Author Topic: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.  (Read 95282 times)

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #900 on: August 02, 2018, 09:20:40 AM »
My 'I Don't Get It' rant is targeted at the losers of gentrification, those priced out of their neighborhoods when the rent increases beyond their ability to pay.  While I understand the inconvenience, what legitimate claim do they have to their neighborhood compared to landlords and developers?  If they wanted a claim to indefinitely stay in a specific location, they should have bought property instead of taking their chances with a rental.

I also don't get why rent control and affordable housing mandates are a preferable option compared to figuring out a way to make market rate housing affordable for a minimum wage earner.  Single room occupancy buildings may be a solution.
As an example for the gentrification question, older owners on fixed income may not have the flexibility to handle the increase in tax burden that comes with gentrification.  They may have worked hard at a low income, but bought and paid off a home that they believed that they would be able to afford for life, but this could be pulled out from under their feet.  Naturally, this could result in family and community backlash.
Yep, That's why property taxes are my big pet peave.
You never own your house, you must constantly pay rent to the government, and if you
don't they can take it away. And, you are at the whim of the government, they can raise
your assessment and/or raise your millage rate.
Just say NO to property taxes!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11819
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #901 on: August 02, 2018, 10:43:37 AM »
My 'I Don't Get It' rant is targeted at the losers of gentrification, those priced out of their neighborhoods when the rent increases beyond their ability to pay.  While I understand the inconvenience, what legitimate claim do they have to their neighborhood compared to landlords and developers?  If they wanted a claim to indefinitely stay in a specific location, they should have bought property instead of taking their chances with a rental.

I also don't get why rent control and affordable housing mandates are a preferable option compared to figuring out a way to make market rate housing affordable for a minimum wage earner.  Single room occupancy buildings may be a solution.
As an example for the gentrification question, older owners on fixed income may not have the flexibility to handle the increase in tax burden that comes with gentrification.  They may have worked hard at a low income, but bought and paid off a home that they believed that they would be able to afford for life, but this could be pulled out from under their feet.  Naturally, this could result in family and community backlash.
Yep, That's why property taxes are my big pet peave.
You never own your house, you must constantly pay rent to the government, and if you
don't they can take it away. And, you are at the whim of the government, they can raise
your assessment and/or raise your millage rate.
Just say NO to property taxes!

Yeah.  There's no benefit at all from property taxes.

They don't go towards paving the roads that lead up to your house.
They don't go towards providing police and fire protection for your neighbourhood.
They don't go towards waste disposal
Or parks, libraries, schools, community centers, etc.

And even if they did, all of those things suck and have no value.

Imma

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: Europe
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #902 on: August 02, 2018, 11:50:32 AM »
On the gentrification issue, I have a question for those who view it as  problem to be solved.  What is the solution?  Price-fixing?  Won't that have the implication of chilling investment and keeping an area poor?

I might not be your target, because I don't think gentrification can be stopped, but I do think we can do things to minimize the impact:
-End restrictive zoning laws that require specific kinds of housing in an area, so that there are more housing options at a variety of price points.
-Allow accessory dwelling units (basement apartments, garage apartments, "granny flats"), which lets lower- and fixed-income homeowners to reap the benefits of their valuable location without selling, and increases in housing supply.
-Increase investment in public transit and remove parking minimums in new construction. ("Free parking" drives up the cost of construction and is a waste of space in urban areas.)
-Offer to trade developers zoning variances (building height, setbacks, etc) for public benefits (dedicated low-income units, green space, etc).

None of these things are individual actions, but they require being involved in local politics, where it is actually surprisingly easy for one person to make a big impact. Generally, really boring-sounding stuff like "District Land Use Committee" are dominated by older homeowners who want to "preserve neighborhood character", and don't recognize that, long-term, that's impossible.

I live in a neighbourhood with a certain reputation that has improved a lot over the last 10-15 years. People who have moved here in recent years are teachers, nurses, social workers etc, educated people with jobs that pay average wages. Having all these people move in has been a lifesaver for the neighbourhood as a whole, but many areas have become too expensive for people on minimum wage. The problem is that we are now out of truly cheap neighbourhoods - even the bad areas have improved so much they are now quite expensive. Except for some very rural areas, in a large part of my country it's become impossible to live comfortably (as a renter or a homeowner) on a lower income. Housing costs have grown much faster than income has over the last half century.

