I don't want to degrade this girls achievements by any means, but I'm not particularly impressed by the Microsoft Certification part. By the time I was her age I was not passing Microsoft exams, I was programing in multiple languages including assembly and machine code. This was quite some time ago, before MS had a certification program (may have even been before they existed, but I don't know the dates off hand).
Again, i'm not at all saying that this girl was any less than impressive, but it has nothing to do with the microsoft certification.
welfare... Credit (EIC) given to moms... school districts, fire department, police department... Social Security/medicare... unemployment benefits... roads and highways... state upkeep, governance, and food stamps...Largely stuff I don't really care about.
Not sure you know what happens when the poor have no alternatives to get what they need to survive. Few people who are not working now, would take up jobs (if there were any) if the government cut welfare programs. Guess where those people will turn when they can't turn to government assistance. The will turn to those who have what they need, and they will take it. And if you think welfare is expensive, what till you see the cost of keeping all those people incarcerated. Of course that won't happen if you had your way since there would be no "police department".
You may nor care about all these things while they are available, but you would surely miss them if they were gone.
Kind of like H.P. Lovecraft, really. Imaginative world, writing is meh.
Lovercraft had a style that was vastly different than other writers of his period. He was one of the first horror writers to write in a way that gave the user a sense of belief. His ability to create a plausible scenario while leaving the read with a sense of doubt is what makes his writing stand out from nearly all other writers. Sure the Herbert-West Stories and even Call of Cathulu where not the best writetn stories, but Pickman's Model and the Music of Erich Zann are unsurpassed surreal macabre, a genre that Lovecraft perfect if not invented, and has yet to be handled well sense.
...CS Lewis, another person whose religious commitments made his work far more shallow and one-dimensional than it could've been.
Yet his best story, arguably was one that hid no pretense in it's religious content.
Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others.
I was going to jump in on this and voice a supporting argument, but after reading this line I can see where the GP was coming from. It all depends on what the purpose of governmentally recognized marriage is. If it is one of moral grounds then yes, protecting the right of any two people to marry (which should include polygamy and other forms of marriage) would be protecting individual liberty. If the purpose is to promote the continuation of productive and successful offspring, then gay marriage is pushing of a moral agenda, as gay marriage does nothing to promote reproduction (where as promoting reproduction without marriage produces single parent house holds, which sadly produces less productive individuals on average).
Apprenticeship is exactly what we need in the IT industry. Inters are also a reasonable approach, but with the cost of education skyrocketing, apprenticeships will be the only solution.
Constutional rights Don't apply on private property.
Bullshit they don't. The rights protected by the US constitution apply to all people of the United States, anywhere within the United States. Technically it even protects us citizens outside the US, but that's a little harder to enforce. If this were not true then you would still see plenty of slaves, they just wouldn't be allowed on public property.
Seriously, your comment is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen written.
By DC I assume you mean the District of Columbia, but that wouldn't make an sense, being as the downtown stations are less than a mile part, which is very easily walking distance (I've walked between them many times).
Well in this case it was for the most senior technical position in a company. A position I might qualify for, but they had no way of ascertaining that. Plus if the interviewer doesn't ask questions pertinent to the position, it's possible that the lack of information gathering and sharing permeates the whole company.
And really, what's the worst that could happen? You find out you're not a good fit for the company, and 3 months later you're right back where you started.
You give up a potentially decent job (I was happy with the job I had), and lose all seniority and the benefits that go along with that (401k vestment, vacation time accrual, etc). Never mind that you don't know what will happen with the economy at that time, and you've just added another short term of employment to your resume. I'm personally not interested in taking that risk, and also not interested in hiring anyone that would take that risk. Sounds like someone that would be likely to jump ship shortly after the initial employment investment.
This is complete rubbish. No employer in there right mind wants to hire someone just because they "need a paycheck." These are the kind of people that take a job only long enough to look for a new one. These people will often times not put anything more into a job than the bare minimum to collect their paycheck, and will often do even less than that leading to a very costly employee, even once your release them from service.
Yes it's true that any decent company is attempting to get the most for the money, but this does not mean hiring wage slaves. Having highly motivated and well compensated employees is usually far more productive than doing the opposite. Yes these motivated people are going to go out an look for other employement, but if they find it and receive the right compensation, it's because they are worth it. And companies do what you to move up the ladder. There are higher positions that will need to be filled, and most companies would much rather offer the advancement to an internal employee rather than higher some unknown. It's almost always better to bring the unknowns in at the lower levels to reduce cost of risk.
when they ask me to engage in meaningless work so they can judge me, I tell them they're welcome to judge my portfolio, but if they want me to start problem solving, the meaningless of the task is irrelevant... they're still going to have to pay for it.
