Educated immigrants are more likely to start their own business. So where do you want that business to be?
If they're going to pay their workers generously, let them stay.
If they're planning to pay their workers as little as possible (market wages), then it doesn't matter so much where they set up their business.
Remember, it takes two people to create a job, and each side always tries to take advantage of the other. Business owners aren't as saintly as some would make them out to be.
I now live in Idaho and make half what I used to. However, my living expenses are about 1/8th of what they used to be. I was paying $2000+ in rent on average when I lived int he bay area. I now pay $300.
If you made $100k in SF and paid $12k per year in living expenses, that leaves $88k for other things.
If you now make $50k in idaho and pay $3.6k per year in living expenses, that leaves only $46.4k for other things.
Idaho might be a great place to retire, but if you're still working, I think you were better off in San Francisco.
Prop 13 is why people who bought their homes when they were $75K (or less) can still afford to live in them now that they're worth $1M+(or much more) and they're living on retirement.
In other words, Prop 13 protects millionaires.
I forgot, why do we need to protect millionaires? Why can't they take their windfall profits and move into less expensive accommodations?
I find the term 'car accident' to be basically synonymous with terms like 'car wreck' or 'car crash' and not necessarily to be indication of severity or fault of the people involved.
This proves that you haven't yet broken your conditioning by Big Oil and the pro-automobile lobby to trivialize the problems of living in an automobile-centric society. Wake up!
The collision appears to be caused by negligence, and was not simply an accident. "Accident" is a euphamism, a weasel word designed to make the violation appear less severe.
The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham...In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.
In order to prove the above is correct, you also need to prove that demand for petroleum is perfectly inelastic. Good luck with that!
Sadly, states passing laws about sticking to the right lane unless passing are not helping much.
The reason for that is because people driving slowly in the left lane arguably aren't obstructing traffic, because traffic can still get around them. In Europe, they closed that loophole by making it illegal to pass on the right, and therefore someone driving slowly in the left lane is irrefutably obstructing traffic.
Public transit is a fantastic option if you live in a large city and don't leave it very often, but it's no where near good enough to replace a car for a lot of people.
...you won't lose any of the fat you have while building muscle.
On a calorie restricted diet, your body can pull calories from fat in order to build muscle. But you won't build muscle quickly. This is why body builders go through a cutting phase.
I offer myself as proof. Before I started biking, I weighted about 150. A year later, I was still 150 lbs but had bigger quads and a smaller waist. I had lost fat and gained muscle simultaneously.
- Lanes ending, either due to construction or accident.
Which means the volume of cars exceeds the capacity of the remaining lanes.
- Major exit ramps onto another road with traffic issues.
Same thing.
- A single slow driver can wreak significant havoc just by cruising down the right lane at 45 mph. The reason is that now the not-quite-as-slow 55 mph driver pulls into the next lane over to pass them, forcing the 60 mph driver into the left lane...
That sounds like an unsafe lane change by the 55 mph driver.
- Sun glare and other natural conditions slowing down drivers, especially timid drivers.
Remember, if you can't see the road due to conditions such as fog or sun glare, you are required by law to pull off the road until conditions improve.
In fact, it would be highly dangerous to go 55mph. You'd get rear ended in no time not to mention road rage.
In the presence of lawbreakers like the ones you describe, driving is unsafe at any speed. But don't worry, getting rear ended with a closing speed of 15 mph (the difference between 55 and 70 mph) is much safer than a side impact collision or a head-on collision.
On the Autobahn, it's perfectly safe to drive the speed limit while others whip around you at tremendous speeds. The reason is because slow moving vehicles stay to the right, and fast moving vehicles always pass on the left. Consistency is good for safety. So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane. In fact, it's the law in some places.
For aerobic exercise, there's a free treadmill simulator called "go jogging" right outside your front door. If you want lower impact exercise, bicycling to work will save you money on your commute and give you a lot of exercise for a small marginal cost of time. (If your automobile commute is 20 minutes but your bicycle commute is 45 minutes, you'll get 45 minutes of exercise at a cost of only 25 minutes.)
If you are over-weight, there is only one way to lose weight...
But there is more than one way to lose fat: take in fewer calories, or convert fat into muscle through exercise. So you have to decide, do you want to lose weight, or lose fat? Remember, muscle is more dense than fat, so you can lose inches around the waist even while gaining weight.
Or may be you simply didn't understand it. So I'll repeat it: faced with paying the true cost of transporting goods, shippers would switch to less polluting methods to save money. They would start with the low-hanging fruit, the measures that bring the most benefit for the cost. A shipper might spend $400 to save $800 of the $1600 charge, and then pass half of the net savings ($200) to the consumer. So overall, the consumer pays $1400, the shipper pockets $200, and the respiratory patient benefits by $800 in better health plus $800 in reduced hospital fees. So that's $1800 in total benefits for a $1400 cost. Anyone who understand money could tell you that an instantaneous and risk-free 29% return on your investment is a good deal, even if administrative costs lower that number slightly.
