magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
magicalkittycat
17d ago
I didn't cite anything but if you mean what the OP did, yes it does.
It was not until after these documents were produced that USAO-DC first became aware of information showing that the damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism as initially represented by DOI. Indeed, USAO-DC could only rely (on the information provided by DOI that the damage was entirely caused by vandals, including the defendant in this case, David Hearn. Because these recently-produced materials significantly undermine the evidentiary basis for the indictment initially supplied by the DOI and U.S. Park Police, the USAO-DC respectfully moves to dismiss the indictment without prejudice
magicalkittycat
17d ago
The main reasoning I see here is food deserts but the large majority of food deserts are functionally a myth due to outdated standards around transportation. They do exist in some places still (there's a mountain I hike at where the closest food besides dollar general is like 45 minutes away) but the majority of them are just because people drive now. I live in an area very close to being a suburban "food desert" and no one would ever know it because everyone has cars.
NYC might be an exception since car ownership is rarer there, but it makes up for it with better public transit so presumably there's still not much trouble with actually accessing food if you take a short bus ride or the subway or whatever.
But ok there might be a few people who truly are in need and if we want to subsidize them, fine. We do that with the mail, we deliver even to super rural locations that are obviously not worth the price. Charity doesn't have to be profitable. But charity should get results and these grocery stores are going to be a mess, they're not targeted to those rare people actually in need. Delivering mail to rurals at a loss actually gets mail to rurals, will these grocery stores actually provide food to those who would have to travel long distances otherwise or will they just be at a loss for nothing? And if they're not guaranteed to be at a loss that that's an issue because that means the market could have solved the problem to begin with and was just handicapped by government.
Easier to afford a $300,000 house on 40$/hour than a $200,000 house on $20/hour
Your numbers are completely fictional though, the change in prices for buyers must be directly equal to the change in price for sellers. If I have a rare trading card and want to sell to a collector, the price is the same for both parties. If I make more, he must spend more. If he spends less, I must make less.
Even subsidizing the buyer just means a third party must take on the burden instead, it doesn't eliminate the problem. The only real world actual fix to have us both win (more than mutual trade already wins) without any losers is increasing productivity efficiency, devising ways to get two out of what previously only made one, like with agricultural science and food, or the economy of scale or ending artificial constraints on efficiency like regulation.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
A personal sense of "justice" imposed on a society that disagrees with your notion is just tyranny. The jury draws from the beliefs and thoughts of the general public in the same way that the hose draws from the water supply. The population itself gets to decide morality and edge cases.
Am I taking crazy pills - “7% of men saying they aren’t in the labor market is because they can’t find a job”. That’s a huge amount of men.
Not 7% of all men. 7% of those not in the labor force. Almost all men who want to work can get jobs, of those without jobs they don't want to work to begin with.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
Of course, this fellow did, by all the eyewitness accounts, reach into the reflecting pool and start pulling the lining up, to the point where the park police noticed and demanded he stop, but maybe, given his background, he's just a pool lining autist, and also a true libertarian who believes that every citizen has a right to audit the structural integrity of the pool without state coercion interfering.
The case was dropped after all so what Binion is really saying is don't harass random citizens with weak lawfare just to cover for incompetent contracting work.
Completely random guy being harassed for literally no reason.
The case was dropped due to lack of evidence (despite the constant lies beforehand saying there was tons of it), so yes. He got harassed for no reason, literally nothing came out of it.
Nah, it's just rubbing your nose in your Arctic research station levels of isolated demands.
Exactly, whataboutism. It didn't matter whether or not the soviets were right in their critiques of the US, what mattered is that they used the US as an excuse for their own misdoings. If the soviets wanted to defend their actions on the merits, they would have done such.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
If you live in a society that doesn't value law to such an extreme, I don't think your issue is with the jury system anymore to begin with and instead just with greater society. Like as a metaphor, if you're hooking up your brand new hose to a sewage pipe, the sewage water that comes out isn't the fault of the hose. The jury/hose itself is fine, it represents the views/water of general society/the water supply.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
That doesn't explain anything, it's just whataboutism.
