1,463 karma · joined May 9, 2015
You can look into it if you want but there are a lot of people that think its actively good for you. I'm more in it for the weight loss and take anything else as a bonus.
Magnesium from random supplement I got at target, potassium from no-salt salt alternative.
Yes the first day and last bit suck, especially the first time. But its also ~3-5x more time efficient than most calorie reduction diets and you save time and money.
Great products as well.
They aren't digging into insulation in your attic or going through multiple boxes of kids clothes in your basement.
I imagine most safes get burgled because their owner can't keep their mouth shut.
It's not entirely illogical either if you assume the marginal utility of money is discontinuous and there is a jumps around at certain thresholds such as being able to afford a reasonable home.
Yes it would be difficult to implement. You would encourage people to seek higher paying jobs by progressively phasing the wage subsidy out. Or just not phase it out at all. No real difference between the two depending on income taxes.
On the other side you could also target a certain cyclical unemployment rate and have a minimum wage employers must pay that fluctuates with that. That way there isn't an incentive to have "wink wink nudge nudge" pretend jobs.
My problem with the UBI is I think the amount needed to be meaningful (1k+ a month) gives people enough money to check out of society and not be a contributing member. Its super inexpensive to live with friends somewhere kind of crappy and just do basically nothing productive.
If we, as a society, think there is some sort of minimum standard for living. (We should) Then we, as a society, should pay for it.
Increasing minimum wage seems like a roundabout unfair way of doing that via selective inflation. Which as far as I can tell would be largely a wealth transfer from the middle class to the lower class. Who spends a larger % of income at places people make minimum wage?
I think the government should guarantee some minimum wage and top people who don't earn that. Obviously a lot of moral hazard issues and complications with a system like that but I think it is better to have businesses worry about employing people and governments worry about welfare.
What seems to always be left out of these "if a business can’t pay a living wage, should it be a business?" discussions is what exactly are people going to do instead?
I'm ok subsidizing people's labour. I'm not ok subsidizing people's leisure.
"Effective January 1, 2020, landlords may not request a security deposit of more than one month’s rent for an unfurnished unit, and two month’s rent for a furnished unit, if the unit is rented to a service member."
The one month limit seems specific to service members.
[0] https://comcaststore.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/wk/urc/585bc3605b...
Anyhow at the risk of this turning into a multi page rant about comcast I'll cut back to upload speed. I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption. What do the cable companies want people to be doing?
If you look at the popularity of twitch/youtube/(things I'm too old and unhip to know about) it is a direct threat to cable/traditional content creation. I'd wager the current state of affairs holds a lot of people back from getting into content creation, especially poorer/larger families who have to share a limited connection.
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...
I see 17 and 15c off peak. Part peak is 23 for EV-B.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Tex...