Getting your first job after getting your degree is arguably the hardest time in your career. Just remember that it only takes one. Keep applying. Get help with your resume. Practicing interviewing and always have an appropriate outfit ready to go. You can do it.
I’m not saying it’s easy nor that you should be overly selective. Your struggles are valid and job seeking blows. But just keep trying. If others have been able to get a job in the industry, that’s a good sign. I know it can be hard to see and compre yourself against, but it does not mean you won’t follow.
Earning a degree is a major accomplishment and one you should be proud of. Loans can seem overbearing and stressful, but if they’re federal student loans, you can get on an income-based repayment plan to alleviate a lot of pressure. If you’re not generating income, the payment is usually $0. Very normal for new graduates and some people stay on them for a much longer time. Do not neglect these payments. Make sure to apply for this well before your first payment’s due date (probably now if your due date is January).
Just keep on trucking on. One day at a time. Your family cares enough to help you out and you’re in a tough spot. Keep trying to improve and it’s likely to happen. Lean on all of your contacts, friends, and personal drive.
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.
Health care workers are facing a severe mental health crisis, according to a new survey published Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention....
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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. 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.
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
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.
It’s rare for criminal action of corporate leaders to be charged, period.
I think a better starting place would be to change this. Be much more willing to hold malicious corporate leaders accountable for their crimes. They far too often fall behind the security of a corporate veil, which if investigated, usually ends up with a fine, a slap on the wrist.
Prosecutors are allowed to pierce the corporate veil for criminal actions, but they rarely do so.
It’s fucking disgusting. Little more than a manifestation of greed mixed with sociopathic and narcissistic behavior.
The worst part is that there are people who think these deserve that money. This is all on the backs of actual workers. And from a society that they aren’t paying their fair share of.
Should these three individuals be wealthy? Sure. Should they have ever been allowed to accumulate anywhere near this much personal wealth on the backs of literally millions of other people? Fuck no.
This money should have been forcefully spread around to those workers over the course of decades. And a good chunk back to the society that made it all possible.
Instead, these sycophants hoarded more than they could ever need or even want, while keeping wages far too low and paying very little (effective rate) in taxes.
And that’s why a progressive tax system makes sense, unless you want wealth to become concentrated.
The US’s tax rate was once truly progressive, with top marginal rates well over 70%, even reaching over 90%. And guess what happened during that time. The middle class exploded and so did the economy overall.
Now the wealthiest pay a LOWER effective rate than most taxpayers. This is a regressive system, favoring the rich and creating more inequality. Allowing for increasing concentration of wealth and a devastation of the middle class.
Money making money does not have to result in the insane concentrations of wealth we see today. People can still get rich and be rich. But effective tax policy and regulations can be used to create a society that’s better for most.
Absolutely. Money and corruption often go hand in hand, regardless of the ruling system.
The US has previously been a great example of how socialist policies can be implemented as part of a capitalist system. World-leading programs like public education, retirement security, and healthcare in old age; even environmental protection and workers’ rights fit in here. This was when politicians actually had turnover and things like Citizens United and Super PACs weren’t a thing.
But the US is now a great example of how infection can spread and destroy even the best laid systems, leaving us with an oligarchy of nearly unfettered capitalism with constant degradation of the socialist policies. Where the money from the wealthy flows directly into our governance. And it’s utterly toxic.
It’s time to shift the power back to the masses. It’s already been done under this structure. It just needs a 21st century kick in the ass to get it up to (1) stop reversing all the incredible progress made in the 20th century and (2) get a handle 21st century issues like global tax evasion, housing markets upended by investment schemes, wealth distributed entirely through shareholder value, etc. These problems are all solvable under the current system, it just takes lawmakers who give a flying fuck.
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).
Absolutely. It’s political suicide for many of them. So they don’t rock the boat.
