If you're a dumbass, you'll try and fail to raise your kid according to your own values. If you're at all intelligent, you'll raise your kid to understand your values, but also understanding that your values were formed during your formative years a quarter to a half century ago, and that your kid will never have those same values because the world has changed, and they won't be growing up in the environment you grew up in.
My kid won't grow up valuing manual labor, because there won't be that much for him to do. My kid won't value freedom at the expense of pain from growing up with a whole lot of scar tissue from trying to jump a sled over a barbed wire fence, from falling down a cliff while climbing in the woods at the age of 12, from a 40mph bike wipe-out on a highway hill, etc. He's not going to be able to survive in the wild for a couple of weeks if he has to. He's just not going to grow up in that world.
Sure, I could relocate and try to recreate all that shit, but the world has changed so much that it won't matter.
My kid is going to grow up in a world where pot is legal, and he can smoke it on his 18th birthday. My kid is going to grow up in a world where you can vape discretely at school, but where cigarettes are too expensive to buy. My kid is going to grow up in a world which has pervasive surveillance, but mercifully has at least invented private browsing sessions. My kid is going to grow up in a world where if he can get a visa gift card, he can make an email account and an amazon account and order anything in the world he wants, and potentially get home before me and hide it in his room.
This world is so vastly different now that there is no hope in instilling my values onto my kid. The best I can do is let him know what they are and where I got them, and try to help him create his own value system, based on the reality of the world currently.
And if you think "fuck society's expectations" is going to help your kid, you are dead wrong. Unless your kid wants to be a hermit, then that's the right path.
No. It's recently become very affordable, readily available, and inserted into all sorts of food products where it never exited before. (Or if it did, it was naturally occurring and in low amounts.)
Likewise, if companies started jamming cocaine into juices, milk, breads, peanut butter, canned and dried fruit, sauces and dressings, deli meats and cereal, a ton more people would be addicted to cocaine. It doesn't mean it wasn't addictive before. It just means that it's omnipresent now, and hard to avoid without a lot of label checking and a deep understanding of all the names it hides behind.
For sugar, this apparently includes:
Agave nectar Barbados sugar Barley malt Barley malt syrup Beet sugar Brown sugar Buttered syrup Cane juice Cane juice crystals Cane sugar Caramel Carob syrup Castor sugar Coconut palm sugar Coconut sugar Confectioner's sugar Corn sweetener Corn syrup Corn syrup solids Date sugar Dehydrated cane juice Demerara sugar Dextrin Dextrose Evaporated cane juice Free-flowing brown sugars Fructose Fruit juice Fruit juice concentrate Glucose Glucose solids Golden sugar Golden syrup Grape sugar HFCS (High-Fructose Corn Syrup) Honey Icing sugar Invert sugar Malt syrup Maltodextrin Maltol Maltose Mannose Maple syrup Molasses Muscovado Palm sugar Panocha Powdered sugar Raw sugar Refiner's syrup Rice syrup Saccharose Sorghum Syrup Sucrose Sugar (granulated) Sweet Sorghum Syrup Treacle Turbinado sugar Yellow sugar
If the Bill required that something specific be done NOW, as well as into the next three decades, then it would (or at least could) be fine.
Which it does. What does it require to be done now?
Fucking planning.
Do you honestly think that the utilities in CA can flip a switch and all of their fossil fuel plants will magically turn into solar plants with battery or molten salt storage? This is a huge project. One of the bigger ones that CA has ever engaged in.
Of course it doesn't require anyone to do anything for a bit. It's going to take a few years to even figure out what to do, let alone how to do it.
That doesn't actually say what you think it says. Did you read any of it? Maybe starting with the title?
It's better to rent than to buy in today's housing market.
Temporarily, (for the first time since 2010, says your article) markets are outperforming equity in houses such that the economics of renting and investing are, at the moment, a better investment than owning. And your article doesn't say that home ownership is the losing investment that you claim.
Still, even in places where renting is currently more affordable, rising home prices provide wealth-building opportunity for homebuyers.
If you want to prove a point, you should probably cite something that supports your point rather than contradicts it.
The article notes,
Since homeownership has historically been an important source of household wealth creation, it could be problematic if this trend continues for too long.
