Secretaries still exist, but the job's divided into two broad categories. Receptionists, who don't make much, and executive secretaries who make middle class salaries. The latter do well because they assist people who are powerful. They generally need college-level writing skills, a diplomatic personality, and some management skills.
True. I think most people want the lowest price for a specific branded product. They start off by deciding, more or less, on getting a certain level of perceived quality, and then finding low prices. The price is secondary to making the decision to purchase a product.
As far as making a "social statement" - buying most recognizable or branded products is a kind of social statement. If it weren't, we wouldn't have such a diverse selection of cars, clothes and laptops.
LOL, so true. I'm starting to get the same feeling about Georgists. They're in a bubble of their own making, in denial about their own reality, and prone to making up new definitions for common words, making it difficult to communicate. It makes me a little sad, because I'm sympathetic to their cause, and read a bunch of articles from their writers around fifteen years ago.
At LATTC everyone knew about financial aid. It was the default situation. I haven't been there, but I've been to CC in a low income community, and the assumption was that you'd get financial aid. Being middle class, middle aged, and not qualifying, I had to quietly explain that my personal income was past the limit, etc. I didn't want to stick out.
The problem these schools have is related to people lying to get financial aid, and then dropping out, never to be heard from again. If you get rid of the price, and school is free, all this fraud would end. (The fraud would happen elsewhere in the system.)
At the school my partner went to, LA Trade Tech, it seemed like most students got financial aid. There were multiple offices involved in doing all the paperwork involved (in a multi-story building, too). The school was located in an area where the household income was around $25k per year, and many people worked at the minimum wage. It seemed absurd to me that they had to jump through so many hoops to get a few hundred dollars of aid.
If a single wealthy person is, non-anonmously, going to be allowed to electioneer, that's actually the price that should be paid for restrictions on associations.
People can judge the message by the speaker. When billionaiare Meg Whitman ran for office, her ads were on every single commercial break. She still lost. People saw through her.
When you have a multitude of associations, you can't tell who is saying what, and it creates confusion.
The rules were limited to corporations, associations and unions. Individuals were not restricted in this type of speech. Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation.
Yes, which was the heart of the CU decision: if individual are unlimited, and corporations, associations, and unions are collections of individuals, then how can those be limited?
Put another way, the CU decision argued that individuals do not give up their right to free expressions just because they decided to pool their money in a particular way.
When globalization was pushed, the government passed laws to help retrain workers. Maybe it was just a band-aid, but, it was something.
Perhaps the government should intervene to direct some of the automation toward producing free housing.