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

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

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

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

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

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


  • 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.



  • 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.


  • 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 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.



  • 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.



  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.




  • Without a doubt, money is the answer. I think for many policy makers, it’s as simple as taking in campaign contributions (money or more creative help. See 2016 Trump campaign DNC hacking for a well-known example). A simple little $10k investment is probably enough to payoff most of these schmucks, but Russian oligarchs are willing to drop big dough because the return is worth it.

    And for others, it’s access to Russian projects AND access to Russian capital.

    These fucking sellouts would rather hop in bed with the enemy than lose out on a potentially lucrative deal. And these are often people with so much wealth already, they will quite literally never be able to spend it. Greedy, selfish assholes that are addicted to watching their personal charts and numbers rise - even as their country and geopolitical stability crumbles due to their actions. They’re mentally ill and have zero regard for the life of others.