• Dharma Curious@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly hate that argument. “it would cost so much to change all those signs” is just negative talk for “it would employee a shit ton of people, create a lot of jobs, and be a major infrastructure project that could help our economy.”. Honestly, the economic benefit of major infrastructure works is rarely talked about as much as it should be. Mainly, I think, because the people it benefits are the ones actually doing the work. And that’s scary to a certain segment of society that would like very much that not to be the case.

    • DKP@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s a valid argument against metric, just a thought experiment to consider about the time needed to implement. Converting would be a slow process, but I agree it could be an economic boost as swapping things is a largely a manual process

      • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meant to mention in my first comment, I haven’t met many other people who like to randomly imagine the ways major structural changes would take place. Lol.

        I like to pick a huge project. Like, say, single payer healthcare, or the nationalization of an industry, and then imagine the individual steps that would need to be taken to get there. Doesn’t necessarily have to be a project I’d support, I just have fun imagining the ways it would need to happen.