Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps pecause being a lesbian in Los Angeles, CA (pop. 9,862,049) is very different from being a lesbian in Moss Landing, CA (pop. 304)? Not everyone is as broad minded as big city folks.

3.29 minutes per day.

Some numbers. On TV watching alone americans are averaging 153 hours/month. About 5 hours/day. Say an hour a day of that is advertising though it's probably more. Average hourly wage is about $20/hour. Total US population is about 300 million. So 300 million hours, the equivalent of 6 billion dollars, is being wasted on TV advertising every day in the US alone (100 billion hours/year).

And that's not even including product placement, junk mail, web, billboard, shop and newspaper advertising. Advertising costs us as a society a staggering amount.

---

The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

Then describe it for me. What do they gain?

Lets look at socialism in the United States.

The U.S. spends about 20% of the nations GDP.
85% of the revenue collected by the U.S. government comes from 15% of the population.
Note that that 15% also acquires 85% of the adjusted gross income after basic living expenses.
The U.S. spends that revenue on:
9% Welfare
12% Defense
14% Education
14% Pensions
16% Health
All of which are socialist in nature. The bulk of the expense is covered by 15% of the population but 100% of the population benefits.

In some areas of the economy there are worker unions where the workers acting as one attempt to guarantee better wages and benefits for all. Usually the end result is not only better wages and benefits for union members but also for other areas of employment. And before anyone starts spewing the usual anti union rhetoric I suggest doing some research on the working conditions and wages of industrial workers in the United States prior to unions. And before bringing up GM versus Toyota note that Japan is even more socialist than the United States, their government is spending 30%+ of the GDP, so breaking the unions in the United States to pay for socialism in Japan is ludicrous.

I think any socialist system in which people are free to choose their own work to self-actualize, will suffer from a labour shortage in some sector, and so either people will be forced to work in a job they don't want to in order to compensate

That is communism and I believe you are correct, it doesn't work and it creates more problems than it solves.

Communism != Socialism

They are not the same thing. Socialism is practised at varying levels in virtually every industrialized western nation. People need to get over the propaganda they've been fed for decades. You can have socialism and still have private ownership of production, free market competition, compensation based on effort, skill and knowledge, etc. I know this to be true because its being done today.

Ah, the old "capitalism is exploitation" chestnut. Contrary to popular opinion, many people actually enjoy their jobs and are not being "exploited".

Ah the old "I don't agree with this guy so I'll try some simple labels to suggest they fit in some culturally negative stereotype, communist should work."

In 1980 the average CEO compensation was 42 times the average worker compensation, today its 319 times.
That is over 600% increase in compensation.

Median household income from 1980 to 2008 in 2008 dollars increased 14%, converted to current dollars for an accurate comparison thats a 173% increase.

From 1980 to 2008 the United States GDP grew over 400%

And yet here we are in the United States arguing over basic health care for the public because 1) as a nation we can afford it and anyone who says we can't is either a liar, in denial or hasn't bothered to actually look at the numbers and 2) because we have many cases where even individuals who have health insurance end up denied coverage which sometimes results in death.

Health insurance coverage sponsored by employers has continually dropped.
From over 68% of employees covered in 200 to under 60% in 2008.

By its nature capitalism is exploitation, I know that word has negative connotations but only because in some cases exploitation can turn into victimization.

When wages of 95% of the work force are suppressed to

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." -Kenneth Boulding

On a related note, the U.S. Census Bureau World Population Clock just ticked over to 6.8 billion a few minutes ago.

* Assuming you have a $100,000 a year job

Interesting fine print you have there. Here's a fun fact! Median household income in the US for 2008 was $50,233, whereas only about 15% of households made more than $100,000.

Your false concern about your fellow countrymen is a poor smokescreen for your agenda. "productive working middle class" indeed.

You should really dig up that citation, because none of what you said is true.

Most of that map that was red were large rural areas without many voters.

here's a breakdown of federal aid by state - the top 8 are all red states, the bottom 15 are blue (16 counting DC).

here is the median income by state. The 17 lowest are red states, the 9 highest are blue states (with the exception of alaska at #6)

here are crime rates. It's generally a mixed bag, the 5 lowest are: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, N. Dakota, and S. Dakota, the 5 highest are: South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, Louisiana, and Florida. (DC is the highest).

