|
DrNutt posted:For a greater understanding of your point, do you mind sharing where this data is from? I did some searching myself but I found a lot of SCARY ARTICLES talking about decline of civilization but not a lot of cited research. I also found an article comparing the US to Japan which was incredibly laughable for what should be obvious reasons. And yeah Japan's culture is, uh, something else.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
twodot posted:Hmm, that seems like a reasonable point: You close that out by saying that giving parents more money would be "politically necessary" and it again makes me think that you don't understand that kids cost a lot of loving money and they can't make money for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:fart noises In my head it's a furious masterbatory gesture with a blown raspberry. The real local problem for parents is inequality. Eg. If you manage to live on the east side of Seattle: Issaquah, Sammamish, etc, you're in parenting heaven. The resources availible are staggering and incredibly easy to use. If you don't live in those areas... still as hosed as any where else in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Even if you're some loner misanthrope you can at least appreciate that parents having paid leave means they can spend their money on things that likely ensure you continue to have a job. Then when those kids are adults, they can start buying the same poo poo. You can hate children without being an rear end in a top hat about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:You close that out by saying that giving parents more money would be "politically necessary" and it again makes me think that you don't understand that kids cost a lot of loving money and they can't make money for themselves. twodot posted:I'm the one saying everyone should have enough time and resources to raise kids, and then decide whether they want to spend that time and resources on raising kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:How many times do I need to repost this? I want everyone, as a base line, to have the time and resources to raise kids. If everyone has that as a base line, giving even more money to people raising kids doesn't seem very compelling unless you're specifically trying to encourage people to have kids that wouldn't otherwise. The problem is you're coming off as some sort of MY FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS technocratic sperg since I'm fairly certain I and the rest agree with you but really don't want to because you're kind of being an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
We already give money to people to raise children. It is called the EITC. Edit: And this is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:The problem is you're coming off as some sort of MY FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS technocratic sperg since I'm fairly certain I and the rest agree with you but really don't want to because you're kind of being an rear end. Twodot you're smart enough to not do what Teabag Dome Scandal is describing. It's consistently undermined many of your arguments across many threads. Facts don't convince. One has to speak to the experience of humanity in others. One doesn't nessisarily have to have had those experiences, enough empathy will work too. You'll be more effective if you figure this out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:In my head it's a furious masterbatory gesture with a blown raspberry. Takes more effort to consider the onomatopoeia for a raspberry, thbpbptbptpb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:How many times do I need to repost this? I want everyone, as a base line, to have the time and resources to raise kids. If everyone has that as a base line, giving even more money to people raising kids doesn't seem very compelling unless you're specifically trying to encourage people to have kids that wouldn't otherwise. Okay, so what I'm about to say is going to sound reductive and condescending, so I want to start by saying I don't mean it as such. I'm not saying this as pithy sophistry, but as a statement that I want you to genuinely consider in depth before weighing in further on this issue: Having children should not be a financial decision. Dwell on that a moment, please. Ask yourself about the obvious secondary decisions to it that are financial, and about their implications for society. Okay, so UBI establishes a higher minimum that should, if everything goes to plan, raise the current poverty-level condition to something more humanizing and safe. People will still pursue power and wealth, and resources will be used capitalistically to maximize financial efficiency for wealthy people. They will opt to work because they make more than child care costs. They will consolidate their universal time off for socially advantageous vacations. Their children will be neglected, resulting in a social dichotomy of child rearing that leaves the child damaged and its peers reminded of their class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Tulalip Tulips posted:Most daycares in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties also charge 200-400 more per month for children under the age of 2, especially if they are an home based daycare rather than a corporate chain like Kindercate Missed this earlier, something else to consider is availibility. All the good child care preschool options fill up in January / February for fall enrollment. Just getting a spot is blood sport. Some parents will drive like 45 minutes each way for preschool/childcare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
