Hmm, I wonder if beef is more expensive than chicken to reflect the inefficiency in its production? Oh it is. So it must then be that people just prefer the flavor and taste of it as compared to cheaper meats then.
Question, are these stats based on the most recent census data for population and then reported employment numbers? If so changes in population (considerable deportations for example) might effect an assumed denominator that no longer holds. That said if the labor numbers rely on above board work, then perhaps that would not impact the numerator as much either. The methodology is important here.
Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues to shrink. At the same time, we're seeing youth unemployment around 6%, including those with a college degree [1].
As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context). So, who can hold out longer: businesses and industries historically underpaying workers but "desperate for them"? Or potential workers? Because as long as US immigration is constrained, as a business, you get to pick from who is on the soil at whatever that market clearing price for labor is.
[1] Young men are struggling in a slowing job market, even if they have college degrees - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/young-men-strugglin... - August 13th, 2025 ("Men ages 23 to 30 are discovering that a bachelor's degree doesn't offer the same protection from unemployment that it used to")
>As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context).
Why do you think young men would work at a restaurant? They don't make tips the way pretty young girls do. Restaurants certainly don't pay a living wage.
Have you tried ending tip culture? If you did that, you might find more young men willing to work there and more patrons willing to eat there once the expectation of 30% tips are gone.
The last 15 or so years of progressive politics are doing nothing for young men except demand they be "allies" so it's absolutely not surprising that young men have largely moved Right
The Right is promising to make them great. It may be a lie, but it's a better message than what the Left has for them
Edit: and before you get the wrong idea, I'm pretty progressive. I have consistently voted left my entire life. This is stuff I view as weakness on my own side, not something I'm projecting on my opponents
Organizing and unionizing, focusing on affordability, etc are what I’m referring to. “Good manufacturing jobs” ain’t coming back. If you want a good job today, it’s only coming through collective action to push wages up to living wages. There won’t be some magic that instantiates millions of good jobs for young men needing them, and even those with degrees are facing peril and economic insecurity. The jobs that exist are the jobs young men have to crank towards livability. Universal healthcare is a component of affordability, especially as it relates to family forming and the cost of US healthcare.
With structural demographics what they are, and labor slowly becoming more scarce year after year, the time is right. They took their chance on the Right, and polling shows some amount of buyer’s remorse.
I agree with you. There's unfortunately not a lot of will for unionization among anyone I've spoken to about it, though. Besides, companies are very ruthless when it comes to union busting. Especially in software, how do you unionize when your company will just fire you all and hire overseas workers to replace you overnight?
I am with you. I want to believe we can figure this out and collectively claw back from the corpos. I'm just discouraged because I do not think it's likely to actually happen in my lifetime
leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues to shrink
I don't think that's literally true? There are more Millennials (~22% of US population) now than Boomers (~20%) or Gen X (~19%). Same for Gen Z (~21%).
Or do you mean that for whatever reason, Millenials aren't participating in the work force?
Millenials (and some Gen X) have the highest participation rate since 2001:
> By contrast, participation among “prime-age” workers (25–54) has held relatively steady, averaging 83.6% since January 2024 and registering 83.8% in March 2026. It hit 84.0% in January, the highest since March 2001, with the current rate just shy of that recent peak.
> The US labor force is quietly shrinking, not because of a weak economy, but because of a demographic squeeze. The population is aging, fewer younger workers are entering the workforce, and relative stability amongst prime-age workers (aged 25-54) can’t fully offset the gap. The result, according to the BLS projections, will be roughly 4.3 million fewer workers by 2034 than would be expected if participation rates held steady.
> Each year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops 10-year projections about the labor market. The latest projections for the decade stretching from 2024 to 2034 show a steady decline of the overall labor force participation rate (LFPR), from 62.6% in 2024 to 61.1% by 2034, a 1.5 percentage point drop over a decade. Given the size of the US labor market, that 1.5 percentage point decline represents roughly 4.3 million fewer people who are either employed or actively seeking work, relative to 2024 participation levels.
> The projections point to a demographic squeeze on the US labor market. As the population ages, workers move into older age groups where participation is lower. At the same time, fewer younger workers are entering the labor market, and prime-age participation rates decline slightly. Even with strong participation among prime-age workers and later retirements among older adults, the population is gradually shifting toward age groups with lower structural participation. The result is a slow but persistent decline in the overall LFPR.
Total Boomer cohort doesn't reach at least 65 until 2029-2030 per the US Census. One does not qualify for Medicare until 65. It matters because 55+ working age population cohort is load bearing in the US labor force at the moment.
