This article is well worth the read. Archived version:

https://archive.ph/p7fOG

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.

Shockingly, it is accurate as long as you consider age 3 and under a toddler. I also don’t think they’re literally tracking it by day but rather just more than 52/year. No matter the pedantic concerns, the deaths from guns in the US is sickening.

The evidence for this article was even investigated by Snopes and found to be true. They framed it as “more toddlers kill in the US than foreign terrorists.” This was all from 2015/2016. And it’s only gotten worse since then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

Gun deaths in the US are astronomical. In 2021, 184 deaths by guns from children 5 and under. More than 3 per week. From kids under 5 alone. This is a good read about gun violence in US children overall: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/

Damn near 50,000 US gun deaths overall in 2021. That is more than 130 people PER DAY. Just utterly depressing. And leaders still fail to bring about any significant change. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

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.

Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.

Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”

I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html

Why not judge them based on their work and performance? The employer is entirely free to hire or fire someone for how they perform on the job, especially in at will states.

If someone has a drug problem that impacts their performance, get rid of them.

If someone has a drug addiction that doesn’t impact their work, is it really something their employer needs to police?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At the current minimum wage ($7.25), it’s takes 2.757.6 hours or nearly 70 40-hour weeks to reach $20,000.

That is over 1.3 years of full time work to equal the one “cheap” car option. And it completely ignores any other costs, like taxes and interest, let alone god-damn housing, food, medical bills, etc.

This economic system is fucked. If you’re not fighting for income and wealth equality, you’re sociopathic.