I understand that once a person has started a career, switching to a totally different career comes at a high price, so I suppose that instead I should ask "Why do you think that a person would choose to become a teacher, if he didn't expect the satisfaction of teaching to make up for the relatively low pay?" The pay isn't a secret and teaching generally requires a college education, which implies the opportunity to pick a different major and then start a different career.
I knew a woman from a poor background who was the first person in her family to go to college. She chose a major in English and a minor in Women's Studies. I'm not saying that English majors can never get well-paying jobs, but I come from a "you can pick any career you want - doctor or lawyer" background so I was very surprised by her decision. Why would a person who didn't have any money pick to study something that isn't great for earning money? But she wasn't stupid - she really liked English literature... Maybe she ended up working as a teacher.
The article seems to be saying that the VA is no longer classifying breast cancer in men as a "reproductive organ" cancer, and therefore it's no longer eligible for automatic coverage in some contexts the way that other cancers of the reproductive system are. I'm not sure why this is an issue, because I've never heard of any ideological claims about male breasts which the Trump administration might wish to oppose.
As far as I know, mandatory use of biofuels is primarily a subsidy for farmers rather than a means of reducing emissions. I'm surprised to see an urban area focus on it.
In his decision, Engstrom said the feedstock restrictions are “core to the original policy intent” and must be preserved because they ensure the policy delivers on promised carbon reductions. Feedstocks made from virgin agricultural products and food crops – such as soybean, canola and palm oils – have been linked to much higher carbon emissions, displacing food production and causing deforestation and are not allowed under Portland’s policy.
It sounds like Portland is making an effort to avoid the farm-subsidy sort of biofuels, but then what is it actually demanding that biofuels be made from?
I used to work for a guy who was never wrong. He didn't talk much but when he did say something, it was always correct. He still hedged a lot, so he would say "I'm not sure you're right; I think the answer might be X." What that meant was "You are certainly mistaken and the only reasonable answer is X."
So people want him to (1) believe that the Catholic faith is essential for eternal salvation but also (2) not care whether or not his wife is Catholic? That wouldn't make any sense. Of course any Catholic who cares about his loved ones is going to hope that they convert to Catholicism.
True, but I still think it's interesting to consider if some of these people wouldn't have been willing to vote for something with consequences. Or if some people who didn't vote for this would have been willing to vote for something with consequences.
The legislation passed in a 52-48 vote, with five Republicans – senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and the former Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky – joining all Democrats in favor.
I wonder which of these Republicans would still vote for this if it weren't an empty gesture.
The PSF is (presumably) already required to comply with Federal anti-discrimination laws. Am I misreading the text or does it not actually create any new obligations for the PSF if they were to accept the grant?
These tax savings come at the cost of having to live off of a small fraction of one's net worth. That provides a social benefit - a fortune that isn't being spent is like a loan to society. Consider, for example, a person with two hundred million dollars of assets. He has the option of selling those assets, paying a tax of, say, eighty million dollars, and then buying a hundred and twenty million dollars of stuff right now. He also has the option of spending ten million dollars per year tax free forever. The latter is worth incentivising - maybe it's not worth incentivising to the extent that it is right now, but an essay about tax policy which makes no mention of that is incomplete.
Plus, if unrealized gains on American assets are taxed, that reduces the value of American assets relative to foreign assets in jurisdictions where unrealized gains are not taxed. That might cause problems which this essay also omits.
This severe conflict of interests is unlikely to get the attention that it should because objecting to paying soldiers is not a good look for someone who wants to be re-elected. But I hope that I'm wrong, because the potential to compromise America's security interests is huge here.
The unknown unknowns are real but the way that the article focuses on the part where this approach is bad because it gives people that the author doesn't like power and prestige is pretty funny. The author would rather watch things keep getting worse while waiting for a perfect solution that he knows will never come than he is to let billionaires do something that might make people think they're the good guys.
IMO we should raise sulfur dioxide levels back to where they were before the counterproductive regulations on ship emissions reduced them. We already know that that helped mitigate warming without causing catastrophe.
I wonder if the political situation at the national level could be improved by reversing the long trend of increasing federal power. Reduce federal spending, reduce federal taxes, and let states manage their own policies on both economic and social issues to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible. They can handle disaster relief using the money that would go to state taxes instead of federal taxes. Many of the battles being fought on the national level now would simply go away. There will still be people unhappy with their state's policies, but moving to another state is a lot easier than moving to another country.
My dog would only let me leave without barking and whining if he was eating while I walked out the door. If I had to come back, then I had to give him food again.
I understand that once a person has started a career, switching to a totally different career comes at a high price, so I suppose that instead I should ask "Why do you think that a person would choose to become a teacher, if he didn't expect the satisfaction of teaching to make up for the relatively low pay?" The pay isn't a secret and teaching generally requires a college education, which implies the opportunity to pick a different major and then start a different career.
I knew a woman from a poor background who was the first person in her family to go to college. She chose a major in English and a minor in Women's Studies. I'm not saying that English majors can never get well-paying jobs, but I come from a "you can pick any career you want - doctor or lawyer" background so I was very surprised by her decision. Why would a person who didn't have any money pick to study something that isn't great for earning money? But she wasn't stupid - she really liked English literature... Maybe she ended up working as a teacher.