It’s a great example of where term limits could help. Great leaders will sometimes take actions that won’t get them re-elected. Immigration reform is one of those bullets someone needs to catch. But no one is willing to.
Even on the right where you might think anti-immigration stance is an easy winner, the corporate interests (donors) clash with the public opinion (voters). Immigrants are workers, a critical cog in the wheel of big business. But the right’s base LOVES a good “keep ‘em out” campaign. So what does the politician do? Say/do one thing (BIG WALLS) and turn a blind eye to another (massive amounts of undocumented workers employed by domestic firms). This side would usually go for the “it’s good for business” line (which holds a lot of truth). But they’ve been told it’s the immigrants’ faults they aren’t getting their fair share of the financial pie. So this false narrative to shed blame for wealth inequality causes a conflict in immigration policy with donor interest. Political suicide to act on it. Lose your voters or your donors.
The left is tricky too, believe it or not. Many left-leaning Americans have negative views about immigration and see border security as a huge issue. Even those that want increased ways to legal status also say they want more border security. The humanitarian view actually doesn’t have that much sway in voter opinion. And this side also isn’t likely to be convinced by the economic view (corporations will do better with more cheap labor) as that’s more aligned with right-leaning economy first views. This is where I think term limits would be useful because some left-leaning leaders could choose to handle true immigration reform in a way that appeases corporate donors but slightly disappoints voters. The kickback would be unlikely to last as long (not an entire party issue), but it would lose voters for that individual, almost definitely.
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).
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.
I am asking this question because the young adult in question, is me. I am to move out in a few years, and it feels impossible to move far away from my hometown (which I want). I have no idea how to juggle both finances, a job, and the move itself. With the global inflation going on, it feels impossible getting hold of a decent...
Wise of you to seek out advice and plan this far ahead. I’ve moved many times and have learned a thing or two.
First, savings. Don’t minimize them. It’s always crucial to live within your means and have cash set aside. Everything costs more than you think. The move, the new place, the getting settled into a new place. Jobs may not work out. Bottom line, do whatever you can to have some savings and quickly replenish it if you have to dig in.
Second, housing and transportation. Usually the two biggest out of pocket costs. Moving to a new area means you don’t know exactly where you want to live or what commutes are tolerable and where is worth living. So find something you’re comfortable with, but don’t overspend or get too committed. I love being close to work so I don’t have a long commute and will take a much smaller place to do so. I also don’t like living with roommates, so I often cut back transit costs and other expenses to live alone. If you don’t mind living with others, you can save a lot of money. But do not be house or car poor. See the first point.
Third, furnishings and getting settled in. It will take time. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself to create a picture-perfect home or have a big groups of friends right away. These things take time, especially to be done well. Cover your household basics (a good mattress is a worthwhile investment) then keep an eye out for second hand goods to get things started. Try to expand your horizons and join local groups or clubs to make some friends with similar interests. If you notice red flags, pay attention to them. Sometimes nasty people cling onto newcomers and can cause you unnecessary stress/problems. Seek out worthwhile relationships and nurture them instead.
Moving to a new places is one of the most exciting and frightening things you can do. But as long as you avoid getting your bank account too close to zero and take your time while putting in effort to live like a local, it can be absolutely amazing. I’ve lived in different countries, met people from vastly different cultures, lived on entirely different cuisine, and simply had some of the most mind and soul-expanding adventures in new areas. I’ve also missed my home, my family, friends I left behind, things I gave up, and more. But the reality is that all the material stuff will come and go, the time with family and friends should be cherished but not limit your life, and at the end of the day, you are the one in charge of your destiny. It’s up to you and you alone to figure out where to live and what to do to discover happiness. Just make sure to give yourself a fighting chance. Don’t go broke. And avoid abusing anything. Moderation and variety.
My partner recently started a new job. Prior to her employment I had been paying into my employer personal supplemental insurance as well as spousal insurance. Now that my partner has employer provided and options for employer supplemental life insurance, what should we be looking at doing? Do I stop my spousal life insurance?...
