Maybe, but that doesn’t matter since automated age verification doesn’t work. Kids always figure out ways to bypass it, and it snares unlucky adults all the time.

Nineteen brazillian? Wow, that’s a lot.

Some use something called a “bag-closing chain stitch”, which is done using a special bag-closing machine. The way it works is that the machine punches the thread through the bag material leaving a loop on the back side. It then connects that loop to the next stitch. The thread holds the bag securely closed, but if you pull on the right part of the thread each stitch disconnects in a chain until the whole thing is undone.

My post was way too long because it goes against the popular sentiment. If you agree with the popular sentiment, you can afford to have a short post. If you disagree and keep it short, people will downvote you for the things you didn’t mention, or will accuse you of not considering X.

Anyhow, I’m in favour of investing in neighbouring countries, or just donating to them. There are problems with donating some things like food. It helps keep people alive, but it also means farmers take a hit because they’re competing with free. But, it’s hard to argue when people need food or they’ll die. Donating training and skills development is a better path. I know someone who works at an NGO that works with local NGOs to train their leadership to be more effective. I think that’s one of the best things I’ve heard of for helping other countries because it just makes the people living there more effective at what they do. But, it’s not a quick process.

I’ve also travelled and that’s why I want borders, at least for now.

We should definitely be working to raise people in the poorer parts of the world out of poverty. I’ve been to some developing countries, and life there is extremely hard. That’s why so many of them want to move to a rich country where they can live a better life.

Yeah, as a rich westerner, borders are an annoyance. It’s great going around Europe and going from the Netherlands to France without needing a passport or anything.

Having said that, in the Netherlands and France, and most other western countries, there is a great social safety net paid for by taxes that makes sure that everybody living in those countries can live a decent life. But, even Europe was put under stress by the fact that some countries in the EU have a GDP per capita that’s half what it is in other places.

A fair number of people migrated to richer countries within the EU for a better life. Most found a job and worked. They contributed more to the countries than they received in benefits. Even then, that was hard on those richer countries because it displaced some of the lower-wage workers, or depressed their wages. Despite this, the EU has mostly held together, other than Brexit, and the majority of the UK now regrets Brexit.

The important thing to remember is that the EU vets members before allowing them in, and was slow to allow the poorer Eastern European countries to join.

If the world eliminated borders tomorrow, the richer western countries would be swamped by poorer people from developing countries seeking a better life. There’s no way that the systems in those countries could cope.

The rich might love it. Suddenly there would be hundreds or thousands of people competing for the lowest paying jobs, allowing the bosses to offer the lowest possible wages, the worst possible working conditions, etc. The ultra-rich business owners could get rid of unions and get local workers for next to nothing.

For the slightly less rich, the professional class, it wouldn’t be too bad. Their jobs are protected. You need to pass the bar to be a lawyer. You need to do a residency to become a doctor. Their professional associations would continue to do the work necessary so that say a doctor in Nigeria didn’t have their credentials recognized in the west.

The less wealthy you are, the less protected you would be. For someone whose job doesn’t require any kind of diploma, certificate or degree, there would be no protection. They’d be competing with every unskilled person who came into the country seeking opportunities.

Even if you personally think that chaos is a small price to pay for a more fair world, a lot of people don’t. The rise of far-right and fascist movements in the west is a direct result of increasing immigration. If borders were eliminated, not only would there be a lot more far-right voters, there would probably be violent clashes, even mass slaughters.

A lot of people hate globalization, but it has resulted in raising a lot of people in developing countries out of extreme poverty. It has done that mainly by taking wealth and power away from the poorest people in richer countries by shipping their jobs overseas. That part sucks. But, at least a lot of people in developing countries are no longer in danger of dying if they have a bad few weeks.

Programs like USAID were a better way of doing some of the same things. These were often subsidies for US farmers whose produce was then just donated or sold extremely cheaply to developing countries. There were of course problems with this system too. Often the “farmers” receiving the subsidies were rich corporations. But, it did raise the floor for some of the worst-off people in the world.

If we can continue to find ways to help people in developing countries, we should do that. Hopefully we can find a better way to do it than we’ve done in the past. But, even a less-than-ideal solution does help. Eventually, we may be able to reach a point at which we can remove borders without resulting in a mass migration that overwhelms the systems of the richer countries.

There are really 2 problems:

1. Flour is essentially dust. It’s really hard to find a good way to package dust.
2. Flour is really, really cheap. The packaging needs to remain a small fraction of the overall cost.

A couple I know moved from Canada to the UK. Even at 6ish years old, despite being raised by them, including one as a stay-at-home mom, the kid had a strong British accent.

