After all, you chose my message pointing out that non-American public healthcare was cheaper and better.
Yup, and I pointed out (a) the inherent logical fallacy in your message -- that a country's population living longer doesn't in and of itself mean their healthcare system is better; (b) the U.S. not having a cost-capped single-payer system contributes to the very cost differential you're sneering about, and changing that would either raise expenses or lower outcomes in the other free-rider countries; and (c) that one way you could go about starting to figure out whether your proposition is actually true is to compare outcomes from the same population across both public and private healthcare systems, as a number of studies have actually done.
This has all been crystal-clear throughout my posts, and you responded to each and every one of them (however poorly) without once suggesting that you were being roped into talking about something you didn't want to talk about. It's thus clear that you're now simply out of moves and are once again trying to distract from that fact.
The last word is yours -- I'm done putting the rattle back on the high chair.
Disney and the other 5 corporations, will collude with the telecoms to use cabal powers to cut off Netflix, raise it's internet costs to bankruptcy rates and divide the business amongst themselves using anti-competitive collusion to inflate prices and reduce access. This same model to be used to target and eliminate self publishers, either pay corporations a 30% content tax or be finnacially excluded from the internet.
Dude, it's like the apocalypse with the four horsemen and the mark of the beast. Just with an extra horseman. Or something.
WSJ reports that movie attendance has dropped by 5%, compared with the same period in 2016, and revenues are down, too, dipping just 2.9%, thanks to higher ticket prices making up for the lack of ticket sales.
Or, the movie theaters jacked the prices (again) and attendance dropped (again).
This need have nothing to do with a sudden change in the quality of the content. It sucked last year; it sucks this year. But every time they raise prices, they increase the likelihood that the population that doesn't otherwise care how much the content sucks is still going to go find something else cheaper to do.
Annnnnnd that confirms they're not even slightly relevant when the discussion is EU vs. US.
Now it's clear you're just trolling. Here's my original question from the top of this thread: "Did you have a study or two actually comparing the outcomes of public vs. private healthcare systems on subsets of a given country's population you meant to cite to but forgot, or are you just reciting comfortable memes?" You can try to distract all you like, but the studies I cited are directly on point with that question. It's unfortunate they give an answer you don't like, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
You see, I did read the abstracts as well.
That's simply not credible. Had you actually read the abstracts before, you would have declared the studies irrelevant based on their actual contents, not simply their titles.
Wow, your mad debating skills continue to blow me away: "I don't have subscriptions to the actual journals, so I'm just going to say the studies are irrelevant based on their titles."
If you had the slightest shred of intellectual curiosity, you'd quickly discover that the full text is freely available for all but the first paper, and abstracts are free available for all of them. I'll even do one for you to get you started:
Omar Hasan, E. John Orav, and LeRoi Hicks, “Insurance Status and Hospital Care for Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Pneumonia,” Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8 (2010), pp. 452–459.
Abstract available here. Full-text PDF available here.
Those were the first two hits from Googling the title. Pretty amazing stuff.
There's a discrepancy there, and it needs to be explained.
As I said before, I think one significant factor is the very thing people are griping about: by being one of the few countries that doesn't have a single-payer system with the attendant cost caps, the U.S. is effectively subsidizing medicine for the rest of the world. If the U.S. followed the pack, something in the current system would have to give: less shiny new technology, less new drugs, etc., or other nations would have to pay more for their current level of care. There is no free lunch.
Another significant difference I see between the U.S. and most other longer-lifespan countries is the heterogeneous population. In other words, the life expectancy of our melting pot tends toward the mean compared to the relatively homogenous populations in the longest-lived countries (e.g,. Japan, much of the EU, Israel, etc.) I think it would be interesting to formally plot this out given some reasonable way to quantify the homogeneity of a population.
Free tip: pounding the table and putting words in my mouth just makes you look even weaker.
The actual studies (as opposed to journalistic handwaving and/or OECD chest-thumping exercises) out there that have actually tried to look at the real underlying question (the one I posed to you) have generally reached the opposite conclusion: that for a given population, people with public health coverage fare worse than those with private coverage. See, e.g.:
1. Peltzman, Sam. "Socialized medicine and mortality." International journal of health care finance and economics 14.3 (2014): 179-205.
