When was the last time you saw a poll where 95% of the country agreed on anything?
Most polls only ask about controversial things. I bet you could easily get 95% agreement on:
Murder, theft, fraud, etc... should be illegal. (Basic criminal law)
We shouldn't allow Syria/Iran to conquer us (military defense)
and I'm sure you'd see a few other essential items getting broad agreement.
For the rest... well, that's a feature of the system, not a bug.
A few of the "expert" ones I frequent:
Volokh Conspiracy (Now tied into the Washington Post)
Thank you for making my day with your comment. Provided a good laugh at just the right time. Way too much of a kernel of truth in there...
There's no such thing as a free lunch. - Various Economists and Heinlein
Same types of things happened after the regulations around credit and debit card fees. The money comes from somewhere and ultimately you aren't punishing the big players in the industry with the regulations, but their customers and their smaller competitors.
Another case of people who don't understand regulatory history being doomed to repeat it.
Who makes more money off of cigarettes, the tobacco companies or the government?
When the government (State+Federal) makes 6x as much per pack than the manufacturer does, where's the incentive?
P.S. See also Gasoline taxes vs Oil company profits.
Yeah, everyone knows Google is a bastion of right-wing lobbying and giving. Why, you can just look at all their strictly traditional holiday search page images and their complete lack of focus on left-wing causes in their news releases, promotional materials and spending.
Good thing we have groups like these "investors" who are concerned not that they're making money, but that Google isn't contributing anything to any group which may in some way not agree with progressives to keep Google "correct" politically.
The original comparison (lost in the threading somewhere above) was about poverty rate comparisons between countries, not the US census definition (which is more based on an absolute), nor the World Bank international absolute definition (which is more like $1.25/day, which no on in the US really fits without really trying hard) so I was using the definition used in the original comparison. See Poverty in France: "were below the poverty line (which, according to INSEE's criteria, is half of the median income)." INSEE is the French equivalent of the US Census for economic statistics. INSEE has recently moved to a 60% of median income measurement.
The original stats I was responding to also don't take into account in-kind benefits (not income), which makes them even worse.
My post in response to the stats previously cited was that "It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.", so don't expect me to be defending the measurements used. They certainly aren't the ones I'd pick to do an actual comparison.
a poor person in the U.S. won't have access to healthcare
I realize you may be not in the U.S. and so are speaking out of ignorance based on the false impressions given by some news media, but anyone in the U.S. within 133% of the poverty line we've been discussing is eligible for medicaid, which covers their health care costs, even retroactively.
or third level education
Also, generally speaking, anyone who can't afford college in the U.S. is eligible for grants which will cover virtually 100% of costs at most public universities. It won't cover more expensive universities (some people take out low interest loans to help cover that), but higher education costs in the U.S. are very much needs based. Basically, they take whatever money you have, then cover the rest.
They're typically defining "poverty" as less than 1/2 the median income. It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.
The U.S median income for a household is much higher than in France, thus someone below the "poverty rate" in the Unites States can be much wealthier than someone above the "poverty rate" in France.
In France, even with purchasing power parity, the median household income is (depending on if you use Gallup or OECD numbers) 70-77% of what it is in the United States. Using Gallup numbers, the "poverty line" in the US would be $22K/year vs $16K/year in France. Remember, these number take into account purchasing power parity (PPP), so you can literally buy about the same things in each country.
To put that into perspective for variations within the United States, the median income in Maine or Hawaii is 65% of that of Virginia or Utah (adjusted for cost of living).
According to the OECD, the "poverty rate" in Mexico is about $2250, based on a PPP median income of $4500. By their measurement, a barely "poor" person in the U.S. ($22K) would be considered upper middle class in Mexico. I won't bring up the really poor countries in Africa and elsewhere, but the "poverty rate" they're talking about is virtually valueless across countries for comparison purposes.
Put another way, the median income and thus "poverty rate" of Mississippi is higher than that of France, so I know which country I'd rather live in...
So, an addin something like UnloadTab?
I stated "most relevant empirical scientific study".
Funny how if you believe that's a misrepresentation, you haven't provided a more relevant empirical scientific study. I guess you couldn't find one.
Right now, all you have is an opinion ungrounded in logic nor facts and that doesn't match the personal experience of the majority of the people here. You're going to have a pretty tough time convincing anyone with just that.
That would make sense. Having managed a K-8 school in the past, I'm familiar with overall employment statistics for teachers and male teachers are also more likely to leave the profession within 5 years, so that may be a big contributing factor on both sides of the occupational sex-selection differences.
It makes sense that if you think you're going to like a type of job, but end up not actually liking it, you'll move into another career path at some point earlier rather than later in the process.
As you have no facts to back up your opinions, using only pointless and inaccurate insults as your "best" arguments, it's clear you don't actually have any basis for your opinions. You can pretend to talk about "reality", but apparently are unable to provide any "reality-based" support for your claims.
Of course, based on your rant about "careers", you aren't able to read, either. Interest in college sports isn't about a career, but apparently you don't know much about sports, either.
You should consider reevaluating if you are capable of changing your worldview when presented with facts, or if you completely rely on indoctrination from others for your opinions.