My understanding is that they make money by providing an alternative service and taking advantage of whatever they can. Cheaper workers and costs being one. Being cheaper than their competition in probably most. However, they are apparently more expensive than taxis in several large locations, such as Seattle, but taxis in those locations have reputations for being trashy old cop cars sold at auction (often still with battering rams and search lights) and not even showing up to pick you up if they don't feel like it will be profitable enough for them.
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking.
My question is, who is the maker of that software related to in the SC legislation?
Or, you talk about the decline of middle class numbers. Yeah, it's a bad trend. But, if we're going to talk about history, even most "poor" people in a place like the U.S. today are living with conditions leagues ahead of the "middle class" a couple centuries back.
A couple of centuries ago? Try a couple of decades ago. I once found a study of the costs and possessions of the "middle class" in the 1950's. Homes were much smaller on average. Food and clothing costs were double what they are now. Most people only had one weeks worth of clothes. The dad got bacon and eggs and the kids got oatmeal because the family could not afford to feed the entire family bacon and eggs, thus the breadwinner got it. The 50's were not looked so fondly upon because they were so great, but because it was a general uplifting during the decade. Over that decade wages increased sigificantly. Electric appliances that were labor saving devices freed up lots of time where before the wife couldn't get a job also because of the literal amount of time it takes to do everything around the house without any appliances or pre-made foods. I suspect most people today in America, if they had to live like the middle class in 1950, would claim they were living like it was during the Great Depression. And the Great Depression would be what we consider apocalyptic today with families starving to death.
If you're referring to the "Deplorables" speech, she didn't call half the country that.
She called half of Trump voters that, which would be less than a quarter of the country's voters.
Yes, but there's no real way to know if she was referring to you or not if you were a Trump voter or even a Republican. Even then, there are many who are thinking she is at least referring to people they are sympathetic to. Most of the actual quote never even got the headlines. All most people probably got was a sound bite where Clinton called Trump voters "Deplorable". It probably bit her in those swing states with the swing voters she needed, especially since she lost some of them by tenths of a percent. I remember her attacking or at least saying things to aggravate Bernie supporters after she got the Democratic nomination. I really think that it comes down to that if she had half the charisma as the comedian that player her on SNL, she would have won easily.
Makes me wonder if driverless cars are programed to pull over when a cop shows up behind them with lights on, let alone follow instructions over the loudspeaker. even if they do pull over, how do they provide license, registration, insurance, or take tickets? Are passangers always responsible in such cases? What if there are no passengers? I wonder how a driverless car handles getting impounded and towed?
Oh, so there's no law in California requiring that motor vehicles only be operated by licensed drivers? Seems unlikely.
Ah, but you see these driverless cars are not actually owned by Uber, but are just contractors, and thus, Uber is not responsible for getting any permits for them.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Well, if they'd stop slacking and do their proper duty to their country and have kids, everybody would be happy. If the nation is to prosper, it needs more population and particularly from well off people who will raise their kids to also be well off. Even ancient Rome had incentives to get people to have kids. Now this is a company, and not a country, but since IIRC the US is the only industrialized country to not have mandatory leave for havign children, I expect that American Express is just doing this to unify policies across all their operations and keep their American employees from getting pissed about not getting what employees in other countries get.
Ultimately, it'll break capitalism, assuming that Congress doesn't step in to make laws preserving it (i.e., banning excess of automation).
Or, something unforeseen will cause new jobs to open up. A hundred years ago most jobs were agricultural and they have mostly be abandoned and manufacturing jobs took their place and when manufacturing started to go away, other jobs opened up in other fields. the future always seems to be able to throw a wrench into what people think will happen.
To get from mars to earth requires you to either ship fuel or make fuel their.
You remove that and you remove some cost.
A trivial cost in the total cost of such a venture and much less than the extra materials they'd have to take to make an attempt at a self sustaining colony. the way things are shaping up now, they (Space X, as those are the only people seriously looking at going to Mars) will test their landing craft and need to do so to make sure they can land and do it where they want. One of these will contain the apparatus to collect the fuel from the Martian air and prove that it will work before humans ever leave for Mars. Their return fuel will probably be waiting for them when they get there.
