Yeah, or we should look at the labor participation rate. Its the worst its been in 40 ish years. This is the percentage of population working. Some try to spin it as people are living longer - but not nearly this much longer for this problem.
But people are actually living longer. Are you going to pretend that this has no impact?
Retirement is mostly a post war concept, prior to that most people worked until they died. And at that time most people didn't live to be 65, now average life expectancy is around 80. You can't pretend that that doesn't have a massive impact on numbers.
Also for most of the 20th century, women and ethnic minorities weren't counted, so a 100% labour participation in 1950, really meant something like 40%.
Well lucky you owned a van and that you moved to Cali. Here it snows and even if I was to live in a camp ground somehow (even that can be expensive) that's only an option part of the year. Not to mention I need gas just to drive my aging car wherever the heck I'm going. I don't walk to the grocery store for my health, I do it because I can't afford to drive my car unless I have to.
Also I'm only a couple years from turning 40. As some recruiters have made pointedly clear lately, I should have 'changed careers' before now as far as companies out your way feel.
So move somewhere warm and park on the street for free.
Your age shouldn't be a problem. I did it in my 40's, attitude is more important than age.
I get offers for jobs from more than a dozen different states, but I don't know anyone that lives in those places I could bum a room from for a few months... Or have any other means in living in those places so I simply can't take them.
I got a good job offer interstate, so bought a cheap van, moved over and lived in it for a year before finally getting a real place.
Your problems are only what you make of them.
The judge correctly identifies Pastafarianism as satire designed to make a political point but then proceeds to make a ruling making that political point invalid. The issue members of the FSM church try to bring to light is that members of religious groups get special treatment all the time. You can't wear hats for your driver's license picture. Wait, your religion says you must wear one? Ok, then you can wear one. Everybody else has to follow this rule, but you can't. Or, in this case, people in jail who are religious get to wear clothing the others aren't allowed to, they get to congregate at special times when others aren't allowed, etc. All the FSM church members want is that whatever rules you create apply equally to everyone. It's not even to remove those privileges from the religious. If there's a reason why inmates shouldn't be allowed these things, that reason doesn't disappear if they're religious. If there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed these things, then there's no reason it should be banned for anyone.
The judge makes the point that members of other religions truly believe, while members of the FSM don't. But even that's not really true. Members of the FSM truly believe in the tenets of their religion: they truly believe that making special exceptions to the rules to accommodate someone's religion is unfair and unethical. Their practices are designed to bring this perceived injustice to light and are central to their moral code.
Hahahahahaha, in an age where infrastructure is in steady decline,
What?
Infrastructure is not in decline, maybe in your street or suburbs, but globally it is off the charts. eg There's over 2000 airport construction projects going on right now. And that's just airports...
If there is need to preface every mention of "Saudi Arabia" with "our ally", then your BS alarm should go off.
It reminds me of the word "celebrity". You never hear "celebrity" actor George Clooney, or "celebrity" singer Beyonce. But you always hear the word used with the millions of Z grade nobodies that plague crap reality TV shows.
At last some real objective data. This makes for so much more interesting debate than just citing you own conservative propaganda.
So based on your own data, Norway spends more on welfare, and has a higher standard of living than the US, and is socialist. Do you agree or disagree?
In absolute terms, the US spends more on social welfare per capita than any other major country. Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK
It's a bit silly to use absolute terms when the US has 3 times more people than all those countries combined.
As above, percentage of GDP gives a better indicator, and if you toggle the down arrow to sort highest to lowest, the US is near the bottom.
Yes because economic liberty has little to do with socialism. As your own references show, you can be socialist AND have economic freedom.
So again the socialist countries like NZ, Australia, Canada, Iceland seem to be performing better than the US, agree or disagree?
Interesting. Although where is this money going?Maybe you're blowing it all on Defence and Prisons instead on health and education?
I'm also aware that the US spends a fair bit on health and education but just isn't getting the same results. I wonder why that is?
Also, just paying higher tax isn't a socialist concept, unless that money is going to benefit those at the bottom, which it clearly isn't in the US.
So, the idea that those other countries are "socialist", even in the sense of being a welfare state, while the US is supposedly not is untenable.
So you're seriously going to try and argue the the US is socialist too now? Or that all the other countries aren't?
Actually I might agree somewhat, the US is a little bit socialist, because it does have some social programs, but your original argument is that socialism is evil, and only small government can succeed is clearly flawed. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between socialist policy and quality of living.
In terms of economic factors (housing, jobs, income), the US outranks all other OECD members.
