Collapse related because when the rich tell the poor “the solution to inflation is tighten your belts” it means your country is fucked. Austerity, y’all.
What? You mean you don’t have 3 “side hustles” all going at once??? Do you mean to tell me you only work 60 hours a week???
Still not enough - you need to be willing to exploit the labor of those “beneath” you as well. It’s
turtlesexploitation all the way down.:-(Thats IS EVEN STILL not enough, we need a seperate class of people outside the law who will work under even more extremem threat while having the finger pointed at them as the REAL problem in case anyone comes after our wealth.
Damn, it’s a shame we don’t have something like people we can beat and starve while we force them to do the work for no pay at all. You could build an entire nation with that kind of labor!
Yeah! A-a-and when that’s not enough, we can expand it, again and again, as much as we need to, until it does! Hey wait, you guys aren’t going to eat my face off… a-are you? :-P
That’s been Russia’s model for millennia: “the reason you all have to starve is so we can stick it to those OTHER people over THERE - but keep it up, b/c we’re WINNING!”
That did not work out so well for them, but hey sure, I guess we’re going to give it a try ourselves regardless…
For real savings, you should obviously kill your children though.
Forgoing chemotherapy on a dog is not killing it. You make decisions like that based on assessment of risk, quality of life, and unfortunately price. Regardless of what you choose, if your dog dies, it was killed by cancer.
While true, it is tone deaf coming from a newspaper.
You understand that we understand that right?
That the problem here is that they’re using this as a handy tip for saving money in as casual a tone as ‘bring your lunch to work’.
You get that right?
Yes I do get that. The article is terrible but I don’t think you should conflate a complicated decision and animal murder just to make that point. I’m aware most people here know the difference between the two, but it bothered me so I pointed it put.
It’s hyperbole for humour’s sake. You’ll see it often. Literally no one took it the way you did.
Well again, it bothered me so I pointed it out. I’ll agree it was probably unnecessary, but I’m really not sure why everyone seemed to dislike it so much.
You were condescendingly explaining something to people who already understood. That is typically poorly received.
All I did was explain something that most reasonable people probably already know. I did not write it in a condescending way. Maybe it seems condescending to you that I’m assuming you don’t already know that information. But, I’m not making any assumptions about you specifically. I’ve met plenty of people here that would genuinely have difficulty comprehending any possibility of not getting your dog chemotherapy. This isn’t a one on one conversation. If my comment isn’t of use to you, then move on. There’s no sense in having that kind of response just because I publicly explained something you personally didn’t need explained to you.
That’s not a strategy like the journal implies, that a decision you make when the time comes.
That’s not a strategy like the journal implies,
Holy shit, why didn’t I think to tap into this ten grand I had set aside for Spike’s eventual chemotherapy?
Glad you commented because I read this as “forging chemotherapy on your dog” as in, commiting some kind of vet fraud. I was certainly surprised at that recommendation coming from Bloomberg.
