Factfulness is a look at world statistics (that sounded very dry, the book isn't). It is not too shocking to me as I am a regular reader of The Economist (if you really want to get to "Oh, my god, he's doing it again" look, just start a statement in a meeting with "As was addressed in a recent article in The Economist. . . ) and I recently finished "The better angels of our nature, a great book but very dry. I mention this to explain why I scored well on the books pretest, yes, the book had a pretest.
The book takes a look at conceptions that people have about the world and compares them to the real numbers. It identifies the misconceptions from surveys, similar to the books pretest, administered to a plethora of groups in several countries. In all, it is a very readable, well researched book.
The flaw in your reasoning is that I am not a "purist." Having limits does not mean that all is forbidden. Profit seeking does not mean that any profitable activity is to be engaged in. Positions are nuanced.
First, I was very uncomfortable with presentations when I was in school. I even dread the "Introduce, and say something about yourself." If I am a subject expert then I am fine with presentations; if I am not presenting as a subject expert then it is still painful, we are talking cold sweat and strong stress indicators level of painful. I will frequently choose to not go to events and meetings where I will be forced to speak. So, yes, I do understand.
Secondly, having students speak is boring. I really don't want to listen to the same thing over and over again.
However, it is in my state curriculum and I am required, by the district, to have a public speaking component in all of my classes.
One time I made a mistake, A student said, in class, "What happens if I don't get up and speak?"
I told him that he would get a zero on that portion of the overall score. He replied with "Oh, Ok, I'll take a zero." It was infectious, all through the room as I called on students the response when it was their turn was to say "I'll take a zero too." This was done in a cheerful tone. They felt, and stated to others that they had outsmarted me, all they had to do was take a zero. I heard about this from another teacher because several students were laughing about it in her class.
At this point they receive a zero and they wait in the office. Do I like doing it? No; but I am required to have a public speaking component in all of my classes. That is non-negotiable.
If no one goes short it has little impact on my long position. No one has to lose for my position to serve me well.
By comparison, for a short to be profitable, real people, typically the people who have the least options available to them suffer (here I do not mean the financial device known as options, I mean choices available to an individual). I do understand your point, but I do not see long and short positions as being equally dependent on the loss to others.
As opposed to removing the profit element and following the path of most other rich OECD countries and providing better care at a significantly lower cost.
Brokers help their customers manage risk through several mechanism. One of the first, and best understood is diversification. Some risk can be managed by shorting similar, but lower value, companies or companies in the supply chain of a major investment. I don't short sell because I do not want to be in a position where I am wishing ill to befall another person, even if I don't know them.
However, portfolio risk management is different than specific tangible asset risk management. For one thing, it is not regulated in the same way. The best example of this are Credit Default Swaps. While they acted as insurance products, they were not regulated as such. As you may recall, this allowed them to be purchased by people who were not expected to suffer loss and as such would not seek to be "made whole."
You probably wont get the payout you are expecting. Insurance operates on a "Made Whole" premise. That means you will be as well off as you were before.
Unless the market value of your house has increased to 400k, you will not get 400k. You will get the value of that house. In the case of your house, you can expect the combined value of the debt and equity; but not more. The reason is to make you whole, or in the same financial place as you were before the loss.
That being said, there are some exceptions. If the value of the house has risen, or in the case of extremely low priced homes. As a example close to my home, You may have heard about the fires in Northern California this year. My father is in the habit of, makes a hobby of, house restoration and flipping. There was a house that he had paid 30K for (cash price in an unusual situation). It burnt in that fire. Because there is no possibility of another house being purchased at 30K he received about 75k, the value of a similar house in a similar market. That is close to what he expected from a sale, so it was the amount needed to "make whole."
So, while there are a few odd exceptions, in general you will not profit significantly from an insurance payout. Unless you have a lot of equity, you will not get enough to pay off a large current loan, and make a cash purchase of a similar house.
If you had read the report a bit closer, you would have read the comment that, even if the potential recruit were to lose the weight, there were typically underlying medical conditions that would have rendered them ineligible.
A quick family poll: Me, entrance medicaled out when it was noticed that my feet were slightly different sized during book issue. My brother-in law, slight colour vision, but not enough to make him ineligible for the same job category (pc tech) that we was trying to MOS. Daughter, in MEPS they noticed a small uterine cyst, even they noted that it wouldn't have any impact unless she were to attempt to carry a child to term. Other daughter, went in, served as an MP and left.
