-19 death rate as Canada , more than 190,000 Americans would likely be alive today .
There are many reasons for that , not least President Donald Trump ’ s awful leadership .
But part of it , experts say , is America ’ s inability to address structural problems , instead relying on demanding more from individuals .
Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the “ independent spirit in the United States of people not wanting to comply with public health measures has certainly hurt us a bit.
” That was clear in much of the public ’ s response to lockdowns starting in the spring .
With “ Don ’ t Tread on Me ” flags hoisted in the background , protesters often took to statehouses to demand the end of government-mandated closures .
At the demonstrations , attendees claimed they could take care of themselves and didn ’ t need the government to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also been apparent in the government responses .
The emphasis on individualism helps explain why Trump and his conservative allies , like Noem , have resisted more government mandates on masks and stay-at-home orders in lieu of letting people deal with the virus for themselves .
But it ’ s not just Trump and friends .
Every state in the country , Democratic or Republican , has at some point reopened restaurants or bars , allowing people to congregate in indoor areas that experts widely agree are breeding grounds for Covid-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ local and state officials have argued that it ’ s on people to wear masks , cancel private gatherings for the holidays , and avoid nonessential activities — while leaving room for people to not follow at least some of those guidelines .
Every state in the country has also , subsequently , seen surges in the coronavirus this fall .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo exemplified the failure of this approach .
In the lead-up to Thanksgiving , he said , “ My personal advice is you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Days later , it came out that Cuomo was planning to host a family gathering with his 89-year-old mother and two of his three adult daughters .
He only canceled after a public backlash .
Even Cuomo wasn ’ t planning on following his own advice .
( Cuomo ’ s office argued his comments were misinterpreted . )
Meanwhile , much less attention has gone to addressing Covid-19 from a truly structural perspective .
The coronavirus has revealed America ’ s pathetic public health infrastructure — there ’ s still no national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an adequate contact tracing program , if they have such a program at all .
Businesses and workers have been left to fend for themselves , as Congress failed to pass an economic relief bill before the last one started to expire .
For all the talk about outdoor activities being safer during the coronavirus pandemic , there ’ s been next to no action in most of the country on getting people outside — at times , governments have even eliminated outdoor venues by closing parks or beaches .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kates , director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
“ Systemic challenges in the United States — that predate the pandemic but have gotten worse [ during the pandemic ] — lead to the situation we ’ re in.
” It ’ s easy to yell at people over their Covid-19 failures — simply log on to Twitter and blast away .
It ’ s costless for a governor to tell people that it ’ s on them to stop the spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love , especially if the same governor doesn ’ t even plan on following his own advice .
So rather than do anything about it , Americans are stuck blaming each other for Covid-19 .
But until we truly realize this is a collective failure , not an individual one , the problems will linger .
Structural problems are really to blame here Since the start of America ’ s epidemic , experts have warned that indoor dining and bars are among the worst places for the spread of Covid-19 : People are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus spreads more easily sit close for possibly hours , can ’ t wear masks as they eat or drink , and spew germs at each other as they shout , sing , and laugh .
So many experts have called on governments to close bars and restaurants .
Acknowledging the economic toll of this , economists and public health experts have also asked for a bailout of the industry to make employers and their workers whole until the pandemic resides .
None of that happened .
Instead , America started to reopen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the US ’ s best point in the spring and summer , it still had more than 60 times the daily new cases of Australia , New Zealand , and South Korea — with bars and restaurants reopening in every state by the fall .
Public officials acknowledged the risks but merely moved to limit capacity and called on everyone to be responsible by physical distancing , wearing a mask , and limiting contact with people from other households .
This has not gone well .
Coronavirus cases have shot up across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US in the middle of its third and biggest surge of Covid-19 yet .
At the same time , we ’ ve gotten more data showing how dangerous bars and restaurants can be for the spread of Covid-19 : A study published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science found that a person in South Korea may have been infected with Covid-19 in a restaurant in as little as five minutes .
Another study in Nature found , “ Reopening full-service restaurants was associated with a particularly high risk.
” Despite that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large resisted shutting down again .
Many of them , instead , have cited another culprit for Covid-19 spread : private gatherings .
New York , for example , put out a PSA to stop “ living room spread , ” and the state published data suggesting households and private gatherings are driving 74 percent of coronavirus spread .
It ’ s true private gatherings and households are driving some transmission .
Most experts agree Thanksgiving dinners likely led to a surge on top of a surge , and similar Christmas and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s why at least some experts believe there ’ s a need for more focus on systemic action , not the individualistic approach .
“ People , in general , are horrendous risk assessors — we ’ re awful at assessing risk , ” Daniel Goldberg , a medical historian and public health ethicist at the University of Colorado , told me .
“ I hate to say people can ’ t be trusted , but.
” There are other problems with this framing .
For one , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within-household transmissions from social gatherings — so the 74 percent figure includes someone spreading Covid-19 to the husband he lives with ( not as avoidable ) and someone spreading the virus to someone he invited over for drinks one night ( very avoidable ) .
This also only includes the cases that New York could actually contact trace , and it ’ s much easier to trace transmission between family and friends in a household than strangers in a bar .
The big problem , though , is that there ’ s nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live together .
It ’ s typical for the bulk , even the majority , of the transmission of any disease to happen within households .
If you ’ re infected , the people you live with or come into close contact with at home are simply likely to get it too .
That ’ s how pathogens work .
What matters most , though , is where that virus originated from in the first place .
To put it another way : People couldn ’ t infect others in their homes if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus in bars , restaurants , or other public spaces .
So if these places weren ’ t open , individual choices to gather — including over Thanksgiving and Christmas — would be of far less concern .
