This is more than outliers. There are way more middle / high income people over-extended to call them outliers. Also, there are pretty much whole countries of people who we would consider to have "poor" incomes who manage their money prudently.
There are billions (BILLIONS) of people living in grave poverty in the developing world for whom "managing their money prudently" means not getting any shoes more than once a year or skipping diner.
The idea that any significant percentage of poor are poor because they are not prudent does not hold.
And even if it did, it's way easier to be "prudent" when you have a basic income that covers your needs and leaves a little or a lot more to be prudent with, than when you go hand to mouth with every paycheck.
>There is no contradiction in billions of people being not prudent.
That's in theory -- we're talking about reality. If you think poor people in India, Asia, Africa etc. are poor because they are not "prudent" or because "poor culture" dominates the whole society you probably haven't met many in real life -- hardworking, pinching pennies and raising families on a handful of dollars a month.
It's easy for people playing life in easy-mode to condemn the poor's "lack of prudence" from a first world middle/upper class existence, where prudence means not buying a new car every 3 years.
Being hardworking is not enough. You should also work in a right direction and in right environment. Right culture helps you choose right direction and right environment. Right culture also helps you to make right changes in your political environment.
For example, if your culture allows lies and corruption from elected politicians, you are likely to create suboptimal environment around you.
My friends in Russia make that silly choice - they support lying corrupt politicians in favor of pleasing their nationalistic feelings.
Guess what - they lowered their income ~2x just by that.
It is a function of culture. And experience. People who lived through the Depression or lived in another country where resources are hard to come by are more likely to be savers.
People who've been handed everything often don't prepare for the future.
People who understand the magic of compound interest are more likely to be savers.
People who've grown up with the government punishing savers, not so much. Perhaps they even think those who save are weird or outliers.
right, so the drug that was getting sales of 600k per year was probably not worth the hassle of maintaining a compliant manufacturing line. does that not suggest a price rise was valid?
It's a time-arbitrage problem: there's no one else producing it (thus no free market) so they get to charge literally whatever they want since they're the only manufacturers, for as long as it takes a competitor to build another competing production line. This is reprehensible.
Once competition returns, the price drops again, and no one makes ludicrous profits anymore. But if the expected returns in competitive conditions are miniscule, there may not be sufficient incentive to produce a competitive market for this individual drug again.
no wind is not a requirement, but the variability wind adds is so strong this may never happen in practice without wind power.
if there was a general move to lower power use, the market would adjust to the lower level. it is the unpredictable variability that causes the negative prices.
And those guys learning to fly the planes without the landing, why can't that just be an interest! With terrorism, if you want to avoid false negatives, you are going to have a lot of false positives.
NB I totally agree it would be a douche move to charge this kid with some BS, but investigating unusual behavior is much more understandable.
Right, but this is a child who is an American citizen, not a Saudi who's been in the country for a few months.
I mean, I can't imagine what kind of monster automatically jumps to bomb when a kid makes a clock. Is that how we want to live, constantly being suspicious of everyone different?
These administrators are so politically correct and political with how they get their jobs (usually favorites get promoted, etc.) My father was a teacher for 40 years and never stopped telling me stories about the people at the top. The school system is ran by circus animals.
That example makes sense, but if you want to impose a rule you have to worry about the cases where it doesn't make sense. What about a plumbing business which dispatches jobs within a 5 mile radius. If the employee moves 2 hours away, suddenly the company has to pay 4 hours a day of commuting.
The net result of this could easily be workers being required to travel to and from a central location as a workaround, when they could have better outcomes travelling straight from home - hurting the people you are supposedly want to help.
> What about a plumbing business which dispatches jobs within a 5 mile radius. If the employee moves 2 hours away, suddenly the company has to pay 4 hours a day of commuting.
As you say, if the company has a fixed office at the centre of that radius, they can still tell the worker that their days begin when they arrive at the office, and then the 'worktime' begins once they get there, ready to travel out to the first customer. That's how many businesses operate anyway — and how the business at the centre of this case used to work. The case was brought once they closed that office down.
There is not any evidence that 9/11 has anything to do with this - this sounds more like a regular limitation of work rights issue. Hacker news regularly has stories about the difficulty of navigating the US work rights regime.
Deportation and visa issues - sure. But I only started to see the stories about bad treatment and jail-like airport detention centres after the overreaction. Were there any known ones before?
He is definitely not serious - the reason they sell the car at 32k is that is the best price to get the required sales. If people don't buy at that price, they'll have to go even lower, and lose more money.
