anonuser123456

The hoi polloi want their debt paid by the public. Private capital eats the loss here. kind of different.

Market segmentation is a thing. Chasing price sensitive consumers doesn’t necessarily make you very profitable.

Well, as long as builders aren’t colluding to fix supply, it doesn’t matter.

Corporations can buy up all they want… but idle units are unprofitable. Between property taxes, borrowing costs and maintenance (which accrues whether units are empty or not), units need revenue or they are a drag on profits. Cartels fall apart very rapidly under these conditions.

Right now demand outstrips supply by a wide margin. This makes it profitable to buy and rent it out. Build enough housing to put some slack in the market and that equation will rapidly reverse.

TL;DR corporate ownership is a symptom, not a cause of housing supply issues.

Employment is a game of matching; the employer wants to match a skill set to a particular job.

It’s entirely likely people on these products don’t easily match internally.

The job market for people capable of working on Apple high end R&D is also likely much better at matching then Apples internal HR, simply because the market has so many more openings.

Probably not.

It will likely result in a cut in hours for marginal workers, boosted hours for higher productivity workers and more outsourcing/automation.

Labor intensive restaurant operations will have a competitive disadvantage to capital intensive models, and so we’ll see more capital intensive ones thrive.

Sleep deficit drives metabolic changes that may result in obesity (e.g over feeding behavior).

Title does not reflect findings.

I hate to break it to you, but the rich are taxed on nominal gains, not real.

Holding assets during inflationary periods means paying a higher percentage of your real gains as taxes.

I work at a hardware company. Our parking lot looks like a Tesla, Rivian and Mazarati dealership.

Seems to have worked for Russia.

>They closed because it was cheaper to build in other countries, or to outsource from contractors who build in other countries (where organized labor doesn't exist). The U.S. lost thousands of high-paying (and tax-paying) labor positions and atrophied the skills that went with them. Intel profited from it.

How about asking the workers in other countries who benefitted from this transaction if they were happy with the arrangement? Or do only Americans matter? Maybe you think foreigners are fit only to till dirt fields as subsistence farmers?

My opinion is largely in agreement with many in the policy community.

You are mistaking the opinions of a government regulatory body with that of expertise.

The literature on risk is very clear. Occupational level exposure is the critical hazard. Transient exposure is meaningless.

And of course you are missing my central argument. People are at more risk today because existing policy makes asbestos a taboo. Everyone is afraid of it and no one wants to talk about it on a construction site because it screws everything up. And so lots of construction workers, mostly immigrant labor etc pay the price so that some soccer mom can feel certain her kids didn’t get exposed to 0.1fcc hours of asbestos.

I do not have a link, but have read it in multiple journals.

The MAO is entirely plausible. Many fast food wrappers are lined with PFAS because of its temperature stability and hydrophobic properties. At high temperatures these coatings also leech the coating.

>Our data shows a statistically significant correlation between PFAS in the blood and harmful blood lipids linked to cardiovascular risk.

Fast food consumption is also associated with both. Was this controlled for? How about BMI?

Everything is harmful, from sunlight to food to driving. At issue is cost benefit.