Sometimes, to build a civilised society, you don't just need rights (e.g. to travel) but also put in checks and regulations to ensure people can reasonably exercise that right at some minimum level*. I would say that requiring Amtrak to put in ticketing agents (one per state - not a huge burden), although it might also be reasonable to expect the states or Federal government to cover to the net cost.
* We could argue forever on what constitutes a 'minimum level', though.
You don't need high speeds to buy a ticket off Amtrak.
It depends how the web page to do so is structured. My DSL line seems to struggle sometimes, due to the amount of stuff web pages sometimes seem to require.
People would probably call me a liberal. My wife didn't have a credit or bank card she could have used when she lived in the USA, as to have one required a minimum amount in a checking account she couldn't maintain. So it is an issue for some, and more likely the demographic wishing to take the train.
It amazes me how many people think liberals are at war with the poor, without evidence. In the UK there have been proposals which have required bank accounts to conduct various transactions, and it's liberals that have tended to be in the forefront of raising questions about whether that is a good idea. And some conservatives also realise it's an issue (it needn't be partisan).
So then you have to drive to the station (while rail links are generally good, that's not likely to be less than 30 minutes each way), to access one. Assuming it's working. A phone is almost instant (once you have navigated the 8 level deep menu twice).
Do you often get on a mode of transport with no idea of the likely cost? Maybe it will be $100 or $500. Without internet service looking up the cost can be difficult, even assuming you can get that fare structure when you are on the train (often you can't, much like you can't always get a great deal on a flight it you just turn up at the airport).
One agent per state isn't going to make a huge difference to the profitability of Amtrak, especially given that it will help people buy tickets. It still might be a net loss, but probably 0.001% of revenue or something like that.
Actually, it's better to have employees. With employees you have a contractual arrangement and a useful contractual sanction, as well as a legal one. Volunteers are great in countries where they can be trusted not to be actually working for one of the parties standing. Volunteers from parties can have a valid role in overseeing things, though.
I'm in the UK. 30 years the government paid university tuition, and living costs. Now it is $15,000 a year that students have to pay, just for tuition. 30 years ago you got tax relief on mortgage payments. No longer the case. 30 years ago the average house was around 4 times median income, rather than around 7. Millennials don't really seem that entitled in that context. The main thing they have are better IT and more TV channels. I would argue that they don't even have good music now, but then you can still listen to the Supremes or Led Zeppelin even now.
I'd take a raise over free coffee anyway. I can bring my own damn coffee.
How great is the coffee (has it passed through the intestines of a jungle-dwelling animal, for example), how much of it do you drink, how essential is that to you, and how much is the raise? The coffee might be a better deal if you have a real habit for premium stuff.
This 'entitlement' mantra doesn't actually seem to be matched by any millennial I've actually talked to, who frankly seem much more go-getting and entrepenurial (i.e. LESS entitled) than my generation every was. When I entered the job market the expectation was fading, but there was still seen to be a likelihood that you could get a good job with a blue chip or government, work 40 hours a week, and retire at 60 with a good defined-benefit pension and a house paid off.
And you know he hadn't asked the coffee shop for work how, exactly? Even if he did ask, the majority of businesses will not employ someone who doesn't have any fixed abode. Even if he managed to get over that hurdle, then it takes time to go through the hiring process (not much good if you want to eat this week), and you might fail the drugs test. Assuming you get that far, then you might not be employed due to a criminal record. So it's a bit much to assume the person didn't want to work.
It depends on what you mean by homeless. My wife has, at some points, met some definitions for homeless, in the sense of no fixed abode, and that was financial, in terms of deposits, and supply and demand (a need to wait until property is available). She was able to sofa surf on those occasions, but for those not able to access a friend's sofa, you can be in serious problems and risk being on the streets without any mental health issues, although being on the streets will probably give you some. My wife is definitely sane, and provably so.
For my part, after a relationship breakdown I found myself in a motel for a few weeks whilst I sorted out more permanent accommodation. Then, at a time of peak demand, it announced it had let the room I was renting to someone else, and that I had to move out. Finding another place locally was a pain. In other circumstances, had I not found somewhere, and not had friends, I might have spent a few nights in my car, which might have counted as very temporary homelessness.
