Congratulations, you have now created a wealth redistribution system that taxes the poor to pay rich people to buy luxury cars.
You do understand that's the system that we have now, right? Electric cars - which are expensive toys for the upper middle class and upper classes - are highly subsidized in every way, including a direct rebate to buyers that comes out of tax revenue. So poor people are paying taxes that goes directly in the pocket of wealthier people.
No offense intended, but you do realize you look like an idiot when you're still pushing the "Russians haxored the 2016 election to make Trump win" thing at this point, right?
The best way to make everybody else better off is to make yourself better off. This isn't a zero sum game - if you make a dollar it doesn't mean someone else didn't make a dollar. When you thrive you use your money to buy services from other people, helping them make a living. There's no shame in that.
Yep, this was a *really* important issue for Obama. So much so that he waited until the last year of his presidency to take care of it. And, he didn't really take care of it, anyway. The "reforms" that he did affected only a few percent of the forfeitures out there. At least he did something, I suppose. (golf clap)
What the hell are you talking about? The federal government (headed by President Trump) is doing everything they can in Puerto Rico right now, and people there are mostly praising the efforts. But the fact is that the devastation is so widespread that it'll take years to clean it up. There's no indication that Trump is doing any less there than other places, and he's certainly not "dragging his feet".
First thing to bear in mind, banning all combustion-engine-powered cars would be an absolute nonstarter. There are a number of groups that would absolutely band-together to lobby against it, even if those groups that may not normally have a lot to do with each other
California is run by Democrats, so the way it would work is that these groups would give "campaign contributions" and end up being exempted from the rules. Rich people would still have their fun gasoline powered cars, the middle class would pay even more to get an electric car, and poor people would get yet another dick up their already crowed ass.
Yeah, nobody's paying attention to President Trump <eyeroll>
He just tricked half the NFL players into embarrassing themselves last weekend - the guy's a fucking genius at manipulating left-wingers. They're not only paying attention, they're dancing to his tune.
And yet the problem was not being taken seriously by politicians and employers
Why should politicians and employers be involved? Because you're a bunch of kids who need daddy to tell you what to do?
Electric lights, television and computer screens, longer commutes, the blurring of the line between work and personal time, and a host of other aspects of modern life have contributed to sleep deprivation
Yeah, anything but personal choice to do more stuff and sleep less, then make it up by taking stimulants.
My wife and I go to bed at a reasonable time each night (10PM) and get up at 6AM, no need for an alarm clock. Yes, it takes discipline.
Scott Walker doesn't want pay teachers a living wage
The average teacher salary in Wisconsin is $53k. That is above the average salary/wage for Wisconsin, and certainly enough to live on.
Not only that, during all that bullshit it was revealed that some teachers were making $125,000/year with benefits. That's two and a half times that national average household income. Two teachers married to each other at that pay grade would be called "rich" by most Democrat voters if they had a job other than "teacher".
The main thing Walker and the legislature did was modify the law so that the state is no longer forced to collect union dues for the union, meaning union dues are now voluntary. Surely with the unions being so popular and great for the teachers they all still pay the dues - a large part of which is summarily transferred to the Democrat party - right?
The workers are doing just as well after this legislation as before it. The pushback came because the Democrats get a lot of money from unions, and without forced union membership most people don't want to join a union (surprise) and the Democrats get significantly less revenue. Oh well. Guess it's back to honest fundraising.
You're essentially trading advancement opportunity and part of your pay for security of a job. State laws, especially in CA, cover the vast majority of why Unions used to need to exist; now it's more about the bottom finding a way closer to the middle by forcing others there as well.
Actually, to be blunt, what unions are about nowadays is simply existing as a business. They expand by finding new revenue streams, which are workers. So they find people that might not be happy with their work and convince them to joint he union to make things better. Then the union gets recurring revenue.
I have no problems with unions, but if these folks want to unionize they should join together and do so. No need to send a big part of your check to the AFL-CIO or whoever each month.
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is exactly how unemployment benefits work, at least how they did in NJ a few years ago...
I lost my job, drew an unemployment check of, let's say, $350/week. When I was approved to receive benefits I had 26x weeks of $350/week payments in my 'account' - every check drew down my account, and benefits ran out when the 'account' was depleted.
I found part-time work. With part-time work I had a new, increased, weekly benefit, call it $450/week. My part-time job paid me $250/week, and that was subtracted from my new weekly benefit, so that in addition to my $250/week paycheck I also received a $200 unemployment check, so my weekly income became $450/week.
I believe this approach is pretty common across the states. By drawing down less money each week, my benefits lasted longer than 26x weeks.
