Well yeah. If I sit at home on Sunday playing videogames, I'm OK eating once a day and maybe having some snacks. If I bike to the mountains, I eat my weight in food. If I work intensively, I might have three meals a day, but sometimes I'm OK with two and a coffee with croissant for breakfast even then.
You seem to paint it like it's some kind of a bad thing
Nalivai
joined 1 year ago
You understand what the word "visualisation" means, right?
I'm glad that the only problem with my comment you have is that number. Yeah, it might be described as slightly less than that, depending on how you define struggling, some people are perfectly fine with being one medical emergency away from a bankruptcy, and not struggling at all about it. But for the broader point it doesn't matter, really.
Republican party made a lot of effort to gut Medicare as much as possible, and they are quite successful when they want to destroy something that helps other people.
Had. It got destroyed.
Doesn't have to be
Lemmy try not to give a correct answer to a problem...chalenge for some reason
"You don't like an athrocity? But what about that other athrocity on the other side of the globe? Check, mate. I am very intelligent."
In case you don't understand what "metaphor" or "visualization" means, nobody is saying that this exact store is a reason for the homelessness.
Capitalism is when 27 empty houses per a homeless person, that are used as investments for the rich to play around with their imaginary numbers, while 99% of population struggle to survive.
That's just unfaithful interpretation of the argument, and you know it. US on average has 27 empty houses per a homeless person.
The article kinda conflicts the two. It talks about financial situation, but then it just asks "Do you eat three meals a day?", and doesn't ask you to clarify why. I for example can describe my financial situation as precarious, as they want me to do in the article, but it doesn't mean I can't afford food.