Any solution that is dependent on increasing population is an idiotic one that should be avoided at all cost. All it does is provide short term relief by creating a larger problem down the line. Not to mention the problems that occur due to population growth in general.
Immigration reform could make the problem worse. Illegal immigrants often contribute to SS while using a fake SS number but will never collect on it.
Social security has never been a sustainable solution.
Here's a good rule of thumb. It will take 4-5 people who earn the same income that you do to pay for your SS benefits when you retire. Or look at is as total incomes worth about 4-5 times what you earn. Raising the limit isn't going to help since that limit also determines how much that person will receive in retirement benefits.
Right now the cap is at $102,000. If we raise it to $120,000 those people who suddenly pay more will receive more when they retire. You'll also have to raise annual income by about $72,000 to $90,000 just to handle the benefits for that person when they retire. Raising the cap just kicks the can down the road with Social Security. It will always be a problem as long as you require a low taxpayer:recipient ratio and you have a retirement age below the life expectency.
Social security had a 12:1 or 24:1 ratio of payers to recipients when the program was sold which in itself is an unsustainable solution because it would require a population growth that just won't happen in a 1st world country. It was also enacted with a retirement age of 65 when the average life expectancy was 61. Now we have a retirement age of 67 with a life expectancy of 77 and a ratio of 4-5:1.
You split populations into smaller subsets. Let's say you're the only person with an idea. You need to work with a population of 10 or fewer to be able to spread that idea. Anything larger than 10 will fail. So you converted the initial 10. You can now spread the idea through a population group of about 100, then 1,000, then 10,000, then 100,000, then 1,000,000 and so on.
So if your group of 300 has a radical idea and you're slinging it out everywhere you can, you're probably going to fail dismally since you're targeting too large of a population.
Or alternatively, 35% of consumers assume that Apple will not make the next version of the iPhone worse than the current one, and aren't in a desperate rush to buy a model that will be obsolete in two months.
I'm afraid you'll find that an iPhone 4 will be far from useless once the iPhone 5 comes out. Just saying.
If the screen flips out then you can engineer a small fold down stand that can used to support that additional weight. You're talking about an inch of plastic compared to the added weight to counter the extended height.
Longshanks: Archers! Commander: I beg your pardon sire, but... won't we hit our own troops? Longshanks:... Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!
The Air Force was fractured from the US Army sometime after World War II (I don't remember exactly when. I believe it was some sort of issue with the army having too much power in its command structure (I admit I may be wrong on that).
Would it make more sense to take down a portion of one branch's infrastructure rather than an equivalent part of each branch's infrastructure? You're assuming that each branch has one data center rather than each branch having two, three, or more. We're talking 3 data centers in your view to 15 data centers in another.
The Marines operate their own aircraft, their own tanks, and use their own ground personnel.
That's the entire purpose of the marines, to function as an all in one rapid response projected force that can be deployed to a hot zone to secure it while waiting for the army and air force to come in.
The military is one place where consolidation doesn't work too well. Rules and lines of though get established within sections and deviation from that line of thought tends to be frowned on and will screw up your career.
A classic example of this was the tank in the US post WW1. There were three dominant lines of thought.
1. Merge the tank with the infantry and have it support the infantry as mobile pillboxes. 2. Merge the tank with the cavalry and have it perform the roles traditionally filled by the horse. 3. Make tanks their own corps.
1 is the method we ended up pursuing and it probably a dominant reason why US tanks were never on par with the Panzers. 2 received opposition from within the cavalry because their existed a number of officers that still had a romantic vision of the horse and rider with cavalry charges despite WW1 showing that horses were no longer suitable. 3 would have been the best option but neither artillery, cavalry, or infantry wanted a 4th corps in the army to compete with for funding.
It's not just products. People define their worth through what they use and who they associate with.
Think about it. People, for some weird reason, think that by moving in the same social circles as say Paris Hilton they have more self worth. Look no further than socialites. They entire purpose is to top the charts of who's who in the social world. They don't do anything productive but yet we're supposed to treat them as if they're something special just because of who they socialize with.
The problem with the last poop is that you aren't going to necessarily know if it's the last poop on the shuttle until all the astronauts strap in for reentry.
Slashdot Mirror
First rule of responding to an emergency.
Don't become a casualty.
Any solution that is dependent on increasing population is an idiotic one that should be avoided at all cost. All it does is provide short term relief by creating a larger problem down the line. Not to mention the problems that occur due to population growth in general.
Immigration reform could make the problem worse. Illegal immigrants often contribute to SS while using a fake SS number but will never collect on it.
When SS was enacted, the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy 61. Now it's Retirement at 67 and life expectancy of 77.
+2 Retirement age. +16 to life expectancy.
Social security has never been a sustainable solution.
