4 ms·

You mean there's a choice?! Cool, I'd be happy if we simply just fixed all the massive, complex problems of the entire economy over just having parental leave.

hattmall 5y ago
Of course there's a choice, there's a singular reason for the rising cost of all those things. Government intervention and injecting money into those markets. Costs will rise to absorb availability of funds. Give people virtually unlimited finding for higher education?? Expect costs to rise at a similar rate. Force everyone to buy insurance through a rigid process and heavily subsidize the worst possible coverage. Makes perfect sense that prices rise and quality deteriorates. Have the government lend trillions of dollars at low interest with minimal qualifications for housing. Expected outcome is realized. Same is happening with childcare. Government increases child care credit. No surprise that daycare has raised the rate $30 per week.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > No surprise that daycare has raised the rate $30 per week. It cannot possibly be riding expenses for daycare operators.
bradleyjg 5y ago
We haven’t even tried. For healthcare, the last time I heard about bending the cost curve was during the Obama administration. For education, I’ve never seen any politician suggests we try to reign in cost growth—-just proposals around who should eat the costs. For housing, governments at all levels have been pulling every policy lever they can find to increase costs. Falling costs are wildly considered a national emergency. Why is it that progressives’ solution to everything is to dump money out of the air? Are there no structural improvements to be made anywhere?
- mjevans 5y ago
  Free Money is popular with voters; be that in the form of cut / "no new taxes" or handouts. Want to fix that? A true multiparty system, IRV, and eliminating gerrymandering as possibilities. The last one would mostly be by eliminating geographic boundaries generally; instead representation would be decided by proportionally voting in representatives from the IRV list, which might be preferenced by area specific politicians first and could then fall back to those who represent other types of interest focus. Similarly the relative representation power of each voter in a body such as the senate should be resolved by merging similarly leaning smaller bodies until each voter is within relatively the same representation strength as other voters. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop... This is an issue for E.G. California (~20M/senator) and Texas (~15M/senator) compared to Vermont (~310K/senator) and Wyoming (~240K/senator). In the past the senate started out FAR more balanced by state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... For example in 1820 the top three most populace states were all around 1 million each. A core belle-curve hump ranges from around 600K down to 150K, and about 5 states have less than 100K. Senators representing roughly ~500K, ~250K, and 50K respectively, a weight difference of only a factor of 10 rather than a number approaching almost a factor of 100.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    You're correct except IRV is hardly better than FPTP. Please endorse any ranked voting system except IRV.
    - mjevans 5y ago
      I'm using IRV as a shorthand for ANY of the instant runoff voting (ranked voting) systems. I happen to prefer (Path Vote) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method as a method of performing an election with instant runoffs for one round of ranked ballots. For the later proposal (where districts are replaced by a mixed bag of candidates and issues) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV might be a good way of determining the membership of a body. It looks like research into proportional voter representation is still ongoing, with important new papers released even this year.

hattmall 5y ago

Of course there's a choice, there's a singular reason for the rising cost of all those things. Government intervention and injecting money into those markets. Costs will rise to absorb availability of funds. Give people virtually unlimited finding for higher education?? Expect costs to rise at a similar rate. Force everyone to buy insurance through a rigid process and heavily subsidize the worst possible coverage. Makes perfect sense that prices rise and quality deteriorates. Have the government lend trillions of dollars at low interest with minimal qualifications for housing. Expected outcome is realized. Same is happening with childcare. Government increases child care credit. No surprise that daycare has raised the rate $30 per week.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> No surprise that daycare has raised the rate $30 per week. It cannot possibly be riding expenses for daycare operators.

bradleyjg 5y ago

We haven’t even tried. For healthcare, the last time I heard about bending the cost curve was during the Obama administration. For education, I’ve never seen any politician suggests we try to reign in cost growth—-just proposals around who should eat the costs. For housing, governments at all levels have been pulling every policy lever they can find to increase costs. Falling costs are wildly considered a national emergency. Why is it that progressives’ solution to everything is to dump money out of the air? Are there no structural improvements to be made anywhere?

mjevans 5y ago
Free Money is popular with voters; be that in the form of cut / "no new taxes" or handouts. Want to fix that? A true multiparty system, IRV, and eliminating gerrymandering as possibilities. The last one would mostly be by eliminating geographic boundaries generally; instead representation would be decided by proportionally voting in representatives from the IRV list, which might be preferenced by area specific politicians first and could then fall back to those who represent other types of interest focus. Similarly the relative representation power of each voter in a body such as the senate should be resolved by merging similarly leaning smaller bodies until each voter is within relatively the same representation strength as other voters. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop... This is an issue for E.G. California (~20M/senator) and Texas (~15M/senator) compared to Vermont (~310K/senator) and Wyoming (~240K/senator). In the past the senate started out FAR more balanced by state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... For example in 1820 the top three most populace states were all around 1 million each. A core belle-curve hump ranges from around 600K down to 150K, and about 5 states have less than 100K. Senators representing roughly ~500K, ~250K, and 50K respectively, a weight difference of only a factor of 10 rather than a number approaching almost a factor of 100.
- coryrc 5y ago
  You're correct except IRV is hardly better than FPTP. Please endorse any ranked voting system except IRV.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    I'm using IRV as a shorthand for ANY of the instant runoff voting (ranked voting) systems. I happen to prefer (Path Vote) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method as a method of performing an election with instant runoffs for one round of ranked ballots. For the later proposal (where districts are replaced by a mixed bag of candidates and issues) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV might be a good way of determining the membership of a body. It looks like research into proportional voter representation is still ongoing, with important new papers released even this year.