So starting a year ago, if you had the option to rent and invest or buy, you would have made a bit more money if you rented and invested. How long will that continue? Well, you need to be able to predict both the housing market and the stock market to make that call for the future. Can you do that?
And how much more profitable would it be? The article doesn't go into it. Just that in 65% of their surveyed markets that it's cheaper to rent (not how much) than own. And where did they survey?
In 16 of the 23 major metropolitan markets covered in the research, renting is a better investment than buying.
Lol. This doesn't even cover the whole US. Just major cities. Which ones are more expensive?
Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco and Seattle.
And where is it better to own than rent?
It is still, however, better to buy than rent in much of the Midwest and Northeast, with Chicago and Cleveland showing the best ownership scores.
So even your source notes that it's really situational, and you can change the finances just by moving somewhere. Yes, in coastal cities and in fast growing cities, turns out renting is cheaper. In the rest of the US, it is not.
A home is a long term investment, and there'd need to be a severe or prolonged downturn to make home ownership a losing investment. The last time it made sense to rent rather than own was nearly a decade ago, your article states. So you think you'd have done better renting over that time period? The source you cited says no.
In 2016 the average net worth of a family who owned their own home stood at $231,400, according the Survey of Consumer Finances. Renters, by contrast, had a net worth of just $5,200.
That's nearly a 45-fold difference, and the gap is getting bigger. From 2013 to 2016, the average net worth of homeowners rose by 15 percent. For renters it actually fell, by 5 percent.
In inflation-adjusted terms, the average net worth of renters is at its lowest level since 1989.
You got decently shouted down on a lot of your stupid points, but I don't see this one covered:
We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.
And that's true. For most Americans, the only viable path to increasing wealth is home ownership. Paying someone else money (renting) does not make you wealthier. And this is especially true in retirement, when your income drops significantly.
And yes, while you can make more money investing, buying a house is killing about three birds with one stone - you've got a place to live that's suitable to raise a family, you've got an investment vehicle, and you've got a retirement place or the ability to sell it and buy a cheaper, smaller one. And it's not uncommon for rent to be the same or even higher than mortgage payments, as often those renting are paying a mortgage and also trying to make a profit. That means most people can't cheap out on their housing cost and invest that money instead.
There aren't many places in the US where buying a house is a poor financial decision. In the vast majority of places for the vast majority of people it's the most viable path to retiring decently wealthy.
It only appears that way if you don't read the article and only look at the caption on the first image. Hint: Try the caption on the second image if reading more text is too hard.
Outlawing abortion Gutting all social services Spending more on the military Lowering corporate taxes and reducing fiscal oversight Large scale reduction of the federal government and removal of a majority of federal policies, rules and regulations Reduced education spending Privatization of former government projects including infrastructure building, military operations, spaceflight. education, etc.
You seem to think that there's a surplus of employee #1 out there. There is not. Unemployment is really low, but jobs aren't paying a living wage to a lot of people right now.
The situation as it stands is that there is only employee #2 available. Companies can either suck it up and pay X to the employee and W to the government, or they can raise the wage to (X+W).
Who knows which is going to be more palatable for companies. Raising wages may get you better employees, but holding onto W until tax time might be financially more beneficial. There's always the gamble that the current legislators might change the tax law, and you can always hope that your tax lawyers can find a loophole to allow you to keep some of that cash.
You seem to think that there's no federal definition of an employee.....it really doesn't matter what a business wants to call someone. We've had this sorted out for at least a few decades now.
Outright banning seems counter to Uber's twisted money-making schemes.
Just charge the low stars more and/or give them increased wait times. As their stars go down, these things increase. Then let drivers decide if they want to deal with anyone under 4*, and give them a pass if they don't.
Yes. And where did that wealth come from? From investments in businesses and the stock market. Both of which have been doing excellent due to record profits from businesses. And why do they have record profits? Because their labor costs are shrinking.
These bills don't immediately fix the problem at the top, but they do provide a bit of a safety valve on the wealth concentration pipeline.
And fourth, so many of their employees are claiming them that they wouldn't have enough employees left if they let them all go.
Between this and Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act, we might see some real change in the corporate monsters that are destroying the middle class right now.
