UBI is hated by people that understand math. It will take around 10 TRILLION dollars to give everyone in the US (330 million) a basic wage of $30k annually. The US GDP is about $20 Trillion. Yeah, UBI makes sense.
What a garbage straw-man argument. $10k per year is a much more common suggested payout for UBI, and only for adults. That alone brings the figure to $2.5 trillion per year. Remove at least half of social security payments, since most of the payouts would now be covered by UBI, and it is reduced to $2 trillion. Remove 2/3 of all local, state, and federal welfare spending, and it comes down to about $1.5 trillion.
UBI would be paid by progressive taxes, like most of the federal budget, so at some level of household income the extra UBI payments would be wiped out by increased income taxes. If the cut-off is that half of the population pays more in extra taxes than they get from UBI, the total extra spending for UBI would likely be brought down to less than $500 billion. Then you could add plenty of savings from law enforcement, medicare, and plenty of other programs, but overall those savings probably wouldn't be in the range of hundreds of billions per year. Maybe $100 billion all added together.
So conservatively a UBI of $10k per year per adult would likely cost around $300-500 billion per year. Although the one type of stimulus spending which provides the highest boost to the economy is giving money to the poor and working class. So unlike tax cuts for billionaires, UBI would actually stimulate the economy. It would also primarily be stimulating local economies, especially the local economies of communities hit hard by the changing modern economy (since they will have more poor and working class individuals).
So ultimately a $10k UBI would probably require somewhere between $200-$400 billion in extra taxes after figuring in the boost to the GDP from stimulus spending. If that purely came from federal income taxes it would represent a 10-20% increase in total taxes. Households in the upper middle class would be closer to 10% more, or an extra $3k in taxes per year. Households in the 1% could easily have a 40-50% tax increase.
Obviously this is all just napkin math and the devil is in the details, but a 10-20% tax increase is a far different proposal than saying it will cost $10 trillion per year.
dumping 1M bodies a year into the pool is depressing wages
This is simply not true. Economists are very clear on the fact that "the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs". It is our poor immigration policies and lack of economic assistance to displaced and otherwise low income workers in the US which is suppressing wages, not immigrants. It is true that most economic benefit of immigrants is going to the wealthy, but that is only because of our government policies which do not redistribute that wealth at an appropriate level (what is appropriate is up for debate, but there is no honest debate of whether wealth inequality is rising at an unhealthy rate: it is).
I do have serious issues with this idea that our government has that the child of an illegal is somehow legal. I've read the constitution and that's not how I interpret it. I can't think of a single other country that would declare the child, of someone who has snuck in, to be a full citizen. It's asinine.
This practice made its way into our laws from English common law. Known as jus soli (Latin for "right of the soil"), birthright citizenship is guaranteed in about 30 other countries. Some countries do put limits, such as France requiring an additional 5 year residency condition (a pretty light restriction). It should always be remembered that no matter what law the parents may have broken, the child has done absolutely nothing wrong. That child has done nothing different than any child born to native parents.
Nevertheless, while illegal immigration might be declining (I'll take your word for it) we are still at around 10% illegal out of the entire population of the US. That's CRAZY. One out of every 10 people you see (statistically) is here illegally. (based on estimates of 30M illegal people in the US out of 300 million total population). I highly doubt that any other western nation even comes close to those numbers.
The United States, as the most prosperous nation in the world, is certainly a primary destination for legal and illegal immigrants. In addition to our high level of prosperity, we are also considered a nation of immigrants and that image helps us attract more immigrants than most nations. But we don't have the highest total number of illegal immigrants (India) or highest percentage of illegal immigrants by population (Russia). It makes sense that two Asian nations have the highest levels of illegal immigration since Asia has by far the highest total population of any continent.
You have a valid viewpoint of there being too much illegal immigrants in the US. I assume we have very different viewpoints on how to fix this, and objectively there is no absolutely correct way to handle immigration so I cannot just say you are wrong. To me the illegal immigration problem is primarily caused by our country not having an appropriate policy to handle the number of immigrants willing to come to the US, and handle the number of jobs in our economy which require their labor. Nations with high levels of incoming migration will be best suited to deal with the world's aging population, and we are very lucky to have tens of millions of migrants in our country contributing to our economy. According to the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, second generation immigrants are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the US, contributing 30% more to our economy per person than native citizens. First generation immigrants do contribute less, but without them we couldn't get the prime drivers of our economy (their children).
