Good points, but most of this alleged 99% protesting are just a bunch of unemployed hippies passing blame for their own poor decisions. I would rather see these people in voting booths, but sadly most of them seem to have an entitlement mentality and feel they should be handed things. They would likely vote liberal and keep the status quo of liberals in power, or neocons. It doesn't really matter because both parties advance the same agenda, just different areas get advanced more quickly depending on which party is in power.
Personally I'm about your age and have about twice as much student loan debt as you, and no degree since I had to drop out after my school royally screwed me by cancelling classes, overbilling, and pushing my time to completion out another year that I didn't budget for and couldn't afford. I think about how much easier it would be to pay off all that student loan debt if I wasn't taxed so much. While going through school I talked to a lot of students (minorities or lazy unemployed kids) who got a heavily subsidized education. Meanwhile I worked 40-60 hours a week each year I was at that school and couldn't afford to pay after they screwed me over. All I want is to be debt free (student loans are my only debt) so I can have a decent quality of life, and that's not going to happen anytime soon so long as we have socialists and neocons in power taxing the hell out of me. I too have voted in all elections since I turned 18, every time for sane candidates who respect individual liberty and limited government, in all local elections for candidated with those values or for write ins, and on local budget/spoending measured I've always voted against increased spending and increased taxation. Unfortunately the 99% don't seem to value those things, but rather value high taxes and redistribution of wealth, MY wealth.
Funny, I think numbers 6 and 7 and the most important on that list. Some of the others are violations of individual liberty, though #3 is quite valid depending on what is meant by "Sound Money". If they mean, backed by gold at a fixed value, then it's great.
Define hardware? The head units in my truck and my boat have USB connectors to play audio files. Although I don't own a TV I've seen many newer TVs have USB ports, as do blue ray players and things of that nature. Do game consoles have USB these days? Point is, a lot more than just computers have USB anymore.
I would argue exactly the opposite. All taxes are bad, but an income tax is perhaps the worst type as it is an outright presumption of slavery, that the government owns the fruits of our labor, and thus owns us... Allowing us to keep whatever percentage of our income. Income tax needs to end entirely.
Property tax is also wrong. It is a presumption that government owns all property (in this case, all land and homes). Once you purchase property it should be yours and yours alone. This country was founded on individual liberty, a large part of which is the right to one's own property. One should never have to fear not being able to afford to pay the tax man his $5k-$8k annually (in the state I live, for typical homes) or have the government steal his home and put him out on the streets.
Sales tax is a great way to tax. Income and property taxes should be eliminated and replaced with a sales tax on all non-necessities. This could be done at a national and state level as well as possibly a county or minicipal level. We could call this tax rate 31%. That's where I fall now with income taxes. Or call it 42% as that's my tax rate including property taxes. Or perhaps call it 50% as my tax rate is at least that including current sales tax. Or perhaps higher if you figure in all the other hidden taxes.
My point is taxes (and of course government spending) are at ludicrous levels. A simple and highly visible tax structure such as sales tax as the primary means of government revenue allows people to choose whether to support government spending, and how much to pay in taxes based on that or wahtever reasoning. That way we all are free to keep our entire income if we choose to, and there is no presumption of slavery. If you don't make much or don't want to pay taxes, don't buy new things, don't buy luxuries, buy secondhand, live a simpler life, etc. Those who can't afford those things likely don't pay much if any taxes currently. This tax structure would help the poor. It will make home ownership and rent cheaper. Cost of living would become much more affordable.
This the same Detroit that cried like babies over federal fuel efficiency requirements? Didn't they say that 30mpg was impossible and would put them out of business, despite foreign car makers doing it for years?
When did they ever say that? What company was it? I know for a fact that there have been American cars since 1960 that have got over 30 MPG. There was no CAFE or other asinine federal regulation of fuel economy in 1960.
Before 911 I always wrote down the local police number wherever I was going for a vacation, because you never know when something will happen. If something happened on the way, well I wouldn't have access to a phone anyhow so it wasn't relevant. As for local landfill options here, none are "free" or part of taxes. I would rather pay a local dump the cost of their services vs. be forced to pay for local trash pickup. I'm not given the option to choose what I want and pay for the service I use.
