There's no reason to attack masculinity. I know it's trendy to do so right now, but the gender norms aren't going away yet in some parts of the country still. If politics are involved, it's likely all about money and power.
"toxic masculinity" is a subset of masculinity in the same way that "toxic water" is a subset of water. People are not asking for an end to masculinity any more than the Flint water protestors are asking for an end to water.
Masculinity is a spectrum, with extreme womanizers on one side and gender-fluid effeminate men on the other side. Where is toxic masculinity defined? Do you feel there should be checks on extreme feminism? If no, why not?
Also, if your goal is diversity, that requires me to consider one's cultural background before discriminating against them. Why wouldn't you do the same for masculine guys?
I appreciate that this hill is one that HN is unwilling to climb, but: it's not an extremity, it's those behaviours which cause harm to others and in many cases men themselves (such as the set of behaviours whose consequences can lead to higher suicide rates among men).
Specifically in the context of coal mining, while I appreciate that communities get built around it that doesn't mean it should be extended beyond wider economic and environmental sense. Coal mining is both dangerous and literally toxic for those involved, but somehow people not involved in it invoke its macho status.
Macho status has nothing to do with it. It sounds like you've never lived in one of these small towns that revolve around a single industry. When that industry does poorly or goes away, entire families are damaged. Often times there aren't any other jobs in the area, and many cannot afford the changes required to move to a big city. Because of globalization and the loss of antitrust laws, this loss of economic stability is occurring not just in coal country, but in rural and semi-rural areas across the country. Then people who live in areas of the country that are doing well down play their struggle simply because they don't understand the devastating impact these economic trends are having on families across the nation.
I haven't, but I know well what you mean and I'm sympathetic to how much a disaster it is when the company of a company town goes away. To the idea of not closing mines before their time. Opening mines or power stations in 2017 though? It's just a solution that creates more problems.
Higher suicide rates and higher risk seeking is tied to how people treat men as much (or more) than how men themselves behaves. Studies have tested medical professional have a default assumption that all men are strong and healthy and thus men are less likely to get treated for psychological health problems compared to women.
Similar, in dating statistics it is very clear that women will preferential choose well earning men over low earning men. This pushes men in general to take high risk high reward professions.
Unless you redefine masculinity to include how people perceive and treat men you can't define it to be the causes for higher suicide rates and higher risk seeking.
A great thing about the internet is it's decentralization. If you don't have tons of capital or income, you might consider moving to somewhere with a lower cost of living and making your app there. You can host it nearly anywhere with an internet connection until you hit a global scale, at which point you should be able to go to a more expensive area.
Nah, it's just the nature of capitalism. Industries that require a large amount of startup capital lead to natural monopolies or duopolies. Those who cheat, skirt the law, or lobby to make getting into the industry harder do better than those who follow the spirit of the law. Board of directors exist not to create a balanced society, but to maximize returns on investment for owners and shareholders, and so will always behave as sociopathically as they can get away with. The government is supposed to regulate those industries, but because they buy off the government in the US, the duopoly-forming pressures continue unabated.
>> That's what happens when you centralize banking...
> Nah, it's just the nature of capitalism. Industries that require a large amount of startup capital lead to natural monopolies or duopolies.
But is that true of banking? The nation has a long history of small banks. While they've had their crises too, I don't think there's any natural motivation for bank consolidation besides using scale to eek out efficiencies and to gain power and influence.
I don't understand your point. I think it's apparent to almost anyone that you need a fair amount of startup capital to start a bank. And when you go on to say:
>I don't think there's any natural motivation for bank consolidation besides using scale to eek out efficiencies and to gain power and influence.
Are efficiencies and power-seeking somehow not enough? I mean let's look at Standard Oil. What did Rockefeller do other than eek out efficiencies and try to gain power and influence? Efficiences are what defines a natural monopoly, we can't just throw it out.
