This is not the first time this is happening in my country. But this is the first time a president is so badly elected, with only about 65% of the votes, and many many abstentions.
I don't know what you mean by this. In the 2nd round, Macron won with 20,743,128 votes. In 2012, Hollande won with 18,000,668 and in 2007 Sarkozy won with 18,983,138. So Macron had about 2 million more votes in the 2nd round than each of them...and a much bigger percentage.
You are right about the turnout, of course. Le Pen lost so badly because she won only 10,638,475 votes, much less compared to the losers in 2012 and 2007 (Sarkozy 16,860,685 and Royal 16,790,440, respectively).
The first (that Macron had more votes than Hollande and Sarkozy) is explained, I think, by the fact that his opponent was Le Pen. So many people came out to vote for him to stop the far-right from gaining power. The second (the low turnout) is explained, I think, by the same fact: there are a lot of people who didn't like Macron, but didn't like Le Pen either. So they abstained. Would Macron have won had his opponnent been Fillon or a leftist candidate? Who knows, but I think he would hover around 16-18 million vote mark nonetheless.
I think the first round is more interesting. Macron came first there too, but only with 8,656,346 votes or 24.01%. He only had about 1 million more votes than Le Pen. Also, the next 2 candidates (FIllon and Melenchon) were close, about 1.5 million votes behind Macron. This is a much worse performance than the top TWO candidates in the previous two elections (2012: Hollande 10,272,705 or 28.63%, Sarkozy 9,753,629 or 27.18% - Le Pen was more than 3 million votes behind Sarkozy; 2007: Sarkozy 11,448,663 or 31.18%, Royal 9,500,112 or 25.87% - Bayrou was more than 3 million votes behind Royal).
Basically, Macron's huge win in the 2nd round is very deceptive and only happened because Le Pen was his opponent. In reality, the election in the first round was very close compared to the previous two elections. Macron is a bit of an accidental president (not as much as his predecessor, Hollande, who was elected just because people were sick of Sarkozy's dramatics and wanted the polar opposite, a bland, almost invisible president). Hollande was widely seen as ineffectual, so much so that he decided not to run; nonetheless this did not help the Socialists, who failed to present an anti-Hollande to capture the voters' imagination. So, the leftist vote splintered among many candidates - although Melenchon was quite close to the 2nd round. The front-runner was originally Fillon from the centre-right, but he got destroyed by the scandals that were created by opponents within his own party (the ones he defeated in the primaries). He refused to step down and let someone else run for the UMP which might've changed the ellection by quite a bit - still, even the scandal-plagued Fillon came third and was within less than 1.5% of getting into the second round.
In the end, Macron was lucky to have Le Pen make it to the second round. For someone who had A LOT of luck for things to perfectly line up for him to win the election, he should be a lot less arrogant and full of himself, and a lot more humble. His "mandate" from the people is nowhere near as strong as he likes to present it.
Sure, everyone could handle a 10% tax very easily. Oh unless you're super rich, then you need a tax cut.
People who buy the latest iPhone for cash sure act like they are super rich...either that, or dumb. They'll absorb the 10% price increase no problem. It's not like they weren't paying over $1000 for a phone anyway...
Those who get an iPhone as part of a carrier plan won't notice the extra dollar per month or whatever.
Slapping a tariff on every laptop however is a different beast enitrely...a lot of those things are budget machines with razor-thin margins. People who buy them look after every $10 spent...this would definitely have an impact.
Making a profit is what tells you that the value of the service being offered exceeds the cost of providing the service. If a city transport system isn't able to pay for itself entirely via fares, then it's costing the city more to maintain it than the value it's giving citizens.
Wrong. Completely wrong. 100% wrong. So wrong that...I could go on, but I won't.
Your principal mistake here is the "value it's giving citizens" part. Also the "value of the service" part before that. You assume value is only a monetary transaction. Let's say you own a car. Or a TV. Or a house...or anything. How many of those things "make a profit" for you? As, in earn you more money, in cash, than you paid for them. In most cases, most of them don't. Especially cars for example, they lose like 50% of their resale value the moment you leave the dealer's lot almost. So most or all of these things are cash sinks. Yet you still buy them...and they provide value to you. A lot of value, one might say. Value you could put a dollar figure on it if you really wanted to spend time on doing that.
If a transit system isn't able to pay for itself entirely via fares, it's costing the city more to maintain than it collects in fares. Full stop. Whether or not its giving the citizens of the city more or less value than it costs to maintain and run over the fare revenue is an open question. In some cities no; in some cities yes, and far above what it costs. It's not like this is a black art, there are studies which put dollar figures on traffic congestion, time lost to commuting, and so on.
Now, people are quite aware that they fund transit systems both with fares and taxes. Funding a transit system with taxes - partly - is completely fair for numerous reasons, among others because transit systems benefit even people who do not use them, by reducing traffic congestion. That's why people who say "why should I pay for transit if I never use it" aren't often the brightest, especially if they live in places like NYC. There are people for whom transit doesn't work, who have to be on the road in a car for whatever reason. However, those people benefit from others, who do not have to be in a car, being in the subway or on a bus, because it reduces congestion. So even they get value out of it.
Or, are you confusing state/city with federal money and responsibilities?
Two different beasts and two different pots entirely.