A lot of homes in my neighbourhood are owned by a non-profit housing association (that was formed as a charity 100 years ago) and they sell homes at a discounted rate to people on a lower-than-average income (max 30k) on the condition that they sell the house back to the housing assocation at the same discounted rate. We were able to purchase our house with a 40% discount. We will eventually sell it back to the association for 60% of the value at the date of the sale, but this discount allows us to live cheaply, save money, build up some equity in the property and once we sell it, it will go to another young, hardworking couple that is in need of a break. I personally think this is a great scheme: this way properties go to those in need and not to slum landlords, while improving the neighbourhood.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #903 on: August 02, 2018, 01:05:20 PM »
Yeah.  There's no benefit at all from property taxes.

They don't go towards paving the roads that lead up to your house.
They don't go towards providing police and fire protection for your neighbourhood.
They don't go towards waste disposal
Or parks, libraries, schools, community centers, etc.

And even if they did, all of those things suck and have no value.

We don't need schools. We need big businesses to decide who they want to hire while those future employees are 3-4 and then invest only in the education of those future employees. Think about it: no wasted knowledge of worthless stuff like astronomy or English Lit for Amazon employees. No employees who can do their own retirement math and maybe choose not to work their entire lives. And best of all, no property taxes.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8101
  • Registered member
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #904 on: August 02, 2018, 01:26:50 PM »
Yeah.  There's no benefit at all from property taxes.

They don't go towards paving the roads that lead up to your house.
They don't go towards providing police and fire protection for your neighbourhood.
They don't go towards waste disposal
Or parks, libraries, schools, community centers, etc.

And even if they did, all of those things suck and have no value.

We don't need schools. We need big businesses to decide who they want to hire while those future employees are 3-4 and then invest only in the education of those future employees. Think about it: no wasted knowledge of worthless stuff like astronomy or English Lit for Amazon employees. No employees who can do their own retirement math and maybe choose not to work their entire lives. And best of all, no property taxes.

You'd have a problem where people get the free Amazon education and then don't work for Amazon.  Probably you'd need to keep an accounting of how much each person owes Amazon for their education and they can pay it back as they work it off.  It could all be denominated in AmazonBucks, which can also be used to pay Amazon for maintaining the shipping infrastructure, empty cardboard retrieval, and warehouse fire protection.  I can't wait for the $5000 Amazon Prime memberships.

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #905 on: August 03, 2018, 08:07:40 AM »
Yeah.  There's no benefit at all from property taxes.

They don't go towards paving the roads that lead up to your house.
They don't go towards providing police and fire protection for your neighbourhood.
They don't go towards waste disposal
Or parks, libraries, schools, community centers, etc.

And even if they did, all of those things suck and have no value.

We don't need schools. We need big businesses to decide who they want to hire while those future employees are 3-4 and then invest only in the education of those future employees. Think about it: no wasted knowledge of worthless stuff like astronomy or English Lit for Amazon employees. No employees who can do their own retirement math and maybe choose not to work their entire lives. And best of all, no property taxes.

You'd have a problem where people get the free Amazon education and then don't work for Amazon.  Probably you'd need to keep an accounting of how much each person owes Amazon for their education and they can pay it back as they work it off.  It could all be denominated in AmazonBucks, which can also be used to pay Amazon for maintaining the shipping infrastructure, empty cardboard retrieval, and warehouse fire protection.  I can't wait for the $5000 Amazon Prime memberships.

Unless it was like Euro soccer. If a company wanted to hire an Amazon student/worker, they'd have to pay a transfer fee to Amazon on top of the salary offered to the student/worker. Younger workers who can't make the starting team of the big firms would be loaned out to smaller firms to get their experience.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #906 on: August 03, 2018, 08:28:15 AM »
Unless it was like Euro soccer. If a company wanted to hire an Amazon student/worker, they'd have to pay a transfer fee to Amazon on top of the salary offered to the student/worker. Younger workers who can't make the starting team of the big firms would be loaned out to smaller firms to get their experience.

And then you have idiots at Amazon Italy buying a near-retirement middle-manager from Amazon Spain for 100M.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
  • Location: London, UK
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #907 on: August 03, 2018, 12:12:23 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #908 on: August 03, 2018, 12:21:52 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11819
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #909 on: August 03, 2018, 12:29:21 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

I've occasionally seen this . . . and it's bizarre.  Why run in the middle of the road when there's a sidewalk made for running just three feet to the side?  People are weird.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #910 on: August 03, 2018, 12:31:53 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

I've occasionally seen this . . . and it's bizarre.  Why run in the middle of the road when there's a sidewalk made for running just three feet to the side?  People are weird.

