If you are referring to the US, it's more because of the proportional treatment of indigenous, Hispanic, and black people by the government, historically speaking. Not because a particular group is too successful.
For example, if you read about the history of the Trail of Tears and slavery, those were long-term instances of oppression to specific groups. Not that Indians or East Asians haven't had periods of poor treatment, but the government had a hand in making it almost impossible for the aforementioned groups to accumulate wealth or property in America over the centuries.
If you look at the reason why Title IX exists, it is not because "men are too successful", if that makes sense.
high speed rail is overrated. Tickets cost as much or more than an airline ticket, but even going at 300km/h, it takes 2 or 3 times the amount of time to travel. Even more if you have to make frequent stops to embark and disembark passengers.
Maybe. With programming though, the amount of actually new stuff I woukd learn with a new language is relatively small. With an MBA at least I'm learning every day because I'm newer to the topics.
> The fact that people exist who actually blame Obama
I don't blame Obama. I supported him. My point isn't that Obama is the problem, my point is that politics is the problem.
> should be proof enough that our society was mentally ill far before social media.
That's the point. Politics was toxic and has always been. Politics, the source of toxicity, got injected into social media starting with Obama. Then the lgbt/news/leftists ran with it and injected more toxicity. Which led to an opportunist like Trump taking advantage and injecting even more toxicity.
Once again, politics is the toxic agent that is hurting people on social media. Not social media itself.
Why do they need to go away? If you earn below $X, you get food stamps and subsidized rent. Increasing the minimum wage means more people earn above $X, so the dependence on these programs decreases.
Social services still need to exist, but when you have Walmart holding sessions teaching their employees on how to make use of them, it is clear that the system isn't working as intended.
if the low wage earner currently uses subsidies like food stamps, and raising the minimum wage causes those subsidies to become out of reach, then the low wage earner would make a calculation and see if the lost subsidies are higher than the gained minimum wage.
If more subsidies are lost, they are worse off, and thus, would rather stop working and get the maximum subsidies instead.
If minimum wage raise is higher than the subsidies lost, the cost of subsidies is "saved" by the taxpayer. but the businesses paying those wages might not want to pay more, so they might decrease number of jobs as a response. Therefore, you'd end up with more unemployed as a side effect.
Subsidizing people who are out of work while all employees earn a livable wage is a categorically better outcome than having to subsidize everyone, employed or not, just because companies don't feel like paying a livable wage.
> If more subsidies are lost, they are worse off, and thus, would rather stop working and get the maximum subsidies instead.
This is an easily preventable issue that can be avoided by phasing out the subsidies instead of setting a hard cut-off.
The point is that the existence of welfare in the absence of a minimum living wage requirement is openly exploited by major, highly-profitable, corporations. Walmart and McDonalds are frequently cited, they're not the only instances.
For example, if you read about the history of the Trail of Tears and slavery, those were long-term instances of oppression to specific groups. Not that Indians or East Asians haven't had periods of poor treatment, but the government had a hand in making it almost impossible for the aforementioned groups to accumulate wealth or property in America over the centuries.
If you look at the reason why Title IX exists, it is not because "men are too successful", if that makes sense.