35997279's comments

That was the administrative reason why the question was not permitted. The case was raised to begin with because of fears it would result in undercounting non-citizens, who would be less likely to respond because the don’t trust that the data would remain private. This explanation is outlined in the section called “2020 Census” in the Wikipedia article you linked.

Internment started with forcing non-citizens to register with the state. The census question was essentially the same process, but on a national scale.

> it’s hard to forget that your home country saw you as a threat even while a child.

And it’s the inability to forget that kept a citizenship question off the 2020 census[0], a reminder of the long lasting impact the internment still has on the US.

[0]https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/636107892/some-japanese-ameri...

This page mentions they were forced to sell their land, of course at a much lower price than they would have gotten. They also weren’t allowed to take their pets, which the page says “were destroyed.” [0].

Shameful. This country took its own citizens, locked them up, stole their land and shot their dogs — without a trial.

https://www.paloaltohistory.org/japanese-american-internment...

Here’s a higher resolution copy. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/notice-to-alien...

One of the most affecting images in my high school history book for me was of Japanese American Boy Scouts hanging a sign declaring Japanese Americans “Aliens of Enemy Nationalities.” The caption mentioned that the young men themselves were afterwards sent to internment camps. [0]

This image so affected me that I once saw a copy of the book left behind at a coffee shop and had to thumb through it to see it again.

With all the editing of history curricula that states like Florida are doing, I hope it survives. It’s is a dark chapter in American history that wasn’t that long ago.

[0]https://www.mrginn.com/uploads/8/5/4/6/85468970/chapter35.pd...

Which means surge pricing for Tesla. Musk said that charging would not be a money maker, but of course times have changed.

Holding on to my free unlimited supercharging for life. :)

That’s a good point. Perhaps the interest rate could remain the same for people making over $60k and reduced for those making less, with none of the “capping at x% AGI” for those above $60k either. This would make it more dynamic for, I.e, a person who takes time off because of illness, caring for a family member, or having a child.

More complicated and potentially more room for fraud.

Overall, I think we ought to do something for people struggling. But I agree that nothing should be done for the wealthy.

Yeah. These numbers should be reduced by 50% at least, meaning maximum 60k for individuals and 125k for couples. That would be generous enough to not miss some HCOL middle class folks. And it shouldn’t apply to graduate school debt at all.

I also question the need for full forgiveness, and wonder what the inflationary impact would be on something like “everyone’s student loans from the federal government are now 0%. Your minimum payment is 5% of your AGI and your tax returns will be used to pay down the balance until it’s paid off. future loans will be capped at prime rate +.% fixed at time of borrowing”. Leave private loans untouched, but dischargeable at bankruptcy. This would pressure on student loan private lenders to lend based on certain conditions (I.e, grades and academic progress) with a minimum amount lent by the federal government. It would result in a lot of withholding changes, but I think that’s a good thing.

>I don't want the people with 6 figure incomes, or current household wealth in the mid 5 figures, given a freebie at the relative expense of others in less fortunate situations.

This is the nuance that we must bring to the discussion. I am pro student debt forgiveness, but in a way that isn’t a massive handout to people like me. I paid off the majority of my student loans with the signing bonus of my second FAANG job. No way would I have any business getting my debt forgiven.

This is what has always confused me about the student debt conversation. $25,000 is not a lot of debt. That's about what it cost to get a brand new Toyota Corolla. On top of which, the terms of this debt is very favorable. PAYE, low interest rates (mind were 6.8%, which was outrageous at the time but now we're entering a more inflationary / normal interest rate world), and are termed for 20+ years.

There is also a lot of debt taken on by graduate students. To be clear, only around 30% of Americans overall have even a bachelor's degree. The need to take on graduate school debt just simply isn't there in the way the taking on debt for undergraduate is. So I think these numbers should break out graduate students, especially those who went into high-earning professions with credential gatekeepers, like medicine (law is debatable -- we've minted way too many lawyers).

> There was never going to be long term survival.

Yes. It’s an tablet on a bike connected to a VOD workout service. Apple was always just about to eat their lunch. The day they announced Fitness+ was probably the day everyone in the C-Suite started looking for the exit.