It is quite another thing entirely to be doing something like cap and trade that was estimated to cost trillions...
That's a good "straw man" fallacy. Cap and Trade isn't the only way, and certainly not the best, to recover the social cost of carbon emissions.
Especially when there is doubt in the external cost of global warming.
How precise does the calculated social cost of carbon need to be before we should start trying to correct the market failure? Seriously, are you expecting tenths of a cent resolution per ton of carbon? Hundredths of a cent? Get real.
Sorry, but their record of "efficiency" gives me zero faith that they could carry this out, or that there would be no detrimental effect on the economy in the process.
We would have cleaner air, less asthma and other respiratory problems, fewer premature deaths and fewer nonfatal heart attacks, people would miss fewer days of work, and children would miss fewer days of school every year. Surely these things would benefit the economy?
I have a problem when government gets so big they can tell me and my neighbor what to do in any and every minutiae of daily life...
That's a good example of the "slippery slope" fallacy, but it adds nothing substantial to the conversation.
Taxing to the hilt that by which all other goods and services are transported is more certain to have a detrimental effect on the economy than a potential creeping up of temperature.
Why must pollution be taxed to the hilt? Why not tax it only according to how much it injures the third parties to the transaction? Then it would have no net effect on the economy, if everything else stays the same.
But then faced with paying the true cost of transporting goods, shippers would switch to less polluting methods to save money, and that would be a net positive benefit for the economy.
So no, correcting market failures does not have a detrimental effect on the economy.
7. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh: - crippling the world economy
If you believed in negative externalities, you would know that they are what cripple the world economy, and that correcting them, like correcting any other market failure, would be beneficial to the world economy.
So tell us, why don't you believe in them? Perhaps you think you live in a Coasian fantasy world where people bargain without transaction costs to reach efficient allocations. Or you are such a believer in small government that you are willing to live with inferior economic outcomes, such as pollution and congestion. Or maybe you have another reason?
I once looked in to a rail trip from Minnesota to Colorado.
Minneapolis to Denver is much farther than 400 miles (it's closer to 700 as the crow flies, or over 900 miles if you go through Des Moines), and it isn't high speed rail. If it were, it would take almost 6 hours. I would choose closer city pairs for HSR, such as Minneapolis to Des Moines.
While rail works in Europe, it doesn't in the USA (and since the TSA isn't in Europe, that's a key thing to note).
If a 700-900 mile trip proves that HSR doesn't work in the USA, then wouldn't the 800 miles from Madrid to Paris also prove that HSR doesn't work in Europe?
Slashdot Mirror
If they're going to pay their workers generously, let them stay.
If they're planning to pay their workers as little as possible (market wages), then it doesn't matter so much where they set up their business.
Remember, it takes two people to create a job, and each side always tries to take advantage of the other. Business owners aren't as saintly as some would make them out to be.
If you made $100k in SF and paid $12k per year in living expenses, that leaves $88k for other things.
If you now make $50k in idaho and pay $3.6k per year in living expenses, that leaves only $46.4k for other things.
Idaho might be a great place to retire, but if you're still working, I think you were better off in San Francisco.
If you think people should reap the benefits of real estate appreciation without paying the costs, then you are in favor of privatizing profits and socializing losses.
Traffic congestion, just like any other kind of shortage, is proof that the price "is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand." That's easy to fix.
In other words, Prop 13 protects millionaires.
I forgot, why do we need to protect millionaires? Why can't they take their windfall profits and move into less expensive accommodations?
Will the voting system be plurality or a preferential system like Instant Runoff or Condorcet?
Please explain why such detail is necessary. Simply the word "collision" is all that's needed for this headline.
Actually, there's a very good market-based reason to go to the government for labelling: the free market works better when consumers have information.
This proves that you haven't yet broken your conditioning by Big Oil and the pro-automobile lobby to trivialize the problems of living in an automobile-centric society. Wake up!
The collision appears to be caused by negligence, and was not simply an accident. "Accident" is a euphamism, a weasel word designed to make the violation appear less severe.
Please stop politicizing the headlines, Slashdot.
In order to prove the above is correct, you also need to prove that demand for petroleum is perfectly inelastic. Good luck with that!
No, evolution doesn't require death, but death assists evolution by preventing some individuals from procreating.
Developing a skill that's in demand by society gives the individual a greater chance at passing on his/her genes, and that's evolution.
The reason for that is because people driving slowly in the left lane arguably aren't obstructing traffic, because traffic can still get around them. In Europe, they closed that loophole by making it illegal to pass on the right, and therefore someone driving slowly in the left lane is irrefutably obstructing traffic.