Detroit, and Michigan in general are certainly in a bad way, but Georgia and the Carolinas aren't far behind. Crime has dropped dramatically in major cities over the past 15 years, especially in New York. Today we're worried about meth in the boonies.

You citation needed people need to get a grip. You presumably support that state 'doing something about distracted driving' and you demand proof from people who aren't pushing that particular agenda. It works the other way around.

But regardless, data for the US that can answer many of your questions can be found here. It isn't entirely premasticated, so post "analysis needed" if you need help with it.

Do you know the numbers and are being coy?

For the Us killed and injured is here. Accidents overall is here.

Do you know the numbers and are being coy?

For the Us killed and injured is here. Accidents overall is here.

If you had read the Economist article, you'd know that this assumption has now been proven false. Birth rates start rising again after a certain level of affluence. People figure they can afford a few extra mouths to feed.

According to US Census, world's rate of population growth peaked at the 1960's and has been in decline ever since.

Furthermore, according to its own about page, The Economist has an agenda, so frankly, any claim made by it is suspect (assuming it even made the claim, since the article seems to be still missing). Do you have a link to a scientific study proving your claims?

Seriously, though, the logic is sound and the current population trends are clear.

Boy do we need a better solution. Let's have some fun with numbers...

36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)
US population ~ 307,000,000 (http://www.census.gov/)
Average US household size = 2.61 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts)
Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; no businesses at all) = ~188,200
Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles
Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html) = 44,816.61

Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.

Boy do we need a better solution. Let's have some fun with numbers...

36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)
US population ~ 307,000,000 (http://www.census.gov/)
Average US household size = 2.61 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts)
Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; no businesses at all) = ~188,200
Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles
Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html) = 44,816.61

Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.

Boy do we need a better solution. Let's have some fun with numbers...

36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)
US population ~ 307,000,000 (http://www.census.gov/)
Average US household size = 2.61 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts)
Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; no businesses at all) = ~188,200
Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles
Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html) = 44,816.61

Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.

After I read your list of safe states I thought there might be a correlation between snowfall and driving safety- I didn't see MN, WI, ND, SD, MT, AK, or CO (heavy snowfall/ice states) in your list. So I looked around and found this:

http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-annual-snowfall-map.htm

It looks like there is more to this than just snow, since several of the safest states have pretty decent snowfall. I did notice a stricking lack of 'warm' states on the safe list; with the exception of GA, none of the states that are mostly or wholly in the tan "less than 8 inches" band across the southern US made it onto the list.

This map of population density:
http://www.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/popdens-2008.html

shows that most of the safer states have fairly low population densities (NJ being the exception). More specific maps showing population centers would be helpful. However, many of the 'less safe' states also have very low population densities as well.

Perhaps there's an actuary here on /. who could tie all this together?

-b

Not only is Cook County the second most populous county in the US (5.3 million by US census data), it ranks 17 by population density, 18 by housing density but only 411th of 3,141 by area(unsurprisingly the top 9 are all in Alaska, as well as 13 of the top 20).

And being the sheriff for 43% of the population of Illinois (1.91% of the entire US population) makes the "local sheriff" moniker sound like an attempt to make him sound like a hillbilly. Keep in mind he's the sheriff of a bigger populace than 30 US States can muster on their own. In fact he's the sheriff of a population bigger than Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa combined.

Now, if the poster was talking about the Sheriff of Loving County (population 65), that'd be different. It's one of the few counties, where a single person will make a big difference to the population numbers.

While Firefox, by contrast, is licensed TO THE WORLD!

The university attendance rate over there must be exceptionally low?

In 2007, 27% of Americans had a bachelor degree or higher, and 54% had "some college or more" which includes associate degrees and those who attempted college but failed. 10% of Americans have a degree beyond the bachelors.

84% of Americans have graduated from high school.

In an international comparison in 2000, 37% of Americans have reached a "tertiary" level of education, compared with 29% in Australia.

Currently 68.6% of recent high school graduates were attending college in October 2008.

