Oh, I know that one. There's these things called "paints" or "panneds" or something, apparently you need to wear them to avoid the strange looks. You know, like wearable computing but as far as I can tell the only significant technology on them is this sort of scaled down version of a two-bar abacus known as a "zipper".
Doubt it, right now it looks like 2020 will see a democratic field more crowded than it's been in years. There are already over a dozen people who seem keen to run - Sanders may give it another shot or pass his wing of the party over to Warren (who will be embrace her with open arms by his supporters), but there is a whole bunch of other possiblity's including some younger faces like Cory Booker.
It could actually be a good thing too. It would allow the party to actually test a whole host of different policy proposals against the primary voters and maybe this time we'll get a candidate that actually represents the majority of the democratic voter base.
>you're better off just burning it [wikipedia.org] to convert it into carbon dioxide
That is only true of methane already in the atmosphere or about to go into it. Now in some cases this applies. In Sweden a glacier being melted by global warming is now unleashing vast swathes of formerly ice-trapped methane, the Swedes have (quite wisely) decided to burn this methane in a powerplant rather than let it get into the atmosphere.
On the other hand the methane trapped where fracking goes to get it - would pretty much have been sequestered permanently short of a massive (as in volcano level) geological event. There is no environmental benefit to burning that stuff.
And of course, mining is always environmentally destructive - so don't ignore the damage done just getting it out. Oklahoma went from no earthquakes ever to an earthquake-a-day-keeps-the-boogeyman-away in a decade thanks to the damage done by Fracking....
Nah. Mostly it happened for one simple reason: an autocratic government that doesn't give a damn how many people die on the job - and a billion desperate people, which makes for a labour price no country can ever compete with.
Sorry, not going to happen. No amount of deregulation will ever do it. America can never, again, compete with Chinese labour.
So how do you keep your manufacturing alive, and creating jobs, when you cannot ever be as cheap ? You need to give people a reason to buy your good DESPITE it being more expensive. Germany had all the same price pressures as America- and a much MORE worker-friendly labour law, and kept their manufacturing alive and growing. Because people buy German goods EVEN though they are more expensive. Germany's "something worth paying more for" was exceptional engineering. The goods are high quality, long lasting, envelope-pushing technology. Their cars were more efficient, more pleasant to drive, and safer if you got in an accident for example.
This is what America failed to do in manufacturing - give people a reason to buy the goods they made. And vertical integration as a business philosophy died an unjust death. That's why America has all those silicon valley companies and even the ones who specialise in hardware no longer make hardware. But that wasn't always the way. For a decade and a half the best selling, most popular, and cheapest computer in the world was the commodore64 - and it achieved that exactly because Commodore was by then the only computer company to still have their own factories. Vertical integration became a key enabler of their engineering expertise. You have a suggestion for a minor modification to the chip which could speed up certain calculations... but you're worried it will overheat. Instead of relying on simulators which must inevitably be conservative in their estimates, they could actually turn on their own factory and make 5 chips with the new design and test them - and see if it worked. And then go mass-production finally with a chip that combined the best results of hundreds of these small inhouse-only test chips - and itself tested extensively in a tiny production run. That model is pretty much dead today though.
But yes, countries that want to have manufacturing industries today - need to offer something worth paying more for. Because you can never beat China on price, with a billion desperate people and autocratic government that doesn't care what those people think: they can ALWAYS undercut you, no matter how low you go, they WILL go lower.
Both AND Neither and oh so much more. Taxes are supposed to fund the government AND punish behaviour that is unwanted because it imposes a cost on other citizens AND redistribute wealth by punishing the rich MORE than the poor AND internalize the cost of externalities and, and, and...
Taxes are a very flexible tool that can be applied to quite a few different kinds of problems - with just minor adaptations to specific requirements of the goal you are seeking to achieve.
But the one golden rule that you're doing it wrong ? Is when taxes punish a poor man more than it punishes his boss. If that is happening, your tax system is fucked up - and completely unsustainable.
The latest version on this I heard today was "the jobs are lost, but you don't see them because the cause/effect pattern is sort of backwards. The business owners hear all this talk of increasing minimum wage so they don't hire more people in case their wages will soon go up so the effect is already there under way when the minimum wage comes in - and then you don't see it in the data".
