Sure, absolutely it's a great skill to have just in case. Ditto for preservation.
Yes, but he has four walls now, so he's not homeless and can't complain/can be removed from the statistics.
/s, although that's the vibe of how a lot of systems for poor people work, probably because they're designed by never-poor poiticians.
Edit: And for what they're charging and in what area, I wonder if these are actually profitable rental units.
Carney is still left enough I'd guess it will be hiked progressively. Maybe flat.
and they made a really astute point that the US’s immense military budget does not exist to produce the most effective weapons (as we can clearly see in their war on Iran)
Sooo what's the casualty ratio right now?
They have great weapons, it's just that weapons can't occupy a country.
Also notice that military contractors give the same average long-term returns as everything else.
Yup. Cutting federal staff worth 3.5% of GDP was never going to work.
That's fine. Spending on the military is mildly redistributive anyway.
And there's other babysitting-type jobs out there, if that's what you want. Actually that's one sector poised to grow a lot do to AI, because AI needs hella babysitting.
If you're not eating anything else, but still have a year-round growing season, it takes an acre or two for modern agriculture to feed a person. That's a lot by city standards, but not in general (it was more like 60 in pre-modern times). It's basically what the Ethiopians mentioned are doing, plus the cocoa so they can have things that don't grow on trees, as well.
and will like 30min of effort a day you can have more than enough for your own needs.
Mountains of human experience suggests it takes a lot more effort than that. Have you had to deal with pests, drought or disease yet?
You might still come in under 8 hours a day, but then you add in the cash crops... Again, this is something only white people generations away from subsistence farming seem to think will be easy.
Well, the people paying the most taxes are doing just fine.
This specific policy seems like it's trying to alienate people, though. They could have gone with anything besides nationalisation, or at least used a bullshit name for it.
Like, radical policies can win, and sometimes aren't even a bad idea, but it just doesn't seem like this one has wide appeal. Unless they win it means about as much as our hot takes on here.
You know how the Conservative party has gotten further and further right to appeal to their own activists, at the expense of appealing to anyone else? There's a similar vibe with this.
Is it not loading for me, or are there actually just two sentences?
Poor people 40 and up tend to vote more Conservative. They strike the same angry tone without any of the complicated or uncomfortable stuff.
Actually, poor young people are to the right of affluent young people, as well.
view more: next ›
Per the article, it's money the government gives these people in the first place, so it kinda is.
It does raise the possibility that if the government had just not made it legally impossible to build these things on a normal property, they'd already exist, and probably in a less dumb place.