• 0 Posts
  • 45 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.



  • Absolutely. And this problem applies to many government agencies/careers. It also allows these exact problems to happen more than they should. From police seizing assets to federal politicians selling out for fairly small sums. The underpaid jobs attract a certain type of person, and some are willing to turn to malicious acts to get a financial bump up.

    Better pay for public roles would prevent a lot of these issues. It’s normal for a wage gap between private and public positions, but it’s usually not as bad as it is now. Teacher pay is a another great example of a completely stalled system that is now having countless issues because of it. I’d also argue that many federal politicians would be more willing to separate from their corporate donors if they were paid somewhat closer to an executive compensation.


  • 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


  • The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.

    It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.

    I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.

    We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.




  • 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.


  • I’m sure you’re right about some people. They’re feeling abandoned and disgusted by what’s supposed to have their support and ideologies in mind, therefore not as active. That makes sense.

    I know there are a lot of good/reasonable people who just want the government to play a smaller role in society and I think that’s a necessary part of any well-functioning system. And I agree with the sentiment in specific applications. Hopefully there is a way forward for those types to force a change for the better from the current GOP. Because it’s gone off the rails.




  • Part of this piece has an excellent insight into the dichotomy of the Republican Party. Of those highly engaged with politics, only 27% want to ditch the electoral college! These people understand the party is unpopular and the tactics used to hold power are a necessary way to get their policies.

    The rest of the group feels otherwise, probably NOT because they don’t care if their candidate gets elected, but rather that they don’t understand how crucial it is to their party (along with gerrymandering). And their first gut instinct is that popular vote is justified/rational/logical whatever.

    Now for a little thought experiment: What would happen if this became an actual campaign issue? I’d put my money on those 27% being able to convince the rest of the party how important it is, flipping their view. Maybe I’m wrong, but since many R voters tent to put self interests above all else, it logically follows that they’re just not understanding how critical the electoral college is. If their talking heads went on air/TV each day and stopped talking about how immigrants are stealing jobs or poor people are taking their hard earned money, and instead focused on the importance of the electoral college, they’d flip. Not because they think it’s right or justified. Because they think it’s best for themselves and their party. And it’s the current rallying cry.

    Now apply this across an entire party, with those highly engaged telling the others how to vote, what to think about policy, and what the outcomes will be. Bring together uneducated people already susceptible to misinformation, and pair them with intelligent and extremely vocal/active groups who can sell snake oil like the best of them. Take that minority vote and put some real numbers behind it… likely not enough to get a majority, but enough to win a sophisticated electoral college or gerrymandered district.


  • I get the point of this article, but I really dislike the presentation. Nothing about the Clean Air Act’s policies or other steps toward improvements have been “reversed.” It’s just that large fires have caused worsening air quality. These are two entirely separate items that both happen to impact the same thing.

    If we had not been taking those other actions to reduce pollutants, the air quality would likely be even worse when the fires were added in. I’d love to see a slightly modified presentation, something like, “Fires raised pollutants by X amount. If it weren’t for the Clean Air Act, the pollution level probably would have reached X+Y! But thankfully we took steps to reduce it before/during the fires.”

    To use the term “reversed” feels like it’s trying to minimize the impact of the progress that we have made. And that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It also sounds like the perfect, illogical excuse to stop trying. Nonsense.


  • In summary, not only are battery electric vehicles still coming out ahead in terms of carbon emissions despite battery production emissions (which can be the equivalent to about 2,500 miles of ICE driving), they’re also paving a way forward for sustainable energy as a whole. Quote below.

    Another point I always feel is overlooked: EV and battery production are always scrutinized MUCH more heavily for their manufacturing practices. But terribly dirty energy and awful conditions also are behind iPhones, televisions, diamonds, and plenty of other non-essential goods. Hell, even MANY components for ICE vehicles… I’d love to see major improvements, but to scrutinize one industry just because it’s trying to be progressive is a bit disingenuous.

    From the article:

    “When you add this up over hundreds of miles, even though the U.S. electric grid isn’t currently carbon-free and even when accounting for the initial emissions associated with manufacturing the battery, electric cars still emit less CO2 than gas-powered cars.2 This is a key feature, given that, within the United States, the transportation sector produces the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly one-third of the country’s total emissions.3

    A second major environmental benefit these batteries could offer is energy grid stabilization, Shao-Horn adds. As the world moves towards renewable energy resources, like solar and wind power, demand grows for ways of storing and saving this energy. Using batteries to store solar and wind power when it’s plentiful can help solve one big problem of renewable energy—balancing oversupply and shortage when the weather isn’t ideal—making it much easier to switch from CO2-emitting fossil fuels.”



  • Yeah, this is total bullshit. The reason CEO tenure is decreasing is because they want that. Getting forced out is often extremely lucrative thanks to those golden parachutes. They’re also still very likely to have all sorts of equity awards that will continue to vest for years, maybe even decades.

    And you know what they’ll do? Go find another leadership role, get another golden parachute sealed, and take in more equity awards with a different company. Join boards in a new industry to grant more equity awards to their frat bros.

    To act as if a CEO departing is inherently bad for that individual is asinine. It’ll probably cost the company millions, likely hurt the chances of a wage increase for bottom rung workers, and will invite in new leaders who will take dramatic “cost-cutting” measure immediately. But it’s very rare for it to actually harm the outgoing executive.