That was 1 in 4.
Really, when we say that 3/4 of the population is "undeserving" we need to be looking at the standard. There needs to be a path to service. I seriously looked in to see if I got a law degree, if I would be able to get in as an attorney. The answer was a clear "No." Even though, at the time, there was a real shortage of attorneys in the service, there was no path to anyone with anything except perfect condition. There needs to be a path to service.
When 75 Percent of Young Adults Cannot Join the Military it is time to look at the barriers that face those who were deemed unfit to serve.
While the readiness report is dated http://cdn.missionreadiness.or... the problem has only grown worse. Instead of disenfranchising the non-jocks, we need to be thinking about how we can create opportunities for all who wish to serve. I was hoping t see Space Command become its own branch, a branch that would be open to all. That didn't happen.
People here on Slashdot like to think they are, oh so, sophisticated by throwing out the "Correlation does not equal causation" line. However, they miss the obvious, that many times correlation is directly due to causation. No, it is no an iron law. But treating the exception as a law leads to more frequent error.
Agreed, Senator McCain was one of the last, "Eisenhower Republicans." History will probably see even Nixon as a better president. After all, It was Nixon that opened the door to diplomacy with China. He also introduced the healthcare plan that became Romney Care and then Obama Care.
The republican party, as it stands seems committed to improving the economic and diplomatic status of countries that are seen as adversary's while at the same time distancing the US from countries that we had seen as allies. At the same time abandoning the future through programs that are more concerned with passing more wealth to the already wealthy and disregarding the workforce of the future.
Oddly enough, I am still a registered Republican; but I have no respect for President Trump.
This predated his presidency. His tacky style and his "Daddy gave me a lot of money so I can be a bully (and not pay my bills)," turned me off long before he entered the Presidential Stage.
People tent to overlook this in favor of the the recency bias and the availability heuristic.
Recency Bias: The phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.
Availability Heuristic: The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.
Over the summer I read Stephen Pinker's book, The better angels of our nature. It was a great look at the "de-violencing" (not a real word) of society. This is a trend that has been going on for centuries. As a Gen-X'er I remember the expectations of the 80s'. The flood of "crack babies" was going to leave is living in a Mad Max distopia. It didn't happen.
So, why the shocking headlines? Why do we hear of this carnage. There are two drivers, and when we think about them, they are obvious. The first is the old adage "If it bleeds, it leads." The second is also one we are aware of, the ease of communication has made isolated instances visible to all.
The reality is that we are less likely to die of violent ends than at any other time in History. Yes, we need to strive for more, we need to do better; but we are doing quite well.
The entire industry has been suffering form this for several years. For most applications, the current computers are fast enough and have been so for several years.
Yes, there are enthusiasts and there are a few high power commercial applications; however, most users are running an office suite and a browser. For those uses, the computers got fast enough several years ago.
Next thought, it seems that many people want to put "cow polarity" up as an instance of internal navigation. Here comes another theory, they may just be trying to maximize the amount of sun on their body.
But, as I said, this isn't getting a lot of effort from me.
I know it isn't the primary source. Frankly, the whole thing wasn't getting much effort out of me. I did notice that in the audio clip that did reference the real study. For the level of effort I considered the whole thing worth, that was enough.
Many years ago I worked as a copier repairman in rural Northern California (the part of CA that you don't see in the movies). I had three towns in my territory that were so similar that it was sometimes hard to remember which town I was in. On the positive side, once I learned the grid in one of the towns the knowledge was transferable to all three.
I had a simple theory that explained the similarity in these towns. The similarity was the founders. While all three were founded by different people, all were founded at nearly the same time and grew at the same time. That meant that the planning was done by people who had similar educations, life experiences, and biases; they were the products of their time. I later confirmed this by visiting the towns museums on my free time.
The towns were similar because the people who built them were similar.
Automobiles, in their normal and intended use, consume public resources. They do this through their use of roads and the externalizaties they create as part of their normal and intended use.
Firearms, in their normal and intended use, do not consume public resources.
Abnormal and unintended use of firearms is generally criminalized or can entail large civil penalties. There are tens of thousands of laws regulating firearms and their use.
With this in mind, the comparison of firearms and automobiles is strained. Both are heavily regulated; but the regulations are very different.
