I agree with your principle - but you need to also factor in the cost of phones to some extent, which you didn't. For your "two iPhones" that's an additional $1400+ every 2-4 years
I am on AT&T's "Next" program. Upon acquiring a new phone, I pay sales tax on the spot, $15 upgrade fee per device on my next bill (this should be illegal!), then the cost of the phone is divided over x months. In my case, that works out to about $50 / month for the two phones. Data for two phones is $60 / month. Voice + unlimited text + roadside assistance + insurance = $70 / month before employee discount. Not the cheapest plan, but I get better coverage when I'm away from the big cities. AT&T's network technology is also compatible with Brazil's, so when we travel we can just throw in a pre-paid SIM.
I should note that besides the math error, these are not my personal numbers; they are ballpark figures for my city. I paid $160/month for my car. My mortgage + pmi + state property tax (included as escrow) is roughly $1,200 / month, but $1,800 / month is common here just for the mortgage. Etc.
How in the hell are you spending $433 a month on TV/Internet/Phone? Is that even possible? I could get the best plan for each in my town and not even be half that.
That was a math error; 100 / month should be 1200 / year.
And 19.2K for your mortgage? My 1500 sq ft house in a mid-size city of 1 million is only 9K including prop tax and insurance (and that's in Florida where insurance is absurd). You have no money left over because you chose to settle in an overpriced city. In most of the country 70K is a very comfortable number for two people.
19,200 / 12 months = 1,783 / month (includes mortgage insurance). I did not include 140 / month in HOA fees. My town home is 2,400 square feet in a city experiencing a tech boom. It was worth 150k when I closed on the mortgage and currently worth 200k.
Seriously, $2400 ($200/month) for 2-phone plan? Mine is $70 for two iPhones with unlimited talk, text, and shared 4G of data (we've got wi-fi everywhere so why pay for 10G or more?).
I have unlimited data, my wife has 3G / month; we are paying $25 / month each for our phones until we pay them off; then we pay extra for an international plan to call her family in Brazil. Our phone bill varies between $180 and $235 per month.
And $100/month for the triple play is not bad, but that adds up to only $1200, not the $5200 you deducted for it.
That's what I get for trying to do math before my caffeine.
And if you can't afford all the expenses of having a kid on top of the other things you're spending on, perhaps you ought rethink the decision to have one. Or maybe you could cut the TV and landline if you need to buy diapers.
I am not a fan of my generation's idea of a high minimum salary. I don't earn 70k a year. And I certainly don't, absolutely, have to have it. 'cause I'm not buying lifted trucks, dropping $2,400 a month on a mortgage... and I didn't go to a college that would charge me $100k for the degree. In fact, I have enough money to pay off my student loans now, and I would be debt free -- completely.
You're on the right track, but still a bit naive. Here are some rough numbers for a family of two in my city:
70k - taxes = 49k
49k - health / vision / dental insurance = 45k
45k - 1 car loan = 42k
42k - single car insurance for 2 drivers = 40k
40k - moderate mortgage = 22k
22k - plan with 2 smart phones = 19.6k
19.6k - utility bill (water, gas, electricity) = 16.6k
16.6k - food = 10.4k
10.4k - gasoline = 8.8k ($30 / week)
8.8k - tv / internet / landline = 3.6k (triple play = 100 / month)
3.6k - property tax = 2.4k
2.4k - vehicle registration = 2.2k
That gives you $183 / month for clothing, emergencies, etc.
Now throw in the fact that an average vaginal birth costs 15k before insurance (6k after), but you can generally finance for up to 4 years. A box of 150 diapers costs $40 at Costco. At about 8 diapers per day, that lasts for 2 weeks. A month old baby drinks approximately $35 of formula per week (assuming no breast feeding). A crib and mattress cost $200-350. A baby outgrows its clothes very quickly (newborn, 3 month, 6 month, 9 month, 12 month, 18 month, 24 month). The least expensive day care I can find charges $5 / hour -- higher than minimum wage after taxes. It is now estimated to cost $250k to raise your child to the age of 18.
My thermostat doesn't need to talk to anything. a simple programmable thermostat saves exactly the same amount of money that a smart networked one that delays heating by 30 minutes would. Honestly, my neighbor has a NEST and he saves absolutely nothing compared to the identical house I live in next to him with my Stock bryant thermostat that is "programmable" that I set once back when I moved in and have not touched again since.
Exact same houses, and zero savings or comfort gains from his $300 thermostat.
