Not every job is meant for an adult to try to support a household from....
True. In fact, the other jobs are not, either. No jobs are "meant" at all.
They are offered, and either accepted or rejected by potential employees. And that acceptance may be canceled, if the employee finds the employer is not satisfactory. And that offer may be canceled, if the employer finds the employee is not satisfactory.
Frequently, low-paid jobs for low-skilled or unproven workers are held by people who are not adults, or by adults who are not trying to support a household with that job.
But that's an observation, not a decree from whoever is in charge of deciding what jobs "mean".
Yeah, I'm kinda quibbling. But casual phrasing that was not intended to be taken literally often leads to sloppy thinking on the part of those who read it.
For examples of that sort of sloppy thinking, you won't have to look far. This thread, for instance.
Nope. If you work a job full time then you deserve to be able to live off of it.
Really? No matter how useful or useless you are to a particular employer for a particular job or to employers in general?
No matter how rare or plentiful are people with such usefulness to a particular employer for a particular job or to employers in general?
Anything else is slavery.
Really? Can employees be sold to other companies? Can they be sold to individuals or groups of individuals or organizations or governments? In short, can they be sold? In short, are they property?
If he had simply been living up north by one state, he might not be in such hot water.
Assuming events happened as the government alleges. It's not like they've never lied to use before. But it's possible they're telling the truth, maybe even likely.
Even so, it does seem rather odd that the federal government acted so quickly and vigorously to pursue and retrieve someone who violated a state law. Do they do this for everyone who allegedly breaks a state law, or just someone who's recently beaten them in court, and humiliated them in the process?
There was a TV news show around then -- "60 Minutes"? -- that interviewed a local woman. If these aren't her exact words, they're pretty close to her exact words. "Them white boys come in on they motorcycles and they start fixing things up."
She saw this as a bad thing.
Apparently it's a bad thing when an area deteriorates, and property values and rents go down, and it's a bad thing when an area is repaired, and property values and rents go up.
Commuter highways get built, which encourages sprawl, which clogs commuter highways, which results in more commuter highways construction, which encourages sprawl. Repeat, A bit of an oversimplification, but that's the gist.
Road- and bridge-construction companies like getting paid to build highways and overpasses. And they like getting paid later to widen them and to add new ones Owners of farmland outside suburbia like it when highways and bridges make their land more desirable to developers, and so suburbia expands. And so on.
So farmers and others owning land not (yet) suburbanized are given subtle property value increases by construction financed by the general taxpayer. Construction firms get government contracts. Subdivision developers get an expanded supply of suitable land. Existing suburbs decline, and the people in them are taxed to pay for commuter road construction.
And to the person who decided that post should be modded as "troll" for hate speech, that post would include some Christians during the Crusades. Should I have made it more obvious?
And should I have included some pacifists outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition?
I was kind hoping people could figure it out on their own.
It's not the ones who realized something I thought was pretty obvious, who perhaps were many, but the one who didn't figure it out.
I suggest we cease regulating entirely, and go back to good old-fashioned lawsuits.
Criminal charges for criminal actions would be nice, too. And none of this namby-pamby negotiating it down to a fine, either. If somebody got cheated, that means somebody cheated them. Get the dishonest salesperson (or whoever) for the crime, and get the boss who ordered it as an accomplice and for conspiracy.
Figure the odds on that one.
A friend of mine who saw in the Bakke decision a big chunk of hypocrisy figured it like this. With previous cases where racial preferences meant a white person was treated unfairly, it was just blue-collar people. The Supreme Court figured the social cost of social justice was worth it. Or something like that.
But with the Bakke case, it was a real person facing real injustice -- a guy who was going to go to medical school, were it not for affirmative action. Somebody who might have been a friend or neighbor or relative. Someone of their social set. Such injustice must not be tolerated.
And then they managed to find a reason why his case was different from cases involving people who get dirt or grease under their fingernails.
Don't know if that interpretation of events is supported by the details of the Bakke and other "reverse discrimination" cases. I didn't look into it as much as my friend did. It has a degree of plausibility.
I have a hunch that the courts would end up treating the bosses ordering hinky action differently from the employees committing the hinky actions, because the judges would think of the bosses as "one of their own". Cynical of me, isn't it?
All religion is equally ridiculous and stupid. All religious people deserve to be mocked and abused for their idiocy.
Equally? Hardly. Even a little reflection shows how silly that is.
Quakers and the Amish are not in the same league as those who have for religious reasons been willing over past decades or centuries to kill over territory in the vicinity of Jerusalem, for instance.
Had I RTFA, I would know this answer to this question: what happened to the number of job offers received by graduates in these various degree programs?
Or rather, I would know if the FA answered the question.
