I'm constantly baffled by people who don't understand this.
12% of $100,000 is $12K. 33% of $250,000 is $82K.
$82K is a lot more than $12K, so of course you should do the former? No, that part doesn't matter; the remaining is $168K vs. $88K. And yeah I understand where this could go - we still have other cost of living, yadayadaya, but we still make bank here, make a LOT more in equity, and have great lifestyles. It's not insane at all, it's amazing.
So they can't survive with two thirds of a presumably good paycheck? What's the title on about?
The general rule of thumb for housing is to not spend more than 1/3 of your pay on it. It's just a way to compare costs across widely different income levels and costs. Like all rules of thumb, it's imperfect. But it gives you a sense of the extremely high costs in the bay area.
Personally this is the reason I'll never, ever live there.
I'm one of those people who live here. Let's do a hypothetical: I make 1/3rd more money, and pay 1/3rd of my income to rent/mortgage. If I lived somewhere else and made 1/3 less money and only 1/4th to rent/mortage, I still have more money here.
IF it's just a numbers game... which it isn't, because there's many reasons why this is one of the best places to live in the world.
> Of all the above, Apple is the only company that actually manufactures, and can bring jobs back to the US. The others - Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook & Twitter, don't make squat
You are implying that the only real jobs and value are through physical manufacturing as opposed to service work. In fact, services are obviously very valuable.
You're confusing a direct democracy with the the generic term "democracy"; a democracy is a form of a government where the people vote. There are many, many forms. Our federal republic is one such form.
I really hope a lot of people read this and become more informed. Your post is the most important piece of information that people need to know to understand the archaic system we live in. I call it archaic not in a bad way, but in the way that you describe - it is based on very very different and old circumstances.
> You left out the main reason the electoral college works the way it does: the small states insisted on it. They wouldn't agree to the constitution unless they were given outsized power relative to their populations. It was a devil's bargain from the very start: build an undemocratic system into the constitution, or the small states would walk away and there wouldn't be any constitution. Everything else is just rationalizations that people have added to cover that fact.
> Whether or not "people in the modern age" identify or not with their state, it is their state that issues them any of the following: driver's license, state id card, CHL/FOID/etc, and I think also hunting & fishing licenses. So you implicitly are a citizen of [insert name of state] whether or not you consciously acknowledge it.
Pointing out the current state of affairs has no bearing on whether or not the archaic system should change (or not change). Certainly you are a citizen of a state (I've been the citizen of a few). The point is that the electoral college was designed for circumstances and needs that no longer exist in the modern age.
States... so what? This is a _federal_ election. It is an election for an office of every person, not a "governor of the states". Given the fact that the popular vote was something like 51%-49%, the argument that only 20% of the states would matter does not hold.
I don't think it's a good argument to say that some people's votes should be more important than other ones. This argument is that people's voices in big cities should be (statistically) less important than those in exurbs.
God fuck's sake, why does everyone think we don't? There are many forms. A perfectly direct democracy is when you vote directly on legislation yourself. Voting on representatives to do that for you does not mean you're no lo longer a democracy.
Our American ancestors have been touting the greatness of democracy over non-democracy for hundreds of years. At best, you might win on a semantic argument but that just means another semantic argument exists.
We live in a democracy as well as a Republic. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. And I do not jest - this has been my signature for about 10 years:)
> But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.
The reason it is there is because in the 1700s there was no internet or telegraphs. The electors had to travel to the nation's capital to vote for a president which took a long time. It is not because "you are a citizen of your state before the U.S.".
The OP is implicitly arguing that the money should be put in a bottle for 30 years and then taken out and given to the person that put it in. That's not the way it works and that's not the way it should work.
Uber is not a 'tech' company any more than pizzahut is for having an app.
Uber comes from Silicon Valley, its culture and its employees there are interbred with other large tech companies. No, the drivers aren't, but in its soul I'd say they are a tech company.
because idiots like techies think its 'great' for some unknown reason.
As an American techie, I can explain. I've lived in 3 major US cities. Getting taxis are the worst fucking experience in the world here. Let me clarify, it's not always that way. In fact, I'd say 90% of the time it's not. But then again, 90% of my dealings with Comcast are fine too, but I think they're awful in customer service and the majority of society agrees. Uber (and Lyft, which I think is also awesome), has provided an amazing service that solved so many of the problems of using taxis.