Darwinism, perhaps?

Bird In Hand

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #911 on: August 03, 2018, 12:35:19 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

However, this is only necessary on roads without sidewalks.  I can't explain why someone would choose to run on the road (with traffic or against traffic) if there is a sidewalk available.  Maybe for the softer road asphalt versus harder sidewalk concrete?  :o

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #912 on: August 03, 2018, 12:36:49 PM »
To be fair, some poorly engineered or constructed sidewalks are like a tripping hazard gauntlet of death. Still, better places are often available for running.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #913 on: August 03, 2018, 12:44:50 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

You're absolutely right. And when I said they were running on the wrong side of the road, I meant they were running WITH traffic instead of against it. Not safe at all.

As you state, for pedestrians (on foot), the correct side of the road is the side that's facing oncoming traffic. Too many people are simply unaware of this safety "rule." If I hadn't run cross country in high school, I, too, likely would have never learned it.


OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #914 on: August 03, 2018, 12:50:13 PM »
To be fair, some poorly engineered or constructed sidewalks are like a tripping hazard gauntlet of death. Still, better places are often available for running.

I live in Michigan, with its terrible roads (including side streets; there's a caution marker over an early-stage sinkhole on my block) and in an area with plentiful sidewalks. People still walk/jog/run in the streets. I consider them Darwin award nominees. I regularly hope that I'm not the one who accidentally helps them win said award.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11819
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #915 on: August 03, 2018, 01:01:46 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

However, this is only necessary on roads without sidewalks.  I can't explain why someone would choose to run on the road (with traffic or against traffic) if there is a sidewalk available.  Maybe for the softer road asphalt versus harder sidewalk concrete?  :o

I've been trying to figure out if this could be the reason (having run many miles on both concrete and asphalt when I was doing training for boxing) . . . and this article seems to be pretty convincing that they're effectively the same to run on:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/Running/Concrete_or_Asphalt__4793.html

markbike528CBX

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #916 on: August 03, 2018, 03:53:59 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

We have a pretty good sidewalk on our side of the street, lots of jiggers on far side of the street.
The far side of the street abuts a steep bank, making jogger escape iffy.

And we have yet to put up the firebreathing dragon sculpture!

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #917 on: August 03, 2018, 04:28:56 PM »
My 'I Don't Get It' rant is targeted at the losers of gentrification, those priced out of their neighborhoods when the rent increases beyond their ability to pay.  While I understand the inconvenience, what legitimate claim do they have to their neighborhood compared to landlords and developers?  If they wanted a claim to indefinitely stay in a specific location, they should have bought property instead of taking their chances with a rental.

I also don't get why rent control and affordable housing mandates are a preferable option compared to figuring out a way to make market rate housing affordable for a minimum wage earner.  Single room occupancy buildings may be a solution.
As an example for the gentrification question, older owners on fixed income may not have the flexibility to handle the increase in tax burden that comes with gentrification.  They may have worked hard at a low income, but bought and paid off a home that they believed that they would be able to afford for life, but this could be pulled out from under their feet.  Naturally, this could result in family and community backlash.
Yep, That's why property taxes are my big pet peave.
You never own your house, you must constantly pay rent to the government, and if you
don't they can take it away. And, you are at the whim of the government, they can raise
your assessment and/or raise your millage rate.
Just say NO to property taxes!

Yeah.  There's no benefit at all from property taxes.

They don't go towards paving the roads that lead up to your house.
They don't go towards providing police and fire protection for your neighbourhood.
They don't go towards waste disposal
Or parks, libraries, schools, community centers, etc.

And even if they did, all of those things suck and have no value.
I did not say we don't need any taxes, I said we don't need a tax on the
the roof over your head, the place your family eats meals and sleeps at night.
Your refuge from the world. The biggest asset that most people will attain in
a 35 year work history.
I just think the government aught to keep their taxes away from your home.

  I said nothing about the importance of roads, police and fire protection, waste disposal,
parks, libraries, schools or community centers. Fake news!

btw, I pay separately for my waste disposal and possibly parks, the city utility* bill will let you
 add $1 for the parks fund.
* water, sewer and garbage.
 
