Because it's space. This is the first space troll. Space trolling on a commercial scale. Now you need space cops to put them in space jail. But you have to get to space first.
The brain does no such thing. Plasticity is a lifelong event that simply slows with age. Besides, that is a moot point because it only relates to how quickly your physical brain can learn new things and change habits, and the law isn't concerned with that, rather the law is concerned about whether you know that what you did was wrong at the time you did it. A 15 year old and a 30 year old have the same ability to know right from wrong. A reasonable person would easily be able to know that swatting would be wrong.
This is actually true, in the case of Hollywood at least. Unless you're already a big star like Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis, you absolutely can not even be associated with somebody who might express the slightest interest in not being a Democrat. If you do, you have to Scientology style disconnect from them, or else you'll have to forget about getting work there. I'm not making this shit up, I've seen it happen, somebody finds an outspoken relative on Facebook and then it snowballs.
Of course, if you have to go there to find work to begin with instead of the other way around, you're pretty much guaranteed to be poor anyways, and a lot of people go there thinking they have talent just to end up joining the homeless population, where they weren't homeless before they got there. That's because 99.9% of self proclaimed artists and actors don't have any actual talent.
One potential complication for this is that it will become harder to waterproof these devices while also keeping them light and thin and retaining the same battery capacity.
Not exactly unelected. We are in a representative democracy, which means you vote for people believing that they will make decisions with your best interests in mind. Unfortunately, that process put fat mouth in the FCC. This isn't the first, or last, time that an elected representative made a decision unpopular with his constituents.
You're going to have corruption and abuse no matter where you go or what you do. Welcome to earth. But nobody wants the special flavor of tyranny that you want to add on top of it, except for you and your fellow sadists.
My drive is about 18 minutes, and I can go at a time of my choosing. The bus takes 1 hour and 50 minutes, I have to leave super early in the morning to make it, and I have to arrive at work an hour early.
We do have a light-rail, but for it to be built down here they would have to tear up the road and/or eminent domain people out of the way, and it's just not fucking worth it because you still have to leave at absurd times and you can still get there faster by car even if you were a slave to that schedule. That, and homeless people ride it basically for free and, they smell like the fat guy that plays world of warcraft all day.
We've seen this ideology of overthrowing democracy before, with one in particular inflicting suffering and innumerable costs to life worldwide for over a century (and it still hasn't ended) using the EXACT same argument about not having time for democracy:
All that happens is you end up with sadists running the government, and democracy never returns until your glorious revolution, and everything it stands for, comes to an end.
That is only if you're trying to scientifically draw a link between two things for some other intent (I.e.. to treat a disease, or to model the climate.) Financial matters beyond economic decisions don't need this, they just need to be able to make predictions. Investors use similar methodology to try to predict stock prices, and it mostly works.
That's just being politically correct. The reality is, certain demographics are just more likely to get into accidents, such as teenagers, and if you as an insurance company just assume that no driving record means perfect driving record, then you're either going to be insolvent or you're going to have to raise everybody else's rates.
You still have bitcoins? Damn that must suck. I mined them back when GPUs were practical, and sold them when they were valued at 17k. Today they're just something you buy when you're feeling charitable to random people on the internet.
I'll give you ASML, but the other two do volume more than anything else; there's nothing particularly special about them other than their popularity with vendors in some niche markets. For example, siemens is popular in conditional access ISO7816 cards for satellite TV, which is no doubt where a lot of their volume comes from, but there's really nothing special about them. They also have a heavy presence in industrial and medical systems, but nothing special technology wise. Kuka is chinese owned by the way, and they're outdone technology wise by GE, Honeywell, Boston Dynamics, Barrett Technology, and others.
Philips is mostly medical.
Correct, but the area they're the most advanced in is LEDs. They have many competitors in the US, and indeed throughout the world (i.e. Roche,) that are ahead of them, but only one superior LED competitor.
Don't confuse advertising companies with high tech either.
Google does a great deal more than advertising, and they are in fact the top of the game in the areas that I mentioned, advertising or not.
By that definition, if a new country that just had one person, and that person invented the wheel, then that country would be the biggest innovator in the world.
Yes, but who do you think owns patents on parts you in US use?