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
Indeed never presume to understand the reasons why people do something. We had an instrument technician who parked his caravan outside our plant when we hired him as a temporary worker. I asked him about it and he said it was easy. He was single, not attached to a location, had no expenses, and after doing it for under 2 years had enough money to buy a house in cash setting him up for a fantastic future life.
One of my friends working at Amazon in Seattle has a coworker that lives out of her camper that she parks around the area. Uses the company facilities to shower and all that. There are plenty of such camper vans that you can find just walking around the various parks or anywhere parking is not metered. One can blame the high housing costs in Seattle for part of the reason. Still, there are plenty of people doing the same thing out on the peninsula too, old hippies living out their self sustaining farming dream, younger guys living out of their 10'x10' cabins, etc. Once ended up at a friend of a friend's land. He had a job and bought himself ten acres, slept in a small camper, and spent most of his time sitting around a bonfire drinking beer with friends. I had one friend who working on his PhD just decide to leave and hop trains and camp for the next two years. Some people just decide to do that sort of thing.
Unless one or more of the bigger nation states gets involved there simply won't be adequate funding to make it happen. We're talking tens to hundreds of billions to actually pull off a mission to Mars. For profit companies aren't going to get involved because shockingly enough there is no profit in such a venture even if it were a serious endeavor, which it is not. Private funding wouldn't remotely be sufficient and governments aren't involved. The only organizations that are capable of developing the technology to make a Mars mission happen are not involved with Mars One.
Elon has said that a manned Mars mission would cost at least $200 Billion and possibly $600 Billion. I doubt that Mars One has anything to offer Space X. Their funding is small and drying up. I doubt their engineering is anything better than Space X could come up with in a weekend. Their hype machine is probably less than Elon himself let alone a project he could start. Their idea that the cost to Mars can be magically reduced by leaving everybody there to die is a farcical nonstarter.
Bickering aside about who did the cheating, can we all just agree on two things?
1: Shitcan the electronic voting machines and stick with something that's verifiable. Perhaps, the paper ballets that we've already been using for a long time.
2: Require a verifiable ID to vote. At least, something as good as what is required to buy a beer.
If not, then can we point our fingers at the people who object to the above?
Sure, just create the constitutional amendment taking the power for the states to decide how they conduct their voting and put it in the hands of the federal government.
Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.
If you think the Nazis are an example of the "extreme right" then your arrogance and misunderstanding knows no bounds. "Nazi" meant "National Socialist German Workers Party". Remind me again, which political party is it that offers a safe haven to socialism? I certainly don't think it's the big-business first capitalist Republican one. I believe it was your original candidate, Mr. Bernie Sanders, that publicly stated he was a socialist.
Ok, look. Pandering the common man is was easy way to get their backing. There were "socialist" factions within the Nazis who wanted to make sure the common German worker was taken care of. These pretty much all died,, literally, with Rohm in the Night of Long Knives. From then on, they were pretty much a politically extreme right which is to say authoritarian rule, as opposed to the egalitarianism of political left. This is different from the political left or right that is associated with liberal, wanting to make changes, or conservative, wanting to maintain the status quo which are terms that have also formed different meaning than their original. That generally has nothing to do with financially left or right wing which is where the 'socialist" comes in with defining differences between capitalist and communist. Even then, in both cases, things are being defined in dualistic definitions that usually break down when talking about anything in more than a cursory manner as there are many different, often conflicting, meanings even under the same label.
Yes, there were polling issues even going into the election. Several articles came out talking about how hard it was getting to poll people. Most if not all polling is done through landlines, to which younger people just don't have any more. There are strong differences between age groups and it's hard to guess how many people who say they will vote actually will. Small groups were weighted strongly and skewed differences. On the day of the election, exit polls were done where it was thought there would be battle ground areas, meanwhile areas that were thought to be known variables and never got exit poll attention actually changed a great deal and voted differently than expected.
Didn't Superman spin the Earth backwards by flying around it opposite to the rotation? That seems like it would work to speed it up if he flew the other way. Just need to contact Clark.
I always thought that too, but apparently from reading articles about the movie more recently, they were trying to show him flying so fast that he went back in time (supposedly just going around the Earth so he didn't get lost).
That's how Superman travelling backwards in time would see the Earth. As time stopped for him, so would the spinning of the Earth. As he moved backwards in time, the Earth would appear to move in reverse and all the actions would be shown like a movie being played backwards as they appeared in the film.
