That aside, my own thoughts on our recent worst presidents is that Trump merely never had the opportunity (partly due to his own poor work ethic) to seize the kind of power W Bush had. Bush enjoyed unprecedented popularity for a modern president post 9/11, and this allowed him and the party to push through much of their agenda without pushback for several years. Not since FDR has a president enjoyed that kind of an opportunity, imo.
So he was able to accomplish alot more than Trump, which inevitably means he did a lot more consequential bad stuff than Trump. But you put Trump in that same position, and he plays that hand much, much worse.
@DinoDin This is very much a subjective thing, but I hold Trump as the worst president by far simply due to the sheer number of American deaths that can be laid at his feet. We still haven't recovered, and there's no telling how long it will take to recover, due in no small part to the OTHER things Trump has lit a fire under.
That aside, my own thoughts on our recent worst presidents is that Trump merely never had the opportunity (partly due to his own poor work ethic) to seize the kind of power W Bush had. Bush enjoyed unprecedented popularity for a modern president post 9/11, and this allowed him and the party to push through much of their agenda without pushback for several years. Not since FDR has a president enjoyed that kind of an opportunity, imo.
So he was able to accomplish alot more than Trump, which inevitably means he did a lot more consequential bad stuff than Trump. But you put Trump in that same position, and he plays that hand much, much worse.
I personally don’t think George W is even in the bottom 10 from a historical and outside point of view, but I do respect the views of people who have a recency bias as his actions directly led to making their life worse.
I think it really depends on how you decide to interpret the impact of Trump vs Bush.
Bush was president for 8 years and ushered in the worst recession in modern American history. He got us into not one but two pretty awful wars.
Trump was less effective in pursuing his agenda due to his own incompetance, but he has been far, far, far more dangerous to fundamental American democratic norms. He has put the GOP onto a path that could legitimately reshape our system of governance in undemocratic ways
Add that + his dealing with Covid, and I dont really have any issue saying Trump was a much worse president in the grand scheme of things. I would say orders of magnitude worse, with the potential to be a catalyzing figure in ways we have yet to fathom.
I think it really depends on how you decide to interpret the impact of Trump vs Bush.
Bush was president for 8 years and ushered in the worst recession in modern American history. He got us into not one but two pretty awful wars.
Trump was less effective in pursuing his agenda due to his own incompetance, but he has been far, far, far more dangerous to fundamental American democratic norms. He has put the GOP onto a path that could legitimately reshape our system of governance in undemocratic ways
Add that + his dealing with Covid, and I dont really have any issue saying Trump was a much worse president in the grand scheme of things. I would say orders of magnitude worse, with the potential to be a catalyzing figure in ways we have yet to fathom.
Agreed, one key factor in the evaluation is that we have not yet had the time to see what this anti-democracy movement becomes. We're already seeing prominent California Republicans running the same playbook as Trump with baseless questioning of the election, before it even happens. The movement is also taking off internationally too, as we're seeing in Brazil.
But yeah, I'm willing to believe that's something that could become more consequential than the bungled War on Terror.
I think it really depends on how you decide to interpret the impact of Trump vs Bush.
Bush was president for 8 years and ushered in the worst recession in modern American history. He got us into not one but two pretty awful wars.
Trump was less effective in pursuing his agenda due to his own incompetance, but he has been far, far, far more dangerous to fundamental American democratic norms. He has put the GOP onto a path that could legitimately reshape our system of governance in undemocratic ways
Add that + his dealing with Covid, and I dont really have any issue saying Trump was a much worse president in the grand scheme of things. I would say orders of magnitude worse, with the potential to be a catalyzing figure in ways we have yet to fathom.
Agreed, one key factor in the evaluation is that we have not yet had the time to see what this anti-democracy movement becomes. We're already seeing prominent California Republicans running the same playbook as Trump with baseless questioning of the election, before it even happens. The movement is also taking off internationally too, as we're seeing in Brazil.
But yeah, I'm willing to believe that's something that could become more consequential than the bungled War on Terror.
Larry Elder's campaign already links to a site that says "the election is over, here is the evidence of fraud". The election isn't over til tomorrow night.
While we're on the subject, the California recall law needs to see the dustbin of history. It's absurd. If the incumbent doesn't get 50% of the vote, the NEXT highest vote-getter takes office. Even if the incumbent beats them by 30 points.
