You might welcome them all, but you don't have jobs for most of them.

Still better than the US where they have no jobs AND they are persecuted...

And what's happened since 1995 (30 years ago!) ?

Because all the trends seem to indicate that to make a living people are working longer hours, holding multiple concurrent jobs (eg https://gameofjobs.org/are-americans-now-more-likely-than-ev...), and holding off retirement.

We started offshoring manufacturing and growing the service economy?

Now the service economy is turning into the sharing economy, I think the only thing we are sharing is the greater profits and they are taking the lions share.

What’s the problem with that? People are free to use their leisure time how they see fit.

They were likely pushing back on the original comment, such that it isn't solely:

> ...those who decide about how your time is being used...

which stops individuals from:

> [spending] more time thinking, writing, playing piano, and taking walks — with other people.

Which it seems you would agree with. I don't see where they asserted whether this was a problem to address.

Source? Surely depends on the population chosen e.g. does average American include retirees?

Pretty sure the figure he's quoting is average hours working. bls.gov tracks this.

So no, no retirees or students or unemployed or disabled in that figure.

It does include people who would like to work more hours though. One of the trends has been people increasingly struggling to get enough hours.

Profitability in both 3 month and 12 month spans. Also minimum 12 months of trading history after IPO.

See page ~9 of https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/methodologies/me...

> The point of rent control is to smooth out volatility. Rents can still go up, but the goal is to avoid sudden 150% increases etc.

Is it? I mostly see rent control maximum increases below the inflation rate, suggesting a different goal (appealing to voters?). If it were just to eliminate extreme volatility I think we'd see more 5/10/20% increases and less 1/2/3% increases.

Remote learning. You didn't see homeschooling, which is a very different thing, you saw remote learning.

The homeschooling crowd has developed methods over the years to compensate. The COVID remote learning cohort did not, and suffered for it.

Remote learning has also built many methods for success, and absolutely nobody even consulted them before implementing their ad hoc systems for Covid. There are entire online public schools and their staff were just ignored.

Have they?

And what ensures they utilize those methods, exactly? Many states you, as a kid are 100% educationally off the grid the moments say "We're homeschooling".

An acquaintance of mine fought (got mauled by) a grizzly bear a month ago. He went to the ICU (since released), but the bear got shot and died. It was a pyrric victory, but he did win the fight.

"fun" story and all, but the statistic in question is about people believing they could beat a bear in a fight with their bare hands, not with firearms.

I think the implication of the question is that one doesn't have a firearm

I didn't see it as horrible. I saw it as a story of human triumph. And good fortune.

FWIW, I didn't think the energy healing bit was sleazy because I had already been exposed to the musician version which prompts a student to instantly sing better by pretending that they are <great singer> and just singing like them. And it works.

It is true that both sides are working to disenfranchise the other. Mostly through gerrymandering. Like how California just decided to screw democracy with Proposition 50, because Texas chose to screw democracy the other way.

But the real risk isn't an attempt to appeal the 19th amendment. It is that an authoritarian executive abolishes democracy entirely. That this is the risk has been obvious for a long time. Latin America is full of countries who adopted constitutions based on the US Constitution when they threw off Spanish rule. Those democracies consistently fell when legislative deadlock and judicial corruption created a window for an authoritarian executive to declare a state of emergency and override both.

We have the legislative deadlock, and a court system that is rapidly losing public respect. We have an authoritarian leaning President who is already teasing about an unconstitutional third term. He probably doesn't have the popular support to actually abolish democracy. But if we remain this polarized for another decade or two, we're likely to go the same way as every other democracy whose constitution was based on ours.

In the US, there would have to be a constitutional amendment, and no amendment proposed after 1971 has been ratified, and getting 38 states to ratify disenfranchisement of women could only happen in a very different political landscape than we have today.

This is why it is vital to teach women how to build ANFO bombs.

Those infrastructure "investments" will almost certainly not generate the same return for pensioners as putting the money in an index fund.

Sure but pensioners care about consistency vs. gross returns. You really don't want your pension to lose a ton of value in a downturn because people are constantly drawing from it, it's a risk off investment. Bonds are also poor investments compared to an index fund from a gross return perspective, but that's not why people/funds buy them, they buy them to lower risk.

Perhaps not, but you also get the infrastructure, which is worth something.

Would you get the same net result if you put the money in an index fund and then bought the infrastructure? That's the actual comparison.

Maybe so, but I would contend it is worth considering the broader implications of those investments and the effects that new and upgraded infrastructure could have on the greater economy.

Speaking only for myself, I would be okay with a lower return if it also means we as a society have good public transit, roads that aren't more pothole than asphalt, water that doesn't have to be boiled on occasion, reliable power, modern internet, and so on.

I think it's implied that one would need to buy the cheap pants several times to match the lifespan of the expensive pants.