Wayyyy too long of an answer. But I have some experience and might as well not let it go to waste. Definitely doesn’t hurt to talk with a financial advisor about it.
Always a good idea to check out market rates but your employer provided one likely has better premium rates as part of the group and with part of the payment possibly covered by your employer.
Deciding how much life insurance you should get is dependent on your personal situation, your desired coverage, and your risk tolerance.
But it’s likely that both of you having spousal coverage is a little toward overkill. I’d be more concerned about your disability coverage or the coverage of the highest-earning partner, especially if there’s a large disparity in earnings.
The main reason many people get life insurance is to make sure a non-working surviving spouse has the resources they need to get by with the same lifestyle and hopefully in the same house. So when you or your partner is not working, it’s usually the working partner that you want to have the most coverage (perhaps aligned with what would be needed to comfortably “retire” which really means just live the same lifestyle but only off investment income).
The second reason people get life insurance is to help with the short term consequences and expenses. Funerals are expensive. Debt can pile up with end of life care. Taking time off work can cause income drops. Daycare costs might need to be incurred. This is usually where the spousal coverage comes into play. Typically much lower coverage to give the working, surviving spouse a temporary boost due to death-related expensive, but not retire. Child policies are similar.
The more savings or investments you have, the lower your true need for this insurance is. If you can already comfortably retire, then it’s not a huge deal if either one passes (financially). And you have the cash to pay for short term death-related expenses.
Disability is a bigger deal to many people with substantial savings. It can mean a serious increase in expenses (to handle the disability) with a simultaneous decrease in earnings.
But some people also treat life insurance as an investment or a way to hedge specific risks. If you don’t want to work again if your spouse/partner passes, you can get increased coverage. Or if you simply like the security of getting a lump sum if one of your passes early, the premium cost might be worth it. Those are a personal decision and risk/reward calculation only you can make.
On the open market, you’ll find term and whole life. Term insurance is much lower cost because it only lasts a certain period (term). Whole life can be paid as a continuous premium until you file a claim (someone passes). People who are serious about life insurance get whole life policies and treat them as a wealth building investment. Many have cash values, where part of your premium goes into a savings-like account that builds at a certain interest rate. If you’re thinking of this, talk with a qualified advisor. And get at least 2 quotes from highly-rated and stable insurance companies.
Without knowing the costs, it sounds like you’re good candidates for the supplemental life or even an additional life policy. A year of salary can go quite quickly, as can the time and the costs of taking it off work. Term can be fine to start with, then later in life as it becomes a larger concern (especially with kids) you may consider whole life. But if you have substantial liquid savings, then you might just be fine with the 1-1.5x coverage for now. Once again, just all about your risk tolerance and savings.
Disability is very difficult to plan for and make a purely rational decision about. There are so many moving factors with the medical costs and length of the problem. For people who want total security, that $700 can be well worth it to sleep soundly. For others with more savings and a little room in their finances to cut back expenses, it might not be worthwhile. The more savings and the more you can rely on your partner for income, the less important it is.
But tackling it from a quantitative perspective may help. For $700, you’re getting 20% of your income. It’s a low-cost premium because the risk is usually low (unless you have reason to believe you’re likely to become disabled). You can also shop for separate plans to see how the premium lines up against competitors. It’s also important to understand the elimination period (how long you have to wait before you can claim benefits) and if it will pay out if you can perform ANY job vs your actual profession.
Ignoring the security implications, I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet. Nowadays shit is too fancy because hardware allows that, but I feel we’re just constantly running into more bugs first and then worry about them later....
I’d love to know how much they paid for it. Even part of the “message from warren” page too. Must have been a pretty penny. I bet a lot of pages would love to do static links in exchange for upfront fees similar to it.
They’ll also use the customer donations in their own marketing materials with carefully chosen wording.
