- Headline unemployment _is_ "people who want jobs [enough to be looking for them] but can't find one". The metric you linked to is including people outside the labor force and then weighting in a fairly opaque way. Between labor force participation being at the same point as it was 2014-2016 and unemployment being lower, I don't think it's fair to say unemployment stats are misleading. The point about underemployment is still definitely valid though.
- I'm with you that minimum wage should likely be higher, but federal minimum wage has never been intended to be "comfortable wage in a major metro". Major cities have their own minimum wages -- e.g., NYCs is $16/hr. Making $32k a year in NYC would of course not be comfortable, but is doable (eg you can rent a room in an apartment for $1k/mo, live off of oats and rice, etc). It's not intended to be a "head of household" wage, but "the least amount you can ever pay anyone"
Other than these nits I'm with you that stats don't cover the lived experience of all Americans and there's more too it than simply vibes. However I also do think that some of the vibecession is due to increasingly effective media manipulation to squeeze money from consumers. I (coincidentally just now) wrote a blog post explanding on this hypothesis here -
https://medium.com/@digital-cygnet/manipulated-into-malaise-...
i've certainly never been counted towards that unemployment metric any time I've been unemployed. Am I not part of the labor force? The metric only counts people who actively apply for unemployment relief. So either I'm not part of the labor force—doubtful, as I'm employed—or "unemployment" doesn't mean "wants a job and doesn't have one".
Simply: the way the federal government employs the word "unemployment" is, at best, disingenuous; I suspect it is intentional, though, to obscure the intent to leave some part of the population without employment to keep the labor market weak.
In the USA, unemployment is based on a periodic, 60k household survey. You may not have ever been contacted but that's just the nature of sampling. It's true that some countries report unemployment as those who are actually registered as unemployed, but that's not best practice (and a good reason to be careful comparing country unemployment rates)
I agree it's a bad outcome that someone who gets so fed up with the labor market that they stop looking for work no longer counts as unemployed, but that's why we have labor force participation (and why imho that should be reported in headlines along with unemployment, after adjusting for age and education)
It's always interesting when I see this take because I was raised the opposite way and was really surprised to learn a few years back from articles like [1] that some people consider this an etiquette breach.
From what I can tell there are two populations: those who prefer to recline and those who prefer not to. As long as an entire column of seats belongs to one population you're fine (if everyone wants to recline no one loses space, we all just shift around to a configuration in which everyone is more comfortable). But when you have someone more comfortable staying upright sitting behind a recline-preferenced person, that's where issues arise. It's not clear to me whether it's morally wrong for the front person to recline in that case, given that's basically just preferencing the default of "upright", which is arbitrary.
Nothing here should be read as justifying people who don't pay attention to what's going on behind them and/or recline suddenly/aggressively. It's always something that should be done with a glance behind and a smooth, gentle motion. Maybe also a word to the person sitting behind though again I'm not convinced that's a moral imperative.
i do prefer to recline. i choose not to, even though the airline says that i am entitled to, because i know that reclining has a high likelihood of inconveniencing the person behind me (primarily due to loss of legroom and inability to use a laptop).
Same here; except I'll recline after dinner on long-haul flights, because that's the point virtually everyone does, especially when the lights are dimmed. I would never recline on <4 hour flights, and am irked by those who do.
(I wonder if it simply driven by an individualistic vs. collectivist mindset?)
Personally I don't get on a high horse about it and just deal with it, but if the person ahead of me reclines I lose leg room that me reclining does not give back.
Sorry, what's your position here - that any renting of a property is an "economic rent" and thus immoral? That makes little sense to me. I am a renter and glad to be so because I'm not confident I want to live in my current home for the 5-10 years it takes for purchasing it to be worthwhile. The landlord is providing me a service, turning a big, illiquid asset into something that can be accessed with only a 1-year time commitment. This is economically productive (allows me to live somewhere I otherwise wouldn't) and is hence not an "economic rent".
The classic example of an economic rent is a feudal lord putting a chain across a river and charging a toll. This is economically unproductive because it's just putting a price on something that was free (and, you have to assume for the example, non-rivalrous). This is why the sibling comment points out that the rent-seekers in the housing market are more like the people seeking to constrain supply via zoning and regulation.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, or approaching this wrong as someone who doesn't tend to have bad reactions to altitude if I am careful with it. But doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose? Won't your acclimation take a lot longer (or never happen fully?) if you're spending most of your time at sea-level pressure? I imagine these folks would be very comfortable in their houses, but the sudden increase back to 10k feet of pressure whenever they left home would leave them out of breath and susceptible to acute mountain sickness even weeks after they arrived in Colorado. Unless I am misunderstanding how acclimation works, this seems like refusing to rip off the Band-Aid.
There's also the other rich-person-pressure trend of sleeping in hypobaric chambers to simulate altitude and promote red blood cell and lung growth. Seems like probably at least one of these practices is wrong!
