ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
My position (half of which I agree is unsupported by the linked article) is that maintaining a caloric deficit OR maintaining a low weight will cause lethargy and therefore reduced energy expenditure in people who are disposed to obesity.
Clearly, the latter half is supported by the linked article, and my contention is clearly with the former half. Do you have any evidence to marshal for this proposition? Any estimate of the magnitude of this effect? What assumptions are you using? Like, "An X Age, Y Sex, Zlb individual has a maintenance calorie requirement of A. They plan for a calorie budget of B, meaning an A-B deficit. At the moment that they start eating at that deficit, before they lose any weight, their body suddenly shifts to having a maintenance requirement of C, where, plausibly, C<=B." What numbers are you using, and where are you getting them from?
EDIT: Moreover, does this work in the other direction, too? If they start eating D calories, where D>A, does their body suddenly adjust to using more energy, so that their new caloric requirement is E, where, plausibly, E>=D?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
morbidly obese people who lost a lot of weight
Ok, so you're saying that you start CICO, you lose a bunch of weight, and then your caloric expenditure goes down? Yep! Sounds right. Why is this "the problem with CICO"? That doesn't sound like a problem at all with CICO. That sounds like the standard thing that CICO people say. You have less mass, often both fat mass and lean mass. So you use less energy. Uh, duh?
You had made it sound like it was something that just happened when you started eating less. That you just start eating less, then your body magically changes, and you never get around to losing weight. That would be a problem for CICO. But not the case where you start eating less than your maintenance, lose a bunch of weight, and then have a lower maintenance. That's just science.
Trex is great. Love his podcast; glad he keeps inviting that guest co-host on. I am 100% confident that, were he a Mottizen, he would absolutely be binned as a CICO-guy. Literally everything he's saying in that article is starting from the premise of CICO. He would not start a sentence, as @jeroboam did, with, "When it comes to CICO, the problem is..." Like, no. Full stop. He would say, "CICO is absolutely true. Now, there is a question about metabolic adaptation as you're going through a cut. Let's dive in."
So, let's start from your comment, not the article:
it's within the realm of plausibility that when an obese person loses a lot of weight, their system down-regulates non-exercise activity thermogenesis by somewhere in that range.
Notice that the premise is "when an obese person loses a lot of weight". @jeroboam didn't grant that. To him, it seems like as soon as you start eating less, your body drops its metabolic rate through the floor, and you never ever get around to losing the weight. That's why I asked him to specify the assumptions he was working with. If he was going to sneak back in a qualifier of, "...after you lose a bunch of weight..." then I wanted that to be clear. In fact, Trex gives even huger sounding numbers:
When a person loses 10% or more of their body weight, their total daily energy expenditure drops by around 20-25%.
But notice, that's after someone loses 10% or more of their body weight. I mean, obviously, there's some progression down to it along the way, but you actually do lose the weight! It's not just from the diet change, it's from actually losing weight. This is a standard piece of the standard understanding. If you lose a bunch of weight, your energy expenditure goes down. If you need to lose even more weight after that, then you're going to need to revise your calorie intake further downward. This is pretty straightforward.
It's something that, if you're trying to coach someone through weight loss, you need to understand from both sides, because you're going to have both types. You're going to have the person who is just trying to lose ten pounds, and you set them up with targets, but as they get into it a little bit, they're convinced that metabolic adaptation is super duper huge, and they suddenly need to eat, like 700 fewer calories a day than the target you already set for them. You need to reel them back and be like, "No dawg. It ain't gonna be that big for you. It might be there a little bit. Might push your timeline out a little bit, but just don't even think about it." And you're going to have the other person who legit needs to lose 100lbs, and they're absolutely going to need shifting targets on the way down, but that's going to be over the course of months. You will need to prep them for this at some point. And you'll need to prep them for the idea that they're probably never going back to the maintenance level they had before. That they're going to end up eating less forever, but after they've lost the weight, it will in fact be easier to do so, because it will be their new maintenance.
