…
No, I mean people choose jobs which pay money and are widely available. When jobs to care for the elderly pay well and are widely available relative to other, less necessary work, then people will respond by seeking those jobs. This may require additional training. That’s fine. People will get this training in search if the relatively higher wage. This is basic economics.
To enhance his public image
Why would he want/need to do this? There are a bunch of other billionaires in the world who have basically no public image whatsoever - why wouldn’t he just do that? And if he is so concerned about his reputation, why would he constantly draw the public’s eye towards the one thing that would ruin his reputation if he actually is embezzling money through his charities?
If Bill is so philanthropic, why does he keep $110bn outside his charity and only $42bn inside.
Because when your money is more liquid it is more flexible? Idk, ask him.
Right, but then why would he constantly talk about it? Why wouldn’t he just say “yeah, I donate a lot to charity”, feign ignorance about the concept of effective charities, and then arbitrarily dole out money to a mix of innumerable small local charities and shell charities which feed back into his pocket? Like, the number one rule of doing crime is “don’t draw attention to yourself when you are committing crime”. You don’t announce to all your coworkers that you are going to the kwikymart 5 minutes before you rob the kwikymart.
As the size of the working population declines, labor will reallocate itself from less necessary positions to more necessary ones. So the proportion of the population that would have worked at McDonalds, for example, would work in nursing homes instead.
The way you are sidestepping the question makes the answer obvious.
I wish you the best. But at the same time, I doubt you’ll reach many people without a product that most people actually want to enjoy.
No, I think the Dems need a different strategy than the GOP, rather than fruitlessly trying to emulate them.
Our goal is to make erotic content that features regular (well, slightly unconventional admittedly…) people with regular bodies
So… are you saying you aren’t hot? Because I kinda doubt the market penetration you’ll get if you aren’t hot.
There will be so few able bodied humans extant to perform basic upkeep in 20 years that fundamental infrastructural systems will not JUST be crumbling to dust from sheer neglect as they are now, but actively self-destructing from sustained systemic cascade failure.
Pretty doomerist of you. I’m honestly not concerned about declining populations. Better for the environment, and we’ll figure out the rest through straightforward economics.
The paranoia and moral panic around sex and media isn’t really new (every generation seems to have one)
Yeah, but usually it happens after they have kids
This is basically how I see the democratic party. The “real base” is college educated people who care about things being good, but are intelligent enough to see beyond first order effects. These are the sorts of people who read think pieces in The Atlantic, and who also have a subscription to The Economist because they feel it is important to see many sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, these people make up a rather small minority of the voting population.
The remainder of the Democratic party’s voters are made up of diverse interest groups which are voting for their own narrow self interest - various racial minorities, sexual minorities, women, union members, etc.
The challenge of the Democratic party is convincing an ornery old black man who regularly uses homophobic slurs to complain about his nephew and a 33 year old white woman who jogs during her lunch break when working to save the dolphins that they are on the same side.
Meanwhile, the “real base” of the Republican party is made up of a not very diverse group of “real Americans” who are also voting (as they see it) for their own self interest. But there’s not really nobel intellectual class in the Republican party - there are the elites, who cynically use the plebs to enact their chosen policies, and there are the plebs who cheer for their elites even when they are told exactly how they are getting screwed.
Democrats have fretted for years about how they could gain the success the Republicans have at getting their message out and mobilizing their base, and the reality is that they just can’t. Democrats are, quite simply, not dumb enough to fall for that bullshit.
Lol. As one of those tech workers I’ll never forgive Bill for making slashes the wrong way in DOS.
But also, his foundation does good work and I support it. The amount of hate he’s getting in this thread just builds up the amount of eye roll I have for anyone who describes themselves as a “leftist”
This is correct.
He’s gone in depth about this a number of times, where he talks about the complexity of using philanthropic money effectively. For example, is a dollar better spent educating poor children, or building wells in rural communities? Providing bed nets for malaria, or treatments for tuberculosis? And then once you decide on the cause you will put your money into, how do you ensure the money goes where you wanted it to go, rather than being syphoned off by bureaucrats, reallocated to spurious pet projects, or lining the pockets of some local warlord? And once your money has gone to the cause, how do you measure its impact to ensure it was money well spent? Do people actually use the well? Does it provide clean water? Does it work reliably? Did rates of malaria actually go down, or are people too lazy to use the bed nets? Etc.
These things are complicated and take time to figure out. Hence why all the “donate it now” comments are ridiculous.
donates 99% of his wealth here, in the US.
Why would he do that when he could donate money to helping the worlds poorest people have access to clean water and education…?
People don’t usually write public annual newsletters about their money laundering schemes.
Because banning them works better.
If the school wants to teach responsible use, they can provide school-owned phones for use during coursework.
The problem is that if you have a class of 18 students and all of them are looking at their phones during a lecture or while doing practice problems, it is impossible to police behavior by differentiating who is taking notes and who is texting friends, or who is using a calculator app and who is using Wolfram Alpha. It’s much easier to just say “no phones” so the teacher can quickly identify who is taking notes (on paper) or using a calculator (that is a TI 83) versus the students trying to sneakily use their phone under their desk.
I was thinking more of Chestertons Fence - you fuck with something you don’t understand, so it blows up in your face and everyone is worse off because you didn’t understand the long term implications of your actions.
Tbf, I don’t think this new drug would do anything about them either, considering it only blocks periferal pain.
A drug that gives you the feeling of bbqing with friends and family in the city park. Lit
Why would the capitalists want misogyny? They don’t care about women’s self esteem - just their money.
Increased worker productivity via technology can also help here. Also, immigration.