Ocasio-Cortez advisor lied -- money for the unwilling to work

[Gigimo]

If we do some very simple homework it's not that hard to find.
M-Bob

Last I heard she took the New Green Deal off her website cause everybody was laughing/shaking their heads at it.

 

[Gigimo]

Then folks can start them in The Kitchen Sink or get a 4chan account.

You can also just ignore it like the rest of us ignore most of the Trump haters.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Last I heard she took the New Green Deal off her website cause everybody was laughing/shaking their heads at it.

With her many policies thought of she has caused so much head-shaking chiropractors are noting a boom in their businesses. Many new Whiplash cases.
M-Bob

 

[GlabrousDory4]

My point exactly, if the world is going to end in 12 years then why get rid of fossil fuels in the next 10 years?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years. It is now estimated that within 10-12 years we will have passed the point beyond which we won't be able to address the bad stuff that will happen many years later. (There's a difference. In 10-12 years you probably won't notice anything, but we will have lost our ability to deal with the changes)

Once we put enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere the warming that is still "in the pipeline" will barrel forward no matter what we do and be severe enough to likely destroy our economy and possibly our society within a century after that.

There's a thing in climate science called "equilibrium warming". It's like turning on the oven. You want it to get to 400deg so you can cook your pizza and you want it to get there super fast so you ramp up the power to the oven. Ooops, suddenly the oven is at 395 and climbing fast. You can turn off the power to the oven but it is still going to continue warming for a while. That's what we are doing with our atmosphere. We currently aren't at equilibrium and even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today we'd still warm up.

We're only a couple degrees average global temperature away from disaster. How close do we want to shave it?

 

[Gigimo]

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.

You need to tell her that cause I'm pretty sure she is one of the few that believes that or...

It is now estimated that within 10-12 years we will have passed the point beyond which we won't be able to address the bad stuff that will happen many years later. (There's a difference. In 10-12 years you probably won't notice anything, but we will have lost our ability to deal with the changes)

this for that matter.

 

[Sparagmos]

Much of the hospitality industry is not in hotels, it's in short term property rentals, condos and homes, which is the industry I worked in for about 30 yrs. Many of the things you are talking about wouldn't work with individual properties. The resort I worked at doesn't have one hotel in the whole town. Although most laundry was outsourced so automation could be relevant there.

I can't picture robots prepping food.

Mostly true, but the effect of hundreds of thousands hotel jobs being eliminated over time is real. The affect will be slower to hit the rest of the hospitality industry. I also can’t picture a lot of this stuff until I see it or have it explained. It’s pretty crazy. The food prep currently envisioned / happening is chopping, mixing, and stirring. Imagine what industrial kitchens do and then pare that down and add the intelligence of a robot. For instance, I represent workers who prepare food in a very high end college. It’s basically mass produced gourmet food. The chef can program the recipes into machines that portion ingredients, spices, etc. I know people who cut vegetables all day. A machine can definitely do that. The machine that the students load their plates in and the machine that wash the dishes could be married. There goes two of the four dishwashers on shift.

But here’s the thing - this is only scary because we the people don’t control it. The people causing and controlling the reduction of the need for human labor in our society are doing so with the purpose of increasing their wealth. I actually want to live in a world where no one has to scrub toilets or wash dishes for eight hours a day, and where the work week is shortened to four days.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...As I've been telling people on social media this week (much to their dismay...they call me a liar, then look it up and I never get a further reply lol), Milton Friedman (often considered a golden boy of conservative economics) also advocated for simply just cutting a check to those unwilling to work via his Negative Income Tax plan.

Understanding the avoidable truth that those who don't want to work, won't...regardless of whether or not they get welfare, or fake "fibromyalgia" and get a shady chiropractor to sign off on it and get disability...one way or another, in a first world society, lazy people will get a check. I know it's not fair, I know people don't like it...but that's just the way it is.

Friedman acknowledged that pragmatic reality and at least had the sense to say
"It's cheaper just to give them a check for $500/month than it is to pay someone else $2,000/month in wages in a government welfare office to act as a proxy in giving them that same $500 check".

