|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 25 2026 23:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2026 22:47 Vivax wrote:On May 25 2026 11:24 WombaT wrote:On May 25 2026 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2026 07:48 WombaT wrote:On May 24 2026 13:32 dyhb wrote:On May 24 2026 10:00 WombaT wrote:On May 24 2026 09:15 dyhb wrote:On May 23 2026 23:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:i'd like to reflect upon one of the greatest presidential speeches of the 20th Century: Jimmy Carter's "Crisis Of Confidence" speech. It occurred on July 15 , 1979. In that speech he said The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past 5 years What is interesting is.. from that day until December 1982 unemployment rose from 5.8% to 10.8%. The people were largely correct in their assessment. The next 3.5 years things were very hard and probably worse than anything experienced in the 5 years prior to Carter's July 1979 speech. And as I've stated previously I contend, this speech kicked off the "Let's Make America Great Again" // "We Can Make America Great Again" movement that Reagan engineered. I wish I could have experienced the 1980 presidential election. What a battle. The hostages stuck in Iran... the Miracle On Ice. The geniuses making the best Atari games had just left and created Activision .... damn.. what a fascinating year. Carter set himself up to manage the decline, which he wanted to convince America was inevitable and worse if Carter couldn't enact his policies. Reagan charged that Carter was the reason for the decline, and it was time for a new direction. Reagan asked Americans to consider whether they were better off than they were 4 years ago. It's also a little amazing to cite "one of the greatest presidential speeches of the 20th Century" whose entire subject matter led to one of the greatest presidential defeats of the 20th Century (44 states is HUGE). Maybe you meant to say one of the most infamous presidential speeches in the last 100 years --- the malaise speech does qualify. But America was ready for a little hope and change. Still a good speech to be fair, and rather illustrative of other things. Having some actual balls in owning failure, respecting the intelligence of the audience. Quite quaint really I don’t think you’ll get many arguments that it wasn’t exactly an effective speech for Jimmy Carter, absolutely. It’s quite stark to take basically any speech from this vague era or prior, be it a politician whose politics one shares or not, and how much better it will for something modern. Feels modern ones are min/maxed the fuck for the lowest common denominator and most actual substance has been stripped out If he had the good sense to own failure, he wouldn't have run in 1980! But he probably would've lost even if he hadn't made that fateful malaise speech. It wasn't going to save a presidency. Sure, who’s arguing otherwise? It’s an effective illustration that being a generally decent human being and admitting faults isn’t especially prudent course of action if you want to be a viable politician, even 50 years ago and it’s only got worse since. Nowadays you can say zero of any substance, claim immigrants are eating pets, and basically ramble 95% of the time and that’s like totally fine. Nae bother lad You’ve people going to fucking bat on how percentages work for you, why bother contributing anything sensible? And even setting aside Trump's thousands of lies and fabrications over the past decade, his supporters are still okay with him being a pedophile + racist + sexist + rapist + fascist + felon. He could have kept his mouth mostly shut and still been one of the least ethical human beings to become president in this day and age. Have you considered you might have TDS? But no, being even vaguely serious you are correct, he’s so lacking in positive characteristics that he can’t even be a cunt one begrudgingly respects A presidency comes with terms and conditions. One, he's got to be willing to kill people. Two, he accepts political exposure. Three, he actually got elected, so no matter what he does, he's still officially representing his voters. It's not like some half-wit launched him into that chair. If such a half-wit ever existed, I'd hope for them to get run over by a chariot drawn by lions and eaten. I mean it wasn’t a singular halfwit agreed, just quite a lot of them
The cocaine levels of the sewage water must have been high at the time.
