Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

FuzzyBucks t1_j5pf2n8 wrote

I was telling my fiance yesterday how much I dislike modern pickup trucks after reading the Axios article yesterday and she was kinda rolling her eyes because I normally deep-dive into useless topics...but then I showed her that visualization and she immediately got it. "They're not even trucks anymore"

then I showed her the stacked bar chart showing how people use use their pickup truck mostly just for their daily commute and as a grocery getter. She had the same 'wtf? just get a crossover/hatchback/stationwagon/minivan' reaction I did.

very cool, Axios. very cool

3

jrhooo t1_j5p9je8 wrote

Yes.

A big philosophy right now is to create the stadium and surrounding areas a "entertainment districts".

Idea being, you develop the entire block as a part of town people come for recreation, and on game day, the games fuel increased profits for local bars and restaurants.

Same thing for concert or festival days.

And all together the bar and food scene helps create a return on investment on the city development effort that the stadium would have asked for anyways. (Meaning, if they are going to do the effort to run subways lines, repair roads, make the area transport accessible, might as well set up business that will benefit from it other than just a stadium)

That in turn also raises the property values of the hotels and residential buildings in the area, because the stadiums and concert stages bring investment in keeping the roads nice and local area clean and pretty, and the nicer retail outlets come in trying to get a piece of that partygoer spending, so then the apts/condos in that area are suddenly in the middle of the hot new nice area

They're calling them "Multi-Use areas or something now. All I know is, the wharf music area (The Anthem concert venue, Union Stage venue), and Nationals Park baseball stadium are all close enough to each other to walk, which means the same public infrastructure supports both, and the same bars, clubs, and shopping outlets benefit from their proximity to them

DC United soccer stadium bottom - National Park Baseball Stadium top

1

Werdproblems t1_j5p8qrg wrote

We look at CEO as the highest position a working class stiff can achieve. But what if CEO is the lowest position a member of the ruling elite can be stuck with? Like, how do I study to be a CEO? How often do they pick the hardest worker for this position? How would i even get a board of directors to trust me with thier company? The only people who get there do it by serving those more powerful then them. The invisible puppeteers. The CEO doesnt do anything that isnt in the best interest of the shareholders. They're just the piñata for the working class stiffs to knock around while the strings are being pulled elsewhere. If you come from a family that owns gem mines or has created and destroyed nations then sitting in an office talking to peons all day is a punishment. Its hazing for the club that runs the world.

And the grift has gotten more intense. The heist is in its final stages. The proportionate amount of money hasnt gone up. The value has gone down for every one.

0

GeneralVincent t1_j5p7hxv wrote

Unpaid internships are predatory.

Working from home is generally a net positive. I'm a facilities staff. Idc if everyone works from home, cut my job. I'll find a different one. And not every job can be remote anyways.

Large software companies already have better compensated CEOs then mom and pop stores. Obviously. If a small business fails because it can't pay it's employees a fair wage, then it shouldn't exist. Or it needs less employees. (Also the point is to pay the lower level employees more, which allows those employees to have enough money to shop at that local store instead of needing to go to Walmart to save every extra dollar)

If an employee has been with the company for several years and hasn't received a raise in that time... that's really not on the new employee. Also, capping a CEOs wage does not mean everyone else just gets paid the same all of a sudden. It's lessening the gap between the lowest and highest paid worker. Everyone else in between can be (and should be) adjusted as well.

That paragraph doesn't even make sense.

Assuming there actually isn't any extra cash (even though many companies do have extra cash) then absolutely many employees would enjoy and benefit from receiving stock options. I've worked at a place that did profit sharing, and a place that gave stocks as part of the total compensation. Both times I worked as a low level employees. Both times it made me appreciate the company more, have more pride in the work I did (as I was DIRECTLY profiting of my quality of work), and most importantly I was ending up with more money. Because stocks can be sold. For money. That's why CEOs are rich.

And I'm opening to hearing alternative ideas to fix the ever widening income inequality that is destroying the economy.

−2

jrhooo t1_j5p6nlg wrote

HARD disagree here.

Yes, they aren't in use most of the time, but they don't necessarily create any problems with Walkability.

Ravens stadium and Orioles park are both close to downtown, and they don't affect walkability in the slightest.

RFK used to be near the Heart of DC and didnt affect walkability at all. Nats Park doesn't affect walkability. Neither does Cap1

Its a non-issue, unless the planning team is crazy incompetent.

And for the times that it IS in use, that's not just a sports venue, but an event/concert venue that is easily accessible by foot or public transit.

1

Solmors t1_j5p45f3 wrote

I think a big part of this is a larger percent of companies have a global customer base. Software companies especially can scale near infinitely with the same number of workers/developers. Due to this the value of the company (which CEO compensation is typically tied to) goes up much higher than if the company was only available in a single country.

4