Changetheview

This doesn’t fix everything, but perfection is the enemy of progress. This is worth celebrating if you care about non-wealthy Americans.

In the face of overzealous judicial rulings and zero help from Congress, this policy helps over 800,000 struggling, older Americans resolve long standing debt that they made payments on for 20 or 25 years.

These aren’t free loaders or wealthy individuals. Nor are they committing fraud to accept disaster loans aimed at keeping paychecks afloat.

They are former students. That’s it. Something that the US covers for K-12th grade as one of its earliest ground-breaking policies. The rest of the developed world took that through college, the US decided to create a bloated system of indentured servitude instead.

No, this doesn’t stop new borrowers from taking on loans. And it doesn’t stop education providers from overcharging. These are real problems that deserve attention.

But it is still a step showing that at least some federal officials care to try to resolve the issues plaguing some of those who did nothing more than try to improve their situation and gain valuable training with far reaching benefits.

Setting aside anything related to Musk, Tesla really doesn’t seem to be staying competitive.

Cybertruck (and the “indestructible” window press conference) is probably the easiest example. Years of attempted hype that haven’t paid off in a meaningful manner, while rivals have been releasing in-class competition. Anyone can see that’s a problem.

Tesla cars used to be pretty revolutionary, now they’re in an entirely different era that’s filling with exciting EV alternatives around every corner. Yet Tesla style still looks the same. The shoddy construction is still around and becoming more widespread knowledge. They’re failing to attract their target audience due to a long series of missteps. More problems.

Not to mention that Tesla was downright overpriced at its height. It’s a fraction of the volume yet made other automaker valuations look minuscule. The logic for that was never there.

It applies to anywhere. The problem isn’t one situation. It’s this same story, repeated thousands of times in every city across the globe.

Bobby wants to live in a house. Monthly rent prices are usually around $1,000 per month in his home town.

Joe wants to make money by renting out a house on AirBnb. Hotel prices are usually around $200 per night in the same location. If Joe rents out his house for just 10 nights a month, he can make $2,000. This easily covers Joe’s expenses and puts the extra cash in his bank account. If he rents it out for 25 nights, he’s putting away a lot of cash.

When houses are up for sale, Bobby can only spend a similar cost as his rent. Joe has been watching his bank account climb and is ready to spend a lot on another house to put on AirBnb. Joe can make a profit even if the house is double the price.

Bobby’s landlord sees housing prices rise. Decides to either (1) increase Bobby’s rent to $2,000 - which he can’t afford or (2) sell the house to someone like Joe for a major markup.

Bobby has to move in with roommates and will never be able to afford to buy a home when competing against all the Joes out there.

At the current minimum wage ($7.25), it’s takes 2.757.6 hours or nearly 70 40-hour weeks to reach $20,000.

That is over 1.3 years of full time work to equal the one “cheap” car option. And it completely ignores any other costs, like taxes and interest, let alone god-damn housing, food, medical bills, etc.

This economic system is fucked. If you’re not fighting for income and wealth equality, you’re sociopathic.

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.

Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.

Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”

I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html

Shit politician and terrible person. But he’s pretty good at rocking some killer high heels, which I’m interpreting as his way to show LGBT and drag community support.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/31/desantis-boots-shoemakers-00121044

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.

And one of the main people who put an end to it was then-Attorney General William Barr. He basically said “Mueller says Trump didn’t obstruct” when Mueller’s actual report basically said he can’t say for certain either way (obstruct or not) and provided a mountain of evidence that could be seen as obstruction. Most legal professionals see Mueller’s report as “we can’t say he’s guilty without charging and convicting, so we’re just going to say the door’s open and hand over the evidence.” Barr’s interpretation was complete bullshit.

The other giant elephant in the room is charging a sitting president with a crime. It’s never been tested in the US whether it can actually happen or not, but there are a lot of strong arguments against. The damage that can do to a country is extreme… I see it as a matter of absolute last resort. One that’s more likely to come after impeachment and removal unless absolutely necessary. And that’s one ugly situation that’s basically showing complete dysfunction to the world.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/20/1118625157/doj-barr-trump-russia-investigation-memo

This article is well worth the read. Archived version:

https://archive.ph/p7fOG

In sum, some of America’s most prosperous times were when top marginal rates were extremely high (70%-92%). And now the GOP only serves the excessively rich and large corporations to put wealth and power above all else, gutting tax revenue and nearly every public program possible so those that already have money can have a little more.