> I don't like it, but there's nothing stopping your neighbor or anyone else from filming your home from a public/street view

This is not a natural occurrence, not a law of physics like gravity. It’s the result of large corporations normalizing surveillance. Recall that some Germans rebelled against Google Street View, and the government made them stop putting photos people’s homes on the web. But the cold logic and power of surveillance capitalism prevailed, and even the nominally “privacy protecting” corporation Apple now does the same.

“That’s how it goes” implies it can’t be stopped. It can. Through laws. This branch of government just decided they’re not the ones to do it.

Well, I would question the notion (as others have) that union activity is anti-company or company-undermining. The company managers may perceive it that way, but that doesn’t make it the case.

There seems to be an underlying assertion embedded in the question. Namely, that both parties in an adversarial relationship should be treated equally under the law. This ignores power dynamics in favor of philosophical cohesion. Practically, though, we know this results in the exploitation of the individuals with less power. That’s why the NLRB was created, in response to worker exploitation. Indeed, creating a framework to settle disputes between individuals of disparate power is one fundamental reason for the existence of governments, the rule of law; it separates societies from anarchy.

“Fair” does not always mean “equal.” There’s a reason that people who are rich pay more both nominally and by percentage of their earnings.

It’s disappointing that this question continues to be raised. The position that the question implies was refuted almost a century ago, at a time when young men died of typhus from poor living conditions, a time when children regularly worked 12 hour shifts in mines and slaughterhouses. It took a massive movement to convince the lucky few who governed the exploited that human life is worth more than economic value that can be extracted from it. Yet here we are —- people who are not more than three generations away from almost certain exploitation questioning why employees should be allowed to hang posters on the cork board and talk about their own interests on the property of a company founded by a man with a private rocket company.

It’s not that I think it’s a moral imperative that you have solidarity with Amazon workers, or even reflect on your own possible complicity in their exploitation. I doubt a person capable of asking this question is interested in such a reflection. You should, however, come to the table with a modicum of historical understanding.

>Why does an employer need to lend anything to union work or organizing?

The complaint alleges that Amazon prevented employees from posting union-related material in a non-work area during non-work hours, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.

Basically, Section 8(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with or restrain employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, such as the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to engage in collective bargaining, or to engage in other concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.

>surely if this is starting to show signs of success Alphabet just swoops in and buys up Uber

It's too late for that. The regulatory pendulum for mergers like this is swinging the other way. The public was indifferent to big tech gobbling up the competition when times were good. Now that money costs money again, people with normal (i.e., not overpaid tech) salaries are feeling the squeeze, which means politicians need a cause that makes their voters feel like they're fighting for them. The giants must be punished.

The “sorry the credit card machine is broken” scam is about as ludicrous as the homeless people asking me for $1. Buddy, I haven’t carried cash since the Obama administration. Half the time I don’t even carry a credit card.

Can you get a taxi to show up? The last two times I tried to rebel against the rideshare duopoly was the morning before international flights. Trips to the airport are the only use case I have for rideshare. Both times I scheduled the pick up by calling the phone number the day before, both times the driver just… didn’t show up. I panicked and downloaded Lyft.

I know some taxi companies have apps now, but if I’m going that route, I don’t see the point of not using Lyft.

> It can be a great help for suicidal patients or for getting traditional treatment started, but it’s not a singular solution to depression for most people.

Is there any singular solution to depression for most people?

We are at least two generations removed from any possible, popularly conceivable alternative to capitalism. Such an alternative is not generated from thin air; it must be cultivated.

Any criticism, to be useful, must be consist of two parts: (1) An assertion of fault and (2) a suggestion of remedy. You haven’t even provided (1), not really, but let’s pretend for a moment you have. What is your remedy for Klein’s faulty expression of anti capitalism? Printing ‘zines from paper made from the pressed dryer lint of guerrilla laundromats? How far does your purity test go before it itself becomes just an excuse to refuse to discuss the ideas themselves?

Or shall we just admit that your position is merely nihilism? If that is the case, let us state it out right; this, at least, dispenses with pretense of ideology.