GameStop is going out of business. This is a last ditch attempt to fend that off. And I would hope that any cop in an area with lockdowns in place would simply say, "Nice piece of paper. You're closing."
That is exactly what will happen. If the county or state order businesses closed as non essential, remaining open would be a misdemeanor. I have to wonder if Gamestop will pay the legal fees for the employees that are arrested.
"You were instructed to keep the store open, but were unable to perform your job-required duties because you got arrested attempting to do so, therefore you are fired. Request to pay your legal fees is denied."
What's that? Is that a thing people have in US? I'm honestly curious, never heard of such a thing, outside of a context of mortage insurance which can cover you temporarily if you lose your job.
I have no love for GameStop, but I really liked Thinkgeek, which got bought by GameStop. GameStop already ruined it AFAICT so I don't mind if GameStop goes out of business...
ThinkGeek will be the asset to emerge from the ashes of GameStop.
It was a smart acquisition by GS executives. Unfortunately, they weren't smart enough to manage the brand as well as they should have. The parent company should have inverted to become ThinkGeek immediately after the acquisition because it's pretty obvious to even layman that the retail market for video games is dead within a generation or so, while the market for pop-culture tchotchkes is evergreen.
What even remains of ThinkGeek, apart from name recognition? At least before the GameStop acquisition they sold some unique products. Now, as far as I can tell, they just sell the same fandom merch you can get anywhere.
Had GameStop management not neutered it, there would still be lots of unique things going on.
Turning an already online platform for truly cool items, into a side counter in only a few core stores, just goes to show how truly clueless GS management really is.
Yeah, I'm bitter. Wife and I gifted each other lots of TG stuff over the years.
I recently got my first real tech job, and had sizable disposable income for the first time, and the first thing I thought of was ThinkGeek.
I used to eye the site all the time as a kid, but never had more than a hundred bucks to spend once or twice a year.
My dad got me the neat limited edition ASHPD replica they had for Christmas. I reserved a stand but never got to claim it. I think my ex may have taken the ASHPD when we split, I really hope not. I may have to go look now.
I was excited to get something else neat from ThinkGeek, and then I got redirected to gamestop.com and felt about ready to cry.
Is it just my nostalgia, or did they have much cooler stuff in like, 2006 than they did in 2018?
Multiple GameStop employees at different locations across the bay area openly mocked me / laughed at me for trying to buy a used GameCube in ~2016. Haven't set foot in a store since. Good riddance.
Thats incredibly strange especially given how retro gaming is a huge thing, and isn't buying/selling used games and equipment kind of GameStop's thing?
Yes, that's quite odd, especially given GameStop's notorious Circle of Life (CoL) philosophy.[1][2] That being said, GameStop employees are often gamers, and gamers are often opinionated about platforms and companies--just like any other enthusiast.
This comment reads to me as a sort of spiteful anti-capitalist view. But... Gamestop is _already_ living paycheck to paycheck and they could actually just run out of money and need to close shop.
Does that excuse trying to stay open right now? No. But let's not pretend they're not already dying.
The problem is that failing now empowers Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Steam. There are no small chains that can seize the opportunity to fill the void. We're going to end up with defacto monopolies I think; maybe only Walmart for people to get new physical games.
I don't think Gamestop really qualifies as a small chain. Besides, the retail market for games will be dead here before too long, everything's going digital. It won't be Steam and Amazon, it'll be Steam and Sony and Microsoft and Epic.
Actually I think at this point there are more competitors in the digital space than physical...
I believe it's likely that many of the stores won't be able to reopen, and I can believe the company would recognize that too. But I but I can't find any source for the company saying it on an investor call. Where did you find out about it?
In a sense, this rings true in this pandemic, right? Many people are relying on video games for entertainment while confined to their homes.
-------
Edit to reply to the comments below: A lot of good replies, thank you. I've largely been on the "doom and gloom" side of this COVID-19 debate, so I'm surprised by the other angrier replies, but here's my thinking:
- People that download games aren't going to GameStop anyway.
- As some comments pointed out, you can't download consoles. You also can't have anything shipped to you if you don't have a credit card.
- GameStop transactions don't require close personal contact (unlike e.g. tattoos or massages).
- GameStop must discourage congregation of groups in their stores. I imagine very low foot traffic.
- GameStop must provide staff with appropriate cleaning tools. If they can't, then they should not remain open.
- I do really like the idea to transform the store into a local delivery service, or to offer pick up only.
- I have no connection to GameStop nor have I been to one in over a decade.
as much as we'd like to think everyone is a reasonable person who will stay home and do their part to prevent the spread of coronavirus, there are always selfish/foolish people who will not be inclined to heed the advice. you gotta throw them some kind of bone to keep them more or less occupied while they (hopefully) stay inside.
it's absolutely not necessary for a physical store that sells games to stay open when you can download them or have them shipped, but it might be essential for people to have access to an indoor pastime they enjoy.
I dunno what the state of affairs for consoles is, but on PC, I can't think of a single game where you actually need a physical copy. if it exists, it's probably too obscure to be stocked at gamestop anyway.
if you have even a 5mbps connection, you can download most modern games in a day or less. if you have less than that, two-day shipping from amazon and other retailers still exists.
I do actually think entertainment is pretty important in a time like this, just to keep people sane in general, but also as a carrot to incentivize people to actually stay in their houses. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to wait for it to be delivered though.
