Volvo has really improved their styling in recent years, IMHO. We bought an XC40 last year and so far we love it.
KaiReeve
joined 2 years ago
But if we pay the teachers more then we have to raise taxes and then we have to pay everybody else more and that would really cut into our profit margins which would upset the shareholders.
Better if we just didn't educate the children.
Unless they go to private school, of course. Those kids are the future, after all.
Black Licorice
My mother likes black licorice and so my sister and I grew up eating and enjoying it every Easter. Turns out most people hate the stuff.
I listened to a couple of his seminars on narcissism and thought, "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking about!" But the more I listened to him, especially his more recent stuff, the more I realized he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
I guess he just had a handle on narcissism from his own personal experience as one.
I am not operating under any such premise, but I am tired of arguing. It avails us not to continue this discussion.
How many people would you estimate use the internet? I'm paying $100 per month per person on my household. If you multiply $100 per month times the number of people who use the internet, I'm sure you have enough for servers, infrastructure, programmers, and plenty left over for content creators.
Sally and I work for the same company. The company pays both of us. The customer pays the company. If the customer already pays the company, should they have to pay Sally extra for her involvement?
I'm not saying Google shouldn't get paid. I'm saying that there are standard Internet services that are used widely enough that they could be bundled with what we already pay. We pay enough already to have those basic services included.
So we pay the ISP, the ISP pays the service provider, and the service provider pays the content creator. We pay enough to the ISPs that we shouldn't have to pay extra for these basic services.
Oh? So my understanding of how Google profits off user data is incorrect? My belief that the ISPs are profit-driven entities is inaccurate?
If the harvest and sale of user data had been made illegal in 1993 would Google have progressed the way it did? Would they be forced to charge a fee for their email and video hosting services? Would that have incentivized them to maybe make a deal with the ISPs to be included with the monthly payments we already make?
What if local government owned and maintained all the existing internet infrastructure? Would we have been able to choose which ISP we preferred all these years rather than essentially having to pick between coax or satellite? Would ISPs then have been incentivized to pick up additional services like email, video, and image hosting in order to gain more customers?
Are we experiencing the best possible version of the internet, or could it be better?
We already pay. Every month. I pay $85/mo to access the Internet from home and an additional $90/mo to access it from my phone. Add on my streaming bills and I'm paying roughly $2400/yr already. So yeah, YouTube should be free. Gmail should be free. No ads, no privacy violations, just included in what I'm already paying.
This used to be standard back with AOL and EarthLink. Your email was just included.
Getting older means losing mobility, dexterity, and mental acuity. It's not a question of if you will need assistance, it's a question of when you will need it. Most retirees go on living independently for as long as possible until an event. Sometimes they set the kitchen on fire, sometimes they get in the car and get lost, and most often they fall and break a hip. Once they hit this event it changes their life dramatically.
The best case scenario is that you will have enough money to afford 24/7 care after your event. Idk what the current rates are, but 10 years ago it was $25/hr for CNAs and $50/hr for RNs. This means that the cost to have a CNA care for you around the clock was over $200,000/yr. This doesn't include the additional costs of food, shelter, utilities, insurance. I'm sure that things haven't gotten any cheaper.
The best case scenario is that your $1M nut grows enough to cover all your expenses before you die. Every other scenario means you will run out of money. So it's really a question of how long you intend to live.
My scenario focuses solely on interest income for simplicity's sake. There are other investments one can make to increase your gain, but such investments are more volatile. You could end up doing quite well and increasing your nut, or you could invest in the wrong stock and lose a large chunk of it.
I also left out other considerations for simplicity's sake like the fact that most retirees are couples and past the age of 65 the odds that one of you will require significant medical treatment increases every year. Some elderly couples are getting divorced so as to only bankrupt one of them when this happens.
Life is messy and $1M will only work in the best case scenario. It's just not realistic. By allowing people to think that $1M is enough, you're actually leading them into ruin. We need to be aware that retirement is becoming a dicey proposition and we should be taking steps to ensure that the elderly will be provided for in the coming decades, especially since a large number of millennials won't have children to make sure they are properly cared for.
Source: I worked in the elder care industry in Florida for a decade. I saw what happens when people run out of money.
So what you're saying is that it's important to instill strong morals and encourage critical thinking in the general populous so that we can recognize the difference between actual hate speech and what is being spun as hate speech in order to further the agendas of those who would oppress us and therefore any action made to suppress public education must be the precursor to a larger scheme to gain control by manipulating the ignorant?