There's idealism, and then there's pragmatism.

"People who don't want to work shouldn't be getting free handouts" is idealism
"They're going to end up getting money anyway, so we should at least make the process as cheap as possible" is pragmatism.

 

[cow451]

...As I've been telling people on social media this week (much to their dismay...they call me a liar, then look it up and I never get a further reply lol), Milton Friedman (often considered a golden boy of conservative economics) also advocated for simply just cutting a check to those unwilling to work via his Negative Income Tax plan.

Understanding the avoidable truth that those who don't want to work, won't...regardless of whether or not they get welfare, or fake "fibromyalgia" and get a shady chiropractor to sign off on it and get disability...one way or another, in a first world society, lazy people will get a check. I know it's not fair, I know people don't like it...but that's just the way it is.

Friedman acknowledged that pragmatic reality and at least had the sense to say
"It's cheaper just to give them a check for $500/month than it is to pay someone else $2,000/month in wages in a government welfare office to act as a proxy in giving them that same $500 check".

There's idealism, and then there's pragmatism.

"People who don't want to work shouldn't be getting free handouts" is idealism
"They're going to end up getting money anyway, so we should at least make the process as cheap as possible" is pragmatism.

Your ignorance about chiropractors, fibromyalgia and Social Security Disability is so astonishing that the rest of you post is difficult to take seriously.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

this for that matter.

Not entirely certain what your point is, but indeed, whether the 10-12 year estimate that is currently out there is totally accurate or not, there WILL come a time when we will be powerless to address the problems just from the stand point of non-equilibrium warming as I discussed at length.

The science of anthropogenic global climate change is pretty durn solid. Right now we are just trying to figure out when we will likely pass the point of no return.

It's not a matter of "if"...it's now a matter of "when".

We're already seeing the thin point of the blade enter...it only gets worse from here unless we start making some changes quickly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your ignorance about chiropractors, fibromyalgia and Social Security Disability is so astonishing that the rest of you post is difficult to take seriously.

lol, care to elaborate?

No ignorance about chiropractic on my part...I've researched, in depth, many of the various forms of medical quackery.

I know the origins of chiropractic better than most people who claim to advocate it lol

I know the fibromyalgia is the favorite thing to claim you have if you want to fake a disability that exempts you from working...primarily because it's a diagnosis of exclusion (meaning, you get that diagnosis when there's no tangible evidence of an issue from blood work or imaging tests)...and I know I have multiple relatives collecting disability right now on claims of fibromyalgia, though it magically seems to fade in and out depending on the situation.

 

[USincognito]

You can also just ignore it {snip}

Nah. I'll use my right to free speech to point out how stupid it is to have 40 threads about her just for the lulz.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

You need to tell her that cause I'm pretty sure she is one of the few that believes that or...

I don't even think that she believes that. Just more Scare Tactics from the left.

Stop scaring the little children and the goats.

M-Bob

 

[mark46]

Consider so many other situations in science. Sure, the science of global climate change is pretty darn solid. What mankind might develop in a couple of decades will truly make this knowledge seem antiquated in 10-12 years.

The whales were all but extinct just a couple of decades ago. Consider the holes in the ozones layer, now fixed. Few whale species are even challenged. So, it is with the truly horrible plastic crisis.

So too it will it be with energy. Sure, there will be enormous changes due to humans warming the planet. Our actions have caused the Arctic Ocean to melt, and parts of Greenland to be habitable for the first time in centuries. There will be a Northwest Passage at great gains to lots of countries. And many countries will see the negative effect, including that of the increase in storms.
======

There are lots of ways to reverse our production of CO2. We might even do it by directly reducing the amount in the atmosphere through chemical intervention (a dangerous course). We can build a few thousand nuclear plants and almost never use oil. And yes, there will be measure we can take, 10, 20, or 30 years from now.
=====
Are you old enough to recall the dangers of nuclear winter? How about overpopulated the plant by 2000?

