Eligibility is what is broken. For instance on healthcare, the law states that hospitals MUST provide emergency medical coverage with no regard to payment. That 70+ million americans are NOT covered by public health and also do not have private insurance, that's a huge fiscal disaster. Want to know why American healthcare service is so expensive? That's the primary reason. Hospitals have gone bankrupt because of it.
As for "welfare" (which is not really what we're talking about, but I've already defined my terms, so moving right along), the point is that if it did not exist, sure, people would find something faster. However, there is a greater economic interest in keeping people in their specialized fields. If you disagree with that on principle, there's no argument that will convince you otherwise and I'm done trying.
If you are truly interested, however, do your own homework. Here are some starting points:
The Budget: www.omb.gov
The "objective" analysis of the results of the budget: www.gao.gov
What we're actually earning and paying: www.irs.gov
Whose got health coverage: www.dhhs.gov
Everything you never wanted to know about employment and the lack thereof: www.labor.gov
I'm not expecting sympathy. Why would I expect sympathy from a complete stranger in another country? My academic background is in political science, so the policy side of this situation is what concerns me. I also have a background in social services and healthcare finance, so I've known the eligibility side of this for the better part of twenty years. This is a HUGE problem in America. That I experienced the effects myself only serves to bolster my interest in the problem, regardless of how much I "needed" public assistance at any point in my life.
That you are so hostile to someone saying "hey, this policy is ass-backwards" is a mystery. It has nothing to do with "sympathy" and everything to do with effective public policy. The current system is not effective. That's the point. Period.
The unemployment laws have a notion of "reasonable employment," since there is no economic benefit to the economy as a whole to take people with highly specialized skills and send them off to flipping burgers--there are PLENTY of people whose skillsets are limited to that who are willing to take those jobs.
The average timeframe to find new employment is six months. That is why unemployment benefits are for *ta-da* six months. Lately, that figure has been a bit shy of reality, with most unemployed taking twice that and longer. The insurance is there precisely so people are not forced to do what people like you would apparently love to seem them do: lose their house, starve their kids, beat their wife and commit suicide. In the last century, the vast majority of civilization has gotten past being that barbaric and overdosing on Hobbes. There are still a few holdouts who cling to their little Penguin copies of the collected works of Ayn Rand, but thankfully on a global scale they're an insignificant minority of cranks that even the Heritage Foundation and the 700 Club would find distasteful and morally repugnant.
The point here isn't that anyone has the right to something for nothing. It is that those who have paid the country's bills are given nothing in return when time comes that they need it--even though for most of their lives they'll never use those services they are disproportionately paying for. That is a nice solid "fiscal responsibility" issue. Those in the top 15% of incomes pay for practically the entire budget and get diddly squat out of it. Fully half the national budget goes into programs that those same contributors are nearly 100% ineligible for. That is a problem--roughly a trillion dollar problem and one that even dearest Alice Rosenbaum would take the same opinion on: "If I pay for something, I should get something."...and yes, I'm working in my field again after moving 3000 miles across the country at a cost of $30k, which was less than half of my reserves. Before you jump on "but you didn't need it!" keep in mind that I had to liquidate equities to access those reserves. That is, shall we say, "a bad thing." If unemployment insurance and the various "welfare" programs can prevent that to any degree, that is "a good thing." The problem is that the current system does _not_ prevent that from happening and once high-income workers become unemployed, they dump their equities, which is the last thing the economy needs.
If all you can see in this is McDonald's, perhaps you should be working there yourself.
If you are reasonable about it, generally employers will be receptive if you have decent justifications like having an established business. Usually there are confidentiality clauses that prohibit you from discussing the terms of your contract with anyone but the executives, HR and legal, so potential conflicts with other employees are minimal. If your business venture is far enough away from a conflict of interest, you shouldn't have much trouble. However, if there is any significant overlap, be prepared to be given the choice of your job or your business. You may have to have that overlap or lack thereof spelled out quite explicitly to keep the company lawyers happy. However, they may advise that you are too much of a risk and that H.R. should just move on.
...if socialism is for morons, there are a lot of Danish morons as the parliament is held by a majority of socialists of various flavors.
