I live in Mesa, Arizona I once figured it would take two and one half HOURS to take a bus to work. The first bus takes 45 minutes to go 15 miles, the second bus takes 60 minutes to go 20 miles. Plus I have to DRIVE or ride my bike to the park and ride, wait for the bus, and then wait at the transfer point.
So.. let's do the math. There are 24 hours in a day, so I will take 5 hours getting to and from an 8 hour job. Plus, I sleep 7 hours a night. That's 20 hours a day just to sleep, go to work, work, and then come home. Leaving me four hours to get ready for work, eat breakfast, eat lunch, eat dinner, and enjoy some time with my wife.
Riding a bike would take about the same amount of time as taking the bus, assuming a calm 12mph pace. And we don't have shower facilities.
Or, I could drive for 60-90 minutes a day (depending on traffic), giving me an additional 3 1/2 hours.
Creating bills to reduce consumption have a higher impact the lower your wages are. If 10% of a person's income is spent on gasoline, and gas goes up 100%, then they are affected more than someone whose fuel costs are 1% of their income. It's a hidden 'tax' by the government that will impact lower income people far more than higher income people. When gas rose to $4/gallon and my monthly gas bill increased by $200/month, I was able to absorb the increased cost by reducing what I saved WITHOUT having to reduce my consumption. People who don't save and are living paycheck to paycheck either have to drive less or give up something in their already tapped out expenses.
And since this will impact EVERYTHING, including necessities like food and heating/cooling costs, that will drive down the ability for lower income people to purchase things like cars, movie tickets, etc., further forcing the economy down into a hell hole just so Congress can get some slush funds.
Notice how now one has specified yet that the MONEY resulting from this bill has no dedicated purpose?? Congress will be free to direct it wherever they want. And the only jobs created will be those like Wall Street brokers, buying and selling no product and contributing nothing to the GDP. (This isn't a slam on Wall Street brokers, but moving money from one place to another doesn't improve the economy, creating a real product does.) It's like trying to fill up a pool by taking water from the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end.
The good news is that in two to four years of this, the country can revolt, kick all the Democrats out, and we can then repeal the bill before too much damage is done.
Also agree. I find most of my 'block' comes from not knowing where to start a large, complicated program or project. Pick something simple, even if it's the wrong thing, and do it. You will probably have to go back and fix it, but I know once I start coding, the floodgates open and it's difficult to stop.
Until my boss comes by with something of higher priority, then makes me stop working on something for two months. Then I run into the same damn block thing again as I try to figure out where the hell I was and what I was working on at the time I stopped!
My understanding is that most people have a dominant eye, so why not a dominant ear. I discovered many years ago that when I tuned a guitar, I tended to turn my head to the right and 'listen' with my left ear. I determined it was because I could hear the tones better with my left ear for whatever reason.
My wife just asked why I was typing so fast and furious, so I explained the above comment to her. She said that she too hears better from her right ear than her left hear.
So maybe people just naturally hear better with one ear than the other and are more willing to be helpful to strangers when they understand them better. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but that is how theories usually start. I'll leave it to someone with large sums of grant money to prove or disprove it.
So in 25 years we will finally get our hands on that battery patent. Just in time to stave off all the global warming.
Or... the government could have funded a research project like the Manhattan Project and just made all findings available, similar to what NASA already does.
The states are blackmailed into taking money from the government because if they refused it, they would have to raise their taxes even higher to cover it. And their citizens would still pay the same high tax rates, just to see their money go somewhere else.
We have state and local funded schools that the government weaseled their way into via blackmail, i.e. do it our way or you won't get federal funds. Then the US Congress kept increasing the federal income tax so that states and local government are unable to tax their citizens an appropriate amount to fund them without the funds.
All under the guise of general welfare, but really to allow the US government to force it's will upon the states IN DIRECT CONFLICT with state rights. Our 50 states are the ultimate experiment in free market, if you don't like the state you live in, move to one that you do like or try to adopt their policies in your home state, without all that messy patent business that keeps commercial businesses from doing the same thing. The federal government has for the most part eliminated this experiment because some states weren't as good at it as others.