2. Omar Hasan, E. John Orav, and LeRoi Hicks, “Insurance Status and Hospital Care for Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Pneumonia,” Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8 (2010), pp. 452–459.
3. K. McDavid, T. Tucker, A. Sloggett, and M. P. Coleman, “Cancer Survival in Kentucky and Health Insurance Coverage,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 163 (2003), pp. 2135–2144.
4. C. J. Bradley, C. W. Given, and C. Roberts, “Disparities in Cancer Diagnosis and Survival,” Cancer, Vol. 91 (2001), pp. 178–188.
5. R. G. Roetzheim, Pal Nazneen, E. C. Gonzalez, J. M. Ferrante, N. Pal, D. J. Van Durme, and J. P. Kricher, “Effects of Health Insurance and Race on Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Outcomes,” American Journal of Public Health, 90 (2000), pp. 1746–1754.
6. R. G. Roetzheim, E. C. Gonzalez, J. M. Ferrante, N. Pal, D. J. Van Durme, and J. P. Kricher, “Effects of Health Insurance and Race on Breast Carcinoma Treatments and Outcomes,” Cancer, Vol. 89 (2000), pp. 2202–2213.
Now THERE'S some spoon feeding for you.
(In a conversation like this, I would typically also bring up the issue that by NOT having single-payer healthcare and forced pricing structures, the U.S. effectively subsidizes those nations that do, and that in the absence of the current U.S. pricing structure either (1) costs in other countries would go up, or (2) treatment options, new drugs, etc., would go down across the board. But I'm sensing that might be a bit too deep of a conversation for you since it would require actually thinking about the issues rather than haughtily pasting first-page Google hits on tangential points.)
Please try to focus a bit more carefully on my question: "a study or two actually comparing the outcomes of public vs. private healthcare systems on subsets of a given country's population."
Simply saying that one country's average lifespan is longer does nothing to eliminate a raft of confounding factors related to that population itself that have nothing to do with the healthcare system.
Your Forbes puff piece doesn't even pretend to try to deal with that problem.
why is it that it costs half as much as American healthcare and achieves better results?
Did you have a study or two actually comparing the outcomes of public vs. private healthcare systems on subsets of a given country's population you meant to cite to but forgot, or are you just reciting comfortable memes?
Looking back, it's now easier to believe you actually didn't notice. Looks like it just started on July 31 (here), for no apparent reason. In any event, now you see why so many people thought you were sock-puppeting lately.
Score 1 is the default for logged in users, and +1 for high karma.
Which, as I'm sure you're well aware, does not apply to you. Take your own advice and click on the score of one of your own posts, which shows a starting score of 2, and +1 for high karma. Compare that to my last post, which (as with all other logged in users I've checked) shows a starting score of 1, and +1 for high karma.
Ah, so the reason you're able to be such a comparative loudmouth around here with your socialist drivel is that you get elite posting privileges that cause your comments to immediately rise above those from the rest of the commoners? The irony.
Can you link to a post you think has received sock-puppet mods and explain why you think those mods are not genuine?
It's much easier just to link to your profile, Paul -- most of your posts (including the last eight you posted over the last few hours) are almost immediately modded up by exactly one point. And that's clearly not due to some sort of super-secret-lower-UID-extra posting bonus, since every few days you have a block of posts where your "baseline" natural score is 1 just like everyone else. I suspect that's more than enough circumstantial evidence for most of us.
News flash, EVERYTHING can be targeted by terrorists
News flash: the value of a target increases proportionally to its footprint. There absolutely should be a much higher level of risk assessment for a 1,000 mile long cable that provides power to much of a country than for a local power station in that country, a fire hydrant on the street, etc. This is pretty easy stuff unless you're deliberately trying to be obtuse.
Opinion, not assertion of fact. This lawsuit will be thrown out almost immediately.