That's 10% of the population with a fake SSN or who don't have a SSN and are paid under the table. Either way someon
A million LEGAL immigrants per year. That is what I said. I said we take in "1 million legal immigrants per year". You having a hard time with reading comprehension?
You never said the word "legal" in your earlier post, so calm down there. Learn to write before accusing others of not reading your vague comments. You were replying to a post which had quoted someone talking about "poor uneducated peasants coming to the US". Considering legal immigrants are more educated on average than US native citizens, it would have been silly of me to assume you were talking about legal immigration in your comments.
We are still bringing in legal immigrants with higher average level of education, higher level of entrepreneurship, and who are overall more beneficial to our economy than your average native citizen. When that is no longer the case we could talk about levels of legal immigration being too high.
Let me get this straight.... One million per year is tens of millions from being too excessive? We don't have enough housing for our current citizens (thanks to liberal NIMBYs). And you think that we have the resources / infrastructure for tens of millions more?
You must not know that the number of illegal immigrations has been decreasing for a decade. I'm not sure where you are getting your figure of a million more migrants per year from, but it is probably just a lack of knowledge on the subject. This is common, almost required, for someone to fall for the rhetoric that excessive immigration is a problem for the US.
Rather, we don't want poor uneducated peasants coming to the US.
No, you don't want whatever the leaders in your political tribe have told you to not want. Immigration of even low skilled laborers has extreme economic benefit to this country. There is certainly a point where incoming immigration becomes too excessive, but we are tens of millions of migrants away from that.
Securing our borders in a PR gimmick targeted at uneducated conservatives (don't worry, there are plenty of PR gimmicks targeted at uneducated liberals).
They said 65% of today's youth will work in jobs which don't exist today, not that 65% of today's jobs will go away. There is a big difference. Let us hope at least the medical, military, and civil service jobs you mention go under drastic changes over the next 50 years.
One of my children finally realized he value of the crap I forced them to learn by doing, and is making good money in IT security with no degree, but 10+ years of practical experience.
This avenue was common 20 years ago, and still happens today with some frequency, but I doubt it will be true for much longer. I know two engineers in their 60's who only have an associates degree, but entered the industry before a BS in Engineering was necessary for many engineering jobs. That is not true today as far as I know in any engineering fields. The same is likely to hold true for IT jobs by the time today's elementary school students enter the workforce. Automation rarely removes all jobs, but it does tend to remove most of the grunt work done by junior employees. My father in law (one of the engineers in his 60's I mentioned above) believes software like Auto-CAD has fundamentally removed the path he used to enter the engineering field without a BS degree. It will probably always be technically possible, but certainly not something you would advise today's children to plan for.
Do you mean CIA operatives? Because CIA assets would things like cars, property, etc.
In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy. They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short (source).
I'm at work. I don't know if I should google it. WTF does 'weboob' mean? Why should I be offended by it?
Maybe the fact you are worried about googling it at work is the reason they are changing the name. Nowhere in the summary or report did it say anyone was offended by it. Just that it was inappropriate.
I would have figured this was a very common incident, with the US routinely catching Chinese spies and China routinely catching US spies. It's not like any large countries don't practice espionage. Is this just public relations and politics or is catching spies really that rare?
This 60% thing is an interesting statistic, but it would be more relevant if we could see the proportion of Americans who didn't get pay raises for the last 5 years or so. It's effectively citing a number without a baseline for comparison.
They did give a baseline for comparison, but only one year (it was 52% last year compared to 62% this year). Sure 5 years of baseline data would be better, but then you could always just complain they didn't give 10 years of data for their baseline.
The economy only really started to take off about October of last year, so we've only had a little more than a year of good economy. Will this trend continue?