And now the federal government is doing the same thing to commercial enterprises. All under the guise of 'general welfare'. They can't have loans unless they conform to federal rules about pay and benefits. They can't import any of their cars from overseas anymore. No check on whether or not the loan is viable, just imposing rules from a man who has never run a business in his life. Meanwhile, thousands for dealers are closing their doors forcing thousands more unemployed out onto the street so the government can impose it's version how how a business should operate on those that today can't afford to live without it. Just like they did the schools, one school system at a time.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Henry Ford didn't need a government loan to figure out how to make a more sensible transportation than the horse and buggy, and he was able to sell a premium product also that only the wealthy could afford.
I will agree that options in high-end cars often find their way down to less expensive cars, such as anti-lock brakes and power steering. Economies of scale often do that. But the government should be funding research where the results are available to all. If they were creating the 'Manhattan project' version of electric cars and were going to give the results away, or sell them to recover our tax dollars, I would have no disagreement. NASA used to publish a monthly magazine about all the cool discoveries they were making in all kinds of areas.
But I can't agree with funding a private enterprise that will likely keep any patents to themselves unless one condition of the loan is that the government owns the resulting IP.
What BKX didn't mention is there are forms of hemp that do not have the same stoner effects that could be legalized, but aren't because law enforcement can't easily tell the difference. Or at least that's the reason often cited.
Imagine giving tobacco farmers a replacement crop that would provide them a great income and not have the same social stigma tobacco has. It might be possible that with such a change, growing tobacco for cigarettes would be reduced, naturally driving up the cost of cigarettes and further reducing usage WITHOUT government intervention, while increasing tax revenues from the sales of all the hemp products.
Nah...that would never happen. Who would vote in something that gave our government less control.....
For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana, the stoner kind. I smoked 30 years ago and so did many people who have since stopped. It's obviously not addictive, except for those that can get addicted to anything.
I also have glaucoma, and spend $100/month (even after insurance) for tiny bottles of eye drops to reduce the pressure. The drops sting when I put them in three times a day. I'd much rather sit out on my back patio a couple times a day and enjoy a little toke.....
It was suggested that because Canadians live longer than Americans, it is their health care industry that was the cause. There are several factors that impact one's health... genetics, nutrition, dieting, smoking, alcohol and drug use, stress, etc. There are many reasons why one group of people may live longer than another, on average. There are people with poor availability of health care who have lived into their 90s, so it isn't necessary to have outstanding health care to have a long life.
Show some proof that it was the health care industry that caused this extension of life. One could probably show that Canadians eat more seal blubber, on average, than Americans. That doesn't mean Obama should add mandatory seal blubber requirements to our health care.
Based on my personal experience, there are people who make enough money to purchase healthcare, who choose to take the risk to not have it. I personally know of two single middle-class people, one about 50 and the other about 60, whose employers offer health care, but do not carry it because 'it's too expensive' I had to talk my daughter into getting it her first job because 'it was too expensive, I don't want to pay that'.
I have had it offered from every employer I have ever worked for in the last 30 years, and have always paid for it, because the cost of not having it is too high. I recently had a foot broken in a motorcycle crash, just a simple fracture of the fibula. Hospital cost??? $43,000 for a three night stay. The first night because it was late, operated the next day, and kept me two more days for reasons I do not understand.
I fail to see how Obama can offer a health care plan that will not compete with private insurance for the above three people. If it's cheaper, then it competes. And based on how the government runs medicare (lower and later payments to providers) and the the VA hospitals, I want no part of any health care system they offer and doubt that they can create one that won't significantly increase my taxes without decreasing the quality of my care. There are already doctor and nurse shortages, this will only make it worse. GPs are already in short supply because they can't make it on what insurance makes. Hospitals take money from accident victims insurance settlements to cover the difference between what health insurance pays and what they bill. I know, they are trying to do it to me. (Arizona allows medical providers to place liens on insurance amounts, and court cases allow them to recover up to the original billing amount, not just what the patient owes. For example, the hospital billed $43K, but insurance only paid $12K. They want the $31K difference from the insurance company of the person who hit me, leaving me with zero because she only carried $25K in liability.)