My response was: assuming your weird hypotheses is true - then we may as well do the increase since whatever job harming effects it may have we're ALREADY HAVING and will have ANYWAY. Notice how his described mechanism includes no other option. If we don't raise it, workers will keep demanding we do - so employers keep not hiring if they can avoid it - so the problem happens anyway and becomes permanent.
So yeah, may as well raise it- whatever job losses it could cause will happen regardless - so we may as well have those with jobs paid decently.
Another use of normal quotation marks is to indicate that you are using a common or slang term in a more formal piece of writing (like a legal filing) where that word or phrase does not have a ready dictionary definition - the indication makes it clear that the slang meaning is intended rather than the literal meaning. So that's not scare quotes either - it's just indicating that the term 'sock puppet' in this context does not refer to the puppets made from socks that we all remember from our childhoods.
Does that designation work retroactively ? Because while Fox News is most certainly a designated surrogate of the government they've only held this status since January 20th, and did not have it at the time of the alleged events.
Sorry my ISP says I need the racism+ premium service with complementary white sheet with eye holes in it to view your post. An I just can't imagine it's worth the extra 15 bucks a month.
If you dislike society so much - leave it. That's your option. You don't like a society with a social contract, you think you can take from what WE paid for and not help pay for it yourself ? Then leave.
I hear Mogadishu is EXACTLY what you are hoping for. Pinochet did it in Chile too but that's gone unfortunately for you.
What ? You don't WANT to live under brutal warlords or dictators ? Well news for you - ANCAP doesnt work - ANCAP always ends up being run by brutal warlords. And libertarian societies cannot even come to EXIST without a dictator to create them. That noted socialist Margaret Thatcher told F.A. Hayek she CANNOT replicate Chile's policies beyond the small bit she did - because it's not POSSIBLE in a democracy where the leaders have to actually answer to the citizens for their policies - where the leaders have to negotiate and collaborate with opposition leaders in the parliament.
So your dream cannot exist in anything resembling a free society. In a democracy - it can't be done. You can get the libertarian economics if you have a dictator but then you lose ALL the other freedoms. Or you can try the ANCAP way and, as it ALWAYS HAS, end up getting killed in the crossfire as the brutal warlords fight for control (coincidentally - those warlords don't give a fuck about your personal liberties either).
Basically - yours is a pipe dream. The only way you can have what you want is in a society of one. Maybe "one family" - any bigger than that and the entire thing falls the fuck appart. Just as it always has, every single time it's been tried.
The only anarchist state that ever managed to exist as a successful, industrialised economy - was a socialist one: Andalusia. The anarchism worked because there was no economic inequality from which warlords can arise.
If that is, indeed, how you see things - you need to have your eyes checked.
In the real world - society comes with a social contract. You want all the benefits of NOT living alone on some mountaintop - up to and including everything produced by private business which cannot exist outside society - then you have to pay your share for the upkeep of that society and it's shared infrastructure. If you refuse to pay your share, you don't get to TAKE your share either.
I wasn't actually commenting on that, the GP had said he doesn't know where the guy is from - I merely mentioned what was in the article for information purposes, I didn't judge the merit of the fine either way.
Technically there is a sort of unwritten rule that people who have an honorary doctorate but no actual PHD should not use the title doctor. It's not actually illegal or anything - but it tends to raise eyebrowse and cause scandals as it's seen as somewhat deceptive.
I'm not sure I agree that it should - an honorary doctorate could be argued to be a GREATER achievement than a PHD since to get one you must have made some pretty significant contributions to the field - getting one in a field you don't hold a PHD in is generally the preserve of an extremely rare and talented few. One could debate if an honorary doctorate in literature for a lifetime of great writing shows a greater or lesser genius than an honorary doctorate in physics for theorising a new particle that was later discovered by researchers, but nobody would claim either is not a pretty significant achievement (though this is one of the rare cases where the amateur poet is likely to be a LOT richer than the amatuer physics researcher - there is an entire career path out there for non-formally trained writers, not so much for untrained physics fans).
I wonder how far that decision goes. Could somebody cite it as precedent who is charged with impersonating an officer ? How about impersonating a federal agent ?
Hell imagine if they have to deal with somebody claiming a first amendment right to pretend he's a supreme court judge ! That would be one hilarious case. Neil Gorsuch would eat his own robe trying to untie the Gordian knot in his brain.
As far as I know there are very few, if any, state laws to that effect- because they aren't needed. There is already a federal law that reserves the title to people licensed by the AMA. Several states have expansions on that law however, for example requiring licensing for things like acupuncturists and such (it doesn't make them not charlatans but at least it means your charlatan has actually trained in the con-artistry he sells).
