It's so much easier to make money if you already have money.

My bank sent around a message about a gaurenteed return bond thing. You can put money in for 8 or 15 months. You get a gaurenteed 5% return.

(Except it's not actually 5%, it's either 4.88% for the 8 month and 4.16 for the 15 month, and the number of days in the months matter somehow? IDK. Whatever.)

Anyway, all you need is a minimum of $500. "I can do that!" I think. "I got my tax returns, i have money I've been squirreling away in savings, I could switch some of that low-interest savings money to this for a while!"

And then I think about the math, and I look at the handy supplied chart of returns.

The lowest figure on the chart they give as an example is *$10,000*. At that sum, in 8 months you will earn... $330.

Yes, it's "free money" but it's still somehow so underwhelming. 10k is such a huge chunk of change to me, and while an extra $330 in any given month would be be huge difference, over 8 months?

So, like, if I was to take the entirety of my savings I've painstakingly put away over the course of *eight years*, and tied it up in this account for eight whole months - meaning it would not be available for me to draw from if I had a sudden emergency, which is THE POINT of savings for me - I'd get a whole whopping $165??

That seemingly "reasonable minimum" of $500 would earn you $16.50

Now, if I could put away 100k, which the chart so helpfully shows, I could earn $3,300. That's getting to the point where it seems worth it. But to earn that, I have to have 100k just sitting around that I *won't need for at least eight months*.

Of course they don't put the $500 minimum or even $1000 on the chart. Who'd be excited to see a return of $16.50 or $33 listed?

But if I have huge stacks of cash laying around already, that cash could make me a reasonable amount *by just sitting there*

The trick is you have to not NEED the huge stack of money in the first place.

Okay! Everyone! This fic is so much fun!

And it’s clever and just SO GOOD!!!

Includes reference to the Vimes Boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness (because Gurathin and Vimes are both my dearly dearly beloveds)

So if you like Murderbot and you like Vimes and you like Gurathin: read it! Tag author: the amazing @opalescent-potato

When you're re-reading Men at Arms and you get to the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness

I JUST GOT TO THE CAPTAIN SAMUEL VIMES "BOOTS" THEORY OF SOCIOECONOMIC UNFAIRNESS. THAT FELT LIKE A RIGHT OF PASSAGE.

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

– Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

the. watch. episode. four.

the watch are ambushed by goblins in drag, aka "drag goblins", which are apparently "the worst kind".

jocasta wiggs, the female assassin from the opening scene of night watch, is a pertinent character and a cunty old woman. theyre literally just scavenging the discworld series for names to use for their original characters. she was in love with some woman named perpetua. in their youth jocasta and perpetua had a mystical talking sword called gawain, or wayne for short (voiced by matt berry from wwdits) whose voice you can only hear if you are "a lover". their lesbian love was so strong than all the other characters can hear wayne's voice by proxy.

vimes explains his boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness to sybil and she callously mocks him for it. later she chugs an entire bottle of bearhuggers in front of him to.... idk emasculate him or something

buggy swires (the gnome) is a tall elderly human man in a nursing home.

death asks carrot to go out for a drink with him and then gets shy.

a fight in the nursing home causes a "displacement spell" to activate, lowering a disco ball from the ceiling and forcing vimes and carcer, as well as sybil and girlboss wonse, to engage in an involuntary homoerotic ballroom dance to "wake me up before you go-go". this was so genuinely so bad that it was good. im kind of obsessed.

Bro i already had a crush on you and then you put the vimes boot theory of socioeconomic unfairness in your tags and now I'm. So very gay,

Keep it together soldier

A lot has been told about Izuku’s red sneakers but what about the yellow backpack?

I mean it survived unscathed through middle school, kacchan and a villain attack. That’s just pre UA.

In UA it has been Izuku’s faithful companion through exercises, summer camp, villain encounters and even the solo arc.

Some will argue Izuku is dirt poor and has to make last long his stuff but we both know that’s not the case.

Izuku has nice, expensive things. And I will quote the Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness on that.

Someone told Hisashi that toddlers could break everything so the Symbol of Evil gave indestructible gear to his son.

wtf do boots have to do with it

Lemme grab the quote: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. Basically opened me up to thinking about how its more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich, and it kinda spiraled from there

This is the funniest, most literal example of Vimes’ Boots Theory imaginable:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

The Sam Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness

Or "Boots Theory", has been going around again recently. So just in case you haven't seen it, here's the gist.

Originating from A Terry Pratchett novel "Men At Arms", put forth by a guardsman named, you guessed it, Sam Vimes.

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

This is a very real thing that pervades into many areas we don't think of unless we are living them. For example, toilet paper. If I want to buy toilet paper, I would generally wait for it to be on sale, then go to a big box store, there are a dozen within driving distance, and purchase a big ass 24 pack. Or whatever is most cost efficient (sometimes the smaller packs are cheaper per unit *shrug*)

This is doable because I have a place to store a large volume, and can thus afford to wait till it's on sale. If I didn't have space, or was sharing a living situation, I might need to purchase smaller volumes and end up paying much more. As much as double per roll.