Later on in your post you nitpick about who manufactures it, yet here you nitpick about who invented it. But even then, this is just that, a nitpick, because very few components are covered by foreign patents. I recall when SpaceX first successfully landed a first stage rocket, and they shouted USA! USA! USA! internet forums, including slashdot, were being raged at by people abroad saying that it wasn't just the USA that did that...only, it was just the USA. SpaceX is 100% domestic, and the company that paid for the launch is also a US company. And most importantly, NOBODY else has pulled anything even close to that off. The US private sector is technologically superior to every government in the world in this respect. But that doesn't even touch on NASA. The ESA has yet to run a single successful Mars mission in spite of many attempts. Russia has, but they're mostly failures. The US has run many more than both combined, and nearly all were successful, some succeeding by far beyond what the original mission called for.
Yes, the US really is THAT much better than the rest of the world here, and coming soon to a global theater near you, we're going to put a submarine under titan's ice, and the James Webb Space Telescope will be a NASA creation, with relatively small assistance from ESA and CSA, and is in fact being constructed by two US companies.
The best the US can do is 80s/90s era ICs. Modern ICs drive the high bandwidth of the modern Internet. Welcome.
If I didn't already know you were somebody butthurt over the US utterly dominating this space, I'd think you were making a joke. The #1 and #2 top creators of CPUs and GPUs are US companies, and most of the world's most used ASICs (especially ASICs that power most advanced networking equipment like switches and certain types of routers) are created here. The top technology companies for internet communication in the world are Cisco, Intel, Qualcomm, and Broadcom. Nokia comes close admittedly in just the wireless side, but they still don't match those four. Anything beyond these, i.e. realtek or huawei, create substandard components. Quite simply, without us, the rest of the world would be back in the 90's.
That is not an innovation so much as a discovery, so perhaps your methodology is flawed. But no cares, point for the US for innovating quantum mechanics into existence.
Pretty sure he's referring to making practical uses for quantum mechanics. Presently that is 85% only the US, with China being maybe another 10%, with the rest being divided among other places.
That is a company. Now their AI, that is something you can loft up. Google is not the only person for AI. So innovative maybe fifteen years ago, perhaps?
You're handwaving away the fact that Google is still at the forefront of AI research and development. They're also at the forefront of self driving cars, the world's most used web browser, the world's most used smartphone OS, the world's most used email service, and web search engines, in which theirs is the one that most of the world is hopelessly dependent upon. Though they're not unique in this regard, as the world's economies are hopelessly dependent upon much US technology, including our ICs, namely those made by Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, and US software from the likes of Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, VMware, Citrix, Adobe, Amazon, and many others.
Because you all are not innovative. You are not making things, you are outsourcing to other countries to make bits and pieces that make what you all hold to be innovative. Being third link in an chain, is not being innovative, it is just be clever in putting puzzle pieces together. Do not be a puzzle solver, be a puzzle maker.
And at the start of your post, you were acting as though the intellectual property matters the most, but
For every high tech company you can name overseas, the US has one that outclasses it in every way, with the sole exception of Samsung. And to drive that point home, the ones here are the most valuable companies in the world, so their argument about lack of spending is ridiculous, unless they're talking about government spending. The US pretty much has no need to spend on that. UE governments spend a lot in the hopes that they could one day have at least one major firm that rivals one of Facebook, Google, Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and others.
Pretty much the only big tech company in Europe is Phillips, and arguably their most high tech product is LED lights, which are outdone by a US company called Cree. The only firms that are comparable to the US are all in Asia, and then you're talking about LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, TSMC, Asus, and a few others.
Neither do the vast majority of unions. Every single one of the large unions has been caught red handed in some kind of corruption scheme -- AFL-CIO, CWA, UAW, Teamsters -- you name it. That last one also felt a sense of accomplishment for holding their ground when they forced hostess into bankruptcy, and the union boss talked it up as a victory even though all of the workers lost their jobs while he went home still having a fatter paycheck than those workers ever dreamed of.
Unions in Europe are decent, (notice that they don't have mafia ties, unlike US unions) but you have to be pretty damn native to think US unions give a shit about you. All they care about are the dues you pay them, which merely has a side effect of them wanting more members. That includes things like forcing your employer to make you work less efficiently (this does NOT mean less work) so that another person must be hired, and occasionally lobbying for more pay so that their slice of your income is bigger.
I see you're bitter about the loss of XUL, but every other browser's add-ons are built on chrome's web extension system at this point. Firefox is still the only exception to this since they are adding features that Google refuses to add to chrome despite heavy lobbying to do so on the part of many developers and users.