This is wreckless toward human life. You can buy games online through different means including the system stores and platforms like steam. If you need to by a system you can still order one online. It's not a critical function of society since there are other forms of entertainment as well including books, movies, writing and various other hobbies. This is reprehensible behavior and will backfire on GameStop in the sense of PR. Even if they stay open, the fact that they are asking their employees to clean the stores with no cleaning supplies and to buy cleaning supplies from their own money to be reimbursed later is deplorable. If GameStop is shut down tomorrow do you think those employees will still be reimbursed? No. So they will be out of a job and out of any cash they spent on cleaning supplies. GameStop can rot in hell with this PR disaster written on their tombstone.
For $10.month you could get hundreds of games for consoles right now. So if being able to purchase used affordable games was their angle that just isn't the case. And of course all major titles can be safely purchased online in physical or digital form.
Even if we think video games are essential, and even if we think physical video games are essential, they could close and only do delivery, much as many restaurants are only doing drive-through and delivery orders.
There is no good reason to think that the social benefit of having a physical retail store open where customers are cheek-to-jowl with each other and with staff somehow outweighs the community transmission we will certainly experience.
Absolutely. There is not a Switch in 200 miles of my house and most retailers I spoke with agree it is because of Animal Crossing. I suspect this weekend will be huge for GameSpot sales on these titles alone.
That's my foil-free theory; those are two very large releases! Regardless of sales, not being able to fulfill all the customer preorders would probably tank their remaining brand confidence irrevocably.
These executives are showing their true selves in this crisis and it is absolutely disgusting. From Elon Musk to Jeff Bezos, these are not idols, they are parasites on our society.
This is a malaria drug. Also, it can be fatal if not properly dosed.
It is especially problematic that Musk is promoting this, given that part of his reputation is that he gets his science right; he is bold, takes risks, but he at least has science/facts/truth/math on his side.
They've been using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a treatment in South Korea for over a month now. It's not a "bullshit cure" just because it's not FDA approved yet. There's a number of papers showing that these drugs can successfully treat COVID-19.
But it's not a cure either and it's a dangerous drug. Musk isn't a doctor and shouldn't be giving medical advice. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has an extremely narrow threshold between an effective dose and a fatal dose. People are already trying to acquire it themselves and it's only a matter of time before someone accidentally kills themselves because of the misinformation surrounding it being pushed by non-professional pundits on Twitter.
I'm for Musk skepticism and he started off complete on the wrong footing on this thing but if you don't know what you are talking about don't make claims like this
Tesla refused to close the Fremont plant and told workers they were essential because they were providing transportation [1]. Musk has also said that the virus response has been overblown. [2]
Musk is now saying that they well produce ventilators, although they have no design, no experience in medical devices, and a factory that makes cars, not ventilators...
> Musk is now saying that they well produce ventilators, although they have no design, no experience in medical devices, and a factory that makes cars, not ventilators...
He's also said they will only do so in the event of a shortage -- he has not said he'll be proactive and divert manufacturing resources to prevent any shortage.
Worth noting that SpaceX, not Tesla, would be the business making the ventilators, as they already make similar equipment for space travel.
GameStop is running on fumes. If they close down their stores, they will completely lose their business. By staying open, they are at least collecting some revenue.
Also, these employees should be thankful they even have a job right now. Many retail / service industry jobs have laid off their staff.
Should they? They're out there being unnecessarily exposed to potential infection. If they were laid off, they'd be eligible for unemployment benefits.
My understanding is in this situation, the right thing to do is to offer the employee the "opportunity" to be laid off.
Several companies are doing this, it allows the worker to choose between reduced employment benefits from UE insurance at the benefit of less exposure to C19 or earning more money.
Most people I know that are making an hourly wage have chosen to be laid off if they had the option.
The writing has been on the wall for GameStop for quite some time. Amazon and digital sales have made them pretty irrelevant and not much can be done. Just how capitalism goes.
The parasites to our society is the meat packing industry which causes all of these issues to begin with. Get rid of them and not only do you élimante these viruses, you also eliminate the obesity epidemic saving folks the viruses end up killing, and take the world a step closer to fixing climate change.
There's a tenuous link. Don't forget China culled something like 1/4 of the world's pig population to deal with swine fever in 2019. There exists regulations on meat production in most countries to prevent outbreaks in livestock passing to humans but these are not 100% effective.
Yes, getting rid of the regulated meat industry and driving black market meat sales will surely lead to less food born illness. That makes complete sense.
Elon said on Twitter that he thought it was stupid.
I personally agree. It's a flu and it's way overhyped by the media and the left-wing crazies who just echo the sentiment and shame those who don't follow as religiously as them.
Also, this pandemic wouldn't be as big of an issue of the US government would acknowledge the need for better workers rights. Sick leave, better policies about vacation and days off, etc. But what does the Trump admin do? Here's 1000 bucks for your troubles.
At least in the US, this pandemic has really exposed a lot of people's true colors. TP hoarding, hand sanitizer price gouging, ignoring social distancing measures, businesses desperately claiming they're essential so they can keep profiting at the expense of their employees' health. The ugly "I gotta get mine, screw everyone else" attitude is raw and on display for the world to see. Really disappointing to see in the media every day and a bad flex for America.
EDIT: Talk about showing true colors: Someone leaked what's apparently an internal conference call between the company's execs and their store managers, where they're being instructed to keep everything open despite health concerns: https://twitter.com/CAMELOT331/status/1240743954246709265
At least working at a GameStop in 2020 is pretty close self isolating.