“We put $X in the hands of X charity!” Sounds cute, until you realize why they don’t say they “donated $X” instead. It’s because it’s often not their money or donation.
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.
The worst part is that many of those who fall for this lie are some of the worst off, financially speaking. And they’re often surrounded by people in similar positions.
They know they’re fucked. They’ll watch neighbors lose homes, avoid doctors, go through times when they can’t pay bills, etc.
Then they’ll turn around and vote against their own interests. Against the interests of those they’re close to.
Fucking wild that the propoganda machines are that powerful.
I know your comment isn’t truly asking, but I want to answer just because there was a time when I used to put a lot of pressure on myself to generate something truly insightful, creative, deep, etc. before voicing my thoughts or opinion. Then I realized you don’t need to do that. I still have a tendency to - and I’m not saying everyone should just voice their loud-ass bullshit without thinking.
You likely have an insight that someone would find interesting, even if it seems entirely obvious to you. Great conversation can sometimes be a very simple volley back and forth of extremely basic observations.
Run with whatever logic this makes your mind go to… even if it’s something like “crazy that people vote to give rich people more money” or another basic interpretation of this. It gets the ball rolling for other people, let’s them put a new spin on it, and may be that little spark needed to create something more impactful.
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.
Although it’s somewhat inconceivable to some people that the US can have more than 50 states (and that DC isn’t what it once was), don’t forget about representation for DC and Puerto Rico.
Both which operate very much like state entities now, making a pretty good argument for true federal representation with proper voting power.
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.
“John Brown’s body lies a mouldering in the grave, his soul is marching on!” If ideas can self replicate (like the original conception of a meme), which ones do you want to see marching on?
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.
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.
And I agree that it has many crucial implications today. We should doing more to live in harmony with nature. We are part of it, no matter how much our concrete jungles try to seem otherwise.
The smoke from wildfires in recent years has been so intense that it is decreasing air quality in the majority of the U.S., reversing some of the improvements made to air quality in the last several decades, according to new research....
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.
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).
Fox News apologized Saturday to a Gold Star family for publishing a false story last month claiming that the family had to pay $60,000 to ship the remains of their fallen relative back from Afghanistan because the Pentagon refused to pay.
The opposing argument is pretty logical too though. The US being so spread out could make sleeper train rides much more attractive compared to extensive long-haul drives where you must be attentive.
It’s a complicated issue that goes beyond the geographical differences.
Car centric cities vs walkable ones. Lower fuels costs and bigger cars vs more expensive fuel and smaller cars. And in this specific comparison, an utterly terrible passenger train experience with minimal usage vs a competitive and robust system utilized by many. A bit of a chicken/egg issue there too.
Valid point, especially as rail is more expensive compared to highway and air. At least on its face without emissions and other hard-to-quantify factors.
Many moving parts would have to come together for it to be more viable in the US, and there’s still no guarantee it’ll ever be cheaper. Or popular.
I used to be in a rare situation where I could actually use a light rail to commute and avoid a terrible 45 minute to hour-long drive. I really enjoyed the free time in the train compared to stress in the car. But nearly every one of my coworkers refused the train because it wasn’t massively cheaper and for other relatively-minor reasons. It was eye opening for me.
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.
You’re not wrong that private consolidation is great for those who can afford it, and I can see you acknowledge this doesn’t work for everyone. You seem quite reasonable about it.
But one of the biggest pain points for the entire student loan crisis is specifically those who truly can’t afford to get out of their debt.
For these struggling Americans, IBR plans aren’t being used as a savvy financial decision. It’s a lifeline. If that’s stripped from them, you’d see another wave of people who can’t afford basic necessities like housing. It’s sad that it even needs to be an option. And worse that for many, there’s no easy way out.
I hear you. Much bigger steps are needed and hopefully the younger generations who have been priced out of housing, hit with insanely low wage growth, and took out student loans to cover much higher education costs will start to obtain benefits sooner rather than later. They deserve it.