I believe in most states unemployment is all or nothing. I applaud the above approach, this is exactly what needs to happen - get a job and get more money. Unfortunately, though, unemployment benefits are only a small part of "welfare". I believe the federal stuff all has hard cliffs.
Yeah, but will those other bricks be as stylish as the Apple power brick? What will the other folks are Starbucks think if I pull out some 3rd party power brick?
to disturb the accurate reflections of enemy radar
To expand on this a bit, the so-called "stealth bomber" uses this exact effect. All surfaces on the plane are completely flat, meaning the only reflection seen by a radar installation will be from the edge of a wing or something. In practice, the plane looks about like a flying ball bearing to radar. The bomber was first built by the US in the 80s, but it was based on research from the USSR done in the 50s.
Kind of. The problem with incentives is that people never quite respond to them in the way you want.
For example, I'm not sure why coerced relocations are a viable alternative to, say, infrastructure investment. Depopulating an area, it seems to me, would have flow-on effects which would make the economic situation in those places even worse.
It would reach a new equilibrium. It's stupid for the federal government to keep pumping money into Detroit because there used to be a bunch of jobs there, which is essentially what you're advocating. At some point the people need to leave. Not all of them - there still is some industry there. But certainly many more people need to leave and go find work.
Email my mother a plain text email that says "Your Adobe Flash is out of date, copy this link into your browser to update it" and she's probably going to do it. The only safe computer for her is something like a commodore 64 without internet access.
1. You've been misinformed - nobody here has tried universal healthcare. The Affordable Care Act - also known as "Obamacare" - isn't anything like universal healthcare. It basically says you have to buy overpriced health insurance or pay a fine to the government every year. California just looked at providing actual universal healthcare. This is a state run totally by liberals. They rejected it because it's too expensive and they would have had to triple their state budget.
Furthermore, the ACA was pretty much illegally passed by Congress and the healthcare exchanges are mostly now in what we call a "death spiral" or "vicious cycle" where fewer people are buying insurance driving up the rates for those left, which causes fewer of them to remain, etc.
2. You don't understand the incentive system. Right now, we have what are called "welfare cliffs". Basically, imagine I get $300/week from welfare programs (there are many). I have an opportunity to get a job making $8/hour, which is $320/week. But with taxes taken out I only bring home about $280/week. In other words, if I take a job I also have less money coming in. Another $20/week less might mean I can no longer pay bills.
The problem is that it's nearly impossible to break out of that cycle. If I took the job I'd get a raise at some point, or possibly a better job down the line. But I can't think about the long term if I can't eat or pay rent today. This is how people get stuck on welfare. We call that a "cliff" because benefits are all or nothing in many cases, so if I work all my benefits disappear.
The other way this happens is with a single mother who can get a job but then has to pay for childcare. Childcare tends to cost as much as a low paying job pays.
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is good for *everybody*. But, again, hard to get politicians to do it. If you try anything like this liberals will scream about how you hate poor people and conservatives will claim you're giving away too much money.
The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork.
Ah, yes, the Economics 101 theory of incentives.
You are not looking at the broader problem, which has little to do with welfare programs: The poverty cycle incentivises being poor. If you want to get people off welfare, you don't want to make it shittier to be on welfare, you want to make it attractive to transition off welfare.
That's exactly my point. Are you trying to argue against me?
When you incentivize something you get more of it. I'm not for making food stamps and such more difficult, but that's looking at the problem incorrectly. The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork. Not everybody who gets welfare is lazy - some are actually very hard workers.
But the programs need to be structured in a way that encourages people to work by making sure that work always pays more than not working. We do this mainly by eliminating "welfare cliffs".
We also need to incentivize people moving to where the work is. It's kind of stupid to keep paying people in Detroit (as an example) welfare because they'll likely never find a job there, anyway.
The best thing to do is take folks who have been on the dole for a certain amount of time and offer them the choice of 1) move where jobs are (and we'll pay for the move and make sure a job is waiting for you) or 2) stay where you are and quit getting benefits.
These are hard choices, though, and few politicians these days can actually handle hard choices.
That's my thought. Isn't the entire point of the FDA to keep shit like this from happening in the first place? I thought the entire reason they existed and drive the price of medicines up is that I can be assured that the medicines are proven effective and reliable. If all they're going to do is send stern letters after the fact then let's disband them. I can personally send pissy letters to people - I need the FDA to do a little more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, you have now created a wealth redistribution system that taxes the poor to pay rich people to buy luxury cars.
You do understand that's the system that we have now, right? Electric cars - which are expensive toys for the upper middle class and upper classes - are highly subsidized in every way, including a direct rebate to buyers that comes out of tax revenue. So poor people are paying taxes that goes directly in the pocket of wealthier people.
