Everything is Shit: Tracking the Great Enshittening

[Bevo 13817]

[52-80 19378]

18 minutes ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  I framed it?

It's reality bro.  You want equal results for everyone.  Equal misery. I disagree.

You know when the last time I averaged 32 hours of work in a week?  Seriously at age  16 or so.

 

Now let's talk "framing" of an argument and discuss what grown ass adults should be doing, or making decisions around.  You want to work part time, then that's how the comp works.

theres no discussing grown ass adult stuff with a mental adolescent. 

108 million of the 133 working people over age of 25 work 35+ hours weekly.  Of the remaining 19%, 17% work part-time by choice.

Only 2.2% of them work under 35 hours for "economic reasons", meaning they seek full-time employment.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10761]

35 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

that was last's year govt conducted survey, sampling 13,000 establishments, sampling frame 7 million, representing 125m workers...

I guess I'm not average and don't have an average health plan, not that your data takes coverage into account anyway.

[Captainant 28380]

Well thank you to 52-80 for coming in and correcting the record that everything is actually fine and nothing is wrong (just don't go reading your posts in the inflation thread lulz)

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

38 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

The 50-75th wage percentile employee has total premium contribution of $1245 from employer and $640 OOP = $1885

The 90-100th wage percentile employee has total premium contribution of $1350 from employer and $600 OOP = $1950

That doesn't assure me that one party is getting the Platinum Coverage and the other a Barebones Special.  Not if they cost basically the same.  The larger employer may have leverage to get a better discount for the $, but that's something you gotta prove.

5% greater premiums on top of a larger and more diverse risk pool of younger, more affluent and healthier workers with better access to preventative care and specialty care is likely a HUGE actuarial  advantage.
That said, those (higher income) workers are more often than not enrolled in high deductible plans with much lower premiums, which almost always guarantees them lower total OOP costs and better coverage, because they aren’t prepaying the first 5-6k so there’s no vig.

as it happens, that’s by biggest issue with ACA- it cut carriers in on things like vax and routine checkups, which you simply shouldn’t buy insurance for unless you are living check to check. Obviously that’s more the exception than the rule, but still. 

It simply costs more to make less. 

Edited March 1 by Bozo_Casanova

[52-80 19378]

5 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I guess I'm not average and don't have an average health plan, not that your data takes coverage into account anyway.

you can infer the coverage of a plan based on the cost of the plan.  (its not as if aetna isnt competing against humana competing against centene competing against kaiser...)

the govt use averages and other statistical measures to understand representation of large populations and make decisions.  if they had to digest your individual plan from A to Z and do that for 300 million other people, i dont think they'd get anywhere.

[52-80 19378]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

5% greater premiums on top of a larger and more diverse risk pool of younger, more affluent and healthier workers with better access to preventative care and specialty care is likely a HUGE actuarial  advantage.
That said, those (higher income) workers are more often than not enrolled in high deductible plans with much lower premiums, which almost always guarantees them lower total OOP costs and better coverage, because they aren’t prepaying the first 5-6k so there’s no vig.

It simply costs more to make less. 

median age in software publishing is 41, computer systems 41, scientific and technical consulting services 44, data processing 39.  superclass of industries called 'information' is 42.  median age of ALL workers everywhere is 42. 

in a single tech company, im guessing the 40 year old secretary gets the same healthcare plan as the 25 year old SWE and the 55 year old sysadmin?

[Incredulity 11859]

48 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well thank you to 52-80 for coming in and correcting the record that everything is actually fine and nothing is wrong (just don't go reading your posts in the inflation thread lulz)

[Thatguy 9286]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Lots of employers intentionally give employees 32 hours weekly specifically so they don't qualify for benefits and are forced to the ACA marketplace - which is not a magical "fox everything and give coverage to everyone" solution as you are framing it. It's just another place to buy an insurance plan from an insurance company that exists only to stand between you and your care

 

1 hour ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  I framed it?

