It wasn’t exactly those countries choice, but since the US seems hell bent on sabotaging itself one can only hope the rest of the western world picks up this slack.
In the higher income countries the hours worked have fallen, however it may be that in lower income countries they have increased.
That is to say, due to more work opportunities more people have gotten jobs that count towards measured work hours and GDP. Including households who used to have one person working jobs that count towards metrics now have two.
I don’t have numbers for this though, just an informed guess.
Good point. It would be sufficient for there simply to have been an increase in % of households where both parents work. That can lead to fewer hours worked per employee, low productivity growth, and increase in household income.
Wait do people put their groceries they intend to eat on the bed of their trucks, exposed to exhaust, asphalt, tire rubber and all other forms of road pollution?
I am, but still it sounds bad to me to expose them to the road elements on the way home.
And food in packaging, it is usually in boxes or other containers most of the time in supply line transit. Individual items only get unpacked in the store, so I would think this practice adds considerably to their “dirtyness”.
Not really. Bread, milk, soft drinks, and bagged snacks like potato chips all get delivered and stocked by the individual vendors, but everything else goes through a single warehouse ran by the grocery franchiser. Dairy comes in extra boxes, but most of the stuff is stacked 3D-tetris-style 6 feet high on a pallet and then wrapped in cellophane on the pallet before getting loaded on the truck. It's used just as a convenient way to bind the stack together so it doesn't dump in traffic. When it gets to the store, the pallets sit in the back until they are needed and then the cellophane is cut off and the items go directly on the shelves. Packing them up further would slow things down too much and confuse the stock workers too much (it's mostly teenagers and mentally challenged people, not exactly a life long career). It was not uncommon to find rat and mouse feces and urine on top of cans and boxes.
Almost all of the produce is in nearly the exact form at the warehouse as you would find them in the store. For example, watermelons are in an open-topped, cardboard bin that just gets moved from the warehouse to the grocery floor in exactly its final state. Berries are all in their plastic clamshell boxes, no extra packing, no tape. They rack them up in flat cardboard boxes with no top, just tall enough that a single layer of berry boxes can fit in it and the next layer stacks on top.
This one time, one of the pickers had a pallet full of berry racks, six feet tall. He took a corner with his pallet jack too fast and dumped the entire load on the floor. Berries scattered everywhere. They used a snow shovel to scoop them back up and back into the boxes and back into the racks. Then out to the truck and out to the store, where they would have gotten relabeled "mixed berries."
This is demonstrably false. Previous administrations have not. It used to be normal to do things like keeping cabinet members appointed by their opponents or not put up a mocking picture of your predecessor in the white house.
> It used to be normal to do things like keeping cabinet members appointed by their opponents
This particular thing was not all that common between Presidents who succeed normally by election. I think the most recent was Robert Gates serving as SecDef across the Bush II/Obama transition, before that there were five kept across the Reagan/Bush I transition, and no more in the post-WWII period.
(It’s true that the pettiness level in this Administration is unprecedented, but this is not a valid example.)
True, I didn’t mean it was routine but it was somewhat normal. I just wanted to show the incredible range of professional behaviour that has disappeared.
Bullying is not new and was performed via sms before the internet. Social media however allows for easier targeting especially for bad actors that are not in the kid’s friend/acquaintance group.
I remember when a bully would have to go up to you themselves to mete out whatever harassment, and you could avoid a lot of it by just being aware and avoiding that particular person.
Juxtapose that with today, where any one bully can create dozens of accounts to bully in a swarm, and the bully has constant access to you from your own pocket. Also, a person in Minsk or Timbuktu or whatever couldn't just come up to your house in the middle of the night to harass you out of boredom.
This "we could do X before computers, why are we trying to ban X-with-computers now?" line of arguments is just intellectually lazy. If a bad behavior was well moderated in the past because it was labor or resource intensive, the sudden removal of those constraints is a material change that demands revisiting. Put another way, if a constraint stops working, we should change constraints, not just do the old constraint with a confused expression on our faces.
Kids know how to download or use free texting apps and sites, giving them access to potentially thousands of different numbers from which they can engage in harassment campaigns. In fact, it's an incredibly common tactic.
Similarly, someone from Minsk and Timbuktu can do the same thing, they have access to the same tools.
My point was not "oh, social media bullying is some kind of special case compared to other ways kids today bully their peers". My point was "modern bullying is different from historic bullying, and dismissing modern bullying as the same as historic bullying is intellectually lazy"
That is true and we have certainly seen our fair share of that.
Adults are however also better equipped to deal with that, especially if they have not been subjected to such abuse as children.
It is worth noting that online bullying is however not the most serious matter here, rather (in my mind at least) it is the systematic targeting of kids/teenagers to get inside their head and get them to perform violent acts against themselves or others around them.
Those are real words, that’s true. The following however is anywhere from not true to wild speculation without any factual basis.
>Global responsibility sounds like the direct opposite of self-determination.
>Some United Nations NGO bureaucrats being brought in to administer it, without acknowledging local knowledge. Getting UNESCO to administer it is not "honoring indigenous traditions"
>Also "store carbon", is more cargo cult pop science.
>They are probably trying to refer to trapping and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but this is a misleading way of doing so.
It isn't speculation. The article talks about local tribes and UNESCO as if the two ever had much in common. That isn't wild speculation.
We also need to stop referring to carbon dioxide as carbon. It may be a compound of carbon but it is not the same thing. Elemental carbon is not the problem.