If none of the comments provide the answer, I'll just have to slog through it, myself.
Maybe not always. Give me a minute, I'll think of something.
But certainly often enough. It either doesn't work at all, or those being regulated find ways around it, or there develops a revolving door between the industry and the regulatory agency. ("Who else knows the ins and outs of the widget industry? Someone who has never been within a mile of a widget manufacturing or refurbishing plant? Or someone who has has his first widget job straight out of school?"
The alleged beneficiaries of regulation have a diffuse interest in regulators doing their jobs to to benefit them. Those regulated by the agency have an intense interest in the activities and potential activities of those regulators.
Another analogy: cylinders, disks, frustums of cones.
A cylinder on its side will move a little if you nudge it a little. It'll move a lot if you nudge it a lot. But only if those nudges are from the side. Onto its ends, nothing much happens.
If it's standing on one of its ends and it's not very tall relative to the radius, a little nudge will do nothing lasting. A big nudge, same thing. But a huge nudge, and over it goes.
If it is tall enough, the slightest breeze will topple it.
If it's so short it is better called a disk, a nudge won't topple it if it's standing on one of its faces. At most, it'll scoot a bit.
If it is on edge, a breeze on its edge will do nothing, but one to its face will send it down.
Similar observations for a frustum of a cone with circular faces, depending on its orientation: big face down, little face down, on its side.
And if it is on its side and the distance between its faces is large enough, nudges and breezes won't topple it, just move it to a new point on a circle.
OK, now where was I going with this?
Oh, right. Something that experience tells you is always stable can become unstable if the impact it receives increases in magnitude, or comes from a different direction.
So, by this analogy, the subprime mortgage industry was a frustum whose bottom face kept getting smaller and whose height and top face kept getting bigger. Kinda sorta.
Then it sounds like a First Amendment issue, not Second.
Those of us who remember (or read about) the "crypto wars" of the last century know that sufficiently strong encryption was considered a "munition". Then somebody printed the code into a book, and it became a First Amendment issue.
Recessions aren't caused by the capital destruction of money-losing government businesses, bad as they are. Amtrak, the Post Office, mass transit, and the like aren't a large part of the economy, and aren't in a position to screw things up.
The financial sector, on the other hand, certainly can.
Not this American. I oppose it for many reasons, not just one.
Because it loses money (at least, when run by a government) it destroys value. If a $10 million project creates an enterprise that is worth $8 million, the world is a poorer place. In addition to this destruction of capital, it also has to be subsidized to remain in operation, taking money from one group of people to provide benefits to another group of people.
It's dangerous. Because the St. Louis County Prosecutor * got into a pissing contest with the light rail operator's security department, the trains don't feel safe, and very often aren't. ( * Soon-to-be former prosecutor. He lost his primary election.)
It doesn't go where I want to go when I want to go there in a reasonable amount of time. Commuting, in particular. Drive 20 or 25 minutes to get to work, or ride the bus for over an hour, with a transfer? Golly, how to decide?
Let's use a tie-breaker: standing in the heat or cold or snow or rain, waiting for that bus? Or a different tie-breaker: knowing that if I am late I miss the bus, but if it is late I just wait longer. Or yet another one: there is no bus stop near my home (so, a long walk) nor near my work (and if get off the bus where there's no stop, I still have to jay-walk to get to the building, where cops ticket such scofflaws).
I'm sure there are more. But aren't those reasons enough?
If they have them. A lot of books that make Best [X] Books of All Time lists are not in my local library's collection. Hundreds of copies of each of many best-sellers, though, as well as DVDs and video games. And they're branching out into musical instruments. And 3D printers, perhaps. (I'm thinking of hiring a middle-school or high school student to research this lack of books of importance.)
No Clifford D. Simak. Not short stories, not books. But a "little library" planted in the front yard of a house on Hartford, just south of Tower Grove Park had one yesterday. I was tempted to take it, but decided to leave it for someone who needed to read it more than I did.
Slashdot Mirror
Not every job is meant for an adult to try to support a household from....
True. In fact, the other jobs are not, either. No jobs are "meant" at all.
They are offered, and either accepted or rejected by potential employees. And that acceptance may be canceled, if the employee finds the employer is not satisfactory. And that offer may be canceled, if the employer finds the employee is not satisfactory.
Frequently, low-paid jobs for low-skilled or unproven workers are held by people who are not adults, or by adults who are not trying to support a household with that job.
But that's an observation, not a decree from whoever is in charge of deciding what jobs "mean".
Yeah, I'm kinda quibbling. But casual phrasing that was not intended to be taken literally often leads to sloppy thinking on the part of those who read it.
For examples of that sort of sloppy thinking, you won't have to look far. This thread, for instance.
Nope. If you work a job full time then you deserve to be able to live off of it.
