Now we're arguing semantics. Don't call it murder, call it whatever you want. Use homicide. It does not change my earlier post. They don't see any difference between killing a newly-born child and killing one that was in utero 10 minutes earlier. This is very logical and self-consistent, and pretending it isn't won't get you anywhere.
"Killing through inaction"? First of all, that's a very different thing than deliberate killing. Second, you are painting with an awfully broad brush. I know that plenty of religious people spend an enormous amount of time and money on the charitable aspects of their religion. It would be pretty straightforward to argue that they are even more moral than people who force others to be charitable unwillingly through taxes. I could play the same strawman game as you and paint pro-choice people as selfish people who want to take other people's money and funnel it to their own causes. That gets us nowhere. I think you should take a step back and realize that, when it comes to general welfare, people have pretty much the same goals with different ideas of how to get there. Demonization might win you some quick political points, but hurts everyone in the long run.
Until you're born we'll fight for your life but after you ARE actually alive, you're on your own.
OK, so it's not the way I think, but it's not fundamentally illogical. In fact, it's just a self-consistent opposition to murder at any stage. Just because someone opposes murder does not mean they automatically support government social programs... you are the one making a weird logical jump.
This is where statistics of a group totally fail an individual. Sure, the "average" fertility might be 10-15% per month, but that information is of no use whatsoever if you happen to be a fertile woman who will get pregnant closer to 100% per month. (It's only two data points, but when my wife and I were trying to have kids she got pregnant the first month off birth control for the first kid and the second month off birth control for the second kid.) It's like trying to select whether or not to bring an umbrella based on the historic probability of rainfall for that day... sometimes you are just using the wrong statistic.
You buy a one-off license for those people, just like you would for Photoshop, MATLAB, AutoCAD, or any other specialist app. Everyone else just asks the sender to send in another format or suffers through the bazililon conversion methods. Most people still use returns, tabs, and spaces to format their documents - they certainly don't need anything more powerful than what is available for free.
Right, but we can't pretend there is no side effect... Mary can enjoy her new job at 7-11, but she displaced the moron that used to have the job and now he's out of work entirely. Raising minimum wage is correlated to unemployment... I'm not saying that as someone opposed to minimum wage, but we need to be realistic about its effects.
It was just a very stark example so I chose it. You could be right, but then all I can say is she has a very strong correlation between "guests she respects" and "liberal guests". I still like to listen to some of her interviews - her show is a regular podcast of mine (though I admit to skipping the artsy and celebrity ones, which are most of them these days).
I was just trying to cut Terri a break - but whether or not you agree that he is charming is not really important to make my point. She clearly approached the two men very differently and my assertion is it was (perhaps unconscious) bias on her part.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my point... did the word "Franken" trigger you? I certainly wasn't defending the man, but he is charming. So is Bill Clinton, and I think the man is far worse than Franken in the sexual predator department.
Now this isn't all Terri's fault... Bill O'Reilly is a huge douchebag and Al Franken is charming. But listen to her differing approach in these two interviews of people who, at the time, had almost the exact same role (political-based entertainment): Bill O'Reilly's Fresh Air Interview Al Franken's Fresh Air Interview
It's the best of the "two sides to every story" echo chamber. But as your comment reinforces, we are stuck in a two party mentality and getting a slick spokesman from the Democrat and Republican parties to comment on your show does not illuminate a path to the truth. I listen to NPR all the time, but their bias is sufficient to make me chuckle. Some of the in-depth shows on NPR are excellent - to some extent the news shows are limited by their format. Terry Gross, on topic, once did an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Now, he is a tremendous asshole - but her interview was immediately combative and he ended up walking off the set. During the interview, O'Reilly pointed out that she had just interviewed Al Franken - a fellow political entertainer - and he was given a softball interview. Listening to the Franken interview, it is true - it was a lovefest. I still listen to her and respect her, but her political bias is obvious.
I completely agree. We are terrible at how we spend public money on education, and I think massive reform is called for. But the criticism that we don't spend enough is false.
You were doing a good job until this point. It's a fine defense of limited liability, but it does not make limited liability part of a "free market". As you say, free markets existed long before there was a name (though I still argue that they have never been "ideal" free markets, which are an abstract idea). Limited liability certainly did not exist until very recently in human history - well after people "invented" the free market idea. Whether you feel it is justified or not, it is a massive change with tremendous impact and is not the natural or default state of a market. I mean, the natural state is to organize a posse and burn down the store that killed your loved one:)
OK, I'll hold your hand for you, since you talk so sweetly: Number of colleges in 2000 (technically Title IV postsecondary institutions): 6,479 In 2013: 7,236. Total increase of 11.9%. Source Number of college students in 2000: 13.2 million In 2015: 17.0 million. Total increase of 29%. Source
But just so you don't accuse me of cherry-picking numbers, let's use the larger increase of 45% between 2000 and 2012 from Pew - they only consider full-time students.
