Political Discussion

The local news had a story about foster care tonight.

During the pandemic many families who provide foster care either chose to retire or that they can't financially afford to provide foster care for children any longer.

This is a nationwide problem. The number of foster care families available are down 22% nationally. More so in the Boston area.

Meanwhile during the pandemic the need for foster care has skyrocketed.

Depression and opioid addictions are at record highs leading to more neglected children than ever before I need of foster care.
 
Public Transportation is once again a political hot button issue in New Hampshire.

A huge percentage of the population of Southeastern New Hampshire works in the metro Boston area. These people generally have chosen to live in Southern New Hampshire because they can't afford the cost of living in Massachusetts. New Hampshire doesn't have enough industry for them all to work in New Hampshire either. So this has lead to people commuting into Boston on I-93 and I-95 for decades. And these highways are not built to handle this capacity of traffic nor can they be expanded any more lanes in Massachusetts due to the area being too densely developed. These highways are essentially bottlenecks that frequently backup and are at rush hour level traffic nearly 24 hours a day now.

On the New Hampshire Side, they expanded I-93 from two lanes to 3 lanes of traffic in each direction over the last 15 years. But that update didn't solve any of the clog.

People are left either driving to the Metro Boston area each day which can be up to 2 to 4 hours if traffic is bad or take a private shuttle bus and still sit in the same traffic.

The higher population centers in Southern New Hampshire, such as Nashua and Manchester all want Commuter Rail operations into Boston.

Which is actually very feasible. The Rail and station infrastructure is already there, just needs up updates and Commuter Rail Service provided by the MBTA actually existed in the 70's all the way up to Concord New Hampshire. Federal money exists to make all the safety upgrades such as PTC and ADA upgrades to stations. The issue is the state of New Hampshire does not want to pay to subsidize commuter rail service. New Hampshire has not sales or state income tax. And the majority of communities are rural and have not benefit to the high population areas of Southeastern New Hampshire getting Commuter Rail service into Boston. The lawmakers from those rural communities don't want to spend a dime on public transportation because it doesn't benefit their communities. So there is never enough votes for anything to ever happen.

The service in the 1970's only lasted a couple of years. After 1 year of service New Hampshire stopped footing the bill. Massachusetts was like we are not going to pay for service to your State all by ourselves and pulled out. Prior to the MBTA service, the Boston & Maine railroad provided commuter service before going into bankruptcy and selling their lines and commuter services to Massachusetts.

This is all in the news right now because several politics are getting very vocal about needing commuter rail service. And a years long study and estimate was just published showing the benefits and the cost. Hugely beneficial and not prohibitively expensive.


This has lead to political attack ads running in opposition of Commuter Rail Service. And we see them on Boston stations because New Hampshire only has one local broadcast station, ABC out of Manchester. All the other Networks they get from Boston.

The ads basically say it's foolish to invest in 19th century technology. They very much portrate it as a huge waste of money on a 200 year old technology. And that that money can be better spent on roads and bridges to get people to work.

Maine currently pays for Amtrak Service to Boston for Commuters. And it goes through Southeastern New Hampshire though further east along the cost. New Hampshire has never paid and always refused to pay to subsidise service for this as well leaving Maine to foot the bill.

I find it fascinating as a country how we are so against public transportation. Something that benefits the greater population is so easily achievable because the larger geographic area blocks it. People say land doesn't vote. But on issues like this I say it does.
 
Speaking of Commuter Rail and politics, I was just reading up on the latest of the South Coast Rail Expansion.

The south coast of Massachusetts has no commuter rail or direct highway access to Boston. It's a ugly commute on traffic jammed back roads to get to Boston. The MBTA has been trying to get commuter rail service to communities like Fall River. It's been earmarked since the 1970's to extend service too. They would have started the service expansion in the 1990's had it not been blocked by requirents by the Us Army Corps of Engineers requiring that the row through a 3.5 mile section of marshes be turned into a bridge and requiring electrification to reduce pollution. Reasoning, the Army Corp of Engineers says the highway built through the same marsh caused to much pollution. This made it cost prohibitive of building the rail expansion and halted the expansion by more than 20 years. The project got underway again in the last couple years after the Army Corp of Engineers finally caved on their ridiculous requirement of building a 3.5 mile long bridge instead of using the embankment / rail bed that is already in place and has been in place since the 1840s.