Except they aren't two different pots "entirely".
Where does the money come when you pay taxes, regardless to which level of government you pay them to? Your income or savings, it's all the same "pot" - your money.
It's completely reasonable for people in NYC to say "I'd like less of my tax dollars to go the military, and more to the subway". How that is implemented (e.g. federal government gives some money to state/city government; federal government reduces taxes while state/city government increases them; or some combination of the two, or some third solution entirely; etc.) is another matter.
NYC doesn’t have a military budget. And the US Federal government isn't responsible for basic services in individual cities.
New York has to fix New York problems. Parachuting in random money doesn't work. The money finds it's way into various pockets and the original problem remains.
Except people in NYC pay federal, state, and local taxes. There is a total tax burden people will tolerate. So given a certain rate of federal and state tax, there is only so much room for local tax.
If federal taxes were lower, perhaps NYC could increase its local taxes a bit, or NY state could increase state taxes a bit, and people wouldn't mind. What different levels of government do is both directly and indirectly connected.
The best way to do that is not having tolls on every road (way to expensive to maintain and administer) but to have a much higher gas tax. You drive more? You pay more. Gas price should be at least doubled in the USA.
I'm not arguing with the benefit of a gas tax here, just trying to point out that people tend to complain about subsidies for public transit without realizing how much subsidizing of private transit there is.
Btw a gas tax isn't a perfect way of getting "drive more, pay more" - I can theoretically drive a subcompact that gets 60 mpg a lot more than an SUV or light truck that gets 15 mpg and still pay less in gas (and gas tax). Of course a truck is doing more damage to the road than a subcompact, so the question is what is the correct price per ton of vehicle or whatever if we want to be completely "fair".
Add to that list:
-- A lot of the money we spend via the Pentagon 'effin around in the Middle East is also a barely hidden oil price subsidy. Let's add a Keeping The Middle East Safe For The Nicest Vicious Dictators Tax on our gasoline.
Well golly, we could fund all sorts of things if we didn't fund the military...for awhile...until those nice Russian and Chinese discovered they could do whatever they wanted with U.S. trading partners, like shutting down trade with the U.S.
That's like, total nonsense.
The US military can be easily 50% smaller and still way ahead of Russia and China. The problem with the American military-industrial complex is that it's not actually focused on defense and American military superiority, it's focused on making huge profits. It's been happy to rake in billions and billions of dollars for mostly or absolutely useless projects. When the Pentagon resists, bribing, er, sorry, lobbying members of Congress usually does wonders. There have been tons of examples of the military buying stuff it clearly says it doesn't want, keeping operational equipment they've wanted to retire, retiring operating equipment unnecessarily early in order to force purchases of replacements, and so on.
If it was economical and a better way to travel then people would be willing to pay market rates (what it costs to operate) in order to use it. Most times they are not. You see it in New York, San Francisco - all over. I'd agree with your premise - Raise the rates. Raise them until it can pay for itself. See if it still works for people. If it does wonderful. It might not though.
Excellent idea. In the same vein, let's also:
- Eliminate every single cent of tax funding for all roads, streets, highways and freeways. Make them pay for themselves. Put tolls on every Interstate, and every other freeway and highway. Charge people the minute they pull out of their driveway. No paved road without users paying for it directly. No use of roads at all, unless people are paying for it directly.
- Eliminate all sources of public funding for the car industry and related industries. Like when GM goes bankrupt and the Feds bail them out with TARP funds.
- Eliminate all car-centric and car-friendly urban planning laws and regulations. Like minimum parking regulations, zoning laws that create and maintain suburbia, any regulations which force communities to accomodate cars and to spend money on doing so.
Then we can truly see what is more "economical" and whether people will be "willing to pay market rates". Let's go for it!
It's even worse than you think, since you've got your facts a little bit wrong, but the way you got them wrong makes your point more strongly. Specifically, while tipped workers can be given a wage below minimum wage, if they don't receive sufficient tips to reach the equivalent of minimum wage, nationwide law requires that their employer supplement their income to reach minimum wage.
Problem solved, right? We've all been misled about how much of a problem the financial structure around tipping is?
I wasn't aware that this was a nationwide law in the US, thanks. Good point.
What strikes me as the perverse effect of this is that even if there were 100% compliance with this law, it would still be wrong, since tipping would basically improve the restaurant owner's bottom line - you have provided the money the owner would've otherwise had to provide to the employee. In a way, and up to a point (the minimum wage), it's tipping the owner, not the server/cook or whoever the tip is nominally for.
I tip, and I criticize people who don't do so in places/contexts it is customary to do so. The same way that I, you know, follow the laws which I think should be changed or stupid, because, well, they're the law.
Also, comparing saying "you're welcome" to tipping is hardly appropriate in this context.
Tipping is the capitalist way of employers screwing their employees, the way it's done in North America.
If you're paid decently by your employer, and tipping is just icing on the cake, turning a minimum-wage job into a higher-wage job, and that makes you work harder to be extra nice to the customers to earn tips - that's fine. No problem with that.
If you get a lower minimum wage than everybody else because you get tips, well that's simply being screwed and exploited. Also, if tips are basically mandatory, the restaurant owner is lying to his customers about the price of the food and drinks.