Having run a large number of successful conference calls, this is what I do, and what is required before I show up for one when I'm not running it:
* Roles designated and communicated. Who is running the tech, who is running the meeting, who is taking notes. * Detailed agenda: Topics, desired outcomes, rough times, leads, etc. * The right people on the call to accomplish the agenda: Are the subject matter experts on the call? Are the project managers on the call? Are the deciders on the call? * And if all the above have happened: Obviously couldn't have been accomplished over email.
90% of the conference calls I get invited to are disorganized and could have just been an email. So I don't go. If they don't take notes for me to read after, did it even really matter? It's a bunch of "I thought I heard..." at that point, and I can play that game with not even having been there.
Sometimes you do need to talk it out with everyone at the table. For that to be productive, someone needs to own the meeting, put in the effort to organize it, and make sure that it's got goals and the right people and structure to meet those goals. Far too many people think sitting around yammering on the phone will accomplish something. It almost always does, but that something is counterproductive confusion, boredom, and loss of morale/will to live.
All cryptocurrencies are underpinned by the belief that people will trade something of value for them.
And that's quite believable, since people do every day. Sure, a lot of the people involved are just trying to get rich quick, but that doesn't undermine the value in cryptocurrencies. You've got to be able to pay the camgirls without the wife finding out somehow....
That is abundantly clear based on your nonsensical post.
Instead of making shit up in a failed attempt to prove your point, why don't you do a little research first? Start here: https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-...
HS Diploma: $712/week or $37k/yr Bachelor's Degree: $1173/week, or $61k/yr
Sure, making up a number and choosing $10k/yr more per year makes college not seem worth it. Now redo your math with $24k/yr more. And don't forget to include the difference in unemployment rate and benefits too.
That used to be my neck of the woods too. I'm really happy to have moved to a lovely, vibrant little midwest college town which is growing and has a lot of tech and biotech money flowing into it.
I love to visit upstate NY, but I don't see myself ever going back to live. Watching the place you live in grow is exciting and interesting. Watching it rust and fall apart is horrifically depressing.
I concur. I got a lot out of an Egyptian history class, and although I'm shit at art, I really appreciated taking a pottery class. Exposure to things outside your comfort zone is really a good thing. It helps you understand how big the world is, and how specialized people can be in areas you don't even know exit.
The undergraduate college I went to actually required humanities to take STEM coursework. The popular science classes were "Rocks for Jocks" and Astronomy. Both were somewhat dumbed down and simplified to the point that the professors were really not happy with them. But that was a political decision to make sure that enough humanities students graduated every year.
I guess it's better than what you're describing, because they at least got exposure to a broader world rather than getting to skip it. But I definitely had to take a ton more humanities than they had to take STEM classes.
Anecdote: I lived within sight of a police station, and one of the "bad parts of town" was quite literally two blocks behind my house. In 5 years of living there, I never once saw a cop on foot outside of the parking lot of the police station. They could walk past my window and 5 minutes later be where their presence was most needed, but seemingly never did.
But they did have a quarter million dollar APC that they couldn't drive on most streets because it was too big and heavy.
Language is difficult, complex, and fluid. We can make meaning out of fairly new and novel combinations of letters and cymbals, and we can parse incorrect words and make meanies out of them. We can also use words in novel ways to make new meaning, and I do notsee AI being able to pick up something like that anytime in the near future.
Humans have a brain that's wired for understanding language. It's going to be a long time before AI can learn on the vast amount of human skill in this area to be able to do it at a similar level. Even something like h8-speech is going to be hard for AI to get on top of, and there's a nearly infinite pile more weird things we can and do do with language. Ironically, the shit we get correct is going to be more likely flagged by AI that that we intentionally obscure, ala Sconthorpe, for a very, very long time.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a dumbass, you'll try and fail to raise your kid according to your own values. If you're at all intelligent, you'll raise your kid to understand your values, but also understanding that your values were formed during your formative years a quarter to a half century ago, and that your kid will never have those same values because the world has changed, and they won't be growing up in the environment you grew up in.
My kid won't grow up valuing manual labor, because there won't be that much for him to do. My kid won't value freedom at the expense of pain from growing up with a whole lot of scar tissue from trying to jump a sled over a barbed wire fence, from falling down a cliff while climbing in the woods at the age of 12, from a 40mph bike wipe-out on a highway hill, etc. He's not going to be able to survive in the wild for a couple of weeks if he has to. He's just not going to grow up in that world.