So how did they explain away the Earth actually stopping, then reversing its rotation, which would have been more disastrous than the nuke detonating on the San Andreas Fault?
Didn't Superman spin the Earth backwards by flying around it opposite to the rotation? That seems like it would work to speed it up if he flew the other way. Just need to contact Clark.
I always thought that too, but apparently from reading articles about the movie more recently, they were trying to show him flying so fast that he went back in time (supposedly just going around the Earth so he didn't get lost).
Second, an "assault rifle" is a class of weapon that is capable of burst and/or fully automatic fire.
Just to be pedantic, IIRC, an "assault rifle" is a class of weapon that is capable of selective fire and fires a cut down rifle round which results in a shorter range and less stopping power but allows soldiers to carry more ammo. There are pistols with selective fire, and guns that fire a full battle rifle round with selective fire, such as the BAR, are usually classified as light machine guns. Probably just overlooked as unimportant in the discussion but the ability to carry more ammo and less need of long range and stopping power was critical to the change in tactics that lead to the development of assault rifles.
What about cutting down full time to 32 hours a week at the start. And say down the road we get to the idea of people doing about 20-25 a week as the full time.
You could already do that if you wanted, but I think you will find that the solution up till now has been to provide more stuff that people need. A century or so ago, people did not have cars, but they had horses, so we'll call that a draw. Still, they did not all have electricity, running water, radio, telephones, tvs, cable, internet, computers, etc.If you wanted to go back and live the way people did then, you probably could with a proportionally less amount of work than people need to live now. Same with the 50's lifestyle. If you wanted to go back and live at the same standard of living as in 1950, you could with a proportional reduction in work that modern productivity has given us relative to that time. Still, people enjoy and want their TVs, computers, game systems, more than a weeks worth of clothing, food that doesn't have to be made from scratch every day, etc. There are some difficulties in this, such as even finding a house without modern convienences or expected square footage which also meet current codes, and while things like clothing and food have become cheaper, land and housing has become more expensive. There are people who have chosen to do so that I know of that live out on the Washington peninsula, hippies, mountain men, people that are just happy with living in a cabin and doing part time work for a minimum of necessities. Instead, society and technology have provided more and more things that people want or even need to participate in modern society.
I visited there once, and the tour guide told us how locals hate Microsoft. Which, regardless of the/. opinion of that company, would be strange for Seattle since it was Microsoft, who along w/ Boeing and later Starbucks, put them on the map
He was probably a Mac guy.
Seriously, I haven't seen much hatred for Microsoft. Paul Allen certainly used to make his presence known and was annoying for some a decade or two ago, mostly by spending his own money to build things in the Seattle area. Still I can see locals disliking Microsoft because it along with the.com boom and Amazon have caused the doubling in population Seattle has seen in the last 20 years, forcing them out of the city as others move in. I would hazard to say that most of the people in Seattle are not from Seattle, but from Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Eastern WA, Indiana, etc who moved here because they wanted to either get in on the computer industry and/or live in the "left coast".
Uh, WA i.e. Seattle is as Leftist as CA is. The reason it's called the Left Coast is San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle. They are probably more Leftist than Havana, Caracas, Managua or Pyongyang
Heh. While there are some leftists like you describe, the vast majority are quite willing to take advantage of the capitalist system and get rich. The difference it that they are ok with paying taxes and the things they buy because they figure that's how they buy civilization and believe their is a net gain even for themselves.
This is why lots of folks are rising up against the urban elites: you don't understand and can't conceive of any other lifestyle but your own.
Sure we do. You have to remember that many of those "urban elites" are from places like Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, etc.. We grew up out there, saw that it was a cultural and economic dead end, and fled as soon as we could. We understand the rural lifestyle quite well as we were raised in it. Of course, while we may be understanding in some aspects, we are certainly the harshest critics on others.
Slashdot Mirror
Uber makes money by undercutting taxis.
My understanding is that they make money by providing an alternative service and taking advantage of whatever they can. Cheaper workers and costs being one. Being cheaper than their competition in probably most. However, they are apparently more expensive than taxis in several large locations, such as Seattle, but taxis in those locations have reputations for being trashy old cop cars sold at auction (often still with battering rams and search lights) and not even showing up to pick you up if they don't feel like it will be profitable enough for them.