I wouldn't bet on it. Paragraph 37 of the complaint cites this Supreme Court case that clearly explains that wrapping the words "in my opinion" around language that's otherwise libelous doesn't save you:
“If a speaker says, ‘In my opinion John Jones is a liar,’ he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'in my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.'" Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1, 18 (1990).
What he said is "It is my strong opinion..." which I think stops what he says from being libel.
It depends on what follows the word "opinion." The complaint specifically addresses this in paragraph 37 -- I've included a bit more of the text from the Supreme Court case it cites since it directly speaks to your point:
“If a speaker says, ‘In my opinion John Jones is a liar,’ he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'in my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.' Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1, 18 (1990)."
Keep in mind that when you retire your income stops but your investments will continue to compound. Back of the envelope, you'd have to invest around 3x more on the front end to beat a 2% drop in your portfolio's CAGR. So if you're already maxing out your 401(k), you'd have to make in the neighborhood of $50k more to keep your retirement income the same (and just to end up with exactly the same take-home as you have today). Salaries are highly unlikely to move even close to that much across the entire market even if we shut down the entire H-1B program tomorrow.
On the other hand, if you're making a decent profit and just want more---get fucked. Public policy doesn't need to hand out special benefits to successful businesses. Right now, the middle class needs a little more help than the shareholders.
If you have a retirement account, you're very likely one of those shareholders. You're cool with getting a lower rate of return than you currently do, right?
Who, actually, gets harmed. . . . the publishers are already horrendously bloated and fattened on the continual streams of micropayments.
Wow -- way to rationalize. There are an awful lot of people in the world who make a lot less money than you do. I take it you wouldn't have a problem with them helping themselves to some of yours since, in their eyes, you have way more than you need?
You're right -- it's not "burning cash." Both the headline and summary clearly say "burning through cash," which is a well-knownidiom for spending lots of money quickly.
Your straw man has certainly generated a vigorous discussion, though. Well done.
And I love how every single one of your past dozen or so comments was immediately modded up (and how, equally mysteriously, my reply was immediately modded down). The fact that you're resorting to sock puppet accounts to amplify your voice just further proves you don't have anything cogent to say.
It is the amount someone needs to earn to live comfortably while supporting a modest family in a modest home with healthcare, a pension and some savings for emergencies.
Ah, the European socialist stops by once again to weigh in about how we should run things in the U.S. It's hard to know where to start with this.
First and foremost, you appear to be saying all of that has to be achievable by a single income from a single person in said modest family. That's so detached from reality it's hard to think you expect to be taken seriously.
Second, your definition says nothing about where the "modest home" is located. As I've said, it's simply not reasonable for someone to say "I choose to live here, now pay me what it costs me to live here."
Third, there are enough squishy terms in your definition ("comfortable" "modest" and "some") that you can continue to move the goalposts no matter what you make, which was exactly my original point.
As we should all know, having been through the dot-com boom, stock is not a substitute for wages.
Everyone is free to choose where they want to operate on the risk/reward curve. The answer is for people who want a guaranteed (and perhaps slightly higher short-term) income to work somewhere else, not force all employers to pay all employees in lockstep.
You obviously have no clue how expensive Alameda County is to live in. Where else are you going to find borderline condemn-able victorians selling for $1.5+M.
And you're obviously just another ill-informed whiner. There are plenty of active listings in the $100k range right here. And if you start crying that they're not Victorian mansions, you'll simply prove my point that people find their incomes inadequate simply because they want to live outside them.
It's always laughable to see someone talk about it being responsibility rather than where they live.
See above. Where you choose to live is part of being responsible and living within your means, Mr(s). Anonymous Coward.
What really boggles the mind in this case is that the seized property wasn't returned pending the appeal
Keeping the materials is the only way to guarantee they'll still exist if the appellate court reverses the trial court and holds the search warrant was proper.
The minimum wage activists tell us that anything below $15/hr is not a "living wage."
Now we learn that people who already make a good deal more than that still declare it to be far below a "living wage."
This cycle quickly gets old to those of us who choose to live within our means rather than to constantly whine and try to bully our way into a higher income.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, you chose my message pointing out that non-American public healthcare was cheaper and better.
