There is rarely "one cool thing" which is best for all individual parents to do for all of their individual kids, so questions phrased that way are either useless or an invitation for people to forcibly interfere where they ought not to.
You should account in your theory somewhere for the fact that in constant dollars per capita, federal total revenue has gone up 3x over the last 60 years. So maybe we're actually on average being required to pay 3x as much as we used to for a not significantly improved "product" from the federal government.
But don't worry, spending measured the same way over the same time period has gone up almost 4x
The federal deficits aren't a revenue problem, they're a spending problem. Congress spends more and in the process the government manages to waste more.
It's just that Congress manages to keep spending even more over time. The problem has nothing to do with revenue nor with tax cuts, it's an unwillingness to actually keep federal spending from increasing.
So no, a tax cut isn't stupid. We're paying way too much, especially compared to past decades. Not holding down spending is stupid. The spending per person in constant dollars is crazy high.
Only if you think there are no SJWs at all elsewhere, and you also don't have anyone else willing to report that info and you don't have direct experience of those other locations.
Besides, why would that lead to it being more tolerated by the SJW-rich areas?
It's easy to explain. If you look at the patterns, most sexual harassment/assault being tolerated appears to happen in SJW-oriented locations, like Google, academia, government, news media, Hollywood, etc...
It seems to contribute to people in those cultures being way more concerned about it (because it apparently happens all the time there and is swept under the rug much of the time), while people in more rational fields wonder why they much more rarely see the types of things which are apparently common when you put a bunch of power-hungry leftists together in an organization.
Then the leftists project their own issues on to everyone else and assume it must be worse elsewhere, because they're "woke" or something and just ignore that Clinton/Weinstein/slave-girl-island whatever stuff behind the curtain.
Video news isn't much better. Would be nice to have a phone-wide setting to disable any video download unless explicitly clicked on to view it, or unless an app is given explicit video downloading permissions.
According to the article, there is plenty of research, a natural experiment.
If 90% of table salt people are using all the time has microplastics in it, then it clearly has no negative health effects, or else with such a massive experimental group, we'd have seen negative results already.:)
You're missing that different things are valued differently to different people at different times.
If I give you a lawn mower in exchange for a stove, we can both be better off than we were before, both making a "profit" on the deal, because what we traded was worth less to us than what we received. If not, we wouldn't have a reason to make the exchange.
You're ignoring that both sides in the transaction gain from a voluntary exchange. I gain value from paying someone to do something for me because I value my time, or whatever is involved more than I value what I'm paying them to do it. Look up consumer surplus, for example.
The amount of profit for both sides is minimized by the amount of competition for what they are providing.
Contrary Schneier, the normal pattern is for something to become industry standard, _then_ afterwards for the government to include it in a law or regulation, not the other way around. He knows a lot about computer security, but apparently very little about the history of regulations and safety.
Even to the point that child labor wasn't illegal in the U.S. until it was pretty much completely gone, except in two industries. Guess which two industries the child labor laws exempted from compliance? Yep, those same two.
This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market. They exchange one thing of value (in the case of Uber, transportation services) for another thing of value (money). Or with their drivers, they trade money for use of the contractor's time and car wear and tear.
Both their customers and their contractors are better off after their interaction with Uber because they all exchange something they value less for something they'd rather have. The customer would rather have the ride, the contractor would rather have the cash and Uber would rather have their cut of the money than keep their app and system of organizing rides to themselves.
If Uber isn't efficient enough in their part of the transaction, then Lyft (Or Ula, or whoever) will come in and take their market share. So Uber can't profit any more than they can make the whole process more efficient.
The problem with the Walmart example is that the "Then, as sole retailer and sole employer, set the prices and wages you want" never happens. You can still go into any Walmart and pay less for things than any of the "small" shops which may have been around before. They have to compete with places like Amazon, etc... anyway. It also ignores that their employees were on welfare and food stamps _before_ walmart hired them. It's not like they took a lower paying job at Walmart in order to get food stamps.
Really, this guy sounds like he's one conspiracy theory away from climbing into a clocktower somewhere.
The groups which "extract" resources from the economy, rather than help create new ones, are bureaucrats and politicians via taxes. They skim off the top and never return more than they take overall (i.e. the "multiplier" is less than 1), not even including the economic drag of their endless micromanaging rules for everyone to follow.
There's no need to regulate them. They can run things how they want.
But there is bias there. It's mostly due to human nature and people preferencing what they believe and living in the social and idealogical bubble they're living in, rather than anything too overt. Google employees, journalism graduates, government bureaucrats and much of social science academics have in common that they demonstrate their political opinions in hard numbers by donating 90% to Democrats, so it's not like there is a big secret about their political leanings not being representative of the country as a whole.
