541–550 of 563 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When bulk is $40, you're just making some really, really poor life decisions if you both have a kid, and can't find a way to save that much money in a 30 day window.
"Then you shouldn't have had a kid" is among the most useless, vacuously/pointlessly true at best (and cruelly stupid at worst) statements you can give to any parent, no matter their circumstance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they got pregnant. And an abortion wasn't possible, for medical or ethical reasons. Edit: Or for other people's ethical reasons, manifested as laws against abortion.
> "Because they got pregnant" Really? In 2018, given the myriad of ways you can cost-effectively prevent pregnancy, I hardly accept "because it happened" as an answer. Yes, birth control sometimes fails. That statistic alone cannot explain the quantity of individuals having children, who simply shouldn't be. People can down vote me all they want, but what I am saying is true: Having children when you cannot afford to…
But yes, sometimes people have kids, realizing that they have no clue how they'll afford them. Call it desperation, if you will. Or rebellion against an unjust society.
Or maybe they don't really think it through. Much of the time, I suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's a cheap shot to just dismiss it all as religious and idiotic. Except in self-defense or war, societies generally aren't OK with killing people. But when do fetuses become people? Some cultures were OK with parents (or at least, fathers) killing children younger than eight years. Many have gone with birth as the cutoff. There is an argument that conception is the cutoff. But on the other hand, the relationsh…
> So arguably she can evict a fetus, whenever she wishes. A mother 'evicting' a fetus at 24 weeks without the abortion would result in a very tiny, but likely healthy baby (at least in the US, where premature baby care is generally outstanding). Source - held one in my hands this fall when our friends adopted him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us whose time is worth a lot per hour may not want to give it to everyone else, because some of us did have to do special things and work very hard to get it. I see very little daylight each day, get very little exercise, and so on because I'm trying to provide for my family. For my sacrifices in many other areas, my time has become valuable. If you feel guilty about earning money easily, feel free to give it…
That doesn't take into account the hedonic treadmill. The research is pretty clear - the difference in happiness and stress levels between making 300k and 400k as a family is pretty much nothing on average. The difference in happiness and stress levels between a family making 20k-40k is enormous.
I'm all for designing some kind of social contract, but I would like it to consider more than just relative wealth.
Also, in general I think it's a good idea to segment the population by net worth rather than income, not that I would advocate taking from those with high net worth either...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OK, how did we do this before diapers were invented, and what happened to that?" My Mom always mentions it as well. She used a stack of cloth diapers, then hand washed them, dried them and even ironed them. It was a pretty labor and time intensive process. She says we are lucky to be able to get a box of diapers from Amazon, use them, throw them in a diaper pail and close the lid and not have to worry about it.
She didn't need to iron them though. Now you just chuck them in the washing machine and then line dry them or put them on a low heat in the dryer. The sheer amount of nappies that were in our outdoor bin kinda made us realise that we needed to change to cloth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't take into account the hedonic treadmill. The research is pretty clear - the difference in happiness and stress levels between making 300k and 400k as a family is pretty much nothing on average. The difference in happiness and stress levels between a family making 20k-40k is enormous.
Just because someone else would be happier with money currently in my pockets isn't a morally legitimate reason to take my money and give it to them, in my opinion, all else being equal. I'm all for designing some kind of social contract, but I would like it to consider more than just relative wealth. Also, in general I think it's a good idea to segment the population by net worth rather than income, not that I would…
The unfortunate fact of our world is that, statistically, very few people escape their demographic and psychographic destiny. You can predict a 6 year old kids earnings as an adult fairly well from a mix of their birth geography, parents income, an iq test, and the marshmallow test. Some level of redistribution, that still rewards capitalist endeavors, makes sense in a society as unfair as ours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How big is paycheck? Probably more than $30. When buying in bulk for 2 months is cheaper than buying weekly for 1 month, it's kinda nobrainer. And they'd need even more from one paycheck to another to get supplies in smaller packs. Unless they're getting paid weekly. But even then, $30 is not that much of a stretch. especially if you buy food in bulk one week, diapers in bulk another week. Your point would be correct…
Someone in that situation likely isn't going to be able to get a single full time job because employers are cheap and don't want to pay for benefits. Getting paid multiple paychecks in a two-week period is not at all unrealistic. If they are working non-formal employment they could easily getting paid for a single day of work some times. Some one who manages to get 40 hours a week of work at minimum wage of $7.25 min…
In my country lots of people make ~ $500. Or even less. With prices similar (or even in many cases higher) to flyover USA. Living paycheck to paycheck is the norm here. What people do, after getting paycheck(s) they put together a budget for the next month. And $30 once a month for essentials is definitely a better deal than paying $15 weekly for the same thing. As you said, they don't have much money left. Thus they take every possible bulk or coupon deal to save money.
Yes, poor people are having a harder time than your average HN folk. But vast majority of them are not dumb and can do math pretty well. I hate how US media is portraying poor people as unintelligible who can't think ahead. Yes they can. Unless US poor are somehow different?
What they need is more job security, better paying entry level jobs and more education opportunities (wether vocational or after-hours college). And better pay for infamous but educated jobs like librarian or teacher. Which are borderline minimal wage and borderline poor over there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because someone else would be happier with money currently in my pockets isn't a morally legitimate reason to take my money and give it to them, in my opinion, all else being equal. I'm all for designing some kind of social contract, but I would like it to consider more than just relative wealth. Also, in general I think it's a good idea to segment the population by net worth rather than income, not that I would…
If money was originally distributed magically - by an amoral higher entity of some sort - would you be in favor of some democratically decided redistribution afterward to make it a little more fair? What if you had to decide the answer to that before you found out how much in lifetime earnings you'd be randomly assigned? The unfortunate fact of our world is that, statistically, very few people escape their demographi…
Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss some kind of social contract, but I get nervous about people saying "well he makes a lot of money, let's take it from him". That's too simplistic.
>In the United States, the average diaper sells for about 25 cents. Really? I'm currently paying 8 cents a diaper from Aldi.
The word "average" suggests that you buying a much cheaper diaper from a budget retailer is not at all incompatible with this figure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been done in the past, e.g. government cheese. It turns out that letting the market deliver necessities based off of demand is far more efficient than the alternative. That would be a government anticipates how much a community will use, what styles of diapers they'll want, etc.
Really? Do tell me more about the benefits of water system privatization in the US. Story upon story like https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/risks-costs-private-water-lea... doesn't make me conclude that letting the market deliver water is "far more efficient than" a public water system.
Your argument is making a straw man. You are the first commenter to bring up public utilities. Everybody needs water. Systems that are accountable to local government are the most effective way to get it. Usually that is with a publicly-owned water corporation.
A basket of goods is far different. Back to the subject actually at hand: some people will need cloth diapers. Others disposable. A government employee would need to administer the program in that town or district.
The inflexibility of the program would mean that some parents would not use all their diapers and would dispose of them. Other unfortunate parents would need way more. Also, what size diapers? Benchmark this against weight? A physical bottom measurement? Not all children use diapers at the same rate.
Hopefully this example gives you an idea of the complexities involved in centralized management. Empirically, baskets of goods are less efficient and more costly when centrally administered.