Yup, and I pointed out (a) the inherent logical fallacy in your message -- that a country's population living longer doesn't in and of itself mean their healthcare system is better; (b) the U.S. not having a cost-capped single-payer system contributes to the very cost differential you're sneering about, and changing that would either raise expenses or lower outcomes in the other free-rider countries; and (c) that one way you could go about starting to figure out whether your proposition is actually true is to compare outcomes from the same population across both public and private healthcare systems, as a number of studies have actually done.
This has all been crystal-clear throughout my posts, and you responded to each and every one of them (however poorly) without once suggesting that you were being roped into talking about something you didn't want to talk about. It's thus clear that you're now simply out of moves and are once again trying to distract from that fact.
The last word is yours -- I'm done putting the rattle back on the high chair.
Disney and the other 5 corporations, will collude with the telecoms to use cabal powers to cut off Netflix, raise it's internet costs to bankruptcy rates and divide the business amongst themselves using anti-competitive collusion to inflate prices and reduce access. This same model to be used to target and eliminate self publishers, either pay corporations a 30% content tax or be finnacially excluded from the internet.
Dude, it's like the apocalypse with the four horsemen and the mark of the beast. Just with an extra horseman. Or something.
WSJ reports that movie attendance has dropped by 5%, compared with the same period in 2016, and revenues are down, too, dipping just 2.9%, thanks to higher ticket prices making up for the lack of ticket sales.
Or, the movie theaters jacked the prices (again) and attendance dropped (again).
This need have nothing to do with a sudden change in the quality of the content. It sucked last year; it sucks this year. But every time they raise prices, they increase the likelihood that the population that doesn't otherwise care how much the content sucks is still going to go find something else cheaper to do.
Annnnnnd that confirms they're not even slightly relevant when the discussion is EU vs. US.
Now it's clear you're just trolling. Here's my original question from the top of this thread: "Did you have a study or two actually comparing the outcomes of public vs. private healthcare systems on subsets of a given country's population you meant to cite to but forgot, or are you just reciting comfortable memes?" You can try to distract all you like, but the studies I cited are directly on point with that question. It's unfortunate they give an answer you don't like, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
You see, I did read the abstracts as well.
That's simply not credible. Had you actually read the abstracts before, you would have declared the studies irrelevant based on their actual contents, not simply their titles.
Wow, your mad debating skills continue to blow me away: "I don't have subscriptions to the actual journals, so I'm just going to say the studies are irrelevant based on their titles."
If you had the slightest shred of intellectual curiosity, you'd quickly discover that the full text is freely available for all but the first paper, and abstracts are free available for all of them. I'll even do one for you to get you started:
Omar Hasan, E. John Orav, and LeRoi Hicks, “Insurance Status and Hospital Care for Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Pneumonia,” Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8 (2010), pp. 452–459.
Abstract available here.
Full-text PDF available here.
Those were the first two hits from Googling the title. Pretty amazing stuff.
Happy reading.
There's a discrepancy there, and it needs to be explained.
As I said before, I think one significant factor is the very thing people are griping about: by being one of the few countries that doesn't have a single-payer system with the attendant cost caps, the U.S. is effectively subsidizing medicine for the rest of the world. If the U.S. followed the pack, something in the current system would have to give: less shiny new technology, less new drugs, etc., or other nations would have to pay more for their current level of care. There is no free lunch.
Another significant difference I see between the U.S. and most other longer-lifespan countries is the heterogeneous population. In other words, the life expectancy of our melting pot tends toward the mean compared to the relatively homogenous populations in the longest-lived countries (e.g,. Japan, much of the EU, Israel, etc.) I think it would be interesting to formally plot this out given some reasonable way to quantify the homogeneity of a population.
Free tip: pounding the table and putting words in my mouth just makes you look even weaker.
The actual studies (as opposed to journalistic handwaving and/or OECD chest-thumping exercises) out there that have actually tried to look at the real underlying question (the one I posed to you) have generally reached the opposite conclusion: that for a given population, people with public health coverage fare worse than those with private coverage. See, e.g.:
1. Peltzman, Sam. "Socialized medicine and mortality." International journal of health care finance and economics 14.3 (2014): 179-205.
