"A modest proposal: every driver must retake the written test and the road test every third time they renew their license (i.e., about once every 12 years)."
A good idea IF the tests are reasonable. There tends to be "trivia" on many tests that has little bearing to reality. And you can retake the tests many many times.
As to the driving tests, some are little more than drive around the block. Others (like mine) were more extensive but included a test that was illegal to do on a public road....
Then there are the updates that don't get reflected in the driver guides. In fact the driver's guide I receive 20 years ago was far superior to the present one. It actually dealt with the rules of the road. No wonder drivers suck...
"Yes it matters. If the patient needs a drug that's only effective after it's processed by the liver and the patient has liver issues then they'll need another med or a different dose."
And this follows from knowing organic chemistry and the formula how, exactly?
There is a publication called the PDR. And it contains data concerning these issues.
"I don't think it's asking too much for doctors who plan on treating diseases based on proteins, DNA, and sugars to know the basic chemistry of amino acids, nucleotides, and carbohydrates, as well as a basic notion of the reaction mechanisms."
But why? Pharma reps know more about meds than most doctors. After all, if most doctors really knew how meds worked why would anyone care about pharma influence.
Hell, I have a better handle on meds than most doctors I have seen. And I have never taken an organic chem course.
"Do they *really* need to state they value human life? Is there an assumption that the norm is to not care who dies? What sort of crazy department is that?"
Well, if you have to state it, it's probably not true. At least the cynic in me believes that....
Similar to a business calling itself honest. I would hesitate doing business with them....
"Does anyone else see that there's something seriously wrong with a government rewarding your lifetime of paying taxes by applying what is effectively a flat tax to everything you owned when you died?"
Nope. Because most people are exempt from the tax. Eliminating the inheritance tax helps the relatives of the wealthy.
"This only accelerates the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few."
A high inheritance tax would result in the opposite. Everybody would have to EARN their wealth.
And I think you would find that the country's founders would have no problem with such a tax.
"Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!"
So why is economic mobility generally better in Europe than the US? Or at least not worse?
It's easier to make more money when you start off well and have connections.
"I think that everyone in academia has a lot of pressure on them to be liberal."
No, they have great pressure to gain tenure. And "stature". To gain tenure and "stature" you generally need to publish many papers and/or bring in a great deal of money. Hell, I doubt many politicians could survive in the "politics" of academia....
I have never seen pressure to be liberal in academia. May occur in some fields and some colleges that can't bring in money.... Politics is a means to an end in academia....
"Corporations are treated legally as individuals because they must be in order to have liability. Are you opposed to that?"
There is no reason that liability and "individual" have to go together. Laws (and courts) created corporations and their "personhoood" and can be changed.
In any case, corporations are designed to prevent personal liability. The only liability they have is monetary and that only really applies to their shareholders. You can't put corporations in jail. They can be immortal.
"I don't see how you can say that someone has property rights but then dictate how they can use their property."
The same way we dictate limitations to other rights. Owning property and the use of it are two different things. Related yes, but not the same.
"But part of the procedure around here requires something like 3 years worth of annual reviews to show the problem, meetings with about a dozen people whose offices are on the other end of the state, and a massive amount of other paperwork."
And that is almost a description of the Fortune 1000 company I work for that is NOT unionized. Except it only takes two annual reviews. That's right, you can be subpar for two (actually more) years before termination. And their standards aren't high....
"If your company unionizes, it will pay more for the same labor."
I see this statement repeatedly. But there is no reason that a company has to pay more. A business does not have to agree with any union demands. For instance, some grocery stores and warehouses have unions with low paying jobs.
I suspect people tend to unionize because of poor working conditions, not pay. From many studies, pay is not the primary motivating factor or at least not important as working conditions.
"We're talking IT workers, not blue collar workers."
And the difference is what exactly? You don't need a degree to be in IT. You may need training. Remember call center staff can be considered IT.
Much of IT is essentially blue collar. Hell, some places even have apprenticeship programs in IT.
"Most homes have high-speed connections, nearly everyone is connected with PDA phones, and USA is clearly a major source of new technology."
Maybe to the first (if you mean majority might be capable of getting it), no to the second, yes to the third (but rather meaningless).
"All three of them have very flat organization and they range in size from small, medium and extremely large. They were hierarchical yes, but the structure was developer, project manager, and then CEO."
I think you just agreed with the poster. Most large companies are not "flat". Not confined to the US. I would hazard a guess that most companies are not "flat". More of a operating concept than related to size.
"The unions are now abusing both the workers they claim to protect and the businesses. Look at the American car industry or the American airline industry. Both are badly hurting because of union practices."
Workers are the union. If they are getting abused, it is their own fault.
The companies aren't hurting because of the unions. The are hurting because they have incompetent management. Unions don't mandate wages. Companies have to agree to the contract. A company is (generally) free to fire union members who strike and replace them with others.
"Unions mean that you get equal pay for unequal work."
No, that is poor management and organization. There is no requirement for a union to mandate seniority or not reward for hard work.
