tryptaminev

So where is that place, where the cost of living fully eat up a 250k salary, or even a 100k salary? And by eating up i mean actually living paycheck to paycheck, not as given in the examples enjoying many small luxuries that add up, but are not realised as such.

I get the concept. But realistically that would mean three things:

In a region where people make 250k a year for them to live paycheck to paycheck the cost of living would need to be somewhere around 4-5x higher than in an area where people would make 50k a year.

That would further mean that in the areas where people make 250k a year noone would exist that could afford anything less than that. So the grocery store cashier and the gas station clerk and the postman would all need to make the same money as google software engineers. That is clearly not the case.

And thirdly that means that either the people who make that much money living paycheck to paycheck are economically illiterate and dont grasp such simple concepts... Or which is far more likely, the quality of life in high cost of living areas is in fact so much better, that it is worth paying the extra.

Either way someone who can make 250k a year is choosing to life paycheck to paycheck by choosing to pay such expenses. They definetely have the means to work somewhere where the difference between cost of living and paycheck allows for saving signficant amounts of money over time. Claiming those people would be victims of the system who were forced to live paycheck to paycheck is simply not true. It is still very much their own choice.

Everyone who speaks up, encourages others to speak up. You will not get the ones that only sit a t home only watching fox news, but if everyone who leaves the house is still met with opposition to their absurd claims, it will deterioate the effects of fox and co.

What we expect to be the normative view does influence our views. People want to hold the opinion that they think to be the majority opinion. That is why cults try to isolate their members from other people with other opinions.

By just giving up and letting their propaganda run unopposed we help them feed it to their followers.

If you dress terribly and the clothes cost 20$ you are an uncultured peasant. If you dress terribly and the clothes cost 20,000$ you are a sophisticated eccentric who redefines the boundaries of fashion.

You can only push so much nitrogen and phosphor into the biological cycle w.o. having grave side effects. Acidification, erosion of soil microbiomes, eutrophication of water bodies...

The current amount of fertilizers used are killing the environment and through this reducing crop yields.

The issue with our impact on the nitrogen cycle is that it is exceeding the planetary boundaries significantly. Same for Phosphor https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

However if we look at the countries with the highest use of chemical fertilizers per Capita it is also countries with industrialized agriculture that focus on meat production or cash crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fertilizer-per-capita

We use about half of global agricultural lands for animal feed. So the nitrogen fertilizers are not needed to sustain nutrition. They are needed to sustain the meat overconsumption in wealthy countries.

That is what contraceptions is for and countries where contraception and abortions are readily available don't have 80% lower birth rates than the US.

We can make nitrogen fertilizers just fine with the Haber Bosch process and Hydrogen electrolysis. All you need for that is water, air and electricity.

Also crop yields are perfectly suitable to feed all of the global population without using fertilizers. It just requires farmin techniques, that are not suitable for industrial farming for profit maximising companies. On the contrary the current way of industrial farming destroys the yields as it erodes soils physically, chemically and biologically. If we continue farming like this for another century or two we will face severe global starvation.

It is all the more reason to switch both in the use of fossil fuels and the way of current agriculture sooner rather than later.

One in a Thousand ist still low enough that it is very likely you will never meet a person involved with this in your entire life. In the EU the rate of traffic death per 100,000 people per year is at about 7.5. So for any given person the chance of dying in a traffic accident in 13.3 years is as high as that.

Over a life span of 80 years the probability of knowing one incestous person is as likely as knowing 6 people that died in traffic accidents at current accident rates and assuming independant and random distributions.

I'd be more shocked to lose 6 friends to traffic accidents over my lifetime than one of them turning out to have had an incestous relationship.

Isnt the federations key idea to avoid collapse if any single instance it failing? This sounds like the system has become too centralized around lemmy.world

You'll be shocked to find that electric cars have been invented 50 years before Benz came around with what today is considered the "invention of the automobile" by slapping an internal combustion engine on it.