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking.
My question is, who is the maker of that software related to in the SC legislation?
Or, you talk about the decline of middle class numbers. Yeah, it's a bad trend. But, if we're going to talk about history, even most "poor" people in a place like the U.S. today are living with conditions leagues ahead of the "middle class" a couple centuries back.
A couple of centuries ago? Try a couple of decades ago. I once found a study of the costs and possessions of the "middle class" in the 1950's. Homes were much smaller on average. Food and clothing costs were double what they are now. Most people only had one weeks worth of clothes. The dad got bacon and eggs and the kids got oatmeal because the family could not afford to feed the entire family bacon and eggs, thus the breadwinner got it. The 50's were not looked so fondly upon because they were so great, but because it was a general uplifting during the decade. Over that decade wages increased sigificantly. Electric appliances that were labor saving devices freed up lots of time where before the wife couldn't get a job also because of the literal amount of time it takes to do everything around the house without any appliances or pre-made foods. I suspect most people today in America, if they had to live like the middle class in 1950, would claim they were living like it was during the Great Depression. And the Great Depression would be what we consider apocalyptic today with families starving to death.
- Make Clinton call half the country rude names
If you're referring to the "Deplorables" speech, she didn't call half the country that. She called half of Trump voters that, which would be less than a quarter of the country's voters.
Yes, but there's no real way to know if she was referring to you or not if you were a Trump voter or even a Republican. Even then, there are many who are thinking she is at least referring to people they are sympathetic to. Most of the actual quote never even got the headlines. All most people probably got was a sound bite where Clinton called Trump voters "Deplorable". It probably bit her in those swing states with the swing voters she needed, especially since she lost some of them by tenths of a percent. I remember her attacking or at least saying things to aggravate Bernie supporters after she got the Democratic nomination. I really think that it comes down to that if she had half the charisma as the comedian that player her on SNL, she would have won easily.
Makes me wonder if driverless cars are programed to pull over when a cop shows up behind them with lights on, let alone follow instructions over the loudspeaker. even if they do pull over, how do they provide license, registration, insurance, or take tickets? Are passangers always responsible in such cases? What if there are no passengers? I wonder how a driverless car handles getting impounded and towed?
Oh, so there's no law in California requiring that motor vehicles only be operated by licensed drivers? Seems unlikely.
Ah, but you see these driverless cars are not actually owned by Uber, but are just contractors, and thus, Uber is not responsible for getting any permits for them.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Well, if they'd stop slacking and do their proper duty to their country and have kids, everybody would be happy. If the nation is to prosper, it needs more population and particularly from well off people who will raise their kids to also be well off. Even ancient Rome had incentives to get people to have kids. Now this is a company, and not a country, but since IIRC the US is the only industrialized country to not have mandatory leave for havign children, I expect that American Express is just doing this to unify policies across all their operations and keep their American employees from getting pissed about not getting what employees in other countries get.
Ultimately, it'll break capitalism, assuming that Congress doesn't step in to make laws preserving it (i.e., banning excess of automation).
Or, something unforeseen will cause new jobs to open up. A hundred years ago most jobs were agricultural and they have mostly be abandoned and manufacturing jobs took their place and when manufacturing started to go away, other jobs opened up in other fields. the future always seems to be able to throw a wrench into what people think will happen.
To get from mars to earth requires you to either ship fuel or make fuel their.
You remove that and you remove some cost.
A trivial cost in the total cost of such a venture and much less than the extra materials they'd have to take to make an attempt at a self sustaining colony. the way things are shaping up now, they (Space X, as those are the only people seriously looking at going to Mars) will test their landing craft and need to do so to make sure they can land and do it where they want. One of these will contain the apparatus to collect the fuel from the Martian air and prove that it will work before humans ever leave for Mars. Their return fuel will probably be waiting for them when they get there.
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
Indeed never presume to understand the reasons why people do something. We had an instrument technician who parked his caravan outside our plant when we hired him as a temporary worker. I asked him about it and he said it was easy. He was single, not attached to a location, had no expenses, and after doing it for under 2 years had enough money to buy a house in cash setting him up for a fantastic future life.