So anyways, you‘re not even safe from Republicans or their accomplices in Austria.
|
On May 25 2026 07:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2026 13:32 dyhb wrote:On May 24 2026 10:00 WombaT wrote:On May 24 2026 09:15 dyhb wrote:On May 23 2026 23:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:i'd like to reflect upon one of the greatest presidential speeches of the 20th Century: Jimmy Carter's "Crisis Of Confidence" speech. It occurred on July 15 , 1979. In that speech he said The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past 5 years What is interesting is.. from that day until December 1982 unemployment rose from 5.8% to 10.8%. The people were largely correct in their assessment. The next 3.5 years things were very hard and probably worse than anything experienced in the 5 years prior to Carter's July 1979 speech. And as I've stated previously I contend, this speech kicked off the "Let's Make America Great Again" // "We Can Make America Great Again" movement that Reagan engineered. I wish I could have experienced the 1980 presidential election. What a battle. The hostages stuck in Iran... the Miracle On Ice. The geniuses making the best Atari games had just left and created Activision .... damn.. what a fascinating year. Carter set himself up to manage the decline, which he wanted to convince America was inevitable and worse if Carter couldn't enact his policies. Reagan charged that Carter was the reason for the decline, and it was time for a new direction. Reagan asked Americans to consider whether they were better off than they were 4 years ago. It's also a little amazing to cite "one of the greatest presidential speeches of the 20th Century" whose entire subject matter led to one of the greatest presidential defeats of the 20th Century (44 states is HUGE). Maybe you meant to say one of the most infamous presidential speeches in the last 100 years --- the malaise speech does qualify. But America was ready for a little hope and change. Still a good speech to be fair, and rather illustrative of other things. Having some actual balls in owning failure, respecting the intelligence of the audience. Quite quaint really I don’t think you’ll get many arguments that it wasn’t exactly an effective speech for Jimmy Carter, absolutely. It’s quite stark to take basically any speech from this vague era or prior, be it a politician whose politics one shares or not, and how much better it will for something modern. Feels modern ones are min/maxed the fuck for the lowest common denominator and most actual substance has been stripped out If he had the good sense to own failure, he wouldn't have run in 1980! But he probably would've lost even if he hadn't made that fateful malaise speech. It wasn't going to save a presidency. Sure, who’s arguing otherwise? It’s an effective illustration that being a generally decent human being and admitting faults isn’t especially prudent course of action if you want to be a viable politician, even 50 years ago and it’s only got worse since. Oh yeah. He was a decent human being. Not too good at being a president, but we have had worse before and after. We've had absolute scumbags that were average presidents, and good people that were terrible presidents.
Carter did a lot of good post-presidency.
Nowadays you can say zero of any substance, claim immigrants are eating pets, and basically ramble 95% of the time and that’s like totally fine. Nae bother lad
You’ve people going to fucking bat on how percentages work for you, why bother contributing anything sensible? Not really a comment on the speech itself, but I agree with you on the decline in the years since Carter for presidents.
|
On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah.
I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 26 2026 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being.
What are you basing that belief on?
|
On May 26 2026 07:15 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2026 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being. What are you basing that belief on?
A variety of factors. Including but not limited to:
A far more equitable wealth distribution already has ~90%+ support in the US.
My own anecdotal political organizing experiences. There's plenty of urgency and will, but most people I encounter feel like what they are lacking is a clear organization they can join with meaningful ways they can actualize their goals/ideals/etc.
Various economic indicators show increasing numbers of people are reaching breaking points and being forced to make tough decisions they never expected to have to make.
History. Organizing smaller groups of already mostly like-minded people to take direct action in order to seize and use various types of power/leverage in order to force the status quo that is maintained by everyone else to change is how pretty much all the good stuff has been accomplished in the US.
|
On May 26 2026 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being.
You putting cart in front of the horse, once critical threshold is reached people will organise just fine. Organising before would be actually detrimental to your cause.
On May 26 2026 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2026 07:15 WombaT wrote:On May 26 2026 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being. What are you basing that belief on? A variety of factors. Including but not limited to: A far more equitable wealth distribution already has ~90%+ support in the US. My own anecdotal political organizing experiences. There's plenty of urgency and will, but most people I encounter feel like what they are lacking is a clear organization they can join with meaningful ways they can actualize their goals/ideals/etc. Various economic indicators show increasing numbers of people are reaching breaking points and being forced to make tough decisions they never expected to have to make. History. Organizing smaller groups of already mostly like-minded people to take direct action in order to seize and use various types of power/leverage in order to force the status quo that is maintained by everyone else to change is how pretty much all the good stuff has been accomplished in the US.
