#latest news on Budget 2022

[fiercynn]

on otw's $2.5 million budget surplus: for fuck's sake do something with our money

the recent ddos attack on ao3 illustrated that the otw (@transformativeworks) has amazing volunteers who were able to get things up and running again after a cyberattack. and i’ve seen a bunch of different people urging others to donate to otw in light of the attack.

the problem? not only are the volunteers not going to get any of the money, but the otw likely isn’t going to do anything else with it, because they already have more than $2.5 million in budget surplus that they have not been transparent about with their members, and that they have no plans for.

yup. we’ve known for years that otw had at least $1 million in their “reserves”; they’ve said so at their last two public finance meetings in 2021 and 2022. but a few months ago, @manogirl and i went digging a little deeper because we suspected that there was even more. 

and we were right. from the documentation available, our estimate is that at the beginning of 2023, they had $2,585,841 that was not dedicated to any purpose. this does not include money they had budgeted to spend in 2023 on regular expenses. just extra. (keep reading to see how we got that figure.)

equally appalling? they have all this money and are barely earning any interest on it. satsuma on dreamwidth looked at their 2021 tax returns and found that only ~$10k of their money is held in an interest-bearing savings account, which resulted in them earning only $90 in interest income for 2021. the rest of it is not in interest-bearing accounts. it is just sitting there.

looking at all the crises and dysfunction that have been discussed and uncovered over the past few months - racist harassment and the three-year-old promise to hire a diversity consultant; the mistreatment of volunteers by the otw board both related to last year’s CSEM attacks, and, separately, mistreatment and racism towards chinese and chinese diaspora volunteers both in the past and recently with the closure of the otw’s weibo account; and of course, this latest ddos attack - all of this indicates that there is severe dysfunction within the org. and donors throwing more money at the organization clearly isn’t helping.

the otw board needs to get its shit together and hire people to help with these things. this is not a new idea - there’s been talk for years about hiring paid staff, and in fact, at their july 2021 board meeting, otw said they would be appointing a volunteer who would be known as the “paid staff officer”, to come up with a plan for hiring paid staff. (to be clear, the “paid staff officer” would be an unpaid volunteer.) it’s been two years since that commitment. they have not, to my knowledge, appointed that officer yet.

it’s infuriating, because otw’s “scrappiness” as an organization is constantly used to defend their obstruction of action on things like racism, and this ddos attack will be used to further that agenda as well. but otw doesn’t need to be scrappy. they are well-resourced and could be using that money to set up more sustainable systems, instead of burning out and mistreating their volunteers, and reneging on commitments to address racism and harassment.

at the very least, if they’re not going to do anything with their massive budget surplus, they should stop taking more of people’s money. but we’d rather they did something useful with it.

if you want to see this change, the otw finance commitee holds a public meeting where you can ask questions and give them feedback. last year it was in mid-october. you do not have to be an otw member to attend. i'll definitely be making noise about it once the date is announced, but you can also follow otw's socials.

one brief aside: at the time of posting, a lot of these links are not working because the otw's website is still down. i copied these links from a twitter thread i made in the past and they should all be correct, so you just may have to wait until the site is back up to look at them.

now, to debunk some common excuses that people (not otw representatives, mind you, but just people on the internet who have decided to defend the org) give when confronted with how much money otw has:

MYTH: otw needs to keep $2.5 million in cash reserves in case of an emergency or unexpected revenue shortfall. REALITY: it’s true that nonprofits do need SOME cash reserves for those cases. typical practice is to have 3-6 months’ worth of operating expenses. otw’s current operating expenses are ~$520,000/year, so 6 months would be $260,000. (and, in fact, when i was told by an otw finance committee member that they had $1 million, they were intending 25% of that to be for emergencies, around $250,000). if you were being REALLY cautious, you could have reserves up to one to two years. but $2.5 million is enough for almost FIVE YEARS OF OPERATING EXPENSES. that is an absurd amount to be hoarding, especially when otw’s history of fundraising is that they always exceed their goals, and always make more money in donations than they need for their expenses within a given year. MYTH: they need this money for legal costs if they get sued. REALITY: otw gets most of their legal expenses donated, which is also not listed in their budget, but is in their audited financial statements. in 2021, the most recent financial statement we have, you can see on page 10 that they received just over $230k in donated legal expenses. they do budget some minor legal expenses yearly: in 2023 they’ve budgeted a little over $5k for “registration fees for conferences and hearings and funds set aside for legal filings if necessary, as well as an allocated share of newly adopted OTW-wide productivity tools”. however they do not have a history of even spending that much: in 2022, they had budgeted $4k for legal expenses and only spent $244 (see cell C29 of the budget spreadsheet). they have never been sued, and they do not appear to budget for litigation costs. and when, in the past, they’ve been asked about what their reserves are for (back in fall 2022 when the finance committee told me they had $1 million in reserves, even though this was patently false given their tax documents for 2021), litigation costs were not brought up.  MYTH: they just haven’t had enough time to figure out investment options. REALITY: they clearly have at least one savings account set up to generate interest, which only has $10k in it. even if they haven’t figured out a full investment portfolio, why wouldn’t they put more money in that account? in the u.s., the federal deposit insurance corporation (FDIC) insures bank accounts up to $250,000, so they should have at least that much in there. absurd. also, they have had plenty of time even for a larger portfolio. if you search “investment” on their site, you’ll see that they’ve been talking for YEARS about investing their reserves. more specifically, at both their 2021 and 2022 finance meetings, they said that they needed more time to research investment options. as usual, they have had far more time than they need.  MYTH: they need this money for new servers. REALITY: otw does in fact include expenses for new servers and server maintenance in their yearly budget reports. you can see this in their 2023 budget spreadsheet if you go to the sheet “program expenses” - under “archive of our own”, you’ll see server expenses. the $2.5 million is money that is EXTRA to their listed expenses and revenue in that spreadsheet.

finally, see below where we’ve given more context on otw’s budgeting and showed our work in coming up with these numbers.

showing our work

firstly, i should note for the record that i sent a message to the otw finance committee through the contact us form on the otw website on may 11, 2023 to ask them to state the amount in their reserves.

it has been two months and i have still not received a response (which i find funny, because at the last otw board meeting in early july, the board specifically said to use that form to contact the finance commitee if we had questions about the 2023 budget), so @manogirl and i were forced to do our own math. we've had this work checked by a number of people, but of course we were only able to work with the information the otw has made publicly available.

a few things you need to know about the otw’s budgeting:

they release yearly budget reports on their website (here’s their most recent one, which shows what they project for 2023 and their “actuals” for 2022), but they do not include their surplus in this report - they only include the revenue and expenses for each year

they also provide both their yearly audited financial statements and their yearly tax returns (form 990s) on their reports & governing documents page, but currently, the most recent statements we have are from 2021

otw typically raises more money in donations than they need within a year, so their surplus is always growing 

they have used the term “reserves” in the past to talk about money, but we don’t know exactly what they mean by “reserves” - is there a dedicated account that they consider their reserves?

because of these uncertainties, the goal for @manogirl and i was was to figure out how much of a budget surplus OTW had at the beginning of 2023, and because we don’t know how they define “reserves”, we defined it as how much they had in liquid assets that were not being dedicated for a specific purpose in their budget. (liquid assets are anything that can be converted into cash quickly – e.g. not equipment like their servers, nor anything that would be held in a long-term investment account, etc)

the first document we looked at was their 2021 audited financial statement. the key number is on page 11, under the section on liquidity, where it lists their end-of-year liquid assets as $2,315,841.

so at the end of 2021, they had over $2.3 million in liquid assets.

but since their 2022 audited financial statement isn’t up, we had to turn to their 2023 budget, and specifically, to their 2023 budget spreadsheet, where they show the “actuals” (what they actually raised & spent in each line item) for 2022 in column C. as i mentioned, they don’t list their reserves in this spreadsheet - only the revenue generated & expenses paid within that year, not anything carrying over from the previous year unless clearly outlined.

so at the bottom you’ll see that their net income (revenue minus expenses) in 2022 was $493,564.94, and that they then transferred $400,000 of that to the reserves sometime in 2022.

and the remaining $93,564.94, their adjusted net income for 2022, presumably carries over to help pay initial expenses in 2023 before they started earning more revenue. they also transferred $130,000 of their reserves BACK to help with that at the start of 2023.

so now we have the numbers we need to calculate the surplus (including reserves) at the start of 2023:

$2,315,841 (liquid assets at end of 2021) + $400,000 (transferred to reserve in 2022) - $130,000 (transferred from reserve in 2023) = $2,585,841 USD at the start of 2023

so that’s our math. otw had $2.5 million at the beginning of this year in surplus, in addition to around $223k (last year’s $93.5k in income and the $130k they transferred back from the reserves at the beginning 2023) to fund their expenses for the first half of this year. this does not even include the hundreds of thousands they raised in april 2023 during their fundraising drive.

okay the main part of our documentation is done, but if you want to read a little bit more about what @manogirl and i learned from doing this deep dive, here are a few additional thoughts/nuggets:

first of all, OTW is incorporated in the u.s. state of delaware, which is interesting because as @manogirl researched, delaware is a tax haven where 501c3 nonprofits don’t have to pay any business tax. plus, in many u.s. states, nonprofits have a limit on the amount of money they can keep without spending, but this too is not the case in delaware. of course, incorporating in delaware to take advantage of those benefits is not illegal! but it is very savvy, a characteristic that seems to have not continued with their financial management past their original incorporation lol

next, some more detail on their finances from their 2023 budget spreadsheet. let’s start with revenue.

the most interesting thing to me here is that while their spring and fall membership drive donations bring in the most, non-drive donations are also substantial. also their “total unrestricted net revenue received” is $975,638.36 in cell C16. however, for some reason, when they calculate their net income for the year, they use cell 12, “total unrestricted revenue” ($1,012,543.42) instead. the difference between those two cells is that cell 12 is the amount before their transaction fees are subtracted. but i have no idea why the transaction fees would be ignored when calculating their net income. is this an error?

next, their expenses, which came out to $518,978.48. not too much surprised me here except how low their legal advocacy spending still is, plus  the fact that they’d given francesca coppa a grant for her book on the history of fanvidding, lol. (i’ve written more about this; so has wistfuljane on dreamwidth if you scroll down a bit from here).

it’s also interesting to look at what they’ve budgeted (both the revenue & expenses they’ve expected going into the year) for 2022. in every revenue category, they have exceeded their goal, except for $50 in “other income”. and in most of their expenses categories they have overestimated their needs, except for going over about $700 in the transformative works & cultures, & about $500 for development. this just shows how much they are able to meet their yearly expenses (overestimated) with the revenue generated each year (underestimated), & still have substantial amounts left over (almost half of revenue transferred to reserves)

so that’s what we’ve found. if anyone else notices weird things in their budgeting, please let us know!