Bob Woodward continues to hold blockbuster information for his books long past the point where it would be incredibly relevant for the public to know (you'll recall Woodward had tapes of Trump admitting how serious COVID-19 was while downplaying it in public). This time, it allowed the rehabilitation of Mike Pence, who, it turns out, was actually desperately seeking ANY excuse to acquiesce to Trump's demands to block certification. Apparently what stopped him was......a phone call with Dan Quayle. What a world.
Bob Woodward continues to hold blockbuster information for his books long past the point where it would be incredibly relevant for the public to know (you'll recall Woodward had tapes of Trump admitting how serious COVID-19 was while downplaying it in public). This time, it allowed the rehabilitation of Mike Pence, who, it turns out, was actually desperately seeking ANY excuse to acquiesce to Trump's demands to block certification. Apparently what stopped him was......a phone call with Dan Quayle. What a world.
I'm not sure I agree with this take all that much. I'm not sure that releasing the information the second they had it would have made a very big difference in most of those cases.
The news cycles were pretty well in overdrive during every one of those events. Adding one more headline probably wouldnt have meant a great deal. Furthermore, the Trump administration had become experts on labeling any kind of bad news as "fake news", and would have just claimed it was all fake news and moved on immediately.
I can maybe agree with the COVID bit, although yet again, I dont think it would have actually resulted in anything differently other than a few headlines on CNN and MSNBC.
Bob Woodward continues to hold blockbuster information for his books long past the point where it would be incredibly relevant for the public to know (you'll recall Woodward had tapes of Trump admitting how serious COVID-19 was while downplaying it in public). This time, it allowed the rehabilitation of Mike Pence, who, it turns out, was actually desperately seeking ANY excuse to acquiesce to Trump's demands to block certification. Apparently what stopped him was......a phone call with Dan Quayle. What a world.
I'm not sure I agree with this take all that much. I'm not sure that releasing the information the second they had it would have made a very big difference in most of those cases.
The news cycles were pretty well in overdrive during every one of those events. Adding one more headline probably wouldnt have meant a great deal. Furthermore, the Trump administration had become experts on labeling any kind of bad news as "fake news", and would have just claimed it was all fake news and moved on immediately.
I can maybe agree with the COVID bit, although yet again, I dont think it would have actually resulted in anything differently other than a few headlines on CNN and MSNBC.
I agree it wouldn't have made a difference in anyone's opinions since all the revelations are just new anecdotes confirming things we saw many times over during those 4 years. But it's hard to shake the conclusion that Woodward is more interested in selling books than providing vital information to the public.
Took 15 minutes after the polls closed. The recent claims about this being the result of "voter fraud" shows how cynically Republicans are playing this game. As if the only way the incumbent Governor of California can get 50% of the vote is by nefarious tactics. No one pushing these claims believe them, I'm not even sure the people swallowing them do. They are trotting it out to undermine faith in democracy itself, and setting the stage for excuses to do away with it. Nevermind the fact the state was forced to spend a quarter billion dollars in the middle of a pandemic so the GOP could have their ass served to them on a silver platter.
A major "reason" Newsom faced this challenge was his stance on COVID-19 restrictions, and, once again, we see how comically out of step the base of the Republican Party is on this issue compared to the ENTIRE rest of the population. They continue to want to walk this tightrope of being "pro-freedom" (whatever the hell that even means) while also not being labeled as anti-mask or anti-vaxx and it just isn't going to work. When you go out of your way to cater to lunatics, you are going to be seen as emboldening them at best, and actively encouraging their behavior at worst.
Bob Woodward continues to hold blockbuster information for his books long past the point where it would be incredibly relevant for the public to know (you'll recall Woodward had tapes of Trump admitting how serious COVID-19 was while downplaying it in public). This time, it allowed the rehabilitation of Mike Pence, who, it turns out, was actually desperately seeking ANY excuse to acquiesce to Trump's demands to block certification. Apparently what stopped him was......a phone call with Dan Quayle. What a world.
I'm not sure I agree with this take all that much. I'm not sure that releasing the information the second they had it would have made a very big difference in most of those cases.
The news cycles were pretty well in overdrive during every one of those events. Adding one more headline probably wouldnt have meant a great deal. Furthermore, the Trump administration had become experts on labeling any kind of bad news as "fake news", and would have just claimed it was all fake news and moved on immediately.
