Changetheview @ Changetheview @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

139

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

Good point. It’ll likely take three words to get a lot of those people to flip: own the libs.

Sometimes I forget how little value some people place in consistency of beliefs. Small government! Except ____. Ad nauseam.

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.

I can’t say for certain where it’s from either, but the longer version is now very popular in certain outdoor groups and at US National Parks:

“Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.”

Apparently one researcher was able to trace it back to a newspaper article from 1954 about Bandelier National Monument (an amazing spot in Utah).

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/05/30/footprints/

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.

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.

It’s an extremely common strategy now across many industries. Reduces responsibilities (costs and liabilities) and increases profit margins.

Good to see these workers putting up a fight. There are standards to determine employee vs contractor status, but they’re rarely enforced. And one major reason why is the lack of bargaining power. Many “contractors” have to work together and make a strong case that they are under employee-like control.

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.

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.”

Yep. A giant reason for this whole mess is that the only real representation at the top of corporations are for the shareholders. Executives are elected by the board to do one thing: serve a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

Workers might be lucky enough to be fed scraps of equity, but even that is rare now.

Not too long ago, corporate leaders in the US had a sense of dignity. They were always better off than most workers, but not by this level. Paying a fair wage to the labor that created the wealth was an intelligent and respected decision.

But a new generation came to power and has changed the whole game. Allowed and even celebrated greed. And instead of taking action to stop this, regulations have become more relaxed and allowed worker rights to erode.

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

You don’t think I can criticize my government? Because someone on the other team says the same thing?

I am absolutely pissed that democratic leaders have done jack shit when they have held so much power since 2008. And I’ll shout that from the top of any mountain.

Absolutely nowhere am I saying R leaders are better. I’m saying we can and should be pissed about this fact of D leaders. You are the one sewing discourse against someone that is calling for progress. Not me.

Obamacare did very little to actually change the insurance or medical industries and is a perfect example of what I’m saying. If you think the democratic leaders are willing to piss off big donors, you’re wrong. It provided more insurance access and subsidized the existing industry. It did NOT tackle the inherent problems with the US healthcare industry in any meaningful way. Was it better than the alternative? Absolutely. Was it the change that’s actually needed? Not at all.

Me: Democrats have held the trifecta TWICE since 2008 and had the executive leadership for all but 4 years. That’s 11 fucking years as the President and 4 of those with majority of both houses on congress. They have had the power, full stop.

Republicans meanwhile held the presidency for 4 of those years, trifecta for 2. And got a massive tax cut, greatly increased control of the courts, and gutted multiple federal agencies and budgets with lasting consequences.

Your personal attacks are a little wild man. You have no idea how old I am or what experience I have. I’ll just leave it at I am extremely well educated, knowledgeable, and experienced in the political, legal, and economic spheres. Not armchair analysis bullshit. Real world understanding and experience of how this whole system works. With multiple degrees and the resume to back it up.

And the only thing I am saying is do not trust current federal leadership to do anything except keep their big donors happy. That’s the system we’re in. Is one party better than the other? Absolutely. Has that party actually made progress in the fight for the people? Fuck no.

If you’re won over by a “but they haven’t had 60 seats!” argument and don’t think we need change that’s more than the current leaders or system offers, that’s pretty short sighted. You should be furious that these leaders aren’t doing more to help.

The technical details of that article are valid. A simple majority doesn’t mean you can pass any legislation you want.

But it does mean you hold what’s usually called the trifecta by most who are interested in this sort of thing, and it also means your party should be at basically the peak of its power. Minimizing this fact is looking at the trees and missing the forest.

And even then, this article admits that Obama actually DID have this for 4 months. They could have had bills ready to go and sent them through like wildfire. But they didn’t. To say “it’s not the democrats’ fault” is letting these leaders off way too easily.

The republicans after the 2016 election were able to pass a comprehensive tax bill which greatly benefited the wealthy in exchange for minuscule and temporary benefits to others. They also repealed countless Obama-admin executive actions and fucking STACKED the courts. How? By using their majority powers to put things to a vote and winning over the few opposing votes they needed through bribery.

All without the full 60 seats this article claims is necessary. The democrats when they hold the trifecta should be able to do the same thing.

The democrats are not pulling their weight when they have the chance to. 60 seats or not, having the simple majority and the executive power should be enough to get shit done. They let republicans do it, then fail to do so when they can. Don’t let someone convince you they just haven’t had the chance and they’re your saviors.

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.

I agree with you, but still think this is still an overly divisive take. This isn’t all directed at you or your comment - just some general observations that I want to share.

The fact is the damn near all federal politicians and their policies are in favor of their corporate and high-net-worth donors.

Democrats had the full trifecta after the 2020 election, executive branch and both houses of congress. The didn’t raise the minimum wage. Didn’t rollback trump-era tax cuts. At the end of the day, failed to take decisive action to reverse the wealth/income inequality plaguing the US.

The same during Obama administration - which set the stage for one of the biggest upward wealth transfers in history in the post-2008 economy.

Sure, both of these D leaders have made select changes that are against R policies (healthcare and student loan debt). But they aren’t our saviors. They’re undeniably shills for their big donors. Period.

This is why term limits and donor transparency (I.e., legislating against the Citizens United ruling) are necessary changes. We need actual fucking leadership. Ones who aren’t afraid of making moves that will piss off big donors. Ones who only want to be in politics for a few years to actually make the country better and improve lives for the masses. We simply do not have that option right now, outside a few rare examples.

It can happen. We just can’t be complacent with the current shit, no matter which uniform they’re in. We need real change led by real leaders.

This is sickening. 3% raises every 2 years. Ridiculous. But it’s so much worse. It reads like a horror story.

An industry veteran, 23 days working in a row, still struggling to pay grocery bills.

98% expected uptime on the factory floor, in some cases without climate control where the interior of the facility is at 120 degrees.

It’s just pathetic that this is how workers are treated in this century. We made such massive improvements in the 20th century. And now we’re just slipping right back. Literally allowing children to take on overly dangerous jobs and treating every worker like disposable trash.

The people making bank on the backs of these workers should be ashamed.

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).

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.

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.