[mariacallous]

At the end of 2022, Dmitry Medvedev—Russia’s former prime minister and the current deputy chairman of its Security Council—offered his predictions for the coming year. He warned that Europeans would suffer badly from Russia’s decision to curb natural gas exports to the European Union, suggesting that gas prices would jump to $5,000 per thousand cubic meters in 2023—around 50 times their prewar average. He probably assumed that that sky-high prices would translate into a windfall for Russian state-owned energy company Gazprom, which was still supplying several European countries via pipeline, ramping up exports of liquefied natural gas, and eyeing new deals with China. Perhaps Medvedev also hoped that Europeans would beg the Kremlin to send the gas flowing again.

It turns out that Medvedev might want to polish his crystal ball: Last year, European gas prices averaged a mere one-tenth of his number. And just this month, Gazprom posted a massive $6.8 billion loss for 2023, the first since 1999.

Gazprom’s losses demonstrate the extent to which the Kremlin’s decision to turn off the gas tap to Europe in 2022 has backfired. In 2023, European Union imports of Russian gas were at their lowest level since the early 1970s, with Russian supplies making up only 8 percent of EU gas imports, down from 40 percent in 2021. This has translated into vertiginous losses for Gazprom, with the firm’s revenues from foreign sales plunging by two-thirds in 2023.

Gazprom’s woes are very likely setting off alarm bells in Moscow: With no good options for the company to revive flagging gas sales, its losses could weigh on Russia’s ability to finance the war in Ukraine. This is especially ironic given the fact that EU sanctions do not target Russian gas exports; the damage to the Kremlin and its war effort is entirely self-inflicted.

The most immediate impact of Gazprom’s losses will be on Russian government revenues, a crucial metric to gauge Moscow’s ability to sustain its war against Ukraine. Poring over Gazprom’s latest financials paints a striking picture. Excluding dividends, Gazprom transferred at least $40 billion into Russian state coffers in 2022, either to the general government budget or the National Welfare Fund (NWF), Moscow’s sovereign wealth fund.

This is no small feat. Until last year, Gazprom alone provided about 10 percent of Russian federal budget revenues through customs and excise duties as well as profit taxes. (Oil receipts usually account for an additional 30 percent of budget revenues.) This flood of money now looks like distant history. In 2023, the company’s contribution to state coffers through customs and excise duties was slashed by four-fifths, and like many money-losing firms, it is due a tax refund from the Russian treasury.

For Moscow, this is bad news on several fronts. Because of rising military expenses, the country’s fiscal balance swung into deficit when Moscow invaded Ukraine. To help plug the gap, the Kremlin ordered Gazprom to pay a $500 million monthly levy to the state until 2025. Now that the company is posting losses, it is unclear how it will be able to afford this transfer. In addition, Gazprom’s contribution to the NWF will probably have to shrink. For the Kremlin, this could not come at a worst time: The NWF’s liquid holdings have already dropped by nearly $60 billion, around half of its prewar total, as Moscow drains its rainy-day fund to finance the war. Finally, Gazprom’s woes could prompt the firm to shrink its planned investments in gas fields and pipelines—a decision that would, in turn, hit Russian GDP growth.

As if this was not enough, a closer look at Gazprom’s newly released financials suggests that the worst may be yet to come, with three telltale signs that 2024 could be even more difficult than 2023.

First, Gazprom’s accounts receivable—a measure of money due to be paid by customers—are in free fall, suggesting that the firm’s revenue inflow is drying up. Second, accounts payable shot up by around 50 percent in 2023, hinting that Gazprom is struggling to pay its own bills to various suppliers. Finally, short-term borrowing nearly doubled last year as Russian state-owned banks were enlisted to support the former gas giant.

Whereas these figures come from Gazprom’s English-language financials, the company’s latest Russian-language update yields two additional surprises—both of which show that the firm’s situation has worsened even further since the beginning of the year.

First, short-term borrowing during the first three months of 2024 roughly doubled compared to the previous quarter. If Russian state-owned banks continue to cover Gazprom’s losses, the Russian financial sector could soon find itself in trouble. This begs a tricky question: With the NWF’s reserves dwindling and Moscow’s access to international capital markets shut down, who would pay a bailout bill? Second, Gazprom’s losses were almost five times greater in the first quarter of 2024 than in the same period of 2023, hinting that the firm may post an even bigger loss this year than it did in 2023.

Looking ahead, 2025 will be an especially tough year for Gazprom. The transit deal that protects gas shipments through Ukraine via pipeline to Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia will probably expire at the end of this year, further curbing what’s left of Gazprom’s exports to Europe. A quick glance at a map makes it clear that China is now the only remaining option for Russian pipeline gas.

Yet Beijing is not that interested: Last year, it bought just 23 billion cubic meters of Russian gas, a mere fraction of the 180 billion cubic meters that Moscow used to ship to Europe. Negotiations to build the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, which would boost gas shipments to China, have stalled. And in truth, China is not a like-for-like replacement for Gazprom’s lost European consumers. Beijing pays 20 percent less for Russian gas than the remaining EU customers, and the gap is predicted to widen to 28 percent through 2027.

Without pipelines, raising exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is the only remaining option for Moscow. However, Western policies make this easier said than done. Western export controls curb Russia’s access to the complex machinery needed to develop LNG terminals, such as equipment to chill the gas to negative160 degrees Celsius so that it can be shipped on specialized vessels. And Washington has recently imposed sanctions on a Singapore-based firm and two ships working on a Russian LNG project, signaling that it will similarly designate any entity willing to work in the sector. Finally, U.S. sanctions make it much harder for Russian firms to finance the development of new liquefaction facilities and the gas field designed to supply them. In December, Japanese firm Mitsui announced that it was pulling staff and reviewing options for its participation to Russia’s flagship Arctic LNG 2 project. As a result, the Russian operator announced last month that it was suspending operations of the project, which was originally slated to launch LNG shipments early this year.

Gazprom’s cheesy corporate slogan—“Dreams come true!”—does not ring so true anymore as Moscow’s former cash cow becomes a loss-making drain. Data from the International Energy Agency confirms the extent of the Kremlin’s miscalculation when it turned off the gas tap to Europe: The agency predicts that Russia’s share of global gas exports will fall to 15 percent by 2030—down from 30 percent before Moscow’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine.

This was probably predictable. It is hard to imagine how a gas exporter configured to serve European customers and reliant on Western technology could thrive after refusing to serve its main client—signaling to every other potential customer, including China, that it is an unreliable supplier. Corporate empires tend to rise and fall, and it looks like Gazprom will be no exception to the rule.

[chirpsythismorning]

I think what really puts into perspective the likelihood of ST5 premiering in 2025 (I’m gonna predict March 21st for fun), is that a year from now is just barely Summer 2024, and yet as of now, they have not even started filming.

Are fans really expecting them to have season 5 filmed, fully prepped with marketing and promo ready, with everything ready to be released within one year from now (roughly speaking, give or take a couple months)?

In all honesty it's very much the norm for Stranger Things' to have promo leading up to an upcoming season last for months. And I'm not talking like 3-5 months I'm talking a year+.

This isn't like s1 where they put out a trailer and a release date and some low budget marketing roll out on social media, which is something they do for every new Netflix show. This is a $35 million + budget per episode series and thats just to budget for the literal episodes... There are dozens of partnerships they have going on with merchandise and things like that which are discussed and planned for months/years. There are music rights negotiations which go on for months upon years. Shit, post-production has the capacity to take, at the very least half of the time it takes to film, and in some cases as much time or even more. This shit takes time!!!

The build up to a new season is so huge, that each month leading up to it, there are different things dropping, creating the hype that guarantees millions of fans engagement for a long time.

Like 1 year up to the 6 months before the release, promo starts heating up officially. The main accounts for the show will start posting stuff, initially it'll be cryptic using old footage to kind of recap the characters and get us refreshed on where we left off. This time could have some really awesome surprises, but it's mostly casual. If we're lucky we can count on Atlanta filming paparazzi bc those people are insufferable...

