Comment by WarOnPrivacy
6 months ago
> I'm beyond ok with this! Let backpressure into the market!
The article brought up some downstream effects such as seniors choosing between paying for power or their meds.
When we approve an outcome without addressing the consequences, we are effectively rubberstamping those consequences. I believe this doesn't serve us well.
They could also move to a place where they don't need 24x7 air conditioning running 10 months a year.
If someone is having to choose between power and medication, how could they get the money to move to this place?? They won't. Most folks aren't really that mobile and being poor makes this more likely.
I'll also note that I live in such a place. Heck, I don't have air conditioning at all. But if I don't have heat in the winter, I'll die. It's cold out. Not many place have the luxury of not needing heating nor cooling - and even when some folks can go without, not all buildings are fit for that purpose. 2 windows on one side of an apartment doesn't make for good ventilation.
> how could they get the money to move to this place
Maybe we give it to them? They're very likely on subsidized income anyway, it's a one time cost and drop in the bucket to move them to someplace more affordable.
4 replies →
Americans generally pay more for heating than cooling so moving to warmer climates helps on that axis. There might be a sweet spot before you get to the warmest place in the country but it probably still involves air con.
Not that my parents are in this situation, but they’ve lived in the same state for 80 years and the same house for 55. I don’t know if they’d be able to handle a move.
Like San Francisco which is so affordable.
…and who pays the upfront moving costs?
If that's the case, lets see a study on that! How often does this happen?