4 ms·

I don't see how that's the choice. You are not going to freeze to death if you turn off your heat for an hour or two to cook.

Teever 5y ago
Let's make her spin plates and juggle while she's cooking too, as punishment for failing to pay her utilities as a single mother of two.
- gruez 5y ago
  Yeah let's make electricity free for everyone then! What's that, you don't want taxpayers to be subsidizing the electricity bills of people who can afford it and/or people who are wasting it? Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait...
  - NeutronStar 5y ago
    There's a difference between free for struggling families and free for commercial uses.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    The idea that someone getting something they don't need is a much worse outcome than someone going without something they do need is a specific idealogy, you can't just assume everyone subscribes to it. I'm willing to accept quite a lot of inefficiency and misuse of a system like this if it means that everyone has a warm home.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I wonder how long these people would be happy to pay some bitcoin or crypto miners bills... After they have hidden their earnings...
  - camgunz 5y ago
    No one's arguing for making unlimited electricity free for everyone; this is a straw man. What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry. It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > No one's arguing for making unlimited electricity free for everyone; this is a straw man. My comment explicitly acknowledges that a sentence later. >What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry. >It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever. The limit of 1800W seems enough to get basic levels of "heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry" done. The appliances that don't work at all (from the article: "dishwasher, dryer, oven or stove") don't seem essential. You can still wash dishes by hand, hang your clothes, and use a crock pot. It sucks not having access to those appliances, but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills.
      - camgunz 5y ago
        In fairness, you acknowledge it sarcastically in an attempt to belittle op: > Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait... But, to maybe return to good faith land, you write: > ...but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills I'm not sure what "punishment" is supposed to do here. I'm skeptical that there's a significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway. I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult. You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins? This is the kind of stuff that leads to people deciding between medicine or food, which is all in all I think bad for society. If the problem were insufficient punishment/consequences, I guess I wouldn't know how to explain the even worse outcomes in more punitive systems, say in poorer countries. For example, you would think people would see that their health outcomes decrease without medicine, so they would stop being lazy and get medicine. But a lot of people try to stop being lazy and die anyway, suggesting that the problem is more systemic than a widespread individual lack of ambition.

Teever 5y ago

Let's make her spin plates and juggle while she's cooking too, as punishment for failing to pay her utilities as a single mother of two.

gruez 5y ago
Yeah let's make electricity free for everyone then! What's that, you don't want taxpayers to be subsidizing the electricity bills of people who can afford it and/or people who are wasting it? Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait...
- NeutronStar 5y ago
  There's a difference between free for struggling families and free for commercial uses.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  The idea that someone getting something they don't need is a much worse outcome than someone going without something they do need is a specific idealogy, you can't just assume everyone subscribes to it. I'm willing to accept quite a lot of inefficiency and misuse of a system like this if it means that everyone has a warm home.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I wonder how long these people would be happy to pay some bitcoin or crypto miners bills... After they have hidden their earnings...
- camgunz 5y ago
  No one's arguing for making unlimited electricity free for everyone; this is a straw man. What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry. It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > No one's arguing for making unlimited electricity free for everyone; this is a straw man. My comment explicitly acknowledges that a sentence later. >What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry. >It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever. The limit of 1800W seems enough to get basic levels of "heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry" done. The appliances that don't work at all (from the article: "dishwasher, dryer, oven or stove") don't seem essential. You can still wash dishes by hand, hang your clothes, and use a crock pot. It sucks not having access to those appliances, but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      In fairness, you acknowledge it sarcastically in an attempt to belittle op: > Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait... But, to maybe return to good faith land, you write: > ...but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills I'm not sure what "punishment" is supposed to do here. I'm skeptical that there's a significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway. I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult. You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins? This is the kind of stuff that leads to people deciding between medicine or food, which is all in all I think bad for society. If the problem were insufficient punishment/consequences, I guess I wouldn't know how to explain the even worse outcomes in more punitive systems, say in poorer countries. For example, you would think people would see that their health outcomes decrease without medicine, so they would stop being lazy and get medicine. But a lot of people try to stop being lazy and die anyway, suggesting that the problem is more systemic than a widespread individual lack of ambition.