Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely sounds like it might have been a good idea in the past but now overdo for a change. Sad that the current PM wants to continue destruction to get votes.

Seems like a good example of how policies need to be implemented with a forward-thinking mentality. Can’t rely on future changes.

The cost of solar and wind is becoming so attractive, it’s hard to see why anyone would do otherwise.

The elephant in the room (at least for the US; I’m not as familiar with UK policies) are the subsidies. It sparks new investments because many of the incentives are specifically related to new projects. Other ones mess with the valuation of the equipment, making long term tax burden much lower. It’s not the only energy industry to receive subsidies. But it’s pretty asinine to continue to support the one that’s destroying our world.

“In one case, it’s going to profit, amplifying the incumbent status of the oil and gas industry. In another, under more aggressive decarbonization policy and low oil and gas prices, it’s actively working against the climate goal by spurring additional production.”

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/subsidies-really-do-matter-to-the-us-oil-gas-industry-one-in-particular

Shockingly, it is accurate as long as you consider age 3 and under a toddler. I also don’t think they’re literally tracking it by day but rather just more than 52/year. No matter the pedantic concerns, the deaths from guns in the US is sickening.

The evidence for this article was even investigated by Snopes and found to be true. They framed it as “more toddlers kill in the US than foreign terrorists.” This was all from 2015/2016. And it’s only gotten worse since then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

Gun deaths in the US are astronomical. In 2021, 184 deaths by guns from children 5 and under. More than 3 per week. From kids under 5 alone. This is a good read about gun violence in US children overall: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/

Damn near 50,000 US gun deaths overall in 2021. That is more than 130 people PER DAY. Just utterly depressing. And leaders still fail to bring about any significant change. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

For sure. The US was once a leader with its public infrastructure and programs, from education to the highway system. Paying BIG money to provide these incredible public services.

Now it seems like a lot of people in the US want to live in a place with zero public projects, crumbling roads, and unregulated utilities. Even wealthy people who waste money on the dumbest stuff don’t want to pay for top-notch public services. I truly don’t understand how you’d want to be so wealthy but live in a place that’s not well cared for. Drive your insanely expensive car on a road filled with potholes. But selfishness and greed are definitely part of the picture.

Creating new public infrastructure in the US can be extremely expensive, but it’s definitely still worth pursuing.

Nearly every in-depth study shows that for every $1 invested, the economic return is somewhere around $4-$5. And on top of that, failing to have adequate public infrastructure can cause serious economic consequences, which are compounded in areas with a lack of affordable housing.

Even though this article is a little old and sponsored by a party with a vested interest on the topic, I think it’s worth a read:

https://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit

In my opinion, the problem for the US is convincing people/businesses that it’s worth it. Shifting away from cars and increasing investments in public infrastructure are two fairly unpopular measures right now, despite the actual economic evidence being overwhelming positive.

To me, it’s a solid example of where great leaders are needed to do something temporarily unpopular for the long term benefit of the constituents.

It’s rare for criminal action of corporate leaders to be charged, period.

I think a better starting place would be to change this. Be much more willing to hold malicious corporate leaders accountable for their crimes. They far too often fall behind the security of a corporate veil, which if investigated, usually ends up with a fine, a slap on the wrist.

Prosecutors are allowed to pierce the corporate veil for criminal actions, but they rarely do so.

The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.

It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.

I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.

We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.

Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.

Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”

I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html

Yeah, and I have no idea where you are, but this goes far beyond the suspect cities like San Francisco. Not only are many of these workers spread out in tons of cities across the US (and world), it will also hurt wherever their funds were flowing to and the supply chains associated with them. Travel, electronics, food/dining, home furnishings, hobbies of all sorts, etc.

Another big difference is that a lot of these are “new money” people. And I’m not using that in a derogatory sense. It just means that their spending is likely to be much higher than “old money” individuals hitting the same payday.

If you’ve always had $10 million, you don’t go out and start buying shit like crazy even if you make another $2 m. But if it’s your first $2 m, you’re likely to go spend A LOT of it.

And that’s real economic growth. It’s the opposite of trickle-down economics (which just causes more hoarding of wealth and slowing of money exchanging hands).

As much as I feel for the people hit hard right now, I think this is an economic indicator that‘s going to cause many downstream consequences if it continues.

On top of the downward trends by the tech titans, venture capital funding is plummeting. That’s because the VC investors can see that the likelihood of a big successful buyout is decreasing, mostly because the big fish are tightening their belts and facing higher borrowing costs (interest rates).

Many big companies have effectively outsourced R&D, waiting until a startup creates something worth buying instead. Then the VC employees either got a nice payout or employment with the big company (or both).

These often massive transactions were the source of serious economic growth. Those people had stability to spend in a way that many others wish. In the face of crappy outlooks and flat wages in tons of other fields, tech has long been the outlier making plenty of middle income people shoot up in wealth. And it did bring along others for the ride.

That growth drying up is not good for anyone. Well, unless you’re waiting on a market crash.

Very true. Even just writing (or rewriting) the regulations is full of ways to get whatever the executive branch wants.

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” George Carlin

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.

The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.

The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.

This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).

You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.

What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.

Wise of you to seek out advice and plan this far ahead. I’ve moved many times and have learned a thing or two.

First, savings. Don’t minimize them. It’s always crucial to live within your means and have cash set aside. Everything costs more than you think. The move, the new place, the getting settled into a new place. Jobs may not work out. Bottom line, do whatever you can to have some savings and quickly replenish it if you have to dig in.