There would simply be much less virus out there jumping from person to person .
So it largely comes down to the lack of systemic action , not solely the individual choice .
It ’ s not just bars and restaurants .
If officials want people to wear masks , they can mandate masks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want more adults to stay home , they can replace any income individuals might lose by not going into work , or take steps to make work-from-home life more bearable , like deeming schools “ essential ” or subsidizing day care .
If they want people to stay outdoors and not indoors , they can do things that can encourage people to go outside instead of congregating inside — like offering free outdoor activities like ice skating or art installations , or even just places to eat ( with some heating during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parks .
If they want to address racial disparities for Covid-19 , they need to address systemic racial disparities across society and health care .
Otherwise , we ’ re going to be stuck with relying on people to make decisions — almost always against their own social , cultural , and economic interests — to do the right thing .
So far , that just isn ’ t working .
Public leaders and government officials face their own structural forces too .
Brown University School of Public Health dean Ashish Jha told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor .
Jha argued that risky indoor spaces like bars and restaurants should be closed , or hospitals will soon overflow .
The governor responded that such closures would require money to support affected businesses and their employees , and the state simply doesn ’ t have that money .
The governor added , “ Maybe I should spend a little bit of money and try to campaign for people to be more careful ” — a pivot to an individualistic approach .
“ I came to appreciate that , ultimately , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Jha said .
He later added , “ The right answer is not we need better governors — the right answer is we need a different structure and a better federal government.
” Structural issues are , almost by definition , much harder to fix than simply asking people to do the right thing .
It ’ s easy and cheap to yell at people for getting together for Christmas — especially when they really shouldn ’ t be doing it .
Closing down bars and supporting them economically , in turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In some cases , governments legitimately can ’ t do what they would prefer .
Local and state officials , unlike the federal government , can ’ t print money and usually have to balance their budgets .
Given that reality , a governor might decide that she has to keep bars open simply because she can ’ t bail them out — the economic cost is so high , and , who knows , maybe the state might get lucky and avoid an outbreak anyway .
States , counties , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government ’ s inaction .
There ’ s a cultural component , too .
Americans pride themselves on their individualistic and libertarian qualities — what Fauci described as an “ independent spirit in the United States.
” That creates an innate resistance , among the public and its leaders , to look at problems in a collective over an individual manner .
So with Covid-19 , we yell at people for not distancing or wearing masks in bars , but not as much at public officials for allowing that bar to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Covid-19 has shown us , is this individualistic approach doesn ’ t work well for public health ( even if it does serve us well in other areas ) .
The alternative to not taking collective action is more death .
The countries that have done the best against Covid-19 — including Australia , New Zealand , South Korea , and , to a now lesser degree , Germany — all approached the issue collectively , leveraging government aid and public health systems to let people stay home without losing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test and trace infections , and , when necessary , to close down to stop the spread .
In fact , America ’ s best — and perhaps only — success against Covid-19 so far came about with the power of collective action .
The vaccines that are now being shot into the arms of health care workers and people in nursing homes came about with the strong support of various governments , which funded research or , at the very least , paid for tens of millions of doses before the vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this came about by acknowledging the structural risks involved in developing a vaccine , particularly that drug companies might be reluctant to gamble on the medications if they may not pan out , and mitigated those risks .
The problem runs deeper than what America did and can do about Covid-19 alone .
One advantage that other countries had as the pandemic began is stronger social safety nets , which guaranteed people would retain some income and health care even if a lockdown was needed .
The US has no such guarantees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notoriously underfunded ( hence Congress needing to boost unemployment insurance in its economic relief bills ) , and far from universal .
So while British and German workers could rely on some significant government support even if they lost their jobs , Americans could claim no such certainty .
We see that today .
Even as Congress nears a deal on economic relief , the truth is it ’ s already too late for many Americans .
With much of the previous stimulus measure expiring , people who lost their jobs have languished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And even if the new deal passes Congress ( which is still uncertain ) , there will likely be a lag in actually rolling out those benefits to the people who need them , leading to more prolonged suffering .
It could have been avoided if these kinds of benefits were permanent , or kicked in automatically if the economy begins to weaken , as government programs in other developed countries do .
That ’ s just one example .
From building up the social safety net to actually funding public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more responsive , there ’ s a lot of work America could do to make sure it ’ s better equipped to handle crises as they come up .
That won ’ t completely end the need for leadership in troubled times — European countries with large social safety nets have still passed additional economic relief measures — but it would put the US in a much better place .
It won ’ t be easy .
It means committing to a more hands-on governing structure , costing us more in dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rethink how they view the role of government .
But if Covid-19 has taught us anything , those changes are worth the cost .
It begins with taking a structural , rather than individualistic , view of the problems facing the US today .

Americans have spent much of the Covid-19 pandemic blaming one another for the coronavirus’s spread.
Don’t go to that beach or park. Don’t go to that bar or restaurant. Don’t do anything for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Wear a mask! You don’t want to kill Grandma, do you?
Public officials have joined in. Increasingly, they are blaming private gatherings, not the restaurants and bars they insist on keeping open, for the spread of the disease. In some places, such as the Dakotas, framing Covid-19 prevention as an individual responsibility became the core of the strategy to fight Covid-19. As cases and deaths climbed to among the highest rates in the world, South Dakota’s leaders preached “personal responsibility” and refused to require masks, much less stricter measures. Ian Fury, a spokesperson for Gov. Kristi Noem (R), told me his boss gave citizens “up-to-date science, facts, and data, and then trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones.”
It’s true that individuals have an important role in fighting Covid-19. Everyone should wear a mask, and, unfortunately, everyone should reconsider big family gatherings this holiday season. But relying on individual action to fight a deadly virus — an approach that the US has leveraged for problems ranging from the opioid crisis to global warming — simply hasn’t worked.