Sure, I could relocate and try to recreate all that shit, but the world has changed so much that it won't matter.
My kid is going to grow up in a world where pot is legal, and he can smoke it on his 18th birthday. My kid is going to grow up in a world where you can vape discretely at school, but where cigarettes are too expensive to buy. My kid is going to grow up in a world which has pervasive surveillance, but mercifully has at least invented private browsing sessions. My kid is going to grow up in a world where if he can get a visa gift card, he can make an email account and an amazon account and order anything in the world he wants, and potentially get home before me and hide it in his room.
This world is so vastly different now that there is no hope in instilling my values onto my kid. The best I can do is let him know what they are and where I got them, and try to help him create his own value system, based on the reality of the world currently.
And if you think "fuck society's expectations" is going to help your kid, you are dead wrong. Unless your kid wants to be a hermit, then that's the right path.
No. It's recently become very affordable, readily available, and inserted into all sorts of food products where it never exited before. (Or if it did, it was naturally occurring and in low amounts.)
Likewise, if companies started jamming cocaine into juices, milk, breads, peanut butter, canned and dried fruit, sauces and dressings, deli meats and cereal, a ton more people would be addicted to cocaine. It doesn't mean it wasn't addictive before. It just means that it's omnipresent now, and hard to avoid without a lot of label checking and a deep understanding of all the names it hides behind.
For sugar, this apparently includes:
Agave nectar
Barbados sugar
Barley malt
Barley malt syrup
Beet sugar
Brown sugar
Buttered syrup
Cane juice
Cane juice crystals
Cane sugar
Caramel
Carob syrup
Castor sugar
Coconut palm sugar
Coconut sugar
Confectioner's sugar
Corn sweetener
Corn syrup
Corn syrup solids
Date sugar
Dehydrated cane juice
Demerara sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Free-flowing brown sugars
Fructose
Fruit juice
Fruit juice concentrate
Glucose
Glucose solids
Golden sugar
Golden syrup
Grape sugar
HFCS (High-Fructose Corn Syrup)
Honey
Icing sugar
Invert sugar
Malt syrup
Maltodextrin
Maltol
Maltose
Mannose
Maple syrup
Molasses
Muscovado
Palm sugar
Panocha
Powdered sugar
Raw sugar
Refiner's syrup
Rice syrup
Saccharose
Sorghum Syrup
Sucrose
Sugar (granulated)
Sweet Sorghum
Syrup
Treacle
Turbinado sugar
Yellow sugar
If the Bill required that something specific be done NOW, as well as into the next three decades, then it would (or at least could) be fine.
Which it does. What does it require to be done now?
Fucking planning.
Do you honestly think that the utilities in CA can flip a switch and all of their fossil fuel plants will magically turn into solar plants with battery or molten salt storage? This is a huge project. One of the bigger ones that CA has ever engaged in.
Of course it doesn't require anyone to do anything for a bit. It's going to take a few years to even figure out what to do, let alone how to do it.
That doesn't actually say what you think it says. Did you read any of it? Maybe starting with the title?
It's better to rent than to buy in today's housing market.
Temporarily, (for the first time since 2010, says your article) markets are outperforming equity in houses such that the economics of renting and investing are, at the moment, a better investment than owning. And your article doesn't say that home ownership is the losing investment that you claim.
Still, even in places where renting is currently more affordable, rising home prices provide wealth-building opportunity for homebuyers.
If you want to prove a point, you should probably cite something that supports your point rather than contradicts it.
The article notes,
Since homeownership has historically been an important source of household wealth creation, it could be problematic if this trend continues for too long.
So starting a year ago, if you had the option to rent and invest or buy, you would have made a bit more money if you rented and invested. How long will that continue? Well, you need to be able to predict both the housing market and the stock market to make that call for the future. Can you do that?
And how much more profitable would it be? The article doesn't go into it. Just that in 65% of their surveyed markets that it's cheaper to rent (not how much) than own. And where did they survey?
In 16 of the 23 major metropolitan markets covered in the research, renting is a better investment than buying.
