Interesting that you associate the rise of business with access to police, fire, roads, military, etc.
Why do some businesses fail? Do they get assigned to different police, fire, roads, etc?
Take Borders for example. Conventional thinking generally says they failed because they didn't embrace the internet sufficiently and their locations were a little uppidty (ok, I'm riffing a bit there). I haven't heard anyone say their failures were outside their control. Perhaps government is picking the winners/losers, but that is generally frowned upon. Not sure if you agree on that one.
Anyway, if you think success should be credited to utilities, then the burden of proof is on you to explain why some businesses fail and some succeed because ordinary people don't look at it that way.
Perhaps your post got labeled "funny" because having the governments hand as deeply in your pocket as it is in Sweden is hard to associate with something being free.
As soon as I see the word "proper" I disregard the rest.
Is that what government is about? Affectation? Balancing books on your head? Ettiquette run wild? Formalities? Who decided what makes a social safety net? Why wasn't I asked?
Poor people in American live better with a free market than the richest people do in other countries, and Americans are on the whole more affluent than most Australians. Better to have 80% (the more motivated) live with good compensation and the poor with charity than to everyone to be tightly coupled to each other.
Just like the news. Thinly veiled opinions getting pushed in my face all the time. Why are you making the effort to post rhetorical questions if you can't own it? It's like being secretly married to someone. Better off getting married or being a common philanderer.
The recruiters push for certifications. On average a person with an MS certification makes 7 to 13% more than those who don't. If it didn't improve your odds the recruiters wouldn't be able to make money off you doing it. There are a ton of people with certs (and some of the MS people I graduated with) who can't code anything to save their lives.
I'm BS/MS in CS. The market is pretty is soft on MS's, IMHO, as far as landing a job goes. My client boss got pretty excited with a candidate he saw who had a MS once. I've seen data showing if you have an advanced CS degree you can maintain a high salary into age-discrimination territory. People with less education appear to be less likely to find work later or get pushed out as they get older. I'm 35 and have no idea what I'm in for.
I'm glad we have the cynical analysis of Nutrina to singularly decide what everyone should have access to in regard to aging, the cost of medicine (which will never go down), the economy, and what makes a good idea.
Especially for small things like life and death decisions.
I hope this doesn't cause the governments to forget the other pretend problems they are solving.
You know like the NEA helping with the problem where people don't know how good the Affordable Care Act is.
And the NSA helping with the problem of not enough people reading our emails.
And the IRS helping with the problem of people participating in the wrong political organizations and having incorrect prayers and all that.
And the problem where researchers don't understand why lesbians weigh more on average than straight women.
Hopefully tax payers have enough left that the government can address some of these other urgent pretend problems without letting up. What would people end up doing with that money in their pockets? Probably something frivilous that doesn't help anyone. If they don't have it, sure, let's borrow more money from China until our credit score declines, our interest rates go through the roof, and the treasury has to declare bankruptcy. Because that would be so much better than kids having fidget spinners.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's make DC largesse a mandatory sacrifice.
You know like how Hugo Chavez died with $2 billion because he truly cared about the poor?
If these beltway types cared about people, they wouldn't be living in the lib beverly hills.
Interesting that you associate the rise of business with access to police, fire, roads, military, etc.
Why do some businesses fail? Do they get assigned to different police, fire, roads, etc?
Take Borders for example. Conventional thinking generally says they failed because they didn't embrace the internet sufficiently and their locations were a little uppidty (ok, I'm riffing a bit there). I haven't heard anyone say their failures were outside their control. Perhaps government is picking the winners/losers, but that is generally frowned upon. Not sure if you agree on that one.
Anyway, if you think success should be credited to utilities, then the burden of proof is on you to explain why some businesses fail and some succeed because ordinary people don't look at it that way.
Perhaps your post got labeled "funny" because having the governments hand as deeply in your pocket as it is in Sweden is hard to associate with something being free.
As soon as I see the word "proper" I disregard the rest.
