It just shows how bad of a person she is. She is having kids because _she_ wants to have them, even though she knows it will hard for them growing up. Putting herself before her kids even before they are born is pretty shitty parenting.
The fun and, the status and the power come from controlling wealth to build or do things. As soon as you limit control, it stops being fun and they stop generating value.
If you think 100 million dollar houses are egregious, you could try to make building them illegal. But then they'll just buy one in another country, or a yacht, or something similar.
As an ex-smoker I think the same and that's what actually made it harder to quit for me.
Smoking forces you to find open air spaces, is relaxing and induces slow breathing. In some ways it's a form of meditation. Other times it forces social spaces with other smokers in which you have to ask for a ligher and you have a conversation starter.
Same here. Rushed to the hospital after two nights of not sleeping from the back pain and chills at end of Feb. First time I've ever taken an injection for pain relief.
Number of hours worked is not equal to production or richness of a society.
Productivity equals production.
A small team of engineers who design and create a machine to build brick walls en masse, could have the same productivity as hundreds of thousands of bricklayers working 16 hours a day.
A good example of this are Silicon valley, Singapore or New York, which are small social groups that have more economic and social output than most countries with a much larger population.
To be more productive and have a richer and better quality of life (richer is not necessarily more quality of life), it's generally more efficient and sustainable to have better education and social conditions for workers, than to exploit them.
What makes the people in Singapore New York and silicone valley more productive? The fact that they work in successful businesses and earn lots of money? So what? Tobacco is a successful business.
How can you even define more economic output? You can't, you just use a very flawed proxy for economic value, money exchange.
I believe a good teacher is 100 times more productive than a software engineer. But that guy that wrote some tracking code earns a boat load more money. So you consider him more productive.
That's just a huge fallacy. Value cannot be fully quantified, we use proxies for that reason, but we should always remember that.
It's funny because the post you responded to would be better as a refutation of this post rather than the other way around
OP just explained why people (or rather, the upper middle class tech workers) of these two cities for out produce potentially thousands of people. A team of software engineers who can nail software for flipped classrooms will replace thousands of teachers AND improve educational outcomes
Yep, and when significant numbers of people simply stop working, as has been demonstrated in every experiment on basic income, production drops similarly. 0 work * any finite rate of production = 0 output.
Recessions/depressions are caused by smaller drops in production than those seen in basic income. Production includes food, medicine, services, and things that make life better for all.
>A small team of engineers who design and create a machine to build brick walls en masse, could have the same productivity as hundreds of thousands of bricklayers working 16 hours a day.
Then let them do it. That they have not done so thus far is not because we didn't have basic income. Postulating this mythical event as a counter to the empirical evidence that production did drop significantly during actual basic income is not compelling.
>generally more efficient and sustainable to have better education and social conditions for workers, than to exploit them
Then start such a company, and your better, happier, more efficient workers should beat out those other inefficient companies.
Again, this hasn't happened, despite many people trying to make such companies, only to realize that things don't work this way for valid reasons.
Unfortunately (I am South American) I think you are wrong. Some of the most prolific serial killers have been South Smerican, but serial killers are not such a popular topic on the news here so it's not as widely known.
I would think it's also logical that serial killers tend to focus on women and children because they are generally easier to overpower than another male. There is probably also a sexual component to killing and I would guess that most serial killers tend to be heterosexual, hence why they mostly target women.
Yes. Prolific, but I wasn't talking about the number of victims but the number of produced serial killers. I know that there were (and are!) many serial killers in other countries, but what I am asking is how and why did USA produce more serial killers as a cultural and sociological phenomenon. You could say "Ok, but you don't know that and your observation can be explained, because in US they caught more of these guys while in other countries they remain unidentified". That is really hard to believe because many LE and their corresponding Investigation Divisions in the world have the same level and resources that in USA and it is really hard to loose tracks of many linked murder cases, even when they seem unrelated at first. Given enough time, data, and evidence, someone will relate those cases if they were committed by a mostly psychological-driven serial killer.
I also know that they look for the easy prey (as you said, it's logical), but there's something that seems out of that dimension in this issue. I also find really hard to miss that mass-shootings in USA are something far from logical (I'm not talking about accessibility to guns, or laws and policies about guns).
I apologize if I offended someone.
I know one landlord who rented several buildings to them and he understands the risks perfectly, but says the price per sq/ft he's getting paid is so good that even if they blow up within 3 years it's still a great deal.
To some extent wealth and the comfort you can buy with it does reduce dependence on others and can help someone become isolated, since you don’t need help or favors and don’t need to engage in reciprocal social activities, since you can just pay for things. It doesn’t necessarily cause isolation, but it definitely helps someone who intentionally or unintentionally want to become socially isolated.
This. One trivial example - people used to cook their meals in my country, which meant that you sometimes found yourself lacking some basic ingredients (like flour, salt, sugar) and just borrowed them from a neighbor living on the same floor. Now, as people more people eat out or order, this has decreased significantly.
Another thing is children activity - when I was a child, all children from my area were playing together outside all day (weather and school permitting), which resulted in parents knowing each other via various everyday interactions. Now, when people can afford to pay for extracurricular activities for their children, they just chauffeur them to their various activities and there is no parent community where the children actually live.
My mom has done it with my help. From what I've seen, it's a bit more profitable than renting out directly, but also very time consuming (especially cleaning and housekeeping). If you factor in the time it takes to manage the Airbnb it probably isn't much more profitable than regular renting, unless you manage a large number of Airbnb's or have a large amount of free time and enjoy the whole hosting thing, like my mom who is retired and loves meeting tourists.
I would also add that the city and location probably influence the economics and profitability of it a lot.
We like the idea of technology improving our quality of life because as a civilization it's worked for us spectacularly so far. Driverless cars are appealing because they build on top of a transportation solution that already works, reducing the problems and externalities of it, without requiring us to completely overhaul the way we build cities and live which could take decades. When half of the world lives in remote or insecure areas, driving vs public transport is not a lazy lifestlye choice like eating poorly. Autonomous cars will also bring about a lot of new use cases which could improve public transport design, reach and usage, like driving you to a metro station which has no parking in the morning and picking you up in the afternoon.