It's one of those sad ironies. In Japan - some practitioners of accupuncture did (in the 1990s) subject themselves to the scientific method, had their 'treatment' tested in double-blind studies - and ended up with it only being confirmed as working for a very narrow subset of what it was used for (and in a very different way to how tradition claimed) - it is in fact a valid, medical way to treat pain (but treating the cause of pain is generally a better idea). Oddly - scientific acupuncture never really took off commercially, perhaps because those who care about science know it does nothing that a tablet doesn't also do and the tablet doesn't require poking holes in your body, and of course less scientifically minded people would rather go to the acupuncturist who promises to cure his diabetes as well.
It came from a very pragmatic, and not terrible, goal - to ensure peer review of massive infrastructure project designs - and peer approval of their designers. It's major outcome has been that very, very few suspension bridges have ever collapsed. These are not things the free market can reasonably function at - how would consumers know whether the materials in the supporting cables are really strong enough to keep it up past 5 years ? Now it's quite possible the regulations are overbroad if just saying "I'm an engineer" in a context where you are clearly referring to "has the relevant qualifications" and are not trying to sell a design to anybody is covered under it - it could be that there is room for a constitutional challenge which may lead to a narrowing of what such regulations can actually say. It's unlikely though. "I'm an engineer" is a statement of fact, the supreme court has consistently held that - where a strong government or public interest exists, the state has the right to restrict false statements of fact under narrow conditions. I am pretty sure that "we don't want shopping malls to fall on our heads" count as a strong government and public interest.
Total space nut here - please tell us more. I would love to know:) Assuming you're allowed to of course. Otherwise I'm going to choose to believe it's the station-holding reaction wheels for an extremely powerful spysat:P
Well there are more reasons for that hope. Contrary to what so many people believe - being president is nothing like heading a company, and being good at one does not suggest you'll be good at the other, indeed the two jobs are almost exact opposites in the skills they require. I'll run through the differences just now - but it's worth noting that the republicans don't seem to recognize the importance of those differences and keep running businessmen for president. 3 of their last 5 candidates were businessmen - and to add injury to insult, they aren't aren't even good at picking businessmen since only one of the three Mitt Romney could be called a successful businessman.
Why being president is nothing like running a company: - A business owner is risking his own money, the president is managing OUR money - A business owner has customers, the president does not - those people out there using government services, paying taxes,... we're not his customers, we are his BOSSES. - A business owner has near absolute power over business decisions. A president is limited by checks and balances including congress and the courts. - A business owner can make decisions single-handedly about things like spending and budget priorities, a president gets no real say in that - Congress writes the budget. He can tell them what he would like, but they have no obligation to care. If a CEO and his accountant do not agree on which departments should get budget priority, there is very little risk of the entire company shutting down for weeks - this has happened to government more than once. - A business owner competes with his rivals in the market, but they take great care not to let each other know their plans and desires. A president has his competition INSIDE THE SAME ORGANISATION and has to negotiate with them on things they don't agree with - giving them some of what they want in return for some of what he wants and cooperate with them on things that they agree on and sometimes just ignore all their beliefs to do the basic jobs of governance together. - If a business reduces it's expenses, there is almost zero risk of reducing it's income through the exact same action - this is almost ALWAYS the outcome when a government cuts expenses (because a government's income comes from taxing other people's income and government expenses ARE other people's income, and the income of a bunch of people who have never done business with government is reduced too - because the people who do business with government cannot buy as much from them anymore). As a general rule, austerity (especially in a recession) is the economic equivalent of saving money on your heating bill by burning your paycheck for warmth.
I could go on and on but I think I've made my point, frankly what I find myself entirely incapable of doing - is finding a SINGLE thing the two jobs actually have in common - a single overlapping skill between them. A good janitor is MORE qualified to president than the CEO of the company he cleans for - because a good janitor is good at understanding and executing the wishes of his superiors- and the president has a LOT of superiors, 320 million of them in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I know that one. There's these things called "paints" or "panneds" or something, apparently you need to wear them to avoid the strange looks. You know, like wearable computing but as far as I can tell the only significant technology on them is this sort of scaled down version of a two-bar abacus known as a "zipper".
