> Some people are very proud of being frugal, spending time optimizing expenses - while earning far less than they could otherwise because they don't spend any mental energy on how to earn more.
This claim really requieres some kind of proof. Because I have never seen this in real life - a person who realistically could earn more if they spent less time trying to save money.
It sounds like a made up dichotomy or an extremely rare situation.
I met people who earn a lot and save absurdly lot. Or earn a lot and waste it all. Or dont ear and either save or not. But, there being realistic path to bigger earnings that is ignored because of spending too much saving is a corner case.
The benefit comes from women being able to work, not from each household needing two incomes to raise kids. When a woman needs two incomes to raise her kids that means there is still a significant obstacle to leaving their partner.
I was in the process of creating a brochure about our family. It's be available at our front door, to help facilitate CPS agents on their visits. It'd have a map to the fridge and to the kids' bedrooms, the names of their schools and contact numbers for family.
All this due to a disgruntled neighbor who endlessly called cps (anonymously), with a variety of bizarre accusations. I suspect CPS got so sick of seeing us, they eventually ignored the calls.
Here's a few examples that's happened to me personally
(1) I didn't personally appear at bus stop, thinking my kid would be able to just walk the short distance from the stop to our house. Nope, school did not let kid off bus, given a timer to show up at the transportation office before child services will be called.
(2) Let my kid walk on our own property, someone drives up and starts interrogating them why they are "alone." Fortunately I was actually watching from further away and I managed to diffuse the situation before they alerted the authorities.
(3) Took my kid to the park so they could have a nice time outside in public. Whoops, looks like my child is a difference race than me. That means I am a kidnapper. Karen (from bodycam, a passing yuppie looking cyclist) calls police, who arrive and scare the shit out of me and my kid and detain us for about an hour. Not released until a woman's voice comes on the phone (they literally did not check, just any female voice) says the man can let his child play at the park. They also contacted child services of both the city of the park, and my hometown -- fortunately even though the city of the park looked like they were ready to fuck with me my hometown CPS did tell them to kick rocks and since I left town there was nothing further they could do.
> Western Europe needs to figure out quickly how to adapt to a likely diminished or non-existent American role in NATO while at the same time dealing with a very assertive Russia.
Primary, western europe seems to be last chance for democracy. Like, last democracies standing.
That assumes only nation-state-level entities. This has been a very poor assumption: even within my lifetime, the last ~40 years, we've seen nations like Yugoslavia and the USSR break up, and some of the successor states (eg. Slovenia, Croatia, Ukraine, and the Baltic States) have developed robust democracies where previously totalitarian communist governments existed.
Within the territory of the U.S, states like California and NY and Massachusetts continue to have robust democracies even if the federal government doesn't. In California's case it's often a bit too robust, and we often get ourselves into trouble with ballot propositions that have a lot of popular support even when they're economically unworkable.
ICE is now larger and more expensive than the entire United States Marine Corps.
Let that sink in.
Not only that, we also seem to start a new war every 6 months. Demanding money for each one of them. SS/Pensions/Medicare seem to trend nowhere but up. And like Santa Claus the party in power keeps handing out tax cuts.
We have to make a change guys. The old ways aren't working. We can't be distracting from the central problems by yelling "welfare!". That doesn't work anymore.
The parties were not symmetric on this issue. They were not symmetric in terms of actual behavior (as in how much debt each added when in government) nor in terms of rhetorics. For a start, Democratic party was acting mostly in centrist technocratic manner and rather then radical leftist manner you are implying.
It is really not necessary to knee jerk bothside everything.
I chose my words carefully. "Robust tests" are tests that provide high coverage and aren't flaky. "Thorough documentation" likewise is documentation that describes as much of the code as possible.
This claim really requieres some kind of proof. Because I have never seen this in real life - a person who realistically could earn more if they spent less time trying to save money.
It sounds like a made up dichotomy or an extremely rare situation.
I met people who earn a lot and save absurdly lot. Or earn a lot and waste it all. Or dont ear and either save or not. But, there being realistic path to bigger earnings that is ignored because of spending too much saving is a corner case.
reply