It's reality bro.  You want equal results for everyone.  Equal misery. I disagree.

You know when the last time I averaged 32 hours of work in a week?  Seriously at age  16 or so.

 

Now let's talk "framing" of an argument and discuss what grown ass adults should be doing, or making decisions around.  You want to work part time, then that's how the comp works.

There are literally swaths of companies that cap people to prevent them from benefits. It's a science. Some of you guys are Neanderthals, out of touch with the times. Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

49 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

in a single tech company, im guessing the 40 year old secretary gets the same healthcare plan as the 25 year old SWE and the 55 year old sysadmin?

Unlikely- the 25yo would likely choose an HDHP because the premiums are lower, the the secretary would take the pop to manage cash flow and  the sysadmin would likely take the ppo and then lecture everyone about how HDHPs are a “ripoff” because he didn’t bother to think through the data and relies on assumptions he made 25 years ago, before pivoting to a diatribe about how BSD is the only real Unix. 

Meanwhile by paying higher premiums the two older workers are delivering profit to the carrier and the 25 year old is improving the overall risk of the pool, along with the secretary and the secretary‘s kids, which means the 55YO pays less. 

Edited March 1 by Bozo_Casanova

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

There are literally swaths of companies that cap people to prevent them from benefits. It's a science. Some of you guys are Neanderthals, out of touch with the times. Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front. 

Guess what I do if my employer limits my hours to 32 or less?

Hint:  Not just sit there like a fucking victim.  Stop acting as if it's a one way relationship.  Is that how much control you have over your life? "Well furk, Edith.  WidgetsUSA cut my hours to 30.  That's all I can do now..."

Edited March 1 by slorch

[Captainant 28380]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Guess what I do if my employer limits my hours to 32 or less?

Hint:  Not just sit there like a fucking victim.

The median wage earner (according to 52-80, earning $15/hr for 41k/yr income) would usually have to take a second job, which also doesn't give full time hours. And neither job schedules you with more than a few days notice. A good friend of mine from way back has made a habit of fucking up and is stuck in that phase of working hourly jobs, and the cold truth is there's just not much out there that offers full hours and benefits

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

The median wage earner (according to 52-80, earning $15/hr for 41k/yr income) would usually have to take a second job, which also doesn't give full time hours. And neither job schedules you with more than a few days notice. A good friend of mine from way back has made a habit of fucking up and is stuck in that phase of working hourly jobs, and the cold truth is there's just not much out there that offers full hours and benefits

I know of a place that exists across America and  beginning pay is $55k plus full bennies, and there have been pretty much constant openings since Covid.  You're gonna work your ass off, but the pay and benefits are great, but spare me the underemployment bullshit.

If you want to make it happen, you will.  If you're looking for an excuse, that's readily available too.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Btw- it’s not just about size. Employers that are willing to self-insure (iow, the employer puts up capital to cover the risk), have an attractive risk pool and do a good job of educating their employees how to use insurance* have enormous leverage negotiating for coverage. I worked for a midsize, growing tech company in Austin and my premiums declined while coverage improved from 2013-2021 when I left.  

*for example- how to maximize RX spending and to go to urgent care rather than deceptive free standing  “emergency rooms” unless it’s a true life threatening emergency and there is literally no other option. 

[aggie08 21732]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

theres no discussing grown ass adult stuff with a mental adolescent. 

Yes, we should all strive for the ability to take into account complexity and nuance in adult conversations like [checks notes]...slorch.

[Thatguy 9286]

13 minutes ago, slorch said:

Guess what I do if my employer limits my hours to 32 or less?

Hint:  Not just sit there like a fucking victim.  Stop acting as if it's a one way relationship.  Is that how much control you have over your life? "Well furk, Edith.  WidgetsUSA cut my hours to 30.  That's all I can do now..."

