We used to have a thriving rail and trolley system in the US; in most major cities especially. The automakers destroyed it. When they were caught, they got a slap-on-the-wrist fine and the nation went with the automaker’s suggestion of building the highway system up.

So yes, there is a fundamental reason we can’t. It’s the auto makers and the politicians they own.

By any chance did you drop an /s?

That depends on what you mean.

Did a giraffe stretch its neck longer and longer, and then pass that long-necked gene onto its kids? No.

Can an embryo that gets a random mutation while developing in the egg/womb pass it on to their children? Yes.

This gets a bit more complicated if you really dig into it, though. Environment does change the expression of genes, and that particular sequence of genes that have been activated/shut-off/whatever can be passed on to children too.

Hence why children who were born to two shorter parents will often grow much taller than them if given much better nutrition. Or why obesity often shows up chronically in families that were poor or had limited access to healthier foods in other ways; their bodies had adapted to grab and store every extra calorie they could to guard against starvation, and unfortunately shutting that gene expression off naturally takes multiple generations.

If that’s the case, just default to ‘interested because it sounds fun’ tone.

When people connect socially they try to do it in a way that everyone in the group they’re inviting can enjoy themselves at least a little, so (as long as you genuinely want to go) letting them know in a ‘sounds fun’ tone will make them happy.

The reason birds are going extinct is humans. Hunting, habitat loss, and climate change are far, far more impactful than cats. As much as they kill, cats shouldn’t even be making a dent in bird populations in most of the world (yes, there are islands and a few microbiomes where they have an outsized impact, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed).

Cats only have such a big impact because we drove those species of birds to the edge of extinction already.

Oh noooo it’s old no-one should like stuff that’s old only new things are cool

You know, one day the stuff you like will be old too.

Also, Star Trek been around a long time, yeah, but it’s still going with new content.

Well, you could always wear a gas mask while you prune it…

Bunnies! I need me some bunny seeds

No, you’re just being purposely vague for some reason. And you really want to pay people substandard wages for some reason.

But if you legit can’t come up with any concrete examples and have to fall back on things like eating food, then fine, we can end the discussion.

Again the vagueness. ‘Can’t work very well’. Define that. Are we talking someone who’s not mentally apt enough to do NASA rocket science but still can ring up groceries just fine? Are we talking someone wheelchair-bound so they can’t stock shelves? What level are we talking here? Because those people could still do jobs and earn a living wage.

No. Give me concrete examples, please.

And how do they do that?

Define ‘not valuable enough’ and I’ll answer you.

It has everything to do with it as you are very insistent on underpaying people for some reason. You have yet to state that reason.

To answer your question I would need more information. Exactly what do you mean by ‘not valuable enough to earn a living wage’?

Still didn’t answer my question.

For the love of…

I guess I need to use simple words and shorter sentences with you.

If you hire a person, you pay them a living wage.

If they’re not doing their job right, train them better.

If they still don’t work out, fire them.

There. Is. No. Reason. Not. To. Pay. Workers. A. Living. Wage.

None.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so enamored of exploiting workers?

Right, which is, as the other person said, why you fire them if they don’t do a good job. You don’t keep a mistake-maker and pay them less, you hire someone who can do the job and pay them well.

And how is it ‘meaningless’? You just defined it: a wage allowing someone to live in the place they’re located. So yes, it changes from place to place. That’s not ‘meaningless’, it’s ‘regional’. And you should still pay someone a living wage.

I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to it. Why do you want people suffering and in poverty for providing services? If you work, you should be able to eat and live, full stop. Even if it’s only in the cheaper parts of your town.

And again, that’s just wage slavery done up in a different bow.

Payment for a job is you not wanting to do it or being unable to do it, so you hire someone to do it. If they do the job, they can’t do something else, so you pay them enough to make it worth their time. You support them so they can help you. If you can’t pay them enough to support them, then do the damn job yourself.

Seriously, why are you so against people getting a living wage? It used to be even grocery checkstand workers could afford a decent place. Back then our economy was better too.

We’ve done it before, and it worked. Other countries today do it and it works - see the wages for McDonald’s workers in Denmark as an example.

The only thing taking away living wages does is force people into wage slavery to line the pockets of the rich to a ridiculous degree. It’s not sustainable and it benefits no-one but a few people who don’t need that money anyways.

I beg your pardon?

Every job needs a living wage. Anything else is wage slavery. Seriously, what are you, a 1910 coal mine overseer?

A living wage for all benefits both people and the economy; that’s been proven over and over again. All people are worthy of being able to support themselves and a family, for heaven’s sake.

Or how about poor people should be given a living wage?