3 ms·

Here is the source and I’m still not sure https://www.sjsu.edu/hri/docs/SVPI%202025%20Annual%20Report%20-%20Press%20Release.pdf https://www.sjsu.edu/hri/docs/S

Here is the source and I’m still not sure https://www.sjsu.edu/hri/docs/SVPI%202025%20Annual%20Report%20-%20Press%20Release.pdf https://www.sjsu.edu/hri/docs/SVPI%202025%20Annual%20Report%...

gruez 1y ago
Yikes. I get they're trying to push an anti-inequality agenda, but some of the statistics are only tenuously related to inequality. For instance: >0 Number of student wellness centers in the San José Unified School District that opened in 2024, despite the growing mental health crisis in youth >0 Number of Narcan kits stocked at San José Unified School District schools, making SJUSD the only major Bay Area school district that does not stock Narcan or train staff to administer Narcan in case of a fentanyl overdose. What's the implication supposed to be? That if it weren't for AI tech bros, there would be student wellness centers and narcan kits?
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  It's obviously focused more on the agenda. They start out by saying they are inspired by the Katrina pain index--and I do have some food and shelter attributes. However, it seems like a lot of what they worry about is the victimhood from being envious.
- hug 1y ago
  The implication is that if there were less wealth inequality, those with less current wealth would have more things, yes. Things that are currently underfunded could, with the availability of more funds, be less underfunded. Obviously it's not just the nine billionaires that are "the problem", but inequality in general.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >The implication is that if there were less wealth inequality, those with less wealth would have more things, yes. Is it really a funding issue? The same quote mentions that other bay area school districts were somehow able to afford narcan kits.
  - jcgrillo 1y ago
    it's that those 9 billionaires are a very small, tractable problem
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    That’s backwards from my approach to economics A high gini coefficient isn’t because of someone accumulating more wealth than everyone else, its because of low velocity of money movements in the economy Fixing the speed of money movements solves the other problems and results in more people having wealth, or access to services. Note that its not completely arbitrary money movements, its into goods and services and investments. This has to be more attractive than passively holding money and assets, which is what most risk-averse people’s entire plan is.

Here is the source and I’m still not sure https://www.sjsu.edu/hri/docs/SVPI%202025%20Annual%20Report%20-%20Press%20Release.pdf https://www.sjsu.edu/hri/docs/SVPI%202025%20Annual%20Report%...

gruez 1y ago

Yikes. I get they're trying to push an anti-inequality agenda, but some of the statistics are only tenuously related to inequality. For instance: >0 Number of student wellness centers in the San José Unified School District that opened in 2024, despite the growing mental health crisis in youth >0 Number of Narcan kits stocked at San José Unified School District schools, making SJUSD the only major Bay Area school district that does not stock Narcan or train staff to administer Narcan in case of a fentanyl overdose. What's the implication supposed to be? That if it weren't for AI tech bros, there would be student wellness centers and narcan kits?

readthenotes1 1y ago
It's obviously focused more on the agenda. They start out by saying they are inspired by the Katrina pain index--and I do have some food and shelter attributes. However, it seems like a lot of what they worry about is the victimhood from being envious.
hug 1y ago
The implication is that if there were less wealth inequality, those with less current wealth would have more things, yes. Things that are currently underfunded could, with the availability of more funds, be less underfunded. Obviously it's not just the nine billionaires that are "the problem", but inequality in general.
- gruez 1y ago
  >The implication is that if there were less wealth inequality, those with less wealth would have more things, yes. Is it really a funding issue? The same quote mentions that other bay area school districts were somehow able to afford narcan kits.
- jcgrillo 1y ago
  it's that those 9 billionaires are a very small, tractable problem
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  That’s backwards from my approach to economics A high gini coefficient isn’t because of someone accumulating more wealth than everyone else, its because of low velocity of money movements in the economy Fixing the speed of money movements solves the other problems and results in more people having wealth, or access to services. Note that its not completely arbitrary money movements, its into goods and services and investments. This has to be more attractive than passively holding money and assets, which is what most risk-averse people’s entire plan is.