Readit NewsHow do you fix it when the incentives are skewed towards quick bucks? Government pushing certain industries has worked for China. There'll be a lot of opposition to that in the US I'd imagine.
Has their been a period or an asset class in recent history where informed individuals said something to the effect of, "You want to be exposed to X for when there's a correction" referring to an unreasonable low valued asset reaching a more reasonable valuation?
Similarly in the stock market, when things are going poorly, people are eager to understand what happened, so a "correction" is a comforting explanation that the underlying asset is still solid and it's just market dynamics at play. But when the stock markets go up unexpectedly, people are generally happy to accept their good fortune without thinking too much about it.
Though it's the road expansion itself that often leads to more sprawl.
It's worth noting that congestion in mass transit leads to better service. (Well, if you have a halfway competent transit agency, anyway.) More riders leads to more fares leads to more frequent service leads to getting you where you need to be more quickly.
Road congestion doesn't have the same effect. Maybe it's a toll road in which case you have some increased revenue, but often it isn't - so congestion is typically net negative for drivers.
FB's rebrand seems targeted to everyday consumers, so I would bet their brand strategy would change to cater to that, in a way that Google/Alphabet never cared to.
Unless you make up this difference with immigration, you have a declining population, which creates all sorts of short term issues.
Given that western countries have become increasingly hostile to immigration, especially from developing countries, trying to increase birth rate in western countries is a reasonable thing to explore imo.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
The US now has tens of millions of citizens that believe the election was stolen. I think they're mostly just "normal" people who have tuned out and now can't tell which way is up.
The reason I pay attention is because following news daily is actually less cognitive load than trying to catch up when a significant plot twist happens that might impact me.
If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.
I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:
- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job
- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place
- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs
All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.