Yeah, I do. The sense of security that welfare* provides -enables- a person to plan ahead. It frees the mind to have hope and ambition.
http://www.wisebread.com/pover...
I think that this 'sense of security' is one of the most important ingredients in the recipe.
*I'm using welfare generically, i.e. I would include unemployment insurance with this.
Replacing entitlements with charities is exactly the wrong thing to do. The fact that a person meeting certain criteria is -entitled- to assistance is almost as important as the assistance itself.
There is a psychological element to this, and whether someone feels entitled to assistance or needs to go on bended knee to -ask- is a pretty big deal.
Studies supporting this have been posted to Slashdot in the past, but I have to start a 5 hour drive and don't have time to google for you. Relative income vs Absolute income is probably a good search phrase.
"...It would be a miracle if they would vote against adopting upstart..."
Seems pretty set, unlike the dramatic phoronix headline. In any case, having a choice is not something anyone seems to have an issue with.
There are no "choice problems". NONE. There is not one single distribution with a preponderance of devs who think choice is a problem.
Having choices is the POINT.
This is a case of someone in a long line of wheel re-inventors shutting the door behind him so no one else can come after.
THIS. Huffington Post isn't saying "you have to use your real name to comment here", they're saying "you have to have a facebook account to comment here". Big difference.
Needless to say, fuck you Huffington Post and anyone else who requires me to give facebook more personal info.
Civil enough for you?
No, no misconceptions. You didn't argue against a single point I made, go read again. lol indeed.
You are talking about the mechanics of how people get paid which is complete unrelated to the point(s) I made -save labor unions, and your post backs up mine. "That is when people started seeing that 90% of what unions were needed for was already encoded into law and their remaining usefulness was mostly about greed of income". Ahem, unions were harder to break before, and easier to break after.
I've always assumed that only students, entry level young people, etc. should be expected to live at that level. I don't actually think we're in complete disagreement.
It's too bad that my minor point caught so much attention, probably at the expense of my main point.
wth? Where did you get that from?
*No one* who talks about this is interested in beating down the rich, and I am no exception.
Supply side economics: If the wealthy have more money someone is more likely to build a factory.
Traditional economics: If most people have more money more factories will likely be built to satisfy demand.
Supply side economics (voodoo economics if you remember) is a LIE that only continues because a handful of people at the top benefit a lot *right now*. But even they realize that it's a long term loser for the whole economy.
The minimum wage is/was *supposed* to be for kids in or just out of high school, college students, etc.
The real cause of this, the point at which we jumped into the race to the bottom was in the 80's, when two things happend:
Union busting actually became popular. Reagan busting the air traffic controllers, and the unexpected level of approval from Americans, was a tipping point. Upward pressure on wages fell away across the economy.
Supply side economic policy has been the norm since (under Reagan) taxes on the super rich was basically cut in half.
Income inequality is the real devil here. The flatter the line is the better off everyone is, even the super rich. To fix it we need two things, upward pressure on labor wages, and an artificial friction to acquiring wealth. By that I mean the more wealthy you are the harder it is to get more wealthy. A progressive tax system does this, but maybe there are other methods.
Can't argue with that.
Ah. Thanks
UEFI boot support is in the list of HW requirements, which I've managed to avoid so far. There's no mention of TPM but maybe that's the reason?
...And presented it to a database ignorant world...
It's hardly the same.
Really?
First, I think Docker is pretty awesome. Many people have been struggling with home grown solutions for LXC for a while now and Docker comes along and wows us, like dang it's clear how it should be done now that I've seen it.
But. I am disappointed in the lack of words given to LXC.
Your analogy would be appropriate if dozens of people worked for almost a decade inventing a database and then someone had a great idea for a really usable front end. And presented it to a database ignorant world with hardly a nod to the guys who made the database. I'm not feeling any derision towards the Docker guys, but disappointment, yes.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
