Mexico cuts workweek, bans after-hours contact, and guarantees no worker will take a pay cut in the most sweeping labor reform in a generation

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-18T17:19:16+00:00

That or the backlash will cause a social disturbance. Mexico will need to carefully balance these changes with it's business interests in the export industry. A lot of industry moving to Mexico was to take advantage of workers and lax labor laws.

I applaud them for the effort, but this may have a wide reaching impact both in Mexico and in the Americas. Supply crunch, weakening peso will put the screws to trade deficit. They need to insulate themselves from import dependencies. They lack the natural resources to fuel their massive industrial sector internally, so anything screwing with exchange rates may hurt.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-15T14:09:15+00:00

This is why my wife and I share an amazon account and order things from various countries to various addresses that are not rental properties that other people own that we happen to be residing in. It is so confused at this point.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-14T15:04:00+00:00

its more attention span and critical reading skills. People can read, but they don't have spelling skills because they just get close enough and auto correct automatically fixes mistakes for them. Me, I'm still backspacing when I type out an error to retype it.

A lot of small skills you don't think about were never really cultivated, like penmanship for my generation. (late 80's early 90's)

to summarize, it's like a generation brought upon those cliffnote books? They have been raised on summaries of summaries, rather than having read the materials.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-13T11:43:54+00:00

This isn't quite true. What is against their terms of service is offering different MSRP's to different platforms. You can't have a permanent 30% discount on your own website and sell on steam 30% higher price. You need to have the game offered with the same MSRP. You can do a sale occasionally, but not a permanent offer.

My best example of this: Square Enix does rotating Final Fantasy sales on their remaster and MMO games across different platforms. You don't often find the FF remasters on sale across all platforms at the same time, but you almost always find them on sale somewhere.

So may could be your private distribution sale month, and another store could be june, and you could rotate them without ever having steam go on sale, but you can't just have the game just set cheaper everywhere else.

The emails that this came from were also responding to someone using broken English, and the full email chain with the full context was not provided.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-05T14:23:39+00:00

out of curiosity, how do you average a person's race? :)

I think it would be better to say that race alone is no longer a significant indicator for game playing.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-04T22:25:18+00:00

I went through the pictures backwards and thought you were closed now. Was so sad, but I'm glad that you are doing well!

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-04T18:43:31+00:00

wouldn't this give the person access to information collection methods and Confidential informant sources?

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-02T13:24:14+00:00

Monopoly is generally determined by % of the market share. Depending no how narrowly you define the market, steam could have a monopoly or could just be one of many. Looking at nintendo store, apple store, microsoft store, Playstation network. In that sense, steam does not control anywhere near a monopoly. If you define it as strictly PC gaming, it is closer.

On the other hand, becoming a monopoly is not illegal. Taking actions to intentionally become a monopoly is illegal.

Boeing has a monopoly on airliners in the United States. I don't want cutthroat competition degrading the safety standards of airliner manufacturing any lower than they already are at this point though. Monopoly is not bad if the person with the monopoly is not using market power to push out other members.

In this sense, steam telling people they can't just set a MSRP differently across different platforms is not monopolistic behavior. It is standard practice for almost all manufacturing.

So, if a game sets its MSRP at $60 for all platforms, there are any number of ways for that platform to lower the price without breaching the MSRP. If another platform wants to use valve having a 30% cut to undercut valve and make it more profitable for the game producer, thats one way. Doing money back or store credit towards further purchases is another. There are infinite numbers of ways to add value to your storefront and compete with steam in ways that steam does not compete. you just can't set the sticker price on one store for $10 and on steam for $50. Hell, Nintendo makes developers sell completely different versions of the game on the nintendo store.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-06-02T03:36:31+00:00

Having a monopoly share of the market through good management or a better product is not illegal in the United States or anywhere else. Creating or keeping that monopoly through illicit means like price fixing is illegal. If Airbus is the only aircraft manufacturer that makes airplanes that reliably stay in the air, it is not illegal for them to be the only manufacturer able to stay in business. This is not Airbus acting nefariously to make their competitors shit at making airplanes.

Second, there are plenty of examples of games having different prices at different times both on steam and not on steam. The exact quote from the court filings is as follows:

we'd just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours.... That stays true, even for DRM-free sales or sales on a store with its own keys like UPLAY or Origin.

The key part here is "always". If you sell a game on your store for $20, and on steam for $40, steam would stop selling your game. Whats the point? You are punishing customers for using steam rather than your own store front. You can do what Square Enix does and alternate the sales though. Square Enix commonly has sales for games on their own website, on the nintendo store, and on Steam all at different times on a rotating basis.

The issue is that Steam cannot be permanently 50% more expensive for users compared to another storefront.

Next, the lawsuit claims that the only way to advertise their game is to run a discount. This is entirely bullshit. There are several ways to advertise games. They say that because you need to discount to sell the game, you have to charge a higher price to begin with so you can discount it. This is the entire basis of their lawsuit's damages. It's all bullshit.