At the end of the day all I want is to be left alone and not forced to subsidize everyone else's children, or laziness, or whatever else... Along with paying my fair share for the things I choose to use.
Yes, I desperately want to relocate to the south, primarily for lower taxes, smaller government, more freedom and individual liberties, as well as better climate and nicer people. Unfortunately before making such a large jump I need to pay off at least a majority of the huge crippling student loans I took out for that scam that is college. Until then I'm stuck where I am. If I hadn't gone back to school I'd be making more money than I am now, have no debt, and have a much better quality of life down South.
Everyone seems to be down on taxes, but nobody wants reduced services.
I want reduced services and correspondingly lower taxes. I don't need a 911 operator at all times, I can call the police dispatch or fire department directly (just like before 911). I don't need things like trash pickup, I'm perfectly happy to take my own trash to the dump and sort my own recycles at the reclamation/recycling facility. The list goes on and on, but I want a smaller scope of government and correspondingly lower taxes.
I only pay cash. Sure they can still track me with license plate cameras, and sure they can still take (arguable less clear) pictures through the windows, but I will not enable (and pay for!) the privelege of making it easier of government to track me. So I pay cash at all tolls. I've heard rumblings of eventually ending cash lanes on some roads, but if that's teh case it just means the few longer drives I make in a year just get a bit longer, though perhaps more interesting from taking more back roads.
Similar, I typically avoid toll raods though not always. I do math on the additional distance I would drive, approximate amount of gas that would burn, and the gas tax rate in the state I live to determine if which route results in the least taxes paid to the government. I don't care about spending more in fuel costs, just taxes.
Vote Libertarian. Ron Paul is the only hope this time around, as he respects individual liberty and natural rights and has no preferential treatment of any "group".
I am strongly libertarian in my beliefs. I don't believe in a party, I believe in the rights of the individual. I get the same kind of grief from both liberals and neocons whenever I criticise either side. +1 Insightful for you, if I had not used all my mod points the other day.
First, Fourth, and soon to be Fifth amendments are pretty much gone since Sept. 11. Your ignorance of this is (along with so many other sheep) is why Americans are losing their natural rights and no longer have freedom.
While parking and water may appear similar on the surface, they are not the same. When parking gets scarce, more parking can be made either by the local government with tax funds or by private companies adding smaller free to their customer lots, or larger paid use lots or garages. If there is demand, there will be profit and incentive to do this. Government does not exist to make profit. Regardless, new parking space can be made any time and there is no cost to deliver it. New water cannot be made on demand. Delivering that water from a local reservoir to your tap requires a fair amount of treatment, filtering, and transportation costs. These costs are what you pay for in your water bill. It's a different concept and different model than paying for parking.
Water is different. You are getting a physical resource which costs money to treat and transport. You are continually using more, and pay for that usage. Water utilities are limited by law in many areas (particularly drought prone areas) which causes problems. Nobody has the right to water. It is a scarce resource which costs money. In many places laws are made to prevent utilities from raising rates, this results in overuse which exascerbates drought conditions. In a free market the costs would steadily increase as the water is used and reservoirs go dry (very visible, to me anyway as a recreational boater on those reservoirs). The increasing rates would result in increased awareness of usage and of course most folks would use significantly less as rates increased during droughts.
Parking is not the same as a physical resource such as water. I see the similarities, but it is different. You are artificially inflating the cost by paying for it, especially only during certain hours (as is the case in most towns/cities near me) Sure those business owners may want parking to be used by higher turnover customers, but they likely also want their employees to have a place to park so they can open their doors for the day. Charging at all,or different rates at different times eliminates some portion of potential customers, like myself. If I know I must pay to park I will not go to that town or city. If I know it's free, but may be hard to find parking I will go, but either adjust my time to before or after the peak time, or simply not even look for parking in the "prime" spots, but rather farther away from my destination where are more parking spots or less demand for them. I don't mind walking, and I do typically park near the back of parking lots just to be able to park quickly and not worry about finding a spot. The same applies in those less common instances that I use on street parking. Ignoring other factors, charging for parking will eliminate some portion of the customer base for businesses in that town or city, and result in less business.
