• 516052 (unregistered)

    Why would anyone quit over having political discussions banned from the office? That sounds like a dream job.

  • (author) in reply to 516052

    Because the definition of what's "political" is in the eye of the beholder, and suddenly discussions about your personal identity become "political".

  • Alistair (unregistered)

    Basecamp may be suffering from Tom Peters syndrome.

    For younger readers, Tom Peters wrote a couple of books with titles like 'The Pursuit of Excellence' with hagiographies of exceptionally well-managed companies. None of those companies are still with us.

  • (nodebb) in reply to 516052

    Probably because by banning political discussion they really meant anything to the right of the leftist SJW bullshit that has infested way too many companies.

  • (nodebb)

    OK I'm not sure what's wrong at all. I hate all these benefits like wellness and even health insurance. Pay me cash and I'll decide what to do.

    Banning politics may be sound harsh, but it specifies only using corporate accounts. That makes sense. The last thing anybody wants is mixed email threads about how Biden can't speak with project requirements.

    And the committees are stupid anywhere. The only company structure that works is the regular tree. If you want to be on a committee, run for congress.

    What it sounds like happened is that people started becoming lazy and spent time waxing lyrical about social injustice and held committee discussions about equity instead of coding. One third that left is hopefully the activists; now the remaining working bees will lead the company to success.

  • 516052 (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter

    You make that sound like it was a bad thing.

    Discussions about touchy subjects such as religion, identity, politics etc. are newer a good thing in a professional enviroment. Or indeed in any enviroment where you want harmony to exists. And harmony is essential for a productive workforce.

    At the end of the day an office is a place where people of all shapes and sizes and convictions have to be able to put aside their differences, sit together and work with one another as a team to produce the corporate end result. If they can't do that it does not matter who is wrong and who is right, who is good and who is evil. The work does not get done and everyone suffers.

    That's how you get toxic work enviroments with horrible office politics and scheming and massive turnower rates.

  • Prime Mover (unregistered)

    If my staff spent most of their time lollygagging around nattering about all and sundry instead of doing what they're paid to be doing, then their continued employment would be up for review, whether what they're gum-flapping about is "politics" or not.

  • Prime Mover (unregistered) in reply to DocMonster

    The moment you started spewing your fascist claptrap you'd be out of the door so fast you'd need a parachute to stop yourself reaching escape velocity.

    But then as one of your political persuasion, you approve of the sociopolitical environment that allows a person to be fired at will, you'd be perfectly happy with that.

    Oh wait, you'd claim the poll was fixed.

  • (author) in reply to 516052

    At the end of the day an office is a place where people of all shapes and sizes and convictions have to be able to put aside their differences, sit together and work with one another as a team to produce the corporate end result

    That sounds a lot like a political statement to me.

    There's a huge difference between "Hey, you need to navigate conflicts with your co-workers in a way that lets us keep working together," and saying "shut up, I don't want to hear any of this shit."

  • trwtf (unregistered)

    TRWTF is the author thinks he knows how to run companies better than a 90's dotcom that's still in business after 2 decades and counting. Stick with the WTFs and leave the politics to every other place in the world, this one of very few bastions where we don't have to deal with that.

  • ADBjester (unregistered)

    "You think I’m this nice in real life? F$ck that son!”.

    "Let's eat, Grandma" vs. "Let's eat Grandma"

  • (nodebb) in reply to Prime Mover

    Thanks for proving his point: it's "agree with us on everything or we destroy your life". That's the definition of fascism.

    Addendum 2021-05-13 07:55: To be clear, you are the fascist here.

  • my name (unregistered)

    Take a second to do an exercise splitting society into those that you should be “real” to/with and those that you should stay “phony” to/with.

    people to be real with: since i'm not a lying, cheating, manipulative asshole: EVERYBODY!

  • Ollie Jones (unregistered)

    WTF Fried and Hansson?

    Early in my career a wise sales rep said, "Son, never give your customers nicknames. They WILL find out about them."

    That advice has served me and the companies I worked for very well. Respect for customers is, like Ford used to say, Job One.

    Maybe this could go into the next edition of one of those business books?

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered)

    Well I reckon if I saw someone using corporate systems to pump out wishy-washy guff like this article I'd like to see them shown the door. Seems like they'd need to be shown it, I don't think that author could find his ass with both hands and a satnav.