Not exactly what you’ve asked, but I’ve seen and spoke to people about this while traveling.

It absolutely still happens in many places that use more primitive construction methods. I’ve visited places in Belize where locals told me about devastation after hurricanes. It can flatten entire areas, especially the poorest ones. I’ve also witnessed it in parts of Mexico, although steel and concrete construction is much more common. Thatched roofs can be found in certain areas, and of course, people without means still use anything they can get their hands on to build homes - like thin metal sheets. A bad storm can destroy many homes, if not entire communities. Roads wash out and make transportation extremely challenging.

Sometimes people come together to rebuild. It might be as easy as taking down more local trees or gathering the materials that the wind threw everywhere. It’s still a pain, especially when most people capable of laboring would rather be working for income instead of rebuilding their home.

The unfortunate reality of today is that these events often cause mass exodus. People don’t have insurance, and the literal land they have might be the only asset between them and absolutely nothing.

This is when predatory investors can come in, offer pennies on the dollar for land, and grab up large sections for almost nothing. Then the people use whatever they get to try to make a fresh start, quite often in a different location where housing already exists, like the closest city. It would be possible for this to be a mutually-beneficial exchange, but it’s more often predatory as hell with extremely desperate sellers and buyers who don’t offer anywhere close to actual market value in a normal time.

Seeing this devastation makes you quite thankful for things like disaster relief, disaster loans, emergency responses on a large scale, and insurance. None of those programs are perfect, but the alternative is tragic (unless you’re wealthy and don’t care about the well being of others).

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.

Very interested to see how the “small government” crowd deals with this.

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.

I’ve successfully replaced too much screen time with reading. To do so, I always have at least one “heavy” book (typically non-fiction) and one light book (typically fiction) that I’m reading at the same time, mixed with constant access to both (kindle with synchronized kindle apps) and a strong desire to change my habits. It takes time but is well worth the effort.

Your desire for change is the most important step, don’t belittle it. Many people never have that voice. Let it fuel you. Small changes will build into a big transformation if you foster them.

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.

It is a serious crisis in many places throughout the world. Especially considering the income stagnation. I have lived in many cities and have heard this cry across multiple continents, from coast to coast, and at most income levels (except the ultra wealthy).

What I’m hoping becomes more popular are ways to make the short term rentals not as profitable. I really like the idea what other cities are doing by limiting the number of days they can rent it out.

Sure, rent it out for 45 days a year and get $10k total revenue and try to scrape out a profit. Or rent out the unit as your primary residence for the entire year for a similar cost.

It’s not absolutely perfect, but it will greatly reduce those willing to buy places to use as an investment for short term rentals. And that should put negative pressure on housing prices, while also opening up more units for primary residence housing.

NA beers can be great. Lagunitas sells a Hop Water that’s pretty good too - very light though. And most high-quality ginger beers pack a lot of flavor.

Huge. The short term rental housing boom is unlike almost anything we’ve seen before. Estimates put short term rentals as about 20% of the global real estate market.

If that demand drops rapidly, it will mark a major shift. Tons of buyers and capital will be wiped off the table.

I agree with the usual perspective that housing prices almost always rise over time. But this is an unprecedented event in scale, and if reversed, it will have unprecedented ramifications.

It’s true insurance companies need to take in adequate premiums in order to have the money the money to pay claims. And when done in balance, insurance is a great thing. Not all insurance in a scam, no doubting that.

But the current state of insurance, especially health insurance in the US, shows that these companies are making massive profits. How does this happen? Literally one way: They take in more premiums than they pay out in coverage. How? By either knowingly overcharging people or skirting out of paying covered claims through other means (such as baseless rejections).

