I think it's more than modern companies have, for whatever reason, become extremely scummy. They seem to have no values, ethics, or even regard for their own customers. The only thing that seems to matter to them is squeezing out a few more pennies from people, even if means the likely longer term implosion of their own companies. It's just bizarre to me how many companies, and in different industries, seem to be at war with their own customers.
I hold capitalism with a deep fondness, but I think that's largely because my formative years were in better times. For people who've never known any capitalism except for the mess we currently have? It's quite to see how they can think to themselves that anything must better.
In a poly I would guess people need to feel attached to a group not a single individual, in a sense loving all people in the group almost equally. Mostly, we are not raised that way and culturally it would be unconventional, to say the least.
Loving people equally is impossible. Even poly people have a 'primary' introducing hierarchy and preference.
A group of people sleeping together is not a stable community. It's filled with people who are trying to sleep with other people inside and outside of the group who are vocal about being able to spend time, money, and effort on others for sex. There's nothing binding a group like this together besides sex.
Even normal community activities like volunteering or sports clubs have drama and people who end up hating each other. Add sex in the mix and you've created an explosive dynamic.
I tend to agree. I was describing how I think it could work and how I suppose it worked before. Nowadays, when contact with many people outside of the group is ubiquitous, I think it's next to impossible, but maybe there's people out there that make it work. Good for them, if they found a way.
People who do not depend on relationships simply don't enter into relationships.
For everybody else, there is the normal and perfectly human feelings of jealousy, attachment, fear or loss, and feeling associated with self-confidence.
No. You had a choice. I voted for Harris (who I do not like as a progressive) instead of chaos and destruction, others had the same choice. To not vote out of protest was a vote for this.
Better luck next time. ~2M voters 55+ age out every year. Can we do better? Remains to be seen.
If you’re voting for your wallet, I don’t take offense, simply vote for someone with a plan grounded in reality, and at least some history of success. This is not what has happened.
Right, so if we go back to 2024, the Dems were in charge and things felt sucky, the last time they remember feeling good about their wallet was Trump 1
This is what exit polls told us, this is the track record they were looking at
You have your timelines wrong. Presenting an article as an I told you so does not explain how people were thinking 2 years ago and how that influenced their vote
The last administration left this administration one of the healthiest economies in US history, regardless of consumer sentiment and vibes, this is a fact based on objective economic metrics around unemployment, job growth rates, wage gains, etc.
Exit polls are no longer reliable due to voters lying. If voters were upset with prices, and therefore vote for someone with no plan to improve prices besides "I will fix them" and then does nothing to fix them, well, not much you can do about that. Voters voted, in some combination of economic unsophistication (not knowing "How do prices go down?" but believing anyone who says they could make it happen without a plan) and racism (below citation), for this. This is what they get until next elections. If they experience economic harm due to these outcomes, again, not much you can do about that, we're on rails assuming political and governance system election timelines. But this is how we got here, based on the evidence and data.
Abstract: Due to racial wealth inequality in the U.S.—inequality that benefits White Americans on average—many Americans associate White people with wealth. Yet, many White Americans report feeling like they, personally, are “falling behind.” We conducted a five-wave longitudinal study with a representative quota sample of non-Hispanic, White Americans (N = 506) during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. We found that White Americans who feel they are falling behind White and Asian Americans, while also being close to being passed by Black and Hispanic Americans, within a perceived tight status hierarchy, reported the most support for DEI bans and Trump, controlling for objective status. Further, White Americans with these status perceptions were most likely to vote for Trump in the 2024 election. We conclude that White Americans’ subjective perceptions of their position in the racial economic hierarchy meaningfully relate to political attitudes and behavior.
The Findings: Using a statistical technique called Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), we identified distinct groups based on where people subjectively ranked themselves and other racial groups on the American status ladder.
* We found a specific group of White Americans (~15% of our sample) who perceived themselves as "tied for last place" with Black Americans.
* Crucially: This group was the most likely to vote for Donald Trump and support bans on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
* Importantly, this effect held true even when we controlled for their actual income, education, age, and gender. In other words, feeling like you are losing status predicted voting behavior more strongly than actually having low status.
I don't disagree with your facts, just that they don't matter to many people when it comes to voting
Those people who voted based on their wallets were looking backwards, not forwards. I believe this is the core flaw in your logic about them selecting the best candidate for their wallet
fyi, why do you find this noteworthy? It is the expected outcome based on my understanding of the trends globally around wealth inequality over more than a decade. That "last place" defines much of rural MAGA, but a lot of them and many more talk about it without race. The elites / oligarchs (though not the words they necessarily use) are more often the cause (maybe as portrayed by the govt and globalists?)
> First, we think it is noteworthy that a very simi-
lar “last place” subjective status profile
emerged at all. This replication, even years
later, suggests that the feeling among some
White Americans that they are “last place,”
even if tied for it, has been a persistent under-
current in U.S. politics
No, DNC picking a bad candidate should be responsible for a D electoral loss, it is not responsible for Trump's electoral win. A lot of people seem to think only the DNC has agency in elections, only they should be responsible for outcomes.
You can blame the DNC for all the badness of Harris (the minimum badness you were able to choose in the election). You can't blame the DNC for all the difference between Kamala and Trump. That was entirely up to you.
I voted for Bernie in the primary, for Hilary; Biden; and Harris in the general elections. At no point did I think to myself "Now is the time to be an idealist about the DNC, right when we're combating fascism"
The DNC is an embarrassment, the two party system is a democratic disaster, but accelerationists? They're evil.
Before LLMs, Google was showing highlights which took crawled content and displayed it on google search results, meaning they’d get less traffic on their site while google stole their content.
It’s unfortunate that google helped kickstart the world wide web but now they’re extracting everything while polluting search results with ads
What’s missing from these conversations are the cost of living.
We’ve financialized the housing market, meaning the very basic needs of shelter now rises in price in accordance to the market. If tech workers make 2x or 3x the median annual salary, it makes housing prices rise for everybody else in the city.
In order to pay a “living wage” employers have to pay enough for their workers to make rent and groceries. In america, one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, the “living wage” is somewhere between 3x to 10x the offshore salary.
If you could house millions of people at the bare minimum cost, if you could provide them food and healthcare at prices that aren’t inflated, then the living wage doesn’t need to be so high.
We talk a lot about raising the minimum wage. What about lowering the minimum costs? That would mean a less stressful life for workers and cheaper labor for employers.
The financialized housing market is only a symptom of the over-regulation (through zoning and permitting) of housing, construction, and real estate in general. This over-regulation is itself a microcosm of the petrification of the majority of the economy.
There are literally thousands of years of sino-korean wars, so its hard to pin that blame on a specific government. Tibet is a more straightforward case of imperial expansionism from China, although it is also a centuries-old one, dating from Qing dynasty (1700s). The border skirmishes with India stem from mutual dissatisfaction with old British imperial border lines, which both governments disagree with.
Now compare that with the USA list. China's list is, to say the least, much more lightweight, straightforward and understandable. I'd go with that list any day, and most of the world would too.
reply