Another common cause, for younger people at least, is being forced out due to an abusive situation, and then being too young or poor to rent, and then not knowing how to access, or being denied, other housing. You could argue that running away before having a clear plan isn't sensible, but sometimes circumstances don't make it easy.
By some definitions, sofa surfing is homeless, some count it as vulnerably housed. Some forms of having your own bed can be vulnerable (see above).
Opinion doesn't necessarily meet the criterion of being potentially libellous, as you demonstrated. What you said doesn't even suggest anything negative. You could be saying "I hope company X goes out of business because they are a rival". If you said "In my opinion, all products by company X are terrible" it would be a bit more comparable.
That's not what the 1st Amendment means. If it did mean that, then there would be no libel laws as they'd have been struck down as unconstitutional over a century ago.
There are several potential scenarios. Demand might be 10 units at 10 credits/unit. Supply might be 10 units, being offered at 10 credits/unit, comprising 5 units at 1 credit production cost each, 5 at 6 each. If demand reduces to 10 units at 5 credits/unit because the market doesn't see value above 5 credits, then you end up with only 5 units of production. In reality, cost would rise, but if it doesn't rise to 10 credits/unit, you can end up with an industry that is starved of investment, and so that production rate cannot be kept up as resources at 1 and 5 credit cost per unit dwindles. It's a potentially complex system, so you can't assume that simplistic answers about price, or cost+ pricing hold other than maybe in the short term.
If economics was as easy as some (especially politicians) suggest, the LSE would have closed down decades ago, as it would all have been worked out:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes, to build a civilised society, you don't just need rights (e.g. to travel) but also put in checks and regulations to ensure people can reasonably exercise that right at some minimum level*. I would say that requiring Amtrak to put in ticketing agents (one per state - not a huge burden), although it might also be reasonable to expect the states or Federal government to cover to the net cost.
* We could argue forever on what constitutes a 'minimum level', though.
You don't need high speeds to buy a ticket off Amtrak.
It depends how the web page to do so is structured. My DSL line seems to struggle sometimes, due to the amount of stuff web pages sometimes seem to require.
People would probably call me a liberal. My wife didn't have a credit or bank card she could have used when she lived in the USA, as to have one required a minimum amount in a checking account she couldn't maintain. So it is an issue for some, and more likely the demographic wishing to take the train.
It amazes me how many people think liberals are at war with the poor, without evidence. In the UK there have been proposals which have required bank accounts to conduct various transactions, and it's liberals that have tended to be in the forefront of raising questions about whether that is a good idea. And some conservatives also realise it's an issue (it needn't be partisan).
So then you have to drive to the station (while rail links are generally good, that's not likely to be less than 30 minutes each way), to access one. Assuming it's working. A phone is almost instant (once you have navigated the 8 level deep menu twice).
In the meantime, people need to get on trains. I realize Amtrak service sucks sometimes, but I'd hope we don't have trains more than 3-4 years late.
That's the average delay in the UK at the moment, I think.
Do you often get on a mode of transport with no idea of the likely cost? Maybe it will be $100 or $500. Without internet service looking up the cost can be difficult, even assuming you can get that fare structure when you are on the train (often you can't, much like you can't always get a great deal on a flight it you just turn up at the airport).
Maybe the senator is concerned for his constituents? It does happen sometimes.
One agent per state isn't going to make a huge difference to the profitability of Amtrak, especially given that it will help people buy tickets. It still might be a net loss, but probably 0.001% of revenue or something like that.
Russia has roughly half the population of the USA.
Actually, it's better to have employees. With employees you have a contractual arrangement and a useful contractual sanction, as well as a legal one. Volunteers are great in countries where they can be trusted not to be actually working for one of the parties standing. Volunteers from parties can have a valid role in overseeing things, though.
I'm in the UK. 30 years the government paid university tuition, and living costs. Now it is $15,000 a year that students have to pay, just for tuition. 30 years ago you got tax relief on mortgage payments. No longer the case. 30 years ago the average house was around 4 times median income, rather than around 7. Millennials don't really seem that entitled in that context. The main thing they have are better IT and more TV channels. I would argue that they don't even have good music now, but then you can still listen to the Supremes or Led Zeppelin even now.
