"I can choose to use reddit or not, but I can't choose that reddit uses or doesn't use some other random service provider that may or may not be vulnerable."
Which is similar to the same problem we all face of 'I can choose to work for company x' but I cant choose that they farm out background checks, HR, payroll, benefits etc. to random companies that may or may not be secure.
That's fine for people who work desk jobs. But manual laborers tend to accumulate a variety of chronic injuries as they age. So increasing the retirement age means more of them will be forced to go out on disability pay instead of being able to retire with dignity.
Disability doesn't have to violate your dignity. That's a US problem. You can also give early retirement to people who can't work anymore. But in general something has to be adjusted for people getting older. It's simple math.
This is wrong. It's not needed because people are getting older, it's needed because the increase in productivity is not enough to cover expenses for long-lived retirees and other groups. If Sweden was 20% more productive, perhaps they could afford to just have longer and happier retirements. And if it was, say, 50% more productive, they could cut work week to 15 hours or decrease retirement age. Alternatively, they could cut other expenses (for example, stop bringing in more refugees) and still afford fixed retirement age. This "simple math" is not inherently linked to longevity of the Swedish elderly, it's the budget constraints that matter.
Edit: given that bringing up refugees invites downvoting, I want to clarify that this may not be among the major causes of Sweden's decision to raise retirement age (and is not the core idea of my message), but it's not negligible either: according to this guy http://voxeu.org/article/fiscal-cost-refugees-europe , current immigration policy costs Sweden 1,35% of annual GDP.
It's also important to distinguish between refugees versus other types of immigrants. Many of the people who have entered Sweden recently from Africa and the Middle East are just seeking a better life, and I sympathize with their situation, but legally speaking they aren't refugees.
Don't forget that the benefits from most productivity increases have been going to a few capitalists over the last decades and any further increase will probably be absorbed by them too. If this had gone to workers or retirement funds they probably could keep the retirement age steady.
Stop allowing a flood on migrants for no reason other than a feel good policy. Social safety nets exist for the populace that contributes over time, not for new fully grown males to suddenly appear with or without families expecting benefits they and their predecessors never contributed to. Down votes show HNs continued ignorance to actual world situations.
Retirement isn't a drain, it is a social service. Unless you are wealthy, you cannot retire without corporate or government social insurance plans like pensions, social security, paid off mortgages, medicare, etc. Without these plans, we go back to the Dickensian past where the poor and old slept on the streets or in workhouses until they died.
Some might even say retirement is the goal of life, defined however the individual wants to define it.
Sorry, I realized that after I posted, but I disagree with the framing (based on my interpretation of the word "drain") that using them is inherently a bad thing or that they should be rationed in some way.
Probably a large portion of the forum thinks the subject is itself immoral. That option isn't specifically anti-semitic even if it gets those undertones, we should expect every nuclear capable state has come up with items of that sort and more like destroying an innocent non-nuclear state to demonstrate convincing evidence for convictions.
My 2 largest complaints are equally valid for Uber and Lyft.
1)if a driver accepts my fare and then tries calling me to weasel my destination out of me so he can choose whether or not to actually pick me up, my choices are to cancel on him, wait until he gives up hope, or use the compeitor. In all three cases, I am denied the option to rate this driver as we never actually took a trip together. It's a shitty experience that allows these drivers to go unpunished.
2)if my driver is driving in an unsafe manner, i am stuck with them until my destination or have to make them pull over somewhere and sit alone in an unsafe location and wait for another ride.
These two items make both services terribly unreliable for those of us who don't live in the big cities. And even then, cancelling on a particular driver or hailing from a competitor usually leaves you with the exact same driver accepting your request over and over. There is no way to block drivers. And even if there was, there is no way for my fellow riders to know they should block these drivers.
To be fair, these points apply equally to taxis. I'm not the only person who got into a taxi in Manhattan on a Friday evening and promptly told to get out when I said take me to Brooklyn?
I can only speak for Uber, but in my experiences they're extremely pro-consumer if nothing else good.
When I've reported drivers for rude behavior, I've been swiftly refunded for my ride, and in cases where a driver has requested I cancel it from my end, I've filed a report and received an apology along with any money lost from a cancellation fee.
It may be a case like Amazon where it's easier to refund riders and move on than actually remove the driver (or remove counterfeit products in Amazon's case), however, similar to Amazon, I must admit that I nonetheless feel defended by the company in these situations.
I called a Lyft. I waited for 8 minutes, the driver rode right past me (As I was waving my phone), turned, and stopped three blocks over. (It was perfectly safe to stop and pick up on my street.)
After waiting for 5 minutes, I cancelled the ride, and was charged a fee. I walked half a block to the arterial, and hailed a taxi in two minutes.
Not obligated, no, but certainly the polite thing to do. Problem is in Seattle, what was a polite thing to do is now considered an obligation. “No matter how slow I’m going, you have to let me in” has been local culture for the seventeen years I’ve lived here, wrong as it might be. Which means when they’re creeping down the exit ramp, if they end up beside you they won’t even look when they move over. No, I am not exaggerating, they will blindly merge right into you if you don’t watch it.
So, no, one is not obligated to yield, but at some point you’ll do it anyway if you value your passenger side door panels.
I often see people refuse to move from far right lane and refuse to adjust their speed to accommodate drivers merging onto a 3+ lane highway/freeway. I don't know the laws on this one but it seems like a similar level of asshole behavior as staying in the passing lane despite an open lane to the right and faster cars behind. You may have the right of way but an action that's usually very simple for you can alleviate a situation that's usually difficult for the merger.