As I said, it might be nice to notify your thermostat that you will arrive home earlier than normal. 95% of the time once you've programmed in your schedule you won't change it (small exception of adjusting for daylight savings time twice a year). 99% of the time you remember to turn off lights and lock doors. Each consumer needs to see if the benefits are worth the costs.
Why would anything inside my home ever need to communicate out? Other than data gathering on me and my family, there is no reason for my thermostat to talk to anything else, same for the stupid toaster that sadly became a thing in this discussion.
Some scenarios being pushed include adjusting your thermostat because you're heading home earlier / later than usual, being able to remotely turn on lights so no one knows you're not home, standard home security set up (such as accessing cameras, alerting you to a break in), etc. Your thermostat probably doesn't need to talk with your microwave.
Instead of depending on technology for everything. This is the same as the internet connected cars, focus on driving you moron you dobt need to update your fb status while driving on the highway. Chevy commercials who plug away theor 4g connected cars is retarded, you make sh1t cars and you are trying to sell them as smartphones
Internet connectivity in cars usually is not for the benefit of the driver (GPS being an obvious exception), but for the passengers. Kids get bored on long road trips, so give them internet access to stream songs / movies to placate them.
Any time you have a multi-tasker, the device is generally good at one task and mediocre or poor at the other. Do you want a mediocre phone with a great PDA, or a mediocre PDA with a great phone? Do you want a great car where connectivity was a secondary thought, or great connectivity in a mediocre car?
All the things you mention could be done with a home network without the internet. The hacking games with an internet connected network are scary. Turn the toaster or stove on to create a fire hazard. Turn the refrigerator off to create unsafe food storage. And last but not least give companies or the government fine grain surveillance of peoples personal lives.
Isn't that the first principle of any security design? Limit exposure to the outside as much as possible. Your database should not be directly accessible from the internet (indeed, firewall rules should only allow access from the machines which need it). You probably don't need to access your toaster from outside your LAN. It makes sense for your fridge to have a limited interface to the outside world - VPN for you to query if you are running low on eggs, or PUSH technology to inform you the milk is about to expire; I don't like the idea of the fridge performing purchases without human interaction (eg. why should the fridge know my payment information?). Come to think of it, there should probably be a single interface to the outside world (which could have hardened security).
1. Apple takes a cut of recurring revenues, so YouTube passes the cost on to the consumer
Apple famously (infamously?) takes an uncompromising 30%. And, adding to your list, don't forget that YouTube is owned by Apple's largest competitor in the mobile space (from a software perspective). It is very convenient that Google also get's to paint a major competitor as the expensive option.
What happens if we sign up from our laptops and access YouTube from our iDevice?
One of the biggest problem in Brazil is that people use credit cards for survival necessities like food, so they are never economically free.
This isn't really down to individual choice, it's systematically encouraged by modern money supply flows. A significant number of people not being in debt would entirely disrupt the current system.
As my wife is Brazilian, I am aware that living off credit cards (and store credit) there isn't always a choice, but often is a necessity. Inflation is off the charts, so people spend their money the same week they get it. As an example, I saw the cost of most goods double from 2012 to 2015.
Land, we can build up, also the United States is 50th in population density. We have room if you are willing to think outside of your little coastal city. As land is in higher demand prices go up, so the population learns to live with less of it. I like my space, so I moved out of the city, where I can have my space, however it is far from many services.
The US has huge tracts of desert. California is in a pickle because their cities have outgrown the available water supply. How many people would want to endure Death Valley's extreme summer heat? How many could survive the artic deserts of Alaska?
So a family can survive in $80,000 a year? Wow. You have no clue how the rest of the world lives. Some families of 6 live in less than $1000 per year. Kids are expensive, but First World people have no idea what the rest of the world lives on.
The rest of the world doesn't have a $1500 escrowed mortgage payment (for a reasonably sized home), $600 in car expenses (including gas and insurance) and $300 in utilities. Throw on entertainment/communication $250 (tv, internet, phone). You're looking at about half of their salary before you even get into food, college loans and anything else.
(BTW I lived in Brazil for a few years on $150 reais a month or roughly $75 dollars, so I know a thing or two about scraping by in another country)
Every person that brings up third world workers earning US$1000 per year really has no clue. You must compare income to cost of living in the same location. I spent two years in Brazil as a missionary for my Church back in the 1990s. The currency of Brazil is the real (plural is reais). As missionaries, we donate a set amount based on where we are from (missionaries from the US paid US$350 / month back then) and receive an allowance based on the cost of living where we serve - generally minimum wage. I received R$150 / month (approximately US$150 / month) which was to cover food, clothing, transportation, and utilities (rent was paid before we got our mesada). Today US$1.00 is worth approximately R$4.00 (changes daily) and minimum wage is R$800 / month. Gasoline costs R$4 / liter, so most Brazilians walk or use public transportation. You can rent a modest home in many cities for R$200 / month. One of the biggest problem in Brazil is that people use credit cards for survival necessities like food, so they are never economically free.
