Not to mention that job-sharing just doesn't work in many occupations. If my work week were limited to 20 hours, and another developer worked the other 20, we'd get a lot less work done overall than I do. It takes a long time to learn as much about the code base as I have, and software projects need continuity.
And that will result in a lot of them realizing that they are working 40 hours a week to get an income after taxes that is the same as (or less than) the free money everyone else is getting.
Let me explain this to you slowly.
Every adult gets the UBI. Every one. (Children are a separate discussion.) If the UBI is $15K/yr, then each adult gets at least $15K/year.
Now, suppose that Joe and/or Bob can work at a job that pays $15K/year. Joe takes the job, and Bob elects to stay on UBI. Now, Joe is getting $30K/year (UBI plus wages), and Bob is getting $15K/year. Even if Joe pays significant taxes on that $15K, Joe's got a lot more money than Bob.
There is a very important difference between a UBI and welfare, and it's encapsulated in the "U". People who don't earn a living get welfare, and if they do earn a living it goes away. If that $15K/year was welfare, then Joe and Bob would both get $15K/year. However, a UBI doesn't go away, so Joe keeps the extra money.
A UBI is therefore easy to administer, and eliminates whole classes of fraud. A lot of current programs would be replaced, in part or in whole, by a UBI, and so we're not talking about adding the entire UBI cost to government spending. It would be necessary to raise taxes to cover the rest, but that's doable.
The US manufactures a whole lot of stuff. The change is that it doesn't take nearly as many people to make the stuff, so manufacturing is a much smaller part of the employment market nowadays.
The definition of impeachable offense is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is quite vague, and could easily be read as "felonies and misdemeanors". The actual definition of "impeachable offense" is pretty much "whatever the House says it is". Espionage certainly qualifies as an impeachable offense.
So you think the Constitution is stupid? Trump is barred from receiving emoluments from foreign and domestic governments, and the reasons behind those bans are a lot sounder than the reasons for the Electoral College.
He's not going to be impeached and convicted. Most Republicans (over 80%) still support him. The Democrats could well win the House in 2018, but they can't do better than pick up a few Senate seats, because there aren't that many Republican ones up for grabs. They could get a majority in the Senate, but not any sort of supermajority. The House can impeach, but the Senate then needs a two-thirds vote to convict, and having a large number of Republican senators voting to convict would splinter and possibly destroy the Republican Party. Not going to happen.
He's not going to be Amendment 25ed out of office, since that would require a majority vote of the Cabinet, and many of them wouldn't have their jobs under a saner President.
He was in reasonably good health when inaugurated, but he's seventy, and has unhealthy habits, so he could die or be incapacitated pretty much at any time.
He could resign. He seems to have thought being President would be fun, and is finding that it really, really isn't. He'd need some face-saving excuse to resign, but if he can get one he might well resign and claim victory.
I don't think him leaving office by Thanksgiving is likely to happen.
Why that long? Seriously radioactive isotopes have half-lives considerably shorter than 100K years, meaning they'll be mostly gone before then. Isotopes with half-lives long enough to be mostly there after 100K years aren't that dangerous.
The big radioactive dangers after Fukushima were an isotope of iodine with a half-life less than nine days, and a cesium isotope with about a forty-year half-life. That iodine is, to an extremely high confidence level, completely gone by now. The cesium will go through 2500 half-lives in 100K years, which means it will be completely gone also. Radium is quite dangerous with a half-life of over 1600 years, and that's about 60 half-lives to get to 100K years. The only reason we have radium around in nature is that it's a decay product of long-lived uranium isotopes.
As I understand it, the operation is primarily to change genitals, which really aren't that visible. The visible changes are going to come with hormone therapy. I don't know when the trans women I knew got the surgery, or even if they did. Therefore, post-op vs. pre-op is not a useful way to distinguish men from women.
I assume we can agree that we want to avoid men entering the ladies' room, while preserving the right of everyone to use a public restroom for it's intended purpose.
Current situation: Person looking like a man walks into ladies' room. Much fuss, and he will be asked to leave (assuming he doesn't look too threatening - some women are intimidated by men).
Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a man walks into ladies' room. Much fuss, but when asked to leave he claims to be a transgender man and therefore legally required to use the ladies' room. This isn't legally cause for suspicion.
Current situation: Person looking like a woman walks into ladies' room, does what she came in for, no fuss.
Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a woman walks into ladies' room knowing it's illegal but not really enforceable, does what she came in for apprehensively, no fuss.
Current situation: Person looking like a woman doesn't want to go into men's room, because it's not safe there. Person looking like a woman doesn't.
Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a woman feels legally compelled to go into men's room, where it's dangerous. There's a lot of man-on-trans-woman attacks happening, and we don't want to encourage it.
Current situation with strict enforcement: guards identify people as men or women based on the normal superficial attributes we use, no problem.