A parking spot does not cost the state or town any money when it is in use, nor does it cost any when it is not in use. While not a true one time expense, it is close to it. Parking spots do not take the same abuse as roads and do not require anywhere near the smae level of maintenance or frequency of replacing. To compare a parking space to water is a poor choice as they are quite different.
The taxes that pay for these roads with parking along the side are ongoing taxes, just as the maintenance costs are ongoing. It is paid for without the need to bloat government and make it into a larger police state depending on violations for ongoing operations. The fact is that governments, especially where I live, tax the daylights out of homeowners and even more so out of businesses. There is no reason there should not be enough money to repave already established roads, including the parking area to the sides, once every couple decades, and patch them up inbetween. If parking along public roads is to be charged for and the police state grown for such enforcement, then there should be no public parking. Leave it to businesses to provide parking as they see fit, and LOWER property taxes the town accordingly.
I believe all most areas of government should be downsized or preferably eliminated. I pay for by consumption for my usage of minicipal water and other utilities, as it should be. I see what you're getting at though I don't necessarily agree with it. Part of a functional and useful public road system is parking in certain areas that would logically require parking. Though it's very rare that I use public parking, I do acknowledge that it makes sense to have it in areas where there simply is no land for private parking, and roads are wide enough. To address your other point about bike lanes, there are bike lanes in many of the towns around here (that also have free public parking along the roads) and I have no problem with the bike lanes. I think it makes sense in most areas they have put them as it segregates bike and motorized traffic to keep motorized traffic moving faster and bikers safer. It's a win/win and there is still sufficient "free" parking.
Point is? The other people you're sharing this parking space with also pay the same taxes you do. Does this give you more right than they have? If not, why should you have the ability to take advantage of first-come-first-serve rules to get unlimited use of a very scarce resource -- thereby blocking others, who already paid in those same taxes, from access to the same?
[For the uninitiated -- gas taxes, vehicle registration, and the like pay for highways, not city streets].
It gives no more right to a given parking spot than anyone else, which is why it should simply be first come first serve. Charging additional for use of a resource already paid for is wrong. Government does not exist to rake in money above the operating and maintenance cost of a given resource. Government is supposed to be small and limited. Adding the expense of meters and enforcement raises the cost of the government to operate, and then they need not only the paid parking income but also many fines for violations both parking and non-parking related to cover costs of the enforcement by police and meter maids (of the non-violent and victimless crime of parking on a public road in an already paid for parking space).
This is the cycle of big government creating a police state which leans heavily on making more things illegal and punishable by large fines in a rigged court where people have no hope of being found innocent by a judge who has no interest in doing anything except bringing in as much revenue as possible to the city or municipality. True, local governments can do whatever they want in that regard, but I'll opt to spend my money in another town that doesn't nickel and dime me. I prefer to not support big government everywhere I have a choice, as I wholeheartedly disagree with the threat and use of violent force.
My solution to this conundrum is simply to not go anywhere you must pay to park. This pretty much rules our most big cities, or at least most areas of big cities. This has the nice side effect of keeping me out of high crime areas. If you're going to charge me to park on a public road, funded by tax dollars, some of which came from me, I will not park there. If I don't park there, I of course won't be spending money in the surrounding areas. Their loss not mine, I hate cities.
But carbs are still very useful. Is there really much use in having a modern GPU on a PCI card? For those occasional legacy systems there are plenty of PCI cards floating around for cheap. Heck, I've got a stash of old PCI cards I'd gladly give away.
It's significant on the level of one businesses consumption and associated environmental impact. WalMart is not trying to save the world here, they're trying to save money over the long term by using solar panels, with an added PR bonus of decreasing their environmental footprint. When using alternative energy sources saves money, it becomes a wise long term investment and more businesses and individuals will go down that path. It's a normal free market response when the technology becomes competitive. In California where there is a lot of sun year round and electricity costs are fairly high, it just plain makes sense.
