I think a lot of the better educated in the US are starting to look with interest at Europe's social protections.
I sure hope so. Even I think some European countries go too far with some benefits, like long paid maternity and paternity leave (yes, I have kids) but the basics are another story. We pay at least half again as much as any other country for healthcare (as %/GDP - it's worse by exchange rate or PPP) yet get no better care. University tuition has reached a point where either you have rich parents or go into debt for life (at high interest rates and, unlike any other loan, can't be discharged in bankruptcy).
Unfortunately we still have plenty of idiots who scream "socialism", without realizing that the frickin' fire department is socialism. Occasionally you even hear a brilliant remark like "tell the government to keep its hands off my Medicare" (Medicare is the one way the US has long provided universal healthcare, but only if you're at least 65). The same people who scream "socialism" would probably revolt if you tried to take away their Medicare.
We're not talking about megacorps here, we're talking about small businesses.
So? Small companies that can't survive without special privileges deserve to die. It's a harsh reality called "capitalism" and "competition", though many people seem to like those things only when they're applied to other people. As for "anything that allows them to grow a business is only going to help your country", it's utter crap. If a company isn't competitive in an environment where other companies do fine, it means that company is a failure. Giving it special privileges to stay afloat is called welfare. The resources would be better invested in a competitive company.
Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties.
Another person spouting nonsense about "free trade". It's not by definition, but according to simplistic theory. Furthermore, even that theory requires conditions that often aren't met (e.g. balanced trade). "Mutual benefit" means it benefits both countries in terms of their aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) and says nothing about the distribution of those benefits. So if 1% of the people got an enormous benefit and 99% got screwed, free trade theory would still call that a net benefit.
of course it's a pain in the ass that you can't just hire people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices
But... but... but without that a third rate knockoff of the last second rate copy of a failed social networking idea might not stay around long enough for the founders and VC's to rake off some skim. Without "people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices" it's hard to make money. Sometimes you need good original ideas and to run things well. Outrageous!
The main past-time of so-called entrepreneurs seems to be whining to mommy government to give them special breaks because their business models are otherwise unprofitable. Funny how, the current recession (exacerbated by the austerity preferred by most so-called entrepreneurs) notwithstanding, there are lots of successful European companies. If that brilliant startup of yours can't hack it in that environment, it's probably because the startup ain't so brilliant. Heaven forbid any "entrepreneur" or their investors admit that though. Given cheap enough inputs, and consumers who still have money in their pockets because they don't have to work under the same conditions, any idiot can make money. It takes brains to do it with more than Dickensian labor rates though.
China or Bangladesh? Way too expensive and over-regulated. After recent events Bangladesh my even enforce building codes! The Libertopia you want is Somalia. Cheap labor, no pesky laws, no need for visas. What's not to like?
Obama and the Democrats did what was politically possible.
No. It'd be one thing if Obama had tried and failed, but he didn't even try. He's notorious for first compromising with himself then using that as a starting point for negotiations. Any kid knows that's not the way you bargain. Not that I think Obama doesn't know how to be persuasive. He learned politics in Chicago, where you're not twisting somebody's arm enough until you break it. Obama is very good at playing hardball, but only does it for things he actually cares about. The premature "compromises" and excuses about bipartisanship just mean that he never really wanted it in the first place.
Then by all means, please move to where you believe the health care system is better.
Let me translate:
America, love it or leave it
Very retro. I think I just saw Richard Nixon and Abbie Hoffman strolling by.
Of course that attitude is a great American tradition. It's entirely reasonable to say that I should leave the country where I was born, have lived my whole life, and am a citizen of by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, because I think it's desirable to change some particular aspect. Many famous Americans have avoided discord by offering and following that advice, from George Washington to Susan B. Anthony to Martin Luther King.
P.S. If you ever come with an argument instead of a silly shopworn slogan, let me know.
we ought to be shrinking [the government], rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...
Right, because it's impossible for government to handle health insurance well. Ignore Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and virtually every other developed country in the world whose governments handle than it better than our system, because they must be outliers, and it defies your version of "common sense" (which trumps real world data) and uh, oh yeah, you're ideologically indisposed to face reality. While you're at it, ignore our own limited socialized health insurance (aka Medicare) because it, uh, has problems! Yeah, that's it, it isn't perfect! Never mind that it's cheaper, more effective and has a lower inflation rate than the mess of a system for people under 65.