It would be good for them to have more transparency and if a company like Facebook or Google really wants to do more than pay lip service to serving ALL their customers, it would be a good idea for them to reach out and find ways to ensure the process for their internal censorship/tilting is more transparent and that they seek out some ideological diversity in both their fact checkers and their trusted news sources. For their long term growth and potential, it's better for them to avoid taking sides in fights which divide half the country away from wanting to use their services.
Teachers generally actually do get paid days off they can take in the middle of the school year. That's why we have substitute teachers. A quick google shows a detailed comparison summarized as: Annual work days if all leave taken for an average teacher: 171.5 Annual work days if all leave taken for an average other 10-year employee: 220
Education majors are generally (varies based on State) way overpaid compared to other fields with comparable human capital inputs (similar IQ/test scores, which are the lowest of any major). "Home Economics" is a comparable major to most of the education ones.
Also, don't fall into the trap many people do of comparing a 9 month teacher salary with a 12 month job in other fields. Teachers can and do either take on additional paid teaching (summer school, etc...) for the other 3 months, or else work another part time job (forestry, for example) or run a small business during the summer.
Bottom line, education and social work majors tend to make the least compared to other majors because they are the dumbest, as measured on things like the SAT and GRE. They are also really, really easy majors.
Because if anyone with access to a Grand Jury could indict the President, then every election cycle we'd have a half dozen or more local prosecutors creating politically motivated indictments to get their name in the papers and create bad press for their political enemies.
It already happens at the State level, although typically in States with split political control and a level of animosity like they have at the Federal level.
If anything, we need more restrictions on criminal indictments, like a Grand Jury process which hasn't been turned into a rubber stamp, rather than less restrictions.
Marketing is primarily about discoverability. Ensuring that customers realize you are selling a solution to their problems. PR is about trying to convince people to like you more than they otherwise would.
So while they certainly aren't perfect (what is?), they're literally the opposite of keeping customers uninformed.
Profit from corporations is currently double taxed, once when it's made by the corporation, then again when the corporation gives any of it back to it's investors as a return on their investment.
There are some shenanigans someone can play short term with a small corporation, essentially a handful of people at most, to avoid taxes which would otherwise get paid by changing some tax treatments, but for large public corporations and their investors (who eventually have to get the actual profit out of the corporation in some form, even if just selling their right to part of it to someone else), it's not somehow less taxed because the people involved do it via a corporate form vs. an individual one. Larger corporations are generally about liabilities for shareholders, not about tax savings.
Also, just because a corporation is chartered by a government organization doesn't legally nor morally transfer full ownership and control of that corporation to that government organization anytime that government organization wants to seize it.
Tech Giants Spend $80 Billion To Make Sure No One Else Can Compete
The title could just as easily have been "Tech Giants Spend $80 Billion To Make Sure They Can Continue To Compete", but that wouldn't give the same spin, now would it?
They have money to spend, so they're figuring out things to spend it on, some stupid, but some to be able to offer better products, increase efficiency, do more for customers and make more money in the future.
What else are they going to do with their cash? Give it to shareholders and suggest they find a company better able to earn a return on it? Stick it in the bank in case they someday start losing money so they have it?
The whole premise of the title is stupid. If theses companies didn't ever have to compete with anyone else, then they would have no need to make big capital expenditures in order to stay or become more competitive with others...
It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the people who voted against a law are responsible for the contents, but the people who voted for the law are not.
Your position is senseless, and has the added disadvantage of not being true. The Democrats may have adjusted their plan based on what they thought would pass, or would be more politically palatable, but that's on them, the people who actually wrote and passed it.
in which they gave in to every single Republican demand for changes
This, to put it mildly, is B.S. They didn't give into Republican demands. The Senate committee included some of the technical fixes which were proposed (i.e. clarifying portions) and two substantive changes, which "required members of Congress and congressional staff to enroll in the government-run option and the other involved biologics medication."
Nothing the GOP suggested had anything to do with what you posted above. The committee also rejected 75% of the GOP suggested amendments. They certainly didn't give into the biggest Republican demand of all, which was to not pass the resulting law, which no Republicans voted for.
Except the link you posted is somewhat misleading. It's showing part-time defined as under 35 hours a week, but Obamacare used a definition of 30 hours a week for part-time for benefits purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents should do what's best for their kids.
There is rarely "one cool thing" which is best for all individual parents to do for all of their individual kids, so questions phrased that way are either useless or an invitation for people to forcibly interfere where they ought not to.