What are you talking about? GDP growth has stayed consistent since 2010 at just over 2% on average. Growth in 2018 should be closer to 3% (like 2015) but that is mostly just a result of binge spending from tax cuts. The effect of that will wear off very soon and even turn negative in a few years. There is no significant change in the upward trend of the economy over the past 8 years.
You cannot possibly label food with every possible piece of information someone may or may not care about. Should all non-organic food be labelled non-organic? Should you label the state it was grown in? Should you label the month the animal's mother was born in? If you don't draw the line somewhere, anyone with a good PR campaign could mandate anything be present on labeling.
Treating anything that is different than the norm as something which automatically requires new labeling requirements is not something I agree with. Food companies are certainly free to add labeling such as "non-cultured" if they think consumers would care enough to purchase more of their product. You can easily find foods labeled non-GMO or gluten free or hormone free or free range if you care enough about those things. The same would be true for traditionally grown meat once cultured meat becomes common.
I don't understand the purpose of your analogy. Is it to agree with him? Do you think you have the ability to determine where each part of your video card was built and through what process it was built? Do you think you know each line of proprietary code which allows it to function?
People buy video cards based on reviews and company reputation (or perhaps just shiny ads). Cultured meat would be no different. If Tyson chicken started selling cultured meat without labeling it, and its quality wasn't as good as normal chicken, people would simply start buying chicken from other brands. They would be able to fool people for a while, just like NVidia could if they started selling subpar video cards to save money, but soon the brand would take a significant hit.
The three most important criteria students look for in job opportunities are professional growth and learning (58%), work/life balance (52%), and having interesting problems to solve (46%), according to a survey of 10,350 student developers worldwide. These far outpaced compensation (18%) and perks (11%), which they view as "nice to haves" rather than deal breakers, the survey found.
Providing growth opportunities, a work/life balance, and interesting problems for new developers to work on is difficult for many companies. Many business problems are simply boring and mundane. The interesting projects are often tackled by more senior staff. Extra pay and silly perks are easy to provide by comparison. The hardest part of my job is ensuring my employees are working on interesting projects they enjoy and are being challenged with. I find it the most important thing for me to get right and is one of my top two priorities (along with Business/IT strategic goal alignment), but it is still very hard.
Good employers are still the ones who can provide those aspects that employees actually care about, but it isn't hard to see why most employers focus on more superficial benefits.
Escuse me but fuck you I just paid $25k in property taxes for a 3br, 2 bath house. The schools nearby are mediocre at best on a good day.
I find what you are saying very unlikely (although not impossible). Most areas in this country with high property taxes have very good schools. Often the exceptions are in areas with high private school enrollment, where public schools therefore have a higher percentage of troubled children which drags down public school quality (private schools can say no to students, public schools generally cannot). It is possible you live in this kind of area, considering you likely have a $750k+ home with only 3br/2ba which means you and your neighbors are probably at least fairly affluent.
I have met my daughters teachers. Paying them even more than the 6 figures they make now would only add further insult and injury to the insult and and injury
Paying teachers more does not improve the quality of individual teachers. Research is clear that paying someone more doesn't make them work harder. But paying teachers more does help stop good teachers from quitting and going into the private sector. It helps good students decide to become teachers instead of other careers. A 2010 McKinsey report found only 23% of our new teachers were students performing in the top third of their class. That drops to 14% of new teachers in high poverty schools. There are countries where you are able to get better teachers without higher pay, but in a country like the US where money is worshiped I find it hard to believe we can improve teachers without paying them like valuable professionals. We pay teachers less than half what some high performing countries do as a percentage of per capita GDP. Literally doubling teacher pay in many areas is likely necessary (some areas do pay teachers very well, but still not quite enough).
But better teachers are only a very small part of any realistic solution. While yes we do need better teachers, ending school segregation strategies is a much bigger win for our students. I live in a school district with $600k houses and almost no affordable living housing, so we have among the best schools in the state because our teachers don't have to work with very many troubled students. But while every grade, middle, and high school in my district is rated a 9/10 by GreatSchools.org, there are two districts bordering mine with schools rated closer to 3/4. This is where the working class employees who keep my community running live. Zoning policies keep affordable housing from being built in our school district, and funding schools by local property taxes only exacerbates the problem.