That’s the problem with the entire insurance industry and why it must be properly regulated in any industry: It is a race to the bottom. The worse the insurer treats the people that buy insurance from them, the better the company does financially (charge a lot, pay out a little). Mix in the fact that (1) you cannot shop around at the time you need a claim and (2) the contracts are so intensive only a sophisticated legal team can interpret them, and it’s a recipe for disaster.

So you’re right that all insurance isn’t necessarily a scam. But if you can’t see that the US health insurance industry raking in profits shows serious dysfunction that could be considered a scam, it’s worth taking a second look.

Ignorance is in their audience, usually not behind the desk.

And that audience hardly knows what it means to read, let alone study something new and use critical thinking to truly comprehend.

Decades of abuse and greedy corporate leadership brought this battle. This is just one long-overdue response to it.

The cost of solar and wind is becoming so attractive, it’s hard to see why anyone would do otherwise.

The elephant in the room (at least for the US; I’m not as familiar with UK policies) are the subsidies. It sparks new investments because many of the incentives are specifically related to new projects. Other ones mess with the valuation of the equipment, making long term tax burden much lower. It’s not the only energy industry to receive subsidies. But it’s pretty asinine to continue to support the one that’s destroying our world.

“In one case, it’s going to profit, amplifying the incumbent status of the oil and gas industry. In another, under more aggressive decarbonization policy and low oil and gas prices, it’s actively working against the climate goal by spurring additional production.”

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/subsidies-really-do-matter-to-the-us-oil-gas-industry-one-in-particular

The FTC home page has a list of options, including “file antitrust complaint.” I’m guessing that’s probably the most useful: https://www.ftc.gov/ I’ve also seen others say to email antitrust@ftc.com.

But here is the FTC contact page: https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/contact. And here is more generic agency information: https://www.usa.gov/agencies/federal-trade-commission

Contacting most government institutions is usually surprisingly easy and you typically don’t need to be overly concerned about using the right template or anything.

Just quickly and clearly communicate what topic it’s about, what your specific issue is, a small bit of reasoning showing why it’s a problem, and a brief conclusion that usually asks for a specific action.

You can always call the general phone number and very briefly explain in laymen’s terms what you need (maybe something g like “I’d like to submit comment about a specific technology” or something similar). The operators are usually willing to help get you in touch with the right person, as long as you can explain what you need in a succinct manner (unlike this ridiculously long comment).

An appeal is likely, but this is still a big W. It immediately invalidates laws prohibiting the consideration of emissions. Even if it gets knocked down by higher courts, it will likely have some impact in the immediate term (allowing people to bring up emissions concerns when energy permits are going through approval right now).

And more importantly, it might pave a way for future change. The first attempt down a new path might not get all the way to the end, but it might have a lasting impact in other ways. And this one just jumped over the first big hurdle.

Congrats to this pretty bad ass group of young ones.

Legal basis for suing a company that uses another company’s product/creations without approval seems like a fairly pretty straightforward intellectual property issue.

Legal basis for increased taxes on revenue from AI or automation in general could be created in the same way that any tax is created: through legislation. Income tax didn’t exist before, now it does. Tax breaks for mortgage interest didn’t use it exist, now it does. Levying higher taxes on companies that rely heavily on automated systems and creating a UBI out of the revenue might not exist right now, but it can, if the right people are voted in to pass the right laws.

I don’t disagree entirely. And this article is a little light on the details… But I think the main reason behind the legal liability is the lack of transparency - which could be interpreted as having a malicious intent to push people to upgrade their hardware.

Needing to adjust performance is acceptable. Maliciously adjusting performance to motivate people to buy new devices isn’t. Pretty sure that is one of the major factors in this case.

Sad story. But always good to see someone take a stand. I hope they land on their feet.

I’ll never be able to comprehend the hypocrisy of some on the right.

“I want a small government that lets the free market do its thing, doesn’t tell me what to do, and doesn’t bother with regulation even when it comes to literal murder machines.”

“We need to take these books off the library shelf because I don’t agree with them and I don’t understand a lifestyle that isn’t my own.”

These two thoughts should not be able to go through the same brain. I know the answer is that they’re actually more motivated by hate and fear that “freedom”, but god damn is it annoying. Go live your own lives and stop worrying about what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Worried about child grooming? Go after the actual groomers found in churches and other places of power.

