Credit where credit is due. 🇨🇦

Once their immigration status is tied to their employer they have no ability to shop around for better pay.

So why would they enter the program? They currently have demonstrated that they have no problem not having an immigration status, so why would they switch to having something that doesn’t benefit them, that they don’t want, and that costs them money?

Their goal is to make the legal path cheaper to appeal to farmers, but farmers aren’t the ones driving the price. As you said: market rate is higher than this guarantees people. If there’s a growing shortage of labor you can expect labor wages to rise. Why would you agree to work for less if you can just go to a different farm and make more?

I understand your point and the situation perfectly well.

migrant labor would get more and more expensive, as more and more people are deported.

I believe this is why you’re wrong, and farmers aren’t hoping it goes faster, but rather voted again their own interests like so many have, and just didn’t think they would specifically target their livelihoods.

A racist administration deporting people aggressively, lowering the incentives to come here legally, and not caring about the consequences, while farmers scramble to control damage they didn’t think was actually going to happen is a way simpler story. Also fits nicely with “America first” burning the ability of those farmers to sell to a global market, canceling programs that gave them money, and canceling food aid orders that mostly existed as back handed subsidies.

I feel like what you’re missing is that this is lowering the floor for what you can pay visa holders, but saying that will make them preferable to people where there is no floor doesn’t follow.

That doesn’t make sense. Adding paperwork isn’t going to lower labor costs.
Undocumented workers are already the least paid, least protected category of worker.
They’d be switching from workers with no minimum wage to ones that have a minimum wage, need to be properly tracked by the IRS and all that.

There’s actually a duo feature that does that.
Normally apps can’t cross authenticate like that because they don’t have the ability to talk to each other in a standard way that’s also verifiable and secure. Teams could have a way to share your auth to something else, but it’s much more difficult for it to know that the thing asking for access actually is something that’s supposed to be able to do so.
OneDrive is built in to Windows, so it’s able to use the authentication you use to log into the computer to talk to the Microsoft servers. (Essentially, there’s like a million steps and layers of indirection).

It’s one anonymous account saying something, and another making claims out of nowhere without context or proof. Hardly “probably”.

If we’re doing a detailed breakdown of their statement, that statement says that it doesn’t say anything good, not that it says anything bad.
I assumed they were a non-native English speaker who bungled “not good is opposite good, or bad” and instead had “not good is absence of good, or neutral”.

I read it as: the medical system being worse than house says more about the system than it does about house.

They definitely do, but for different reasons.
Hospitals increase prices they send to insurance so that the reduced rate the insurance pays covers their cost+profit. The insurance company wants to spend as little money as possible from their risk pool, and they want to advertise their “massive negotiation powers” to their big customers who have enough members to self fund (the insurance company just manages the money and billing, so zero risk on their part).
GE and the hospital have a much more traditional business to business relationship. GE is actually providing them with a very delicate piece of machinery that is enormous, filled with liquid helium, that produces a preposterous magnetic field and is safe enough to stick a squishy person into.
Their extra markup comes from the certifications that tell you that you can trust that it’s safe for those squishy people. It’s an intangible value add, sometimes legally mandated (FDA approval), sometimes an assurance of quality (all those ISO certifications attesting to quantifiable defect rates).
They’re not charging you more so when you pay less they still make a profit. They’re charging more because there’s only a handful of companies that can actually sell the damn things, and they all also have the same intangible costs.

Medical equipment is expensive because the price jump between “works” and “you can trust it with someone’s life” is a very expensive one. The paper documenting it even more so.

Some tests are legitimately expensive, some are “priced for insurance”, and some are a complicated middle ground where you could reasonably argue either way. Like, an MRI isn’t a cheap machine, nor is it devoid of ongoing costs, and the facility requirements to operate one are also extensive. The actual cost to run a single MRI scan though is materially cheap, ignoring labor costs. About the cost in electricity to power a house for a day. Less than $10 dollars.
On the one hand, taking those upfront, ongoing maintenance, and facilities costs and spreading them out over the cost of each scan seems reasonable. Without that money they can’t actually buy and run the machine. It can add up to $500-$10,000 per scan.
On the other hand, if you don’t get the test and the machine is just idle during the time, their costs only go down $10. You could reasonably argue that they should take any offer more than $10 if they have more idle capacity available than is needed for emergency usage.

