In the U.S., the benefits only apply when no reasonable job offers have been accepted.
The problem employers face is that they can't get many of their employees back due to the employee preferring to receive the benefit to a paycheck. The employer could contact the employment office, but this is not likely to result in the employee coming back work, or at least not to coming back to work and being as productive as they were before - who wants to be a snitch, let alone work for one?
I think that learning to type on an actual typewriter makes these kinds of exercises not as useful for me. Although I learned on electric typewriters that allowed one full line of text, displayed in a LCD, to be typed before "printing", the first half of the class we were not allowed to use this feature.
When I want to put words down without intrusion, I disable spellcheck and generally don't find myself that concerned with mispelling.
I remember that one line buffer during typing class in the 1990’s when I was in typing school. We weren’t allowed to use it either. One kid tried to secretly use it anyway but anyone who’s used that feature knows there’s no way to keep it a secret. That thing sounds like an A-10 firing its gun when it types from the buffer.
I learned how to type on an old PC/AT (old even in 1991) and used a typing tutor program. frf ded sws aqa
But learning to type on the model F keyboard was very useful as I developed great speed. I made extra money in high school typing people's papers. The most important lessons from touch typing courses are: look at what you're typing and don't correct as you go, sit up straight with your shoulders back, don't rest your wrists on the table. When you're dilly-dallying around in powerpoint this stuff doesn't matter, but when you're typing 4000-6000 words per hour, it makes a huge difference.
I eventually moved to using an Apple Extended Keyboard II, which had a lot of great features, and then back to an IBM model M. Now I use a Unicomp model M derivative. How I wish I could have a similar keyboard on a laptop these days.
I bet. I'm in the first generation raised on Mavis Beacon, and I've been writing in malleable text environments most of my life. The temptation to edit as I go can be overwhelming, and I sometimes envy the writers who were forced by their tools to work in actual drafts.
> Housing seems to me to be one of the most government-planned markets due to the strict zoning laws, but I've only seen fairly lefty orgs advocating for relaxed regulation. I'm surprised there isn't more movement from libertarians along the lines that property owners should have more rights for what they can build on their land.
Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else.
Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing. When it comes to affordability, housing is generally (ahem - not "always") less affordable in blue states and least affordable in the bluest regions of the blue states.
> Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else.
I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning.
> Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing.
Totally. There are tons of liberal orgs that are contributing to the housing shortage. I mean the few orgs I see advocating for development (eg SF YIMBY, or politicians like Scott Wiener) appear more liberal than libertarian.
> I think that's why I'm surprised I don't hear that more. The size of someone's back yard or height of their fence (to a reasonable extent) seems like it wouldn't harm someone else, but they're strongly regulated in much of CA's single-family zoning.
I'm not sure what you mean, but to clarify: the libertarian position is that if the fence harms no one, then there is no one, not even governments, to have anything to do with said fence besides the fence's owner, as that is the owner's right.
The propping up of financial markets distorts the economy in terrible ways, but it does not tend to have the same impact as pumping money directly into the economy as the latter directly generates consumer price inflation.
What currently supports the entire apparatus is worldwide acceptance of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency. If nations decide to end this policy (which they are free to do so at any time), then there is a good chance the money tied up in their reserves would end up back here in the U.S. and generate consumer price inflation, likely hyperinflation.
The consumer price inflation is highly undesirable because politicians will generally not be re-elected.
I couldn't figure out if they are funding Thorium reactors.
These activities tend to crowd out private investment, so if the talent is going here, they aren't supporting Thorium, then active Thorium research in the U.S. will likely be reduced from what it might otherwise be.
I believe this is all economically unsustainable. Ultimately, these costs cannot continue and people will just stop following all rules. The likely result is selective enforcement.
I don't think anyone is explicitly faulting Joe for trying to make money. The initial assumption in this comment chain was Joe NEEDS money, which is unlikely. The man can be enterprising without us having to pretend his family will starve otherwise.
Y'all are taking this way too literally. "a man's gotta eat" is a figure of speech, I meant he needs to maintain his current income. YouTube has probably been jerking him around for years now so moving to a signed multi-year deal is a smart choice in uncertain times.
Sure it's a figure of speech, but especially in a time with record unemployment, food insecurity surrounding remote schooling, and fiscal uncertainty, it's not exactly the best choice of words.
Also, the reference to "doing what's best for his family" is often used to describe making ends meat, not making sure 30M a year doesn't become only 10M a year.
I think having both phrases in one comment made people rightfully see it as a bit strange (hence the response) given he's a multimillionaire.
> the reference to "doing what's best for his family" is often used to describe making ends meat, not making sure 30M a year doesn't become only 10M a year
Actually I think that's entirely appropriate. Seeing a loss of earnings that large would be devastating to any individual or business.
The problem employers face is that they can't get many of their employees back due to the employee preferring to receive the benefit to a paycheck. The employer could contact the employment office, but this is not likely to result in the employee coming back work, or at least not to coming back to work and being as productive as they were before - who wants to be a snitch, let alone work for one?