But it of course, gets worse. Have you ever tried to take a large volume of toilet paper (or anything) on public transit? It's pretty damn hard. Or even impossible depending on where you live exactly. So buying in bulk also requires a vehicle. (You might think that the vehicle also costs more, so should be factored in, but in reality in many places operating a vehicle costs about the same as transit. The difference is that you need capital investment up front to get access to the car.) And of course, if you live in an urban center without access to large stores, you'll need to buy it from a bodega or convenience store, which also likely tacks on a nearly 100% markup.

All together someone living at the poverty line is likely to pay 2-4X as much as I do for toilet paper. Not to mention losing 2-4X as much TIME spent on all these transit trips or walking to buy it. Also Groceries. Fresh Fruit. Clothing. Most of the necessities of life.

This is just one reason why it's so incredibly hard for someone to just "work their way out" of poverty. Unless you get a windfall, or a job that pays enough to break this cycle, you're stuck actually spending MORE on day to day life than someone with more money. And getting that job that pays enough is next to impossible if you don't have time and money for school, which of course, you don't have because it's all spent just staying alive. Plus a windfall like an inheritance or gift from a friend or family is also nearly impossible, because your friends and parents are stuck in the same cycle you are.

The theory was used in the development of the Vimes Boots Index, which is a very real price index to track the most basic versions of essential items as a more accurate measure of inflation for those near the poverty line than the more commonly used models based on averages.

This is why Terry Pratchett is a Fucking Legend. Not because of how funny his books are, but because of how real... And also how funny.

Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness. Agree / disagree?

    "I haven't read Men At Arms yet, but I'm getting to it. Still, I know of the theory, by Terry Pratchett. I agree. Things built to last are more expensive and thus unaffordable for the poor, but if you want something affordable, you have to accept it will break down quickly... Except I think this rule is changing. Most things aren't built to last anymore, and the difference being the rich are able to afford the constant replacements, whereas the poor can't." He's so much more talkative right now. It might be the whisky. Shadow rubs his head, ordering a water and another sundae. "And when they do manage to save up enough to replace something or improve their lives, they're accused of buying frivolously... as if owning fifteen different sports cars isn't frivolous."

Whether AI Can Write A Story Is The Wrong Question.

