It’s about the latter but it doesn’t have to work, just looks like you took action to solve a Daily Mail agenda…

Really? Like where are you thinking about?

Boomers have been in power for a long long time and the technology we are debating is as a result of their investment and prioritisation. So am not sure they are very afraid of it.

We can condemn Hamas and Israel in the same breath. We don’t have to support Israel as the agency to “remove” Hamas.

Could be that that is employee headcount and not including contractors.

Well, not to diss on giving to charity but two technical arguments against. One is, you are acting as an additional tax on the worker (the source of the surplus) and then redirecting that tax to charity. It’s fine but the elected government has democratically selected priorities that they can rarely fund so it is better to just give it to the treasury. And 2, just don’t collect this tax in the first place, allowing the worker to spend it on the local economy.

Yes, we can still go in but now we have measured the difference and can judge what it would take to make it worthwhile.

This is the key, and it cuts in different ways and needs planning strategy.

If we don’t go into town, then the businesses associated with going to work in town are in trouble, so coffee, lunch, snack, may as well get a book, after work drinks and then late food. All have less customers. Some of whom are themselves!

So a spiral of decline, less retail jobs in town, less secondary and tertiary employment “in town”.

Theoretically we can now spend some of that money locally IF the local has the supply and this is where political strategy is needed to replan where we sleep as always where we spend our casual cash. And in many cases these dormitories are not well planned for that.

So unfortunately we need to wait out this next phase of resistance in order to build political consensus for zoning and planning for more sustainable local hubs.