Welcome to Thunderdome

Credit to her for not being into plastic surgery.

I don't think she's unattractive enough that I wouldn't be willing to have her as my sugar momma.

I'm not familiar enough with policy in each state, despite this being pretty related to my job. But, I'm software, not an analyst/trader. But feels like Texas is winning the green energy race lately.

More than likely Texas has far fewer laws as obstacles to construction, permits, etc.

We decommissioned a chemical plant in CA and sold the land, and holy fuck was it a process. It took well over a decade. The land was actually sold years before CA finally gave us the green light. I know the land was used for a new housing development.

(Not 100% sure this is real yet)

Seems to be from his own twitter account: https://x.com/marcuslemonis/status/1958162142651470232

Oh right, forgot about that part. BBB has 1 physical store in the US right now.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 8:36 am Oh right, forgot about that part.

It's irrelevant though. The guy isn't wrong. Companies and people are leaving CA not heading there. It took my company almost 20 years to sell a piece of land. Not because we were waiting for a buyer, they had that lined up almost immediately. It was because of the endless government red tape that had to be dealt with. To be fair to CA, it was a chemical plant, so I understand it would take longer than normal, but still...

Maybe if our company was owned by illegals things would have moved much faster?

Related, had a guy who used to be moderate, but married a teacher and has been skewing left ever since, come to my office yesterday and say, "Have you seen Newsome tearing up people on X lately?" And by his face I could tell he was on Newsome's side. I simply replied, "Have you read the comments? He's getting shredded every time and his state's in far worse shape than when he took over. Maybe tweeting all day isn't the best use of his time?" His face visibly dropped. I enjoyed that.

Legit

As someone with experience regarding chemical plants and CA, I knew this story was likely legit before researching. I'm all for holding corporations responsible and avoiding pollution, but you cannot take it to such extremes that it becomes unprofitable to operate in your state. I'm on CA's side with intent (well, the stated intent), but there has to be a happy medium.

She got asked a ridiculously basic question and proceeded to dismiss 40% of her constituents, dismiss her fellow D candidates, and dismiss all the Rs, then threw a tantrum like a child, but I'm sure she'll be an excellent governor.
Saw this image lower in the thread. Not researching, but she seems like a cunt.

It's always nice when people get exposed for who they really are and they get their proper due.

Speaking of CA, you know I always give credit where it's due, and this is awesome: CA bans loud commercials.

I thought the US tried to do that years ago? Ah...

US laws mandate that television commercials must be the same average volume as the programming they accompany, thanks to the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act of 2010 and FCC regulations taking effect in 2012, but these rules do not apply to radio or streaming commercials.

More cunty behavior. Based on how the staffer responds, this isn't the first time. I hope California is smart enough to dodge this bullet.

SF suing companies for making our food poison.

I'm in favor of this lawsuit, yet against SF being the one to bring it.

The San Francisco city attorney's office has had success with public health cases before, such as in 1998, when it received a $539 million settlement from tobacco companies. More recently, in 2019, the city reached a $21 million settlement with former lead paint manufacturers.

Great lawsuits! However, these lawsuits are clearly just money grabs and not intended to correct issues. For example: I'll bet one can still buy cigarettes in SF, right? And if they win here, I'd wager one will still be able to get all of these products anywhere in SF.

I just believe the FDA or someone at that level should be leading the charge on these lawsuits. If you're not suing for actual change, you're simply filing lawsuits for profit.

Checking on the minimum wage increase in CA 1 year in.

Two notes:
1. Would.
2. Is our whole country just a bunch of cucks? How in the fuck do we allow blatant BS like Newsome giving his buddy an exemption?

mod pizza also closed thei location here last year. is that due to CAs minimum wage hike, too?

https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.co ... erm-health

no, it just almost went bankrupt.

wow. 2.7% decrease in unemployment in the sector. 25% wage increase.

Don't cherry pick.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 10:38 am wow. 2.7% decrease in unemployment in the sector. 25% wage increase.

Are those numbers supposed to impress? They don't. And before we get into this, a reminder that I'm on your side of this debate.

First of all, love the intentionally misleading use of the smaller number for the negative side (depending on which side of the argument you're on). It's a great way to frame it for people who only dig into the surface level. You could work for most MSM outlets right now.

Allow me to reframe it for the other side: 18,000 lost jobs. $3.79 wage increase.

Other items and numbers covered that your quick summation didn't factor in:
1. This is year 1. You know what takes time to rollout? Automation. The end results of that policy aren't stopping here. Let's see where it continues to go. I'm betting jobs will continue to be cut. (They probably would have been eventually as AI takes over, but that bill is speeding up the process.)
2. Those who did keep their jobs lost 2 months worth of hours a year. That negates the entire wage increase.
3. CA lost fast food jobs while they increased in the rest of the U.S.
4. Prices went up more than 13%.
5. Can we please, as a society, stop glossing over horseshit like Newsome ensuring his friend and large donor doesn't get special treatment? He should be removed from office and thrown in jail for that alone.

As predicted, this is a failure. If you raise prices on the private sector, they will respond by eliminating jobs and increasing prices. It really doesn't get simpler than that. I have no idea how anyone could possibly think it would result in anything else.

If we want a wage increase to work, and I do, we have to figure out how to get corporations to eat the cost. There's no other way around it.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 12:47 pm Don't cherry pick.

literally most of what that original thing did.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 12:47 pm Allow me to reframe it for the other side: 18,000 lost jobs. $3.79 wage increase.

this is objectively terrible way to frame it. You need the change in basis. Your numbers tell nothing.

It's a complete success.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:43 pm literally most of what that original thing did.

What successes did they leave out?

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:43 pm this is objectively terrible way to frame it. You need the change in basis. Your numbers tell nothing.

Right back at ya slick. That was my point.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 31, 2025 6:43 pm It's a complete success.

For all the reasons above, "it's a no from me dog". If year 2 rolls in and things are more static, and we get better numbers on the wage increase vs COL increase vs jobs numbers, I might change my mind. I really want to see pay averages with the wage hike and the reduced hours. I'd also be curious to see employee satisfaction numbers with reduced co-workers and a person being easier to replace due to the larger number of unemployed.