• 0 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
rss

  • We all know that the hate for Mexico is nonsense. They aren’t coming over the border and stealing highly coveted jobs. The jobs that have actually been taken by immigrants are largely middle class jobs that require degrees, things like IT and medicine.

    In part, this has been fine. It drives the salaries down a bit because they’re willing to accept less to move to the country and even the lower salary is still much more than they would make at home. Companies win because there weren’t enough qualified people to go around for a while, so immigration closes the gaps.

    This is pure conservatism though. Allow foreigners to come study here in unlimited numbers, then let them stay to take middle class jobs at lower salaries in these non-union industries. It’s like outsourcing but everyone is in the same time zone and they won’t resist your return-to-office mandate.



  • I was mostly focused on how irritating it is that there’s yet another way that basic necessities are monetized, rather than on the actual implementation details.

    The government already tracks average home and property values for determining property tax and also for determining what is a reasonable mortgage for a given area. I was kind of thinking that it would just be in addition to property tax so based on your home value, so those with very large houses would already be paying proportionally more into it.


  • I would argue that the concept is flawed. The base idea is that you calculate statistics on how much you would be likely to have to pay out, then set premiums such that you’ll always be ahead of payouts. Essentially, everyone pays so that the unfortunate few who need help can get money out of the common pool to help.

    This is just taxes, basically. We already do this with fire departments and such. However, insurance adds a profit motive on top because it’s a company, so the amount they take in must always be significantly higher than the amount they pay out. And if it’s a publicly traded company then the amount they make above and beyond the amount they pay out must always be higher every quarter.

    Like at a certain point, why not just do taxes and better disaster relief? As an added bonus, the government would have an extra incentive to care about things that may make the payouts increase, like poor infrastructure or climate change.



  • And then interrupting that hold music at seemingly random intervals to tell you that they care about you, or to tell you that you could do this faster on their website.

    I had to call Assurant recently because their website literally threw an error and told me to call in and wouldn’t let me proceed. I was told by the automated messages no less than 4 unstoppable times that the website is faster, and then after explaining the situation to the person she told me that the website is faster.

    She was clearly reading the script and it’s not her fault so I kept quiet, but I have rarely felt such extreme rage in my life.






  • I think where points of view tend to diverge is in the definition of “harm.” There’s also some team sports at play, for sure, but I do think a big part of it is “harm.”

    See, a devout Christian might say that an atheist T-shirt encourages children to turn away from God, endangering their immortal souls. If you truly believe in Christianity, can there be any greater harm?

    At the same time, people who are more conservative tend to not view psychological effects as valid. If you do something that causes a person mental anguish, as opposed to damaging their body, property, or potentially their immortal soul, then it’s imaginary harm. To be totally honest, though, that’s one area I tend to be almost conservative. Psychological harm IS real harm, but I don’t think the government should be in the business of protecting people from it because as long as people have differing views there’s simply no way to protect people equally.




  • Here’s the thing. You’re sometimes right. There’s definitely negligent parenting that leads to juvenile crime. There’s also circumstances outside of the parent’s control… The community, the schools, the other children they interact with outside of the home, any mental illness or problems the child might have.

    The common theory here is that the parent should be more involved. But two things:

    • Children NEED some level of freedom. I’m so fucking sick and tired of the people who believe children should be monitored at all times. When you see it in practice, you immediately recognize it as a problem. Those children are stunted socially, emotionally, and in terms of their abilities. A parent who can 100% ensure their child does no wrong is 100% ensuring their child becomes a neurotic or entitled mess.

    • Available time and resources are not split evenly. Before someone says, “but someone who can’t raise a child shouldn’t have had a child” please keep in mind that peoples circumstances change. Ignoring the whole abortion debate, access to birth control, etc, a person who has a child with a loving partner with plenty of money can end up destitute and alone and still have that child. A person who has a support network of siblings and parents can lose them. A person with a reasonable amount of money for having kids can be financially overwhelmed caring for a child that has unexpected difficulties in life.

    Yeah, there’s shit parents in the world. But the law is a hammer that lacks the ability to discern a terrible parent from one who is just unlucky. It’s not the right tool for this job.





  • There’s some inherent risk in the ad blocker as well, though. If it’s an extension, you’re trusting that this thing you installed, that can read and modify every website you visit, isn’t going to do anything sneaky. Yes, maybe it’s open source, but every once in a while something sneaks into open source projects, too. It will get caught, but it could be after the damage is done.

    I mean, I use an ad blocker. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to value security and not use one.