Today, America is among the worst performers at fighting Covid-19. Despite recent surges in Europe and Israel, the US remains within the top 20 percent for most coronavirus deaths per person among developed nations, with more than twice the death rate as the median developed country. If the US managed the same Covid-19 death rate as Canada, more than 190,000 Americans would likely be alive today.
There are many reasons for that, not least President Donald Trump’s awful leadership. But part of it, experts say, is America’s inability to address structural problems, instead relying on demanding more from individuals. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, highlighted this problem when he remarked that the “independent spirit in the United States of people not wanting to comply with public health measures has certainly hurt us a bit.”
That was clear in much of the public’s response to lockdowns starting in the spring. With “Don’t Tread on Me” flags hoisted in the background, protesters often took to statehouses to demand the end of government-mandated closures. At the demonstrations, attendees claimed they could take care of themselves and didn’t need the government to tell them what to do.
It’s also been apparent in the government responses. The emphasis on individualism helps explain why Trump and his conservative allies, like Noem, have resisted more government mandates on masks and stay-at-home orders in lieu of letting people deal with the virus for themselves.
But it’s not just Trump and friends. Every state in the country, Democratic or Republican, has at some point reopened restaurants or bars, allowing people to congregate in indoor areas that experts widely agree are breeding grounds for Covid-19. While resisting shutting down such places, local and state officials have argued that it’s on people to wear masks, cancel private gatherings for the holidays, and avoid nonessential activities — while leaving room for people to not follow at least some of those guidelines. Every state in the country has also, subsequently, seen surges in the coronavirus this fall.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo exemplified the failure of this approach. In the lead-up to Thanksgiving, he said, “My personal advice is you don’t have family gatherings — even for Thanksgiving.” Days later, it came out that Cuomo was planning to host a family gathering with his 89-year-old mother and two of his three adult daughters. He only canceled after a public backlash. Even Cuomo wasn’t planning on following his own advice. (Cuomo’s office argued his comments were misinterpreted.)
Meanwhile, much less attention has gone to addressing Covid-19 from a truly structural perspective. The coronavirus has revealed America’s pathetic public health infrastructure — there’s still no national testing-and-tracing program, and no state has an adequate contact tracing program, if they have such a program at all. Businesses and workers have been left to fend for themselves, as Congress failed to pass an economic relief bill before the last one started to expire. For all the talk about outdoor activities being safer during the coronavirus pandemic, there’s been next to no action in most of the country on getting people outside — at times, governments have even eliminated outdoor venues by closing parks or beaches.
“It’s a structural issue,” Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “Systemic challenges in the United States — that predate the pandemic but have gotten worse [during the pandemic] — lead to the situation we’re in.”
It’s easy to yell at people over their Covid-19 failures — simply log on to Twitter and blast away. It’s costless for a governor to tell people that it’s on them to stop the spread of the coronavirus by voluntarily giving up things they love, especially if the same governor doesn’t even plan on following his own advice.
So rather than do anything about it, Americans are stuck blaming each other for Covid-19. But until we truly realize this is a collective failure, not an individual one, the problems will linger.
Structural problems are really to blame here
Since the start of America’s epidemic, experts have warned that indoor dining and bars are among the worst places for the spread of Covid-19: People are in poorly ventilated indoor areas where the virus spreads more easily sit close for possibly hours, can’t wear masks as they eat or drink, and spew germs at each other as they shout, sing, and laugh.
So many experts have called on governments to close bars and restaurants. Acknowledging the economic toll of this, economists and public health experts have also asked for a bailout of the industry to make employers and their workers whole until the pandemic resides.
None of that happened. Instead, America started to reopen before Covid-19 cases were under control — at the US’s best point in the spring and summer, it still had more than 60 times the daily new cases of Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea — with bars and restaurants reopening in every state by the fall. Public officials acknowledged the risks but merely moved to limit capacity and called on everyone to be responsible by physical distancing, wearing a mask, and limiting contact with people from other households.
This has not gone well. Coronavirus cases have shot up across much of the country, with the US in the middle of its third and biggest surge of Covid-19 yet. At the same time, we’ve gotten more data showing how dangerous bars and restaurants can be for the spread of Covid-19: A study published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science found that a person in South Korea may have been infected with Covid-19 in a restaurant in as little as five minutes. Another study in Nature found, “Reopening full-service restaurants was associated with a particularly high risk.”
Despite that, officials across the country have by and large resisted shutting down again. Many of them, instead, have cited another culprit for Covid-19 spread: private gatherings. New York, for example, put out a PSA to stop “living room spread,” and the state published data suggesting households and private gatherings are driving 74 percent of coronavirus spread.
It’s true private gatherings and households are driving some transmission. Most experts agree Thanksgiving dinners likely led to a surge on top of a surge, and similar Christmas and New Year’s events likely will too.
But that’s why at least some experts believe there’s a need for more focus on systemic action, not the individualistic approach. “People, in general, are horrendous risk assessors — we’re awful at assessing risk,” Daniel Goldberg, a medical historian and public health ethicist at the University of Colorado, told me. “I hate to say people can’t be trusted, but.”
There are other problems with this framing. For one, the New York data doesn’t separate within-household transmissions from social gatherings — so the 74 percent figure includes someone spreading Covid-19 to the husband he lives with (not as avoidable) and someone spreading the virus to someone he invited over for drinks one night (very avoidable). This also only includes the cases that New York could actually contact trace, and it’s much easier to trace transmission between family and friends in a household than strangers in a bar.