Since most political 'isms spring from theoretical social science, I suppose they can't be wrong, which would explain the sense of infallibility of politicians of every color.
Bangalore University has a paltry number of openings for foreign students. Does India see itself opening its universities to foreign students to the same degree that American universities do?
Many americans already saddled with academic debts equal to a decade of IT salaries in India might find it beneficial to pursue advanced degrees on the cheap, but India doesn't seem to be stepping up to the plate.
As long as the cost of living is dozens of times higher, you shouldn't be so quick to consider it lavish. Unemployment maxes out at $330 per week for 26 weeks, which is the only welfare a single male with a previous income over about $20k will be eligble for. After taxes, that's about If you think $6100--and that is the MAXIMUM. As a single person, you will not receive that maximum unless you made over $60k. It's a pittance compared to the amount of tax revenue paid by the recipient.
The fact is, for many of the people in question, "welfare" (that is to say, AFDC, WIC, Medicaid) simply is not an option. They're not remotely eligible for it. The American system is designed so that the ones paying for it are not able to receive it. A $70k/year programmer pays about $8k per year into public health--and will NOT be eligible for public health coverage upon becoming unemployed. They also will not be eligible for food stamps or public housing.
In my case, there was one occasion where I needed public health assistance--at 27 I had just been laid off and ended up in cardiac care to the tune of $27k. In the previous three years, I had paid about as much into the public health budget (read: DHHS). I was responsible for every penny. Meanwhile, a minimum wage earner who has paid almost NOTHING into that budget would be 100% covered.
So yes, you should shed a tear. The people in question have paid for the welfare of others and are denied it when they need it. I gave America $54,631 in taxes in three years. America gave me $6,100 in unemployment and said "get lost."
When I was living in Europe a few years ago, there were U.S.-based multinationals everywhere and the big consulting firms were constantly at the universities---HIRING LOCALS. That's called "direct investment," not offshoring.
Yes, but you are guaranteed many things like family and medical leave, workplace health and safety standards, freedom from discrimination for a laundry list of protected classes (race, sex, age, sexual orientation in many cases etc.), a minimum wage, at companies of a certain size (which isn't very big, like 250+ employees) you must be offered health insurance at group rates, unemployment insurance, social security etc. I completely agree with your assessment of how hostile things have become, but what still remains is a huge percentage of the cost of American labor.
Ahhh, but that's where you need the pre-meeting meeting and the post-meeting meeting, not to mention the ever increasing frequency of the pre-pre-meeting meeting. I'm not joking, we used to have these at a company I recently worked for. Not just running into people at the coffeepot, but actually scheduling them in conference rooms. This wasn't just the minions, this was sanctioned at the director level to counter another director. Fscking ridiculous. However, it did manage to keep everyone on the same well-scripted page. If you find yourself in these meetings, polish your resume, check your savings account and get out as soon as possible. In the meantime, make sure the coffee is fresh and bring donuts. The resulting insulin shock is better than thorazine.
No matter how detailed, a "concept" is still a merely conceptual. Compare it to software development where the proofs-of-concept can eat the entire budget before a single piece of product is finished or often even started, where the budget is set before the vast majority of the actual designs are done, let alone development--that is to say the administrators have pulled the numbers out of their collective asses. This amounts to nothing more than specification. Basically, a very complex watercolor painting.
That said, the current station really is a proof on concept. Look at its precursors: Mir, Skylab, Salyut--all practically tin cans. Sure it strokes the ego (and a few organs) to harken back to the watercolors and plastic models of the 1980's, but compare what is flying now to what has actually flown in the past. The rest is just so much ink on paper and political bravado... in a word: "bullshit."
Although the 43yo adults who should have figured a few things out by now still haven't a clue, they still seem to think that "any 14yo kid can do this," with the result that a) they expect those who can do it to be paid like 14yo kids and b) they have a false sense of their own [in]competence and c) although they readily shell out $100/hour to get their cars fixed, even for things they should know how to do themselves, they cry foul when "the computer guy" wants even half that. Look, I'd much rather fix your brakes than your computer. It's easier and doesn't take as long...and, yes, you SHOULD know how to do that yourself as well.