So far, that I'm aware of, Firefox has added support for noscript (even though it's popular, Google has refused to add support for it) and support for cookie autodelete to be able to delete localstorage data. No browser other than Firefox can provide that level of granular control over it, and if you're privacy conscious, that's a pretty important feature to have.
I don't have a specific definition, but some caps are reasonable. For example, that time Verizon mentioned booting a guy who was doing north of 10TB a month. You just can't have every residential customer do that, or else the backbone pipe will be prohibitively expensive to the point that residential customers are effectively paying business tier pricing.
Cox however does a 1tb cap, even on their gig service. We already know that the last mile isn't saturated, because when this happens, there ends up being plenty of complaints in the usual places. That did not happen prior to adding the cap. Furthermore, before they added that hard cap, they had a 2TB soft cap that they never actually enforced, but somehow it magically needs to be 1TB right when they add the hard cap where you have to pay extra?
But even if you look past all of that, if they did an oversubscription of 50:1 for residential customers (this is the industry norm) then they should be making plenty of money. Especially given the fact that Cox's per mbit is insanely high compared to the competition. You basically have to pay $170 a month for gig service, otherwise you'll quickly get nickel and dimed pretty harshly by the cap.
Sure, Comcast could do that, but they wouldn't be eligible for contracts with any governing entities in that state. They could also do that with privacy rules as well, and there's all of about zero that the federal government can do about it.
They can probably also force an ISPs hand to do this in other states as well. Essentially what is happening is the state government is boycotting the ISP, and state contracts are quite lucrative. As far as I know, the federal government can't force the state governments to do business with specific companies, unless that state was boycotting them for religious, minority, or sexual orientation reasons. Since few ISPs offer services in that state, most can brush this off, but it wouldn't take very many states to do exactly this to essentially force it to happen to basically every ISP.
At&t, Verizon, Comcast, frontier, and Cox would without a doubt lose more revenue by facing a government boycott in any one state than they would stand to gain by breaking net neutrality. We're talking schools, libraries, DMVs, and potentially any nonprofit that receives state government funding.
While they're at it, they should also boycott ISPs that issue needlessly burdensome data caps given to fixed line residential customers.
"Well, a lot of the reason for that being "poorer", is today everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses."
No, it's not. Back then, the Joneses didn't have it either. You're confusing money and wealth, which are not the same. Wealth, by definition, is material goods. So if he has better stuff, then guess what? By definition he is wealthier.
Income doesn't tell you a whole lot about how wealthy somebody is. For example, $150k a year income in Phoenix provides a MASSIVE difference in purchasing power, and therefore wealth, than the same income in San Francisco.
But even if we take geographical location out of the equation, you still can't make reliably good guesses. For example, what about the guy with a gambling problem? What about the guy with the cocaine habit? What about the guy who decided to breed 9 kids? What about the guy who owes alimony and child support to three exes?
These things all decrease your wealth. That, and people who live paycheck to paycheck are simply living beyond their means. Whether that comes in the form of buying a car that you can't afford, renting or buying a house that you can't afford, or living in an area that you can't afford, it is those choices that make you struggle financially.
Those of us who don't struggle financially aren't necessarily rich, nor do we necessarily have a good income, rather we just choose to live below our means. Rather than buy a new car, I always buy salvage. Traditional wisdom says don't spend more than 38% of your income on rent, whereas I keep mine below 25%. Little things like that make all the difference in the world. And when you invest your savings, (stocks, college, whatever) you get even more income later. This is also what separates rich from poor.
And by the way, before my career started, I lived comfortably on part-time minimum wage by living in somebody's spare bedroom for $300 a month while driving a 20 year old Toyota. And yet I still had money left over to pay my tuition and buy ramen and $1 cheeseburgers. This was in 2008, by the way.
I can't speak for every industry, but I've not yet run into a bean counter that doesn't see the value in spending to train IT staff. Every time a CxO sees some shiny new tech product they want, it's always less risky and almost always cheaper to simply train existing IT staff to operate it, rather than looking for a new one. Especially true when the bean counter himself needs something new and shiny.
Health care is similar to this, and it's somewhat common for them to pay for entire college degree programs in exchange for a work contact. (I.e. you can't quit for x number of years.)
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's space. This is the first space troll. Space trolling on a commercial scale. Now you need space cops to put them in space jail. But you have to get to space first.