The article says that the oxygen is mainly for guests, who aren't going to have time to acclimate. Or the elderly for whom acclimation is much more difficult. It's not trying to be a perfect solution of any kind.
Title is a little misleading, as attested to by several comments here. It's more a standardization (which, yes, does include "banning" the non-standard labels)
Relevant quote:
> The law is set to take effect in July 2026, establishing a new standard for food labeling in California. It will require the use of “Best if Used By” label to signal peak quality and “Use By” label for product safety, an approach recommended by federal agencies
No, the confusion is over the price of an item beyond its magical date. The pipelines producing milk and eggs perpetually need shelf space tomorrow, so the date is an ordinal signal. These rules are the same independent of the political persuasion of the farmers and grocers involved.
Do you think this will lead to some kind of price decay scheme based on freshness? I occasionally see something like but nothing regular enough to plan shopping around buying almost expired products.
It happens here in Switzerland. There's even an app where you reserve a "mystery" bag, you go right before the shop closes (which is usually 6 or 7pm) and you get a random assortment based on what's about to expire at a massively reduced price (like 1/3).
Of course you cannot really rely on it if you have a specific meal in mind, but it's pretty good as an add-on, and it makes you try things you wouldn't usually buy.
That already exists in California, and is entirely unrelated the new legislation.
The law is simply that you cant use various labels like "enjoy by" or "Best by" and instead, all non-safety dates must use the exact words "best if used by".
82001. (a) On and after January 1, 2025, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, shall use one of the following uniform terms on the date label:
(1) “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of the food item.
(2) “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of the food item.
(3) “BB” to indicate the quality date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in paragraph (1).
(4) “UB” to indicate the safety date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in paragraph (2).
I think it is confusing because I dont think that replacing the texts "enjoy by" with “BEST if Used by” will have the impact the California legislature says it will of 20% reduction in statewide food waste.
It is confusing because I'm not sure if they are just boldly lying and actually that delusional.
Can you explain why you'd characterize it as hyperbole? Larger vehicles are demonstrably more dangerous[1], especially to children, and do put out more CO2 emissions. In what other context is it socially acceptable for people to put externalities like those brought by SUVs onto those around them? The one I can mostly think of is secondhand smoke, which at least in my part of the world is pretty heavily looked down on.
[1]
> compact SUVs, full-size SUVs, and pickup trucks all result in a significantly higher probability of pedestrian death when compared to a similar collision involving a car. Compact SUVs increase the probability of death by 63%, pickups increase the probability by 68%, and full-size SUVs increase the probability by 99%
I don't see the argument here. Importing less leads to selling less USD (yes), somehow leading to devaluation of USD? Is the implication that the dollar is strong because the US government "forces others" (foreign manufacturers) to buy it? Isn't that the opposite of the first thought, which implied that "selling less printed USD" was the reason that domestic manufacturing would be inflationary? I don't understand the causality, and it doesn't match my mental model ("a country that can build things domestically at a competitive price point should be deflationary because now there is more supply of stuff and equal supply of money"), so I think this could do with some expanding.
I see this view a lot, but every time I look at the actual data it isn't borne out.
BLS official inflation: $100 in Jan 2010 had the purchasing power of $144.94 today. That works out to 2.6%/yr by my math. So that's the "official" number that we want to disprove
Gallon of gas: $2.77 in 2010, $3.20 in Jan 24. 15% increase, 1% annualized
Honda Civic [not doing Mustang because it's harder to find data and as a luxury vehicle the comparison isn't as clean]: $16,205 in 2010, 24,000 today. 50% increase, 2.8% annualized
Big Mac: $3.73 in 2010, $5.69 today. 52% increase, 3% annualized
I live in an HCOL area, and did in 2010, so both of these sets of numbers feel a little low to me, but they mostly match my experience. As far as I can tell inflation mostly matches what the government reports, with some sectors coming in under and theoretically balancing out those that come in over (the classics of education, medicine, and housing). Those sectors that are outpacing are a real problem! But I think the consumer goods shadow-inflation people complain about is not borne out by data.
when i moved to louisiana in 2013 gas was <$2. it's routinely been $1.29/gal. It's currently $3.50 a gallon. I can cherrypick data, too. In 2010 i was buying literal jet fuel for $8/gal in california, gas prices in the intervening 14 years have approached that at service stations in california. (i have pictures, but why bother uploading)
McDonald's subsidizes their food with drinks; regardless, though, inflation (in last decade only) on McChicken is 199%, mcdouble 169%, medium fries 138%; taco bell: 5-layer 132%; popeye's mashed potatoes 134%. See? onion-picking the big mac as the basis makes inflation "look better"
My car insurance is double what it was in 2014. My electric bill is easily 60% more expensive than it was in 2014, i said that already. That's more than double the 2.6% BLS numbers.
we can go around all day, but citing the government for numbers about inflation seems counter-productive.
anyone else notice how few fireworks were going off prior to july 4th? or after? Is that normal?