So it appears that college cost may be less of a problem than it may appear...

That said, the US is much more regionally diverse (read 'f'ing big and spread out) compared to EU countries so it's much more challenging.

So? This isn't an EU wide law, it only applies to Finland. If the US can have state by state legislation on homosexuals marrying, why can't they have similar things for ISPs?

Let's pick a moderately small, rich and denser populated state - that way the state will look favourable compared to Finland in all aspects.

New York:
Area: 54,555 sq mi
Population 19,490,297 (2008 est.)
  - Density 408.7/sq mi
GDP: 1,144,481 million US$
Per capita: $58,720

Finland
Area 130,596 sq mi
Population 5,346,927 (2009 est.)
  - Density 40/sq mi
GDP: 271,867 million US$
Per capita: $51,588

So, New York state is richer than Finland (even per capita), it's denser populated, and it has almost four times as many potential customers. There is no reason New York state couldn't mandate similar requirements for ISPs operating there.

Hell, to avoid forcing it onto ISPs in essentially desolated areas, add a loop hole: Only required in counties with a population density above 50/sq mi. This is denser than Finland, but they're leaving out a bit of their essentially desolate areas as well.

Using Census.gov on counties and population density as the base, that leaves out the following counties:
Allegany County, Herkimer County, St, Lawrence County, Delaware County, Franklin County, Essex County, Lewis County, Hamilton County.

Total population missing out: 396,648 (2.03%).

Hell, double the density requirements to >100/sq mi, and you only increase it to 1,412,872 (7.25%).

Considering the requirement to have nutritional values written onto the menus isn't subsidised by the state and it is only an extra expense forced onto the food industry who then either pass it on to the consumer or reduce their profit, I think mandated broadband access and requirements is a positive for New York state.

It would make it easier to start internet connected companies outside of the extremely dense cities, leading to cheaper rent and lower costs for the company, thus higher profits. This in turn would mean you can cut down on commute through dense traffic, it would make it cheaper to live near your job and generally could lead to less dense population centres.

And while I don't have hard numbers to back it up, I suspect you'll see less crime/population when the population density drops off. For instance, I would expect Montana to have less crime/population than New York State does.

I have a hard time seeing the downside to this kind of legislation in New York State.

Some will argue that it will result in higher costs for everyone, but why? If you have to live up to these requirements to be an ISP in New York State, it will add incentive for competition. If a low density county want to create their own ISP, then they simply have to add a local requirement for ISPs that they need to live up to the state legislation. If no outside ISPs want to do that, then they can build their own infrastructure. And since the county is only living up to state legislation, I doubt see any court willing to block it.

Sure, grandma who is happy with her modem, might not see a point in having broad band. Until she tries it. She was probably fine with having to pull water out of a well and using the outhouse until she tried running water and indoor plumbing - try convincing her to go without it now.

Actually, most individuals make less than they did in the '50s. It's just that households make more on average, usually because both people are working.

I'll need maybe 20-30 days a year (only 2 or 3 days a month away), so that's 600-900. Assuming I find completely free electricity for the EV, I'll be "saving" around 600-700 in commuting fuel costs. Oops.

There are a lot of assumptions here. One that you're going to travel more than 500 miles one way at least 20 and up to 30 times a year. Also, that gas prices will remain fairly constant. And that any incentives for buying a zero emissions vehicle for some reason don't augment the fuel cost savings. I'm ok with that, since this theoretical 500 mile per charge EV may come with a premium price tag, or maybe any incentives just offset the cost of electricity, whatever.

Fixed (by the tax man) per-mile rate for car travel.

In your own car. Doesn't apply to the cost of renting a vehicle for work.

YMMV - thinking around my extended family, friends, and work colleagues I can't think of any car driver who _never_ drives 100miles away.

On the other hand, I can think of several people who wouldn't even consider a car trip of more than say, 200-300 miles-- that's why airplanes were invented, they opine. However, I did not say people. I said cars. You may find a different result among your family and friends if you ask how often each of their vehicles make 100, 200, 500 mile trips. Lots of cars are owned by multi-car families that typically use one car (the biggest or most comfortable, whatever) on their long trips. Census data from http://factfinder.census.gov/ show that about 55% of households have 2 or more vehicles. So again, while it may not quite work for you, there are lots of people for whom an EV -- even with perhaps as little as 100 or 200 mile range -- would work just fine.