The big problem, though, is that there’s nothing unusual about Covid-19 spreading among people who live together. It’s typical for the bulk, even the majority, of the transmission of any disease to happen within households. If you’re infected, the people you live with or come into close contact with at home are simply likely to get it too. That’s how pathogens work. What matters most, though, is where that virus originated from in the first place.
To put it another way: People couldn’t infect others in their homes if they hadn’t picked up the coronavirus in bars, restaurants, or other public spaces. So if these places weren’t open, individual choices to gather — including over Thanksgiving and Christmas — would be of far less concern. There would simply be much less virus out there jumping from person to person.
So it largely comes down to the lack of systemic action, not solely the individual choice.
It’s not just bars and restaurants. If officials want people to wear masks, they can mandate masks and actually enforce those mandates. If they want more adults to stay home, they can replace any income individuals might lose by not going into work, or take steps to make work-from-home life more bearable, like deeming schools “essential” or subsidizing day care. If they want people to stay outdoors and not indoors, they can do things that can encourage people to go outside instead of congregating inside — like offering free outdoor activities like ice skating or art installations, or even just places to eat (with some heating during the winter) — rather than shutting down parks. If they want to address racial disparities for Covid-19, they need to address systemic racial disparities across society and health care.
Otherwise, we’re going to be stuck with relying on people to make decisions — almost always against their own social, cultural, and economic interests — to do the right thing. So far, that just isn’t working.
It’s easier to blame individuals than fix big problems
Public leaders and government officials face their own structural forces too.
Brown University School of Public Health dean Ashish Jha told me of a recent conversation with a governor. Jha argued that risky indoor spaces like bars and restaurants should be closed, or hospitals will soon overflow. The governor responded that such closures would require money to support affected businesses and their employees, and the state simply doesn’t have that money. The governor added, “Maybe I should spend a little bit of money and try to campaign for people to be more careful” — a pivot to an individualistic approach.
“I came to appreciate that, ultimately, the problem wasn’t this governor,” Jha said. He later added, “The right answer is not we need better governors — the right answer is we need a different structure and a better federal government.”
Structural issues are, almost by definition, much harder to fix than simply asking people to do the right thing. It’s easy and cheap to yell at people for getting together for Christmas — especially when they really shouldn’t be doing it. Closing down bars and supporting them economically, in turn, requires both political and financial capital.
In some cases, governments legitimately can’t do what they would prefer. Local and state officials, unlike the federal government, can’t print money and usually have to balance their budgets. Given that reality, a governor might decide that she has to keep bars open simply because she can’t bail them out — the economic cost is so high, and, who knows, maybe the state might get lucky and avoid an outbreak anyway. States, counties, and cities face a structural barrier in the federal government’s inaction.
There’s a cultural component, too. Americans pride themselves on their individualistic and libertarian qualities — what Fauci described as an “independent spirit in the United States.” That creates an innate resistance, among the public and its leaders, to look at problems in a collective over an individual manner. So with Covid-19, we yell at people for not distancing or wearing masks in bars, but not as much at public officials for allowing that bar to open in the first place.
The truth, as Covid-19 has shown us, is this individualistic approach doesn’t work well for public health (even if it does serve us well in other areas). The alternative to not taking collective action is more death. The countries that have done the best against Covid-19 — including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and, to a now lesser degree, Germany — all approached the issue collectively, leveraging government aid and public health systems to let people stay home without losing as much income or health insurance, to test and trace infections, and, when necessary, to close down to stop the spread.
In fact, America’s best — and perhaps only — success against Covid-19 so far came about with the power of collective action. The vaccines that are now being shot into the arms of health care workers and people in nursing homes came about with the strong support of various governments, which funded research or, at the very least, paid for tens of millions of doses before the vaccines were even proven to work. Crucially, this came about by acknowledging the structural risks involved in developing a vaccine, particularly that drug companies might be reluctant to gamble on the medications if they may not pan out, and mitigated those risks.
The problem runs deeper than what America did and can do about Covid-19 alone. One advantage that other countries had as the pandemic began is stronger social safety nets, which guaranteed people would retain some income and health care even if a lockdown was needed. The US has no such guarantees — the programs that do exist are notoriously underfunded (hence Congress needing to boost unemployment insurance in its economic relief bills), and far from universal. So while British and German workers could rely on some significant government support even if they lost their jobs, Americans could claim no such certainty.
We see that today. Even as Congress nears a deal on economic relief, the truth is it’s already too late for many Americans. With much of the previous stimulus measure expiring, people who lost their jobs have languished for months with little to no support. And even if the new deal passes Congress (which is still uncertain), there will likely be a lag in actually rolling out those benefits to the people who need them, leading to more prolonged suffering. It could have been avoided if these kinds of benefits were permanent, or kicked in automatically if the economy begins to weaken, as government programs in other developed countries do.
That’s just one example. From building up the social safety net to actually funding public health infrastructure to reforming government so it’s more responsive, there’s a lot of work America could do to make sure it’s better equipped to handle crises as they come up. That won’t completely end the need for leadership in troubled times — European countries with large social safety nets have still passed additional economic relief measures — but it would put the US in a much better place.
It won’t be easy. It means committing to a more hands-on governing structure, costing us more in dollars and cents and forcing many Americans to rethink how they view the role of government.
But if Covid-19 has taught us anything, those changes are worth the cost. It begins with taking a structural, rather than individualistic, view of the problems facing the US today.


vox--2020-12-21--How much is an hour of your free time worth? Lyft tried to find out.

I was decorating a Christmas tree with my wife and my in-laws the other day when we realized we didn ’ t have any metal hooks for ornaments .
Without some way to attach the ornaments to the tree , we were stuck .