    It's hard to say whether this company is taking a lurch into nasty corporate drone-ism, or simply cutting away a load of wasteful nonsense. Hiding behind flowery quotes and actually not sustaining that 10% uplift permanently suggests it will turn into everywhere else given time.

    I agree with the sentiment that stripping away employee benefits and ceasing mechanisms designed to make the workplace better looks evil, but then I agree with Mr TA. I'd rather have the money. With some things, like Health Insurance, my experience has been it can be beneficial because fees for corporate plans seem to be much lower than personal plans, and the company has more leverage to complain when the insurance company pisses about. With most stuff, what appears to be beneficial often isn't much of anything when you get into the small print and caveats.

  • Cidolfas (unregistered)

    The main issue seems to be around framing of inclusivity (including the experiences of people of color and women within the company) as politics. Reports were of a company meeting that ended up being kind of tone deaf where people felt their voices weren't being heard.

    It's easy to try and shut up these voices when you're a white male, but it's not the right thing to do. Having said that, there's definitely a point where the emphasis on it can go too far and have it start taking over to the point where no one can get work done, and I'm not sure if it went past that in Basecamp or not. Saying "no politics in the workplace" really depends on what kind of politics is being discussed and what kind of effect it's having on the workforce.

    I like DHH's design philosophy (with caveats) but I don't think there's any mistaking that he's extremely outspoken and does not strike me as someone who's likely to admit he's wrong or change his outlook.

  • Prime Mover (unregistered) in reply to Mr. TA

    So, as I say, if you don't want to have your life inconvenienced, then shut the rude-word up about politics, and keep your extreme and hateful views to yourself.

    If your life would be "destroyed" by losing your job, then it can't have been much of a life in the first place.

  • Prime Mover (unregistered) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    I'd rather live in a country that does not require a person to have private health insurance in the first place.

    Unfortunately that sort of belief does not fly in the US because for some reason it is generally believed that good health is a privilege not a right.

    Which is ironic considering how unhealthy the food there is.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Prime Mover

    Interfering with somebody's ability to earn a living due to their political opinion is a legally recognized form of persecution. If a refugee arrived in the USA from another country and their government went after the refugee for opposition views by getting the person fired, that refugee has a case to get protection in the USA.

    One might say that private companies can fire anybody at will and that's a good thing. However as we see the lines are very blurred when private companies act as proxies for various political actors. It's a loophole that will get more and more exposed as times goes on. Yes companies should be and mostly can fire anybody, but what we have is a system where there's tremendous pressure on them to do so from outside. That pressure can be hidden for some time, but not forever.

    Somebody's life doesn't necessarily get destroyed by being let go from one place of employment. But, if there's a culture that's forced upon many companies to get rid of people with certain opinions, then soon enough that employee can't find any job. Yes, not finding any employment is a life-ender for most people. (SURPRISE!)

    And, it goes well beyond employment. There were people wo were banned from using many services which are a necessity to be able to live a normal life, such as: banking; transportation; communication; shopping; etc. Are you saying a person who can't work, shop, move, bank, and communicate, lives a fulfilling life? Or is restricting all these things the definition of "destroying someone's life"?

    Addendum 2021-05-13 09:34: PS. You actually demonstrated another aspect of this fascist mindset: one part of your brain wants to punish people you disagree with by firing them, but then another part of your brain says, well it's not really life destroying to lose a job. I mean, we could've put them into a gas chamber, but we didn't? Aren't we so merciful?

  • (nodebb) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    The health insurance market and health care market in general in the US is terribly skewed by very bad policies. Employer provided insurance has many disadvantages: workers have to adapt to the "network" of company's choosing for no good reason; like with single payer, it doesn't offer any incentives for people to take care of their health; in the event of termination, employee loses the coverage (unless they pay a ridiculous COBRA fee); etc.

    You cited one benefit - the ability of companies to get better prices and service than individual plan members. While that's true today, it's an artificial circumstance. The reason the insurance companies can act that way is it's easier for them to devote their resources to serving large clients - like an employer - than to smaller ones - like a family with an individual policy. In a world that I'd like to see, where all policies are individual, this outsized influence of employers goes away, and individual policy holders start getting better treatment.

    Anyway, this is way off-topic....

  • Bet Rob (unregistered)

    Just brillant, TDWTF. I thought y'all had learned something from fiascoes such as "Mandatory Fun Day" and "Worse Than Failure." Obviously, I was wrong. Your readers don't come here for politics. Don't even go there.

