MAGA people don't trust statistics, you have to provide relatable anecdotal evidence. If MAGA idiots understood and trusted statistics we wouldn't have RFK as the head of HHS.

The question is, why aren't Americans willing to work below "market rate" if they have no other opportunities? The market rate ought to adjust.

It's about willingness to risk capital. If you aren't sure your restaurant idea is going to make a lot of money, you won't open one unless it's very cheap. If a lottery ticket costs $100 would you buy one? If it costs $1 then you would be more likely.

The knowledge is free.

The skilled professionals to persuade the pupil whose civil rights include refusing to learn to absorb it are not.

You can lock a kid in a library but you can't make her think. When ignorance is virtue we have lost.

From a fundamental standpoint, I 100% agree with this level of fee on H1B visas. It was intended for bringing in people who had specializations that didn't exist locally, not for bringing in people who would simply do the work cheaper then the local labor pool. This has led to all kinds of stagnation in compensation especially when there was high demand for the jobs as well as rising cost of living.

That being said, remote work has shown that some of this can be done without being at the office anymore. I think some businesses will look at this again and review their recent back to the office policies, and the need to have workers live/reside near certain tech hubs/centers, and will use it as an excuse to then pay the going rate of where the person resides, not the rate of compensation for the work itself....

If by "will go back" you mean "will be deported". If they're even allowed to stay long enough to graduate...

Make it an Xbox game -- try to import things while avoiding / minimizing tariffs.
(Ironically, there will probably be a tariff on the game.)

So far technology has been fixing things and making life a lot better for everyone. Before the year 2000, zero US presidents had ever live past age 92. Now it's 4 (Reagan, Ford, GHW Bush, Carter). You can't tell me that's not advances in medical technology. 200 years ago, it would take 3 days to get from Berlin to Munich. Now you can go from New York City to Beijing, China in less than a day .. and much safer than that trip from Berlin to Munich btw. Anyway, a lot of people died in the early days of aviation and automobiles, but we fixed it instead of writing the whole technology off. Humans kill about one million people every year in automobile accidents. In the US alone, the number is 40,000. If we can reduce that number by a few hundred or even a dozen that would be a big deal. 12 human lives saved every year. We've tried telling humans to drive safe. We've tried telling them not to drink. We've told people to never ever be distracted. None of that has worked. 40,000 people die every year on the roads, and you know what each of those deaths is on you. Because you're refusing to allow driverless technology to be developed and deployed. We've seen that it's safer than humans. How many college kids die in traffic accidents caused by humans every year? How can you not want a practical and reaslistic solution to that?

Maybe there's a missing comma between them?

"It uses less electricity than a modern frig"

So that seemed incredible; but after doing some research it is plausible (with caveats). I have a few questions:

1) What 'modern' fridge are you using for comparison? There is a substantial difference between 1982, 2002 and 2022.
2) What are the volumes of the two fridges being compared?

The average 1940s fridge looks to be only 6-8 cu ft; while the average 2000s fridge is 20+ cu ft. Even if it slightly beats the modern fridge on total electricity, it's probably only cooling 1/3 to 1/4 the volume

For example in the 1940s you might be around 400kWh; but if its 7cu ft, its only getting 57kWh/cu ft/year; and comparing it to a 550kWh fridge from 2002 cooling 21 cu ft for 26kWh/cu ft/year. (And that's a 20 year old not particularly efficient "modern" fridge... you could get that down to 300kWh annually on a new fridge if you buy specifically for efficiency)

Sure the 1940s fridge might beat that not particularly modern or efficient "modern fridge" on total use but it's still not really a win unless you only need 7 cu ft. And if all you need is 7 cu fit, in 2025 you can get 8 cu ft for 167kWh year. (60% less electricity)

cites: some data on 2025 fridges
https://shrinkthatfootprint.co...

data on refrigeration energy usage and capacity over time:
https://www.researchgate.net/f...
https://appliance-standards.or...

Fair comment, but the point stands that it's in there and sooner or later it will.

That's such an arbitrary calculation. The big turning point was in the 70s energy crisis when energy star became a thing. And there is a huge efficiency jump from 1970 to 1980; sure 2020s appliances are significantly more efficient than 1980s appliances but is a logarithmic improvement curve and there's no justification to buy one every 10 years.

From what I've seen, those 6-12 episodes tended to be longer than the 42 minutes the average hour show is in the US (on top of no commercials).

But yeah, there was a different attitude about the work.

Yeah, that couldn't possibly be misused, ever, under any circumstances, by anyone.

According to a friend with a PE license, his signature now also carries and unlimited civil liability. But yeah, the potential prison time is the bigger deterrent.

Land can be seized in the US too, if the government decides they need it. It's called eminent domain. Sure they'll have to compensate you .. based on what they decide the land is worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...