|
wateroverfire posted:Because we have a collective societal interest in transitioning people off of assistance as quickly as possible Are you just taking this as a given? Because if your whole position is predicated on this being true, then I think you're going to need to expand on and defend your point a little bit here. To put it another way, there's no reason to think that "getting people off of assistance" is socially useful all by itself. I'd strongly argue that moving someone from welfare to working at Wal-Mart because they desperately want to escape the stigma is actually a lot worse than having that person stay on assistance and, for example, go back to school or stay at home to raise their kids. The goal should always be to produce the best possible outcomes for people, not to provide handouts to low-end employers looking for cheap and desperate labor.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Because we have a collective societal interest in transitioning people off of assistance as quickly as possible, when it is at all possible, and that is one element that aids in the transition. No we don't. Unless you plan to start navigating your way to work without using roads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No we don't. Unless you plan to start navigating your way to work without using roads. Roads are productive. Nonproductive people are, well, not productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
What the hell is productivity anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Roads are productive. Nonproductive people are, well, not productive. Well, yes, that is tautologically true. However people eating free food are not unproductive! People can work and do that, they can also raise children or go to school or simply be a part of their community, everything you do which leads to someone else being happier is productive, it does not have to be profitable. Going to visit your granny because she doesn't see people much is productive, but good luck finding a way to get paid for it. The idea of profitable == productive is really rather silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Nonproductive people are, well, not productive. This isn't really true in the way you're suggesting. The primary benefit that most low income employees provide to society is that they're so poor that near 100% of their income has to be pumped back into the economy. Hand some money to poor people and they'll still be "productive" because they'll have no choice but to spend it. OwlFancier posted:Going to visit your granny because she doesn't see people much is productive, but good luck finding a way to get paid for it. AARP has actually been running commercials around here in support of respite care for family caregivers using the argument that people who care for their elderly parents are saving taxpayers money by reducing the burden on medicare. People do lots of socially beneficial, but completely unrewarded poo poo as part of their daily lives, while plenty of low wage jobs are literally nothing more than a drain on the employee's time and ability to do better things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
I agree, but I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I agree, but I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this point. Because if you already believe it then what you said makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, yes, that is tautologically true. However people eating free food are not unproductive! People can work and do that, they can also raise children or go to school or simply be a part of their community, everything you do which leads to someone else being happier is productive, it does not have to be profitable. Going to visit your granny because she doesn't see people much is productive, but good luck finding a way to get paid for it. We're going to have to find a way to remove income for productivity with all the jobs that are going to be taken over by computers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I said it in the other thread but there is nothing stopping you from going down to the nearest public washroom or water fountain and filling up a few 10 gallon jugs instead of paying your water bill. Unlimited supply does not create a matching demand. The average Australian uses 56 gallons of water per day and that's in extreme conservation mode. Even if you account for water loss and other included municipal use you're still likely using more than 30 for drinking, cleaning, and washing, per person every day. Maybe you are a stereotype of the unwashed dreadlocks whitey who rubs patchouli on themselves to hide the smell of feces but the average person cannot actually get enough water using public drinking fountains. What you are describing wrt water would be a significant unpredictable distortion to society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Then some of the water whatever who gives a poo poo. My point is it's free but you don't go out of your way to get it because something being freely supplied doesn't give it infinite value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then some of the water whatever who gives a poo poo. My point is it's free but you don't go out of your way to get it because something being freely supplied doesn't give it infinite value. You clearly give a poo poo because you posted it repeatedly like it was some grand point. Further it's still a terrible analogy because the logistics of acquiring and transporting something that is difficult to move and has, in a sense, poor shelf life results in wildly different outcomes than something easy to acquire, transport, and store. We pay for the delivery of water in part because the delivery itself is so burdensome, and therefore even if treated water was free it would still retain value in transport. A free 10 lb sack of beans or rice does not have this issue to nearly the same extent, and for myself and the thousands of other people who work in close walking distance to a post office, why wouldn't I or they take a monthly stroll to get all the rice I need? And I have witnessed water theft from people daisy chaining hoses together and connecting it to a water tank so that convenience factor is real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:What the hell is productivity anyway? Whatever makes a rich guy richer. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Zachack posted:You clearly give a poo poo because you posted it repeatedly like it was some grand point. Further it's still a terrible analogy because the logistics of acquiring and transporting something that is difficult to move and has, in a sense, poor shelf life results in wildly different outcomes than something easy to acquire, transport, and store. We pay for the delivery of water in part because the delivery itself is so burdensome, and therefore even if treated water was free it would still retain value in transport. A free 10 lb sack of beans or rice does not have this issue to nearly the same extent, and for myself and the thousands of other people who work in close walking distance to a post office, why wouldn't I or they take a monthly stroll to get all the rice I need? Post Office is on the way home from work, I walk. I'd totally make a stop once a month to pick up package, and get free basic food stuffs. I'd probably fail, but I'd also give a shot at removing the cost of food from my cost of living completely, outside of eating out at places. That's 300 USD a month I could sock away for retirement or spend on bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