You had me feeling bad for my cynicism, and I wanted to say "kudos to you for being sane, rational, responsible, " until
we must cull the herds of their prey
THIS. This is the bullshit that hunters stand on, why they need to keep killing, and its bullshit, left, right, up and down complete bullshit. If a hunter says they just like to hunt and that's their reason for doing so, I'm not saying I'm ok with it, but I respect the honesty. If you have some ecological education, and it sounds like you do, you should know this "culling" business is complete dogshit, devoid of any science whatsoever. Nature doesn't need gun owners keeping its herds low so they don't deplete all their resources. On its face, it is horseshit. Again, if a hunter likes to hunt, good for them for being honest about it, but it is outrageously arrogant for a hunter to believe, and preach, that nature needs them to cull the overpopulation. Nature has its own methods for balancing ecology which it has been using long before guns and gun powder were invented.
Nature was in balance, yes, but we over-hunted predators. Nature's way of getting back in balance now would involve herd animals dying in droves because of lack of food, or weaker genes being allowed to propagate because there is nothing to weed them out. It could take over a century for nature to fix the damage we have done. I'm not talking hunting exclusively or excessively. Each year the BLM checks the size of the herds and determines how many animals that environment can support. If there are too many animals, some may be transported to other ancestral homes to help another herd. The BLM then gives a number of animals which can be harvested to keep the herd a healthy size and maintain genetic diversity.
Honestly, but for that, I'd vote you into the Senate. Or something, sounds like you're mindful the way we want people to be mindful. But that little misperception about culling is cancer, and you need to see for yourself why its bullshit, and convince your peers of the truth, that nature never needed human hunters to keep herds in check. Humans are the only animal that consistently depletes available natural resources unchecked, so its ludicrous that Joe Riflehunter is doind Nature or anyone but himself any service.
I'm afraid I would never enter into politics - my bs meter would drive me crazy. Middle of the aisle moderates like me would never get enough support from either party.
That's great. Really great for you, and a nice story. But... what do you use your gun for? Need it? DO YOU NEED IT TO SURVIVE? Are you protecting yourself and your unarmed neighbors from tyranny? In your entire life, have you had the opportunity to successfully defend yourself against crime? Does that come up a lot?
I was raised around guns (like I said first shooting at 3), but I personally don't have a gun at home. I love guns, but current circumstances are such that it doesn't make sense for me right now. I live in an open carry state, so I never got a concealed weapon permit. I go shooting a few times a year at a secluded spot in the mountains away from hikers and campers. I mostly shoot at milk jugs filled with water or empty soda cans, but clay pigeons can be fun.
You ask about the NEED
for a gun. Not everyone needs a gun, and there are some people who should not be allowed access to firearms. Remember that the colonists had guns before King George made things so bad that rebellion became necessary. This just in case scenario was important enough that our Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights.
Thankfully most of us won't be in a situation to stop a mass shooting. Hopefully not many here have had an armed burglar break into their home. As a Boy Scout, I learned to Be Prepared. I have food, clothing, and medicine to last 3 months. I'm not a nutter worried about the end of civilization, but a realist who went through a few times being unemployed. Not to mention the possibility of natural disaster. I lived on an island where a strike at the dock meant no new food in the grocery store for a week. Be Prepared.
I live in a state with high gun ownership. Odds are that my son will encounter a gun at a friend's house. I want him to recognize it and know of its power so he doesn't mistake it for a toy. Guns are dangerous if you don't know how to use them.
Love to hear the stories of responsible gun owners raising more responsible gun owners... but somewhere in the advance of generations, people didn't realize that we killed most of the bears and big cats and wolves, and keep our meat down at the grocery now, like civilized people,
My dad's an ecologist, so I learned to respect alpha predators in their natural habitat. I never shot at a bear or wolf. Hunting for trophies is irresponsible. You kill animals to eat or which pose a threat to you. My grandparents sold their farm, so no need to shoot predators near their home. Once or twice a year we get a cougar walking down main street, so citizens grab their guns just in case. Stores around here sell beef, pork, and poultry, but are devoid of deer and elk. No, I don't eat either with much frequency, but I like the option.