And you can't reserve a spot much further out than a year anyway so there's no point in trying to stake something out early. Daycare in Seattle proper is a nightmare of low availability and high cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Something else about this topic. Parenting is big deal thing in the brain. The parent child bonding systems in the brain... pair bonding (love) and addiction use that system. Being an addict is like being a parent. Patents will shiv you to get a better life for thier child. (A good book with a chapter on this is "Unbroken Brain", it deals primarily with explaining how addiction works in the brain ). Not understanding parenting cedes one of the most deeply wired brain motivations to the right. We know exactly what ends they use it towards: racism and classism. The history of charter schools is those two things. Goddammit seriously, handwaving it away is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheStranger/status/883451600999661568 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:If people can own housing, right now, and not have to worry about profiting from it, let's apply that system to everyone. You seem like you might be hung up on multi-tenant complexes, so here's a scenario: the tenants who reside in the building can own the building collectively. Is that such an alien concept to you? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:apants' solution to the housing crises - collective ownership and bargaining for housing within high-density urban architecture this, but unironically
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
hi I skipped the last couple pages after someone described everyone having shelter as a "utopia."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 17:11
|
|
precious
|
Lazy_Liberal posted:hi I skipped the last couple pages after someone described everyone having shelter as a "utopia." You done good
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
This thread needs some non Portland/Seattle news... Salmon salmon salmon.... http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/environment/article160364954.html I'm torn because because while dam removal may work, it might also not work. Also all of that power will need to be replaced. (Which probably means either combined cycle natural gas plants or a lot more wind turbines along the columbia river.) So in the short term, what they should do.... -Shoot the loving sea lions at the dams.... -Ban the use of gillnets (for everyone) on the Columbia and the mouth of the river. In feel good news... a dog lost in the mountains in 9 months, found alive. http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article160290474.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I'd be interested in your examples of dam removal not working, in this regard. And how much research you've done on the effects of dam removal on recovering nearby ecology and species, or how much experience or education you've got with energy infrastructure. But then you went all full "ban gillnets for everybody" which in my PNW experience around fishermen, actually is code for "natives get to fish in ways we white tax-paying citizens cannot, this is obviously an impingement on our rights." "Shoot all the sea lions" doesn't exactly do much to negate this assumptions I'm going to be making about your background, viewpoint, or education on the matter. And hoo boy if you honestly think that it'd be cost-effective and/or sustainable to keep the what, 70,000+ dams up and running which were built in the USA in the past 2 or 3 generations compared to wind or solar, yeah.. There's a lot more that's required than slapping some patch concrete onto the cracks, which is why the klamath basin project is green to remove all the dams along that river lengths - except that american politicians feel that dam removal sounds like "job killing" for their conservative, less-educated, and liberal-hating base so they won't touch that poo poo with a ten-foot salmon rod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Plus, Idaho isn't part of the PNW. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Plus, Idaho isn't part of the PNW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I'd be interested in your examples of dam removal not working, in this regard. And how much research you've done on the effects of dam removal on recovering nearby ecology and species, or how much experience or education you've got with energy infrastructure. coyo7e posted:But then you went all full "ban gillnets for everybody" which in my PNW experience around fishermen, actually is code for "natives get to fish in ways we white tax-paying citizens cannot, this is obviously an impingement on our rights." Also it turns into an argument of commercial fishing (particularly on the inlet of the river) vs. recreational fishing. Would a 2 year ban on fishing for salmon be fairer? (I thought the rule used to be you were not allowed to keep 'wild' caught salmon. But its been a while since I've been fishing on the Columbia.) Anyway I was under the impression that gill nets are not effective for 'catch and release'. The tribes have the right to fish. However, using gill nets on fish that already are endangered is pretty loving stupid. coyo7e posted:"Shoot all the sea lions" doesn't exactly do much to negate this assumptions I'm going to be making about your background, viewpoint, or education on the matter. coyo7e posted:And hoo boy if you honestly think that it'd be cost-effective and/or sustainable to keep the what, 70,000+ dams up and running which were built in the USA in the past 2 or 3 generations compared to wind or solar, yeah.. There's a lot more that's required than slapping some patch concrete onto the cracks, which is why the