This is why Europe must take control of its own defense. Europe doesn’t want to be a mere vassal of the US for precisely this reason.

The United States is currently experiencing a shortfall in the number of immigrant workers. This has exacerbated service disruptions and labor shortages in vital industries that rely on immigrant workers, like leisure and hospitality. However, the impact of this shortfall extends beyond just the industries in which foreign-born workers perform a significant share of the labor. For example, immigrants also help counteract the slowing growth rate of the U.S. population, which helps drive the expansion of the labor force and contributes to overall economic growth.

Foreign-born workers are more likely to participate in the labor force than their native-born peers. As a result, immigrants have helped power the U.S. economic recovery by returning quickly to work, despite being disproportionately affected by job losses during the pandemic.

The importance of foreign-born workers will only continue to grow over time, as these workers remain vital to sectors that drive economic innovation and competitiveness. For example, jobs in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), which rely on the contributions of immigrants, are projected to continue growing faster than other occupations. Similarly, foreign-born workers are vital to the care industry, shouldering a significant share of the work performed by home health care and child care workers. Immigrant workers, a significant share of them women, are also helping to meet the growing demand for caregivers as the overall population ages.

Article

Am I the only one who finds this kind of disturbing? We need immigrants because Americans aren’t willing to do certain jobs, for the amount of money that companies want to pay, and because Americans aren’t having enough babies? We need immigrants because we don’t do a good enough job developing talent and competency in STEM fields? We need immigrants because our people don’t want to do home health care or child care work, for the amount of money those companies are willing to pay? It sounds like immigration is necessary due to our own failures.

That’s not good, and I don’t think immigration really solves the problem. In fact, I think it makes it worse, because it allows us to continue to not invest in our own people the way we should. Plus, what happens to those other countries? If we have all their talented and hard working laborers, what are they going to do?

Over the past few years, about 4 in 10 young women between the ages of 18 and 29 have described their political views as liberal

I wonder how the other 6 in 10 young women would describe their political views. While 40% isn’t a majority, I would think liberals are a plurality. Still, it’s a little disheartening that there isn’t a clear majority in the US. It would be nice if a majority of Americans could reach a consensus.

Global sales of fully electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles rose by a yearly 20% in August, driven by record high sales in China…Increased subsidies in China for drivers trading in more polluting vehicles helped drive the EV sales jump in August

I used to advocate for Linux, because I wanted more people to use it, so that more software devs would support it. I care a lot less about that since proton came to prominence. Linux still doesn’t get all the support from devs that I want, but there’s so much great software available now, both open source and proprietary, that I don’t really worry about non Linux users anymore.

So use whatever OS you want, folks. I don’t really care.

RIP Lt. Zogg

Not to be hyperbolic, but this reminds me of when cult members describe the process of them becoming disillusioned with the leader until they finally decide to leave. I’m serious when I say that modern corporations, especially in tech, can often be quite cult like. There is often some charismatic, visionary, larger-than-life personality at the center. Many of the people who work at these companies aren’t so much employees as they are disciples. They are members of the leader’s cult of personality. Many investors, too. They have fully bought in to the leader’s vision, and some will follow their leader seemingly no matter what.

This person even has that kind of wistful tone of a cult member who had to leave the cult because they couldn’t ignore the leader’s increasingly problematic behavior anymore, but still believes in their vision and wishes things could have turned out differently.

There’s nothing wrong with having a vision or wanting to build a better future, but be very, very cautious about any movement centered around a single personality. In the case of Musk, the warning signs have been there for a while. I think the best representation of this was when Musk guest starred on the Simpsons almost ten years ago, and was introduced as “possibly the greatest living inventor!” It was the height of Musk propaganda.

I will never buy a Tesla, so long as the Musk cult exists. I’m sure Teslas are good cars, but I will not support the cult of Elon Musk. He is too dangerous.

Classic schlock.

When people are told that depression is an aberration, we are telling them that they are not part of the tribe. They are not right, they don’t belong. That’s when their shame deepens and they avoid social connection.

And that’s not the only reason people are made to feel they’re not part of the tribe, that they don’t belong. There are many things in this modern (post modern?) world that cause us to become alienated from other people, even and especially those in our own community. The nature of community itself has changed. Many relationships and social institutions feel more tenuous or impermanent.

It’s a vicious cycle: people feel alienated from others, it causes them stress, the stress causes anxiety, that leads to the immobilization response and depression, the effects of the anxiety and depression cause people to become further alienated from others, and the process accelerates and perpetuates.

Sorry, you’re all getting techno-feudalism.

I know a Gen Zer who’s hoping her Gen X parents will leave her their house and their 20+ acres of land, but it ain’t gonna happen. When they reach retirement age they’re going to sell it all and that’s going to be their retirement. Retirement is expensive, and the longer you live the more expensive it is, especially if you get sick, and you will get sick, eventually.

