Nobody "sits" on cash unless it's stuffed in their mattress. All the money they have in savings accounts, bonds, stocks, whatever.. is being used by the banks to make loans or investments. It's a huge pool. Money is in constant circulation. That alone generates tax revenue.

Absolutely.
Actually, it was in jest. I think, technically, it's more work for a guy to fight gravity putting a seat up to piss, than it is for a gal to work with gravity and put the seat down. I honestly don't see why it's supposed to be strictly the man's responsibility, according to some. Though on principle, I myself put the seat and cover down just because, I dunno.. appearances, hygiene, whatever, though my wife has never actually complained if I forgot and left it up.

They're a long, long, looong way off. Let's focus on more realistic and practical things, like self making beds and toilets that put the seat down for women automatically. Now that would be progress.

For me, the only really good things about a gov't job (in my case, at the state level, not fed) are the hours and holidays. My title entails a 35 hour work week, and OT is not common (though we rotate "on call" every 4 weeks). For those of you working 70 hour weeks, that probably sounds like heaven. And it nice to be able to go home and spend time with my family in my home. We also get vacation, holiday, and sick time in buckets.

However, the salary for most of us in IT here is definitely below public sector norms, even for those workers with 40 hour work weeks (not all state positions are 35 hr work weeks). To get a reasonable promotion is all but impossible and involves years of resubmitting forms that HR mysteriously loses. Add to that the issue where (as I mentioned in a different thread a few days ago) the problem of under-qualified nepotism in state gov't, and you wind up with a few good people (a minority, really) who do the work of 2 or 3, because the rest of the workers are clueless and choose to remain so. Their attitude is, "I got a state job, I'm on easy street and they can't fire me". Increased workload is endemic everywhere, but really bad at our place of work.

So there are serious pros and cons, but enough pros that I've chosen to stay, although probably no less than half of my close coworkers over the past decade have quit for public sector jobs. In this economy, that says something.

Same is true of state government, of course. What makes it that much worse is how much a role nepotism (or even AA, but usually nepotism) plays in hiring people who may or may not be qualified for their jobs, but hiring them based on other criteria. It's a bit hit or miss. Some of the relatives that get hired are perfectly capable, knowledgeable professionals who have experience and it all works out okay, but in my environment, a few too many were not qualified and simply got shoehorned in as a favor to some bigwig.

It's one thing when nepotism gets you the interview, which is merely an opportunity to showcase your skillset; but another thing altogether if it guarantees employment, especially to blatantly non-qualified personnel. And I can understand people might get upset over just the interview preference alone.
It's nearly impossible to terminate a bad employee, and I can think of a few real world examples from personal experience, anecdotal evidence be damned, where someone's nephew or brother-in-law was hired and is god-awful in the job, never improves, never learns, doesn't understand squat, screws up often, barely works, gets written up regularly, and still can't be terminated. That's very much a government culture kind of thing. It's not impossible though: I knew of one guy who got fired, because he callously muttered the n-word about a coworker, and he was still in the probationary phase; his butt was out the door in 48 hours.

That's definitely the downside of supply and demand, when demand exceeds supply; or, collusion amongst the powers that be, in the face of the Sherman Antitrust act. Or both.

And of course, "tweee boop leetleleetle bzzzzthtppthtppth " .. that pretty much sums it up with a raspberry.

Consider how many chairs have had to go into therapy because of Steve Ballmer.. :-) But seriously, bullying isn't just a jock thing.

Nerds are quite capable of doing their own bullying nowadays, via the Internet at least, and the fact that some of them become rich also gives them power which can potentially be abused.

I vote for 42.. y'know, to make things consistent.

Because reality doesn't deal in absolutes.

This is some truth to what you say, as human nature is human nature (with variances), but in general, many well-off people are often that way, believe it or not (!) because they are highly motivated, smart, and hard working. Seriously, let's drop that mindset that *all* wealthy people have had it handed to them on a silver spoon, that's no more accurate (decidedly less so in fact) than saying all poor people are bums. There *are* people who work their ass off, and via a combination of hard work, good investments, brains, and indeed, a good bit of luck (there's always an element of luck), actually become wealthy without resorting to evil, racist plots. They aren't angels, but they are a net positive on the system.
But simply giving away something to those people who are not motivated to do any better in life - and let's be honest, there's a lot of them- isn't doing to do anyone any good ultimately, poor or not, and just make it harder for the middle to lower middle class who are working their ass off to make ends meet. It may do some good to those poor people who are willing to work, who just need a break and might see a way to use this to advance themselves, but if we're being realistic here, only a small minority will actually do that. The after school programs sounds a lot better, IMO.

What's the average size for the species that deep down, within a ballpark figure? Does it decrease, increase, or does the variety not really change from species we're more familiar with closer to the surface?

You'll get no argument from me there. It's not a great solution by any means, but seems to be the most realistic at the moment.

That said, I can see where that might backfire too, in an extreme.
Say Country-A reduces its capability too much, Country-B might, if losing a war, find it to be an acceptable risk if it launches a first strike on Country-A, assuming Country-A can "only" take out a few cities (since Country-A's missile silos are also targets in that first strike) leaving Country-B, for the most part, intact, while annihilating Country-A. Of course there are other factors: number of desirable targets in a country, size, etc..