The hype will die down as the SEC gets involved and regulations are pursued. Smart time to take profits in my opinion. Many will be left holding the bag as we see a correction to more sustainable levels. Bitcoin is here to stay, but these prices are not rational, driven purely off of emotion.
Universal Basic Income is necessary for humanity to reach to higher goals in their evolution. Wasting 8-10 hours of the day doing a job that robots could do much better is not the best use of human intelligence. Imagine the discoveries and inventions that would happen if humans could devote all of their time to their passion. The benefits drastically outweigh the minuscule downsides
There is plenty of blame to go around here. However a major cause of this has been the push by the left that college is the only path to success. Trade and vocational schools as well as military service are all great options for young adults who may not know exactly what they want to do with their life right away. Spending 4 years of your life taking on debt, simply because society tells you college is the path to success is wrong. Also, colleges themselves need to be held accountable here. Most universities are sitting on billions in tax free endowments and not using that money in useful ways. How about use some of that money to help offset some of these debts?
One could essentially sign up to be a librarian (bit of an exaggeration but there are active duty members who work at libraries). Same goes for Coast Guard which doesn’t get deployed in the traditional sense and are more like water police.
Ceteribus paribus, the military provides stable job, income, and a generous scholarship.
The scholarship is roughly $70-$100k depending on school and a monthly housing stipend. For SF area, that stipend is $4.2k/month
Anecdotal, but my mother was a mechanic, my uncle a cryptographer, another uncle was some type of police on base, my cousin is a drone pilot and just sits in an office like building despite technically being involved in combat I suppose. Several former colleagues mostly did admin-type work while enlisted. The last person I know to have actually seen combat was my grandfather in Korea--but he knew what he signed up for and it was fairly deliberate at the time, he had wanted to be like his cousin that had fought on Iwo Jima years prior who was also a volunteer. All used their GI bill to get an education.
My point being, there's tons of military jobs that don't involve violence. For each job that does require violence, dozens more auxiliary positions are required to support that job.
>> my mother was a mechanic, my uncle a cryptographer, another uncle was some type of police on base, my cousin is a drone pilot
They have been fortunate. Obviously, in some conflicts, some people in all of those roles end up in postings where they are in hazardous areas. (Also: IIRC drone pilots stationed far from conflict still experience combat-induced PTSD.)
The other feature of the armed services is that in general, once you enlist you don't always get to choose your posting. It's great that some people get to choose plum jobs away from war zones, but (most?) others don't (and this can change for anyone in the military, at any time). A defining feature of a military is orders, and following them.
Military careers can be rewarding for some people. But just as it's wrong to say college is for everyone, it's not correct to suggest that one can embark on a military career without adding additional personal safety risk.
OP didn't say to join the military to get an education he said to do it as an alternative to college. It's a good career path that teaches useful skills. Most people in the military aren't employed in combat roles.
There are plenty of jobs more hazardous than "soldier". I believe there's a guy who made a show about such "dirty jobs"? Mining, oil fields, and commercial fishing come to mind.
If by "the left" you also mean every prominent suburban area in America, then yes!
It's right to bring up the military and the trades as viable options, but let's not oversell that stuff. The trades aren't just a shoo-in easy crack at six figures like folks spout off. You gotta work for that master-tradesman slot. It'd probably take you 10+ years to get there if you're good enough. The trades are designed to limit the number of people entering them...it's part of why they make so much money. It's also incredibly hard work and tears up your body as you age.
I think the drawbacks to joining the military are pretty obvious and go without saying.
That's 10 years old, plus I wouldn't call those voting numbers overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed, but many Republicans voted against it. All democrats voted for it...
It's a shame you're getting downvoted, since you make good points. For many people the expected value of college is negative. I also think HN is unnecessarily critical of the military. I work with lots of people who served in the military for a few years after high school before eventually going back to college and they seem happy with the decision.
No it is not. Every company to some extent, does something that can be viewed as unethical. Whether its selling user data without notice, or fancy tax practices, etc. The old saying "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house" applies here.
We can argue our way into genocide and war that way. Anything, really.
Yes there are some purely counterproductive businesses. Online casinos may be that, if they are designed solely to fleece people and hook the addicted.
> anti intellectual voter base will destroy the advancement opportunity of the middle class
Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. Most of the failing inner cities with bad schools and high crime rates have been run by democrats for decades. If anything, it is the far left that should realize that their policies to do not work long term.
Um, to counter one example... Maryland actually tops US News and World Reports' high school rankings overall. [1] Their city public schools were recognized for improvement by the US Department of Education for a number of years. [2] I'm sure there are problematic areas, but it seems bad practice to go after the entire Baltimore public school system over this -- on the whole, my impression is that it seems pretty decent.
The Atlantic article reflected concerns about Midwest research spending. Since the Midwest has states that are both Democrat dominated and Republican dominated in politics, I'm not sure you can actually draw any partisan conclusions from that article.