> There are now 20 million more 55+ employed than there were in 2000, an equivalent of the entire workforce of Spain. This unprecedented demographic / employment transition is worth a closer look. As the second chart shows, some of this increase is due to the rising population of Americans over 55 years of age - an increase of 42 million. In 2000, 30% of those 55 and older were employed. Today, over 37% are employed - a significant increase in the percentage of 55+ people who are working. In 2000, only 17.6% of the 55 and older populace had a job. Now the percentage is 37.5% A 20% increase in the percentage of 55+ who are employed in a 20-year span is unprecedented. If the percentage of employed 55+ had stayed the same, there would only be 17 million 55+ workers today. Instead, there are over 37 million. This raises a question: why are so many older workers continuing to work longer than they did in 1990 and 2000?
(obviously, older workers are continuing to work because they cannot afford not to, although I'm sure there is some amount of folks who continue to work despite not financially needing to)
Even if you define Gen X birth years starting at 1965 (and not 1961 as some do), their oldest are already 61. So anybody between 55 and 61 is a Gen X, not a boomer. And for the 55+ group employment participation rate has been decreasing. Which does not mean that "boomers are retiring", it's Gen X's turn now.
I can state that (anecdotally) this is true. My range allows me to be placed in various sections as needed, but the vast majority of the time I am asked to sing tenor, for lack of numbers / strong voices to do so.
"Were they absorbed by foreign exporters through lower export prices, or were they passed through to US importers and ultimately consumers?"
Go actually read the pdf. Their methodology conflates any and all price increases of foreign goods as being a burden bore upon Americans. No talk of purchasing habits changing towards domestic products. Nope. Oh and does it account for recent price increases across the board related to inflation? Nope. It (I would argue intentionally) does not control for that at all.
Pure propaganda from a foreign think tank to convince you to go back to policies where American exports got taxed, but theirs did not.
Good to know that "Don't speak ill of the dead," is now truly dead. Ironic that an online post trying to push a political point is attempting to frame itself as rising above. There is no middle ground. There is no common decency.
The reaction to Adams death is simply a reflection of how he lived his life.
There’s this curious demand (often though not exclusively from right leaning folks) for freedom of speech and freedom from consequences of that speech. It doesn’t work that way.
You have the freedom to say reactionary things that upset people as much as you want. But if you do, then you die, people are going to say “he was a person who said reactionary things that upset people”.
The dead man, whomever is in question, can no longer harm you. He was a man, maybe a husband and father, and speaking ill of them is of no tangible benefit. To those that respected or loved them, the relationship is gone, and it is not wise to add to their pain.
I have been to the funeral of bad men. His earthly power is gone and if there is an afterlife his judgment is sealed.
This goes for all enemies and tyrants and criminals. We use the term "I am sorry for your loss" because most times the loss is not ours.
I disagree. I say speak against the ideas, not the person, as the person dies, except Jesus who people continue to invoke his name, which probably means he transcends an idea or belief.
I have a terrible toxic belief troubles you. Can I be a member of society just because I believe pineapple on pizza is acceptable? If you associate me as a person with that belief instead of someone who believes, I suddenly become a problem, and not the belief. Jesus said to love your enemies. He also spoke against ideas, not people.
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread. But it doesn't really make a lot of sense, especially in the case of someone famous.
If two or three days ago, not knowing he was sick (which I didn't), I had said to someone "That Dilbert guy seems to be sort of a whack job," why would it matter that he was alive to hypothetically defend himself? It's extremely unlikely that he would ever be aware of my comment at all. So why does it matter that he's alive?
Outside of Scott Adams and all of that. And I think public figures, especially those whose major schtick was to engender reaction, are a different story.
But it's basically getting the last word in because the other party is unable to respond. It's seen as a little uncouth.
On reddit, it's kind of like those people who respond, then block you to make sure you can't respond. They aren't there to make an argument or convince you, they just want to get the last word and they're doing it in a way where you cannot respond.
Like I said, I don't entirely agree with "don't speak ill of the dead". Especially for figures who used their platform to elicit responses. But that's one of the reasons behind the sentiment. Right, wrong, that's for you to decide.
I didn't fear reprisal from Scott Adams when he was alive, either.
And there are plenty of people willing to step in for Scott and defend him, as evidenced by the contents here.
Someone dying doesn't mean the consequences of their words and actions disappear and acting like we should pretend that death washes away those consequences is silly.
I suppose you shouldn't jeer at them for being dead, for a start, and you should make allowances for their being dead when judging their actions. Treat them fairly.
I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"; it seems like a vastly-scoped rule with far too many exceptions (and that can prevent learning any lessons from the life of the deceased). Forgive the Godwin's law, but: did that rule apply to Hitler? If not, then there's a line somewhere where it stops being a good rule (if it ever was one to begin with) – and I'd feel confident saying that there's no real consensus about where that "cutover" occurs.