The problem with Obamacare isn't that it involves government, but that it doesn't involve government enough. Obama and the Dems, in the great "third way" tradition, didn't go for a simple and efficient universal public health insurer (ok, that approach has destroyed what was once our Northern neighbor) or even allow a public option. Instead it involves the always efficient "private sector" to guarantee profits and bloated salaries for worthless middle men.
Is riding on the autobahn in heavy, heavy traffic. 5 lanes, no speed limits. The left lane was doing 70kph, second left 80, 90, 100 and the right lane was 'as fast as you want'. If someone in the right lane saw somebody bearing down on them, they switched one lane to the left and let them past. But you hardly saw anyone driving above 120, and I didn't see a single soul above 130. The car doing 130 was a brand new Porsche on a flat straight stretch of road... a perfectly safe speed for such a car.
I think you confused your left with your right...
The OP confused nothing, which explains why he found it his "most interesting experience".
And that's a big "Yay!" for New Jersey; even the least restrictive bill is not too bad.
As a New Yorker it's simply unthinkable for me to say anything positive about New Jersey, but I'll come as close as I can. While NJ is the nation's toxic waste dump, the changes caused by the mutagenic agents may, on extremely rare occasions, produce people with some sense.
Symbolset school of linguistics here: If there is no person inside the aircraft it is an "unmanned" craft, commonly given as "drone". If there is a human inside and nominally in control of the aircraft it is a "plane". If there are one or more humans inside but none in control it is a "manned drone" or "passenger drone".
a good fraction of the over-60 population sober are worse drivers than a good fraction of the 20-30 yr old population at 0.08). Lower it and, for example, I don't see how you could rationally also allow anyone over the age of 60 to drive.
That certainly doesn't jibe with the statistics here, which show that the fatal accident rate for drivers 75 and over is lower than for anyone 24 or younger, and that the fatal accident rate for drivers between 55 and 74 is lower than for any other age group.
I'm not doubting you, but I'd be very interested to see a reference for that statement. Love to read up more on it.
I'm doubting it, but I'd be convinced by decent stats that say show "a good fraction of the over-60 population sober are worse drivers than a good fraction of the 20-30 yr old population at 0.08". But first off, what's "a good fraction"? That doesn't sound like much of statistical argument. Also, how does that break down with increasing age? There's a big difference between 61 an 91. Lastly, my skepticism comes from the fact that statistically the 20-30 yr old population aren't terribly good drivers. Mostly that's caused by people in their early 20's, who consequently pay higher insurance rates.
As a general note, and not to pick on you or anything, but in blog posts (not just Slashdot) I wish people would say roughly where they're from (major city/state/province/country) instead of "around here". People often have interesting things to say, and it's frustrating not to know where they're talking about.
Let's not forget that in Europe, most of the population tends to live in the urban areas.
Probably so, but I wouldn't imagine that's changed much in 10 years. It would certainly make it easier for people to comply though.
I'd be very interested to see DUI statistics compared between cities like New York & Boston versus a city without those kinds of subway and bus options.
Depending on the time of day, in NYC "driving" while intoxicated doesn't cause any problems since the cars can't move anyway.
Statistics doesn't really attempt (or need to attempt) to answer that question.
Statistics generally don't attempt to explain causes (although some statistical techniques do), but what I was asking was why would you assume any particular change in the Australian murder rate absent the ban? Apparently you're saying that you're (not necessarily unreasonably) assuming that it would have followed the same trajectory as comparable countries in that period which didn't enact bans.
Good point. It's utterly unreasonable to expect someone making an assertion to know any facts that back that assertion. BTW, have you considered running for congress?
The newspapers in my area, for every 1 drunk driving related death, there's at least 10 teen related deaths.
I'd respond, but I'm afraid the only grammar I know is English.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of the better educated in the US are starting to look with interest at Europe's social protections.
I sure hope so. Even I think some European countries go too far with some benefits, like long paid maternity and paternity leave (yes, I have kids) but the basics are another story. We pay at least half again as much as any other country for healthcare (as %/GDP - it's worse by exchange rate or PPP) yet get no better care. University tuition has reached a point where either you have rich parents or go into debt for life (at high interest rates and, unlike any other loan, can't be discharged in bankruptcy).
Unfortunately we still have plenty of idiots who scream "socialism", without realizing that the frickin' fire department is socialism. Occasionally you even hear a brilliant remark like "tell the government to keep its hands off my Medicare" (Medicare is the one way the US has long provided universal healthcare, but only if you're at least 65). The same people who scream "socialism" would probably revolt if you tried to take away their Medicare.
We're not talking about megacorps here, we're talking about small businesses.