One of my friends working at Amazon in Seattle has a coworker that lives out of her camper that she parks around the area. Uses the company facilities to shower and all that. There are plenty of such camper vans that you can find just walking around the various parks or anywhere parking is not metered. One can blame the high housing costs in Seattle for part of the reason. Still, there are plenty of people doing the same thing out on the peninsula too, old hippies living out their self sustaining farming dream, younger guys living out of their 10'x10' cabins, etc. Once ended up at a friend of a friend's land. He had a job and bought himself ten acres, slept in a small camper, and spent most of his time sitting around a bonfire drinking beer with friends. I had one friend who working on his PhD just decide to leave and hop trains and camp for the next two years. Some people just decide to do that sort of thing.
Why does this obvious scam continue to get headlines from slashdot?
At this point, it's because /. likes Mars and we like to bitch. It gets the hits and the comments, so they keep posting them.
Unless one or more of the bigger nation states gets involved there simply won't be adequate funding to make it happen. We're talking tens to hundreds of billions to actually pull off a mission to Mars. For profit companies aren't going to get involved because shockingly enough there is no profit in such a venture even if it were a serious endeavor, which it is not. Private funding wouldn't remotely be sufficient and governments aren't involved. The only organizations that are capable of developing the technology to make a Mars mission happen are not involved with Mars One.
Elon has said that a manned Mars mission would cost at least $200 Billion and possibly $600 Billion. I doubt that Mars One has anything to offer Space X. Their funding is small and drying up. I doubt their engineering is anything better than Space X could come up with in a weekend. Their hype machine is probably less than Elon himself let alone a project he could start. Their idea that the cost to Mars can be magically reduced by leaving everybody there to die is a farcical nonstarter.
Bickering aside about who did the cheating, can we all just agree on two things? 1: Shitcan the electronic voting machines and stick with something that's verifiable. Perhaps, the paper ballets that we've already been using for a long time. 2: Require a verifiable ID to vote. At least, something as good as what is required to buy a beer.
If not, then can we point our fingers at the people who object to the above?
Sure, just create the constitutional amendment taking the power for the states to decide how they conduct their voting and put it in the hands of the federal government.
Have experience with the extreme right and having a new government constructed afterwards in particular to avoid repeating that error gives Germany strength.
If you think the Nazis are an example of the "extreme right" then your arrogance and misunderstanding knows no bounds. "Nazi" meant "National Socialist German Workers Party". Remind me again, which political party is it that offers a safe haven to socialism? I certainly don't think it's the big-business first capitalist Republican one. I believe it was your original candidate, Mr. Bernie Sanders, that publicly stated he was a socialist.
Ok, look. Pandering the common man is was easy way to get their backing. There were "socialist" factions within the Nazis who wanted to make sure the common German worker was taken care of. These pretty much all died,, literally, with Rohm in the Night of Long Knives. From then on, they were pretty much a politically extreme right which is to say authoritarian rule, as opposed to the egalitarianism of political left. This is different from the political left or right that is associated with liberal, wanting to make changes, or conservative, wanting to maintain the status quo which are terms that have also formed different meaning than their original. That generally has nothing to do with financially left or right wing which is where the 'socialist" comes in with defining differences between capitalist and communist. Even then, in both cases, things are being defined in dualistic definitions that usually break down when talking about anything in more than a cursory manner as there are many different, often conflicting, meanings even under the same label.
Yes, there were polling issues even going into the election. Several articles came out talking about how hard it was getting to poll people. Most if not all polling is done through landlines, to which younger people just don't have any more. There are strong differences between age groups and it's hard to guess how many people who say they will vote actually will. Small groups were weighted strongly and skewed differences. On the day of the election, exit polls were done where it was thought there would be battle ground areas, meanwhile areas that were thought to be known variables and never got exit poll attention actually changed a great deal and voted differently than expected.
Didn't Superman spin the Earth backwards by flying around it opposite to the rotation? That seems like it would work to speed it up if he flew the other way. Just need to contact Clark.
I always thought that too, but apparently from reading articles about the movie more recently, they were trying to show him flying so fast that he went back in time (supposedly just going around the Earth so he didn't get lost).
That's how Superman travelling backwards in time would see the Earth. As time stopped for him, so would the spinning of the Earth. As he moved backwards in time, the Earth would appear to move in reverse and all the actions would be shown like a movie being played backwards as they appeared in the film.