So I walked over to the major commercial strip in my neighborhood to try to buy some .
I checked Bed Bath & Beyond — nothing .
I tried Marshalls — nothing .
The local dollar store ?
Nothing .
Target ?
Nothing , plus crowds that would give anybody anxiety during Covid-19 .
After about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 1.50 box of ornament hooks I got at CVS , and it occurred to me that the time I wasted searching for the hooks was almost certainly more valuable than the negligible amount of money I spent on them .
Luckily , a new massive study sponsored by Lyft has arrived to tell me just how much the time I wasted was worth , dollar-wise .
The authors — Lyft data scientists Ariel Goldszmidt , Ian Muir , and Jenny Wang , and economists John List ( the University of Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State University ) , and Robert Metcalfe ( Boston University ) — conducted two large experiments using the Lyft app to test how much people in different cities across the US were willing to pay for their car to arrive a little bit sooner .
Access to Lyft ’ s internal data meant they had a data set of more than 14 million observations .
( This Twitter thread from Metcalfe is a good explanation of the findings . )
Basically , the authors varied prices and wait times randomly by giving Lyft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a random subset of riders .
The monetary value of time ( VOT ) is calculated by comparing how much people will pay to get a car earlier versus later , and the randomized prices and times made that easy to determine .
The study found that Lyft users value their time at about $ 19 per hour ; not coincidentally , this is also the median after-tax wage in the US .
People are likelier to pay more for a Lyft if it ’ s raining or snowing ( duh ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t available ( also duh ) , if it ’ s a weekday or peak travel hour , or if they ’ re near offices ( where they might have time-sensitive business ) or airports .
People are willing to pay more to save time in areas with higher wages — the VOT estimates were higher in San Francisco and Seattle than they were in Atlanta or Austin , Texas .
If the only implication here is that I spent some $ 30 searching for Christmas ornament hangers , it wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the value of time is really , really important .
A lot of government laws and regulations have costs in the form of time spent/wasted ( such as complex tax provisions or regulations ) and benefits in the form of time saved .
For instance , when the US Department of Transportation evaluates new projects , from bridges to highways to subways to bus routes , one benefit it considers is the Value of Travel Time Savings , which is basically the benefits people experience from faster travel thanks to a new transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active debate among transportation researchers about whether this is the best metric to use in cost-benefit analysis , but for now the DOT treats it as important . )
And the Lyft study suggests that we ’ re underestimating the value of that time saved .
The VOT used in Department of Transportation studies from 1998–2017 tended to be lower than the value the researchers estimated using Lyft .
Using Lyft ’ s new measure , the authors claim , a number of rejected projects would have met the DOT ’ s cutoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could ’ ve been built if this had been the data used .
The question is whether the Lyft data is actually more accurate .
NPR ’ s Greg Rosalsky noted that the data comes from nine pretty affluent urban areas and may not extend to the whole country ; the researchers try to weight their results to reflect the country ’ s demographics , but that design choice could still bias the value of time upward .
And it ’ s important to be cognizant of distribution when thinking about these numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his paper “ Is Efficiency Biased ?
” ( an essential read , if you ’ re interested in these topics ) , the DOT typically uses a higher value of money for projects like airports , whose users tend to earn higher wages , than for projects like inner-city buses , whose users typically earn less .
It ’ s true that in some crude economic sense , Jeff Bezos ’ s time is more valuable than mine .
But that kind of reasoning can lead to repugnant policy decisions , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rich than the poor .
But I ’ m also fascinated by how Lyft ’ s methods can inform decisions far beyond transportation .
A really crucial question for people interested in helping the far future ( such as by alleviating climate change or heading off dangers from advanced AI ) is whether and how much to “ discount ” the interests of people who live in the future .
While I haven ’ t seen much literature on this to date , estimates of the value of time might tell us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something now as opposed to , say , an hour from now , which in turn might tell us something about how much individuals value humanity getting a benefit now versus thousands of years from now .
If you follow the lead of some economists in adopting a high rate of “ time preference , ” that implies we should heavily discount benefits that people will enjoy in the years 2100 or 2200 .
Many philosophers consider this a grave moral error .
That ’ s a discussion for another day .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my $ 30 ornament hangers .

I was decorating a Christmas tree with my wife and my in-laws the other day when we realized we didn’t have any metal hooks for ornaments. Without some way to attach the ornaments to the tree, we were stuck.
So I walked over to the major commercial strip in my neighborhood to try to buy some. I checked Bed Bath & Beyond — nothing. I tried Marshalls — nothing. The local dollar store? Nothing. Target? Nothing, plus crowds that would give anybody anxiety during Covid-19. After about 90 minutes, I returned home with a $1.50 box of ornament hooks I got at CVS, and it occurred to me that the time I wasted searching for the hooks was almost certainly more valuable than the negligible amount of money I spent on them.
Luckily, a new massive study sponsored by Lyft has arrived to tell me just how much the time I wasted was worth, dollar-wise.
The authors — Lyft data scientists Ariel Goldszmidt, Ian Muir, and Jenny Wang, and economists John List (the University of Chicago), V. Kerry Smith (Arizona State University), and Robert Metcalfe (Boston University) — conducted two large experiments using the Lyft app to test how much people in different cities across the US were willing to pay for their car to arrive a little bit sooner.
Access to Lyft’s internal data meant they had a data set of more than 14 million observations. (This Twitter thread from Metcalfe is a good explanation of the findings.) Basically, the authors varied prices and wait times randomly by giving Lyft drivers a few more minutes to reach a random subset of riders. The monetary value of time (VOT) is calculated by comparing how much people will pay to get a car earlier versus later, and the randomized prices and times made that easy to determine.