I am a teacher, and at a Title I school. I would like to see a relevant and accessible program for training teachers to be armed through their work day, Just as those same CCW licensed, and frequently former military and law enforcement, teachers can do anywhere else.
It feels a bit silly; when I come in on Saturday to do the weeks lesson planing documentation I am frequently coming from time at the range. Going to the range is just something I do to relax on my weekend. I get to the school and take my pistol, which I am licensed to carry, out of my holster and stash it in my car (state law allows me to secure a firearm, in a locked vehicle, at my place of employment, my place of employment just happens to be a school). Frankly, it is less secure in my car than it is on my belt.
Not too long ago, the Principal noticed my empty holster. I had the pistol elsewhere but was wearing the holster because that particular holster is also a convenient holder for things like pens and my cell phone (yes, it does not look like what most people think a holster looks like). I was there on a Sunday working, which is a very normal thing in the district where I work; as various services end the building starts to fill. I ran into her in the hall and we chatted for a few minutes; yes, she was staring at my holster
Later that day she stopped in and asked if I carry a gun at school. Of course I told her, "No." She then asked, "if things went wrong, would I be able to rely on you being able to find a gun." Of course I answered, "unfortunately, no." . . . she seemed disappointed by that answer.
The free market cannot provide decisions in a heavily subsidized market. Automobile travel is heavily subsidized; thus rail travel is competing with another transportation provider, private autos, that receives a near 50% subsidy.
This article presents an unusually low estimate of the subsidies that autos receive:
Over the last 40 years, gas taxes, tolls, and registration fees have covered only about 60 or 70 percent of roadway expenditures across all levels of U.S. government. The remainder has been paid using property, income, and other taxes not related to transportation. These subsidies for driving reduce its cost and increase driving demand in the United States.
This article is much more in line with other articles:
A new report from the Tax Foundation shows 50.7 percent of America’s road spending comes from gas taxes, tolls, and other fees levied on drivers. The other 49.3 percent? Well, that comes from general tax dollars, just like education and health care. The way we spend on roads has nothing to do with the free market, or even how much people use roads.
“Nationwide in 2010, state and local governments raised $37 billion in motor fuel taxes and $12 billion in tolls and non-fuel taxes, but spent $155 billion on highways,” writes the Tax Foundation’s Joseph Henchman. Another $28 billion of that $155 billion comes from revenue from the federal gas tax.
Most other studies seem to hover around that 50% mark. The point being that "let the free market decide" is a nice quip; but it does not work in markets that do not rely on the free market; but instead rely on heavy subsidies.
As a teacher I have about a dozen Arduino learning kits. The trouble is in getting the curriculum committee to agree to allow me to add them into my robotics course (the only class I teach that they slide into).
I would really like to add them into computer II (I teach one semester courses of Computer i and Computer II, each being a full semester). However, the curriculum committee. Requires that I teach the same topics in both classes, "so that if a student is only able to take one of the classes, they won't miss much." It should be no surprise that computer II is not a popular class; after all, the student does, essentially, the same things. Adding Arduinos' would be great. . . of course, adding pretty much anything would be great.
I think more good could be done by instituting common testing for computer classes. Yes, I am a teacher and I said more standardized testing, not less. The reason is that it would establish a common expectation and force the districts to actually allow the teachers to teach. Really the best that it would do is that it would tell the districts what to teach. As it is, even after all these years of teaching "computers" there is little real guidance given, to the districts, of what should be taught in a "computer" class.
This was, literally, my first thought too. I am a teacher and a CSTA member. With that being said, I can not say that we teach computer science at a level that I am willing to call computer science.
I teach Computer apps and my extension activity is Hour of Code. I also teach Robotics using the Lego EV-3. I am trying to get the school to add Arduino programming to a Robotics 2 class.
I really don't think we teach computer science, as in "how it works" in the apps class at all.
In economics when we refer to a market basket of goods it is a set of basic goods, called permanent staples. There are goods that are unlikely so change in composition or utility. Yes, it does cross several sectors, even though it may sound that way, they are not all groceries.
Slashdot Mirror
Factfulness is a look at world statistics (that sounded very dry, the book isn't). It is not too shocking to me as I am a regular reader of The Economist (if you really want to get to "Oh, my god, he's doing it again" look, just start a statement in a meeting with "As was addressed in a recent article in The Economist. . . ) and I recently finished "The better angels of our nature, a great book but very dry. I mention this to explain why I scored well on the books pretest, yes, the book had a pretest.
