If 14% of the PhDs employed by the U.S. Government was 10,109, then there were about 72,207 total. That's about 3.2% of the civilian government, compared to 2.1% in the public workforce (and 1.3% of population).

So, the government tends to employ PhDs at a substantially higher (~50%) rate than the public workforce.

Edit: Yeah, oops, people generally use public / private the other way around.

...and unfortunately it is letting them go at a substantially higher rate than the public workforce.

Anything is true if you define the terms contrary to their meaning.

So when you read "water bankruptcy", you assumed it meant a legal process where the world can apply to a court to have its water debt annulled and start again?

This really made me laugh, but at the same time "water bankruptcy" doesn't mean anything before this statement but bankruptcy did. The term was chosen to give the same kind of emotional reaction as bankruptcy

wait, is that why "humanity" redefines and reinterprets words and meanings all the time?

I disagree with this idea that businesses should have to keep their customers secret. If I go to Wal-Mart, then I should be free to tell my neighbors about what products were on sale and also how the produce was old / left to spoil. I’m not sure why that should be different for the store.

Do you think Walmart should be handing your credit card numbers out? Genetic profiles of you? Is there any limit or do you think if you walk into a space whoever owns that space can get and do whatever they want with any information you might happen to have on you?

> I disagree with this idea that businesses should have to keep their customers secret

They don’t. They just have to ask the person whose personal data it is if they can.

There are plenty of places folks visit that they would rather not have out loud.

I don’t see how personal preference should control other people’s speech. When I put terrible Google reviews down for a shop… I’m sure they don’t want that said publicly either… but it’s not libel… what I’m saying is true. There isn’t generally value in concealing the truth.

Businesses =/= people and people are, or at least should be, entitled to more privacy. This reads like another variation of “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” but maybe I’m misunderstanding your point

For a family going without relatives, a couple decades may be an eternity. For a nation-state, a couple decades is the blink of an eye.

It’s easy for a small group to seize the benefits when productivity is centralized in the hands of a small group. If you diversify the ability to build boats, then you may not be rich, but you’ll have a boat.

The increase in wealth concentration mostly happened after ship-building (and other manufacturing) departed.

I think you’re just believing whatever the author says, and not considering the fact that reasonable people can disagree and be wrong and make mistakes. For all we know the procedure was entirely unnecessary and they agreed because he pushed for it. Also, what’s the alternative? The only system where you can go get procedures that authorities think unnecessary is a free market where you self-pay. A government-run system could equally decide that the procedure isn’t recommended.

No, government is the greatest threat to liberty. If the guy in charge of prosecuting feels the need to not just not prosecute, but actively protect someone from the state, then we really really don’t want (who? his unelected subordinates?) prosecuting people. It’s supposed to be an “err on the side of” failing to prosecute criminals. The whole point is yes… sometimes we want criminals to get away with crime, because it’s better than the alternatives.

What is the alternative? One of them is the public vote for a leader, the state destroys that leader (or his allies, etc) and then what? Do we think the public just says “Oh, well, I guess we didn’t pick the right guy?”

I’d say 170k / 5 = 34 * 25 = $850. Throw in air filters, and a couple transmission fluid changes, and it would certainly be under $2k.

That’s assuming DIY, but even if you’re paying $80 per change. If you do them every 7,500… you’re still $1,800 total.

$12k is plenty for a whole new engine, possibly a new engine and transmission on an economy car. For example, Ford will happily sell you a brand new 2.3 Ecoboost for a Mustang or Ranger or Explorer for $6k: https://www.trackey.ford.com/part/M-6007-23TA

This is why we have courts and judges, to hear complaints and issue remedies when the defendants are unwilling to do so. A better solution would be to reign in arbitration agreements, which are horribly inefficient. Arbitration purports to be lest costly, but it encourages unnecessary litigation by preventing the operation of res judicata, it increases the costs of litigation by preventing class actions, etc. It increases injuries by keeping wrongdoers conduct confidential.