Revolution is a process, not necessarily an event. A lot of people seem to think of revolutions as single events, usually wars, but those revolutionary wars are only parts of a much larger revolutionary process. The industrial revolution, for example, took place over about a century, and then the second industrial revolution occurred over multiple decades. These industrial revolutions coincided with the rise of capitalism. It’s likely we couldn’t have had one without the other. In that regard, capitalism didn’t emerge as a result of a single, revolutionary event, it emerged gradually, organically over decades, generations, and even centuries. The revolutionary process that led to the emergence of capitalism involved many reforms. There’s no reason to think socialism would be any different. Any revolutionary process is likely to involve, or even necessitate, many reforms. I don’t think there is a strict dichotomy between reform and revolution, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think people just get impatient. They see reforms as too slow, they want the end of capitalism, and the transition to socialism, now. These people think that if they just have enough guns and soldiers they can force the end of capitalism, but this is simply wrong. No one can force the end of capitalism, it must come about organically. The only thing that can end capitalism, is capitalism. It must be allowed to run its course. Socialism will arise as we look for solutions to the problems caused by the internal contradictions inherent to capitalism. I think where direct revolutionary action will be most necessary is to counter reactionaries.

One reason the suburbs even exist is that there isn’t space in the city for everyone. Many suburban families would rather live downtown but cannot as they do not have the mega millions to own a 3br condo.

But I think the reason there isn’t space for everyone in many cities is because a large percentage, or even a majority of the land in many cities is zoned for single family only, even very near downtown areas. I think parking requirements have a lot to do with it as well, since they result in parking lots being built where condos, or other multifamily housing could be built. Theoretically if you get rid of single family only zoning and the parking requirements, more housing units could be built, even larger units, increasing their supply relative to the demand, thus bringing down the per unit price.

But maybe that theory is flawed. Maybe the problem goes deeper than zoning and parking requirements. A lot of these real estate developments are investments, and investors have an incentive to not build so much housing that the per unit price goes down significantly. Some people might argue that developers and investors could make up for lower per unit prices in volume, but that’s only true if they are large enough and have capital resources to produce at that higher volume, which might be fine for very large developers and investment companies, but not for smaller ones. Plus, large or small, why try to make money selling or renting more units at a lower per unit price when you can make the same amount of money selling or renting fewer units at a higher per unit price?

I think the thing that would help the most would be to get rid of single family only zoning. That should result in a lot more, higher density housing being built. However, that’s not going to bring down the price of single family homes. In fact, it would probably make them more expensive. Maybe not everyone would think that’s such a good thing, but it’s absolutely necessary if we want to reduce car dependency.

Nobody’s laying tracks all over the place to actually make cars obsolete - that would be an insane waste of space, resources and time.

Cars may not require tracks, but they require infrastructure. You’re not driving anywhere without roads, bridges, and other car infrastructure, unless you are driving a fully off-road vehicle.

I’m ok with a decent amount of tech in a car. Like I’m fine being able to connect my phone to the car and have android auto take over the infotainment system.

This reminds me of my 2016 Honda Civic. It had just the right amount of tech.

Tesla’s have become much more price competitive, in those two segments (obviously that’s not the case in the truck segment, since the Cybertruck is the most niche of niche trucks). If you’re looking specifically for what Tesla is selling, it can be a great option. But, not everyone wants those models. Price isn’t the only dividing line, it’s also how it drives, styling and features, but also the brand. Companies like Ford and GM are pretty simple: they make and sell cars. Tesla is explicitly trying to disrupt the auto industry. I don’t think everyone wants to buy a disruptive product. I think Tesla has tried to “fix” problems that weren’t really problems, at least not for everyone. For instance, I don’t think most people were thinking, “I wish I could replace all the physical dials and switches in my car with a single, 20 inch iPad.” Or, “I don’t like how door handles work, let’s change them.” Tesla is clearly selling what some people want, I’m just not sure it’s what most people want.

Rivian and Tesla make products for a different consumer demographic than Ford and GM. Ford and GM make cars, Tesla and Rivian make tech products that drive. Some people want what Tesla and Rivian are selling: advanced, high tech machines that don’t look or operate like a traditional car, and some people want what Ford and GM are making: cars. Just cars. I don’t think most car buyers care all that much if their car is ICE or electric, as long as it’s affordable, easy and convenient, and meets their transportation needs. I don’t think EVs can replace ICE vehicles until they are just cars, that meet the needs of people who need a car (or truck).

I look at something like the Chevy Silverado EV Work Truck. It’s a good truck, that does truck stuff, with a lot of range and good power. But, it’s $80k. Most people just ain’t gonna spend $80K for a work truck. Some people will pay $90K to $100k+ for a high end luxury truck, like the Hummer EV truck or the GMC Sierra EV Denali, but those are high end vehicles for a relatively niche market. The mainstream options just aren’t quite there yet. Battery prices have to come down more, so that vehicles can be price competitive, AND, there needs to be more charging infrastructure.

That being said, there are options coming to the market that are getting close, like the Chevy Equinox EV or Honda Prologue. Those are relatively affordable, decent to good cars, that also happen to be electric. I think the only thing holding those cars back from wider scale adoption is charging infrastructure.

Here’s a picture of Middle Age Riot

I don’t think the housing crisis is being caused by people who live in rural areas and don’t want there to be endless urban and suburban sprawl. Most people want to live in urban areas, because those areas are where the jobs, shops, and infrastructure are. Sprawl is expensive, inefficient, and bad for the environment. It should be prevented as much as possible. But, the only way to prevent it is to make housing in urban areas, the area where people want to live because it’s where everything is, more affordable, and that means building more, dense housing in those areas. The real NIMBYs are people who own low density, single family homes in urban areas and don’t want higher density housing to be built in that area because it would bring down their property values.