Yes, the old are the wealthiest segment of the population. See this census publication, page 11.

Old folks should pay more of their own expenses. Everyone should pay more of their own expenses and take less money from their neighbors (by force, against their neighbors' will).

The stuff you said about inflation is wrong and bizarre. The world can consume a lot (like we did during World War Two) or it can save for future consumption or it can borrow against future production.

None of that has anything to do with inflation. Inflation is caused by (essentially) printing money, which is simply a choice.

to a person they have pledged their life to

The statistics disagree with you: 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce ( http://www.divorcerate.org/ ) Average length of a marriage is 8 years ( http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf )

You just made my point. You pledge "Until Death do us part" but some just don't keep that pledge. And of those that have already proven not to keep that pledge, they are more likely not to again...

to a person they have pledged their life to

The statistics disagree with you:

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce ( http://www.divorcerate.org/ )
Average length of a marriage is 8 years ( http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf )

For Federalist #10, read the section on how a majority faction won't subvert the democratic republic. The size and spread of the population was critical to that argument.

For the subprime mortgages, a very likely reason the government didn't oversee the mortgage markets was because Congress and the President underfunded the organizations dedicated to overseeing the markets. For instance, the head of enforcement for the SEC testified to Congress that "While we appreciate and examine every lead we receive, we simply do not have the resources to fully investigate them all."

On your last point, you would be incorrect about the financial strength of the middle class. Using the census's figures on median and mean income: From 1949 to 1969, mean and median incomes (adjusted for inflation) approximately doubled. From 1985 to 2005, median and mean incomes (again adjusted for inflation) increased by about 20%. Looking at this chart of how those income gains were distributed also suggests that the 80's and 90's were not the environment of a middle-class powerhouse.

Lastly, under Clinton the top marginal tax rate went from 35% to 39.5%.

The Wired article makes good points. But, behind those points (in the US) has been essentially no growth in income for most wage earners since 2000. In these circumstances, crap is king, despite the observable truth that those who buy cheap, buy at least twice.

Well I've done the research and here's the deal:

The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid.

You've done the research? Care to provide a citation for your claims?

The 50 (sometimes 47) million number that is often quoted comes from SAHIE. A quick glance at the about page will show you that:

The SAHIE program models health insurance coverage by combining survey data with population estimates and administrative records. Our estimates are based on data from the following sources:

* The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS);
* Demographic population estimates;
* Aggregated federal tax returns;
* Participation records for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program;
* County Business Patterns;
* Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) participation records; and
* Census 2000.

If you want to dig deaper then checkout the data inputs section.

BOTTOM LINE: it is not a "mailin" survey or anything of the sort. 47 million is the best, educated guess of the number of uninsured based on data from a wide variety of sources collected in 2005 and compiled by SAHIE; 50 million if you look at the 2006 data.

Well I've done the research and here's the deal:

The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid.

You've done the research? Care to provide a citation for your claims?

The 50 (sometimes 47) million number that is often quoted comes from SAHIE. A quick glance at the about page will show you that:

The SAHIE program models health insurance coverage by combining survey data with population estimates and administrative records. Our estimates are based on data from the following sources:

* The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS);
* Demographic population estimates;
* Aggregated federal tax returns;
* Participation records for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program;
* County Business Patterns;
* Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) participation records; and
* Census 2000.

If you want to dig deaper then checkout the data inputs section.

BOTTOM LINE: it is not a "mailin" survey or anything of the sort. 47 million is the best, educated guess of the number of uninsured based on data from a wide variety of sources collected in 2005 and compiled by SAHIE; 50 million if you look at the 2006 data.

Well I've done the research and here's the deal:

The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid.

You've done the research? Care to provide a citation for your claims?

