@DaSaw That seems like a very specific accusation coming from a total stranger. Wouldn't you likewise be trapped inside of the bubble of your own personal experience? An experience that I do not presume to know, since I've never met you? It's completely fine to have a difference of opinion, even an irreconcilable difference. It doesn't have to devolve into this.

@DaSaw It doesn't matter if restaurant owners are rich or not, or the nebulous value that a worker earns from pride in providing a service. These are platitudes for distracting from the economic realities. A business that breaks because its model cannot conform to the requirements of society is, by definition, a failed enterprise. If it serves a market, a successful enterprise will emerge to fill the needs of that market. This is selection by the invisible hand of the market.

@DaSaw No, if there's a market for the service then the service will be provided. Either by a new business that meets the needs of the market or by the expansion of an existing service with a successful economic model. The market isn't going to just shrug and maintain a void for the sake of it.

@DaSaw @some_guy If there is a demand for restaurant services, and a restaurant closes because it is not profitable while paying a living wage, it will be replaced by a restaurant with a more viable economic model that can fill that demand while meeting societal expectations for the workforce. They call this the Invisible Hand of the Free Market when it benefits the business, but pretend it doesn't exist when it benefits the workers.

@pelotron @JackFromWisconsin Madison, in particular, is notorious for having an impossibly long and contentious process for getting new housing through committee. I'm not convinced that slashing red tape with a chainsaw is the way to address it, but I suspect the prohibition on city government from rejecting projects that meet standards is a statement about Madison.

@archomrade This is also the strategy that underpins right-wing efforts to make the pill over-the-counter: once doctors aren't prescribing it the decision to carry it or not rests entirely with the point-of-contact for access. You can effectively build "dry counties" for the pill this way.

@archomrade The end-game is to take the decision from doctors entirely and give it to someone else. Doctors are far less likely to refuse to prescribe the pill than pharmacists are to refuse to provide it, if they know they have the authority to block its access. It's easier for all 1-4 pharmacists in a red district to collude than it is to get all doctors in the area to do it. The goal of this kind of legislation is to take that authority from doctors and give it to people willing to gatekeep.

@JackFromWisconsin @archomrade

It's part of a long play to eventually take the decision to administer the pill away from doctors, so it can be legal for individual points-of-contact for accessing the pill to refuse to provide it based on personal religious beliefs. With a critical mass of refusers and no intervention by a doctor, the pill becomes effectively banned in some places.