goodJobWalrus

> The seller generally pays ~6%

This is gross. We just put our London place on the market, and the total commission we will be paying (to a normal high street agent) is 1%

and do cross-fit!

I would think that the problem they'd have if they didn't do this is that once the family got to know the care worker, they would offer them to work for them w/o Honor's involvement.

Same issue Homejoy had, but in this case, it's even more important who works for you.

Do you consider OP as lying in some way?

But how are people going to learn of your product (to either care or not care), if you don't reach out / market to them?

Yeah, quite funny that I learned of this company thru blog post.

Oh, my personal favorite! Didn't expect to see it on HN.

Oh, yes, it's a single thing I miss in North America. Good local stores. I live in major city downtown and need to walk 2km to the closest store. In London, I had local Tesco that had 90% of things I needed daily, and I shopped there a few times a day when passing by. Here, if I forget to buy one thing, it's either a long walk back or do without.

So, you forgo 6 months salary, in order to get $3-4k tuition back. I guess if you didn't want to work anyways...

Their title is misleading. You are not guaranteed a job, just a refund of tuition if you fail to get a job. Still, this is a lot more than your average university will guarantee you.

> What you appeared to be advocating for (at least how I read it) is dropping into a country and giving people money to buy cleaning supplies.

C'mon, you really thought I was 'advocating' for each of us to buy a plane ticket and fly into some country, and hand people money to buy cleaning supplies.

Microlending is not giving people cash. It's giving people loans. That microlending has limited/negligible effect has also been well known for some time (as you know as well since you linked one of the studies, but the same organization has a new meta-study over multiple countries also worth looking into). The same organization has much better study results with giving people cash. Every study of cash grants (conditional or unconditional from Oportunidades onwards) I have ever seen is net positive, and most very positive.

No, it is well known from the research that money _is_ the best solution, much better than any form of in-kind gifts. I don't have time to educate you now, but the research is widely available and easily googlable. I suggest you start with GiveWell and JPAL. Also Dylan Matthews from Vox writes about before mentioned orgs findings a lot.

> Instead of just buying a huge shipping container of new soap from a factory engineering by a huge soap company to be efficient as possible, they are spending thousands of man-hours collecting half used soap bars and re-manufacturing them in their own facility.

Or just giving money, so that people can buy what they need. But this thing you linked seems especially bad, among the many awful "charities".

This is scary. And sad.

1997.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_bond#Bowie_Bonds

Yeah, right, I am sure they only have society's best interest at heart, after the careful consideration of 'dis-incentivization of minimum wage'....although I'm not sure why you think they have all 'recently worked hard to get above it'. I would think it's more likely these are two distinct classes that don't intersect that much.

Right. Also, I read that most people that object minimum wage increase are those that are just a little above it themselves. That exactly explains what Godin talks about here. Those people won't have anyone to feel superior to if they lose their tiny wage differential.

No, I'm cool with sharing my money, and having a concept of our money. I'm just not cool with being incapable of making my own money. Put it any way you want, but it makes you dependent.

I think it's not an accident that every person I know that is not making their own money is frustrated because of it. Again it might be just my cultural conditioning, or my personality, not sure.

I bet that too. He has a world-class career, made a fortune, had several wives and multiple children. He hit every "adulthood" milestone western society ever came up with.

My husband and I have a joint bank account. I still don't feel that money he earns is my money.

If you are independently wealthy you have your own money, no? You don't depend on the other person.

But what you mentioned is interesting. Look at heirs of great fortunes. They either find something productive to do with their lives, or they stay basically children their whole lives and that often means trouble for them (not always though).

I truly don't know, I've never met a person who is dependent on others due to medical issues, so I wasn't referring to them.

I'm speaking purely from a personal level. Maybe it's cultural. I have grown up in a country where women work, so I never met a housewife. It would really be hard for me to feel independent while asking my husband for the pocket money.

The few housewives I met later in life were quite infantilized compared to working women I know.

As a woman, I think so. At the minimum, you need to make your own money to be independent, and independence is necessary to be an adult. I can't imagine feeling grown up, and at the same time asking my husband for some money each time I need to buy something.

(Financial) dependance infantilizes a person. There is a reason why unemployment is depressing even if you have a roof over your head and food to eat.

From the article:

> Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi identified openness and sensitivity as oppositional personality elements that not only coexist in creative performers, but form the core of their personalities.

WSJ is sold and read worldwide tho.

On that note, I used to get it for free (as did everyone else) as a student at my European university.

> The problem with meditation, and similar "experiences that can't be described", is that you never know if you tried it long enough or well enough to actually enjoy it

But this is also true for most activities (playing a violin, playing tennis, or programming). Still, we decide whether any of it is for us by trying it. People who get into it, stay in it for long enough to really learn it and get benefits of it, people who don't get into it, and don't enjoy it on some level drop it quickly. I'm not saying that this is theoretically the best way to explore new activities, it's more of an observation that this is how people generally do it and that meditation is no different. You try it, and it either does something for you (enough to keep doing it), or it doesn't and you drop it.

I was responding to a guy/gal that was wondering whether to try it if there is no hard evidence that it is beneficial. My answer to that is: try it, if you like it, it doesn't matter whether there are all those claimed benefits. The fact that you like it is enough a reason to do it.

If you don't like it, even if there are benefits (like there are from working out) and even if you know there are, you likely won't stick to it anyways (like most people don't stick to exercise regimes).

> It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least.

But this is really true for any activity. You don't know you'll like it until you try it. If you tried it and didn't like you wasted your time.

The only problem I see is if you continue to do meditation even if you don't enjoy it because you believe in benefits. But like with working out, I doubt that really happens. If people can't find enjoyment in it, they drop it sooner or later.

This is just gross.