If a company does not ask me to engage in some sort of applicable work I walk. A company should only be hiring people if they have demonstrated the ability to do, or learn, the specific tasks they will be asked to do.
Not too long ago, I was offered a major promotion and significant salary increase for a company, after completing two, 30 minute interviews. I proceeded to turn down the position, because by the time the made the offer I realized they had no way of knowing if I was actually capable of doing the job. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to walk into a position that is significantly beyond my abilities, knowingly. That's not to say I couldn't do that particular job, it's just that there was no way of either side knowing that with the lack of applicable questions.
Other than the fact that IE9 believes that clicking on a anchor that goes no where should trigger the beforeunload event, even though the page is not in the process of being unloaded. And that's just the one annoyance I ran into recently. Microsoft will never get the browser right, they just don't know how.
Therefore, a single person should pay the least in taxes, followed by married couples which have only one working spouse, followed by people with dependents - especially children who attend public schools.
Your missing the bigger picture here. The single people benefit as much, if not more, from educated children than the families with children. The educated child grows up to create new products and services, or at least works in the production of products and services, which are then used by everyone. Those without children have gained these benefits without paying any of the costs, including time, on child rearing. Children also grow up to produce taxable resources, and so by having children, a person is supplying more to the tax pool than those that do not. The child tax credit does not come even close to balancing the benefit that future generations provide. Parents have already paid there part of the burden, childless people should feel lucky they get away as cheaply as they do.
I completely believe in zero population growth, but encouraging policy that produces a population implosion is foolish at best, but most likely destructive. I think you would not be looking forward to a future without children, because I doubt at 70 you are going to want to be flipping your own burgers.
Now, as far as the 1% is concerned, they provide far more than their share of the burden by creating jobs, which employ others and further add tax revenues.
If the 1% were indeed putting their wealth toward producing jobs then there would not be such a large income inequality issue, or unemployment. If the capital was being put forth to employ workers then we wouldn't need most of the social programs that we have. People would be able to raise a family on a single income, which as I mentioned above is a great benefit to society. People would be able to have resources to spend on other products.
Why punish success when it does in fact trickle down? Trickle down voodoo economics works a hell of a lot better than the "bubble up" theory liberals seem to espouse, because very little bubbles up from welfare and other forms of "wealth redistribution."
Trickle down economics has been shown to be a disastrous failure. Our brief historic experiments have lead to world wide financial crisis. That's not to say that "bubble up" would work any better, but if you look at the numbers you will see that welfare programs put a much higher percentage of wealth into the system (100% of welfare eventually bubbles up to the top 1%) than trickle down has ever done (if wealth is growing in the top it means more money is being taken out of the system than being put in).
The funny thing is that the rich understand this. No rich individual is pushing for lower taxes if it means taking away necessary social programs. The wealthy know that any money they put into taxes will eventually bubble back up to them in the form of contracts or individual purchases from welfare spending.
On the other hand, you're saying it is fair for that 5% to bear 60% of the total burden?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I was only saying that the argument was not complete, much like your own argument.
There are some that believe the person share of the burden should be based on that person, or organizations, use of services. The higher up in the wealth chain that you are the more you benefit from government spending. Modern military spending is almost entirely spend on defending corporate assets on foreign soil. The more you have to lose the more likely you are to need law enforcement to protect your interests. Research funds are ultimately used by corporations to increase revenue. Even social services, which are always portrayed as being for the benefit of the poor, are there for one reason only, to keep the poor from uprising. All that and I haven't even touched on infrastructure and government backed financial industries.
That all being said, I agree that we should cut spending. We should cut spending to near zero, or absolute zero. That's the neat thing about cutting spending, it's not going to make the poor any poorer, but it would destroy the wealthy and devastate the middle class. You will notice that the wealthy never actually lobby for reduction in spending, they only lobby for a change in spending in ways that allow them to amass more wealth.
It's interesting that no where in my comment did I mention tax, and particularly income tax, yet multiple respondents have zeroed in on these two items. Without getting into the details of you explanation of income tax, my statement stills stands. Those that control 90% of all wealth pay only 60% of the burden in maintaining that wealth.