So? Small companies that can't survive without special privileges deserve to die. It's a harsh reality called "capitalism" and "competition", though many people seem to like those things only when they're applied to other people. As for "anything that allows them to grow a business is only going to help your country", it's utter crap. If a company isn't competitive in an environment where other companies do fine, it means that company is a failure. Giving it special privileges to stay afloat is called welfare. The resources would be better invested in a competitive company.
You must have a better business plan than me. Mine only works if the employees pay me.
Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties.
Another person spouting nonsense about "free trade". It's not by definition, but according to simplistic theory. Furthermore, even that theory requires conditions that often aren't met (e.g. balanced trade). "Mutual benefit" means it benefits both countries in terms of their aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) and says nothing about the distribution of those benefits. So if 1% of the people got an enormous benefit and 99% got screwed, free trade theory would still call that a net benefit.
The laws being talked about are the ones where it is literally impossible to fire the employees unless they commit a crime.
No, these are startups whining they can't hire anybody they want from anywhere they want, wages, visas, etc. be damned.
of course it's a pain in the ass that you can't just hire people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices
But ... but ... but without that a third rate knockoff of the last second rate copy of a failed social networking idea might not stay around long enough for the founders and VC's to rake off some skim. Without "people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices" it's hard to make money. Sometimes you need good original ideas and to run things well. Outrageous!
Capitalists want the cheapest labor possible.
The main past-time of so-called entrepreneurs seems to be whining to mommy government to give them special breaks because their business models are otherwise unprofitable. Funny how, the current recession (exacerbated by the austerity preferred by most so-called entrepreneurs) notwithstanding, there are lots of successful European companies. If that brilliant startup of yours can't hack it in that environment, it's probably because the startup ain't so brilliant. Heaven forbid any "entrepreneur" or their investors admit that though. Given cheap enough inputs, and consumers who still have money in their pockets because they don't have to work under the same conditions, any idiot can make money. It takes brains to do it with more than Dickensian labor rates though.
China or Bangladesh? Way too expensive and over-regulated. After recent events Bangladesh my even enforce building codes! The Libertopia you want is Somalia. Cheap labor, no pesky laws, no need for visas. What's not to like?
Obama and the Democrats did what was politically possible.
No. It'd be one thing if Obama had tried and failed, but he didn't even try. He's notorious for first compromising with himself then using that as a starting point for negotiations. Any kid knows that's not the way you bargain. Not that I think Obama doesn't know how to be persuasive. He learned politics in Chicago, where you're not twisting somebody's arm enough until you break it. Obama is very good at playing hardball, but only does it for things he actually cares about. The premature "compromises" and excuses about bipartisanship just mean that he never really wanted it in the first place.
Then by all means, please move to where you believe the health care system is better.
Let me translate:
America, love it or leave it
Very retro. I think I just saw Richard Nixon and Abbie Hoffman strolling by.
Of course that attitude is a great American tradition. It's entirely reasonable to say that I should leave the country where I was born, have lived my whole life, and am a citizen of by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, because I think it's desirable to change some particular aspect. Many famous Americans have avoided discord by offering and following that advice, from George Washington to Susan B. Anthony to Martin Luther King.
P.S. If you ever come with an argument instead of a silly shopworn slogan, let me know.
Forget all those statistics and other fancy nancy stuff - the PP has an anecdote! Case closed.
we ought to be shrinking [the government], rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...
Right, because it's impossible for government to handle health insurance well. Ignore Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and virtually every other developed country in the world whose governments handle than it better than our system, because they must be outliers, and it defies your version of "common sense" (which trumps real world data) and uh, oh yeah, you're ideologically indisposed to face reality. While you're at it, ignore our own limited socialized health insurance (aka Medicare) because it, uh, has problems! Yeah, that's it, it isn't perfect! Never mind that it's cheaper, more effective and has a lower inflation rate than the mess of a system for people under 65.
The problem with Obamacare isn't that it involves government, but that it doesn't involve government enough. Obama and the Dems, in the great "third way" tradition, didn't go for a simple and efficient universal public health insurer (ok, that approach has destroyed what was once our Northern neighbor) or even allow a public option. Instead it involves the always efficient "private sector" to guarantee profits and bloated salaries for worthless middle men.
Is riding on the autobahn in heavy, heavy traffic. 5 lanes, no speed limits. The left lane was doing 70kph, second left 80, 90, 100 and the right lane was 'as fast as you want'. If someone in the right lane saw somebody bearing down on them, they switched one lane to the left and let them past. But you hardly saw anyone driving above 120, and I didn't see a single soul above 130. The car doing 130 was a brand new Porsche on a flat straight stretch of road ... a perfectly safe speed for such a car.