 
 

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #918 on: August 03, 2018, 04:35:26 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

However, this is only necessary on roads without sidewalks.  I can't explain why someone would choose to run on the road (with traffic or against traffic) if there is a sidewalk available.  Maybe for the softer road asphalt versus harder sidewalk concrete?  :o
As a long distance runner asphalt is MUCH MUCH more forgiving on the body than concrete. Dirt is of course the best unless you can run indoors on one of those padded running tracks the fancy gyms have.  And yes running facing oncoming traffic is the way most runners and walkers face for safety reasons.

What I don't get is people who ride their bikes on the sidewalks and then get pissed at you when they come up behind you ringing their little bell and you don't move. Some of us are deaf! Plus it's an f-ing sidewalk. Go ride in.the street.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 04:38:45 PM by spartana »

Bird In Hand

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #919 on: August 03, 2018, 05:43:56 PM »
You're absolutely right. And when I said they were running on the wrong side of the road, I meant they were running WITH traffic instead of against it. Not safe at all.

Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding!

It's actually kind of funny that "wrong side of the road" can be interpreted in both ways, depending on whether you think the person who is claiming "wrong side" is aware that "wrong side" is actually "the right side", which of course actually means "left side" (at least in countries where people drive on the right side of the road -- which in this case means the side opposite the left side, not the "correct side").  :D
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 09:18:46 AM by Bird In Hand »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #920 on: August 03, 2018, 08:47:00 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

However, this is only necessary on roads without sidewalks.  I can't explain why someone would choose to run on the road (with traffic or against traffic) if there is a sidewalk available.  Maybe for the softer road asphalt versus harder sidewalk concrete?  :o

I've been trying to figure out if this could be the reason (having run many miles on both concrete and asphalt when I was doing training for boxing) . . . and this article seems to be pretty convincing that they're effectively the same to run on:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/Running/Concrete_or_Asphalt__4793.html

This was my first thought as I was told by a doctor (or physical therapist?) when I ran distance to do this when I had shin splints. Maybe it was just in my head, but it seemed to make a difference.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8101
  • Registered member
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #921 on: August 03, 2018, 09:58:39 PM »
If you are a fast enough runner, pretty much all the reasons not to ride your bike on the sidewalk apply to running

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
  • Location: London, UK
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #922 on: August 04, 2018, 12:14:56 AM »
@BTDretire: I've wondered for a while: why do your posts always start new lines randomly in the middle of sentences?

MrsWolfeRN

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #923 on: August 04, 2018, 06:54:15 AM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

However, this is only necessary on roads without sidewalks.  I can't explain why someone would choose to run on the road (with traffic or against traffic) if there is a sidewalk available.  Maybe for the softer road asphalt versus harder sidewalk concrete?  :o

I've been trying to figure out if this could be the reason (having run many miles on both concrete and asphalt when I was doing training for boxing) . . . and this article seems to be pretty convincing that they're effectively the same to run on:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/Running/Concrete_or_Asphalt__4793.html

This was my first thought as I was told by a doctor (or physical therapist?) when I ran distance to do this when I had shin splints. Maybe it was just in my head, but it seemed to make a difference.

Consistent running on the same side of a graded road can also lead to IT band tightness and pain, so there is a reason to not always run against traffic. Most residential streets are not graded though, and I don't know what is wrong with sidewalks.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11819
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #924 on: August 04, 2018, 04:52:59 PM »
If you are a fast enough runner, pretty much all the reasons not to ride your bike on the sidewalk apply to running

The difference in speed between the sports is pretty significant.  Most slow cyclists average more than 20 kph (12 mph).  Quick ones average around 30 kph (18 mph) for distances of above 100 km, and will regularly hit 60-70 kph (40 mph) for bursts on their rides.  The fastest running speed ever recorded was about 27 mph for the hundred meter, and the fastest marathon speed ever recorded was about 12 mph.

:P

Raymond Reddington

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: NYC
  • "The Concierge of Cash"
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #925 on: August 04, 2018, 11:14:50 PM »
So, I'm sitting in an airport.  Just had to pay $25 per bag to get my luggage on the damn plane.  I'm surrounded by people that weigh at least 100 lbs more than I do and they're riding for the same rate as me.  Talk about some BS.

I think it's BS that you can charge drivers more for being young (even when they're good drivers) but you can't typically charge obese people more for health insurance.