The goal of a civilization should be for continued growth in prosperity, or at the bare minimum no lose in prosperity. The way to encourage prosperity in a capital based system is to encourage transference of wealth between parties. Sale tax discourages growth, this is well know and I need not discuss it. Income tax also discourages growth because it encourages people to reduce their tax burden, by lowering their reported income and get by with less spending.
In your examples above, Jane has provided more for the growth and prosperity of society. While Mary has put a total of $100k into growth ($20k in spending, $30k in charities, $50k in spending), Jane added $200k ($150 in spending and $50k in taxes) which should have gone toward the wages of others in the society so that they may be productive and prosperous. Continual use of goods is far more beneficial than storage of goods (within reason, without excess waste).
If both were to pay taxes on unspent wealth rather than spent wealth, then the society as a whole would have more wealth and growth as people like Jane would be encourage to continue to put back into society what they take out of it.
But again, none of that was the point of my original comment, which was simply to say that if you (in the general sense) want to make an arguement it must be supported by more than merely saying x > y there for z is wrong.
The top 1% is so completely dependent on the lower 99% that all we have to do is shun them and they'd wither and die in a matter of days, weeks tops.
Tell me how you propose to do this without revolution or mass starvation? Country wide boycott and strike sounds like a great idea, but there would be a lot of lives lost in the process (not saying I'm against it, I just don't think you'll find enough people willing to take that risk yet)
Not saying your point is wrong, but your argument does not hold. The top 5% control greater than 90% of the capital resources in the US, yet pay only 60% of the burden of maintaining that wealth (using the number you supplied). I'm not saying whether I support either side in this, I'm just saying you need a better argument.
Based on the summary alone, there is no common sense here. If this were legal precedent it would make "theft of service" the equivalent of "potential delayed payment." According to the summary, the verdict states that the only punishment for theft of service (which is effectively what copyright infringement is) would be to have to pay what you should have paid in the first place. If this were true, and even more so if it was then applied to physical property, then there would be no reason to ever pay for any thing. Simply take it, put the amount it would have cost into an interest baring account, and only pay for it when and if you are ever charged with the violation. Even if you did end up paying for it, you still end up profiting as you got to use the product while earning interest on it's cost.
I'm not saying that fines for theft or IP rights violations should be exorbitant, but they do have to be higher than the original product cost. If the fine is no higher than the cost it would be financially foolish to pay for anything until legally bound to do so.
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.
It doesn't go into enough detail, but in the United States, the 8 hr day has only become standard because Henry Ford and his company determine that people were most productive when working only 8 hrs a day. So in turn for reducing the work day, increasing pay, and offering paid holidays Ford was able to increase profits. The standardization of the 8 hr day had very little to do with any the "people had to fight for".
The rest of the article, pertaining to the United States, is mostly insignificant compared to this point. Had it not been profitable it would not have been implemented and accepted.
Your math skills leave much to be desired. San Francisco is over 48% white, which is 15% higher than the next largest demographic, and just under a full majority. San francisco is part of the Bay Area metro area which 52.5% white. The LA metro area is over 54% white, and only 44% hispanic including white hispanic. I don't even need to look at your other stats to know they are inaccurate in their conclusion.
[The Chinese] are working hard to steal American jobs, American tech, and they are working hard to dominate American interests.
Don't blame China for this. The Chinese are trying to creating employment for their people. Americans on the other hand are doing everything they can to ship their employment and capital out of their own country and into the hands of others, with china being one of the main benefactors. China does not need to work hard to dominate American interest, the Americans are very happy to hand it over on a silver platter.
I don't like China because it is communist
I can't say I know why you personally hate China, but it's not because they are Communist, since they are not. I live for the day that this fallacy stops being repeated.
I actually wasn't suggesting banning, just supporting that cosmetics are fraud. I don't actually read the subject line so missed that there was actually a call to ban cosmetics. Though honestly I can't really think of any use, off the stage, that does not constitute fraud, so maybe they should be regulated like pyrotechnics.
Honestly I don't think we should ban cosmetics or the deceptive advertising. If women and men want to be gullible and fall for the fraud being perpetrated then that's on them. But that doesn't make it any less fraud.
Then day I'm out of mod points I see this post modded as Troll. This post is completely on topic, and full of factual information (with the possible exception that cosmetics are used to fraud more than just men).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to degrade this girls achievements by any means, but I'm not particularly impressed by the Microsoft Certification part. By the time I was her age I was not passing Microsoft exams, I was programing in multiple languages including assembly and machine code. This was quite some time ago, before MS had a certification program (may have even been before they existed, but I don't know the dates off hand).