  • Hal (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter

    Well the problem is we are now in a place where "shut up, I don't want to hear any of this shit." is about the only way to navigate some of these conflicts. The political and media estates have escalated the rhetoric and drawn such hard lines that tolerance inst really possible. How is A supposed to causally work along side B while A believes B is advocating for murdering babies and shipping A off to the gulag because of A's deeply held convictions, and how is B supposed to causally sit and collaborate with A when B thinks that A is a white supremacist just waiting slap irons on B and send B back to the cotton field?

    It used to be you did your thing, you knew not everybody agrees with it so you kept the controversial stuff to yourself, if someone did something you found objectionable you kept your opinion to yourself. Now we have moved to it being not just socially acceptable but practically a requirement in various circles to be constant advocate for many of these 'issues' failure to express support for even the most extreme reforms or recalcitrant reactionary positions means you are demeaned to be endorsing 'the other team' which is no longer your neighbors that don't share your opinions but rather members of an evil cult seeking to destroy everything you believe in!

    No organization can function when its members believe each other to have such malicious intents. There can be no trust. So the only choices are ultimately going to be pretty strict 'don't ask don't tell' policies or ideological purges where diverse opinions are driven out of the organization. Where those opinions tend track with ethnic, sexual, religious lines our existing employment discrimination laws make that difficult. Which lands us squarely back on "shut up, I don't want to hear any of this shit." as the only viable solution for many organizations - until other parts of society decide to deescalate.

  • Jacob (unregistered)

    Dammit. This was one of the few venues where I didn't have to deal with the viper-pit of politics. I don't need that strife in my life and if more like it appears, I'll be dropping this one, too.

    And for the record, I'm in the "pox on both their houses" camp. Both sides of the standard political divide are problematic. They are, at a minimum, divisive and that leads to the kind of hate that wants others' lives destroyed for disagreements over policy. You see that in this very comment thread where calls for others to be fired are already present. Maybe you should consider the cost of taking a political stand that's guaranteed to anger a substantial portion of your audience? If any part of your thinking includes "who needs those losers" then, well, thank you for proving my point...

  • thinking aloud (unregistered)

    History teaches that oftentimes political views being expressed at workplace will lead to toxic workplace. Dreyfus. People will start running away from flamewars and hatred that will inevitably follow. It is not appropriate to tell colleagues how do you do sex, or how much you are paid, or who would you like to suppress politically -- unless asked by trusted colleague at Friday's beer evening.

    For Basecamp, there was not just "talk about politics". Remi (and generally management of TDWTF) -- how many Blacks, Chinese, Muslims are trusted to write articles here? Aren't you systemic racist that every White are? (That's the point of a Basecamp's black warrior he believes.) Aren't you all racists because you all read this racist-run website? And so on, ad nauseum. Go "navigate conflicts". Whatever you say is racist, so here your navigation will end.

    Whoever cares what colleagues felt where they heard they are all racists? Will they want to "navigate"?

    To make agony of USA longer the management should forbid talks about politics. Workplace is about work. Opinions belong to private life. If someone believes he is working for racists, he is welcome to other job.

  • Too old for this (unregistered)

    I'm willing to take things with a grain of salt such that 'not talking about politics' isn't the only thing that caused so many people to quit, but it seems like 1/3rd of their workforce decided that talking politics was more important than their job. I'd go so far as to say that 1/3rd of the workforce considered advocacy for their politics to be the driving force for working there, rather than, you know, doing a good job, or taking pride in their work.

    And THAT is why it got banned. I imagine they just didn't realize how much toxic bloat they had accrued.

  • first time poster (unregistered)

    Why is this in TDWTF? If I wanted to go read ignorant takes on politics I'd go subscribe to the NYT.

  • Prime Mover (unregistered) in reply to Mr. TA

    And I reiterate. If you keep on mouthing your (vile) political views while on the clock, you will very soon no longer be on the clock. Now STFU and get back to work, you whining crybaby.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Prime Mover

    "If you keep on mouthing your (vile) political views" - I didn't state a single political view? What are you even talking about? "Now STFU and get back to work, you whining crybaby." - You're such a nice person! Not. Because you're a fascist.

    "while on the clock, you will very soon no longer be on the clock" - see, sane people can have a policy on whether to allow politics in the office; fascists like you don't allow politics in the office IF you disagree with it.