Some of those unknown reasons you were asking for from an idiot techie: The map which shows you where all drivers are (I can even switch to Lyft to see if the competition has better availability in the time frame or better surge pricing when that happens). The fact that you can request one and they come to you within minutes, unlike Taxis where you never fucking know when or even if they will come. The ability to rate drivers. The fact that they're cheaper. The fact that they're WAY better drivers than most of the immigrants who are taxi drivers in the US who learned to drive in a different country (no disparagement to immigrants meant, but driving in Ethiopia isn't the same). I've gotten out of a taxi in NYC with my heart pounding because I was so scared of the way he was driving. The fact that they're safer, because unlike anonymous taxis who can rob you or rape you, Uber is tracked (and you can even broadcast a message to your friends when you start your ride). Many times they'll provide water and gum for you. The fact that if you leave something in the car, you have the ability to use the app to inform the driver/system and have them return it to you, unlike not knowing what taxi you were just in (happened to my friend who left a cell phone once, we gave him a nice tip for his trouble; I and many other people I know have left something in a taxi, never to see it again - one time we got a cell phone charge for $100 for calls to Kenya a month later).
Have I missed any reason why they're so much better?
And remember, you don't have to use Uber. If you hate them, you can always call a taxi.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm constantly baffled by people who don't understand this.
12% of $100,000 is $12K.
33% of $250,000 is $82K.
$82K is a lot more than $12K, so of course you should do the former? No, that part doesn't matter; the remaining is $168K vs. $88K. And yeah I understand where this could go - we still have other cost of living, yadayadaya, but we still make bank here, make a LOT more in equity, and have great lifestyles. It's not insane at all, it's amazing.
$3,000. When I lived in the south, I spent way more on that in gas.
That's if I actually used Uber every time... I can also ride a bicycle when I please, or take the tram.
No, you're wrong. "Blue" states definitely subsidize "red" states. In other words, California subsidizes your bullshit.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...
So they can't survive with two thirds of a presumably good paycheck? What's the title on about?
The general rule of thumb for housing is to not spend more than 1/3 of your pay on it. It's just a way to compare costs across widely different income levels and costs. Like all rules of thumb, it's imperfect. But it gives you a sense of the extremely high costs in the bay area.
Personally this is the reason I'll never, ever live there.
I'm one of those people who live here. Let's do a hypothetical: I make 1/3rd more money, and pay 1/3rd of my income to rent/mortgage. If I lived somewhere else and made 1/3 less money and only 1/4th to rent/mortage, I still have more money here.
IF it's just a numbers game... which it isn't, because there's many reasons why this is one of the best places to live in the world.
Hmm... no, I ride a bike and the air's quite nice here.
> What on earth were the founders thinking?
They were thinking of agrarian society, and hence they came up with the electoral college, which is ridiculously outdated now but we still have it.
No, they should not lead to the same penalty. The outcome was different.
This book is epic! I love the section called "How to recognize a computer."
+1
> Of all the above, Apple is the only company that actually manufactures, and can bring jobs back to the US. The others - Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook & Twitter, don't make squat
You are implying that the only real jobs and value are through physical manufacturing as opposed to service work. In fact, services are obviously very valuable.
You're confusing a direct democracy with the the generic term "democracy"; a democracy is a form of a government where the people vote. There are many, many forms. Our federal republic is one such form.
> You are being pedantic.
Exactly why I said this is a semantic game.
> A Democracy means that there is direct elections
No, a direct democracy means that. Democracy is a generic term of a government where the people vote. There are many, many forms.
> What we have is a Representative Democracy in the form of a Republic
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
I really hope a lot of people read this and become more informed. Your post is the most important piece of information that people need to know to understand the archaic system we live in. I call it archaic not in a bad way, but in the way that you describe - it is based on very very different and old circumstances.
> You left out the main reason the electoral college works the way it does: the small states insisted on it. They wouldn't agree to the constitution unless they were given outsized power relative to their populations. It was a devil's bargain from the very start: build an undemocratic system into the constitution, or the small states would walk away and there wouldn't be any constitution. Everything else is just rationalizations that people have added to cover that fact.