Second, housing and transportation. Usually the two biggest out of pocket costs. Moving to a new area means you don’t know exactly where you want to live or what commutes are tolerable and where is worth living. So find something you’re comfortable with, but don’t overspend or get too committed. I love being close to work so I don’t have a long commute and will take a much smaller place to do so. I also don’t like living with roommates, so I often cut back transit costs and other expenses to live alone. If you don’t mind living with others, you can save a lot of money. But do not be house or car poor. See the first point.

Third, furnishings and getting settled in. It will take time. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself to create a picture-perfect home or have a big groups of friends right away. These things take time, especially to be done well. Cover your household basics (a good mattress is a worthwhile investment) then keep an eye out for second hand goods to get things started. Try to expand your horizons and join local groups or clubs to make some friends with similar interests. If you notice red flags, pay attention to them. Sometimes nasty people cling onto newcomers and can cause you unnecessary stress/problems. Seek out worthwhile relationships and nurture them instead.

Moving to a new places is one of the most exciting and frightening things you can do. But as long as you avoid getting your bank account too close to zero and take your time while putting in effort to live like a local, it can be absolutely amazing. I’ve lived in different countries, met people from vastly different cultures, lived on entirely different cuisine, and simply had some of the most mind and soul-expanding adventures in new areas. I’ve also missed my home, my family, friends I left behind, things I gave up, and more. But the reality is that all the material stuff will come and go, the time with family and friends should be cherished but not limit your life, and at the end of the day, you are the one in charge of your destiny. It’s up to you and you alone to figure out where to live and what to do to discover happiness. Just make sure to give yourself a fighting chance. Don’t go broke. And avoid abusing anything. Moderation and variety.

I write too much. Good luck!

Especially if you don’t give a flying fuck about using an established process or doing so legally

I think we’re saying the same thing, but it’s definitely not like giving it to charity that year. They are irrevocable trusts so you can’t take the money back from it, but the majority money doesn’t immediately have to go anywhere.

And even when money does flow out (beyond admin/establishment costs), there are TONS of creative ways to use it for personal benefit.

See Rolex and Hershey for two of the biggest examples. Or giant charity galas.

Many ways to use the funds for “non-profit” entertainment. Plenty of ways to get kickbacks from “charitable” donations. Non-profit status is not that high of a hurdle.

Yeah, the wealthy “giving it all away” is always a bullshit scheme in some way. If they really felt that way, they would have shared the profits with those who helped create them. This sort of wealth only happens in literally one situation: greed overcomes compassion for others.

These schemes usually fall into one of three categories:

1. I fucking hate my kids and don’t have anyone I think actually deserves this money, so I’m giving it to some random charities of my choosing when I die because I know damn well I can’t spend it all and I have to do something with it

2. I’m just putting it all into a charitable trust that I still have full control over and likely won’t spend much out of it, unless it benefits me personally

3. Straight up bullshit PR campaign about a future promise that is not binding

Quite often, it’s a combination of 1 and 2, locking up the money for a loooong time and only to be used for a specific purpose.

It’s an extremely common strategy now across many industries. Reduces responsibilities (costs and liabilities) and increases profit margins.

Good to see these workers putting up a fight. There are standards to determine employee vs contractor status, but they’re rarely enforced. And one major reason why is the lack of bargaining power. Many “contractors” have to work together and make a strong case that they are under employee-like control.

Not exactly what you’ve asked, but I’ve seen and spoke to people about this while traveling.

It absolutely still happens in many places that use more primitive construction methods. I’ve visited places in Belize where locals told me about devastation after hurricanes. It can flatten entire areas, especially the poorest ones. I’ve also witnessed it in parts of Mexico, although steel and concrete construction is much more common. Thatched roofs can be found in certain areas, and of course, people without means still use anything they can get their hands on to build homes - like thin metal sheets. A bad storm can destroy many homes, if not entire communities. Roads wash out and make transportation extremely challenging.

Sometimes people come together to rebuild. It might be as easy as taking down more local trees or gathering the materials that the wind threw everywhere. It’s still a pain, especially when most people capable of laboring would rather be working for income instead of rebuilding their home.

The unfortunate reality of today is that these events often cause mass exodus. People don’t have insurance, and the literal land they have might be the only asset between them and absolutely nothing.

This is when predatory investors can come in, offer pennies on the dollar for land, and grab up large sections for almost nothing. Then the people use whatever they get to try to make a fresh start, quite often in a different location where housing already exists, like the closest city. It would be possible for this to be a mutually-beneficial exchange, but it’s more often predatory as hell with extremely desperate sellers and buyers who don’t offer anywhere close to actual market value in a normal time.

Seeing this devastation makes you quite thankful for things like disaster relief, disaster loans, emergency responses on a large scale, and insurance. None of those programs are perfect, but the alternative is tragic (unless you’re wealthy and don’t care about the well being of others).

It applies to anywhere. The problem isn’t one situation. It’s this same story, repeated thousands of times in every city across the globe.

Bobby wants to live in a house. Monthly rent prices are usually around $1,000 per month in his home town.

Joe wants to make money by renting out a house on AirBnb. Hotel prices are usually around $200 per night in the same location. If Joe rents out his house for just 10 nights a month, he can make $2,000. This easily covers Joe’s expenses and puts the extra cash in his bank account. If he rents it out for 25 nights, he’s putting away a lot of cash.

When houses are up for sale, Bobby can only spend a similar cost as his rent. Joe has been watching his bank account climb and is ready to spend a lot on another house to put on AirBnb. Joe can make a profit even if the house is double the price.

Bobby’s landlord sees housing prices rise. Decides to either (1) increase Bobby’s rent to $2,000 - which he can’t afford or (2) sell the house to someone like Joe for a major markup.

Bobby has to move in with roommates and will never be able to afford to buy a home when competing against all the Joes out there.