Situation with stupid law in place with strict enforcement: guards have to check genitalia at best; at worst, nobody without a certified copy of their birth certificate gets to take a leak.
A law like this means that a transgender man is required to use the ladies' room. This means that you can't exclude people from the ladies' room because they're big and muscular and bearded and wear men's clothing. In other words, if I wanted to go into the ladies' room to commit sexual assault, I could claim to be transgender and walk in, and nobody could legally stop me. It looks to me like it makes things more dangerous in the ladies' rooms.
Gun laws have nothing to do with the right of the people to resist their government from tyrannical overreach either. That was the original idea, but there's no way a bunch of civilians with guns are going to effectively resist government troops. The best they're going to do is make areas close to ungovernable and thoroughly uncivilized.
Isn't this an inversion of the burden of proof? We're talking about limiting people's ability to do what is safe, natural, and non-disruptive. Shouldn't the people who want the ban justify it?
A law forcing a transgender female into a men's room is going to result in a lot more assaults. It's dangerous in there. A law forcing transgender men into women's rooms is going to cause a lot of protest when a guy walks into a ladies' room.
Moreover, how do you enforce it? You want to be able to remove the potential threats preemptively, which means you need some way to determine on sight which rest room each individual person belongs in. You can't demand any sort of search, not even a pants content check. You can't keep people who don't have their papers on them from using the toilet.
You can't enforce the law until the perp does something bad, so it really doesn't make things any safer.
The Cato Institute is biased itself. It may be a good place to learn about conservatives and libertarians, but I'd really doubt its take on liberalism. Even if they try, it's hard to deep down understand points of view you don't share.
To add to your J.S.Mill quote, frequently you will see ideas dismissed because they are socialist, or racist, or any reason other than that they are wrong In many cases, these ideas, on examination, are wrong. However, if you want to ferret out inconvenient truths and try to get away from society groupthink, look for ideas rejected on bogus grounds.
The MSM does not lie on purely factual matters all that often, in my experience. They do run misleading headlines, misrepresent things, and repeat lies from sources that sound authoritative, which is not quite the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Solar panels and electric cars are now a lot more advanced and popular than they used to be. It doesn't look like that tech stopped at all.
Not to mention that job-sharing just doesn't work in many occupations. If my work week were limited to 20 hours, and another developer worked the other 20, we'd get a lot less work done overall than I do. It takes a long time to learn as much about the code base as I have, and software projects need continuity.
Let me explain this to you slowly.
Every adult gets the UBI. Every one. (Children are a separate discussion.) If the UBI is $15K/yr, then each adult gets at least $15K/year.
Now, suppose that Joe and/or Bob can work at a job that pays $15K/year. Joe takes the job, and Bob elects to stay on UBI. Now, Joe is getting $30K/year (UBI plus wages), and Bob is getting $15K/year. Even if Joe pays significant taxes on that $15K, Joe's got a lot more money than Bob.
There is a very important difference between a UBI and welfare, and it's encapsulated in the "U". People who don't earn a living get welfare, and if they do earn a living it goes away. If that $15K/year was welfare, then Joe and Bob would both get $15K/year. However, a UBI doesn't go away, so Joe keeps the extra money.
A UBI is therefore easy to administer, and eliminates whole classes of fraud. A lot of current programs would be replaced, in part or in whole, by a UBI, and so we're not talking about adding the entire UBI cost to government spending. It would be necessary to raise taxes to cover the rest, but that's doable.
In this case, pro-fossil-fuel is pro-Russia. Russia does not want to see more renewable energy in Europe.
Yeah. Usually he flips the bird to his base with some payoff.
The US manufactures a whole lot of stuff. The change is that it doesn't take nearly as many people to make the stuff, so manufacturing is a much smaller part of the employment market nowadays.
Liberals are not typically fans of Soviet-style planned economics. I don't know anybody who is.
The definition of impeachable offense is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is quite vague, and could easily be read as "felonies and misdemeanors". The actual definition of "impeachable offense" is pretty much "whatever the House says it is". Espionage certainly qualifies as an impeachable offense.
For starters, I suspect him of accepting money unconstitutionally. I don't have hard evidence, but I'd say it's well worth investigating.
So you think the Constitution is stupid? Trump is barred from receiving emoluments from foreign and domestic governments, and the reasons behind those bans are a lot sounder than the reasons for the Electoral College.
He's not going to be impeached and convicted. Most Republicans (over 80%) still support him. The Democrats could well win the House in 2018, but they can't do better than pick up a few Senate seats, because there aren't that many Republican ones up for grabs. They could get a majority in the Senate, but not any sort of supermajority. The House can impeach, but the Senate then needs a two-thirds vote to convict, and having a large number of Republican senators voting to convict would splinter and possibly destroy the Republican Party. Not going to happen.
He's not going to be Amendment 25ed out of office, since that would require a majority vote of the Cabinet, and many of them wouldn't have their jobs under a saner President.
