They offer you more than minimum wage because of the existence of a minimum wage. Otherwise they'd offer you not $1 per year, but just enough to afford to return to work when added to whatever welfare they can squeeze out of government and society. Minimum wages do apply to salaried jobs as well. Check out what you can earn in countries that don't have them, and then thank a union. Or throw off the shackles of the minimum wage and get into a type of work that really doesn't have one, gig work, and let us know how that supply and demand thing works out for you.

The Luddites died in grinding poverty with all indications being that they were correct, it was their grandchildren who got the new jobs that came along as a result of the automation that ruined their grandparents. Wages and standards of living have been stagnant for a half-century at this point. There are people frantically applying to hundreds of jobs they're well-qualified for and not getting so much as an interview. Over 100 people are applying to each job opening these days, and likewise it takes over 100 job applications for an average applicant to get a job (both rather conservative estimates). If improving productivity led to rising wages, why are we not earning 40% more for the same number of hours people worked in the '70s? Why has going from mainframes and dumb terminals to present-day computing added approximately jack shit to ~90% of workers' pay?

Good for you! Especially if you work in tech. Sucks for the people who aren't part of your anecdote though.

Look up the history of the ones you don't think may have value and you'll learn about the workers who fought and/or died to get the laws in place that keep you from experiencing the same thing, which you now take for granted. Or if that's not enough, maybe you should experience a 996 work schedule in China, work alongside a nonexistent/laughably low minimum wage in a Caribbean country, or do some dangerous work in a Nigerian e-waste mine to get a taste of what happens without all those regulations.

Anytime there's an economic downturn, companies reduce their advertising budget. That includes reducing their own advertising staff and reducing their paid advertising expenses. The result is always cuts in media budgets who primarily bank on advertising revenue for operations.

Some podcasts are already adapting by asking regular listeners to join premium tiers (and the great ones get great buy-in) or moving their podcasts to subscription services like SiriusXM to kept a piece of the subscription revenue.

The difficulty of obtaining a American driver's licensure varies literally from city to city and the license is valid throughout the entire United States. Many of the least competent people obtain and retain their licensure throughout their lives despite vision issues, decreased decision-making abilities, infractions, and crimes.

By contrast, it is MUCH more difficult to get a license due to the higher standard of driving and it's much easier to LOSE one's license.

There are road differences between the two nations, but the PRIMARY difference is the standard to legally drive vehicles.

It sounds old and stodgy, but having lived through so many investor-fueled booms and busts, I tend to agree. Investing in a company (buying shares) should result in an apportionment of profits-- that's all. If we're ever going to have any semblance of a stable economy, we have to stop assuming that there will be a greater fool.

Non-Libertarian here. While the market is good for many things (multiple iterations bearing out a better product or business model), I assert that some things are just too important to leave to the market. For example, we don't want to let the market decide if thalidomide should be prescribed to expecting mothers because the market can be so very drastically wrong... or slow... or intentionally manipulated and exploitative.

When people are at risk of harm or exploitation, "leaving it to the market" is like sending lambs to slaughter. Thus, given the massive amount of public funds, retirements, and life savings invested, I don't think the appropriateness of accounting standards for publicly-traded companies should be left to the market to decide.

The LTSE has neat principles, but their requirements are insufficiently stringent to absolve them of their obligations to fully inform their financial investors. Consider their requirements to list:

1. Serves the interests of a broad group of stakeholders
2. Measures success over long time horizons that stretch from years to decades
3. Implementing compensation plans for executives and directors that reward long term performance
4. Giving directors a crucial role in the setting of strategy and the monitoring of progress
5. Engaging with long term shareholders

Every single one of those requirements is gameable. Consider:

1. Everyone likes to make money. We make money. Check!
2. We evaluate revenue over multiple years. Check!
3. Double-extra bonus for C-suite that's stuck around for 5+ years. Check!
4. Meetings happen. Check!
5. Shareholders calls. Check!

Wow... so innovative. (sarcasm) Their requirements are insufficient to assuage the financial concerns with business operations that instigated the quarterly report standard.

Yes, having accountants costs money. Being responsible stewards of corporate funds is hard. Good accountancy is one of the most important LONG-TERM financial success strategies. You don't want to fly by the seat of your pants, loose millions of dollars in random unaccounted-for accounts, or fraudulently use funds that are restricted as customer deposits as investment capitol, right? RIGHT? (See: FTX)

Ya... that's why quarterly reports are necessary.

Not using Plex is the gift that keeps on giving. Why so many people went for it when there were better open-source alternatives available, I'll never know.

This is a standard Bloomberg "check out how easy it is to get money once you already have money" article. Clickbait at its core.

At 26 years old, most people don't have the experience to call themselves "a former" anything.

Exceedingly few self-supporting 26 year olds have enough money in an account to call "savings".

That means that he had OVER $40,000 in cash savings to put into that portfolio at the age of 26. The median HOUSEHOLD has $8,000 in savings.

Let's take a look at another profile:

Oh... so he had a very high paying job for an extended period of time, now has insider information, and is now telling people they can make magic easy money by buying his stuff and doing something different?...

Trade deficit as an emergency, I think that's the economic equivalent of declaring the color of a T-shirt to be an emergency.

There are quite a few Vinfast cars going around, I wondered if people were importing them individually but then I spotted a Vinfast dealership off the highway (401 I think?) next to a Lotus dealership.

Chile seemed to be making something similar work with early-'70s computer technology, until Henry Kissinger decided that democratic socialism was a threat worse than Soviet communism and had the regime overthrown and replaced with a murderous right-wing dictatorship:

https://thereader.mitpress.mit...

I thought you should be able to find the link to the data in the news article, but since you can't, here it is:

https://www.pewresearch.org/so...

While the planet could support more people with properly managed resources, this idea that innovation comes from pulling the genetic one-armed-bandit enough times to hit a few jackpots and pop out a few Einsteins is ludicrous. Einsteins aren't born, they're made and enabled. If you want new ideas and innovation, support and empower the people who are already there to do it. We already have lots of people who could generate new ideas including lots of potential Einsteins, they just don't have the time or conditions to make a breakthrough like he did. They're scrapping away at a shitty job that eats all their time to make an already rich person richer instead of having the time to study bleeding-edge physics etc. in their generous downtime at a chill job in a patent office. Or they've gained the skills to make breakthroughs but are wasting them on making Facebook more addictive or developing Grok.

You're only a skeptic if you try to find the truth. You're simply obstinate if you just doubt things without using the tools in front of you to seek truth. Here's the hard data: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/r...

Go to any weather station and download the data going as far back as you can. I downloaded data from Oxford to run some simple analysis for January 1853 through August 2025. A simple linear regression showed an unquestionable increase in max temperature in that period with the accelerating increases since the 1980s. The biggest increases in average monthly max temp (C) throughout that time period were in March (2.3C), October (2.1C), November (2.3C), and December (2.0C). The lowest increase was June (0.9C).

The data's all there.