Why can't they live in large cities?
On a calorie restricted diet, your body can pull calories from fat in order to build muscle. But you won't build muscle quickly. This is why body builders go through a cutting phase.
I offer myself as proof. Before I started biking, I weighted about 150. A year later, I was still 150 lbs but had bigger quads and a smaller waist. I had lost fat and gained muscle simultaneously.
Which means the volume of cars exceeds the capacity of the remaining lanes.
Same thing.
That sounds like an unsafe lane change by the 55 mph driver.
Remember, if you can't see the road due to conditions such as fog or sun glare, you are required by law to pull off the road until conditions improve.
In the presence of lawbreakers like the ones you describe, driving is unsafe at any speed. But don't worry, getting rear ended with a closing speed of 15 mph (the difference between 55 and 70 mph) is much safer than a side impact collision or a head-on collision.
On the Autobahn, it's perfectly safe to drive the speed limit while others whip around you at tremendous speeds. The reason is because slow moving vehicles stay to the right, and fast moving vehicles always pass on the left. Consistency is good for safety. So the moral of the story is, if you're going slower than the normal speed of traffic, stay in the right lane. In fact, it's the law in some places.
For aerobic exercise, there's a free treadmill simulator called "go jogging" right outside your front door. If you want lower impact exercise, bicycling to work will save you money on your commute and give you a lot of exercise for a small marginal cost of time. (If your automobile commute is 20 minutes but your bicycle commute is 45 minutes, you'll get 45 minutes of exercise at a cost of only 25 minutes.)
For weight lifting, $200 will buy you an exercise bench and a set of adjustable dumbbells. You can exercise just about every muscle group that way.
But there is more than one way to lose fat: take in fewer calories, or convert fat into muscle through exercise. So you have to decide, do you want to lose weight, or lose fat? Remember, muscle is more dense than fat, so you can lose inches around the waist even while gaining weight.
Really? How much would that be?
And how much would it cost the world not to become carbon neutral?
You didn't read what I wrote earlier explaining why the full cost won't be passed on to consumers. That makes you a good example of how AGW deniers have the uncanny ability to be looking elsewhere when being shown evidence that they don't like..
Or may be you simply didn't understand it. So I'll repeat it: faced with paying the true cost of transporting goods, shippers would switch to less polluting methods to save money. They would start with the low-hanging fruit, the measures that bring the most benefit for the cost. A shipper might spend $400 to save $800 of the $1600 charge, and then pass half of the net savings ($200) to the consumer. So overall, the consumer pays $1400, the shipper pockets $200, and the respiratory patient benefits by $800 in better health plus $800 in reduced hospital fees. So that's $1800 in total benefits for a $1400 cost. Anyone who understand money could tell you that an instantaneous and risk-free 29% return on your investment is a good deal, even if administrative costs lower that number slightly.
That's a good "straw man" fallacy. Cap and Trade isn't the only way, and certainly not the best, to recover the social cost of carbon emissions.
How precise does the calculated social cost of carbon need to be before we should start trying to correct the market failure? Seriously, are you expecting tenths of a cent resolution per ton of carbon? Hundredths of a cent? Get real.
Or researchers like the ones at California State University-Fullerton who found that dirty air costs the economy up to $1,600 per person annually.
We would have cleaner air, less asthma and other respiratory problems, fewer premature deaths and fewer nonfatal heart attacks, people would miss fewer days of work, and children would miss fewer days of school every year. Surely these things would benefit the economy?
That's a good example of the "slippery slope" fallacy, but it adds nothing substantial to the conversation.
Why must pollution be taxed to the hilt? Why not tax it only according to how much it injures the third parties to the transaction? Then it would have no net effect on the economy, if everything else stays the same.
But then faced with paying the true cost of transporting goods, shippers would switch to less polluting methods to save money, and that would be a net positive benefit for the economy.
So no, correcting market failures does not have a detrimental effect on the economy.
If you believed in negative externalities, you would know that they are what cripple the world economy, and that correcting them, like correcting any other market failure, would be beneficial to the world economy.
So tell us, why don't you believe in them? Perhaps you think you live in a Coasian fantasy world where people bargain without transaction costs to reach efficient allocations. Or you are such a believer in small government that you are willing to live with inferior economic outcomes, such as pollution and congestion. Or maybe you have another reason?
Minneapolis to Denver is much farther than 400 miles (it's closer to 700 as the crow flies, or over 900 miles if you go through Des Moines), and it isn't high speed rail. If it were, it would take almost 6 hours. I would choose closer city pairs for HSR, such as Minneapolis to Des Moines.
If a 700-900 mile trip proves that HSR doesn't work in the USA, then wouldn't the 800 miles from Madrid to Paris also prove that HSR doesn't work in Europe?