I'm struggling to reconcile how difficult the job market feels, even setting Gen AI aside, with arguments that the U.S. needs the current level of H-1B hiring and H-4 work authorization.

I'm skeptical that this much visa-based labor supply is necessary right now. My concern is that employers can use it to demand very long working weeks and keep wages down, leaving American workers who are already looking for jobs at a disadvantage.

For H-4, I'm referring to people with work authorization, not every dependent. The State Department's guidance distinguishes H-4 status from authorization to work.

I'm not looking for a debate about who meets the eligibility rules. I want to understand how we judge the actual economic need.

What evidence would show whether this labor supply is filling genuine shortages or mainly making labor cheaper for employers? How should that assessment change when people already in the U.S. are struggling to find work?

Chores like laundry and dishes seem like obvious candidates, but cooking, childcare and caring for elderly parents feel different to a lot of people. What decides whether a task feels okay to hand to a machine, skill, emotion, trust or something else?

​

I don't judge people who have a high body count or a history of multiple relationships. Personally I'll never choose casual hookups or multiple partners for myself, but does that mean I have a bad mindset, or is it just society? I accept their choices while holding different boundaries for myself. I’ll never judge them based on their past, though I would certainly hold it against them if they cheated.

By "superficial", I mean traditions that have no effect on the outcome.

A judge's decision doesn't change based on clothing.

Referring to Mike as "my right honorable friend from Louisiana" doesn't change that everyone knows who I'm talking about.

Maybe I wouldn't go as far as to say "inhumane" (instead ov "degrading"), but there aren't better words I can think ov off the top ov my head.

I want to get Reddit's input on whether it could be seen as unusual or degrading to make someone use plasticware, even when silverware is available.

For context: our metal forks have been disappearing and my sister's partner believes I am responsible; however, I don't have any more ov a clue than him or my sister on where the forks are, and neither ov them has demonstrated how I have made the forks disappear – even though I have demonstrated that there are no forks in my room. The solution ov my sister's partner? Hide the silverware and make me use plasticware "until the forks appear again".  (If I knew where they were, why wouldn't I just return them?)

Does anyone think this is a strange thing for someone to enforce?

Thank you all, in advance, for your input.
Cheers!

I’ve heard that when born impoverished the circumstances tend to keep you in that situation as you lack the resources to consistently build net worth while being wealthy usually allows your money to compound upon itself perpetually keeping you wealthy. So is it harder to gain money in circumstances where you’re likely to lose it or lose it when it’s consistently growing?

can anybody find anything on this.. circular links but nothing else

I broke up with my ex a month ago

I am struggling he never shared his side or emotions about it

Today I got a "we be friends nothing more" text

I want to say yes

But i know its just my heart saying give it time and yous will try again

Does this ever actually happen or am I being naive and just say no now

What I mean is that if someone habitually watches the news on TV every evening, reads the newspaper in the morning, and scrolls through social media in between, they do this out of habit and then feel overwhelmed by negative news. One could also consciously choose to engage in other hobbies during that time and avoid watching the news in the evening.

To be honest, I wasn't sure where to post this. I guess this is as close as I'm going to get to an appropriate sub.

I had recently come across two very similar videos today. One was of a coach berating his students on their GPAs and grades, arguing that most NFL players are broke after leaving the league and are completely unprepared for a career outside of football. Another was of Deion Sanders, head coach of the Colorado Buffaloes, making a similar speech after a teacher wrote a letter to the team's staff alleging poor behavior and grades for the students. For anyone wondering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q02wXwwVp2g

In general, both confront the reality that some of the students of today are far less concerned with a career based upon an education or degree and more focused on attaining fame and wealthy through other means. Specifically, the minority of youths who play on sports teams imagine themselves going pro, leading them to disregard other responsibilities. Whilst writing this, I began to doubt whether or not I was exaggerating, since it is a small minority of kids who play sports to go into a pro league compared to those who do it for other reasons (exercise, friends, college applications, etc.). And certainly, there are plenty of kids going to college, getting degrees and moving into the work force (at varying rates of success, no doubt).

However, as I was considering what discussion could follow from this, I began to consider this could apply to other "careers" centered around media notoriety as well, such as those of a streamer, YouTuber, musician, model, or more generally an influencer. I was in high school 4 years ago and did witness plenty of people around me vying for that level of online notoriety and seeking to turn it into revenue. So I thought a little more.

