Private equity is all about killing the golden goose for the eggs now, then stuffing and mounting the corpse and then selling to someone else, or back out to the public as an IPO.

The problem isn't necessarily with private equity - it's not like people don't know that when they come in, they're going to use leverage to buy the company, and then wring out the cash flow to pay dividends to themselves first, before forcing the company to use the remaining cashflow to service the debt that they used to to buy the company.

The problem is shareholder greed. Private equity is a liquidity event. Instead of waiting 10 years to get value, they're promising you the value up front today. You get money, they get the company for effectively nothing because it is all debt financed, and then they do things that basically destroy the long term viability of the business in exchange for short term valuation boosts to allow them to "extract" even more money.

If shareholders wanted, they could support defensive strategies like the poison pill:

https://www.investopedia.com/t...

But in most cases, they won't. Because they want the money now.

Boeing sold the fuselage factory to private equity.

Knowing how private equity works, they probably squeezed the plant for all it was worth, loaded it with debt, and then took it public after massaging the books with short term fixes that probably crippled its ability to function profitably long term (like firing workers and then rehiring them as independent contractors).

Then Boeing treated them like a disposable supplier instead of a critical partner, and since Boeing was pretty much almost all of their business, they couldn't exactly say no to Boeing's terms.

And now Boeing is surprised they're getting substandard deliveries. I think what we should be surprised by is that nobody has died yet from these manufacturing issues (with the possible exception of the 737 MAX crashes, to the extent that manufacturing quality issues affected the single sensor that the defective by design MCAS system was relying on.)

I anticipate insurance costs to rise for airlines that rely on Boeing planes, which they will go back to Boeing with to negotiate for discounts on future planes. Boeing will publicly be contrite, but in their boardrooms, to preserve their profit margin and their fat executive bonuses, they will scheme future ways to try and pass their lumps onto other customers (like the federal government) and their suppliers.

Best case scenario at this point is the FAA revokes Boeing's ability to self-certify.

There is a possibility that they overhired during the pandemic.

There's also a possibility that they're doing this in advance of reorgs that will result in units being spun off or sold to make their balance sheets look better.

I used to be a heavy google maps user, but I couldn't take them spamming my phone screen with pins which I would inevitably fat finger while trying to move the screen or select a position, which would trigger an ad that would completely derail what I was trying to do... which is look up directions.

It's as obnoxious as throwing up a modal while I'm trying to accomplish a task, asking me to "rate the app".

"It's an account you pay into for your own retirement. It is your money, not the governments."

If that's the way you've been told the program works, no wonder you're bitterly opposed to changes.

https://www.aarp.org/retiremen...

"Myth #7: Social Security is like a retirement savings account

The facts: The government does not stow your payroll tax contributions in a personal account for you, to be paid out with interest when you retire. Your benefit is based on how much money you earned over your working life, not on how much you paid into the system. As noted above, those contributions fund benefits for current retirees (and their survivors, and people with disabilities). When you retire, those still working will cover your benefits, and so on.

Over their lifetimes, most people get more from Social Security and Medicare (which is also partially funded by payroll tax contributions) than they pay in, according to analyses by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Still, you might think of Social Security less like saving for retirement â" there are other vehicles for that â" and more like an earned benefit the government promises to pay so you have at least some income in your later years."

The key phrase is "...earned benefit the government promises to pay..."

The money you paid in already has been spent in the form of social security payouts for current retirees. For you to get the same, you will need to depend on future workers. Assuming no other changes (like a cut in benefits, an increase in retirement age, or removal of the social security tax wage cap), if the collective draw at the time your cohort starts drawing exceeds what future workers are paying, there will likely be a shortfall. It's a bit like a shared risk pool for insurance in that regard - if too many people make claims, then premiums have to go up.

If you made it to retirement and can draw on social security, then first of all congratulations. Secondly, you're on a government entitlement, and you are at the mercy of government finances. It's not like a pension where you can cash in the value of your pension and manage the lump sum yourself if you don't trust that the company handling the pension is going to be around.

BTW, apparently you are allowed to opt out of paying into social security and medicare. You just have to be a member of a religious sect that will provide for you instead.

https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topi...