Because of tipping US can't lock a payment down. Chip&pin is final - transactions can't be changed, which means / bring the terminal to the table so I can put whatever tip I want and then secure it with pin. But no - now in US you can authorize a 1.99 payment and have Joe Schmoe add 1000 tip on it, just fine.
Canada has the exact same tipping culture (when it comes to restaurants and bars...not really when it comes to everything else, like bus drivers, etc.) as the US. For years, PIN cards are the norm and people leave tips just fine. You get the terminal, and you select the amount of tip to leave (10%, 15%, 20%, custom % or custom exact dollar amount). It works just fine. In fact, it simplifies people's lives since they don't have to calculate how much is 15% of their bill, the terminal does it automatically.
With the antiquated US system (get a bill with a blank line) you have a lot of chance for fraud. It's happened to people I know, they put a $5 tip but the server didn't think that was enough, so they wrote in a 1 in front to make it $15. The customers only found out 2 weeks later when they looked at their credit card statement.
Very true. I've had a waiter (in Canada) thank me for paying in cash, because he now had enough cash in the register to take his tips with him at the end of the day, instead of waiting to get the amount prepared for him at the start of his next shift (which could be in a couple of days). As I understood, it wasn't specifically about tipping in cash, but enough people paying in cash during the day (some of those people could leave $0 tip - the point was there to be cash available).
Tipping is a two way street. If you tip at the end of the transaction, the server benefits. If you tip at the start of the transaction, such as tipping a bartender when you order your first drink, he/she will treat you well for the rest of the evening. Both sides benefit.
Of course, if you're a regular and get a reputation for tipping well, you'll be treated well every time you visit the place.
What became of the legislation that was proposed to allow the restaurant owners to decide how much of the tips go to the servers? IRIC that was proposed as a means to relieve restaurant and bar owners of the burden of having to pay a higher minimum wage...
Tipping, as implemented in North America (Canada & the US), is pure bullshit. Hospitality workers are basically forced to rely on tips in order to make a livable wage, in many jurisdictions they specifically get shafted (the law specifies a lower minimum wage for restaurant workers than everyone else). As a result, you are culturally "forced" to tip large amounts even just for average/expected service (15%, or whatever is the local custom), because otherwise the people serving you are underpaid. Basically, this means that the prices in the menu are artificially deflated. You are expected to fork over an extra 15% (or whatever), so that's not a "tip" - it's an integral part of the cost you incur.
Tipping should be an optional activity and a reward for exceptional service, not mercy money that allows workers to eat. Workers should be paid for their work by their employer. Salaries should be in line with employer expectations. If employees go above and beyond that, customers can reward them (if they want) with tips. Tips should not be the employees' financial lifeblood.
There's plenty of places where it works like this. There's plenty of places where tipping is just rounding up (so on a large bill, something like 1-2% and nowhere hear 15%). There are places like Japan where there is no tip (in fact, I was told that tipping is insulting and that the waiter will angrily give you back your money). Guess what, the service is just fine (especially in Japan, where it's excellent).
But as long as we have ridiculous ideas about the sanctity of life and every sperm is sacred in the heads of people you won't see a solution to that problem.
The place having the biggest construction boom in the past two decades has no such ridiculous ideas. That place is China. One-child policy anyone?
The places with the highest birth rates also tend to be places where the majority of the people live in shanty towns or similar and do not actually use a lot of concrete for construction.
It's not just about the number of people. It's about their standard of living.
As a former EE major I was able to run what little Windows software I needed just fine in a VM.
I've attended university (as EE), worked at a university (as a web developer), and then attended again (technically software engineering but I didn't complete any degree), so I've seen the progression of what's been happening on universities for a while. "Windows" and "engineering" are in near opposition.
Maybe in universities, but not in industry...and it depends a lot on which industry we're talking about.
For example, if you're doing IC design (which usually means you are running Cadence) then you are wedded to some *nix platform (because this is what Cadence has always run on).
If you're doing non-IC electrical engineering stuff (building discrete circuits) you're often wedded to Windows. For example, most professional PCB design software is targeted towards Windows only. Yes there are some open source PCB programs that are Linux-only or have Linux versions but they are not professional-grade. Altium, one of the top professional PCB software packages, doesn't have a Mac or Linux version of the desktop application. If you're a Linux or Mac user, they tell you to use their online, cloud-based software (Upverter). Which is something Altium acquired, so it's actually a completely different piece of software.
8000 USD per year is the regressive UBI flavor. Of course nobody quits its job, since it is impossible to live on such a low income.
On the other hand, employers will have a good reason to refuse raises: you already had 8000 USD. It will also be possible to hire with salary lower than before but still acceptable by workers, because of UBI help.
Here you are making the assumption that employers would raise wages by 8000 USD per year if the Dividend payment did not exist. This depends on a lot of factors and cannot be asserted in some blanket, universal way. Perhaps wihout the payment, employers would still pay the same wages they do now, simply due to the state of supply and demand in the labour market, and people would just have 8000 dollars less per year.
Japanese have a similar problem, with so much effort required to learn the Japanese language, it diminishes the amount that can be learned using the Japanese language.
Uhm, sources on that? Quotes? Proof?
To me, it does not seem like the Japanese have a problem with learning.
They have a rich and complex culture and civilization, with highly complicated and very context-specific social rituals, rules, and customs.