I can maybe agree with the COVID bit, although yet again, I dont think it would have actually resulted in anything differently other than a few headlines on CNN and MSNBC.
I agree it wouldn't have made a difference in anyone's opinions since all the revelations are just new anecdotes confirming things we saw many times over during those 4 years. But it's hard to shake the conclusion that Woodward is more interested in selling books than providing vital information to the public.
I think this is a very fair point, and it's disappointing. I even read his book on Trump and COVID -- Rage. And that could have been accused of a similar issue, but at least that book came out before the election. This newest book has revelations that Woodward knew while Trump was president and the book's out long after he's gone. It just seems to violate what a core principle of journalism is supposed to be about, which is informing the public on issues of importance.
Though, I doubt it would have changed much regarding the impeachment vote. At least though it would have made those votes against much harder to justify.
Nobody responded to my post about the gasoline spill in my neighborhood so I guess most of the folks here must be like me and thought it was much ado about nothing. Just thought I'd let you know that not only did I, a chemist, not evacuate, I pretty much knew from the get-go that this was not a big deal. I never smelled anything and I even set up an organic vapor monitor in my basement, let it sit in my basement over a whole weekend, and tested it on the Gas Chromatograph with a Mass-Spectrum detector at work and saw nothing alarming. Ford has given me a $500 gift card for Meijers (midwest Walmart equivalent) and will be sending me a $500 certified check in the next couple weeks for absolutely nothing. I didn't evacuate at all! Keep that in mind when you think that all major corporations don't give a damn about you...
I did not read your news but these things always sound more serious than they are (for humans, the environment really suffers extensively for several years).
I do not know the composition of gasoline where you live but if I would know being part chemist myself I would also just do an assessment myself. With favourable wind conditions and dependent on the distance from the spill, and proper ventilation it is plausible to stay at home.
Question though, were you also in the basement the whole time? Why did you not set up the monitoring in the living room where the chance of vapours is higher.
Also, some chemicals do not give an odour which makes them quite silent assassins.
Chemical vapors (benzene for sure) are generally heavier than air so would tend to settle in the basement. Also, the drains to the storm sewer are in the basement as well. I hung the monitor over one of the drains to get a worst case scenario.
@Balrog99 I don't know enough about inorganic chemistry to post about that, I imagine that was the case for a lot of it. Sorry it seemed like you were being ignored.
" I didn't evacuate at all! Keep that in mind when you think that all major corporations don't give a damn about you..."
They don't. They care about your money. Any major corporation can sink a few thousand dollars for customer retention without hurting overhead.
@Balrog99 I don't know enough about inorganic chemistry to post about that, I imagine that was the case for a lot of it. Sorry it seemed like you were being ignored.
" I didn't evacuate at all! Keep that in mind when you think that all major corporations don't give a damn about you..."
They don't. They care about your money. Any major corporation can sink a few thousand dollars for customer retention without hurting overhead.
In this case they probably care a bit more because many of their workers also live in that area. Also, this was accidental, not intentional like some chemical 'spills' back in the early to mid 20th centuries. There were a lot of bad players back then, Ford was probably among them. The company I work for as well for that matter. We still have to check the ground water around our old factories for chemicals that were spilled or buried back in the 50's and 60's!
"In this case they probably care a bit more because many of their workers also live in that area."
I usually find the case to be the opposite when it comes to employees. They're more disposable than a customer's income to most businesses. Sounds like a rare decent-ish company.
"In this case they probably care a bit more because many of their workers also live in that area."
I usually find the case to be the opposite when it comes to employees. They're more disposable than a customer's income to most businesses. Sounds like a rare decent-ish company.
I have actually heard that Ford is pretty good to work for now. I think companies are starting to realize that their reputations can make or lose ? for them. Public perception is something that they're forced to contend with in the 21st century. With the internet and globalization, one can buy anything from just about anywhere. You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives...
Chemical vapors (benzene for sure) are generally heavier than air so would tend to settle in the basement. Also, the drains to the storm sewer are in the basement as well. I hung the monitor over one of the drains to get a worst case scenario.
Edit: The leak was into the sewer system...
ah right. I would think that the main living area is the most important one to monitor but I see what you mean.
