This largely mirrors my thought. I was unpersuaded that non-technical management grasps the technical aspects well enough to leverage them as described.
The clear solution should this stand is to include a Terms of Incorporation when a business is created stipulating that they waive their right to a trial and that any labor disputes will be settled by independent arbitration.
Thank you, I was composing a reply along these lines as well. The essay is pseudo-erudite, using a lot of words to convey an impression of depth but in actuality saying very little, and repeatedly. I will also add that the Biblical exegesis at the end is interesting only as a personal interpretation: ahistorical and effectively creating its own mythical version. The piece might be acceptable as a work of fiction but it's not philosophy.
Sure, it is hard. But there's a gigantic middle ground between "no photographs ever that contain any part of your house" and "permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government". It is far from impossible to write some rules that balances these things. Yes, there will be loopholes: a criminal who wants to photograph your house could come by with their nephew and stage a photoshoot. But we live with those kinds of exceptions already: as giraffe_lady said, the law is not an algorithm.
The irony is well-taken but it goes a little deeper. Even for someone who bought a house 20-30 years ago and could sell far below the current market without losing money...that person then can't afford to buy anything else. (Doubly so in places where property tax increases have been limited over the span of their ownership -- the taxes on a comparable house in the same region may be a large delta.) It's a vicious spiral with, I think, no pain-free offramp.
Sure, in the same way that when I'm trying to lose weight and want a snack I will make a choice between a celery stick and a cookie, or I can forestall the choice by not having a cookie in the house in the first place. The story of Odysseus and the sirens.
Said elsewhere previously[0] but the reason is simple: because the only way we as a society have to distribute a stable supply of food and shelter is for (most) every individual to have a job. "more jobs = more gooder" flows directly from that: "people need food → food requires job → we need jobs".
Changing that has to come before the bullshit jobs are wiped out or there will be an even worse situation.
Well, second problem is that we don't have any rules for access to the raised material standards for anyone who's not providing inputs to the system elsewhere. In plainer words you need to be employed to have money so you can buy things, because buying things with money is the only option. That is one of the chief negative impacts that looms: a large amount of people being left out of the economy because they don't meet the new efficiency bar.
Yes, but AirBnB units are not that. The prices are an order of magnitude higher than prevailing monthly rates, if they're even available on a long-term basis. And yes, short term, furnished rentals probably also have a place in the market. But it's a small place. The vast majority of people need a location that's stable on an annual+ basis and whose price has a reasonable relationship to local wages.
Charging more because your costs are higher is not really gouging. Obviously there's no precise definition -- it's a social judgement -- but generally it's taking more profit than is "fair" for a situation, like tripling the price of your bottled water after a natural disaster.
Almost no reasonable regulation will be effective if this is the standard of behavior. To punish a cheater when cheating is part of the game, you need incredibly strong rules and almost perfect enforcement. The subjects of the regulation will do whatever they can to "work the refs", exploit loopholes, or just get the regulations changed outright. They will ignore everything where the penalty doesn't outweigh the profit.
We have seen all of these happening in modern times.
A policy change to allow people holding these visas who get laid off -- not fired for cause, not quit -- extended time to find new employment seems like a no brainer to me. An H1B holder can't have caused the layoffs themselves, so there's not much opening for "cheating". Sadly I think it conflicts with the true nature of the program, which you alluded to, to wit, lowering their bargaining power.
What measure are you using for "largest"? The US is 3rd in the world by population and 1st by GDP, so in absolute terms it's to be expected that they would be "large" in many categories, simply by having more people and money. (And then there's geographical extent.) The relative (per capita, perhaps) measure is more salient.
Perhaps you know already, but for the record the Oregon law only allows psilocybin use under trained supervision.
In the case of alcohol, in my opinion we need a similar cultural attitude. Your state flips on your 21st birthday from absolute prohibition to...as much as you want. We need not so much a place for people to safely binge, as to guide them to considering for themselves why they would want to in the first place. Some people always will of course, just like there will always be people who drive like assholes.
That reduction is lossy. There's a large middle ground where free individuals make agreements with each other to cooperate in ways that make them all better off.
The previous commenter's handle alludes to one possible item, crystal meth: that's a substance that doesn't seem to have any redeeming value, and a lot of risk for other cooperative endeavors. So perhaps we should all agree not to traffic in it. (And if we later find a good use for it that stance can be revised.) Mushrooms have a very different calculus, and all that said I agree in general that the drug war has been very badly conceived and executed.
I think you're right, and an additional factor is that the vaccine is tangible and certain where the virus is invisible and may or may not be present in any given situation (and in unknown quantity).