Again, i'm not at all saying that this girl was any less than impressive, but it has nothing to do with the microsoft certification.
I think the word you are looking for here is Billions.
welfare... Credit (EIC) given to moms... school districts, fire department, police department... Social Security/medicare... unemployment benefits... roads and highways... state upkeep, governance, and food stamps...Largely stuff I don't really care about.
Not sure you know what happens when the poor have no alternatives to get what they need to survive. Few people who are not working now, would take up jobs (if there were any) if the government cut welfare programs. Guess where those people will turn when they can't turn to government assistance. The will turn to those who have what they need, and they will take it. And if you think welfare is expensive, what till you see the cost of keeping all those people incarcerated. Of course that won't happen if you had your way since there would be no "police department".
You may nor care about all these things while they are available, but you would surely miss them if they were gone.
I wouldn't call Ron Paul a racist. He may have racist staff who wrote something in his newsletters, but he distanced himself from it.
At least your not disputing that he is a "loon," he's just not racist. Bat shit fucking crazy, sure, but not a racist.
Kind of like H.P. Lovecraft, really. Imaginative world, writing is meh.
Lovercraft had a style that was vastly different than other writers of his period. He was one of the first horror writers to write in a way that gave the user a sense of belief. His ability to create a plausible scenario while leaving the read with a sense of doubt is what makes his writing stand out from nearly all other writers. Sure the Herbert-West Stories and even Call of Cathulu where not the best writetn stories, but Pickman's Model and the Music of Erich Zann are unsurpassed surreal macabre, a genre that Lovecraft perfect if not invented, and has yet to be handled well sense.
...CS Lewis, another person whose religious commitments made his work far more shallow and one-dimensional than it could've been.
Yet his best story, arguably was one that hid no pretense in it's religious content.
Allowing each individual to choose for themselves is not pushing a moral agenda on others.
I was going to jump in on this and voice a supporting argument, but after reading this line I can see where the GP was coming from. It all depends on what the purpose of governmentally recognized marriage is. If it is one of moral grounds then yes, protecting the right of any two people to marry (which should include polygamy and other forms of marriage) would be protecting individual liberty. If the purpose is to promote the continuation of productive and successful offspring, then gay marriage is pushing of a moral agenda, as gay marriage does nothing to promote reproduction (where as promoting reproduction without marriage produces single parent house holds, which sadly produces less productive individuals on average).
Apprenticeship is exactly what we need in the IT industry. Inters are also a reasonable approach, but with the cost of education skyrocketing, apprenticeships will be the only solution.
There are no families in Silicon Valley. It usually takes at least one female to make a family, and SV is a little short on people without a penis.
Constutional rights Don't apply on private property.
Bullshit they don't. The rights protected by the US constitution apply to all people of the United States, anywhere within the United States. Technically it even protects us citizens outside the US, but that's a little harder to enforce. If this were not true then you would still see plenty of slaves, they just wouldn't be allowed on public property.
Seriously, your comment is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen written.
By DC I assume you mean the District of Columbia, but that wouldn't make an sense, being as the downtown stations are less than a mile part, which is very easily walking distance (I've walked between them many times).
And really, what's the worst that could happen? You find out you're not a good fit for the company, and 3 months later you're right back where you started.
You give up a potentially decent job (I was happy with the job I had), and lose all seniority and the benefits that go along with that (401k vestment, vacation time accrual, etc). Never mind that you don't know what will happen with the economy at that time, and you've just added another short term of employment to your resume. I'm personally not interested in taking that risk, and also not interested in hiring anyone that would take that risk. Sounds like someone that would be likely to jump ship shortly after the initial employment investment.
This is complete rubbish. No employer in there right mind wants to hire someone just because they "need a paycheck." These are the kind of people that take a job only long enough to look for a new one. These people will often times not put anything more into a job than the bare minimum to collect their paycheck, and will often do even less than that leading to a very costly employee, even once your release them from service.
Yes it's true that any decent company is attempting to get the most for the money, but this does not mean hiring wage slaves. Having highly motivated and well compensated employees is usually far more productive than doing the opposite. Yes these motivated people are going to go out an look for other employement, but if they find it and receive the right compensation, it's because they are worth it. And companies do what you to move up the ladder. There are higher positions that will need to be filled, and most companies would much rather offer the advancement to an internal employee rather than higher some unknown. It's almost always better to bring the unknowns in at the lower levels to reduce cost of risk.
when they ask me to engage in meaningless work so they can judge me, I tell them they're welcome to judge my portfolio, but if they want me to start problem solving, the meaningless of the task is irrelevant... they're still going to have to pay for it.
