I understand that some jobs can lend to working from home.
Truth is most do not.
1. Many people arent productive when working alone;
2. Staff needs to be available to answer questions quickly for many jobs;
3. In person interaction is necessary for some meetings;
4....
Not all companies are big corporations with hundreds of staff that just sit around the office doing menial work and dont interact with anyone all day long.
Most jobs are in small medium businesses. Many must be at a counter to greet customers.
Others needs the tools of their trade which are not at home (machines, etc...).
Your view of things is not wrong, but most likely only applies to a small subset of the work force.
Do not mistake your situation and capabilities with those of the general work force.
So, if you are running that website and decide to call your supplier at 11pm at night to resupply something that is selling very well, he damn better pick up the phone right?
There is a reason why 9-5 exists. Its to be productive, its so everyone at the same time is known to be available.
When my client calls me, he expects me to pick up between 9-5 or return his call during that short period, not the next day.
When I in turn in to call a supplier, its the same thing.
My technicians I send to work, do not want to be called in at all hours of the day and week because a customer has put her kids to bed and decided tonight's the night, lets to the job from 10pm to 2pm.
The 9-5 is not necessary for everyone. I agree. But it gives a certain normalcy, expected schedule to most people which allows them to schedule around it and plan ahead.
If the women want to be free of that, then start a web business that allows you do run your own hours.
There ARE options. Not every job has to cater to everyones needs.
There is a cost to raising children, I know, trust me. The money, usually DOES come from the parents income. What planet are you from? Parents get some tax brakes, but that assumes you dont make much money (this all depends on which country you are in though).
You're right, there might be something of a child surplus given to the parents for the children. But the children do not need the full UBI. They do not and cannot contribute to society... yet.
For the same reason the tax cuts parents get when they have children do not equal a full adults salary.
I agree, too much food would be a massive problem. What do we do with all that food? We still have a transportation and distribution problem to deal with.
But then the popular vote would make the bigger states more important than the smaller states.
Small swing vote states are that way because they have an electorate that vote on the issues, and sit on the fence between the 2 parties every election.
Many if not all the large states are mostly slanted 1 way. It would be the same with the popular vote.
You do remember that the USA is a republic and that states come first, then the union.
In fact, there are very few, historically, nuclear incidents with fatalities. Not so with ANY other power generating technologies, including solar and especially Wind.
Senator Whitehouse AG Loretta Lynch 17 AGs from 15 states, the Virgin Islands and DC Bill Nye Michael Mann Some representatives of the California state legislature AND scientists: Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
Go ahead and do that, and see how people react when everything they buy, I mean almost EVERYTHING will go up in price by 6 to 20% (depending on your tax).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so you've showed me YOUR job allows you to hold the hours you want. Bravo.
I understand that some jobs can lend to working from home. Truth is most do not. 1. Many people arent productive when working alone; 2. Staff needs to be available to answer questions quickly for many jobs; 3. In person interaction is necessary for some meetings; 4. ...
Not all companies are big corporations with hundreds of staff that just sit around the office doing menial work and dont interact with anyone all day long.
Most jobs are in small medium businesses. Many must be at a counter to greet customers.
Others needs the tools of their trade which are not at home (machines, etc...).
Your view of things is not wrong, but most likely only applies to a small subset of the work force.
Do not mistake your situation and capabilities with those of the general work force.
So, if you are running that website and decide to call your supplier at 11pm at night to resupply something that is selling very well, he damn better pick up the phone right? There is a reason why 9-5 exists. Its to be productive, its so everyone at the same time is known to be available. When my client calls me, he expects me to pick up between 9-5 or return his call during that short period, not the next day. When I in turn in to call a supplier, its the same thing. My technicians I send to work, do not want to be called in at all hours of the day and week because a customer has put her kids to bed and decided tonight's the night, lets to the job from 10pm to 2pm. The 9-5 is not necessary for everyone. I agree. But it gives a certain normalcy, expected schedule to most people which allows them to schedule around it and plan ahead. If the women want to be free of that, then start a web business that allows you do run your own hours. There ARE options. Not every job has to cater to everyones needs.
This leaves no room for competence and productivity.
There is a cost to raising children, I know, trust me.
The money, usually DOES come from the parents income. What planet are you from?
Parents get some tax brakes, but that assumes you dont make much money (this all depends on which country you are in though).
You're right, there might be something of a child surplus given to the parents for the children. But the children do not need the full UBI. They do not and cannot contribute to society... yet.
For the same reason the tax cuts parents get when they have children do not equal a full adults salary.
Indeed. I just wanted the math checked :)
Check your math. In 2013 there whre 242 million adults in the USA.
You don't pay UBI to children.
Or you know... spin.
I did notice something unusual.
That graph conveniently leaves out the 1930 and 1940s.
How about, when making graphs, including all the historical record, its a start.
I agree, too much food would be a massive problem.
What do we do with all that food? We still have a transportation and distribution problem to deal with.
There you go again, being an activist and only bringing up activist studies.
You cannot calculate the costs and come up with a meaningful number without also calculating the benefits.
You deliberately and disingenuously replied to me and did not mention the benefits.
The "damage" has to first be demonstrated and second weighed against the benefits.
But then the popular vote would make the bigger states more important than the smaller states.
Small swing vote states are that way because they have an electorate that vote on the issues, and sit on the fence between the 2 parties every election.
Many if not all the large states are mostly slanted 1 way. It would be the same with the popular vote.
You do remember that the USA is a republic and that states come first, then the union.
So... the top 8 or 10 states should have ultimate control over the other 50?
Popular vote means people living in over half the states geographically would have no say in the election.
The EC makes sure realities in different parts of the country are taken into consideration.
What goes for NY might not be what Iowa needs.
All power plants, all over the world, have a strong history of incidents. Because they are major undertakings and they generate... POWER.
The French incidents have had no fatalities and have been dealt with efficiently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In fact, there are very few, historically, nuclear incidents with fatalities. Not so with ANY other power generating technologies, including solar and especially Wind.
Senator Whitehouse
AG Loretta Lynch
17 AGs from 15 states, the Virgin Islands and DC
Bill Nye
Michael Mann
Some representatives of the California state legislature
AND scientists:
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
Did you just call the Senator from Rhode Island a nutter?
They don't generate the traffic, the users do when they request content, be it videos or webpages.
And the users are already being charged.
Are you telling me cable companies arent making a profit?
So you are basically saying. You have nothing to prove your assertion.
Because I do not believe your blind assertion, I do not qualify?
The supposed consensus is about the earth warming and it "possibly" being caused by humans. And even that consensus is shaky at best.
There i NO concensus at all, about your assertion of thing being really bad or catastrophic, except in the media and young brainwashed eco greenies.
So again, show me the consensus that proves your assertion. Your word, does not count.
There is no such consensus.
Please prove your assertion that " has a consensus that it is going to be at least pretty bad and may well get catastrophic".
You see, you lie or repeat lies without even knowing it, which makes it much worse, because thats called ignorance.
Its people who argument/debate like you do, without knowledge who are the most dangerous.
Thats hillarious.
Go ahead and do that, and see how people react when everything they buy, I mean almost EVERYTHING will go up in price by 6 to 20% (depending on your tax).
Oil is less than 1% of the electric generation in the USA.
So come again?
Yes, and they all increased significantly the cost of energy in the EU to the point of it being a major political problem.
With the Brexit and the uncertainties regarding EU subsidies for "green" energy projects, Siemens has decided to halt all wind projects in the UK.
Because the reality is, those projects are just NOT viable without heavy taxpayer subsidies.
It is climate activism and completely useless.
Water is free.
Treated water is not.