Wait so there was near universal outcry on the left about “Jan 6 insurrection” but assassination of public figures is actually fine if they have a low approval rating and allegedly negatively affect people’s lives? Guess what? Congress is lucky if 10% of people across the board think they AREN’T screwing up the country.
Wait so there was near universal outcry on the left about “Jan 6 insurrection” but assassination of public figures is actually fine if they have a low approval rating and allegedly negatively affect people’s lives?
It sounds like you're saying people should have the same attitude towards a mob storming the capital on the claim of a stolen election vs a man who systematically oppressed those who are ill, and arguably stole from them as well?
I don't wish harm on anyone but these are two very morally different situations, which require very different responses.
Also it is not clear to me that those who are outraged at the CEO is on the left. I'd imagine that the right is equally denied of health coverage while ill, and it seems plausible that they would be just as angry as those on the left.
Not to get into political aspects and you putting "quotes" around Jan 6 insurrection (attempt) but this is a big country and there will always be someone who thinks that public figures are screwing them (or not). In Congress however, the people have ability to replace such figures, every two or six years. Those are there are elected by the majority of their constituents and the minority which "lost" will have opportunity to change the direction for their district/state in two or six years.
You cannot compare that to this tragedy in any way/shape/form...
Oh yeah. I agree that all powerful people which most people hate should be scared. What other incentive is there for them to not screw everyone over forever? They're certainly not gonna just decide to care about other people. However, Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and fired up his base on the lie that it was stolen from him and they'd need to storm the government to take back power if they didn't want to be completely disenfranchised forever and hunted down like dogs in the street. All of which was obviously a lie. Even funnier how they screamed about being disenfranchised after 2020 and just won the next election, guess that was a lie too?
If Donald Trump really had the 2020 election stolen from him i'd support the jan 6 people because they'd be right. But they're not, they voted and they lost, it was not stolen from them. On the other hand, who exactly is disagreeing that this health insurance company is hurting all of us? What evidence do we have that they're not actually denying necessary care and, in fact, are actually the only person that can save us from the evil other insurance companies that actually provide insurance to their members? I don't see that rhetoric here. The situations are very different.
They're really not, especially not money without strings attached (there's a lot of money in research, and lot gets wasted, but that's partly because the broken process of grant funding means that you can't just take the money and spend it on useful things, you have to spend it on the grant even if it's not necessary). The fact is that home student tuition fees don't pay for the cost of teaching an average degree, and foreign student fees pay a fairly large multiple of that, so it's hard to see how that isn't effectively a subsidy, anyway, even if the universities have other income streams which also subsidize those degrees.
Everything thinks of Oxbridge (which are not representative of most universities) as being really rich, but even then it's maybe a few of the colleges that spend a lot of their money propping up the rest of them (the average oxbridge college has some very old and very expensive to maintain buildings and more or less has to beg alumni for that money).
The worst metric obsession that defines things now is stock price, which really went into overdrive with the financialization of the 70s~80s. Of course financialization was downstream of the money supply and people seeking out returns on their savings in inflationary environments (modern economic theory that thinks never-ending inflation is just a law we must all accept and conform to), which is used a way to finance big government.
It's an outrage once you work at these companies and behold the sheer dysfunction and they're all getting paid wages native American citizens would take.
It's also an outrage how much leverage companies have over their H1B employees (especially from India, etc).
If you have any long-term H1B coworkers from less-favored nations, I guarantee you there's a heartbreaking story they have to tell you if you ask.
I work with a super high-performing guy with a Masters degree who has been at my company for 15 years and gets treated super poorly by the company. He still is probably 10 years away from getting a naturalization interview and has no hope of switching jobs in the meantime (and has children that are citizens...).
If they have direct family members that are citizens they should skip the wait apply through the family path, although they would need to be on good terms with said family member as they have to vouch for their welfare payments for 10 years
At least it that way about a decade ago, as I’m realizing things might have changed since then
The model that Americans would take any job if the wages were high enough is simple but obviously false. For manual labor there's no amount of money you could pay Americans to be farmworkers. For desk jobs there's no amount that'll overcome Americans' cultural belief that you can't do math unless you were born as a special sort of person who is "good at math".
> For manual labor there's no amount of money you could pay Americans to be farmworkers.
If you don't think Americans are willing to pick fruits and vegetables, go find a farmer, have him put a sign at the edge of his property that says "Free fruits and vegetables, you pick them yourself" and watch how quickly the field is emptied.
This is obnoxious pedantry which is ignoring the parent's obvious actual point: food obeys a demand curve just like every other product, and what the parent clearly meant was that, at the labor price native Americans would want for these jobs, the resulting food price would be such that not enough people would buy the food to make it worthwhile.
And while this may have been idle speculation a few years ago, we now have pretty solid empirical evidence: when food prices increased by 10-20%, even in the middle of the fastest-growing wages in decades, the country had a collective temper tantrum.
1 million/year? There’s definitely an amount that’d allow to find enough workers locally. The other question is how much would the produce cost and how many people would be willing to pay.
Well that's probably part of the problem. You have to live within commute range of the work to do it, and people don't want to live in small towns or Central Valley CA unless they're in the respected local landowner class.
I know there are people who do part-time work in oil fields or fishing ships, so that's always possible if you want to move to North Dakota or Alaska temporarily.