Yes.. the health care industry is broken. And until Obama does something to reduce the amounts hospitals and medical professionals are charging, changing the industry system won't do shit. Something has to be done about the high cost of malpractice, which isn't even being addressed.
Obama is catering to the populaces in preparation for the next election rather than doing what is really needed. He isn't up to making the difficult decisions, only the popular ones. He is a orator, not a leader.
What is happening now is our punishment for some people being stupid enough to vote for him.
Because everyone knows that polls are facts and accurately reflect whether or not something is correct.
But you only liked to an article *about* the poll, not the actual poll itself, which reveals:
The more you make, the happier you are
The more you make, the more likely you have a doctor
The older you are, the more higher you rate your doctor
The sample size was 2,000 out of 33,000,000 people
Was done via teleVox, there are no statistics taken manually that can be used to validate the cross sample
Was only about the service provided by the physicians, not by hospital or the healthcare industry in general
So.. the statistics you have quoted are, for the most part, almost totally irrelevant to a discussion of a healthcare industry.
I would also rate every family doctor I have ever had good, and one as 'excellent'. However, I would not rate the hospital care I receive the same way. I can usually afford the doctor bill, I can never afford the hospital bill.
Too many families are under the mistaken believe they have to have a full-time two-income home (for a variety of reasons) and simply can't/won't/don't spend the time needed with their children in the formative years.
The actual disposable income that a second income, full-time wage earner provides to a home is much lower than that second check. Two income families often eat out more, require day care facilities for their kids when the kids are not in school, have a second car, lose vacation time due to 'half days' and child sick days, have less time to spend together and spend extravagantly when they do rather than finding simple and free things to do.
I'm not saying two incomes aren't necessary, but it's the amount and timing of the second income that is often not given enough thought. My first wife didn't work the first two years after she had our first child, then went to work three evenings a week, two of which were alternating weekends, so that we didn't need day care. It wasn't a lot of pay, but it helped.
During that time, she went to evening classes to get her RN license. As our kids got older, she was able to work those three evenings as a nurse instead of a store clerk, doubling her salary. Once the kids were old enough, and didn't really want to spend time with their parents anymore, she was able to work full time.
A recent double income couple I know lamented about his working so much and not being able to quit because no one would pay him as much. After talking with him, I showed him how much money they were spending eating out, and how finding cheaper places to eat and forgoing the alcohol, appetizers, and desert and making inexpensive, quick meals at home would reduce his expenses enough that he could afford the other job at the lower pay. His only cost?? A happier family life.
I can't speak for the UK unions, but I know of one instance where an entire factory was shut down for two months because 7 striking workers were charged with vandalism (they had thrown nails into the road that punctured several tires around homes of managers) and the company refused to cave in to demands to drop the charges. In the meantime, the company hired scabs to run the factory from other offices and customers were impressed with the improved quality of product. During this time, the factory continued to produce product while the union workers sat on picket lines and got paid... nothing. Sometimes, people will get stubborn (or stupid) just because they can.
So what it will 'cost' is a complete unknown, although I do agree it's worth a try. Since we don't know whether or not they tried that, then assuming they hadn't tried due to a lack of imagination is just that... an assumption.
There used to be a phone service in some areas called 'measured service' that was exactly that for local calls. You paid a very low monthly rate, and then a rate based on how many calls you made. It was great for someone like me that had just moved to an area and didn't know anyone.
We also have this on our cell phones.. the more calls you make, the more expensive it is. You can buy unlimited bandwidth if you need it, but it costs more.
You pay for electricity based on your usage. And if you want more than a 200amp service, you'll pay extra for that also.
