"But a laptop, especially, is not required - if your job requires you to have roaming access from anywhere, they will pay for it."
That's simply not the case in this economy, and not just at the bottom. I've done consulting stints for companies making a thick percentage, and the company issued laptop was unusable, as was most of the it infrastructure. The days where companies had to pay the sinews of work, are gone. Just be glad to have a job is the new mantra.
"Renting cars? You're insane."
Risk to capital, in many short term cases, renting makes sense. For example, in many cities, a condo near city center is $300,000, which is an amount that most people do not qualify for a mortgage on.
In another age, they would have been outlawed, since they aren't actually making a profit, but dumping the cost of strip mining poor people on to others. This really is a zero sum game.
Having worked in revenue assurance, the largest classes of dead beats are the elderly and small business owners. The number of actual dead beat dead beats out there, is fairly small. Since utilities have to provide, by law, to virtually every one, and virtually everyone need at least one of gas or electricity, this isn't an anecdotal sample.
No the short sighted capital allocation of the US did. In Niskayuna New York GE we developing commercialized CFLs and their executives were willing to knock buildings down rather than site the production there.
You wanted a plutocracy, now stop crabbing about it so much, it is intellectually laughable.
Read up on positive externalities, while you are at it, repeat kindergarten where they tell you that you can't compare apples and oranges and 2+2=4. Yes, you are that far from reality. Government bureaucracies are more, not less, efficient than corporate bureaucracies, having worked for DoD, GE, Oracle and several others. Consider if you will the overhead in Medicare (25% depending on how you slice it, often 50%). China isn't losing off of its purchases of US sovereign debt, so it isn't subsidizing. The funds "saved" by ending subsidies won't be because one will have a less educated less universalized economy. Etc. Etc.
I'm sure there is a tea party you can attend someplace.
A ban is a government's way of saying that not enough people supported alternatives until it was too late.
It's amazing how the very people on this thread complaining about having past costs externalized on them, are happily willing to do the same to people a decade from now, some of them are us.
Energy use is heavily subsdized, and the same people who hate bans, hate taxes even more. People aren't willing to pay taxes, so the next rung down has to be used.
They were, in general, worse before modern monetary policy was evolved, with the exception of the Great Depression, which was at a time when business people dominated how Central Banks performed. There can be separation of church and state, but not market and state – government is an inescapable component of the market.
You should write shorter posts when starting with something as stupid as "Helium didn't exist until the market started providing it." First, Helium was discovered by science. The Helium content of the Great Plains concentration was discerned at the University of Kansas, and the US government set up the first Helium extraction plants. Science discovered it, the government extracted it, and demand, not the government is using it. The reason it is kept cheap is that the government has to pay for much of the use of it on the back end, which if MRIs were more expensive, would mean higher health care costs for the government. The small use of it for parties etc. is a minor by product. In fact the current "Helium shortage" is more about the size of an easily extracted deposit in the US, not general helium abundance on earth.
It's pretty clear that the denialists have been armed with the talking point of confusing north from south. Let me break it down into grunts for you: the hydro-dynamics of the north polar region are dominated by a thin, lower in volume and mass, ice cap, covering water, and the hydro-dynamics of the south polar region dominated by a thicker ice pack over rock and isolated bodies of water. There are a number of salient differences, one of which is the difference between the volume of ice pack and the size of ice coverage, as well as the size of cyclical variation, which swamps the long term trend in the short run. Much of the denialist bullshit that you and others spew relies on blatant peak to trough cherry picking, as well as failure to cyclically adjust correctly, however the evidence for the trend has been out there for almost a decade at this point ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/1203.short )
Since you don't know the difference between north and south, water and land, surface are and volume, humidity and temperature, maximum and average, it is a complete waste of time to even discuss anything with you. Merely to note that you are yet another anonymous far right wing troll on the internet, who may or may not be being paid to preach genocide on the internet. Next to that truth, there's nothing anyone can say that is worse.
However, in the off chance anyone is reading this far, some useful actual science can be found at:
High impact peer reviewed journals, as opposed to squibs from the far right wing WSJ editorial page. As Samuel L. Jackson might say, "Science, m****rf*****r do you speak it?" (Go on troll mods, rate me down, it's something you'll be ashamed of one day, smothering the truth to protect the lies. But being nice doesn't stop people who do evil for money or kicks, only the shunning of society.)