Doubt it, right now it looks like 2020 will see a democratic field more crowded than it's been in years. There are already over a dozen people who seem keen to run - Sanders may give it another shot or pass his wing of the party over to Warren (who will be embrace her with open arms by his supporters), but there is a whole bunch of other possiblity's including some younger faces like Cory Booker.
It could actually be a good thing too. It would allow the party to actually test a whole host of different policy proposals against the primary voters and maybe this time we'll get a candidate that actually represents the majority of the democratic voter base.
Paul Ryan is made of complex hydrocarbons.
Rocket fuel is made of complex hydrocarbons.
We need to test a rocket using Paul Ryan as fuel. For science.
I'm not sure how fair AI has come but Clippy was pretty much proof that we can create peak artificial stupidity.
Seriously, in a debate between Clippy and Ted Cruz - I'm not sure who would win... but we'd all lose.
>you're better off just burning it [wikipedia.org] to convert it into carbon dioxide
That is only true of methane already in the atmosphere or about to go into it. Now in some cases this applies. In Sweden a glacier being melted by global warming is now unleashing vast swathes of formerly ice-trapped methane, the Swedes have (quite wisely) decided to burn this methane in a powerplant rather than let it get into the atmosphere.
On the other hand the methane trapped where fracking goes to get it - would pretty much have been sequestered permanently short of a massive (as in volcano level) geological event. There is no environmental benefit to burning that stuff.
And of course, mining is always environmentally destructive - so don't ignore the damage done just getting it out. Oklahoma went from no earthquakes ever to an earthquake-a-day-keeps-the-boogeyman-away in a decade thanks to the damage done by Fracking....
Hillbillies will be hillbillies, even when they are hillbillies in India.
Nah. Mostly it happened for one simple reason: an autocratic government that doesn't give a damn how many people die on the job - and a billion desperate people, which makes for a labour price no country can ever compete with.
Sorry, not going to happen. No amount of deregulation will ever do it. America can never, again, compete with Chinese labour.
So how do you keep your manufacturing alive, and creating jobs, when you cannot ever be as cheap ? You need to give people a reason to buy your good DESPITE it being more expensive. Germany had all the same price pressures as America- and a much MORE worker-friendly labour law, and kept their manufacturing alive and growing.
Because people buy German goods EVEN though they are more expensive. Germany's "something worth paying more for" was exceptional engineering. The goods are high quality, long lasting, envelope-pushing technology. Their cars were more efficient, more pleasant to drive, and safer if you got in an accident for example.
This is what America failed to do in manufacturing - give people a reason to buy the goods they made. And vertical integration as a business philosophy died an unjust death. That's why America has all those silicon valley companies and even the ones who specialise in hardware no longer make hardware. But that wasn't always the way. For a decade and a half the best selling, most popular, and cheapest computer in the world was the commodore64 - and it achieved that exactly because Commodore was by then the only computer company to still have their own factories. Vertical integration became a key enabler of their engineering expertise. You have a suggestion for a minor modification to the chip which could speed up certain calculations... but you're worried it will overheat. Instead of relying on simulators which must inevitably be conservative in their estimates, they could actually turn on their own factory and make 5 chips with the new design and test them - and see if it worked. And then go mass-production finally with a chip that combined the best results of hundreds of these small inhouse-only test chips - and itself tested extensively in a tiny production run.
That model is pretty much dead today though.
But yes, countries that want to have manufacturing industries today - need to offer something worth paying more for. Because you can never beat China on price, with a billion desperate people and autocratic government that doesn't care what those people think: they can ALWAYS undercut you, no matter how low you go, they WILL go lower.
Both AND Neither and oh so much more. Taxes are supposed to fund the government AND punish behaviour that is unwanted because it imposes a cost on other citizens AND redistribute wealth by punishing the rich MORE than the poor AND internalize the cost of externalities and, and, and...
Taxes are a very flexible tool that can be applied to quite a few different kinds of problems - with just minor adaptations to specific requirements of the goal you are seeking to achieve.
But the one golden rule that you're doing it wrong ? Is when taxes punish a poor man more than it punishes his boss. If that is happening, your tax system is fucked up - and completely unsustainable.
No, but the legal complaint that inspired the article that got copy-pasta'd into the summary was.
The latest version on this I heard today was "the jobs are lost, but you don't see them because the cause/effect pattern is sort of backwards. The business owners hear all this talk of increasing minimum wage so they don't hire more people in case their wages will soon go up so the effect is already there under way when the minimum wage comes in - and then you don't see it in the data".