But this argument isn't about who is the richest, it's about quality of life. Would you rather be rich and unhappy, or mostly rich and happy?
As above, slightly less rich, but with better services and higher quality of life overall.
I would gladly sacrifice a few extra percent of my income to not have some poor soul have to live on the streets - actually I already do. Would you?
Having lived in several of the countries you list, that agrees with my experience. In particular, I rejected emigrating both to Canada and Australia because I consider the economic opportunities and standard of living to be too low in those countries.
And now we're back again to the question which you tried to dodge: "So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??"
I answered that already. See above if you need help.
Do you now see what I'm dealing with here?
Why do I have to personally experience the problem to be concerned by it?
It helps to determine for others whether your concerns are real, and maybe we should be concerned too, or it's just fear of the unknown, and you're one of the millions whose minds are easily led by the media. I'm quite confident after this exchange that it's the latter.
What have the religious people personally done to you that prompted your inquiry?
I have a list longer than your arm. For one my business loses money because the church's political influence won't allow us to trade on certain days of the year.
See how that works? Now your turn...
Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that for 99% of Americans, there's quite a few "socialist" countries with higher standards of living. Which is the point the GP doesn't want to admit.
You're right: time to give up; obviously your "public education system" has failed you and you are beyond the pale of rational discussion.
Good one. So you conveniently pretend Norway, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland aren't there?
And if we take the wealth inequality of the US into account, then for 99% of Americans, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Sweden, UK, Iceland etc etc have higher standards of living too?
Or are you man enough to admit that yes, there are a few socialist countries with higher standard of living than the US? Therefore we can conclude that socialist political systems are probably not the devil that conservative literature tries to make out?
Can you at least bring yourself to admit that now?
Other political ideologies can work too (as noted by countries like Switzerland and Singapore on the list), that is the beauty of diversity, but claiming your way is the only way when the facts clearly say otherwise does look a bit silly.
It's a simple statement of fact: under the US Constitution, the US government has the power to use force against Iran and North Korea for any reason whatsoever, but it does not have the power to restrict gun ownership by US citizens.
Ah so here we have it. A Bible worshipper who must adhere to the bible regardless of the consequences.
Fuck humanity, we can kill as many brown people as we like as long as the US constitution lets us. All sounds very Germany 1939 from here.
I don't believe I ever claimed that the US Constitution was a perfect blueprint for a free society. Furthermore, freedoms need to be reciprocal, and since Iran and North Korea are not free societies, we don't have to treat them as such.
I pointed out the real-world problems generated by the "progressive" idiots.
No you didn't, you pointed out some headlines, but we are yet to hear how any of things have created an actual real problem for you.
Because headlines! is not a reasoned argument.
Well if you say so it must be true.
The standard of 'Nerd' must be dropping in this place.. There was a time when you could engage in debate and get an intelligent response...
Ahem, Most of the world that doesn't speak German or Japanese politely disagree with you.
I'm sure I'm the fucking idiot here, considering that by all measures the Taliban isn't in power, and are being forced to the negotiation table to lay down their arms, much like the FARC in Colombia.
Yes, yes that's it. I'm pretty sure the Russians said something similar in 1980. In fact, George W Bush announced something very similar in 2003. How did that work out?
Instead of depriving people of liberty in order to promote the common good, which is what progressives and socialists favor, the job of government ought to be to secure liberty, which is what classical liberals favor.
It's the same thing, you just choose different word to make you sound like it's different.
Example: Arms Control.
Right wing nut jobs scream freedom to own guns, but are the first to complain when Iran wants nukes. Why can't Iran be free to own Nukes, North Korea?
True Freedom is either all-in or not, otherwise you're somewhere in the middle, which we all are, but only some of us are aware of this fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, or we should look at the labor participation rate. Its the worst its been in 40 ish years. This is the percentage of population working. Some try to spin it as people are living longer - but not nearly this much longer for this problem.
But people are actually living longer. Are you going to pretend that this has no impact?
Retirement is mostly a post war concept, prior to that most people worked until they died. And at that time most people didn't live to be 65, now average life expectancy is around 80. You can't pretend that that doesn't have a massive impact on numbers.
Also for most of the 20th century, women and ethnic minorities weren't counted, so a 100% labour participation in 1950, really meant something like 40%.
Well lucky you owned a van and that you moved to Cali. Here it snows and even if I was to live in a camp ground somehow (even that can be expensive) that's only an option part of the year. Not to mention I need gas just to drive my aging car wherever the heck I'm going. I don't walk to the grocery store for my health, I do it because I can't afford to drive my car unless I have to.