My water bill goes up the more water I use. As does my sewer bill. The water line coming into the house is only so big, if I want more I have to pay for a bigger feed. And if I want to put out more than one trashcan per week, there is a fee for that.
About the only thing you don't pay more for the more you use is cable TV. Except as you add TVs, the signal strength will go down, so you either have to purchase a booster (which uses electricity) or get the cable company to add another line. And that is only analog TV, if you want additional digital or hi-def cable TVs there is a monthly charge for the converter box. So the only true TV utility that doesn't cost more the more you use is over-the-air broadcasts.
Seems every utility I can think of charges you more as you use more of that service.
I remember trying to install a system 15 years ago to replace an in-house system that was very easy to maintain. They wanted to move all of the input down to the departments so they didn't have to fill out forms, so decided to purchase a payroll system (not Peoplesoft). I remember giving the estimate to the general manager of the company, and he literally accused me of bulking up the estimate for job security, we should just be able to 'plug it in'.
My response?? 'Sir... you can either change the software to pay based on the union contract, or you can change the union contract to match what the current software can do.' There were over a hundred pay types and calculations that the existing software wouldn't do that would require me to write new types and plug them in. i was going to have to modify the labor reporting system to generate data for the new system. Then there were issues like 'Should we reissue badges, or maintain a cross-reference table forever.' since the current employee IDs were not compatible with the new system. There were also reports that were going to have to be generated because it didn't match our accounting system feeds, so I was going to have to manipulate the data in order to get it into the accounting system. Plus all the reports that were needed to go back to managers of employees and other departments.
No... it wasn't going to cost $12M, or even $1M. But if a company of 1,000 people with only one union contract and salaried workers was going to take 6 months to install, I can't imagine what a University with dozens of unions and who knows how many different pay calculations would take. The requirements gathering alone would take months, then longer to get some sort of consensus on the requirements. No install is ever a true replacement because of all the 'features' everyone wants to have.
And a system that size I would never trust to the coders to test. You would need a decent sized QA team to run initial functional tests then increasingly more complex integration tests. And that is before you even get to the parallel test that will probably be required to run for at least a couple of months with data being feed from numerous system and out to other system which will also have to have testbeds setup.
Then having to deal with changing requirements while writing the system, since payroll changes won't just stop because it's going to take a year to design, write, and test it. Union contracts will be redone, new tax laws will come into play.
Sure... you can parameterize lots of stuff to make it easier to make changes since payroll basically consists of a few basic types of pay, deductions, and disbursements. But you have to be sure that all the possible parameters can be accounted for since adding some in later can be very expensive.
And a 3rd-year CS major would have no clue whatsoever since they have never spent years supporting such systems and don't know what the fuck they are talking about or how complex payroll really is.
I know of a few people who made a crapload of money during the depression using the barter system. During times of economic hardships, people start to trade things, either services or goods, for other things. I know one guy who ran a bakery and took goods in trade and put them into a warehouse. When the economy turned around, he opened it up and made far more than the cost of the bakery and became a very wealthy man. Gold isn't very valuable when you are hungry and need to sell it to eat. And it's pretty difficult to make change.
My point?? It is the calm, innovative people who make money during economic downturns.
I work for a living and spend my non-work hours enjoying what I made by working.
Besides, I don't write software unless I need it. So.. when I can't type, I'll use the crappy software we do have for whatever disability I have and make it better.
Have faith.. if you ignore the orphan tweets, the remaining messages were only created by 37 people who aren't smart enough to realize that their friends don't really give a crap about what they are doing, or are willing to wait to hear about the important stuff when they get together to do stuff instead of sitting with deer eyes in front of the iPhone waiting for the next tweet to show up.
Not all social stuff is retarded, just Twitter....I really don't give a damn what my friends are doing all day. They'll tell me the important stuff next time I see them.
All twitter is for the most part are unimportant people thinking that other people beyond the 2 friends they have really care about all the boring stuff they do.
If something is so important I have to know right away, I have email and a cell phone already. At least those take some effort to use and keep the noise level down a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
And did you forget who controlled the house and senate the last two years of GW?? And who actually submits the budget???