If a company does not ask me to engage in some sort of applicable work I walk. A company should only be hiring people if they have demonstrated the ability to do, or learn, the specific tasks they will be asked to do.
Not too long ago, I was offered a major promotion and significant salary increase for a company, after completing two, 30 minute interviews. I proceeded to turn down the position, because by the time the made the offer I realized they had no way of knowing if I was actually capable of doing the job. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to walk into a position that is significantly beyond my abilities, knowingly. That's not to say I couldn't do that particular job, it's just that there was no way of either side knowing that with the lack of applicable questions.
There's nothing to hate about IE9.
Other than the fact that IE9 believes that clicking on a anchor that goes no where should trigger the beforeunload event, even though the page is not in the process of being unloaded. And that's just the one annoyance I ran into recently. Microsoft will never get the browser right, they just don't know how.
Therefore, a single person should pay the least in taxes, followed by married couples which have only one working spouse, followed by people with dependents - especially children who attend public schools.
Your missing the bigger picture here. The single people benefit as much, if not more, from educated children than the families with children. The educated child grows up to create new products and services, or at least works in the production of products and services, which are then used by everyone. Those without children have gained these benefits without paying any of the costs, including time, on child rearing. Children also grow up to produce taxable resources, and so by having children, a person is supplying more to the tax pool than those that do not. The child tax credit does not come even close to balancing the benefit that future generations provide. Parents have already paid there part of the burden, childless people should feel lucky they get away as cheaply as they do.
I completely believe in zero population growth, but encouraging policy that produces a population implosion is foolish at best, but most likely destructive. I think you would not be looking forward to a future without children, because I doubt at 70 you are going to want to be flipping your own burgers.
Now, as far as the 1% is concerned, they provide far more than their share of the burden by creating jobs, which employ others and further add tax revenues.
If the 1% were indeed putting their wealth toward producing jobs then there would not be such a large income inequality issue, or unemployment. If the capital was being put forth to employ workers then we wouldn't need most of the social programs that we have. People would be able to raise a family on a single income, which as I mentioned above is a great benefit to society. People would be able to have resources to spend on other products.
Why punish success when it does in fact trickle down? Trickle down voodoo economics works a hell of a lot better than the "bubble up" theory liberals seem to espouse, because very little bubbles up from welfare and other forms of "wealth redistribution."
Trickle down economics has been shown to be a disastrous failure. Our brief historic experiments have lead to world wide financial crisis. That's not to say that "bubble up" would work any better, but if you look at the numbers you will see that welfare programs put a much higher percentage of wealth into the system (100% of welfare eventually bubbles up to the top 1%) than trickle down has ever done (if wealth is growing in the top it means more money is being taken out of the system than being put in).
The funny thing is that the rich understand this. No rich individual is pushing for lower taxes if it means taking away necessary social programs. The wealthy know that any money they put into taxes will eventually bubble back up to them in the form of contracts or individual purchases from welfare spending.
On the other hand, you're saying it is fair for that 5% to bear 60% of the total burden?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I was only saying that the argument was not complete, much like your own argument.
There are some that believe the person share of the burden should be based on that person, or organizations, use of services. The higher up in the wealth chain that you are the more you benefit from government spending. Modern military spending is almost entirely spend on defending corporate assets on foreign soil. The more you have to lose the more likely you are to need law enforcement to protect your interests. Research funds are ultimately used by corporations to increase revenue. Even social services, which are always portrayed as being for the benefit of the poor, are there for one reason only, to keep the poor from uprising. All that and I haven't even touched on infrastructure and government backed financial industries.
That all being said, I agree that we should cut spending. We should cut spending to near zero, or absolute zero. That's the neat thing about cutting spending, it's not going to make the poor any poorer, but it would destroy the wealthy and devastate the middle class. You will notice that the wealthy never actually lobby for reduction in spending, they only lobby for a change in spending in ways that allow them to amass more wealth.
It's interesting that no where in my comment did I mention tax, and particularly income tax, yet multiple respondents have zeroed in on these two items. Without getting into the details of you explanation of income tax, my statement stills stands. Those that control 90% of all wealth pay only 60% of the burden in maintaining that wealth.