And even revenge doesn't make much sense as a motive, like at least with the hilariously awful Comey indictment the person being targeted is James Comey so harassing him is like understandable as the motive. But Hearn is just some random guy, it seems incredibly petty to sacrifice so much face and embarrass yourself in basically every imaginable way just to legally harass a nobody.
Oh yeah sorry, I was thinking of the general prime age labor rate which is at 90s levels, males have gone down a little.
However, we know the reasons why and we know that they don't want jobs and their problems are not because jobs are lacking
While many observers assume that increasing inactivity rates reflect more men “dropping out” of the labor force out of frustration with the job market, relatively few prime-age inactive men fit the picture. Just 3 percent meet the official federal definition of a “discouraged worker,” and in 2014 just 7 percent of prime-age men inactive the entire preceding year said their reason for not working was that they could not find a job. The increase in their ranks accounted for just 9 percent of the rise in full-year inactivity from 1968 to 2014.
Few inactive men say they want a job in a typical week, and most of the increase in inactivity has involved men who do not want a job. This study estimates that only about one in four inactive men in 2014 wanted a job, and only about 25 percent of the increase in inactivity in a typical week from 1969 to 2014 involved men who wanted a job. Less than one-third of non-disabled inactive men want a job.
Again there is not a horde of American citizens who want jobs but can not find them. These inactive men do not want jobs, because they're disabled or caretaking or whatever.
Of the few who do have trouble finding it, well they're mostly just shit and that's why they can't. If you've ever done hiring for any lower level position you might have seen a few of them yourself, the people who you will simply never hire. Lazy addicted losers who won't show up on time or pay attention to their work no matter what you do, the type of person who gets themselves fired from fast food or door dashing. The dregs of society are the bottomfeeders not because of the 1% wealthy or immigrants or whatever other scapegoats, but because they're shit and can't even tear themselves away from drugs long enough to hold an interview.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
Binion's takes continue to be some of the best https://x.com/billybinion/status/2084355849045123302
This is a perfect example of why debasing yourself for a politician is never worth it. Jeanine Pirro sacrificed a lot of credibility when she publicly raked an innocent person across the coals. And in the end, she gets thrown under the bus, too. It's humiliating.
I'll never understand why so many people are willing to tarnish their legacies & embarrass themselves to get some brief validation from Donald Trump of all people. We all know he tosses people in the trash like hot potatoes. How have people not learned that? How is this worth it?
Like seriously, wtf does Pirro get out of this? She sold her soul, hurt innocent people through lawfare, wasted government resources (both time/manhours spent going after actual criminals and money) and in the end didn't even manage to make Trump or MAGA happy.
It could yeah, but either way with a growing country you still need to build homes and anti housing policy will therefore be an issue no matter what. In fact it will be an issue even if the population stays the same, as old housing deteriorates/gets destroyed/etc and is no longer able to be built within new zoning rules. So many cities have homes now that would be literally illegal.
https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/why-much-of-manhattan-would-be-illegal-to-build-today/
If demand stays the exact same but supply shrinks, then prices still go up!
magicalkittycat
18d ago
And the ban length was commensurately low. You were part of a crackdown to stop a trend that I was noticing
Someone literally asked you exactly this and you said it was the opposite https://www.themotte.org/post/3863/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/466280?context=8#context
Do you think perhaps you are overindexing on someone just being banned? Like you're expecting mkc to have seen that ban and to adjust their posts accordingly, but there's a good chance they have no idea that this other ban was recorded.
Hmm, somewhat the opposite. Or at least you have the causation direction mixed up.
You claim the ban isn't indexing on others, and now literally say it is.
You're still contradicting yourself, and if you can't avoid that then it says everything else written is pure fluff, it's an excuse created to explain the action you already wanted. If you can't even stay consistent then why trust it at all?
magicalkittycat
18d ago
Let me repeat myself here
This ain't a conversation to be had with individual anecdotes but with data and statistics
Sorry you can't find something, but the problem is probably with you. Often what I see from people who "can't find a job" is what they actually mean is "I can't find a high paying office email job", which if that's the case it means you probably need to accept reality and lower your standards for what you apply to.
