One major factor: women entered the workforce. Labor supply doubled, and two incomes per household became normalized. Our current economic system fails to account for the work of raising children which was implicitely built into the "traditional family" model.
That's a double whammy for workers. The value of labor is halved. Both partners are expected to work to achieve a similar standard of living. And, without one partner doing household and child-rearing labor, those costs are borne by the workers.
How is that better than a database? Is someone concerned that Walmart will fabricate supply chain tracking?
Dab pen and spice jars.
That's basically enough to start a religion in medieval times. Spices to finance a nice temple, and dabs to create a religious experience forc prophets who testify to the power of the faith.
Interesting - thanks for sharing! My opinion is definitely no more than anecdotal.
Of course there is. I mean, not at Meta, but as a general concept it exists.
Yes, there is absolutely a difference. And yes, loose vagina is worse.
I'm no biologist, but my perception is that the baseline is set by hip width (wider hips --> more loose) but much more important is physical fitness. Strengthening the diaphragm, core, and pelvic floor quickly elevates the experience and makes the baseline irrelevant.
I'm a big fan of Always Sunny, but not much outside of that.
My take on it is this: it's a movie about being a nobody with small, kind of pedestrian life goals, in a time when everyone is trying to be famous and we are inundated by media and celebrity. Everyone in the movie tries to make themselves the main character, except for the actual protagonist.
The most essential question of the film, at a literal and existential level, is this: who is this story about?
Fools Paradise. I loved it. Thought it was beautiful, subtle, and weird.
I was absolutely shocked how poorly it has been received. I think most people completely missed the point of the movie.
Agreed. What a dumb article.
Agreed. What a dumb article.
Hot take: it was a valiant effort by people with tremendous power and influence to do the right thing with the wrong tools. Blackrock et al. tested the hypothesis that companies can generate greater returns by doing good. In doing so they risked their reputation and relationships with their investors.
We all learned together that their hypothesis is wrong. One cannot add a constraint (ESG etc) without compromising returns, and the big money piles operate with mandates to maximize risk-adjusted returns.
It can, and will, get worse.
A carbon tax is a specific, simple, policy that voters could form a broad coalition around to implement.
Or maybe we could work a unified coalition of voters around the implementation of a carbon tax, incremented over a period of years, to align those incentives?
Because a carbon tax incremented over a period of years would achieve the desired outcome with much less administrative burden and economic impact.
We should use fossil fuels sometimes - when it's worth paying the real cost!