I almost wonder if this data would be better represented by total number of migrants (not that this doesn’t have value in and of itself, of course). I just say that because while Australia would “only” need 8-9 million immigrants for them to constitute 33% of its population, the US could have 130 million migrants (almost half the global total) and it still wouldn’t be over a third of its population. It would be medium green, actually, not even dark green here. Either way, still very interesting!

There really just isn’t that much money in the airline industry. It’s just expensive any way you look at it, from landing fees to repainting planes to fuel costs to plane orders…it’s an industry that operates on a very thin margin. Airlines can make more money selling miles and loyalty points to companies like Amex or Hertz than they can flying people in economy. And without first class or business class subsidizing the rest of the plane, prices would skyrocket or most airlines would have to go bankrupt.

I hate that violent crime is now wrapped up in that too. I understand that non-violent pot offenders probably don’t deserve years in prison, but I’m tired of the tears being shed for people who attack others. Especially when it’s a hate crime, which I thought my fellow progressives claimed to be so opposed to

That’s just such a reductive and facile take on this whole issue that it borders on disingenuous. It ignores so many other pieces of this crisis - no matter where you fall on immigration. Personally, I’m very pro-immigration. But let’s also be abundantly clear: these are migrants that will need a lot of safety nets and government assistance in order to establish themselves, and many of our cities are already struggling to keep up with the current homelessness crisis.

We need to establish that this is a different demographic set of immigrants from what we’re used to, as well. In the 2000s, we saw a lot of single men coming over to work. This crowd contains vastly more families and young children. So going off of some study from 2009 isn’t going to necessarily present us with the same picture as today, because a 23 year old Mexican man does not require nor have access to the same social services that a Venezuelan mother with 3 children will.

You can be supportive of immigration without being willfully unaware of the challenges presented by 2.5 million border patrol encounters in one year and how blissfully unprepared our social safety net is for that

“Americans Against Antisemitism has studied 194 anti-Jewish assaults and 135 property incidents in New York City since 2018 but can identify only two offenders who have been sentenced to prison”

If this is true, that’s really, really sad

I think you missed the entire point of what I said, which is that life expectancy can be related to things not related to healthcare. The best doctor or hospital or insurance in the world can’t save you if an 18-wheeler hits you going 75mph. That’s more of an indictment on infrastructure and our choices related to cars and public transit than it does our healthcare model

I think we should probably be clear that life expectancy isn’t only tied to healthcare quality or expenses. Car accidents and gun-related homicides, for instance, are major contributors to U.S.’ life expectancy being so low, and those two problems wouldn’t go away with universal healthcare or any change to the health insurance system here. You might see some tangential effects, but it’s not going to change the fact that driving is dangerous and Americans drive a lot more than Cubans or Singaporeans. Mental healthcare under a single payer system might help reduce some homicides, but I can’t imagine that without massive gun control reform we would see homicide rates here fall to numbers we see in Western Europe or Japan.

Long story short, I just don’t think this is inherently the indictment of US healthcare it comes across to be at first glance - and anytime this issue comes up people for some reason think life expectancy is just about actual medical care, and it’s really a lot more broadly-encompassing than that. We need single payer healthcare here, but that alone is not going to solve some of the various issues that help determine a country’s life expectancy.

I wonder if Venezuela has always had a relatively low number of Medical Schools or if that number sharply decreased after 2014

Yes, I understand that. My point is that talking about government employees seems odd given that I can’t imagine other cities like NY and Chicago don’t have similar numbers of public employment, and that DC is probably leagues ahead of us in that realm. I don’t think that’s why the subway here is dying

DC likely has more remote workers than we do though

What about Cohen?

Apparently so!

That’s a really slim profit margin, especially given delta is the most profitable airline in the world

I’m glad the mayor listened to the people and not the politicians, and that Councilman Cohen was against this bill as well

Again, have you ever heard of a 401k? That is absolutely absurd to say they have no options for retirement savings. Secondly, 82% of Americans want term limits. Has Sinclair suddenly hypnotized 200+ million Americans, or is it more likely that it’s a pretty bipartisan opinion that politicians in a democracy should not have unlimited durations of political power?

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/tomboulides-testimony

Can we please stop with the narrative that Baltimore city voters are too stupid to make autonomous choices and only voted for term limits because Sinclair duped us into it? There is and has been broad support for term limits nationwide for a long time, and even without Sinclair dropping a dime on this I’m sure it would’ve still passed.

You’re also just incorrect - the councilman can still get pensions, they just have to do 4 more years working for the state in another position, and if the pension is that valuable, it shouldn’t be that hard for a council member from the state’s largest city to find a state job. They’re also more than welcome to contribute to a 401k like the rest of us, especially given that they make what is likely a top 1% percentile of income in this city. I cannot think of a single other job outside of the president where 8 years qualifies you to be paid by the taxpayers for the rest of your life

Tbh, I used to get really annoyed and think BPD was being lazy when they didn’t enforce traffic laws. But now it’s like…I suppose they really can’t. Seems like unless somebody just killed someone, they aren’t allowed ro chase them

Wow. So that just straight up says they can’t chase you solely for committing a traffic offense if you basically aren’t a felon or dangerous

Definitely call 311, because the light should have been red. You’re not crazy, the light rail train follows the same traffic signals as every other vehicle on the road

Buddy the analogy is not really working since nobody said you can’t check on the status of the buildings. I encourage the city to do that. So you’re just not really making the point you think you are. The fact that a possibility exists this church is lying (which you’ve yet to give a credible reason for) does not mean it’s likely.

You’re being so facetious right now that it’s absurd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is saying to not verify their claim. But your allegations still seem unlikely at best.

You’re conflating redeveloping property into a profit-making building versus a garden. Not the same

Just to be clear, your theory is that the church actually has been spending money to properly maintain these buildings over the past few decades and that they’re in perfectly adequate condition, but that the church decided it needed a garden so badly that it’s decided to fabricate this whole story of the buildings being dilapidated? Yeah ok.

Because I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument from the other side. I’m supposed to believe the church wanted a garden so badly that they concocted this decades long scheme to let the buildings deteriorate that completely hinged upon getting approval to tear them down from the preservation/zoning board?

Okay, maybe the church is full of evil, conniving people. Or, hear me out:

The church was gifted these buildings and probably had plans or ideas for what they could do with them. Due to limited funds or declining congregation sizes, they probably realized they didn’t have the money to support that. However, it’s still property nearby that they wouldn’t be able to purchase down the road if it was in private hands, so they figured it was probably best to just keep the properties until the church had more resources, because the opportunity wouldn’t present itself again. However, the problems grew bigger and as such, got more expensive. Fast forward to today, and the church realizes it’s fruitless to keep this property but due to the condition of the buildings, it likely wouldn’t be beneficial to keep them either. So they decide they could be torn down and converted into something relatively cheap and easy to maintain, aka an outdoor plaza that requires minimal maintenance compared to aging buildings.

I’m not saying every decision the church made was amazing or that they’re strategized particularly well, but I feel as though people here are being very, very presumptuous and just immediately jumping to accuse the church of nefarious activity when it’s likely that they just made poor, if well-intentioned, choices