We actually do know what causes people to abuse the welfare system: people will do what we incentivize them to do. If you offer more money for more children, people will have more children. If we cut welfare benefits the moment recipients get a job, people will not try hard to get a job.

I'm well aware of the concept of wealth inequality (another progressive hot topic). Inequality is a fact and has always been a fact. It's not something that can be eliminated or even meaningfully reduced. What *can* be done, is change the kinds of things that reward people with wealth. In Socialist countries, people who the political elite, or friends with the elite, are the ones rewarded with wealth. In Capitalist countries, people who invest money and create businesses (i.e., jobs) are the ones who are rewarded with wealth. The second option does a lot more good for a lot more people.

"Progressive" does come from the root word "progress" but the meaning has significantly diverged. This Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of explaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

My real wages link is from the US Federal Reserve, you can't get more reliable numbers than that.

I thought sure he was going to work the word "billionaire" in there somehow, but the closest he got was "billion". I'm kind of disappointed!

That is not something you can substantiate.

The specific organization I work with is Hope House Houston. https://hopehousehouston.org/

Well, you can call me a liar, but that doesn't change the facts.

It's a cycle. New baby comes, income goes up a bit. Mom gets tired of taking care of the new baby, it goes to foster care, Mom's income goes back down. Mom has new baby to get the income back again.

I suggest you go to your nearest Salvation Army center (or other inner city charity of your choice) and volunteer. It will both be a rewarding experience, and it will open your eyes.

Or you can sit in your nice house typing stuff into your nice computer, about things you know nothing about.

Every human drive does stupid stuff *sometimes.* Even accidentally wander into a construction zone.

Maybe they're just sending out a recall notice. That's what all the other car companies do.

Perhaps there are coffee snobs who actually like that muddy flavor.

Yep, I've had percolator coffee. Because it steeps so long, the process extracts a lot of unwanted flavors from the grounds into the water, giving it a "muddy" flavor. The percolator was from an era when there was just...coffee, and the stuff diners served was good enough.

Yes, I agree freeze-dried coffee is great for camping. But while camping, exceptional taste is not a priority!

If you like your French press, you might want to try AeroPress. https://www.amazon.com/AeroPre... It's a similar concept and inexpensive, but you don't get as much of the bitterness and "muddiness" that you get with the French press. It allows you to get a richer, stronger flavor, without the unwanted parts of the flavor profile.

For sure! Just like the blind test done, comparing sound quality between Monster cables and coat hangers! https://gizmodo.com/audiophile...

Yes, every form of snobbery has its pretenders, and Monster Cables are a good example. The pretenders don't do it for the love of the thing they are snobbish about, but to impress others. I'd argue such people aren't true snobs, but merely show-offs.

As the very title of my thread pointed out, my main issue is with *industrial scale.*

Who knows, maybe the process would make great coffee at a small scale! I personally doubt it, because I think heat does some things to the coffee that ultrasound will not. But I could be wrong, and if it turns out to be great, I'd consider buying a personal-sized machine.

You'll notice that the inventors don't claim that the process makes superior coffee, only "comparable" to heat-based methods. That's not the type of endorsement that will draw the attention of coffee snobs everywhere.

Yes, there are coffee snobs like that. But it's not a requirement. Many of us swear by AeroPress coffee, made with a device that costs $35. https://www.amazon.com/AeroPre...

As for this particular process, coffee snobs won't go for the *industrial scale* version, thought they *might* go for a personal-sized machine that does it.

The technology in this case seems pretty straightforward, there's no need for it to be expensive, in terms of the complexity of making the machine.

I agree welfare programs are necessary, though in practice, it's too easy in my opinion to get that money. I work with an inner city Houston nonprofit that provides many services to people in poverty. We have "clients" who continue to have children specifically because each child results in more income from the government. They then abandon the children and leave them to the foster care system. That kind of abuse is *way* too common.

Your use of the phrase "rent-seeking" gives you away as a progressive. No other group uses that phrase, as far as I'm aware. The phrase is equivalent to "woke" on the right: describing basically anything disliked by the group using the term.

Real wages--wages adjusted for inflation--have increased, not decreased, over the last 50 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... We are not working more for less, the truth is, we have much more than our peers 50 years ago. Our houses and apartments are twice the size they were back then. We have easily twice the number of cars per family. We eat out or get takeout 5x more often. We have all kinds of gadgets that didn't even exist back then. No, the 1970s were not the good old days you seem to think they were.

I'm an Aeropress guy myself, I might have to try your Bellman!

I can definitely see your curiosity, perhaps there's something about the process that produces better coffee than heat-brewing methods. But I'm skeptical of anything done at an industrial scale.

You definitely do not qualify as a coffee snob! :-)