... thought you might have forgotten about that.
Yeah
I live in Mesa, Arizona I once figured it would take two and one half HOURS to take a bus to work. The first bus takes 45 minutes to go 15 miles, the second bus takes 60 minutes to go 20 miles. Plus I have to DRIVE or ride my bike to the park and ride, wait for the bus, and then wait at the transfer point.
.. let's do the math. There are 24 hours in a day, so I will take 5 hours getting to and from an 8 hour job. Plus, I sleep 7 hours a night. That's 20 hours a day just to sleep, go to work, work, and then come home. Leaving me four hours to get ready for work, eat breakfast, eat lunch, eat dinner, and enjoy some time with my wife.
So
Riding a bike would take about the same amount of time as taking the bus, assuming a calm 12mph pace. And we don't have shower facilities.
Or, I could drive for 60-90 minutes a day (depending on traffic), giving me an additional 3 1/2 hours.
Creating bills to reduce consumption have a higher impact the lower your wages are. If 10% of a person's income is spent on gasoline, and gas goes up 100%, then they are affected more than someone whose fuel costs are 1% of their income. It's a hidden 'tax' by the government that will impact lower income people far more than higher income people. When gas rose to $4/gallon and my monthly gas bill increased by $200/month, I was able to absorb the increased cost by reducing what I saved WITHOUT having to reduce my consumption. People who don't save and are living paycheck to paycheck either have to drive less or give up something in their already tapped out expenses.
And since this will impact EVERYTHING, including necessities like food and heating/cooling costs, that will drive down the ability for lower income people to purchase things like cars, movie tickets, etc., further forcing the economy down into a hell hole just so Congress can get some slush funds.
Notice how now one has specified yet that the MONEY resulting from this bill has no dedicated purpose?? Congress will be free to direct it wherever they want. And the only jobs created will be those like Wall Street brokers, buying and selling no product and contributing nothing to the GDP. (This isn't a slam on Wall Street brokers, but moving money from one place to another doesn't improve the economy, creating a real product does.) It's like trying to fill up a pool by taking water from the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end.
The good news is that in two to four years of this, the country can revolt, kick all the Democrats out, and we can then repeal the bill before too much damage is done.
Also agree. I find most of my 'block' comes from not knowing where to start a large, complicated program or project. Pick something simple, even if it's the wrong thing, and do it. You will probably have to go back and fix it, but I know once I start coding, the floodgates open and it's difficult to stop.
Until my boss comes by with something of higher priority, then makes me stop working on something for two months. Then I run into the same damn block thing again as I try to figure out where the hell I was and what I was working on at the time I stopped!
My understanding is that most people have a dominant eye, so why not a dominant ear. I discovered many years ago that when I tuned a guitar, I tended to turn my head to the right and 'listen' with my left ear. I determined it was because I could hear the tones better with my left ear for whatever reason.
My wife just asked why I was typing so fast and furious, so I explained the above comment to her. She said that she too hears better from her right ear than her left hear.
So maybe people just naturally hear better with one ear than the other and are more willing to be helpful to strangers when they understand them better. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but that is how theories usually start. I'll leave it to someone with large sums of grant money to prove or disprove it.
So in 25 years we will finally get our hands on that battery patent. Just in time to stave off all the global warming.
... the government could have funded a research project like the Manhattan Project and just made all findings available, similar to what NASA already does.
Or
The states are blackmailed into taking money from the government because if they refused it, they would have to raise their taxes even higher to cover it. And their citizens would still pay the same high tax rates, just to see their money go somewhere else.
We have state and local funded schools that the government weaseled their way into via blackmail, i.e. do it our way or you won't get federal funds. Then the US Congress kept increasing the federal income tax so that states and local government are unable to tax their citizens an appropriate amount to fund them without the funds.