No offense intended, but you do realize you look like an idiot when you're still pushing the "Russians haxored the 2016 election to make Trump win" thing at this point, right?
Ironically, in terms of screen-minutes The Andy Griffith Show is the biggest thing in my house. And it stopped production nearly 50 years ago.
The best way to make everybody else better off is to make yourself better off. This isn't a zero sum game - if you make a dollar it doesn't mean someone else didn't make a dollar. When you thrive you use your money to buy services from other people, helping them make a living. There's no shame in that.
Put another way, the $1000 phone won't be bought by the truly wealthy so much as those who want to look wealthy.
Yep, this was a *really* important issue for Obama. So much so that he waited until the last year of his presidency to take care of it. And, he didn't really take care of it, anyway. The "reforms" that he did affected only a few percent of the forfeitures out there. At least he did something, I suppose. (golf clap)
What the hell are you talking about? The federal government (headed by President Trump) is doing everything they can in Puerto Rico right now, and people there are mostly praising the efforts. But the fact is that the devastation is so widespread that it'll take years to clean it up. There's no indication that Trump is doing any less there than other places, and he's certainly not "dragging his feet".
Always.
First thing to bear in mind, banning all combustion-engine-powered cars would be an absolute nonstarter. There are a number of groups that would absolutely band-together to lobby against it, even if those groups that may not normally have a lot to do with each other
California is run by Democrats, so the way it would work is that these groups would give "campaign contributions" and end up being exempted from the rules. Rich people would still have their fun gasoline powered cars, the middle class would pay even more to get an electric car, and poor people would get yet another dick up their already crowed ass.
Yeah, nobody's paying attention to President Trump <eyeroll>
He just tricked half the NFL players into embarrassing themselves last weekend - the guy's a fucking genius at manipulating left-wingers. They're not only paying attention, they're dancing to his tune.
And yet the problem was not being taken seriously by politicians and employers
Why should politicians and employers be involved? Because you're a bunch of kids who need daddy to tell you what to do?
Electric lights, television and computer screens, longer commutes, the blurring of the line between work and personal time, and a host of other aspects of modern life have contributed to sleep deprivation
Yeah, anything but personal choice to do more stuff and sleep less, then make it up by taking stimulants.
My wife and I go to bed at a reasonable time each night (10PM) and get up at 6AM, no need for an alarm clock. Yes, it takes discipline.
They apparently didn't pay enough to get a real "study".
Scott Walker doesn't want pay teachers a living wage
The average teacher salary in Wisconsin is $53k. That is above the average salary/wage for Wisconsin, and certainly enough to live on.
Not only that, during all that bullshit it was revealed that some teachers were making $125,000/year with benefits. That's two and a half times that national average household income. Two teachers married to each other at that pay grade would be called "rich" by most Democrat voters if they had a job other than "teacher".
The main thing Walker and the legislature did was modify the law so that the state is no longer forced to collect union dues for the union, meaning union dues are now voluntary. Surely with the unions being so popular and great for the teachers they all still pay the dues - a large part of which is summarily transferred to the Democrat party - right?
Oh.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/ne...
The workers are doing just as well after this legislation as before it. The pushback came because the Democrats get a lot of money from unions, and without forced union membership most people don't want to join a union (surprise) and the Democrats get significantly less revenue. Oh well. Guess it's back to honest fundraising.
Ah, yes, the other purpose of unions - to capture part of a company's revenue stream for use by the Democrat party.
You're essentially trading advancement opportunity and part of your pay for security of a job. State laws, especially in CA, cover the vast majority of why Unions used to need to exist; now it's more about the bottom finding a way closer to the middle by forcing others there as well.
Actually, to be blunt, what unions are about nowadays is simply existing as a business. They expand by finding new revenue streams, which are workers. So they find people that might not be happy with their work and convince them to joint he union to make things better. Then the union gets recurring revenue.
I have no problems with unions, but if these folks want to unionize they should join together and do so. No need to send a big part of your check to the AFL-CIO or whoever each month.
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is exactly how unemployment benefits work, at least how they did in NJ a few years ago...
I lost my job, drew an unemployment check of, let's say, $350/week. When I was approved to receive benefits I had 26x weeks of $350/week payments in my 'account' - every check drew down my account, and benefits ran out when the 'account' was depleted.
I found part-time work. With part-time work I had a new, increased, weekly benefit, call it $450/week. My part-time job paid me $250/week, and that was subtracted from my new weekly benefit, so that in addition to my $250/week paycheck I also received a $200 unemployment check, so my weekly income became $450/week.
