Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this comment because it's a great example of how the exact same data can be used to support opposing narratives. The raw data here is that California sees a certain quantity of bottle recycling and has a certain level of social safety net. * One narrative is that the high bottle recycling rate shows a problem with the social safety net. * Another narrative is that recycling rate shows that it is itself functio…
> Another narrative is that recycling rate shows that it is itself functioning as part of the solution to the social safety net. In my experience, no one in good faith argues that bottle deposits are a part of the social safety net, let alone a functional part. Edit: to clarify, mine is a US centric experience. I think the argument for recycling collection as a tool of economic mobility is perfectly sound as long as…
Unfortunately it puts the collectors at risk, because it incentivizes them to root through garbage cans full of potentially dangerous material without any protective equipment. And in the end its a complete waste of their time. If the government wants to earmark that money for them, they should just do that, and let those people do something meaningful like job training, or raising grandchildren, or whatever, instead of being up to their elbows in broken glass and used condoms in the middle of the night. Most of the recyclable material was already in somebody's recycling bin already, so it's not like they're cleaning up the environment or any other social good.