The goal of a civilization should be for continued growth in prosperity, or at the bare minimum no lose in prosperity. The way to encourage prosperity in a capital based system is to encourage transference of wealth between parties. Sale tax discourages growth, this is well know and I need not discuss it. Income tax also discourages growth because it encourages people to reduce their tax burden, by lowering their reported income and get by with less spending.
In your examples above, Jane has provided more for the growth and prosperity of society. While Mary has put a total of $100k into growth ($20k in spending, $30k in charities, $50k in spending), Jane added $200k ($150 in spending and $50k in taxes) which should have gone toward the wages of others in the society so that they may be productive and prosperous. Continual use of goods is far more beneficial than storage of goods (within reason, without excess waste).
If both were to pay taxes on unspent wealth rather than spent wealth, then the society as a whole would have more wealth and growth as people like Jane would be encourage to continue to put back into society what they take out of it.
But again, none of that was the point of my original comment, which was simply to say that if you (in the general sense) want to make an arguement it must be supported by more than merely saying x > y there for z is wrong.
The top 1% is so completely dependent on the lower 99% that all we have to do is shun them and they'd wither and die in a matter of days, weeks tops.
Tell me how you propose to do this without revolution or mass starvation? Country wide boycott and strike sounds like a great idea, but there would be a lot of lives lost in the process (not saying I'm against it, I just don't think you'll find enough people willing to take that risk yet)
Not saying your point is wrong, but your argument does not hold. The top 5% control greater than 90% of the capital resources in the US, yet pay only 60% of the burden of maintaining that wealth (using the number you supplied). I'm not saying whether I support either side in this, I'm just saying you need a better argument.
Based on the summary alone, there is no common sense here. If this were legal precedent it would make "theft of service" the equivalent of "potential delayed payment." According to the summary, the verdict states that the only punishment for theft of service (which is effectively what copyright infringement is) would be to have to pay what you should have paid in the first place. If this were true, and even more so if it was then applied to physical property, then there would be no reason to ever pay for any thing. Simply take it, put the amount it would have cost into an interest baring account, and only pay for it when and if you are ever charged with the violation. Even if you did end up paying for it, you still end up profiting as you got to use the product while earning interest on it's cost.
I'm not saying that fines for theft or IP rights violations should be exorbitant, but they do have to be higher than the original product cost. If the fine is no higher than the cost it would be financially foolish to pay for anything until legally bound to do so.
Please read the link that you provided.
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.
It doesn't go into enough detail, but in the United States, the 8 hr day has only become standard because Henry Ford and his company determine that people were most productive when working only 8 hrs a day. So in turn for reducing the work day, increasing pay, and offering paid holidays Ford was able to increase profits. The standardization of the 8 hr day had very little to do with any the "people had to fight for".
The rest of the article, pertaining to the United States, is mostly insignificant compared to this point. Had it not been profitable it would not have been implemented and accepted.
Your math skills leave much to be desired. San Francisco is over 48% white, which is 15% higher than the next largest demographic, and just under a full majority. San francisco is part of the Bay Area metro area which 52.5% white. The LA metro area is over 54% white, and only 44% hispanic including white hispanic. I don't even need to look at your other stats to know they are inaccurate in their conclusion.
[The Chinese] are working hard to steal American jobs, American tech, and they are working hard to dominate American interests.
Don't blame China for this. The Chinese are trying to creating employment for their people. Americans on the other hand are doing everything they can to ship their employment and capital out of their own country and into the hands of others, with china being one of the main benefactors. China does not need to work hard to dominate American interest, the Americans are very happy to hand it over on a silver platter.
I don't like China because it is communist
I can't say I know why you personally hate China, but it's not because they are Communist, since they are not. I live for the day that this fallacy stops being repeated.
I actually wasn't suggesting banning, just supporting that cosmetics are fraud. I don't actually read the subject line so missed that there was actually a call to ban cosmetics. Though honestly I can't really think of any use, off the stage, that does not constitute fraud, so maybe they should be regulated like pyrotechnics.
Honestly I don't think we should ban cosmetics or the deceptive advertising. If women and men want to be gullible and fall for the fraud being perpetrated then that's on them. But that doesn't make it any less fraud.
Then day I'm out of mod points I see this post modded as Troll. This post is completely on topic, and full of factual information (with the possible exception that cosmetics are used to fraud more than just men).