Forcing their suppliers to clean up their act, will result in higher costs for WalMart, higher prices in their stores, and lost sales as people turn to cheaper alternatives... In other words, the same reasons those WalMart shoppers were shopping there in the first place will bring them to WalMart's competitors. You can't have a perfectly clean everything all at once, or you're going back to the stone age. It's a gradual process as it becomes economically viable, slowly adopting cleaner technologies for manufacturing when old equipment wears out or newer replacements do not add significantly to your costs of production.
No, but I would be leaving the socialist state of NJ to live in a more free place that respects individual liberty. Atlanta seems to be on the path to a police state like NJ and other northern liberal states. I would hope this isn't the attitude of the government in the rest of GA, and would be inclined to believe it's only in larger cities such as Atlanta that socialism is taking root. When I do make the move, I'll stick to places that respect individual liberty and privacy, and are not on the road to becoming a totalitarian police state.
I've been wanting to move down south for a while now and it's getting closer to becoming a reality. GA is still on the list, but I will not live or work in Atlanta after reading this, that much is for sure.
All experiences should be taken seriously, as you can determine trends. What I have experienced, and what I gather from your experience vs your brother's experience, is that a formal "education" doesn't get you nearly as far as experience, knowledge, and skill does.
You can compare to your area here: Salary.com cost of living calculator or using any of the many other COL calculators and statistics available, which will give similar numbers.
Pay in NJ is generally higher than other places, but not nearly as inflated as teachers pay is vs. other places. Teachers pay here is public record data and easily accessible. I have a large family that are mostly teachers, and many friends who are teachers. They have mostly chose that route because it's an easy route to guaranteed high pay and great benefits while having a long vacation in the summer. Yeah it sucks before tenure, but it's gravy once they get that. You still haven't mentioned what state your brother teaches in.
In my experience college education isn't worth much. What state does your brother teach in? I have a feeling it's not NJ. Also note NJ has some of the highest property taxes in the country, if not the highest. Median property taxes are about $6600/yr. Well over half that goes to the schools.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points, but most of this alleged 99% protesting are just a bunch of unemployed hippies passing blame for their own poor decisions. I would rather see these people in voting booths, but sadly most of them seem to have an entitlement mentality and feel they should be handed things. They would likely vote liberal and keep the status quo of liberals in power, or neocons. It doesn't really matter because both parties advance the same agenda, just different areas get advanced more quickly depending on which party is in power.
Personally I'm about your age and have about twice as much student loan debt as you, and no degree since I had to drop out after my school royally screwed me by cancelling classes, overbilling, and pushing my time to completion out another year that I didn't budget for and couldn't afford. I think about how much easier it would be to pay off all that student loan debt if I wasn't taxed so much. While going through school I talked to a lot of students (minorities or lazy unemployed kids) who got a heavily subsidized education. Meanwhile I worked 40-60 hours a week each year I was at that school and couldn't afford to pay after they screwed me over. All I want is to be debt free (student loans are my only debt) so I can have a decent quality of life, and that's not going to happen anytime soon so long as we have socialists and neocons in power taxing the hell out of me. I too have voted in all elections since I turned 18, every time for sane candidates who respect individual liberty and limited government, in all local elections for candidated with those values or for write ins, and on local budget/spoending measured I've always voted against increased spending and increased taxation. Unfortunately the 99% don't seem to value those things, but rather value high taxes and redistribution of wealth, MY wealth.
Funny, I think numbers 6 and 7 and the most important on that list. Some of the others are violations of individual liberty, though #3 is quite valid depending on what is meant by "Sound Money". If they mean, backed by gold at a fixed value, then it's great.
Define hardware? The head units in my truck and my boat have USB connectors to play audio files. Although I don't own a TV I've seen many newer TVs have USB ports, as do blue ray players and things of that nature. Do game consoles have USB these days? Point is, a lot more than just computers have USB anymore.
I would argue exactly the opposite. All taxes are bad, but an income tax is perhaps the worst type as it is an outright presumption of slavery, that the government owns the fruits of our labor, and thus owns us... Allowing us to keep whatever percentage of our income. Income tax needs to end entirely.