EDIT: I just want to quote Trex's concluding paragraph from Part 1:
The scientific literature has rigorously and repeatedly shown downregulation of energy expenditure, and the long list of physiological changes that accompany it, in response to weight loss. The controversy comes from how some of this information has been discussed, such as implausible anecdotes of fat gain despite remarkably low caloric intake, or the use of less rigorous terms like starvation mode. Rest assured, there is not a single member of our species that can elude the inescapable grasp of starvation; our caloric needs for weight loss may fluctuate from person to person, but we all have a number. Furthermore, nobody is failing to lose fat because they are eating too few calories. Metabolic adaptation places speed bumps in our path to fat loss, no more and no less. But this raises the next important question: Can we do anything to circumvent these speed bumps?
This is not a man who is going to say, "CICO is a problem," or "CICO doesn't work", or whatever.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
If they burned 3000/day before, now they are only burning 2700/day as their activity levels falls to match the lower energy.
Where are you getting these numbers? Are they coming from a table/calculator based on published scientific data? Did you, like, plug a different activity level into the equations that were in the link I gave to the Canadian government's site? Are you going to some review paper that details this effect? For example, this meta-analysis of the effect of exercise programs on resting metabolic rate says that mayyybe the delta there is like 70-100cal/day. Where are you getting 300cal/day just from diet changes, and what are your assumptions?
Weight Loss (...yes, again...)
I listen to a variety of podcasts, and I generally do what I can to avoid listening to ads along the way, even if that's just manually skipping ahead through them. But occasionally, my hands are busy with something else, and I just have to deal. In any event, last week, I heard an ad for GOLO, a weight-loss program.
I'm not at 'current episode' on all of my podcasts; I'm listening to back catalog for some of them. I didn't think to go check the date on it, and I don't even remember which podcast it was in at this point, so I don't know if it was a few years old or brand new, but at whatever time it was, they were touting it as a "new approach". Forbes' review of GOLO says 2023 on it, so presumably it's pretty recent.
I was curious about what the Kids These Days are doing, and you may have seen me here before talking about weight loss, so I decided to check it out. I was sooooo ready to hate it. After checking it out, though, in some sense, it actually pleases me a fair amount. In another sense, it illustrates quite well a phenomenon I've been seeing in terms of our society's collective psychology about the topic.
What's GOLO about? From their website... insulin resistance! Muscle loss! These are the bad buzzwords. Metabolic efficiency! Immunity Health! Hormone Balance! These are the good buzzwords. Plus, they have a magic supplement! It's easy! Just take one capsule with each meal. It's in a paragraph that starts with "The Science Behind GOLO", in bold and everything. The Science (TM) is right there! They even shit on CICO, helpfully pointing out in all caps:
YOU DON’T NEED TO COUNT CALORIES, COUNT POINTS OR FOLLOW AN APP. THE TRUTH IS, LOW-CALORIE, LOW-FAT APPROACHES DON’T WORK.
Let's dive in, see what's really going on. Obvious first place to start is their supplement; what's in it? 7 plant extracts and 3 minerals, of which, best as I can tell, chromium is the star of their show. Of course, best as science can tell, there is just the barest degree of plausibility, and Examine concludes by pointing out:
Anyone wishing to supplement chromium should be aware that chromium supplementation is not associated with any reliable benefits on markers of glucose metabolism.
Ok, so if their magic suppliment isn't exactly Ozempic, what do they have going on? Gotta dig into 'More Information' on their site.... then be careful! Don't fall into the trap of clicking on any of the distractions, even the one that promises to tell you what their 'GOLO For Life Plan' is. Gotta go to the FAQ. That's where you've gotta dig down into the question about what the GOLO For Life Plan is. It helpfully states:
The GOLO For Life Plan combines the right foods together to help manage and optimize glucose and insulin levels while creating a thermogenic effect. The GOLO For Life Plan improves weight loss in two ways:
- Minimizing or eliminating muscle loss and maximizing fat loss
- Providing proper nutrition that includes healthy fats and carbohydrates which eliminates nutritional imbalances and promotes steady weight loss and better health.