I often see people refuse to move from far right lane and refuse to adjust their speed to accommodate drivers merging onto a 3+ lane highway/freeway.
In Seattle, often times you can't move out of the lane, traffic's too thick. Which is why the person in the right lane needs to make accomodations to those merging, and the person merging needs to do their part by accelerating to speed of traffic. It's a cooperation, and when the mergers don't do their part it fucks it up for everyone else. I have to disrupt traffic flow because your Mustang can't accelerate to 60mph in a reasonable amount of time. Or I don't let you in, now everyone behind you on the exit ramp gets to slam on their brakes. Given the choice, I'll screw up the exit ramp by not yielding to a slow-poke rather than screw up multiple lanes on I-405 by slamming on my brakes or making a questionable lane change.
On the flip side, if I've accelerated to the speed of traffic flow and you don't want to let me in, I'll remind you that in the Chicago-style school of driving where I got my black belt, the turn signal is a warning and not a request.
EDIT: refuse to adjust their speed to accommodate drivers merging onto a 3+ lane highway/freeway
Wait a minute, what? The general traffic lanes have absolutely no obligation to adjust their speed to accommodate anything coming down the entrance ramp except an emergency vehicle. It is the responsibility of those merging from the entrance ramp to adjust their speed to the flow of traffic. It's in the driver's manual of three states I've lived in, and I'd be surprised if it weren't universal.
In the states I've lived they have no obligation, but it's incredibly helpful to keeping traffic flowing. Often a +/- 5MPH adjustment can help a whole lot. I know it's not mandatory, but if you are aware of a merging vehicle I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to be bothered to make a minor adjust to ease the process, and often/most times they don't. That's all I was getting at.
I think we're talking past each other while in mostly agreement. The minor adjustments you talk about, I'm happy to make them in any other area of the country. Like I've been saying, if we all co-operate, we all get home sooner. But in the Seattle area it appears that some are not only taking advantage of that co-operation, they now take it to be their right, alleviating all responsibility on their part. I dunno, maybe you're not anywhere near the Seattle area. Because again, I absolutely agree with what you say for most of the U. S., but maybe one needs to take a trip down WA520 to really get what I'm talking about. This not a case of "there are bad drivers everywhere", as from my POV it is truly unique to this area.
Seems so. It's been a while since I've been to Seattle, but it sure seems like a PITA based on the comments. I truley detest traffic so Cleveland is pretty nice in that regard, 12 miles from downtown = 12 minutes from downtown in most cases ;-)
> Choosing to buy local and locally sourced goods is preferred by more people than you think.
So where do you buy your locally made iPhone? People don't care about where it comes from as long as it meets their needs. For most items you don't even have a choice to begin with.
> They said the same about Japan. Meet the new contender, same as the old contender.
Japan has a smaller population than the US. Even with early automaton providing a huge multiplier effect to efficiency, they weren't likely to catch up.
Combine that with social pressure against immigration. The US benefited a lot from brain draining other countries, Japan never did. The odds of a country being the source of innovation are higher if all the world's geniuses keep moving to that country.
Next up, will China be willing to (keep) hiring away American professors? If China can clean up its air quality, continue to improve standards of living, and open itself up to immigration, it will be on track to best the US.
China only needs to pull their population out of poverty and build a middle class to be the biggest economy.
Shear numbers means that if they stay away from self-destructive policies, civil war, and climate change doesn't squash their resources they'll be the biggest economy.
Not per capita, but in total yes, and wouldn't it be unfair if they didn't... Consider how many people would live in poverty, if they don't grow.
If everything you are eating has sugar added, the item you eat without it will taste bitter and/or bland. Or the sugar made the bland (picked early etc) tomatoes used in the sauce more palateable.
I think this is generally true, but I'm not sure how to explain pasta sauces since I've been paying more attention.
Sugar content in pasta sauces is almost random. Varies from 3 to 10 grams per serving at least. It seems to vary more than almost any other premade item I buy.
And yet, even though I still eat junk too often, and like some treacle, I would not sort sauces based on sugar content.
I can't tell if there's no correlation or if it is literally reversed for my taste buds, but often the high sugar ones are the worst to me.
Just a theory, but maybe the sugar enhances some flavors, like garlic, but masks others, like basil, rather than drawing them all out equally?
I'm not sure how well sugar's complex affect on taste is understood by food scientists, let alone smaller or newer food brands. (What do the generic brands have, a couple chefs and a couple rounds of taste tests? No idea.)
Maybe there are too many possible combinations of ingredients and market segments for producers to all agree on the proper role of sugar, and maybe they're mostly guessing.
If that's true, then we could all probably stand much less added sugar than we/they realize.
You add sugar especially when using fresh tomatoes for the sauce.
The tomato passata already has a bit of sugar.
Ever tried an homemade tomato passata made with fresh tomatoes before adding sugar?
I remember that the home made one sometimes was so acidic that it literally tingled my mouth.
Most chicken sold is pumped up with water (because water is cheaper than chicken). To bind the water, they add a ton of salt. To counteract the salty taste, they add sugar. As a side effect, it makes skinless boneless chicken breasts less likely to dry out if you overcook them slightly.
The end result is that most people find the taste of non-pumped chicken unappealing, because they're simply used to the faked-up salt/sugar chicken.
Yup. Bought a precooked whole chicken at Wegmans a couple weeks ago. The small printed said up to 12% was water and other ingredients (e.g., salt). All we wanted was chicken.
