Life v/s Livelihood

Life v/s Livelihood

In the debate of Life of thousands v/s Livelihoods of millions, what if numbers are allowed to overrule emotions ?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the very interesting tweets that I have see on lockdown is :

“If you feel useless right now, think of Google Maps”

Indeed, who could have imagined that a day will come when roads and traffic jams will never be part of our daily discussion. 

However, a low traffic on googlemaps would not mean a difficult ride of Google Inc even during these difficult times. However, others are not so fortunate. Take the case of a travel portal or a ticketing site for entertainment. The core proposition of the former was that everyone needs to travel and the latter's core belief was that boredom will generate a continuous demand for out-of-the-home entertainment. Till a few weeks back, both these were axiomatic statements. So, it is unlikely that these companies would have asked anyone to advise on the risk of their fundamental tenets going wrong.

The problem for companies like these is extremely severe because their revenues have become almost zero and salaries form a major share of their expenses. So such companies have limited options for survival – Reduce headcount or Reduce salaries. Unfortunately, either would mean impacting Livelihoods to save Life - Life of the organisation. 

Therefore, in such times, these organisation must be thinking wish they had a contrarian thinker who would have advised them against the possibility of their fundamental tenet going wrong. A few of these would wish having paid regularly in the past a small monthly insurance premium in return for a six month salary during a pandemic. Six month salary for them is not just an issue of liquidity but an issue of solvency. So among these, those who survive these six months will surely now think towards hiring a contrarian to advise on identification and mitigation of risks that normal logic can never contemplate.

Now from organisation we move into the minds of individuals. Among individuals -  there is one group that supports a strict lockdown and social distancing till we are covid-free and that those not following should be punished . The second group feels extending lockdown will do more damage than covid.

The former group is concerned about life and the latter about livelihood. While the long believed adage jaan hai to jahaan hai favours the former but with passing time, numbers are drifting towards the latter. While the migrant worker are more apparent sufferers and the more sympathetic genre, now there are also many from the mid income and low income groups - hawkers, coolies, car mechanics, autorickshaw drivers, tailors, barbers, spas,  beauty parlours, crew of cinema/TV/theatre  et al – who favour removal of lockdown.

So now we have a situation where there is an emotional case for saving life but also an increasingly larger numbers who feel it’s worth taking a little risk on life in the fight for livelihood. The problem, essentially, boils down to Life of thousands v/s Livelihood of millions

As it appears now, there is a growing belief that expecting the covid numbers to come to zero and remain zero without medical innovation is only a utopian phenomenon. Even if one zone/city/country is zero-covid, when travel from other zone/city/country commences, an absolute zero on covid is unachievable.

So my guess is that in this battle of emotions v/s numbers, it is the latter that will probably win. And since the risk avoidance through social distancing will lose significance when public transportation starts, the former group will be forced to go out of home and expose themselves to risk. Risk taking for individuals will, henceforth, become unavoidable till medical innovation brings in new life after 12-15 months.

Therefore, post-Lockdown we will have a situation where organisations will work towards reducing or avoiding risk and individuals will be forced to move in a new risk zone. And curiously, in this interplay of risk both organisations and individuals,will be working towards a common goal – that of saving livehoods till we see the beginning of a new life next year. In  a way, proving the converse jahaan hai to jaan hai to be true.

As many fundamental tenets will see their converse coming true, the zllion year old phenomenon ‘Risk’ will see a new definition and the human mind will experience a massive traffic of new beliefs. And in negotiating traffic through this new road called Life v/s Livelihood, it is the human energy that will have to find solution, googlemaps will remain useless.

Deepesh Salgia,