I think you make rather wild assumption here. This 90% may support more equitable wealth distribution, but that doesnt mean their solution is the same, so it is rather hard to organise them. I mean, there may be KKK members or neo nazis supporting "A far more equitable wealth distribution", however their solution is probably drastically different than yours.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 26 2026 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Various economic indicators show increasing numbers of people are reaching breaking points and being forced to make tough decisions they never expected to have to make.
nah, the unemployment rate remains steady. What is happening right now is nothing like 1979-1982. Nor is it like the 2008-2010 recession. The money is out there.
Tough decisions? ya, like they can't afford a Nintendo Switch 2 while ordering Doordash. Americans need to clean up their diet and lifestyle habits. Obesity and myopia are skyrocketing. Americans are spending far too much time in front of screens while eating ultra processed foods. And these handheld and smart phone screens are the absolute worst.
The USA needs to offer a better path for its bottom 5%. Other than that , everything is fine. The economy is slightly worse than it was under Biden and it is noticeably worse than Trump's first term. Trump needs to stop talking about how great everything is... because ... it ain't. Trump running around telling everyone we're living in a "Golden Age" and that he thinks 15% economic growth is possible.... is psychotic.
On May 26 2026 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
History. Organizing smaller groups of already mostly like-minded people to take direct action in order to seize and use various types of power/leverage in order to force the status quo that is maintained by everyone else to change is how pretty much all the good stuff has been accomplished in the US.
nah, the average US worker has always been one of the most productive workers in the world. that productivity creates good stuff. the average American full time worker is the hero. My brother-in-law is a municipal City worker and his wife is a Realtor assistant. They own a modest home and both of their kids under 28. Both kids own their own homes. One kid is an electrician the other is a nurse anesthetist. Stack up millions of these families and that is what creates "pretty much all the good stuff" in the USA.
If you're American and want to create something good... i suggest: go to work every day and help build your family.
|
Obesity already skyrocketed and has now started to decrease after having basically nowhere left to rise to.
|
I don't think it peaked on its own. If it is falling, I bet it is ozempic and other weight loss drugs. You could probably even math out the impact by checking the number of people prescribed and the change.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 26 2026 08:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2026 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being. You putting cart in front of the horse, once critical threshold is reached people will organise just fine. Organising before would be actually detrimental to your cause. Show nested quote +On May 26 2026 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2026 07:15 WombaT wrote:On May 26 2026 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2026 00:51 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2026 23:05 WombaT wrote:
Has anyone tried to model this, or similarly radical tax reform policies on a facsimile of a big modern economy?
I’m sure it’s fabulously complicated and would require a hefty chunk of computing power, but curious if any of you have encountered anything in this domain + Show Spoiler +We're far off from being able to properly simulate something so behaviorally complex, but it doesn't pass the sniff test to have a new economic system that entirely relies on the very same metric (total transaction value) it torpedoes. The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being. What are you basing that belief on? A variety of factors. Including but not limited to: A far more equitable wealth distribution already has ~90%+ support in the US. My own anecdotal political organizing experiences. There's plenty of urgency and will, but most people I encounter feel like what they are lacking is a clear organization they can join with meaningful ways they can actualize their goals/ideals/etc. Various economic indicators show increasing numbers of people are reaching breaking points and being forced to make tough decisions they never expected to have to make. History. Organizing smaller groups of already mostly like-minded people to take direct action in order to seize and use various types of power/leverage in order to force the status quo that is maintained by everyone else to change is how pretty much all the good stuff has been accomplished in the US. I think you make rather wild assumption here. This 90% may support more equitable wealth distribution, but that doesnt mean their solution is the same, so it is rather hard to organise them. I mean, there may be KKK members or neo nazis supporting "A far more equitable wealth distribution", however their solution is probably drastically different than yours.