Beyond social life, daily life requires following tons of large and small rules and regulations and norms of behaviour, of which everyone seems to be perfectly aware and know by heart to the minutest detail. Work life and generally business is also like this.
Japan has produced, as a society over the ages, great art and literature, which is often very nuanced and subtle. It also has a distuingished philosophical tradition.
Japanese schoolchildren are constistently topscorers on international tests such as TIMSS and PISA.
On top of all that, Japan is an industrial and technological superpower that has been a pioneer in many fields and a driver of technological, and more broadly, industrial inovation for the past 60 years at least.
None of this suggests that Japanese people have trouble with learning things compared to speakers of "simpler" languages, such as English or French or Spanish or Italian. I've even heard the opposite argument of yours several times: that is the complexity of the Japanese language - spoken and written - that forces people to develop their intellect.
I'm sure that there are unions that function differently, however I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "trade union". My dictionary says that's just a synonym for "labour union" or plainly "union", but I'm sure you have something more specific in mind.
I guess my disconnect is why would you settle for being low skill? I never rest when it comes to my education and career advancement.
Because not everyone can attain a high-skilled, well-paid job, no matter how hard they try, for a gazillion reasons. We can't all be the top of the pyramid. Or even close to the top, or the upper part of the middle... I understand your attitude and I share it myself: I would not want to "settle" for a low-skilled job. Nor do I like unionized workplaces in my field of work. However, if my life circumstances were such that a factory job was the best that I could get, I'd sure hope it was a unionized one.
By the way, the type of advancement you describe does not always happen in a single lifetime, but over a generation or two. A lot of working class people in America were able to put their kids through college and thus help them get high-skilled, high-paying (usually non-unionized) jobs exactly because they were members of a union at work, which gave them job stability and a liveable wage with steady and predictable raises.
I've worked in a union before when I worked at a college. Wages were low (I got a 50k raise when I left), promotions were often seniority based rather than performance based, vacation was set based on experience, etc. A terrible way to live.
Well, it's not terrible if you're an unskilled factory worker...
Remember where modern unions originated - 19th/early 20th-century factories. The assembly line was invented so you could produce complex things with low or unskilled labour. Workers were essentially interchangeable. As a worker, knowing that you could be replaced overnight by any unemployed bloke on the street basically gave all the leverage to your employer. You were not special, just a cog in the machine that could be easily replaced by another, identical cog. How do you get some leverage over your employer? Organize. Strike. Form a union and negotiate a collective agreement. Remember, collective agreements make sense since workers are interchangeable...
In a low skillset environment, promoting based on seniority makes sense, because seniority = experience. Giving more vacation based on experience/seniority also made sense since it was just assumed the older folks had families, grew tired more easily, etc. and needed more time off.
The problem is that this model then got extensively copied into medium-skilled, and, sometimes (in the public sector, basically as a rule) into high-skilled workplaces. Where the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't make sense, where not all people have the same skill set and the same mastery over it, where experience does not necessarily mean superior job performance, etc. This is because the low-skilled worker unions were the biggest and most dominant, and set the template as to what a union should be. In many cases, these unions themselves expanded into other fields of work via new "locals", "chapters" and whatever. I was, for a semester, a member of the United Steelworkers Union - I have never been inside a steel mill, or worked in the steel industry. Rather, for some reason, auxillary contract (non-full-time) staff at my university were part of the USW, and as I had a contract to do some course/lab development work for a professor, I fell under this category. The odd thing was that most of the other staff were part of the public employees' union, which made more sense.
You keep using that terminology, but can you explain "why" you think someone that carries a gun is "crazy" or a nut?
Because I cannot see why anyone normal would want to carry, under normal circumstances, a concealed killing machine in their pocket. Why do YOU want to carry around, concealed, a device designed explicitly for killing people? "It's my right to do so" is not a sufficient answer. I'm not questioning your right to do so, but your rationale. How is a killing machine just a "tool for the day?" That makes no sense in the vast majority of normal circumstances. It makes sense if you're, say, a hitman. Or a cop.
Someone carrying a concealed weapon (as it is concealed, you're not showing off you're armed to make a point or intimidate someone) is either A) living in a really unsafe area, and feels the need to be armed to protect themselves or B) has intentions of using it nefariously or C) is a bit wonkers: paranoia, gun fetish, or whatever, really, the list could go on for a bit. Note I'm not saying this applies to just owning a firearm. I'm saying it applies to people wanting to carry concealed firearms everywhere.
Now, if you fall under case A), then I understand totally and really regret your situation. I have no understanding for cases B) and C).
Do you think cops are nuts and crazy too because they carry guns?
Scuba divers carry an oxygen tank on their backs and wear a mask and flippers. Totally reasonable outfit for scuba diving. On the other hand, someone decked out in full scuba diving gear just walking down the street, with no intention of getting wet - yeah, that's pretty crazy. Sorry, I had to counter your entirely ridiculous parallel with one of my own.
Now, seriously, a lot of police officers that shouldn't be armed are. On top of that, cops in America are way to quick to draw their guns.
I'm just exercising my 2A rights in the US, and I have just as many rights as a cop...so, what's so unusual or "nutty" about doing so?
A guy going down the street yelling nonsense at every person he sees is just exercising his 1A rights, but that doesn't change the fact that he's crazy...