I believe this approach is pretty common across the states. By drawing down less money each week, my benefits lasted longer than 26x weeks.
I believe in most states unemployment is all or nothing. I applaud the above approach, this is exactly what needs to happen - get a job and get more money. Unfortunately, though, unemployment benefits are only a small part of "welfare". I believe the federal stuff all has hard cliffs.
Yeah, but will those other bricks be as stylish as the Apple power brick? What will the other folks are Starbucks think if I pull out some 3rd party power brick?
Don't think I'm gonna chance it.
to disturb the accurate reflections of enemy radar
To expand on this a bit, the so-called "stealth bomber" uses this exact effect. All surfaces on the plane are completely flat, meaning the only reflection seen by a radar installation will be from the edge of a wing or something. In practice, the plane looks about like a flying ball bearing to radar. The bomber was first built by the US in the 80s, but it was based on research from the USSR done in the 50s.
Kind of. The problem with incentives is that people never quite respond to them in the way you want.
For example, I'm not sure why coerced relocations are a viable alternative to, say, infrastructure investment. Depopulating an area, it seems to me, would have flow-on effects which would make the economic situation in those places even worse.
It would reach a new equilibrium. It's stupid for the federal government to keep pumping money into Detroit because there used to be a bunch of jobs there, which is essentially what you're advocating. At some point the people need to leave. Not all of them - there still is some industry there. But certainly many more people need to leave and go find work.
Email my mother a plain text email that says "Your Adobe Flash is out of date, copy this link into your browser to update it" and she's probably going to do it. The only safe computer for her is something like a commodore 64 without internet access.
1. You've been misinformed - nobody here has tried universal healthcare. The Affordable Care Act - also known as "Obamacare" - isn't anything like universal healthcare. It basically says you have to buy overpriced health insurance or pay a fine to the government every year. California just looked at providing actual universal healthcare. This is a state run totally by liberals. They rejected it because it's too expensive and they would have had to triple their state budget.
Furthermore, the ACA was pretty much illegally passed by Congress and the healthcare exchanges are mostly now in what we call a "death spiral" or "vicious cycle" where fewer people are buying insurance driving up the rates for those left, which causes fewer of them to remain, etc.
2. You don't understand the incentive system. Right now, we have what are called "welfare cliffs". Basically, imagine I get $300/week from welfare programs (there are many). I have an opportunity to get a job making $8/hour, which is $320/week. But with taxes taken out I only bring home about $280/week. In other words, if I take a job I also have less money coming in. Another $20/week less might mean I can no longer pay bills.
The problem is that it's nearly impossible to break out of that cycle. If I took the job I'd get a raise at some point, or possibly a better job down the line. But I can't think about the long term if I can't eat or pay rent today. This is how people get stuck on welfare. We call that a "cliff" because benefits are all or nothing in many cases, so if I work all my benefits disappear.
The other way this happens is with a single mother who can get a job but then has to pay for childcare. Childcare tends to cost as much as a low paying job pays.
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is good for *everybody*. But, again, hard to get politicians to do it. If you try anything like this liberals will scream about how you hate poor people and conservatives will claim you're giving away too much money.
The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork.
Ah, yes, the Economics 101 theory of incentives.
You are not looking at the broader problem, which has little to do with welfare programs: The poverty cycle incentivises being poor. If you want to get people off welfare, you don't want to make it shittier to be on welfare, you want to make it attractive to transition off welfare.
That's exactly my point. Are you trying to argue against me?
When you incentivize something you get more of it. I'm not for making food stamps and such more difficult, but that's looking at the problem incorrectly. The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork. Not everybody who gets welfare is lazy - some are actually very hard workers.
But the programs need to be structured in a way that encourages people to work by making sure that work always pays more than not working. We do this mainly by eliminating "welfare cliffs".
We also need to incentivize people moving to where the work is. It's kind of stupid to keep paying people in Detroit (as an example) welfare because they'll likely never find a job there, anyway.
The best thing to do is take folks who have been on the dole for a certain amount of time and offer them the choice of 1) move where jobs are (and we'll pay for the move and make sure a job is waiting for you) or 2) stay where you are and quit getting benefits.
These are hard choices, though, and few politicians these days can actually handle hard choices.
Yeah, that'll teach 'em.
That's my thought. Isn't the entire point of the FDA to keep shit like this from happening in the first place? I thought the entire reason they existed and drive the price of medicines up is that I can be assured that the medicines are proven effective and reliable. If all they're going to do is send stern letters after the fact then let's disband them. I can personally send pissy letters to people - I need the FDA to do a little more than that.
The 1980s called - they want their foreign policy back! LOL!!!
Geeze.