 

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The median wage earner (according to 52-80, earning $15/hr for 41k/yr income) would usually have to take a second job, which also doesn't give full time hours. And neither job schedules you with more than a few days notice. A good friend of mine from way back has made a habit of fucking up and is stuck in that phase of working hourly jobs, and the cold truth is there's just not much out there that offers full hours and benefits

This is the business model that a lot of companies that employ hourly are rolling with. Hard workers go and get a second job. Companies are no longer in the mindset of giving away anything. Newsflash, they also are pushing experienced people out in favor of younger people they can pay less to do the same work. Welcome to 24 Slorch. 

[Incredulity 11859]

21 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

 

This is the business model that a lot of companies that employ hourly are rolling with. Hard workers go and get a second job. Companies are no longer in the mindset of giving away anything. Newsflash, they also are pushing experienced people out in favor of younger people they can pay less to do the same work. Welcome to 24 Slorch. 

LOlz.  I am 54.  None of this ever occurred to me.  But to be fair, a noob can't do what I do, so there's that piece too.  23 YO Slorch couldn't do what 54 YO Slorch does.  Not even close.

Companies give away nothing.  Neither does labor.  You had better be competitive on both fronts.

Edited March 1 by slorch

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Companies give away nothing.  Neither does labor. 

This is where we disagree. Labor gives away WAY too much. 

[immamac 44197]

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

LOlz.  I am 54.  None of this ever occurred to me.  But to be fair, a noob can't do what I do, so there's that piece too.  23 YO Slorch couldn't do what 54 YO Slorch does.  Not even close.

Companies give away nothing.  Neither does labor.  You had better be competitive on both fronts.

This just isn't true and hasn't been true in a long time. Americans aren't some magical creatures that are productive, they are people that live in a country that has allowed global monopolies that are unchecked and the people need to be employed to prop up the machine. 

A lot of people don't realize that employment isn't because they need people to do the work, it's because they need people to pay and those people to use their money to buy stuff. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true and hasn't been true in a long time. Americans aren't some magical creatures that are productive, they are people that live in a country that has allowed global monopolies that are unchecked and the people need to be employed to prop up the machine. 

A lot of people don't realize that employment isn't because they need people to do the work, it's because they need people to pay and those people to use their money to buy stuff. 

What I posted is absolutely true.  If the robots could do it, they already would be.  In my field in particular, there is very little fluff with regard to staffing.  In fact with the consistent growth, finding productive people is at a premium. 

It ain't just fucking magic/ moving money around in our industry. You make it sound like everyone gets it  done with a crew of Miltons.  

Edited March 1 by slorch

[MissingInAction 25478]

If people would just stop being poor then all of the world's problems would be solved.

[52-80 19378]

42 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Unlikely- the 25yo would likely choose an HDHP because the premiums are lower, the the secretary would take the pop to manage cash flow and  the sysadmin would likely take the ppo and then lecture everyone about how HDHPs are a “ripoff” because he didn’t bother to think through the data and relies on assumptions he made 25 years ago, before pivoting to a diatribe about how BSD is the only real Unix. 

BSD guy sounds like he wears cargos. fyi i meant what plans are offered the employees, which is what was surveyed, and which dont discriminate based on class of employees  

 

42 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

There are literally swaths of companies that cap people to prevent them from benefits. It's a science. Some of you guys are Neanderthals, out of touch with the times. Companies no do what they can to prevent that as well as OT. Moose out front. 

Swathes of them affecting…all of 2.2% of workers*?

Can the moose show us that science?

*“Involuntary part-time workers want full-time work but work part time because of slack business conditions or because they only found part-time jobs.” -from the Current Population Survey

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is where we disagree. Labor gives away WAY too much. 

Then negotiate better.

or change your employer.

[Captainant 28380]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Swathes of them affecting…all of 2.2% of workers*?

Can the moose show us that science?

*“Involuntary part-time workers want full-time work but work part time because of slack business conditions or because they only found part-time jobs.” -from the Current Population Survey

It would be much more helpful to the discussion if you provided citations to your assertions and links to your sources rather than just screenshots and your paraphrasing.