On the GOLO For Life Plan, you can eat more food and lose weight without the obstacles you may have faced with other diets.You will be eating between 1300 and 1800 calories each day, and will:
- Stay full and energized
- Keep insulin steady throughout the day
- Give your body proper nutrition
- Reduce hunger and cravings
- Learn how to eat to promote weight loss
- Learn how to maintain your weight when you reach your goals
I tried to be helpful and cross out all the noise that isn't relevant for us at this point. What is the real key to a fancy new diet for weight loss that has all the buzzwords that people use when they say that CICO is garbage? It was CICO all along! There are more telltale signs that this is just a recycling of what we've known for a long time. 1300-1800 is a pretty wide range, so what's going on? Two more items further down in the FAQ, under How is the GOLO For Life Plan Personalized?, we see:
The GOLO For Life Plan is based on your energy needs. We help you determine the right amount of food that you need, to lose on average, 1-2 pounds per week.
That Forbes article fills in some more details:
While everyone has the same food guidelines, your specific caloric intake recommendation is based on your gender, age, current weight and activity level.
The government of Canada has helpfully published basically exactly this sort of thing on their website for years. We've known how to do this for years. Weknowdis. Moreover, the real, actual science has confirmed for decades that to a pretty darn good level of approximation, 500cal/day from your TDEE is right about a 1lb/wk weight loss/gain. Weknowdis.
Forbes says, "Programs range from 30 to 90 days," but I can't find solid details on the GOLO website. Most of the examples are people who did stuff for 6mo-1yr. Best I can tell, they're basically just selling the supplement, and then I guess giving away the meal planning to put you in the right calorie range. So, for a bit, with the Forbes wording, I was wondering if they were actually going to have some trick to try to get you to do it for 1-3mo, then 'cycle off', but try to figure out how to get you to just go back to maintenance caloric intake, then say that you should start another 1-3mo cycle. Maybe that's buried somewhere in the planning tool they're giving away with every purchase of the supplement. Final thing to point out, which I couldn't really find in detail on the GOLO site, Forbes says:
GOLO also provides eating guidelines, encouraging you to eat more whole foods (including fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs and grains) while avoiding sugar and processed foods.
In the end, what have they done here? It actually almost makes me proud of capitalism. They've found a way to package and monetize the bog standard, traditional advice for losing weight. You could just listen to the CICO people, the honest doctors, the fitness people, etc., who tell you the same basic advice. Stop eating total crap like piles of dessert all the time. Stop drinking big gulps of straight sugar calories, no matter whether they're soda, juice, or whatever other trendy beverage is happening right now. Eat at about a 500cal/day deficit to shoot for 1lb/wk of weight loss, eat regular foods, and maybe if you're feeling physical/psychological effects after getting somewhat deep into a cut, go back to maintenance for a bit, and then start again.
But the packaging. Ohhhh the packaging! Insulin resistance! Metabolic efficiency! Immunity Health! Hormone Balance! CICO SUCKS! They do what they can to try to meet people where they are. To try to get them used to the idea that they're shooting for about a pound a week, so it'll be longer than other people promise (though, of course, they say 1-2lb/wk, just to get your brain to think it could be twice as fast). And of course, the cherry on top, a supplement that probably doesn't really do anything is the mechanism by which they monetize. Hell, after people lose the weight, I bet the GOLO For Life thing basically steers them toward how to stay at maintenance for the rest of time... but you probably better keep buying/taking their supplement, just to make sure you don't ruin all your gainz! It's a thing of sheer beauty, designed to bob and weave around all the CICO bashers who are going to scream from the rooftops that CICO doesn't work and trash your weight loss program if it even hints at the idea that CICO is what's going on rather than repeating the buzzwords and bowing at the god of, "It's not your fault, it's... check cue card... insulin resistance!"
In the end, I can't help but love it. Could you have listened to me tell you basically all the same underlying facts? Sure. Could you find a plethora of communities or official government public health documents that outline how you can do all this same stuff, but for free? Yup. But man, we're too dry in the delivery, and we tend to be abrasive to the folks who want to believe that there is some other magic going on in the world. I can't help but think of how Matt Levine might put it. The market wants the bog standard advice that works and that is backed by science, but it also doesn't want it to sound like that. It wants to hear some buzzwords, platitudes, shitting on CICO, and having a magic supplement. That's an arbitrage opportunity, and GOLO seems to have filled it.
