...unless you're in Germany, or at least my bit of Germany.

Here, DHL reliably deliver packages from the other end of Germany, overnight. The regular delivery guy knows where I work and knows that he can deliver packages addressed to home to my office. They deliver on Saturdays. (In the run up to Christmas, also on Sundays.)

If they fail to deliver for some reason, I can pick up the package from the post office, 5 minutes away, or call them to arrange another delivery attempt.

If I were in a larger town (I'm in a small village), there'd also be the option of getting things delivered to a DHL Packstation - this is a series of package-sized lockers. Upon delivery failure, they leave a card with a barcode. You then turn up at the Packstation with the card, it scans the barcode and opens the door of the appropriate locker, allowing you to retrieve your package, 24/7. If you have a (free) Packstation account, you can get all your packages sent there and can also use it to send packages.

The alternatives:

GLS: uses one-man franchisees. Longer delivery times, only one delivery attempt, collection point is at the franchisee's house in the back of beyond. Item liable to have been thrown in the back of the franchisee's 10-year-old car.

Hermes: See GLS, although with more emphasis on the long delivery times. I think they might attempt delivery more than once.

UPS: Quick, multiple attempts, but not easily available on the sender side to private customers. Pickup points in the case of failed delivery not as widely distributed.

DPD: Franchisees, but better fitted out than Hermes or GLS. Not quite as good as DHL on delivery times.

FedEx: Basically non-existent.

Of the delivery services available here, DHL are easily the best.

(I have no interest of any kind in DHL, this is purely a report of my experiences with them and other package services at a variety of locations in Nord-Rhein-Westfalen.)

A probably won't be able to keep working 60 hour weeks, since there's now significantly more housework that A needs to do...

I'm not saying that A needs to support B totally or in perpetuity, but there's surely some sort of compensation needed from A to B to deal with the decision that they made together which negatively affected B's job prospects and positively developed A's.

B definitely now needs to go to work. My argument is that if A doesn't supplement B's wage, then B has very much got the short end of this deal.

There's no laziness involved here. I know a couple (still together) who fit the roles of A and B. In my opinion, B in that case works just as hard as A.

Also note that I don't care which gender A and B are (can be the same gender for all I care). The fact that B is often female is neither here nor there.

And the example has nothing to say about who gets custody of the child. That's a separate matter.

Think about this case: A and B are both working. Then they have a child. At that point, they decide that B will stay at home to look after that child. A goes to work, but is now working 60-hour weeks to bring in enough money to cover B not working. This turns out to work quite well and after a while, A is bringing in money - but still working long hours. The child is old enough for Kindergarten now and B doesn't really need to stay home any more. But doing so keeps the home running, the laundry washed, the place clean, the grocery shopping done and means there's someone there for the child when kindergarten is done. A works hard to bring money, but doesn't need to do anything at all around the house. B works hard to keep the domestic side going, but doesn't do any money-bringing work.

After ten years of doing this, A and B divorce. B's chances in the job market are now much reduced from what they were. A is still raking in money.

Is it really equitable that A has no responsibiliity to support B? At least for a time?

You're missing the point of the comment about his daughter leaving. Her PC use and TV time is mainly in the evening, meaning that the power used for that is mainly coming from the grid and not from solar. So the net effect of his daughter going to college, power-wise, is that the proportion of power supplied by his solar panels will be increased from where it otherwise would have been - even though the total amount involved may drop.

If you want to question his logic, a more fruitful point might be to consider that while his ROI is whatever%, this is after tying himself in to a (say) 15-year investment. A T-Note taken at the same time last year would get him 10 years of interest at 4.168% - and if he needed to get out of it due to a change in circumstances, he could sell the note on (potentially absorbing a minor loss). His only realistic choice with the panels is to sell the house they're attached to.

The reporting on the UK suggestions tended to take on a somewhat hysterical tone. A lot of the suggestions were perfectly sensible things.

"If you smoke, this treatment will not work. Therefore, we need you to stop before we give you the treatment."

"If you're double the weight you should be, your replacement knees will only last three years and you'll have serious trouble with getting back in shape after the operation. This knocks the equation of health detriment/health benefit for your knee operations into the net detriment column. Lose weight first."

Neither of these examples is especially controversial, in my view. Sadly, that's not the way they were reported.