Unions exist because management is often worse. Everything you describe happens in non-union business every day. Probably even in your organization.
It is possible to be in the trades and not belong to a union. It is possible to learn the trade and not be part of a union.
Unions exist (in theory) to even the playing field. You, as a single person do not have the negotiating power of a large group of people. Which can be good or bad....
"It is VERY common for another person's debt to be on your credit history - even though the SSNs are completely different. How? It happens the most to folks with very common names: example, Smith, Johnson, Andrews, etc...."
You don't need to have a common name. Just the same last name and same first letter of the first name. That's how one of my student loans showed up on my parents credit report....
"Keep in mind that, in today's instant-gratification society, no one wants to wait 5-15 business days (or even one) for a credit application approval."
"The down side is it can limit impulse credit purchases/applications which make credit institutions more money than fraud costs then."
Many people would wait for credit approval. But then they might decide they don't need it.
Instant credit benefits business more than the citizen.
"I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design."
So, as long is there is one fact supporting controlled demolition, then it isn't a "crackpot theory"? Give me a break.
What physical evidence of a controlled demolition exists that can't be explained in a more likely manner? Do you have any idea how long such a procedure takes? And that the interior is basically gutted? I think someone might have noticed....
"The problem with that theory is that in a controlled demolition you destroy all they key points in a building to come up with an orderly collapse of each floor, and avoid pancaking."
Huh? The point of a controlled demolition is to prevent damage to surrounding structures and allow machinery to clean up the mess quicker and cheaper than dismantling in place. Pancaking occurs in controlled demolitions. If it didn't then you would probably have damage to surrounding buildings...
"The exchange of information is now very, very easy and extremely fast. Finding a new job in another country can be done over the internet now. Finding a job in the same town is a piece of cake."
Sure, if you want to make minimum wage and have no benefits. If you can easily find another good job then you are in a rather unusual position.
Slashdot Mirror
"A modest proposal: every driver must retake the written test and the road test every third time they renew their license (i.e., about once every 12 years)."
A good idea IF the tests are reasonable. There tends to be "trivia" on many tests that has little bearing to reality. And you can retake the tests many many times.
As to the driving tests, some are little more than drive around the block. Others (like mine) were more extensive but included a test that was illegal to do on a public road....
Then there are the updates that don't get reflected in the driver guides. In fact the driver's guide I receive 20 years ago was far superior to the present one. It actually dealt with the rules of the road. No wonder drivers suck...
"when I was in my mid 50s: my hearing had deteriorated to the point that I often didn't hear the turn signal clicking"
Apparently your memory and sight deteriorated also. After all, didn't you remember turning the signal on or notice that flashing light.... :)
"Yes it matters. If the patient needs a drug that's only effective after it's processed by the liver and the patient has liver issues then they'll need another med or a different dose."
And this follows from knowing organic chemistry and the formula how, exactly?
There is a publication called the PDR. And it contains data concerning these issues.
"I don't think it's asking too much for doctors who plan on treating diseases based on proteins, DNA, and sugars to know the basic chemistry of amino acids, nucleotides, and carbohydrates, as well as a basic notion of the reaction mechanisms."
But why? Pharma reps know more about meds than most doctors. After all, if most doctors really knew how meds worked why would anyone care about pharma influence.
Hell, I have a better handle on meds than most doctors I have seen. And I have never taken an organic chem course.
"Do they *really* need to state they value human life? Is there an assumption that the norm is to not care who dies? What sort of crazy department is that?"
Well, if you have to state it, it's probably not true. At least the cynic in me believes that....
Similar to a business calling itself honest. I would hesitate doing business with them....
"Does anyone else see that there's something seriously wrong with a government rewarding your lifetime of paying taxes by applying what is effectively a flat tax to everything you owned when you died?"
Nope. Because most people are exempt from the tax. Eliminating the inheritance tax helps the relatives of the wealthy.
"This only accelerates the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few."
A high inheritance tax would result in the opposite. Everybody would have to EARN their wealth.
And I think you would find that the country's founders would have no problem with such a tax.
"Persistence trumps luck any day."
I think you meant the reverse.
"Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!"
So why is economic mobility generally better in Europe than the US? Or at least not worse?
It's easier to make more money when you start off well and have connections.
"Wealthy people don't get that way by being lazy, son."
Unless they inherit their wealth :)
"I think that everyone in academia has a lot of pressure on them to be liberal."
No, they have great pressure to gain tenure. And "stature". To gain tenure and "stature" you generally need to publish many papers and/or bring in a great deal of money. Hell, I doubt many politicians could survive in the "politics" of academia....
I have never seen pressure to be liberal in academia. May occur in some fields and some colleges that can't bring in money.... Politics is a means to an end in academia....
"Corporations are treated legally as individuals because they must be in order to have liability. Are you opposed to that?"
There is no reason that liability and "individual" have to go together. Laws (and courts) created corporations and their "personhoood" and can be changed.
