Core PPI up 9.6% annualized (0.8% MoM) in May

No, being the boss is your superpower. Selecting an employee to hire isn't all that important. There will never be a magical genie that grants all your wishes to choose from, just simple, imperfect humans that require constant management. Like, maybe don't pick a 'vegetable' that you cannot talk to if one shows up in the applicant pool, because you will need to talk to your employee regularly to convey what you expect of them and scold them when they screw up. It is still worth some of your time to flip through the resumes. But the reality is that of the average people who generally apply for the job, any will do as well as any other. None of them will be the ideal candidate.

> voting isn't enough?

Has hiring an employee and then cutting them loose ever been enough? Have you never had a job before? If you have, did your employer, after telling you that you got the job, disappear into the night, never to be heard from again? For those who have had jobs, the answer is an obvious: No, of course not. Why would this job somehow be different? It wouldn't be, obviously. You haven't hired a magical genie. Magic doesn't exist.

> I also need to dedicate my life to this?

No, you don't have to. The employees are generally willing to dutifully show up and do something. But if you don't stay in regular communication with them as to communicate what it is you want and expect out of them they'll be left to guess. They are certainly not mind readers. How could they know what you are thinking if you don't tell them? So, no, you don't have to, but you are not going to like the results if you don't get involved.

> Wait does this HN post count?

Do you mean count as a distraction that is taking you away from your duties as an employer? Sure. If you owned a McDonalds, would posting on HN complaining that the burgers at your establishment are coming out raw fix anything? Stranger things have happened, but I expect the odds are exceedingly low. Why would you come to HN to vent your frustrations instead of talking to the employees that aren't doing their job properly?

More material wealth showed other good indicators for society being correlated to it, culminating in the misguided ideology with Reagan that only caring about advancing material wealth is enough to advance society.

Since then the whole point of the USA is to further material wealth, and the belief that societal benefits will inevitably trickle down from this advancement. My firm belief after 40-50 years of empirical data about this experiment is that it was completely misguided and missed the forest for the trees.

Within this ideology all the issues you brought up branched from: corporations and moneyed interests got even more power; to keep power those moneyed interests need to corrupt democratic processes.

Rage-based content providers is just another facet of power maintenance mechanisms, if you have capital and want to push your agenda you need the media for it, and since your main purpose is to have an audience to push this agenda you will, inevitably, rely on content that is easy to churn out while keeping this audience, hence the rage-based content landscape that is very prevalent in the USA.

But in the case of the Clinton affair, it was effectively personal (Bill, Monica, Hillary) -- their business.

Please explain how this impacted Clinton's ability to execute his job, or how that dynamic hurt Lewinsky in such a way that it needed to be a national affair?

This is the same kind of feigned moral panic over Hunter Biden's business dealings -- designed solely to smear the president for their opponents political gain.

Edit: as a counter point, Trump fucking a porn star months after his son was born was technically between him, Stormy, and Melania. The reason that it was worthy of public scrutiny was that he committed campaign finance fraud with the hush money. Ironically, no pearls were clutched by his supporters over that.

Keep in mind that Trump was hired by the slate of electors you chose to hire. You did not choose him yourself. While ultimately all employees in your business are your responsibility, it is best for you to focus on the high ranking individuals, not the low-rung peons that are doing the busywork. First step is to call up the middle manager electors you hired directly and ask "What the hell?" They can worry about pushing things forward after that. Your role is to lead, not do everything.

In addition, you also directly hired a representative and a senator, tasked with keeping the rank and file employee in line. If they are not doing that, you also need to call them up and ask "What the hell?" If the phone is not your thing, visit their office. You are paying good money as their employer to give them an office. Don't be afraid to step foot in it. Your company directory gives the office location and phone number, in case your memory happens to be short and you've forgotten how to contact the person you hired already.

From there, it is a case by case basis. Every employee is going to have their own quirks and you have to learn how to work with them. But, I mean, they're just regular humans. You treat them like you would any other employee. If you owned a McDonalds location, you'd have to deal with imperfect humans just the same. This is no different.

If all this still is beyond your grasp, community colleges typically have management courses you can enrol in. Jumping straight in and doing it is usually the best way to learn, however. You might look like a fool the first time you engage with your employees, but who cares? By next year you'll be a seasoned pro. Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, but the second best time is now.

You're taking this analogy too far. Managing an employee is not like electing a representative. We're not describing a boss-employee relationship here.

This motivational talk of "you have a superpower" and "you're the boss" all boiled down to one piece of concrete advice you gave: "call your representative". You've not given me anything else I can do with my high level management skills.

I admire your optimism, but I think we have enough evidence at this point to know that this is just not going to do it.