  • Et Tu, Remy? (unregistered)

    Sad to see TDWTF editors feel the need to proclaim their stance on Basecamp as well, but maybe I'm just burned out from dealing with all the commentary I hear about this from working in a Silicon Valley company. I myself can't fathom the mental gymnastics it takes to equate a policy about refraining from certain types of discussion in a workplace with attacking or diminishing employees' personal identity. But hey, to each their own.

    I do take a lot of satisfaction in Basecamp management probably having been completely blindsided by the fallout. 30% attrition rate overnight? Ooops!

  • SomeRandomName (unregistered)

    How many of those responding actually read the articles that Remy linked to? They present a much clearer story than Remy could here in a few lines. I believe that this quote from Casey Newton's piece does a good job of summing up the part about so-called political discussions:

    “At least in my experience, it has always been centered on what is happening at Basecamp,” said one employee — who, like most of those I spoke with today, requested anonymity so as to freely discuss internal deliberations. “What is being done at Basecamp? What is being said at Basecamp? And how it is affecting individuals? It has never been big political discussions, like ‘the postal service should be disbanded,’ or ‘I don’t like Amy Klobuchar.’”

    It was made especially clear by Edward Ongweso in his Vice article that the mass exodus was in response to the company instituting a major culture shift through fiat. Workplace cultures grow over time; to suddenly reverse direction in so many areas at once is bound to cause major disruption.

    In the end, maybe Basecamp's approach will turn out to be the most efficient way to handle the issues at hand in order to get the results wanted. A company I worked for tended to take the boiled frog approach: lots of incremental reductions and restrictions over time so that they ended up with a lot of vaguely miserable people whose productivity dropped in direct relation to the changes. Most of the unhappy people eventually left, anyway, but the effects of their unhappiness continue even now within the remaining workforce. Basecamp's approach means that they can lose all at once those people they consider troublemakers and rebuild the workforce from there.

    I'm not arguing in favor of either of the above approaches; in fact, I believe that both indicate a failure of management. I'm just trying to interpret what I read and see here.

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered) in reply to SomeRandomName

    Kind of ironic that you berate others for a failure of attention to detail and still completely missed the fact Remy didn't write this one. Remy's a bit rubbish compared to the history of this site, but he is at least trying to produce articles consistent with it's original idea; let's all have a silly laugh at crap coding mistakes by arrogant pricks.

    This one is written by Amit Kooner, who is consistently producing vague, meandering bottom-burps that say nothing useful, every Thursday. I think he only exists to make Remy look good.

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered) in reply to Mr. TA

    Well I don't have direct experience of the US health insurance thing, beyond the fact it is clearly shite that one of the richest countries in the world seems to think it's a good idea not to provide decent healthcare to its citizens based on some ridiculous myth that they'll be motivated to take better care of themselves.

    Preventative healthcare decisions rely on having wealth and education, but mostly wealth and the free time that that also delivers. The Health insurance I was referring to is the top up stuff you can get in various European countries so you get your own room and a menu with nice stuff on it, and (allegedly) a jump on the waiting list. Companies can get that for about a third of the cash that an individual can and (as I said) deal with disagreements with much more leverage.

    Almost all the other stuff is a depressing reminder that the company you work for is really shite, and actually very gullible, at negotiating deals. I find that more disturbing that than the rubbish they expect us to be grateful for ... garnish our salary to offer a %age discount on the most expensive gym in the area, that actually isn't as good as a discount you could get with two minutes of googling? I hope, at least, that some shit-weasel in HR got their pocket well filled for that con-trick.

  • Meir (unregistered) in reply to Jacob

    Take another look, and you'll notice that it's one particular commenter here who's calling for people to be fired for their beliefs. To be more precise, he's decided that anything he doesn't like, or even failure to agree with his chosen beliefs, amounts to "fascist claptrap," and he'll be judge and jury and executioner. So much for the "both sides" nonsense.

  • 516052 (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter

    No there really isn't. The best way to avoid conflicts with people is to be considerate enough not to start them to begin with. And bringing up touchy subjects which you can expect people to have strong and possibly opposing beliefs on is the best way to deliberately start one.

    Or to put it in a more software way, "navigating" conflicts is a failuire recovery method. You don't want to be doing failure recovery on bugs that are plainly predictable. That is what we in the trade call a WTF.

  • Lothar (unregistered)

    So The Verge reports about "California bans misleading UX, copy and icons that lead to Dark Patterns". In the article examples the regulation is banning are shown. One of them is "Requiring users to 'search or scroll through the text of a privacy policy or similar document or webpage to locate the mechanism for submitting a request to opt-out.'". At the same time a big text overlay with a fat "I Accept" button is shown (no other possible choice), requiring the reader to accept the cookies they want to use to get all the data they can get their hands on with the helpful text "To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, which became effective December 20, 2019." I love this irony.