That said, with close friends and family I have used the dinner ticket exchange for years. Most of them are pretty respectful of how much time a steak is worth. I ate very well in college by simple virtue of the fact that I could type 85wpm and had a reliable computer, unlike many of the other students and god knows most of the crap in the labs.
sure, if by 'design' you really mean 'watercolor concept.' You might as well lament old episodes of Buck Rogers.
And no, there are people on here that are under the impression that the compromise orbit has killed the possibility for 'jumping off' to the moon or mars. There are many reasons why that is irrelevant not the least of which is that by the time those missions would get to production, the current station would be at EOL.
"Necessary science is not being done, no science is being done."--amightywind
"I am also sure that the astronauts are working like busy little bees."--amightywind, after being given a list of what the astronauts are actually doing.
I'm sure the Russians will be upset over that. They've geen going to space stations for thirty years without shuttles and routinely arrive at the current station sans shuttle.
"First, America will complete its work on the International Space Station by 2010, fulfilling our commitment to our 15 partner countries. The United States will launch a re-focused research effort on board the International Space Station to better understand and overcome the effects of human space flight on astronaut health, increasing the safety of future space missions."
That "kind of pablum" comes directly from George Bush's own strategery.
Obviously you cannot read. Obviously you can't even be bothered to type "www.nasa.gov" in your browser. Perhaps this is out of disdain for NASA. If so, perhaps you might look at what Energia thinks is going on up there:
If you still think the astronauts are simply up there performing a multi-billion dollar "mile-high club," go ahead. If and when anyone reaches Mars and you happen to be alive, I'm sure you will base you assessments of their work on the political party represented in the White House instead of on the facts. Bah.
Had we not had Soyuz, the space station would not have flown. There was no other CRV. Without Soyuz any catastrophic event would have meant the loss of the entire crew. We still don't have a CRV and the X38 was nowhere near ready for production. Besides, if we already have a functioning CRV--and one that is relatively cheap, reliable, easy and quick to build, why reinvent the wheel just because a new idea is sexier? To build an alternate CRV would not exactly be a huge leap of progress if it meant not having the station itself in the first place or delaying its construction until such a vehicle existed.
Perhaps you forget that a Soyuz doesn't need to be launched. It's bolted onto the station. It isn't that it would make a better lifeboat. It IS the lifeboat. Did you not get the memo?
Ok, let's take GW's plan at face value. We're going to the moon and mars, yay! Fine. The simple fact that the crew is on the station for extended periods of time is providing the necessary science for prolonged spaceflight. There currently is no alternative location for that to occur.
To put it midly, your statement about "no science' indicates you are misinformed (I'd prefer a different word, but I'm feeling polite today). Perhaps you'd like to check the following link. You may find that the "science' they supposedly are not doing has a direct relation to the pipe dreams of [y]our glorious leader.
Having an alternative is hardly a bad idea. Soyuz and Progress are better suited for delivering supplies and providing "life boats" anyway primarily because they are simpler and cheaper.
It takes 14 months and about $25M to build a Soyuz or Progress and slightly less for launch, but $50M on the far outside from raw materials to orbit. By contrast, Endeavor cost $2.3B, took five years to build, takes 3-5 months to prep for launch, and costs almost a half billion more per launch. That's a total cost by shuttle of $254B, versus $5B by Soyuz for 100 missions. Think of what we could do with the station with that surplus $249 billion...like, maybe, build another one...every ten years.
Credit him with going against every single scientific analysis of the feasibility and utility of a Moonbase or manned mission to mars? The man has _ZERO_ authority on the subject and is not responding to the opinions of those who do have the credentials to make informed assessments who are saying exactly the opposite of his wind blowing rhetoric. How is it a bad idea to have a space station to study how humans cope with spaceflight, which is currently the primary M.O. of the project? No matter how many movies you've seen that portray the situation as otherwise, we have very little experience with long-term spaceflight and can barely keep people alive at a distance practically visible with binoculars. The space station as designed is the test bed to figure out how to stay alive in space and is progressing handily toward that end. How would you suggest we get to Mars without the experience we are gaining there? Should we just "wing it?" DUH.
Christ, people would credit the man for making the Sun rise if there was political hay to be made in it. Oh, I forgot, "it's a vision thing" -- created by the blind.