 

But I know you're not here to discuss and just want to threadshit so people won't discuss enshittening, so carry on I guess.

[52-80 19378]

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is where we disagree. Labor gives away WAY too much. 

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?
Does the unemployment rate show an employers market or a workers market?

[Incredulity 11859]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It would be much more helpful to the discussion if you provided citations to your assertions and links to your sources rather than just screenshots and your paraphrasing.

The issue is probably that all of your assertions are so thoroughly documented with citations and links that..... oh wait.

[Brisketexan 106610]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?

They don't have to do so.  They have a protected cartel of employers who don't have to worry about labor actually organizing and doing something about it, courtesy of decades of laws making unionization and union activity a huge uphill climb.  Once you've legally squashed the practical ability of labor to organize and use their collective negotiating power, all employers get to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their effort: cheap labor that can't organize to do shit about the situation.

[Captainant 28380]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The issue is probably that all of your assertions are so thoroughly documented with citations and links that..... oh wait.

I don't think I've really made many assertions in this thread since it's been primarily discussion on agreed upon facts and microeconomic gripes of the quality of everything going down while the price goes up. In other threads where I'm asserting things I absolutely cite whenever possible and I'd argue that I'm pretty thorough in doing so. If you have an actual example to show me and not just your emotion and feelings, I'm happy to be correct and try to do better.

I guess I just don't get why you're posting in this thread, aside from being 52-80's Salacious Crumb 

[Incredulity 11859]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They have a protected cartel of employers

What?

The last 3-4 years have been a gigantic poachfest of employers knife fighting each other for labor. $7000 sign on bonus out front should have told ya.

[Incredulity 11859]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

agreed upon facts

 

settled science so to speak 

Edited March 1 by Incredulity

[immamac 44197]

13 minutes ago, slorch said:

What I posted is absolutely true.  If the robots could do it, they already would be.  In my field in particular, there is very little fluff with regard to staffing.  In fact with the consistent growth, finding productive people is at a premium.  It ain't just fucking magic/ moving money around in our industry.

That's not true at all. I have been a part of many initiatives that make people's jobs completely obsolete and unecessary and employers chose to keep paying high salaries because why the fuck not. Finding productive people isn't a premium, no one gives a shit anymore because they don't have to because what you posted is the opposite of true. There are so many "lazy girl jobs" that it's actually insane. There are TONS of white collar low value jobs. Blue collar work or labor intensive work may be true if there was a robot to do it they'd hire that, but shockingly robots are more expensive than people for labor. For complex tasks that require a human brain level to do them in an non-deterministic way there's only one thing you can do and that's hire a person. Is AI trying to do away with these shit jobs in corporate? Yeah, but AI is actually surprisingly shitty at stuff that's easy for even a dumb human to do. 

Your field is a fucking microcosm at best and you are probably still wrong about it because you are being an obtuse jackass instead of a realist. Corporate inefficiency is at an all time high in the US and it's partly because none of the companies are actually doing anything but going through the motions and have entrenched monopolies they can't be displaced from. It literally has more to do with the macro economy not being able to survive if only rich people got paid than it does for fair wages or whatever, which is why corps don't give a single fuck about employee satisfaction. 

The idea of "if you hate your job, then leave" is absolutely true. Some people just don't hate their job, they just don't like it so they are fine to just drone and collect their paycheck for doing nothing and adding next to no value. 

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?
Does the unemployment rate show an employers market or a workers market?

They do, and they did. When people could go full remote there was a huge movement of jobs and everyone got massive raises. The fuck are you talking about? It's like you live under a rock or something. 

[Captainant 28380]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

settled science so to speak 

I appreciate your continued pattern of never actually specifically taking issue with anything, and just generally disagreeing while lying about what I've posted. You must make your parents so proud.

[Macklemore 2945]

Switching gears to something more important :); the new and “improved” Big Macs are an absolute abomination. The new brioche bun on paper sounds tasty but is a soft mess that doesn’t hold the burger together. They have added so much extra special sauce, lettuce and pickles that literally my first three bites into it last night was just those items. Hey dickheads, how about making thicker and juicier patties. That’s a good start place to improve your shitty burgers.