EDIT: Sigh, I tried so hard to get the strikethroughs to work inside the bulletpoints. It displays correctly in the comment preview (and still displays correctly in the preview as I'm editing). But it's broken in the actual comment. @ZorbaTHut Help?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I would be in complete agreement with your description of your subjective perceptions. Moreover, I think they generalize fairly well. Most people feel most comfortable in some middle range of weight and begin to feel more subjective distress as they push further into either direction. Even more-over, there is some variation in subjective perceptions depending upon baseline habits, degree of one's introspection, etc. I don't think any of those factors do much work to justify the silly things that people constantly bandy about (even in places like here) when the topic of weight loss comes up.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I think the question is, "Compared to what?" Sure, compared to it being willed to someone else, you're probably coming out ahead. Compared to simply immediately selling the property upon inheritance and then plowing that money into, say, the S&P 500?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I’ve always felt like it’s absolutely on the woman if she doesn’t want sex to make it absolutely perfectly clear with no contradictory signals.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I'm somehow still surprised that there aren't hoards of people who jump in whenever someone talks about increasing caloric intake in order to bulk with various versions of, "Bulking doesn't work; you'll just lose the weight again; your body will adapt; different people absorb calories differently; maybe we need to fix some chemical in the food supply before you're able to bulk; even just talking about the math of bulking shames skinny people."
It really drives home how emotionally driven their arguments are when they make them on the topic of weight loss.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Notice the specific question. There used to be a fairly clear way to have an unambiguous socially-recognized signal. The neat thing about this socially-recognized signal is that, in its absence, there is zero leeway for a man to claim any sort of defense like, "But I thought she was giving me signals!" Her signal was something other than putting a ring on your finger? Sorry dude; not allowed, and you clearly and obviously know it.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The elephant in the room when comparing sexual assault to other crime -- like say, bike theft -- is that there is a well known, 100% reliable way to legally acquire a bike. Walk into a bike shop and buy one. There is no reason (outside of emergencies) why a normal person should have to engage in any action that could ever be confused with bike theft.
There used to be a really phenomenal social technology that took centuries to develop which mostly solved this problem - marriage.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Why don't we teach young women 'please never send mixed signals to men about your sexual interest as ambiguous coquettishness muddies the water around consent'?
Because a small but influential portion of society decided that while marriage norms solve this problem nearly entirely, they are the enemy to their political goals.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The point is that corporations indeed make board appointments because "they have some weird 'appearance' argument."
Like, for example, celebrities. Do you have a citation for all those board appointments of, say, children of Chinese government officials (we can throw out a few other countries, too) that are totally, uh, above-board? Like, a cite from a fancy economics journal or something, not a cite from a DoJ prosecution statement?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
celebrity
Hunter Biden is a celebrity?
That's not really answering the question, anyway. You're losing track of your motte. Your motte is supposed to be that it could be corruption or it could be not corruption. You can try to act like you're not a partisan cheerleader and simply give a balanced view, acknowledging that companies might do stuff like this for not corruption reasons and companies might do stuff like this for corruption reasons. Instead, you're giving 100% of your time and attention to cheerleading Your Team's position and just talking about plausible ways it could be not corrupt. Ignoring plausible ways it could be corrupt.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
So here's the thing. On the one hand, we have a claim about how corporate boards operate. That they do some things that might seem obscenely ridiculous in the absence of corruption, but mayyyybe they have some weird 'appearance' argument. It only "appears" corrupt to those who are naive about how corporate boards operate.
On the other hand, we have a claim about how corruption works by hiring and funneling money to children of powerful politicians. That they do some obvious and straightforward corruption stuff. It only "appears" not corrupt to people who are naive about how corruption works.
Why do you choose to focus on the former and not the latter?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Do you think that the various companies that have been pursued under FCPA could have said, "No no no, you see, you've got it all wrong. We don't hire children of Chinese government officials in order to actually get things. We hire them so that we have the appearance of being able to get things!" Would this work? They just need investors to think the company has connections and the advantages that come with that. What [company] needed from [child of Chinese politician] was the appearance of advantage, not so much actual advantage.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
You just highly implied it, which is kind of your MO. Cards on the table, which of the following do you agree/disagree with?
- It is plausible that a company could hire an employee/board member for an improper purpose, due to his/her connection to government officials.
- It is, in fact, actually more common than one might think that companies do this across the world, because it is a reasonable attempt at a "neat trick" to perform crony capitalism when the more direct routes have become significantly more difficult due to bribery/campaign finance/etc. laws.