Standard Oil is an interesting case. One of the things that made SO such a powerful monopoly (among many other things; I'm focusing only on business structure here) was the infrastructure it built up for transporting, refining, and selling oil. That is very capital-intensive, a situation a bit like (say) Comcast, whose businesses is protected by the large investments a competitor might need to make in laying fiber.
A good comparison might be shale oil companies, which largely are pretty small; Chesapeake, one of the most famous, has a market cap of 4.3B (so about the size of a tech unicorn). Shale oil companies, of course, are largely using oil and gas infrastructure built by years ago, so there isn't a competitive advantage keeping large companies afloat.
I think the parent is asking which of these examples banks are more like. Is there some sort of hidden infrastructure banks need to build before they're competitive—a total position database, or operating licenses in a bunch of markets, or an algorithmic trading platform—or can small banks largely compete with bigger banks? Like SO or CHK?
> I don't think there's any natural motivation for bank consolidation besides using scale to eek out efficiencies and to gain power and influence.
Motivation has nothing to do with it. The development of power and influence through asymmetric growth in the industry is enough for this to emerge. There are still small banks today, but it's no coincidence that the largest (and thus overall best performing) banks cheat the system. The best performing become large and powerful on their own.
But your assertion was that banking is an "industr[y] that require[s] a large amount of startup capital" such that it will "lead to natural monopolies or duopolies." The fact that you can have a small, profitable bank disproves that.
Capital is more than just money. It takes a lot to jump through the regulatory hoops, money requirements, and insurance costs while having competitive prices against other Banks and still make a profit.
Even if it was just a money issue, new banks do still require a fair amount of money for relatively little profit in an industry that is well established. If someone is going to put their capital on the line, why wouldn't they put it in a higher growth industry?
These don't make new bank creation impossible, just unlikely.
In the same thread you state "Nah, it's just the nature of capitalism. Industries that require a large amount of startup capital lead to natural monopolies or duopolies" as the cause of centralization of the banks. Then you go on and explain where the high-capital cost actually comes from:
"It takes a lot to jump through the regulatory hoops, money requirements, and insurance costs while having competitive prices against other Banks and still make a profit."
I'm not blaming capitalism, just pointing out that in some industries, monopolies naturally form. If anything, I'm blaming the government for getting taken over by the rich instead of keeping the imbalances in line.
Small banks existed because anti-trust laws were enforced. After Reagan, anti-trust stopped looking at market share and only cared about consumer prices. Hence why we've seen a huge consolidation of capital resources in large firms and cities, because that's where the economies of scale are.
I smoked cigarettes in the past and used ecigs to make cessation easier. When I switched, I used the vape more than cigarettes, but I also had a lot easier of a time quitting the vape(due to the lack of MAOI I believe). Even if people vape more than smoke, it may be worth it if they use it to successfully quit smoking altogether.
Not just in Canada. I'm about to graduate in the third largest city in my state, and I can only find jobs that pay around $35k/yr. The fact is that most new or good paying jobs are being concentrated to only a few areas of the country. They form economic bubbles that are insulated from the fact that most of the country is seeing a decline in quality of life due to lower wages, higher costs, and less worker leverage. This economic ignorance is a big reason why big cities don't understand the rise of Trump.
I think it is pretty pointless to make nationwide comparisons.
For example, I looked and found a level 1 Software Engineer opening in Kansas City for 50K. That actually seems pretty good -- the median house price there is 120K. Here in Portland it's 345K, and entry level engineers aren't getting 3x the salary. More like 80K or so.
This actually sounds kinda like a good reason for moving to the midwest, assuming you like everything else about it there.
The downside, mostly, is that your next job may need you to move again. Many people prefer stability in their housing arrangements, and are willing to trade off a lot for that.
My point still stands. People In this thread are talking like $40k/yr salaries are unheard of, yet aren't acknowledging that the economy of the high growth cities is nothing like the rest of the country.
But if there is 1 job in a 30k town and 100k in a city of 2 million, then the salary of that 1 job doesn't matter much for an average salary calculation.
For the profession of software engineer, most of the jobs are in the higher salary bands there should have an outside impact on the average calculations.