Really? No matter how useful or useless you are to a particular employer for a particular job or to employers in general?
No matter how rare or plentiful are people with such usefulness to a particular employer for a particular job or to employers in general?
Anything else is slavery.
Really? Can employees be sold to other companies? Can they be sold to individuals or groups of individuals or organizations or governments? In short, can they be sold? In short, are they property?
Does anyone review apps? Does anyone track bloat, in a methodical way?
Or is that irrelevant, because people won't say "No" to a bloated app, or a new version of an app that has become bloated?
Maybe if it's a commodity app -- PDF viewer, office suite (spreadsheet, word processor, etc.) -- they might pick one over another. Maybe.
Another oddity. He was retrieved from another country, but then he was allowed out on bond?
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2018/09/cody-wilson-did-you-notice-this.html
If he had simply been living up north by one state, he might not be in such hot water.
Assuming events happened as the government alleges. It's not like they've never lied to use before. But it's possible they're telling the truth, maybe even likely.
Even so, it does seem rather odd that the federal government acted so quickly and vigorously to pursue and retrieve someone who violated a state law. Do they do this for everyone who allegedly breaks a state law, or just someone who's recently beaten them in court, and humiliated them in the process?
Will there be fields for entering the search warrant information?
Ha, ha! Just kidding!
That's about the right timeframe.
There was a TV news show around then -- "60 Minutes"? -- that interviewed a local woman. If these aren't her exact words, they're pretty close to her exact words. "Them white boys come in on they motorcycles and they start fixing things up."
She saw this as a bad thing.
Apparently it's a bad thing when an area deteriorates, and property values and rents go down, and it's a bad thing when an area is repaired, and property values and rents go up.
So, what isn't a bad thing?
Commuter highways get built, which encourages sprawl, which clogs commuter highways, which results in more commuter highways construction, which encourages sprawl. Repeat, A bit of an oversimplification, but that's the gist.
Road- and bridge-construction companies like getting paid to build highways and overpasses. And they like getting paid later to widen them and to add new ones Owners of farmland outside suburbia like it when highways and bridges make their land more desirable to developers, and so suburbia expands. And so on.
So farmers and others owning land not (yet) suburbanized are given subtle property value increases by construction financed by the general taxpayer. Construction firms get government contracts. Subdivision developers get an expanded supply of suitable land. Existing suburbs decline, and the people in them are taxed to pay for commuter road construction.
All because commuter highways are "free".
And to the person who decided that post should be modded as "troll" for hate speech, that post would include some Christians during the Crusades. Should I have made it more obvious?
And should I have included some pacifists outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition?
I was kind hoping people could figure it out on their own.
It's not the ones who realized something I thought was pretty obvious, who perhaps were many, but the one who didn't figure it out.
I suggest we cease regulating entirely, and go back to good old-fashioned lawsuits.
Criminal charges for criminal actions would be nice, too. And none of this namby-pamby negotiating it down to a fine, either. If somebody got cheated, that means somebody cheated them. Get the dishonest salesperson (or whoever) for the crime, and get the boss who ordered it as an accomplice and for conspiracy.
Figure the odds on that one.
A friend of mine who saw in the Bakke decision a big chunk of hypocrisy figured it like this. With previous cases where racial preferences meant a white person was treated unfairly, it was just blue-collar people. The Supreme Court figured the social cost of social justice was worth it. Or something like that.
But with the Bakke case, it was a real person facing real injustice -- a guy who was going to go to medical school, were it not for affirmative action. Somebody who might have been a friend or neighbor or relative. Someone of their social set. Such injustice must not be tolerated.
And then they managed to find a reason why his case was different from cases involving people who get dirt or grease under their fingernails.
Don't know if that interpretation of events is supported by the details of the Bakke and other "reverse discrimination" cases. I didn't look into it as much as my friend did. It has a degree of plausibility.
I have a hunch that the courts would end up treating the bosses ordering hinky action differently from the employees committing the hinky actions, because the judges would think of the bosses as "one of their own". Cynical of me, isn't it?
Yep. Key phrase for why expecting this to work well is optimistic: "systemically corrupt police department".
All religion is equally ridiculous and stupid. All religious people deserve to be mocked and abused for their idiocy.
Equally? Hardly. Even a little reflection shows how silly that is.
Quakers and the Amish are not in the same league as those who have for religious reasons been willing over past decades or centuries to kill over territory in the vicinity of Jerusalem, for instance.
Had I RTFA, I would know this answer to this question: what happened to the number of job offers received by graduates in these various degree programs?
Or rather, I would know if the FA answered the question.
If none of the comments provide the answer, I'll just have to slog through it, myself.
Fake news is a lot older than the presidency of Donald Trump.