TBH I don't quite understand the outlash against some business deciding to stay open. A GameStop doesn't take more than 1 or 2 people to run, especially right now, and transactions are pretty simple and inovlve minimal contact. And they have a point about selling products people may want during this time.
As far as I know, Walmart will still sell video games despite only being exempted because they sell food & essential supplies. It's probably more dangerous to have to go to a Walmart either food or video games compared to going to a GameStop given the # of people typically at Wallmart.
> It's probably more dangerous to have to go to a Walmart either food or video games compared to going to a GameStop given the # of people typically at Wallmart.
This might be a reasonable point, except that there's no reason to leave your house at all if the only thing you want to buy is a video game. (And of course, if you need food and video games, making an additional trip to Gamestop can only hurt compared to getting everything at Walmart.)
And, though Walmart is likely to have a higher number of customers present, the concentration of people can be much lower in a 150,000 sq ft warehouse store then a 300 sq ft Gamestop (provided people are following proper social distancing).
Hopefully there's a class-action lawsuit on behalf of any employees who become sick as a result of this decision.
But then, this company is clearly on its way out. I'd be very suspicious at the moment that the execs are finding ways to funnel remaining funds to their golden parachutes before they declare bankruptcy.
The government does not have the legal authority to quarantine people that that are not sick. Thus they have no legal basis to shut down gamestop. Gamestop is calling their bluff.
You did not begin your comment with the disclaimer that you are not a lawyer. So, are you a lawyer? Are you familiar with the authority municipalities, states, provinces, and entire countries have under normal circumstances? How about when there is a state of emergency declared? How about when there is a public health emergency?
And modern people wonder how the witch-hunts happened in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The mob-like response to this is sad and deranged...
Many companies will go out of business as a direct response to these closings. Millions of people will lose jobs. Before throwing out insults, consider that GameStop probably has to try and stay open, or they'll go extinct.
Considering that a retail employee that sells video games isn't exactly an in-demand profession, you're also looking at the livelihoods of 16,000 full-time and 23-45,000 part-time people. Corporations aren't just faceless bogeymen.
> "Before throwing out insults, consider that GameStop probably has to try and stay open, or they'll go extinct."
At the potential risk of human lives?
Even if we say that customers are coming in voluntarily, it isn't the executives at GameStop manning the counter at these stores; if it were, people would have less objection. Those staff are ordinary people like you or I.
> I see no reason why a GameStop employee can't just quit or refuse to come to work if he/she fears getting infected.
You see no reason? I'll give you one:
In most jurisdictions, if your employer lays you off or closes their doors, you can apply for some kind of benefits, e.g. EI up here in Canada.
But if you quit your job on principle, you don't get benefits and have to live on whatever savings you've amassed working a retail job.
It seems you believe that everything should remain open, everyone should keep going to work, and hey, if you don't like it, quit your job and stay home.
That is not how a society gets through a pandemic, no way, no how. If you were in charge, millions of people would die. But they'd "Have their freedom to choose for themselves." So there's that.
Sure, this is a legitimate concern. But I don't think black-and-white thinking is really the answer here. There are solutions in between shut everything down and keep it all open.
Can you explain your rationale behind your thinking? I assume you were being hyperbolic with "everyone", aka 100%. What percentage do you actually think will hit the dole lines? How confident are you in that prediction? What behaviors of yours have changed because of this confidence?
I've seen a lot of "the economy will tank because consumers can't visit shops". I've seen a lot of friends in food & bev lose their jobs.
I haven't seen much in the way of hard numbers. Seems to me that a huge increase in worldwide deaths and a huge increase in sick time absences would be economically worse than lockdown.
I'm not even necessarily arguing that not locking down is the right move, but rather that we should be able to have the conversation as to whether it's worth it or whether there are other, better solutions to this problem (like Taiwan or Korea managed to do.)
In any case, as I mentioned before, the danger here is that the consequences are unknown. We really don't know what will happen, which in many ways is worse than a known danger like the virus itself. The complexity is rapidly spinning out of control and affecting trade, economics, other medical conditions, and virtually every job that isn't a remote programmer.
As far as numbers go, Cuomo just ordered that 75% of people stay home from work in NYC. If you google around, unemployment applications are growing exponentially. It seems likely that a pretty significant portion of the population will apply for it.
That's fair to ask for the conversation. However, the risk is that the conversation will prevent decisive action, which is what has occurred in the US for the past month.
As a nation and collective of states, leaders are decisioning on events from a couple of weeks ago. Because we don't know the ground truth at the moment, we are working with stale information. Each pandemic period -- let's use OOM cases to define it quickly -- has different levels of response needed.
The lockdown needs to happen now, then we can have the conversation around our options. As we discuss options while things spiral, the inputs are out of date, which is very very dangerous in a quickly changing exponential chart.
Excuse me, but let's stop this line of thinking right now.
No business has a right to do whatever it thinks it must to survive. Tobacco companies don't get to do whatever they think they must to survive.
If a restaurant is in trouble, it doesn't get to tell its employees to speed up service by not washing their hands, nor does it get to hire employees under the table for cash to avoid payroll taxes or minimum wage, nor does it get to serve slaughtered horse to save money on beef.
Companies do not have an inalienable right to existence. If they cannot make money while being good members of society, they must close or be forcibly closed.
First off, don't start any conversation by telling someone to stop thinking contrarian thoughts.