The 50 (sometimes 47) million number that is often quoted comes from SAHIE. A quick glance at the about page will show you that:

The SAHIE program models health insurance coverage by combining survey data with population estimates and administrative records. Our estimates are based on data from the following sources:

* The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS);
* Demographic population estimates;
* Aggregated federal tax returns;
* Participation records for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program;
* County Business Patterns;
* Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) participation records; and
* Census 2000.

If you want to dig deaper then checkout the data inputs section.

BOTTOM LINE: it is not a "mailin" survey or anything of the sort. 47 million is the best, educated guess of the number of uninsured based on data from a wide variety of sources collected in 2005 and compiled by SAHIE; 50 million if you look at the 2006 data.

Here you go.

and as a cross reference

Amazing how these things get modded up and I'm told to find information by searching with Google but am asked to cite something. No offense, it's just odd that people who are skeptical about what I know are the same ones telling me that I can find the data on Google. It just amazes me. Oddly enough I also find it ironic that in this case we're also discussing the poor state of education.

But I just don't understand your antipathy to the middle class working people -- do you really think they are "lazy people" who don't have the will to go and get educated? Seriously? Do you know how hard it is for the American working class to, on top of working an underpaying job, go get additional education? I am constantly shocked at how this nation - the nation with the greatest scientific system in the world - has a national political discourse that is completely devoid of basic empirical facts. Like, you know how long it took me to get those census numbers? 30 seconds. You're a slashdot reader with advanced interweb skillz. Go use teh google.

But I just don't understand your antipathy to the middle class working people -- do you really think they are "lazy people" who don't have the will to go and get educated? Seriously? Do you know how hard it is for the American working class to, on top of working an underpaying job, go get additional education? I am constantly shocked at how this nation - the nation with the greatest scientific system in the world - has a national political discourse that is completely devoid of basic empirical facts. Like, you know how long it took me to get those census numbers? 30 seconds. You're a slashdot reader with advanced interweb skillz. Go use teh google.

But I just don't understand your antipathy to the middle class working people -- do you really think they are "lazy people" who don't have the will to go and get educated? Seriously? Do you know how hard it is for the American working class to, on top of working an underpaying job, go get additional education? I am constantly shocked at how this nation - the nation with the greatest scientific system in the world - has a national political discourse that is completely devoid of basic empirical facts. Like, you know how long it took me to get those census numbers? 30 seconds. You're a slashdot reader with advanced interweb skillz. Go use teh google.

People are surprised by this? Our inner cities are rotting. Our economy is in shambles. People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecidented scale in this country. We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical.

And worst of all, there is a massive wave of over exaggeration plaguing the country! I cannot believe this was marked as 5 insightful. Poverty and squallor on unprecidented scale? Have you heard of the Great Depression? What facts and figures are you quoting? According to the US census at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty07/pov07fig03.pdf the poverty percentage has been at between 10 and 15 percent since the mid 60s. In 1959 it was 23%, so nearly a quarter of the population was in poverty!

We're a breeding ground now for all manners of disease, both social and medical? Start with the medical. Based on what science? Tens of thousands dying of cholera is a sign of breeding disease. Random cases of strange medical ailments because people in 3rd world countries immigrated to the US is not. What is your solution, stop all immigration? As for social disease, since the founding of the country people have been complaining about various "social diseases" plaguing the US. Heck, the crazy temperance movement managed to get all alcohol banned as a cure for the various social diseases resulting from drinking.

As for the decline of America, I've been hearing it all my life. First is was the Japanese, how they were much smarter and so much harder working than Americans, blah, blah, blah. Now it is the Chinese.

And no, I hate to disappoint you but we aren't going to be the Roman Empire because I don't see any barbarians who are going to come and raze our cities. We do not decline so much as everyone else is catching up to us. And the only reason there is catching up is because almost everyone else was demolished 60 years ago during WWII. There is no fundamental reason that the US should be the sole military, economic, and political power for the rest of human history. If we were a bunch of evil jerks, the US could try and use its power to keep everyone else down. But we don't and good for us for that.

Remember, the decline of the number of union workers in the US exactly tracks the decline of real income of American workers, which has been inexorable since the election of Ronald Reagan

US total real compensation per hour (the total of wages and benefits, such as health coverage, life insurance, and 401(k) plans) has been rising monotonically since at least 1950, with the notable exception of a plateau between 1992 and 1997. Graph here.

