I worry it may end up like the ‘70s when poor policy started to device large companies to seek greener pastures for their HQ and operations elsewhere.
Sometimes politicians think they have them by their noses and can turn up reaction to fix ineptitude, corruption or both but sadly for the politicians people and businesses can vote with their feet.
This only works if we the people let them. For example, I hear about the example of Kansas City — kcmo vs kcks — and I can't help but wonder, why do we allow companies to do this? It should be trivial for the people of Kansas and Missouri to come together and say we won't allow a race to the bottom.
> why do we allow companies to do this? It should be trivial for the people of Kansas and Missouri to come together and say we won't allow a race to the bottom.
This is prisoner's dilemma 101.
Or, less cynically, cities compete in a free market where they try to compete for a limited amount of capital investment; there's nothing wrong with a city offering more attractive terms to be more business friendly, if they so wish.
Some cities can offer perks like an educated workforce, educational institutions of renown, etc to compensate for a heavier tax burden but everyone and every company has a breaking point after which they decide to pull up stakes.
I love how this thread is talking about bad policy without even discussing any aspect of the policy that is bad.
Perhaps we should pull our heads out of the Fox News punch bowl to take a breath.
Y’all act like democratic socialist policy can’t work even though we’ve spent the last entire history of our country trying the exact opposite strategy only to have it not work out at all. The current status quo which is obviously not satisfactory didn’t come from socialists or leftists running the country.
Cue the “This is the world under communism” memes that are literally pictures of the current world under unfettered under-regulated capitalism.
The boogeyman of “the businesses will move out of NYC” is hilariously out of touch. Where will all these companies get the employees they depend on if they move operations to Kansas? NYC contains nearly the entire population of Ohio within its boroughs. Where do you propose these companies find employees if they all leave NYC?
You’re making the classic business bootlicking mistake of flipping the needs pyramid upside down. We don’t need to beg for businesses to stick around, businesses literally depend on regular working class people to survive. They are worthless without our labor and our dollars as customers.
Apparently the rich have already been moving out of NYC: from 2010 to 2022 the percent of people in the US with $1+ million in federal taxable income dropped from 6% to 4% [1]. A whole bunch left during the pandemic (unsurprisingly), according to [2], but it did not say if they came back afterwards. These aren't great articles, just the first that DDG gave me, but it suggests that there may actually be a trend.
People did move out of NYC and companies did move HQs out to NJ and elsewhere.
NYC lots pop during the eighties and didn’t not recover its population till 2000. It was an 8% decline in pop. They went from 125 F500 cos based in NYC down to 61 by 1986. Maybe that’s okay with you if it were to repeat but that’s a lot of a tax base leaving for better pastures.
This does seem close to the original intent of "doxxing", where information ("dox") is publicized that connects a real-world identity to a previously anonymous online persona. These are hackers in the classic sense who were going out of their way to stay anonymous.
The dilution of the word doxxing has been interesting, though. Some of the recent "doxxing" controversies have been about figures who weren't all that anonymous to begin with. The pop culture meaning has been extended to cover any mention of someone's real identity at all, even if it wasn't a secret.
Beyond diluting it also seems that people are increasingly under the impression that internet rules are also the same in real life.
I’ve been seeing it come up in discussions about court cases where people are under the belief that requiring online personalities real names in the court documents is somehow illegal because it’s doxxing.
I grew up on the internet but early enough that the phrase “the internet isn’t real life” was bandied about, which I think made it easier to understand the different set of rules existing.
Not disagreeing with your preface but I was under the impression that while it took governments some time to figure things out, kinetic bombing in retaliation for cyberwarfare was pretty much ruled out unless the cyberwarfare results in direct mass casualties (for example cyber sabotaging a refinery results in an explosion which results in casualties.). Else we’d have bombed North Korea, China, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, etc.
They should be forced to stay at a Holiday Inn Express and meet at a Detroit Denny's to discuss the future of the world. Maybe get some perspective in the process!
Nesbit and Wilson(1977)[1] suggest that we have little or no direct intro-spective access to higher order cognitive processes.
Most of our behaviors are a result of System I thinking and most of our moral rationalizations exist as System II thinking. It's extremely difficult to do what we feel is wrong so it's easier to intellectually synthesize a frame where we're morally correct than force ourselves to act against our possibly wrong intuitions.
Lobster and crab are both just as much a bug as a tarantula is, so the same reason that the seafood industry pushed lobster and crab into mainstream acceptance: profit.
Sure. But… why not push these foods on a population that is currently used to eating some bugs rather than one that only accidentally or unknowingly ingest them? Like there are areas of the world where insects are a thing. And the US isn’t one of them.
They were more or less remarketed as a luxury, though. Historically (at least in the US), lobster and crab were considered low class foods, if not outright fertilizer for crops. Some terrestrial bug could theoretically be given the same sort of luxury status, but lobsters have the advantage of actually tasting good. The best candidates would be snails and bee drone larvae. But what would be the point? Neither could be farmed at such a scale that they could be made food staples that are also better for the environment.
dont forget three mile island accident happened 12 days after this film was released. The combo really created a panic and a lot more activism, nevermind the movie was about bad safety standards at nuclear power plants and three mile island's safety standards contained the problem as expected.
The press was stupid. They were doing stupid gotchas like swiftboats, fake reports on GWB (Dan Rather), but couldn’t care less about things like the CIA and the crack cocaine connection[1], or lots of other things the government gets away with (including Clappers total information awareness unconstitutional surveillance efforts) The press is always carrying water for someone but that someone is rarely the public unless is just pure coincidence.
[1] there was one reporter who dared but the toll from the story resulted in his suicide, some years later. His colleagues poo-pooed his reporting on the connection.
* The Swiftboat thing was completely an ad campaign if I remember correctly.
I remember most media covering it as BS.
* The contents of Dan Rather report on GWB was true. There was one document
which was sketchy, but the whole report didn't hinge on the one document
from an officer's office. (E.g. Ex-senator Ben Barnes's interview is reasonably
indicting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-barnes-on-bush/)
The media did fall down though. Only one outlet went to the the Officer's
secretary (who was still alive) to ask if she had typed the document.
She looked at it and said (summarizing here) that it wasn't the document
she typed, but it was the same contents.
What's interesting is how easily the media is distracted. What's even more
concerning though, is that when the more centrist major media has tried to
be less gullible, they've been vilified. (E.g. trying not to be suckered
by miraculous appearance Hunter Biden's laptop.)
It's a mess, and the only way out of it is probably limits own media ownership.
Doping is a problem which offers offenders unfair advantages -the IOC combats that and looks like they are looking at other unfair advantages as well. It's a cat-and-mouse game. As of yet there is no perfect doping detector (it can have false positives) but just because it's imperfect doesn't mean they should ignore the advantage it offers these offenders.
Sometimes politicians think they have them by their noses and can turn up reaction to fix ineptitude, corruption or both but sadly for the politicians people and businesses can vote with their feet.
reply