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the first time this is happening in my country. But this is the first time a president is so badly elected, with only about 65% of the votes, and many many abstentions.
I don't know what you mean by this. In the 2nd round, Macron won with 20,743,128 votes. In 2012, Hollande won with 18,000,668 and in 2007 Sarkozy won with 18,983,138. So Macron had about 2 million more votes in the 2nd round than each of them...and a much bigger percentage.
You are right about the turnout, of course. Le Pen lost so badly because she won only 10,638,475 votes, much less compared to the losers in 2012 and 2007 (Sarkozy 16,860,685 and Royal 16,790,440, respectively).
The first (that Macron had more votes than Hollande and Sarkozy) is explained, I think, by the fact that his opponent was Le Pen. So many people came out to vote for him to stop the far-right from gaining power. The second (the low turnout) is explained, I think, by the same fact: there are a lot of people who didn't like Macron, but didn't like Le Pen either. So they abstained. Would Macron have won had his opponnent been Fillon or a leftist candidate? Who knows, but I think he would hover around 16-18 million vote mark nonetheless.
I think the first round is more interesting. Macron came first there too, but only with 8,656,346 votes or 24.01%. He only had about 1 million more votes than Le Pen. Also, the next 2 candidates (FIllon and Melenchon) were close, about 1.5 million votes behind Macron. This is a much worse performance than the top TWO candidates in the previous two elections (2012: Hollande 10,272,705 or 28.63%, Sarkozy 9,753,629 or 27.18% - Le Pen was more than 3 million votes behind Sarkozy; 2007: Sarkozy 11,448,663 or 31.18%, Royal 9,500,112 or 25.87% - Bayrou was more than 3 million votes behind Royal).
Basically, Macron's huge win in the 2nd round is very deceptive and only happened because Le Pen was his opponent. In reality, the election in the first round was very close compared to the previous two elections. Macron is a bit of an accidental president (not as much as his predecessor, Hollande, who was elected just because people were sick of Sarkozy's dramatics and wanted the polar opposite, a bland, almost invisible president). Hollande was widely seen as ineffectual, so much so that he decided not to run; nonetheless this did not help the Socialists, who failed to present an anti-Hollande to capture the voters' imagination. So, the leftist vote splintered among many candidates - although Melenchon was quite close to the 2nd round. The front-runner was originally Fillon from the centre-right, but he got destroyed by the scandals that were created by opponents within his own party (the ones he defeated in the primaries). He refused to step down and let someone else run for the UMP which might've changed the ellection by quite a bit - still, even the scandal-plagued Fillon came third and was within less than 1.5% of getting into the second round.
In the end, Macron was lucky to have Le Pen make it to the second round. For someone who had A LOT of luck for things to perfectly line up for him to win the election, he should be a lot less arrogant and full of himself, and a lot more humble. His "mandate" from the people is nowhere near as strong as he likes to present it.
Sure, everyone could handle a 10% tax very easily. Oh unless you're super rich, then you need a tax cut.
People who buy the latest iPhone for cash sure act like they are super rich...either that, or dumb. They'll absorb the 10% price increase no problem. It's not like they weren't paying over $1000 for a phone anyway...
Those who get an iPhone as part of a carrier plan won't notice the extra dollar per month or whatever.
Slapping a tariff on every laptop however is a different beast enitrely...a lot of those things are budget machines with razor-thin margins. People who buy them look after every $10 spent...this would definitely have an impact.
Making a profit is what tells you that the value of the service being offered exceeds the cost of providing the service. If a city transport system isn't able to pay for itself entirely via fares, then it's costing the city more to maintain it than the value it's giving citizens.
Wrong. Completely wrong. 100% wrong. So wrong that...I could go on, but I won't.
Your principal mistake here is the "value it's giving citizens" part. Also the "value of the service" part before that. You assume value is only a monetary transaction. Let's say you own a car. Or a TV. Or a house...or anything. How many of those things "make a profit" for you? As, in earn you more money, in cash, than you paid for them. In most cases, most of them don't. Especially cars for example, they lose like 50% of their resale value the moment you leave the dealer's lot almost. So most or all of these things are cash sinks. Yet you still buy them...and they provide value to you. A lot of value, one might say. Value you could put a dollar figure on it if you really wanted to spend time on doing that.
If a transit system isn't able to pay for itself entirely via fares, it's costing the city more to maintain than it collects in fares. Full stop. Whether or not its giving the citizens of the city more or less value than it costs to maintain and run over the fare revenue is an open question. In some cities no; in some cities yes, and far above what it costs. It's not like this is a black art, there are studies which put dollar figures on traffic congestion, time lost to commuting, and so on.
Now, people are quite aware that they fund transit systems both with fares and taxes. Funding a transit system with taxes - partly - is completely fair for numerous reasons, among others because transit systems benefit even people who do not use them, by reducing traffic congestion. That's why people who say "why should I pay for transit if I never use it" aren't often the brightest, especially if they live in places like NYC. There are people for whom transit doesn't work, who have to be on the road in a car for whatever reason. However, those people benefit from others, who do not have to be in a car, being in the subway or on a bus, because it reduces congestion. So even they get value out of it.
Or, are you confusing state/city with federal money and responsibilities?
Two different beasts and two different pots entirely.