Some genetic and nuclear testing just intrinsically involves expensive materials. They’re not done often and the materials are difficult to get together safely. Given the nature of the show, those are going to be represented more often. It’s not nearly as fun to watch the rogue doctor fail to charge $75 for an automated metabolic panel as it is to watch him jam a hamster gall bladder full of neptunium up someone’s urethra while spinning them like a rotisserie in an fmri.

Only note: I think he’s so borderline criminal in his behavior that he never actually documents the insane expensive tests for billing. He just does them without scheduling or booking the machine or equipment. Note how he often has doctors operating the MRI, and not a radiology technician or someone trained to actually take the pictures on the specific machine.

It wouldn’t surprise me, but I haven’t heard anything like that. Tough production schedules are a great way to cause incidents.

You’re lining up for a strawman. I very clearly stated that fault was with the owners and management for not enforcing safe operating procedures.
I disagreed that the gap in regulation was likely because of safe storage quantities, and more likely because of a failure to enforce safe operating practices.

Don’t make it out to be like I’m saying nothing could have been done to save these people’s lives.
I’m saying expecting an explosives manufacturer to have less than what’s used in a typical charge onsite at any moment is unrealistic, as is storing reasonable quantities such that catastrophe is impossible. Any storage and manufacturing practices that could give you those guarantees would also require a rigorous training process and strong safety culture with well defined and enforced procedures and safeguards.

theoretical customers that for some reason are warehousing unsafe quantities

What, in your mind, is a reasonable and safe quantity of explosives to warehouse for the manufacture of bombs?
By their nature, bombs contain an unsafe quantity of explosives. Safety comes from handling, not saying you can only have half of a 500lb bomb at a time.

I didn’t say it was impossible, just unrealistic. The cost increase for producing in batches smaller than what can cause a problem aren’t worth it if you afterwards just put it in the same pile. Customers aren’t going to want to take delivery as dozens of small shipments spread out over months, but in batches determined by how fast they use it and how much buffer they need. They’re certainly not going to want that rate slowed down by the factory having other customers.

The place where regulatory oversight is missing is in making sure that management isn’t pushing workers to work unsafely, or even letting them if they try.

So I looked into it, briefly, and it looks like that incident was a different company who rented space in their complex.
That isn’t better for them now, but there’s a difference between negligence and renting to the negligent.

So, they do. Unfortunately, there aren’t realistic safety precautions that can be taken that don’t have some risk of catastrophic failure if you’re dealing with the manufacturing and storage of explosives. Even small quantities are destructive enough to be dangerous to store.
Ultimately safe storage comes down to human operational concerns. Missing or unenforced regulations relating to working hours, training, training compliance, or handling safety concerns would be my guess rather than storage conditions.

A lot of explosions at similar facilities had significant warning, unfortunately. While the detonation itself tends to be instant, they usually have rules about how densely explosives are packed, fire control systems, and systems to maximize the time between problem and disaster.

They probably knew something was wrong and that it was bad, but not how bad.

Most specifically, it’s to provide a framework so that small changes are orderly and big changes deliberate.
Laws provide a framework that tries to resist change to the maximum degree possible, with the benefit that it’s generally agreeable enough to enough people that it’s preferable to the danger and force involved in not having them.

It undercuts their dignity. If people think you’re a joke, they don’t do what you say when you say to do something awful.
We’re dealing with fascists. They’re a violent, angry pack of buffoons. We shouldn’t cater to their feelings.

For reference, see the works Chaplin, and Moe, Larry and Curly.

Eeeh. First, “mad tyrant” is a bit of a stretch. The crown was, by the standards of the time, much more lax with the colonies than other territories. More of a “late onset bipolar disorder constitutional monarch acting under advisement of qualified ministers”. Breaking away to try “not monarchy” and implement much of what we now consider modern government was by no means wrong, but it’s not quite the clear cut battle against evil the founding narrative describes.

Second, that was 250 years ago. Just about the only lingering effect is the slogan which has some inspirational qualities.

The bigger thing is that the military hasn’t fought against a technological equal in decades, and has never fought an asymmetrical war against a technological equal. If the opponent is close to technological parity, they use overwhelming force to remove that parity, and then fight from there. They can’t do that against the US, because they need those resources as well. Additionally, most of our defensive strategy relies on it being impossible to attack us in a reasonable way. The only force that can get here has to be small and sneaky. In a civil war situation, a significant number of military facilities are basically inside cities. They have defenses, but not the way they do in an overseas base. And being in cities, a significant number of pretty important sites are inside the areas that are currently being designated as hostile.
All the people doing the boring logistics and paperwork that drives most of the US military have to commute through the dangerous areas. Most of their families live nearby.