Secondly, the risk of dying from the coronavirus from working at or going into a small video game shop is negligible. You are far more likely to get it at Walmart or a grocery store. Are you calling for the closure of these stores too?
Thirdly, you are painting GameStop as some faceless entity. People work there. These people probably rely on their income to survive.
You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not. Good for you being a "contrarian," but neither you nor Gamestop get to act on each and every one of your contrarian thoughts.
Lots of people, if left to decide these matters for themselves, decide that the risks of their behaviour are negligible. That's why Spring Break is crowded.
But you aren't even framing this correctly. It is not just about the risk of a 20-something retail employee dying. It's also about the risk of them transmitting it to each other and to customers, who in turn transmit it to people who have a non-negligible risk of dying.
Get a grip.
This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others.
Again, learn how to have a conversation without the condescending attitude. This is a complex issue with multiple variables and costs. You are not automatically right because you agree with the mob. A cursory reading of history should make this obvious, but unfortunately that seems too much to ask of people nowadays. They'd rather spend their time looking down at those with the "wrong" opinion.
> You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not.
The catch here is that people are really short-sighted evolved primates. While shutting down the entire world will indeed stop the virus, it is already having an innumerable number of unpredictable effects like putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, diverting resources from other medical issues, to name a few.
The statistics are pretty unconvincing so far, to me personally, in order to justify a long-term shutdown.
> This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others.
Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that? Why are you not calling for the shutdown of McDonald's? The restriction of car use? These are vastly bigger issues that are actually controllable.
As I said above: the actions being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.
Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that?
Does this comparison actually make sense in your mind? Considering the cadre of medical professionals point blank asking us (repeatedly) to stop comparing this to the flu?
Absolutely. People are using potential death counts as a reason for all these draconian measures. And yet, there are numerous other causes of death with straightforward, clear solutions. But we don't shut down society over them.
In my mind, the main reasons that for the coronavirus hysteria are media overreaction, especially social media, and the fact that this "source of death" comes as a fast-acting virus, rather than something long-term and abstract like obesity. The whole "slowly boiling a frog" metaphor is apt here.
I'm not being snarky, I'm trying to understand your disagreement with the medical community who have repeatedly advised us "this is not like these other things, please do not compare them to these other things" vs your responses of "why aren't we acting like this with other stuff" and essentially doing exactly what the people trying to get us out of this are saying DON'T DO.
Well it's certainly not "just another flu" so I don't disagree with doctors there at all.
I mentioned it in another comment, but: the doctors are not the problem here. Of course doctors will recommend the best medical advice and I don't doubt the medical consensus. The issue is a broader one: what are the societal and economic consequences of total shutdown? Are these consequences better or worse than the estimated death count of the virus? Keep in mind that this includes death, too. Is there something we can do that attempts to minimize the negatives of both?
These are difficult questions and I don't pretend to have the answers. I'm simply noting that even suggesting an alternate path is shouted down.
These are difficult questions and I don't pretend to have the answers. I'm simply noting that even suggesting an alternate path is shouted down.
Reading this thread, and several others and watching several other discourses, I do not see that to really be the case in whole. In part maybe, in whole? No.
Disagreements are being had sure about this or that element of this situation, but disagreements have great capacity to forment solutions whereas this 'taking your ball home' attitude of assuming dissent implicates snark and disagreements implicate being "shouted down" (especially when, as you've done earlier: presenting various whatabouts when there are people who are actively trying to understand this disease and bring about solutions are screaming "STOP THAT") is it self an alternative path I think many people prefer to avoid.
You are also not right just because you are thinking for yourself. Your tone makes it sound like you feel attacked -- but where's your evidence? Is this a position that you reasoned yourself into, or one that fit with your identity, then built logic around that? (That's how most of us come to our beliefs.)
Why are the statistics unconvincing? Where is your evidence?
A bad economy will hurt people. Millions dead will also hurt the economy, hurt people, and hurt our civilization for a long time.
Why do you think it's either the economy or a serious response to the virus? The economy is effed either way -- let's focus on preventing deaths now, then we can focus on money.
The actions not being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.
Let me see if I get this right: You are describing the response that is backed by every epidemiologist, every doctor, every functioning government in the world, as a "mob?"
That's a nice bit of mis-framing to accompany telling me to treat your ideas with more respect. The fact is, you are the one who agrees with the mob. Go to Florida. Enjoy Spring Break along with thousands of people who think the risk is negligible and are ignoring the actual researched science on epidemics and risk reduction.
The "mob" wants to go to work. The "mob" will line up elbow to elbow to get into bars that are open. The "mob" takes cruises. The "mob" squeezes into economy class on airplanes.
How about this for politeness?
PLEASE stop framing the world's response to a lethal global pandemic as some kind of panic that is not grounded in facts, expertise, or experience.
I don't live in the United States and I have never gone on Spring Break, so this is again an ad hominem attack, not an argument.
As I said before: decisions have consequences. Of course doctors will suggest the best medical solutions for medical problems. That is their job. But they aren't economists and they don't take into account bigger consequences of political actions. Long-term shut-down of the economy will result in more crime, more death, and lots of other bad unforeseen effects. Are these worse than the effects of the virus? I don't know, but it's certainly a conversation worth having.
It's not the doctors fault and I don't expect them to take this into account. What I do expect is the ability to have a rational conversation about the topic. Clearly, this is impossible in the current environment when people like you respond to any wrongthink with a personal attack.
You pluck that one line out, describe it as a personal attack, and then complain about "wrongthink," as if you live in some Orwellian society.
