Over time this has changed while at the same time loans have been backed by the government and student debt has been increasing. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's there, it happened
Gee, did anything else happen in CA during this period? Economically? Politically? Demographically?
Most of the money that I spent to get a degree from UC did not go to the school. Are government backed student loans responsible for the huge cost of living in CA? Are government backed student loans student loans responsible for effectively stagnant or even falling wages for students trying to work their way through school?
Yes, it is good. It makes major economies more efficient which is a step towards increasing wealth overall.
This sounds like what should rightly be termed a "rising tide fallacy". This increasing wealth will be concentrated among a very few who will use it to further pervert markets and politics.
Which is not to say that flat or decreasing wealth is good or better. Rather, it simply acknowledges that increasing wealth is not necessarily good, under the current circumstances, and that it may be a net "bad". An unfortunate state of affairs.
. . . it's hard for a business to justify paying $40-50,000 a year so that they can reduce the productivity of a truly worthwhile, $80,000-$100,000/yr senior person to train you for two years so that you can become useful.
Yet, that's how the world works. ..that is, when it works. Schools educate, students become trainable, industries train.
How could a truly innovative company expect to hire people and not train them? If you hire people and have them immediately working at 100% productivity, its obvious that your company is doing nothing innovative, and is instead retreading existing ideas.
"Intensive purposes" are not a thing. You mean "intents and purposes." And "who cares?" is the correct form of the question: "who" is nominative, "whom" is accusative. Who cares? I care. You annoyed whom? You annoyed me.
I could care less. People will get the gist of these bits of phraseology, irregardless of what is technically correct.
I only disagree that "Socialism" didn't take us to the Moon. I would argue that raw human competition, coupled with tremendous amounts of cash generated by our capitalist system, enabled the US to make it to the Moon.
If capitalism generated the cash, it still took a collectivist effort on the part of Big Government to wield it in a way that got us to the moon.
Socialism's greatest fault is it relies on lowering the importance of self towards a greater good.
Hardly. Heck, parse "from each according to his ability, . .." That right there calls for each person's individual merit to be accounted for and brought to bear.
The problem is that the education system teaches children only how to work towards passing an exam. There is no incentive to learn just for the sake of learning.
This is a problem, but too recent a development to have any impact on our current situation. It wasn't true when I was in school in the 80s and 90s, for example.
Rather, I suspect that the testing-oriented approach to education is a symptom of innovation starvation, rather than the cause.
It is called "Use" tax, which is defined in the instructions for form 540:
"California use tax applies to purchases from out-of-state sellers (for example, purchases made by telephone, over the Internet, by mail, or in person). .."
This is followed by a worksheet which walks filers through the process of calculating the amount to report (e.g. on line 95 of form 540).
I guess I should say that CA tries to collect this tax. I have paid it every year I resided in CA (or other states that required it) for over 10 years. I don't recall ever meeting another person who claimed to pay it when the subject came up (granted, it rarely comes up).
I like a lot of things about Amazon. But I don't buy from them because they think the "community" they live in doesn't matter
This is so tiresome. Amazon is not dodging taxes, its customers are. At worst, Amazon allows deadbeats in the "community" to avoid paying taxes if that is what they want to do. Responsible people report and pay their "use tax" for items bought from Amazon.
Surely not a bad media-tablet and surely cheap, but a tablet computer this is not.
Actually, a tablet computer is exactly what it is. What it is not is a smartphone, where mobile browsing, speech-based communication and features that obviate the need for other gadgets (camera, GPS) are reasonable expectations.
Simple economic theory dictates that one provider = higher costs. Many providers = competition = lower costs. But feel free to enjoy your liberal pipe dream.
Meanwhile, actual observation of health care policy in the industrialized world indicates that one provider yields lower costs and better outcomes and many providers yield higher costs and inferior outcomes.
But feel free to enjoy your "simple economic theory".
If you recognize "junk foods" as most pre-packaged foods (snacks, frozen meals, canned meals) and almost all restaurant food its easy to account for caloric intake behind most obesity.
Consider also that while a tiny bag of chips sells for a buck in a vending machine. A "Family Sized" (yeah, right) bag sells for less than 5 bucks at a convenience store or supermarket.