The study found that Lyft users value their time at about $19 per hour; not coincidentally, this is also the median after-tax wage in the US. People are likelier to pay more for a Lyft if it’s raining or snowing (duh), if there readily accessible public transit isn’t available (also duh), if it’s a weekday or peak travel hour, or if they’re near offices (where they might have time-sensitive business) or airports. People are willing to pay more to save time in areas with higher wages — the VOT estimates were higher in San Francisco and Seattle than they were in Atlanta or Austin, Texas.
If the only implication here is that I spent some $30 searching for Christmas ornament hangers, it wouldn’t be very important. But estimating the value of time is really, really important. A lot of government laws and regulations have costs in the form of time spent/wasted (such as complex tax provisions or regulations) and benefits in the form of time saved.
For instance, when the US Department of Transportation evaluates new projects, from bridges to highways to subways to bus routes, one benefit it considers is the Value of Travel Time Savings, which is basically the benefits people experience from faster travel thanks to a new transportation project. (There’s an active debate among transportation researchers about whether this is the best metric to use in cost-benefit analysis, but for now the DOT treats it as important.)
And the Lyft study suggests that we’re underestimating the value of that time saved. The VOT used in Department of Transportation studies from 1998–2017 tended to be lower than the value the researchers estimated using Lyft. Using Lyft’s new measure, the authors claim, a number of rejected projects would have met the DOT’s cutoff for acceptance — implying that real projects could’ve been built if this had been the data used.
The question is whether the Lyft data is actually more accurate. NPR’s Greg Rosalsky noted that the data comes from nine pretty affluent urban areas and may not extend to the whole country; the researchers try to weight their results to reflect the country’s demographics, but that design choice could still bias the value of time upward.
And it’s important to be cognizant of distribution when thinking about these numbers. As economist Zachary Liscow noted in his paper “Is Efficiency Biased?” (an essential read, if you’re interested in these topics), the DOT typically uses a higher value of money for projects like airports, whose users tend to earn higher wages, than for projects like inner-city buses, whose users typically earn less. It’s true that in some crude economic sense, Jeff Bezos’s time is more valuable than mine. But that kind of reasoning can lead to repugnant policy decisions, like pouring more money into subsidizing travel for the rich than the poor.
But I’m also fascinated by how Lyft’s methods can inform decisions far beyond transportation. A really crucial question for people interested in helping the far future (such as by alleviating climate change or heading off dangers from advanced AI) is whether and how much to “discount” the interests of people who live in the future.
While I haven’t seen much literature on this to date, estimates of the value of time might tell us something about how much individuals value getting something now as opposed to, say, an hour from now, which in turn might tell us something about how much individuals value humanity getting a benefit now versus thousands of years from now. If you follow the lead of some economists in adopting a high rate of “time preference,” that implies we should heavily discount benefits that people will enjoy in the years 2100 or 2200. Many philosophers consider this a grave moral error.
That’s a discussion for another day. For now, I’m just happy with my $30 ornament hangers.


vox--2020-12-21--The $900 billion Covid-19 relief package has passed the House

Days before the holidays , Congress is slated to pass a $ 900 billion bill to extend unemployment insurance , pay out additional stimulus checks to Americans , provide loans for small businesses , and other relief measures like aid for schools and a paid sick leave extension .
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the relief bill Monday night on a vote of 359-53 , just hours after the final legislative text was released to members .
Now that the House has passed this bill , the Republican-controlled US Senate is expected to vote to approve it late Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisan bill , ” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor Monday morning , mentioning provisions Democrats secured like additional food assistance and a temporary extension of an eviction moratorium .
Pelosi also nodded to the $ 600 direct payments that will be going out to Americans .
“ I would have liked them to have been bigger , but they are significant and they will be going out soon , ” she said .
The bill is designed to be a short-term bridge to get financial relief to Americans as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic , with about 200,000 new confirmed cases per day .
At the same time , an end may be in sight , with the first vaccines going out to health care workers and more on the way .
“ We can finally report what our nation has needed to hear for a long time : More help is on the way , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday night .
Pelosi and McConnell themselves received a first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine last week , and President-elect Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are still a number of big things that didn ’ t make it into the final relief bill , including broad aid to state and local governments that Democrats wanted , and liability protections for companies that were a top priority for Republicans .
Addressing the Senate Sunday night , Schumer admitted while states and cities would receive some funding specifically for education , Covid-19 testing , and public transit , “ the agreement we reached is far from perfect.
” Democratic leaders and President-elect Joe Biden have said they want Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
“ Immediately , starting in the new year , Congress will need to get to work on support for our COVID-19 plan , for support to struggling families , and investments in jobs and economic recovery , ” Biden said in a statement Sunday .
“ There will be no time to waste.
” But additional federal stimulus may well hinge on a pair of undecided Senate races in Georgia that will decide which party controls the Senate .
Passing another deal may not be easy .
What the stimulus deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the stimulus agreement omits , it is expected to offer much-needed aid on a few fronts .
Here ’ s what we know so far on the details .
Stimulus checks : There is a second round of stimulus checks , though they are smaller this time .
These direct payments include $ 600 for individuals who make $ 75,000 a year or less in adjusted gross income , rather than the $ 1,200 provided in the March CARES Act , the Washington Post reports .
Couples who make $ 150,000 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1,200 in direct payments .
Individuals and couples with children who qualify for the stimulus checks would also receive an additional $ 600 per child .
Payments will be incrementally reduced for people who make more in annual income , much like they were earlier this year .
Unemployment insurance ( UI ) : The plan includes an additional $ 300 in weekly federal UI payments through March 14 , 2021 .
This supplemental payment is set to bolster the weekly payment that recipients would get from their state unemployment programs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CARES Act .