Biden using OSCHA to compel businesses to have all employees vaxxed or tested weekly is going to increase numbers. Previous to the announcement, we had received a voluntary survey about vaccination status at work. The survey is now mandatory. You have to either reveal your status, or officially go on the record as not being willing to say. Quite certain to me this is the first step in getting in compliance. People can talk all they want. Most of them are not going to lose their job or get a swab into their skull once a week rather than get the shot. Moreover, businesses are going to lose patience with hold-outs damn quick when they have to continually deal with the logistics and cost of the weekly tests.
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
Cant speak to your company, of course - but when their sole overriding interest is to make as much money as possible, any "bad quarter" is the worst possible outcome. I think the pandemic showed us that there are a lot of companies (especially multi-national ones that have a diverse set of profit making opportunities) are able to ride a pretty horrific 1 year downturn and come out the other side in reasonable shape.
Really - to me, it's shown me just how exceptionally greedy most corporations are. If the dividends they're kicking back to their shareholders drop half a percent, then the "sky is falling". Am I supposed to feel bad that those millionaires are making a little less money?
Take the "Trump Tax cuts", which mostly just cut the corporate tax rate by like 15 percent. Big companies tried to make a big show that they were giving that money back to their workers in bonuses, but as time as gone on, the reporting suggests that the vast majority of it was paid out to the shareholders. Its' hard for me to accept that these companies are living paycheck to paycheck when they have their taxes cut in half, and pay on a small fraction of that back to their workers. Either they collectively made all bad investments and are squandering that money... or they probably arent living paycheck to paycheck.
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
Cant speak to your company, of course - but when their sole overriding interest is to make as much money as possible, any "bad quarter" is the worst possible outcome. I think the pandemic showed us that there are a lot of companies (especially multi-national ones that have a diverse set of profit making opportunities) are able to ride a pretty horrific 1 year downturn and come out the other side in reasonable shape.
Really - to me, it's shown me just how exceptionally greedy most corporations are. If the dividends they're kicking back to their shareholders drop half a percent, then the "sky is falling". Am I supposed to feel bad that those millionaires are making a little less money?
It's not just millionaires though, a major amount of those shares are held by regular folks in their 401k accounts...
Comments
That aside, my own thoughts on our recent worst presidents is that Trump merely never had the opportunity (partly due to his own poor work ethic) to seize the kind of power W Bush had. Bush enjoyed unprecedented popularity for a modern president post 9/11, and this allowed him and the party to push through much of their agenda without pushback for several years. Not since FDR has a president enjoyed that kind of an opportunity, imo.
So he was able to accomplish alot more than Trump, which inevitably means he did a lot more consequential bad stuff than Trump. But you put Trump in that same position, and he plays that hand much, much worse.
I personally don’t think George W is even in the bottom 10 from a historical and outside point of view, but I do respect the views of people who have a recency bias as his actions directly led to making their life worse.
Bush was president for 8 years and ushered in the worst recession in modern American history. He got us into not one but two pretty awful wars.
Trump was less effective in pursuing his agenda due to his own incompetance, but he has been far, far, far more dangerous to fundamental American democratic norms. He has put the GOP onto a path that could legitimately reshape our system of governance in undemocratic ways
Add that + his dealing with Covid, and I dont really have any issue saying Trump was a much worse president in the grand scheme of things. I would say orders of magnitude worse, with the potential to be a catalyzing figure in ways we have yet to fathom.
Agreed, one key factor in the evaluation is that we have not yet had the time to see what this anti-democracy movement becomes. We're already seeing prominent California Republicans running the same playbook as Trump with baseless questioning of the election, before it even happens. The movement is also taking off internationally too, as we're seeing in Brazil.
But yeah, I'm willing to believe that's something that could become more consequential than the bungled War on Terror.
Larry Elder's campaign already links to a site that says "the election is over, here is the evidence of fraud". The election isn't over til tomorrow night.
While we're on the subject, the California recall law needs to see the dustbin of history. It's absurd. If the incumbent doesn't get 50% of the vote, the NEXT highest vote-getter takes office. Even if the incumbent beats them by 30 points.
I'm not sure I agree with this take all that much. I'm not sure that releasing the information the second they had it would have made a very big difference in most of those cases.
The news cycles were pretty well in overdrive during every one of those events. Adding one more headline probably wouldnt have meant a great deal. Furthermore, the Trump administration had become experts on labeling any kind of bad news as "fake news", and would have just claimed it was all fake news and moved on immediately.
