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

help-circle
  • 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.




  • 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.


  • 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.



  • 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.




  • The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.

    It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.

    I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.

    We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.





  • We definitely do. But a few modifications could change the corporate system in a dramatic way. If we forced companies to account for the harm they cause, that would rapidly shift behavior.

    If you want to prioritize environmental behavior: Carbon-based taxes are one example, but there are plenty that can generate similar positive behavior changes. Even just basic regulations to tell them exactly what is and is not allowed. We’ve already successfully done with the EPA starting in thr 70s, we just didn’t keep up with it and instead allowed it to reverse.

    If you want to prioritize income distribution: Minimum wage was once incredibly powerful. In today’s world, I envision a ratio of executive to average worker pay being crucial (along with a better minimum wage). We should also enact a progressive tax system because it is not currently behaving as one. Once again, both of these have already been done with some success and can be brought up to speed to correct what we need corrected.

    Whatever the specific problem is, there’s almost always a way to enact legislation that can change the behavior. Correcting the legislative process is the first step, and even that can be done with the swipe of a pen (legislate over Citizens United and get rid of dark money influence).

    I’m not saying this is all easy to do, especially with the current mess we’re in. But it is possible under this system to create a better world, despite still having tons of money and a mostly capital-driven economy.


  • Yeah, and I have no idea where you are, but this goes far beyond the suspect cities like San Francisco. Not only are many of these workers spread out in tons of cities across the US (and world), it will also hurt wherever their funds were flowing to and the supply chains associated with them. Travel, electronics, food/dining, home furnishings, hobbies of all sorts, etc.

    Another big difference is that a lot of these are “new money” people. And I’m not using that in a derogatory sense. It just means that their spending is likely to be much higher than “old money” individuals hitting the same payday.

    If you’ve always had $10 million, you don’t go out and start buying shit like crazy even if you make another $2 m. But if it’s your first $2 m, you’re likely to go spend A LOT of it.

    And that’s real economic growth. It’s the opposite of trickle-down economics (which just causes more hoarding of wealth and slowing of money exchanging hands).


  • Agreed. And even worse, empathetic people are not selected to run companies. Even if they did try to put something ahead of money, they’d get kicked out of leadership immediately.

    Sounds like you’re aware of the corporate workings, but for those that aren’t: The board is entirely profit-driven representation of the investors. They select the executives who run the company.

    If executives don’t do everything possible to increase shareholder value, they’ll be replaced. Period. This fiduciary duty is also quite literally the biggest and arguably the only real legal responsibility the board and executives have to uphold. (Sure, avoid criminal action is up there, but it’s forgivable if profits are good enough… and no one is ever personally accountable for white collar crime.)

    This is how the machine is set up. And that’s why proper regulation is key. Companies should see profits decrease when they do actions that harm society, increase when their actions benefit society. Taxes, fines, and a regulatory framework that prohibits certain behaviors (e.g., polluting public spaces) are the tools to correct greed-focused shitty behavior. It’s the difference between developed economies with a strong middle class and a nice environment, and undeveloped ones with a handful of rich people living in a slice of luxury while everyone else suffers in disgusting conditions.

    This article focuses on disclosure, which could help in two ways. (1) reduce demand from eco-conscious customers, which unfortunately has proved to be relatively ineffective so far, and (2) move specific funding away. ESG investing is the primary concern. If board members are there to represent ESG investors (a growing sector), then they might have to account for something other than profits. It’s still doesn’t really hold as much weight under the true legal responsibilities (fiduciary duty is a VERY serious duty), but it’s a start.

    We really have to do more than basic disclosures and hoping for customers or ESG investing to save everything. Proper regulation is vital.


  • 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.




  • 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).

    You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

    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.