On the topic of ecology, since the population of most big predators is down, we must cull the herds of their prey so they don't overrun their ecosystems. We humans created the imbalance, so we try correct it.
and the cops keep a lid on the crime... so the only purpose for owning a gun... is what? Personal affection for it. You like guns, and you feel entitled beyond the 2nd A. because you are a responsible gun owner? Just make sense, ok? That's all anyone asks. You can make fun of me for my Bronie collection, but you also must stand for being ridiculed because you have no reason to own a weapon, and your guns are not weapons, they are toys that you enjoy.
I'm not asking for anything beyond the second amendment. I just want to preserve our rights as outlined by the Founding Fathers.
Auto accidents still kill far more children, and yet there isn't the handwringing over automobile ownership. And the vast majority of auto accidents are attributable to driver error, i.e. being stupid behind the wheel.
So exactly how do you fix that? Most people will not get an adequate assessment of the limitations of their capabilities until it is too late and the damage is done.
How often do you have to take the written and driving tests when renewing your driver's license?
First, I agree that this particular story probably shouldn't be on./ . Secondly, I am biased on the issue of gun control. I think that responsible citizens should be allowed to own and use guns.
The real issue is gun safety. I shot my first gun when I was 3. You better believe that my dad kept his firearms locked up unloaded with the ammo in a different safe. Each of us (my sister included!) were taught how to safely handle guns. We knew to stand behind whoever was shooting, aim the barrel at the ground until we were ready to shoot, how to hand the gun to the next person in line, etc. If you are going to have weapons, store them properly so they aren't mistaken for toys by toddlers, and teach gun safety to everyone near them. Perhaps there should be a gun license (or a certificate for having completed a safety course) which must be shown when purchasing firearms.
Belief in the infallibility of computers and programmers is sort of funny, actually.
I test-drove an SUV last year which would beep if you started crossing the lines in the road. Wow, brilliant, right? Except, for at least six months a year, you can't see the lines on the road around here.
Not to mention the other 6 months of the year when there's road construction and multiple markings on the road.
I've for sterilizing them. If they work hard and are successful, let them do in-vitro.
Do you know how in-vitro works? In vitro just means that they combine eggs and sperm in a petridish then implant the fertilized eggs into the uterus. This sterilization vaccine causes men to no longer produce viable sperm. The only way to reproduce would involve cloning or direct gene splicing.
That is not how evolution work. If one can breed lots of babies and make them someone else problem that is the trait that will be selected.
That is not how evolution works. Any time an individual breeds, their genes are propagated to the next generation, but that does not exclude other individuals with conflicting genes from also contributing to the gene pool. As an example, take a look at hair color. Obviously different people have different preferences as to their mate's hair color. Since it is not only blondes who procreate, other hair colors will remain in the gene pool. Furthermore, the trait you are addressing (having a knack of making one's offspring someone else's responsibility) does not manifest itself until after one has already procreated. It is similar to male pattern baldness which normally kicks in after most are already married. Additionally, I would argue that taking abusing the welfare system is a learned trait, and not something genetically transferred to the next generation.
The only solution is to not care about someone else children. And if they can't feed them, then they should die from starvation. Feeding the poor is just bad as 'determine eligibility'. Let nature determine eligibility.
That is too harsh. You need to distinguish between a family going through a bad patch of a few years and a third-generation recipient of welfare. A better solution would be to put the children in some else's custody at least temporarily. The children have committed no sin to deserve to suffer such dire consequences of their parents' actions.
If you are too soft to let stranger's children die then accept welfare recipient sterilisation. It is, after all, the humane thing to do. Personally I think that, like everything that is 'the humane thing to do', are more bad than good. But I am not the one moved by hungry children.
Oops, I made a typo (but I hope people recognize what I wanted to say). It happens when your brain is faster than your hands.
This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.
I could not disagree more. Just because someone is down on their luck now does not mean they won't get back up. BTW, I agree that people should NOT make babies unless they are able to provide for them (but I don't trust any organization to determine eligibility).
This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.
I could not disagree more. Just because someone is down on their luck now does not mean they won't get back up. BTW, I agree that people should make babies unless they are able to provide for them (but I don't trust any organization to determine eligibility).
It's not an obscure word. Just what was your attendance record at school anyway?
