Hiring illegal immigrants is risky and hurts businesses that choose not to cheat.
This article makes it out like neither the immigrants or the businesses that hire them have broken the law - when in fact they all have.
I’m no fan of ICE, the tactics are disgusting. but this article does not mention even once that both coming illegally and hiring illegal immigrants is a serious crime… in any other country you would deported for over-staying and no one would bat an eye. Why is the United States any different?
The flip side is: efficient capital allocation is better for our economy as a whole than trying to save certain jobs for emotional reasons.
Struggling businesses that can’t operate effectively and provide a poor return on capital should be shuttered - the only way to deal with the mountains of paperwork involved is to incentivize very smart people to work at very bad companies. smart people don’t like to work at failing companies. how to reconcile this and ensure efficient capital allocation? huge monetary compensation.
Is what they’re doing efficient capital allocation?
I’m not convinced anymore.
Market economics aren’t working the same when the government has turned particular knobs to a degree that nobody ever shows back up to serve the market once someone quality disappears……
for an incredibly long article on a niche topic readers are unlikely to be familiar with, astonishingly the author never bothers to describe what ABA actually is or provide more than 1 vague example.
A) The scale. It’s not a small number seeing the cave paintings
B) It’s who pulling to strings. Behind every screen based experience is some Big Inc doing all it can to influence you in way that often are not in your best interest.
I recommend reading “Stand out of our light” and if you have the time “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism “. Cave paintings would be welcomed compared to what is effectively psychologically warfare.
Every time I see a 3-5 year old in a stroller on the subway staring at a phone their parent passed them, or worse, has dedicated to the child's entertainment (stroller mount included), my heart breaks a little more - though when my own preschooler won't stay in his seat and insists on standing while the train's in motion (his balance is really good, but oh, the looks I get), I'm a little tempted.
The most common things homeless people ask me are if the train or bus goes to x or y or if I have a lighter. Sometimes I get someone asking for a dollar for the train, literally just a dollar and often right at the turnstyle. Actual pan handlers I don’t see very often. They are more common to see driving on freeway offramps than on foot. This is in LA county maybe its different in SF.
When I moved to a larger metro I would see people walk their dog and say, "Hey nice dog!" and get completely ignored. I get why after a couple years. they assume I'm going to sell them something or ask them for money.
In my experience, this does very by neighborhood. Midtown and the financial district? Absolutely. Up in Washington Heights? A significantly less touristy area, and one that feels more like a neighborhood, where I don't automatically assume someone wants something from me if they initiate a conversation.
It's called the "tragedy of the commons". You can aggressively police, you can have a high trust society with social norms, you can make things private property, or things can go to shit.
Those are the choices as I understand them, am I leaving any out?
People have always “booked it” in NY. Lived here for 30 years and talking to random people on the street has never been the norm. Slow walkers have also been a source of frustration.
Hey this is cool - our application helps real estate investors select locations. Our users would get a lot of value from this. Be happy to feature you!
This is totally unsurprising, but an interesting example of how people are expected to conform to “normal” behaviors. People that fall outside this narrow definition of what’s acceptable are still labeled “deviants” which is basically what the university is saying.
Also, the first amendment applies to the government restricting speech. A university is not the government so they are free to say that to be employed by the university you must not also do porn.
Bold moves by this guy, way to go in not being ashamed of who you are.
I think to a university administrator, money is paramount. So they are worried about donors, they are worried about alumni, they are worried about state and federal funds, and they are worried about the attitudes of the parents of prospective students.
Free speech on campus is a very distant concern, to be taken out and dusted off when there’s no real money at stake.
>Bold moves by this guy, way to go in not being ashamed of who you are.
Is porn-star an identity? It's a job. Some people sort trash, others fill Jira tickets, and others record themselves nude. Like drug dealing, it's highly profitable because the risk is built into the compensation. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If our society was A-OK with this then there would be no money in it.
It can be both right? Some people get paid as software developers because they love to build things. Some people post themselves having sex because they love exhibition or because they consider it art. Either way, what should it matter? It’s not illegal and nobody is forcing you to watch it.
I don’t find that to be a compelling argument. Donors, investors, employers, and governments should not have a right to tell us how to behave in our personal lives. If he was recording his videos with university resources, on university time, or while claiming to represent the university then sure. Otherwise it’s just people trying to enforce their version of morality on others, and we should all reject that.
> Also, the first amendment applies to the government restricting speech. A university is not the government so they are free to say that to be employed by the university you must not also do porn.
That's only true for private universities. Public universities are bound by the first amendment, and there are many examples of it. One example from my university happened in 2020, when a student posted a disgusting tweet about George Floyd, but the university knew it could not do anything to the student that would be considered punishment: https://fox4kc.com/news/kansas-state-will-not-expel-student-...
This is a shame that many gay people in professional spaces have to deal with every day. Sure sexual orientation is a protected class. But who on the HR team, the C-suite, your senior engineering team, etc. secretly thinks you’re a disgusting sexual deviant? That your voice is “unprofessional”? There are activities that are completely normal in gay circles that would get you put on HR’s shortlist if you ever mentioned them. Makes the whole “bring your whole self to work” business laughable. Only if your whole self happens to be completely white-bread WASPy Lexapro-laden cold soup.
Is that set of activities specifically related to sex/love, or are they more of a circle/subculture thing? Heterosexuals can engage in a variety of loving and erotic activities and some of them would be looked on with disapproval in a vanilla work world, even if they're not super unusual. Gays might have activities that are only possible because they're with the same sex, or they might have activities that heteros could also do but don't. (I'm going to self-censor on asking whether activity X or activity Y would count in your assessment.)
China's strategy has now changed: they used exports to build massive growth in their economy, but they are now using their exports as a kind of economic weapon that can be used in much the same way that Amazon crushed their competitors by artificially lowering prices to put others out of business...then raising the prices once they were the only game in town. China is doing something similar by making their currency artificially cheap to boost exports and by subsidizing production. Developed nations are taking note and building up their own industries again that were largely decimated by offshoring. Without protectionism, Chinese companies will threaten domestic businesses that are critical to the functioning of our economy. China is trying to save its ailing economy by dangling ever-cheaper goods to the world, but the world should not fall for this ploy.
This article makes it out like neither the immigrants or the businesses that hire them have broken the law - when in fact they all have.
I’m no fan of ICE, the tactics are disgusting. but this article does not mention even once that both coming illegally and hiring illegal immigrants is a serious crime… in any other country you would deported for over-staying and no one would bat an eye. Why is the United States any different?