The brain does no such thing. Plasticity is a lifelong event that simply slows with age. Besides, that is a moot point because it only relates to how quickly your physical brain can learn new things and change habits, and the law isn't concerned with that, rather the law is concerned about whether you know that what you did was wrong at the time you did it. A 15 year old and a 30 year old have the same ability to know right from wrong. A reasonable person would easily be able to know that swatting would be wrong.
This is actually true, in the case of Hollywood at least. Unless you're already a big star like Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis, you absolutely can not even be associated with somebody who might express the slightest interest in not being a Democrat. If you do, you have to Scientology style disconnect from them, or else you'll have to forget about getting work there. I'm not making this shit up, I've seen it happen, somebody finds an outspoken relative on Facebook and then it snowballs.
Of course, if you have to go there to find work to begin with instead of the other way around, you're pretty much guaranteed to be poor anyways, and a lot of people go there thinking they have talent just to end up joining the homeless population, where they weren't homeless before they got there. That's because 99.9% of self proclaimed artists and actors don't have any actual talent.
One potential complication for this is that it will become harder to waterproof these devices while also keeping them light and thin and retaining the same battery capacity.
Not exactly unelected. We are in a representative democracy, which means you vote for people believing that they will make decisions with your best interests in mind. Unfortunately, that process put fat mouth in the FCC. This isn't the first, or last, time that an elected representative made a decision unpopular with his constituents.
You're going to have corruption and abuse no matter where you go or what you do. Welcome to earth. But nobody wants the special flavor of tyranny that you want to add on top of it, except for you and your fellow sadists.
My drive is about 18 minutes, and I can go at a time of my choosing. The bus takes 1 hour and 50 minutes, I have to leave super early in the morning to make it, and I have to arrive at work an hour early.
We do have a light-rail, but for it to be built down here they would have to tear up the road and/or eminent domain people out of the way, and it's just not fucking worth it because you still have to leave at absurd times and you can still get there faster by car even if you were a slave to that schedule. That, and homeless people ride it basically for free and, they smell like the fat guy that plays world of warcraft all day.
We've seen this ideology of overthrowing democracy before, with one in particular inflicting suffering and innumerable costs to life worldwide for over a century (and it still hasn't ended) using the EXACT same argument about not having time for democracy:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/20...
All that happens is you end up with sadists running the government, and democracy never returns until your glorious revolution, and everything it stands for, comes to an end.
I didn't make a blanket statement, Mr Engrish. I said they do, I did not say they all do.
That is only if you're trying to scientifically draw a link between two things for some other intent (I.e.. to treat a disease, or to model the climate.) Financial matters beyond economic decisions don't need this, they just need to be able to make predictions. Investors use similar methodology to try to predict stock prices, and it mostly works.
They already do, actually. Men pay more for car insurance.
That's just being politically correct. The reality is, certain demographics are just more likely to get into accidents, such as teenagers, and if you as an insurance company just assume that no driving record means perfect driving record, then you're either going to be insolvent or you're going to have to raise everybody else's rates.
The mathematics here are amoral.
You still have bitcoins? Damn that must suck. I mined them back when GPUs were practical, and sold them when they were valued at 17k. Today they're just something you buy when you're feeling charitable to random people on the internet.
A fetus with fetal alcohol syndrome
ASML, Siemens, KUKA to name a few.
I'll give you ASML, but the other two do volume more than anything else; there's nothing particularly special about them other than their popularity with vendors in some niche markets. For example, siemens is popular in conditional access ISO7816 cards for satellite TV, which is no doubt where a lot of their volume comes from, but there's really nothing special about them. They also have a heavy presence in industrial and medical systems, but nothing special technology wise. Kuka is chinese owned by the way, and they're outdone technology wise by GE, Honeywell, Boston Dynamics, Barrett Technology, and others.
Philips is mostly medical.
Correct, but the area they're the most advanced in is LEDs. They have many competitors in the US, and indeed throughout the world (i.e. Roche,) that are ahead of them, but only one superior LED competitor.
Don't confuse advertising companies with high tech either.
Google does a great deal more than advertising, and they are in fact the top of the game in the areas that I mentioned, advertising or not.
By that definition, if a new country that just had one person, and that person invented the wheel, then that country would be the biggest innovator in the world.
Yes, but who do you think owns patents on parts you in US use?