Maybe it has something to do with my going through the public school system in Hawaii, but I had to look up inveigle. Definitely not a common word in these parts.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your principle - but you need to also factor in the cost of phones to some extent, which you didn't. For your "two iPhones" that's an additional $1400+ every 2-4 years
I am on AT&T's "Next" program. Upon acquiring a new phone, I pay sales tax on the spot, $15 upgrade fee per device on my next bill (this should be illegal!), then the cost of the phone is divided over x months. In my case, that works out to about $50 / month for the two phones. Data for two phones is $60 / month. Voice + unlimited text + roadside assistance + insurance = $70 / month before employee discount. Not the cheapest plan, but I get better coverage when I'm away from the big cities. AT&T's network technology is also compatible with Brazil's, so when we travel we can just throw in a pre-paid SIM.
I should note that besides the math error, these are not my personal numbers; they are ballpark figures for my city. I paid $160/month for my car. My mortgage + pmi + state property tax (included as escrow) is roughly $1,200 / month, but $1,800 / month is common here just for the mortgage. Etc.
How in the hell are you spending $433 a month on TV/Internet/Phone? Is that even possible? I could get the best plan for each in my town and not even be half that.
That was a math error; 100 / month should be 1200 / year.
And 19.2K for your mortgage? My 1500 sq ft house in a mid-size city of 1 million is only 9K including prop tax and insurance (and that's in Florida where insurance is absurd). You have no money left over because you chose to settle in an overpriced city. In most of the country 70K is a very comfortable number for two people.
19,200 / 12 months = 1,783 / month (includes mortgage insurance). I did not include 140 / month in HOA fees. My town home is 2,400 square feet in a city experiencing a tech boom. It was worth 150k when I closed on the mortgage and currently worth 200k.
It's no wonder you have problems.
Seriously, $2400 ($200/month) for 2-phone plan? Mine is $70 for two iPhones with unlimited talk, text, and shared 4G of data (we've got wi-fi everywhere so why pay for 10G or more?).
I have unlimited data, my wife has 3G / month; we are paying $25 / month each for our phones until we pay them off; then we pay extra for an international plan to call her family in Brazil. Our phone bill varies between $180 and $235 per month.
And $100/month for the triple play is not bad, but that adds up to only $1200, not the $5200 you deducted for it.
That's what I get for trying to do math before my caffeine.
And if you can't afford all the expenses of having a kid on top of the other things you're spending on, perhaps you ought rethink the decision to have one. Or maybe you could cut the TV and landline if you need to buy diapers.
I am not a fan of my generation's idea of a high minimum salary. I don't earn 70k a year. And I certainly don't, absolutely, have to have it. 'cause I'm not buying lifted trucks, dropping $2,400 a month on a mortgage... and I didn't go to a college that would charge me $100k for the degree. In fact, I have enough money to pay off my student loans now, and I would be debt free -- completely.
You're on the right track, but still a bit naive. Here are some rough numbers for a family of two in my city:
70k - taxes = 49k
49k - health / vision / dental insurance = 45k
45k - 1 car loan = 42k
42k - single car insurance for 2 drivers = 40k
40k - moderate mortgage = 22k
22k - plan with 2 smart phones = 19.6k
19.6k - utility bill (water, gas, electricity) = 16.6k
16.6k - food = 10.4k
10.4k - gasoline = 8.8k ($30 / week)
8.8k - tv / internet / landline = 3.6k (triple play = 100 / month)
3.6k - property tax = 2.4k
2.4k - vehicle registration = 2.2k
That gives you $183 / month for clothing, emergencies, etc.
Now throw in the fact that an average vaginal birth costs 15k before insurance (6k after), but you can generally finance for up to 4 years. A box of 150 diapers costs $40 at Costco. At about 8 diapers per day, that lasts for 2 weeks. A month old baby drinks approximately $35 of formula per week (assuming no breast feeding). A crib and mattress cost $200-350. A baby outgrows its clothes very quickly (newborn, 3 month, 6 month, 9 month, 12 month, 18 month, 24 month). The least expensive day care I can find charges $5 / hour -- higher than minimum wage after taxes. It is now estimated to cost $250k to raise your child to the age of 18.
Does 70k / year really seem that high now?
My thermostat doesn't need to talk to anything. a simple programmable thermostat saves exactly the same amount of money that a smart networked one that delays heating by 30 minutes would. Honestly, my neighbor has a NEST and he saves absolutely nothing compared to the identical house I live in next to him with my Stock bryant thermostat that is "programmable" that I set once back when I moved in and have not touched again since.
Exact same houses, and zero savings or comfort gains from his $300 thermostat.
As I said, it might be nice to notify your thermostat that you will arrive home earlier than normal. 95% of the time once you've programmed in your schedule you won't change it (small exception of adjusting for daylight savings time twice a year). 99% of the time you remember to turn off lights and lock doors. Each consumer needs to see if the benefits are worth the costs.