The book takes a look at conceptions that people have about the world and compares them to the real numbers. It identifies the misconceptions from surveys, similar to the books pretest, administered to a plethora of groups in several countries. In all, it is a very readable, well researched book.
The flaw in your reasoning is that I am not a "purist." Having limits does not mean that all is forbidden. Profit seeking does not mean that any profitable activity is to be engaged in. Positions are nuanced.
First, I was very uncomfortable with presentations when I was in school. I even dread the "Introduce, and say something about yourself." If I am a subject expert then I am fine with presentations; if I am not presenting as a subject expert then it is still painful, we are talking cold sweat and strong stress indicators level of painful. I will frequently choose to not go to events and meetings where I will be forced to speak. So, yes, I do understand.
Secondly, having students speak is boring. I really don't want to listen to the same thing over and over again.
However, it is in my state curriculum and I am required, by the district, to have a public speaking component in all of my classes.
One time I made a mistake, A student said, in class, "What happens if I don't get up and speak?"
I told him that he would get a zero on that portion of the overall score. He replied with "Oh, Ok, I'll take a zero." It was infectious, all through the room as I called on students the response when it was their turn was to say "I'll take a zero too." This was done in a cheerful tone. They felt, and stated to others that they had outsmarted me, all they had to do was take a zero. I heard about this from another teacher because several students were laughing about it in her class.
At this point they receive a zero and they wait in the office. Do I like doing it? No; but I am required to have a public speaking component in all of my classes. That is non-negotiable.
If no one goes short it has little impact on my long position. No one has to lose for my position to serve me well.
By comparison, for a short to be profitable, real people, typically the people who have the least options available to them suffer (here I do not mean the financial device known as options, I mean choices available to an individual). I do understand your point, but I do not see long and short positions as being equally dependent on the loss to others.
As opposed to removing the profit element and following the path of most other rich OECD countries and providing better care at a significantly lower cost.
Brokers help their customers manage risk through several mechanism. One of the first, and best understood is diversification. Some risk can be managed by shorting similar, but lower value, companies or companies in the supply chain of a major investment. I don't short sell because I do not want to be in a position where I am wishing ill to befall another person, even if I don't know them.
However, portfolio risk management is different than specific tangible asset risk management. For one thing, it is not regulated in the same way. The best example of this are Credit Default Swaps. While they acted as insurance products, they were not regulated as such. As you may recall, this allowed them to be purchased by people who were not expected to suffer loss and as such would not seek to be "made whole."
You probably wont get the payout you are expecting. Insurance operates on a "Made Whole" premise. That means you will be as well off as you were before.
Unless the market value of your house has increased to 400k, you will not get 400k. You will get the value of that house. In the case of your house, you can expect the combined value of the debt and equity; but not more. The reason is to make you whole, or in the same financial place as you were before the loss.
That being said, there are some exceptions. If the value of the house has risen, or in the case of extremely low priced homes. As a example close to my home, You may have heard about the fires in Northern California this year. My father is in the habit of, makes a hobby of, house restoration and flipping. There was a house that he had paid 30K for (cash price in an unusual situation). It burnt in that fire. Because there is no possibility of another house being purchased at 30K he received about 75k, the value of a similar house in a similar market. That is close to what he expected from a sale, so it was the amount needed to "make whole."
So, while there are a few odd exceptions, in general you will not profit significantly from an insurance payout. Unless you have a lot of equity, you will not get enough to pay off a large current loan, and make a cash purchase of a similar house.
If you had read the report a bit closer, you would have read the comment that, even if the potential recruit were to lose the weight, there were typically underlying medical conditions that would have rendered them ineligible.
A quick family poll: Me, entrance medicaled out when it was noticed that my feet were slightly different sized during book issue. My brother-in law, slight colour vision, but not enough to make him ineligible for the same job category (pc tech) that we was trying to MOS. Daughter, in MEPS they noticed a small uterine cyst, even they noted that it wouldn't have any impact unless she were to attempt to carry a child to term. Other daughter, went in, served as an MP and left.
That was 1 in 4.