My work provides snack sized bags of chips (inc. Doritos, which are my favorite). Between that and chips I buy myself, I probably eat 100 snack-sized bags worth per year, mostly during my 8 hours of sitting at work.
Yet I am not fat. Of course, this proves nothing.
I'm not even sure what point that you are making. That high fat, high salt foods like Doritos are not unhealthy? Perhaps not, in the same way that inhaling a little water vapor is not unhealthy, but that does not mean that drowning is a made-up phenomenon.
Doritos are but one item of junk food in the stores. What if you appleed your dubious calculation to every junk food? What would the average American's intake be? You'd probably end up wondering how anyone lives past age 35!
Now of the incredibly pro-union biased NLRB will just butt out of Boeing's legitimate business, Boeing might be able to get the second, third, fourth... planes out the door as well.
But no more, as 4 planes will be all that are required to carry the few people who can still afford to fly but aren't grabbing enough cash to buy their own private jets.
I decided it would be a neat hack to flood my living room and turn it into an indoor pool. Boy, did that reveal some serious shortcomings in my home's electrical system. Can any recommend an electrician who doesn't suck as bad as the guy who installed the one I have now?
very, very basic behaviors cannot be done on the web without javascript (eg changing the style of an element, showing/hiding content). it (or something like it) is a necessary evil - for now.
Those are not necessary for consuming documents (or more generally, data).
. ..the real Ikea Effect is the feeling of shame for donating your time and efforts to such a crappy outcome. Perhaps this manifests itself in the form of "pride", but as a defense mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
Over time this has changed while at the same time loans have been backed by the government and student debt has been increasing. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's there, it happened
Gee, did anything else happen in CA during this period? Economically? Politically? Demographically?
Most of the money that I spent to get a degree from UC did not go to the school. Are government backed student loans responsible for the huge cost of living in CA? Are government backed student loans student loans responsible for effectively stagnant or even falling wages for students trying to work their way through school?
Yes, it is good. It makes major economies more efficient which is a step towards increasing wealth overall.
This sounds like what should rightly be termed a "rising tide fallacy". This increasing wealth will be concentrated among a very few who will use it to further pervert markets and politics.
Which is not to say that flat or decreasing wealth is good or better. Rather, it simply acknowledges that increasing wealth is not necessarily good, under the current circumstances, and that it may be a net "bad". An unfortunate state of affairs.
. . . it's hard for a business to justify paying $40-50,000 a year so that they can reduce the productivity of a truly worthwhile, $80,000-$100,000/yr senior person to train you for two years so that you can become useful.
Yet, that's how the world works. . .that is, when it works. Schools educate, students become trainable, industries train.
How could a truly innovative company expect to hire people and not train them? If you hire people and have them immediately working at 100% productivity, its obvious that your company is doing nothing innovative, and is instead retreading existing ideas.
By the way "irregardless" isn't correct either. So, you're either making a clever joke, or you have a poor command of English.
Decisions, decisions. . .
"Intensive purposes" are not a thing. You mean "intents and purposes." And "who cares?" is the correct form of the question: "who" is nominative, "whom" is accusative. Who cares? I care. You annoyed whom? You annoyed me.
I could care less. People will get the gist of these bits of phraseology, irregardless of what is technically correct.
Is a bank run technically a physical financial "denial of service attack"?
Careful. Next thing we know, it will be a crime to withdraw an amount from your bank account that threatens their operations.
I could care less.
I only disagree that "Socialism" didn't take us to the Moon. I would argue that raw human competition, coupled with tremendous amounts of cash generated by our capitalist system, enabled the US to make it to the Moon.
If capitalism generated the cash, it still took a collectivist effort on the part of Big Government to wield it in a way that got us to the moon.
Socialism's greatest fault is it relies on lowering the importance of self towards a greater good.
Hardly. Heck, parse "from each according to his ability, . . ." That right there calls for each person's individual merit to be accounted for and brought to bear.
The problem is that the education system teaches children only how to work towards passing an exam. There is no incentive to learn just for the sake of learning.
