Airline pilot used to be a prestige job which for a system airline could be a lifetime career. Starting pilots now make $24 an hour, which is slightly higher than a Walmart greeter:
http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/...
Think about that the next time you roar down the runway on your way somewhere.
Your article is about 4 years and $26 per hour out of date.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month. Pilots with seniority can easily makes $250k in a year before bonuses or profit sharing.
Regionals currently pay about $50-60k yearly plus sign-up and retention bonuses. The issue isn't the pay or the work rules. The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline. Before the changes after the Colgan Air crash you only needed 250 hours to be an FO with a regional carrier.
Just wait until the left gets their way in allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, then the standards for student loans will tighten up real quick in a spectacular backfire. Student loans will immediately become only for the wealthy and privileged. Your dad doesn't have a 750 FICO score? No student loan for you!
You'll get banks who will probably go way beyond credit scores: you'll get banks who will deny student loans because the major you want to pursue is on the bank's secret blacklist of college majors not to approve loans for because the default rate for that major is too high.
And then schools are forced drop tuition prices as enrollment levels drop because no one can afford to get in. Meanwhile, affordable community colleges and vocational schools jump for joy as they see enrollments levels jump dramatically.
If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
Ryan Fenton
Treat it the same way that American football treats concussions. The player should be removed from play and undergo and pass a series of tests and evaluations from an independent physician before they are allowed to return to the field.
As an Irish person, I just see this as our incompetent government targeting jobs in peat and crippling the economy deliberately in their continuous effort to destroy anything we have left.
Except the cats would kill the birds too. So you would have to introduce dogs to keep the cats under control as well. Which means adding cars to keep the dog population from getting out of hand. Then the car population gets too big so you have to introduce hipsters to reduce the number of cars. And the last thing anyone wants are islands overrun with hipsters.
Not all of the islands threatened by rats are populated, or at least populated heavy enough/industrialized enough for people to be a problem for the reefs. But all it takes to infest an island with rats is a nearby shipwreck 200-300 years ago where some rats survived and washed ashore. The rats would have no or few natural predators (as neither did the birds who lived there until the rats showed up) allowing them to thrive and threaten native species.
No, my vote is for fix it. No matter how hard and dangerous you make the journey, people will always try to make it, and you hit diminishing returns for our money very quickly. While a lot of causes of migration are systemic, the US drives a lot of the problems in Mexico with the war on drugs. End that, enact some form of drug legalization and promote treatment of addicts over incarceration and you stem the flow of money and guns to the cartels. That weakens their control over Mexico and allows Mexico to deal with their systemic problems. Once Mexico is in shape they are in position and motivated to stop the illegal immigration into their won territory from Guatemala, and so on and so forth. You fix illegal immigration by not trying to keep them away but rather to keep them from leaving(wanting to leave) in the first place. It's a more effective use of our money and it benefits the originating countries by building up their own economies. Illegal immigrants are objects of fear and loathing, they are objects of pity. The fact that they are willing to risk death to come to America and work long, crappy jobs for crappy pay just to make things better for them and their families means they could do so much for their home countries if given the opportunity to do so.
Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee)....Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil
Yes, not at war at all. Just incredibly corrupt and ineffective police, large areas controlled by criminal gangs or drug cartels, frequent assassinations of community figures such as journalists and local politicians, minimal to nonexistent social services, and very limited social mobility. But nope, no war.
Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.
This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen.
That's just FUD/populist/nationalist-driven Constitutional Amendment away. The Supreme Court ruled that citizenship cannot be taken away except under specific circumstances. A sufficiently stacked Supreme Court that would be willing to overturn or expand that ruling could be created within only 2-3 decades given the right circumstances. It wouldn't even have to be on a racial basis; simply expanding the definition of treason to what is considered "renouncing citizenship" would suffice. Is it likely to happen? No. But it is plausible. And remember, even citizenship didn't protect Japanese-Americans from being herded up during WWII.
[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk
No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.
Legal immigrants? Hell, these days even American citizens are at risk, and not just from the government. Besides the 92 year old Mexican man legally in the country to visit his children and had a woman beat him up with a brick, there was a woman recently in Illinois who was accosted for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt and was told to go back to her country. People don't even know (or care) that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen. That doesn't end well.
Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.
No, I can see you've never worked with advertisers. Advertisers are very data driven. They always want to know how well their advertising campaigns have worked, and how much sales they've gotten from their advertising. If something isn't working, they stop doing it quickly because that's money wasted.
tl;dr internet advertising works, that's why it is still here.
I think the point being made isn't that internet advertising will cease to be relevant. Instead, that at some point, companies will start to look behind the curtain. They might like the deeper analytics that exists now vs. when they had little more than Nielsen ratings and newspaper circulation numbers to go on, but the question is whether advertising companies (e.g. Google and Facebook) can continue charging as much money as they are for the ads. All the analytics in the world won't justify the investments in online advertising if those ads don't ultimately turn into increased revenue for the company buying them. Once enough companies fail to get a good ROI on internet ads, it doesn't mean they won't continue to buy them, it means they won't be willing to pay as much for them. You are correct that internet advertising isn't going away, but the multibillion dollar valuation of Google and Facebook is subject to whether or not their revenue is sustained...and unlike Microsoft who still sells licenses to Windows and SQL Server, or Amazon who can stop all advertising tomorrow and still be sustainable by selling books and diapers and computing time, Google can't sustain itself very long by selling G-Suite, and Facebook doesn't even have something like that to fall back on.
tl;dr: ads won't go away, but the companies whose balance sheets fail with ad revenue being cut in half are going to be in trouble.
Well said. And don't forget, the job of advertisers is to sell people things they don't want and/or need. And the thing they have to sell above all else is themselves.
No, the advertising bubble will not pop. That money has been coming in for a hundred years, and it will keep coming. As TV dies, more and more will come.
Advertising will always be there, but the idea that companies are worth millions or billions of dollars through monetizing their users (selling their data and their eyeballs) won't last. Eventually the curtain will get pulled back and reveal the sham that it really is. When was the last time anyone ever saw a relevant ad? The closest you get is when you buy something online then see adds everywhere online for that and similar products for the next week. Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.
If you see bubbles everywhere, then you might want to recalibrate your vision. It's true there are a lot of useless startups (as always), but the difference between now and 1997 is revenue. It's not just a black hole that money goes into, there is money coming back out.
Good point that the cost of getting started is much lower now, though.
All that revenue is coming from the big data and advertising bubbles. Those will eventually pop as well.
I'll support the side that doesn't give 400 million annually to the families of suicide bombers.
So instead you choose to support the side that shoots at protesters with live ammunition, shoots kids throwing rocks at armored vehicles (or not doing anything at all), tears down buildings and whole communities for not having the proper permits (which it always refuses to give), controls water and electricity access, destroys the whole house if a family member commits a "terrorist" act, sentences soldiers who get caught on camera killing wounded and defenseless Palestinians to 9 months in jail, and runs a complete economic blockade.
He based the face on a photo of his mother in law, not the actual statue. The court ruled that as original work and the stamp focused on the face of the statue. Therefore most of the stamp was of his original work and not derivative work.
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
And I am sure the reason that I see no Native Americans where I live (in an area of the country surrounded by Native American place names, Indian settlement/burial sites, and even living in a county with the name of a tribe) was because they all just got up one day and decided to take a little stroll out West.
You do realize the first people to find the kids were actually British divers, right? And they've been getting support from China, Australia, and many other countries. And Thailand has been very public for that help.
That's the wrong way to go about it because it won't fix anything long term. The 2 parties will drift back to the fringes over time. It's inevitable with a 2 party system that the radicals will come to dominate. The correct fix is to take all those disillusioned and fed up people, the independents and moderates, and back a strong 3rd party. The 3rd party doesn't even have to win. It just has to have a large enough support base that for either of the other 2 parties to win they have to make a deal with and court the supporters of the third party. This would create a moderating influence.
Slashdot Mirror
Airline pilot used to be a prestige job which for a system airline could be a lifetime career. Starting pilots now make $24 an hour, which is slightly higher than a Walmart greeter: http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/...
Think about that the next time you roar down the runway on your way somewhere.