Property tax is also wrong. It is a presumption that government owns all property (in this case, all land and homes). Once you purchase property it should be yours and yours alone. This country was founded on individual liberty, a large part of which is the right to one's own property. One should never have to fear not being able to afford to pay the tax man his $5k-$8k annually (in the state I live, for typical homes) or have the government steal his home and put him out on the streets.
Sales tax is a great way to tax. Income and property taxes should be eliminated and replaced with a sales tax on all non-necessities. This could be done at a national and state level as well as possibly a county or minicipal level. We could call this tax rate 31%. That's where I fall now with income taxes. Or call it 42% as that's my tax rate including property taxes. Or perhaps call it 50% as my tax rate is at least that including current sales tax. Or perhaps higher if you figure in all the other hidden taxes.
My point is taxes (and of course government spending) are at ludicrous levels. A simple and highly visible tax structure such as sales tax as the primary means of government revenue allows people to choose whether to support government spending, and how much to pay in taxes based on that or wahtever reasoning. That way we all are free to keep our entire income if we choose to, and there is no presumption of slavery. If you don't make much or don't want to pay taxes, don't buy new things, don't buy luxuries, buy secondhand, live a simpler life, etc. Those who can't afford those things likely don't pay much if any taxes currently. This tax structure would help the poor. It will make home ownership and rent cheaper. Cost of living would become much more affordable.
This the same Detroit that cried like babies over federal fuel efficiency requirements? Didn't they say that 30mpg was impossible and would put them out of business, despite foreign car makers doing it for years?
When did they ever say that? What company was it? I know for a fact that there have been American cars since 1960 that have got over 30 MPG. There was no CAFE or other asinine federal regulation of fuel economy in 1960.
Before 911 I always wrote down the local police number wherever I was going for a vacation, because you never know when something will happen. If something happened on the way, well I wouldn't have access to a phone anyhow so it wasn't relevant. As for local landfill options here, none are "free" or part of taxes. I would rather pay a local dump the cost of their services vs. be forced to pay for local trash pickup. I'm not given the option to choose what I want and pay for the service I use.
At the end of the day all I want is to be left alone and not forced to subsidize everyone else's children, or laziness, or whatever else... Along with paying my fair share for the things I choose to use.
Yes, I desperately want to relocate to the south, primarily for lower taxes, smaller government, more freedom and individual liberties, as well as better climate and nicer people. Unfortunately before making such a large jump I need to pay off at least a majority of the huge crippling student loans I took out for that scam that is college. Until then I'm stuck where I am. If I hadn't gone back to school I'd be making more money than I am now, have no debt, and have a much better quality of life down South.
Everyone seems to be down on taxes, but nobody wants reduced services.
I want reduced services and correspondingly lower taxes. I don't need a 911 operator at all times, I can call the police dispatch or fire department directly (just like before 911). I don't need things like trash pickup, I'm perfectly happy to take my own trash to the dump and sort my own recycles at the reclamation/recycling facility. The list goes on and on, but I want a smaller scope of government and correspondingly lower taxes.
I only pay cash. Sure they can still track me with license plate cameras, and sure they can still take (arguable less clear) pictures through the windows, but I will not enable (and pay for!) the privelege of making it easier of government to track me. So I pay cash at all tolls. I've heard rumblings of eventually ending cash lanes on some roads, but if that's teh case it just means the few longer drives I make in a year just get a bit longer, though perhaps more interesting from taking more back roads.
Similar, I typically avoid toll raods though not always. I do math on the additional distance I would drive, approximate amount of gas that would burn, and the gas tax rate in the state I live to determine if which route results in the least taxes paid to the government. I don't care about spending more in fuel costs, just taxes.
Vote Libertarian. Ron Paul is the only hope this time around, as he respects individual liberty and natural rights and has no preferential treatment of any "group".
I am strongly libertarian in my beliefs. I don't believe in a party, I believe in the rights of the individual. I get the same kind of grief from both liberals and neocons whenever I criticise either side. +1 Insightful for you, if I had not used all my mod points the other day.
