krath94

I don't know if we have reached equilibrium. But I think it's more complicated when it comes to the labor market to just say "oh ok, we'll raise wages to get rid of the labor shortage." This is especially true if the shortage is in a high skilled position. For example, if there is a labor shortage in software engineers, raising wages won't help, at least not right away, because people will need to learn the skills required to do the job and maybe go to college before they can fill the shortage gap. I don't think people are sitting there saying "I need a job, but you won't pay enough so I'll stay unemployed," at least not in the higher skill fields.

I think it really comes down to what roles you assign to each level of government. For example, I think one of the main roles of the federal government is to maintain the military. I think a role of state and local governments is to maintain the infrastructure and education. I'd rather send more tax money to state and local governments, because I'd see the results. A lot of the money that states use to build and maintain their roads comes from the federal government anyway, so why not cut out the middleman and have the taxpayer give it directly to the state.

Obviously there are some places where you will have overlap between the different levels. For example, I don't think the federal government should be completely, 100% out of education, but rather should have a reduced role so the teachers can do their jobs and educate.

Obviously these ideas would be difficult to implement and are also idealistic. For example, some states are poorer than others so their tax revenue may not be enough. But even given that, I think state and local governments having more power would be better for the people. And no, this isn't some states' rights dog whistle or whatever (I doubt any of you would accuse me of that, but people have).

The only person that would write something like this is a university professor whose income solely depends on the taxation of others.

"Outside of academia, almost everyone assumes that the money I get in my pay-packet before the deduction of taxes is, in some morally significant sense, ‘mine’."

Oh so you mean like, in the real world?

Most people that say Taxation is theft aren't literally calling for zero taxes though. It's just a saying, and definitely a hyperbole. There are definitely specific functions of the government that need tax funds. They should get the funds. But the amount we pay in taxes to the federal government is outrageous and most of us don't see a return on our "investment."

The only people that 100% literally mean taxation is theft are anarchists.

Did they pay their "fair share"? See now you don't like that phrase...

When I say taxation is theft, I mean federal income taxes. I'd rather pay more to my state and local governments. I interact with those more local levels way more often and receive more benefits from them than from the federal government. States maintain their own roads.

Everything you just said supports the person you're replying to's argument about a better public transit system.

What's next, Bernie, do you believe that car ownership is a "right"?

Anyone having trouble with the link?

I am against the IP subpoena because i think it is at least a violation of privacy and at most unconstitutional. It should be noted that I am also strongly against antifa and their tactics.

Sorry, but antifa is more than Anti-Trump Activists, they are dangerous. They attack people for political reasons and are largely unpunished because they wear all black and wear masks. They are the clowns that started fires in berkeley and hit the Trump support in the head with a bike lock, causing a fractured skull. That's no good imo.

I'm on the right and the only thing I can think of is when some conservatives use "liberal" as a derogatory term but I don't think that's nearly as bad as calling someone racist or white supremacist, when they're not. All that does is shut down any chance of a meaningful discussion.

Please don't tell someone what words they are allowed to use in what contexts.

Google is pissed because the Internet is now under Title II making it nearly impossible for them to lay their fiber along public roads anymore. You know how to really fuck over Comcast? Allow google to bring Fiber to every major city. But they can't because regulation.

"Yeah we're gonna teach them that censorship is wrong by censoring people!!!"

I feel like the numbers they picked are intentionally misleading. Is the $73,000 the cost for no insurance or with insurance? I know it says average, but average out of which group?

Sounds like a great deal for everyone but the taxpayer

Isn't the objective for both sides to provide affordable healthcare? I think they agree on the objectives, the means of getting there are where the disagreement comes from.

No the point of free market is that insurance is cheap enough that even healthy people buy it. Or even better, that healthcare costs are low enough that you don't even need insurance (that won't happen though because of the healthcare monopolies).

Is this legal? If so, I would love to explore!

Would an actual detonation happen at that height? If so, how does it actually kill other than radiation?

"microaggressions"

You mean someone saying something completely normal with no ill intention and someone else, for whatever reason, getting offended?

This article says "The Monopolies" and then names 5 companies that in some way or another compete with each other. I know what they're getting at, but these are not monopolies. Especially weird since using Monopoly in a plural form when talking about the same (or similar) industry completely defeats the purpose of the word.

"Although there is no reason in theory why men could not become nurses or care-home assistants, few do."

This is true, but why is it that the shortage of women in technology fields is attributed to them not being accepted or even forced out? Maybe this isn't the general attitude, but I have certainly heard people say that woman aren't in tech as much because they feel unwelcome, whereas when talking about men in those other fields, it's because "they don't want to."

Welcome to 2017 America.

Agreed. Not to mention the bias that would be present at a Yale conference. I really hope political bias doesn't start finding its way into medical issues, because that would be terrifying.

Also the graph they used for approval rating is misleading. If you don't look at the percentages on the left-hand side (which some people won't), it looks like his approval rating goes from around 60% and then down to near 10% or less, when really its movement was only at max like 7% change.

In the states that have voter ID laws, getting the voter identification card is free. For example, look at Texas: http://www.dps.texas.gov/driverlicense/electionid.htm

But I do agree that in general, it needs to be easier to get an ID in this country

It's sad that people generalize about people that vote Republican. Most republicans (or people that vote republican) I have met, including myself, have been supportive of the LGBT community. Not ALL Republicans are against LGBT, just like not all liberals want free government handouts. These generalizations about the "other side" are counter-productive.

Also, I'm not saying you came across as generalizing, I know you were making a joke, but a lot of people actually do think this way.

Is he awful because you don't agree with him? Or because he actually did something awful? I have a feeling it's the first one.

Exactly my first thought, it's because he wrote it, why would they ask someone who didn't write it to perform it?