Non-American born parents sacrifice for their kids. Put every penny into their children's future, pick up a second job if they have to. Let their adult kids live at home, not kick them out. And when those kids succeed, they often give back building on the help they were given. Success compounds when you're part of a team.
My dad threw me out at 18. Spent my whole childhood bragging about how he couldn't wait for that day. Why? Because he was a hippie boomer and that's what he did at 18 (though his version of 'independence' came with parents who helped him buy multiple houses). He cut his own parents out of our lives, called it freedom, making it so I couldn't turn to them for help like he had. Not for money. Not even for emotional support.
Maybe kicking your kids out at 18 and making them do it all alone is a bad cultural habit. Or maybe the immigrant families who stick together/support each other are the problem.
I's so sorry for you, but you're an atypical case. The number of kids living with their parents have been increasing for the last decade or two, and it's the kids who complain that they can't get their beloved independence.
I don't think xhkkffbf understands the problem well enough but gaslighting him with tearful stories isn't the proper approach here.
On the topic - businesses don't like to compete but they like to have people compete for their jobs. Immigration is just one of the ways to skew the labor market in that direction. Monopolization is another - and growing rapidly.
Remote work is yet another skew factor, without a systemic overhaul, less visas will result in more remote work offshore.
xhkkffbf > Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
A heartbreaking talking point but actually irrelevant, foreign regulations play a minuscule role here - the difference in standards of living and local prices make it impossible for Americans to earn enough abroad, remotely or not. Again, it's a systemic issue, entirely local to the US.
There’s a difference between living with your parents because it’s the norm culturally and you’re saving up for whatever and living with your parents because it’s impossible to afford living on your own.
I thought we were talking about CURRENT CEOs. My story was the norm for my generation with boomer parents, not atypical, and you know...the generation that typically make up CEOs currently.
Wasn't meant to be gaslighting but instead my observation from growing up in the bay area and seeing mine and my friends trajectories. We anglos has a lot handed to us, a lot. But the lack of support lead to a lot of setbacks/starting over that others more quickly overcame because of family/support networks, allowing them to ultimately rise higher. Fun fact, if you restart mid race, you oftentimes lose the race. That's not a sob story, just how it goes.
When I was rich and on top of the world I remember running around in my boat full of people partying blasting this song and taking the chorus seriously. Man, it felt good. It felt so so good. Can't believe it was so long ago and a different life.
The federal government loves to play this 'it's only civil, not criminal, therefor a loser set of rules apply' to lots of things. Knowing it's an end run around rights people/lawyers/courts have still let them get away with it because they support the final outcome or because it simplifies the process.
The American judicial system is pure theater. You used to be able to appeal forever. Then the government decided that was too expensive, so they changed it to like 7 days. Then that was too extreme of a limit from 'forever' so they compromised on 14 days. Your right to appeal expires in 14 days in the US. Also during those 14 days you are most likely in a detention center, or being transferred across the nation to a prison, so good luck researching/writing an appeal in those 14 days.
This administration went in and just flagged people on Social Security as deceased. They said 'those people can just get it fixed'. They also said people that complain are cheats.
There are many people on fixed social security that can't afford missing a payment, let alone the 3 it would take at a minimum if it all works out to get this fixed. By that point they could be homeless, their credit could be ruined. These aren't easy things to fix if you are 80+ and depend on Social Security and renting.
Concentrated power even for the best on intentions (in this case deciding in the 1930s 'old people shouldn't have to eat dog food') is extremely easy to abuse.
Tech has also reached into EVERY aspect/detail of our lives 24/7 to try and extract value from it.
Tech originally preached that it's going to improve/simplify/enrich our lives. Instead tech is farming us like we have never been farmed before while giving us none of the original promise/deal. There is no peace. There is no escape. The improvements in our life are normally marginal and short term. There is no just existing, just constant, continuous farming of you for whatever value can be extracted. And because of how tech scales any extraction is never too small to not be worth going after. At least in the Matrix you weren’t expected to curate your own enslavement and smile and post about it daily.
The regulation is what makes it worth while for people to invent/write. Patents/copyrights have been a net benefit for society with a smaller negative downside.
If I come up with an invention I don't have the capability/finances to bring it to market. Without patents, I have no incentive to show it to possible investors/manufacturers because they can just steal it and keep all the profits. So my idea that could have helped society dies with me. So it costs society nothing to give me protection, but society get's nothing without the protection versus efficiency, safer working conditions, better health, whatever benefit from my invention.
Without copyright it was hard to assemble high quality educational books/manuals, because they take a lot of effort with relatively little reward/return. In fact the first 'modern' copyright act in 1701ish was titled something about improving education.
Without copyright it is not worth it for authors to spend nights/weekends flushing out plot ideas for complete sharable works, so you end up with less/lower quality literature as no one can be a professional author. Which has better quality on average, published books or self published? Self published tend to be the 'passion projects' you would still have without copyright, published books tend to be what get's created when authors are compensated for their efforts. Society can't lose from copyright because without it the works would never have existed. If I say 'I'll bake a cake if you will buy a piece' and I bake a cake and sell a piece, society didn't 'lose'. If I don't bake a cake because no one would buy a piece than society was a little sadder, a little plainer that day. There is only upside, there is no downside. Anyone that would release if copyright didn't exist is still free to waive their copyright protection. So having it is the best of both worlds, those that want to release just to release can, and those that want to try and create something that can be sold can.
Without copyright there are no big budget movies, only passion projects because no one is injecting millions when the work will just be copied no sold/screened/rented.
Without copyright the world has less joy, less discussion, less contemplation, less entertainment, less education. Without patents the world has less productivity, less safety, worse health, less food, worse/much less clothing/housing, less free time. The systems in their current forms have been abused and are unfit for the original purpose but when kept to the original purpose with reasonable protection periods they are a HUGE net plus for society.
In the 1980s I was in Iowa visiting my grandparents when the tornado warnings went off in the middle of the night. I didn't know what they were and it being the 1980s assumed Russia had launched their nukes. I woke everyone up to get to the basement so fast!
Iowa infrastructure was good back in the 1980s. If the sirens went off you knew it's bad, normally because someone actually had to see a tornado on the ground.
The aftermath of an F5 can look like a localized nuke went off.
Adding because this has somehow been forgotten around Iraq/911. We attacked Iraq because we were attacked on 9/11. Justification for the attack was stated in part because of American troops in Saudi Arabia. American troops were in Saudi Arabia because of Iraq's prior invasion of Kuwait. Changing the government of Iraq would allow us to remove troops from Saudi Arabia and remove it as a cause for terrorism. This was a discussed cause for going into Iraq at the time, just not the main one everyone publically glommed onto. But there was a reason the US wanted to take out Iraq. Iraq was tied to 9/11 by being an indirect motivator of 9/11.
My dad threw me out at 18. Spent my whole childhood bragging about how he couldn't wait for that day. Why? Because he was a hippie boomer and that's what he did at 18 (though his version of 'independence' came with parents who helped him buy multiple houses). He cut his own parents out of our lives, called it freedom, making it so I couldn't turn to them for help like he had. Not for money. Not even for emotional support.
Maybe kicking your kids out at 18 and making them do it all alone is a bad cultural habit. Or maybe the immigrant families who stick together/support each other are the problem.
reply