It’s not fashionable. There’s a growing fixation on keeping up appearances of masculinity and it’s become a common identity. Education and mental health seem to be largely getting thrown out as non-masculine.
Something that complicates that statistic is the awful one the article alludes to: Broadly speaking, women attempt suicide, men commit suicide. When you're looking at nonfatal suicide, women tend to show up much higher because the men don't get admitted to the hospital, they end up in the morgue.
A few years ago I noticed that my shipments all took a week or more regardless, but other retailers would have it here in a day or two, sometimes same day. Cancelled prime and haven’t regretted it.
I think definition is definitely an issue in the debate. What you’re describing I knew as affirmative action. I’ve only understood DEI as being willing to hire from diverse backgrounds, implemented by posting job positions in diverse areas like HBCUs. I’ve not personally seen any examples of different criteria for different people. Is this actually documented as something companies with DEI initiatives were doing post affirmative action?
Google "diversity quotas" or "hiring targets". If you are explicitly demanding a disproportionate number of minority candidates, you are disadvantaging other candidates.
That's the thing, DEI advocates generally don't advocate for diversity quotas or hiring targets and such practices are not common. For example, when I went through the DEI portion of interviewing training we were explicitly told that we were not allowed to hire people of a certain group in order to try to improve diversity.
If your mission is to promote diversity and your job is to hire people, you are either increasing diversity hiring or you aren’t completing your mission or job.
You can find reports of hr employees and lawsuits involving major companies and universities to the contrary, where there were quotas and discrimination, implicit or explicit.
You can find a lot of this in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. At its most extreme an Asian Student and Black student with the exact same MCAT test score would have a 21% acceptance rate for the former and 80% acceptance rate for the latter. The lawsuit revealed the admissions office would use intangibles to discriminate, like giving Asian students low "Personality scores"
My bonus at a fortune 50 bay area firm was based (partially) on % minority hires. These were called "DEI Targets"
I've been told face to face by several tech recruiters that they are not looking to hire my race and gender, but I should tell my minority wife should apply.
Chats frequently turn into a tree for me. It offers N options and I explore one of them down the line until it doesn’t work. Trying to get it back to an earlier branch is usually impossible, so starting a new chat is often the only way to approach the other options.
I didn’t know about the flashing. Lots of people use rail barrels that fill from a downspout to water their gardens. I wonder what kind of lead exposure that could create.
Many complex problems can become easier if we can accept that the solutions can be malleable and designed to adapt. We just don’t really apply that to laws for the most part.
I don’t know if it’s America or tech people but online discourse of legal systems from American tech people seems to treat laws as code, something to interpret as written rather than the meaning. Loopholes are celebrated as being clever and are impossible to patch. This is quite alien to most of the world.
Although it should be said the economic success of the Americans hitherto is also quite foreign to the rest of the world; and driven mainly by their legal quirks.
That seems rather focused on one policy that was big in the 50s. The Marshal Plan was great but that isn't something the modern US seems to be capable of - since around Vietnam I think was the change. It has been a good 50 years where the US just breaks stuff and leaves it broken.
Modern prosperity is caused by modern policy. I've seen some reasonable theorising that income basically comes from how easy it is to do business (thinking especially of https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-regulation). Which is linked in no small way to the cultural factors
chgs pointed out - the most vibrant and high income industry in the world is also the one that sees laws impeding them as a problem that can be overcome.
The attitude of doing things that create wealthy even if NIMBYs object is an attitude that leads to wealth creation. Strange but true. Not the only factor, the political strength of the opposition matters a lot too.
The book Why Nations Fail makes a pretty strong argument for the core feature of successful societies to be strong institutions with low perceived corruption. Sensible laws that are upheld equally are a part of that.
The US in particular benefits from an absurd amount of resources (not least of which is land), a perfectly safe geographic position, the global language and an immigrant culture. Basically able to coattail the British after independence, the destruction of much of Eurasia during WWII cemented its position as first. And great diplomacy, including the Marshal Plan, enabled the US to create an international system with many benefits and natural synergies with its inherent strengths.
Legalities don't drive profits. If anything the US was simply lucky in thr 50s to not be war torn and rebuilding it's cities post war.
The only thing special is our geography and history. It's really hard to launch an attack unless you're in Canada and Mexico. So the US smartly made treaties and agreeemtns instead of repeating the bloody history Asia and the now EU went through as they constantly battled neighbors.
Only Australia has such a similar advantage and instead they had to war with nature's deadliest critters trying to kill them (they arguably lost).
I'm a bit stumped that you don't consider treaties and agreements to be legalities.
I mean sure, in the 50s the main driver of prosperity was whether a country had avoided being invaded and that isn't necessarily a result of a country's legal system. But the 50s was a very long time ago now and the era since then has been quite equal-opportunity outside pockets of disaster in Africa and the Middle East. The USSR, Chinese, Euro and US experiences haven't been determined by external factors or historical determinism as much as internal policy choices made in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s with a 20-30 year lag before the decisions start to turn up in real life.
Even if we indulge in wild conspiracy and pretend there is a shadowy cabal in Washington that decided to crush the USSR and exalt China economically, that cabal would have had to implement its decisions by somehow guiding internal policy choices in the respective nations. Nobody has managed to do anything to either of them through external pressure that holds a candle to the internal choices made.
From my read, they’re not saying it’s not possible to develop problematic behaviors, but that the problems occur only for people with complicated relationships to it. The taboo drives the obsession.
If this isn’t immediately repealed, I wonder how it will affect consumers behaviors in the long term. It feels like consumerism is a habit, and if you break the habit it might not be so easy to get people started again.
I agree. I'm also interested to see if it actually increases "made in America" goods and whether it has any unintended consequences.
One guy was talking about mini excavators he was buying from China for $8K. The equivalent American brand was over $40K. Prices of the American brands could go up due to foreign components (which won't immediately have manufacturing capacity here, and will likely be even more expensive), 10% would bring it up to $44K. Meanwhile even a 100% tariff on the $8K import would "only" put it at $16K. The people buying the $8K ones aren't going to start buying $44K versions, they'll still buy the import most likely. Meanwhile, it could be that some $40K buyers move to the $16K import, decreasing sales of the American version.
And on top of it all, retaliatory tariffs from other countries could decrease exports of the American product, reducing sales even further.
Reminds me of the situation the US car manufacturers have been facing. If you ignore the rest of the world, then you get left behind and no one overseas buys your products anymore. You effectively cut yourself off from the majority of your customers.
It might be worth us all looking at what impact the Great Depression had on consumption patterns (and repairing things that break instead of replacing them) of that generation.
The wealthier you are, the more flexibility you have in your purchasing decisions as well. It’s easier to accelerate or delay a big purchase to save 30% when it’s not something you need to live, or can’t afford to jump on a purchase last minute.
reply