Moreover, US real median family income rose during the Reagan era (1981-1989) from $40K to $45K (2006 dollars). After Reagan, real median family income fell a bit but then went back up to nearly $50K in 1999. Data on Wikipedia.

In 2007, US real median household income was $50,233 in (2007 dollars.)

Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes.

Compare the panics and crashes of the 19th century under "unregulated capitalism" with the Great Depression.

And unregulated capitalism essentially means NO middle class. If you want to see what unregulated capitalism looks like, look at what it was like in the United States at the turn of the 20th century (or look at China today). You had two classes of people...the haves and have-nots.

China is not "unregulated capitalism", but insofar as capitalism is left alone in China, a large Chinese middle class is growing.

The lower class had to work 14-16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for slave wages, with no job security (you get hurt, you get fired). Don't like working like a slave? Tough luck! It was good for the economy though. Sick people didn't live long enough to be much of a drain on the economy.

14-16 hours a week for 6 days is 84 to 96 hours per week. In fact, the average workweek for manufacturing, coal mining, railroads, building trades and postal employees was around 52 hours, according to this (page 48).

The so-called "socialist" policies put in place during the 1930's resulted in the expansion of the middle class in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, you'd likely still be working in a sweatshop right now.

Highly unlikely. How many "sweatshops" do you see in places like Hong Kong and Singapore?

I didn't mean to imply that Texas was the gold standard or anything. It's just a big state, and doing a lot of driving isn't abnormal around here compared to a lot of other places.

If you do a google search for average commute to work and average mile commute to work you will see that the average miles people drive to work is about 15 miles one way or 30 miles total.

NY has the highest average commute time at nearly 40 mins. The average for the US is 25.1 mins.

Having long commutes might not be uncommon, but they are not the norm. The average driver does NOT drive 40+ (80+ miles both ways) to work.

Some times you trip to work feels a lot longer than it actually is. Hop on mapquest or google maps and calculate your actual trip to work. I bet it's shorter than you think.

My trip to work was literally half what I expected it to be. Same with one of the guys I work with who swore his trip was a lot longer than what it turned out to be.

Anyway my main point was that people who have a short drive to work are NOT the elite few. That is all.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001695.html

I will add....America has very few exports now. IP is basically it. So, it is in the interest of America's wealthy to impose strict IP laws (and hence artificial scarcity) all over the planet.

What did you say your sources were for this?
The United States is the 3rd Largest Exporter in the World. The Top 10 Exports from the United States are:

• Transportation Equipment
• Chemicals
• Computer & Electronic Products
• Machinery, Except Electrical
• Petroleum & Coal Products
• Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
• Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components
• Food & Kindred Products
• Plastics & Rubber Products
• Fabricated Metal Products

While it is true that the United States has a trade deficit, it is not for lack of exports. Which is to say, there is no excuse at all for the media companies to push for stronger Imaginary Property laws, except that they want a larger piece of the, relatively very large, exports pie. This is pure greed. To frame it as a survival response lends credibility to their arguments that they do not have.

Working- and lower-class people in the US have diets dominated by heavy starches, red meat, high fructose corn syrup, and heavy food additives. The middle and upper classes, especially on the coasts, have diets dominated by fresh vegetables and seafood, and usually can afford the time and energy to go to the gym, etc..

Can we please stop splitting the US up this way? Whether or not you live next to an ocean has no correlation with obesity, education, income, poverty, or anything else.

Here is a map of adult overweight/obesity rates by state. Here is a map showing the rate of childhood overweight/obesity rates. The trends seem to be regional, with the West and Northwest having the lowest rates and the Midwest and South having the highest. Notice that Colorado and Utah have lower obesity rates than New York, California, or Washington. Your first point about income level is closer to the truth, but as these maps show, it is not even close to a direct correlation. Many more factors are involved.