You should account in your theory somewhere for the fact that in constant dollars per capita, federal total revenue has gone up 3x over the last 60 years. So maybe we're actually on average being required to pay 3x as much as we used to for a not significantly improved "product" from the federal government.
But don't worry, spending measured the same way over the same time period has gone up almost 4x
The federal deficits aren't a revenue problem, they're a spending problem. Congress spends more and in the process the government manages to waste more.
Good thing we've actually doubled total federal government revenue since the early 80s (per capita and inflation adjusted, so no wiggle room on the numbers), right?
It's just that Congress manages to keep spending even more over time. The problem has nothing to do with revenue nor with tax cuts, it's an unwillingness to actually keep federal spending from increasing.
So no, a tax cut isn't stupid. We're paying way too much, especially compared to past decades. Not holding down spending is stupid. The spending per person in constant dollars is crazy high.
Only if you think there are no SJWs at all elsewhere, and you also don't have anyone else willing to report that info and you don't have direct experience of those other locations.
Besides, why would that lead to it being more tolerated by the SJW-rich areas?
So in other words, no.
It's easy to explain. If you look at the patterns, most sexual harassment/assault being tolerated appears to happen in SJW-oriented locations, like Google, academia, government, news media, Hollywood, etc...
It seems to contribute to people in those cultures being way more concerned about it (because it apparently happens all the time there and is swept under the rug much of the time), while people in more rational fields wonder why they much more rarely see the types of things which are apparently common when you put a bunch of power-hungry leftists together in an organization.
Then the leftists project their own issues on to everyone else and assume it must be worse elsewhere, because they're "woke" or something and just ignore that Clinton/Weinstein/slave-girl-island whatever stuff behind the curtain.
Maybe now Microsoft will start using decent version control and branching for developing their Windows product...
Video news isn't much better. Would be nice to have a phone-wide setting to disable any video download unless explicitly clicked on to view it, or unless an app is given explicit video downloading permissions.
According to the article, there is plenty of research, a natural experiment.
If 90% of table salt people are using all the time has microplastics in it, then it clearly has no negative health effects, or else with such a massive experimental group, we'd have seen negative results already. :)
Let's be fair... these guys are patriotic. If they really wanted to sabotage the Pentagon's project, they'd make sure Microsoft won the bid.
Have you seen someone try and actually use one of their "private cloud" setups for anything serious?
You're missing that different things are valued differently to different people at different times.
If I give you a lawn mower in exchange for a stove, we can both be better off than we were before, both making a "profit" on the deal, because what we traded was worth less to us than what we received. If not, we wouldn't have a reason to make the exchange.
You're ignoring that both sides in the transaction gain from a voluntary exchange. I gain value from paying someone to do something for me because I value my time, or whatever is involved more than I value what I'm paying them to do it. Look up consumer surplus, for example.
The amount of profit for both sides is minimized by the amount of competition for what they are providing.
Contrary Schneier, the normal pattern is for something to become industry standard, _then_ afterwards for the government to include it in a law or regulation, not the other way around. He knows a lot about computer security, but apparently very little about the history of regulations and safety.
Even to the point that child labor wasn't illegal in the U.S. until it was pretty much completely gone, except in two industries. Guess which two industries the child labor laws exempted from compliance? Yep, those same two.
This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market. They exchange one thing of value (in the case of Uber, transportation services) for another thing of value (money). Or with their drivers, they trade money for use of the contractor's time and car wear and tear.
Both their customers and their contractors are better off after their interaction with Uber because they all exchange something they value less for something they'd rather have. The customer would rather have the ride, the contractor would rather have the cash and Uber would rather have their cut of the money than keep their app and system of organizing rides to themselves.
If Uber isn't efficient enough in their part of the transaction, then Lyft (Or Ula, or whoever) will come in and take their market share. So Uber can't profit any more than they can make the whole process more efficient.
The problem with the Walmart example is that the "Then, as sole retailer and sole employer, set the prices and wages you want" never happens. You can still go into any Walmart and pay less for things than any of the "small" shops which may have been around before. They have to compete with places like Amazon, etc... anyway. It also ignores that their employees were on welfare and food stamps _before_ walmart hired them. It's not like they took a lower paying job at Walmart in order to get food stamps.
Really, this guy sounds like he's one conspiracy theory away from climbing into a clocktower somewhere.
The groups which "extract" resources from the economy, rather than help create new ones, are bureaucrats and politicians via taxes. They skim off the top and never return more than they take overall (i.e. the "multiplier" is less than 1), not even including the economic drag of their endless micromanaging rules for everyone to follow.
There's no need to regulate them. They can run things how they want.
