> The middle class CAN afford it. If they can afford gigantic McMansions and $100K BMWs and Teslas, they can afford more taxes.
how much of that is enabled by risky lending?
> I'm all in favor of decreasing the burden on the former, and increasing it on the latter.
ok then we more or less agree, and we're arguing semantics or brackets or something that's somewhat inconsequential. In general, the richer you are, the more in taxes you can afford to pay without compromising your life style. Those taxes should be taken to fund things like universal basic income, universal health care, subsidizing public transit, and to an extent post-secondary education.
I'm personally of the opinion that socialism works well as an investment, not as a charity. UBI appears to me to be a good investment, not a charity. The problems people think it will cause, already exist today anyways. UBI will neither solve or increase those problems.
> If you have a decent middle-class job, most likely that extra UBI will be offset by the increased taxes that are taken out of your paycheck to pay for it,
Then tax the people who can afford to pay it instead of constantly putting the burden on the middle class. Oh, your politicians won't do that? then that's your real problem and that's the problem you focus on fixing.
America is not poor. Far from it in fact. The top earners can easily afford to pay more in taxes. Money that will eventually end up in their pockets anyways from higher levels of spending.
if you're suggesting I should cut costs in order to live more comfortably on solely basic income, then you're missing my point entirely.
Basic Income would put more money in my pocket, which will be incentive for me to spend more, not to work less. This is a gain for capitalism, not a loss.
rent: $950 / month for a modest 2 bedroom apartment in a 100+ year old triplex made of wood. Not exactly the best apartment around. electricity: $40 / month during the summer. In the winter, this can skyrocket. Last year, while my region of hte planet was the coldest place on earth outside of the poles, my total winter electricity bill was slightly over $1000 internet: $74 / month mobile phone: $80 / month monthly bus pass: $82 / month groceries: $400 / month
$1,626 / month. That leaves me with a scant $374 of disposable income, per month. Except that one month where I bought a pair of jeans and brought me down to $274 for the month. Then there was that time I went camping (which is fun, but at this rate, it's the only kind of 'traveling' I can afford) and I had a flat tire and it ate up $250 leaving me with almost nothing left.
But hey, if my disposable income suddenly shot up by $1626/month as I'm working, then I gee, what will I do with my new found wealth? I know... SPEND IT. I can goto the farmers market and support local farmers who produce expensive tomatoes that actually taste like something. I can goto that local thingamajig store that is more expensive than thinkgeek but gives me instant gratification instead of waiting for shipping. I can go eat at more expensive restaurants, drink higher quality beer, go traveling more often, and for longer periods of time, buy furniture that's better than Ikea, and so on.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. Increasing my ability to spend will help the economy, not hinder it.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. So it seems counter productive to not enable consumerism where possible.
I wanted better music for a video game I play, but I wanted that music to be context sensitive. I found a log file in the game's directory. Figuring that cross platform would be useful as well, I now had the motivation to learn C++ via the Qt framework.
I wanted my living room lights to dim when I play a movie automatically. I use kodi. I now know how to make Kodi plugins.
I wanted something that reports the vitals of my various computers to a central message queue. While I wrote a linux reporter in python, I wrote the windows reporter in C# and was a great avenue to learn c#. As well I learned all about the amqp protocol.
Don't solve problems that already exist, don't try to make the NEXT GREAT THING, just identify things you want personally, figure out how to make it, and worry about trying to market it later.
It will drive more people towards more efficient means of commuting. Whether it be more fuel efficient cars, electric cars, public transit, or decreasing the length of the commute by moving closer to work or finding a job closer to them, or may be even further encouragement for remote working.
There is liberal and conservative media. But this is not indicative of most of the media. I would argue that most of the media doesn't care and are just so thrilled to have a Trump vs Clinton battle to gabble on about for the rest of the year.
In other words, the media doesn't favor Trump nor Clinton, it favors the fight between them because that is what will bring it revenue.
> I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge. How many other business operate that way?
Er, every single one of them. Other businesses however, may not be able to keep their customers if they behaved that way and they will be forced to adapt their pricing models or die.