Phase I of the project is nearing completion. That phase of the project was replacing the rail and ties, restoring double tracking to areas it was taken out and upgrading signaling on the south coast.

Phase II which is supposed to get underway soon and run through 2030. This includes electrifying the rail lines, replacement of diesel fleet with electric, building stations and restoring the connection of the south coast rail to the north.

Phase II as of right now looks like it will never be completed. NIMBYs in a couple of affluent communities have sued and blocked the rails from being restored in their backyard. The courts have issued a stay against the State restoring rail through two different communities. And it looks like a long and expensive legal battle ahead to complete Phase II.

To restore the direct rail connection to the north, sections of track that haven't seen a train since the 1970's, and in some areas, the 1950's are being restored. The track still remains where trains were last seen in the 1970s when the fright railroad pulled out and sold the row to the State. The parts that went out of service in the 1950's they ripped the rail out of for scrap money but never abandoned because of future potential needs to restore and these sections were sold to the State along with the entire row.

This is where the issue is. People built along the row. And assumed that it was abandoned, which it never legally was, it was preserved for future use. Previous owners and real estate rockers told them it was abandoned when buying. Now that the state plans to put the rail back these people are up in arms. They are worried about their privacy, they don't want passenger trains going through their backyards. They are worried about noise and say it will be disruptful to their lives. They don't want to see the electric canopies going up which they consider an eye soar. But most of all, they are worried about the return of trains reducing their property values. Because people assumed the rail line was abandoned and it has been 70+ years since rail has existed in part, that was one of the biggest reasons why the court issued the stay.

If this connection is not restored, trains can still detour through a bunch of branch lines, but that would add more than an hour to the commute time to Boston and doesn't make Commuter Rail more attractive than driving if the time of the commute is right back to where it was with driving.

It would really suck if they never complete the project. They have already sank a couple Billion into this project. The purchase order has been issued for the electric trains.
 
apple.news

AT&T Slashed Promised Life Insurance for Former Workers—and Time Runs Out at Year-End — The Wall Street Journal

The company, which is sparing its executives from the cut, says it brings benefits in line with what other firms offer
apple.news apple.news

let’s just cut the benefits of already retired employees who were not executives “to balance the needs of the business”. :mad:

in other words shareholders want more profits and thought the benefits given to people already retired are to generous / expensive. The are bringing the benefits of previous generations into line with what they offer for current employees and considered competitive in thr industry today.

Life insurance guaranteed till death after retiremet was once a common place benefit for blue collar workers. Today it it is rare and if it does exist its more inline with the basic life insurance plans companies offer today.
 
Last edited:
When visiting family this past week I had noticed that the Springfield MA NBC station is now owned by NexStar. They always used to be independent and not part of any media group.

Key differences I noticed is now they push a much more conservative narrative of the reporting. But the big thing I noticed is how much they pushed a station called "News Nation". I have never heard of it before and they seem to be pushing you to watch it over NBC national news coverage. All the pushes for News Station say it's "America's fastest growing news network", that News Nation "just reports the news and nothing more" and lastly, "are you tired of one sided reporting?". Everything that I have read up on New Nation shows that it is a conservative news network. More so than Fox News :oops: . There isn't a commercial break during the local news where they are not pushing News Nation.

I just can't comprehend how moderate news stations are "one sided" and a far right leaning one is not. To each their own I guess.

Edit: NexStar Media owns and operates News Nation.
 
I was following a discussion on Freelance Gigs / second jobs and was surprised by how many people said it's "unethical" and "don't do it, it's not worth the risk".

But is it really unethical, or is that just something corporations have lead us to believe.

In my opinion, the only thing unethical is the corporations saying you can't make a living / don't have the right to work elsewhere.

