That's the story I hear from certain folks and as far as I can tell, it has no merit. I'd be interested in any actual stats here.
717 karma · joined June 12, 2023
That's the story I hear from certain folks and as far as I can tell, it has no merit. I'd be interested in any actual stats here.
Regarding your second link - it's pretty surreal to see. Reminiscent of "this is extremely dangerous to our democracy".
You can see the effect is has on their base here[1]. It looks like they changed it sometime to say "AI videos of SNAP beneficiaries complaining about cuts go viral"[2] with a small note at the end saying they didn't mention it was AI. This is truly disgusting.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20251031212530/https://www.foxne...
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1ol9iu6/snap_...
[2]: https://www.foxnews.com/media/snap-beneficiaries-threaten-ra...
However, the "last resort" comment I made was a guess to their reasoning - it wasn't an authoritative explanation. My core point is that Amazon seems to think they can do the same, or about the same, or an acceptable amount less with fewer people. If that's the case, then from their perspective, they're overpaying on labor. That's it.
Loss of money? Layoffs normally have severance packages that are paid out to the employee - this can be seen as the company taking a monetary hit - though not proportional like you said. But what's the alternative here? 5x/10x'ing the severance package? I feel like that would make the job market even rougher as companies would be even more conservative with who and how much they hire.
Mental trauma? I mentioned it in another comment, but the employees after a layoff normally do have an increased fear of future layoffs which impact morale which would result in lower productivity.
Loss of residence / food? I'm coming up blank here.
But can it not be the case the this /was/ the company's last resort? There's another option of moving people around and retraining them to do another function. What if that was considered and then rejected because there weren't enough departments growing to warrant that? Rhetorically, if they don't have the ability/opportunity to re-assign people, then what?
So we come back to my previous statement/question. Above what profit amount should a company be obligated to keep (in their eyes) unproductive workers?
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/amazon-target...
> But you do you.
- seems like a truism. I get the feeling it's meant to be read as "I give up. You can keep whatever wrong viewpoint you have".
So...that's one? A literally-who to most lay people, but yea, it is one Democratic politician. I see your one Illinois Governer and raise you one US President:
> "These people are running a Gestapo administration. It's the only thing they have. And it's the only way they're going to win, in their opinion..."
> "Every time the radical left Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it actually a great badge of honor.... Because I’m being indicted for you"
It mostly seems to be the peanut gallery which uses that language - but never the leaders. So I'm left to rhetorically wonder, who's pushing the narrative that Dem politicians use that language? I even had coworkers who told me that Pelosi and Schumer are stoking the fires by calling our president Hitler. And yet they never said that...
> The United States is the world's second-largest manufacturer after the People's Republic of China with a record high real output in 2024 of $2.913 trillion [0]
I believe the US' manufacturing capability is the core of your comment and I also believe it's incorrect. Sure we don't manufacture fast-fashion or junk products and we may have lost quite a bit of tribal knowledge[1] with respect to that. But it's nothing that can't be re-gained.
And the benefits China and the Russia get from their spying programs? Americans by-and-large simply do not care about them. Denmark can do whatever they want with their tech as long as their citizens approve. Like you said, they're in a different position given their geographic location - thus, they have different priorities. But Americans do not feel like they have such an existential threat so they are (generally) not willing to give up their privacy.
Whether "reality" catches up to your predictions remains to be seen.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
But it's one of the things I guess you can't be too sure about. Maybe if we see name-brand prices increase after commingling ends, that can be proof that prices were low due to counterfeits
Charcoal pencils - 30% cheaper on Amazon compared to other sites. More than 2 times cheaper compared to local art stores and the local store only has one crappy brand in stock.
My watch - $40 plus shipping (2 weeks) directly from the manufacturer. Amazon has it at $28 and it'll get here tomorrow.
Pen nibs from Jetpen - $10 + $5.95 shipping. Once again >1week for delivery. $16 from amazon and it gets here tomorrow
I really feel like an idiot trying to boycott this company, but I'm still trying where I can.
[0]: Oh, it looks like the bsky link has an article with companies advising as such - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/03/31/immigra...
> This game hasn’t been indexed since October 2024 since it doesn’t meet our indexing criteria: https://itch.io/docs/creators/getting-indexed#why-isnt-my-pr...
> The developers are using a “Download” button as a link to Steam. The developer took down any playable files form this page in 2024.
"authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution"
Tells me that they don't have proof this is the source of the PFAS pollution. If they did, they wouldn't "favor" the explanation, they would just say that's the explanation. I don't support making wide changes based on hunches. Sure - replace the fertilizer with something else for a while and see if that changes the PFAS levels. If it does, sure ban the paper products from being used as fertilizer. But there is a cost associated w/ doing that and that cost has higher-order effects.