6 months up to the one month mark is when it starts to get more real. At this time we're likely to get an episode list announcement, along with sneak peeks and teasers that are quite short, being that they're still likely in the editing process when they are releasing these so it's very much in part them trying to tide us over and keep us interested.

The final 3 months leading up to it is when it gets REAL real. This is at the latest when we'll get a release date announcement, but that's a worst case scenario. I feel like it took so long for them to announce s4, and not until like Feb 2022 bc they wanted to be certain certain. And that could apply to s5 as well. The state of the world isn't like awesome I would say... Look what happened last time? Like it sucks to be the person to say that but I think also considering delays in general, for any reason are a possibility, is also what contributes to my open mindedness about an early 2025 release.

And so based on what we should be expecting for marketing, that means that assuming s5 would somehow premiere in summer 2024, means we are already close to the one year mark, which means promo should be ramping up right now, with literal content to share? And yet we have nothing filmed...?

A lot of people have this idea that s5 is going to take as much time to film as s1 took, which is just not the case. Not saying it will take as long as s4 took, however it's still going to take a while. One of the main factors for this is an in demand cast with conflicting schedules. In a perfect world, everyone would be available all the time throughout the entire production run. Instead what you have is certain actors not available at this time, and so you have to overlap those that need scenes together and schedule according to all of that. And so even if it wouldn't take more than 7 months to film literally, adding another 4+ months might be necessary to accommodate everyones schedules so that they can have these A/B list actors be able to film scenes together.

And then there’s editing and VFX to account for, happening during filming yes, but also with them needing months to focus on AFTER filming is complete. S5 is arguably going to have more VFX than any other season, as most of the season is expected to be surrounded by UD conditions and with the final battle being pretty epic with a 3 headed dragon potentially. Editing is more likely to be 7+ months post filming AT LEAST, vs. like the 4 or less, which is what I think everyone is imagining and telling themselves.

This is also the last season and so they obviously want to focus on the quality, not their ability to churn it out as fast as possible. Rushing for a quick release is just setting themselves up to flop.

The story is over forever after this (excluding spin-off prospects). It would make sense for them to give themselves the wiggle room to make it perfect (the stakes are so fucking high you guys), as opposed to rushing the entire time just to have it release as early as possible.

This also reminds me of what Noah said when asked about s5 premiering in 2024, where he basically just deflected and said that they want to focus on quality… essentially hinting at the fact that it’ll probably not be soon as we’re expecting, but we’re better off for it bc it gives them time to ensure it's the best that it can be and also is just realistic in terms of considering potential unplanned delays.

And then there are the strike implications. While I think the ST production is lucky in that they wouldn't be impacted as much as other productions, that doesn't mean the solidarity won't impact other parts of the production beyond just the writers. This is an industry where people are extremely overworked and underpaid, where a strike could be on the horizon at any moment. And we’re out here telling them hey i know the conditions are horse shit, but I'm gonna need you to step it up and experience even worse conditions bc I need s5 asap... which is just, it’s asking too much if I’m being honest.

Not trying to rain on anyone’s parade here. I know it sucks hearing that it could be another 1 year and 10 months. But lets be serious right now.

All the action that happens in the fandom, building up to the release is arguably just as exciting as the actual premiere and I think we overlook that. Again, once it premieres, it's over. So being so hellbent that it comes as soon as possible, is built on this idea that getting it is the only worthwhile part of this experience, which couldn't be further from the truth. Hiatus and all of the activity that happens during that time is what makes this experience so unique and without it, none of us would be here.

I think realistically, the timeline for s5 production is likely to look something like filming taking place from May 2023-Feb 2024 (giving them AT LEAST 10 months, but if you ask me srs i think it'll take 12...). We should get an announcement post from the official Netflix/ST social media accounts the very day filming starts.

As time passes and they're filming more and more, we will start to get teasers and sneak peaks from the little bit they have filmed from the earlier episodes in the season. Technically they can't spoil that later stuff too much in promotion, so it does work out for us in that sense.

But in all honesty, well planned out and detailed promo is likely to not start getting official until this fall when they’ll actually have at least (hopefully) over half of s5 filmed, and be planning ahead plenty in advance so all of the promo leading up to the release is well thought out.

I won’t rule out Fall 2024. But there are no Friday dates in fall 2024 that ring any bells to me as being the perfect day? Maybe Winter 2024? Or like January/Feb 2025?

The problem is Netflix loves ST for their summers... But summer 2024 is too soon and Summer 2025 is too late imo...

So what it will likely come down to is them trying to be realisitic about their options, and how to ideally get it to match with the setting of the show, which is something they have tried to do with s2-3, but couldn't in s4 (for obvious reasons), and so I definitely see them thinking ahead to try to bring back that approach for s5 if they are able to.

So filming, best case scenario, ends maybe Jan-Feb 2024. If we give them at least 7 months, which is still arguably rushing to me, that lands them in September 2024.

BUT if they were smart they would be realistic and just plan for late 2024/early 2025 so that they don't have to keep delaying... also why they haven't announced a date/year... if it was for certain going to be 2024, they would say it. But they aren't. That alone should tell us they are not willing to make that commitment bc it's not something that can be made when there are so many impromptu factors at play.

I imagine a scenario though honestly, where it takes them a year (12 months to film), so they won't be done until May 2024, which means that they would have until January 2025 to edit with 7 months for that strictly. And that just honestly feels realistic to me to look at instead of hoping that everything just is swift and fast as possible.

Not to mention ST5 2025 just fits.

However, I don't see anything wrong with hoping for late 2024, since as of now I think it is still possible.

But I also think, keeping all of the factors in mind, most notably a potential strike and also them ensuring quality over a speedy release, I think 2025 is something people should also be prepared for as a possibility.

The good news is that we'll know eventually as s5 starts filming and as time goes on.

If filming is complete in 2023 then we could definitely hope for a fall 2024 release. If filming isn't complete officially until early/mid 2024, then pack up your duffel bags bc we're going back to spring break...

[beardedmrbean]

Australia will introduce a cap on the number of new international students it accepts, as it tries to reduce overall migration to pre-pandemic levels.

The nation has one of the biggest international student markets in the world, but the number of new enrolments will be limited to 270,000 for 2025.

Each higher education institution will be given an individual restriction, the government announced on Tuesday, with the biggest cuts to be borne by vocational education and training providers.

The change has angered the tertiary education industry, with some universities calling it "economic vandalism", but Canberra says it will improve the quality and longevity of the sector.

Australia is host to about 717,500 international students, according to the latest government figures from early 2024.

Education Minister Jason Clare acknowledged that higher education was hard-hit during the pandemic, when Australia sent foreign students home and introduced strict border controls.

He also noted, however, that the number of international students at universities is now 10% higher than before Covid-19, while the number at private vocational and training providers is up 50%.

"Students are back but so are the shonks - people are seeking to exploit this industry to make a quick buck," Mr Clare said.

The government has previously accused some providers of "unethical" behaviour - including accepting students who don't have the language skills to succeed, offering a poor standard of education or training, and enrolling people who intend to work instead of study.

"These reforms are designed to make it better and fairer, and set it up on a more sustainable footing going forward," Mr Clare said.

The restrictions will also help address Australia's record migration levels, he said, which have added pressure to existing housing and infrastructure woes.

The government has already announced tougher minimum English-language requirements for international students and more scrutiny of those applying for a second study visa, while punishing hundreds of "dodgy" providers.

Australia to halve immigration, toughen English test

Enrolments at public universities will be pared back to 145,000 in 2025, which is around their 2023 levels, Mr Clare said.

Private universities and non-university higher education providers will be able to enrol 30,000 new international students, while vocational education and training institutions will be limited to 95,000.

The policy would also include incentives for universities to build more housing for international students, Mr Clare added.

But higher education providers say the industry is being made a "fall guy" for housing and migration issues, and that a cap would decimate the sector.

International education was worth A$36.4bn (£18.7bn, $24.7) to the Australian economy in 2022-23, making it the country's fourth largest export that year.

According to economic modelling commissioned earlier this year by Sydney University – where foreign students make up about half of enrolments – the proposed cuts could cost the Australian economy $4.1bn and result in about 22,000 job losses in 2025.

Vicki Thomson, chief executive of a body which represents some of Australia’s most prestigious universities, described the proposed laws as “draconian" and "interventionist", saying they amounted to "economic vandalism" in comments made earlier this year.

Mr Clare accepted that some service providers may have to make difficult budget decisions, but denied the cap would cripple the industry.

"To create the impression that this is somehow tearing down international education is absolutely and fundamentally wrong," he said.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPost:

“Folks, he’s coming for your health care, and we’re not going to let that happen.” Those are the closing words of a new 30-second ad from the Biden campaign, focusing on the Affordable Care Act and the possibility of repeal if Donald Trump becomes president again. The ad buy is significant: $14 million to run the spot in a half dozen swing states, as my colleague S.V. Dáte reported. And it’s not difficult to understand why.

Trump’s attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 was highly unpopular. The backlash was almost certainly a big reason Republicans managed to lose both houses of Congress and the presidency over the next two elections. Reminding voters of this history can only help Biden and the Democrats, especially amid polls that show the 2010 health care law to be more popular than ever. And the threat to the law is real. Trump spent his entire presidency trying to tear down the program; when legislation failed, he tried to undermine the law by ― among other things ― taking away funds for advertising and promotion. Last fall, he returned to the subject in a Truth Social post, declaring, “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare. I’m seriously looking at alternatives.”