Climate science is much better. The evidence is certainly better. nThe earth si definitely getting warmer.
HOWEVER, and it is a big however, there are winners and losers. Governments will need to decide what to do, and in what ways they want to change the trends. There are great areas of the world that may benefit from warmer temperatures, perhaps Canada, Russia and China. Others would benefit from cooler temperatures, perhaps most countries near the equator, and countries with many people or industries being greatly sensitive to few feet rise in ocean sea level.
=======
CONCLUSIONS
1) Global warming hurts most, but helps many others.
2) There will always be ways to change the path of global warming. The question are costs and political will. We certainly could ban all meat, and all fossil fuel transport after building nuclear plants.
3) If necessary, there can be many, many strategies and options that we cannot even imagine that could be available in 20 years. The moon landing program took less than a decade. Given current computers, a program to reverse or stop global warming could be developed in the same amount of time.

Not entirely certain what your point is, but indeed, whether the 10-12 year estimate that is currently out there is totally accurate or not, there WILL come a time when we will be powerless to address the problems just from the stand point of non-equilibrium warming as I discussed at length.

The science of anthropogenic global climate change is pretty durn solid. Right now we are just trying to figure out when we will likely pass the point of no return.

It's not a matter of "if"...it's now a matter of "when".

We're already seeing the thin point of the blade enter...it only gets worse from here unless we start making some changes quickly.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Consider so many other situations in science. Sure, the science of global climate change is pretty darn solid. What mankind might develop in a couple of decades will truly make this knowledge seem antiquated in 10-12 years.

Which is why we should seriously start now.

So too it will it be with energy.

Having been a researcher in transportation fuels briefly in my career I think we need to seriously be working on these things with renewed vigor and seriousness.

There are lots of ways to reverse our production of CO2.

But that won't matter once we hit a certain point. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases TODAY there'd still be a significant amount of warming that would still happen. We are not yet at equilibrium. The key is: is that "warming in the pipeline" enough to push us more than 3 degC higher? If so then we are in for a world of hurt.

Are you old enough to recall the dangers of nuclear winter? How about overpopulated the plant by 2000?

Both of those things. But this is somewhat different from the Group of Rome's prediction of overpopulation. This is a system that has a lag in it. We likely won't know when we've passed the point of no return until long after we've passed it.

2) There will always be ways to change the path of global warming.

I disagree. As noted it is well known within the field that there's non-equilibrium warming still in the pipeline. There will come a point when we won't be able to address the issue.

3) If necessary, there can be many, many strategies and options that we cannot even imagine that could be available in 20 years.

While I am firm believer in the ability of scientists and engineers (having spent my career as a research scientist)...it is never a good approach to simply assume that some miracle will show up in the lab. One certainly doesn't bank on that without making significant investment in it.

Which is, I think the idea of the Green New Deal. Let us start to take significant steps NOW so that we will have options later.

The moon landing program took less than a decade. Given current computers, a program to reverse or stop global warming could be developed in the same amount of time.

Not if we don't take it seriously enough to divert a large amount of effort and money to developing NOW.

 

[USincognito]

My point exactly, if the world is going to end in 12 years then why get rid of fossil fuels in the next 10 years?

Who is saying the world is going to end in 12 years?

 

[USincognito]

Are you old enough to recall the dangers of nuclear winter?

I'm old enough to know it had to do with a full nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Soviet Union, and nothing to do with how we generate electricity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

OH MY WORD! HOW MANY DIFFERENT THREADS DO WE NEED ABOUT THIS WOMAN?

Just goes to show how desperate the Establishment is to destroy her.

 

[Hank77]

Just goes to show how desperate the Establishment is to destroy her.

Well, I'm glad this one was started. There is plenty in the Green New Deal that needs to be discussed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I'm glad this one was started. There is plenty in the Green New Deal that needs to be discussed.

Agreed -- but discussed, not dismissed

 

[Hank77]

Agreed -- but discussed, not dismissed

I was flippant in my first post because I don't see how everything in the GND is affordable or even practical. Such as the UBI; if we were to give everyone a monthly payment, wouldn't prices just go up?