The bill would also extend the pandemic unemployment insurance programs that are expiring at the end of December .
These pandemic-specific programs currently provide roughly 12 million Americans with UI benefits .
Small-business support : $ 325 billion is dedicated to small-business aid including repurposed funding for the Paycheck Protection Program , a forgivable loan program that business owners can apply for to cover payroll and operational costs .
These loans are aimed at businesses that have seen revenue declines this year .
For many , however , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Fortune report , almost 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently during the pandemic .
Rental assistance and eviction moratorium : $ 25 billion in rental assistance is included as well as the establishment of a federal eviction moratorium .
As Vox ’ s Jerusalem Demsas previously reported , tenant advocates have argued that at least $ 100 billion in rental aid is needed to cover current shortfalls .
Additional action would be required to ensure that millions of Americans would not be evicted at the end of January .
Food aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help fund a monthly 15 percent increase in individual SNAP benefits , aid for children who received food support at school , and money for other programs including Meals on Wheels and WIC ( the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants , and Children ) .
Demand for such aid has spiked dramatically during the pandemic , with food banks across the country facing overwhelming need in recent months .
Paid sick leave : There is an extension of paid leave tax credits for businesses , which continues a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
It ’ s not clear , however , whether the new legislation would guarantee leave for workers who have coronavirus or those caring for children dealing with school closures .
The legislation contains a number of other provisions : The bill includes $ 82 billion to help schools reopen ; $ 45 billion for public transit systems ; $ 27 billion to help states ramp up Covid-19 testing ; and $ 15 billion in small business loans specifically targeted to theaters and small venues that have been hit particularly hard by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 15 billion in aid for airlines — which would be required to bring furloughed employees back — according to Reuters .
It also includes language to ban surprise medical bills for emergency care , the product of months of bipartisan negotiations to end the practice that contributes to some patients getting steep medical bills from out-of-network providers .
Finally , the bill also has new guidelines for the Federal Reserve after Republicans — led by Sen. Pat Toomey ( R-PA ) — demanded recent emergency lending programs at the Fed be canceled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Vox ’ s Emily Stewart has explained , the Fed will be forced to eliminate several emergency lending programs created with CARES Act funding in the spring , and will be barred from restarting them without congressional approval .
It will also return the unused portion of the $ 454 billion Congress allotted it under the CARES Act to the Treasury Department , something the Fed had agreed to do in November .
The bill doesn ’ t provide direct aid for state and local governments , a Democratic priority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from coronavirus-related lawsuits Republicans had advocated for .
Additional deferment of federal student loan payments is also not included in the agreement , Politico ’ s Michael Stratford reports .
How long it will take people to receive help Speaking on CNBC Monday morning , US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin laid out an optimistic timeline for when Americans will see relief in the form of stimulus checks .
“ The good news is this is a very , very fast way of getting money into the economy , ” Mnuchin said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see this money at the beginning of next week.
” But based on the timing of aid from the CARES Act , it could be a few weeks before people see direct relief from the legislation .
Earlier this year , the first round of direct payments was deposited in people ’ s bank accounts around mid-April : “ Within two weeks of the CARES Act going into effect in March , more than 81 million payments were disbursed , totaling more than $ 147 billion , all through electronic transfers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government Accountability Office , ” CNBC recently reported .
People who do not have bank accounts , or whose information is not on file with the IRS , will likely see a more delayed distribution of the payments .
For more information on what to expect with stimulus payments in the coming weeks , you can read Vox ’ s explainer here .
The timing of the implementation of enhanced unemployment insurance payments will also depend on the state .
States began distributing $ 600 in supplemental UI roughly two weeks after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spring , which means the weekly $ 300 addition could begin in early January .
And when it comes to the Paycheck Protection Program , banks and other financial institutions began taking applications about a week after the funds were approved by Congress in March .
That could set up applications for a new round of loans to kick off at the end of December or early January .
This lag time could be costly for those waiting on assistance ; by the time much of this money gets to those who need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to extend will have been expired for weeks .
Nevertheless , such aid comes at a crucial time : According to the latest Labor Department report , 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance .
In November , job growth slowed significantly compared to the prior month , suggesting that the unemployed are facing limited opportunities for new work .
And this winter , coronavirus cases are projected to soar — forcing thousands of businesses to shutter or slow their operations to prevent the spread of the illness .

Days before the holidays, Congress has passed a $900 billion bill to extend unemployment insurance, pay out additional stimulus checks to Americans and provide more loans for small businesses.
The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the relief bill Monday night on a vote of 359-53, just hours after the final legislative text was released to members. A few hours later, the Republican-controlled US Senate did the same with a vote of 92-6.
“It is a good bipartisan bill,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor Monday morning, mentioning provisions Democrats secured like additional food assistance and a temporary extension of an eviction moratorium. Pelosi also nodded to the $600 direct payments that will be going out to Americans. “I would have liked them to have been bigger, but they are significant and they will be going out soon,” she said.
The bill is designed to be a short-term bridge to get financial relief to Americans as the country enters a particularly difficult stretch of the coronavirus pandemic, with about 200,000 new confirmed cases per day. At the same time, an end may be in sight, with the first vaccines going out to health care workers and more on the way.
“We can finally report what our nation has needed to hear for a long time: More help is on the way,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday night. Pelosi and McConnell themselves received a first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine last week, and President-elect Joe Biden also received his on Monday.
There are still a number of big things that didn’t make it into the final relief bill, including broad aid to state and local governments that Democrats wanted, and liability protections for companies that were a top priority for Republicans. Addressing the Senate Sunday night, Schumer admitted while states and cities would receive some funding specifically for education, Covid-19 testing, and public transit, “the agreement we reached is far from perfect.”