One of the common comments I saw is people replying "If you have to ask how to get away with doing freelance work you already know it's not ethical and that you should not be doing it".

Generally the people replying and saying it's not ethical are generations that came before Millennials.

Because my company is not paying competitive wages and I haven't had a salary increase in 6 years I need to do freelance work to make ends meet. The alternative, working a 18 to 30 hour a week a week part time low wage job would not make me as much money and burn me out. It would impact my performance at work, not just from burnout, but being unavailable to do late night / weekend work when it's urgently needed for clients.

All the developers at my company do freelance work. Managers included. Hell, a lot of my freelance leads actually come from my managers. A couple years back our Chief Creative Technology Officer told us that we could do freelance work. That the holding companies conflict of interest really doesn't apply to the developer industry and shouldn't. It holds a different weight to advertisers than it does developers.

But somehow I doubt that is the case. And 2022 Code of Conduct and Certification we need to sign as a condition of employment has updated language that pretty much targets in on people like us.

It really targets the freelance / gig economy. And says you can't work for yourself paid or unpaid using the same or similar skill sets including for family or friends.

Our Chief Creative Officer was laid off in 2020 and the person below him, the EVP of Creative Technology was part of the great resignation last year. They haven't backfilled either position and don't plan to. So while I don't think any of my coworkers or managers would take issue or report me or anyone for doing freelance work. It does sound very sketchy what would happen should HR or the holding company find out.

Based on the Code of Conduct certification, I could be terminated.

The younger generations though need to work in the gig economy to supplement their job. Lots of people like me can't get by on our primary salary alone and low wage jobs is just working harder for much less. And still could get you in trouble with work as the code of conduct also includes a section about being available at off hours to handle urgent client work when needed. Their thought is, your primary job comes before your second job. If we need you to work, we expect you to call into your other job.

Why is freelance gig work considered "unethical" and is it really? Or is it just what corporations have drilled into people trying to have full control of their employees.

Edit: Almost forgot about this one. It's also in the legal paperwork that's condition of employment that my company owns the IP for anything a build or design. Whether it is for work or not. That's another slap in the face that keeps your from really doing any work from yourself and what the ramifications could be if you do.
 
Last edited:
RenegadeMonster said:
I was following a discussion on Freelance Gigs / second jobs and was surprised by how many people said it's "unethical" and "don't do it, it's not worth the risk".

But is it really unethical, or is that just something corporations have lead us to believe.

In my opinion, the only thing unethical is the corporations saying you can't make a living / don't have the right to work elsewhere.

One of the common comments I saw is people replying "If you have to ask how to get away with doing freelance work you already know it's not ethical and that you should not be doing it".

Generally the people replying and saying it's not ethical are generations that came before Millennials.

Because my company is not paying competitive wages and I haven't had a salary increase in 6 years I need to do freelance work to make ends meet. The alternative, working a 18 to 30 hour a week a week part time low wage job would not make me as much money and burn me out. It would impact my performance at work, not just from burnout, but being unavailable to do late night / weekend work when it's urgently needed for clients.

All the developers at my company do freelance work. Managers included. Hell, a lot of my freelance leads actually come from my managers. A couple years back our Chief Creative Technology Officer told us that we could do freelance work. That the holding companies conflict of interest really doesn't apply to the developer industry and shouldn't. It holds a different weight to advertisers than it does developers.

But somehow I doubt that is the case. And 2022 Code of Conduct and Certification we need to sign as a condition of employment has updated language that pretty much targets in on people like us.

It really targets the freelance / gig economy. And says you can't work for yourself paid or unpaid using the same or similar skill sets including for family or friends.

Our Chief Creative Officer was laid off in 2020 and the person below him, the EVP of Creative Technology was part of the great resignation last year. They haven't backfilled either position and don't plan to. So while I don't think any of my coworkers or managers would take issue or report me or anyone for doing freelance work. It does sound very sketchy what would happen should HR or the holding company find out.

Based on the Code of Conduct certification, I could be terminated.