The entertainment industry however, continues to keep their customers regardless of how they behave. Look at video games and how many times there have been awful launches of games that were partially funded via pre-orders. And despite the backlash, people KEEP pre-ordering, so the industry lacks the incentive to adapt.
This is not an issue that can be solved by any kind of adjustment to copyright law. This is a cultural/societal issue. The customers are so desperate for their entertainment fix that they keep giving in to the bizarre business practices of the entertainment industry and so the entertainment industry doesn't change or adapt. It doesn't have to.
> Is it Netflix fault or the whole industry to blame for that?
Netflix did what it did not because it wanted to but because the producers demanded they do.
Netflix's business model is all about maximizing what any one individual can get. Content owner's business model is all about maximizing the money they can get off their content.
Netflix doesn't have the same leverage as Apple I suppose in forcing the content owners to agree to their terms.
I will continue to subscribe to Netflix because I do support that company even if the MPAA doesn't.
> Guess what? Rent Controls will always fail, eventually. Just like all forms of socialism based economics. Just because it works for a short period doesn't mean it works.
Whats your definition of "works"?
My definition is over all quality of life, and various quality of life metrics place the US behind socialism-based economies like Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc.
I don't understand why this can't be in a temporary fashion, specific to this particular iphone, and only for this specific case. It's not clear to me why if Apple does this work, it suddenly invalidates whatever security measures are in place on current and new iphones.
White males are not oppressed in western society for being white males. You only feel this way because you're taking the extremist elements of the left far too seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically, you want to spend more tax payer money to give less to people?
> The middle class CAN afford it. If they can afford gigantic McMansions and $100K BMWs and Teslas, they can afford more taxes.
how much of that is enabled by risky lending?
> I'm all in favor of decreasing the burden on the former, and increasing it on the latter.
ok then we more or less agree, and we're arguing semantics or brackets or something that's somewhat inconsequential. In general, the richer you are, the more in taxes you can afford to pay without compromising your life style. Those taxes should be taken to fund things like universal basic income, universal health care, subsidizing public transit, and to an extent post-secondary education.
I'm personally of the opinion that socialism works well as an investment, not as a charity. UBI appears to me to be a good investment, not a charity. The problems people think it will cause, already exist today anyways. UBI will neither solve or increase those problems.
we're talking about basic necessities, nothing more.
> If you have a decent middle-class job, most likely that extra UBI will be offset by the increased taxes that are taken out of your paycheck to pay for it,
Then tax the people who can afford to pay it instead of constantly putting the burden on the middle class. Oh, your politicians won't do that? then that's your real problem and that's the problem you focus on fixing.
America is not poor. Far from it in fact. The top earners can easily afford to pay more in taxes. Money that will eventually end up in their pockets anyways from higher levels of spending.
yeah, with the great job market every one has, I'm sure that will work out well for you.
if you're suggesting I should cut costs in order to live more comfortably on solely basic income, then you're missing my point entirely.
Basic Income would put more money in my pocket, which will be incentive for me to spend more, not to work less. This is a gain for capitalism, not a loss.
If I received $2000 a month free:
rent: $950 / month for a modest 2 bedroom apartment in a 100+ year old triplex made of wood. Not exactly the best apartment around.
electricity: $40 / month during the summer. In the winter, this can skyrocket. Last year, while my region of hte planet was the coldest place on earth outside of the poles, my total winter electricity bill was slightly over $1000
internet: $74 / month
mobile phone: $80 / month
monthly bus pass: $82 / month
groceries: $400 / month
$1,626 / month. That leaves me with a scant $374 of disposable income, per month. Except that one month where I bought a pair of jeans and brought me down to $274 for the month. Then there was that time I went camping (which is fun, but at this rate, it's the only kind of 'traveling' I can afford) and I had a flat tire and it ate up $250 leaving me with almost nothing left.
But hey, if my disposable income suddenly shot up by $1626/month as I'm working, then I gee, what will I do with my new found wealth? I know... SPEND IT. I can goto the farmers market and support local farmers who produce expensive tomatoes that actually taste like something. I can goto that local thingamajig store that is more expensive than thinkgeek but gives me instant gratification instead of waiting for shipping. I can go eat at more expensive restaurants, drink higher quality beer, go traveling more often, and for longer periods of time, buy furniture that's better than Ikea, and so on.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. Increasing my ability to spend will help the economy, not hinder it.