Teachers unions may be a convenient scapegoat for those who have never put much quality thought into the issue, but even abolishing teacher unions tomorrow wouldn't bring us 1% towards solving the real problems hurting our schools.
They don't mean control as in ICANN. They mean control as in Google, Amazon, and Alibaba. This has to do with which companies control the most popular browsers, search engines, online retail sites, and enterprise software vendors.
EVERYTHING is getting more expensive... except labor... wages haven't moved in 30 years.
Wages have moved significantly in the last 30 years. Just not for the working or middle class. The upper middle class which makes up most of Apple's customers has been growing rapidly for the last few decades.
Total compensation for the middle class has been rising as well, but almost entirely in the form of health care benefits. For instance the employer portion of health care coverage has increased 10% from 2015-2018. That is a compensation increase for those workers, they just don't see it in their salary figures. If health care plans were not tied to employers then it would be more obvious that pay has been increasing for most workers faster than inflation. Unfortunately so has health care costs.
Apple understands that the purchase price of a device is in fact pretty much the least important things about it.
It isn't different than any other luxury device like an expensive home, car, clothing, etc. Once someone reaches a level of income where their time has significant value, the cost of luxury items is not nearly as relevant. The difference between a $1000 phone and $200 phone purchases every other year is $1 per day. It is the difference between a small fry and a large fry at McDonalds. If you have enough income where you aren't struggling to pay the mortgage, pay for car repairs, and feed yourself, how trivial is the difference between a small fry and large fry when eating fast food?
If someone is having trouble balancing their budget, buying an expensive phone every other year probably won't even make the top 20 things to fix in their spending habits.
... so you disagree with the decline in sales or what?
How can you blame $1000 phones for a decline and say you bought a $200 one?
If everyone was doing that there would t be a decline, so... who are you disagreeing with, the people or the availability of expensive phones nobody is forced to buy.
He bought a used/refurbished phone, so his sale wouldn't show up in the figures cited in the story. His sale does play a part in people paying for $1000+ phones, though, since I vibrant second hand market reduced the total cost of ownership of flagship phones.
Market conditions will not force the split, as AWS is not in the same industrial space as online retail sales.
There are already some signs of retailers leaving AWS because they see Amazon as a competitor and don't want to send them money. If this continues, it is another good reason to split up Amazon's retail and web service divisions into separate companies.
However, the local (big) land-grant college here has increased its annual budget by about 10% per year for the past 11 years.
Did the per-pupil budget increase by that amount or did the college simply enroll more students each year? The 538 numbers aren't very complicated. They look at the total tuition increases from 2000-2014 compared to the reduced state funding per student. It found that 17 states would have actually seen tuition prices drop over that time period if state funding had remained constant and school costs were equal to today.
It is fine to be skeptical of their methodology, but just being skeptical because it doesn't fit your anecdotal observations is not wise.
It's not their dollars. It's student loan dollars.
When it was their dollars schools had bare-bones dorms, affordable textbooks and taught real things people could use to make careers.
It was never their dollars. Before student loans it was public dollars. Students and their families pay for a far greater percentage of college costs today than they did 50 years ago. Individual students and their parents have far more skin in the game today than in generations past.
If you can successfully complete a 24 credit courseload you're either a savant or cheating.
That isn't true at all. I would say you probably aren't getting much from your classes if you are so overloaded, but it wouldn't be that hard to do. I did 20-22 hours for 4 semesters in community college while working nearly full time, but I simply coasted with B/C grades with the intent to transfer to an average state school. I'm generally considered smart by my peers but I'm no savant.
I would bet nearly anyone capable of finishing college at all could handle 24 credit hours, but they wouldn't have much of a social life and probably would gain more from the college experience by taking it slower.
Why care about anything? In ten billion years no one will care that Earth ever existed. Why care about a war in the Ukraine or climate change if we have to worry about mankind's survival after our sun expands to engulf the planet? Everything is so trivial compared to that!
Or maybe we can care about major global concerns like impending war, major personal concerns like our retirement savings, and minor personal concerns like what to eat for dinner at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
UBI is hated by people that understand math. It will take around 10 TRILLION dollars to give everyone in the US (330 million) a basic wage of $30k annually. The US GDP is about $20 Trillion. Yeah, UBI makes sense.