Later on in your post you nitpick about who manufactures it, yet here you nitpick about who invented it. But even then, this is just that, a nitpick, because very few components are covered by foreign patents. I recall when SpaceX first successfully landed a first stage rocket, and they shouted USA! USA! USA! internet forums, including slashdot, were being raged at by people abroad saying that it wasn't just the USA that did that...only, it was just the USA. SpaceX is 100% domestic, and the company that paid for the launch is also a US company. And most importantly, NOBODY else has pulled anything even close to that off. The US private sector is technologically superior to every government in the world in this respect. But that doesn't even touch on NASA. The ESA has yet to run a single successful Mars mission in spite of many attempts. Russia has, but they're mostly failures. The US has run many more than both combined, and nearly all were successful, some succeeding by far beyond what the original mission called for.
Yes, the US really is THAT much better than the rest of the world here, and coming soon to a global theater near you, we're going to put a submarine under titan's ice, and the James Webb Space Telescope will be a NASA creation, with relatively small assistance from ESA and CSA, and is in fact being constructed by two US companies.
The best the US can do is 80s/90s era ICs. Modern ICs drive the high bandwidth of the modern Internet. Welcome.
If I didn't already know you were somebody butthurt over the US utterly dominating this space, I'd think you were making a joke. The #1 and #2 top creators of CPUs and GPUs are US companies, and most of the world's most used ASICs (especially ASICs that power most advanced networking equipment like switches and certain types of routers) are created here. The top technology companies for internet communication in the world are Cisco, Intel, Qualcomm, and Broadcom. Nokia comes close admittedly in just the wireless side, but they still don't match those four. Anything beyond these, i.e. realtek or huawei, create substandard components. Quite simply, without us, the rest of the world would be back in the 90's.
That is not an innovation so much as a discovery, so perhaps your methodology is flawed. But no cares, point for the US for innovating quantum mechanics into existence.
Pretty sure he's referring to making practical uses for quantum mechanics. Presently that is 85% only the US, with China being maybe another 10%, with the rest being divided among other places.
That is a company. Now their AI, that is something you can loft up. Google is not the only person for AI. So innovative maybe fifteen years ago, perhaps?
You're handwaving away the fact that Google is still at the forefront of AI research and development. They're also at the forefront of self driving cars, the world's most used web browser, the world's most used smartphone OS, the world's most used email service, and web search engines, in which theirs is the one that most of the world is hopelessly dependent upon. Though they're not unique in this regard, as the world's economies are hopelessly dependent upon much US technology, including our ICs, namely those made by Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, and US software from the likes of Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, VMware, Citrix, Adobe, Amazon, and many others.
Because you all are not innovative. You are not making things, you are outsourcing to other countries to make bits and pieces that make what you all hold to be innovative. Being third link in an chain, is not being innovative, it is just be clever in putting puzzle pieces together. Do not be a puzzle solver, be a puzzle maker.
And at the start of your post, you were acting as though the intellectual property matters the most, but
For every high tech company you can name overseas, the US has one that outclasses it in every way, with the sole exception of Samsung. And to drive that point home, the ones here are the most valuable companies in the world, so their argument about lack of spending is ridiculous, unless they're talking about government spending. The US pretty much has no need to spend on that. UE governments spend a lot in the hopes that they could one day have at least one major firm that rivals one of Facebook, Google, Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and others.
Pretty much the only big tech company in Europe is Phillips, and arguably their most high tech product is LED lights, which are outdone by a US company called Cree. The only firms that are comparable to the US are all in Asia, and then you're talking about LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, TSMC, Asus, and a few others.
You work for a business while paying protection money to the mafia.
Neither do the vast majority of unions. Every single one of the large unions has been caught red handed in some kind of corruption scheme -- AFL-CIO, CWA, UAW, Teamsters -- you name it. That last one also felt a sense of accomplishment for holding their ground when they forced hostess into bankruptcy, and the union boss talked it up as a victory even though all of the workers lost their jobs while he went home still having a fatter paycheck than those workers ever dreamed of.
Unions in Europe are decent, (notice that they don't have mafia ties, unlike US unions) but you have to be pretty damn native to think US unions give a shit about you. All they care about are the dues you pay them, which merely has a side effect of them wanting more members. That includes things like forcing your employer to make you work less efficiently (this does NOT mean less work) so that another person must be hired, and occasionally lobbying for more pay so that their slice of your income is bigger.
