It is surprising to see people protesting the "working conditions" of rideshare. I thought the whole point of ridesharing was that it is not a taxi service.
207 karma · joined December 17, 2018
Because they don't need to work. They're not applying for unemployment and they're not taking jobs. So, logically, they're using their time on non-work-related activity. They're having fun, or otherwise doing stuff that they would rather do than work.
The media has this terrible tendency to promote work as the primary marker of life success, which is a valid opinion, for sure, but it's not a universal one. Some people step out of the workforce because they can, and good for them. I expect the wealthier our society becomes, the more people will have this opportunity.
I was such big Google fan that they actually featured me on their blog over a decade ago. They have destroyed everything that I ever liked about them, piece-by-piece and replaced it with advertising, the scourge of humanity.
You could almost say this about any successful app. Facebook is by no means the best at any of the things they do, but they're the site that has the highest adoption rates, so it is what it is.
For whatever reason, people prefer Strava over the alternatives, and so they get to be the best as long as people don't go elsewhere.
Personally, I use Garmin Connect and Strava both, each for different reasons, and it really rounds out my data and social network needs.
Meanwhile, us Strava users get a cool new functionality.
But the global data on poverty is basically unassailable. Poverty has declined absolutely everywhere. The rising tide lifted at least the very poorest boats, whatever can be said for the American middle class notwithstanding.
You began by suggesting that the cities I mentioned weren't in the Midwest. In other words, you began by ignoring my point. Now you're pulling sentences out of context to still rub against the point.
My point, now as then, was that places such as the cities I mentioned are increasingly attracting the best tech sector job applicants, and that New Yorkers ought to take the time to ask why that is. No matter what other pedantic problems you can find with my basic phraseology, my point stands. Ask yourself, why are places like Nashville growing so much? And why are there multiple such cities? And why are companies like TD Ameritrade shifting their employees out of New York and into Omaha and Dallas?
I don't live in Nashville, but I think it's a nice city. Low taxes, low cost of living, slow pace of life, no urine smell in the streets, and for the price of a NYC shoebox, you can have a 5-bedroom house with a nice yard. It's tough to argue against that lifestyle once you've lived it. I don't know many people who move back to NYC.
So, as I said, New Yorkers ought to think about that. If New York companies want to attract the best job applicants, then they ought to think about what else they can offer, seeing as how they can't offer 5-bedroom houses with nice yards and low tax rates.
Do you understand my point now? It does not matter whether Nashville's population ever equals that of NYC. The population growth spread across 5 cities in formerly rural areas represents growth that otherwise would have gone to the great economic hubs of the nation, which must now compete for job applicants on something other than the MOMA and the smell of urine in the streets.
Because, if NYC doesn't compete, then it loses the best job applicants to places like Nashville.
That's how equilibria work.
Gee, I don't remember mentioning "LA/Seattle/etc." by name. Unlike some other cities that I mentioned by name. Did you see the part where I mentioned cities by name?
> As far as I can tell, NYC has had about a 6% population growth since 2010. It actually matches the US overall population growth pretty well
Great, now compare that to the growth rates of Dallas or Nashville or etc.
Everyone's moving to more comfortable places with lower costs of living. NYC is not an attractive place for job candidates unless those candidates are already in NYC. Even companies with a strong presence in NYC are expanding in places like Nashville, Omaha, Dallas, Denver, etc. rather than in NYC.
At some point, New Yorkers ought to ask themselves why everyone wants to move to these nice midwestern cities.
^^ Sorry, this makes no sense at all. Maintaining a routine is one way to express a preoccupation with diabetes management!
A lot has changed in the last 20 years. A lot of regulatory and insurance law changes. When the law mandates that we pay for all our medicine via 3rd party intermediaries, you can expect a corresponding price increase as those 3rd parties add their intermediary markup.
In Novo's case, they have two kinds of long-acting insulin analogue taken 1-2 times per day for both T1 and T2; they have to my knowledge the only ultra-long-acting insulin on the market, taken once every 2-3 days, most appropriate for T2, but also viable for some T1 lifestyles; they have very-rapid-acting insulin for T1 diabetics only, and they have older kinds of insulins appropriate for older patients.
They offer all of these products in good supplies. I've never seen or heard of a Novo product's being unavailable at the pharmacy. So, as far as I can tell, their only influence on insulin prices is downward pressure, not upward pressure. Every new product they produce lowers the price of insulin despite industry-wide changes.
Do you have any thoughts on this? I'd love to have more flexibility.