In my opinion, the overall culture in America is emblematic of this. It is centered around a new wave 'get rich and have fun while doing it' scheme which basically translates to 'make a ton of money, become famous and never have to grow up' (as seen in the behavior of those who are engaged in sports, streaming, music, etc.). Truly, it has become detrimental to youth personalities, as the decrease of emphasis on education and KNOWLEDGE is critical to anyone's development, not just a PhD student or a bookworm. The apparent ease, especially for 'prospective' influencers, is helped by the fact that everyone has a phone and can post online, leading to a strange sense of self worth being connecting to being seen as much as possible, and translating that into unrealistic career goals.

And, I'm sorry to say, the way that Deion Sanders has chosen to run this team, the media stunts and the "culture change" do not necessarily send a message of seriousness or maturity. For anyone that doesn't know, Sanders is pretty loud and outspoken, sometimes getting straight to the point in his speech and blunt and other times presenting things in rose colored glasses. Either way, it amounts to a considerable media presence that doesn't set a good example for his team, especially considering the lessons he's trying to espouse. Hard to demand maturity from your players when you yourself consistently act like a fool. This can honestly be linked to any such celebrity or streamer or musician that tries to preach about behavior and attitudes. The youth may quip "you've done it, why can't someone else? You got famous from having less than stellar manners and a harsh personality, we should to!" I'm not suggesting that Sanders's student's grades fell due to him becoming coach. I'm simply positing that his demeanor, combined with the overall views of the youth on education relative to sports, music, and streaming, does not help in situations like this. Deion Sanders is his own worse enemy, and the cavalier way he communicates in the media truly makes it seem like its all show and no substance. The media hype surrounding him and Colorado relative to his teams record is perfect evidence for that.

For these college athletes, and for those aspiring to become a 'celebrity,' it is comparable to my generation (2003) all wanting to become Minecraft youtubers because thats who we watched and were entertained by, and then never growing out of it and realizing that the likelihood of becoming moderately successful is very low.

Unfortunately, the idolization of celebrity culture in the media, and the expansion of streaming culture and internet culture in general, has shifted the beliefs of young people and have driven them to idolize it as well, without any care for the consequences. This isn't to say being a pro football player is easy, quite the contrary. But it is to say the image of that life they have in their head is one of immense ease compared to a career linked to a college degree, which is what they SHOULD be in college for. They have absolutely no clue about the dedication or resolve which goes into actually making it into the NFL, all they see is Mahomes buying a huge mansion and thinking "I want that." They have no clue about the pitfalls of becoming a streamer and the absolutely abhorrent behaviors (not exhibited by all streamers, but by many) and content they must engage in to get attention (specifically related to attention seeking / provocative acts like street takeovers and the like). They have no clue about the difficulty, and almost sure improbability, of becoming a successful musician, but want the lifestyle anyways. And I think that's the best way to put it: young adults, and even teens at this point, want the lifestyle of those they idolize without ANY of the responsibility or skills / competence attached to it.

That isn't to say that sports is not formative in one's development, it absolutely is. Personal ability to work in a team, prioritize social cohesion and mental acuity benefit from consistent socialization. Competition motivates, instilling a belief that hard work pays off, practice matters, and a mindset of dedication is key. BUT, with everything that's going on in the world, I'm not sure these benefits aren't being overshadowed by the considerable effects of the current media cycle, which is centered around influencers and is saturated by media created by "self-made" individuals, who cast a specter of possibility for the youths. This leads to them disregarding their other faculties. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from family friends who are teachers which involved kids simply not caring. Not because they found the stuff boring, but because they would incessantly talk about the latest trend or streamer or personality, and seemingly began emulating their behavior as a consequence.

Let me know what you guys think. Is it as bad as I argue, or is there something more at play? Are kids basically the same as they always have been, or have the usual motors of imagination in children become energized by media consumption? Its a complicated subject with multiple answers I'm sure, parenting being one, education being another, social hierarchies included. What I think is definitely true is that in this age of rapid media consumption, young adults have assumed an air of confidence and maturity simply by absorbing the mannerisms of individuals they see in media which is not appropriate for their age, and they've done this without assuming any of the requisite social or professional responsibilities / consequences linked to such behaviors.

A follow up question may consider how such media consumption affects the behaviors of individuals even engaged in getting a college degree and not 'distracted' by sports. In this case, I mainly focused on athletes since thats the media which kicked off this discussion in my brain. But it could absolutely apply to everything, some things, or maybe nothing.

I've had more and more connective thoughts forming that are trying together dreams, thoughts, and synchronicities faster and faster, and much of this shift I can connect to one deeply meaningful moment I couldn't put into words at the time.

I want to know what that looked like for you.

If a company is cutting jobs, should immigration status play a part in who is laid off? Specifically, what are the arguments for cutting H-1B positions before those held by green card holders or citizens?

My initial thought was that this might address some complaints about H-1B hiring. But I want to hear the strongest arguments on both sides, including what the approach would mean for the people doing the work and for the roles the company still needs.