2. Omar Hasan, E. John Orav, and LeRoi Hicks, “Insurance Status and Hospital Care for Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Pneumonia,” Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8 (2010), pp. 452–459.
3. K. McDavid, T. Tucker, A. Sloggett, and M. P. Coleman, “Cancer Survival in Kentucky and Health Insurance Coverage,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 163 (2003), pp. 2135–2144.
4. C. J. Bradley, C. W. Given, and C. Roberts, “Disparities in Cancer Diagnosis and Survival,” Cancer, Vol. 91 (2001), pp. 178–188.
5. R. G. Roetzheim, Pal Nazneen, E. C. Gonzalez, J. M. Ferrante, N. Pal, D. J. Van Durme, and J. P. Kricher, “Effects of Health Insurance and Race on Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Outcomes,” American Journal of Public Health, 90 (2000), pp. 1746–1754.
6. R. G. Roetzheim, E. C. Gonzalez, J. M. Ferrante, N. Pal, D. J. Van Durme, and J. P. Kricher, “Effects of Health Insurance and Race on Breast Carcinoma Treatments and Outcomes,” Cancer, Vol. 89 (2000), pp. 2202–2213.
Now THERE'S some spoon feeding for you.
(In a conversation like this, I would typically also bring up the issue that by NOT having single-payer healthcare and forced pricing structures, the U.S. effectively subsidizes those nations that do, and that in the absence of the current U.S. pricing structure either (1) costs in other countries would go up, or (2) treatment options, new drugs, etc., would go down across the board. But I'm sensing that might be a bit too deep of a conversation for you since it would require actually thinking about the issues rather than haughtily pasting first-page Google hits on tangential points.)
Please try to focus a bit more carefully on my question: "a study or two actually comparing the outcomes of public vs. private healthcare systems on subsets of a given country's population. "
Simply saying that one country's average lifespan is longer does nothing to eliminate a raft of confounding factors related to that population itself that have nothing to do with the healthcare system.
Your Forbes puff piece doesn't even pretend to try to deal with that problem.
Try again.
why is it that it costs half as much as American healthcare and achieves better results?
Did you have a study or two actually comparing the outcomes of public vs. private healthcare systems on subsets of a given country's population you meant to cite to but forgot, or are you just reciting comfortable memes?
Looking back, it's now easier to believe you actually didn't notice. Looks like it just started on July 31 (here), for no apparent reason. In any event, now you see why so many people thought you were sock-puppeting lately.
Score 1 is the default for logged in users, and +1 for high karma.
Which, as I'm sure you're well aware, does not apply to you. Take your own advice and click on the score of one of your own posts, which shows a starting score of 2, and +1 for high karma. Compare that to my last post, which (as with all other logged in users I've checked) shows a starting score of 1, and +1 for high karma.
Ah, so the reason you're able to be such a comparative loudmouth around here with your socialist drivel is that you get elite posting privileges that cause your comments to immediately rise above those from the rest of the commoners? The irony.
Can you link to a post you think has received sock-puppet mods and explain why you think those mods are not genuine?
It's much easier just to link to your profile, Paul -- most of your posts (including the last eight you posted over the last few hours) are almost immediately modded up by exactly one point. And that's clearly not due to some sort of super-secret-lower-UID-extra posting bonus, since every few days you have a block of posts where your "baseline" natural score is 1 just like everyone else. I suspect that's more than enough circumstantial evidence for most of us.
News flash, EVERYTHING can be targeted by terrorists
News flash: the value of a target increases proportionally to its footprint. There absolutely should be a much higher level of risk assessment for a 1,000 mile long cable that provides power to much of a country than for a local power station in that country, a fire hydrant on the street, etc. This is pretty easy stuff unless you're deliberately trying to be obtuse.
Opinion, not assertion of fact. This lawsuit will be thrown out almost immediately.