Why would anything inside my home ever need to communicate out? Other than data gathering on me and my family, there is no reason for my thermostat to talk to anything else, same for the stupid toaster that sadly became a thing in this discussion.
Some scenarios being pushed include adjusting your thermostat because you're heading home earlier / later than usual, being able to remotely turn on lights so no one knows you're not home, standard home security set up (such as accessing cameras, alerting you to a break in), etc. Your thermostat probably doesn't need to talk with your microwave.
Instead of depending on technology for everything. This is the same as the internet connected cars, focus on driving you moron you dobt need to update your fb status while driving on the highway. Chevy commercials who plug away theor 4g connected cars is retarded, you make sh1t cars and you are trying to sell them as smartphones
Internet connectivity in cars usually is not for the benefit of the driver (GPS being an obvious exception), but for the passengers. Kids get bored on long road trips, so give them internet access to stream songs / movies to placate them.
Any time you have a multi-tasker, the device is generally good at one task and mediocre or poor at the other. Do you want a mediocre phone with a great PDA, or a mediocre PDA with a great phone? Do you want a great car where connectivity was a secondary thought, or great connectivity in a mediocre car?
All the things you mention could be done with a home network without the internet. The hacking games with an internet connected network are scary. Turn the toaster or stove on to create a fire hazard. Turn the refrigerator off to create unsafe food storage. And last but not least give companies or the government fine grain surveillance of peoples personal lives.
Isn't that the first principle of any security design? Limit exposure to the outside as much as possible. Your database should not be directly accessible from the internet (indeed, firewall rules should only allow access from the machines which need it). You probably don't need to access your toaster from outside your LAN. It makes sense for your fridge to have a limited interface to the outside world - VPN for you to query if you are running low on eggs, or PUSH technology to inform you the milk is about to expire; I don't like the idea of the fridge performing purchases without human interaction (eg. why should the fridge know my payment information?). Come to think of it, there should probably be a single interface to the outside world (which could have hardened security).
This won't help the poor and needy people who don't have access to debit cards and bitcoin wallets.
We should force rich CEOs to give out debit cards from their bank accounts, so that everyone can be free. It's only fair.
Some states offer a debit card interface for unemployment and food stamps.
1. Apple takes a cut of recurring revenues, so YouTube passes the cost on to the consumer
Apple famously (infamously?) takes an uncompromising 30%. And, adding to your list, don't forget that YouTube is owned by Apple's largest competitor in the mobile space (from a software perspective). It is very convenient that Google also get's to paint a major competitor as the expensive option.
What happens if we sign up from our laptops and access YouTube from our iDevice?
Your membership extends across devices and anywhere you sign into YouTube
If that's the case, why do they charge more if you use iOS devices?
One of the biggest problem in Brazil is that people use credit cards for survival necessities like food, so they are never economically free.
This isn't really down to individual choice, it's systematically encouraged by modern money supply flows. A significant number of people not being in debt would entirely disrupt the current system.
As my wife is Brazilian, I am aware that living off credit cards (and store credit) there isn't always a choice, but often is a necessity. Inflation is off the charts, so people spend their money the same week they get it. As an example, I saw the cost of most goods double from 2012 to 2015.
Land, we can build up, also the United States is 50th in population density. We have room if you are willing to think outside of your little coastal city. As land is in higher demand prices go up, so the population learns to live with less of it. I like my space, so I moved out of the city, where I can have my space, however it is far from many services.
The US has huge tracts of desert. California is in a pickle because their cities have outgrown the available water supply. How many people would want to endure Death Valley's extreme summer heat? How many could survive the artic deserts of Alaska?
So a family can survive in $80,000 a year? Wow. You have no clue how the rest of the world lives. Some families of 6 live in less than $1000 per year. Kids are expensive, but First World people have no idea what the rest of the world lives on.
The rest of the world doesn't have a $1500 escrowed mortgage payment (for a reasonably sized home), $600 in car expenses (including gas and insurance) and $300 in utilities. Throw on entertainment/communication $250 (tv, internet, phone). You're looking at about half of their salary before you even get into food, college loans and anything else.
