assaultpotato

Right? But no Jagmeet's gonna do the Conservative team up no one asked for and vote no confidence! PP's ideas are just dumb and the Liberals seem hell bent on ignoring the monopolistic cancer that's finally metastasized over the past 5 years after lurking for the past 30.

I'd vote for anyone that said they'd force a breakup of Loblaws, Safeway and others.

Eh, I'd have voted for him again over Singh or PPboi but between the blackface thing, the SNC affair, etc. he's definitely had his fair share of indirectly political scandals over basically his entire tenure.

He didn't do everything he promised, played some net-zero impact political games but also accomplished some meaningfully positive things (childcare, forced rezoning, carbon tax, etc.) that people seem to totally ignore. My only meaningful complaint with him is the electoral reform and the lack of antitrust action, but I otherwise think he did "fine" over his tenure.

Unfortunately a 100% accurate reflection of Canadian politics. So dumb that basically everyone other than Alberta agrees that Trudeau did some good stuff that didn't get advertised, some dumb fuck political games that did nothing of value but also no damage, and our complete monopoly of basically every industry is cucking micro and macro economic growth and yet we're here blaming Trudeau and not fronting any anti-monopolist parties.

PP will win and Jagmeet will continue to fail to capitalize on the popular anti corporate sentiments while the Liberals will ban the guns they just unbanned in the meantime.

100% true, and the fact that Shaw just got rolled into Rogers in the middle of anti-monopolist popular fervor is pretty depressing. The grocery industry is absolutely vile. Trudeau was acceptable and mostly made reasonable choices but my God I'd vote for anyone who forwarded stronger antitrust legislation and rulings.

Fucking Pierre ain't gonna do it, the Cons always end up pushing legislation to get cushy megacorp board positions after their terms are up. Jagmeet seems more interested in fucking around than doing anything, and Trudeau was palatable but failed to tackle the monopolists at all.

Insanity to me how much the corpos own our country and how none of the parties seem to care.

Yeeep. My boss was an engineering exec at Twitter for 8 years, he quit when Musky was an asshole to him in a meeting. Pretty unreal some of the stories he had.

Re: H-1B, the data is all available for everyone seeing this: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/h-1b-employer-data-hub

Go make yourselves sad.

Tesla's H1-B employees are public knowledge - he's paying H1-B senior engineers 70k a year, which is a pittance compared to market rates. He's also hiring entry level engineers and claiming they're "highly paid specialists he couldn't hire domestically", which is hilarious given the number of layoffs in tech recently - the candidates are clearly there.

Tesla and SpaceX are famous for being low paid sweatshops in the engineering world, and H1-B labor is helping lower those wages and QoL for workers. Fuck Musky.

Definitely! Union membership is in decline and so are wages. The boomer generation seems to think the government is the largest negative impact on our lives when it's actually the corporate suits.

You an FPV guy or a cinematic guy?

Costco's whole thing is that they have a flat markup on all their goods. It's static - price goes down for them, they lower their retail.

They also pay a reasonable wage - my buddy works there and is clearing 31.50/hr + voluntary OT + 6k bonus/yr. Regularly makes 80k a year, just floor staff not management/supervisor.

And they pay their upstream and logistics providers 2-3x market rates as well- my girlfriend works for a major trucking company doing pricing and Costco voluntarily overpays for their lanes so they have more reliable deliveries.

Many many companies price-gouge and underpay their employees or steal wages. Costco doesn't. Fuck Walmart, Safeway, Amazon, etc.

Thanks, I know how to use markdown, I just can't get my lemmy client to upload an image to my instance to get the URL to begin with.

Pretty sure the headline was changed by USA Today, based on the page title. Once I figure out how to include an image I'll add it, but I think when the OP posted this, that was the headline.

There's also just a fundamental problem with planned economies from a purely economic standpoint: they are much less efficient at actually providing the minimum set of goods and services required by a population, and they're worse at achieving growth. See the most recent Nobel Prize in economics for a citation. Funnily enough, the same paper's arguments apply equally to oligarchic economies and crony capitalist economies, which are semi-planned economies by a small group of the ultra wealthy.

More specifically to the OP, communist countries have planned economies, which by nature requires a strong authority to tightly control production. Hence why communist states always have very consolidated political power structures. And once the power is consolidated, all it takes is one bad actor to get that power and ruin everything.