I don't know about the rest of the nation, but in the American Southwest, there's a distinct socio-economic class of "migrant farmworker" with a long tradition. And it's a Hispanic cultural tradition.
There would be basically zero chance of anyone in my urban high school, or circle of friends, to turn around and say "I'm going to be a migrant farmworker when I graduate!" and it's unclear whether any non-Latino could even achieve such a career. GP indicated that urban/suburban living wouldn't be possible. You'd certainly need to move around, and you'd be an outcast if you didn't speak Spanish, if you weren't nominally Catholic, or celebrate holidays like a Hispanic. Your children would come to learn Spanish and cultural customs, but they'd still be outcast because of racism. You'd have a weird relationship with the overseers, because they'd be more like you, so neither side would really accept you.
(Sub)urban White kids are usually groomed to go to college and get a white-collar or office job, and the dropouts do some kind of tech vocational path, or end up doing clerking minimum-wage to get by. So you have a spectrum of white/blue collar, but there's no path to "migrant farmworker" or other sort of laborer, because my people Just Don't Do That. It's unthinkable.
Even agrarian Native American communities have a huge problem with "brain drain" there, because the opportunities on the Reservation are zilch, unless you want to work at a casino? So young Natives dream of leaving at the first chance, going into the city, and assimilating, losing their culture, because it's a survival thing. Their agriculture isn't sustainable, no matter how you slice it--what are they going to do, hire from outside?
Since the 80s we've had White people who said that migrants come to steal our jobs. Or they say they're taking jobs no American wants. But realistically, even if American wanted those jobs at those wages, they couldn't have them, because of the ethnic hegemony in certain industries.
I see. Yeah, that's tricky. It's less of "I don't want to" moreso than "I literally* cannot move". I'm paying off a house and moving to another state to pay rent on top of that mortgage ruins the point. For 200k, sure. But I know that's not realistic even if I was the best farmhand.
*Okay, I can "literally" talk with family about selling the home. But I do just need some steady work during the downtimes. I'm not at a point where I feel I want to uproot my entire lifestyle, career, and livlihood just to do blue collar work.
that may be manual labor but it requires skills, and comes with real risks.
and mines have a lot, like a LOT, of labor laws behind them. you know, the whole sending 10 year olds down the shaft thing and then literally covering up what went wrong.
100% on your last sentence. There is a massive misplacement of ego in our fellow countrymen that loves to posture as an arbiter of morality and rationality, but has no pomp left over for their individual upward mobility. Very very bizarre and self defeating.
I know a fair number of Silicon Valley "townies" and they are not trying and failing to get into tech companies. Only the Asian ones with tiger parents are even considering it.
The hippie aligned ones just want to get infinite degrees in something natural like forestry management. The rest are nurses or civil servants if they want a career, or real estate agents or artists or game streamers otherwise.
If anything I think younger Americans tend to go for the kind of vulgar Marxism where everything bad is caused by "corporations", and women in strongly prefer work that comes off as being good for society, which means they won't even consider it.
Same for me of course; I work in tech because I was on the computer too much, not because I was greedy and looked up good careers.
I guess I see this as an attempt or yearning to discredit him, but following in the work that sprung from Hayek and friends, the motivation for his work is clearly curiosity and wonder about how does anything get done in the world without coordination, never mind the wondrously complex things that are created nowadays.
His conclusion is that knowledge is dispersed, represented in prices that arise from markets which is simply understood as cooperation. Knowledge may frankly be expressed as whatever enables and motivates someone to offer something on the market. If that's too vague for your taste, too bad.
The wonder is that uncoordinated, independent cooperation gives rise to such abundant and sophisticated products. Not only that it's in a system that expresses everyone's individual preferences and competing interests. Central planning fails spectacularly to do this, and there's no reason to believe that it ever will even with fantastic computational power.
Definitely not trying to discredit him. I have no horse in that economic ideology race. I'm just honestly curious about what the heck we mean when we talk about knowledge. The background is that I'm a technical writer (TW), and a lot of us TWs are recognizing that knowledge management is becoming even more important than it already was before (and we already knew it was an important part of our role). So naturally as I begin this journey I am looking deeply into the meaning of the term and finding many different definitions. Your synthesis of this article for example gave me yet another new perspective on it.
Independence from ownership isn't really a left/right principle. The Washington Post has their set of guiding principles online - I think from those it's pretty clear why there is discontent.
Independent doesn't mean unopinionated. As long as they're transparent about a set of ideals and principles that they follow through, being opinionated is perfectly fine for journalism.
But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?
I don't accept anything that isn't properly cited and sufficient evidence is provided from reliable sources. Neutral news offerings (such as AP or Reuters) are of course a better source of news. It is however useful to subscribe to journals that has some form of basic agreement on fundamental values. For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy.
This is not propaganda, as opinionated journalism's objective is still to transparently cover issues it cares about without distortion or attempt at manipulation, which is very different from propaganda.
> For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy.
You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas.
And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.
> It was unscientific to impose any mandates for COVID vaccines whatsoever.
Not only was it unscientific, to the point that they had to censor their opponents and coordinate the institutions to shun any dissenting scientists and experts, the mandate was found to be blatantly unconstitutional.
what a bunch of empty invective