 

 

[Guest]

One of the most terrible hamburger offerings in the world managed to get worse?

 

Does that move the needle?

[52-80 19378]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

They do, and they did. When people could go full remote there was a huge movement of jobs and everyone got massive raises. The fuck are you talking about? It's like you live under a rock or something. 

What exactly did you think my point was? vs Briskets or Hayden? 

[Covri 6366]

Just to clear up the numbers being thrown around $15 an hour is 31k a year not 41k. 10k is a big difference at that level of pay.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, immamac said:

That's not true at all. I have been a part of many initiatives that make people's jobs completely obsolete and unecessary and employers chose to keep paying high salaries because why the fuck not. Finding productive people isn't a premium, no one gives a shit anymore because they don't have to because what you posted is the opposite of true. There are so many "lazy girl jobs" that it's actually insane. There are TONS of white collar low value jobs. Blue collar work or labor intensive work may be true if there was a robot to do it they'd hire that, but shockingly robots are more expensive than people for labor. For complex tasks that require a human brain level to do them in an non-deterministic way there's only one thing you can do and that's hire a person. Is AI trying to do away with these shit jobs in corporate? Yeah, but AI is actually surprisingly shitty at stuff that's easy for even a dumb human to do. 

Your field is a fucking microcosm at best and you are probably still wrong about it because you are being an obtuse jackass instead of a realist. Corporate inefficiency is at an all time high in the US and it's partly because none of the companies are actually doing anything but going through the motions and have entrenched monopolies they can't be displaced from. It literally has more to do with the macro economy not being able to survive if only rich people got paid than it does for fair wages or whatever, which is why corps don't give a single fuck about employee satisfaction. 

The idea of "if you hate your job, then leave" is absolutely true. Some people just don't hate their job, they just don't like it so they are fine to just drone and collect their paycheck for doing nothing and adding next to no value. 

They do, and they did. When people could go full remote there was a huge movement of jobs and everyone got massive raises. The fuck are you talking about? It's like you live under a rock or something. 

Yep totally out of touch.  What I live every day and have experienced for 3 decades should totally defer to your opinions on the matter.

But, without me knowing,  you did change the subject to corporate inefficiency as a whole, as opposed to individual workers being productive.  In that, we are agreement, and I also agree that working remotely exposed/ exacerbated  the issue in a huge way.

The initial discussion was about regular folks working regular jobs.  I'm certainly not defending the corporate world as perfect.  There is bloat.  There is inefficiency.  I just get a kick out of folks discussing the notion that the average Joe can't make it in the world any more working 32 hours a week( not your posts, but they were driving the conversation.)

Edited March 1 by slorch

[Captainant 28380]

4 minutes ago, Covri said:

Just to clear up the numbers being thrown around $15 an hour is 31k a year not 41k. 10k is a big difference at that level of pay.

Ah fuck that's my bad. You're right that is a pretty considerable difference in hourly rate

Edited March 1 by Captainant

[52-80 19378]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What?

The last 3-4 years have been a gigantic poachfest of employers knife fighting each other for labor. $7000 sign on bonus out front should have told ya.

Brisket works in law, i think. In that occupation, nonunion employees significantly outearn union (“or similar employee association”) employees. 

As is the case in industry of computers, finance, professional services, etc. 

Unions are most prevalent in the lower-skilled industries or occupation like utilities, warehousing, etc. 

It works where it’s needed 🤷‍♂️. I dont think brisket would want it for himself. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

42 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

BSD guy sounds like he wears cargos

Cargos, pony tail, whole bit. 
 

37 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Why dont other greedy companies come in and scoop up this undervalued labor then?

they are. The biggest portion of real wage growth since Covid is workers changing jobs, particularly in the service industry. It’s the main reason why in the last 2-3 years you see real wage growth in the bottom half of the workforce.  
 