U.S. Imports from China accounted for about $338 billion in 2008. Exports were about $70 billion. The U.S. GDP in 2008 was about $14.2 trillion, so trade with China accounted for about 2.9% of the U.S. economy. China holds about $800 billion in U.S. treasury securities. Even if you add that (which you shouldn't since it's a dollar amount while the other figures are dollars/year, but let's do it since we're talking about them hypothetically dumping all their securities on the market), China's impact on the U.S. GDP is only 8.5%.

China's GDP in 2008 $3.9-$4.4 trillion, so their trade with the U.S. accounted for about 9.3%-10.5% of their economy.

So economically, China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs China.

The US Government Tiger road maps are free (and the basis for much of NavTeq's data I believe in the US).

It's also the basis for the US data in OpenStreetMap and TeleAtlas as well; though OSM has done a LOT more with that data than the commercial sources have. For example, Navteq and TeleAtlas generally have limited, sponsored POIs, and no cycleway data, but OSM gets the cycleways, and has pretty much every POI that at least one person finds useful.

The US Government Tiger road maps are free (and the basis for much of NavTeq's data I believe in the US).

Quo Vadis for the original Palms used those maps for navigation when you plugged a GPSr into your Palm.

That was my first in car nav system back in 2002! And it was nice having the separate screens, the GPSr showing speed, average speed, odometer with the map on the Palm separate.

Although hardly the most bleeding edge tech, obviously there's tons of development for Palms. (Absurdly inexpensive too, just $5 or so for a Palm and tens of dollars for a basic GPSr.)

in case someone wants to get smart with me:

"The median income in 1960 was 5,600": http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf

It's good to see hardware acceleration being added, but this has been working in software for years.

http://dataferrett.census.gov/

The problem is that "free trade" should mean that the price in market A cannot be more than the price in market B plus costs for transportation to and sale in market A. Any person or company should be free to fly to india, buy 5000 copies of the latest DVD, fly back, and sell those DVD's for any price he or she likes. That *is* free trade.

Companies, especially if they sell a non-commodity (ie there is no competitor with the exact same product; compare bricks to dvds), love segmenting markets so they can maximize their profit. Offering student discounts is a prime example of this: students have less expandable income, so the optimal price for them (ie the intersection of supply and demand curves) is lower than for non-students [ignoring the 'hook 'em while they're young' argument]. Market segmentation is always good for the company selling goods, and can be bad for the consumer on the wrong end of the segmentation.

Free trade *should* limit the ability of companies to segment markets based on geography just as anti-discrimination practices *should* limit their ability to segment based on race, gender, religion etc, which are also good proxies of income (eg http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html; blacks earn (median) 30k, hispanics 34k, whites 49k and asians 58k). Just imagine having separate prices for black people and white people!

By granting companies the sole right to distribute something and enforce that right using the courts, international treaties, customs, and DRM, we are allowing them to operate as if free trade does not apply to them.

Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living in a state where 89.3% of the population is Caucasian. Yes, there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt, cross-burning, KKK-style racism; but a kind of smug, condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity, while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away, "back to where they came from."

Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture, it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury. For justice to be served, the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans, if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at, but that she was a real human being like they were.

Were there any Native Americans on the jury? In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog, I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were. He rejected this question, characterizing it as "offensive." "People's lives are at stake in these cases," he offered in self-justification.

Oh really? Let's set aside, for the moment, that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive. How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas? I think suppressing this information actually hurt her, and continues to hurt her.

Racism hurts people in the justice system. Not acknowledging it hurts people even more.

A 2.5% flat income tax? 2.5%?? My dear friend, I don't even need the back of an envelope to tell you that you'll never take in enough tax with that to cover even the most basic of public services. Making up the shortfall with a tax on luxury goods won't work because, well, they're luxury goods! Per definition people are willing to forgo their purchase. And, even if they weren't, I highly doubt the turnover on luxury goods is high enough that even a 100% tax would fill the Government's coffers much.

Further, your flat income tax suggestion ignores the ability-to-pay-principle: those who can afford to pay more, should (i.e. progressive taxation). Otherwise you are expecting the weak to carry the same burden as the strong, when the weak should be supported by the strong. Because the weak (poor) spend a greater proportion of their income on the necessities of life than their strong (rich), a flat tax hits them proportionally harder – though it seems counter-intuitive, a flat tax discriminates against low-income earners. Also supporting the ability-to-pay-principle is the decreasing marginal utility of income.

