yes, it's me, liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦
@blogdiva@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp yesterday
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
yes, it's me, liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦
@blogdiva@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp yesterday
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
yes, it's me, liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦
@blogdiva@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp yesterday
yes, it's me, liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦
@blogdiva@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp yesterday
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
a table of the base minimum annually expenses for people without children and up to 3 kids. it includes food, housing, internet, health care, etc. i’ll focus on the required annual income, AFTER TAXES, needed to live in NYC. this presumes the worker is exposed to the vagaries of housing without rent-control pricing: 0 Children - $56,138 1 Child - $95,156 2 Children - $117,239 3 Children - $145,871
Nando161
@nando161@partyon.xyz  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion. In fact all forms of systemic violence are (among other things) assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle, and the only way to begin to think about eliminating systematic violence is by recognizing this. — David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)
Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion. In fact all forms of systemic violence are (among other things) assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle, and the only way to begin to think about eliminating systematic violence is by recognizing this. — David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)
Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion. In fact all forms of systemic violence are (among other things) assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle, and the only way to begin to think about eliminating systematic violence is by recognizing this. — David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)
Nando161
@nando161@partyon.xyz  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion. In fact all forms of systemic violence are (among other things) assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle, and the only way to begin to think about eliminating systematic violence is by recognizing this. — David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)
Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion. In fact all forms of systemic violence are (among other things) assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle, and the only way to begin to think about eliminating systematic violence is by recognizing this. — David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)
Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion. In fact all forms of systemic violence are (among other things) assaults on the role of the imagination as a political principle, and the only way to begin to think about eliminating systematic violence is by recognizing this. — David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)
Nando161
@nando161@partyon.xyz  ·  activity timestamp 5 days ago
Nando161
@nando161@partyon.xyz  ·  activity timestamp 5 days ago
Home Login