Trump followed up with what was supposed to be a clarification, stating, “I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!” But of course, that was just another version of the promises he made before taking office last time ― you may remember vows like “I’m going to take care of everybody” or “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.” He then proceeded to push bills that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have added more than 20 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured.

[...] Democratic leaders vowed to address that issue by increasing the subsidies, effectively realizing their original vision for the law. And they did precisely that in 2021. The American Rescue Plan, which Democrats passed and Biden signed, boosted the Affordable Care Act’s financial assistance so that nobody has to pay more than 8.5% of household income on a standard plan.

It was a temporary measure tied to the pandemic, but in 2022, they extended the subsidies through 2025. The impact has been substantial. Roughly 15 million Americans are saving an average of about $800 a year on their insurance, according to calculations by the Department of Health and Human Services. And like all averages, that covers a range of people. The savings amount to only a pittance for some, but it’s literally thousands of dollars a year for others. The enhanced subsidies have also had more subtle effects. Some insurers still sell “non-compliant” plans that resemble the old policies. These plans can be sold more cheaply because they have big coverage gaps that can leave beneficiaries exposed to punishing, catastrophic medical bills. (Loopholes in the law allow this.) However, fewer people are now buying those policies, opting for the more comprehensive plans available than the Affordable Care Act, according to a study from the non-partisan health research organization KFF. That’s because, with the extra subsidies, the more comprehensive plans don’t cost as much as they did before.

[...]

A Familiar Debate, An Uncertain Political Future

The new Biden ad says he wants to make the assistance permanent, consistent with a proposal in his latest budget. That wouldn’t be cheap. CBO pegged the cost at about $25 million a year back in 2022. It’d probably require more money more now. The inability to find enough offsetting cuts or revenue to cover that cost is one reason Biden and the Democrats didn’t make the bigger subsidies permanent last time. That could happen again. But it’s safe to assume that, at the very least, Biden and the Democrats would approve another temporary extension if they are in office and have enough leverage in Congress after 2024. If Democrats don’t have that kind of power come next year, the fate of these increased subsidies will be in the hands of Trump and the Republicans. And while they haven’t had much to say about the issue, it’s hard to imagine they’d be enthusiastic about extending the subsidies given their traditional hostility to government spending on social welfare, to say nothing of their animus towards Obamacare. Conservative intellectuals are already laying the groundwork. Brian Blase, the former Trump administration official now president of the conservative-leaning Paragon Health Institute, has assailed the extra subsidies as regressive because they have made higher-income Americans eligible for assistance.

If Donald Trump wins in 2024, then there could be big consequences for Obamacare… and it won’t be pretty.

[ladyloveandjustice]

My Top Seven Anime I Watched in 2022

Here are the best of the best, alongside a few bonus good, good anime. Please note that I’m only including premieres I actually watched in 2022, and there are a few ones I haven’t gotten to yet. I only started watching Bocchi the Rock! this month (and I’m enjoying it) and I’ve heard good things about Raven of the Inner Palace, so I’m planning on checking that out.

Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch From Mercury

Suletta Mercury arrives at her new school with a mech named Aerial and a checklist of friendship milestones she wants to achieve after being homeschooled for years- only to immediately get involved in giant robot duels and engaged to a prickly heiress. Unbeknownst to Suletta, she’s a tool in her mother’s revenge scheme against the terrible corporation that destroyed their family, and things will only get more complicated. Sometimes a fun romp, sometimes an action-filled thriller, and saving its best twist for the very end, this might just be the anime of the year for me. The romance between the two girls at the heart of the series always has you rooting for it, it introduces you to some great kids (and a ton of cool ladies) and as a bonus, it’s wonderfully inclusive. The only think holding me back is the fact it’s not over yet! I’m praying the second season keeps up the good work.

Read my full review here.

Spy x Family

The smash hit about a spy dad, assassin mom, and telepath child who all form a ‘fake’ family- but will they develop real familial feelings? Cute, funny, nicely animated and full of wacky fights and missions, it needs no introduction. It’s just a good time! The second season isn’t quite as strong as the first, but it’s fun to watch throughout and there’s more good material coming!

Read my full reviews here and here.

Akiba Maid War

A fun genre mashup that depicts early 2000’s maid cafes engaged in violent battles over territory (similar to yakuza movies). Features a lot of outrageous comedy and the world’s most loveable terrifying murder maid in Ranko. One of my favorites of the year.

Read my full review here.

Kaguya-sama: Love is War Season 3

The romantic comedy offers some slick animation and bombastic humor as always, while featuring some truly satisfying relationship development.

Read my full review here.

Mob Psycho 100 Season 3

The final season of one of the best anime of the last decade, it offers a perfect resolution to the offbeat relationship of young psychic Mob and his con-man mentor Reigen, while making a strong final statement on the series’ themes of power, identity, self-acceptance and deception.

Read my full review here.

The Executioner and Her Way of Life

In Menou’s world, kids dropping in from Japan and gaining incredible superpowers is a common occurrence. This rarely ends well, so it’s Menou’s job to murder these teens before they can become threats. But her latest target, Akari, has powers that make her unkillable- and she has feelings for Menou! What’s an assassin to do? A darker take on the isekai formula, the show is uneven in parts, but it’s a fun ride and most importantly, full of flawed, murderous women getting in cool fights and having romantic attention for each other. I gotta love it. The world has a ton of potential, so I hope this yuri action romp will get a follow up someday.

Read my full review here.

Birdie Wing: Golf Girls’ Story

A tough teenager is embroiled in an illegal golf ring run by the mafia- you heard me- and while navigating ridiculous obstacles and dirty tactics, she becomes smitten with a rival Japanese golfer named Aoi and wants nothing more than to see her again…

I debated on whether to include this because the second season is really going to dictate how I feel about it, but it made a hell of an impression, so I had to. After all, in the first episode alone, Eve hits a golf ball through a moving train while up against someone in a clown mask. A gloriously stupid and ludicrous take on golf that only anime could do, Birdie Wing makes the most of its low budget to give a unforgettable experience. Just please don’t do a “Eve and Aoi are secretly sisters” twist in Season 2.

Read my full review here.

Bonus anime I really enjoyed:

Aharen-san wa Hakaranai (Aharen is Impossible to Understand) is a very adorable, funny anime about two ridiculous kids finding each other and has a nice trans-positive treatment of one character,

 Shikimori’s not Just a Cutie (review here) is a cute anime about a soft-hearted boy and a very cool girl who date,

Ya Boy Kongming! is an anime about famous military strategist from the Three Kingdoms era suddenly finding himself in modern Japan. He comes across a talented but unknown singer and decided to put his gift for strategy to use in managing her singing career and helping her to the top. This is just plain fun, and has a really sweet (and shippable) female friendship at it’s core by the end.

And finally, Sasaki and Miyano (review here) is a slow paced but sweet romance between two boys.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

Tomorrow (November 29), I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

#15yrsago Peak Population: when will population growth stop, why, and how? https://www.alexsteffen.com/peak_population_and_sustainability

#15yrsago James Boyle’s “The Public Domain” — a brilliant copyfighter’s latest book, from a law prof who writes like a comedian https://memex.craphound.com/2008/11/29/james-boyles-the-public-domain-a-brilliant-copyfighters-latest-book-from-a-law-prof-who-writes-like-a-comedian/

#10yrsago NSA and Canadian spooks illegally spied on diplomats at Toronto G20 summit https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-snowden-docs-show-u-s-spied-during-g20-in-toronto-1.2442448

#10yrsago New CC licenses: tighter, shorter, more readable, more global https://creativecommons.org/Version4/

#10yrsago Berlusconi kicked out of Italian senate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/silvio-berlusconi-ousted-italian-parliament-tax-fraud-conviction

#5yrsago Sennheiser’s headphone drivers covertly changed your computer’s root of trust, leaving you vulnerable to undetectable attacks https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/sennheiser-headset-software-could-allow-man-in-the-middle-ssl-attacks/

#5yrsago New York City’s municipal debt collectors have forged an unholy alliance with sleazy subprime lenders https://www.bloomberg.com/confessions-of-judgment

#5yrsago Here’s how the Pentagon swindled Congress with $21 trillion worth of undocumented, untraceable, unaccounted for expenditures https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/pentagon-audit-budget-fraud/

#5yrsago The prosecutor who helped Jeffrey Epstein escape justice is now a Trump Cabinet member https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

#5yrsago Reddit takes a stand against the EU’s plan to break the internet https://www.redditinc.com/blog/the-eu-copyright-directive-what-redditors-in-europe-need-to-know/

#5yrsago The secret history of science fiction’s women writers: The Future is Female! https://memex.craphound.com/2018/11/29/the-secret-history-of-science-fictions-women-writers-the-future-is-female/

#5yrsago Redaction ineptitude reveals names of Proud Boys’ self-styled new leaders https://splinternews.com/proud-boys-failed-to-redact-their-new-dumb-bylaws-and-a-1830700905

#5yrsago Redaction ineptitude reveals Facebook’s 2012 plan to sell Graph API access to user data for $250,000 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/facebook-pondered-for-a-time-selling-access-to-user-data/

#5yrsago Google engineer calls for a walkout over China censorship and raises $200K strike fund in hours https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1068208484053856256

#5yrsago Correlates of Trump voting: searches for erectile dysfunction, hair loss, how to get girls, penis enlargement, penis size, steroids, testosterone and Viagra https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/

#5yrsago Google’s secret project to build a censored Chinese search engine bypassed the company’s own security and privacy teams https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/google-china-censored-search/

#5yrsago Mozilla pulls a popular paywall circumvention tool from Firefox add-ons store https://web.archive.org/web/20181130141509/https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox/issues/82

#1yrago The Big Four accounting firms are one (more) scandal away from collapse https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/29/great-andersens-ghost/#mene-mene-bezzle

[mandsleanan]

Sorry, parents: The American dream is only for DINKS

Homebuyers with kids will likely spend 66% of their income on a mortgage and childcare this year.