First, Fourth, and soon to be Fifth amendments are pretty much gone since Sept. 11. Your ignorance of this is (along with so many other sheep) is why Americans are losing their natural rights and no longer have freedom.
While parking and water may appear similar on the surface, they are not the same. When parking gets scarce, more parking can be made either by the local government with tax funds or by private companies adding smaller free to their customer lots, or larger paid use lots or garages. If there is demand, there will be profit and incentive to do this. Government does not exist to make profit. Regardless, new parking space can be made any time and there is no cost to deliver it. New water cannot be made on demand. Delivering that water from a local reservoir to your tap requires a fair amount of treatment, filtering, and transportation costs. These costs are what you pay for in your water bill. It's a different concept and different model than paying for parking.
Water is different. You are getting a physical resource which costs money to treat and transport. You are continually using more, and pay for that usage. Water utilities are limited by law in many areas (particularly drought prone areas) which causes problems. Nobody has the right to water. It is a scarce resource which costs money. In many places laws are made to prevent utilities from raising rates, this results in overuse which exascerbates drought conditions. In a free market the costs would steadily increase as the water is used and reservoirs go dry (very visible, to me anyway as a recreational boater on those reservoirs). The increasing rates would result in increased awareness of usage and of course most folks would use significantly less as rates increased during droughts.
Parking is not the same as a physical resource such as water. I see the similarities, but it is different. You are artificially inflating the cost by paying for it, especially only during certain hours (as is the case in most towns/cities near me) Sure those business owners may want parking to be used by higher turnover customers, but they likely also want their employees to have a place to park so they can open their doors for the day. Charging at all ,or different rates at different times eliminates some portion of potential customers, like myself. If I know I must pay to park I will not go to that town or city. If I know it's free, but may be hard to find parking I will go, but either adjust my time to before or after the peak time, or simply not even look for parking in the "prime" spots, but rather farther away from my destination where are more parking spots or less demand for them. I don't mind walking, and I do typically park near the back of parking lots just to be able to park quickly and not worry about finding a spot. The same applies in those less common instances that I use on street parking. Ignoring other factors, charging for parking will eliminate some portion of the customer base for businesses in that town or city, and result in less business.
A parking spot does not cost the state or town any money when it is in use, nor does it cost any when it is not in use. While not a true one time expense, it is close to it. Parking spots do not take the same abuse as roads and do not require anywhere near the smae level of maintenance or frequency of replacing. To compare a parking space to water is a poor choice as they are quite different.
The taxes that pay for these roads with parking along the side are ongoing taxes, just as the maintenance costs are ongoing. It is paid for without the need to bloat government and make it into a larger police state depending on violations for ongoing operations. The fact is that governments, especially where I live, tax the daylights out of homeowners and even more so out of businesses. There is no reason there should not be enough money to repave already established roads, including the parking area to the sides, once every couple decades, and patch them up inbetween. If parking along public roads is to be charged for and the police state grown for such enforcement, then there should be no public parking. Leave it to businesses to provide parking as they see fit, and LOWER property taxes the town accordingly.
I believe all most areas of government should be downsized or preferably eliminated. I pay for by consumption for my usage of minicipal water and other utilities, as it should be. I see what you're getting at though I don't necessarily agree with it. Part of a functional and useful public road system is parking in certain areas that would logically require parking. Though it's very rare that I use public parking, I do acknowledge that it makes sense to have it in areas where there simply is no land for private parking, and roads are wide enough. To address your other point about bike lanes, there are bike lanes in many of the towns around here (that also have free public parking along the roads) and I have no problem with the bike lanes. I think it makes sense in most areas they have put them as it segregates bike and motorized traffic to keep motorized traffic moving faster and bikers safer. It's a win/win and there is still sufficient "free" parking.
Point is? The other people you're sharing this parking space with also pay the same taxes you do. Does this give you more right than they have? If not, why should you have the ability to take advantage of first-come-first-serve rules to get unlimited use of a very scarce resource -- thereby blocking others, who already paid in those same taxes, from access to the same?