I actually agree with you for once! I kid, I do sometimes on other occasions :p
If I were to hazard a guess a lot of people would love a better distribution, but for them. Pensioners in the UK love the pension triple lock that safeguards them against economic shocks, it doesn’t mean many don’t consistently vote for tickets that say theyre going to cut welfare/benefits for other groups
Then there’s the mechanisms. My personal position is capitalism gonna capitalism, especially in a culture that broadly buys in wholesale. However, I imagine many respondents wanna keep it, just with the rough edges filed off.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 26 2026 20:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2026 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Various economic indicators show increasing numbers of people are reaching breaking points and being forced to make tough decisions they never expected to have to make. nah, the unemployment rate remains steady. What is happening right now is nothing like 1979-1982. Nor is it like the 2008-2010 recession. The money is out there. Tough decisions? ya, like they can't afford a Nintendo Switch 2 while ordering Doordash. Americans need to clean up their diet and lifestyle habits. Obesity and myopia are skyrocketing. Americans are spending far too much time in front of screens while eating ultra processed foods. And these handheld and smart phone screens are the absolute worst. The USA needs to offer a better path for its bottom 5%. Other than that , everything is fine. The economy is slightly worse than it was under Biden and it is noticeably worse than Trump's first term. Trump needs to stop talking about how great everything is... because ... it ain't. Trump running around telling everyone we're living in a "Golden Age" and that he thinks 15% economic growth is possible.... is psychotic. Show nested quote +On May 26 2026 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
History. Organizing smaller groups of already mostly like-minded people to take direct action in order to seize and use various types of power/leverage in order to force the status quo that is maintained by everyone else to change is how pretty much all the good stuff has been accomplished in the US. nah, the average US worker has always been one of the most productive workers in the world. that productivity creates good stuff. the average American full time worker is the hero. My brother-in-law is a municipal City worker and his wife is a Realtor assistant. They own a modest home and both of their kids under 28. Both kids own their own homes. One kid is an electrician the other is a nurse anesthetist. Stack up millions of these families and that is what creates "pretty much all the good stuff" in the USA. If you're American and want to create something good... i suggest: go to work every day and help build your family.
Ah yes the rigorous school of economic analysis that is ‘Look at the unemployment rate and people I know’
Poor folk should just start spending less on luxuries in an economy hugely built on people doing just that, what could possibly go wrong there?
|
I guess thats my "culture/upbringing" speaking but I feel like people expecting to be able to afford food delivery (near) daily is just weird. I also don't see how it should ever be cheap if we assume that delivery drivers should also make a living wage.
I make a decent income and could easily afford it but never in my wildest dreams would I think of ordering take out more than like once a month, heck I don't visit drive-in/take outs once a week if even that. To be fair I get pretty awesome and varied food for DIRT cheap for lunch at work, so there is also no urge for it and I actually like quickly cooking something simple in the evening, it's relaxing. Constantly ordering take out is just something "you don't do (if you don't want to burn your money and/or be a lazy bum)".
But I guess the US is different with the driving distances and so on and it somehow also became much more normalized due to it being so dirt cheap for so long.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 27 2026 05:23 Velr wrote:
I guess thats my "culture/upbringing" speaking but I feel like people expecting to be able to afford food delivery (near) daily is just weird. I also don't see how it should ever be cheap if we assume that delivery drivers should also make a living wage.
I make a decent income and could easily afford it but never in my wildest dreams would I think of ordering take out more than like once a month, heck I don't visit drive-in/take outs once a week if even that. To be fair I get pretty awesome and varied food for DIRT cheap for lunch at work, so there is also no urge for it and I actually like quickly cooking something simple in the evening, it's relaxing. Constantly ordering take out is just something "you don't do (if you don't want to burn your money and/or be a lazy bum)".
But I guess the US is different with the driving distances and so on and it somehow also became much more normalized due to it being so dirt cheap for so long.