klamath basin project is green to remove all the dams along that river lengths - except that american politicians feel that dam removal sounds like "job killing" for their conservative, less-educated, and liberal-hating base so they won't touch that poo poo with a ten-foot salmon rod. However for Washington state, the last I heard most of the large (600+ MW) dams were doing pretty well. So like an old house, I would choose to keep it rather than wasting time, money and resources building something 'new' to replace it. The exception is the repairs they had to make at Wannapum dam. The only dam that has been removed to date in Washington was a small one in 2014. The main dams along the columbia river (East of Portland all the way to Grand Coulee) are pretty much where the bulk of Washington's and Oregon's clean power comes from. (I think around 6000-8000 MW assuming they are running at full capacity.) The snake river, while smaller than the columbia generates around 3000-3500 MW of electricity, but that is name plate. River/water flow dictates how much electricity gets made. So they can spill more water over the dam and use less of it to generate electricity. But to actively breach one of the Snake or Columbia dams just does not seem like the right thing to do from the prespective of 'clean energy'. Assuming the dam is breached in 2-3 years I only see natural gas as being used to replace that much electricity. (Much like what happened when California shut down their 2000 MW nuclear plant, SONGS) I think there was also an argument several years ago that the farm raised fish actually hurt the wild salmon's chances of survival. So maybe cut back on that too. And the small mouth bass. Can't forget about those. They eat baby salmon. Honestly those probably have more impact than the sea lions do... Also there is the 2nd and 3rd original benefits of these dams: Flood control and irrigation. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Our highly scientific poll clearly indicates that only 7.73% of respondents disagree. I didn't think about it hard enough before I voted and now I can't change it, I'll just have to live with the shame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I'd be interested in your examples of dam removal not working, in this regard. And how much research you've done on the effects of dam removal on recovering nearby ecology and species, or how much experience or education you've got with energy infrastructure. Yes, what this guy said. I give Native Americans a pass on whatever fishing or hunting practices they choose, as it is in their treaty rights and they have the moral claim to it. I do recognize a tradeoff for salmon vs clean energy/climate change issue. I WISH i could say that nuke would save us but when you look at Hanford, UGH. Mostly I am still in favor what would be best for native americans and salmon, though because if anyone in america has been hosed the worst it is probably them. So I think drat removal combined with investing in solar, wave generation, and wind with lots of storage and a modernized grid. Which should provide enough jobs to get a lot of people on board. But I really don't know poo poo about energy so I don't know if the wattage from the dams is replaceable. The calculus would be different if we still had aluminum plants and the like running at capacity, but we don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
The issue with our dam infrastructure is that it's abysmally primitive, absymally damaging to local environments from a micro and macro persepctive, and because almost nobody who is responsible for the safety and upkeep fo those dams cannot afford to repair them without jacking up energy prices to a level which would literally start people spontaneously combusting.. And this is mainly because it's been neglected for over 65 years. I won't even bother going into the energy infrastructure because I'm tired of trying to explain physics to peolpe who believe that a 100 year old concrete dam can provide cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient power that, say, any other newer and cheaper structure, which requires less maintenance, creates more jobs, and doesn't gently caress with up the vanishly tiny amount of drinkable water on the planet, or bioswales, or cause silt buildup leading to disasters and abandonment of hundred-milllion-dollar engineering projects after a handful of years... I mean, do you want dams, or clean coal? Or petroleum and natural gas? Or some other non-liberal energy source which you don't understand the dangers of, or the alternatives to? Hell, throw nuclear in there too, the energy generation thread is chock full of "I won't live to see it fail so v  v " Do you want ALL of these forms of energy, to the exclusion of solar, wind, geothermal, wave power, etc etc? Or do you feel that all of those more-damaging materials which have plenty of studies about how damaging they are in existance, ought to just be left going full-steam and faster - until we can prove that dam removals are "safe" (define "safe," for me in this context please seriously!) and "have enough studies" when you literally stand in the way of any chance to perform a safe test and then examine the results?Next up, you'll start complaining to be about how many birds die to loving windmills - I've dealt with your kind before, it's pointless to do anything but leave you to your angry ignorance, because you'll never stop grasping at straws and shifting goalposts. You're a angry piece of poo poo, who resents those who are not like you, and things you feel that you do not understand. That is a failing on your part and nobody else's - you're literally white people isis except you want to marginalize native