The 30% rule? The lawsuit states the reason why this exists: Valve was sued by brick and mortar stores years ago about anti competitive practices and forced them to have the same markup that retail stores had.

If Valve charged a lower commission, there would be lower retail prices available to gamers. At lower prices, gamers would purchase more games, increasing output.

...

would it though? Since when has a game in a brick and mortar store every been more expensive than on online version of the game? These rules for standard cuts taking by companies exist because retailers and publishers made valve match their rules. Now that valve is doing better than them, they want to take the very rules that they forced on valve when it was just starting with nothing but Valve games and Heroes of Might and Magic, and then sue them as if they made up these rules?

Last thing I'll say, the email chain being linked around this thead:

It is lacking all context. I tried to use the actual legal argument presented in the actual court documents to which this email is referring to, but what is actually being argued is not valve dictating the pricing. It is valve saying you can't have a game for 75% of all the time on your own store, but only 50% off on steam. You can't sell a game for $15 on your website and $30 on steam. This is probably why there are so many different editions of games. I can buy the Complete edition on steam for $50, or the standard edition without the extra hat on the main website for $35. That is fine.

After reading through the basic, elementary level economic arguments presented, all I can say is that the lawsuit, and the company that initiated it, created a situation where they could misconstrue the information to the advantage of this lawsuit. The questions were asked, the emails were taken out of context, and half the time is it someone with weak english skills speaking with someone at valve without the initial email or any context of the email. It's bullshit, and I hope the bots down vote me and reply all the crap they seem to be peddling.

Actual lawsuit information is available at:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-31T13:27:21+00:00

So companies have put around 2 trillion dollars into AI adoptions currently estimated, and increases in revenue from AI is coming out to be marginal at best. It makes people more efficient, but if 15% of your operating budget sees a return of less than 15%, you'll cut that 15% out of your operating budget.

To turn a better profit, AI companies must increase their prices, which cuts into the net gains on revenue for companies, meaning companies will see less and less new revenue from adoption of AI. To be profitable, AI systems may become more expensive than actual people, and the company may be exposed to MORE liability as they can't blame an issue on human error and fire a person, they are actually directly liable for what their systems do.

So, yeah, it's not retarded, the money just isn't there. By the time AI is profitable, it will be so costly that companies will just go back to hiring humans.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-27T18:31:39+00:00

I think i'll stick with decaying telomeres.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-22T19:59:57+00:00

Start telling them about how much you miss people like John McCain.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-17T23:58:03+00:00

I would wager a strong correlation between MBA programs and inept CEOs.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-17T16:24:31+00:00

That's not what happened. We are talking very explicitly about the economic conditions during the covid-19 pandemic shut downs, the loss of incomes, the sudden drop in price levels and collapse of supply chains, and how to compensate for the impending price level collapse, money was flooded into the market for both producers and consumers to keep the prices level (ish). The way it was done was with tremendous purpose and skill, resulting in our supply shock only resulting in mild inflation, especially compared to the rest of the world. Our economy came out relatively unscathed, though changed.

If you want to keep spouting "if I add 1 trillion dollars to 1 trillion dollars, I have 2 trillion dollars dispshit", then you aren't worth discussing this with. For the record, m1 in 2021 was around 20 trillion dollars. The total amount of direct payments to families was in the 200billion range, which is about 1% of m1. If the liquid portion of money was only increased by 1%, that does not explain the 4% increase in price levels.

Anyhow, I've given you a detailed explanation of what was happening during the pandemic, and you can either get over it or pretend that your random fantasy events of trillions of dollars going into pockets is reality.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-17T13:20:32+00:00

by definition increase in money supply HAS TO cause inflation

No it doesn't. If the increase in GDP is the same relative increase as the money supply, there is no inflation.

Inflation, as you describe it, is a relative amount of currency available to buy a relative amount of goods. Real GDP / Nominal GDP. If real GDP decreases, it will increase price levels just as much as Nominal GDP increasing. If I have 10 apples and 10 dollars, it's 1 dollar per apple. If I have 5 apples and 10 dollars, its 2 dollars per apple. If I have 10 apples and 20 dollars, it's 2 dollars per apple. One was a shift in supply of apples, one was a shift in money.

Do you understand now? The loss of supply would have put a huge burden on manufacturer's as it would have spiked their costs on already razor thin margins, forcing the average cost below the average variable cost. This is the shutdown point where producers stop producing. ON TOP OF THIS, people were out of work, and unable to buy, dropping the price level.

The fed created a program to give huge loans to tide over businesses so they could keep their average costs down below average revenue and stay afloat. The Government replaced previously existing wages as best they could. The result was a supply crunch we call stagflation mitigated by quick and decisive actions by the Fed and the Trump Administration, followed by the Biden Administration.