The third world emits a great deal less carbon per capita. As for being able to pass the cost on, that is what you right wingers wanted: plutocracy where coporations can buy the legislature. Stop complaining about a problem that you are an advocate for, its intellectually dishonest.
Your statement is categorically incorrect. STEM visas are employment based, and specifically designed to be better versions of the H1-B Visa, that is, guest worker type employment.
Immigration doesn't have to depress wages, just as Free Trade doesn't have to, but that is what it is being designed to do. The Democratic bill is marginally better in that it at least as a review of the effects of STEM visas.
Slashdot Mirror
That's simply not the case in this economy, and not just at the bottom. I've done consulting stints for companies making a thick percentage, and the company issued laptop was unusable, as was most of the it infrastructure. The days where companies had to pay the sinews of work, are gone. Just be glad to have a job is the new mantra.
"Renting cars? You're insane."
Risk to capital, in many short term cases, renting makes sense. For example, in many cities, a condo near city center is $300,000, which is an amount that most people do not qualify for a mortgage on.
In another age, they would have been outlawed, since they aren't actually making a profit, but dumping the cost of strip mining poor people on to others. This really is a zero sum game.
Having worked in revenue assurance, the largest classes of dead beats are the elderly and small business owners. The number of actual dead beat dead beats out there, is fairly small. Since utilities have to provide, by law, to virtually every one, and virtually everyone need at least one of gas or electricity, this isn't an anecdotal sample.
Specifically you are very much in favor of having someone else pay for that cleaner planet.
Romneynomics and Paulnomics even less so.
Church and State have a long running competition as to which has caused more deaths.
Future discount and all that Solow stuff you haven't read.
You wanted a plutocracy, now stop crabbing about it so much, it is intellectually laughable.
I'm sure there is a tea party you can attend someplace.
It's amazing how the very people on this thread complaining about having past costs externalized on them, are happily willing to do the same to people a decade from now, some of them are us.
Incandescents are no safer when broken.
They give to everyone, why take a chance that one could loose an election?
Energy use is heavily subsdized, and the same people who hate bans, hate taxes even more. People aren't willing to pay taxes, so the next rung down has to be used.
If you really believe that, move to some place with no functioning government and find out how much fun that is.
They were, in general, worse before modern monetary policy was evolved, with the exception of the Great Depression, which was at a time when business people dominated how Central Banks performed. There can be separation of church and state, but not market and state – government is an inescapable component of the market.
You should write shorter posts when starting with something as stupid as "Helium didn't exist until the market started providing it." First, Helium was discovered by science. The Helium content of the Great Plains concentration was discerned at the University of Kansas, and the US government set up the first Helium extraction plants. Science discovered it, the government extracted it, and demand, not the government is using it. The reason it is kept cheap is that the government has to pay for much of the use of it on the back end, which if MRIs were more expensive, would mean higher health care costs for the government. The small use of it for parties etc. is a minor by product. In fact the current "Helium shortage" is more about the size of an easily extracted deposit in the US, not general helium abundance on earth.
In the sense that a physical law is an archaic concept taught for historical compatibility, sure. Otherwise, no.
No the market mechanism is not a law of nature, its an emergent effect of human behavior.
Since you don't know the difference between north and south, water and land, surface are and volume, humidity and temperature, maximum and average, it is a complete waste of time to even discuss anything with you. Merely to note that you are yet another anonymous far right wing troll on the internet, who may or may not be being paid to preach genocide on the internet. Next to that truth, there's nothing anyone can say that is worse.
However, in the off chance anyone is reading this far, some useful actual science can be found at:
Pretty rich arpad1, to lie and then call others liars. Don't you have a Discovery Institute meeting to attending or something?
The third world emits a great deal less carbon per capita. As for being able to pass the cost on, that is what you right wingers wanted: plutocracy where coporations can buy the legislature. Stop complaining about a problem that you are an advocate for, its intellectually dishonest.
Carbon is a marvelous substance, try wasting less of it heating brake pads and downloading cat pictures on the internet.
What I want to know is how many time shares you have planned in the future Yukon Riveria.
many of us dependent on a rather thin surface of the hydrosphere, however, are not going to like what happens next.
Immigration doesn't have to depress wages, just as Free Trade doesn't have to, but that is what it is being designed to do. The Democratic bill is marginally better in that it at least as a review of the effects of STEM visas.