I dunno if all that many people do, it’s a stick people use to beat poor people with to make things more tolerable for themselves than actually having to confront big income inequality
Especially as inflation bites most poor people I know live like monks. A few beers + a taxi home is setting you back 40-50 quid these days so more and more are eschewing it
There are plenty who’ll spend like there’s no tomorrow too, most I’ve talked to don’t think they’ll ever be able to be comfortably middle class, or own a home even if they massively tighten their belts, so they think fuck it, may as well enjoy my youth
|
On May 27 2026 05:23 Velr wrote:
I guess thats my "culture/upbringing" speaking but I feel like people expecting to be able to afford food delivery (near) daily is just weird. I also don't see how it should ever be cheap if we assume that delivery drivers should also make a living wage.
I make a decent income and could easily afford it but never in my wildest dreams would I think of ordering take out more than like once a month, heck I don't visit drive-in/take outs once a week if even that. To be fair I get pretty awesome and varied food for DIRT cheap for lunch at work, so there is also no urge for it and I actually like quickly cooking something simple in the evening, it's relaxing. Constantly ordering take out is just something "you don't do (if you don't want to burn your money and/or be a lazy bum)".
But I guess the US is different with the driving distances and so on and it somehow also became much more normalized due to it being so dirt cheap for so long. It's actually pretty insane that it's something like once a week or more for 39% of Gen Z and Millennials, or 20-22%.
Then again, it's about convenience and the freedom to spend your own money as wastefully as you see fit. This community is familiar with gamers that expend a great deal of money upgrading their gaming computers and gaming peripherals. If there were very high minimum wages and benefits enforced against delivery drivers, it would probably decrease utilization simply due to cost.
|
On May 27 2026 06:25 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2026 05:23 Velr wrote:
I guess thats my "culture/upbringing" speaking but I feel like people expecting to be able to afford food delivery (near) daily is just weird. I also don't see how it should ever be cheap if we assume that delivery drivers should also make a living wage.
I make a decent income and could easily afford it but never in my wildest dreams would I think of ordering take out more than like once a month, heck I don't visit drive-in/take outs once a week if even that. To be fair I get pretty awesome and varied food for DIRT cheap for lunch at work, so there is also no urge for it and I actually like quickly cooking something simple in the evening, it's relaxing. Constantly ordering take out is just something "you don't do (if you don't want to burn your money and/or be a lazy bum)".
But I guess the US is different with the driving distances and so on and it somehow also became much more normalized due to it being so dirt cheap for so long. It's actually pretty insane that it's something like once a week or more for 39% of Gen Z and Millennials, or 20-22%. Then again, it's about convenience and the freedom to spend your own money as wastefully as you see fit. This community is familiar with gamers that expend a great deal of money upgrading their gaming computers and gaming peripherals. If there were very high minimum wages and benefits enforced against delivery drivers, it would probably decrease utilization simply due to cost.
And just to add on to what you've said, that source also explains that "married people use delivery platforms much more than their single peers". Not every married couple has two incomes, but plenty do and that might make food delivery preferences more affordable for them. (This obviously doesn't comment on the obesity / health-conscious side of things, just the financial side.)
|
Mitch McConnell on the IRS/DOJ settlement: "So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong. Take your pick."
Maybe he shouldn't have voted to acquit the president that encouraged his followers to assault cops to overturn the 2020 election?
|
On May 27 2026 22:56 LightSpectra wrote:
Mitch McConnell on the IRS/DOJ settlement: "So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong. Take your pick."
Maybe he shouldn't have voted to acquit the president that encouraged his followers to assault cops to overturn the 2020 election?
It's so wild that one of the most destructive and terrible human beings in Congress over the last few decades is suddenly deciding to take the moral high ground against one of the most destructive and terrible presidents of the last few decades.
|
There's no moral high ground, he just personally doesn't like Trump. The same reason McCain and Flake "turned" on him despite still voting along party lines >90% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