Except they aren't two different pots "entirely".
Where does the money come when you pay taxes, regardless to which level of government you pay them to? Your income or savings, it's all the same "pot" - your money.
It's completely reasonable for people in NYC to say "I'd like less of my tax dollars to go the military, and more to the subway". How that is implemented (e.g. federal government gives some money to state/city government; federal government reduces taxes while state/city government increases them; or some combination of the two, or some third solution entirely; etc.) is another matter.
NYC doesn’t have a military budget. And the US Federal government isn't responsible for basic services in individual cities.
New York has to fix New York problems. Parachuting in random money doesn't work. The money finds it's way into various pockets and the original problem remains.
Except people in NYC pay federal, state, and local taxes. There is a total tax burden people will tolerate. So given a certain rate of federal and state tax, there is only so much room for local tax.
If federal taxes were lower, perhaps NYC could increase its local taxes a bit, or NY state could increase state taxes a bit, and people wouldn't mind. What different levels of government do is both directly and indirectly connected.
The best way to do that is not having tolls on every road (way to expensive to maintain and administer) but to have a much higher gas tax. You drive more? You pay more. Gas price should be at least doubled in the USA.
I'm not arguing with the benefit of a gas tax here, just trying to point out that people tend to complain about subsidies for public transit without realizing how much subsidizing of private transit there is.
Btw a gas tax isn't a perfect way of getting "drive more, pay more" - I can theoretically drive a subcompact that gets 60 mpg a lot more than an SUV or light truck that gets 15 mpg and still pay less in gas (and gas tax). Of course a truck is doing more damage to the road than a subcompact, so the question is what is the correct price per ton of vehicle or whatever if we want to be completely "fair".
Add to that list: -- A lot of the money we spend via the Pentagon 'effin around in the Middle East is also a barely hidden oil price subsidy. Let's add a Keeping The Middle East Safe For The Nicest Vicious Dictators Tax on our gasoline.
Excellent point, I forgot about that.
Well golly, we could fund all sorts of things if we didn't fund the military...for awhile...until those nice Russian and Chinese discovered they could do whatever they wanted with U.S. trading partners, like shutting down trade with the U.S.
That's like, total nonsense.
The US military can be easily 50% smaller and still way ahead of Russia and China. The problem with the American military-industrial complex is that it's not actually focused on defense and American military superiority, it's focused on making huge profits. It's been happy to rake in billions and billions of dollars for mostly or absolutely useless projects. When the Pentagon resists, bribing, er, sorry, lobbying members of Congress usually does wonders. There have been tons of examples of the military buying stuff it clearly says it doesn't want, keeping operational equipment they've wanted to retire, retiring operating equipment unnecessarily early in order to force purchases of replacements, and so on.
In the meantime, our leaders haven't forgotten how to foment [costly] mayhem abroad. Sad!
Imperialism rarely benefits the average Joe, and especially the poor Joe. It is however great for the elites and for the (very) rich Joes.
If it was economical and a better way to travel then people would be willing to pay market rates (what it costs to operate) in order to use it. Most times they are not. You see it in New York, San Francisco - all over. I'd agree with your premise - Raise the rates. Raise them until it can pay for itself. See if it still works for people. If it does wonderful. It might not though.
Excellent idea. In the same vein, let's also:
Then we can truly see what is more "economical" and whether people will be "willing to pay market rates". Let's go for it!
The plane is both there and not there until you observe it dropping a bomb or you (or not).
It's even worse than you think, since you've got your facts a little bit wrong, but the way you got them wrong makes your point more strongly. Specifically, while tipped workers can be given a wage below minimum wage, if they don't receive sufficient tips to reach the equivalent of minimum wage, nationwide law requires that their employer supplement their income to reach minimum wage.
Problem solved, right? We've all been misled about how much of a problem the financial structure around tipping is?
I wasn't aware that this was a nationwide law in the US, thanks. Good point.
What strikes me as the perverse effect of this is that even if there were 100% compliance with this law, it would still be wrong, since tipping would basically improve the restaurant owner's bottom line - you have provided the money the owner would've otherwise had to provide to the employee. In a way, and up to a point (the minimum wage), it's tipping the owner, not the server/cook or whoever the tip is nominally for.
I bet you have no idea what you're talking about.
I tip, and I criticize people who don't do so in places/contexts it is customary to do so. The same way that I, you know, follow the laws which I think should be changed or stupid, because, well, they're the law.
Also, comparing saying "you're welcome" to tipping is hardly appropriate in this context.
Rather what we think "the math" is, is wrong. Nature is right. Always
Tipping is the capitalist way of doing it
Tipping is the capitalist way of employers screwing their employees, the way it's done in North America.
If you're paid decently by your employer, and tipping is just icing on the cake, turning a minimum-wage job into a higher-wage job, and that makes you work harder to be extra nice to the customers to earn tips - that's fine. No problem with that.
If you get a lower minimum wage than everybody else because you get tips, well that's simply being screwed and exploited. Also, if tips are basically mandatory, the restaurant owner is lying to his customers about the price of the food and drinks.
Because of tipping US can't lock a payment down. Chip&pin is final - transactions can't be changed, which means / bring the terminal to the table so I can put whatever tip I want and then secure it with pin. But no - now in US you can authorize a 1.99 payment and have Joe Schmoe add 1000 tip on it, just fine.