But there is bias there. It's mostly due to human nature and people preferencing what they believe and living in the social and idealogical bubble they're living in, rather than anything too overt. Google employees, journalism graduates, government bureaucrats and much of social science academics have in common that they demonstrate their political opinions in hard numbers by donating 90% to Democrats, so it's not like there is a big secret about their political leanings not being representative of the country as a whole.
It would be good for them to have more transparency and if a company like Facebook or Google really wants to do more than pay lip service to serving ALL their customers, it would be a good idea for them to reach out and find ways to ensure the process for their internal censorship/tilting is more transparent and that they seek out some ideological diversity in both their fact checkers and their trusted news sources. For their long term growth and potential, it's better for them to avoid taking sides in fights which divide half the country away from wanting to use their services.
See other link. It's closer to 10 weeks on average.
Teachers generally actually do get paid days off they can take in the middle of the school year. That's why we have substitute teachers.
A quick google shows a detailed comparison summarized as:
Annual work days if all leave taken for an average teacher: 171.5
Annual work days if all leave taken for an average other 10-year employee: 220
Education majors are generally (varies based on State) way overpaid compared to other fields with comparable human capital inputs (similar IQ/test scores, which are the lowest of any major). "Home Economics" is a comparable major to most of the education ones.
Also, don't fall into the trap many people do of comparing a 9 month teacher salary with a 12 month job in other fields. Teachers can and do either take on additional paid teaching (summer school, etc...) for the other 3 months, or else work another part time job (forestry, for example) or run a small business during the summer.
Bottom line, education and social work majors tend to make the least compared to other majors because they are the dumbest, as measured on things like the SAT and GRE. They are also really, really easy majors.
Because if anyone with access to a Grand Jury could indict the President, then every election cycle we'd have a half dozen or more local prosecutors creating politically motivated indictments to get their name in the papers and create bad press for their political enemies.
It already happens at the State level, although typically in States with split political control and a level of animosity like they have at the Federal level.
If anything, we need more restrictions on criminal indictments, like a Grand Jury process which hasn't been turned into a rubber stamp, rather than less restrictions.
Marketing is primarily about discoverability. Ensuring that customers realize you are selling a solution to their problems. PR is about trying to convince people to like you more than they otherwise would.
So while they certainly aren't perfect (what is?), they're literally the opposite of keeping customers uninformed.
Profit from corporations is currently double taxed, once when it's made by the corporation, then again when the corporation gives any of it back to it's investors as a return on their investment.
There are some shenanigans someone can play short term with a small corporation, essentially a handful of people at most, to avoid taxes which would otherwise get paid by changing some tax treatments, but for large public corporations and their investors (who eventually have to get the actual profit out of the corporation in some form, even if just selling their right to part of it to someone else), it's not somehow less taxed because the people involved do it via a corporate form vs. an individual one. Larger corporations are generally about liabilities for shareholders, not about tax savings.
Also, just because a corporation is chartered by a government organization doesn't legally nor morally transfer full ownership and control of that corporation to that government organization anytime that government organization wants to seize it.
Why do you think other people's resources somehow belong to you and you should have a say in what they do with it?
The title could just as easily have been "Tech Giants Spend $80 Billion To Make Sure They Can Continue To Compete", but that wouldn't give the same spin, now would it?
They have money to spend, so they're figuring out things to spend it on, some stupid, but some to be able to offer better products, increase efficiency, do more for customers and make more money in the future.
What else are they going to do with their cash? Give it to shareholders and suggest they find a company better able to earn a return on it? Stick it in the bank in case they someday start losing money so they have it?
The whole premise of the title is stupid. If theses companies didn't ever have to compete with anyone else, then they would have no need to make big capital expenditures in order to stay or become more competitive with others...
It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the people who voted against a law are responsible for the contents, but the people who voted for the law are not.
Your position is senseless, and has the added disadvantage of not being true. The Democrats may have adjusted their plan based on what they thought would pass, or would be more politically palatable, but that's on them, the people who actually wrote and passed it.
This, to put it mildly, is B.S. They didn't give into Republican demands. The Senate committee included some of the technical fixes which were proposed (i.e. clarifying portions) and two substantive changes, which "required members of Congress and congressional staff to enroll in the government-run option and the other involved biologics medication."
Nothing the GOP suggested had anything to do with what you posted above. The committee also rejected 75% of the GOP suggested amendments. They certainly didn't give into the biggest Republican demand of all, which was to not pass the resulting law, which no Republicans voted for.
Except the link you posted is somewhat misleading. It's showing part-time defined as under 35 hours a week, but Obamacare used a definition of 30 hours a week for part-time for benefits purposes.
As a result, people working 25-29 hours increased after Obamacare was passed, while people working 30-34 hours decreased.