Not quite, but big pharma promotes preventive screening in excess of what is justified. They don't care if false positives create stress and unnecessary, dangerous procedures that eliminate the benefit of screening. They just want to make sure before you die they get a chance to sell their most expensive drugs.
> But in general, should this bill become law in Michigan, an employer could not require an employee to access or respond to work-related matters outside of their assigned hours... Violations could be reported to the state's Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, with fines to the company and/or overtime pay to the employee among the possible results.
It will be too easy for employers to say to the DOL the employee was not actually required to respond to the work-related matter when they told the employee they are expected to. Laws like these don't solve problems (bargaining power disparity caused by a variety of factors), they solve symptoms. It may not have a significant effect.
In general yes, but a datacenter is to many people a categorically different kind of development because they oppose AI companies. The first datacenter should trigger a lengthy discussion and create rules that apply to all further datacenters.
You identify the potential bias of only one side here. The revolving door between regulators and industry introduces potential biases of others in the opposite direction.
If Prasad approved of the trial design and later decided it was insufficient then I would see things differently.
America doesn't need new cities. There is an unbelievable amount of space wasted within every city and any urban planner can show you. Development policy in the 40s and 50s was backward and we continue to suffer the consequences today.
I'm not sure what you mean by "squeeze the renter," but it's hard to find any person that invests substantial money (risk) in a business that doesn't want to maximize profits and charge what the market will bear.
Laws became the way they are because policy created a housing shortage, and renters are a bigger voting block than landlords.
PG makes little effort to identify what it means to earn something. Some people consider effort the measure of whether something is earned. Some believe luck should be subtracted from result to get what is earned. Some say you cannot earn the benefits you receive from your genetics. No idea of what it means to earn something is given except for making users happy while "not cheating" (who decides what counts as cheating he doesn't say). No consideration for ideas such as economic rent, inherited advantages, or negotiating leverage are discussed.
There is no way anyone responding to him has a lazier argument than he does.
The market is not some independent external arbiter. The market is based on rules government creates. Those rules can be exploitative - It may be perfectly legal to make payday loans to financial illiterates, or treat animals cruelly in meat plants, or simply to use marketing in a way to manipulate people's behavior subconsciously (which almost every company does).
Everyone who makes a billion dollars must attribute that success to themselves, but also the people who built the roads their product is delivered with, the teachers that taught them in school, the doctors that keep them healthy, etc.
What fraction of the wealth earned by a billionaire society is entitled to for its contribution will always be a fair policy debate.
Inflation needs error bars. A small bias in how inflation is measured, over a long period of time, would create substantially different results. I personally don't doubt that we have more buying power, but we have basically just created better addictions that we waste that buying power on.
Flooding we experience is largely due to destruction of wetlands that used to act as a buffer for excess water during storms, and paving over land for cars making the surface impenetrable.
If Congress intended for the CFTC to regulate sports betting, it would have had that language in the act that originated the agency. It's telling that only recently the CFTC has discovered such authority. No previous leadership of the CFTC read the act to mean what the current leadership thinks it means.