71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US policy seems pretty clear: Allow companies who employ undocumented workers to benefit and profit from it, while making sure only the individual workers shoulder the criminal and livelihood risks.
I thought the policy is that you can't hire without documentation. Do you mean that there is a scheme in place, outside of the legal framework?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He means that anyone making an argument that aviation safety has deteriorated should be using the stats to back it up, instead of anecdotal evidence.
This is a common kind of "data or nothing" fallacy. Data doesn't reliably capture evidence for the thesis "TSA agents and aviation workers are burning out and ICE is going to make it worse". The part that data is good for hasn't happened yet over a long enough timeline to reflect properly. If the argument is "deadly accidents are up over the past decade", then yes, of course , we must point to data. If the argument i…
> Fatal crashes, overstressed controllers, and endless security lines reveal a system teetering on the brink of failure.
I have not read the entire article (paywalled), but the introduction sure seems to strongly imply that we're already seeing an unusually high rate of crashes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in using immigration to address labor shortages. however, not having an official policy, such a labor visa with clearly defined rules, combined with a stable population of 'illegals' that don't have the same labor protections, is and was not really a fair or sustainable situation.
It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many deaths would communicate "We have likely reached system failure"? "Failure" is really a matter of opinion rather than some objective tipping point. The air system is unlikely to ever actually "fail", and at worst will just become some arbitrary level of degraded that some people will loudly label "failed". There are plenty of examples around the world of countries with variously degraded air systems, that…
>Yemen, in the midst of a perennial civil war, still runs commercial flights Not any more, they don't: > The General Director of Sanaa International Airport, Khaled al-Shaief, said in a post on his X account that the strike had completely destroyed the last of the civilian planes that Yemenia Airways was operating from the airport. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-it-has...
[flagged]
Well, yes, it is. That does not mean that all the problems have been solved by getting rid of those who gained their positions purely based on inalienable characteristics unrelated to job requirements but it does make for a better chance of solving the problems.
I'm not saying the article's thesis is wrong, much of it rings true to me, but we have very comprehensive data and statistics concerning air travel so I'm deeply unimpressed by this article instead hanging its argument on a hodgepodge list of incidents instead of digging into the data to get some proper numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you can make any statistical argument from accident data from a single year. Yes, there is universal data out there. But those events are so rare that you almost never can differentiate a normal year from an abnormal one.
You absolutely can see a difference. [0] The term of art is "Runway Incursions", and the stats definitely show our airports are working at the limits of safety. [0]: https://www.buckycountry.com/2025/09/22/runway-close-calls-u...
What statistical conclusion are you taking from it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, it is. That does not mean that all the problems have been solved by getting rid of those who gained their positions purely based on inalienable characteristics unrelated to job requirements but it does make for a better chance of solving the problems.
Does it? Or does it mean that we got rid of those people who would otherwise likely be rejected due to inalienable characteristics and who could have helped avoid groupthink, leading to an improved chance of solving problems?
As Thomas Sowell said [1] and says: “Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day.”
The final paragraph is maybe the most relevant. It goes well beyond just aviation. I'm sure we've all felt this. > The ICE deployment is a particularly extreme example of what the political scientist Steven M. Teles has dubbed “kludgeocracy,” in which the government reaches for short-term, improvised solutions while resisting real reform. “‘Clumsy but temporarily effective,’” Teles has written, “also describes much o…
So like instead of hiring by merit doing it via DEI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
> the moral response is to just pay the workers more. While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale.