Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was again the one about the shooting of the UnitedHealthCare CEO that I've already discussed. After that was a thread titled, "Not enough office space: safe from RTO?" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. This is the second day in a row that one of the most active threads has been about federal employees being forced to return to the office. In that thread, as well as several previous threads on this topic that I've discussed, the fact that many federal agencies have reduced office space has come up as an obstacle to returning to the office. The original poster directly addressed that aspect of the issue, saying that her agency was among those that reduced office space and now doesn't have enough for all employees. Moreover, there is no funding to acquire more office space. She wonders if this will make her safe from return-to-office policies. Most of those responding do not think the original poster will be protected. As always in threads of this sort, there are a number of posters who are positively drooling at the thought of federal employees being forced back to their offices. The more painful this is and the more disruption it causes in the employees' lives, the better such posters like it. The idea that federal employees might also be forced like sardines into cramped places without desks is enough for such posters to almost need a cold shower and a cigarette. Many of the responses in this thread were very eye-opening for me. It seems that many federal employees have already gone through returns to the office in which there is no longer a sufficient amount of space. I learned a new term, "hot desk", in which employees scramble for available desks and lose them even if they get up for a meeting. Several posters report that they now work in open environments with desks side by side and face to face. With no privacy, many of the posters say that they have to take telephone calls in their cars. One poster says that her husband, unable to find a desk, works nearly the entire day in his car. Posters who work in the private sector say that this arrangement is increasingly common for them as well. As many posters point out, this situation is not really a bug, but rather a feature. The incoming administration is hoping that federal employees will be incentivized to quit. Some posters report that they did exactly that rather than put up with the insufficient work spaces. Some posters assure the original poster and those like her that she will adapt to such an environment and that she shouldn't be discouraged. Indeed, other posters say that they have adapted. That might require sound-cancelling headphones, constant movements to quieter places for taking calls, or the aforementioned working from their car, but they make it work. The more cynical among us, which most definitely includes me where this topic is concerned, would argue that one of the main motivators of return-to-office policies is the need to fill commercial real estate which otherwise is in danger of collapsing. If agencies are not expanding space, that problem is not going to be addressed. Office building landlords will probably need to trek to Mar-a-Lago in order to convince President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump that the federal government needs more office space.

Yesterday's next most active thread was the day before's most active, the one about the new soccer league alliance. Skipping that thread, the next most active thread was one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Are we heading into an oligarchy?" The original poster says that it seems like our country is turning into an oligarchy and that, unless you are very privileged, the future is not so bright for you. Many of those responding agree with the original poster that a few select wealthy individuals seem to have taken inordinate control of the country. Not only is the president-elect a billionaire (allegedly anyway), but he has selected an unprecedented number of billionaires to hold high-level positions in his incoming administration. Moreover, yesterday the richest man in the world, First Lady and Shadow President Elon Musk, single-handedly blew up a bipartisan bill to continue funding the government. This will possibly lead to a government shutdown at midnight Friday. But for many posters, oligarchy is not something into which the country is turning, but rather a reality that has existed for some time. Posters have different ideas about when we transitioned to oligarchy, but there is considerable agreement that oligarchy is not new. Many posters link it to the growth of income inequality, which has created a tremendous gulf between the super rich and everyone else. The consolidation of wealth has led to the consolidation of power. Many posters point to the irony of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump running as the candidate of the "little guy" and promising to take on the establishment. Instead, Trump has become the puppet of a drug-afflicted, ego-maniac billionaire who knows nothing about government but has decided that he should run it in his spare time. Other posters stress that oligarchy is not only characterizing the Republican Party but the Democratic Party as well. For years, Republicans have made George Soros a bogeyman whom they claim is responsible for nearly all of the Democrats' actions. But even setting Soros aside, plenty of other billionaires have influential roles among Democrats. In some cases, Republicans and Democrats are beholden to the same wealthy individuals. For instance, in the last election, crypto money flooded into both parties’ coffers. While tech billionaires seem to have coalesced around Trump, Democrats have also come to the same billionaires’ aid. One example of this was back in 2022 when there was a similar battle over a year-end spending bill. At that time, a bipartisan group of trustbusters thought that they had an agreement to include two antitrust bills that would target the likes of Google and Amazon. At the last minute, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer excluded the two provisions from the bill. Schumer had clearly acquiesced to big tech lobbying efforts. Some posters in the thread recognize that Democrats may have their own oligarch problem, but they insist that it is nothing on the scale of what is currently happening with Republicans. Not only did Musk use his vast wealth and his ownership of X (formerly Twitter) to influence the election, he has now been tasked with leading an agency to restructure the government. He has sat in on calls between Trump and foreign leaders and is part of a chat group that includes the Speaker of the House, someone whose fate Musk may well control. Musk, with the combined strength of his financial holdings and his newfound political influence, may well represent something beyond oligarchy, and an entirely different term could be required to explain his role.

Next was a thread titled, "Yet another GOP shutdown?" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started over a week ago with the original poster warning that Republicans were having a difficult time agreeing on a continuing resolution to fund the government after December 20 and that this could possibly lead to a government shutdown. The thread lingered until yesterday when developments showed that the original poster had been particularly prescient. In the intervening days, Congressional negotiators had struggled to draft a bipartisan spending bill that was acceptable to both chambers of Congress. The problem facing Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is not new, but rather one that he has encountered previously. The Republican majority in the House is quite small. It only takes a few defections to prevent Republicans from passing a bill. Getting agreement within his own caucus would be a challenge in the best of times, but the impact of Hurricane Helene on several southern states has created a need for disaster aid that is supported by a number of Republicans. Other Republicans are eager to control spending and favor a "clean" continuing resolution that does not include new spending. There is no way to reconcile these two groups and, as a result, Johnson simply doesn't have the votes to pass a bill with Republican votes alone. As a result, Johnson must rely on Democrats, who will cooperate only for a price. Because everyone has their own parochial funding desires, the bipartisan bill soon became laden with a number of spending initiatives. There was a pay raise for Members of Congress, the transfer of Robert F. Kennedy Stadium to the District of Columbia, disaster aid, and agricultural assistance for Iowa farmers among many other measures. One person's necessary spending is another person's pork, and the bill provided plenty of fodder for criticism. First Lady and Shadow President Elon Musk took to his X social network to criticize the bill and to spread misinformation about it. For instance, Musk exaggerated the Congressional pay increase by tenfold and he wrongly said that D.C. was being given a new football stadium (while the land and existing stadium will be transferred, federal funds are explicitly prohibited from being used on the site). Musk later said that any Republican who voted in favor of the CR deserved to face a primary opponent in the next election. Given Musk's spending capability, that is not an idle threat. As a result, tremendous Republican opposition to the bill quickly emerged. As if this was not enough of a problem for Johnson to manage, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump took time off from taunting Canada and not only opposed the CR himself, but demanded that any legislation also increase the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not expected to be reached for some time, and there is no immediate need to increase it now. Moreover, Democrats have no incentive to agree to an increase at this time. As a result, Johnson is caught between a rock and a hard place, and the most likely action is no action, leading to a government shutdown at midnight tomorrow.

All the rest of the top ten most active threads but one were threads that I've already discussed. The remaining thread was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and titled, "Middle/high school pick-up parents: this is what you actually do with your time?" The original poster said that she volunteered at her child's middle school for an event that took place in the afternoon. When she left the school after the event, she witnessed a long line of cars waiting to pick up students even though school would not be out for another hour. Many of the cars were running and the original poster was dumbfounded by the idea that parents would spend an hour or more running their cars while waiting in line to pick up their kids. She asks if these parents are insane and whether this is really how they spend their time. It is not the parents spending an hour waiting in line, however, who bear the brunt of the criticism in this thread. Rather, the original poster is the target of the harshest posts. She is ridiculed for volunteering for a middle school event, apparently something most posters wouldn't be caught dead doing. She is told to mind her own business and accused of being judgmental. I don't think any of those responding fessed up to sitting in line for an hour each day, but plenty of posters had explanations for occasionally doing so. The most common explanation is that their kids had to be at an appointment of some sort or an activity and had little time to get there. Posters wanted to be the first in line which required them to get there early. Another common explanation is that the mom was coming home from some place and happened to be near the school. She preferred to wait at the school rather than driving home and then needing to turn around and come right back. A sort of side discussion also took place in the thread involving students who routinely miss their last class of the day. According to a teacher who was posting, the parents insist that they must pick up their kids early and want the teacher to send the students' homework home with them. The teacher has been refusing because she expects the kids to attend class. Some posters admitted that they pick up their kids daily even though the students could take the bus. There are various reasons for this, but in some cases it is an activity to which the posters appear to look forward. However, these posters also insisted that they were not arriving an hour early. Some posters defended those waiting in line for an hour even though they claimed not to do this themselves. A number of posters also said that they avoid school pickup lines like the plague. They have their kids meet them off school grounds at a pre-arranged pickup point.