BlameThePeacock

Labor is too expensive for US manufacturing without significant price increases, and given those price increases consumers are purchasing fewer total goods because they simply can't afford more. Too much of their income is going to housing and food costs, neither of which are highly reliant on manufacturing jobs. Consumer spending in dollars may be up, but total goods consumed has to be down at this point.

UBI is funded by taxes, it's actually not has hard as it seems because people always do the math in the "logical" way and it isn't actually the right way to consider the cost.

If you give a UBI of say $10,000 a year to everyone (let's just keep it simple) for every citizen in Canada (let's say 40 million people) you'd think that the total cost would be $400 Billion dollars a year, right?

Except that's not how it actually works, what you'd do at the same time is raise taxes (preferably on property, but stupid politicians gonna put it on income instead) so that it balances around a specific income level getting nothing, with people above that level paying in, and people below that amount receiving a benefit. So if you've got a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) with a median family income of say $80k (again, just keeping it simple) you'd raise their taxes by $30,000 a year, and then give them $40,000 a year in basic income. Then you've got a well-to-do family making $150,000 a year that pays $60,000 more in taxes, and only gets $40,000 a year back.

The total "cost" of the program is actually only the net amount transferred. It's easy to understand this if you think through a situation, when you tax someone $40,000, then give them $40,000 the total cost of that transfer is zero.

If you tax one person $20,000, give them $10,000, tax another person $10,000, and give them $10,000, and tax a third person $0 (not working) and give them $10,000 then the ACTUAL cost for the whole program is only $10,000, despite total taxes being $30,000, and total payouts being $30,000. So instead of costing $400 Billion for all of Canada, depending on what number they balance the whole thing around, it could be a reasonable amount and still cost under $100 billion a year.

There's actually a study from the Parliamentary Budget Office of Canada that outlines the more realistic cost.

This would apply similarly to any other country attempting to implement such a policy.

Gloss-ter-sher?

Choosing to be happy is the most important thing you can do in life. Good for you, and lucky husband.

I found this, which lists their "first deploys"

https://pawpatrol.fandom.com/wiki/Skye/Appearances

https://pawpatrol.fandom.com/wiki/Chase/Appearances

each character has one, you could cross-reference for values

A) Fuck Amazon B) Fuck the US C) The deals are absolutely terrible, why the fuck would it encourage me to buy anything?

Nobody said anything about removing them from police. I have no problem with police being armed.

It is technically possible to make every other gun illegal and force people to dispose of them. Again it's unrealistic but its not impossible.

It's also possible to eliminate all commercial ammo availability, and even most home production (by banning the sale of powder for reloading). Home powder products are inferior, and potentially even dangerous. Safe and functional casings are also extremely difficult to produce.

Would people try to get around these restrictions? Sure, but it would still dramatically reduce gun use.

Japan says otherwise. Gun crime is practically non-existent, despite a population of over a hundred million people.

It's unrealistic to apply this to the US given how many guns already exist, but it's not actually impossible.

If you can get a gun to protect yourself, criminals are easily going to have guns too.

Simpler all around if nobody has guns.

Or, at the very least nobody should have a handgun. A full length rifle or shotgun is a lot harder to conceal when you are using it for nefarious purposes.

Allowing light or limited plans means that they don't have the revenue to cover the costs.

The actual usage on the network is functionally irrelevant at this point, providers don't save any money if people don't use their phones as much these days. It's almost all fixed costs which means that plans are essentially just fixed at this point too. Price points still exist only for advertising and marketing purposes, the companies are totally satisfied just getting everyone to a minimum value. The whole industry has just become a commodity but with 100% fixed costs.

It's not like they're raking in stupid profits either, TELUS only had a net income of around 5% of their revenue last year.

Population density isn't a rural issue, it's a fixed costs issue.

The companies are required to maintain a larger total network of towers and everyone has to pay for that, which means city users are subsidizing rural networks quite significantly.

I'm not saying the Big 3 aren't taking advantage of the situation, but they do have a legitimate issue.

I really hate this headline.

They aren't wrong 70% of the time.

The study found that they only successfully complete multi-step business tasks 30% of the time. Those tasks were made up by the researchers to simulate an office environment.

This percentage spread for different models is also absolutely massive too, with some coming in at 1% completion and others coming in over 30%.