Luckily, they’re mostly immune, although my friend does now say “gareridge” instead of “gahraje”.

“The bottom 60%” gives more detail than merely saying “the majority”.

What makes you think that the average politician is actually a leader, rather than just a follower who pays attention to polls? That would imply they have a spine, which seems unlikely.

That might be the optimal solution to you and me, but it isn’t the optimal solution for the rich and powerful. Apparently the average voter hates the sight of homeless people more than they hate hostile architecture too.

And it’s impossible to get a decent night’s sleep outside with all the traffic, pedestrians, noises, cops, etc. unless you self-medicate. If you can’t get a good night’s sleep you go insane.

And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?

Because it gets them votes. The politicians aren’t the problem, they merely reflect public attitudes.

Sure, commuters with jobs are the bourgeoisie.

Cheaper too.

But, it’s probably not the optimal solution. I suppose it’s a step in the right direction. As bad as hostile architecture is, the old way of dealing with the problem was to have cops beat the shit out of homeless or drunk people if they tried to sleep in a place where other people might be offended or annoyed.

My dude, I live on a hobby farm. Complete with livestock. I have giant blackberry bushes.

That’s great my dude. My dude, what fraction of your yearly calories come from this hobby farm, my dude? My dude, are you able to actually meet your nutritional needs with this hobby? My dude, is this farm just a hobby? If it meets all your needs, why do you work at all, my dude?

I guess one has spent too much time in church or movies or something, believing that there’s some utopia where berries gratefully fall off bushes into our waiting hands, if only the durn gubmint, or frickin capitalists would get out of our way.

If we were allowed to do just what is necessary for survival we would spend way, way less time on it than we do working now

Sure, bud.

Picking weeds from a crop just big enough to support a family does not take 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year

Sure, bud. I guess you’ve never met a farmer? It’s famous as one of those 9-5 jobs with weekends off, isn’t it?

We live in a form of indentured servitude

Sure, bud. That famous form of indentured servitude where you get nights and weekends off, and are free to change bosses at any time.

If your $600k house isn’t paid off yet, you don’t get to count its full value towards your net worth, so you might not be as close to $1m as you say. If it is fully paid off, then you shouldn’t have a mortgage to worry about.

But, 3 really bad months could mean a tree fell on your fully paid-off house. It could mean a family member without good health insurance has a medical emergency and you feel like you have to help pay.

It just seems to me that something like $10m makes John Rogers’ point much better. If this is a class war, $1 million dollar millionaires really are in the same class as anybody else who works. I don’t know quite where the dividing line is. Clearly billionaires are in a whole different class. Same with $100m-aires. $10m is almost certainly set for life. What about $3m? $2m? Maybe age comes into it. How long do you have to make it last, and can you still find a job if you need one? $1m net worth at 25 is different from $1m at 65. $1m at 90 probably puts you back in the “set for life” camp, just because “life” is not likely to last much longer.

The fact you’re using pounds instead of dollars says you’re probably talking about having 1 million pounds and living in the UK rather than the US.

1 million pounds is still a lot more than 1 million dollars, despite Brexit. In addition, if you live in the UK you’re covered by the NHS so none of your million has to go towards health care / health insurance. The cost of living is also lower in the UK than the US. So, as long as you don’t try to live in London you can get by with a lot less money.

The point is, John Rogers was trying to draw a distinction between two extremes. On one end you’re homeless and extremely desperate. On the other end, you’re a millionaire and are set for life. At this point, $1m USD in the USA really isn’t “set for life” anymore. Someone hitting age 65 with no pension and a total net worth of $1m is really still in the same “class” as the people who work 9-5 every day. They shop in the same stores, have to budget very carefully, worry about the price of gas, etc.

“A job” is the modern equivalent of “finding enough berries to stay alive for a few more days” or “going through the crops on your hands and knees picking weeds and killing pests”.

It’s insane to think that a job is supposed to be fun. A job is what you have to do to survive.

Some extremely lucky people will actually find something that they love doing, are good at, and that people are actually willing to pay them money to do. If you’re among the richest billion people on the planet, you may be lucky enough to have a job that’s boring, unfulfilling, but not dangerous and doesn’t involve back breaking labour.

For most people on the planet, a job is whatever you have to do to get a roof over your head and enough to eat for the next meal. Of course it’s going to suck, and it’s probably going to be a lot more than 40 hours a week. But, the alternative is death.

If you are one of those richest billion people and you have a job you hate, but you could do a job that’s only unfulfilling and boring, by all means, switch.