I see you're bitter about the loss of XUL, but every other browser's add-ons are built on chrome's web extension system at this point. Firefox is still the only exception to this since they are adding features that Google refuses to add to chrome despite heavy lobbying to do so on the part of many developers and users.
So far, that I'm aware of, Firefox has added support for noscript (even though it's popular, Google has refused to add support for it) and support for cookie autodelete to be able to delete localstorage data. No browser other than Firefox can provide that level of granular control over it, and if you're privacy conscious, that's a pretty important feature to have.
I don't have a specific definition, but some caps are reasonable. For example, that time Verizon mentioned booting a guy who was doing north of 10TB a month. You just can't have every residential customer do that, or else the backbone pipe will be prohibitively expensive to the point that residential customers are effectively paying business tier pricing.
Cox however does a 1tb cap, even on their gig service. We already know that the last mile isn't saturated, because when this happens, there ends up being plenty of complaints in the usual places. That did not happen prior to adding the cap. Furthermore, before they added that hard cap, they had a 2TB soft cap that they never actually enforced, but somehow it magically needs to be 1TB right when they add the hard cap where you have to pay extra?
But even if you look past all of that, if they did an oversubscription of 50:1 for residential customers (this is the industry norm) then they should be making plenty of money. Especially given the fact that Cox's per mbit is insanely high compared to the competition. You basically have to pay $170 a month for gig service, otherwise you'll quickly get nickel and dimed pretty harshly by the cap.
Sure, Comcast could do that, but they wouldn't be eligible for contracts with any governing entities in that state. They could also do that with privacy rules as well, and there's all of about zero that the federal government can do about it.
They can probably also force an ISPs hand to do this in other states as well. Essentially what is happening is the state government is boycotting the ISP, and state contracts are quite lucrative. As far as I know, the federal government can't force the state governments to do business with specific companies, unless that state was boycotting them for religious, minority, or sexual orientation reasons. Since few ISPs offer services in that state, most can brush this off, but it wouldn't take very many states to do exactly this to essentially force it to happen to basically every ISP.
At&t, Verizon, Comcast, frontier, and Cox would without a doubt lose more revenue by facing a government boycott in any one state than they would stand to gain by breaking net neutrality. We're talking schools, libraries, DMVs, and potentially any nonprofit that receives state government funding.
While they're at it, they should also boycott ISPs that issue needlessly burdensome data caps given to fixed line residential customers.
"Well, a lot of the reason for that being "poorer", is today everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses."
No, it's not. Back then, the Joneses didn't have it either. You're confusing money and wealth, which are not the same. Wealth, by definition, is material goods. So if he has better stuff, then guess what? By definition he is wealthier.
Income doesn't tell you a whole lot about how wealthy somebody is. For example, $150k a year income in Phoenix provides a MASSIVE difference in purchasing power, and therefore wealth, than the same income in San Francisco.
But even if we take geographical location out of the equation, you still can't make reliably good guesses. For example, what about the guy with a gambling problem? What about the guy with the cocaine habit? What about the guy who decided to breed 9 kids? What about the guy who owes alimony and child support to three exes?
These things all decrease your wealth. That, and people who live paycheck to paycheck are simply living beyond their means. Whether that comes in the form of buying a car that you can't afford, renting or buying a house that you can't afford, or living in an area that you can't afford, it is those choices that make you struggle financially.
Those of us who don't struggle financially aren't necessarily rich, nor do we necessarily have a good income, rather we just choose to live below our means. Rather than buy a new car, I always buy salvage. Traditional wisdom says don't spend more than 38% of your income on rent, whereas I keep mine below 25%. Little things like that make all the difference in the world. And when you invest your savings, (stocks, college, whatever) you get even more income later. This is also what separates rich from poor.
And by the way, before my career started, I lived comfortably on part-time minimum wage by living in somebody's spare bedroom for $300 a month while driving a 20 year old Toyota. And yet I still had money left over to pay my tuition and buy ramen and $1 cheeseburgers. This was in 2008, by the way.
I can't speak for every industry, but I've not yet run into a bean counter that doesn't see the value in spending to train IT staff. Every time a CxO sees some shiny new tech product they want, it's always less risky and almost always cheaper to simply train existing IT staff to operate it, rather than looking for a new one. Especially true when the bean counter himself needs something new and shiny.
Health care is similar to this, and it's somewhat common for them to pay for entire college degree programs in exchange for a work contact. (I.e. you can't quit for x number of years.)