What a garbage straw-man argument. $10k per year is a much more common suggested payout for UBI, and only for adults. That alone brings the figure to $2.5 trillion per year. Remove at least half of social security payments, since most of the payouts would now be covered by UBI, and it is reduced to $2 trillion. Remove 2/3 of all local, state, and federal welfare spending, and it comes down to about $1.5 trillion.
UBI would be paid by progressive taxes, like most of the federal budget, so at some level of household income the extra UBI payments would be wiped out by increased income taxes. If the cut-off is that half of the population pays more in extra taxes than they get from UBI, the total extra spending for UBI would likely be brought down to less than $500 billion. Then you could add plenty of savings from law enforcement, medicare, and plenty of other programs, but overall those savings probably wouldn't be in the range of hundreds of billions per year. Maybe $100 billion all added together.
So conservatively a UBI of $10k per year per adult would likely cost around $300-500 billion per year. Although the one type of stimulus spending which provides the highest boost to the economy is giving money to the poor and working class. So unlike tax cuts for billionaires, UBI would actually stimulate the economy. It would also primarily be stimulating local economies, especially the local economies of communities hit hard by the changing modern economy (since they will have more poor and working class individuals).
So ultimately a $10k UBI would probably require somewhere between $200-$400 billion in extra taxes after figuring in the boost to the GDP from stimulus spending. If that purely came from federal income taxes it would represent a 10-20% increase in total taxes. Households in the upper middle class would be closer to 10% more, or an extra $3k in taxes per year. Households in the 1% could easily have a 40-50% tax increase.
Obviously this is all just napkin math and the devil is in the details, but a 10-20% tax increase is a far different proposal than saying it will cost $10 trillion per year.
dumping 1M bodies a year into the pool is depressing wages
This is simply not true. Economists are very clear on the fact that "the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs". It is our poor immigration policies and lack of economic assistance to displaced and otherwise low income workers in the US which is suppressing wages, not immigrants. It is true that most economic benefit of immigrants is going to the wealthy, but that is only because of our government policies which do not redistribute that wealth at an appropriate level (what is appropriate is up for debate, but there is no honest debate of whether wealth inequality is rising at an unhealthy rate: it is).
I do have serious issues with this idea that our government has that the child of an illegal is somehow legal. I've read the constitution and that's not how I interpret it. I can't think of a single other country that would declare the child, of someone who has snuck in, to be a full citizen. It's asinine.
This practice made its way into our laws from English common law. Known as jus soli (Latin for "right of the soil"), birthright citizenship is guaranteed in about 30 other countries. Some countries do put limits, such as France requiring an additional 5 year residency condition (a pretty light restriction). It should always be remembered that no matter what law the parents may have broken, the child has done absolutely nothing wrong. That child has done nothing different than any child born to native parents.
Nevertheless, while illegal immigration might be declining (I'll take your word for it) we are still at around 10% illegal out of the entire population of the US. That's CRAZY. One out of every 10 people you see (statistically) is here illegally. (based on estimates of 30M illegal people in the US out of 300 million total population). I highly doubt that any other western nation even comes close to those numbers.
The United States, as the most prosperous nation in the world, is certainly a primary destination for legal and illegal immigrants. In addition to our high level of prosperity, we are also considered a nation of immigrants and that image helps us attract more immigrants than most nations. But we don't have the highest total number of illegal immigrants (India) or highest percentage of illegal immigrants by population (Russia). It makes sense that two Asian nations have the highest levels of illegal immigration since Asia has by far the highest total population of any continent.
You have a valid viewpoint of there being too much illegal immigrants in the US. I assume we have very different viewpoints on how to fix this, and objectively there is no absolutely correct way to handle immigration so I cannot just say you are wrong. To me the illegal immigration problem is primarily caused by our country not having an appropriate policy to handle the number of immigrants willing to come to the US, and handle the number of jobs in our economy which require their labor. Nations with high levels of incoming migration will be best suited to deal with the world's aging population, and we are very lucky to have tens of millions of migrants in our country contributing to our economy. According to the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, second generation immigrants are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the US, contributing 30% more to our economy per person than native citizens. First generation immigrants do contribute less, but without them we couldn't get the prime drivers of our economy (their children).