Canada has the exact same tipping culture (when it comes to restaurants and bars...not really when it comes to everything else, like bus drivers, etc.) as the US. For years, PIN cards are the norm and people leave tips just fine. You get the terminal, and you select the amount of tip to leave (10%, 15%, 20%, custom % or custom exact dollar amount). It works just fine. In fact, it simplifies people's lives since they don't have to calculate how much is 15% of their bill, the terminal does it automatically.
With the antiquated US system (get a bill with a blank line) you have a lot of chance for fraud. It's happened to people I know, they put a $5 tip but the server didn't think that was enough, so they wrote in a 1 in front to make it $15. The customers only found out 2 weeks later when they looked at their credit card statement.
Tipping in cash is always preferred by servers.
Very true. I've had a waiter (in Canada) thank me for paying in cash, because he now had enough cash in the register to take his tips with him at the end of the day, instead of waiting to get the amount prepared for him at the start of his next shift (which could be in a couple of days). As I understood, it wasn't specifically about tipping in cash, but enough people paying in cash during the day (some of those people could leave $0 tip - the point was there to be cash available).
Tipping is a two way street. If you tip at the end of the transaction, the server benefits. If you tip at the start of the transaction, such as tipping a bartender when you order your first drink, he/she will treat you well for the rest of the evening. Both sides benefit.
Of course, if you're a regular and get a reputation for tipping well, you'll be treated well every time you visit the place.
What became of the legislation that was proposed to allow the restaurant owners to decide how much of the tips go to the servers? IRIC that was proposed as a means to relieve restaurant and bar owners of the burden of having to pay a higher minimum wage...
Tipping, as implemented in North America (Canada & the US), is pure bullshit. Hospitality workers are basically forced to rely on tips in order to make a livable wage, in many jurisdictions they specifically get shafted (the law specifies a lower minimum wage for restaurant workers than everyone else). As a result, you are culturally "forced" to tip large amounts even just for average/expected service (15%, or whatever is the local custom), because otherwise the people serving you are underpaid. Basically, this means that the prices in the menu are artificially deflated. You are expected to fork over an extra 15% (or whatever), so that's not a "tip" - it's an integral part of the cost you incur.
Tipping should be an optional activity and a reward for exceptional service, not mercy money that allows workers to eat. Workers should be paid for their work by their employer. Salaries should be in line with employer expectations. If employees go above and beyond that, customers can reward them (if they want) with tips. Tips should not be the employees' financial lifeblood.
There's plenty of places where it works like this. There's plenty of places where tipping is just rounding up (so on a large bill, something like 1-2% and nowhere hear 15%). There are places like Japan where there is no tip (in fact, I was told that tipping is insulting and that the waiter will angrily give you back your money). Guess what, the service is just fine (especially in Japan, where it's excellent).
But as long as we have ridiculous ideas about the sanctity of life and every sperm is sacred in the heads of people you won't see a solution to that problem.
The place having the biggest construction boom in the past two decades has no such ridiculous ideas. That place is China. One-child policy anyone?
The places with the highest birth rates also tend to be places where the majority of the people live in shanty towns or similar and do not actually use a lot of concrete for construction.
It's not just about the number of people. It's about their standard of living.
As a former EE major I was able to run what little Windows software I needed just fine in a VM.
I've attended university (as EE), worked at a university (as a web developer), and then attended again (technically software engineering but I didn't complete any degree), so I've seen the progression of what's been happening on universities for a while. "Windows" and "engineering" are in near opposition.
Maybe in universities, but not in industry...and it depends a lot on which industry we're talking about.
For example, if you're doing IC design (which usually means you are running Cadence) then you are wedded to some *nix platform (because this is what Cadence has always run on).
If you're doing non-IC electrical engineering stuff (building discrete circuits) you're often wedded to Windows. For example, most professional PCB design software is targeted towards Windows only. Yes there are some open source PCB programs that are Linux-only or have Linux versions but they are not professional-grade. Altium, one of the top professional PCB software packages, doesn't have a Mac or Linux version of the desktop application. If you're a Linux or Mac user, they tell you to use their online, cloud-based software (Upverter). Which is something Altium acquired, so it's actually a completely different piece of software.
There are many other examples.
8000 USD per year is the regressive UBI flavor. Of course nobody quits its job, since it is impossible to live on such a low income.
On the other hand, employers will have a good reason to refuse raises: you already had 8000 USD. It will also be possible to hire with salary lower than before but still acceptable by workers, because of UBI help.
Here you are making the assumption that employers would raise wages by 8000 USD per year if the Dividend payment did not exist. This depends on a lot of factors and cannot be asserted in some blanket, universal way. Perhaps wihout the payment, employers would still pay the same wages they do now, simply due to the state of supply and demand in the labour market, and people would just have 8000 dollars less per year.
Japanese have a similar problem, with so much effort required to learn the Japanese language, it diminishes the amount that can be learned using the Japanese language.
Uhm, sources on that? Quotes? Proof?
To me, it does not seem like the Japanese have a problem with learning.
They have a rich and complex culture and civilization, with highly complicated and very context-specific social rituals, rules, and customs.