The younger generations though need to work in the gig economy to supplement their job. Lots of people like me can't get by on our primary salary alone and low wage jobs is just working harder for much less. And still could get you in trouble with work as the code of conduct also includes a section about being available at off hours to handle urgent client work when needed. Their thought is, your primary job comes before your second job. If we need you to work, we expect you to call into your other job.

Why is freelance gig work considered "unethical" and is it really? Or is it just what corporations have drilled into people trying to have full control of their employees.

Edit: Almost forgot about this one. It's also in the legal paperwork that's condition of employment that my company owns the IP for anything a build or design. Whether it is for work or not. That's another slap in the face that keeps your from really doing any work from yourself and what the ramifications could be if you do.
Click to expand...
At this point, after seeing the great resignation, the news that more working aged people are dying at higher rates, I would probably continue doing my free lance work. If the company finds out, they can fire you, but would they? You've stuck around even though they haven't given you a raise in 6 years and it doesn't sound like you've ever been a disciplinary problem. They aren't paying you competitively, which is why you have to do the free lance, and there is no way I would get a minimum wage job to make ends meet when I could make a ton more money for a fraction of the time. So yeah, first, they have to catch you and then, they have to actually do something to you--and neither one of these are a given in the current economy.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
I was following a discussion on Freelance Gigs / second jobs and was surprised by how many people said it's "unethical" and "don't do it, it's not worth the risk".

But is it really unethical, or is that just something corporations have lead us to believe.

In my opinion, the only thing unethical is the corporations saying you can't make a living / don't have the right to work elsewhere.

One of the common comments I saw is people replying "If you have to ask how to get away with doing freelance work you already know it's not ethical and that you should not be doing it".

Generally the people replying and saying it's not ethical are generations that came before Millennials.

Because my company is not paying competitive wages and I haven't had a salary increase in 6 years I need to do freelance work to make ends meet. The alternative, working a 18 to 30 hour a week a week part time low wage job would not make me as much money and burn me out. It would impact my performance at work, not just from burnout, but being unavailable to do late night / weekend work when it's urgently needed for clients.

All the developers at my company do freelance work. Managers included. Hell, a lot of my freelance leads actually come from my managers. A couple years back our Chief Creative Technology Officer told us that we could do freelance work. That the holding companies conflict of interest really doesn't apply to the developer industry and shouldn't. It holds a different weight to advertisers than it does developers.

But somehow I doubt that is the case. And 2022 Code of Conduct and Certification we need to sign as a condition of employment has updated language that pretty much targets in on people like us.

It really targets the freelance / gig economy. And says you can't work for yourself paid or unpaid using the same or similar skill sets including for family or friends.

Our Chief Creative Officer was laid off in 2020 and the person below him, the EVP of Creative Technology was part of the great resignation last year. They haven't backfilled either position and don't plan to. So while I don't think any of my coworkers or managers would take issue or report me or anyone for doing freelance work. It does sound very sketchy what would happen should HR or the holding company find out.

Based on the Code of Conduct certification, I could be terminated.

The younger generations though need to work in the gig economy to supplement their job. Lots of people like me can't get by on our primary salary alone and low wage jobs is just working harder for much less. And still could get you in trouble with work as the code of conduct also includes a section about being available at off hours to handle urgent client work when needed. Their thought is, your primary job comes before your second job. If we need you to work, we expect you to call into your other job.

Why is freelance gig work considered "unethical" and is it really? Or is it just what corporations have drilled into people trying to have full control of their employees.

Edit: Almost forgot about this one. It's also in the legal paperwork that's condition of employment that my company owns the IP for anything a build or design. Whether it is for work or not. That's another slap in the face that keeps your from really doing any work from yourself and what the ramifications could be if you do.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how freelance work could be considered unethical? What’s the argument?

The gig economy is an enormously unethical race to the bottom but that’s not on the heads of the workers who are desperately trying to earn a living in it, it’s on the heads of the exploitative bastards running pretty much every gig economy based company and surrounds issues like underpay and treating workers as self employed whilst restricting them with conditions which legally form the employee/employer relationship etc.
 