That's 10% of the population with a fake SSN or who don't have a SSN and are paid under the table. Either way someon
A million LEGAL immigrants per year. That is what I said. I said we take in "1 million legal immigrants per year". You having a hard time with reading comprehension?
You never said the word "legal" in your earlier post, so calm down there. Learn to write before accusing others of not reading your vague comments. You were replying to a post which had quoted someone talking about "poor uneducated peasants coming to the US". Considering legal immigrants are more educated on average than US native citizens, it would have been silly of me to assume you were talking about legal immigration in your comments.
We are still bringing in legal immigrants with higher average level of education, higher level of entrepreneurship, and who are overall more beneficial to our economy than your average native citizen. When that is no longer the case we could talk about levels of legal immigration being too high.
Let me get this straight.... One million per year is tens of millions from being too excessive? We don't have enough housing for our current citizens (thanks to liberal NIMBYs). And you think that we have the resources / infrastructure for tens of millions more?
You must not know that the number of illegal immigrations has been decreasing for a decade. I'm not sure where you are getting your figure of a million more migrants per year from, but it is probably just a lack of knowledge on the subject. This is common, almost required, for someone to fall for the rhetoric that excessive immigration is a problem for the US.
Rather, we don't want poor uneducated peasants coming to the US.
No, you don't want whatever the leaders in your political tribe have told you to not want. Immigration of even low skilled laborers has extreme economic benefit to this country. There is certainly a point where incoming immigration becomes too excessive, but we are tens of millions of migrants away from that.
Securing our borders in a PR gimmick targeted at uneducated conservatives (don't worry, there are plenty of PR gimmicks targeted at uneducated liberals).
They said 65% of today's youth will work in jobs which don't exist today, not that 65% of today's jobs will go away. There is a big difference. Let us hope at least the medical, military, and civil service jobs you mention go under drastic changes over the next 50 years.
One of my children finally realized he value of the crap I forced them to learn by doing, and is making good money in IT security with no degree, but 10+ years of practical experience.
This avenue was common 20 years ago, and still happens today with some frequency, but I doubt it will be true for much longer. I know two engineers in their 60's who only have an associates degree, but entered the industry before a BS in Engineering was necessary for many engineering jobs. That is not true today as far as I know in any engineering fields. The same is likely to hold true for IT jobs by the time today's elementary school students enter the workforce. Automation rarely removes all jobs, but it does tend to remove most of the grunt work done by junior employees. My father in law (one of the engineers in his 60's I mentioned above) believes software like Auto-CAD has fundamentally removed the path he used to enter the engineering field without a BS degree. It will probably always be technically possible, but certainly not something you would advise today's children to plan for.
Do you mean CIA operatives? Because CIA assets would things like cars, property, etc.
In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy. They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short (source).
I'm at work. I don't know if I should google it. WTF does 'weboob' mean? Why should I be offended by it?
Maybe the fact you are worried about googling it at work is the reason they are changing the name. Nowhere in the summary or report did it say anyone was offended by it. Just that it was inappropriate.
I would have figured this was a very common incident, with the US routinely catching Chinese spies and China routinely catching US spies. It's not like any large countries don't practice espionage. Is this just public relations and politics or is catching spies really that rare?
As soon as I saw the companies give one time bonuses, I knew nothing else was coming.
You should have known long before that.
This 60% thing is an interesting statistic, but it would be more relevant if we could see the proportion of Americans who didn't get pay raises for the last 5 years or so. It's effectively citing a number without a baseline for comparison.
They did give a baseline for comparison, but only one year (it was 52% last year compared to 62% this year). Sure 5 years of baseline data would be better, but then you could always just complain they didn't give 10 years of data for their baseline.
The economy only really started to take off about October of last year, so we've only had a little more than a year of good economy. Will this trend continue?