Lol. This doesn't even cover the whole US. Just major cities. Which ones are more expensive?
Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco and Seattle.
And where is it better to own than rent?
It is still, however, better to buy than rent in much of the Midwest and Northeast, with Chicago and Cleveland showing the best ownership scores.
So even your source notes that it's really situational, and you can change the finances just by moving somewhere. Yes, in coastal cities and in fast growing cities, turns out renting is cheaper. In the rest of the US, it is not.
A home is a long term investment, and there'd need to be a severe or prolonged downturn to make home ownership a losing investment. The last time it made sense to rent rather than own was nearly a decade ago, your article states. So you think you'd have done better renting over that time period? The source you cited says no.
I'd like to see your source for that claim.
Here's a summery of the Federal Reserves' Survey of Consumer Finances: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
In 2016 the average net worth of a family who owned their own home stood at $231,400, according the Survey of Consumer Finances. Renters, by contrast, had a net worth of just $5,200.
That's nearly a 45-fold difference, and the gap is getting bigger. From 2013 to 2016, the average net worth of homeowners rose by 15 percent. For renters it actually fell, by 5 percent.
In inflation-adjusted terms, the average net worth of renters is at its lowest level since 1989.
Set all of the coordinates in the second reference frame to equal to the first?
A side effect is that it makes Lorentz transformations really easy to solve.
You got decently shouted down on a lot of your stupid points, but I don't see this one covered:
We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.
And that's true. For most Americans, the only viable path to increasing wealth is home ownership. Paying someone else money (renting) does not make you wealthier. And this is especially true in retirement, when your income drops significantly.
And yes, while you can make more money investing, buying a house is killing about three birds with one stone - you've got a place to live that's suitable to raise a family, you've got an investment vehicle, and you've got a retirement place or the ability to sell it and buy a cheaper, smaller one. And it's not uncommon for rent to be the same or even higher than mortgage payments, as often those renting are paying a mortgage and also trying to make a profit. That means most people can't cheap out on their housing cost and invest that money instead.
There aren't many places in the US where buying a house is a poor financial decision. In the vast majority of places for the vast majority of people it's the most viable path to retiring decently wealthy.
It only appears that way if you don't read the article and only look at the caption on the first image. Hint: Try the caption on the second image if reading more text is too hard.
I can name seven:
Outlawing abortion
Gutting all social services
Spending more on the military
Lowering corporate taxes and reducing fiscal oversight
Large scale reduction of the federal government and removal of a majority of federal policies, rules and regulations
Reduced education spending
Privatization of former government projects including infrastructure building, military operations, spaceflight. education, etc.
You seem to think that there's a surplus of employee #1 out there. There is not. Unemployment is really low, but jobs aren't paying a living wage to a lot of people right now.
The situation as it stands is that there is only employee #2 available. Companies can either suck it up and pay X to the employee and W to the government, or they can raise the wage to (X+W).
Who knows which is going to be more palatable for companies. Raising wages may get you better employees, but holding onto W until tax time might be financially more beneficial. There's always the gamble that the current legislators might change the tax law, and you can always hope that your tax lawyers can find a loophole to allow you to keep some of that cash.
You seem to think that there's no federal definition of an employee.....it really doesn't matter what a business wants to call someone. We've had this sorted out for at least a few decades now.
Outright banning seems counter to Uber's twisted money-making schemes.
Just charge the low stars more and/or give them increased wait times. As their stars go down, these things increase. Then let drivers decide if they want to deal with anyone under 4*, and give them a pass if they don't.
I couldn't tell that the last day or so was any different than any other day. It's always laggy and sluggish and stalls opening calendars.
I'm more productive at work now that I'm forced to use Office 365's Outlook. Because I check email less because it's so incredibly shitty.
Yes. And where did that wealth come from? From investments in businesses and the stock market. Both of which have been doing excellent due to record profits from businesses. And why do they have record profits? Because their labor costs are shrinking.
These bills don't immediately fix the problem at the top, but they do provide a bit of a safety valve on the wealth concentration pipeline.
And fourth, so many of their employees are claiming them that they wouldn't have enough employees left if they let them all go.
Between this and Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act, we might see some real change in the corporate monsters that are destroying the middle class right now.