This is a problem, but too recent a development to have any impact on our current situation. It wasn't true when I was in school in the 80s and 90s, for example.
Rather, I suspect that the testing-oriented approach to education is a symptom of innovation starvation, rather than the cause.
It is called "Use" tax, which is defined in the instructions for form 540:
"California use tax applies to purchases from out-of-state sellers (for ."
example, purchases made by telephone, over the Internet, by mail, or in
person). .
This is followed by a worksheet which walks filers through the process of calculating the amount to report (e.g. on line 95 of form 540).
I guess I should say that CA tries to collect this tax. I have paid it every year I resided in CA (or other states that required it) for over 10 years. I don't recall ever meeting another person who claimed to pay it when the subject came up (granted, it rarely comes up).
I like a lot of things about Amazon.
But I don't buy from them because they think the "community" they live in doesn't matter
This is so tiresome. Amazon is not dodging taxes, its customers are. At worst, Amazon allows deadbeats in the "community" to avoid paying taxes if that is what they want to do. Responsible people report and pay their "use tax" for items bought from Amazon.
Surely not a bad media-tablet and surely cheap, but a tablet computer this is not.
Actually, a tablet computer is exactly what it is. What it is not is a smartphone, where mobile browsing, speech-based communication and features that obviate the need for other gadgets (camera, GPS) are reasonable expectations.
Simple economic theory dictates that one provider = higher costs. Many providers = competition = lower costs. But feel free to enjoy your liberal pipe dream.
Meanwhile, actual observation of health care policy in the industrialized world indicates that one provider yields lower costs and better outcomes and many providers yield higher costs and inferior outcomes.
But feel free to enjoy your "simple economic theory".
If you recognize "junk foods" as most pre-packaged foods (snacks, frozen meals, canned meals) and almost all restaurant food its easy to account for caloric intake behind most obesity.
Consider also that while a tiny bag of chips sells for a buck in a vending machine. A "Family Sized" (yeah, right) bag sells for less than 5 bucks at a convenience store or supermarket.
My work provides snack sized bags of chips (inc. Doritos, which are my favorite). Between that and chips I buy myself, I probably eat 100 snack-sized bags worth per year, mostly during my 8 hours of sitting at work.
Yet I am not fat. Of course, this proves nothing.
I'm not even sure what point that you are making. That high fat, high salt foods like Doritos are not unhealthy? Perhaps not, in the same way that inhaling a little water vapor is not unhealthy, but that does not mean that drowning is a made-up phenomenon.
Doritos are but one item of junk food in the stores. What if you appleed your dubious calculation to every junk food? What would the average American's intake be? You'd probably end up wondering how anyone lives past age 35!
Go to a non-smoking bar then. You're not entitled to demand every business operate on the principles you chose to live by.
Smoking in bars is banned in the state where I live (and the state before that, too).
Depends on the season and the brush abatement practices employed in the particular ashtray.
Now of the incredibly pro-union biased NLRB will just butt out of Boeing's legitimate business, Boeing might be able to get the second, third, fourth... planes out the door as well.
But no more, as 4 planes will be all that are required to carry the few people who can still afford to fly but aren't grabbing enough cash to buy their own private jets.
But drunk drivers kill over 10,000 people a year.
While sitting in a bar?
People keep figuring out how to do even more with JavaScript, forgetting that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I decided it would be a neat hack to flood my living room and turn it into an indoor pool. Boy, did that reveal some serious shortcomings in my home's electrical system. Can any recommend an electrician who doesn't suck as bad as the guy who installed the one I have now?
very, very basic behaviors cannot be done on the web without javascript (eg changing the style of an element, showing/hiding content). it (or something like it) is a necessary evil - for now.
Those are not necessary for consuming documents (or more generally, data).
. . .the real Ikea Effect is the feeling of shame for donating your time and efforts to such a crappy outcome. Perhaps this manifests itself in the form of "pride", but as a defense mechanism.
'Homeless' is not the opposite of 'homeowner'. Renters for example, are not 'homeless'.
At least not in the US.
If I eat lots of chicken............ i'm going to turn into a chicken?
I can't eat chicken without being afraid that this is true.