Fine, suit yourself, here is my comment without the suggestion that you go to Florida:
---
Let me see if I get this right: You are describing the response that is backed by every epidemiologist, every doctor, every functioning government in the world, as a "mob?"
That's a nice bit of mis-framing to accompany telling me to treat your ideas with more respect. The fact is, you are the one who agrees with the mob.
The "mob" wants to go to work. The "mob" will line up elbow to elbow to get into bars that are open. The "mob" takes cruises. The "mob" squeezes into economy class on airplanes.
How about this for politeness?
PLEASE stop framing the world's response to a lethal global pandemic as some kind of panic that is not grounded in facts, expertise, or experience.
---
If you want to have a rational conversation, perhaps you should let go of suggesting that the response is that of a mob, as if the people who disagree with you are irrational and panicking.
Remember that you begun this discussion by bandying phrases like "witch hunt." And your tone has not become more rational and balanced. Ponder that when asking yourself why your ideas are not getting the respectful responses you believe they deserve.
If you want to begin again, my point at the top was that companies don't have a right to survival at any cost. That's what you suggested, and you have not spoken to it since.
> If you want to begin again, my point at the top was that companies don't have a right to survival at any cost. That's what you suggested, and you have not spoken to it since.
Of course companies don't have a right to survival. I don't care about GameStop the company. I care about the people that work there and their livelihoods, many of which are minimum-wage retail workers. They can't easily get another job.
I'm a Canadian. I'm not a gamer, but my kids are. I bought Animal Crossing too, only I ordered it and it will be delivered next week.
I chose to delay gratification in order to save other people's lives. Amazing, how things work when people behave like adults instead of toddlers who need their diapers changed.
Let that sink in if you ever revisit this thread.
p.s. No, we Canadians can't stop you from going to the store during a pandemic. But we can ask you to stay right where you are, and that's exactly what we did when we closed our border to non-essential traffic from the USA.
I strongly disagree. Free speech is fundamental to any society that respects individuals, their freedoms/agency, and letting ideas compete. If anything, the most alarming trend is people railing against free speech without any understanding of what it's like to live in suppressed societies.
Yes, and it is also a pretty good argument used to justify people needing to do things that help society. Especially useful when it's not in your immediate preference or interest to do so. (Tragedy of the commons, fighting for your country, etc.)
The mob-like response to this is sad and deranged...
In stark contrast to “profits über alles”, which is perfectly A-OK. Here ya go, folks: if you want the voice of late-stage capitalism, it’s right there in print. The only thing missing is a nod to “job creators”.
You must be a troll to say you'd rather save GameStop, a corporation that only has a few years left, instead of stopping the spread of a serious disease.
Different people will have different needs and circumstances. What’s essential shouldn’t be dictated centrally - I think that’s too draconian. Instead focus on the parameters - reduce max gathering size, require businesses to implement max customer limits, cleaning procedures, and queueing procedures that include distancing. We don’t need to be perfect about this, just good enough.
In the case of GameStop - mental health matters to people, and games are an important outlet especially if they live alone. The alternative is that they will violate guidance on gatherings. And GameStop also sells equipment you can use to work from home. I don’t think it’s just groceries or healthcare that should be allowed to operate. People who fear what’s coming next might want to shop camping/outdoors stores, or maybe they need to get their car fixed up if they need to leave, or whatever else. I understand the logic behind it, but I feel a blanket rule banning most businesses from operating isn’t the right move.
In order to speed up this quarantine, we should ask for "herd immunity volunteers" who basically volunteer to get infected (healthy young adults only). They would go into their own quarantine until they are no longer infected in which case they can be released into society, and since they are now immune, may be suited for certain jobs that require contact with infected.
He should keep these thoughts to himself for sure, but he’s not wrong. Hoarding toilet paper and food staples is dumb. Seasonal flu affects more kids and has worse symptoms than Coronavirus (as of now)
Is your argument that the number of people who die from the flu annually is greater than the number of people in the US who have died from the coronavirus in the past two weeks, and thus the coronavirus news is overblown?
About 10x more cases every 8 days. Sure, the medical care for the current number of critically ill people is OK for now, but can it handle 10x that in 8 days? 100x that in 16 days? Have you seen videos of hospital wards in Italy?
I'm not saying the news is overblown, but of those contracting the virus, kids are of least concern (mild to no symptoms), especially if they don't have any other serious health conditions.
> Frankly, this comes off as pathetic regardless, they can do what they want
This is factually incorrect. In the US, local athorities absolutely have the statutory authority to close nonessential businesses for the purpose of defending public health.
I mean having stuff shipped to your house just shifts the exposure from you to workers. Is Amazon essential? Amazon suspended some non-essential shipments (to them not customers) but they could get by with even fewer employees should they decide to only ship essential goods.
While of course I don't think GameStop really needs to be open. - I am more curious if people's attitudes will change in 2-4 weeks of self isolating. I think there's a certain excitement/anxiety to this at first especially among those where self isolating means working from home to semi-vaction. Eventually, I think a lot of people's commitment to self isolating/distancing will waver.
160 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] thread"You were instructed to keep the store open, but were unable to perform your job-required duties because you got arrested attempting to do so, therefore you are fired. Request to pay your legal fees is denied."
If you work at GameStop, call the local authorities, get a copy of the police report, go home and file for unemployment.
What's that? Is that a thing people have in US? I'm honestly curious, never heard of such a thing, outside of a context of mortage insurance which can cover you temporarily if you lose your job.
