>They moving there because they want to be in a big city - with friends, jobs, museums, and nightlife.
Sure
>So I don’t understand why Matt believes that building a few new apartments in some city - a very small move along that spectrum - would do anything other than make local prices go up.
Huh? Other than friends, none of the previously mentioned amenities are provided by apartment buildings.
Adding commercial real estate to a city adds jobs and amenities that make it more desirable, and thus more expensive.
Adding more housing does not.
That said, adding more housing raises the demand for commercial real estate (more available workers and customers), hence the cycle that leads to very dense, very expensive places like Manhattan. Strictly speaking though, adding apartments alone isn't enough to keep that cycle going.
With qualified immunity the only people allowed to enforce that are prosecutors, but they often can't afford to jeopardize their relationship with police. Federal prosecutors are further removed from local cops and have better incentives on that front, but they often run into issues around jurisdiction.
The point of repealing qualified immunity is to let the victims sue as a means of enforcing checks on police.
Not really. The courts should toss any frivolous claims fairly quickly. If it is still an issue, then perhaps we need wider ranging changes to the legal system as any abuse that could happen with these cases surely happen in other areas of the law too.
I still don't understand the connection. I assume the term "company store" is being used to invoke the exploitative nature of living in a company town and being paid in scrip.
How does "a major local employer wants the local economy to thrive" lead to more exploitation than usual? If anything, I'd expect a thriving local economy to mean that there's more competition for workers, increasing their bargaining power and reducing the probability/severity of worker exploitation.
The company store was a way to earn on both ends of employees; the company made money by paying the workers to do stuff for the company, and then earned a part of that money back by selling goods to the workers at exorbitant rates.
The parallel here is that Amazon makes money off of the workers doing work, and then can also extract value by using the workers to prop up their real estate holdings.
E.g. workers may benefit from lower property values (renters), but Amazon is forcing workers to prop up those property values. Amazon makes money off paying them, and makes (or saves) money when they force them to come spend money around their offices.
It's not exactly the same, but I think there's certainly similarities.
Ok, but not everyone can afford it. When there's a dearth of apartments and you can't afford your own detached house, you're forced to share a house with other people.
People do not prefer sharing a house with roommates to having their own apartment.
Also the idea that people's preferences should be encoded into bans on certain housing types is completely absurd to begin with.
"I'll be resigning when [the board/leadership] finds a replacement."
I always get massive push back when I suggest this, but it's the only remedy that makes sense. If you have to layoff 15% of the workforce when the growth was under your command, and you want to take responsibility, then step down. Own your mistake.
For startups such a step is likely to ruin the company. And in any case that founder would keep their stake in the company while not being able to influence it anymore. Doesn‘t make sense.
That's only true if the company is better-suited to be run by someone else. CEOs are prominent, but they're still just people. A person can make mistakes and still be the best person for the job.
What if the board doesn't want you to quit? Surely it's better to do what's best for the company going forward rather than to broadcast your self-flagellation.
The goal of the business isn't to maximize employment. It's to maximize profits. Getting rid of employees doesn't mean the CEO did a bad job of maximizing profits.
I expect that they are getting lower output per acre, but in places where land is cheap and as solar panels continue to get cheaper, the money saved on building the support structures could be worth those losses.
Right, a more reasonable argument would be just that the risks outweigh the benefits for some users, especially if they aren't currently using notifications on any legitimate sites.