All under the guise of general welfare, but really to allow the US government to force it's will upon the states IN DIRECT CONFLICT with state rights. Our 50 states are the ultimate experiment in free market, if you don't like the state you live in, move to one that you do like or try to adopt their policies in your home state, without all that messy patent business that keeps commercial businesses from doing the same thing. The federal government has for the most part eliminated this experiment because some states weren't as good at it as others.
And now the federal government is doing the same thing to commercial enterprises. All under the guise of 'general welfare'. They can't have loans unless they conform to federal rules about pay and benefits. They can't import any of their cars from overseas anymore. No check on whether or not the loan is viable, just imposing rules from a man who has never run a business in his life. Meanwhile, thousands for dealers are closing their doors forcing thousands more unemployed out onto the street so the government can impose it's version how how a business should operate on those that today can't afford to live without it. Just like they did the schools, one school system at a time.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Henry Ford didn't need a government loan to figure out how to make a more sensible transportation than the horse and buggy, and he was able to sell a premium product also that only the wealthy could afford.
I will agree that options in high-end cars often find their way down to less expensive cars, such as anti-lock brakes and power steering. Economies of scale often do that. But the government should be funding research where the results are available to all. If they were creating the 'Manhattan project' version of electric cars and were going to give the results away, or sell them to recover our tax dollars, I would have no disagreement. NASA used to publish a monthly magazine about all the cool discoveries they were making in all kinds of areas.
But I can't agree with funding a private enterprise that will likely keep any patents to themselves unless one condition of the loan is that the government owns the resulting IP.
What BKX didn't mention is there are forms of hemp that do not have the same stoner effects that could be legalized, but aren't because law enforcement can't easily tell the difference. Or at least that's the reason often cited.
.. .that would never happen. Who would vote in something that gave our government less control.....
Imagine giving tobacco farmers a replacement crop that would provide them a great income and not have the same social stigma tobacco has. It might be possible that with such a change, growing tobacco for cigarettes would be reduced, naturally driving up the cost of cigarettes and further reducing usage WITHOUT government intervention, while increasing tax revenues from the sales of all the hemp products.
Nah
For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana, the stoner kind. I smoked 30 years ago and so did many people who have since stopped. It's obviously not addictive, except for those that can get addicted to anything.
I also have glaucoma, and spend $100/month (even after insurance) for tiny bottles of eye drops to reduce the pressure. The drops sting when I put them in three times a day. I'd much rather sit out on my back patio a couple times a day and enjoy a little toke.....
It was suggested that because Canadians live longer than Americans, it is their health care industry that was the cause. There are several factors that impact one's health ... genetics, nutrition, dieting, smoking, alcohol and drug use, stress, etc. There are many reasons why one group of people may live longer than another, on average. There are people with poor availability of health care who have lived into their 90s, so it isn't necessary to have outstanding health care to have a long life.
Show some proof that it was the health care industry that caused this extension of life. One could probably show that Canadians eat more seal blubber, on average, than Americans. That doesn't mean Obama should add mandatory seal blubber requirements to our health care.
Based on my personal experience, there are people who make enough money to purchase healthcare, who choose to take the risk to not have it. I personally know of two single middle-class people, one about 50 and the other about 60, whose employers offer health care, but do not carry it because 'it's too expensive' I had to talk my daughter into getting it her first job because 'it was too expensive, I don't want to pay that'.
.. the health care industry is broken. And until Obama does something to reduce the amounts hospitals and medical professionals are charging, changing the industry system won't do shit. Something has to be done about the high cost of malpractice, which isn't even being addressed.
I have had it offered from every employer I have ever worked for in the last 30 years, and have always paid for it, because the cost of not having it is too high. I recently had a foot broken in a motorcycle crash, just a simple fracture of the fibula. Hospital cost??? $43,000 for a three night stay. The first night because it was late, operated the next day, and kept me two more days for reasons I do not understand.
