I'm pretty sure you have this totally backwards. People who study scientific development seem to think that the government is actually a really effective funder of research, and covers gaps that would never be addressed by private industry. See for example:

* https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-r...

* https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/07/government-fun...

* https://www.americanscientist.org/article/%E2%80%9Cwhy-are-w...

edit: for example that EIA list of new solar projects you linked indicates that the largest battery installations going up in '26 are all ~500MW, and that there are only four of them (of that size). I think the energy intensity of a multi-GW datacenter is the main reason that they're not going for solar here.

Is that before or after the program achieves profitability?

In the same comment you say that the government has to help guarantee that Walmart won't exploit you in this banana purchase transaction by outlawing price gouging and monopolization. If labor is the same type of transaction, it stands to reason that certain types of employment can be exploitative, despite the 'voluntary nature' of the transaction. Is your issue with the 'Uber exploits their contractors' framing simply based in the fact that Uber has not broken any labor laws?

Since you're having trouble following me I'll give a quick summary here. You initially said:

> if all these drivers are getting horribly exploited why are they doing it?

My point is simply that this is crap reasoning: people voluntarily participate in exploitative interactions all the time if they lack genuine alternatives.

So in a world where no labor negotiation is happening, is exploitation possible? If Uber drivers had no legal recourse to form a union (or no avenue to otherwise participate in genuine negotiation with their employer), would it be fair to say that they might be in an exploitative employment relationship?

> Everyone working for Uber is doing so voluntarily.

Personally I don't feel that this precludes exploitation taking place. Exploiting someone is taking advantage of their hard circumstances or lack of alternatives to unethically profit (in the usage that I'm familiar with). For example I would consider hiding fare pricing breakdowns from employees and consumers, so that you can leverage their lack of information to increase your profit share, to be 'exploitative'; particularly if you hold a virtual monopoly on the taxi market in an area. For an example outside the gig-work world I'd point to price-gouging as another type of 'voluntary' exploitation; consumers may be 'consenting' to pay extremely elevated prices, but if they have no meaningful alternative and genuinely require what is being sold then it's not really 'consent' so much as 'resignation'. IMO true consent requires genuine options, not just that you signed your name on the dotted line.

Well it's the drivers themselves who voted to join the union, so presumably there's something they want to see changed. No need to speak for people who've already found their voice.

Not sure why you want to bring race into this, people from all backgrounds have the right to free association and deserve labor representation.

Seems like kind of a pilot-program nationwide TBH. The article links to another article last year about an MA ballot measure which made it possible for gig-work drivers to unionize in the first place (since independent contractors aren't covered by the NLRB at a federal level). It seems that the state labor board intends to sponsor the negotiation process, and per the ballot measure text would be responsible for figuring out what to do if negotiations broke down. Summary of the question is here, if you're interested (full text of the law is linked there): https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications...

> you thereby need a car to leave the vicinity in order to get anywhere you can.

I hear your point but I think your causal model is misguided. It's two different things augmenting each other, not "one is a more primal cause than the other" (in my opinion, anyways). Like yes road diets in the suburbs won't 'solve' the problem by themselves, but the impact of the zoning changes you're pointing to may also have the impact of reducing car dependency in the area (although not guaranteed, I've seen USians drive even just half a mile). Cars collapse distance, and zoning policy eats up those gains greedily. SFH zoning spaces everything 10 miles apart, so all the residents buy cars because there's no alternatives. It's multiple threads reinforcing each other; I think if you dig into the ""trendy"" anti-car arguments you will find a lot of backing for mixed-used zoning policy as well because both types of changes are needed at once.

Per her website (which is hosting the transcript of the interview here: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-...) seems that the cause is known and acknowledge to be construction

"""

...A few weeks ago, while Congress was in recess, I visited Morgan County, Georgia, where Meta is building a massive data center campus. They are clear cutting forests and began heavy construction, including explosive blasting, and families in the area are starting to see not only their water pressure decrease, to your point about water availability, but their appliances have all stopped working because it is decimating their water quality.

They now rely on bottled water to drink and prepare meals, and nearby residents' water bills are expected to increase by 33%. In fact, I have a jar right here. This is the current drinking water in Morgan County, Georgia, right after a data center was constructed, the Meta data center was constructed. ...

"""

edit: I'm also going back to my bayesian theory days and would be super interested to see a deep dive into whether these markets are rationally updating their beliefs in time. My recollection is super vague here, but I recall something like non-transitive belief loops can lead to dutch-books (so like Johnny Punter things that Trump will win an election against Biden, Biden would win against Ross Perot, and Ross Perot would win against Trump). I'd like to know more about whether these kinds of issues are showing up in these markets?

Yeah but aren't they putting down less/leveraging themselves deeper?

edit: also it seems like the millenial/genZ divide here is on the order of like 1-5%, whereas the gap between either of those generations and boomers/genX is more like 10%+. It's good that the trend hasn't gotten worse in recent history, but I think it's pretty inarguable that the housing market is much worse than it was 30 years ago.

Reminds me of: https://maxread.substack.com/p/predictions-markets-and-the-s...

Calling it “ambition” is generous IMO. Passive income chasers always give “desperation” more than “ambition”. I also feel a bit weird about mourning “a diverted generation of entrepreneurs”, personally I feel like this generational obsession with entrepreneurship almost forcibly led to the dropshipping scams we see today. In a world where everyone is constantly trying to get some side project off the ground of course some folks are going to pursue the shortcut version of that.