populations and urban areas, instead of non-muslims and women who want an ecuation and good healthca-oh wait... Senor P. posted:There has been one dam removed to date in Washington. Elwha river dam. The size of it does not compare to anything on the snake or columbia. So I would be hesitant to remove several thousand MWs worth of dam to try and save Salmon which may or may not make it due to global warming. (Save the salmon, remove dams. Save the electricity, build combined cycle plants.) Commercial fishing covers a wide, wide range of fishing, up to and including tourism. Do you feel that commercial fishing operations which go out daily to sell to markets, do more or less damage to fishing populations than tourism and statewide hobbyist sport-fishing? You don't have a sizable amount of data, and you don't even live anywhere that's seen a salmon in most of a hundred years, so I'm hesitant to believe anything you say while you vent bile about native fishing practises and laws, and sea lions. How many sea lions have you had steal your Idahoan fish, again? If you're going to be a knee-jerk-reactionary white hobbyist fisherman, at least pick and choose your battles better. You obviously know jack about the Elwha because it's been 3 years, and the numbers of salmon which were able to reach spawning areas above the dam in the first year, was over 100,000. That's fish which hadn't been spawned in that area for literally 100+ years. You don't know nything about the state of any other dam removal projects and aren't willing to learn what they do and why they aren't more popular, but hey, throw me some more fox news lines, it's been a year or two since I spent a lot of time going over the practise of dam removal and it's macro effects on local enviornments and economies. Or tell me that you can make more sense and money farming rice in the high desert, while you can't actually aford the water without it being given away by the feds, while also complaining that your family has been farming in the area for over 3 generations and if those klamath indians would quit getting drunk and living in shotgun shacks and gillnetting, they might be able to start a homestead which will require government subsidies for every generation after its first, to grow non-native crops on area which used to belong to those drunken natives you look down on as a dangerous and criminal subclass of humanity. 
coyo7e fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:And the small mouth bass. Can't forget about those. They eat baby salmon. Honestly those probably have more impact than the sea lions do... As for flood protection and irrigation: you don't need a dam to irrigate, almost every farmer I know just throws a line into the nearest stream or well and pumps it out - a dam is literally the biggest communist handout to sustain an unsustainable piece of private business I can think of in many, many cases - white people struggling to farm? Build a dam. White people struggling to move timber to sell? Build some dams.. You need a dam to store water up for oversized population centers and areas which overuse resources - like, say, you've got a lot of almond and orange crops, or you are clearcutting mountains and not giving a gently caress to study the effects before or during or after a hundred years of doing it, or you move somewhere ridiculously dry and grow loving wetland crops like rice, or you want to grow lots and lots of hay to feed cows for beef production. So you build a dam up in the middle of the desert, or sink a leech line into a nearby aquifer on native lands and then give the water away to corporations who turn around and sell it to you in plastic bottles and you label it "job creation". Flood control? Dams actually cause more flooding problems, dude. They get piled up with silt and cause even bigger floods that the local populace didn't expect because they trusted the dam, and they cause bigger disasters because the dam held up a hell of a lot bigger wall of water which eventually comes torrenting down onto those cozy little hamlets which got started below them. If you can tell me how long the State of Jefferson Rebellion lasted, what their demands were, and why they suddenly quit rebelling, you might be onto something... Seriously, stay in the Idaho thread unless you want to educate us on potatoes and channel catfishing. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:The issue with our dam infrastructure is that it's abysmally primitive, absymally damaging to local environments from a micro and macro persepctive, and because almost nobody who is responsible for the safety and upkeep fo those dams cannot afford to repair them without jacking up energy prices to a level which would literally start people spontaneously combusting.. And this is mainly because it's been neglected for over 65 years. I won't even bother going into the energy infrastructure because I'm tired of trying to explain physics to peolpe who believe that a 100 year old concrete dam can provide cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient power that, say, any other newer and cheaper structure, which requires less maintenance, creates more jobs, and doesn't gently caress with up the vanishly tiny amount of drinkable water on the planet, or bioswales, or cause silt buildup leading to disasters and abandonment of hundred-milllion-dollar engineering projects after a handful of years... Can you condense this into something that doesn't look like the Unibomber wrote it? I honestly can't even tell if I agree with you or not, as the only thing I can gather from this is 'i am mad'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
