471–480 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Without universal basic income, we are totally f@cked." Speak only for yourself.
As in, don't speak for the non-americans or you think this problem isn't going to affect people with savings, because I think that a huge proportion of the population being broke will have consenquences for the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs guarantee could be popular like awful "workfare", but it's oftenstill stupidly resting on the assumption that full employment is good, and UBI without full employment is inherently inflationary.
I think a Jobs Guarantee would be a practical, possible-to-get-the-law-passed, interim solution until UBI. The main benefit of a Jobs Guarantee is it would be palatable to the 50ish% of voters who are opposed to "handouts" without work. And in theory some of the people who work at these jobs might have more self respect, and might maintain good habits that would let them re-enter the regular workforce in time. Now, i…
I am hoping we get a non-means-tested corona $1000 after the shitty one, and then things for UBI pick up for there. If we need a mix of UBI and JG for some time, so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pollution and inefficient consumption of resources are much more important factors in climate change.
Are you suggesting that overpopulation has nothing do with this? To be clear, I am against any attempt at population control. I want to keep awareness on the fact that many others do, though.
But we do have a great potential to poison our environment if we don't rein in the pollution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that overpopulation has nothing do with this? To be clear, I am against any attempt at population control. I want to keep awareness on the fact that many others do, though.
If you mean in term of energy and space because of extra mouths to feed, not really. But we do have a great potential to poison our environment if we don't rein in the pollution.
In my opinion, the US military and the manufacturing industries of China and India by far do the bulk of poisoning the environment and impacting climate change.
I'd much rather have, as a US taxpayer, those assets diverted to healthcare and basic subsistence, too. I'd rather that charities do it, though, and wish it was easier for philanthropy to be more efficiently implemented. We can't even get enough masks out, for cryin out loud.
But damn if we can precision kill someone on the other side of the planet without due process of law! Or find all your domestic social media traffic in October 2016
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s possible with the 5 minute Abbott machines that are starting to be distributed
Makes you wonder if you could pool together a bunch of low-risk samples, and only re-test if the pool comes back positive.
The logistics behind this must be formidable. They would need hundreds of food preparers, all of them tested daily for COVID-19 and of course practicing strict hygiene in prep and packaging. Still it's probably easier to control than thousands of separate restaurants and food markets, which is undoubtedly their thinking: centralize food distribution to minimize risky contact. This is a sobering reminder of how depend…
Testing daily is science fiction right now. My assumption is that they check the temperature and that's about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many things have become " just-in-time", production, so much that depends upon things ticking along and any bump like this, sure does start toppeling many a dominio.
I think over the coming weeks, we're going to see just how much of the "essential" part of the economy depends on the "non-essential" part. For example, a comment in one of these postings on HN was talking about how the manufacture of essential supplies was continuing and robust (even I've made a similar comment some time ago). But... ok... how much of the logistics capacity, the capacity of hauling those essential p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are people going hungry in the US? Obesity rates are at an all time high and the highest in the population below the poverty line. What metric should we look at in terms of quantifying people going hungry?
Just as a note on this - low income have higher obesity rates, because many of them live in food deserts, without access to quality produce, or other regular staples. Further, high-calorie, low nutrition foods are cheaper in the US, and therefore more accessible. Fat people =/= healthy distribution system of food.
In fact, trying to understand how such an upside-down false narrative could even exist, is the more interesting aspect of the 'food desert' phenom.
The density of fresh food is indeed lower in some areas, but always within reach. More important, this an issue of supply and demand: food is the most ancient of all commerce. Where people want to buy a food, it will be present. The very premise of 'food desert' is fundamentally flawed from the start. Food is a very competitive, very open, very dynamic, very well understood phenom. There are essentially zero places in America wherein there is truly unfulfilled demand at a basic level. Food stores cover every nook and cranny and balance quite well with demand.
Also - fresh food is the healthiest food, and it's also the cheapest. It requires work to prepare it. Processed and prepared food is the most expensive, and generally less nutritious. Though there are some anomalies (ie milk), food is still cheap.
The price of food has been deflating consistently over time. Just 2 generations ago food might have made up 24% of a HH budget, now it's 1/2 that.
Poverty exists, food insecurity exists, and surely there are some people who can't access what they need, but in general, the 'food desert' things is an invented narrative.