It was a smart acquisition by GS executives. Unfortunately, they weren't smart enough to manage the brand as well as they should have. The parent company should have inverted to become ThinkGeek immediately after the acquisition because it's pretty obvious to even layman that the retail market for video games is dead within a generation or so, while the market for pop-culture tchotchkes is evergreen.
Turning an already online platform for truly cool items, into a side counter in only a few core stores, just goes to show how truly clueless GS management really is.
Yeah, I'm bitter. Wife and I gifted each other lots of TG stuff over the years.
[1]: https://kotaku.com/we-are-all-scared-for-our-jobs-gamestop-e...
[2]: https://kotaku.com/sources-gamestop-changes-their-controvers...
Does that excuse trying to stay open right now? No. But let's not pretend they're not already dying.
Actually I think at this point there are more competitors in the digital space than physical...
-------
Edit to reply to the comments below: A lot of good replies, thank you. I've largely been on the "doom and gloom" side of this COVID-19 debate, so I'm surprised by the other angrier replies, but here's my thinking:
- People that download games aren't going to GameStop anyway.
- As some comments pointed out, you can't download consoles. You also can't have anything shipped to you if you don't have a credit card.
- GameStop transactions don't require close personal contact (unlike e.g. tattoos or massages).
- GameStop must discourage congregation of groups in their stores. I imagine very low foot traffic.
- GameStop must provide staff with appropriate cleaning tools. If they can't, then they should not remain open.
- I do really like the idea to transform the store into a local delivery service, or to offer pick up only.
- I have no connection to GameStop nor have I been to one in over a decade.
And then other retailers like Target will remain open because they sell medicine and food — and physical video games.
There is no reason for GameStop to remain open.
it's absolutely not necessary for a physical store that sells games to stay open when you can download them or have them shipped, but it might be essential for people to have access to an indoor pastime they enjoy.
I do actually think entertainment is pretty important in a time like this, just to keep people sane in general, but also as a carrot to incentivize people to actually stay in their houses. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to wait for it to be delivered though.
You mean reckless.
> GameStop's essential items include webcams, microphones, mice, keyboard, monitors, chargers, audio equipment, and more.
https://twitter.com/IGN/status/1240797972427874304
There is no good reason to think that the social benefit of having a physical retail store open where customers are cheek-to-jowl with each other and with staff somehow outweighs the community transmission we will certainly experience.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/03/18/toronto-employee...
Awful. You can just download Animal Crossing anyways...
standard catch 22.
I heard Tesla is going to produce ventilators?
I think the quote was something more like (from memory so meh) : "Going to produce ventilators if there are shortages."
specifically chloroquine
This is a malaria drug. Also, it can be fatal if not properly dosed.
It is especially problematic that Musk is promoting this, given that part of his reputation is that he gets his science right; he is bold, takes risks, but he at least has science/facts/truth/math on his side.
https://decrypt.co/22946/elon-musk-shares-coronavirus-cure-p...
Before you start spreading FUD, learn a thing or two about the topic.
but it is far from bullshit and is showing early promise in trials in China and Italy.
i.e.
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fkizd0/we_were_abl...
I'm for Musk skepticism and he started off complete on the wrong footing on this thing but if you don't know what you are talking about don't make claims like this
Musk is now saying that they well produce ventilators, although they have no design, no experience in medical devices, and a factory that makes cars, not ventilators...
[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31748353/tesla-alameda-co...
[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12365584618249789...
He's also said they will only do so in the event of a shortage -- he has not said he'll be proactive and divert manufacturing resources to prevent any shortage.
Worth noting that SpaceX, not Tesla, would be the business making the ventilators, as they already make similar equipment for space travel.
He's not incorrect in the tweet you linked: both cpf and mortality are currently overstated due to lack of testing and asymptomatic cases.
He has plenty of other silly tweets such as: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12360294490421985...
Also, these employees should be thankful they even have a job right now. Many retail / service industry jobs have laid off their staff.
How much does GameStop pay?
Several companies are doing this, it allows the worker to choose between reduced employment benefits from UE insurance at the benefit of less exposure to C19 or earning more money.
Most people I know that are making an hourly wage have chosen to be laid off if they had the option.
Yes, they should be thankful that they can't collect unemployment, and that they might get themselves or their loved ones killed.
The state of their business isn't a criteria right now to determine if they should be open.
I personally agree. It's a flu and it's way overhyped by the media and the left-wing crazies who just echo the sentiment and shame those who don't follow as religiously as them.
Also, this pandemic wouldn't be as big of an issue of the US government would acknowledge the need for better workers rights. Sick leave, better policies about vacation and days off, etc. But what does the Trump admin do? Here's 1000 bucks for your troubles.
EDIT: Talk about showing true colors: Someone leaked what's apparently an internal conference call between the company's execs and their store managers, where they're being instructed to keep everything open despite health concerns: https://twitter.com/CAMELOT331/status/1240743954246709265
Otherwise, I would argue that video games are necessary for the lockdown.
TBH I don't quite understand the outlash against some business deciding to stay open. A GameStop doesn't take more than 1 or 2 people to run, especially right now, and transactions are pretty simple and inovlve minimal contact. And they have a point about selling products people may want during this time.
As far as I know, Walmart will still sell video games despite only being exempted because they sell food & essential supplies. It's probably more dangerous to have to go to a Walmart either food or video games compared to going to a GameStop given the # of people typically at Wallmart.