There is a qualitative difference in the output between a writer who knows story structure and a writer who understands how story structure works. I am certain that current AI technology can do the former. I am very skeptical of the latter. But that really isn't the right question -- or questions -- to ask. The first relevant question is: "Will people pay more for the difference?" The second relevant question is: "Who will profit?" The first question is one we've faced before. This is the same question that we've wrestled with the displacement of craftsmanship by mechanization, industrialization, and mass production. Compare a chest of drawers that is made from actual wood with one which was made from particleboard. The first has hand-wrought dovetailed joins where they are simply staple-gunned in the latter. The first has been hand-polished, the second is essentially covered in varnished contact paper with a wood grain print. And the first is horrendously expensive and difficult to come by, compared to the second. I know the "The Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness;" wait for it. Mechanization and automation are great at repetitive tasks. There's no arguing that, say, modern farming methods (for all of its flaws, which are many) dramatically reduced worldwide famine rates after the transformation of agriculture in the 1960's. But there, too, there is a qualitative difference. "Not dying of famine" is hugely different from "well-nourished," or "sustainably nourished," or "healthily nourished," or any of a host of other criteria. There is a market for hand-made things (and hand-grown or hand-prepared food), because of the qualitative difference I mentioned before... although it is a pricey one. Theoretically, this would be taken care of by the free market, right? People won't choose lower-quality goods (or entertainment) if there is a better alternative. There is, after all, a reason why "dollar store" is used as a pejorative adjective. That brings us to the second question. All this automation -- including computers and software -- represents an increase in productivity. So why are we still working as hard -- or as much -- as people ten, twenty, forty, sixty and more years ago? The answer is pretty simple. The benefits of productivity increases were not -- and are not -- accessible to the population at large. Those benefits have been hoarded by executives and shareholders. For example, how a certain box store has reduced its workforce expenses by nearly eliminating everything except for self-checkout lanes and utilizing brutal employee sick policies. While customers are complaining. Perhaps you'd think that greater efficiency and lower costs would allow the company to lower its prices. Except that box store is also beating quarterly expectations for revenue and earnings, despite current inflation and lower sales. It's not just that box store, though. According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers haven't gained anything from the growth in productivity pretty much for my entire lifetime. That's the disconnect. In a functional free-market society, this would all balance out, at least in theory. {1} The benefits of that increased productivity would be passed on to the rest of society in one way or another. Instead, those benefits are being hoarded by an investor class {2}, which means that the hand-made goods -- the quality goods -- are even further out of reach for everyone else. And now we are seeing it be applied to story and art as well. Like it or not, art and entertainment cost. They cost money, which a lot of us are feeling pretty tightly right now (while the aforementioned investor class is doing just fine). But there's a second cost: The cost in free time. Currently just one streaming service would have to run constantly for four years to view it all. Oh, yes, a huge chunk of it -- and many other streaming services -- consist of formulaic and poor-quality offerings. {3} This applies to other forms of entertainment as well, where available quantity is the primary selling point (eBooks, audiobooks, artwork, you name it). But if that's what you are able to afford financially, and you're strapped for time because despite all this technological improvement you're still working forty hours a week plus commuting time, well, you get what you can. This is what happened with the last writer's strike and the rise of reality television. Reality television was (and is) comparatively inexpensive to make, and, because of how distribution of media works, brought in equivalent ratings -- and therefore, equivalent advertising dollars. Now, reality TV has become as much of a staple as the self-checkout station... and in the same way, only the investor class is better off for it. For corporations and investors, it is -- practically by definition -- only the profit margin that matters. The particulars about what is created and how literally Do Not Matter. {4} Given all this, it is no accident that the current writer's strike is deeply concerned about AI. It isn't difficult to imagine these same investors -- the ones who control enough resources to get books in bookstores, to get films distributed to theaters and to major streaming services, to get a series greenlit -- will be far more interested in turning out formulaic hack plots. You can already see a similar effect in brick-and-mortar chain bookstores, particularly in the sci-fi and fantasy sections, where it's become increasingly difficult to find anything but the "safest" titles, usually with "now a major motion picture" or "now a streaming series" splashed across the cover. There is a simple answer to these issues: to distribute the benefits of our society's increased productivity through mechanization, automation, algorithms, machine learning, and AI to society at large both in terms of financial and time resources. Where our tools augment our abilities individually and as a species, for the betterment of both the individual and society at large. Instead, we have a society where it is not enough to make a profit -- you must maximize that profit. Instead, we have a world where half of the wealth is held by 1.1% of the population, and 55% of all humans hold only 1.3% of global wealth. Regardless of the outcome of the writer's strike, or outrage over publishers using AI art for book covers, the voracious drive of the investor class to increase profits will almost certainly lead to a race to the bottom that favors the "cheapest" methods to create art and music and publishing and media as our ability -- both financially and in terms of time -- is squeezed tighter and tighter. At least, that's how I'm afraid it will go as long as all the rest of us are bullied into submission. Good luck. {1} A free-market society also allows for the free movement of labor, which... well, look at the discussion we're having about the US-Mexico border, and you can see that is not what's happening there. {2} Yes, I know. At least I'm not calling them the "bourgeoisie," although that's mostly because I need spellcheck to get that word right. {3} Look, I'm not knocking your taste here. I've enjoyed some reality television and other forms of "light entertainment" -- like Taskmaster and Dimension 20 -- myself. At the same time, that isn't all I want to have available. {4} Fun related fact: Subway, the largest fast-food chain in the US, was founded by a physicist who had never seen a "sub" sandwich and a family friend. Check out The Food That Built America episode! Featured Image by 0fjd125gk87 from Pixabay Read the full article

5 Movies, 4 Songs, 3 Essentials, 2 Books, 1 Quote

Tagged by @senadimell; thank you!!

5 MOVIES

In no particular order:

1. The Secret of Kells. The animation, the music, the accents--I am utterly in love with anything by Cartoon Saloon.

2. Song of the Sea. you know what, it gets its own entry, because it's just so darn enchanting. Cartoon Saloon is a gift to the world.

3. The eminently quotable The Princess Bride

4. The Man From Uncle. It's fun, it's classy, it's so sexy and stylish...

5. Hoodwinked. I quote that movie so very much

4 SONGS

1. Bloom, by the Paper Kites. Soft, sweet, yearning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4XdnD5c334)

2. Budapest by George Ezra. Not only do I vibe with it, but also it makes me think of Cahan Windlow from my novel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ5k_fvscJk)

3. Subway Song by Julianna Zachariou. It's just cute (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIeQY5o8gE)

4. Short Change Hero by the Heavy. Makes me think of my oc Redmond from that stupid unfinished novel, plus it's just good dark n stormy vibes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u9ymiSmtXY)

3 ESSENTIALS

3.  Coffee. One, maybe two cups, in the morning~

2. Hugs for my health

1. My fuzzy cardigan, or sunshine, or a space heater, or literally anything to keep me warm and happy

2 BOOKS

Ooh, let's see...most currently? Andrew Peterson's "Adorning the Dark" and Naomi Novik's "Spinning Silver."

1 QUOTE

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

~ Sir Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms.

tagging @starwarmth, @thisbibliomaniac, @ofsaltandsmoke, and @rainofarrows!

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. Terry Pratchett Men at Arms (1993)