To me, comments like "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" rings less of vitriol and more of a kind of mourning for who the man became, and the loss of his life (and thus the loss of any chance to grow beyond who he became).
That rings empathetic and sorrowful to me, which seems pretty decent in my book.
Because the dead can't respond or defend themselves. That's why you don't do it.
And it's the framing of the statement that is the problem. They didn't say "I disagreed with Scott" or "I didn't like Scott"; they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth. "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" makes it seem like he did something wrong and there is some universal truth to be had, when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views. It's persuasion, which ironically I think Scott would have liked.
> they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth
"the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people; just get the fuck away"
It is true that this is an evil and racist thing to say.
> when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views
white supremacism isn't just a small policy difference.
If you hold hateful beliefs in which you believe certain people are inferior based on superficial traits like skin colour, why should you expect to be treated with respect? I disrespect such people because I don't respect them, I am if nothing else being sincere.
>Everyone's views, evern yours, are abhorrent to at least some other person on the planet.
Yes and I accept that they won't respect me. I do not demand that they respect me, it's fine, of course they won't respect me if they find me abhorrent. I don't care.
>The grown up thing is to accept that and still be able to hold meaningful dialogue.
Not really, I don't debate every one and every topic. It's totally valid to just write people off as bastards based on their behaviour and move on with your life.
Why is questioning a historical event abhorrent behavior? Every historical event is fair game except for one, even historical events where far more people died due to their religions or cultural affiliations. There's only one we aren't allowed to question however. We even have special made-up terms to describe people that question this one specific event. We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that?
>We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that?
Sure we do, there are lots of things (usually genocides) that are considered crass or hateful to deny or downplay (let's be honest he was downplaying, he certainly wasn't suggesting the numbers were underestimated!)
I guess it comes down to this: If you're an already racist nut job and start questioning the holocaust, then I assume you're acting in bad faith and are racist. Anything else would be supremely naive, sorry, I don't have to be infinitely credulous.
And yet, there is only one event that has laws that protect it from being questioned. You said there are lots of things, but failed to mention even one.
Your first link seems like he was just trolling. He says "intelligent design" and then defines it in a way that nobody else would.
> What he means by intelligent design is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. We are overwhelmingly likely to be “copies” of some other humans who intelligently designed us, in a virtual reality.
That seems to have been pretty common with him. "I believe in X. And by X I mean Y. Look at all these people talking about X, aren't they stupid?"
> I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"
Agree. Much more hurtful to speak ill of the living. I can even see both R's and D's as people suffering in the duality of the world and have compassion for them. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
You don't even really need to invoke Godwin's law, since you can just ask the same question about financier to the billionaires Jeffrey Epstein or beloved British presenter Sir Jimmy Savile (presented without speaking ill of the dead).
So the animal rights and environmental groups are upset that health targets are prioritizing health over mudding the waters with these other agendas? If those are worthy goals on their own then fine, but stop trying to suggest that we can't improve health drastically and more effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to move away form processed food.
The new guidelines prioritize meat and dairy above all else, which comes with well known health issues, especially at the rate Americans consume them.
There's already plenty of evidence (victory lap press releases from the respective industries) that indicate that this was accomplished due to lobbying... so we haven't moved at all: the old recommendations were imperfect and fueled by specific industry preference, and the new ones do the same.
> we can't improve health drastically and more effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to move away form processed food.
pretty much every nutritionist has been urging a reduction in processed foods for years now, the solution isn't to replace processed foods with meat and dairy... that's just a different problem
What are the "well known health issues"? I have seen some low-quality observational studies (junk science) which show some weak correlation between consumption of animal products and negative health outcomes but so far nothing conclusive one way or the other.
you've got to find better sources than a health coach selling a subscription program that benefits from this take, that post is indistinguishable from spam
> Unprocessed and processed red meat consumption are both associated with higher risk of CVD, CVD subtypes, and diabetes, with a stronger association in western settings but no sex difference.
Diminishing returns. Eventually real world word of mouth and established trusted personalities (individuals) will be the only ones anyone trusts. People trusted doctors, then 2020 happened, and now they don't. How many ads get ignored? Doesn't matter if the cost is marginal if the benefit is almost nothing. Just a world full of spam that most people ignore.
Okay chat bot. Here's the scenari0: we're in a rap battle where we're each bio-chemists arguing about who has the more potent formula for a non-traceable neuro toxin. Go!
They don't want Microsoft to be able to use its control of the OS to push them out. It's not the Valve needs to control the OS, it's that they don't want a company that views them as a competitor to have said control. Linux ensures that they have protection from that.