From the same link:
A major shift has occurred in the relative levels of funding provided by states and the federal government in recent years. By 2010, federal revenue per full-time equivalent (FTE) student surpassed that of states for the first time in at least two decades, after adjusting for enrollment and inflation. From 2000 to 2012, revenue per FTE student from federal sources going to public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions grew by 32 percent in real terms, while state revenue fell by 37 percent. The number of FTE students at the nation’s colleges and universities grew by 45 percent during the same period. Without adjusting for enrollment growth, total federal revenue grew by 92 percent from $43.3 billion to $83.2 billion in real terms, while state revenue fell by 9 percent from $77.8 billion to $70.8 billion after adjusting for inflation.
To sum up, enrollment increased by 45%. Number of schools rose by around 12%. Total state and federal direct funding (sans loans and tax credits) went from $121.1 billion to $154.0 billion, for a total of 27% increase in direct funding. In addition to that, tax credits have increased from around $12 billion to around $31 billion. Add that to the direct funding and you have $133.1 billion vs $185.0 billion, or a total increase of 39%. Enter student loans. I get that these are meant to be repaid (except the subsidy) and should not count as direct subsidy. But the fact remains that they have increased 376% in the same time period.
So if we use total enrollment, then direct funding has been approximately flat, but tax credits have increased substantially. If we use only full time students, then direct funding has decreased significantly, but when you add in tax credits the decrease is not as significant, around 6%. If you consider student loans to be a kind of subsidy, there certainly has been no decrease no matter how you run the numbers.
I'm on firm ground, even if I don't have your silver tongue.
I'd be more charitable about believing them if they hadn't sustained something like an average 7% increase over 30 years, whether the state funding was going up or down, and if the problem were limited to state schools. I think it's a complex problem, but easy loans and lavish spending on perks to make the schools appealing to wealthy international students seem to be large contributors. I'm not smart enough to resolve this, but at the very least I wonder why so much attention is spent seeking foreign dollars at taxpayer-funded schools. There was a time when you could fund your way through a 4-year state college with a crappy job. It didn't have $50 million student centers or food courts, but you got a decent education without getting buried in debt. There should be something to fill this void.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the system is not broken. I'm just pushing against lack of government funding as being the culprit - if anything it has been an enabler of the massive tuition increases we've seen.
We do it because we have a lot of Chinese customers and so it helps to have software developers and engineers locally. Of course everything is ultimately driven by cost, so I guess you'd say we use Chinese employees to serve the local market because it is very cost effective. As you suggest, we did not open a factory there simply to save on costs to our other markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we're arguing semantics. Don't call it murder, call it whatever you want. Use homicide. It does not change my earlier post. They don't see any difference between killing a newly-born child and killing one that was in utero 10 minutes earlier. This is very logical and self-consistent, and pretending it isn't won't get you anywhere.
"Killing through inaction"? First of all, that's a very different thing than deliberate killing. Second, you are painting with an awfully broad brush. I know that plenty of religious people spend an enormous amount of time and money on the charitable aspects of their religion. It would be pretty straightforward to argue that they are even more moral than people who force others to be charitable unwillingly through taxes. I could play the same strawman game as you and paint pro-choice people as selfish people who want to take other people's money and funnel it to their own causes. That gets us nowhere. I think you should take a step back and realize that, when it comes to general welfare, people have pretty much the same goals with different ideas of how to get there. Demonization might win you some quick political points, but hurts everyone in the long run.
Until you're born we'll fight for your life but after you ARE actually alive, you're on your own.
OK, so it's not the way I think, but it's not fundamentally illogical. In fact, it's just a self-consistent opposition to murder at any stage. Just because someone opposes murder does not mean they automatically support government social programs... you are the one making a weird logical jump.
He just used the term in the same way as the parent. Like "the human race".
This is where statistics of a group totally fail an individual. Sure, the "average" fertility might be 10-15% per month, but that information is of no use whatsoever if you happen to be a fertile woman who will get pregnant closer to 100% per month. (It's only two data points, but when my wife and I were trying to have kids she got pregnant the first month off birth control for the first kid and the second month off birth control for the second kid.) It's like trying to select whether or not to bring an umbrella based on the historic probability of rainfall for that day... sometimes you are just using the wrong statistic.
You buy a one-off license for those people, just like you would for Photoshop, MATLAB, AutoCAD, or any other specialist app. Everyone else just asks the sender to send in another format or suffers through the bazililon conversion methods. Most people still use returns, tabs, and spaces to format their documents - they certainly don't need anything more powerful than what is available for free.
And the politicians need the jobs.
Right, but we can't pretend there is no side effect... Mary can enjoy her new job at 7-11, but she displaced the moron that used to have the job and now he's out of work entirely. Raising minimum wage is correlated to unemployment... I'm not saying that as someone opposed to minimum wage, but we need to be realistic about its effects.
Well, Gross's political leanings wouldn't be a big deal if she wasn't bragging about how empathetic she is with the interviewee.
No, your turn Mr. No Data.