Joe Mac said:
I don’t understand how freelance work could be considered unethical? What’s the argument?

The gig economy is an enormously unethical race to the bottom but that’s not on the heads of the workers who are desperately trying to earn a living in it, it’s on the heads of the exploitative bastards running pretty much every gig economy based company and surrounds issues like underpay and treating workers as self employed whilst restricting them with conditions which legally form the employee/employer relationship etc.
Click to expand...

The argument for it being unethical is because you are breaching your primary employes "conflict of interest" and "non compete" contracts that are conditions of employment.

By working in the freelance gig economy using the same or similar skills that you use at your primary job, you are knowingly and willingly breaching the contract signed with your employer as a condition of employment.

In the United States, many industries have such conditions of employment. Except in California where such practices are illegal. California believes workers have the right to earn a living.

For older generations, their primary jobs paid enough and the cost of living was low enough where they could live off a single salary. Employers were much more loyal to their employees and employees were loyal to their job.

Today, many companies show no loyalty to employees. Everyone's replaceable and many people employees are constantly jumping from company to company seeking better wages rarely staying at a company for more than a year. If your employer isn't loyal to you why should you be required to be 100% loyal to them. This is something the people that are saying doing freelance work is unethical are missing as well. To them not being loyal is taboo.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Today, many companies show no loyalty to employees. Everyone's replaceable and many people employees are constantly jumping from company to company seeking better wages rarely staying at a company for more than a year. If your employer isn't loyal to you why should you be required to be 100% loyal to them.
Click to expand...
A company that exploits workers and doesn't pay a living wage doesn't deserve my "loyalty".
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The argument for it being unethical is because you are breaching your primary employes "conflict of interest" and "non compete" contracts that are conditions of employment.

By working in the freelance gig economy using the same or similar skills that you use at your primary job, you are knowingly and willingly breaching the contract signed with your employer as a condition of employment.

In the United States, many industries have such conditions of employment. Except in California where such practices are illegal. California believes workers have the right to earn a living.

For older generations, their primary jobs paid enough and the cost of living was low enough where they could live off a single salary. Employers were much more loyal to their employees and employees were loyal to their job.

Today, many companies show no loyalty to employees. Everyone's replaceable and many people employees are constantly jumping from company to company seeking better wages rarely staying at a company for more than a year. If your employer isn't loyal to you why should you be required to be 100% loyal to them. This is something the people that are saying doing freelance work is unethical are missing as well. To them not being loyal is taboo.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m all for loyalty too. But loyalty is earned by actions and treatments not a pay packet. That’s my recompense for selling my freedom and skills to them for 8 hours a day. If they want loyalty I want to be treated correctly, to get top pay, recognition for my efforts and benefits in line with my needs.
 
A lawsuit has been filed against Google and Apple in California.

Apparently Apple and Google have had secret meetings where they have come to an agreement that Google is the default search engine of Apple Devices and that Apple will stay out of the search engine business. And Google Pays Apple in a profit sharing fashion to maintain this status quo. This practice has apparently been going on in secret for years.

Other companies are saying this behavior is anti competitive.

All it goes to show you is you can't trust the big companies. And how much they control.
 
Yesterday the Apple News app gave me a CNBC story where a Harvard economist shares his 21 money saving rules.

As I was reading through them there was one theme I noticed. That most of these rules are unattainable for at least half the population in America if not more.

The most important rule he had was "Don't borrow for college".

1. Don't borrow for college. It's far too risky and expensive. I don't say this lightly. I'm a college professor. But you can get a fine education without mortgaging your future and potentially dashing your career plans.

It simply involves pursuing scholarships and applying to less expensive, if generally less prestigious, institutions.
Click to expand...

The next most important rule he listed was "Own, don't rent". I would love to own, but based on my income and the cost housing around here, the only houses that would be considered affordable would be in areas you would never live. Run down, crime ridden bad neighborhoods in cities like Lowell. Not to mention my student loan debt would probably prevent me from being able to afford even that.

