>They moving there because they want to be in a big city - with friends, jobs, museums, and nightlife.
Sure
>So I don’t understand why Matt believes that building a few new apartments in some city - a very small move along that spectrum - would do anything other than make local prices go up.
Huh? Other than friends, none of the previously mentioned amenities are provided by apartment buildings.
Adding commercial real estate to a city adds jobs and amenities that make it more desirable, and thus more expensive.
Adding more housing does not.
That said, adding more housing raises the demand for commercial real estate (more available workers and customers), hence the cycle that leads to very dense, very expensive places like Manhattan. Strictly speaking though, adding apartments alone isn't enough to keep that cycle going.
With qualified immunity the only people allowed to enforce that are prosecutors, but they often can't afford to jeopardize their relationship with police. Federal prosecutors are further removed from local cops and have better incentives on that front, but they often run into issues around jurisdiction.
The point of repealing qualified immunity is to let the victims sue as a means of enforcing checks on police.
I still don't understand the connection. I assume the term "company store" is being used to invoke the exploitative nature of living in a company town and being paid in scrip.
How does "a major local employer wants the local economy to thrive" lead to more exploitation than usual? If anything, I'd expect a thriving local economy to mean that there's more competition for workers, increasing their bargaining power and reducing the probability/severity of worker exploitation.
Ok, but not everyone can afford it. When there's a dearth of apartments and you can't afford your own detached house, you're forced to share a house with other people.
People do not prefer sharing a house with roommates to having their own apartment.
Also the idea that people's preferences should be encoded into bans on certain housing types is completely absurd to begin with.
I expect that they are getting lower output per acre, but in places where land is cheap and as solar panels continue to get cheaper, the money saved on building the support structures could be worth those losses.
Right, a more reasonable argument would be just that the risks outweigh the benefits for some users, especially if they aren't currently using notifications on any legitimate sites.
Thanks to USB-C I just keep my Ethernet cable plugged into my monitor (via a USB dongle), and now when I plug in my external display I not only get power but also wired networking.
I don't see how this is a relevant argument. Police can already use deadly force when someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others. Using deadly force via a remote controlled robot when a suspect poses an immediate threat to others isn't an expansion of that use of force policy.
Killing somebody just because they're running from an outstanding warrant would be a new and terrible policy whether or not a robot was involved.
That would explain a difference in price per square foot, but it doesn't explain why there are fewer small homes built further from busy roads. If anything you'd expect the opposite if it were just a reflection of people's preferences.
3 more family members are about to move into my house. No matter how much I tell myself that having a larger household and more social time will be "good for me", and of course having help with childcare will be hugely convenient, I'm really starting to dread the loss of privacy.
I've talked to one of my senators, three of my congressman, and my mom's congresswoman. I'm not that rich and I certainly don't make political donations large enough for them to notice. Your cynicism might be warranted in certain states/districts, but my representatives have been reasonably responsive to this fairly average constituent.
But classwork is what you'll have to do in college anyway. It's not the admissions criteria that's the problem, it's the format of undergraduate higher education itself.
A pull-up competition is a perfectly valid test if the job/program requires exactly that kind of upper body strength.
A member of congress voting for $10B of useless defense spending because they're heavily invested in the relevant aerospace company isn't committing insider trading.
Perhaps this is unnecessarily pedantic, but what you're describing is a "conflict of interest" problem, not an "insider trading" problem. You can have either problem without the other, and depending on how you crack down on insider trading, it could be completely ineffective at solving the conflict of interest problem.
>This should be a much bigger issue, IMO. We the People need to make them understand this blatant self dealing will not be tolerated.
Compared to the impact they can have at their job (positive or negative), this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Obviously I'd prefer if they didn't do it, but I don't see why it needs to be a bigger issue.
Insider trading causes two problems:
* Undermines faith in, and thus reduces efficacy of, financial markets
* Reduces the overall returns for everyone else a bit
While it becomes a problem when rampant throughout the market, I don't think a few hundred members of congress would collectively have much impact here.
I'm also a little wary of the kind of person who's willing to go into politics and isn't in it for the money. While there are a handful of truly dedicated public servants, most people who aren't in it for the money are either extreme ideologues or power hungry narcissists. I'll take a politician who's mildly financially corrupt over someone who wants to abolish either taxes or private property, and way over one who wants to become a dictator.