This might be a reasonable point, except that there's no reason to leave your house at all if the only thing you want to buy is a video game. (And of course, if you need food and video games, making an additional trip to Gamestop can only hurt compared to getting everything at Walmart.)
But then, this company is clearly on its way out. I'd be very suspicious at the moment that the execs are finding ways to funnel remaining funds to their golden parachutes before they declare bankruptcy.
Many companies will go out of business as a direct response to these closings. Millions of people will lose jobs. Before throwing out insults, consider that GameStop probably has to try and stay open, or they'll go extinct.
Considering that a retail employee that sells video games isn't exactly an in-demand profession, you're also looking at the livelihoods of 16,000 full-time and 23-45,000 part-time people. Corporations aren't just faceless bogeymen.
Let it die, I say.
At the potential risk of human lives?
Even if we say that customers are coming in voluntarily, it isn't the executives at GameStop manning the counter at these stores; if it were, people would have less objection. Those staff are ordinary people like you or I.
I see no reason why a GameStop employee can't just quit or refuse to come to work if he/she fears getting infected.
You see no reason? I'll give you one:
In most jurisdictions, if your employer lays you off or closes their doors, you can apply for some kind of benefits, e.g. EI up here in Canada.
But if you quit your job on principle, you don't get benefits and have to live on whatever savings you've amassed working a retail job.
It seems you believe that everything should remain open, everyone should keep going to work, and hey, if you don't like it, quit your job and stay home.
That is not how a society gets through a pandemic, no way, no how. If you were in charge, millions of people would die. But they'd "Have their freedom to choose for themselves." So there's that.
I've seen a lot of "the economy will tank because consumers can't visit shops". I've seen a lot of friends in food & bev lose their jobs.
I haven't seen much in the way of hard numbers. Seems to me that a huge increase in worldwide deaths and a huge increase in sick time absences would be economically worse than lockdown.
In any case, as I mentioned before, the danger here is that the consequences are unknown. We really don't know what will happen, which in many ways is worse than a known danger like the virus itself. The complexity is rapidly spinning out of control and affecting trade, economics, other medical conditions, and virtually every job that isn't a remote programmer.
As far as numbers go, Cuomo just ordered that 75% of people stay home from work in NYC. If you google around, unemployment applications are growing exponentially. It seems likely that a pretty significant portion of the population will apply for it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-19/cuomo-ord...
As a nation and collective of states, leaders are decisioning on events from a couple of weeks ago. Because we don't know the ground truth at the moment, we are working with stale information. Each pandemic period -- let's use OOM cases to define it quickly -- has different levels of response needed.
The lockdown needs to happen now, then we can have the conversation around our options. As we discuss options while things spiral, the inputs are out of date, which is very very dangerous in a quickly changing exponential chart.
No business has a right to do whatever it thinks it must to survive. Tobacco companies don't get to do whatever they think they must to survive.
If a restaurant is in trouble, it doesn't get to tell its employees to speed up service by not washing their hands, nor does it get to hire employees under the table for cash to avoid payroll taxes or minimum wage, nor does it get to serve slaughtered horse to save money on beef.
Companies do not have an inalienable right to existence. If they cannot make money while being good members of society, they must close or be forcibly closed.
Secondly, the risk of dying from the coronavirus from working at or going into a small video game shop is negligible. You are far more likely to get it at Walmart or a grocery store. Are you calling for the closure of these stores too?
Thirdly, you are painting GameStop as some faceless entity. People work there. These people probably rely on their income to survive.
Lots of people, if left to decide these matters for themselves, decide that the risks of their behaviour are negligible. That's why Spring Break is crowded.
But you aren't even framing this correctly. It is not just about the risk of a 20-something retail employee dying. It's also about the risk of them transmitting it to each other and to customers, who in turn transmit it to people who have a non-negligible risk of dying.
Get a grip.
This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others.
> You think the risk is negligible. The rest of the world does not.
The catch here is that people are really short-sighted evolved primates. While shutting down the entire world will indeed stop the virus, it is already having an innumerable number of unpredictable effects like putting millions out of work, crashing the economy, diverting resources from other medical issues, to name a few.
The statistics are pretty unconvincing so far, to me personally, in order to justify a long-term shutdown.
> This is not an abstract argument, we are watching thousands of people die from this, and we believe that community transmission comes from otherwise healthy people passing it around long before they have any symptoms at all, and those carriers need not die to cause the deaths of others.
Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that? Why are you not calling for the shutdown of McDonald's? The restriction of car use? These are vastly bigger issues that are actually controllable.
As I said above: the actions being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.
Does this comparison actually make sense in your mind? Considering the cadre of medical professionals point blank asking us (repeatedly) to stop comparing this to the flu?
In my mind, the main reasons that for the coronavirus hysteria are media overreaction, especially social media, and the fact that this "source of death" comes as a fast-acting virus, rather than something long-term and abstract like obesity. The whole "slowly boiling a frog" metaphor is apt here.
Can you imagine any possible reason for why that might be?
That's my point.
Could I have an answer?
I mentioned it in another comment, but: the doctors are not the problem here. Of course doctors will recommend the best medical advice and I don't doubt the medical consensus. The issue is a broader one: what are the societal and economic consequences of total shutdown? Are these consequences better or worse than the estimated death count of the virus? Keep in mind that this includes death, too. Is there something we can do that attempts to minimize the negatives of both?