Parents in Los Angeles and San Diego can expect to spend as much as 121% and 113%, respectively.

Some Californians have moved across the country to afford to buy a home.

Thinking about buying a home this year with kids already in the picture? Get ready to dig deep.

A recent study from Zillow found that potential homebuyers with children are likely to spend 66% of their income on mortgage payments and childcare expenses — an increase of nearly 50% from 2019. 

The real-estate company estimated city- and state-level childcare costs from 2009 to 2022 for the typical American family with 1.94 children by analyzing data from the Women’s Bureau of the US Department of Labor and advocacy group Child Care Aware.

According to Zillow’s analysis, in 31 of the largest 50 US metropolitan areas with available childcare cost data, families looking to buy a home can expect to spend more than 60% of their income on mortgage and childcare costs.

Some areas are even costlier, with parents in cities like Los Angeles and San Diego needing to dedicate as much as 121% and 113%, respectively. (In those areas, the cost of buying a typical home and childcare is so big relative to the median income that Zillow's calculation results in figures over 100%.)

Zillow determined that a family earning a median household income of $6,640 per month can expect to allocate $1,984 of that to childcare. If the family purchased a house at a 6.61% interest rate — the rate in early January, when the US Department of Labor released its latest data on childcare costs — and made a 10% down payment, their monthly mortgage would amount to $1,973.

That leaves just $2,683 for additional expenses like food, transportation, and healthcare. This means many households with kids are financially strained; they're likely spending more than 30% of their income on housing, well above what experts recommend.

It all adds up to a costly reality that's making the American dream of homeownership seem farther out of reach for parents than ever before.

Parents can blame a yearslong battle with inflation, as well as stubbornly high home prices and mortgage rates, for contributing to their predicament.

Based on the study, a new buyer household in the United States, making the median income, would spend 30% of it on housing. It's paying for childcare, then, that adds so much on top of the housing budget.

The upshot: Another group, less encumbered financially, appears better poised to realize the dream of homeownership: "DINKS," an acronym that stands for "dual income, no kids."

Some child-free DINKS — who boast a median net worth above $200,000 according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances — devote their disposable income to luxuries like boats and expensive cars.

Without the financial obligations of raising children, such as covering medical expenses or enrolling them in daycare or private school, DINKS can save thousands of dollars a year and build greater long-term wealth.

Some DINKS use their savings to finance vacations and travel the world, like Elizabeth Johnson and her husband, who, over the past couple of years, have hiked in the Swiss Alps, snorkeled in Hawaii, and enjoyed leaf peeping in Canada.

"We hang out with other people's kids every once in a while," Johnson previously told Business Insider's Bartie Scott and Juliana Kaplan, "but then we happily just give them back to their parents."

Some Americans with kids move to places where their money goes further

One solution to the high cost of both buying a home and raising a family?

Move.

In recent years, young Americans in higher-cost states have decided to move to places that offer them a cheaper cost of living.

Janelle Crossan moved to New Braunfels, Texas, from Costa Mesa, California, in 2020 following a divorce.

She was able to become a first-time homebuyer and found a safe community to raise her son.

"I paid $1,750 for rent in a crappy little apartment in California," Crossan told BI earlier this year. "Now, three years later, my whole payment, including mortgage and property taxes, is $1,800 a month for my three-bedroom house."

Pengyu Cheng, a program manager for a tech company, told BI in 2023 that moving from California to Texas allowed him and his wife to afford their first home, giving them the confidence and security to have their first child.

"Living in California has always been expensive," Cheng said. "I knew that when my wife and I eventually expanded our family, we wouldn't be able to afford San Francisco or the Bay Area in general — even though we both earn good salaries."

[kp777]

By Damian Carrington, Environmental Editor

The Guardian

March 20, 2023

After a 10,000-year journey, human civilization has reached a climate crossroads: what we do in the next few years will determine our fate for millennia.

That choice is laid bare in the landmark report published on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), assembled by the world’s foremost climate experts and approved by all the world’s governments. The next update will be around 2030 – by that time the most critical choices will have been made.

The report is clear what is at stake – everything: “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.”

“The choices and actions implemented in this decade [ie by 2030] will have impacts now and for thousands of years,” it says. The climate crisis is already taking away lives and livelihoods across the world, and the report says the future effects will be even worse than was thought: “For any given future warming level, many climate-related risks are higher than [previously] assessed.”

“Continued emissions will further affect all major climate system components, and many changes will be irreversible on centennial to millennial time scales,” it says. To follow the path of least suffering – limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C – greenhouse gas emissions must peak “at the latest before 2025”, the report says, followed by “deep global reductions”. Yet in 2022, global emissions rose again to set a new record.

The 1.5C goal appears virtually out of reach, the IPCC says: “In the near-term, global warming is more likely than not to reach 1.5C even under a very low emission scenario.” A huge ramping up of work to protect people will therefore be needed. For example, “extreme sea level events” expected once a century today will strike at least once a year by 2100 in half of all monitored locations.

However, the faster emissions are cut, the better it will be for billions of people: “Adverse impacts and related losses and damages from climate change will escalate with every increment of global warming.” Every tonne of CO2 emissions prevented also reduces the risk of true catastrophe: “Abrupt and/or irreversible changes in the climate system, including changes triggered when tipping points are reached.”

The report presents the choice humanity faces in stark terms, made all the more chilling by the fact this is the compromise language agreed by all the world nations – many would go further if speaking alone. But it also presents the signposts to the path the world should and could take to secure that liveable future.

Amid the maze of detail set out in the thousands of pages of supporting documents, three of these signposts stand tallest. First is that the climate crisis is fundamentally a crisis of injustice: “The 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions contribute 34-45% of global consumption-based emissions, while the bottom 50% contribute 13-15%.” The climate emergency cannot end without addressing the inequalities of income and gender for the simple reason that “social trust” is required for “transformative change”.

The second signpost is that any new fossil fuel developments are utterly incompatible with the net zero emissions required. “Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C,” the report says.

Put plainly, that means the oil, gas and coal projects already in operation will blow our chance of limiting heating to 1.5C, unless some are shut down early or fitted with carbon capture technology that is yet to be proven to work at scale.

The third signpost points to the technology and finance that we need: “Feasible, effective, and low-cost options for [emissions cutting] and adaptation are already available.” Solar and wind power, energy efficiency, cuts in methane emissions and halting the destruction of forests are the key ones.

The report does not shy away from the daunting scale of the choices we need to make: “The systemic change required to achieve rapid and deep emissions reductions and transformative adaptation to climate change is unprecedented in terms of scale [and] near-term actions involve high up-front investments.”

The money is key but, the report says, “there is sufficient global capital to close the global investment gaps” if barriers to the redirection of financial flows are overcome. Furthermore, it says, the costs of climate action are clearly lower than the damages climate chaos will cause.

But there is also a gaping climate policy gap, between what is in place and what is needed: “Without a strengthening of policies, global warming of 3.2C is projected by 2100.” That is the “highway to hell”.

Three decades of IPCC warnings, mostly ignored, have brought us to the climate crossroads. As we stand there, perhaps this is the simplest way to state the choice set out by the IPCC for the world’s political and corporate leaders: what price a “sustainable and liveable future for all”?

[darkmaga-retard]

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its report for July, indicating a slight uptick in employment. It is difficult to trust BLS data after their latest data revision that showed the Biden-Harris Administration have failed to create new jobs outside of the public sector. It was their steepest revision to data since 2009, yet all eyes were on July’s report. The headlines are optimistic about the workforce but fail to note two main issues – manufacturing is declining while the public sector is rising.

Manufacturing appeared flat during Q1 but it has been on the decline ever since as corporations move their operations overseas to avoid US regulation and taxation. The Biden-Harris Administration pledged to attract 1 million new manufacturing jobs in 2024. They believe that the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will attract business and spent billions on these measures that have failed to produce a single job. Initial data claimed that manufacturing was soaring under Biden but that was only due to businesses reopening after the pandemic. The BLS first claimed Biden added 765,000 manufacturing jobs before revising that figure down by 115,000 but even that was completely inaccurate. Estimates now believe manufacturing sharply declined by 96,000 by mid-2022 and has been contracting ever since. The most recent report found that July shed 24,000 positions but we should expect this figure to be optimistic.

Trump added 462,000 to the sector during his first two years before it declined by 43,000 during 2019. The COVID lockdowns caused the sector to plummet by 1.4 million jobs, 770,000 positions were later recovered before Trump left office but there was a net loss of 188,000 positions by the end of Trump’s term.

The White House promotes the manufacturing propaganda on its website:

“While our work isn’t finished, Bidenomics is already delivering for the American people. Our economy has added more than 13 million jobs—including nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs—and we’ve unleashed a manufacturing and clean energy boom.”

Admittedly, the sector was always beginning to see problems before Biden took office, however, Biden then spent hundreds of billions on acts to attract manufacturing and they ALL failed. BIDENOMICS HAS FAILED.