(There is a political divide on research spending opinion per surveys [3], but even here, most Republicans either support increased scientific research spending, or keeping it at the same levels.)
Did you notice how all of your examples happen to be Rust Belt cities? Also note that you didn't mention San Francisco, Seattle, New York or Los Angeles which have all been run by Democrats for decades. Is it possible that the economics have more of an impact than the politics? Meanwhile, according to this analysis, 3 of the 6 best public high schools in the country are Chicago Public Schools.
> didn't mention San Francisco, Seattle, New York or Los Angeles which have all been run by Democrats for decades.
Are you really citing SF, New York, and Los Angeles as success stories. Those areas have some of the highest rates of homelessness in the US. In addition to the run away costs of living in those cities, they are certainly not models for success. Those examples don't help your argument...
I am citing them as places that are not "failing inner cities with bad schools and high crime rates have been run by democrats for decades." as OP claimed. Chicago doesn't fall into that category either, but that is a discussion for another day. Bringing up cost-of-living or homelessness is simply moving the goalposts from the original claim.
The focus of my post was that it seems clear that economics is what forced those cities to crash. Look at Rust Belt cities (Milwaukee, Cleveland, Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo, Gary) and you will find significant population decline and high crime rates. Trying to make it a political discussion brings in personal bias.
> The focus of my post was that it seems clear that economics is what forced those cities to crash.
Economic policies from politicians influence economics. If policies are bad for business, jobs will leave, crime will rise and populations will decline. Economics don't happen in a vacuum. Most if not all of those declining cities have been consistently run by democrats
>Most if not all of those declining cities have been consistently run by democrats
And so have most of the growing, thriving cities. Individual cities have very little say in global economic shifts. We are seeing this same story play out in Republican-controlled rural areas.
First some jobs leave (outsource or automation), then laborforce participation declines, next we see drug use increase, which makes more people unemployable, as a result employers leave the area and more jobs are lost. Then you go back to step 1 and re-run.
Trying to cast everything in a partisan light may be blinding you to the similarities.
It is certainly debatable, some lists include it and some don't. Baltimore is not in the traditional industrial heartland or even the Midwest, but it's economic makeup in the mid-20th century is very similar to traditional Rust Belt cities (large ports, metal production, manufacturing).
> to tax large university endowments and make other tax and spending changes that might adversely affect universities
Why shouldn't major universities pay their fair share to help society? Most of these elite universities literally pocket billions of dollars at the end of the fiscal year. Major universities have essentially evolved into corporations.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is absolutely the case. Just look at the exploding expenditure on "administration" rather than education at these universities.
Universities exploit ridiculous student loan programs to make indentured servants out of their customers.
It's being downvoted because a sentence like this: "Most of these elite universities literally pocket billions of dollars at the end of the fiscal year" is so vague that it's hard to tell what exactly he meas.
It angers me that the top Universities sit on billions of dollars while at the same time restricting the number of incoming students to just a few thousand. IF THE ENDOWMENTS WERE TAXED THE UNIVERSITIES WOULD WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY, AND HOPEFULLY THEY WOULD OFFER MORE SLOTS TO APPLICANTS.
> narrowed summons affects approximately 14,000 of the highest-transacting customers from 2 to 4 years ago. The rest of the 480,000 customers remain unaffected,
Seems like the IRS is only going after the big fish for now. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a micro crash in the next couple of weeks as the big players go to the sidelines to see how this plays out. Once the IRS gets involved regulations for transparency usually follow. just my 0.02
"In the United States, no one should lose property at the hands of the government without knowing it" Feinstein wrote on their behalf.
Are we allowed to use this defense in a court of law? I know many people, myself included that have had assets both (monetary and physical) taken by the government both (local and state) without direct knowledge of its potential occurrence. Seems like this case could open Pandora's box
I haven't bought a physical album or digital song in years. Most of my friends haven't either. I am always shocked whenever I see an album sell over 1 million in the first week. These labels have to be buying their own music, there is no other explanation.
I've started buying CDs again for my car. I have bluetooth on my phone but don't want to be distracted by it and I find the built in controls on my player nicer to use. Also I see it as a way to more directly contribute to the artist vs streaming on spotify.
> I went to a public school. I enjoyed myself there. I believe it taught me some things.
My mom switched me from public to private school in elementary school. Without a doubt the quality of the private schools' facilities, teachers, staff, and education were much better then the public school. I ended being held back in the 3rd grade simply because I was so far behind my other classmates in terms of knowledge that was not stressed at the public school. Yes, private school can be expensive, but if you have the resources and can find a good school with a track record of success, I highly recommend enrolling your kids in a private school.
Come to a Scandinavian public school. Then you'll see working public schools. Evidently, this has nothing to do with publicness or privateness, but rather a culture. The big question is: in what direction should we push the society?