In any case, corporations are designed to prevent personal liability. The only liability they have is monetary and that only really applies to their shareholders. You can't put corporations in jail. They can be immortal.
"I don't see how you can say that someone has property rights but then dictate how they can use their property."
The same way we dictate limitations to other rights. Owning property and the use of it are two different things. Related yes, but not the same.
"Yes, it's a good idea to anticipate what someone ahead of you will do -- but you should do that based on their behavior, not what they drive."
And their behavior is often tied to their car. Not always, but you would be a fool to treat a minivan the same as a sports car....
"But part of the procedure around here requires something like 3 years worth of annual reviews to show the problem, meetings with about a dozen people whose offices are on the other end of the state, and a massive amount of other paperwork."
And that is almost a description of the Fortune 1000 company I work for that is NOT unionized. Except it only takes two annual reviews. That's right, you can be subpar for two (actually more) years before termination. And their standards aren't high....
"If your company unionizes, it will pay more for the same labor."
I see this statement repeatedly. But there is no reason that a company has to pay more. A business does not have to agree with any union demands. For instance, some grocery stores and warehouses have unions with low paying jobs.
I suspect people tend to unionize because of poor working conditions, not pay. From many studies, pay is not the primary motivating factor or at least not important as working conditions.
"We're talking IT workers, not blue collar workers."
And the difference is what exactly? You don't need a degree to be in IT. You may need training. Remember call center staff can be considered IT.
Much of IT is essentially blue collar. Hell, some places even have apprenticeship programs in IT.
"Most homes have high-speed connections, nearly everyone is connected with PDA phones, and USA is clearly a major source of new technology."
Maybe to the first (if you mean majority might be capable of getting it), no to the second, yes to the third (but rather meaningless).
"All three of them have very flat organization and they range in size from small, medium and extremely large. They were hierarchical yes, but the structure was developer, project manager, and then CEO."
I think you just agreed with the poster. Most large companies are not "flat". Not confined to the US. I would hazard a guess that most companies are not "flat". More of a operating concept than related to size.
"The unions are now abusing both the workers they claim to protect and the businesses. Look at the American car industry or the American airline industry. Both are badly hurting because of union practices."
Workers are the union. If they are getting abused, it is their own fault.
The companies aren't hurting because of the unions. The are hurting because they have incompetent management. Unions don't mandate wages. Companies have to agree to the contract. A company is (generally) free to fire union members who strike and replace them with others.
"Unions mean that you get equal pay for unequal work."
No, that is poor management and organization. There is no requirement for a union to mandate seniority or not reward for hard work.
Unions exist because management is often worse. Everything you describe happens in non-union business every day. Probably even in your organization.
It is possible to be in the trades and not belong to a union. It is possible to learn the trade and not be part of a union.
Unions exist (in theory) to even the playing field. You, as a single person do not have the negotiating power of a large group of people. Which can be good or bad....
"Actually, SSNs are never reused by the Social Security Administration. Ever."
That is incorrect. Some SSN's were issued to more than one person. Maybe not recently or correctly but they have existed.
"It is VERY common for another person's debt to be on your credit history - even though the SSNs are completely different. How? It happens the most to folks with very common names: example, Smith, Johnson, Andrews, etc...."
You don't need to have a common name. Just the same last name and same first letter of the first name. That's how one of my student loans showed up on my parents credit report....
And what if the identity thief has the needed information to remove the lock?
Someone has described that situation here before....
"Keep in mind that, in today's instant-gratification society, no one wants to wait 5-15 business days (or even one) for a credit application approval."
"The down side is it can limit impulse credit purchases/applications which make credit institutions more money than fraud costs then."
Many people would wait for credit approval. But then they might decide they don't need it.
Instant credit benefits business more than the citizen.
"ESPECIALLY when that statement could fuck up his insurance compensation?"
Would it? If it was caused by a terrorist act maybe the insurance wouldn't cover it? Might they consider it an act of war or god?
And maybe the owner is a crackpot? Being wealthy does not exclude the possibility of being a wack job.
"I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design."
So, as long is there is one fact supporting controlled demolition, then it isn't a "crackpot theory"? Give me a break.
What physical evidence of a controlled demolition exists that can't be explained in a more likely manner? Do you have any idea how long such a procedure takes? And that the interior is basically gutted? I think someone might have noticed....
"The problem with that theory is that in a controlled demolition you destroy all they key points in a building to come up with an orderly collapse of each floor, and avoid pancaking."
Huh? The point of a controlled demolition is to prevent damage to surrounding structures and allow machinery to clean up the mess quicker and cheaper than dismantling in place. Pancaking occurs in controlled demolitions. If it didn't then you would probably have damage to surrounding buildings...
"The exchange of information is now very, very easy and extremely fast. Finding a new job in another country can be done over the internet now. Finding a job in the same town is a piece of cake."
Sure, if you want to make minimum wage and have no benefits. If you can easily find another good job then you are in a rather unusual position.
Very few people are irreplaceable.