I fixed that for you. Why should anyone stay a company when they can do better elsewhere?

That is not what the unemployment rate is saying.

Except that isn't what is happening. Employees aren't quitting to look for "good, easy jobs without real skill requirements". They are quitting for jobs that are marginally better in pay, hours, conditions, or benefits. People are leaving jobs that pay $12.00 to go to jobs that pay $13.50. People are leaving part time jobs for full time jobs. People are leaving jobs that have hours that shift all the time for jobs that have stable work hours. It doesn't have to be a unicorn job, it just has to be better than what they are doing now.

The national quit rate is 2.8% but the unemployment rate is still going down. They are going to other jobs that have better pay, benefits, hours, and/or working conditions. Because companies have zero loyalty to employees and will lay them off without blinking in order to increase someone bonus, employees have no loyalty to companies anymore. Now, so many companies need employees that some are doing what it takes to attract employees and employees are leaving their current jobs for the greener grass.

Unions haven't been shit since they started being run by people who aren't workers. All unions are now is a second management taking wages and trying to run the company from outside the company.

2010? You are joking right? Try since 1965. But it really took off in 1980 with the advent of "trickle down" economics and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

Send up one Flerfer. He sees the world is round. He claims it was a trick and all he saw was an artists rendition because he had to look at it from inside the capsule.
Send up one Flerfer. He comes back and says "The world is a ball". The Flerf community promptly says he is lying or was duped.

It really is a no win situation.

Let's examine that

21% of the population of India lives below the poverty line at last count. They stopped counting in 2011 because the numbers were so bad.
For clarity, Rs 1000 per month is roughly $13.00 per month.

13% of the Indian homes either have no electricity or use generators for electricity
82% of rural households and almost 60% of urban households in India don't have running water
50% of people living in India don't have internet access
14% of the population is undernourished in India.

Are you ready to live with that standard of living? If not, why are you suggesting it?

According to the article, the person who received the letter wasn't in arrears and the account was not in collections. Perhaps Spectrum is sending out the letters to the wrong people but that isn't indicated in the article.

Most flow experiences don't involve teams. Usually, flow is an individual experience.

One can experience flow doing a lot of different things. A painter painting can experience flow. A person playing Civilization or Doom can experience flow. A developer can experience flow. An athlete can experience flow.

When one experiences flow, one is generally working at a level of difficulty where one is stretching one's ability but not overreaching them. If you have ever been doing a task and it seemed like everything was just happening and time wasn't passing but then finished and realized you had been doing that task for hours, that was flow.

Now, the article itself is about team flow, where a group doing a task all experience flow at the same time. It is a special case of an individual phenomenon occurring in all members of group.

The credit card companies are doing it to themselves because they are bowing to pressure from cancel culture and SJWs. If they don't want to be the "de facto regulators" of the internet, then they should stand up to those who are demanding that they regulate the internet.

And, yet, you are exposed to it every day when you leave your house, eat a banana, breath, get an x-ray, fly in a plane, etc.

Except the laws didn't discriminate against basic human rights therefore you are engaging in a straw man fallacy.

I am not ignoring fact. I everything I have stated is fact, complete with references to the relevant parts of the constitution. You are just blindly repeating things you were taught in American history without actually looking at the evidence. Just because you were taught lies while taking American History doesn't make anything I said untrue.

Asking about the new territories just shows you weren't taught all the facts. Try looking up the Missouri compromise.

While the international slave trade was banned by a law, slavery was not. You seem to be unfamiliar with how law works. Banning the importation of something isn't the same as banning said thing. It was banned because the 13 colonies agreed during the American Revolution to ban it. It wasn't necessary anymore as there were plenty of slaves in the United States as is.

All you post did was show how ignorant you are of American History during the 1800s. Your teachers failed you.

No. In fact, at the time of the Civil War, slavery wasn't in danger of being banned or limited because that would require an amendment to the constitution and that wasn't going to happen, see Article V of the Constitution. So, the abolitionist states started to defy Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. When the slave states tried to invoke Article III, Section 2 Paragraph 1, Subsection 4, the federal government refused to uphold the Constitution and do it's duty. This resulted in the southern states leaving the union. Some claim that the Constitution makes no provision for states to leave the union, but it doesn't have to because Amendment 10 explicitly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" meaning that the power to leave the union devolves to the States and the people.

No, the issue was that the original New England states were much smaller than the southern states and were concerned that, as time went on, they wouldn't have a voice in the government and the election of the president. Currently, three of the original states are in the the ten least populous states and nine of them have a smaller population than New York City.

The overall population is 329.5 million, roughly 257 million are 18 or older, and there are approximated 212 million eligible voters .
Approximately 83% of the US population lives in cities and urban areas. Assuming the population distribution is the same for urban and rural areas, that is 175 million eligible voters living in urban areas. What the city populations ignore is urban sprawl.


Are you beginning to see my point yet?

You don't seem to know the difference between relevance and competitive. Gerrymandering is caused by people like you and the GP trying to force an agenda and control the process to your ideological advantage. Rather than work with a good system, people like you want to change things to your own advantage. It is why the seventeenth amendment was passed. It is why people want to get rid of the electoral college. It is even why people support executive orders when their party holds the presidency and oppose them when their party isn't in power. Executive orders are essentially the president ruling and creating laws by fiat and should be ruled unconstitutional.