[For the uninitiated -- gas taxes, vehicle registration, and the like pay for highways, not city streets].
It gives no more right to a given parking spot than anyone else, which is why it should simply be first come first serve. Charging additional for use of a resource already paid for is wrong. Government does not exist to rake in money above the operating and maintenance cost of a given resource. Government is supposed to be small and limited. Adding the expense of meters and enforcement raises the cost of the government to operate, and then they need not only the paid parking income but also many fines for violations both parking and non-parking related to cover costs of the enforcement by police and meter maids (of the non-violent and victimless crime of parking on a public road in an already paid for parking space).
This is the cycle of big government creating a police state which leans heavily on making more things illegal and punishable by large fines in a rigged court where people have no hope of being found innocent by a judge who has no interest in doing anything except bringing in as much revenue as possible to the city or municipality. True, local governments can do whatever they want in that regard, but I'll opt to spend my money in another town that doesn't nickel and dime me. I prefer to not support big government everywhere I have a choice, as I wholeheartedly disagree with the threat and use of violent force.
My solution to this conundrum is simply to not go anywhere you must pay to park. This pretty much rules our most big cities, or at least most areas of big cities. This has the nice side effect of keeping me out of high crime areas. If you're going to charge me to park on a public road, funded by tax dollars, some of which came from me, I will not park there. If I don't park there, I of course won't be spending money in the surrounding areas. Their loss not mine, I hate cities.
That might be a good metric for turn based strategy games...
But carbs are still very useful. Is there really much use in having a modern GPU on a PCI card? For those occasional legacy systems there are plenty of PCI cards floating around for cheap. Heck, I've got a stash of old PCI cards I'd gladly give away.
It's significant on the level of one businesses consumption and associated environmental impact. WalMart is not trying to save the world here, they're trying to save money over the long term by using solar panels, with an added PR bonus of decreasing their environmental footprint. When using alternative energy sources saves money, it becomes a wise long term investment and more businesses and individuals will go down that path. It's a normal free market response when the technology becomes competitive. In California where there is a lot of sun year round and electricity costs are fairly high, it just plain makes sense.
Forcing their suppliers to clean up their act, will result in higher costs for WalMart, higher prices in their stores, and lost sales as people turn to cheaper alternatives... In other words, the same reasons those WalMart shoppers were shopping there in the first place will bring them to WalMart's competitors. You can't have a perfectly clean everything all at once, or you're going back to the stone age. It's a gradual process as it becomes economically viable, slowly adopting cleaner technologies for manufacturing when old equipment wears out or newer replacements do not add significantly to your costs of production.
No, but I would be leaving the socialist state of NJ to live in a more free place that respects individual liberty. Atlanta seems to be on the path to a police state like NJ and other northern liberal states. I would hope this isn't the attitude of the government in the rest of GA, and would be inclined to believe it's only in larger cities such as Atlanta that socialism is taking root. When I do make the move, I'll stick to places that respect individual liberty and privacy, and are not on the road to becoming a totalitarian police state.
I've been wanting to move down south for a while now and it's getting closer to becoming a reality. GA is still on the list, but I will not live or work in Atlanta after reading this, that much is for sure.
All experiences should be taken seriously, as you can determine trends. What I have experienced, and what I gather from your experience vs your brother's experience, is that a formal "education" doesn't get you nearly as far as experience, knowledge, and skill does.
You can compare to your area here: Salary.com cost of living calculator or using any of the many other COL calculators and statistics available, which will give similar numbers.
Pay in NJ is generally higher than other places, but not nearly as inflated as teachers pay is vs. other places. Teachers pay here is public record data and easily accessible. I have a large family that are mostly teachers, and many friends who are teachers. They have mostly chose that route because it's an easy route to guaranteed high pay and great benefits while having a long vacation in the summer. Yeah it sucks before tenure, but it's gravy once they get that. You still haven't mentioned what state your brother teaches in.
In my experience college education isn't worth much. What state does your brother teach in? I have a feeling it's not NJ. Also note NJ has some of the highest property taxes in the country, if not the highest. Median property taxes are about $6600/yr. Well over half that goes to the schools.