The White House paints a different picture:

“None of this progress was an accident or inevitable—it has been a direct result of Bidenomics. And rather than taking us back to the failed trickle-down policies of the past, President Biden is committed to finishing the job and continuing to build an economy that finally works for working families—with better jobs, lower costs, and more opportunity.”

Then we have the growing public sector that multiplied under Biden-Harris. The public sector added an additional 24,000 positions in July. Biden openly stated that he wanted to expand the government by at least 82,000 positions in FY24 and this seems to be the one promise he made good on. Every federal agency received a budget boost for this fiscal year with an emphasis on increasing the Treasury Department.

Bidenomics has failed and businesses continue to flee overseas. America is beginning to see a recession in manufacturing at a time when the US needs to produce more. Instead, we are wasting countless resources by growing government to the highest level since World War II. The proper way to analyze this jobs report is to view it as expenses rising and production declining. This will contribute to the coming stagflation that we will see in this economy as GDP declines.

[redsamuraiii]

What to Do With the Dead Kaiju? (2022) *spoilers*

Life in Japan changes drastically when a Kaiju appeared and rampaged through cities before it died mysteriously. While people rejoice and bask in relief, the giant corpse left behind begins to slowly rot and bloat, as government and military officials are concerned with something new they do not understand.

While the Self Defence Force which normally handles national crisis like natural disasters, they are ill equipped to handle something of alien nature. A ‘Special Forces’ consisting of scientific and combat experts was formed as a task force to handle the studies and safe disposal of the Kaiju. 

The Prime Minister declares a state of emergency for the safety of everyone asking people to stay indoors as much as possible as there are still things about the Kaiju that is unknown such as the increasing thermal temperature of the Kaiju and the presence of contagious fungus around the remains.

Three years later, the scientific research is still underway and the people have grown restless from the home quarantine issues and protests against the government for the military draft of its citizens to combat a possible Kaiju threat as many soldiers have died during the first incursion.

The government is facing an economic crisis facing budget constraints to rebuild its country from the destruction of the Kaiju attack and after three years of isolation that some of its cabinet propose that the Kaiju remains be used as a tourist attraction for people around the world to cover the costs of recovery.

Arata Obinata (Yamada Ryosuke) of the Special Forces is assigned as the commander of the clean up operations and work alongside his former team member and love interest, Yukino Amane (Tao Tsuchiya) who now works for the Department of Health as the Kaiju remains now falls under her jurisdiction.

Yukino is still perplexed by Arata’s disappearance three years ago, the same time the Kaiju dies. Further investigation revealed that a mysterious asteroid-like light hit the Kaiju which might have killed it, the same light Yukino went to investigate which caused her to be dismissed from the Special Forces.

Arata is defensive everytime Yukino tries to probe his past sensing that something is at play. Yukino began to learn of rumours of a “Chosen One” which was said to have killed the Kaiju, a mysterious being of light, which was revealed later at the end to be Arata. 

It’s meant to be a comedy parody of Tokusatsu genre like Shin Godzilla and Shin Ultraman. A film that is not meant to be taken seriously, although the film does have its potential to be a serious one like Shin Godzilla. The depiction of the Special Forces is similar to SSSP of Shin Ultraman.

We’ve seen countless Kaiju films that show Kaiju rampaging through the cities and humans fighting back by conventional means or using Jaegers (Pacific Rim) or relying on another mysterious being (Shin Ultraman). But none of them focus on the aftermath and the logistical challenges of the clean up operations.

The one aspect of this film that I find to be actually interesting where you see the government officials debating issues from finance, health, foreign affairs and military operations to safely dispose of the Kaiju remains and the budget constraints for such a massive operations and to rebuild its destroyed cities.

Although there are certain jokes made by the Prime Minister and his cabinet which I find excessive and unnecessary, the plot is actually good. It’s clear that the film is heavily influenced by the latest Shin Godzilla and Shin Ultraman. I honestly did not expect that ending with a silhouette of an Ultraman-like being.

Nonetheless, it’s a fun show to watch. I like how they portray the unglamorous part of cleaning up, the ground crews, engineers and soldiers involved while waiting for the slow replies of the government, giving you a glimpse of how such people are involved in the clean up operations after every natural disaster.

The first bit of the movie reminds me of when Covid-19 pandemic first started where the world appears to stopped for a moment where everyone stayed home, people were panicking and hoarding items from the grocery stores, people protesting, and soldiers being activated to assist in lockdowns. 

[mariacallous]

After decades of strategic drift and costly acquisition failures, the U.S. Navy is sailing straight into a storm it can’t avoid. Despite the Defense Department’s lip service about China being the “pacing challenge,” decades of deindustrialization and policymakers’ failure to prioritize among services and threats have left the Navy ill-equipped to endure a sustained high-intensity conflict in the Pacific. The United States is unable to keep pace with Chinese shipbuilding and will fall even further behind in the coming years. Where does that leave the U.S. Navy and the most critical U.S. foreign-policy imperative: deterring a war in the Pacific?

As evidenced by the Biden administration’s latest budget request, fiscal constraints are forcing the Navy to cut procurement requests, delay modernization programs, and retire ships early. The Navy’s budget for the 2025 fiscal year calls for decommissioning 19 ships—including three nuclear-powered attack submarines and four guided-missile cruisers—while procuring only six new vessels. The full scope of what military analysts have long warned would be the “Terrible ’20s” is now evident: The expensive upgrading of the U.S. nuclear triad, simultaneous modernization efforts across the services, and the constraint of rising government debt are compelling the Pentagon to make tough choices about what it can and cannot pay for.

Workforce shortages and supply chain issues are also limiting shipbuilding capacity. The defense industrial base is still struggling to recover from post-Cold War budget cuts that dramatically shrank U.S. defense manufacturing. The Navy needs more shipyard capacity, but finding enough qualified workers for the yards remains the biggest barrier to expanding production. The shipbuilding industry is struggling to attract talent, losing out to fast food restaurants that offer better pay and benefits for entry-level employees. At bottom, it is a lack of welders, not widgets, that must be overcome if the U.S. Navy is to grow its fleet.

Instead, the shipbuilding outlook is progressively worsening. An internal review ordered by Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro in January found that major programs, including submarines and aircraft carriers, face lengthy delays. Even the Constellation-class frigates, touted as a quick adaptation of a proven European design, are delayed by three years.

As defense analyst David Alman outlined in a prize-winning essay for the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings, the United States simply can’t win a warship race with China. The United States effectively gave up on commercial shipbuilding during the Reagan administration in the name of free trade. In the decades that followed, generous state subsidies helped China dominate commercial shipbuilding, and Beijing’s requirement that the sector be dual-use resulted in an industry that can shift to production and ship repair for the military during a conflict, much as U.S. shipyards did during World War II. The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimates that China now has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States. China built almost half the world’s new ships in 2022, whereas U.S. shipyards produced just 0.13 percent.

Rebuilding the arsenal of democracy that anchored the U.S. victory at sea 80 years ago won’t happen overnight or cheaply—it is a generational project. The 20-year Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program aimed at upgrading dry docks, facilities, and equipment will end up costing well over the projected $21 billion. But the plan is only intended to maximize existing U.S. industrial capacity and won’t do much to close the enormous shipbuilding gap with China. That would require a reconstitution program on par with the series of maritime laws passed after World War I, which supported the expansion of an industrial base eventually capable of turning out thousands of carriers, destroyers, submarines, frigates, and cargo ships for the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.

Realizing that U.S. shipyards are stretched thin, policymakers have begun looking abroad. Del Toro encouraged South Korean companies to invest in U.S. naval shipping during a visit this year. Japan will likely begin performing repair and maintenance work on U.S. warships soon; India agreed to do so last year. These initiatives will alleviate the increasing maintenance backlog at U.S. facilities, but it would take a large share of the combined Japanese and South Korean shipyard capacity to fundamentally alter the growing disparity between the U.S. and Chinese fleet size in the Western Pacific.

Ships are not all comparable, of course. U.S. warships are heavier and more capable than China’s, although a dearth of logistics vessels and sealift capability are major concerns. Still, the current era of missile warfare has magnified the importance of fleet size.

Without enough ships to match the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, what can the United States do to maintain conventional deterrence in the Pacific and prevent war? At least two big things: buy missiles and cut back on missions.

First, to manage risk in the short term, the Navy and the other services need to rapidly procure more munitions—focusing on weapons and capabilities, not the platforms that carry them.

The Russia-Ukraine war has military planners thinking less about short, quick conflicts and more about long wars and their vast need for materiel. What holds for depleted stocks of land-based artillery also holds for many of the weapons needed for a war at sea. A much-publicized 2023 wargame conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that the United States would run out of its entire inventory of the key Long Range Anti-Ship Missile within the first few days of a war over Taiwan. Ramping up the procurement and production of these munitions, as well as Joint Strike Missiles, Standoff Land Attack Missiles, and Harpoon missiles will enable U.S. airpower to help even the odds in the Pacific.

Anti-ship systems operated by the Army and Marines could also complement the other services’ firepower. However, the deployment of ground-based missiles will require allies’ consent. To date, no Asian allies of the United States have volunteered to permanently host U.S. missile batteries, due to political sensitivities and the fact that these countries already have such weapons of their own.

Innovation and creativity could further augment U.S. naval power. Retired U.S. Marine Col. T.X. Hammes, a fellow at the National Defense University, has urged the Navy to convert commercial container ships into warships capable of launching missiles, which would add a tremendous volume of firepower at a bargain price. These “missile merchants” would also require significantly less manpower than traditional warships do, a major consideration given the Navy’s struggle to fill existing billets.