Slashdot Mirror
Eligibility is what is broken. For instance on healthcare, the law states that hospitals MUST provide emergency medical coverage with no regard to payment. That 70+ million americans are NOT covered by public health and also do not have private insurance, that's a huge fiscal disaster. Want to know why American healthcare service is so expensive? That's the primary reason. Hospitals have gone bankrupt because of it.
As for "welfare" (which is not really what we're talking about, but I've already defined my terms, so moving right along), the point is that if it did not exist, sure, people would find something faster. However, there is a greater economic interest in keeping people in their specialized fields. If you disagree with that on principle, there's no argument that will convince you otherwise and I'm done trying.
If you are truly interested, however, do your own homework. Here are some starting points:
The Budget:
www.omb.gov
The "objective" analysis of the results of the budget:
www.gao.gov
What we're actually earning and paying:
www.irs.gov
Whose got health coverage:
www.dhhs.gov
Everything you never wanted to know about employment and the lack thereof:
www.labor.gov
I'm not expecting sympathy. Why would I expect sympathy from a complete stranger in another country? My academic background is in political science, so the policy side of this situation is what concerns me. I also have a background in social services and healthcare finance, so I've known the eligibility side of this for the better part of twenty years. This is a HUGE problem in America. That I experienced the effects myself only serves to bolster my interest in the problem, regardless of how much I "needed" public assistance at any point in my life.
That you are so hostile to someone saying "hey, this policy is ass-backwards" is a mystery. It has nothing to do with "sympathy" and everything to do with effective public policy. The current system is not effective. That's the point. Period.
Funny coming from a Canuck.
...and yes, I'm working in my field again after moving 3000 miles across the country at a cost of $30k, which was less than half of my reserves. Before you jump on "but you didn't need it!" keep in mind that I had to liquidate equities to access those reserves. That is, shall we say, "a bad thing." If unemployment insurance and the various "welfare" programs can prevent that to any degree, that is "a good thing." The problem is that the current system does _not_ prevent that from happening and once high-income workers become unemployed, they dump their equities, which is the last thing the economy needs.
The unemployment laws have a notion of "reasonable employment," since there is no economic benefit to the economy as a whole to take people with highly specialized skills and send them off to flipping burgers--there are PLENTY of people whose skillsets are limited to that who are willing to take those jobs.
The average timeframe to find new employment is six months. That is why unemployment benefits are for *ta-da* six months. Lately, that figure has been a bit shy of reality, with most unemployed taking twice that and longer. The insurance is there precisely so people are not forced to do what people like you would apparently love to seem them do: lose their house, starve their kids, beat their wife and commit suicide. In the last century, the vast majority of civilization has gotten past being that barbaric and overdosing on Hobbes. There are still a few holdouts who cling to their little Penguin copies of the collected works of Ayn Rand, but thankfully on a global scale they're an insignificant minority of cranks that even the Heritage Foundation and the 700 Club would find distasteful and morally repugnant.
The point here isn't that anyone has the right to something for nothing. It is that those who have paid the country's bills are given nothing in return when time comes that they need it--even though for most of their lives they'll never use those services they are disproportionately paying for. That is a nice solid "fiscal responsibility" issue. Those in the top 15% of incomes pay for practically the entire budget and get diddly squat out of it. Fully half the national budget goes into programs that those same contributors are nearly 100% ineligible for. That is a problem--roughly a trillion dollar problem and one that even dearest Alice Rosenbaum would take the same opinion on: "If I pay for something, I should get something."
If all you can see in this is McDonald's, perhaps you should be working there yourself.
If you are reasonable about it, generally employers will be receptive if you have decent justifications like having an established business. Usually there are confidentiality clauses that prohibit you from discussing the terms of your contract with anyone but the executives, HR and legal, so potential conflicts with other employees are minimal. If your business venture is far enough away from a conflict of interest, you shouldn't have much trouble. However, if there is any significant overlap, be prepared to be given the choice of your job or your business. You may have to have that overlap or lack thereof spelled out quite explicitly to keep the company lawyers happy. However, they may advise that you are too much of a risk and that H.R. should just move on.