That is, if either ever make it into law.....
Having run a large number of successful conference calls, this is what I do, and what is required before I show up for one when I'm not running it:
* Roles designated and communicated. Who is running the tech, who is running the meeting, who is taking notes.
* Detailed agenda: Topics, desired outcomes, rough times, leads, etc.
* The right people on the call to accomplish the agenda: Are the subject matter experts on the call? Are the project managers on the call? Are the deciders on the call?
* And if all the above have happened: Obviously couldn't have been accomplished over email.
90% of the conference calls I get invited to are disorganized and could have just been an email. So I don't go. If they don't take notes for me to read after, did it even really matter? It's a bunch of "I thought I heard..." at that point, and I can play that game with not even having been there.
Sometimes you do need to talk it out with everyone at the table. For that to be productive, someone needs to own the meeting, put in the effort to organize it, and make sure that it's got goals and the right people and structure to meet those goals. Far too many people think sitting around yammering on the phone will accomplish something. It almost always does, but that something is counterproductive confusion, boredom, and loss of morale/will to live.
I was very young when the unleaded switch happened, but I don't remember....
yeah, mental issues are one of the side effects of lead poisoning.....
All cryptocurrencies are underpinned by the belief that people will trade something of value for them.
And that's quite believable, since people do every day. Sure, a lot of the people involved are just trying to get rich quick, but that doesn't undermine the value in cryptocurrencies. You've got to be able to pay the camgirls without the wife finding out somehow....
Can you please link to your peer reviewed study?
Otherwise STFU and let the adults talk.
That's bullshit. There are a large number of things that I know I will fail without trying. Cartwheels and limbo dancing are high on that list.
Some things you won't know if you can succeed at until you try. :)
I never understood...
That is abundantly clear based on your nonsensical post.
Instead of making shit up in a failed attempt to prove your point, why don't you do a little research first? Start here: https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-...
HS Diploma: $712/week or $37k/yr
Bachelor's Degree: $1173/week, or $61k/yr
Sure, making up a number and choosing $10k/yr more per year makes college not seem worth it. Now redo your math with $24k/yr more. And don't forget to include the difference in unemployment rate and benefits too.
That used to be my neck of the woods too. I'm really happy to have moved to a lovely, vibrant little midwest college town which is growing and has a lot of tech and biotech money flowing into it.
I love to visit upstate NY, but I don't see myself ever going back to live. Watching the place you live in grow is exciting and interesting. Watching it rust and fall apart is horrifically depressing.
I concur. I got a lot out of an Egyptian history class, and although I'm shit at art, I really appreciated taking a pottery class. Exposure to things outside your comfort zone is really a good thing. It helps you understand how big the world is, and how specialized people can be in areas you don't even know exit.
The undergraduate college I went to actually required humanities to take STEM coursework. The popular science classes were "Rocks for Jocks" and Astronomy. Both were somewhat dumbed down and simplified to the point that the professors were really not happy with them. But that was a political decision to make sure that enough humanities students graduated every year.
I guess it's better than what you're describing, because they at least got exposure to a broader world rather than getting to skip it. But I definitely had to take a ton more humanities than they had to take STEM classes.
Anecdote: I lived within sight of a police station, and one of the "bad parts of town" was quite literally two blocks behind my house. In 5 years of living there, I never once saw a cop on foot outside of the parking lot of the police station. They could walk past my window and 5 minutes later be where their presence was most needed, but seemingly never did.
But they did have a quarter million dollar APC that they couldn't drive on most streets because it was too big and heavy.
Language is difficult, complex, and fluid. We can make meaning out of fairly new and novel combinations of letters and cymbals, and we can parse incorrect words and make meanies out of them. We can also use words in novel ways to make new meaning, and I do notsee AI being able to pick up something like that anytime in the near future.
Humans have a brain that's wired for understanding language. It's going to be a long time before AI can learn on the vast amount of human skill in this area to be able to do it at a similar level. Even something like h8-speech is going to be hard for AI to get on top of, and there's a nearly infinite pile more weird things we can and do do with language. Ironically, the shit we get correct is going to be more likely flagged by AI that that we intentionally obscure, ala Sconthorpe, for a very, very long time.