Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Tax Incentives (Score 1) 103

I suspect Iowa got taken here....

No one was really taken. The alternative could very well have been no jobs and no taxes (even if they are at lower rates).

Generally tax incentives are either no certain types of taxes for X years or reduced amounts of certain types of taxes for X+ years. Most likely it is the later in which less taxes overall are paid for more years. Either way, it is a win for the state because there would be none of the taxes not covered by the incentives, none of the taxes after X years and none of the less taxes for X+ years if they couldn't convince the companies to set up shop there.

Granted, there might be a looser in the deal, it would be wherever looked attractive enough to locate these facilities has the tax incentives and other things not brought the location to where it is going to be. So if that was Columbus Ohio or something, then Columbus lost out. But had the tax incentives not been present, then Iowa would have lost out.

So no one got taken, they got more then they had and more then they likely would have had if those steps weren't taken.

Comment Re:Misleading title (Score 0) 245

No, I got it exactly right. The aggregate data "shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants." That's the "let's see if the percentages match the general population and claim discrimination if they don't match, ignoring all possible reasons why." It wasn't until someone considered the specific instances that they decided "The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees". That's looking at the actual "agency X" and figuring out that there are plenty of opportunities for girls to play sports but they don't want to, and "agency X" isn't actually violating Title 9 by failing to provide the opportunities.

Comment Re:Meet in the middle (Score 1) 260

The Cycle of Nations: “From bondage to spiritual faith. From spiritual faith to great courage. From courage to liberty. From liberty to abundance. From abundance to selfishness. From selfishness to complacency. From complacency to apathy. From apathy to dependency. From dependency back again into bondage.” ~ Henning Webb Prentis, Jr.

With the rise in Christianity in China including post economic reforms, it can be argued that they are in the stage of -from bondage to spiritual faith- with a possible foothold in the next stage.

America OTOH is directly in the stage of -from complacency to apathy-. Some euro nations such as Greece, Spain, and France are at -from apathy to dependency-, while many South American nations have slipped into -from dependency back again into bondage.

Comment Re:How does it compare? (Score 1) 245

Sounds like a totally appropriate use of taxpayer money.

Nonsense. If you choose to have a child, you should accept the responsibility to raise it. That include feeding, clothing, housing, and nurturing. If you can't afford any of that, don't have a child.

After the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, mothers on welfare were required to go to work.

There is a significant difference between what is being discussed here, which is taxpayer funded child support for anyone who wants to go back to work, and welfare. By the way, this legislation was signed by Bill Clinton.

What happens to their kids? Are they supposed to run around unsupervised on the streets?

People who can afford to pay for child care should do so, and if they allow their children to run amok in the streets they should be charged with child abandonment or endangerment. It is not everyone else's responsibility to pay for raising your children.

For my own safety, I'd rather have them in government-funded programs.

And I'd rather have them in parent-funded programs, or in the home where the parents can monitor them personally and maybe create some emotional bonding that would keep them from becoming sociopaths.

That's a good use of taxpayer money. It's cheaper than putting them all in jail.

Yes, let's put all children in jail. That's exactly what I've been suggesting. You win.

Comment Re:How does it compare? (Score 1) 245

I have to say, you Americans have a completely retarded system when it comes to maternity leave etc., and I don't just mean what the government decides.

"We Americans" don't have a system for maternity leave. If you look carefully in our Constitution, you won't find one of the powers of government to be "give every woman who wants to have a baby paid time off". It isn't a disease that needs mandatory time off or sick leave. In other words, the government has no business deciding.

It's been 3 awesome months.

I'm sure it has been. Does your government pay you for taking time off for everything that is "awesome"? Can you get them to pay for a trip to Disneyland, for example?

What I don't get is: even when you don't have paid maternity/paternity leave (which is your society's fault),

Hardly.

why can't you as the man take (20-40%) of the time staying at home (before kindergarden), and then your wife takes the rest?

Well, the woman is pregnant all nine months. Does your government manage to get that job swapped off to the husband so he needs time off? Wouldn't that be awesome, a system like you ask about, where I can get my wife pregnant, take five months off with pay, and then she gets the next four to deal with being pregnant. Wham, bam, thank you Ma'am I'm going to Orlando for five months!

But seriously, some companies do give paid paternity leave, so your question is moot.

I mean, she has after all carried the baby and given birth to it, so surely she deserves more than 50%?

How magnanimous of you. I'm sure your wife thinks you are the salt of the earth. She deserves more than 50% of the maternity leave time for herself. You'll be happy with 49%.

Is your employer really going to deny you a total of (1-3)x3 months of unpaid leave,

You're talking about paid leave to start with, and now it's unpaid. The FMLA means our employers cannot deny us 3 months of unpaid leave for maternity or paternity. So, this question is also moot.

when seen against your entire working life of 50+ years

And you think Norway has a good system? You have to work 50+ years over there? Our standard retirement age is around 62 to 65 or so. We don't really enter the workforce, for the most part, until long after 12. We'd call them sweatshops, I think.

and all the benefits that come from a closer connection to your children?