- When a company with enough of a US presence does this abroad with children of foreign government officials, it's illegal under FCPA.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The assumption that if a company puts a famous "unqualified" name on its corporate board, it must be for a proper purpose (and that saying that you're simply getting "appearance" benefits is a magical incantation which guarantees that it's a proper purpose), is highly naive.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Thanks!
One comment about Connecticut in the second paper. They have the highest hygienist incomes on the chart, but the chart only shows three states and the national average. The text says, "Wages, at $67,450, and employment, at 95 DHs per 100,000, are higher than the national average, but well below the highest-ranking states."
And man, super depressing that even though Vermont has the highest number of hygienists per capita, they have one school that had only twenty-one graduates in the year they looked at (2006). That seems appalling to me. That all of the other states are worse really makes me think that we're wayyyy out from the equilibrium were we to significantly increase competition among schools and supply of trained hygienists.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
People who think that the fact that the practice is widespread proves anything doesn't understand how the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act works. This is 100% illegal if we catch companies with a suitable US presence doing it for children of foreign politicians.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Let’s start by removing the partisan valance, going back to first principles, and just thinking about how people try to corrupt government officials. You start off thinking, “Man, it’d be really nice if I could get this government official to do things that are favorable to me. In order to accomplish that, I could give him something that he wants. Then, either implicitly or explicitly, he’ll take official acts that are favorable to me.” If the expected monetary outlay required to push these officials is less than the expected gain of favorable action, you try to do it. This is Crony Capitalism 101.
Your first idea is, “Everybody likes money. I bet that government official would like it if I gave him a bag of money.” And early/unsophisticated bribery schemes do this. Naturally, the public decided, “BUT THAT’S CORRUPTION!” and decided to outlaw such behavior, raising the cost of trying to do something so brazen. Ok, you respond, “Let’s go back to the drawing board. What are my options?” You can probably come up with a variety of possible schemes to get around the law.
One option could be, say, giving campaign contributions. It’s a totally legal and totally cool way to give the government official a bag of money! This money has slightly less value to the government official than a bag of personal money, so you’re going to need to give a little bit more in terms of campaign money than you would have had to give personal money, but so long as the expected cost is still less than the expected reward, you still do it. Naturally, the public decided, “BUT THAT’S CORRUPTION!” and decided to put limits on campaign contributions.
You go back to your list of options. “Well, this government official is kind of old, and he’s got lots of money already. Probably more than he can realistically spend. Even if I could have given him money directly, that’s not ideal for him. Not only does he have to worry about it being illegal, he then is probably going to want to just give the money to his kids in the form of inheritance, and that brings taxes and public knowledge of the gains, and it’s complicated, risky, and more expensive. I know! What if I give bags of money directly to his kids! This isn’t illegal, and it’s a cheaper way of doing what he really wants to do with the money anyway! It’s a win-win!” Or maybe you think, “What if I set up a political fund that I can use to mirror the politician’s talking points, giving him a boost that is kinda like giving campaign contributions, but isn’t directly violating the law?” Sure, again, that’s a little more expensive again, but expected value yadda yadda.
Naturally, the public wants to say, “BUT THAT’S CORRUPTION!” They want to outlaw it. I think the public is still having debates over the latter activity because it comes so close to the core of our free speech values, but it’s a little easier for them to outlaw the former scheme. Both of these schemes are quite difficult to prove in detail. That (combined with the free speech concerns) is why the Court decided to adopt a position requiring some amount of proof of a quid pro quo in Citizens United. It’s why when we see enforcement of FCPA that maybe you end up with gigantic settlements rather than criminal charges. It’s tough to get the requisite proof. And yes, when you enforce it, it’s probably easier to enforce it against the guy giving the money than the guy taking the money. Do you need to show that the guy “taking” the money in a campaign finance case like CU had knowledge of the scheme? Maybe, because of the speech interests. Do you need to show that the guy “taking” the money in a pay-the-kids case like JPMorgan had knowledge of the scheme? Wellll... maybe not. Maybe the best you can do is go after the guy giving the money. If you can find evidence that the guy taking the money had knowledge of the scheme, too, then maybe you can try to go after him. But that’s going to be hard to do.