What keeps you going every day?
How the GOP became the party of tax cheats (www.rawstory.com)
Health care workers report increase in burnout, harassment since the COVID pandemic: CDC (abcnews.go.com)
Health care workers are facing a severe mental health crisis, according to a new survey published Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention....
Autoworkers reach a deal with Ford, a breakthrough toward ending strikes against Detroit automakers (apnews.com)
Cruise Self-Driving License Revoked After It Withheld Pedestrian Injury Footage, DMV Says (www.vice.com)
Have you ever had a bad gut feeling about a (generally well-liked) person that ended up being totally justified? If so, what happened?
Former NSA worker pleads guilty to trying to sell U.S. secrets to Russia (www.nbcnews.com)
A former National Security Agency employee from Colorado pleaded guilty Monday to trying to sell classified information to Russia....
Family files lawsuit against Panera Bread after college student who drank ‘charged lemonade’ dies (www.nbcnews.com)
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
TIL - J and J knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder and failed to disclose it to regulators or the public. (www.reuters.com)
Bezos, Gates, and Buffett own as much as the bottom half of Americans (sh.itjust.works)
inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
What’s up with US President Biden and the sudden crackdown on immigration?
Is this just his moderate side coming out? Appeasing Republicans?
Biden administration waives 26 federal laws to allow border wall construction in South Texas (apnews.com)
What advice would you give a young adult about to move out?
I am asking this question because the young adult in question, is me. I am to move out in a few years, and it feels impossible to move far away from my hometown (which I want). I have no idea how to juggle both finances, a job, and the move itself. With the global inflation going on, it feels impossible getting hold of a decent...
[US] Dual Income Life Insurance Question
My partner recently started a new job. Prior to her employment I had been paying into my employer personal supplemental insurance as well as spousal insurance. Now that my partner has employer provided and options for employer supplemental life insurance, what should we be looking at doing? Do I stop my spousal life insurance?...
I miss older html internet
Ignoring the security implications, I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet. Nowadays shit is too fancy because hardware allows that, but I feel we’re just constantly running into more bugs first and then worry about them later....
No, I would like your multimillion dollar employer to, though... (slrpnk.net)
In a remote, dry patch of California, a battle is raging over carrots (apnews.com)
“I don't have your money working class” (lemmygrad.ml)
Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College (www.pewresearch.org)
65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
What's an idea you want to live?
“John Brown’s body lies a mouldering in the grave, his soul is marching on!” If ideas can self replicate (like the original conception of a meme), which ones do you want to see marching on?
Wildfires in recent years have reversed some of the progress made in eliminating air pollution, new study suggests (abcnews.go.com)
The smoke from wildfires in recent years has been so intense that it is decreasing air quality in the majority of the U.S., reversing some of the improvements made to air quality in the last several decades, according to new research....
How much CO2 is emitted by manufacturing batteries? | MIT Climate Portal (climate.mit.edu)
UAW strike brings blue-collar vs. billionaire battle to Detroit (www.cnbc.com)
CEOs are having their worst year in decades (www.cnn.com)
How did indigenous people survive hurricanes in the carribean
The Winds and flooding can do so much damage with modern construction. Seems like it would wipe out entire villages if they were more primitive.
'You're fine. You're vaccinated': Anti-vax Fox News host goes dead silent after co-host calls her out for vaccine status (www.dailydot.com)
Fox News apologizes to Gold Star family after facing backlash over false story | CNN Business (www.cnn.com)
Fox News apologized Saturday to a Gold Star family for publishing a false story last month claiming that the family had to pay $60,000 to ship the remains of their fallen relative back from Afghanistan because the Pentagon refused to pay.
[video] Europeans love sleeper trains. Why don’t we? | CBC Creator Network (youtu.be)
With lawsuit dismissed, student loan debt forgiveness begins for 800,000 borrowers (www.usatoday.com)