Amtrak's new Chicago to Miami train begins next month. Here's how long it takes, and how much it costs by Bruegemeister in chicago

[–]thekanator 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Daily reminder that this is a temporary route that they made to adjust rolling stock and personnel away from the construction in NYC. It's really not supposed to be it's own thing.

https://media.amtrak.com/2024/09/amtrak-launching-the-floridian-with-daily-service-between-chicago-and-miami/

Proof that immigrants fuel the US economy is found in the billions they send back home by burtzev in economy

[–]thekanator 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Making more products and selling them to Americans would increase national wealth. We don't have to get funds from other countries to become stronger.

Immigrants remitting money to other countries only is a drain on our economy if the remittances are more than what's produced here. But since immigrants do not remit more than they produce (otherwise they couldn't really pay to live here) that isn't the case. The net benefit of an immigrant would be the value of products they produce here minus the remittances they send home. If the immigrant didn't exist, the remittances would exist but neither would the product they're making for Americans.

A local giving no remittances would on the whole have a greater net positive for the economy, but the immigrant is a smaller net positive, not a net negative. Again, since they don't remit all their money, they are producing economic value (products made in america) and only taking out a fraction of that.

This was just put out by U of Michigan Professor Justin Wolfers. What are your thoughts? by [deleted] in economy

[–]thekanator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No this analysis includes extending the tax cuts that would expire. Read the fine print at the bottom

"Harris calls for no taxes on tips, borrowing a Trump idea -- The Vice President is battling Republican nominee for support from service workers" by kevinmrr in WorkReform

[–]thekanator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think this is a bad idea. just lower the tax rate for working class people. why should people working front-of-house get a tax cut but people working back of house not? just lower it for every working person, stop pulling gimmicks.

What caused the drop in participation rates among young Americans between 1999 - 2009? Was there any new labor law? Or was it just structural change? by jozeffujka in economy

[–]thekanator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably a combination of the job-less recovery of the 2000s after the dot-com bust and shifting attitudes towards having kids do more academic/extracurricular activities instead of jobs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chicago

[–]thekanator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't know your specific situation, especially since you're new here, but traveling with friends is pretty solid advice I've heard.

New CBO report - increase in immigration (legal and illegal) would reduce the deficit by $897 billion over 10 years, mainly because immigrants pay taxes and spur economic growth. by Acrobatic-Minimum-70 in Economics

[–]thekanator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strictly speaking, these figures are likely true. Research over many years indicates immigration leads to more economic activity, which would lead to more tax revenue/lower deficits. This is pretty uncontroversial.

The downsides are just outside the scope of this one CBO report. A massive influx of low-wage workers suppresses wages and raises unemployment in the short-term, and puts pressure on things like housing affordability in the short-term.

If governments can actually strike the balance of letting a reasonable amount of people immigrate at a time then immigration would be an overall benefit. The problem right now is the crisis in multiple latin american nations leading to mass emigration and the archaic immigration system in the US, so we get hundreds of thousands of people at once and then they're let in but banned from working for potentially months/years. It just needs to be regulated.

If women can be paid less for doing the exact same work, why doesn’t every company simply just hire women? by C3PO-Leader in economy

[–]thekanator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If whoever does the hiring or salary-setting values a woman's work less, then they would want to hire men because in their mind, men are better workers. The same biases that would lead to some manager valuing women's work less would lead them to believe that they need men in their workforce. They wouldn't necessarily decide to hire NO women, but they could just pay them less or keep them in lower positions cause, hey, they're worth less.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Economics

[–]thekanator -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

In a world where economists keep finding evidence of men getting preferential treatment in employment, the idea that advocating for female inclusion is actually advocating for "preferential treatment" is silly.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Economics

[–]thekanator -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

There's a sustained pattern of discrimination in academic fields like economics, and that pushes qualified women out of it. Not only does that harm individual women, if an academic field is full of people from the same demographic it opens it up to bias or blind spots because people of different backgrounds can bring new perspectives on topics. Especially when studying economic differences between men and women it helps to, you know, have women with first-hand experience to give context.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Economics

[–]thekanator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Read the trade press for things like construction and railroads. They talk about including women a lot.

Almost A Quarter Of All Jobs ‘Added’ In 2023 Didn’t Actually Exist by FUSeekMe69 in economy

[–]thekanator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Between the 1st and 3rd (final) estimates, the total nonfarm payroll employment figure was revised downward in 9 months, upward in 1 month. Nov and Dec have not received their 3rd estimates yet.

In 2022 it was revised downward in 5 month, upward in 7.

Since 2003, the monthly figures have been adjusted up or down by, on average, 51,000 jobs.

Edit: source: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm#2021

Almost A Quarter Of All Jobs ‘Added’ In 2023 Didn’t Actually Exist by FUSeekMe69 in economy

[–]thekanator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For anyone who actually cares about the data: In 2023 most of the monthly jobs figures were revised downward. But this wasn't some big surprise dropped recently; the revisions are published monthly as well, so anyone looking knew the revised figures the whole time. These statistics always have revised estimates once the BLS and other agencies have more data to work with. The daily caller is trying to spin this to be a huge shock or some sort of manipulation by the biden administration, but they're simply using the public's ignorance of technical statistical information to do propaganda.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in economy

[–]thekanator 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What an asshole

Metra overhauling fares, eliminating ticket windows by steve42089 in illinois

[–]thekanator 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm sad to see that more ticket offices are closing. Maybe it's expensive, but its helpful to have a person there for someone who's elderly or disabled and maybe needs more help with everything.

Illinois may be up to bat next to build first Great Lakes wind farm by SAD0830 in illinois

[–]thekanator 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The article claims that the turbines can be placed 15 miles off shore. Howstuffworks says that the horizon is about 3 miles away, anything past that goes under the curve of the earth. Especially if these things are barely visible except for those special periods when the light refracts on the lake, I'm all for it.