Democratic leaders and President-elect Joe Biden have said they want Congress to pass additional stimulus when Biden takes office.
“Immediately, starting in the new year, Congress will need to get to work on support for our COVID-19 plan, for support to struggling families, and investments in jobs and economic recovery,” Biden said in a statement Sunday. “There will be no time to waste.”
But additional federal stimulus may well hinge on a pair of undecided Senate races in Georgia that will decide which party controls the Senate. Passing another deal may not be easy.
What the stimulus deal contains
While there’s a lot that the stimulus agreement omits, it is expected to offer much-needed aid on a few fronts. Here’s what we know so far on the details.
Stimulus checks: There is a second round of stimulus checks, though they are smaller than those distributed earlier this year. These direct payments include $600 for individuals who made $75,000 a year or less in adjusted gross income in 2019, and $1,200 for couples who made $150,000 or less. Individuals and couples with children who qualify for the stimulus checks would also receive an additional $600 per child. Payments will be incrementally reduced for people who make more in annual income, much like they were in the spring.
Unemployment insurance (UI): The plan includes an additional $300 in weekly federal UI payments through March 14, 2021. This supplemental payment is set to bolster the weekly payment that recipients would get from their state unemployment programs, much like a prior provision did in the CARES Act. The bill would also extend the pandemic unemployment insurance programs that are expiring at the end of December. These pandemic-specific programs currently provide roughly 12 million Americans with UI benefits.
Small-business support: $325 billion is dedicated to small-business aid including repurposed funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, a forgivable loan program that business owners can apply for to cover payroll and operational costs. These loans are aimed at businesses that have seen revenue declines this year. For many, however, this aid comes too late — according to a Fortune report, almost 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently during the pandemic.
Rental assistance and eviction moratorium: $25 billion in rental assistance is included as well as the establishment of a federal eviction moratorium. As Vox’s Jerusalem Demsas previously reported, tenant advocates have argued that at least $100 billion in rental aid is needed to cover current shortfalls. Additional action would be required to ensure that millions of Americans would not be evicted at the end of January.
Food aid: $13 billion for food aid to help fund a monthly 15 percent increase in individual SNAP benefits, aid for children who received food support at school, and money for other programs including Meals on Wheels and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). Demand for such aid has spiked dramatically during the pandemic, with food banks across the country facing overwhelming need in recent months.
Paid sick leave: There are tax credits for businesses that voluntarily provide paid leave, which continues a policy established in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, but companies are not mandated to offer such benefits. Previously, workers who had coronavirus or those caring for children dealing with school closures were guaranteed paid leave if their workplaces were covered by FFCRA.
The legislation contains a number of other provisions: The bill includes $82 billion to help schools reopen; $45 billion for public transit systems; $27 billion to help states ramp up Covid-19 testing; and $15 billion in small business loans specifically targeted to theaters and small venues that have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. The bill also includes $15 billion in aid for airlines — which would be required to bring furloughed employees back — according to Reuters.
It also includes language to ban surprise medical bills for emergency care, the product of months of bipartisan negotiations to end the practice that contributes to some patients getting steep medical bills from out-of-network providers.
Finally, the bill also has new guidelines for the Federal Reserve after Republicans — led by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) — demanded recent emergency lending programs at the Fed be canceled in any final version of the bill.
As Vox’s Emily Stewart has explained, the Fed will be forced to eliminate several emergency lending programs created with CARES Act funding in the spring, and will be barred from restarting them without congressional approval. It will also return the unused portion of the $454 billion Congress allotted it under the CARES Act to the Treasury Department, something the Fed had agreed to do in November.
The bill doesn’t provide direct aid for state and local governments, a Democratic priority, or the liability protections that shield businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits Republicans had advocated for. Additional deferment of federal student loan payments is also not included in the agreement, Politico’s Michael Stratford reports.
How long it will take people to receive help
Speaking on CNBC Monday morning, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin laid out an optimistic timeline for when Americans will see relief in the form of stimulus checks.
“The good news is this is a very, very fast way of getting money into the economy,” Mnuchin said. “Let me emphasize: People are going to see this money at the beginning of next week.”
But based on the timing of aid from the CARES Act, it could be a few weeks before people see direct relief from the legislation.
Earlier this year, the first round of direct payments was deposited in people’s bank accounts around mid-April: “Within two weeks of the CARES Act going into effect in March, more than 81 million payments were disbursed, totaling more than $147 billion, all through electronic transfers to recipients’ bank accounts, according to the Government Accountability Office,” CNBC recently reported.
People who do not have bank accounts, or whose information is not on file with the IRS, will likely see a more delayed distribution of the payments. For more information on what to expect with stimulus payments in the coming weeks, you can read Vox’s explainer here.
The timing of the implementation of enhanced unemployment insurance payments will also depend on the state. States began distributing $600 in supplemental UI roughly two weeks after the CARES Act was approved this past spring, which means the weekly $300 addition could begin in early January.
And when it comes to the Paycheck Protection Program, banks and other financial institutions began taking applications about a week after the funds were approved by Congress in March. That could set up applications for a new round of loans to kick off at the end of December or early January.
This lag time could be costly for those waiting on assistance; by the time much of this money gets to those who need it, the programs they are meant to extend will have been expired for weeks.
Nevertheless, such aid comes at a crucial time: According to the latest Labor Department report, 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance. In November, job growth slowed significantly compared to the prior month, suggesting that the unemployed are facing limited opportunities for new work. And this winter, coronavirus cases are projected to soar — forcing thousands of businesses to shutter or slow their operations to prevent the spread of the illness.