And I wonder if I should, sometime in the future, apply to those wards managed by the same people that 2 years ago rejected and outright ignored me, because it’s always good to have a plan b on the back burner and I’m running out of managers within my hospital I haven’t interviewed with.

You know your industry better than I do, but my industry-agnostic answer would be: “Yes, absolutely apply if it moves your career forward”. Even horrible bosses/departments can be useful as stepping stones. Many times these are open and others are avoiding them because the environment/boss sucks. If you can do a year in that department/boss as a springboard to a higher position elsewhere, I typically think its worth it.

The world is more than just the 1%.

A wind storm damaging the roof of the house has nothing to do with the 1%. Yet it will still negatively affect the married couple if they don’t have the resources to fix the roof.

The world is against the individual, or in this case the married couple.

Men that are upset that their wives out-earn them are missing the point of marriage. The point of marriage isn’t him vs her, its the two of you together against the world. If she is earning more than him, then that benefits him too because he’s part of the marriage.

I’m constantly astonished when I hear of men that are upset by their wives out-earning them. Some of these men have even sabotaged their wife’s work or changed the circumstances at home preventing her from continuing in the job where she out-earns him. My only hope for these women is they realize their husband’s love is conditional on him being dominant over her, and that she seeks out a better future where she can be her best self.

Next step is only annual contracts.

This would destroy their subscriber bases. Not even cable required an annual subscription and there were many more hoops to jump through to subscribe and cancel.

I think its more reflective that the price of streaming services continues to rise, while the value proposition does not. So why subscribe to all services at one time? You can only watch one at a time.

Its more than that per month. Above (I think) $160k, you don’t pay FICA (Social Security) anymore for the year, so more of that goes in your pocket. The reason is that the Social Security benefit you receive later never goes above a certain amount.

Edit: I missed the “2 year” part and my original statement was for 1 year.

Additionally, making more money is MUCH easier when you have money too start with.

I was one of these. I started my IRA in my 20s with what little money I could put into it. When I left a job I’d roll my 401k back into my IRA under the same Edward Jones advisor.

After over more than 20 years I started questioning it. I asked for statements of all of my deposits. I took those dates and deposit amounts and plugged them into a basic historical simulator to see what would have happened if I put the same money into an S&P500 fund. My real investment account was over $40,000 lower than had I just put the money in myself into the S&P500. I dropped that advisor and transferred my entire balance into VTSAX and never looked back. Future deposits went into my own brokerage into boring index funds from then on.

I credit Edward Jones with making saving for retirement stupid easy for myself a dumb 22 year old at the time. However, I should have wised up sooner and it cost me at least $40,000 for my naïveté.

If investing in the S&P 500 is such a surefire way to make money, then why isn’t everyone doing it?

First, lots and LOTS of people (and companies do it).

Three reasons people don’t do it:

1. Some people believe they can make even more money by putting it into something else (other riskier stocks, non stock investments like their own sole proprietor businesses, bitcoin, scratcher lottery tickets).
2. Some people are entirely risk averse. If they can’t SEE their money they don’t trust where it is so they buy precious metals or stack cash up. Neither of these are good investments for returns, but are generally safer that index investing (which is what S&P500 is) if you need to sell on short notice.
3. Investing anything requires money you don’t have to spend somewhere else. Lots of people are at negative money, so they don’t even have a dollar to invest.

I mean, imagine a future where every computer is just a chromebook, phones are no longer phones but just a “terminal” that streams the actual OS which runs in the cloud.

It will get close to happening for nearly all computing, then it will swing back the other way to local storage and compute, then after 15-20 years it will swing back toward centralized compute and storage. This has already happened 3 times.

• Original computing was mainframes. “Dumb terminals” that had zero local storage and only the most rudimentary compute power to handing the incoming data and display it, and take keystrokes, encode them, and send them on.