I'd take a raise over free coffee anyway. I can bring my own damn coffee.
How great is the coffee (has it passed through the intestines of a jungle-dwelling animal, for example), how much of it do you drink, how essential is that to you, and how much is the raise? The coffee might be a better deal if you have a real habit for premium stuff.
This 'entitlement' mantra doesn't actually seem to be matched by any millennial I've actually talked to, who frankly seem much more go-getting and entrepenurial (i.e. LESS entitled) than my generation every was. When I entered the job market the expectation was fading, but there was still seen to be a likelihood that you could get a good job with a blue chip or government, work 40 hours a week, and retire at 60 with a good defined-benefit pension and a house paid off.
And you know he hadn't asked the coffee shop for work how, exactly? Even if he did ask, the majority of businesses will not employ someone who doesn't have any fixed abode. Even if he managed to get over that hurdle, then it takes time to go through the hiring process (not much good if you want to eat this week), and you might fail the drugs test. Assuming you get that far, then you might not be employed due to a criminal record. So it's a bit much to assume the person didn't want to work.
It is now believed that schizophrenia is a group of symptoms that may represent anything up to seven separate conditions.
Most homeless people have mental health issues.
It depends on what you mean by homeless. My wife has, at some points, met some definitions for homeless, in the sense of no fixed abode, and that was financial, in terms of deposits, and supply and demand (a need to wait until property is available). She was able to sofa surf on those occasions, but for those not able to access a friend's sofa, you can be in serious problems and risk being on the streets without any mental health issues, although being on the streets will probably give you some. My wife is definitely sane, and provably so.
For my part, after a relationship breakdown I found myself in a motel for a few weeks whilst I sorted out more permanent accommodation. Then, at a time of peak demand, it announced it had let the room I was renting to someone else, and that I had to move out. Finding another place locally was a pain. In other circumstances, had I not found somewhere, and not had friends, I might have spent a few nights in my car, which might have counted as very temporary homelessness.
Another common cause, for younger people at least, is being forced out due to an abusive situation, and then being too young or poor to rent, and then not knowing how to access, or being denied, other housing. You could argue that running away before having a clear plan isn't sensible, but sometimes circumstances don't make it easy.
By some definitions, sofa surfing is homeless, some count it as vulnerably housed. Some forms of having your own bed can be vulnerable (see above).
Its forum mentions statements being made in Manchester, which I took to mean Manchester UK, but it's hard to be sure.
It's a foreign company abroad, AFAIK, so a USA act may not be relevant, or at least hard to enforce.
Skirting, not skirting near, surely, as skirting already implies proximity?
Opinion doesn't necessarily meet the criterion of being potentially libellous, as you demonstrated. What you said doesn't even suggest anything negative. You could be saying "I hope company X goes out of business because they are a rival". If you said "In my opinion, all products by company X are terrible" it would be a bit more comparable.
That's not what the 1st Amendment means. If it did mean that, then there would be no libel laws as they'd have been struck down as unconstitutional over a century ago.
There are several potential scenarios. Demand might be 10 units at 10 credits/unit. Supply might be 10 units, being offered at 10 credits/unit, comprising 5 units at 1 credit production cost each, 5 at 6 each. If demand reduces to 10 units at 5 credits/unit because the market doesn't see value above 5 credits, then you end up with only 5 units of production. In reality, cost would rise, but if it doesn't rise to 10 credits/unit, you can end up with an industry that is starved of investment, and so that production rate cannot be kept up as resources at 1 and 5 credit cost per unit dwindles. It's a potentially complex system, so you can't assume that simplistic answers about price, or cost+ pricing hold other than maybe in the short term.
If economics was as easy as some (especially politicians) suggest, the LSE would have closed down decades ago, as it would all have been worked out :)
I don't even know what "cucked" means. But then I'm stupid, self-hating and intellectually dishonest, so I wouldn't.
You seem to be assuming that it will be traded on a cost+ basis.