I wouldn't bet on it. Paragraph 37 of the complaint cites this Supreme Court case that clearly explains that wrapping the words "in my opinion" around language that's otherwise libelous doesn't save you:
“If a speaker says, ‘In my opinion John Jones is a liar,’ he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'in my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.' " Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1, 18 (1990).
What he said is "It is my strong opinion..." which I think stops what he says from being libel.
It depends on what follows the word "opinion." The complaint specifically addresses this in paragraph 37 -- I've included a bit more of the text from the Supreme Court case it cites since it directly speaks to your point:
“If a speaker says, ‘In my opinion John Jones is a liar,’ he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'in my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.' Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1, 18 (1990)."
Keep in mind that when you retire your income stops but your investments will continue to compound. Back of the envelope, you'd have to invest around 3x more on the front end to beat a 2% drop in your portfolio's CAGR. So if you're already maxing out your 401(k), you'd have to make in the neighborhood of $50k more to keep your retirement income the same (and just to end up with exactly the same take-home as you have today). Salaries are highly unlikely to move even close to that much across the entire market even if we shut down the entire H-1B program tomorrow.
On the other hand, if you're making a decent profit and just want more---get fucked. Public policy doesn't need to hand out special benefits to successful businesses. Right now, the middle class needs a little more help than the shareholders.
If you have a retirement account, you're very likely one of those shareholders. You're cool with getting a lower rate of return than you currently do, right?
Who, actually, gets harmed. . . . the publishers are already horrendously bloated and fattened on the continual streams of micropayments.
Wow -- way to rationalize. There are an awful lot of people in the world who make a lot less money than you do. I take it you wouldn't have a problem with them helping themselves to some of yours since, in their eyes, you have way more than you need?
You're right -- it's not "burning cash." Both the headline and summary clearly say "burning through cash," which is a well-known idiom for spending lots of money quickly.
Your straw man has certainly generated a vigorous discussion, though. Well done.
And I love how every single one of your past dozen or so comments was immediately modded up (and how, equally mysteriously, my reply was immediately modded down). The fact that you're resorting to sock puppet accounts to amplify your voice just further proves you don't have anything cogent to say.
It is the amount someone needs to earn to live comfortably while supporting a modest family in a modest home with healthcare, a pension and some savings for emergencies.
Ah, the European socialist stops by once again to weigh in about how we should run things in the U.S. It's hard to know where to start with this.
First and foremost, you appear to be saying all of that has to be achievable by a single income from a single person in said modest family. That's so detached from reality it's hard to think you expect to be taken seriously.
Second, your definition says nothing about where the "modest home" is located. As I've said, it's simply not reasonable for someone to say "I choose to live here, now pay me what it costs me to live here."
Third, there are enough squishy terms in your definition ("comfortable" "modest" and "some") that you can continue to move the goalposts no matter what you make, which was exactly my original point.
As we should all know, having been through the dot-com boom, stock is not a substitute for wages.
Everyone is free to choose where they want to operate on the risk/reward curve. The answer is for people who want a guaranteed (and perhaps slightly higher short-term) income to work somewhere else, not force all employers to pay all employees in lockstep.
You obviously have no clue how expensive Alameda County is to live in. Where else are you going to find borderline condemn-able victorians selling for $1.5+M.
And you're obviously just another ill-informed whiner. There are plenty of active listings in the $100k range right here. And if you start crying that they're not Victorian mansions, you'll simply prove my point that people find their incomes inadequate simply because they want to live outside them.
It's always laughable to see someone talk about it being responsibility rather than where they live.
See above. Where you choose to live is part of being responsible and living within your means, Mr(s). Anonymous Coward.
What really boggles the mind in this case is that the seized property wasn't returned pending the appeal
Keeping the materials is the only way to guarantee they'll still exist if the appellate court reverses the trial court and holds the search warrant was proper.
The minimum wage activists tell us that anything below $15/hr is not a "living wage."
Now we learn that people who already make a good deal more than that still declare it to be far below a "living wage."
This cycle quickly gets old to those of us who choose to live within our means rather than to constantly whine and try to bully our way into a higher income.