Really, when we say that 3/4 of the population is "undeserving" we need to be looking at the standard. There needs to be a path to service. I seriously looked in to see if I got a law degree, if I would be able to get in as an attorney. The answer was a clear "No." Even though, at the time, there was a real shortage of attorneys in the service, there was no path to anyone with anything except perfect condition. There needs to be a path to service.
When 75 Percent of Young Adults Cannot Join the Military it is time to look at the barriers that face those who were deemed unfit to serve.
While the readiness report is dated http://cdn.missionreadiness.or... the problem has only grown worse. Instead of disenfranchising the non-jocks, we need to be thinking about how we can create opportunities for all who wish to serve. I was hoping t see Space Command become its own branch, a branch that would be open to all. That didn't happen.
Obama also caused ...
Correlation !=causation
People here on Slashdot like to think they are, oh so, sophisticated by throwing out the "Correlation does not equal causation" line. However, they miss the obvious, that many times correlation is directly due to causation. No, it is no an iron law. But treating the exception as a law leads to more frequent error.
Agreed, Senator McCain was one of the last, "Eisenhower Republicans." History will probably see even Nixon as a better president. After all, It was Nixon that opened the door to diplomacy with China. He also introduced the healthcare plan that became Romney Care and then Obama Care.
The republican party, as it stands seems committed to improving the economic and diplomatic status of countries that are seen as adversary's while at the same time distancing the US from countries that we had seen as allies. At the same time abandoning the future through programs that are more concerned with passing more wealth to the already wealthy and disregarding the workforce of the future.
Oddly enough, I am still a registered Republican; but I have no respect for President Trump.
This predated his presidency. His tacky style and his "Daddy gave me a lot of money so I can be a bully (and not pay my bills)," turned me off long before he entered the Presidential Stage.
People tent to overlook this in favor of the the recency bias and the availability heuristic.
Recency Bias: The phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.
Availability Heuristic: The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.
Over the summer I read Stephen Pinker's book, The better angels of our nature. It was a great look at the "de-violencing" (not a real word) of society. This is a trend that has been going on for centuries. As a Gen-X'er I remember the expectations of the 80s'. The flood of "crack babies" was going to leave is living in a Mad Max distopia. It didn't happen.
So, why the shocking headlines? Why do we hear of this carnage. There are two drivers, and when we think about them, they are obvious. The first is the old adage "If it bleeds, it leads." The second is also one we are aware of, the ease of communication has made isolated instances visible to all.
The reality is that we are less likely to die of violent ends than at any other time in History. Yes, we need to strive for more, we need to do better; but we are doing quite well.
The entire industry has been suffering form this for several years. For most applications, the current computers are fast enough and have been so for several years.
Yes, there are enthusiasts and there are a few high power commercial applications; however, most users are running an office suite and a browser. For those uses, the computers got fast enough several years ago.
Next thought, it seems that many people want to put "cow polarity" up as an instance of internal navigation. Here comes another theory, they may just be trying to maximize the amount of sun on their body.
But, as I said, this isn't getting a lot of effort from me.
I know it isn't the primary source. Frankly, the whole thing wasn't getting much effort out of me. I did notice that in the audio clip that did reference the real study. For the level of effort I considered the whole thing worth, that was enough.
Here you go, from Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican...
The short summary states "Google Earth images reveal that cattle around the world tend to align themselves with Earth's magnetic field. "
Many years ago I worked as a copier repairman in rural Northern California (the part of CA that you don't see in the movies). I had three towns in my territory that were so similar that it was sometimes hard to remember which town I was in. On the positive side, once I learned the grid in one of the towns the knowledge was transferable to all three.
I had a simple theory that explained the similarity in these towns. The similarity was the founders. While all three were founded by different people, all were founded at nearly the same time and grew at the same time. That meant that the planning was done by people who had similar educations, life experiences, and biases; they were the products of their time. I later confirmed this by visiting the towns museums on my free time.
The towns were similar because the people who built them were similar.
Automobiles, in their normal and intended use, consume public resources. They do this through their use of roads and the externalizaties they create as part of their normal and intended use.
Firearms, in their normal and intended use, do not consume public resources.
Abnormal and unintended use of firearms is generally criminalized or can entail large civil penalties. There are tens of thousands of laws regulating firearms and their use.
With this in mind, the comparison of firearms and automobiles is strained. Both are heavily regulated; but the regulations are very different.