I can maybe agree with the COVID bit, although yet again, I dont think it would have actually resulted in anything differently other than a few headlines on CNN and MSNBC.
I agree it wouldn't have made a difference in anyone's opinions since all the revelations are just new anecdotes confirming things we saw many times over during those 4 years. But it's hard to shake the conclusion that Woodward is more interested in selling books than providing vital information to the public.
Took 15 minutes after the polls closed. The recent claims about this being the result of "voter fraud" shows how cynically Republicans are playing this game. As if the only way the incumbent Governor of California can get 50% of the vote is by nefarious tactics. No one pushing these claims believe them, I'm not even sure the people swallowing them do. They are trotting it out to undermine faith in democracy itself, and setting the stage for excuses to do away with it. Nevermind the fact the state was forced to spend a quarter billion dollars in the middle of a pandemic so the GOP could have their ass served to them on a silver platter.
A major "reason" Newsom faced this challenge was his stance on COVID-19 restrictions, and, once again, we see how comically out of step the base of the Republican Party is on this issue compared to the ENTIRE rest of the population. They continue to want to walk this tightrope of being "pro-freedom" (whatever the hell that even means) while also not being labeled as anti-mask or anti-vaxx and it just isn't going to work. When you go out of your way to cater to lunatics, you are going to be seen as emboldening them at best, and actively encouraging their behavior at worst.
I think this is a very fair point, and it's disappointing. I even read his book on Trump and COVID -- Rage. And that could have been accused of a similar issue, but at least that book came out before the election. This newest book has revelations that Woodward knew while Trump was president and the book's out long after he's gone. It just seems to violate what a core principle of journalism is supposed to be about, which is informing the public on issues of importance.
Though, I doubt it would have changed much regarding the impeachment vote. At least though it would have made those votes against much harder to justify.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-move-dislodge-france-australia-submarine-deal-is-incoherent-french-ministers-2021-09-15/
I do not know the composition of gasoline where you live but if I would know being part chemist myself I would also just do an assessment myself. With favourable wind conditions and dependent on the distance from the spill, and proper ventilation it is plausible to stay at home.
Question though, were you also in the basement the whole time? Why did you not set up the monitoring in the living room where the chance of vapours is higher.
Also, some chemicals do not give an odour which makes them quite silent assassins.
Edit: The leak was into the sewer system...
" I didn't evacuate at all! Keep that in mind when you think that all major corporations don't give a damn about you..."
They don't. They care about your money. Any major corporation can sink a few thousand dollars for customer retention without hurting overhead.
In this case they probably care a bit more because many of their workers also live in that area. Also, this was accidental, not intentional like some chemical 'spills' back in the early to mid 20th centuries. There were a lot of bad players back then, Ford was probably among them. The company I work for as well for that matter. We still have to check the ground water around our old factories for chemicals that were spilled or buried back in the 50's and 60's!
I usually find the case to be the opposite when it comes to employees. They're more disposable than a customer's income to most businesses. Sounds like a rare decent-ish company.
I have actually heard that Ford is pretty good to work for now. I think companies are starting to realize that their reputations can make or lose ? for them. Public perception is something that they're forced to contend with in the 21st century. With the internet and globalization, one can buy anything from just about anywhere. You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives...
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
Cant speak to your company, of course - but when their sole overriding interest is to make as much money as possible, any "bad quarter" is the worst possible outcome. I think the pandemic showed us that there are a lot of companies (especially multi-national ones that have a diverse set of profit making opportunities) are able to ride a pretty horrific 1 year downturn and come out the other side in reasonable shape.
Really - to me, it's shown me just how exceptionally greedy most corporations are. If the dividends they're kicking back to their shareholders drop half a percent, then the "sky is falling". Am I supposed to feel bad that those millionaires are making a little less money?
Take the "Trump Tax cuts", which mostly just cut the corporate tax rate by like 15 percent. Big companies tried to make a big show that they were giving that money back to their workers in bonuses, but as time as gone on, the reporting suggests that the vast majority of it was paid out to the shareholders. Its' hard for me to accept that these companies are living paycheck to paycheck when they have their taxes cut in half, and pay on a small fraction of that back to their workers. Either they collectively made all bad investments and are squandering that money... or they probably arent living paycheck to paycheck.
It's not just millionaires though, a major amount of those shares are held by regular folks in their 401k accounts...
https://www.ici.org/faqs/faq/401k/faqs_401k