vilmosi

28 ms·

241.
by vilmosi 9y ago
> The real reasons go back thousands of years. The why has China's industrialisation happen so late? > I said that because you claimed that investing long-term is probably the effect of being well-off. That is the main argument h
242.
by vilmosi 9y ago
> Families with this kind of mindset are unlikely to stay poor for more than 1-2 generations. (This is probably one reason why hundreds of millions in China arose from poverty to middle-class in a single generation, although I do not see
243.
by vilmosi 9y ago
> Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy? Probably an effect. You can't choose to invest long-term if you can't afford it.
244.
by vilmosi 9y ago
Maybe because you define a competent programmer as someone who works more that 40h week?
245.
by vilmosi 9y ago
> I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked. Given $5 for a pack, that's double the price. Expenses add up.
246.
by vilmosi 9y ago
That's because the buying power of the minimum wage has been getting lower over time, while teenage employment has been going down. It's not the reason teenagers aren't working.
247.
by vilmosi 9y ago
There's a cost of opportunity that you're not taking into consideration. Also, that money doesn't usually include food and rent, meaning you definitely lose money in the short term.
248.
by vilmosi 9y ago
I doubt it's negative. You can make that money working at McDonald's in Denmark in 3 years. I still think college is worth it long term, but it's not really a negative cost, it's an investment.
249.
by vilmosi 9y ago
> Say a grandparent left a grandchild 50k for college. It's the grandchild's money. Well if somebody gives you money for X it's not really your money since you are not at liberty to spend it however you want. Only X is te
250.
by vilmosi 9y ago
>>> Even European pharmaceutical companies obtain the bulk of their research funds from the US market. Stop spreading nonsense. This is easily verifiable information and very easy to disprove. Take Norvatis for example: https:&#x2
251.
by vilmosi 9y ago
While I agree with your point, that 22400 number talks about household income not median income of an individual.
252.
by vilmosi 9y ago
There's a big difference between tax rate and effective tax paid.
253.
by vilmosi 10y ago
No, nothing of the sorts is happening in the UK. The government simply needs to know where you live to send you a voting slip. This is necessary because there's no equivalent to a national number in the UK. If you read the article you
254.
by vilmosi 10y ago
Oh come on, if someone is interested in voting, they will register to vote, simple as that.
255.
by vilmosi 10y ago
Isn't solar energy getting massive amounts of investments and subsidies from the government, across the world?
256.
by vilmosi 10y ago
>> So, on behalf of my fellow Australians, I'd just like to thank J&J for selling into my country at a substantial loss Are they really making a loss in Australia? Your source doesn't say that.
257.
by vilmosi 10y ago
It's not called a work-life balance for nothing.
258.
by vilmosi 10y ago
That may be true but you should really compare purchasing power rather than raw disposable income (I still think what you say is true, but not as exaggerated)
259.
by vilmosi 10y ago
> Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Sometimes we can't grow crops on that land. And it's a lot of non-arable land.
260.
by vilmosi 10y ago
> The fact that animals consume more calories then they give is not a gross oversimplification and is true in every case. Maybe not oversimplification but deceiving. It makes it sound like we can eat grass.
261.
by vilmosi 10y ago
> and usually fed from land that could have grown crops for humans directly. That's not necessarily true. I think you are underestimating the amount of land that's suitable for animal farming but not crops. It's a lot. &gt
262.
by vilmosi 10y ago
New Zealand is the world's third largest producer of lamb, what do you mean by "scale"? This is done at scale. Without those animals, that land would have been literally useless for humans to produce food.
263.
by vilmosi 10y ago
> You say so. But do you think that replacing 5 eggs per week with whole plant foods is not going to lower someones blood serum cholesterol? Because I think it does. You make it sound obvious but it's does not sound like that to eve
264.
by vilmosi 10y ago
Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. Yes, it's a lot of calories they consume, but those calories were never going to be used by humans.
265.
by vilmosi 10y ago
That's a gross oversimplification and not true in many cases. For instance, New Zealand lamb flocks are grown high up in the mountains, eating and drinking from local sources unsuitable for plant farming. It would literally take more a
266.
by vilmosi 10y ago
We wasn't following Ramadan, he's Hindu.
267.
by vilmosi 10y ago
You lived with your parents. You didn't pay for rent or food or bills. Good for you, really, but it's hard for me to take that as genuine advice.
268.
by vilmosi 10y ago
Not me
269.
by vilmosi 10y ago
I'm not that familiar with France's system that much, but if national insurance is mandatory, wouldn't private insurance be essentially subsidised by it? Which is why you think it's so cheap in comparison. Can you even o
270.
by vilmosi 10y ago
It's almost like it's not correlated at all... /s

More ›