therobit posted:I WISH i could say that nuke would save us but when you look at Hanford, UGH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:As a home owner I can say with certainty that anyone paying rent can afford a home, my mortgage is less than an equivalent rental would be. Even a one bedroom apartment would be affordable to most people who rent an equivalent space. The only thing stopping people is consistent financial history and several thousands of dollars of down payment. ahahahahaha oh my lord
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
sorry for not continuing the Bike Chat but by the time I sat down to read the thread everyone had moved on. Besides, it seemed like I was debating points against a tech goon basing a lot of ideas off very personal/anecdotal experience. That's been completely blown out of the water by my man Condemn, tho
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:Hanford and the Columbia Generating Station are different things. The clean-up issues with Hanford are from plutonium and weapons production, not power. Yes, but I am not super comfortable assuming we will find a safe way to store the waste, give the type of trouble we are in due to storing other nuclear waste. But I'm a layman, so if you have an explanation as to why that is easier with lower grade waste then I am all ears.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:ahahahahaha oh my lord I mean he's not wrong if rent payments vs mortgage payments are literally the only thing you are looking at!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Reene posted:I mean he's not wrong if rent payments vs mortgage payments are literally the only thing you are looking at! did you know: car payments are often LOWER than lease payments?? AND you get to KEEP the car! wowowowowowow someone get jim cramer over here ASAP we're cracking the code of investment
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
therobit posted:Yes, but I am not super comfortable assuming we will find a safe way to store the waste, give the type of trouble we are in due to storing other nuclear waste. But I'm a layman, so if you have an explanation as to why that is easier with lower grade waste then I am all ears. Also if we're talking about rent again, there was a Seattle city council vote on income tax earlier today and https://twitter.com/heidigroover/status/884528449641005056
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Reene posted:I mean he's not wrong if rent payments vs mortgage payments are literally the only thing you are looking at! Being a homeowner is so tough guys, you wouldn't want to live this hell, I'm constantly replacing roofs and hot water heaters, it totally makes sense for you to just pay me and I'll take care of it... where does the money come from to fix all these things? I just have a kind heart and love to spend my own money to help people! I used to rent a house in Bellevue for about 2600~, I now have a home and my mortgage including taxes and insurance and everything ends up being just a smidge under 2k/mo. Even with the about 5-10k I put into my house every year since I've owned it to improve it I'm still paying about the same or less than what I paid at my Bellevue rental. I've replaced all the windows with triple pane, upgraded to a tankless water heater and replaced all the galvanized steel, I bought a new washer and dryer and a new fridge, and none of these things were necessary. So if I had just lived in my home performing usual maintenance but not upgrading anything I'd be saving money by buying instead of renting. You people are stupid as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
yeah maybe people who can afford to spend 5-10k a year on home improvement aren't the only kind of person you bougie dumbass
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Being a homeowner is so tough guys, you wouldn't want to live this hell, I'm constantly replacing roofs and hot water heaters, it totally makes sense for you to just pay me and I'll take care of it... where does the money come from to fix all these things? I just have a kind heart and love to spend my own money to help people! Wow it's almost as if already having lots of money makes life really easy. If only people would "just" save up thousands of dollars first, they could own a home easy peasy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
I was under the impression that they're saying the cost of a mortgage is roughly equivalent to the cost of rent, so there's no reason why you couldn't supplant one for the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
GodFish posted:yeah maybe people who can afford to spend 5-10k a year on home improvement aren't the only kind of person you bougie dumbass I wasn't responding to you. Schmeichy posted:Wow it's almost as if already having lots of money makes life really easy. If only people would "just" save up thousands of dollars first, they could own a home easy peasy. Yeah having money is really nice, I agree. I'm saying if we remove the "down payment" part of home ownership I think a lot of people could afford a home. If you go way back to where that dude quoted me you'd see what I'm talking about. Home ownership is treated like an impossibility but it's only impossible because banks have made it that way. People are paying their rent today, if instead of giving that money to some rear end in a top hat landlord it went to some kind of home co-op I think everyone would have a home. anthonypants posted:I was under the impression that they're saying the cost of a mortgage is roughly equivalent to the cost of rent, so there's no reason why you couldn't supplant one for the other. Clearly what I'm saying is "gently caress the poors"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 00:35
|
|