It shouldn’t be, but enough people are either ignorant that it’s a racket or they profit somehow by it that nobody says anything, or they’ll call you a damned commie if you openly question powerful people like that

I got tired of seeing my teflon-coated pans wear out like that or lose their non-stickiness, it bothered me to realize that the ‘premium cookware’ I was buying was temporary trash I’d need to replace every couple of years.

I retired my teflon cookware and now have just steel and cast iron (and ceramic-coated cast iron) and I don’t miss teflon-coated cookware at all.

Sure, sometimes I end up with stuff stuck to my pans, but realistically that was true with my ‘non-stick’ pans as well. The nice thing about cast iron and steel is that with use, they seem to get better, whereas the teflon pans start out nice but deteriorate in the way they work. When I do end up with stuff stuck to the pan, I can scrub that clean in a few seconds with a steel scrubber or scraper, whereas stuck-on stuff with teflon (the stuff the dishwasher didn’t get, anyhow), seemed to demand the extra-soft scrubber (and lots of time, because the soft scrubber doesn’t work as well).

Isn’t that in the Torah?

Exodus. Exodus is part of the Old Testament, along with Leviticus.

Leviticus (11:9-12) is where shellfish are banned, mixed seed or fabrics (19:19) It is where modern Christians cherry-pick their justifications on being anti-LGBTQ. (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)

Point is, they cherry-pick from the Old Testament when it suits them, and if you look at the rest of the rules in the books they reference that they ignore (e.g. tattoos, touching pig skin, eating pork, shellfish, etc. etc. ) it’s totally fair game to point out the rules they ignore in the same books as the ones they cite.

But corporate death is… yanking their charter and seizing their holdings You know, kind of what they did to the Trump org And that was a long time coming

it can be done

Living in the North, my grandparents never discussed beating the shit out of civil rights protesters. Nor did they spout overtly racist things.

TBH when I hear someone say that about their parents (they didn’t say racist shit out loud) I take that to mean: they didn’t say that sort of stuff out loud.

I just think about that as a sort of Schrodinger’s Racism- there’s an unknown distribution of super-shitty racists out there in Yankeedom too, but they’re neither racist nor non-racist until they open their mouths about it in un-coded ways. That it’s more covert there than it is in other places doesn’t really tell us if it’s more or less prevalent, it could just be telling us that in Yankeedom the racists feel ever-so-slightly more inhibited about being out loud about it.

Those sunrays had it coming

Well,

• If it kept line with productivity Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

• If it kept up with inflation Advocates say minimum wage needs to be higher before it’s indexed to inflation or https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/21/politics/minimum-wage-inflation-productivity/index.html

These sources disagree among themselves if the right number is $21.45 or $26 or $20, they seem to base their analysis on productivity or inflation

Yeah, these numbers sound like a lot in some places, but those places where it ‘sounds like a lot’ tend to be really fucking poorer than necessary. It would hurt them not at all to have the minimum keep up with where it was in 1968 instead of being the output of both major parties in congress agreeing to fuck the working poor

If you do the comparisons in normalized dollars and compare to productivity, minimum wage (if it tracked to the same purchasing power as it did in the 1950s) would be somewhere around $26 in today’s dollars. If you do the same but track to inflation, it would be about $22.

When the wage doesn’t keep track to inflation, it’s not ‘increasing’, it’s a pay cut. When it doesn’t track to productivity, it’s a pay cut out of labor’s part of any growth.

When workers earning suppressed wages compete to buy things like housing, they’re bidding against the class of people that received the share of productivity they didn’t- and when the folks making more bid up prices of those things, it’s a double-whammy of foregone wage + increased cost-of-living.

These are perfect examples of things that at scale should become cheaper but don’t. Yes, there’s more of it and that cost something to deliver, but the cost of delivering bandwidth per Mbps has decreased drastically (like, by 80+ percent) while the price of having a plan does not in any way reflect that. Likewise, the cost of delivering cell phone service has gone substantially down but the dollars-and-cents price of having a cell phone more than tripled between 2006 and 2020.

Sure, they’re better and faster than they were, but there’s no good reason for them to cost more, other than you have money and they want it

things being made today are a lot more complicated

There’s a kernel of truth here- yes, a lot of everything is more complex (and a lot of it, like cars that now have better safety features and standards- is just better) today than it was- but that’s not the whole story behind why everything is more expensive today, particularly in terms of labor’s buying power.