(BTW I lived in Brazil for a few years on $150 reais a month or roughly $75 dollars, so I know a thing or two about scraping by in another country)
Every person that brings up third world workers earning US$1000 per year really has no clue. You must compare income to cost of living in the same location. I spent two years in Brazil as a missionary for my Church back in the 1990s. The currency of Brazil is the real (plural is reais). As missionaries, we donate a set amount based on where we are from (missionaries from the US paid US$350 / month back then) and receive an allowance based on the cost of living where we serve - generally minimum wage. I received R$150 / month (approximately US$150 / month) which was to cover food, clothing, transportation, and utilities (rent was paid before we got our mesada). Today US$1.00 is worth approximately R$4.00 (changes daily) and minimum wage is R$800 / month. Gasoline costs R$4 / liter, so most Brazilians walk or use public transportation. You can rent a modest home in many cities for R$200 / month. One of the biggest problem in Brazil is that people use credit cards for survival necessities like food, so they are never economically free.
You had me feeling bad for my cynicism, and I wanted to say "kudos to you for being sane, rational, responsible, " until
we must cull the herds of their prey
THIS. This is the bullshit that hunters stand on, why they need to keep killing, and its bullshit, left, right, up and down complete bullshit. If a hunter says they just like to hunt and that's their reason for doing so, I'm not saying I'm ok with it, but I respect the honesty. If you have some ecological education, and it sounds like you do, you should know this "culling" business is complete dogshit, devoid of any science whatsoever. Nature doesn't need gun owners keeping its herds low so they don't deplete all their resources. On its face, it is horseshit. Again, if a hunter likes to hunt, good for them for being honest about it, but it is outrageously arrogant for a hunter to believe, and preach, that nature needs them to cull the overpopulation. Nature has its own methods for balancing ecology which it has been using long before guns and gun powder were invented.
Nature was in balance, yes, but we over-hunted predators. Nature's way of getting back in balance now would involve herd animals dying in droves because of lack of food, or weaker genes being allowed to propagate because there is nothing to weed them out. It could take over a century for nature to fix the damage we have done. I'm not talking hunting exclusively or excessively. Each year the BLM checks the size of the herds and determines how many animals that environment can support. If there are too many animals, some may be transported to other ancestral homes to help another herd. The BLM then gives a number of animals which can be harvested to keep the herd a healthy size and maintain genetic diversity.
Honestly, but for that, I'd vote you into the Senate. Or something, sounds like you're mindful the way we want people to be mindful. But that little misperception about culling is cancer, and you need to see for yourself why its bullshit, and convince your peers of the truth, that nature never needed human hunters to keep herds in check. Humans are the only animal that consistently depletes available natural resources unchecked, so its ludicrous that Joe Riflehunter is doind Nature or anyone but himself any service.
I'm afraid I would never enter into politics - my bs meter would drive me crazy. Middle of the aisle moderates like me would never get enough support from either party.
That's great. Really great for you, and a nice story. But... what do you use your gun for? Need it? DO YOU NEED IT TO SURVIVE? Are you protecting yourself and your unarmed neighbors from tyranny? In your entire life, have you had the opportunity to successfully defend yourself against crime? Does that come up a lot?
I was raised around guns (like I said first shooting at 3), but I personally don't have a gun at home. I love guns, but current circumstances are such that it doesn't make sense for me right now. I live in an open carry state, so I never got a concealed weapon permit. I go shooting a few times a year at a secluded spot in the mountains away from hikers and campers. I mostly shoot at milk jugs filled with water or empty soda cans, but clay pigeons can be fun.
You ask about the NEED
for a gun. Not everyone needs a gun, and there are some people who should not be allowed access to firearms. Remember that the colonists had guns before King George made things so bad that rebellion became necessary. This just in case scenario was important enough that our Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights.
Thankfully most of us won't be in a situation to stop a mass shooting. Hopefully not many here have had an armed burglar break into their home. As a Boy Scout, I learned to Be Prepared. I have food, clothing, and medicine to last 3 months. I'm not a nutter worried about the end of civilization, but a realist who went through a few times being unemployed. Not to mention the possibility of natural disaster. I lived on an island where a strike at the dock meant no new food in the grocery store for a week. Be Prepared.
I live in a state with high gun ownership. Odds are that my son will encounter a gun at a friend's house. I want him to recognize it and know of its power so he doesn't mistake it for a toy. Guns are dangerous if you don't know how to use them.
Love to hear the stories of responsible gun owners raising more responsible gun owners... but somewhere in the advance of generations, people didn't realize that we killed most of the bears and big cats and wolves, and keep our meat down at the grocery now, like civilized people,
My dad's an ecologist, so I learned to respect alpha predators in their natural habitat. I never shot at a bear or wolf. Hunting for trophies is irresponsible. You kill animals to eat or which pose a threat to you. My grandparents sold their farm, so no need to shoot predators near their home. Once or twice a year we get a cougar walking down main street, so citizens grab their guns just in case. Stores around here sell beef, pork, and poultry, but are devoid of deer and elk. No, I don't eat either with much frequency, but I like the option.