"Members of certain religious groups (including the Amish and Mennonites) may be exempt from paying Social Security taxes. To become exempt, they must:

        Waive their rights to all benefits under the Social Security Act, including hospital insurance benefits; and
        Meet the following requirements:
                Be a member of a recognized religious sect conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits under a private plan or system that makes payments in the event of death, disability or retirement, or which makes payments towards the costs of or provides for medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by Social Security);
                Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950; and
                Have never received or been entitled to any benefits payable under Social Security programs.

To request an exemption from Social Security taxes, get Form 4029â"Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Then, file the form with the Social Security Administration (address is on the form)."

Omfg:

"Orrick said the stolen data includes consumer names, dates of birth, postal address and email addresses, and government-issued identification numbers, such as Social Security numbers, passport and driver license numbers, and tax identification numbers. The data also includes medical treatment and diagnosis information, insurance claims information â" such as the date and costs of services â" and healthcare insurance numbers and provider details."

Why would they be keeping that information in a fileshare?

It sounds like those people have been re-victimized.

The law firm was hired to handle things like... mandatory reporting of a prior breach to victims, which required handing over their contact info.

If there's info in excess of that which was in their possession... then yeah, that's pretty stupid.

The politicians in California are careerists.

In the old days, this meant they'd graduate to a pinnacle of power and then rule from on high until they retired. Thanks to the incumbent advantage, they could even take some risks to accomplish longer term projects, and bank even more goodwill.

This changed with term limits.

Now they don't bother to do their jobs - their current job is a platform to land their next job. So it's all about what they can sell to voters instead of what they can actually do, and anything that needs to be "done" in order to sell as an achievement to voters has to fit within the current term.

This means a lot of legislation that sounds good, but takes years to implement with budget that either doesn't exist, or needs to be carved out of existing budget.

The funny thing is, in 2 years the SALT cap expires, assuming Congress doesn't reauthorize it. If eating the cost of California state taxes really is the reason that people are moving (debatable) the removal of the SALT penalty restores things to the pre-2017 tax cut state.

In other words, if California politicians can keep the state from going deeper into the shitter in the next 2 years, "rich people flight" should cease to be a problem.

You don't need AI writers to make mistakes like this. You just need an absence of fact checkers and editors.

I would think everybody here would be jumping at the chance to:

1. Create an article, video, or link using the term "artemis"
2. Get it indexed by Google (you can submit your link)
3. Set up advertising so you're getting revenue for it (even pennies will do).
4. Wait for bot to find you and automatically tell Google to deindex you
5. Wait for Google to comply without contacting you
6. Sue for damages.

Yeah. I ran into the same problem and cancelled. It wasn't that hard to gang purchases that I needed together to exceed the minimum for free shipping even without a membership.

Their video offerings have gotten worse and I've only used music once or twice, so it really was the free + fast shipping that I was using the membership for.

To give an example of expenses that could tip you into the negative, there was a mandated soft-story retrofit.

https://www.santamonica.gov/pr...

In Los Angeles, the cost of that was split between extra rent increases to rent controlled unit, capped at a maximum of $38/mo.

"Hereâ(TM)s where it gets interesting: In cities with rent control, who should pay for the fixes has been the subject of some debate. The Los Angeles City Council determined that owners can pass half the retrofit costs to tenants through rent increases over a 10-year period, with a maximum increase of $38 per month."

https://www.homerentalsla.com/...

Depending on how expensive the retrofit was (and how it was funded), it may have required that the landlord start increasing rents to the max allowed, defer other maintenance, etc.

The pandemic, unfortunate as it was, generated 1B in uncollectable rents for Los Angeles landlords alone.

https://therealdeal.com/la/202...

Let's assume that all of the rent was due to people in actual need. Doesn't change the math for property owners.

Eventually that bill comes due - property taxes are due to the state regardless of whether you make money or not, and if you don't pay, the state will tax auction your property.

I'm not saying that property owners shouldn't have to face these kinds of risks if they are running their businesses to make a profit. In fact, I think that they should be aiming to have a reserve necessary to whether these types of situations if they intend to run a serious business. I'm merely pointing out that just getting by negates your ability build a reserve to prepare for these types of emergencies, which increases your risk of insolvency should such an emergency happen.

Last item for thought.

For older construction (not new construction), as your percentage of long-standing tenants increases subject to rent control, you will eventually hit a tipping point where your real expenses due to inflation are outpacing your rent increases allowed under rent control. The cost of management, repairs, and especially insurance, not to mention the cost of any compliance required under rent control rules.