Policymakers also need to make hard choices and limit naval deployments. Though the Navy is shrinking, its missions aren’t. A high operational tempo, manpower shortfalls, and an aging fleet are fueling a readiness crisis that is burning out sailors and ships.

Addressing the readiness crisis requires taking a hard look at which missions are essential for U.S. security and which aren’t. As former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work has written, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Navy has spent 30 years prioritizing global presence over warfighting readiness. The deadly Pacific ship accidents in 2017 involving the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain were directly attributable to this unsustainable mania for global presence, according to a Navy review.

The preeminence of presence missions also has more subtle consequences. After 20 years of largely uncontested deployments to the Middle East, the U.S. Navy now has an opponent who shoots back: Yemen’s Houthis. But increased experience in missile and drone defense is outweighed by a deleterious drain on precision munitions. In the conflict with the Houthis, the Navy burned through more Tomahawk land attack missiles in one day than it purchased in all of 2023. Meanwhile, the Houthis can replace all equipment destroyed by U.S. attacks with just two shiploads from Iran, according to Gen. Michael Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command.

The costs of maintaining global presence are magnified by the state of Navy recruiting and retention. The service’s recruiting woes are undeniable. The Navy missed all of its recruiting goals in 2023, some by as much as 35 percent. The service projects a shortfall of 6,700 recruits this year, according to its chief personnel officer.

Like the rest of the all-volunteer force, unprecedented recruiting headwinds mean manpower shortages will remain a persistent challenge for the Navy. Absent any change in operational tempo, sailors will work harder, deploy more frequently, and leave the service in greater numbers—ensuring a downward spiral for both manning and readiness.

The United States can’t match the size of China’s fleet in the near or medium term. Deindustrialization, poor procurement choices, and a myopic fixation on the U.S. presence in the Middle East have seen to that. All that said, the U.S. Navy still retains several significant advantages in a potential conflict with China: submarine dominance, overall tonnage, blue-water experience, and support from capable allies. A major increase in joint munitions purchases and an end to the readiness drain of presence deployments to secondary theaters will enhance the Navy’s edge during the potential peak window for a Chinese move on Taiwan over the next decade. The alternative is grim. If conventional deterrence fails, it risks military defeat for the United States or something even more dangerous: nuclear confrontation between the world’s two superpowers.

[beguines]

On Tuesday, the AFL-CIO hosted its second annual "State of the Unions" Labor Day event. According to Liz Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, unions are "on the rise," "battle-tested," and "building organizing capacity" like never before. Maybe, but what do the data really tell us about the health and vibrancy of organized labor in 2024 and its nascent efforts to reverse forty years of decline? Let's look at four key metrics: organizing new workers, collective bargaining and strikes, union finances, and labor democracy and governance.

1. "We're organizing like never before!"

"We're organizing like never before!" That's what the AFL-CIO says, but is it accurate? While data is not readily available for public sector workers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) tracks the number of workers involved in union elections in the private sector. In 2023, approximately 93,000 workers participated in an election for union representation, up from 63,000 workers in 2022. And 2024 is on pace for approximately 107,000 workers voting on union representation.

The increase in union representation elections is encouraging, but if you step back and look at the number of elections in relation to total employment, the challenge becomes clearer. In 2023, the 93,000 workers participating in union elections represented just 0.09% of the 108.4 million production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector. In 2024, the percentage is projected to be about 0.10% of all workers. In other words, only one-tenth of one percent of eligible U.S. workers in the private sector are getting the opportunity to vote for a union. This pace of organizing is not enough to keep up with employment growth, let alone meaningfully increase union density in the private sector (i.e. the percentage of all workers represented by a union).

Looking at the historical data, it's harder to support the contention that labor is "organizing like never before." The 2023-2024 election rate of 0.09-0.10% is just a smidge higher than the 2010 decade and significantly lags the average election rate of 0.17% in the 2000 decade.

But imagine if labor put on its seventies bell-bottom jeans and started organizing one percent of eligible workers as unions did in the 1970s, not the current one-tenth of one-percent rate. Instead of 107,000 workers voting for a union in 2024, the number would be more like 1.1 million workers.

Why isn’t this happening, given the upsurge in worker interest in unions? It isn't a funding issue, as labor has over $35 billion in net assets (see below). My take is that the existing labor leadership — many of whom have never committed to a robust organizing program to begin with — continue to believe that organizing is futile unless labor law is reformed. This entrenched belief is held even though unions are winning three-quarters of union elections under Biden's revamped NLRB.

Secondarily, unions are justifiably worried about obtaining first contracts for newly organized workers (exhibit A: Starbucks) and concerned that the NLRB is too underfunded to process higher levels of worker petitions for elections. On the last point, the NLRB budget is currently about $300 million, but the agency says "we really need over $400 million." The irony is labor has plenty of cash—$35 billion in net assets—to bridge the budget shortfall until Congress can pass appropriate funding.

According to the latest Gallup poll, approval of unions is at the highest level since the 1960s, yet only one-tenth of one percent of workers in the private sector got the chance to vote for a union. Labor should translate the popular support into action by pledging to give one million workers an opportunity to vote on union representation in 2025.

2. Strike Wave or Strike Blip?

Through June 2024, total compensation for union workers is up 6% year over year, while non-union workers have only seen a 3.6% increase over the same period. That's the good news.

The disappointing news is the strike "wave" of 2023 appears to be a blip rather than an emerging trend. In 2023, approximately 459,000 workers went on strike, including 50,000 UAW members at the Big 3 automakers and 160,000 SAG-AFTRA members employed by the entertainment industry. Through late August 2024, approximately 106,000 workers have been on strike, significantly lagging the 2023 total strike numbers. While additional union contracts are expiring in the fall—most notably the Machinists and Boeing—it is likely that 2024 will fall short of the 2023 strike numbers.

Looking at strikes as a percentage of the non-farm workforce, the Red for Ed strikes of 2018-2019 and the 2023 strikes were the largest strikes dating back to 2000, representing about one-third of one percent of the total workforce. However, as with the organizing data, the 1970s were marked by a vastly higher proportion of workers on strike as a percentage of the workforce, reaching nearly two percent of all employees. If two percent of workers went on strike today, roughly 3.1 million would be picketing. Attending all of those picket lines would surely be a travel nightmare for the presidential candidates and faux populists rushing to attend.

3. Union Finances: "Up-Up and Away"

While the organizing and strike data are not breaking historical records, union finances are another story. As I've written here, here, and here, organized labor continues to amass a staggering cache of cash and investments. Net assets (assets minus liabilities) grew $2.6 billion in 2023, from $32.7 billion in 2022 to $35.3 billion in 2023. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Affairs, union dues are up $871 million as of June 2024, likely continuing the trend of asset growth in 2024.

While labor's net assets have risen 225% since 2010, membership has declined by 1.8 million workers. I call this state of affairs Finance Unionism, where unions spend less on organizing and strikes than they bring in membership dues and investment income, investing the surplus in the financial markets.

No union has contested this data, and to my knowledge, no union has gone on record to explain the rationale for stockpiling assets rather than investing in organizing and strikes. Is any enterprising labor reporter in the house willing to ask the question (besides Hamilton Nolan)?

Union Democracy and Governance in 2024

Who makes the critical strategic decisions for organized labor? Who decides whether to invest union assets in the financial markets rather than organizing and strike activity? That would be the elected labor leadership. While the election of union leaders is formally democratic, the practice of union democracy is far from ideal.

As I've written here and here, the vast majority of top union officers are not directly elected by the members, and very few leaders face contested or competitive elections. In my view, the lack of substantive debate and member participation is a failure of democratic governance (for an alternative view, see this editorial). The 2024 conventions at some of the largest unions in the U.S. confirm this trend:

SEIU, 1,845,500 members: Mary Kay Henry stepped down in 2024 after serving fourteen years as president. April Verrett won the top position with 99.4% of the delegate vote. Many of the delegates to the convention were superdelegates — i.e., elected local officers who automatically became delegates without a membership vote.

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 1,732,808 members. Randi Weingarten, the AFT President since 2008, was reelected to another term without any public opposition. Besides Douglas McCarron of the Carpenters (who has served for thirty years), Weingarten is the longest-tenured labor leader in the U.S.

AFSCME, 1,248,681 members: Lee Saunders, elected President in 2012, was reelected by the delegates by acclamation (i.e., no challenger) to another four-year term. By the end of his term, Saunders will have served for 16 years.

AFGE, 313,108 members: Everett Kelley, President of the union since 2020, faced a contested election at the convention, winning with 59% of the delegate vote.

UNITE HERE, 264,334 members: Taking over for President D. Taylor (my old boss), Gwen Mills was elected by delegates in an uncontested election.

Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), 45,500 members: Despite President Sara Nelson's endorsement of a resolution calling for direct elections of officers, the CWA-AFA Board of Directors voted against the constitutional change.

Of the large unions with a convention in 2024, only AFGE had a competitive election. The remaining unions—representing 5.1 million members and over a third of all union members—had no contested or competitive elections for the top leadership posts.

Labor Law Reform Version 4.0

With the relatively low organizing numbers and waning strike wave, what is the strategy of organized labor to reverse the decades-long decline? You won't find any coherent plan outlined by the AFL-CIO, but it is the same strategy pursued for decades: reform labor law. It was the strategy of the 1990s (the Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act), the strategy of 2008 (the Employee Free Choice Act), the strategy of 2020 (the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act), and it is the strategy of 2024.

