ending babies to daycare at age 2 months is NOT FUCKING NORMAL!!! Yet 99% of the people around here do that.
Wet nurses, nannies, boarding schools, etc. have been normal for the upper class for hundreds of years. And if you are a two income family in America, then you are part of the global upper class.
According to your own link, the worst year for suicides at Foxconn was 14 suicides out of 930,000 employees. This is substantially lower than the US suicide rate, which is 12.6 suicides per 100,000 people per year.
How about Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand? They all have [taxfoundation.org] a lower tax burden on workers
Be honest. That is not what the data in your link shows. It shows the tax burden on the *average* worker. Countries with progressive taxation have higher taxes on wealthier citizens so that *average* workers pay less. Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand do NOT have lower overall government spending (as the link I previously provided shows), they just shift the tax burden differently than the US (which is what your tax foundation link shows).
Meaning taxes are up about 2.5 times per capita, versus the 50s. Is our quality of life that much better?
That is an unequivocal YES LIFE IS BETTER NOW. Life expectancy is higher. Educational attainment is higher. Workplaces are safer. The environment is cleaner. Food is cheaper. Travel is cheaper.
our labor force participation rate is low, poverty is up, and crime is much higher
Are you allergic to citing sources? Because none of that is true.
labor force participation rate is higher now than in the 1950s https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...
Poverty rates plummeted from 1959 to 1973 https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Crime rate is trending down. Its still higher than 1960, but not much. Murder rate, in particular, is the roughly the same as 1960. Certainly, no correlation with government spending : http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...
You missed the point of that quote. It's about the separation of powers. In Madison's view, CONGRESS may not have the right to expend the money of their constituents on "objects of benevolence", but State Government would have that right. Given the subject of this article is a tax by the State of Oregon, Madison would have no objection.
That's it? The only examples that you can up with are two city-states (one that isn't even sovereign) and a country famous for not having a standing military? Surely, if decreasing government spending increased quality of life, then there would be some other examples. There are 58 countries that spend less of their GDP on government than the US. Why aren't all those countries paragons of prosperity?
Let's look at come numbers:
The only difference between Switzerland and the US is that Switzerland doesn't spend 3.5% of its GDP on the military, like the US does. If you want to argue cutting the military in particular, you'll probably get some support. But there is not empirical evidence that across the board cuts on government spending would increase quality of life.
Back to your original question: the biggest outlays of the US Federal Government are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So of course that spending is improving quality of life because its going directly back to the people who need it.
There has been plenty of money spent on manned missions. $78B on the ISS. $40B on SLS (and still no vehicle to show for it). Those two alone would be enough to fund 100 Juno missions.
The problem with bias is that even if you the bias is based on some truth, you cannot judge individual outcomes based on group statistics. On average, men are taller than women. But an algorithm that automatically assumed that Bob is taller than Alice, just based on gender, would be wrong nearly half the time.
536 people have been to space. Please list the scientific discoveries about space that they have made that could not have been done with robotic probes. Not spin-off technologies. Not circular "what happens to a person in space" questions. I want an actual apple-to-apple comparisons with the scientific data gathered by probes. You name drop a couple of Apollo astronauts, but the scientific discoveries from those mission came from analysis of returned samples, not data gathered by the astronauts while on mission. A robot with a shovel would have accomplished the same thing.
The return on investment, however, did not return to NASA.
Then its not an investment, is it? NASA was a customer that bought a product. That product was delivered and the actual investors (Fairchild and TI) got the returns.
Yet another example of a space mission with real scientific value where sending a human was unnecessary and would have been detrimental. If the US public would get over its obsession with spam-in-a-can, we could have a hundred times as many projects like this.
Look at that, I get modded down for providing a link FROM NASA proving that NASA can and does profit from licensing their technology. You space nutters will even hate on NASA if it doesn't fit your fantasies.
Neither China or Russia have successful launched a probe to Mars or any of the outer planets. Scientific progress should be measured by scientific utility. Putting spam-in-a-can into LEO doesn't have much scientific value.
Why should NASA get any credit for inventing something when they were merely a customer? The US Army was the first customer of the Wright brothers, but that doesn't mean the Army invented the airplane.
One of NASA's missions is to do that kind of research and quite literally give it away to anyone who wants it.
This is completely incorrect. Since 1980, the Bayh–Dole Act allows research agencies to license and profit from the technologies created under Federal grants. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60521...
LOL. That is so delightfully naive. I could write out a whole essay on how you're wrong on so many levels. But that would be like explaining to a little kid that is no such thing as Santa.
Slashdot Mirror
ending babies to daycare at age 2 months is NOT FUCKING NORMAL!!! Yet 99% of the people around here do that.
Wet nurses, nannies, boarding schools, etc. have been normal for the upper class for hundreds of years. And if you are a two income family in America, then you are part of the global upper class.
Tesla's current stock price is valued as if they already are a major automaker. Their market cap is higher than GM.