Part of the reason units are priced so high when they come back on the market is not only because of a shortage of supply, but because the new units are effectively subsidizing the older units. Also, because of a basic rule that also applies to negotiating your base salary when you start your new job. The higher your starting wage/starting rent, the more your percentage salary/rent increase will be worth in dollar terms. This helps to allow you to stretch things out longer. For a job, you'd then either job hop or get a promotion. For a landlord, you're hoping for normal turnover so that you're not adding to your roster of "legacy" tenants.

There is an escape hatch if your expenses exceed your income. A legal one, not the bullshit that has been practiced by people building out AirBNB empires by deliberately driving out rent control tenants so they can rent their units to tourists. It is called the Ellis act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Basically put, you declare you are getting out of the rental business and it allows you to evict all the tenants and either convert the property to personal use or for sale as a non-rental property. This arose out of a case where Santa Monica basically was forcing landlords to potentially run their apartments at a loss.

https://smdp.com/2023/09/13/re...

Tenants thus forced out are entitled to a relocation fee.

"Revised July 2022
How much is the relocation fee?
Effective July 1, 2022, the relocation fee is as follows:
Single $17,250
1 bedroom $23,750
2+ bedroom $33,050"

https://www.santamonica.gov/me...

Losses of rent controlled units due to Ellis Act activity in Santa Monica:

https://smdp.com/2023/04/21/20...

Assuming a situation where demand and supply have found equilibrium, one response to someone pricing a good at a higher price is to undercut the slightly and just steal their business, if possible (you have higher efficiencies).

For housing, this is only possible if you can build more housing, and at a rate that allows you to still make a profit while undercutting the competition. Otherwise you're potentially increasing the level at which they can raise prices, assuming more demand than can currently be supplied.

For example:

Compare:

1930's apartment complex is renting single bedroom 650sq ft apartment for $2500 in West Hollywood: https://www.zillow.com/homedet...

vs.

Brand new apartment complex, studio at 450sq ft for $2700 in Santa Monica (and this is the one year teaser deal, so I would expect this to increase after the year is up): https://www.zillow.com/homedet...

Both of these areas use rent control, and I deliberately chose higher cost of living areas with high demand in the Los Angeles area.

Santa Monica:
https://www.santamonica.gov/de...

West Hollywood:
https://www.weho.org/city-gove...

To build new multifamily housing in Santa Monica puts you under their purview of affordable housing rules. This is a fee levied on every square footage of new construction to fund the construction of affordable housing. If you decide to fulfill those obligations by building affordable housing then you become subject to affordable housing oversight. One of the stipulations is you must pay a monitoring fee to fund the resources necessary to verify that you are not breaking the law.

https://www.santamonica.gov/ho...

"November 30, 2011 -- Under a new law passed last week, Santa Monica property owners must pay the City's cost of insuring that income-qualified tenants occupy their affordable housing units.

The move comes after City officials found tenants who did not qualify occupying affordable housing units under City's Affordable Housing Production Program, which requires developers to build a certain number of units for lower-income tenants or pay the City an in-lieu fee.

The compliance monitoring fees approved by the City Council require the owners to pay a start-up fee of $170 per unit, a "re-occupancy" fee of $145 per unit when a new tenant moves into a vacated unit and an annual fee of $135 per unit.

The fees should cover the cost of the jobs performed by staff members, who are paid between $57 and $61 an hour to review and verify a tenant's household income and determine eligibility to occupy a unit under the program."

https://www.surfsantamonica.co...

To put a point on all of the above - I think if it was possible to follow basic economic rules to lower housing prices under the current set of rules, someone would have already done it. And the current regulations to "rein in landlords" also have their own overhead costs, which add to the base cost of markets when the come back on the market, which rent control discourages (as the gap between what you are paying and what market rate grows, you need to have a really good reason to move.)

You could commute from further away, which is one thing that many people (as poorer/more affordable areas in Los Angeles gentrify, those workers have all moved/retired to further outlying areas like Lancaster/Palmdale.) Unfortunately we lack good rail infrastructure out there, so everybody commutes by car, and the most people who typically are commuting in these jobs do not have the option for telecommuting (or they didn't prior to the pandemic - I don't know what the state of things are now.)

Correction, as of Jan 1, fast food will make 2x, and as of Apr 1 almost 3x federal minimum wage.