 

15 minutes ago, slorch said:

One of the most terrible hamburger offerings in the world managed to get worse?

I don’t know about the worst burger in the world, but I do know about the best one in Miami-Dade County. 

Edited March 1 by Bozo_Casanova

[Guest]

The wage rate search in the flashcards is on...

[52-80 19378]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

they are. The biggest portion of real wage growth since Covid is workers changing jobs, particularly in the service industry. It’s the main reason why in the last 2-3 years you see real wage growth in the bottom half of the workforce. 
 

positive price discovery in the labor market, triggered by the individual workers initiative/prerogative.  

its beautiful. just as yahweh would have wanted.

[aggie08 21732]

23 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Switching gears to something more important :); the new and “improved” Big Macs are an absolute abomination. The new brioche bun on paper sounds tasty but is a soft mess that doesn’t hold the burger together. They have added so much extra special sauce, lettuce and pickles that literally my first three bites into it last night was just those items. Hey dickheads, how about making thicker and juicier patties. That’s a good start place to improve your shitty burgers.

 

 

I do like the subtle acknowledgement of, "Hey, sorry we've been serving you buns that were toasted 30 seconds ago and, despite sandwiching warm ingredients, are somehow ice cold and stiff the moment we hand the box to you. Kinda cool how we were defying the laws of thermodynamics though, yeah?"

[Captainant 28380]

Wow I was just shit posting when I referred to the free market as God. I'm not entirely certain that 52-80 is joking lol. That's some unhinged shit

[Da Fino 2819]

48 minutes ago, immamac said:

Some people just don't hate their job, they just don't like it so they are fine to just drone and collect their paycheck for doing nothing and adding next to no value. 

You say "some" people, but it's got to be over 50%, right? 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, slorch said:

One of the most terrible hamburger offerings in the world managed to get worse?

 

Does that move the needle?

It really is the worst. McD breakfast is damn good. Nuggets are good when I eat them once a year. All the burgers taste like they have a chemical coating on everything. Just yuck.

[immamac 44197]

34 minutes ago, slorch said:

Yep totally out of touch.  What I live every day and have experienced for 3 decades should totally defer to your opinions on the matter.

But, without me knowing,  you did change the subject to corporate inefficiency as a whole, as opposed to individual workers being productive.  In that, we are agreement, and I also agree that working remotely exposed/ exacerbated  the issue in a huge way.

The initial discussion was about regular folks working regular jobs.  I'm certainly not defending the corporate world as perfect.  There is bloat.  There is inefficiency.  I just get a kick out of folks discussing the notion that the average Joe can't make it in the world any more working 32 hours a week( not your posts, but they were driving the conversation.)

They aren't my opinions and what you live every day is in a fucking bubble doug. The problem isn't with "being able to make it in the world", that's clearly untrue and a bunch of assholes are just wanting to live the lives of the rich and the famous and not everyone can be rich and famous. The problem is that A LOT more people could actually be middle class and there should be very few left outside in the poorer ranks.

Jobs that used to afford a middle class lifestyle no longer do that, they have started to ebb towards being actually poor instead of middle class. 

 

[Js1 86922]

32 minutes ago, Da Fino said:

You say "some" people, but it's got to be over 50%, right? 

[52-80 19378]

21 minutes ago, immamac said:

The problem is that A LOT more people could actually be middle class and there should be very few left outside in the poorer ranks.

Jobs that used to afford a middle class lifestyle no longer do that, they have started to ebb towards being actually poor instead of middle class.

Fixating on a specific of job is wrong. Jobs change as the market change. I sit with my laptop at home doing emails and paid amply for it. This job wouldnt have been available to someone like me decades ago, and this job might be worth nothing decades from now. But there might be another job for my abilities providing my lifestyle  

If you are concerned about the poorer ranks, look at the poorer ranks, instead of the job. 

So serious Q: how large is this poorer rank, supposedly? how has that size changed over the years? how does it compare to other admirable places in the world?