These are difficult questions and I don't pretend to have the answers. I'm simply noting that even suggesting an alternate path is shouted down.
Reading this thread, and several others and watching several other discourses, I do not see that to really be the case in whole. In part maybe, in whole? No.
Disagreements are being had sure about this or that element of this situation, but disagreements have great capacity to forment solutions whereas this 'taking your ball home' attitude of assuming dissent implicates snark and disagreements implicate being "shouted down" (especially when, as you've done earlier: presenting various whatabouts when there are people who are actively trying to understand this disease and bring about solutions are screaming "STOP THAT") is it self an alternative path I think many people prefer to avoid.
Good luck. Wash your hands.
Why are the statistics unconvincing? Where is your evidence?
A bad economy will hurt people. Millions dead will also hurt the economy, hurt people, and hurt our civilization for a long time.
Why do you think it's either the economy or a serious response to the virus? The economy is effed either way -- let's focus on preventing deaths now, then we can focus on money.
The actions not being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.
That's a nice bit of mis-framing to accompany telling me to treat your ideas with more respect. The fact is, you are the one who agrees with the mob. Go to Florida. Enjoy Spring Break along with thousands of people who think the risk is negligible and are ignoring the actual researched science on epidemics and risk reduction.
The "mob" wants to go to work. The "mob" will line up elbow to elbow to get into bars that are open. The "mob" takes cruises. The "mob" squeezes into economy class on airplanes.
How about this for politeness?
PLEASE stop framing the world's response to a lethal global pandemic as some kind of panic that is not grounded in facts, expertise, or experience.
As I said before: decisions have consequences. Of course doctors will suggest the best medical solutions for medical problems. That is their job. But they aren't economists and they don't take into account bigger consequences of political actions. Long-term shut-down of the economy will result in more crime, more death, and lots of other bad unforeseen effects. Are these worse than the effects of the virus? I don't know, but it's certainly a conversation worth having.
It's not the doctors fault and I don't expect them to take this into account. What I do expect is the ability to have a rational conversation about the topic. Clearly, this is impossible in the current environment when people like you respond to any wrongthink with a personal attack.
Fine, suit yourself, here is my comment without the suggestion that you go to Florida:
---
Let me see if I get this right: You are describing the response that is backed by every epidemiologist, every doctor, every functioning government in the world, as a "mob?"
That's a nice bit of mis-framing to accompany telling me to treat your ideas with more respect. The fact is, you are the one who agrees with the mob.
The "mob" wants to go to work. The "mob" will line up elbow to elbow to get into bars that are open. The "mob" takes cruises. The "mob" squeezes into economy class on airplanes.
How about this for politeness?
PLEASE stop framing the world's response to a lethal global pandemic as some kind of panic that is not grounded in facts, expertise, or experience.
---
If you want to have a rational conversation, perhaps you should let go of suggesting that the response is that of a mob, as if the people who disagree with you are irrational and panicking.
Remember that you begun this discussion by bandying phrases like "witch hunt." And your tone has not become more rational and balanced. Ponder that when asking yourself why your ideas are not getting the respectful responses you believe they deserve.
If you want to begin again, my point at the top was that companies don't have a right to survival at any cost. That's what you suggested, and you have not spoken to it since.
Of course companies don't have a right to survival. I don't care about GameStop the company. I care about the people that work there and their livelihoods, many of which are minimum-wage retail workers. They can't easily get another job.
I chose to delay gratification in order to save other people's lives. Amazing, how things work when people behave like adults instead of toddlers who need their diapers changed.
Let that sink in if you ever revisit this thread.
p.s. No, we Canadians can't stop you from going to the store during a pandemic. But we can ask you to stay right where you are, and that's exactly what we did when we closed our border to non-essential traffic from the USA.
In stark contrast to “profits über alles”, which is perfectly A-OK. Here ya go, folks: if you want the voice of late-stage capitalism, it’s right there in print. The only thing missing is a nod to “job creators”.
In the case of GameStop - mental health matters to people, and games are an important outlet especially if they live alone. The alternative is that they will violate guidance on gatherings. And GameStop also sells equipment you can use to work from home. I don’t think it’s just groceries or healthcare that should be allowed to operate. People who fear what’s coming next might want to shop camping/outdoors stores, or maybe they need to get their car fixed up if they need to leave, or whatever else. I understand the logic behind it, but I feel a blanket rule banning most businesses from operating isn’t the right move.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/03/18/toronto-employee...
In order to speed up this quarantine, we should ask for "herd immunity volunteers" who basically volunteer to get infected (healthy young adults only). They would go into their own quarantine until they are no longer infected in which case they can be released into society, and since they are now immune, may be suited for certain jobs that require contact with infected.
Look at the growth charts on this page: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
About 10x more cases every 8 days. Sure, the medical care for the current number of critically ill people is OK for now, but can it handle 10x that in 8 days? 100x that in 16 days? Have you seen videos of hospital wards in Italy?
But I agree, hoarding TP is dumb.
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-children-serious-ill...
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/childrens...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/most-coronavirus-...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/health/coronavirus-children-s...
This is factually incorrect. In the US, local athorities absolutely have the statutory authority to close nonessential businesses for the purpose of defending public health.
While of course I don't think GameStop really needs to be open. - I am more curious if people's attitudes will change in 2-4 weeks of self isolating. I think there's a certain excitement/anxiety to this at first especially among those where self isolating means working from home to semi-vaction. Eventually, I think a lot of people's commitment to self isolating/distancing will waver.