Beyond social life, daily life requires following tons of large and small rules and regulations and norms of behaviour, of which everyone seems to be perfectly aware and know by heart to the minutest detail. Work life and generally business is also like this.
Japan has produced, as a society over the ages, great art and literature, which is often very nuanced and subtle. It also has a distuingished philosophical tradition.
Japanese schoolchildren are constistently topscorers on international tests such as TIMSS and PISA.
On top of all that, Japan is an industrial and technological superpower that has been a pioneer in many fields and a driver of technological, and more broadly, industrial inovation for the past 60 years at least.
None of this suggests that Japanese people have trouble with learning things compared to speakers of "simpler" languages, such as English or French or Spanish or Italian. I've even heard the opposite argument of yours several times: that is the complexity of the Japanese language - spoken and written - that forces people to develop their intellect.
Trade unions don't work at all like that.
I'm sure that there are unions that function differently, however I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "trade union". My dictionary says that's just a synonym for "labour union" or plainly "union", but I'm sure you have something more specific in mind.
I guess my disconnect is why would you settle for being low skill? I never rest when it comes to my education and career advancement.
Because not everyone can attain a high-skilled, well-paid job, no matter how hard they try, for a gazillion reasons. We can't all be the top of the pyramid. Or even close to the top, or the upper part of the middle... I understand your attitude and I share it myself: I would not want to "settle" for a low-skilled job. Nor do I like unionized workplaces in my field of work. However, if my life circumstances were such that a factory job was the best that I could get, I'd sure hope it was a unionized one.
By the way, the type of advancement you describe does not always happen in a single lifetime, but over a generation or two. A lot of working class people in America were able to put their kids through college and thus help them get high-skilled, high-paying (usually non-unionized) jobs exactly because they were members of a union at work, which gave them job stability and a liveable wage with steady and predictable raises.
I've worked in a union before when I worked at a college. Wages were low (I got a 50k raise when I left), promotions were often seniority based rather than performance based, vacation was set based on experience, etc. A terrible way to live.
Well, it's not terrible if you're an unskilled factory worker...
Remember where modern unions originated - 19th/early 20th-century factories. The assembly line was invented so you could produce complex things with low or unskilled labour. Workers were essentially interchangeable. As a worker, knowing that you could be replaced overnight by any unemployed bloke on the street basically gave all the leverage to your employer. You were not special, just a cog in the machine that could be easily replaced by another, identical cog. How do you get some leverage over your employer? Organize. Strike. Form a union and negotiate a collective agreement. Remember, collective agreements make sense since workers are interchangeable...
In a low skillset environment, promoting based on seniority makes sense, because seniority = experience. Giving more vacation based on experience/seniority also made sense since it was just assumed the older folks had families, grew tired more easily, etc. and needed more time off.
The problem is that this model then got extensively copied into medium-skilled, and, sometimes (in the public sector, basically as a rule) into high-skilled workplaces. Where the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't make sense, where not all people have the same skill set and the same mastery over it, where experience does not necessarily mean superior job performance, etc. This is because the low-skilled worker unions were the biggest and most dominant, and set the template as to what a union should be. In many cases, these unions themselves expanded into other fields of work via new "locals", "chapters" and whatever. I was, for a semester, a member of the United Steelworkers Union - I have never been inside a steel mill, or worked in the steel industry. Rather, for some reason, auxillary contract (non-full-time) staff at my university were part of the USW, and as I had a contract to do some course/lab development work for a professor, I fell under this category. The odd thing was that most of the other staff were part of the public employees' union, which made more sense.
You keep using that terminology, but can you explain "why" you think someone that carries a gun is "crazy" or a nut?
Because I cannot see why anyone normal would want to carry, under normal circumstances, a concealed killing machine in their pocket. Why do YOU want to carry around, concealed, a device designed explicitly for killing people? "It's my right to do so" is not a sufficient answer. I'm not questioning your right to do so, but your rationale. How is a killing machine just a "tool for the day?" That makes no sense in the vast majority of normal circumstances. It makes sense if you're, say, a hitman. Or a cop.
Someone carrying a concealed weapon (as it is concealed, you're not showing off you're armed to make a point or intimidate someone) is either A) living in a really unsafe area, and feels the need to be armed to protect themselves or B) has intentions of using it nefariously or C) is a bit wonkers: paranoia, gun fetish, or whatever, really, the list could go on for a bit. Note I'm not saying this applies to just owning a firearm. I'm saying it applies to people wanting to carry concealed firearms everywhere.
Now, if you fall under case A), then I understand totally and really regret your situation. I have no understanding for cases B) and C).
Do you think cops are nuts and crazy too because they carry guns?
Scuba divers carry an oxygen tank on their backs and wear a mask and flippers. Totally reasonable outfit for scuba diving. On the other hand, someone decked out in full scuba diving gear just walking down the street, with no intention of getting wet - yeah, that's pretty crazy. Sorry, I had to counter your entirely ridiculous parallel with one of my own.
Now, seriously, a lot of police officers that shouldn't be armed are. On top of that, cops in America are way to quick to draw their guns.
I'm just exercising my 2A rights in the US, and I have just as many rights as a cop...so, what's so unusual or "nutty" about doing so?
A guy going down the street yelling nonsense at every person he sees is just exercising his 1A rights, but that doesn't change the fact that he's crazy...