Kids. Kids are the piece of this policy you haven’t considered. Poor people have kids too. Then you have starving babies in the street and 5 year olds trying to find work to pay for food. Then you might think, “okay, maybe we take care of kids. Healthcare? Food? Education?” Great. But do you have forced separation from parents in order to provide these services just to the kids? What if the parents eat the kids food because they’re starving. Now you have to feed the parents. And providing care for orphans costs more than healthcare for parents, so probably rational to give them healthcare too. And do you want to create a system where having a kid gets you food and healthcare? Probably don’t want that incentive. So now you’re maybe giving food and healthcare to people without kids.
So, whenever you think about purely capitalistic policies with no social policies, we just have to be okay with having a large number of babies and toddlers starving on the streets in front of us.
When you hear about republicans cutting $900 billion from Medicaid, and millions of families losing coverage, that means children. Almost 50% of Medicaid recipients are children. Most of the other 50% are their parents. So millions of children now do not have healthcare. Your post advocates for millions more to lose coverage. That translates to children dying and having lifelong disabilities from otherwise preventable illnesses.
The other inevitable outcome of policies like this is exploitation of women. It might start with “voluntary” sex work, but it becomes a bigger business that invites true exploitation and rapidly leads to human trafficking. Btw, that “voluntary” is there because it’s usually a choice between sex work and spiraling into homelessness and poverty - so not super voluntary to begin with. And we’re not even counting women more women who stay in abusive relationships because they are fully dependent on their partner for sustenance and shelter.
All that is to say that anytime advocate for a certain set of social policies over another, it’s usually informative to look at how they impact the most vulnerable in our society. Start with kids, then consider disabled and women. And finally ask why we’re generally okay with men starving on the street but not toddlers.
Can’t get promoted pumping out 10 great pages. But a library that you can claim will enhance the productivity of 100 other engineers? Now that’s IMPACT!!
Except you’re at a company where everyone has figured this out so now you have 4 competing libraries with their own teams which are all 1/2 done making every engineer less productive cause they all have bugs and slightly different priorities.
As someone who ran a startup with 100’s of hosts. As soon as I start to count the salaries, hiring, desk space, etc of the people needed to manage the hosts AWS would look cheap again. Yea, hardware costs they are aggressively expensive. But TCO wise, they’re cheap for any decent sized company.
Add in compliance, auditing, etc. all things that you can set up out of the box (PCI, HIPPA, lawsuit retention). Gets even cheaper.
The real value of this, IMHO, is that it makes it much harder to match you against services and in ad platforms. Hashing email addresses is the primary way user data is exchanged.
do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland?
Yes they do. This is exactly the problem. Specifically in big cities. Zoning and nimby-ism holds back building. Even Toronto which builds a lot doesn’t build enough housing units to keep up with growth. And they only build as much as they do because the province is constantly overruling the city.
Every western major city is blocking building on any meaningful scale. This leaves cities at effectively net 0 increase in supply. In major US cities, new builds are more expensive to own due to changing property taxes. And California is just a huge F U to young people by making new owners have to pay higher taxes than the old ones.
So, whenever you think about purely capitalistic policies with no social policies, we just have to be okay with having a large number of babies and toddlers starving on the streets in front of us.
When you hear about republicans cutting $900 billion from Medicaid, and millions of families losing coverage, that means children. Almost 50% of Medicaid recipients are children. Most of the other 50% are their parents. So millions of children now do not have healthcare. Your post advocates for millions more to lose coverage. That translates to children dying and having lifelong disabilities from otherwise preventable illnesses.
The other inevitable outcome of policies like this is exploitation of women. It might start with “voluntary” sex work, but it becomes a bigger business that invites true exploitation and rapidly leads to human trafficking. Btw, that “voluntary” is there because it’s usually a choice between sex work and spiraling into homelessness and poverty - so not super voluntary to begin with. And we’re not even counting women more women who stay in abusive relationships because they are fully dependent on their partner for sustenance and shelter.
All that is to say that anytime advocate for a certain set of social policies over another, it’s usually informative to look at how they impact the most vulnerable in our society. Start with kids, then consider disabled and women. And finally ask why we’re generally okay with men starving on the street but not toddlers.