This
> Whether or not "people in the modern age" identify or not with their state, it is their state that issues them any of the following: driver's license, state id card, CHL/FOID/etc, and I think also hunting & fishing licenses. So you implicitly are a citizen of [insert name of state] whether or not you consciously acknowledge it.
Pointing out the current state of affairs has no bearing on whether or not the archaic system should change (or not change). Certainly you are a citizen of a state (I've been the citizen of a few). The point is that the electoral college was designed for circumstances and needs that no longer exist in the modern age.
States... so what? This is a _federal_ election. It is an election for an office of every person, not a "governor of the states". Given the fact that the popular vote was something like 51%-49%, the argument that only 20% of the states would matter does not hold.
I just want to point out that my signature has been the same for over 10 years. I believe I set it during the 2004 election.
We are a democracy. Full stop. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think it's a good argument to say that some people's votes should be more important than other ones. This argument is that people's voices in big cities should be (statistically) less important than those in exurbs.
WE DO HAVE A DEMOCRACY. AMERICA IS A DEMOCRACY.
God fuck's sake, why does everyone think we don't? There are many forms. A perfectly direct democracy is when you vote directly on legislation yourself. Voting on representatives to do that for you does not mean you're no lo longer a democracy.
Our American ancestors have been touting the greatness of democracy over non-democracy for hundreds of years. At best, you might win on a semantic argument but that just means another semantic argument exists.
We live in a democracy as well as a Republic. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. And I do not jest - this has been my signature for about 10 years :)
> But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.
The reason it is there is because in the 1700s there was no internet or telegraphs. The electors had to travel to the nation's capital to vote for a president which took a long time. It is not because "you are a citizen of your state before the U.S.".
A google search for Ayn Rand's "Rapture of the Rich" turns up only two entries, both slashdot comments. What exactly is it?
+1
The OP is implicitly arguing that the money should be put in a bottle for 30 years and then taken out and given to the person that put it in. That's not the way it works and that's not the way it should work.
First the government said it was just to catch a terrorist. They've since admitted there are 14 phones they would like access to.
Once the software exists (it doesn't now) to allow this, then there is no going back and all phones are vulnerable.
Yes this is somewhat speculative, but there exists prior evidence - Blackberry - in which the exact scenario happened.
Uber is not a 'tech' company any more than pizzahut is for having an app.
Uber comes from Silicon Valley, its culture and its employees there are interbred with other large tech companies. No, the drivers aren't, but in its soul I'd say they are a tech company.
because idiots like techies think its 'great' for some unknown reason.
As an American techie, I can explain. I've lived in 3 major US cities. Getting taxis are the worst fucking experience in the world here. Let me clarify, it's not always that way. In fact, I'd say 90% of the time it's not. But then again, 90% of my dealings with Comcast are fine too, but I think they're awful in customer service and the majority of society agrees. Uber (and Lyft, which I think is also awesome), has provided an amazing service that solved so many of the problems of using taxis.
Some of those unknown reasons you were asking for from an idiot techie: The map which shows you where all drivers are (I can even switch to Lyft to see if the competition has better availability in the time frame or better surge pricing when that happens). The fact that you can request one and they come to you within minutes, unlike Taxis where you never fucking know when or even if they will come. The ability to rate drivers. The fact that they're cheaper. The fact that they're WAY better drivers than most of the immigrants who are taxi drivers in the US who learned to drive in a different country (no disparagement to immigrants meant, but driving in Ethiopia isn't the same). I've gotten out of a taxi in NYC with my heart pounding because I was so scared of the way he was driving. The fact that they're safer, because unlike anonymous taxis who can rob you or rape you, Uber is tracked (and you can even broadcast a message to your friends when you start your ride). Many times they'll provide water and gum for you. The fact that if you leave something in the car, you have the ability to use the app to inform the driver/system and have them return it to you, unlike not knowing what taxi you were just in (happened to my friend who left a cell phone once, we gave him a nice tip for his trouble; I and many other people I know have left something in a taxi, never to see it again - one time we got a cell phone charge for $100 for calls to Kenya a month later).
Have I missed any reason why they're so much better?
And remember, you don't have to use Uber. If you hate them, you can always call a taxi.