Followed by "buy in cash". You should never borrow money or charge things on credit cards. He includes Mortgages as things you should try to avoid. That they are tax and financial losers. If you have to take one out pay them off ASAP. Like I could ever afford to buy a house without a mortgage or pay it off in only a few years :rolleyes:

Another rule was "have a rainy day fund". You should always have enough money in savings to get by for 6 or more months should you ever lose your job. Good luck with that. Me, like manny Americans, are living paycheck to paycheck just to get by. No way I can ever save that kind of money.

A lot of the stuff was about retirement. One of the things that I never thought about was "Social Security is not in the business of telling us what they owe us". Often, they make mistakes and don't pay you what they should be owing you. Always double and triple check that the amount they are paying you is correct and contact them to correct the amount they owe you if it's incorrect. The sooner you do this the better because they will not pay you back pay.

Speaking of back pay, they will also not start paying you social security when you are eligible. It's up to you to file to claim your benefits. This professor says he has lost count of how many times people in their mid 70's have asked him when they will start receiving their SS benefits. He tells them they need to file ASAP to get them. And unfortunately, even though they have been paying in their whole lives, they are not eligible for getting back pay for the 5 or more years they missed because they didn't know they had to file to claim benefits. They just thought they would start receiving them when they were of age.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Yesterday the Apple News app gave me a CNBC story where a Harvard economist shares his 21 money saving rules.

As I was reading through them there was one theme I noticed. That most of these rules are unattainable for at least half the population in America if not more.

The most important rule he had was "Don't borrow for college".



The next most important rule he listed was "Own, don't rent". I would love to own, but based on my income and the cost housing around here, the only houses that would be considered affordable would be in areas you would never live. Run down, crime ridden bad neighborhoods in cities like Lowell. Not to mention my student loan debt would probably prevent me from being able to afford even that.

Followed by "buy in cash". You should never borrow money or charge things on credit cards. He includes Mortgages as things you should try to avoid. That they are tax and financial losers. If you have to take one out pay them off ASAP. Like I could ever afford to buy a house without a mortgage or pay it off in only a few years :rolleyes:

Another rule was "have a rainy day fund". You should always have enough money in savings to get by for 6 or more months should you ever lose your job. Good luck with that. Me, like manny Americans, are living paycheck to paycheck just to get by. No way I can ever save that kind of money.

A lot of the stuff was about retirement. One of the things that I never thought about was "Social Security is not in the business of telling us what they owe us". Often, they make mistakes and don't pay you what they should be owing you. Always double and triple check that the amount they are paying you is correct and contact them to correct the amount they owe you if it's incorrect. The sooner you do this the better because they will not pay you back pay.

Speaking of back pay, they will also not start paying you social security when you are eligible. It's up to you to file to claim your benefits. This professor says he has lost count of how many times people in their mid 70's have asked him when they will start receiving their SS benefits. He tells them they need to file ASAP to get them. And unfortunately, even though they have been paying in their whole lives, they are not eligible for getting back pay for the 5 or more years they missed because they didn't know they had to file to claim benefits. They just thought they would start receiving them when they were of age.
Click to expand...
I kept reading for the part where the SS advice is worthless too because that fund will be exhausted for us but you never delivered.
 
debianlinux said:
I kept reading for the part where the SS advice is worthless too because that fund will be exhausted for us but you never delivered.
Click to expand...

Well, there is that. Sadly I doubt this will ever be an issue for me. And the article never touches on that. It's more based on what decisions / rules you should follow today.
 
I heard a report today on the power of disinformation.

Today is January 6th, and one year later after the capital riots more people believe that the 2020 election was stolen today than did 1 year ago. And I find this factoid just mind boggling and can't wrap my head around it.

But apparently there is a lot of misinformation out there and people who read it take it for fact. And the trust in our system continues to decline. I have a bad feeling that ugly elections are going to be more common in the future.
 


What is Lindsey Graham smoking?

After President Biden gave a speech today about the events one year ago, this is how Lindsey Graham responds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top