I guess I could work at McDonalds.
Yes. If you aren't good enough to compete and win the high paying email jobs, then you work at McDonald's or whatever else. If ego and actual ability don't match, you either lower your ego or raise your ability. The former is way easier.
magicalkittycat
18d ago
Prime age male employment rate is only 86% now.
Same as 1990s levels. You've got to really far back to post war economic booms to get the higher levels you're citing.
There are a lot of ways to live without pay today. Military disability (which is mostly fraud now), food stamps, housing vouchers etc. If you quit subsidizing unemployment you would get more workers.
Sure, we could count all those but those aren't really "people who are looking for a job and can't get one", they're people who don't want a job and won't be happy if you cut them off from what they currently got. The military man with a 3k a month disability check is happy where he is, even if he is a parasite.
These are not examples of the supposed hordes of men wanting work that can't get any because the jobs are stolen.
magicalkittycat
18d ago
A person who gets fired and then can't find another job of any sort within a few months typically has something going on with them. Maybe he's too picky and trying to get a job he's not qualified for, or maybe he's just really bad at doing interviews, or whatever. I don't know.
But basically everyone else manages to get employment. Long term unemployment doesn't really happen unless you either choose it or have something going on with you.
magicalkittycat
18d ago
Are you arguing that supporting labor is bad, or are you arguing that "paying people a living wage" is bad
The second one, a "living wage" is a meaningless phrase. Especially in the US, where the only thing that can't be easily accessed even the poorest 10% of Americans, housing, is not because of a lack of pay but because of deliberate political decisions to restrict new supply.
magicalkittycat
18d ago
We generally moderate what is reported. If you want me to go back litigate your posts that were not reported then simply report your posts and add them to queue. They will likely be ignored,
I'm aware they will be, the standard you applied is hilariously low that again, even many of the users here who hate me found it questionable. When people who have every motive to say otherwise were telling you that it was weak, it was probably very very very weak in actuality.
The level of candidate doesn't matter. A post just about Trump being a cheater, or Kamala sleeping her way to the top could also be dinged under these rules. I'd maybe be more lenient if the candidate was more well known, usually there are side issues for higher level candidates that the poster might care about and call out.
It would probably help your argument you apply the rules fairly if you didn't contradict yourself in the same paragraph.
While nobody (that I am aware of) literally follows the argument up with "...and that's why the abolition of slavery was a bad thing"
Slavery was economically inefficient, as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and many other early capitalist/capitalist aligned thinkers would point out. And therefore anyone who tried to argue "the economy is why the abolition of slavery is a bad thing" would be incorrect from the very start.
A free market of goods and labor however is economically efficient, and therefore any protectionist argument against that has to showcase why any claimed moral gains are worth the economic tradeoffs. There might be some things where that's true, but they aren't the same.
magicalkittycat
19d ago
I find it telling that the all the leisure-class liberals who claim to support labor and be all about "paying people a living wage" immediately
Those things are bad and distortionary, any hypocrisy aside doesn't change it. This is a tautological statement: "Higher prices means higher prices". If you want labor to be paid more, then it means people who pay for the labor can afford it less easily.
It is unsolvable, just like the housing market or any other. It is literally impossible for the seller of labor/homes/etc to make more money and have the buyer pay less. You must make a tradeoff when meddling.
In the case that you are actually asking this question seriously, and not as a half-assed attempt at a rhetorical dunk, they're in the Appalachians. I have some family and old acquaintances in ${UNDISCLOSED}.
As another commentator pointed out, unemployment rates don't match and if you go back historically they've never really matched, unemployment has never been all that high except for temporary disruptions with obvious causes like Covid or the recession. Maybe your family and old acquaintances are unlucky anecdotes, but they are absolutely not representative of the general economy in any way.
This ain't a conversation to be had with individual anecdotes but with data and statistics, and what those suggest is that there isn't some massive amount of capable American job seekers who are unable to find employment.