Maybe not always. Give me a minute, I'll think of something.
But certainly often enough. It either doesn't work at all, or those being regulated find ways around it, or there develops a revolving door between the industry and the regulatory agency. ("Who else knows the ins and outs of the widget industry? Someone who has never been within a mile of a widget manufacturing or refurbishing plant? Or someone who has has his first widget job straight out of school?"
The alleged beneficiaries of regulation have a diffuse interest in regulators doing their jobs to to benefit them. Those regulated by the agency have an intense interest in the activities and potential activities of those regulators.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+regulatory.capture
Nope. Still haven't thought of one.
Maybe tomorrow. Until then, g'bye!
Let's see... where was government in this?
Enabling (as you pointed out).
So, what to do to prevent this from happening again?
I know. Have government regulate the financial sector even more!
If some fails a lot, having more will fail less, right?
Another analogy: cylinders, disks, frustums of cones.
A cylinder on its side will move a little if you nudge it a little. It'll move a lot if you nudge it a lot. But only if those nudges are from the side. Onto its ends, nothing much happens.
If it's standing on one of its ends and it's not very tall relative to the radius, a little nudge will do nothing lasting. A big nudge, same thing. But a huge nudge, and over it goes.
If it is tall enough, the slightest breeze will topple it.
If it's so short it is better called a disk, a nudge won't topple it if it's standing on one of its faces. At most, it'll scoot a bit.
If it is on edge, a breeze on its edge will do nothing, but one to its face will send it down.
Similar observations for a frustum of a cone with circular faces, depending on its orientation: big face down, little face down, on its side.
And if it is on its side and the distance between its faces is large enough, nudges and breezes won't topple it, just move it to a new point on a circle.
OK, now where was I going with this?
Oh, right. Something that experience tells you is always stable can become unstable if the impact it receives increases in magnitude, or comes from a different direction.
So, by this analogy, the subprime mortgage industry was a frustum whose bottom face kept getting smaller and whose height and top face kept getting bigger. Kinda sorta.
Then it sounds like a First Amendment issue, not Second.
Those of us who remember (or read about) the "crypto wars" of the last century know that sufficiently strong encryption was considered a "munition". Then somebody printed the code into a book, and it became a First Amendment issue.
Ta da!
My ass does have a voice.
But usually it is in silent mode: SBD.
Recessions aren't caused by the capital destruction of money-losing government businesses, bad as they are. Amtrak, the Post Office, mass transit, and the like aren't a large part of the economy, and aren't in a position to screw things up.
The financial sector, on the other hand, certainly can.
Challenger proved that cost savings are important, it is time the "private" industry learn the lesson too.
Isn't that the one where the private sector engineers recommended against a launch, but the government agency went ahead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Flawed_launch_decision
Not this American. I oppose it for many reasons, not just one.
Because it loses money (at least, when run by a government) it destroys value. If a $10 million project creates an enterprise that is worth $8 million, the world is a poorer place. In addition to this destruction of capital, it also has to be subsidized to remain in operation, taking money from one group of people to provide benefits to another group of people.
It's dangerous. Because the St. Louis County Prosecutor * got into a pissing contest with the light rail operator's security department, the trains don't feel safe, and very often aren't. ( * Soon-to-be former prosecutor. He lost his primary election.)
It doesn't go where I want to go when I want to go there in a reasonable amount of time. Commuting, in particular. Drive 20 or 25 minutes to get to work, or ride the bus for over an hour, with a transfer? Golly, how to decide?
Let's use a tie-breaker: standing in the heat or cold or snow or rain, waiting for that bus? Or a different tie-breaker: knowing that if I am late I miss the bus, but if it is late I just wait longer. Or yet another one: there is no bus stop near my home (so, a long walk) nor near my work (and if get off the bus where there's no stop, I still have to jay-walk to get to the building, where cops ticket such scofflaws).
I'm sure there are more. But aren't those reasons enough?
If they have them. A lot of books that make Best [X] Books of All Time lists are not in my local library's collection. Hundreds of copies of each of many best-sellers, though, as well as DVDs and video games. And they're branching out into musical instruments. And 3D printers, perhaps. (I'm thinking of hiring a middle-school or high school student to research this lack of books of importance.)
No Clifford D. Simak. Not short stories, not books. But a "little library" planted in the front yard of a house on Hartford, just south of Tower Grove Park had one yesterday. I was tempted to take it, but decided to leave it for someone who needed to read it more than I did.
governments should think of advising people to abstain completely
Wouldn't the message be more effective if it came from a more credible source?
Such as those who did the study? Or better yet, those who replicated the study and got the same results?
Or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?
Or my brother-in-law?
I'm finding it hard to reconcile unlimited data with data caps.
What am I missing?