I think you confused your left with your right ...
The OP confused nothing, which explains why he found it his "most interesting experience".
And that's a big "Yay!" for New Jersey; even the least restrictive bill is not too bad.
As a New Yorker it's simply unthinkable for me to say anything positive about New Jersey, but I'll come as close as I can. While NJ is the nation's toxic waste dump, the changes caused by the mutagenic agents may, on extremely rare occasions, produce people with some sense.
Here's the entire list of services provided by speed traps:
I triple checked but I can't find "safety" anywhere in that list.
Nonsense. They help to safely ensconce our public servants in their jobs.
Symbolset school of linguistics here: If there is no person inside the aircraft it is an "unmanned" craft, commonly given as "drone". If there is a human inside and nominally in control of the aircraft it is a "plane". If there are one or more humans inside but none in control it is a "manned drone" or "passenger drone".
How about "flying thing".
a good fraction of the over-60 population sober are worse drivers than a good fraction of the 20-30 yr old population at 0.08). Lower it and, for example, I don't see how you could rationally also allow anyone over the age of 60 to drive.
That certainly doesn't jibe with the statistics here, which show that the fatal accident rate for drivers 75 and over is lower than for anyone 24 or younger, and that the fatal accident rate for drivers between 55 and 74 is lower than for any other age group.
Local American laws need to be brought in harmony with international standards.
Why? If some supposed "international standard" doesn't serve a real purpose, I don't want to see it here.
BTW, what does "local American" laws mean? All of the local laws in America? If you're going to criticize, at least use terms that make sense.
I'm not doubting you, but I'd be very interested to see a reference for that statement. Love to read up more on it.
I'm doubting it, but I'd be convinced by decent stats that say show "a good fraction of the over-60 population sober are worse drivers than a good fraction of the 20-30 yr old population at 0.08". But first off, what's "a good fraction"? That doesn't sound like much of statistical argument. Also, how does that break down with increasing age? There's a big difference between 61 an 91. Lastly, my skepticism comes from the fact that statistically the 20-30 yr old population aren't terribly good drivers. Mostly that's caused by people in their early 20's, who consequently pay higher insurance rates.
Around here, .05 is considered impaired.
Where is "around here"?
As a general note, and not to pick on you or anything, but in blog posts (not just Slashdot) I wish people would say roughly where they're from (major city/state/province/country) instead of "around here". People often have interesting things to say, and it's frustrating not to know where they're talking about.
Pretty much all traffic enforcement these days is about revenue.
Absolute rubbish. Its about keeping people in one piece and alive.
That explains the red light cameras that cause more accidents than they prevent.
Its obvious you have never been involved in a fatal accident where the driver of the car at fault is so drunk they can't walk.
"So drunk they can't walk" is much higher than 0.05, or 0.08 for that matter.
In Australia the limit is 0.05 BAC.
That's nice. The question is whether, and to what extent, having a 0.05 instead of a 0.08 limit reduces accidents, injuries and deaths.
Seems that way from the number of comments posted so far.
Let's not forget that in Europe, most of the population tends to live in the urban areas.
Probably so, but I wouldn't imagine that's changed much in 10 years. It would certainly make it easier for people to comply though.
I'd be very interested to see DUI statistics compared between cities like New York & Boston versus a city without those kinds of subway and bus options.
Depending on the time of day, in NYC "driving" while intoxicated doesn't cause any problems since the cars can't move anyway.
I can only imagine that in 2043 the iPhone 17QX will require multi-petaflop performance to create holographic picture and sound and touch.
Considering how faster hardware always seems to lead to less efficient software, it'll probably need 1 petaflop just to flash an LED.
Statistics doesn't really attempt (or need to attempt) to answer that question.
Statistics generally don't attempt to explain causes (although some statistical techniques do), but what I was asking was why would you assume any particular change in the Australian murder rate absent the ban? Apparently you're saying that you're (not necessarily unreasonably) assuming that it would have followed the same trajectory as comparable countries in that period which didn't enact bans.
do 10 seconds of research yourself
Good point. It's utterly unreasonable to expect someone making an assertion to know any facts that back that assertion. BTW, have you considered running for congress?
The newspapers in my area, for every 1 drunk driving related death, there's at least 10 teen related deaths.
I'd respond, but I'm afraid the only grammar I know is English.