Your article is about 4 years and $26 per hour out of date.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month. Pilots with seniority can easily makes $250k in a year before bonuses or profit sharing. Regionals currently pay about $50-60k yearly plus sign-up and retention bonuses. The issue isn't the pay or the work rules. The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline. Before the changes after the Colgan Air crash you only needed 250 hours to be an FO with a regional carrier.
I thought it was a pretty good rant, 4/5 stars. But I did receive it for free in exchange for this review.
Just wait until the left gets their way in allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, then the standards for student loans will tighten up real quick in a spectacular backfire. Student loans will immediately become only for the wealthy and privileged. Your dad doesn't have a 750 FICO score? No student loan for you!
You'll get banks who will probably go way beyond credit scores: you'll get banks who will deny student loans because the major you want to pursue is on the bank's secret blacklist of college majors not to approve loans for because the default rate for that major is too high.
And then schools are forced drop tuition prices as enrollment levels drop because no one can afford to get in. Meanwhile, affordable community colleges and vocational schools jump for joy as they see enrollments levels jump dramatically.
If a player is writing on the ground in pain, then for their own safety, they should not be allowed to return to the game at all.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
Ryan Fenton
Treat it the same way that American football treats concussions. The player should be removed from play and undergo and pass a series of tests and evaluations from an independent physician before they are allowed to return to the field.
As an Irish person, I just see this as our incompetent government targeting jobs in peat and crippling the economy deliberately in their continuous effort to destroy anything we have left.
Could be worse. At least you aren't Brexiting.
Nothing a few kittehs can't fix.
Except the cats would kill the birds too. So you would have to introduce dogs to keep the cats under control as well. Which means adding cars to keep the dog population from getting out of hand. Then the car population gets too big so you have to introduce hipsters to reduce the number of cars. And the last thing anyone wants are islands overrun with hipsters.
Not all of the islands threatened by rats are populated, or at least populated heavy enough/industrialized enough for people to be a problem for the reefs. But all it takes to infest an island with rats is a nearby shipwreck 200-300 years ago where some rats survived and washed ashore. The rats would have no or few natural predators (as neither did the birds who lived there until the rats showed up) allowing them to thrive and threaten native species.
Rats that kill would be "killer rats" so there is no ambiguity
Your vote is for 'bring that here'.
No, my vote is for fix it. No matter how hard and dangerous you make the journey, people will always try to make it, and you hit diminishing returns for our money very quickly. While a lot of causes of migration are systemic, the US drives a lot of the problems in Mexico with the war on drugs. End that, enact some form of drug legalization and promote treatment of addicts over incarceration and you stem the flow of money and guns to the cartels. That weakens their control over Mexico and allows Mexico to deal with their systemic problems. Once Mexico is in shape they are in position and motivated to stop the illegal immigration into their won territory from Guatemala, and so on and so forth. You fix illegal immigration by not trying to keep them away but rather to keep them from leaving(wanting to leave) in the first place. It's a more effective use of our money and it benefits the originating countries by building up their own economies. Illegal immigrants are objects of fear and loathing, they are objects of pity. The fact that they are willing to risk death to come to America and work long, crappy jobs for crappy pay just to make things better for them and their families means they could do so much for their home countries if given the opportunity to do so.
Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee)....Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil
Yes, not at war at all. Just incredibly corrupt and ineffective police, large areas controlled by criminal gangs or drug cartels, frequent assassinations of community figures such as journalists and local politicians, minimal to nonexistent social services, and very limited social mobility. But nope, no war.
Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.
This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen.
That's just FUD/populist/nationalist-driven Constitutional Amendment away. The Supreme Court ruled that citizenship cannot be taken away except under specific circumstances. A sufficiently stacked Supreme Court that would be willing to overturn or expand that ruling could be created within only 2-3 decades given the right circumstances. It wouldn't even have to be on a racial basis; simply expanding the definition of treason to what is considered "renouncing citizenship" would suffice. Is it likely to happen? No. But it is plausible. And remember, even citizenship didn't protect Japanese-Americans from being herded up during WWII.
My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?
[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk
No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.
Legal immigrants? Hell, these days even American citizens are at risk, and not just from the government. Besides the 92 year old Mexican man legally in the country to visit his children and had a woman beat him up with a brick, there was a woman recently in Illinois who was accosted for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt and was told to go back to her country. People don't even know (or care) that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen. That doesn't end well.
Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.
No, I can see you've never worked with advertisers. Advertisers are very data driven. They always want to know how well their advertising campaigns have worked, and how much sales they've gotten from their advertising. If something isn't working, they stop doing it quickly because that's money wasted.
tl;dr internet advertising works, that's why it is still here.
I think the point being made isn't that internet advertising will cease to be relevant. Instead, that at some point, companies will start to look behind the curtain. They might like the deeper analytics that exists now vs. when they had little more than Nielsen ratings and newspaper circulation numbers to go on, but the question is whether advertising companies (e.g. Google and Facebook) can continue charging as much money as they are for the ads. All the analytics in the world won't justify the investments in online advertising if those ads don't ultimately turn into increased revenue for the company buying them. Once enough companies fail to get a good ROI on internet ads, it doesn't mean they won't continue to buy them, it means they won't be willing to pay as much for them. You are correct that internet advertising isn't going away, but the multibillion dollar valuation of Google and Facebook is subject to whether or not their revenue is sustained...and unlike Microsoft who still sells licenses to Windows and SQL Server, or Amazon who can stop all advertising tomorrow and still be sustainable by selling books and diapers and computing time, Google can't sustain itself very long by selling G-Suite, and Facebook doesn't even have something like that to fall back on.
tl;dr: ads won't go away, but the companies whose balance sheets fail with ad revenue being cut in half are going to be in trouble.
Well said. And don't forget, the job of advertisers is to sell people things they don't want and/or need. And the thing they have to sell above all else is themselves.
No, the advertising bubble will not pop. That money has been coming in for a hundred years, and it will keep coming. As TV dies, more and more will come.
Advertising will always be there, but the idea that companies are worth millions or billions of dollars through monetizing their users (selling their data and their eyeballs) won't last. Eventually the curtain will get pulled back and reveal the sham that it really is. When was the last time anyone ever saw a relevant ad? The closest you get is when you buy something online then see adds everywhere online for that and similar products for the next week. Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.
If you see bubbles everywhere, then you might want to recalibrate your vision. It's true there are a lot of useless startups (as always), but the difference between now and 1997 is revenue. It's not just a black hole that money goes into, there is money coming back out. Good point that the cost of getting started is much lower now, though.
All that revenue is coming from the big data and advertising bubbles. Those will eventually pop as well.
I'll support the side that doesn't give 400 million annually to the families of suicide bombers.
So instead you choose to support the side that shoots at protesters with live ammunition, shoots kids throwing rocks at armored vehicles (or not doing anything at all), tears down buildings and whole communities for not having the proper permits (which it always refuses to give), controls water and electricity access, destroys the whole house if a family member commits a "terrorist" act, sentences soldiers who get caught on camera killing wounded and defenseless Palestinians to 9 months in jail, and runs a complete economic blockade.
Its Detroit?
Bund, not bundt. Bund is a German word meaning "federation". Bundt is a cake.
He based the face on a photo of his mother in law, not the actual statue. The court ruled that as original work and the stamp focused on the face of the statue. Therefore most of the stamp was of his original work and not derivative work.
but in the US I'd much rather hear about their plans to deal with the next economic downturn.
You'll find out in 9 months when the Brits still haven't gotten their act together and force a hard Brexit.
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
And I am sure the reason that I see no Native Americans where I live (in an area of the country surrounded by Native American place names, Indian settlement/burial sites, and even living in a county with the name of a tribe) was because they all just got up one day and decided to take a little stroll out West.
You do realize the first people to find the kids were actually British divers, right? And they've been getting support from China, Australia, and many other countries. And Thailand has been very public for that help.
That's the wrong way to go about it because it won't fix anything long term. The 2 parties will drift back to the fringes over time. It's inevitable with a 2 party system that the radicals will come to dominate. The correct fix is to take all those disillusioned and fed up people, the independents and moderates, and back a strong 3rd party. The 3rd party doesn't even have to win. It just has to have a large enough support base that for either of the other 2 parties to win they have to make a deal with and court the supporters of the third party. This would create a moderating influence.
Shouldn't government employees be loyal to the Constitution first, the people in an incredibly close second, and all others far behind that?