• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle




  • The healthcare industry has had horrendous work conditions for a very long time. It’s deeply ingrained into the US system. That’s a bad starting point.

    Then adding in all the emboldened anti-science and anti-healthcare mentality must be beyond frustrating to deal with as a professional. I can’t stand seeing the comments on social media that minimize the literal millions of COVID deaths, the supposed effectiveness of bullshit treatments, and the utter lack of respect for the people who have dedicated their lives to advancing medicine.

    Getting that shit thrown in your face as you’re literally trying to help them has to feel like a giant punch in the gut.

    And that’s all on top of the abundant societal issues that these workers have to deal with. From insurance fuckery to the growing numbers of people without homes and those battling addiction.

    Living that day in and day out would make anyone miserable.


  • For sure. The US was once a leader with its public infrastructure and programs, from education to the highway system. Paying BIG money to provide these incredible public services.

    Now it seems like a lot of people in the US want to live in a place with zero public projects, crumbling roads, and unregulated utilities. Even wealthy people who waste money on the dumbest stuff don’t want to pay for top-notch public services. I truly don’t understand how you’d want to be so wealthy but live in a place that’s not well cared for. Drive your insanely expensive car on a road filled with potholes. But selfishness and greed are definitely part of the picture.


  • Creating new public infrastructure in the US can be extremely expensive, but it’s definitely still worth pursuing.

    Nearly every in-depth study shows that for every $1 invested, the economic return is somewhere around $4-$5. And on top of that, failing to have adequate public infrastructure can cause serious economic consequences, which are compounded in areas with a lack of affordable housing.

    Even though this article is a little old and sponsored by a party with a vested interest on the topic, I think it’s worth a read:

    https://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit

    In my opinion, the problem for the US is convincing people/businesses that it’s worth it. Shifting away from cars and increasing investments in public infrastructure are two fairly unpopular measures right now, despite the actual economic evidence being overwhelming positive.

    To me, it’s a solid example of where great leaders are needed to do something temporarily unpopular for the long term benefit of the constituents.



  • So far, yes. They’re allowing things to continue as they did before this case was brought.

    But much more importantly, they’ve agreed to rule on the merits of the case. While this order might make you think they’re in favor of the administration, they could easily flip against when the issue the actual ruling. Then it’s a more permanent action.

    I see this as a very important issue of our time. Social media platforms have speed up the exchange of opinions and information tremendously. But they’re terrible at preventing the spread of misinformation. That’s shouldn’t always result in government intervention, but sometimes it should. There are many restrictions on the first amendment that are justified.

    During a global emergency about a serious health hazard, it seems entirely justified to place more restrictions on first amendment rights and allow government intervention when the private companies fail to act.


  • Of course. I’ll just speak generally instead of specific stories.

    Judging people based on their charisma alone is a terrible approach. Many likable people are great, but others just say what they know other people want to hear. People pleasers that will always choose the popular option, not the “right” one… And some people can be very talented at using manipulative tactics to gain support even though they spread a lot of pain. The classic popular bully.

    The reverse can also be true. Some extremely uncharismatic/unpopular people are amazing at heart. And can be trusted to do what’s right even if it’s unpopular.

    That’s why it’s best to not make knee-jerk or immediate judgements. Listen to your gut, pay attention to details, and try not to let the opinion of others influence your opinions or decisions too much.


  • Absolutely. Legally speaking, the warnings/labeling are crucial. And they depend heavily on context. Using a common name like lemonade in a unique way puts the threshold even higher.

    Also legally speaking, people blaming the heart condition fail to understand US tort law. The responsibility falls to the provider, not the victim, even if they are unusually fragile (have a heart condition). This is the eggshell skull aka eggshell plaintiff doctrine, very well established in US law.

    And if you dive deep into the train of thought of what happens without it (companies blame everything on too fragile/frail of people), most people find it to be reasonable.

    The provider must make it safe for everyone OR place adequate protections/warnings that make it very clear who it’s not safe for. Seems like Panera failed on both accounts.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule


  • Yeah, and I have no idea where you are, but this goes far beyond the suspect cities like San Francisco. Not only are many of these workers spread out in tons of cities across the US (and world), it will also hurt wherever their funds were flowing to and the supply chains associated with them. Travel, electronics, food/dining, home furnishings, hobbies of all sorts, etc.

    Another big difference is that a lot of these are “new money” people. And I’m not using that in a derogatory sense. It just means that their spending is likely to be much higher than “old money” individuals hitting the same payday.

    If you’ve always had $10 million, you don’t go out and start buying shit like crazy even if you make another $2 m. But if it’s your first $2 m, you’re likely to go spend A LOT of it.

    And that’s real economic growth. It’s the opposite of trickle-down economics (which just causes more hoarding of wealth and slowing of money exchanging hands).


  • As much as I feel for the people hit hard right now, I think this is an economic indicator that‘s going to cause many downstream consequences if it continues.

    On top of the downward trends by the tech titans, venture capital funding is plummeting. That’s because the VC investors can see that the likelihood of a big successful buyout is decreasing, mostly because the big fish are tightening their belts and facing higher borrowing costs (interest rates).

    Many big companies have effectively outsourced R&D, waiting until a startup creates something worth buying instead. Then the VC employees either got a nice payout or employment with the big company (or both).

    These often massive transactions were the source of serious economic growth. Those people had stability to spend in a way that many others wish. In the face of crappy outlooks and flat wages in tons of other fields, tech has long been the outlier making plenty of middle income people shoot up in wealth. And it did bring along others for the ride.

    That growth drying up is not good for anyone. Well, unless you’re waiting on a market crash.



  • I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.

    The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.

    The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.

    This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).

    You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

    Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.

    What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.


  • The southwestern US is seeing a level of water scarcity that hasn’t existed alongside the current commercial and residential operations we have. These legal cases and rulings are going to have major impacts on both, and with so many rulings in favor of big business over the last four to five decades, it’s a scary thought for those living in these areas. And like this article mentions, it’s made exponentially worse by the vast legal costs involved. The small businesses and low-income rural communities are really going to need some help, no matter which way this turns.

    It’s time for many to reevaluate their relationship with nature. This article mentions one farmer growing squash alongside of corn. Throw beans in there and you jump back to the idea of milpa, sometimes known as three sisters. These three crops grown in unison are a known indigenous technique that worked well. We need more thoughts, actions, and approaches like that.

    Our days of taking scorched earth, pumping in all the water, fertilizer, pesticides, and other modifications are numbered, whether we like it or not. Earth is an amazing system that we have been going steadily against. It’s long overdue for us to change to get back in line with harmony.

    It’s not easy. Neither was getting to where we are now. Something will be sacrificed. I hope it’s not people’s homes for the sake of multi-national corporations to produce in areas they shouldn’t be growing. But only time will tell.




  • It’s extremely challenging for many right now due to insanely depressed wages. No doubt about that.

    But for those lucky enough to have savings and their very basic needs covered, there are quite a few people deciding to live with less instead of constantly gunning for more. The FIRE movement is a pretty decent example. But even things like vanlife and rural homesteading are also along the same lines.

    Others spend like crazy, barely staying within their means even when incomes skyrocket. Of course, this is what capitalism allows/causes/benefits from the most. And it’s easy to get sucked into. But it’s not the only way.