Exactly. Thanks for the full explanation. Apps on a desktop or laptop are those crappy things Microsoft added on Windows 8 and 10, like the Photos app, that take the full screen, can't be minimized, have no menu, and are all designed for touch use.
MSpaint is a program that is often used for screen grabs and touchups. It doesn't have a thousand features, but it also loads almost instantly (just opened it to verify speed). It is a useful tool, and apparently is one I will keep on a thumbdrive to add to future computers as needed.
From my reading of the article, the author is simply using that number as an upper bounds. He isn't advocating for that to be the official unemployment number.
Ok, I just read it. Nowhere does it say to actually count retirees, students, and housewives in the unemployment rate.
It does say this:
Some of those people — parents with newborns, university students — may not want jobs right now, but they will want jobs soon. Even when you take those out of the equation, the true rate of people without jobs who want them looks like this, [chart of unemployment, 1995 - today]
It says students and new parents shouldn't count now, but may want jobs soon. That is when you would count them, when they are in the market for a job.
It doesn't say a thing about counting retirees, permanent house-wives, and the fully disabled as unemployed.
To me, it looks like the U5 group includes the guys that do handyman type jobs. They aren't officially employed, but they do have money coming in. (And specifically, it isn't illegal revenue such as from drugs or prostitution.) This group could include those that don't need much money per month, and basically work for their daily food, and are happy doing so. Possibly also farm hands, which are usually not included in the regular employment categories for various reasons.
Of course not. But, please, quote the paragraph that says we (or the UK, in this case) should count retirees, students, and housewives in the "official unemployment rate".
Those certainly are some groups of people who should not be counted in the "unemployment rate". But there are more than those unemployed people who don't want to work.
And those are not the people that are being discussed. Neither are schoolchildren, college students, retirees, and those crippled beyond any chance of employment.
No one is saying to count those groups in the unemployment numbers.
Once I was nasty. I got a mail from the person's boss saying that I was a bad person for traumatizing their employee.
Once I was nice. I got a nice excuse and a follow-up question. After four or five exchanges, she apologized for being forward and asking a personal question, but was I married, 'cause she really liked talking to me?
That was an FBI agent, posing as a 14 year old girl who was posing as an adult woman. Very smart to avoid such traps.
You misread him. It isn't that they are " insisting that space exploration be a government monopoly." It is that they couldn't conceive of any for-profit company putting in the long term investment on something that doesn't give an immediate boost to the quarterly reports.
“Private enterprise will never lead a space frontier,” Tyson told me in a phone interview. “In all the history of human conduct, it’s as clear to me as day follows night that private enterprise won’t do that, because it’s expensive. It’s dangerous. You have uncertainty and risks, because you’re dealing with things that haven’t been done before. That’s what it means to be on a frontier.”
Imagine a meeting between a space-obsessed entrepreneur and a venture capitalist, Tyson suggested. “We want your investment.” For what? “To go to space.” Why? “We want to put humans on Mars.” How much will it cost? “A lot. People might die.” What’s the return on investment? “Probably nothing in the short term, but later on you’ll make money.”
It’s not a perfect comparison, since the likes of Bezos and Musk have deep enough pockets to fund much of what they want to do, but the larger point remains.
“The government is better suited to these kinds of investments,” Tyson told me. “They have a longer time horizon. They’re not shackled to quarterly reports like you see in a private enterprise.”
Actually, I speak to many liberals. I also watch many liberals speak to each other. And I see many liberals proclaim that others are not liberals based on statements such as the one I responded to.
Penalties are the wrong way to go about it, period. You don't get an industry that's healthy by shielding it from competition. I can't believe I, as a liberal, have to explain this. All you get from erecting barriers to competition is lazy, complacent industries that offer no benefit.
To many on the left, you are not a liberal if you believe that.
Not necessarily. Hawaii has an excise tax that is 4% of the total price of goods or services. Interestingly, it includes the 4% excise tax in that total price, so businesses pay tax on the tax they charge the customer.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Thanks for the full explanation. Apps on a desktop or laptop are those crappy things Microsoft added on Windows 8 and 10, like the Photos app, that take the full screen, can't be minimized, have no menu, and are all designed for touch use.
MSpaint is a program that is often used for screen grabs and touchups. It doesn't have a thousand features, but it also loads almost instantly (just opened it to verify speed). It is a useful tool, and apparently is one I will keep on a thumbdrive to add to future computers as needed.
