War of attrition almost certainly requires high continual casualty numbers, it's literally in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article:
> Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and materiel.
Pandemic restrictions are pretty much nonexistent in large swaths of the US that have similar problems.
There is certainly a worker deficit. Our society has moved up the stack and isn't bringing in enough cheap immigrant labor anymore to work the jobs even poor americans won't accept anymore.
Example, in North Dakota where you can get a union Costco job for 18$+/hr (or chick fila for 17/hr) there are plenty of places (including hospitals) offering 15$/hr and they can't find people to fill the slots. Your dog grooming is paying 11$/hr? That's just another business going bust.
Businesses who were on a shoestring fail and yuppies continue to move in. The regional+national inflation has simply left large chunks of business in the dust without very cheap (immigrant) labor. This causes the makeshift infrastructure to weaken and the communities start to come apart.
I was under the impression that Costco only had union employees in California and a couple east coast states. The vast, vast majority of Costco employees are not in a union.
What does that even mean? How do you incentivize automation for things like surgical tool sterilization (the aforementioned 15$/hr) or pet grooming, for which there is no "automation". Especially when you're working with populations in the thousands or 10s of thousands (eg cities like Bismarck or Billings), who would invest in that? Amazon is dropping in distribution centers from time to time at 15$ an hour when a municipal area gets to be over 100k pop, but that's just one vendor and one vertical.
You could buy houses in cash in half the cities in Ohio for 6 months unemployment + 3 stimulus checks. There are plenty of places like this in the US - Alabama, Mississippi, etc.
Sure - that is not the reason house prices in Marin are up 30%.
That's probably got more to do with central banks pushing up equities >30%. And probably because when you cut mortgage interest rates by 1 percentage point (which they did), you can afford ~15% more house.
In real terms - monthly payments for new housing purchases are down.
Sure, you could buy a house in the extremely small cities of Ohio with little to no jobs or economic future. I doubt many are. Almost all the population growth in the US is in major metro areas. If those cities are close to commute to Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati, sure.
I live in the rust belt. No one is buying those 30k homes. Why? They're unmaintained, falling apart, need completely rewired, completely new plumbing. The housing stock in the rust belt is OLD. This is what makes prices "so cheap" to you lot looking in from the coasts.
But the reality is no one is buying the discount properties that need major work. They're in run down neighborhoods with vacancies everywhere and sit on the market for months. They're almost unsellable - many are held onto with the hope that a neighborhood will get gentrified. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland see Pittsburgh's resurgence and think that will happen there. But for every expensive Pittsburgh neighborhood there's a Clairton and McKeesport.
Seeing these comparisons is frustrating and makes it easy to understand why Afghanistan continues to be an enigma to westerners who think they know and understand the realities there on the ground.
Because US is hegemon and can essentially do as it pleases without immediate consequence. This is why Russia and China have been focusing on destabilizing the US and minor geopolitical moves to chip away as opposed to directly challenging US authority.
It's interesting that the system working as intended is now viewed as a negative.
Is this not capitalism at work? Company provides what society needs. Right now only 2 companies provide this particular type of vaccine. More competition will come in, driving down costs.
This is just it - most people criticize the media have a clear political agenda, it oozes out of them. In this case, it immediately goes to Trump and Russia, almost instantly, almost as if it's a campaign. It misleads by saying "we don't have direct evidence of this, therefore it must not have happened." The two articles linked are not convincing.
Often times people complain about the mainstream media and then post their own media, without convincing me why I should trust this media over any other media.
Is that not problematic? You make an extraordinary claim, but then "there is no time for me to back it up." But there was time to make the claim, and this is ultimately the problem. You have just accepted out of hand that it is truth and want others to accept it.
Why should I trust anything you say, then? I don't doubt that there are biases, they're certainly are. But you're expecting us to just accept it out of hand.
That's because the problem isn't media literacy, it's culture war. Both sides believe that they are fighting a do or die battle for their ideology, and are likely to support something even if the evidence is dubious because it advances the cause.
I'd hazard the problem is alienation, as a result from destroying traditional community activities and replacing them with impersonal, monetized digital alternatives.
You don't have a yearning to be part of a tribe, unless you feel like you're missing one.
War of attrition almost certainly requires high continual casualty numbers, it's literally in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article:
> Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and materiel.