My response was: assuming your weird hypotheses is true - then we may as well do the increase since whatever job harming effects it may have we're ALREADY HAVING and will have ANYWAY.
Notice how his described mechanism includes no other option. If we don't raise it, workers will keep demanding we do - so employers keep not hiring if they can avoid it - so the problem happens anyway and becomes permanent.
So yeah, may as well raise it- whatever job losses it could cause will happen regardless - so we may as well have those with jobs paid decently.
Another use of normal quotation marks is to indicate that you are using a common or slang term in a more formal piece of writing (like a legal filing) where that word or phrase does not have a ready dictionary definition - the indication makes it clear that the slang meaning is intended rather than the literal meaning.
So that's not scare quotes either - it's just indicating that the term 'sock puppet' in this context does not refer to the puppets made from socks that we all remember from our childhoods.
Does that designation work retroactively ? Because while Fox News is most certainly a designated surrogate of the government they've only held this status since January 20th, and did not have it at the time of the alleged events.
Sorry my ISP says I need the racism+ premium service with complementary white sheet with eye holes in it to view your post. An I just can't imagine it's worth the extra 15 bucks a month.
If you dislike society so much - leave it.
That's your option. You don't like a society with a social contract, you think you can take from what WE paid for and not help pay for it yourself ? Then leave.
I hear Mogadishu is EXACTLY what you are hoping for. Pinochet did it in Chile too but that's gone unfortunately for you.
What ? You don't WANT to live under brutal warlords or dictators ? Well news for you - ANCAP doesnt work - ANCAP always ends up being run by brutal warlords. And libertarian societies cannot even come to EXIST without a dictator to create them. That noted socialist Margaret Thatcher told F.A. Hayek she CANNOT replicate Chile's policies beyond the small bit she did - because it's not POSSIBLE in a democracy where the leaders have to actually answer to the citizens for their policies - where the leaders have to negotiate and collaborate with opposition leaders in the parliament.
So your dream cannot exist in anything resembling a free society. In a democracy - it can't be done. You can get the libertarian economics if you have a dictator but then you lose ALL the other freedoms. Or you can try the ANCAP way and, as it ALWAYS HAS, end up getting killed in the crossfire as the brutal warlords fight for control (coincidentally - those warlords don't give a fuck about your personal liberties either).
Basically - yours is a pipe dream. The only way you can have what you want is in a society of one. Maybe "one family" - any bigger than that and the entire thing falls the fuck appart. Just as it always has, every single time it's been tried.
The only anarchist state that ever managed to exist as a successful, industrialised economy - was a socialist one: Andalusia. The anarchism worked because there was no economic inequality from which warlords can arise.
If that is, indeed, how you see things - you need to have your eyes checked.
In the real world - society comes with a social contract. You want all the benefits of NOT living alone on some mountaintop - up to and including everything produced by private business which cannot exist outside society - then you have to pay your share for the upkeep of that society and it's shared infrastructure.
If you refuse to pay your share, you don't get to TAKE your share either.
No idea. But GP was factually wrong.
I wasn't actually commenting on that, the GP had said he doesn't know where the guy is from - I merely mentioned what was in the article for information purposes, I didn't judge the merit of the fine either way.
Technically there is a sort of unwritten rule that people who have an honorary doctorate but no actual PHD should not use the title doctor. It's not actually illegal or anything - but it tends to raise eyebrowse and cause scandals as it's seen as somewhat deceptive.
I'm not sure I agree that it should - an honorary doctorate could be argued to be a GREATER achievement than a PHD since to get one you must have made some pretty significant contributions to the field - getting one in a field you don't hold a PHD in is generally the preserve of an extremely rare and talented few. One could debate if an honorary doctorate in literature for a lifetime of great writing shows a greater or lesser genius than an honorary doctorate in physics for theorising a new particle that was later discovered by researchers, but nobody would claim either is not a pretty significant achievement (though this is one of the rare cases where the amateur poet is likely to be a LOT richer than the amatuer physics researcher - there is an entire career path out there for non-formally trained writers, not so much for untrained physics fans).
I wonder how far that decision goes. Could somebody cite it as precedent who is charged with impersonating an officer ? How about impersonating a federal agent ?
Hell imagine if they have to deal with somebody claiming a first amendment right to pretend he's a supreme court judge ! That would be one hilarious case. Neil Gorsuch would eat his own robe trying to untie the Gordian knot in his brain.