  • (nodebb) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    Like I said, our system doesn't incentivize good behavior anymore than single payer systems. But, we don't have free market health care. My point is that free market healthcare would work much better than the crap we have now and the crap you guys have over in Europe.

    Healthcare is a private good, not a public one. Our governments mess up enough with public goods already.

    Disease prevention requires no money and time, that's just false. Not smoking/ drinking heavily/ doing drugs is cheaper; not eating like a glutton is cheaper; jogging in the neighborhood is free. In fact, people spend money and time satisfying their bodily desires, which also makes them sick. And this happens in NA and EU.

  • thinking aloud (unregistered) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    I don't have direct experience of the US health insurance thing, beyond the fact it is clearly shite

    Dude, "fact" means something other than "I don't know".

    Also it's much more productive to be more granular in scores, shite/not-shite means different things for different people.

    • Are there many healthcare services that US medicine does not provide? No. And in UK it's not you who will decide, whatever money you have.
    • Are monthly fees regarded as "too high"? Possibly, thanks Obamacare? Or were they always the same?
    • Are case payments regarded as "very low"? No idea.
    • Are there many customers unhappy from wait times?
    • How many people really want to pay insurance? Etc. What exactly is YOUR complaint? What system is YOUR best?

    that one of the richest countries in the world seems to think

    Don't just compare money to money. USA people are not so healthy in habits as Scandinavians or, maybe BeNiLux, it's wrong to ignore that when comparing.

  • SomeRandomName (unregistered) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    You're right; I goofed. Remy had commented and was mentioned enough in the comments that I made a connection I shouldn't have. I noticed it this morning when I came back to look at this and was going to correct myself. You took care of it for me. Thank you.

  • Neveranulll (unregistered)

    Ever since they eliminated individual offices and made the entire building an enormous bullpen, I wish people would just not talk at all, and let me get some work done in silence. I don’t care if they’re talking politics, weather, sports, taking personal phone calls, or even work related discussions, please - just shut up.

  • Prime Mover (unregistered) in reply to Meir

    I don't care what your politics are. Whether I agree with them or not, SHUT UP when you're supposed to be working.

    Just so happens that everyone who did make political comments on this forum happen to be obnoxious to me.

    So, as I say, if you can't keep your witless babble to yourself, whether you are demanding that all taxation is evil and the roads are supposed to be maintained by charity, or whether you're advocating 60% income tax on the mega-rich, do it on your own time or leave, and don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

  • JustaDBA (unregistered)

    I’ve never felt it was appropriate to talk politics or sexual identity in a workplace. Certainly not with people you don’t intimately know.

    Guess common sense isn’t very common with Millenials. Shocker.

    Side note: you can identify the productive people in an office pretty easily. They’re wearing headphones.

  • Meir (unregistered) in reply to Prime Mover

    See, that ("SHUT UP when you're supposed to be working") is precisely what DocMonster said in his first comment on this thread. But you decided that his opinion is "fascist claptrap." So now, after you've gotten your butt handed to you for being the National Socialist that you are, don't go whinging about how "poor me, everyone on this forum is 'obnoxious to me,'" putz.

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered) in reply to thinking aloud

    I don't live in the UK, but I did for many years, you don't know how their health system works, and you are completely wrong about the outcomes. Just as I have no idea what comparing "money to money" means.

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered) in reply to Mr. TA

    Do you think what we have in Europe is crap? I've got no problem with it, I'd far rather be here than over there right now. You are completely wrong about disease prevention, get yourself out of right-wing echo chambers and go speak to people. That's what this thread was originally about, supposedly.

  • Matt (unregistered) in reply to Cidolfas

    anyone who uses "white male" as some sort of excuse just found their way to the bottom of the stack rank

  • WTFGuy (unregistered)

    Three thoughts:

    Firstly: This sort of article and the witless boob who wrote it have no place at TDWTF. Stick to coding and the follies of IT-specific management. Thank you.

    Secondly: Ref Hal's fine comment upthread:

    No organization can function when its members believe each other to have such malicious intents. There can be no trust. So the only choices are ultimately going to be pretty strict 'don't ask don't tell' policies or ideological purges where diverse opinions are driven out of the organization. Where those opinions tend track with ethnic, sexual, religious lines our existing employment discrimination laws make that difficult. Which lands us squarely back on "shut up, I don't want to hear any of this shit." as the only viable solution for many organizations - until other parts of society decide to deescalate.