Capitalism depends on consumerism. So it seems counter productive to not enable consumerism where possible.
I wanted better music for a video game I play, but I wanted that music to be context sensitive. I found a log file in the game's directory. Figuring that cross platform would be useful as well, I now had the motivation to learn C++ via the Qt framework.
I wanted my living room lights to dim when I play a movie automatically. I use kodi. I now know how to make Kodi plugins.
I wanted something that reports the vitals of my various computers to a central message queue. While I wrote a linux reporter in python, I wrote the windows reporter in C# and was a great avenue to learn c#. As well I learned all about the amqp protocol.
Don't solve problems that already exist, don't try to make the NEXT GREAT THING, just identify things you want personally, figure out how to make it, and worry about trying to market it later.
It will drive more people towards more efficient means of commuting. Whether it be more fuel efficient cars, electric cars, public transit, or decreasing the length of the commute by moving closer to work or finding a job closer to them, or may be even further encouragement for remote working.
MSNBC is rather left-leaning but CNN?
give me a break.
There is liberal and conservative media. But this is not indicative of most of the media. I would argue that most of the media doesn't care and are just so thrilled to have a Trump vs Clinton battle to gabble on about for the rest of the year.
In other words, the media doesn't favor Trump nor Clinton, it favors the fight between them because that is what will bring it revenue.
> I don't understand why businesses believe they have a right to indefinite rent seeking privileges and charge whatever price they feel like they want to charge. How many other business operate that way?
Er, every single one of them. Other businesses however, may not be able to keep their customers if they behaved that way and they will be forced to adapt their pricing models or die.
The entertainment industry however, continues to keep their customers regardless of how they behave. Look at video games and how many times there have been awful launches of games that were partially funded via pre-orders. And despite the backlash, people KEEP pre-ordering, so the industry lacks the incentive to adapt.
This is not an issue that can be solved by any kind of adjustment to copyright law. This is a cultural/societal issue. The customers are so desperate for their entertainment fix that they keep giving in to the bizarre business practices of the entertainment industry and so the entertainment industry doesn't change or adapt. It doesn't have to.
> Is it Netflix fault or the whole industry to blame for that?
Netflix did what it did not because it wanted to but because the producers demanded they do.
Netflix's business model is all about maximizing what any one individual can get. Content owner's business model is all about maximizing the money they can get off their content.
Netflix doesn't have the same leverage as Apple I suppose in forcing the content owners to agree to their terms.
I will continue to subscribe to Netflix because I do support that company even if the MPAA doesn't.
Presumably, if money is moved solely though digital means, it would be far easier to track where it ends up?
best comment in this discussion so far.
And here at 34 I was hoping to move to new zealand since they need programmers
lack of peer review
Anything that is funded by tax money should be available to the citizens who pay that tax free of charge, at the very least.
Montreal doesn't really have this problem ;)
> Guess what? Rent Controls will always fail, eventually. Just like all forms of socialism based economics. Just because it works for a short period doesn't mean it works.
Whats your definition of "works"?
My definition is over all quality of life, and various quality of life metrics place the US behind socialism-based economies like Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc.
surely they meant that they could push more changes back to github in a shorter period of time, than github doing this solo
I never had problems rooting non-carrier samsung phones.
In fact, it was pretty much a necessity, because Samsung loads the phone up with so much crap, it's like buying a new laptop.
But for this specific case only.
I don't understand why this can't be in a temporary fashion, specific to this particular iphone, and only for this specific case. It's not clear to me why if Apple does this work, it suddenly invalidates whatever security measures are in place on current and new iphones.
The beauty about Ubuntu, is that it doesn't matter what Shuttleworth wants to do, you can do something different.
I won't hate Shuttleworth unless he takes choices away from me.
White males are not oppressed in western society for being white males. You only feel this way because you're taking the extremist elements of the left far too seriously.