Article says he was born and trained in Sweden, apparently moved to the US twenty-something years ago.
As far as I know there are very few, if any, state laws to that effect- because they aren't needed. There is already a federal law that reserves the title to people licensed by the AMA. Several states have expansions on that law however, for example requiring licensing for things like acupuncturists and such (it doesn't make them not charlatans but at least it means your charlatan has actually trained in the con-artistry he sells).
It's one of those sad ironies. In Japan - some practitioners of accupuncture did (in the 1990s) subject themselves to the scientific method, had their 'treatment' tested in double-blind studies - and ended up with it only being confirmed as working for a very narrow subset of what it was used for (and in a very different way to how tradition claimed) - it is in fact a valid, medical way to treat pain (but treating the cause of pain is generally a better idea). Oddly - scientific acupuncture never really took off commercially, perhaps because those who care about science know it does nothing that a tablet doesn't also do and the tablet doesn't require poking holes in your body, and of course less scientifically minded people would rather go to the acupuncturist who promises to cure his diabetes as well.
To be fair he did not just send it to the board, as per TFA he also sent it to a few other recipients - including several media sources.
It came from a very pragmatic, and not terrible, goal - to ensure peer review of massive infrastructure project designs - and peer approval of their designers. It's major outcome has been that very, very few suspension bridges have ever collapsed. These are not things the free market can reasonably function at - how would consumers know whether the materials in the supporting cables are really strong enough to keep it up past 5 years ?
Now it's quite possible the regulations are overbroad if just saying "I'm an engineer" in a context where you are clearly referring to "has the relevant qualifications" and are not trying to sell a design to anybody is covered under it - it could be that there is room for a constitutional challenge which may lead to a narrowing of what such regulations can actually say.
It's unlikely though. "I'm an engineer" is a statement of fact, the supreme court has consistently held that - where a strong government or public interest exists, the state has the right to restrict false statements of fact under narrow conditions. I am pretty sure that "we don't want shopping malls to fall on our heads" count as a strong government and public interest.
Total space nut here - please tell us more. I would love to know :) :P
Assuming you're allowed to of course. Otherwise I'm going to choose to believe it's the station-holding reaction wheels for an extremely powerful spysat
Well there are more reasons for that hope. Contrary to what so many people believe - being president is nothing like heading a company, and being good at one does not suggest you'll be good at the other, indeed the two jobs are almost exact opposites in the skills they require. I'll run through the differences just now - but it's worth noting that the republicans don't seem to recognize the importance of those differences and keep running businessmen for president. 3 of their last 5 candidates were businessmen - and to add injury to insult, they aren't aren't even good at picking businessmen since only one of the three Mitt Romney could be called a successful businessman.
Why being president is nothing like running a company: ... we're not his customers, we are his BOSSES.
- A business owner is risking his own money, the president is managing OUR money
- A business owner has customers, the president does not - those people out there using government services, paying taxes,
- A business owner has near absolute power over business decisions. A president is limited by checks and balances including congress and the courts.
- A business owner can make decisions single-handedly about things like spending and budget priorities, a president gets no real say in that - Congress writes the budget. He can tell them what he would like, but they have no obligation to care. If a CEO and his accountant do not agree on which departments should get budget priority, there is very little risk of the entire company shutting down for weeks - this has happened to government more than once.
- A business owner competes with his rivals in the market, but they take great care not to let each other know their plans and desires. A president has his competition INSIDE THE SAME ORGANISATION and has to negotiate with them on things they don't agree with - giving them some of what they want in return for some of what he wants and cooperate with them on things that they agree on and sometimes just ignore all their beliefs to do the basic jobs of governance together.
- If a business reduces it's expenses, there is almost zero risk of reducing it's income through the exact same action - this is almost ALWAYS the outcome when a government cuts expenses (because a government's income comes from taxing other people's income and government expenses ARE other people's income, and the income of a bunch of people who have never done business with government is reduced too - because the people who do business with government cannot buy as much from them anymore). As a general rule, austerity (especially in a recession) is the economic equivalent of saving money on your heating bill by burning your paycheck for warmth.
I could go on and on but I think I've made my point, frankly what I find myself entirely incapable of doing - is finding a SINGLE thing the two jobs actually have in common - a single overlapping skill between them. A good janitor is MORE qualified to president than the CEO of the company he cleans for - because a good janitor is good at understanding and executing the wishes of his superiors- and the president has a LOT of superiors, 320 million of them in fact.