...if socialism is for morons, there are a lot of Danish morons as the parliament is held by a majority of socialists of various flavors.
Since most political 'isms spring from theoretical social science, I suppose they can't be wrong, which would explain the sense of infallibility of politicians of every color.
Bangalore University has a paltry number of openings for foreign students. Does India see itself opening its universities to foreign students to the same degree that American universities do?
Many americans already saddled with academic debts equal to a decade of IT salaries in India might find it beneficial to pursue advanced degrees on the cheap, but India doesn't seem to be stepping up to the plate.
As long as the cost of living is dozens of times higher, you shouldn't be so quick to consider it lavish. Unemployment maxes out at $330 per week for 26 weeks, which is the only welfare a single male with a previous income over about $20k will be eligble for. After taxes, that's about If you think $6100--and that is the MAXIMUM. As a single person, you will not receive that maximum unless you made over $60k. It's a pittance compared to the amount of tax revenue paid by the recipient.
The fact is, for many of the people in question, "welfare" (that is to say, AFDC, WIC, Medicaid) simply is not an option. They're not remotely eligible for it. The American system is designed so that the ones paying for it are not able to receive it. A $70k/year programmer pays about $8k per year into public health--and will NOT be eligible for public health coverage upon becoming unemployed. They also will not be eligible for food stamps or public housing.
In my case, there was one occasion where I needed public health assistance--at 27 I had just been laid off and ended up in cardiac care to the tune of $27k. In the previous three years, I had paid about as much into the public health budget (read: DHHS). I was responsible for every penny. Meanwhile, a minimum wage earner who has paid almost NOTHING into that budget would be 100% covered.
So yes, you should shed a tear. The people in question have paid for the welfare of others and are denied it when they need it. I gave America $54,631 in taxes in three years. America gave me $6,100 in unemployment and said "get lost."
That's hardly a lavishly paternal system.
When I was living in Europe a few years ago, there were U.S.-based multinationals everywhere and the big consulting firms were constantly at the universities---HIRING LOCALS. That's called "direct investment," not offshoring.
What companies are you are talking about?
Yes, but you are guaranteed many things like family and medical leave, workplace health and safety standards, freedom from discrimination for a laundry list of protected classes (race, sex, age, sexual orientation in many cases etc.), a minimum wage, at companies of a certain size (which isn't very big, like 250+ employees) you must be offered health insurance at group rates, unemployment insurance, social security etc. I completely agree with your assessment of how hostile things have become, but what still remains is a huge percentage of the cost of American labor.
Ahhh, but that's where you need the pre-meeting meeting and the post-meeting meeting, not to mention the ever increasing frequency of the pre-pre-meeting meeting. I'm not joking, we used to have these at a company I recently worked for. Not just running into people at the coffeepot, but actually scheduling them in conference rooms. This wasn't just the minions, this was sanctioned at the director level to counter another director. Fscking ridiculous. However, it did manage to keep everyone on the same well-scripted page. If you find yourself in these meetings, polish your resume, check your savings account and get out as soon as possible. In the meantime, make sure the coffee is fresh and bring donuts. The resulting insulin shock is better than thorazine.
Nice, erm, watercolor painting.
No matter how detailed, a "concept" is still a merely conceptual. Compare it to software development where the proofs-of-concept can eat the entire budget before a single piece of product is finished or often even started, where the budget is set before the vast majority of the actual designs are done, let alone development--that is to say the administrators have pulled the numbers out of their collective asses. This amounts to nothing more than specification. Basically, a very complex watercolor painting.
That said, the current station really is a proof on concept. Look at its precursors: Mir, Skylab, Salyut--all practically tin cans. Sure it strokes the ego (and a few organs) to harken back to the watercolors and plastic models of the 1980's, but compare what is flying now to what has actually flown in the past. The rest is just so much ink on paper and political bravado... in a word: "bullshit."
Are you sure about that?
..- ....
-..
Great. Just what you want to do is hard-code a quicker way to DoS you system.
TERRIFIC.
This will be used only on systems storing highly sensitive Star Trek Fan-fiction.
