sampsonitify
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
That makes question who is more employable: a student with 48 months of University, or someone with 6 months of Lambda and 2.5 years of real world experience? Note, I assumed the Lambda grad had a year unemployed.
https://lambdaschool.com/isa is there data, and I am sure there is more. Can you reference your post to what they state they charge for?
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/united-st...
If Welfare pays less, isn't Uber/Lyft a positive thing?
And that is just the direct monetary benefit of $27K vs welfare. There are many intangible benefits to work vs welfare beyond money.
Being unemployed has mental health and life satisfaction costs (summary: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/04/is...). This is research that has existed for > 30 years.
There is significant evidence that long term unemployment REALLY hurts someone's hiring chances when applying for a job (see https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/co... from 2013 with linked papers). As a stepping stone to a living wage, driving rideshare likely helps people looking for better paid work, especially given you can clock off for two hours to take an interview, then clock back on. Try that working any other job.
The rideshare side of the ledger has better mental health & life satisfaction, more money and better job prospects, vs the welfare side with more free time.
I'd prefer to frame the "living wage" question as of all the people who drive Uber/Lyft, not Uber/Lyft drivers which puts their job above their humanity and implies it is a permanent state of affairs, anyway of all the people who drive Uber/Lyft at some point in their lives, will they be better off with the option of driving Uber/Lyft, or better off in a world where Uber/Lyft is not an option?
The idea that there is a gap in the market is something that people are looking for, on Hacker News most especially, and if this is a legitimate gap that Uber and Lyft are ignoring for silly reasons, then there should be a bunch of startups to take their place pretty quickly.
Country -> defence, welfare. State -> Education, roads, public transport County (council) -> parks, local infrastructure, approvals (for building).
Same with taxes, where the federal government is the only body allowed to apply most taxes (like income tax), which they then pass through to the states. In Australia, the Federal government raises the money, and the states spend it.
Without having any idea how the US system works, what are the budgetary responsibilities of the City of Orlando vs the state of Florida vs the federal government of the USA? It seems weird to an Australian that the police are funded at such a low level. Is that in addition to state spending? Is there no state spending on police?
Without knowing what the budgetary responsibilities are, I have no idea how to contextualise "31.6% of its budget", and I wonder if many Americans could either, as knowledge of this level of government funding arcana would be, well I'd think pretty rare.