He was in reasonably good health when inaugurated, but he's seventy, and has unhealthy habits, so he could die or be incapacitated pretty much at any time.
He could resign. He seems to have thought being President would be fun, and is finding that it really, really isn't. He'd need some face-saving excuse to resign, but if he can get one he might well resign and claim victory.
I don't think him leaving office by Thanksgiving is likely to happen.
Why that long? Seriously radioactive isotopes have half-lives considerably shorter than 100K years, meaning they'll be mostly gone before then. Isotopes with half-lives long enough to be mostly there after 100K years aren't that dangerous.
The big radioactive dangers after Fukushima were an isotope of iodine with a half-life less than nine days, and a cesium isotope with about a forty-year half-life. That iodine is, to an extremely high confidence level, completely gone by now. The cesium will go through 2500 half-lives in 100K years, which means it will be completely gone also. Radium is quite dangerous with a half-life of over 1600 years, and that's about 60 half-lives to get to 100K years. The only reason we have radium around in nature is that it's a decay product of long-lived uranium isotopes.
As I understand it, the operation is primarily to change genitals, which really aren't that visible. The visible changes are going to come with hormone therapy. I don't know when the trans women I knew got the surgery, or even if they did. Therefore, post-op vs. pre-op is not a useful way to distinguish men from women.
Except that this gets transgender women in real trouble, because men are not all as virtuous as you portray them.
Using a rest room is special treatment? I'd think forcing people into rest rooms they clearly don't belong in is special treatment.
So, if you can't change major things, you're a hypocrite if you try to change minor things?
So try using it sometime.
I assume we can agree that we want to avoid men entering the ladies' room, while preserving the right of everyone to use a public restroom for it's intended purpose.
Current situation: Person looking like a man walks into ladies' room. Much fuss, and he will be asked to leave (assuming he doesn't look too threatening - some women are intimidated by men).
Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a man walks into ladies' room. Much fuss, but when asked to leave he claims to be a transgender man and therefore legally required to use the ladies' room. This isn't legally cause for suspicion.
Current situation: Person looking like a woman walks into ladies' room, does what she came in for, no fuss.
Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a woman walks into ladies' room knowing it's illegal but not really enforceable, does what she came in for apprehensively, no fuss.
Current situation: Person looking like a woman doesn't want to go into men's room, because it's not safe there. Person looking like a woman doesn't.
Situation with stupid law in place: Person looking like a woman feels legally compelled to go into men's room, where it's dangerous. There's a lot of man-on-trans-woman attacks happening, and we don't want to encourage it.
Current situation with strict enforcement: guards identify people as men or women based on the normal superficial attributes we use, no problem.
Situation with stupid law in place with strict enforcement: guards have to check genitalia at best; at worst, nobody without a certified copy of their birth certificate gets to take a leak.
A law like this means that a transgender man is required to use the ladies' room. This means that you can't exclude people from the ladies' room because they're big and muscular and bearded and wear men's clothing. In other words, if I wanted to go into the ladies' room to commit sexual assault, I could claim to be transgender and walk in, and nobody could legally stop me. It looks to me like it makes things more dangerous in the ladies' rooms.
Gun laws have nothing to do with the right of the people to resist their government from tyrannical overreach either. That was the original idea, but there's no way a bunch of civilians with guns are going to effectively resist government troops. The best they're going to do is make areas close to ungovernable and thoroughly uncivilized.
I thought it was Republicans who wanted to pass a law determining who can be in what bathroom. I haven't seen Democrats pushing for such laws.
Isn't this an inversion of the burden of proof? We're talking about limiting people's ability to do what is safe, natural, and non-disruptive. Shouldn't the people who want the ban justify it?
A law forcing a transgender female into a men's room is going to result in a lot more assaults. It's dangerous in there. A law forcing transgender men into women's rooms is going to cause a lot of protest when a guy walks into a ladies' room.
Moreover, how do you enforce it? You want to be able to remove the potential threats preemptively, which means you need some way to determine on sight which rest room each individual person belongs in. You can't demand any sort of search, not even a pants content check. You can't keep people who don't have their papers on them from using the toilet.
You can't enforce the law until the perp does something bad, so it really doesn't make things any safer.
The Cato Institute is biased itself. It may be a good place to learn about conservatives and libertarians, but I'd really doubt its take on liberalism. Even if they try, it's hard to deep down understand points of view you don't share.
To add to your J.S.Mill quote, frequently you will see ideas dismissed because they are socialist, or racist, or any reason other than that they are wrong In many cases, these ideas, on examination, are wrong. However, if you want to ferret out inconvenient truths and try to get away from society groupthink, look for ideas rejected on bogus grounds.
The MSM does not lie on purely factual matters all that often, in my experience. They do run misleading headlines, misrepresent things, and repeat lies from sources that sound authoritative, which is not quite the same thing.