And look at who is profiting - DIng! It's the senior executives and investors of these parasitical companies.
. Oh, the irony in your post. I'm surprised you didn't mention the "parasitical senior executives of craigslist taking away jobs from pawn shop owners that can't support their families".
If you're going to criticize anything Uber does, it should be the blatant disregard for local regulations that put taxis at a disadvantage. Force them to adhere to the same standards that taxis have to do (passenger insurance, proper bookkeeping to ensure drivers pay income tax, sales tax if applicable on fares, etc..) Once they're all on the same playing field, then there's nothing legitimate for taxis to complain about.
And finally, your "race to the bottom of the wage barrel" doesn't really apply here. If prices drop and your average uber driver makes less, then the consumers and passengers benefit! If the level field is completely even and your average cab fare is much lower, then the cab drivers were making far more than they would have via normal supply and demand . The only losers are those that own the medallions (and the taxi drivers who provide shitty customer service; who are forced to clean up their cabs, play music that the customer wants to hear, and clear their cars more frequently. Boo hoo).
Read it and weep. TTIP and TISA yet to go. This was all planned back in 1985 when the Masters of the Universe began the Narrative and implemented several measures to discourage women from tech careers.
I don't know about you, but I don't think He-Man and his crew sought to discourage women from employment in certain fields. His actions appeared to be fairly progressive for the mid-80's. After all, his twin sister had basically the same job in a male-dominated career of villain foiling and he seemed perfectly fine with that.
My thoughts are that, the "Ban all the guns" group is wishful thinking. That ship has sailed, and if you try to ban guns, then only outlaws will have guns, and I don't think that's any good.
I like your points here, and i generally agree here with your stance here for toddlers (or basically, someone acquiring a gun that's not qualified to handle one). But I can't really agree with that stance on "only outlaws will have guns", especially when it comes to school shootings or a rampage of a similar nature. Yes, your criminal organizations and inner city gangs will still have their guns, but we could still reduce the number of mass shooting instances by making it more difficult to acquire them in the first place. Or alternatively, make it more difficult to acquire more powerful guns; semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, etc...
The people involved in these mass shootings aren't exactly the most socially proficient - if they couldn't just run to a gun store or pawn shop and pick something up easily, how else would they acquire one? They don't exactly have connections to the black market. They couldn't just order one online (with restrictions in place on these types of weapons). Are they going to ask their classmates, hoping they don't rat them out? Making guns more difficult to own could result in higher instances of potential shooters getting caught before the shit goes down, or discouraging them from trying in the first place.
365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year