I was going for sources that could be cited -- for instance, I could only find reliable data on the Big Mac because of the Economist's famous index thereof. If you have a good source for historical McDonald's prices I'd love to see it and compare.
Without having some data to compare I cannot differentiate between (1) you are correct, (2) you are misremembering, or (3) you've experienced the inflation you claim, but for particular reasons (eg, you got a nicer car, or, your area had an influx of high earners).
Also, a small nit: by my calculations 60% growth over 10 years is 4.8% annualized - outpacing CPI yes, but not more than double.
I've come to believe that there's a place for the more accessible enjoyment of the outdoors that the via ferrata seems to represent. Every park represents a different place on the spectrum of accessibility vs true wilderness -- from Manhattan's Central Park (millions of visitors of all types, requiring hard paths, railings etc) to Denali National Park (other than the road, limited to very small dispersed groups, kept few enough that it can remain a "trackless wilderness").
I don't begrudge someone who is not a very skilled climber their use of a via ferrata, provided that impact to the area (e.g. sightlines) is kept to a minimum and other options for more purists remain. I'm not a climber per se but this is the same attitude I have towards hiking, skiing, mountain biking, etc. I'm careful not to gate-keep casual folks using the Mt Washington cog railway because they get a lot of enjoyment out of it and it's a small blip in my Prezzie Traverse -- if carefully managed, there's enough nature for everyone.
Climbing is different. It is about very rarified and somewhat delicate places. Climbing is also always about balancing safety with ability. Anyone can hammer in ladders and assent a cliff. That isn't climbing. Make a route too "accessible" to the masses, make it easy, and the masses will loose respect. They will destroy it. Have a look at Everest base camp. It is effectively a landfill of garbage and human waste.
Accessibility is not the issue. Prestige is. A lot of people have heard of Everest, and many think it would be cool to climb it. Other equally accessible mountains in the region see much less human activity.
Also, the waste issues in the area are mostly due to serious climbers who go to less accessible places. Casual tourists stick to settlements, some of which have existed for centuries. Because the settlements are relatively wealthy and connected by decent paths, there seems to be less waste than in the average rural area in a third-world country.
I'm not against making something more accessible but I against destroying nature in order to do so.
If in order to provide access to a waterfall; you have to cut a road through a mountain and then clear out the trees at the base so you can construct a ramp for wheelchairs, you have disfigured the very thing that you wanted to preserve by having a park.
What is the difference, if any, between hammering these iron rungs and jack hammering steps into the rock face?
Why would we say that "via ferrata" is an acceptable amount of defacement while jack hammering is not?
My point is that it's a spectrum, not a bright line. We do, in fact, have roads that go into parks. Some parks even have trails; some even provide bathrooms and campsites, with varying degrees of amenities. All of these things increase accessibility at the expense of the nature and wilderness of an area, so it's important to have lots of diversity in degree of hardening: does every waterfall need an ADA ramp? Probably not; should no waterfall in the world have an ADA ramp? No, that's needlessly cruel to disabled folks who deserve reasonable access to natural beauty.
There should be (and are) sites of natural beauty you can take pubic transit to, drive to, roll to, bike to, ski to, hike to, climb to, ice climb to, and yes, even cannot access at all, each category with it's own sub spectrum of difficulty (eg some one mile hikes, some weeks long treks). To me a via ferrata seems like the left hand side of this spectrum -- something in an already heavily impacted area that gives casual users access to something they otherwise wouldn't. If someone starts proposing putting them there they don't belong (real wilderness, serious climber spots) I'll be with you in advocating against that.
- Headline unemployment _is_ "people who want jobs [enough to be looking for them] but can't find one". The metric you linked to is including people outside the labor force and then weighting in a fairly opaque way. Between labor force participation being at the same point as it was 2014-2016 and unemployment being lower, I don't think it's fair to say unemployment stats are misleading. The point about underemployment is still definitely valid though.
- I'm with you that minimum wage should likely be higher, but federal minimum wage has never been intended to be "comfortable wage in a major metro". Major cities have their own minimum wages -- e.g., NYCs is $16/hr. Making $32k a year in NYC would of course not be comfortable, but is doable (eg you can rent a room in an apartment for $1k/mo, live off of oats and rice, etc). It's not intended to be a "head of household" wage, but "the least amount you can ever pay anyone"
Other than these nits I'm with you that stats don't cover the lived experience of all Americans and there's more too it than simply vibes. However I also do think that some of the vibecession is due to increasingly effective media manipulation to squeeze money from consumers. I (coincidentally just now) wrote a blog post explanding on this hypothesis here - https://medium.com/@digital-cygnet/manipulated-into-malaise-...