oppenh3imer

We have programs for both reforestation and for wetland preservation. With any conservation proposal, one must weigh the pros and cons.

In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about.

Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests.

Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.

Although it may be true that 80% of drivers are working part time, it is still reasonable to assume that a disproportionate number of miles driven, and therefore wages paid, are being done by the full time drivers.

As an extension, there is a utilitarian argument that says a full time driver will benefit substantially more from the minimum wage than a part time driver will suffer.

Regardless, I think appealing to the proportion of drivers is misplaced. It would be unsurprising to me if more than 80% of trips were completed by full time drivers.

If the price of the house rises faster than inflation, it is a good investment. However, rising faster than inflation also means that they become proportionally less affordable over time. You cannot have both affordable housing and high returns from housing