What are you talking about? GDP growth has stayed consistent since 2010 at just over 2% on average. Growth in 2018 should be closer to 3% (like 2015) but that is mostly just a result of binge spending from tax cuts. The effect of that will wear off very soon and even turn negative in a few years. There is no significant change in the upward trend of the economy over the past 8 years.
We should have clear labels on our food, period.
You cannot possibly label food with every possible piece of information someone may or may not care about. Should all non-organic food be labelled non-organic? Should you label the state it was grown in? Should you label the month the animal's mother was born in? If you don't draw the line somewhere, anyone with a good PR campaign could mandate anything be present on labeling.
Treating anything that is different than the norm as something which automatically requires new labeling requirements is not something I agree with. Food companies are certainly free to add labeling such as "non-cultured" if they think consumers would care enough to purchase more of their product. You can easily find foods labeled non-GMO or gluten free or hormone free or free range if you care enough about those things. The same would be true for traditionally grown meat once cultured meat becomes common.
I don't understand the purpose of your analogy. Is it to agree with him? Do you think you have the ability to determine where each part of your video card was built and through what process it was built? Do you think you know each line of proprietary code which allows it to function?
People buy video cards based on reviews and company reputation (or perhaps just shiny ads). Cultured meat would be no different. If Tyson chicken started selling cultured meat without labeling it, and its quality wasn't as good as normal chicken, people would simply start buying chicken from other brands. They would be able to fool people for a while, just like NVidia could if they started selling subpar video cards to save money, but soon the brand would take a significant hit.
The three most important criteria students look for in job opportunities are professional growth and learning (58%), work/life balance (52%), and having interesting problems to solve (46%), according to a survey of 10,350 student developers worldwide. These far outpaced compensation (18%) and perks (11%), which they view as "nice to haves" rather than deal breakers, the survey found.
Providing growth opportunities, a work/life balance, and interesting problems for new developers to work on is difficult for many companies. Many business problems are simply boring and mundane. The interesting projects are often tackled by more senior staff. Extra pay and silly perks are easy to provide by comparison. The hardest part of my job is ensuring my employees are working on interesting projects they enjoy and are being challenged with. I find it the most important thing for me to get right and is one of my top two priorities (along with Business/IT strategic goal alignment), but it is still very hard.
Good employers are still the ones who can provide those aspects that employees actually care about, but it isn't hard to see why most employers focus on more superficial benefits.
Escuse me but fuck you I just paid $25k in property taxes for a 3br, 2 bath house. The schools nearby are mediocre at best on a good day.
I find what you are saying very unlikely (although not impossible). Most areas in this country with high property taxes have very good schools. Often the exceptions are in areas with high private school enrollment, where public schools therefore have a higher percentage of troubled children which drags down public school quality (private schools can say no to students, public schools generally cannot). It is possible you live in this kind of area, considering you likely have a $750k+ home with only 3br/2ba which means you and your neighbors are probably at least fairly affluent.
I have met my daughters teachers. Paying them even more than the 6 figures they make now would only add further insult and injury to the insult and and injury
Paying teachers more does not improve the quality of individual teachers. Research is clear that paying someone more doesn't make them work harder. But paying teachers more does help stop good teachers from quitting and going into the private sector. It helps good students decide to become teachers instead of other careers. A 2010 McKinsey report found only 23% of our new teachers were students performing in the top third of their class. That drops to 14% of new teachers in high poverty schools. There are countries where you are able to get better teachers without higher pay, but in a country like the US where money is worshiped I find it hard to believe we can improve teachers without paying them like valuable professionals. We pay teachers less than half what some high performing countries do as a percentage of per capita GDP. Literally doubling teacher pay in many areas is likely necessary (some areas do pay teachers very well, but still not quite enough).
But better teachers are only a very small part of any realistic solution. While yes we do need better teachers, ending school segregation strategies is a much bigger win for our students. I live in a school district with $600k houses and almost no affordable living housing, so we have among the best schools in the state because our teachers don't have to work with very many troubled students. But while every grade, middle, and high school in my district is rated a 9/10 by GreatSchools.org, there are two districts bordering mine with schools rated closer to 3/4. This is where the working class employees who keep my community running live. Zoning policies keep affordable housing from being built in our school district, and funding schools by local property taxes only exacerbates the problem.