So how did they explain away the Earth actually stopping, then reversing its rotation, which would have been more disastrous than the nuke detonating on the San Andreas Fault?
And what is the dividing point between BCE and CE?
Not to mention it's strange to call it the "Common Era", when most of the world didn't know about the rest of the world at the start of the era.
"Common Era"? Hrrm. I always through CE stood for "Christian Empire".
Didn't Superman spin the Earth backwards by flying around it opposite to the rotation? That seems like it would work to speed it up if he flew the other way. Just need to contact Clark.
I always thought that too, but apparently from reading articles about the movie more recently, they were trying to show him flying so fast that he went back in time (supposedly just going around the Earth so he didn't get lost).
Second, an "assault rifle" is a class of weapon that is capable of burst and/or fully automatic fire.
Just to be pedantic, IIRC, an "assault rifle" is a class of weapon that is capable of selective fire and fires a cut down rifle round which results in a shorter range and less stopping power but allows soldiers to carry more ammo. There are pistols with selective fire, and guns that fire a full battle rifle round with selective fire, such as the BAR, are usually classified as light machine guns. Probably just overlooked as unimportant in the discussion but the ability to carry more ammo and less need of long range and stopping power was critical to the change in tactics that lead to the development of assault rifles.
What about cutting down full time to 32 hours a week at the start. And say down the road we get to the idea of people doing about 20-25 a week as the full time.
You could already do that if you wanted, but I think you will find that the solution up till now has been to provide more stuff that people need. A century or so ago, people did not have cars, but they had horses, so we'll call that a draw. Still, they did not all have electricity, running water, radio, telephones, tvs, cable, internet, computers, etc.If you wanted to go back and live the way people did then, you probably could with a proportionally less amount of work than people need to live now. Same with the 50's lifestyle. If you wanted to go back and live at the same standard of living as in 1950, you could with a proportional reduction in work that modern productivity has given us relative to that time. Still, people enjoy and want their TVs, computers, game systems, more than a weeks worth of clothing, food that doesn't have to be made from scratch every day, etc. There are some difficulties in this, such as even finding a house without modern convienences or expected square footage which also meet current codes, and while things like clothing and food have become cheaper, land and housing has become more expensive. There are people who have chosen to do so that I know of that live out on the Washington peninsula, hippies, mountain men, people that are just happy with living in a cabin and doing part time work for a minimum of necessities. Instead, society and technology have provided more and more things that people want or even need to participate in modern society.
I visited there once, and the tour guide told us how locals hate Microsoft. Which, regardless of the /. opinion of that company, would be strange for Seattle since it was Microsoft, who along w/ Boeing and later Starbucks, put them on the map
He was probably a Mac guy.
Seriously, I haven't seen much hatred for Microsoft. Paul Allen certainly used to make his presence known and was annoying for some a decade or two ago, mostly by spending his own money to build things in the Seattle area. Still I can see locals disliking Microsoft because it along with the .com boom and Amazon have caused the doubling in population Seattle has seen in the last 20 years, forcing them out of the city as others move in. I would hazard to say that most of the people in Seattle are not from Seattle, but from Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Eastern WA, Indiana, etc who moved here because they wanted to either get in on the computer industry and/or live in the "left coast".
Uh, WA i.e. Seattle is as Leftist as CA is. The reason it's called the Left Coast is San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle. They are probably more Leftist than Havana, Caracas, Managua or Pyongyang
Heh. While there are some leftists like you describe, the vast majority are quite willing to take advantage of the capitalist system and get rich. The difference it that they are ok with paying taxes and the things they buy because they figure that's how they buy civilization and believe their is a net gain even for themselves.
Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.
Actually, it's those that realize that politics are more complicated than dualistic descriptors can describe vs. those who don't.
This is why lots of folks are rising up against the urban elites: you don't understand and can't conceive of any other lifestyle but your own.
Sure we do. You have to remember that many of those "urban elites" are from places like Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, etc.. We grew up out there, saw that it was a cultural and economic dead end, and fled as soon as we could. We understand the rural lifestyle quite well as we were raised in it. Of course, while we may be understanding in some aspects, we are certainly the harshest critics on others.
Wait a year, when Trump is president, and anything under 200,000k will be considered anemic again.
I wonder what bubble we'll be operating under by then?