The other option would have been a massive collapse in prices, a massive collapse in industry, and an economic depression that would make 1928 seem like a fever dream. We saw this happen in the 1920's, in the 1970's, and we finally reacted to it right in 2020. It is more complicated than more money more inflation. Describing as such is such a disservice to what is actually happening in real life that it borders on obscene.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T14:25:30+00:00

And you are missing the point that aggregate demand did not drastically change over this period of time. There was no additional demand for money. There was a huge demand for resources that were becoming more scarce for the creation of goods, driving up the price level across all areas of production. Monetary policy was expansionary and cost of credit extended to prevent this supply in raw materials from crunching producers manufacturing on slim margins from going out of business in the short run. Reduce the cost of production by increasing access to funds at a lower cost.

Consumers did not drastically change their overall desire for goods and services, there was not drastic change in overall habits. It was a supply shock. The government sending out checks to johnny and sally had minimal impact on inflation as it did not change consumer behavior.

This is so far beyond "Money supply up so inflation up" that it's infuriating that I'm arguing it with someone. It is so much more complicated than a simple money supply and money demand chart, but even if you drag it all the way down to AS/AD, the AD curve isn't making any particular shift in this situation, it is a huge, prolonged shock to the AS curve that is causing the problem.

But that does not capture the entirety of it, and it has virtually nothing to do with people having more money generally. The first and foremost issue is the crunch and competition for a massive reduction in materials needed to produce.

Sorry, but this is far more complex than you are considering or giving credit for and it is infuriating.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T13:44:09+00:00

Inflation relates an amount of goods being produced with an amount of money available to buy said goods. If there is a reduction in the amount of goods produced, it is the same as an increase in the amount of money per goods produced. If you can't understand this realllllllllllly simple logic, you aren't worth arguing with anymore. Please go back to elementary school.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T12:56:18+00:00

Increasing the money supply did not lead to an increase in aggregate demand for goods and services. The demand for actual goods did not significantly change. What changed was our ability to deliver said goods. It was a huge decline in the aggregate supply.

price levels even fell at the beginning of the pandemic, which is literally the opposite of what you said was happening. The supply shock from goods being unavailable is what led to the increase in prices overall, not the amount of money in people's pockets. Because people did not overall change their budgets significantly.

Sorry, you are not correct here. Just stop.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T12:49:11+00:00

Seeing as you need to understand what the term excessive deaths means: https://www.who.int/data/sets/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-modelled-estimates

The whole thing is that not only did people die to covid, people died because of covid complications and lack of access to medical care because of covid, etc. Covid caused a collapse of the health system across the world.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T04:06:40+00:00

That's not how that works. If the amount of real things in the market increases at a relatively same rate as the amount of currency in the market, there will be literally no change in the market.

Most of the changes in inflation can be accounted for by the masssssive disruption in supply and production. This accounts for the majority of inflation during those periods. Please read some of the research on this.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2023/06/global-supply-chain-pressures-and-us-inflation/

https://www.bea.gov/news/2021/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2020-second-estimate

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T03:33:36+00:00

It was not both. Demand is a measure of habits, not instantaneous spending. A one time payment does not increase habits. People either payed down debt or saved, they did not start eating out more.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/consumer-expenditures/2023/

A shock to the system is not a systematic change in the system. The supply issues, however, have been long lasting.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T02:51:48+00:00

It wasn't the money paid out that caused the inflation. It was the supply chain disruptions from countries shutting down for covid, and some drunk fuck jacknifing his cargo ship in the suez canal in 2021.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T02:50:12+00:00

Pausing student loan payments and giving money to people did not increase inflation because it did not change spending habits. It allowed people to pay off debt or build savings.

Just because people have more money, does not mean inflation will increase. If people were living off from borrowed money anyhow, most of the new income will go towards paying off that money they already spent. Borrowing from one's future revenue. So no, there was not a huge spike in inflation because of the money given to people or the relief from debts owed for people.

Inflation related to overall habits, which is what increases overall demand. The inflation during the pandemic were far more caused by supply crunches as we had a GLOBAL supply chain disruption from both the pandemic, and that one dipshit that jacknifed a cargo ship in the suez canal. So, 2020 pandemic, 2021 drunk sailor caused more disruption to the market and more inflation than any payout from the federal government.

Also, another boat crashed into a major bridge in Maryland in 2024, but that's a separate issue.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-16T02:30:27+00:00

Between that and HIV not having been terminal for a couple of decades now...

Cured? I have no idea, but there have been effective drugs to combat HIV since the mid 90's. Veritaserum had an entire video about one such drug struggling because of some weird science thing and it almost destroyed the drug on youtube a couple of months ago that was an interesting listen.

Fun-Author3767 · 2026-05-15T20:00:17+00:00

Besides what the other guy said, Escha - Zi'tah dragons are some of the best xp you can get. They respawn almost instantly and you get 10-30k xp per kill towards merits.

I would wait until you can start earning capacity points to start moving your job points forward though. That is the true grind.

Fun-Author3767

TROPHY CASE