That rate of exploitation is pretty wild though, $2/hr while earning hundreds for the employer. Most capitalists begin uncontrollably salivating just thinking about that.

This is a power thing though, the closest we have/had in terms of rate of exploitation was silicon valley software engineers. They got basically free everything to distract them from how much they were being exploited. If working circumstances were worse, they would have demanded higher pay or quit, because they could afford to.

As the article notes, in the Philippines that is not the power dynamic at all. These are already among the highest paying jobs, and I doubt these workers are in a position to bargain for better. There are too many people willing to take their job, either in their own country, or in other impoverished countries.

Yes, because:

• a small apartment is more comfortable when you have other spaces where you can exist for free
• in our increasingly isolated society we need more spaces for serendipitous socializing

It does tie into affordability though, because the lack of third spaces is in itself an indication of an over-exploited real-estate market. A third space is almost by definition not maximally exploited, because you’re allowing non-paying patrons to take space which could be used by paying ones. Allowing non-paying patrons is only a moral question up to some point, after that it’s just the market forcing the choice between more exploitation or bankruptcy.

I guess they don’t think it’s in their interest to spend a bunch of money convincing oil-addicted USians to buy EV’s. Kind of makes sense, there’s a lot of other markets with way more existing demand for EVs.

Yes, and he’s such a great communicator as well. In those few paragraphs he packs arguments to convince people ranging from idealist liberals to cynical leftists.

In other news: water is wet, and the only good kind of fascist is a dead fascist.

Is this message sponsored by Philip-Morris International by any chance?

The sugar could kill you in the long term, but I think here it’s the caffeine you should worry about.

Nuclear waste is a problem for the most like any other. Given enough investment it can be solved, and no I’m not talking about finding better ways to store it. China has made major advances in this regard, their newest reactors generate waste that is much less long-lived (hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years), and they can reduce the volume of that waste through recycling.

I’m not saying nuclear waste is not a hard problem to solve, it is and we must be careful as a society to make sure it is managed well. In the meantime, we have a climate catastrophe which is much more pressing. Coal plants, which provide base-load electricity, are a prime target for conversion to nuclear, because their steam turbines can be reused. This could decarbonize a large part of the electricity mix of many countries.

I’d like to invoke my 42nd amendment right to not debate fascists and punch them instead.