A possible ammendment to your suggestion would be to have a tax-free threshold that would allow everyone to purchase the necessities of life, then taxing flatly from then on -- the tax is then weakly progressive, as with each dollar you earn your average tax rate rises, though the marginal rate remains unchanged. This flat tax has been calculated to be (for Australia) around 40% (I'm going from memory here, so +/- 10%). In any case, an order of magnitude higher than your suggestion.

Another possibility, though less accepted in the anglo-saxon world (a little more so in Europe, where socialism isn't a dirty word), is to simply give everyone a basic income (say, US$11000 – the US Poverty Threshold in 2008) and then tax every dollar of income.

Yea, it has everything to do with loss of jobs and the auto industry. Let me keep it simple enough someone with a government schooling should be able to follow along. Democrats destroy jobs. The greater thier majorities and the longer the time they hold it the worse the damage. Go plot the demographic trendlines yourself if you don't believe me. The Bluer the state and longer it has been blue the more seats it has lost in the last couple of Census reallocations. The Red states have been picking up seats. People are voting with their feet.

Did you mistakenly confuse correlation with causation?

You know why the red states are growing in population? Maybe this link will be of assistance. If you don't feel like checking the statistics yourself, that's fine... but the birth rate in red states is far higher than in blue states. And this also correlates with education level and with economic status. The highest birthrates are observed in the lowest quintile of income. And the red states have a disproportionate share of households in the lowest (and second-lowest) quintile.

So, please, tell me that you didn't overlook this basic fact, and that you have a citation for disproportionate population growth in red states being due to migration due to economic factors (particularly due to job loss). Because I'd love to see it.

Yes, unemployment is higher in blue states, by and large, than red states. But the previous decade saw a lot of migration to the blue states, due to better employment situations than in red states. So I really wonder if you're extrapolating the current readjustment to apply as a generality. Especially since the nature of employment in the blue states make employment in those states more susceptible to economic downturns.

Last year exports to the USA accounted for about 24% of Chinese exports but only about 13% of USA imports. USA exports accounted for about 6.5% of Chinese imports but only about 4% of USA exports. I wouldn't be so sure about who is dependent on who.

First off, we're talking about the economy, where a few percentage points are the difference between a good year and a bad year.

Second your 2008 numbers are wrong

USA imports from China = 16.1% of total imports
USA exports to China = 5.5% of total exports
Which works out to a combined 12% of total trade

Third, in a world of Just In Time inventory systems, it would not be trivial or cheap to find new suppliers.
And that's assuming you can even find such a massive quantity of unused manufacturing capacity to make up the difference.
I'm pretty sure the shock would cause chaos in both countries.

Of course your implication that taxes (not the maximum tax rate) were higher in 1939 is still probably false.

The wikipedia article does not spell out at what income level that 80% kicked in. Nor how it compares to the average income of the time.

According to the IRS that 1939 79% tax rate was for folks over $5m. Of course, they also claim that the 1951-1963 top tax bracket of 90% started at income of $400k. According to the census bureau, in 1967, an income of $19k would put you in the top 5% of households, equivalent to $180k today. By wild extrapolation, you might imagine the 90% tax rate to start around $3.6-4m today.

In today's terms, if income tax rate topped out at 80% but only for incomes larger than 100 million then it would have practically no impact at all and certainly wouldn't end up accounting for more than a very small fraction of all taxes collected.

And how much benefit does a $200m earner gain from that second $100m? One often hears the argument that high salaries are required in order to recruit the best talent to extremely difficult, stressful, or unpleasant jobs: is the guy working for $200m really going to refuse to work for $100m, or is he motivated by other than money? Meanwhile, $100m is all the budget cuts Obama has ordered. It's the sum total of the US investment in a smart electrical grid. It's 50 NIH grants. It's the tax paid by nearly 12,000 median-income earners.

Don't get me wrong: people with extraordinary skills ought to reap extraordinary benefits. Surely there's a point where money extra money becomes more or less meaningless.