Exactly what are the benefits to your employer during your 40th through 50th years of employment from your closer connection to your children? 30-40? 20-30?

Comment Re:Good for the economy. (Score 1) 451

We all deserve the pain it would cause for supporting the system we have now for so many decades.

Yeah, the pain.

The young folks don't have to pay into a system that they aren't going to get anything back from. What a pain for them. Less taxes for the rest of their lives.

The old folks don't get anything back from a system they've already paid into for all their lives and depend on to stay alive now.

I think the "pain" you expect us all to share is a bit different for some of us compared to others.

Comment Re:Good for the economy. (Score 1) 451

The "government" WAS the boomers. They made this promise to themselves

You're wrong. The social security act was passed in 1935 and taxes started being collected in 1937. The "boomers" weren't born until WWII -- after 1945 or so. This promise was made to us by FDR and his New Deal democrats, not the 'boomers'.

Each person making $129,000 year saves 10 other people from starving to death.

Huh? This is nonsense. What does it mean? What makes you think I'm going to be making $129,000 a year after I retire? That's just ridiculous.

(and most boomers will collect way more- even adjusting for inflation-- than they contributed).

Not if you cut them off because they managed to save a little too much of what they earned and in your mind don't deserve to get anything back from a system they paid into all their lives.

Here's a deal for you: give me back all the money I put into the system. Pay me back. I'll worry about myself. But don't you dare promise me that you'll take care of me in the future if I give you money I worked to earn today and then renege on the deal. That's patently dishonest.

I bet NONE of the people Bernie Madoff ripped off expected they would be 100% dependent on social security.

You're pulling in so much irrelevant stuff that talking to you makes no sense. I bet James Gandolfino expected to pay into the system for a few more years, too. So what?

Comment Re:How does it compare? (Score 1) 245

In many British families in at least the last couple of hundred years, the upper classes farmed out their kids to governesses or boarding schools. So it's not necessarily funded by the taxpayer.

Those upper class British families were not crying for "better child care". Better child care is available for those who can pay for it. The complaint about needing "better child care" includes an implicit "that I don't have to pay a lot, if anything, for", and that means "taxpayer funded." Or, when someone is corporation bashing, the company needs to provide it free, which means the cost is passed on to the shareholders. In both cases, "other people paying to raise my children so I don't have to."

Comment Re:Misleading title (Score 1) 245

There was a study in Science of sex discrimination in Berkeley, in which researchers found that the graduate departments overall discriminated against admitting women. Then they refined the study to find out which specific departments were discriminating more -- and none of them were. It turned out to be a now-classic example of Simpson's paradox in statistics.

No, sounds like the now typical politically correct use of simple statistics to prove whatever you want. If "agency X" doesn't have equal numbers of male and female Y, then agency X is discriminating against women. It doesn't matter why the numbers aren't the same. (And you can include cases when the numbers of men and women are a ratio dependent upon the percentages in the total.)

This is a typical Title 9 analysis. If School A has 40% female attendance, then if athletics doesn't have 40% participation by women the school is in violation of Title 9. It doesn't matter if 40% of the women don't want to participate, or if more than 60% of the men want to, if the numbers don't match the school is doing something wrong. (E.g., a school can have 100 women's sports, but if they have a very good men's football program and lots of boys want to play on the team, the school is at fault.)

So, in your example, the fact that the engineering departments didn't have X% of women applying was proof that the departments were discriminating, even if they accepted every woman that applies. No paradox here, just simple misapplication of statistics.

Comment Re:How does it compare? (Score 1) 245

So, latch-key kids is your vision for a better society?

Latch-key kids are kids who don't have after-school child care and thus use their "latch keys" to get into the house where no parent is home.

Apparently, a society of children raised by professional child raisers, kind of like 10 hour a day school from age 1 through 18, is the better society the OP envisions. Funded, of course, by the taxpayer. Who needs parental or emotional attachments when the government is ready, willing and able to provide for all needs?

Comment Re:Good for the economy. (Score 2) 451

I could see means testing social security more (we already means test it some). Then you only take it away from people who have so much savings or such good pensions that they don't need it (it's just a cherry on top of their retirement income).

So then you're a proponent of government taking money away from people under false pretenses. As in, "we'll take X percent of your income away from you today to provide for you when you get old. Oops, now you're old, we aren't going to provide for you after all. But we WILL give out free lunches to every child no matter how much money their parents make during the summer when school isn't in session. Aren't you glad you paid all those taxes and trusted us?"

If a private company did that, they'd be guilty of fraud and behaving unethically. When government does it, its the younger people deciding they don't want to honor the promises made to their parents.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...