On the topic of ecology, since the population of most big predators is down, we must cull the herds of their prey so they don't overrun their ecosystems. We humans created the imbalance, so we try correct it.
and the cops keep a lid on the crime... so the only purpose for owning a gun... is what? Personal affection for it. You like guns, and you feel entitled beyond the 2nd A. because you are a responsible gun owner? Just make sense, ok? That's all anyone asks. You can make fun of me for my Bronie collection, but you also must stand for being ridiculed because you have no reason to own a weapon, and your guns are not weapons, they are toys that you enjoy.
I'm not asking for anything beyond the second amendment. I just want to preserve our rights as outlined by the Founding Fathers.
Auto accidents still kill far more children, and yet there isn't the handwringing over automobile ownership. And the vast majority of auto accidents are attributable to driver error, i.e. being stupid behind the wheel.
So exactly how do you fix that? Most people will not get an adequate assessment of the limitations of their capabilities until it is too late and the damage is done.
How often do you have to take the written and driving tests when renewing your driver's license?
First, I agree that this particular story probably shouldn't be on ./ . Secondly, I am biased on the issue of gun control. I think that responsible citizens should be allowed to own and use guns.
The real issue is gun safety. I shot my first gun when I was 3. You better believe that my dad kept his firearms locked up unloaded with the ammo in a different safe. Each of us (my sister included!) were taught how to safely handle guns. We knew to stand behind whoever was shooting, aim the barrel at the ground until we were ready to shoot, how to hand the gun to the next person in line, etc. If you are going to have weapons, store them properly so they aren't mistaken for toys by toddlers, and teach gun safety to everyone near them. Perhaps there should be a gun license (or a certificate for having completed a safety course) which must be shown when purchasing firearms.
Belief in the infallibility of computers and programmers is sort of funny, actually.
I test-drove an SUV last year which would beep if you started crossing the lines in the road. Wow, brilliant, right? Except, for at least six months a year, you can't see the lines on the road around here.
Not to mention the other 6 months of the year when there's road construction and multiple markings on the road.
I've for sterilizing them. If they work hard and are successful, let them do in-vitro.
Do you know how in-vitro works? In vitro just means that they combine eggs and sperm in a petridish then implant the fertilized eggs into the uterus. This sterilization vaccine causes men to no longer produce viable sperm. The only way to reproduce would involve cloning or direct gene splicing.
That is not how evolution work. If one can breed lots of babies and make them someone else problem that is the trait that will be selected.
That is not how evolution works. Any time an individual breeds, their genes are propagated to the next generation, but that does not exclude other individuals with conflicting genes from also contributing to the gene pool. As an example, take a look at hair color. Obviously different people have different preferences as to their mate's hair color. Since it is not only blondes who procreate, other hair colors will remain in the gene pool. Furthermore, the trait you are addressing (having a knack of making one's offspring someone else's responsibility) does not manifest itself until after one has already procreated. It is similar to male pattern baldness which normally kicks in after most are already married. Additionally, I would argue that taking abusing the welfare system is a learned trait, and not something genetically transferred to the next generation.
The only solution is to not care about someone else children. And if they can't feed them, then they should die from starvation. Feeding the poor is just bad as 'determine eligibility'. Let nature determine eligibility.
That is too harsh. You need to distinguish between a family going through a bad patch of a few years and a third-generation recipient of welfare. A better solution would be to put the children in some else's custody at least temporarily. The children have committed no sin to deserve to suffer such dire consequences of their parents' actions.
If you are too soft to let stranger's children die then accept welfare recipient sterilisation. It is, after all, the humane thing to do. Personally I think that, like everything that is 'the humane thing to do', are more bad than good. But I am not the one moved by hungry children.
Oops, I made a typo (but I hope people recognize what I wanted to say). It happens when your brain is faster than your hands.
This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.
I could not disagree more. Just because someone is down on their luck now does not mean they won't get back up. BTW, I agree that people should NOT make babies unless they are able to provide for them (but I don't trust any organization to determine eligibility).
This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.
I could not disagree more. Just because someone is down on their luck now does not mean they won't get back up. BTW, I agree that people should make babies unless they are able to provide for them (but I don't trust any organization to determine eligibility).
It's not an obscure word. Just what was your attendance record at school anyway?
Maybe it has something to do with my going through the public school system in Hawaii, but I had to look up inveigle. Definitely not a common word in these parts.