Teachers unions may be a convenient scapegoat for those who have never put much quality thought into the issue, but even abolishing teacher unions tomorrow wouldn't bring us 1% towards solving the real problems hurting our schools.
They don't mean control as in ICANN. They mean control as in Google, Amazon, and Alibaba. This has to do with which companies control the most popular browsers, search engines, online retail sites, and enterprise software vendors.
EVERYTHING is getting more expensive ... except labor... wages haven't moved in 30 years.
Wages have moved significantly in the last 30 years. Just not for the working or middle class. The upper middle class which makes up most of Apple's customers has been growing rapidly for the last few decades.
Total compensation for the middle class has been rising as well, but almost entirely in the form of health care benefits. For instance the employer portion of health care coverage has increased 10% from 2015-2018. That is a compensation increase for those workers, they just don't see it in their salary figures. If health care plans were not tied to employers then it would be more obvious that pay has been increasing for most workers faster than inflation. Unfortunately so has health care costs.
Apple understands that the purchase price of a device is in fact pretty much the least important things about it.
It isn't different than any other luxury device like an expensive home, car, clothing, etc. Once someone reaches a level of income where their time has significant value, the cost of luxury items is not nearly as relevant. The difference between a $1000 phone and $200 phone purchases every other year is $1 per day. It is the difference between a small fry and a large fry at McDonalds. If you have enough income where you aren't struggling to pay the mortgage, pay for car repairs, and feed yourself, how trivial is the difference between a small fry and large fry when eating fast food?
If someone is having trouble balancing their budget, buying an expensive phone every other year probably won't even make the top 20 things to fix in their spending habits.
... so you disagree with the decline in sales or what?
How can you blame $1000 phones for a decline and say you bought a $200 one?
If everyone was doing that there would t be a decline, so... who are you disagreeing with, the people or the availability of expensive phones nobody is forced to buy.
He bought a used/refurbished phone, so his sale wouldn't show up in the figures cited in the story. His sale does play a part in people paying for $1000+ phones, though, since I vibrant second hand market reduced the total cost of ownership of flagship phones.
Market conditions will not force the split, as AWS is not in the same industrial space as online retail sales.
There are already some signs of retailers leaving AWS because they see Amazon as a competitor and don't want to send them money. If this continues, it is another good reason to split up Amazon's retail and web service divisions into separate companies.
However, the local (big) land-grant college here has increased its annual budget by about 10% per year for the past 11 years.
Did the per-pupil budget increase by that amount or did the college simply enroll more students each year? The 538 numbers aren't very complicated. They look at the total tuition increases from 2000-2014 compared to the reduced state funding per student. It found that 17 states would have actually seen tuition prices drop over that time period if state funding had remained constant and school costs were equal to today.
It is fine to be skeptical of their methodology, but just being skeptical because it doesn't fit your anecdotal observations is not wise.
It's not their dollars. It's student loan dollars.
When it was their dollars schools had bare-bones dorms, affordable textbooks and taught real things people could use to make careers.
It was never their dollars. Before student loans it was public dollars. Students and their families pay for a far greater percentage of college costs today than they did 50 years ago. Individual students and their parents have far more skin in the game today than in generations past.
If you can successfully complete a 24 credit courseload you're either a savant or cheating.
That isn't true at all. I would say you probably aren't getting much from your classes if you are so overloaded, but it wouldn't be that hard to do. I did 20-22 hours for 4 semesters in community college while working nearly full time, but I simply coasted with B/C grades with the intent to transfer to an average state school. I'm generally considered smart by my peers but I'm no savant.
I would bet nearly anyone capable of finishing college at all could handle 24 credit hours, but they wouldn't have much of a social life and probably would gain more from the college experience by taking it slower.
Why care about anything? In ten billion years no one will care that Earth ever existed. Why care about a war in the Ukraine or climate change if we have to worry about mankind's survival after our sun expands to engulf the planet? Everything is so trivial compared to that!
Or maybe we can care about major global concerns like impending war, major personal concerns like our retirement savings, and minor personal concerns like what to eat for dinner at the same time.