He has placed upwards of thirty job applications in the fields of construction, municipal maintenance work, security, and HVAC. He hasn't heard a damned thing back from any of them. In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that he has a felony drug charge on his record from 20 years ago, but in that area, that's not really uncommon.
Maybe it is the drug charges, maybe it's more than just the drug charges. Sometimes terrible employees do exist and they will obviously lose out to better alternatives. It's what happens.
I will not hire a bad employee in my department simply because I feel bad for them, and no one else will either. Businesses want efficient and lean workplaces so we can compete for customers, we are not charities.
Unemployment in the US is currently at a historic low,
Then historically there is a shortage of Americans who are willing to work but currently don't. Which is the claim being made here.
It would seem to me that rule of supply and demand is the closest thing that economics has to a natural law. If the supply of labor is constrained relative to the demand, it stands to reason that the market price of labor (IE wages) will go up and vice versa
Of course it's classic supply and demand, more supply of labor (whether through automation or immigration or whatever) means cheaper labor costs. This also of course can mean products are cheaper and more available to buy as products become easier and cheaper to create. Immigration isn't as strong as automation since immigrants also consume (contribute to demand), but for very specific sectors where they cluster labor prices get driven down.
It's the inverse logic of why unions drive prices up and make stuff less affordable and less accessible to the average American. It's great for the union workers who get to hold the country hostage, it's bad for everyone else. Regulatorally enforced high labor costs benefits those who do labor by taking from those who need the labor done, like with elevators. Maybe it's a tradeoff we want to make, disabled people like the author, apartment dwellers, etc get less elevators in exchange for the elevator union having higher pay, but it is a tradeoff.
Same way that maybe we'd rather prefer American citizen construction workers get paid a lot of money over providing cheaper housing to our youth and our poor, we can make that tradeoff, but it is unavoidably one.
Yes, because we don't need immigrants to work our jobs. We have no shortage of Americans willing to work. What we do have a shortage of are Americans who are willing to be underpaid, which is why companies love foreign labor so much. They are willing to be treated like slaves.
Then where exactly is this mass of currently non working American citizens with no employment prospects who are perfectly happy and able to start any work again, yet alone backbreaking labor like dealing with farms in the south, and how are they currently living without any pay? The main groups out of the work force are either old, in college (and thus entering soon!), disabled, or in between employment because layover/hiring cycles means there's always some left just like how housing vacancies will (and should) always exist.
Even if we want to discuss the relatively few working age NEETs or mentally ill homeless addicts or whatever, I don't think they're gonna start picking up a hoe because you pay them a little more.
Is the answer here really that your powers of divinition allow you to know posts about Max Miller, a sitting representative, are talked about because of "boo outgroup", but all the posts about say Platner who was just a candidate have no such intention or motivation? Especially when I've said some pretty mean stuff about the latter.
turns out to be a piece of shit.
as shitty as the everyday dudebro stereotype.
People have literally pointed this out to you too https://www.themotte.org/post/3863/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/466408?context=8#context
But MKC is "booing" the politician over the abuse allegations, not because he's an "outgroup" (he mightbe, but that's not what he's arguing). It's not nearly as incendiary as the comment you linked to, and no more incendiary than the Platner threads.
The people here barely even hide how much they hate me, if they think your ban was questionable then maybe it was.
You were upset cause in addition to my theory things didn't change yet just because the news was young (which I have been proven right about https://polymarket.com/event/oh-07-house-election-winner), I added an alternate possible explanation I saw on social media. Something that people like Hanania or Demsas were proposing, it's not like these were just random shitposters. This was a serious alternative claim being proposed by established pundits.
Disability numbers are significantly lower than they were ~10 years ago. 14 million https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ to only 7 million now https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/2026-01.html?
And percentage wise 30 years ago (back when everything was so good with our millennial nostalgia), quick check with chatbot
The main thing I know of to increase is veterans
Which uh yeah, is actually pretty bad. But that's not something politicians are going to even talk about yet alone want to solve, for the very reason why it got so bad there. They gotta "support our troops" and signal how much they love vets. The vets don't wanna work, they wanna be on disability and no one will touch it.
More options
Context Copy link