What's the average wage for someone with similar educational attainment and professional certification in Wisconsin? That's the apples-to-apples comparison.
I'm cynical. You're naive. Getting a meeting doesn't allow you to see anything a representative doesn't want you to see. And our representatives are so polarized, eve (especially!) at the state level, that you're not going to change anyone's mind just by meeting with them. You get a pat on the head and they do what they're going to do anyway. Unless, of course, you have the ability to grease some wheels - ie, corruption.
You do realize that if they spend $15 on a lobster, that's $15 less that they have to spend on other things, right? Why do you care how they choose to spend that $15? Maybe they're okay with going hungry one day so they can actually have something nice to eat for once.
Getting a meeting doesn't mean you have any more control, or that your local elected officials are any less corrupt. It just means the local representative has a less busy schedule.
Here's the deal: fewer people know who their local reps are, and fewer still care. They are not as closely watched, and they are more tightly tied in with local powerbrokers. Those factors work together to create a considerably larger potential for corruption than you'll find at the national level, where everyone is being watched at all times, where there are more competing interests, and where representatives are more likely to be known.
History is basically the working class trying and failing to pry money out of the hands of the ruling class. Why the hell people don't see this is beyond me.
Probably because you have to take an interest in history to see it. But it's true.
The personnel needed to issue permits is entirely different from (and considerably less costly, and numerous) the personnel needed to conduct raids, put people through the legal system, and escort them out of the country.
When they came for the driving jobs, I was silent because I was not a driver.
When they came for the sewing jobs, I was silent because I was not a seamster.
When they came for the assembly jobs, I did not speak out because I was not an assembler.
When they came for the shipping jobs, I was silent because I was not a longshoreman.
When they came for my job, there was no one left to speak up.
The number of jobs isn't shrinking. There is an almost infinite amount of work out there which _could_ be done by someone.
The real question is: who is going to pay for that work to be done, and how much? Most of the work that *could* be done, but is not, is work that *can't* be done for a profit (and the rest is work that can't be done nearly as profitably as alternatives - eg building affordable housing rather than luxury housing). If it doesn't make business sense to do work, who is going to pay for it to be done?
Which only works as long as that lower price is still higher than production costs. The problem is that while automation can lower the cost to produce goods, it can't reduce them to zero. However, it can reduce employment (and with it purchasing power) sufficiently that demand for a given product can be reduced to zero. When production costs are higher than the price people will pay for a given product, that product stops being produced.
If it's a graphic equalizer, then, yes, it should have sliders. But in music production, you'll find parametric equalizers are preferred because of their flexibility and precision, and they run on knobs.
Markets don't like having unfilled niches. Even if 90% of the public doesn't mind not owning a car (a number I find ridiculously high given that a third of the population lives in suburbs and another third lives in rural areas), that remaining 10% is a large enough market segment that some company will cater to it.
San Francisco Bay area too centralized? It has three core cities that are 50 miles apart, with dozens of smaller cities between and around them. Few, if any, American metropolitan areas can realistically be considered "too centralized", and the Bay Area is definitely not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think it's a problem that straight white males are only portrayed as idiots or villains in many TV series and movies today?
Nope. I haven't run into this particular phenomenon, despite watching far more TV than is healthy.
Huh. I always thought of Rhode Island as being the size of the caldera of Olympus Mons.
What's the average wage for someone with similar educational attainment and professional certification in Wisconsin? That's the apples-to-apples comparison.
I'm cynical. You're naive. Getting a meeting doesn't allow you to see anything a representative doesn't want you to see. And our representatives are so polarized, eve (especially!) at the state level, that you're not going to change anyone's mind just by meeting with them. You get a pat on the head and they do what they're going to do anyway. Unless, of course, you have the ability to grease some wheels - ie, corruption.
You do realize that if they spend $15 on a lobster, that's $15 less that they have to spend on other things, right? Why do you care how they choose to spend that $15? Maybe they're okay with going hungry one day so they can actually have something nice to eat for once.
Because Robots hadn't taken all of the jobs YET.
Getting a meeting doesn't mean you have any more control, or that your local elected officials are any less corrupt. It just means the local representative has a less busy schedule. Here's the deal: fewer people know who their local reps are, and fewer still care. They are not as closely watched, and they are more tightly tied in with local powerbrokers. Those factors work together to create a considerably larger potential for corruption than you'll find at the national level, where everyone is being watched at all times, where there are more competing interests, and where representatives are more likely to be known.
History is basically the working class trying and failing to pry money out of the hands of the ruling class. Why the hell people don't see this is beyond me.
Probably because you have to take an interest in history to see it. But it's true.
People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it
Source?
His size is the only thing fun about him.
The personnel needed to issue permits is entirely different from (and considerably less costly, and numerous) the personnel needed to conduct raids, put people through the legal system, and escort them out of the country.
When they came for the driving jobs, I was silent because I was not a driver. When they came for the sewing jobs, I was silent because I was not a seamster. When they came for the assembly jobs, I did not speak out because I was not an assembler. When they came for the shipping jobs, I was silent because I was not a longshoreman. When they came for my job, there was no one left to speak up.
I would kind of like to see the future with robot workers be a place where people don't HAVE to work so damn hard.
Sounds great for labor. Somehow I don't think capital is going to back this idea, though.
That's well worth throwing millions of people into abject poverty in places with little other economic activity.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.
The number of jobs isn't shrinking. There is an almost infinite amount of work out there which _could_ be done by someone.
The real question is: who is going to pay for that work to be done, and how much? Most of the work that *could* be done, but is not, is work that *can't* be done for a profit (and the rest is work that can't be done nearly as profitably as alternatives - eg building affordable housing rather than luxury housing). If it doesn't make business sense to do work, who is going to pay for it to be done?
Which only works as long as that lower price is still higher than production costs. The problem is that while automation can lower the cost to produce goods, it can't reduce them to zero. However, it can reduce employment (and with it purchasing power) sufficiently that demand for a given product can be reduced to zero. When production costs are higher than the price people will pay for a given product, that product stops being produced.
So, you're saying that we could have cocaine as cheap as sugar if we industrialized its production?
Absolutely agreed, though the term "mid-end" seems a bit funny to me.
If it's a graphic equalizer, then, yes, it should have sliders. But in music production, you'll find parametric equalizers are preferred because of their flexibility and precision, and they run on knobs.
It could be argued that it represents LESS of an existential threat given that it's not a crumbling nation that can barely secure its arms.
Are there any statistics that demonstrate that cruise control, of any sort, improves safety? Or is it just a convenience?
Markets don't like having unfilled niches. Even if 90% of the public doesn't mind not owning a car (a number I find ridiculously high given that a third of the population lives in suburbs and another third lives in rural areas), that remaining 10% is a large enough market segment that some company will cater to it.
San Francisco Bay area too centralized? It has three core cities that are 50 miles apart, with dozens of smaller cities between and around them. Few, if any, American metropolitan areas can realistically be considered "too centralized", and the Bay Area is definitely not one of them.
Smallpox doesn't have politics.