I fail to see how Obama can offer a health care plan that will not compete with private insurance for the above three people. If it's cheaper, then it competes. And based on how the government runs medicare (lower and later payments to providers) and the the VA hospitals, I want no part of any health care system they offer and doubt that they can create one that won't significantly increase my taxes without decreasing the quality of my care. There are already doctor and nurse shortages, this will only make it worse. GPs are already in short supply because they can't make it on what insurance makes. Hospitals take money from accident victims insurance settlements to cover the difference between what health insurance pays and what they bill. I know, they are trying to do it to me. (Arizona allows medical providers to place liens on insurance amounts, and court cases allow them to recover up to the original billing amount, not just what the patient owes. For example, the hospital billed $43K, but insurance only paid $12K. They want the $31K difference from the insurance company of the person who hit me, leaving me with zero because she only carried $25K in liability.)
Yes
Obama is catering to the populaces in preparation for the next election rather than doing what is really needed. He isn't up to making the difficult decisions, only the popular ones. He is a orator, not a leader.
What is happening now is our punishment for some people being stupid enough to vote for him.
Now ... repeat after me ... correlation does not equal causation.
But you only liked to an article *about* the poll, not the actual poll itself, which reveals:
So .. the statistics you have quoted are, for the most part, almost totally irrelevant to a discussion of a healthcare industry.
I would also rate every family doctor I have ever had good, and one as 'excellent'. However, I would not rate the hospital care I receive the same way. I can usually afford the doctor bill, I can never afford the hospital bill.
Too many families are under the mistaken believe they have to have a full-time two-income home (for a variety of reasons) and simply can't/won't/don't spend the time needed with their children in the formative years.
The actual disposable income that a second income, full-time wage earner provides to a home is much lower than that second check. Two income families often eat out more, require day care facilities for their kids when the kids are not in school, have a second car, lose vacation time due to 'half days' and child sick days, have less time to spend together and spend extravagantly when they do rather than finding simple and free things to do.
I'm not saying two incomes aren't necessary, but it's the amount and timing of the second income that is often not given enough thought. My first wife didn't work the first two years after she had our first child, then went to work three evenings a week, two of which were alternating weekends, so that we didn't need day care. It wasn't a lot of pay, but it helped.
During that time, she went to evening classes to get her RN license. As our kids got older, she was able to work those three evenings as a nurse instead of a store clerk, doubling her salary. Once the kids were old enough, and didn't really want to spend time with their parents anymore, she was able to work full time.
A recent double income couple I know lamented about his working so much and not being able to quit because no one would pay him as much. After talking with him, I showed him how much money they were spending eating out, and how finding cheaper places to eat and forgoing the alcohol, appetizers, and desert and making inexpensive, quick meals at home would reduce his expenses enough that he could afford the other job at the lower pay. His only cost?? A happier family life.
I can't speak for the UK unions, but I know of one instance where an entire factory was shut down for two months because 7 striking workers were charged with vandalism (they had thrown nails into the road that punctured several tires around homes of managers) and the company refused to cave in to demands to drop the charges. In the meantime, the company hired scabs to run the factory from other offices and customers were impressed with the improved quality of product. During this time, the factory continued to produce product while the union workers sat on picket lines and got paid ... nothing. Sometimes, people will get stubborn (or stupid) just because they can.
... an assumption.
So what it will 'cost' is a complete unknown, although I do agree it's worth a try. Since we don't know whether or not they tried that, then assuming they hadn't tried due to a lack of imagination is just that
There used to be a phone service in some areas called 'measured service' that was exactly that for local calls. You paid a very low monthly rate, and then a rate based on how many calls you made. It was great for someone like me that had just moved to an area and didn't know anyone.
.. the more calls you make, the more expensive it is. You can buy unlimited bandwidth if you need it, but it costs more.
We also have this on our cell phones
You pay for electricity based on your usage. And if you want more than a 200amp service, you'll pay extra for that also.
My water bill goes up the more water I use. As does my sewer bill. The water line coming into the house is only so big, if I want more I have to pay for a bigger feed. And if I want to put out more than one trashcan per week, there is a fee for that.