Is that what government is about? Affectation? Balancing books on your head? Ettiquette run wild? Formalities? Who decided what makes a social safety net? Why wasn't I asked?
Poor people in American live better with a free market than the richest people do in other countries, and Americans are on the whole more affluent than most Australians. Better to have 80% (the more motivated) live with good compensation and the poor with charity than to everyone to be tightly coupled to each other.
The same thing was said of the democrats (no budget, etc), but that's not why the democrats were removed from office.
Having a plan is not in itself something the voters want.
Just like the news. Thinly veiled opinions getting pushed in my face all the time. Why are you making the effort to post rhetorical questions if you can't own it? It's like being secretly married to someone. Better off getting married or being a common philanderer.
The recruiters push for certifications. On average a person with an MS certification makes 7 to 13% more than those who don't. If it didn't improve your odds the recruiters wouldn't be able to make money off you doing it. There are a ton of people with certs (and some of the MS people I graduated with) who can't code anything to save their lives.
I'm BS/MS in CS. The market is pretty is soft on MS's, IMHO, as far as landing a job goes. My client boss got pretty excited with a candidate he saw who had a MS once. I've seen data showing if you have an advanced CS degree you can maintain a high salary into age-discrimination territory. People with less education appear to be less likely to find work later or get pushed out as they get older. I'm 35 and have no idea what I'm in for.
I'm glad we have the cynical analysis of Nutrina to singularly decide what everyone should have access to in regard to aging, the cost of medicine (which will never go down), the economy, and what makes a good idea.
Especially for small things like life and death decisions.
Sounds like something a defendant would say to justify murder during trial.
GUILTY !
Most medical workers make you wait a long time before under going this.
As in the ones with "medical authority" (your phrase).
Do you know why?
Because those operations are rife with regret and reversal requests.
But we should probably treat those medical workers as pushing their religiousy opinion on us or some non sequitur like that.
There's a difference between getting robbed and getting robbed by someone with their pinky up.
But it's too subtle for me to care about.
Money not going into the hands of beltway people ... who by the way live in the place with the highest number of millionaires in the US.
Focus group studies show most voters appreciate the difference between tax breaks and tax subsidies.
If I were a political candidate that's what I'd angle for. Not what the slashdot liberals think.
You're promoting alternatives that are going to cost ordinary people A LOT more money.
I'd rather Google continue the research that isn't coming out of my pocket.
The market for the position you describe is narrow.
Encouraging! What tech stack?
I hope this doesn't cause the governments to forget the other pretend problems they are solving.
You know like the NEA helping with the problem where people don't know how good the Affordable Care Act is.
And the NSA helping with the problem of not enough people reading our emails.
And the IRS helping with the problem of people participating in the wrong political organizations and having incorrect prayers and all that.
And the problem where researchers don't understand why lesbians weigh more on average than straight women.
Hopefully tax payers have enough left that the government can address some of these other urgent pretend problems without letting up. What would people end up doing with that money in their pockets? Probably something frivilous that doesn't help anyone. If they don't have it, sure, let's borrow more money from China until our credit score declines, our interest rates go through the roof, and the treasury has to declare bankruptcy. Because that would be so much better than kids having fidget spinners.
Government imposed currency manipulation is not a ticking time bomb?
Seems like a bland thing to say
Lol ... proof at a job interview? If that were the threshold no one would get hired.
And, by the same token, if candidates required that to determine it was a good place to work, no one would apply.
Cheeseburgers going from 10 cents to $5 a piece over one generation is sustainable?
Fed-imposed stealth taxes are sustainable?
Taking people's money based on their political views to fund the DC millionaires club is sustainable?
Getting everyone dependent on the government is sustainable?
Wow. They put up a lot of free market paraphenalia in their stores ... but it sounds like they are more along the lines of feudalism.
Your contract might as well say, "Employer has the right to assign new surnames to each of your children".
No way can that get enforced, although they could fire you.
If Americans lived in a state of corporate slavery then why:
Do corporations only make up half of business activity?
Would most Americans rather work at a corporate job?
Are there more people trying to get INTO American than get OUT of America?