thirtyfold8625

It seems that there is at least one system that is intended to keep people alive even if they didn't work much.

Because of low wages and interrupted work history, some workers earn modest incomes during their careers. Many of these workers will reach retirement with small private retirement accounts and notional accounts. To ensure that pension reform does not adversely affect these people, the new pension system guarantees an adequate old-age income for all Swedes.

For a single retiree, the guaranteed pension is about $9,000 per year. A married couple, meanwhile, receives about $16,000. This means-tested benefit is phased out according to the income available from the notional account and the private account. The means-testing rules that govern the guaranteed pension are relatively generous, to the extent that about 40 percent of workers are projected to receive at least some income from the safety net program.

I think they aren't quite the same: "buy 1 get 1 free" means that you only get a discount if you remove at least 2 units of inventory from the store. If I wanted to encourage people to clear out shelves in order to make space for new inventory (like an entirely new product or the same product but with more distant expiration dates), I might be inclined to use "buy 1 get 1 free" (or something like "buy 3 get 1 free") rather than just reducing the base price: if someone only gets the discount if they help me clear the shelves it might make our incentives more aligned. A "buy 1 get 1 free" deal might also make it easier to reinterpret statistics: being able to say "we sold 100 units at a price of $2 for each unit (but there was a buy 1 get 1 free deal)" might be more useful than being able to say "we sold 100 units at a price of $1 for each unit". Also, information about who took advantage of the deal and who didn't might be interesting (based on what was bought at the same time or tracked with a "loyalty program"), but a constant discount doesn't make that information available since it applies to everyone equally.

In a way, this has already happened with 401(k) plans. In general, making each person's retirement income more easily measured is likely a good thing, since it will probably encourage people to behave in a more prosocial way. https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/pension-reform-sweden-lessons-american-policymakers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKjHvpiHk3s

I disagree. Inflation affects property (which probably refers to every tangible thing you will interact with other than the currency that is inflating). If the amount of money you need to give up in order to acquire an object increased due to time passing, that is "inflation". That means that when inflation happens, every person who has at least 1 dollar bill suffers (since they won't be able to trade it for as much stuff as they could before). A person who is significantly wealthier than someone else probably won't have a significantly larger amount of money. Elon Musk surely doesn't have 1 billion $1 bills stored in a basement: they probably have a large amount of money in their wallet and in a bank account, but I would be surprised if less than 90% of their net worth was derived from owning property. A "billionaire" might have 100 times as much "money" as the typical person, but they probably don't have 10,000 or 100,000 times as much: https://breznikar.com/articles/how-much-cash-on-hand-do-billionaires-have/1781 https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/smart-money/average-net-worth-by-age This means that when there is inflation, a poor person's net worth will likely decline more than that of a rich person, since it's likely that a large amount of a poor person's net worth will be in the form of cash when compared to a rich person (and the net worth of a rich person will probably increase, since it's likely that the value of their property will increase more than the amount they lose from the value of their money going down). People who are older are usually wealthier than young people, and people who are wealthier probably derive a larger percentage of their net worth from owning property than someone who is less wealthy, so when inflation happens, the net worth of young people probably decreases more when compared to older people.

Some things that can offset the impact of inflation are having debt and/or income that increases when inflation happens. I intentionally mentioned that property is tangible, but income and an obligation to pay someone using money seem less tangible. If you only own a $100 bill in your pocket, but you have a debt of $100 and your household income is $80,610 each year, if prices double but your income doubles too, that means that your net worth would not really change (you still have $100 and owe $100), but it would be easier to pay your debt (since it would become a smaller proportion of your income). If your income increases faster than inflation does (which is technically a typical situation), that means that you are in a better position as time passes! Moreover, old people typically have less (earned) income and debt than younger people, so in some ways young people have an advantage over old people.

In general, getting more (earned) income and debt is probably the way to overtake someone older than you. Getting a job providing something that old people pay for (like gambling or medical services) is probably an even better way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UgiJPnwtQU&t=491s

Food piracy is a crime. You wouldn't duplicate a life-threatening disease. You wouldn't duplicate a kestrel. So don't duplicate food. If you eat duplicated food, you'll get AIDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wero_(payment)

Regardless, there is a contrast between how I have interpreted the article and how I feel about the page as a whole.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

a global wave of age-check laws threatens to chill speech

You’ve read your last free article.

I expect that they mean to express that they were not engaged with any political system in the past and don't expect to engage with any party that already exists. It might also express that they will disengage from politics when they determine that they can stop addressing this particular issue (whether that is because the issue was solved or not). Perhaps it helps to be "not tainted by government or mainstream parties' scandals" (or vice versa).

Consider your audience. "You are part of the problem" (meaning "I am the enemy of the person reading these words") is probably not what you wanted to communicate. "Collective Shout is part of the problem" (meaning "The person reading these words should help to neutralize Collective Shout") probably is. Addressing someone that you don't want to engage in "diplomacy" with is probably a bad idea. You might want to use words such that you address people who you want to cooperate with.

Alternatively, one could go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist#Video_games

I knew that this existed for a long time. I didn't know that you can use Venmo or PayPal now. It seems that wasn't possible in the past. I also knew that money you use for this purpose is probably tax deductible, though only in the same way that a gift to a charity would be: https://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/dont_mess_with_taxes/2010/04/voluntary-payments-to-the-ease-the-public-debt.html