I think you're correct that only some plumbers are doing exceptionally well (the ones who own their own business). But I can assure you they're all busy. Have you tried hiring a skilled trade to fix something around your house recently? Good luck. Many will just ghost you. Also, your comment "we don't build cities anymore" is absurd. In fact the US has seen a massive increase in construction spending in the last few years. This is fueled mostly by the end of globalization, which was already starting to happen before COVID, but was amplified by the pandemic. In fact this surge in re-industrialization was expected to continue to grow, but a certain president's tariffs have caused a lot of trepidation in new capital spending, and everyone is holding their breath waiting to see what actually happens. But long term, China is in a decline driven by demographics which simply cannot be reversed, and Europe is close behind. Even if they started having more kids now, you still can't turn that around for 18 years. And even if you don't like the US, it's still the safest place to park your money worldwide these days, so construction of the new US industrial plant is going to continue no matter who's in office.

I have no doubt that some of what you say is grounded in fact and real, but as some random guy spouting conspiracy theories online, you have no credibility, and bring no evidence to the table. Who exactly is the audience you're intending to reach? Or is this just a therapy session for you?

The total number of warheads worldwide in the 80's was around 70,000. We're currently sitting around 12,000, with most of these in the US and Russia. So please realize that those of us who were kids in the 80's, and who watched movies like The Day After while growing up, had at least as much existential dread to deal with in elementary school back then.

Remember to put everything in perspective. There's never been a time in human history without widespread misery, and by pretty much any metric you'd much rather be alive right now than at any other time. No, it's not anywhere near perfect, and yes, there's a ton of stuff to keep working on, and yes, we do backslide sometimes, like now. But ignoring the big picture is dangerous, because it means we're at risk of repeating mistakes of the past.

For instance, it was fashionable a few years ago, particularly amongst the political left, to be against free speech. Famously it was the royal guy (prince Harry?) who said the right to freedom of speech was "bonkers". While you don't hear it so much anymore, you have to question why such a fundamental ideal of democracy was brought into question, when it had clearly been put in place for good reasons, and appears to be an important foundation of democratic principles since then. We now have a leader of the US who clearly thinks it's OK to ignore the first amendment (the whole FCC going after ABC and Kimmel) and we also have an extremist from the left who shot a guy on campus because he didn't like what he was *saying*.

Yet these existential threats, whether it's nuclear war or constitutional threats, or even the environment, have been happening constantly. It's nothing new. We fight and argue, and there's bluster and violence, but in the end we always seem to end up with better quality of life, decreasing poverty, and longer lifespans.

Now is not the time to bemoan the fact that the world is not up to your level of perfection. Now is the time to pick some particular problem that you can make better, and get to work, as did the people who came before us. Be part of the solution. Yes, nuclear weapons are scary, but nuclear power is also the solution to fossil fuels. And no, it's not a perfect solution. But it's the solution we've got. This is the real world. I'm sorry you don't like it. Nobody here has a magic wand.

It's interesting... if you drop the obesity rate, you'd think that would lower the rate of diabetes, since obesity is a risk factor for diabetes. But I suppose once you get diabetes you have it, so the rate will probably continue to climb for a while because the obesity rate is still high.

This is a real thing. If you could somehow bio-engineer a chicken that would only lay female chick eggs (or the male eggs were not viable or were easily identified after laying so they could be destroyed immediately) this would be ethically much better.

People who "can't afford rent" aren't missing the entire amount ($2000 per month). They're missing the last bit, and $50 a week is about $217/month, which is more than 10% of your rent. It sure would make it easier to make your rent every month if it was 10% less, wouldn't it? You'd sure be happy with a $50 a week raise, wouldn't you? Even though that $50/week raise wouldn't actually be $50 because that's pre-tax. But the fact is, you knew all this, didn't you, and you were just being snarky.

This is insightful. We had a rather notorious crash up here in Canada a few years ago when a transport truck didn't stop at a stop sign, and hit a coach bus carrying a teenage hockey team, and a lot of kids died. It was really tragic, and there was an outpouring of grief across the country. But what really got me is the way people treated the driver, as if he was the anti-christ himself. People don't seem to connect the dots... if anyone fails to stop at a stop sign, and nobody is hurt, then nobody cares, even though the error is the same. If you throw the book at this guy because he caused so many deaths (which he did) then you should also be throwing the book at everyone else who ever missed a stop sign. It's exactly the same delinquent action. But the average person doesn't seem to make that connection. As you say, it's more about the feeling of retribution.