Ok, maybe back to some political valence. Maybe the best outcome you can get is that the guy taking the money ends up with a political hit. This would not be irrational behavior from the public. If the children of a politician, say Donald Trump, continually show up within arms’ reach of these corruption cases (say, JPMorgan paid a settlement in a case that involved one of Trump’s kids, HSBC paid a settlement in a case that involved another one, Company X... and so on, as the list builds), then it’s potentially rational behavior for the voting public to say, “BUT THAT’S CORRUPTION... and I want to punish corruption. There are impediments to doing it with criminal law, but I can at least vote against politicians like that.” This raises the costs of engaging in such a scheme and at least theoretically reduces the likelihood of future politicians doing likewise. This is basically how things worked for the left. They thought (and trumpeted to the public as loudly as possible) that Trump's kids were getting benefits, even though there wasn't a "smoking gun". You're just not really going to get one; it'll just be labeled something that is just ambiguous enough. Not ambiguous enough that we wouldn't go after international companies like HSBC when they give money to kids of Chinese politicians, but ambiguous enough that we're probably not going to go after many domestic politicians. Different reasons why here could be believed by different people. "The elite will protect their own." "No use running the risk of turning these investigations into a constant partisan shitfest or becoming a banana republic."
Obviously, there are third party costs to this method (Donald Trump’s kids and companies who may want to legitimately hire them have to avoid the appearance of corruption and so may not want to engage in trade that might otherwise be totally legal and totally cool), but pretty much all schemes to punish corruption have third party costs. It’s probably up to the voting public to determine where to draw the lines (if it goes so far as to make all kids of politicians totally unhireable, that disincentivizes potentially good politicians from seeking office). “Appearance of corruption” is an even harder-to-define standard, so voters have to wade through potential hit pieces and skewed defenses in pursuit of this goal. I think that so far, we’re not close to making kids of politicians totally unhireable, especially if they just take sorta ‘normal’ jobs, but trying to balance these factors are necessarily going to reduce the options of those kids at least somewhat.
So, in a sense, you’re right. We’re almost certainly not going to hold Joe Biden (or Hunter Biden) criminally accountable for any corruption (or impeach him and remove him from office). But there’s no reason why his political career can’t take a hit in service of the public’s goal to root out the appearance of corruption IF it’s the case that his kids keep popping up in cases that very strongly appear to be corrupt (I want to give even more emphasis on the “if”; I’ve seen the hit pieces that try to show an appearance of corruption; I haven’t really seen many defenses of the core situations besides, “There’s no way to criminally prosecute these guys anyway, so stop talking about it,” (basically how I read your defense) so I really strongly believe that the level of uncertainty is high).
Of course, at the end of all this is that we now have a right who has seen exactly how much respect the left has for these sorts of long-standing détentes. They've seen that it doesn't matter how ambiguous, how novel, how theoretically problematic the prosecution/impeachment is; it's going to be pursued to "get Trump". So, frankly, it's not surprising to see them also abandon the détente. They need to demand, "If we're going to be setting new rules for how various superweapons can be used against political opponents, we're going to make sure you agree to the rules when they're threatening your politicians. If we can't trust that this whole domain will remain benign, we need to set some precedent, and it's better to get you on the record when you're sympathetic to the 'defendent'."
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I'm interested; can you point me to a reference that estimates the relative effects? Thanks!
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
For example: If a factory needs 5 people to work the machines but union regulations require them to hire 25 people instead of 5 then yes, each and every single member of the group of "workers" is a parasite sucking on the teat of the group of people who are "factory owners", even though the "factory owners" need the group "workers".
Unions are generally net-negative, but economic estimates of the magnitude is relatively low. It's when they co-opt government that it really becomes a problem. When they make it impossible to build a new school to educate more, say, dental hygienists (a sort of 'white collar cleaner', who are massively overpaid relative to the service they provide if our comparison is one where it is free and easy to start a new school that can train/license them), or any of a number of different jobs where they've made it near impossible to build a school, get licensing, certification, approved facilities, etc. Then, rather than being localized teat-sucking in isolated locations in a way that can be managed, it's industry-wide and enforced by the men with guns.
Please answer my questions rather than trying to change the topic. We're actually getting very close to a crux here. We can move to a different topic afterward, and I promise I'll be responsive, but let's not avoid the first topic.
More options
Context Copy link