Of course, labor law reform is vitally important, and it should be labor's top legislative priority. But if Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, and if Democrats control Congress, Harris will have to overcome a certain filibuster in the Senate and wavering support from "moderate" Democrats facing unified opposition from employers. This is the traditional graveyard for labor law reform, but hopefully, a labor movement riding on a crest of popularity can transform the vibes into a legislative accomplishment.

The problem, however, is that labor's legislative strategy has an expiration date. As long as labor's share of the workforce continues to decline (5.8 million members lost since 1980 and counting), its political power also decreases. In 1980, one out of four voters was from a union household. In 2020, union households represented only 15.8% of voters.

Yes, organized labor should go all in for labor law reform, using every ounce of political capital to pass the legislation. To win, it will require subsuming the parochial political agendas of the sixty different unions to this one demand. But if the Democratic Party balks at reform as it has in the past, or if Trump wins a second term, then labor will need a backup plan. Ultimately, changing the political dynamic and forcing a new compromise between labor and capital will require unions to draw on their most potent source of power: workers withholding their labor and disrupting production and the economy.

[anumberofhobbies]

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/gov-walz-budget-proposal-seeks-6-3m-for-emerging-long-covid-crisis

Hmm, dunno why that won't make a link. Anyway,

Gov. Walz budget proposal seeks $6.3M for emerging long COVID crisis

The funding is proposed to raise awareness for the condition and improve the availability and quality of care.

Christine Schuster

Mar 29, 2023

"It is also critical that providers are up to date on the latest research, treatments and best practices so that Minnesotans have access to the care and services they need to reduce the impact of long COVID on their lives," he stated. ... In a news release, the agency said the team of 20 clinicians will meet monthly to discuss new research, treatment and current practices in hopes of developing strategies to educate medical providers and improve the access and quality of long COVID care. In a statement, State Epidemiologist Dr. Ruth Lynfield said clinicians report there is currently very little communication among care providers when it comes to long COVID. “We still have a lot to learn about long COVID," she said. "But laying the groundwork to expand awareness about the emerging evidence and the available treatments is an important first step toward improving outcomes for those suffering from the impacts of long COVID.” To better understand the lasting effects of COVID on the lives of Minnesotans, MDH has also launched two post-COVID surveys – one statewide and one in McLeod County. Those survey results are expected to be released later this year and could help the state take further action to address long COVID. ... Emerging evidence suggests that COVID can have lasting effects on nearly every organ and organ system of the body weeks, months, and potentially years after infection, the guidance states. Documented serious post-COVID conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death. A CDC analysis last year found that long COVID contributed to more than 3,500 deaths in the U.S. from the beginning of 2020 through June 2022.

[planetarypan]

The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope just scored another first: a molecular and chemical portrait of a distant world’s skies. While Webb and other space telescopes, including the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, have previously revealed isolated ingredients of this heated planet’s atmosphere, the new readings provide a full menu of atoms, molecules, and even signs of active chemistry and clouds. The latest data also give a hint of how these clouds might look up close: broken up rather than as a single, uniform blanket over the planet.

The exoplanet in question - WASP-39b - is a "hot Saturn", meaning it's about the size of Saturn in our own solar system but orbits very close to the parent star, WASP-39. In fact, the orbit is smaller than that of Mercury!

We have been waiting for a full analysis of the atmosphere of WASP-39b ever since it was previewed during the first image release of JWST's data back in July 2022. And this news, which came to me in the form of about 10 separate press releases involving five different papers, did not disappoint.

Webb’s exquisitely sensitive instruments have provided a profile of WASP-39 b’s atmospheric constituents and identified a plethora of contents, including water, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, sodium, and potassium.

Look at that list! And that's just a few of the molecules identified. The sulfur dioxide alone is worth its weight in research gold since we've never found it in an exoplanet atmosphere. Here, it is produced by photochemical reactions, similar to how ozone is produced in Earth's atmosphere. Scientists are working on models of this process going forward.

These results are incredibly promising for future studies of other exoplanets, including those within the TRAPPIST-1 system. That particular system has small, rocky planets that exist in their star's habitable zone, where liquid water is possible. They're considered some of the best potentially habitable exoplanets found to date... and now we know we can get a glimpse of their atmospheres.

For all JWST drove the budgets of the astrophysics community to a halt and caused massive amounts of stress for everyone involved, our newest space telescope is already proving its worth.

[msclaritea]

White-Collar Recession: It's Hard to Find a High-Salary Job

Over the past year or so, pretty much everyone who's looked for a job has told me the same thing: The job market is brutal right now. They've applied to dozens if not hundreds of openings, only to get one or two callbacks. No one's hiring, they tell me. I've never seen it this bad.

Listening to them, you'd think we were in the middle of a recession. But the confusing thing is we're nowhere close to one. Unemployment is near a five-decade low. The economy is adding hundreds of thousands of jobs each month. Wages are growing faster than inflation. By all the standard measures, the job market is doing just fine. So why am I hearing such a different story from people on the ground?

The dissonance finally started to make sense to me when Vanguard, the investment-management company, released its latest report on hiring. By looking at the enrollment and contribution rates of its 401(k) retirement plans, Vanguard is able to calculate a national hiring rate broken down by income level. And what the numbers show is a two-tier job market — one divided between a blue-collar boom and a white-collar recession.

Among Vanguard's lowest earners — those who make less than $55,000 — the hiring rate has held up well. At 1.5%, it's still above pre-pandemic levels. But among those who make more than $96,000? It's pretty depressing. Hiring has slowed to a dismal 0.5%, less than half the peak it reached in mid-2022. Excluding the dip in the early months of the pandemic, that's the worst it's been since 2014. If you make a six-figure salary, it really is a bad time to be looking for a job.

The question here is why. Why are companies hiring so few white-collar workers right now? Several possible explanations come to mind. It might be that fewer people in corporate jobs are quitting right now, which would mean companies have fewer openings they need to fill. It might be that the industries that are struggling the most — tech and finance — are the ones that employ a lot of high-earning professionals. Or it might be that CEOs are making good on their threats to cut back on what they see as corporate bloat — what Mark Zuckerberg has called "managers managing managers, managing managers, managing managers, managing the people who are doing the work."

But there could be a bigger, more worrisome explanation for the downturn in white-collar hiring. Maybe companies are anticipating tough times ahead and trimming their budgets accordingly. "If you need to pull back on costs," says Fiona Greig, the global head of investor research and policy at Vanguard, "pulling back on expensive workers will reduce costs to a greater extent than pulling back on your lower-income workers." Translation: The more you earn when budgets are tight, the less an employer wants to hire you.

Now, you could argue that a slowdown in white-collar hiring doesn't really matter in the current economy, even for white-collar workers. Sure, Vanguard's data show that things are tough for professionals who are looking for a job. But there aren't that many people who actually need a new job right now: The unemployment rate for people with a college degree is 2.1%, and the national layoff rate is below what it was pre-pandemic. When the vast majority of professionals already have a job — and are able to keep their jobs — maybe it's OK that companies aren't hiring.

But that argument doesn't take into account one important factor: What if the job you have is one you hate? I have several friends who are unhappy in their current jobs, but they can't quit because no one is hiring. Some observers have called this combination of lower hiring and less quitting "the Big Stay," suggesting a kind of equilibrium after the chaos of the Great Resignation. But my colleague Emily Stewart has a better name for it: the "trapped in place" economy. I think professionals feel this trapped-in-placeness particularly acutely. After all, it wasn't that long ago that they were enjoying a "take this job and shove it" swagger, which was fun to watch. During the Great Resignation, they knew it'd be easy to find a new job, which meant it'd be easy to walk away from their current one. Even if they weren't planning to leave, the job market gave them a sense of freedom — the feeling that they no longer had to put up with a bad boss, or a brutal workload, or an arbitrary return-to-office mandate.

This, I think, is what explains what people are calling the "vibecession": the weird state of feeling like we're in a recession even though all the standard metrics show we're not. What we're experiencing is actually a slowdown in white-collar hiring — and white-collar professionals (me and my angsty friends) are the people who shape the public discourse about the economy. "People feel that things are moving in the wrong direction," says Guy Berger, the director of economic research at the Burning Glass Institute, which analyzes the labor market.

And for the most elite professionals, things could get worse before they get better. Berger tells me he doesn't expect a full-on recession anytime soon. But he's keeping an eye on the unemployment rate for people with advanced degrees. Pretty much everyone else is doing OK, job-wise — but there's been a slight uptick for all the smarty-pants with master's degrees and doctorates. They aren't exactly struggling right now. "We're still talking about the people that have the highest pay in the job market and the lowest unemployment rate," Berger says. But for them, hiring is headed in the wrong direction. And as AI tools increasingly encroach on professionals' tasks — writing, coding, coordination, analysis — we'll likely see a lot more weakness at the higher end of the income scale than at the lower end.

This isn't the story we're used to hearing about employment. For decades the economy has been leaving workers with lower incomes and less education behind while professionals have reaped all the gains. But now those roles are reversed, and it's the high earners who are taking the hit. No wonder everyone is confused about how the economy is doing. "We're having some trouble collectively digesting that," Berger says. And the longer the white-collar hiring lull continues, he warns, the more the resentment will build.

"Even if there's no big surge in layoffs, people are just going to get grumpier and more dissatisfied," Berger says. "If it continues for three or four more years, it's going to cause a lot of discontent and low morale in corporate America."

SO?