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.

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

Did someone say people should work for free? No where am I saying that. Massive profits are not necessary to cover overhead - expenses like overheard and salaries are paid for by revenue - what’s leftover is profit.

This thread is about whether the current US healthcare insurance industry is a scam or not. Scam means “a dishonest scheme” and insurance saying it’s going to provide healthcare coverage but actually just takes your money, doesn’t provide coverage, and only pays investors/executives could be considered a dishonest scheme by many.

Insurance companies have a natural tendency to become worse and worse over time. This is called the race to the bottom and is an incredibly well-known phenomena in insurance. Like monopolies, insurance is one of the rare situations where experts are in damn-near universal agreement that heavy regulation is necessary.

Right now, insurance companies are objectively very bad to the people they provide coverage for. This isn’t an opinion, this is a fact that’s easily verified and well understood. They are not being effectively regulated and as such, are racing to the bottom by providing absolutely terrible coverage while taking in massive premiums. This is not good for anyone and is not fixed by a free market in any way. You cannot effectively shop for insurance and their behavior is not rectified, unless prohibited by law (regulation).

You’re absolutely not alone. Not by a long shot.

Many PPP loans were forgiven without being considered taxable income, so there is precedent and there are many excellent arguments in favor of applying this for students who successfully paid income-based payments for literally decades.

Hopefully progress against this incredibly dysfunctional system will keep happening. Would be nice to give the non-wealthy Americans a better chance at home ownership, retirement savings, and other crucial financial progress. Rather than just saddling them with federal debt while taxes are slashed for the wealthy.

There are a lot of good, helpful people in the world that want to work together to create progress and a better society for all. And positive change is possible. Don’t get too caught up in the loud voices to the contrary.

So frustrating that this industry isn’t properly regulated. It’s massively profitable and has had a profound impact US energy structure.

Yet basic regulations can’t be implemented because they’re “too challenging” for the industry. Even as continued evidence of its harm pops up.

It’s insane. And shameful. I have some shockingly wealthy acquaintances connected to the industry, and without fail, they’ll all spread the pro-industry propaganda before any votes related to the most basic regulations. It’s pathetic. Absolutely blinded by greed.

Ford started this negotiation with 9% raise and eventually went up to 30%. Collective bargaining and strikes work.

And don’t ever listen to someone who says otherwise. They’re either a mindless bootlicker or have something to gain from a splintered workforce. Unions aren’t immune to problems, but it’s the best way to effectively rebalance the distribution of profits.

It might seem low, but when looking at statistics about fatalities, it’s a good idea to keep in mind the many injured and potentially permanently disabled that aren’t included.

Medical professionals can work magic, and that is great. But non-fatal car crash, overdose, cancer, and gun injuries can also be tragic, both short and long term. Diminished mental capacity, loss of limbs or physical abilities, lifelong pain, the list goes on…

Nope. First production one completed in July, nearly four years after the first press release. Supposedly customer deliveries at some point of Q3 2023, which is basically down to a month left.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1519/tesla-officially-completes-first-cybertruck-but-we-ll-have-to-wait-for-first-deliveries

The executive branch has to deal with how to execute laws passed, even when they are in conflict with one another. So there is a lot of leeway provided to deal with those conflicts.

It’s hard to say exactly how necessary it is for the DHS to waive these 26 laws, but the argument is that in order to abide by the more pressing matter (the immigration laws and funding), they must ignore the other 26.

I am not as willing to concede that this is entirely out of the Biden administrations control. Instead of waiving all the 26 laws, why not use them to drag out the time and costs? They are mainly be about environmental studies, public feedback, and other measures that soak up funds and take a lot of time. If this administration was truly serious about not wanting to build the wall, they’re basically going against that by fast-tracking it.

I’m much more inclined to think there is a quid pro quo going on and them giving in on the wall - especially in this particular manner - is in exchange for something else. But that’s not something political leaders will be transparent about. We see checkers, but a chess game is happening (out of our vision).

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.”

Especially if you don’t give a flying fuck about using an established process or doing so legally