Yeah, I can pickup my own pizza, thank you very much.

Yes, if you add up what people are spending on doordash, you have to roll your eyes when they complain that they can't afford rent. You save *so* much money by cooking for yourself! And it's generally healthier. Bonus points if you invite someone over to join you.

With 1.7 million in revenue, and 400k going to delivery, that 400k is added on top as a fee when you order, isn't it? (I've never actually used doordash or anything.) So you would have charged the customer less if they ate there, and you'd have to provide a table for them to eat at. I don't understand how it can be less profitable, unless you're offering free delivery or something.

That is autocratic BS. We live in western nations, and ideologically we value freedom. Fundamentally we want everyone to have as much freedom as possible, including what career to have, or whether or not to start a family. There are physical limitations that affect this freedom... there will always be more tall basketball players than short ones. But it's important that we not be any more proscriptive than absolutely necessary. Thankfully, if women actually had as many children as they report wanting, then we'd be right around the replacement rate, on average. So all we need to do is figure out why women aren't having the kids they want, and that's not actually money, it's that they're pressured to wait, and the window of opportunity closes a lot faster than they think.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen in a while. My wife has repeatedly said that the 18 or more years of raising a kid is far more effort than pregnancy and childbirth. Not that it's nothing, but she also pointed out that she willingly chose to have two more kids after having the first, even after I questioned her sanity, because she really found motherhood rewarding. My wife and I are both professionals with successful "important" careers, and yet we both admit that parenting is a far more rewarding activity than either of our jobs.

I don't want people to have children if they don't want them either. But there's lots of evidence showing that women report that they want more children than they are actually having. In fact, in the UK at least, if women had as many children as they reportedly say they wanted, then the UK would be at the 2.1 replacement rate. Part of the problem is that they're encouraged to wait to have kids, but infertility increases with age, so many are getting to age 30 and either can't find a suitable mate, or simply can't have kids.

I'm gen x, so I was part of the first generation that was told to wait to have kids. But now that I've been though it (we waited until we were in our 30's) I can say that it's a dumb idea. If you're going to take, say, 5 years out of your career due to having young kids at home, then financially it really doesn't matter if you do that from 25 to 30 or from 30 to 35 years old. But health-wise it matters a lot. Statistically you're much better off health-wise to have kids in your late 20's than in your early 30's, and that goes for both men and women. I'm not saying you *can't* make it work, but both my wife and I agree that we waited longer than we should have. And no, neither of us regret having kids. It's one of the best choices we made.

The idea that you're sacrificing your career if you have kids early... doesn't hold any water. Heck, my wife's mom started a family when she was a teenager (not recommended) and after her kids were grown she went to university, and then got a master's degree, had a rewarding career with a great pension, and retired to a million dollar home near us. She'll also know her grandkids for a lot longer than we'll know ours, if we ever get to meet them.

You're exactly right. If you ask anyone why people aren't having kids, they will say money, because they want the system to give them money. But there are several facts that clearly disprove this: 1) poor people have more babies than wealthy people (Elon excluded), 2) people in the past managed to raise kids on far less income than the average income now, and 3) there are many countries, like Finland, who instituted generous parental supports, and it barely moved the needle.

If I could compare and contrast our society today with the society I grew up with in the 80's and 90's, I would say a huge difference is that society has de-valued parenthood, and motherhood in particular. Stay-at-home moms in the 80's weren't looked down on. If you *dared* to suggest that a SAHM was "sitting around all day" you'd get an earful from both women and men. Being a mother was recognized as a pretty high status role in society.

These days women themselves look down on mothers and motherhood. It's a weird change.

We also had more examples of positive parental role models on TV. I get that Bill Cosby in real life was shown to be a piece of shit, but the Cosby Show itself portrayed some pretty great role models of good parenting. Parents in the 80's aspired to be that good. Nothing on TV these days comes close.

You get what you celebrate, and it's been a long, long time since we really celebrated the importance of motherhood in our society.

I don't remember that rule about not discussing politics. Sure, at dinner, or specifically at Thanksgiving dinner, but we used to discuss politics in the office face-to-face all the time, and just kind of agree to disagree. But we both came away with a better understanding of how the other person was thinking, and in most cases there were also areas on which we agreed. Nobody every tried to get someone fired for their viewpoint. That's what changed.