About the only thing you don't pay more for the more you use is cable TV. Except as you add TVs, the signal strength will go down, so you either have to purchase a booster (which uses electricity) or get the cable company to add another line. And that is only analog TV, if you want additional digital or hi-def cable TVs there is a monthly charge for the converter box. So the only true TV utility that doesn't cost more the more you use is over-the-air broadcasts.
Seems every utility I can think of charges you more as you use more of that service.
I nominate you to go to all the different unions and get them agree to simplify their pay scales in order to save the University money.
I remember trying to install a system 15 years ago to replace an in-house system that was very easy to maintain. They wanted to move all of the input down to the departments so they didn't have to fill out forms, so decided to purchase a payroll system (not Peoplesoft). I remember giving the estimate to the general manager of the company, and he literally accused me of bulking up the estimate for job security, we should just be able to 'plug it in'.
... you can either change the software to pay based on the union contract, or you can change the union contract to match what the current software can do.' There were over a hundred pay types and calculations that the existing software wouldn't do that would require me to write new types and plug them in. i was going to have to modify the labor reporting system to generate data for the new system. Then there were issues like 'Should we reissue badges, or maintain a cross-reference table forever.' since the current employee IDs were not compatible with the new system. There were also reports that were going to have to be generated because it didn't match our accounting system feeds, so I was going to have to manipulate the data in order to get it into the accounting system. Plus all the reports that were needed to go back to managers of employees and other departments.
... it wasn't going to cost $12M, or even $1M. But if a company of 1,000 people with only one union contract and salaried workers was going to take 6 months to install, I can't imagine what a University with dozens of unions and who knows how many different pay calculations would take. The requirements gathering alone would take months, then longer to get some sort of consensus on the requirements. No install is ever a true replacement because of all the 'features' everyone wants to have.
... you can parameterize lots of stuff to make it easier to make changes since payroll basically consists of a few basic types of pay, deductions, and disbursements. But you have to be sure that all the possible parameters can be accounted for since adding some in later can be very expensive.
My response?? 'Sir
No
And a system that size I would never trust to the coders to test. You would need a decent sized QA team to run initial functional tests then increasingly more complex integration tests. And that is before you even get to the parallel test that will probably be required to run for at least a couple of months with data being feed from numerous system and out to other system which will also have to have testbeds setup.
Then having to deal with changing requirements while writing the system, since payroll changes won't just stop because it's going to take a year to design, write, and test it. Union contracts will be redone, new tax laws will come into play.
Sure
And a 3rd-year CS major would have no clue whatsoever since they have never spent years supporting such systems and don't know what the fuck they are talking about or how complex payroll really is.
I know of a few people who made a crapload of money during the depression using the barter system. During times of economic hardships, people start to trade things, either services or goods, for other things. I know one guy who ran a bakery and took goods in trade and put them into a warehouse. When the economy turned around, he opened it up and made far more than the cost of the bakery and became a very wealthy man. Gold isn't very valuable when you are hungry and need to sell it to eat. And it's pretty difficult to make change.
My point?? It is the calm, innovative people who make money during economic downturns.
I work for a living and spend my non-work hours enjoying what I made by working.
.. when I can't type, I'll use the crappy software we do have for whatever disability I have and make it better.
Besides, I don't write software unless I need it. So
Because that's what geeks do.....
Have faith .. if you ignore the orphan tweets, the remaining messages were only created by 37 people who aren't smart enough to realize that their friends don't really give a crap about what they are doing, or are willing to wait to hear about the important stuff when they get together to do stuff instead of sitting with deer eyes in front of the iPhone waiting for the next tweet to show up.
And one assumption is just as much a guess as another and proves nothing.
Not all social stuff is retarded, just Twitter....I really don't give a damn what my friends are doing all day. They'll tell me the important stuff next time I see them. All twitter is for the most part are unimportant people thinking that other people beyond the 2 friends they have really care about all the boring stuff they do. If something is so important I have to know right away, I have email and a cell phone already. At least those take some effort to use and keep the noise level down a bit.
The iPhone has changed the world .. it's even more obvious who is willing to waste their money!