Although the 43yo adults who should have figured a few things out by now still haven't a clue, they still seem to think that "any 14yo kid can do this," with the result that a) they expect those who can do it to be paid like 14yo kids and b) they have a false sense of their own [in]competence and c) although they readily shell out $100/hour to get their cars fixed, even for things they should know how to do themselves, they cry foul when "the computer guy" wants even half that. Look, I'd much rather fix your brakes than your computer. It's easier and doesn't take as long...and, yes, you SHOULD know how to do that yourself as well.
That said, with close friends and family I have used the dinner ticket exchange for years. Most of them are pretty respectful of how much time a steak is worth. I ate very well in college by simple virtue of the fact that I could type 85wpm and had a reliable computer, unlike many of the other students and god knows most of the crap in the labs.
sure, if by 'design' you really mean 'watercolor concept.' You might as well lament old episodes of Buck Rogers. And no, there are people on here that are under the impression that the compromise orbit has killed the possibility for 'jumping off' to the moon or mars. There are many reasons why that is irrelevant not the least of which is that by the time those missions would get to production, the current station would be at EOL.
"I am also sure that the astronauts are working like busy little bees."--amightywind, after being given a list of what the astronauts are actually doing.
Alotofwind, apparently. One word: WAFFLE.
"Siiiiigh"--Al Gore
I'm sure the Russians will be upset over that. They've geen going to space stations for thirty years without shuttles and routinely arrive at the current station sans shuttle.
Again, Bah.
That "kind of pablum" comes directly from George Bush's own strategery.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20 040114-1.html
...three to five months is a long time to wait for a taxi.
http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/iss/research es/medic.shtml
If you still think the astronauts are simply up there performing a multi-billion dollar "mile-high club," go ahead. If and when anyone reaches Mars and you happen to be alive, I'm sure you will base you assessments of their work on the political party represented in the White House instead of on the facts. Bah.
Had we not had Soyuz, the space station would not have flown. There was no other CRV. Without Soyuz any catastrophic event would have meant the loss of the entire crew. We still don't have a CRV and the X38 was nowhere near ready for production. Besides, if we already have a functioning CRV--and one that is relatively cheap, reliable, easy and quick to build, why reinvent the wheel just because a new idea is sexier? To build an alternate CRV would not exactly be a huge leap of progress if it meant not having the station itself in the first place or delaying its construction until such a vehicle existed.
Perhaps you forget that a Soyuz doesn't need to be launched. It's bolted onto the station. It isn't that it would make a better lifeboat. It IS the lifeboat. Did you not get the memo?
To put it midly, your statement about "no science' indicates you are misinformed (I'd prefer a different word, but I'm feeling polite today). Perhaps you'd like to check the following link. You may find that the "science' they supposedly are not doing has a direct relation to the pipe dreams of [y]our glorious leader.
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/2 004/04-012.html
Having an alternative is hardly a bad idea. Soyuz and Progress are better suited for delivering supplies and providing "life boats" anyway primarily because they are simpler and cheaper.
It takes 14 months and about $25M to build a Soyuz or Progress and slightly less for launch, but $50M on the far outside from raw materials to orbit. By contrast, Endeavor cost $2.3B, took five years to build, takes 3-5 months to prep for launch, and costs almost a half billion more per launch. That's a total cost by shuttle of $254B, versus $5B by Soyuz for 100 missions. Think of what we could do with the station with that surplus $249 billion...like, maybe, build another one...every ten years.
Credit him with going against every single scientific analysis of the feasibility and utility of a Moonbase or manned mission to mars? The man has _ZERO_ authority on the subject and is not responding to the opinions of those who do have the credentials to make informed assessments who are saying exactly the opposite of his wind blowing rhetoric. How is it a bad idea to have a space station to study how humans cope with spaceflight, which is currently the primary M.O. of the project? No matter how many movies you've seen that portray the situation as otherwise, we have very little experience with long-term spaceflight and can barely keep people alive at a distance practically visible with binoculars. The space station as designed is the test bed to figure out how to stay alive in space and is progressing handily toward that end. How would you suggest we get to Mars without the experience we are gaining there? Should we just "wing it?" DUH.
Christ, people would credit the man for making the Sun rise if there was political hay to be made in it. Oh, I forgot, "it's a vision thing" -- created by the blind.