"Loyalty" has been dead for decades, just look at that many accounts of successful teams and people that have been laid off in the last year alone. The same exact stories of hard working and dedicated people being laid off on a whim can be found going back decades.
There's a reason that so many people now get prompted by moving "horizontally" between companies, very few companies today properly reward loyalty, if anything most actively incentivize individualism and disloyalty.
Staying with one company made sense when pensions were prevalent and unions were strong. Tech actively disincentives people from staying in one place too long, and instead of changing that they seek to limit mobility via NDA's, collusion, etc. It is a grossly atavistic world they've built, and the whole idea is to keep wages as low as they can.
According to FBI data, crime is actually decreasing year on year in almost every metric despite police dereliction of duty. Ironically this is creating a stronger case for further police budget cuts and moving that money towards non-traditional policing alternatives. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/us/crime-data-fbi-homicid...
Tim Tok has been struggling with a massive problem where many creators that actually start to get big on the platform end up migrating to YouTube anyway because their pay sucks compared to YouTube, the same goes for instagram and every other platform in the industry. Youtube has a lot of problems but nobody pays better than them https://youtu.be/jAZapFzpP64?si=KrLqetuhzmer2T8H
Your link is dead... but the idea that the "vast majority" of Palestinians support a group that was elected way back in 2004, then immediately dismantled elections violently attacks any dissenters is laughable, Palestinians were bravely publicly protesting hamas (again, a group known for executing dissenters) just 4 months before the attacks, internal support for hamas is not high. https://apnews.com/article/gaza-hamas-demonstration-israel-b...
Link fixed. The source actually adds the nuance you mentioned. I guess it's possible they might oppose the Hamas rule, but also support the graphic violence of Oct 7th.
For sure, and that is where the government should be handing out heavy penalties. There supposedly is an appeals process, but obviously not enough auditing is being done:
While there may be trends none of the examples you cite are new, the only thing these trends definitively reflect is that society is changing, which is to be expected.
1) Feudal Society was overwhelmingly debt based with serfs in debt for life or even generations, medieval European society did not collapse but rather changed over time in part due to the unstable nature of this system.
2) not sure what "demographic cratering" refers to here, low birth rate? Low birth rate is a well understood economic phenomenon when a society reaches a position of high comfort and well met needs for its population. I would argue this is a good thing.
3) participation in communities of faith has historically fluctuated, such as during the renaissance era. and high participation is not necessarily a good thing, high religious participation among populations also coincided with religious wars where massive scale atrocities or genocide occurred.
4) increased drug use is generally not even a new trend, if anything just a change in what drugs are used. In use United States, Opioids currently are far less prevalent than nicotine was during most of the 1900's, weight loss fad drugs have been recorded as far back as Ancient Greek society. the increase in prescription drug use over the last 100 years has also coincided with a large increase of the average American lifespan.
Low birth rates seem to affect any group that adopts cell phones, including the non-high-comfort impoverished nations of the southern hemisphere. The only exceptions seem to be the communities of faith like Israel. Unlikely that this trend will be reversed so the problem solves itself over the next few generations.
Do you tip the janitors of each place you frequent? What makes wait staff any more deserving of a living wage than other occupations? Realistically tipping is just a subsidy for corporations who choose to take more profit instead of pay a living wage to their workers.
Wait staff in many states make below minimum wage, with tips expected to make up the rest. So I always tip wait staff and will still tip when theses laws change.
I also try to tip everyone I can when I have the means. Yes, I’d tip janitors, their job sucks, as do most jobs where you have to deal with the general public, and they’re underpaid.
The "expectation" of tips making up the rest is really just an expectation from the business that you will needlessly subsidize their payroll, in all 50 states the employer is mandated to always pay the minimum wage even if zero tips are earned https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/wagestips
I say tipping is unnecessary because there exist a few states like California who ban the practice of paying a lower "cash wage" and allowing businesses to keep tips for themselves. Anecdotally, I notice that typical restaurant bills in California are not any more expensive than nearby states like Nevada, Colorado, or Arizona.
The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway, so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
> The government regularly uses taxpayer funds to bail out or support failing private corporations anyway,
IMHO this shouldn't happen. It's one of the most annoying ideological inconsistencies I find among the Republican party.
The political rhetoric centers on eliminating or reducing government regulations and privatization. Ok cool, it can be good in many sectors. There's a lot to be said about avoiding large bloated bureaucracies and undue government interference. However then as soon as the big banks or other big businesses get into trouble after engaging in risky behavior they're as eager as the Democrats to bail them out (well at least their favorites).
Personally I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and think it applies even more so at large corporate levels. You didn't plan and save enough in the boom times and spent record profits to do stock buybacks? Well perhaps your company should go into chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I think people don't realize that when a big business like say American Airlines goes into bankruptcy, it's rare that the airline and jobs will disappear. It often means the management of the company is booted with a chance for new ownership more competent management to take over. That's as it should be, IMHO. It's the weeding mechanism for free markets.
> so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
That's generally not worked too well, unless it's fixed infrastructure like power, water, etc and those seem to work best at a state or county level. Then they're still structured as corporations, just ones that are publicly owned and locally managed.
No they don't. Those are usually loans, don't confuse a bailout with a loan. And don't assume equity holders do nothing but profit; if it fails they get nothing. (…Also I don't think it happens "regularly"?)
The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing.
On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
My understanding is the supposed "attack" happened 25 miles away from the airport and over an hour after the last tweet from the elonjet account. It's also suspicious that the LAPD came forward saying no police were ever called nor was a police report on the incident filed. This whole situation seems made up or at least strongly exaggerated.
really just flimsy excuse to ban an account musk personally doesn't like and any journalist who criticizes him as well.
I'm sure it's not a first event, but it seems Elon gets progressively more scared of antifa, which this driver looked like (possibly using uber/lyft as decoy).
You know that “quiet quitting” just means doing the absolute requirements of your job and nothing more above and beyond right? What cause could you use? “Employee only works exact amount of hours as required in employment contract and completes average number of tasks per day” is absolutely not a just cause.
There's a reason that so many people now get prompted by moving "horizontally" between companies, very few companies today properly reward loyalty, if anything most actively incentivize individualism and disloyalty.