It's not an app, it's a program. Apps suck. MS-Paint lives forever.
From my reading of the article, the author is simply using that number as an upper bounds. He isn't advocating for that to be the official unemployment number.
Ok, I just read it. Nowhere does it say to actually count retirees, students, and housewives in the unemployment rate.
It does say this:
Some of those people — parents with newborns, university students — may not want jobs right now, but they will want jobs soon. Even when you take those out of the equation, the true rate of people without jobs who want them looks like this, [chart of unemployment, 1995 - today]
It says students and new parents shouldn't count now, but may want jobs soon. That is when you would count them, when they are in the market for a job.
It doesn't say a thing about counting retirees, permanent house-wives, and the fully disabled as unemployed.
Thanks for helping me prove my earlier point.
To me, it looks like the U5 group includes the guys that do handyman type jobs. They aren't officially employed, but they do have money coming in. (And specifically, it isn't illegal revenue such as from drugs or prostitution.) This group could include those that don't need much money per month, and basically work for their daily food, and are happy doing so. Possibly also farm hands, which are usually not included in the regular employment categories for various reasons.
Of course not. But, please, quote the paragraph that says we (or the UK, in this case) should count retirees, students, and housewives in the "official unemployment rate".
Those certainly are some groups of people who should not be counted in the "unemployment rate". But there are more than those unemployed people who don't want to work.
From that list, I would say the U4 is the most correct number if you want to actually enumerate "the unemployed".
And those are not the people that are being discussed. Neither are schoolchildren, college students, retirees, and those crippled beyond any chance of employment.
No one is saying to count those groups in the unemployment numbers.
Why do they have no intention of working?
PFFFT! Newbie.
No he's normal. He just spies through his neighbor's windows now.
Once I was nasty. I got a mail from the person's boss saying that I was a bad person for traumatizing their employee.
Once I was nice. I got a nice excuse and a follow-up question. After four or five exchanges, she apologized for being forward and asking a personal question, but was I married, 'cause she really liked talking to me?
That was an FBI agent, posing as a 14 year old girl who was posing as an adult woman. Very smart to avoid such traps.
Fucking apostrophes. How do they work?
You should replace the batteries in your smoke alarm.
This one is very helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Most kids nowadays stop at the "mooching off parents" attempt. It's right after guitars.
You still use Class A networks in your CIDR work?
You misread him. It isn't that they are " insisting that space exploration be a government monopoly." It is that they couldn't conceive of any for-profit company putting in the long term investment on something that doesn't give an immediate boost to the quarterly reports.
Here is a couple examples:
https://mic.com/articles/2267/...
http://bgr.com/2015/12/03/neil...
“Private enterprise will never lead a space frontier,” Tyson told me in a phone interview. “In all the history of human conduct, it’s as clear to me as day follows night that private enterprise won’t do that, because it’s expensive. It’s dangerous. You have uncertainty and risks, because you’re dealing with things that haven’t been done before. That’s what it means to be on a frontier.”
Imagine a meeting between a space-obsessed entrepreneur and a venture capitalist, Tyson suggested. “We want your investment.” For what? “To go to space.” Why? “We want to put humans on Mars.” How much will it cost? “A lot. People might die.” What’s the return on investment? “Probably nothing in the short term, but later on you’ll make money.”
It’s not a perfect comparison, since the likes of Bezos and Musk have deep enough pockets to fund much of what they want to do, but the larger point remains.
“The government is better suited to these kinds of investments,” Tyson told me. “They have a longer time horizon. They’re not shackled to quarterly reports like you see in a private enterprise.”
Actually, I speak to many liberals. I also watch many liberals speak to each other. And I see many liberals proclaim that others are not liberals based on statements such as the one I responded to.
Maybe you need to speak to more liberals.
At $22000, it better be doing a lot more than that.
Penalties are the wrong way to go about it, period. You don't get an industry that's healthy by shielding it from competition. I can't believe I, as a liberal, have to explain this. All you get from erecting barriers to competition is lazy, complacent industries that offer no benefit.
To many on the left, you are not a liberal if you believe that.
God help me. I just spent almost 2 hours on imgur.
Not necessarily. Hawaii has an excise tax that is 4% of the total price of goods or services. Interestingly, it includes the 4% excise tax in that total price, so businesses pay tax on the tax they charge the customer.
It seems the rest of the paragraph explains the contradiction.