• Then “personal computers” became a thing with the advent of cheap CPUs. Dumb Terminals/mainframes were largely discarded and everyone had their own computer on their desk with their won compute and storage. Then the Netware/Banyan era began and those desktop computers were networked to have some remote shared storage. (there’s a slightly different branching with Sun/HPUX/DigitalUnix and Workstation grade hardware)

• Then Citrix WinFrame and Sun Ray stateless thin clients showed up once again swinging the compute and storage almost entirely remotely to centralized heavy powered servers with (mostly) dumb terminals, but these were graphic interfaces like MS Windows or Xwindow.

• Once again, powerful desktop CPUs showed up with the Pentium II etc compute was back under users desks.

• Now phones and tablets with cloud has show up, and you’re asking the question.

So what I think will swing primary compute and storage back to the user side (handheld now) is again, cheap compute and storage on the device. Right now so many services are cloud based because the massive compute and storage requirements only exist in volume in the cloud. However, bandwidth is still limited. Imagine when the next (next?) generation of mobile CPUs arrive, and with a tiny bit of power you could do today’s bitcoin mining on your phone or process AI datasets with ease in the palm of your hand. And why would you send the entire dataset to the cloud when you can process it locally and then send the result?

So the pendulum keeps swinging; centralized and distributed, back and forth.

Future headline: Litigious Nintendo sues established spaceflight company Rocket Lab for infringing on Nintendo’s newest released game “Little Rocket Lab”

Others have suggested professional counseling. Thats the right answer. Do that.

I can tell you even without the emotional baggage you’re carrying, getting started on your own in life is hard and confusing. There’s no book that tells you everything you need to do (and when) and what NOT to do that will cost you time and money you don’t have at that stage of life.

If you are under the impression that others launch successfully into independence without issue, let me remove that idea. All of us, even with massive support from our families had difficulty. You’ve got some extra difficulties on top of what others have. Don’t despair when its not going right. That doesn’t mean you’re a failure.

The perspective and the idea of a co-op however is completely different from what you describe: to distribute the hardships, the risks and rewards right from the start onto many shoulders. There’s no more “my company, my sacrifices” etc. It’s all we.

That sounds great, but how does that translate into real-world scenarios that organizations experience? As an example:

How do co-ops decide who needs to be fired when there isn’t enough money to cover payroll?

I guess my question is why do ML theorists think workers can organize enough to run a state when they can’t organize enough to run a business?

I’m not a Marxist, but my understanding of the theory is the difference between having all the the resources available to a nation-state to re-organize the state vs having to work with the meager resources provided by the existing state while working side that state’s existing restrictive system.

I don’t know, it seems the whole argument seems to boil down to “there’s not enough time, money or skill”.

“money” - what does money mean after you’ve toppled the state? Do you need money for rent? No. There’s no rule of law that will evict you from your home if you don’t pay your rent. Do you need money for food? No (in the short term). You break open the stores to take what food you need and is needed to feed the populous. The “money” problem can also be for required material resources the specific service you’re trying to set up. If you need something to carry out the will of the new state, you take it from whoever has it (which under Marxism usually means from the ruling elite), so that’s not a problem under this system.

“time” - The nation-state has been toppled. You don’t need to go to your wage job anymore for your life essentials. You’ve got all the time in the day you can dedicate to setting up the new state.

“skill” - If you have the skill to do the job but couldn’t do that job before because it didn’t pay you a living wage, that problem is now gone. The state will provide for your means, and you will do job X which the state needs done. If the state doesn’t have someone with a skill, the state will provide free education to train up citizens who will then be skilled enough to do job X needed by the state.

So none of those are actual problems on paper under Marxist because its generally applied to the nation-state level, not working in micro within an existing oppressive regime.

I say “on paper” because Marxist itself is flawed because it requires humans to act purely altruistically forever, and frankly thats beyond the capacity for humanity. Or said another way, Marxism would work great if there were no humans involved, which defeats the purpose of Marxism.

So those respondents are saying when a Democratic president is in power, election results are fair, and when a Republican president is in power, the election results are suspect?

These are great points, and looking at some of the other responses I get the sense that it’s a time and skills issue. So, what exactly do communists and socialists imagine will happen when “workers seize the means of production”?

