Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by onlypositive | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

onlypositive

Most Americans agree on most things.

Cultural differences across Europe are FAR greater than anything in the US.

The problem in the US is extremists taking over the microphone.

View on HN

I don't think so. I review a lot of market research reports for my firm when making strategic decisions.

The younger generations of Americans are extremely polarized and ready to fight. They don't agree with many of the cultural norms of the older generations such keeping politics out of the work place, or common public areas of civility. They are willing to inject their personal biases into the company and literally every aspect of their life. This is not unique to the Left either.

We are seeing some necessary materials partners send out emails signatures with literal bible verses on them to our employees with pronouns in their emails.

The under 35's are really adding a lot of pain to my life right now.

Cultural Differences in America are at the level of Hungary vs Germany/UK right now, if I had to say.

I think it's just that people are delaying having children. Once they have children they fall in line as there's no energy for anything else

Funny you mention that, that was a topic this week at my firm.

The number of single women in the U.S. is expected to increase 1.2% every year from 2018 to 2030, compared to a 0.8% increase for the overall population. This is likely going to result in 45% of women between the ages of 25 and 44 who will be single and childless by 2030.

If anything I expect the discord to get worse in the future.

Also if anyone knows what these single women might want from the market, I'm dying to know!

Given the state of abortion law, I wouldn't bet on "childless by choice" remaining a constant.

Play both sides: tampons and diapers.

You say tampons but do you mean contraceptives? Mothers still use tampons.

Contraceptives are designed to prevent pregnancy. Tampons contain period blood, which happens before and after pregnancy. Diapers are for babies post pregnancy.

> You say tampons but do you mean contraceptives?

I don't want to come across as a proponent of an ugly situation, but I was being specific with my verbiage.

The law is currently stacked against women and makes it difficult to obtain contraception, and impossible to address the consequences of its non-acquisition or failures. Abortion isn't an option, even for rape cases. Obviously women want contraception, but it is being denied to them on purpose. The men in charge are playing the long game and shaping the circumstances to compel them to produce children.

(The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the current Adderall shortage is an intentional test run of dependency interference to see what the public is willing to put up with-- next time, it'll be a manufactured disruption in supply of chemical contraceptives.)

Your observations are correct but I was too terse-- it's not a tampons OR diapers dichotomy. Demand for both is going to increase. If there are more women, they will buy more (and better) hygiene products. If they are denied birth control, "choice" in child-bearing is reduced to a game of consistently beating the odds. When their luck runs out, they'll need diapers (and affordable childcare).

Only lesbians are safe from this nightmare. I don't know what they like to buy though.

One of the most common forms of contraception is hormonal medications that have a side effect of lightening and/or fully stopping periods. Most of the abortion legislation has limiting access to those medications or other contraceptive procedures accompanying it, or even included in the same bill.

So from that point of view, one could see conservatives constant and endless attempts on restricting abortion and birth control as trying to prevent would-be liberal voters from being politically active?

The problem as I see it is the politicians and media stoking the flames of any controversial issue they can for profit. This ‘issue’ is an excellent example.

Even England Scotland and Wales are separate countries.

I suppose in theory the US already has a mechanism for managing this disagreement federal and state laws.

I'm not an expert in UK law but I'm pretty sure that the variation in laws between one US state and another are much bigger than the variation between the four constituent UK countries.

There's actually quite a substantial difference between Scots law versus English and Welsh law in particular! Even disregarding substantial divergence in legislation, Scots law is a mixed civil/common law system, versus the common law system of England and Wales. I'm no US legal expert, but I'd imagine the differences are roughly on par to those found between US states. My understanding is that it's similar to the sort of difference you'd see between Louisiana's system and other states'.

TIL. I'd ask now what the difference is between a barrister and a solicitor, but I'm not sure that's a thing an American is even capable of understanding.

At the simplest level it’s really just the lawyers who operate in the court (barristers) versus those who operate outwith it (solicitors). It’s a bit more complex and couched in tradition but that’s the gist of it. It’s actually from the same etymology as the “Bar” in the US, as in “admission to the bar” or “the bar association”. It represents a person who has “passed the bar” in the courtroom, separating spectators from participants. It’s just that the setup is a little different, with most solicitors not having a right of audience in the court.

Another difference in Scots law - no barristers but “advocates” instead.

Thanks, very interesting.

That was sort of my point.

The idea is that Europe is much more varied than the US. Yet the UK is a country seemingly made up of countries. So difference isn't enough?

And the US already has a system to allow quite different laws to be enacted.

Ah, I misunderstood. The thing is, although I believe the US government is more decentralized than your typical European government, and you're right that the various states have very different laws, the Federal government is still extremely powerful, and Federal law covers every subject that you can think of. Since the spectrum of political opinion represented is so wide, this means that any decision the Federal government makes will upset a lot of people. There basically never is a compromise decision that everyone feels at least OK about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com