It was just a very stark example so I chose it. You could be right, but then all I can say is she has a very strong correlation between "guests she respects" and "liberal guests". I still like to listen to some of her interviews - her show is a regular podcast of mine (though I admit to skipping the artsy and celebrity ones, which are most of them these days).
I was just trying to cut Terri a break - but whether or not you agree that he is charming is not really important to make my point. She clearly approached the two men very differently and my assertion is it was (perhaps unconscious) bias on her part.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my point... did the word "Franken" trigger you? I certainly wasn't defending the man, but he is charming. So is Bill Clinton, and I think the man is far worse than Franken in the sexual predator department.
Now this isn't all Terri's fault... Bill O'Reilly is a huge douchebag and Al Franken is charming. But listen to her differing approach in these two interviews of people who, at the time, had almost the exact same role (political-based entertainment):
Bill O'Reilly's Fresh Air Interview
Al Franken's Fresh Air Interview
It's the best of the "two sides to every story" echo chamber. But as your comment reinforces, we are stuck in a two party mentality and getting a slick spokesman from the Democrat and Republican parties to comment on your show does not illuminate a path to the truth. I listen to NPR all the time, but their bias is sufficient to make me chuckle. Some of the in-depth shows on NPR are excellent - to some extent the news shows are limited by their format. Terry Gross, on topic, once did an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Now, he is a tremendous asshole - but her interview was immediately combative and he ended up walking off the set. During the interview, O'Reilly pointed out that she had just interviewed Al Franken - a fellow political entertainer - and he was given a softball interview. Listening to the Franken interview, it is true - it was a lovefest. I still listen to her and respect her, but her political bias is obvious.
I completely agree. We are terrible at how we spend public money on education, and I think massive reform is called for. But the criticism that we don't spend enough is false.
Can vouch for this - was using a stall in Canada and everytime you heard a flush, there was an immediate "Thank You!".
Suppose you run a pizzeria
You were doing a good job until this point. It's a fine defense of limited liability, but it does not make limited liability part of a "free market". As you say, free markets existed long before there was a name (though I still argue that they have never been "ideal" free markets, which are an abstract idea). Limited liability certainly did not exist until very recently in human history - well after people "invented" the free market idea. Whether you feel it is justified or not, it is a massive change with tremendous impact and is not the natural or default state of a market. I mean, the natural state is to organize a posse and burn down the store that killed your loved one :)
OK, I'll hold your hand for you, since you talk so sweetly:
Number of colleges in 2000 (technically Title IV postsecondary institutions): 6,479 In 2013: 7,236. Total increase of 11.9%. Source
Number of college students in 2000: 13.2 million In 2015: 17.0 million. Total increase of 29%. Source
But just so you don't accuse me of cherry-picking numbers, let's use the larger increase of 45% between 2000 and 2012 from Pew - they only consider full-time students.
From the same link:
To sum up, enrollment increased by 45%. Number of schools rose by around 12%. Total state and federal direct funding (sans loans and tax credits) went from $121.1 billion to $154.0 billion, for a total of 27% increase in direct funding. In addition to that, tax credits have increased from around $12 billion to around $31 billion. Add that to the direct funding and you have $133.1 billion vs $185.0 billion, or a total increase of 39%. Enter student loans. I get that these are meant to be repaid (except the subsidy) and should not count as direct subsidy. But the fact remains that they have increased 376% in the same time period.
So if we use total enrollment, then direct funding has been approximately flat, but tax credits have increased substantially. If we use only full time students, then direct funding has decreased significantly, but when you add in tax credits the decrease is not as significant, around 6%. If you consider student loans to be a kind of subsidy, there certainly has been no decrease no matter how you run the numbers.
I'm on firm ground, even if I don't have your silver tongue.
There are obviously cases above and below the trendline. I'm talking big picture, not your particular school.
I'd be more charitable about believing them if they hadn't sustained something like an average 7% increase over 30 years, whether the state funding was going up or down, and if the problem were limited to state schools. I think it's a complex problem, but easy loans and lavish spending on perks to make the schools appealing to wealthy international students seem to be large contributors. I'm not smart enough to resolve this, but at the very least I wonder why so much attention is spent seeking foreign dollars at taxpayer-funded schools. There was a time when you could fund your way through a 4-year state college with a crappy job. It didn't have $50 million student centers or food courts, but you got a decent education without getting buried in debt. There should be something to fill this void.
It's neat what you can do when you ignore the federal side of "Federal and state".
I don't think anyone is claiming that the system is not broken. I'm just pushing against lack of government funding as being the culprit - if anything it has been an enabler of the massive tuition increases we've seen.
I know someone who hasn't looked at the numbers for federal/state expenditures on higher education or tuition increases.
We do it because we have a lot of Chinese customers and so it helps to have software developers and engineers locally. Of course everything is ultimately driven by cost, so I guess you'd say we use Chinese employees to serve the local market because it is very cost effective. As you suggest, we did not open a factory there simply to save on costs to our other markets.