I admit I’m not a scholar in this area, but my college reading of Marx and Engels they were taking about nation-state levels of “seizing the means of production”. As in, the entire nation’s ability to produce goods, grow and transport food, facilitate communications, etc. Doing so on such a grand scale that the elites/bourgeois would be forced to cede control of the levers of power because society effectively halts with the means of production in the hands of the working class (proletariat).

Marx wasn’t talking about a socialist group starting up a competing grocery store to the entrenched established players in that market space.

I don’t want to discourage anyone from pursuing these ideas, I think at least in the U.S. it might be cool to have a consultancy or non-profit which helps connect such founders and provides them with education, training and startup resources.

There are educational resources for starting non-profits organizations (and I’m assuming co-ops). The real resource any org (for-profit or nonprofit) needs to start up is: large amounts of money. In for-profit ventures (assuming your business plan is respectable) you can get bank loans or outside investors. Both of these groups expect a return on the money they’re giving you to get started up.

With a co-op, I’m guessing the only sources of startup capital are: government grants, philanthropic donations, or a founder that already has amassed their own fortune.

Edit oh and some of the other points are that one wouldn’t get rich doing this. So what?

At those really dark times for your business you ask yourself “why the hell am I even doing this?” for most business owners the answer is “so that at some point in the future my life will be much easier”. For a co-op, there has to be a very deeply held belief that what you’re doing is extremely meaningful and your sacrifice will be “worth it” somehow. While those people exist with almost a religious level of obligation to their cause or their community, I think they are extremely rare.

I don’t envy the leadership in a struggling co-op. Running an organization is hard enough at the best times as a single owner. Having to run it by committee when it is crumbling sounds like a painful death.

I’ve already seen people look down on wealth accumulation, so I think it’s fair to say that the motives for someone who’d start such a business venture are different, which is valid and reasonable.

You may already have your answer. In your first post you said: “I’d also like to see more childcare co-ops, or community shared pre-k schools.”

What is stopping you from you creating a child-care co-op?

Secondly, I don’t think market forces will impact such businesses because if you’re creating communities around them, then people will choose what they know and trust.

This is naive. Market forces (and other externalities) can have massive impacts on your organization irrespective if you’re a for-profit or co-op. Just think of what COVID did to many organizations. Though nothing change in the business model or service offering, thousands of companies went under because the conditions of the market changed through no fault of the organization owners/leaders.

In short, co-ops are the closest socialist/communist business model that’s actually implemented in the U.S., so why are more leftists not doing this?

Starting a business (that is based on a sound and viable business plan that has even a snowball’s chance of surviving its formative early years) is really REALLY hard. It takes massive amounts of money or debt, the early years promise years of having no income for yourself (or paying yourself below minimum wage), it means a staggering amount of hours you need to put in to keep it going, forgoing vacations and important family events, loss of friendships because you’re having to put all your time and energy into the business without socializing, having to work when you’re incredibly ill, incredible amounts of stress (which increases by 10 times when you have employees that now depend on you for their livelihood) and even if you do everything perfect your business can fail leaving you with nothing for the years that you put into it, and potentially also with tens of thousands or millions of dollars in debt. It means many times being force to make decisions that massively affect other people’s lives (your employees or your customers). It can be versions of the Trolley Problem time and time again.

“According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more.” source

So ask yourself if you want to go through all of that, and instead of wealth you can live on and support your family with at the end of it, you get simply a “thank you” for building a co-op.

Once the electrode was in place and we performed the stimulation, the first patient immediately said, ‘I feel my legs.’

Even if the return of mobility is very minor, I would think the ability for a paralyzed persons to sense their immobile limbs would be a huge win for health.

“Something has happened post-pandemic where movie theater behavior has really changed,” said one top film executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The executive is referring to the younger audiences who have become more emboldened to share this lengthy material from the sanctity of the cineplex, where phones are supposed to be banned.

I don’t think this “top film executive” has been in a public movie theater for at least 10 years.