See, we're offshoring as fast as we can and when we can't do that we bring in more H1-Bs. Hell, I'm starting to see them in non-technical fields like entry level business analysis.

The real solution is protectionism and an end to the H1-B visa program so you don't need a 4 year degree to do something that can be learned in an afternoon. As long as companies use that degree qualification as a quick and easy way to get H1-Bs for free you'll have kid's drowning themselves in debt out of desperation.

then somebody else can pocket it. Either for their own pet project or as tax cuts.

but saving up for a down payment on house is already impossible in my neck of the woods. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

There's a ton of basic science getting done for that $150 mil you're ignoring. I don't even get too made at the F-35s. At the end of the day it's all just socialism. Military Spending is about the only way we lower castes have ever managed to pry money away from the 1% (not counting a few minor victories with Unions that really only happened thanks to the Cold War).

Eisenhower talked about it in his memoirs. He and a bunch of progressives created the Military Industrial Complex as a way of redistributing wealth. It was the only way he could keep the US Economy going instead of grinding to a halt when the 1% took everything for themselves. As I recall he was guilty over it and thought the harm done was worse than the help, but the only folks I know doing OK right now have gov't jobs that either are or depend on the Military...

At least in America if you don't move into management you're dead meat by 40, 50 tops (unless you're some sort of genetic freak). Around that time it becomes impossible to put in the 50+ hour work weeks at a moments notice let alone compete with cheap H-1b labor. It's not even age discrimination. They don't care that you're old, they care that you either can't or won't put in tons of overtime they don't pay you for.

Or at least I hope you are, and you're not just a paid shill/astroturfer (you're a bit too crude for that), but you've also never had a mini-gun pointed at him by private "security" personal because you asked for better pay. You've never had terrorists come in the night and cut your families throats for the same thing (google "Coca-Cola South America" sometime). You have no bloody idea what the hell your talking about. If you did you probably wouldn't be trolling it and you'd go back to goatse and Natalie Portman Hot Grits.

And not just story time? When I used to gm I always had a hard time incorporation actual play mechanics into my sessions and caught myself just telling a story...

Google rarely, if ever, allows real malware to slip through. Yes, there is adware and exploitive free to play games, but you can uninstall them and they're gone. What makes malware malware is you need to ffr to get rid of it.

I serve some ads on my site glimmersoft.com (shameless plug) and I only serve Google ads for just that reason. There's plenty of folks with better rates but they just don't have the resources to keep up with the bad guys.

you're thinking about the upper middle class, not the rich. The 1%. They mostly horde their wealth. They don't have a lot of options. No human being could possibly spend the kinds of wealthy they've claimed. It's not even money any more, it's raw power. The ability to decide who lives and who dies. Guys like you and me can't even begin to understand what that's like. It's like trying to understand what a billion is. You can write the digits down on paper but you don't really understand what they mean the way you do for the number 10...

Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

e.g. they disproportionately harm the working poor. I know, it's counter intuitive because when we think poor we think no property. That's why I said the _working_ poor. In America if you're just scraping by virtually all of your wealth is tied up in property, specifically your primary domicile (aka your house). About 20-30% of your income goes to this one investment. It's generally not worth very much, and at times it even loses value. But it's the only investment you can afford.

We fund services with property taxes because a) The rich get out of paying them because most of their wealth is tied up with the stock market and other forms of property with much lower taxes (or many, many more loopholes) and b) for the few taxes the rich pay it's easy for them to keep that money in their neighborhoods and ensure that it's not spent on the lower castes. This is why we fund our schools with property taxes while more decent folks (the Netherlands IIRC) mandate equal funding for all schools...

and Arkham City were rock solid stable. Origins, made by the same developer as Knight, is a buggy mess.

The state has plenty of reason to be involved. There's tonnes of property rights, power of attorney rights, responsibilities in regards to children, etc. It's almost childishly simplistic to say the State has no business there. You might as well endorse anarchy and call it a day.

because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

The litigant needn't be the entire group. Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to various restrictions, such as consent and consanguinity. Yesterday, one of the restrictions, at least in some places, was that the genders of two of the spouses couldn't be the same. Today, it's fine nationwide if they're the same.

The restriction to look at now is whether the marital status of each spouse in the marriage at hand is single. Today it has to be. But there's not a good reason for it. (As already mentioned, administrative convenience is not a good reason). So why can't Alice, who is married to Bob, now also marry Carol? Bob isn't marrying Carol; the A-C marriage would be between two people only. You're treating Alice differently merely because she is already married.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Marriage is a fundamental right and is extremely broad. Restrictions on marriage, such as requiring the spouses to be of opposite genders, or of the same race, or of the same religion, or of compatible castes, etc. are not inherently part of marriage and are certainly not part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Also, today's events make it clear that tradition is irrelevant; polygamy is practiced today among many groups, and has a long history back into antiquity. Same sex marriage was known in the past but was far more rare.

It will certainly be a massive pain in the ass. But administrative inconvenience is not an adequate justification for denying people their fundamental rights or equal protection of the law. It'll take a while, but just as this took a while, but in time polyamororous marriages will be legally recognized.