Also I'm only a couple years from turning 40. As some recruiters have made pointedly clear lately, I should have 'changed careers' before now as far as companies out your way feel.
So move somewhere warm and park on the street for free.
Your age shouldn't be a problem. I did it in my 40's, attitude is more important than age.
I get offers for jobs from more than a dozen different states, but I don't know anyone that lives in those places I could bum a room from for a few months... Or have any other means in living in those places so I simply can't take them.
I got a good job offer interstate, so bought a cheap van, moved over and lived in it for a year before finally getting a real place.
Your problems are only what you make of them.
I can tell you've never had a spiritual experience nor any other kind of paranormal experience that opens your eyes.
Oh well Jesus must be true then. Good argument.
In some ways, atheism is “religious” because it makes a definitive statement about the existence of higher beings,
Like not collecting stamps can be considered a hobby...
The judge correctly identifies Pastafarianism as satire designed to make a political point but then proceeds to make a ruling making that political point invalid. The issue members of the FSM church try to bring to light is that members of religious groups get special treatment all the time. You can't wear hats for your driver's license picture. Wait, your religion says you must wear one? Ok, then you can wear one. Everybody else has to follow this rule, but you can't. Or, in this case, people in jail who are religious get to wear clothing the others aren't allowed to, they get to congregate at special times when others aren't allowed, etc. All the FSM church members want is that whatever rules you create apply equally to everyone. It's not even to remove those privileges from the religious. If there's a reason why inmates shouldn't be allowed these things, that reason doesn't disappear if they're religious. If there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed these things, then there's no reason it should be banned for anyone.
The judge makes the point that members of other religions truly believe, while members of the FSM don't. But even that's not really true. Members of the FSM truly believe in the tenets of their religion: they truly believe that making special exceptions to the rules to accommodate someone's religion is unfair and unethical. Their practices are designed to bring this perceived injustice to light and are central to their moral code.
That's a great summary. So where do I sign up?
But no-one would pass and the whole charade would be exposed.
You don't own a fridge?
Hahahahahaha, in an age where infrastructure is in steady decline,
What?
Infrastructure is not in decline, maybe in your street or suburbs, but globally it is off the charts. eg There's over 2000 airport construction projects going on right now. And that's just airports...
Hollywood has a problem where it can't cast non-white people in leading roles for a lot of films.
There's an easy fox for that, stop watching Hollywood junk. There's plenty of great movies out there not from the Hollywood.
Never bet against Cameron on a 2nd film:
* Aliens * Terminator 2
Alien and Terminator were great films to begin with. Avatar was a turd.
I have never understood this term.
If there is need to preface every mention of "Saudi Arabia" with "our ally", then your BS alarm should go off.
It reminds me of the word "celebrity". You never hear "celebrity" actor George Clooney, or "celebrity" singer Beyonce. But you always hear the word used with the millions of Z grade nobodies that plague crap reality TV shows.
What is "deceptive and ignorant" is that you try to make a distinction between the US and "socialist states" that simply doesn't exist.
Apart from the references that you provided as part of your argument you mean?
Give up. This is getting embarrassing...
The US spends about the same percentage of GDP on social welfare as Switzerland and Australia, and significantly more than Canada.
At last some real objective data. This makes for so much more interesting debate than just citing you own conservative propaganda.
So based on your own data, Norway spends more on welfare, and has a higher standard of living than the US, and is socialist. Do you agree or disagree?
In absolute terms, the US spends more on social welfare per capita than any other major country. Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK
It's a bit silly to use absolute terms when the US has 3 times more people than all those countries combined.
As above, percentage of GDP gives a better indicator, and if you toggle the down arrow to sort highest to lowest, the US is near the bottom.
all rank higher on economic liberty than the US.
Yes because economic liberty has little to do with socialism. As your own references show, you can be socialist AND have economic freedom.
So again the socialist countries like NZ, Australia, Canada, Iceland seem to be performing better than the US, agree or disagree?
And the US has the highest corporate tax rates among OECD countries.
Interesting. Although where is this money going?Maybe you're blowing it all on Defence and Prisons instead on health and education?
I'm also aware that the US spends a fair bit on health and education but just isn't getting the same results. I wonder why that is?
Also, just paying higher tax isn't a socialist concept, unless that money is going to benefit those at the bottom, which it clearly isn't in the US.
So, the idea that those other countries are "socialist", even in the sense of being a welfare state, while the US is supposedly not is untenable.
So you're seriously going to try and argue the the US is socialist too now? Or that all the other countries aren't?
Actually I might agree somewhat, the US is a little bit socialist, because it does have some social programs, but your original argument is that socialism is evil, and only small government can succeed is clearly flawed. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between socialist policy and quality of living.