edit: actually gently caress this
Mirthless fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Roads are productive. Nonproductive people are, well, not productive. Roads allow free riding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:What the hell is productivity anyway? They should have taught you this school. Labor Productivity = Total Output and Total Man-Hours If = $50,000 / 1,000hr Labor productivity = $50 / man hour
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:bring back government cheese Never left, really, they just distribute it to food charities now instead of directly. I ate a lot of it growing up. Government peanut butter too. We were rural and poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Let's play the fun back of the envelope game: Rice has about 1.3 kcal per gram. So a metric ton of rice is about 1.3 million calories, which will feed two people for a year. Three hundred million people in the US means we'd need about 150 million tonnes of rice to meet the caloric needs of the entire US population. Rice runs around $300/ton in bulk, so that works out to like $45 billion to feed everyone in the US rice for a year. That's pretty much the absolute max the program of "you get rice if you come to the post office" could cost. I mean if people are coming there and loading pallets of the free rice on their trucks so they can toss it in a furnace i guess you might have a problem. That seems to be about as likely to happen as someone running a hose from a public restroom tap to their tanker truck they use to steal water though. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:They should have taught you this school. I was asking more existentially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:They should have taught you this school. Easy to measure the farther out you focus. Once you get even slightly past the firm level, it's a black box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Let's play the fun back of the envelope game:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:and that's before you get the beans involved! Within 5, the extravagance of beans themselves will earn ire. Soon after, the GOP becomes a regional rump party as they alienate Latin Americans with a pinto bean tax.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:According to ancient Japanese wisdom (no really) about 330 pounds of rice is enough to feed one person for one year. Round that up to 400 and now a ton of rice feeds FIVE people for a year, and that's before you get the beans involved! I learned that from reading Shogun. Thanks James Clavell! 
menino fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Oh yeah that's what a koku is isn't it? Enough rice to feed a peasant for one year?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Unfortunately the ancient Japanese lacked the foresight to predict an obesity epidemic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Noctone posted:Unfortunately the ancient Japanese lacked the foresight to predict an obesity epidemic. this. the ancient Nipponese never accounted for fatty fat gently caress americunts
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Within a year you'll have the GOP lamenting the extravagance of people buying end-cut bacon bits using food stamps to flavor their Government Beans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Oh yeah that's what a koku is isn't it? Enough rice to feed a peasant for one year? Yeah, it averages out to ~1500 calories a day. Not too shabby, really, as far as subsistence staples go. Figure that plus whatever you can come up with in the way of local veggies, dairy, and small game/fish and you definitely won't starve to death quickly. Hell, at $9 (retail) per 20lbs, one koku is only $148. That's a drat steal, as far as things we could spend welfare dollars on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Question: Is this a techbro?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Question: Is this a techbro? You'll notice the lack of Sick Gainz on his hatted physique.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Question: Is this a techbro? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
I think you could have an entire thread of just terrible bay area tech company billboards/posters/etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
What have you guys done to my thread  Here's a hot new tech company idea. https://medium.com/@tarintowers/on-selling-out-how-to-negotiate-a-tenant-buyout-in-san-francisco-7ec6c4a605db#.gyfhjf7x3 quote:The site’s FAQ reveals the company’s motive: ending rent control through “increased liquidity [taking] pressure out of the system.” quote:Our apartment now rents for $10,000 a month to an agency that subleases 10 bunkbeds per unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Just stack people in pyramids like cannonballs. Spray them occasionally with soapy water. Rotate every two weeks to prevent the accumulation of mold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
kliksf posted:What have you guys done to my thread Buying out leases seems like a pretty good idea. The kind of short-sighted mindset that would accept a lowball buyout are exactly the kind of people who bring property values down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/frailgesture/status/719617406675525632
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Jesus Christ you can't make this up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
List of smartphones a homeless person can easily afford:
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:List of smartphones a homeless person can easily afford: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-homeless-people-have-smartphones http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/01/smartphones-are-lifeline-for-homeless-people Not to excuse the heinous tweet but it's more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
