So, this is bad and all that but I kind of hate this narrative right now. Leadership of all types of organizations make way too much money and engage in nepotism. So why are we talking about homeless services in particular? Are they worse than other industries for some reason? Or is this just part of an agenda by certain powerful ideologues to cut services to homelessness?
So far I don’t see anything unique about all these stories that isn’t also happening elsewhere. But I’d love to have a conversation about top-down organizational structure generally and the problems it causes.
Who said anything about doing it slightly less? I haven't heard that from the Israelis.
Not necessarily. The advantages of the minimum wage is that the benefits go directly to low wage earners who can use the money. So even though it imposes costs on the rest of society, it’s worth it because those are the people who need that money the most (other than the unemployed).
Rent control primarily benefits renters who stay put for extended periods. While this does have some benefits in allowing tenants who would otherwise be forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods to stay, the problem is that it doesn’t benefit their kids or other less resourced people who didn’t get in early. Since the benefits accrue the longer you stay put, it’s usually older tenants who benefit the most and they often have higher than average levels of wealth among tenants. Meanwhile, tenants who don’t get in early can be harmed by increased prices overall.
It’s a complex policy with many pros and cons. Overall I don’t think it’s a smart one but either way I don’t think we can just point to minimum wage increases and say that means rent control is good.
Friends? What does that mean?
Dude famously hates being around other people, that’s why he hates transit so much. I’m sure in his mind it makes perfect sense.
This is based on a widespread misconception that non-profit organizations are not also pursuing money. They don’t get to take home the profits but they still want to maximize revenue and minimize costs to grow and sustain themselves. So while they don’t behave exactly the same as privately owned orgs, there is a lot of overlap.
Aren’t SocDems a type of liberal?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Every single time anyone posts something vaguely critical of these emotional support vehicles, we always get someone with a bruised ego in here trying to fight the entire community over it. Which is hilarious because it kinda just proves the whole point. If it’s not about image then why are people so sensitive about it?
There really isn’t any other explanation for why these monster trucks have become so popular than vanity. Larger trucks with higher, smaller beds have become the norm, and they’re actually less useful for the things you might need a pickup for. And there’s similarly no reason to think that Americans have suddenly discovered a huge need for pickups that didn’t exist 50 years ago. Yet their prevalence on the road has increased dramatically.
It’s just another fashion accessory. But unlike the fedora, it’s a deadly one, and so of course we will criticize you. Don’t like it? Easy solution: stop choosing fashion accessories that kill people. There are plenty of other ways to cosplay wealth or rugged individualism.
Technically you’re not wrong. Mainly because there’s no agreed upon technical definition of what does or doesn’t constitute a tree.
Did you point out that the sky is blue?
What? I don’t think this is true.
Many places allow toplessness but very few allow full nudity.