According to your own link, the worst year for suicides at Foxconn was 14 suicides out of 930,000 employees. This is substantially lower than the US suicide rate, which is 12.6 suicides per 100,000 people per year.
Be honest. That is not what the data in your link shows. It shows the tax burden on the *average* worker. Countries with progressive taxation have higher taxes on wealthier citizens so that *average* workers pay less. Canada, the UK, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand do NOT have lower overall government spending (as the link I previously provided shows), they just shift the tax burden differently than the US (which is what your tax foundation link shows).
Meaning taxes are up about 2.5 times per capita, versus the 50s. Is our quality of life that much better?
That is an unequivocal YES LIFE IS BETTER NOW. Life expectancy is higher. Educational attainment is higher. Workplaces are safer. The environment is cleaner. Food is cheaper. Travel is cheaper.
our labor force participation rate is low, poverty is up, and crime is much higher
Are you allergic to citing sources? Because none of that is true. labor force participation rate is higher now than in the 1950s https://data.bls.gov/timeserie... Poverty rates plummeted from 1959 to 1973 https://www.washingtonpost.com... Crime rate is trending down. Its still higher than 1960, but not much. Murder rate, in particular, is the roughly the same as 1960. Certainly, no correlation with government spending : http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...
In other words, Madison would have no argument with the State of Oregon having the power to tax bicycle sales.
You missed the point of that quote. It's about the separation of powers. In Madison's view, CONGRESS may not have the right to expend the money of their constituents on "objects of benevolence", but State Government would have that right. Given the subject of this article is a tax by the State of Oregon, Madison would have no objection.
http://www.theglobaleconomy.co...
USA: 14.44%
Switzerland: 11.33%
Singapore: 10.4%
The only difference between Switzerland and the US is that Switzerland doesn't spend 3.5% of its GDP on the military, like the US does. If you want to argue cutting the military in particular, you'll probably get some support. But there is not empirical evidence that across the board cuts on government spending would increase quality of life.
Back to your original question: the biggest outlays of the US Federal Government are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So of course that spending is improving quality of life because its going directly back to the people who need it.
The average bus has 7 passengers.
[citation needed]
Two people in a car use less fuel per passenger-mile
Unfortunately, 76% of people in the in US commute to work ALONE.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/co...
Name a country that has less tax burden but better quality of life.
There has been plenty of money spent on manned missions. $78B on the ISS. $40B on SLS (and still no vehicle to show for it). Those two alone would be enough to fund 100 Juno missions.
The problem with bias is that even if you the bias is based on some truth, you cannot judge individual outcomes based on group statistics. On average, men are taller than women. But an algorithm that automatically assumed that Bob is taller than Alice, just based on gender, would be wrong nearly half the time.
536 people have been to space. Please list the scientific discoveries about space that they have made that could not have been done with robotic probes. Not spin-off technologies. Not circular "what happens to a person in space" questions. I want an actual apple-to-apple comparisons with the scientific data gathered by probes. You name drop a couple of Apollo astronauts, but the scientific discoveries from those mission came from analysis of returned samples, not data gathered by the astronauts while on mission. A robot with a shovel would have accomplished the same thing.
They didn't develop it on their own money.
Yes they did. The proof of concept integrated circuit was built before NASA existed as an entity.
The return on investment, however, did not return to NASA.
Then its not an investment, is it? NASA was a customer that bought a product. That product was delivered and the actual investors (Fairchild and TI) got the returns.
You're right, I don't count the Soviet probes that crashed on Mars as "successful". I added that caveat for a reason.
Yet another example of a space mission with real scientific value where sending a human was unnecessary and would have been detrimental. If the US public would get over its obsession with spam-in-a-can, we could have a hundred times as many projects like this.
Look at that, I get modded down for providing a link FROM NASA proving that NASA can and does profit from licensing their technology. You space nutters will even hate on NASA if it doesn't fit your fantasies.
Neither China or Russia have successful launched a probe to Mars or any of the outer planets. Scientific progress should be measured by scientific utility. Putting spam-in-a-can into LEO doesn't have much scientific value.
That's right. So the companies that Noyce and Kilby worked for (Fairchild and TI) got the IP. The Air Force and NASA were customers.
While the IC had been invented by Noyce and Kilby
Why should NASA get any credit for inventing something when they were merely a customer? The US Army was the first customer of the Wright brothers, but that doesn't mean the Army invented the airplane.
One of NASA's missions is to do that kind of research and quite literally give it away to anyone who wants it.
This is completely incorrect. Since 1980, the Bayh–Dole Act allows research agencies to license and profit from the technologies created under Federal grants. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60521...
What's so great about putting a man in space? What is the scientific value of spam-in-a-can?
If these logistic and organization problems were solved in the '60s, why do they keep coming up today? Even within NASA own projects.
If that ROI were true, then NASA should be self-funded by now.
LOL. That is so delightfully naive. I could write out a whole essay on how you're wrong on so many levels. But that would be like explaining to a little kid that is no such thing as Santa.