In terms of economic factors (housing, jobs, income), the US outranks all other OECD members.
But this argument isn't about who is the richest, it's about quality of life. Would you rather be rich and unhappy, or mostly rich and happy?
If you ranked countries like Sweden and Germany among US states, they would be among the poorest US states.
As above, slightly less rich, but with better services and higher quality of life overall. I would gladly sacrifice a few extra percent of my income to not have some poor soul have to live on the streets - actually I already do. Would you?
Having lived in several of the countries you list, that agrees with my experience. In particular, I rejected emigrating both to Canada and Australia because I consider the economic opportunities and standard of living to be too low in those countries.
Even though the
And now we're back again to the question which you tried to dodge: "So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??"
I answered that already. See above if you need help.
Do you now see what I'm dealing with here?
Why do I have to personally experience the problem to be concerned by it?
It helps to determine for others whether your concerns are real, and maybe we should be concerned too, or it's just fear of the unknown, and you're one of the millions whose minds are easily led by the media. I'm quite confident after this exchange that it's the latter.
What have the religious people personally done to you that prompted your inquiry?
I have a list longer than your arm. For one my business loses money because the church's political influence won't allow us to trade on certain days of the year.
See how that works? Now your turn...
Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that for 99% of Americans, there's quite a few "socialist" countries with higher standards of living. Which is the point the GP doesn't want to admit.
Seriously? Switzerland is "socialist"?
You're right: time to give up; obviously your "public education system" has failed you and you are beyond the pale of rational discussion.
Good one. So you conveniently pretend Norway, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland aren't there?
And if we take the wealth inequality of the US into account, then for 99% of Americans, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Sweden, UK, Iceland etc etc have higher standards of living too?
Or are you man enough to admit that yes, there are a few socialist countries with higher standard of living than the US? Therefore we can conclude that socialist political systems are probably not the devil that conservative literature tries to make out?
Can you at least bring yourself to admit that now?
Other political ideologies can work too (as noted by countries like Switzerland and Singapore on the list), that is the beauty of diversity, but claiming your way is the only way when the facts clearly say otherwise does look a bit silly.
It's a simple statement of fact: under the US Constitution, the US government has the power to use force against Iran and North Korea for any reason whatsoever, but it does not have the power to restrict gun ownership by US citizens.
Ah so here we have it. A Bible worshipper who must adhere to the bible regardless of the consequences. Fuck humanity, we can kill as many brown people as we like as long as the US constitution lets us. All sounds very Germany 1939 from here.
I don't believe I ever claimed that the US Constitution was a perfect blueprint for a free society. Furthermore, freedoms need to be reciprocal, and since Iran and North Korea are not free societies, we don't have to treat them as such.
I believe Goebbels had a similar opinion...
"It's too complicated forme to explain" is the cop-out of someone who is trying to cover his ignorance
You attempted to explain volumes of work in one paragraph. If you can't accept the error of that vast oversimplification there is no point continuing.
I pointed out the real-world problems generated by the "progressive" idiots.
No you didn't, you pointed out some headlines, but we are yet to hear how any of things have created an actual real problem for you.
Because headlines! is not a reasoned argument.
So are you saying all the riots, protests, property damage, and lives dragged through the mud are just the collective imagination of "the news"??
No. This is what makes conversing with retards so painful. You have to explain every little thing twice and they still don't get it...
Well if you say so it must be true.
The standard of 'Nerd' must be dropping in this place.. There was a time when you could engage in debate and get an intelligent response...
In which case no war in history was ever won.
Ahem, Most of the world that doesn't speak German or Japanese politely disagree with you.
I'm sure I'm the fucking idiot here, considering that by all measures the Taliban isn't in power, and are being forced to the negotiation table to lay down their arms, much like the FARC in Colombia.
Yes, yes that's it. I'm pretty sure the Russians said something similar in 1980. In fact, George W Bush announced something very similar in 2003. How did that work out?
Google it.
It sure as hell isn't explainable in one paragraph, and you seem to suggest.
Instead of depriving people of liberty in order to promote the common good, which is what progressives and socialists favor, the job of government ought to be to secure liberty, which is what classical liberals favor.
It's the same thing, you just choose different word to make you sound like it's different.
Example: Arms Control.
Right wing nut jobs scream freedom to own guns, but are the first to complain when Iran wants nukes. Why can't Iran be free to own Nukes, North Korea?
True Freedom is either all-in or not, otherwise you're somewhere in the middle, which we all are, but only some of us are aware of this fact.