    His complete post as well as his pithy closing are is an excellent summary of what is wrong with both civics and business in our benighted and heavily beset country. We either get ahold of ourselves soon or we'll tear ourselves apart.

    Thirdly: This sort of article and the witless boob who wrote it have no place at TDWTF. Stick to coding and the follies of IT-specific management. Thank you.

  • (nodebb) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    Yes I do think european healthcare is crap and I wouldn't want to live in Europe to a big extent because of single payer systems. However it is generalized and I'm sure there are differences from country to country.

    Again, this is another line frequently employed by those who disagree but cannot explain why: "get out of your right/ left echo chamber". I listed the most unhealthy habits - substances and over eating - and how not doing it is cheaper than doing it, in response to your claim that preventing diseases requires wealth. Your response? Meaningless babble: your country is shit and you're a right wing moron.


  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered)
    Meaningless babble: your country is shit and you're a right wing moron.

    I said neither thing, strawman victimhood. Eating choices require education, time and the funds to buy decent food ... energy-dense crap is cheap and easy to access, huge quantities of chips and frozen pizza and soda will get you through the day for almost no cash, well, upfront. If you are well off you have the choice, you can even sustain a nice bit of substance abuse and get treatment to maintain that. With the exception of smoking and possibly drinking, substance abuse isn't much to do with this. Poor quality accommodation is a massive issue, as well as a whole host of other things, like long-term conditions that are expensive to manage and not necessarily related to bad choices by the individual. You stated what you think the main causes are, but they are largely popular misconceptions.
    Countries that deliver services to all citizens and try to actively help people do it better with education, support, encouragement see good return on that investment. After all, telling citizens they are shit and you don't care about them isn't likely to get any good outcomes for your country. Wouldn't make me want to pack in the port and foie gras, that's for sure.

    But then this is was really about why these policies to ban politics in the workplace have become necessary. I like to think people getting along with each other makes the workplace better, and being able to chat is part of that, even disagree strongly about stuff. Even if we are there to work. But if the environment becomes dominated (as it often does) by loud-mouthed opinionated blow-hards it rapidly deteriorates into a toxic place where no-one wants to be. And, after-all, the shouty ones usually aren't themselves either productive or reliable ... they tend to be as arrogant and unbending on their mediocre work as they are in their fixed opinions.

  • (nodebb) in reply to MiserableOldGit

    It's not a secret that junk food is bad for you; they see free information in the media, their doctors tell them to stop eating it, yet they persist. This is not some kind of secret only available to the rich, or a topic which requires study. Yes it can be more convenient in the moment to snack on something unhealthy and filling, but that's not a justification. There are untold number of resources online and these days, 99% of people have access to it. That's how I got my information; I didn't have to pay some expensive dietician to tell me that junk food is junk, and I didn't need any "support" or "encouragement" from the government.

    Another reason why we know it's a choice and not lack of education/etc., is the whole smoking/alcohol/drugs question. While it's widely known that junk food is unhealthy, it's even more - in fact, 100% universally - acknowledged that substances are bad. Yet people continue to use them. Why does that happen? It's because they care about getting high now much more than about the insurance/taxpayers/hospital/etc. having to treat them later. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/study-suggests-anti-overdose-med-narcan-increases-reckless-opioid-use.html

    At the end of the day, people make choices basing on their value system. When evaluating the value of staying alive, the junk food/drug consumer has a thought process which weighs costs and benefits. The knowledge that they will be treated no matter what and somebody else has to pay for it is a strong factor which reduces their desire to care for what they have (their health). Imagine if all cars were sold with no questions asked 20 year bumper-to-bumper warranties, which includes damages from collision and powertrain abuse, etc. What would happen is that people would drive like crazy without any regard for the wear and tear - "the warranty will fix it". This already happens to an extent with short-term rentals.

    Incentives have effects.

    Addendum 2021-05-15 15:08: PS. Eating healthy is not expensive; stores have cheap healthy food.

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered)

    No you are wrong. people do not have access to cheaply available good food because they are time poor. Your attempt at a an automotive analogy is rubbish Given that bullshit I'm on their side when it comes to substance abuse, because what's the point? Are you interested in making this shit better?

Leave a comment on “Getting Real Phoney”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article