Here's a good rule of thumb. It will take 4-5 people who earn the same income that you do to pay for your SS benefits when you retire. Or look at is as total incomes worth about 4-5 times what you earn. Raising the limit isn't going to help since that limit also determines how much that person will receive in retirement benefits.
Right now the cap is at $102,000. If we raise it to $120,000 those people who suddenly pay more will receive more when they retire. You'll also have to raise annual income by about $72,000 to $90,000 just to handle the benefits for that person when they retire. Raising the cap just kicks the can down the road with Social Security. It will always be a problem as long as you require a low taxpayer:recipient ratio and you have a retirement age below the life expectency.
Social security had a 12:1 or 24:1 ratio of payers to recipients when the program was sold which in itself is an unsustainable solution because it would require a population growth that just won't happen in a 1st world country. It was also enacted with a retirement age of 65 when the average life expectancy was 61. Now we have a retirement age of 67 with a life expectancy of 77 and a ratio of 4-5:1.
You split populations into smaller subsets. Let's say you're the only person with an idea. You need to work with a population of 10 or fewer to be able to spread that idea. Anything larger than 10 will fail. So you converted the initial 10. You can now spread the idea through a population group of about 100, then 1,000, then 10,000, then 100,000, then 1,000,000 and so on.
So if your group of 300 has a radical idea and you're slinging it out everywhere you can, you're probably going to fail dismally since you're targeting too large of a population.
Or alternatively, 35% of consumers assume that Apple will not make the next version of the iPhone worse than the current one, and aren't in a desperate rush to buy a model that will be obsolete in two months.
I'm afraid you'll find that an iPhone 4 will be far from useless once the iPhone 5 comes out. Just saying.
Russians replicated the domestication of dogs using foxes by choosing foxes that weren't as easily frightened and would take the longest to run away.
Percontation point.
The interrobang is used to express an excited question.
So SpaceX is preparing a surprise attack on the ISS?
I think Michael Bay is directing it....
So at the very least we know shit is going to explode.
"That's right bitches, I've got a crossbow." - From another mover Chris Evans was in.
If the screen flips out then you can engineer a small fold down stand that can used to support that additional weight. You're talking about an inch of plastic compared to the added weight to counter the extended height.
Longshanks: Archers! ... Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!
Commander: I beg your pardon sire, but... won't we hit our own troops?
Longshanks:
The Air Force was fractured from the US Army sometime after World War II (I don't remember exactly when. I believe it was some sort of issue with the army having too much power in its command structure (I admit I may be wrong on that).
Would it make more sense to take down a portion of one branch's infrastructure rather than an equivalent part of each branch's infrastructure? You're assuming that each branch has one data center rather than each branch having two, three, or more. We're talking 3 data centers in your view to 15 data centers in another.
It does exist. It's called the Marines.
The Marines operate their own aircraft, their own tanks, and use their own ground personnel.
That's the entire purpose of the marines, to function as an all in one rapid response projected force that can be deployed to a hot zone to secure it while waiting for the army and air force to come in.
The military is one place where consolidation doesn't work too well. Rules and lines of though get established within sections and deviation from that line of thought tends to be frowned on and will screw up your career.
A classic example of this was the tank in the US post WW1. There were three dominant lines of thought.
1. Merge the tank with the infantry and have it support the infantry as mobile pillboxes.
2. Merge the tank with the cavalry and have it perform the roles traditionally filled by the horse.
3. Make tanks their own corps.
1 is the method we ended up pursuing and it probably a dominant reason why US tanks were never on par with the Panzers. 2 received opposition from within the cavalry because their existed a number of officers that still had a romantic vision of the horse and rider with cavalry charges despite WW1 showing that horses were no longer suitable. 3 would have been the best option but neither artillery, cavalry, or infantry wanted a 4th corps in the army to compete with for funding.
Well, at least that's better than arriving having grossly misjudging scale just to have the entire battle fleet swallowed by a small dog.
It's still there but even with it checked I still keep seeing slashvertisements for Bitcoin. It must be broken.
Will you be buying the new iPenis when it comes out?
So why use Windows in a case where Linux is superior, and Windows where Linux is superior?
Subtle. Very subtle, fanboy.
I almost missed it.
It's not just products. People define their worth through what they use and who they associate with.
Think about it. People, for some weird reason, think that by moving in the same social circles as say Paris Hilton they have more self worth. Look no further than socialites. They entire purpose is to top the charts of who's who in the social world. They don't do anything productive but yet we're supposed to treat them as if they're something special just because of who they socialize with.
It's madness.
The problem with the last poop is that you aren't going to necessarily know if it's the last poop on the shuttle until all the astronauts strap in for reentry.
And your hard earn gil, goth, and isk.
Well.... Final Fantasy 8 was the best of the series.
Final Fantasy 3 took forever for it to come out in the states.
Final Fantasy 4 was pretty good so I don't know why they ditched it.
I'm glad they're not paying much attention to Final Fantasy 7. That one has all the fucking fanboys.