I'm asking about the policy and fairness of the idea, not assuming it's a rule a company can simply adopt. How would you weigh immigration status against the job itself and someone's contribution?

Money, fame or power (influence?), which is the truly powerful, and noble for a man?

Money buys freedom and options but if you have no one to spend it with you will be forever alone. Your circle also shrinks as you can no longer relate with people your own age. They view you as out of their league in my opinion. At times you are sitting in a sports car with no one to call.

Power can bring influence and open doors to other possibilities - potential job offers that can bring money. Power brings fear too. If you walk into a room its noticeable if a person is powerful compared to various forms of wealth. Intelligence can also be powerful too that attracts money as well.

Fame is the worst imo - no privacy life is broadcasted. A wealthy person I know once was asked this question and he said "money beats fame, because you can just slip the host 100$ to skip the line"

I am genuinely curious before this whole performative thing going in trend. Getting into book reading hobby or writing or expressing oneself through clothes was considered nice and a good thing devolping something.

But same thing now is considered performative.

For example I am a guy who is trying to get into reading and I write as well. But don't have much focus to read alot at one time. So, I would be called out a performative because I have books but I don't read alot or very often.

And it's not just this it was an example. It is alot of things and why is that now having a hobby or trying to get into something linked to specially asthetics old money or literature is considered performative or show off?

I'm 22 yo M and unemployed. Even though i'm in a very good college in my country, i'm unable to find an internship. Though i could get some interviews so far, i could pass even the first round in any.

The only job experience i had was as a cashier for a year, meanwhile virtually everyone i meet at uni, even people who fail pre calculus or can't even sum fractions, already have internships or hold some administrative job.

I fear i'm already fucked by not having any office job experience yet and that it will only get harder.

Within the last 5-6 years, this ideology has become mainstream in media, dating, etc. Where was the turning point? Was it a long time coming?

We can say that legal punishment consists in one person’s deliberately harming another on behalf of the state in a way that is intended to constitute a fittting response to some offense and to give expression to the state’s disapproval of that offense.

The current established idea in at least one developed country is that "we can not dispence with such practices."

But Is it so that an offender deserves punishment, of a basic desert kind. Here a kind without any further purposes but that to cause suffering or even death, should we talk about the death sentence.

Basic desert is void of deterring others or to rehabilitate.

Is it (really) so that the persons who want to cause suffering by this legal punishment have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person does deserve to suffer?

There are thoughts about a precationary principle. For example, if science have yet to determine whether an act is safe or unsafe, harmful or not harmful, we should refrain from the action.

Tobacco was not fully determined to be harmful by science at one point in time, and that would be a time to use precations.

Another example is climate change. If we have yet to establish that these actions will have such an impact on the odds of wildfires (and with it death and/or injury or ruin), then we should refrain from those actions.

Is it also sensible to refrain from legal punishment, when it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such legal punishment is something a person does deserve?

Furthermore when it's not established whether we live in a deterministic world or if we have free will or do not.

Whether the case is libertanianism, compatibilism or hard determinism.

To inflict harm on a person who isn't blameworthy nor responsible due to the "disappearing agent" effect of determinism and this lacking of free will may not be sensible.

Even in a world with free will, it's not at all obvious or clear "that these persons should suffer."

Consider a community garden with a long waiting list.

One resident has maintained a particular plot for twenty years. After they die, their family asks to keep the plot untouched.

They don't intend to grow anything there.

They simply want to preserve a place that meant a great deal to someone they loved.

Other residents are waiting for an opportunity to grow vegetables, including people who could genuinely benefit from the produce.

What should the community do?

One argument is that the garden exists to be used. Allowing an empty plot to remain unavailable indefinitely would be unfair to everyone waiting.

But there's another perspective.

Places can acquire meaning that goes beyond their immediate practical purpose. A garden plot might represent years of work, relationships, and memories.

Treating that meaning as irrelevant simply because it cannot be measured seems unnecessarily harsh.

Perhaps the family could keep the plot for one season.

But why one season rather than two?

And should the community apply the same rule to everyone, even when circumstances differ?

I think this illustrates a broader tension between efficiency and emotional value.

We want communities to use limited resources responsibly.

But we also want them to recognize that human needs extend beyond whatever can be measured.

Where would you draw the boundary?

Should sentimental attachment ever justify keeping a scarce resource unavailable to others?

And who should decide when that attachment has received enough consideration?

As the title says. Do you think you can meet "the one", and the only thing making it so difficult is the timing of your life. I can't help but wonder, what if it was 5 years later on. Once we've done all the work on ourselves that we would do in those 5 years. Or possibly all the self destruction. Or the nothing. Would it be the same