Today, there are things that haven’t improved in power or technology or quality (looking at you, broadband cable and cell phone connectivity, and basic foodstuffs, and commodities like fuel and timber, and health insurance, and housing) but cost so much more because largely none of these markets are elastic or competitive, and there’s been so much ‘vertical integration’ in these spaces that in years past would have run afoul of basic antitrust enforcement of laws on the books.

Speaking of things that used to be illegal and still should be but aren’t, stock buybacks account for a lot of money that used to go to payroll, but which now sidesteps payroll and goes directly to capital in seriously tax-privileged ways.

Basically, that means capital has been getting regular raises since the 70s but labor’s rates mostly haven’t kept up with inflation- and as such, ought to be regarded to be pay cuts.

Well, yeah.

It’s not the powerless that made things how they are, it’s the powerful that shape the world.

It’s also worth noting that when you’re powerful but don’t have the votes it takes to do a thing you want, the shortest path to getting those votes is unifying people around being mad at some sort of scapegoat.

This is why fascism looks the way it does

• it emerges from a democracy in some sort of crisis

• it’s always that elites (a voting minority of powerful interests) need political support

• the way they always get it is by focusing anger on a scapegoat, with promises to punish them

There were families that made Bezos-class money at the height of slavery, and those families’ descendants are still rich today.

At the very least, these families shouldn’t be anonymously rich, they should be infamously rich, notoriously so. Even if a truth-and-reconciliation process is ‘too much’, let us at least have the truth out, and loud.

Maybe you don’t think you have anything to hide today, but what about the future? Millions of women gave their period-tracking apps that kind of personal/private data when Roe was in effect because at the time, states couldn’t use it to prosecute women who miscarry or get abortions. Now that Roe is gone, that data is out there and can’t be recalled.

By the same token, everyone who went out and got a 23-and-me genetic test gave their genomes to private companies who can legally sell that information to insurance companies that can use that information to hike their premiums or terminate their policies if they think your genes predispose you to some expensive-to-treat condition. Also those family trees don’t lie about whose kids are the product of adultery, hahahahaha

You do have things to hide in the sense that they’re nobody else’s business.

Also, some countries have established digital privacy as a right (in particular, EU countries) and that’s not just about protecting your dirty stinky secrets, it’s also about preventing social media being weaponized as political or information warfare vectors based on private information obtained without your consent. (the same profiling used to target relevant commercial ads to you is also usable to target information warfare and propaganda to your susceptible relatives, and they vote in addition to giving racist rants at holiday dinner)

In other words, your privacy is intrinsically valuable- if it wasn’t, exploiting your private information wouldn’t be a multi-billion-dollar industry

That’s interesting to hear; somehow my algebra 2 skipped sum notation (and it wasn’t remedially covered in subsequent math classes) but I’ve been writing code for decades now and seeing it in code totally explains the sum notation for me

That’s his whole plan. He doesn’t have a defense, he’s guilty as fuck- he’s just going to ask for delays until he’s won the presidency and that will get him immunity so long as he stays in office. If the courts allow that and he gets into office, America will deserve what it gets, good and hard

Wow. When they use government as a weapon to threaten people exposing their bullshit and proclaim themselves to be fighting against the weaponizing of government, it’s… impressive that they can put up with the dissonance, honestly

Yeah it’s pretty neat when the thousand-year events keep happening every couple of years

Infuriating. In a just world the people that buried her report should be discharged dishonorably and the victim should be put in charge of evaluating reports like it in the future

Yes! For anyone wanting more reading on the subject, Start here https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure/ Monbiot is also a good primer: https://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/monb/monbiot_guardian_15_04_16.pdf

The point I wanted to make here is that it matters who has regulatory control in a given sphere, and often private regulators’ interests and considerations will not be the same as those of the public at large. The democratic regulatory state exists (such as it is any more) because prior regimes of private regulation simply did not consider the public interest adequately. There is such a thing today as the EPA because congress in 1970 decided acid rain and rivers on fire wasn’t cool, and all of those ‘self-regulating’ industries out there just weren’t considering their downwind/downstream air-breathing, water-drinking neighbors enough. Likewise, regulatory controls on banking were imposed under the New Deal. The notion of public regulators is, historically speaking, a relatively recent one, and the ongoing political fighting about whether they ought to be public or private really ought to get the attention it deserves instead of being buried under abstract ‘government bad’ rhetoric.