I am a teacher, and at a Title I school. I would like to see a relevant and accessible program for training teachers to be armed through their work day, Just as those same CCW licensed, and frequently former military and law enforcement, teachers can do anywhere else.
It feels a bit silly; when I come in on Saturday to do the weeks lesson planing documentation I am frequently coming from time at the range. Going to the range is just something I do to relax on my weekend. I get to the school and take my pistol, which I am licensed to carry, out of my holster and stash it in my car (state law allows me to secure a firearm, in a locked vehicle, at my place of employment, my place of employment just happens to be a school). Frankly, it is less secure in my car than it is on my belt.
Not too long ago, the Principal noticed my empty holster. I had the pistol elsewhere but was wearing the holster because that particular holster is also a convenient holder for things like pens and my cell phone (yes, it does not look like what most people think a holster looks like). I was there on a Sunday working, which is a very normal thing in the district where I work; as various services end the building starts to fill. I ran into her in the hall and we chatted for a few minutes; yes, she was staring at my holster
Later that day she stopped in and asked if I carry a gun at school. Of course I told her, "No." She then asked, "if things went wrong, would I be able to rely on you being able to find a gun." Of course I answered, "unfortunately, no." . . . she seemed disappointed by that answer.
I watched the presentation and was pleased to see a new fallout. I just hope it does not turn into the "building game" that they did in fallout 4.
Let the free market decide
The free market cannot provide decisions in a heavily subsidized market. Automobile travel is heavily subsidized; thus rail travel is competing with another transportation provider, private autos, that receives a near 50% subsidy.
This article presents an unusually low estimate of the subsidies that autos receive:
Over the last 40 years, gas taxes, tolls, and registration fees have covered only about 60 or 70 percent of roadway expenditures across all levels of U.S. government. The remainder has been paid using property, income, and other taxes not related to transportation. These subsidies for driving reduce its cost and increase driving demand in the United States.
from here: https://www.citylab.com/transp...
This article is much more in line with other articles:
A new report from the Tax Foundation shows 50.7 percent of America’s road spending comes from gas taxes, tolls, and other fees levied on drivers. The other 49.3 percent? Well, that comes from general tax dollars, just like education and health care. The way we spend on roads has nothing to do with the free market, or even how much people use roads.
“Nationwide in 2010, state and local governments raised $37 billion in motor fuel taxes and $12 billion in tolls and non-fuel taxes, but spent $155 billion on highways,” writes the Tax Foundation’s Joseph Henchman. Another $28 billion of that $155 billion comes from revenue from the federal gas tax.
from here: https://usa.streetsblog.org/20...
Most other studies seem to hover around that 50% mark. The point being that "let the free market decide" is a nice quip; but it does not work in markets that do not rely on the free market; but instead rely on heavy subsidies.
As a teacher I have about a dozen Arduino learning kits. The trouble is in getting the curriculum committee to agree to allow me to add them into my robotics course (the only class I teach that they slide into).
I would really like to add them into computer II (I teach one semester courses of Computer i and Computer II, each being a full semester). However, the curriculum committee. Requires that I teach the same topics in both classes, "so that if a student is only able to take one of the classes, they won't miss much." It should be no surprise that computer II is not a popular class; after all, the student does, essentially, the same things. Adding Arduinos' would be great. . . of course, adding pretty much anything would be great.
I think more good could be done by instituting common testing for computer classes. Yes, I am a teacher and I said more standardized testing, not less. The reason is that it would establish a common expectation and force the districts to actually allow the teachers to teach. Really the best that it would do is that it would tell the districts what to teach. As it is, even after all these years of teaching "computers" there is little real guidance given, to the districts, of what should be taught in a "computer" class.
This was, literally, my first thought too. I am a teacher and a CSTA member. With that being said, I can not say that we teach computer science at a level that I am willing to call computer science.
I teach Computer apps and my extension activity is Hour of Code. I also teach Robotics using the Lego EV-3. I am trying to get the school to add Arduino programming to a Robotics 2 class.
I really don't think we teach computer science, as in "how it works" in the apps class at all.
In economics when we refer to a market basket of goods it is a set of basic goods, called permanent staples. There are goods that are unlikely so change in composition or utility. Yes, it does cross several sectors, even though it may sound that way, they are not all groceries.
It was much higher. Practical estimates are 5%-7%.