I also think it's BS that large families get the same "family premiums" for health insurance as a couple with one child, or a couple with no children.

nnls

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #926 on: August 04, 2018, 11:23:00 PM »

So, I'm sitting in an airport.  Just had to pay $25 per bag to get my luggage on the damn plane.  I'm surrounded by people that weigh at least 100 lbs more than I do and they're riding for the same rate as me.  Talk about some BS.

I once successfully argued at checkin that I shouldn't be charged for excess baggage. I weighed about 45kg, and my bag was about 10kg over the amount allowed. I pointed out that the standard weight they had for female adults was probably more than 55kg (10kg more than I weighed) so I was still under my overall weight limit. They let me go without charging me extra. They were wanting to charge me about $50 for extra kg.

ChpBstrd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #927 on: August 05, 2018, 06:51:02 AM »
Forums which do not allow one to unfollow a discussion.

RWD

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #928 on: August 05, 2018, 07:53:59 AM »
I also think it's BS that large families get the same "family premiums" for health insurance as a couple with one child, or a couple with no children.

Is this common? My company's health insurance has separate "employee + spouse" and "employee + family" plans so it's cheaper for the couple without kids.

MrsWolfeRN

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #929 on: August 05, 2018, 08:08:08 AM »
I also think it's BS that large families get the same "family premiums" for health insurance as a couple with one child, or a couple with no children.

Is this common? My company's health insurance has separate "employee + spouse" and "employee + family" plans so it's cheaper for the couple without kids.

Mine too. But the price is the same for one kid or 20 kids.

It's BS that the price of healthcare is going up faster than overall inflation, and insurance is covering less and less every year.

rantk81

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Chicago
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #930 on: August 05, 2018, 08:12:15 AM »
What I don't get is people who ride their bikes on the sidewalks and then get pissed at you when they come up behind you ringing their little bell and you don't move. Some of us are deaf! Plus it's an f-ing sidewalk. Go ride in.the street.

I really really hate that too.  I've been hit FROM BEHIND by cyclists while I've been walking on the sidewalk.  I think folks who do that should be liable for all of the fines and legal consequences that would have otherwise come with driving an automobile on the sidewalk and hitting folks.

Hula Hoop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 702
  • Location: Italy
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #931 on: August 05, 2018, 10:32:27 AM »
Having just attended my first mass in a very long time, I don't get organized religion.  The priest was going on and on about believing in God and praising God.  I'm not a believer but I don't really understand why believers need to go on and about it - almost like they are trying to convince themselves.  Surely, if you believe in God there should  be no need to keep repeating over and over again that you believe in him?

Apart from that, I don't get the Catholic church.  Why do priests have to be men?  Why do they have to be celibate?  I know lots of wonderful, competent nuns - why can't they be priests, cardinals and popes?  Seems like the Church is determined to be stuck in ancient times.  No wonder fewer and fewer people here in Italy go to church.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #932 on: August 05, 2018, 10:54:06 AM »
Having just attended my first mass in a very long time, I don't get organized religion.  The priest was going on and on about believing in God and praising God.  I'm not a believer but I don't really understand why believers need to go on and about it - almost like they are trying to convince themselves.  Surely, if you believe in God there should  be no need to keep repeating over and over again that you believe in him?

Apart from that, I don't get the Catholic church.  Why do priests have to be men?  Why do they have to be celibate?  I know lots of wonderful, competent nuns - why can't they be priests, cardinals and popes?  Seems like the Church is determined to be stuck in ancient times.  No wonder fewer and fewer people here in Italy go to church.

As someone raised in the Catholic church and who only developed the guts to come out as agnostic less than a decade ago, I agree.

Although I still think the Mass is beautiful. I sometimes miss the hymns and the "smells and bells", especially at Christmas and Easter.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
  • Location: London, UK
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #933 on: August 05, 2018, 11:14:56 AM »
Brief reply:

Even if you believe in God, it's hard to truly place him at the centre of your life as you ought to. There are so many other things competing for your time and energy. Much like Mustachianism, it's easy to be tempted by the easy, fun, right-now thing.

And the thing about church is that it is in the world but not of the world. Once you have accepted the church as the conduit of God's authority, worldly standards just don't apply - so arguing that the church should update and "get with the programme" is poor logic. The world needs to get with the church, not the other way around. It's predicated on a belief in Jesus founding the church as a divine institution, but once you've accepted that* it seems pretty weird to apply the logic of the fallen world to the ideal pattern for the church.

(Obviously it's run by humans so fucks up a lot. But we can still know and strive towards the perfect divine plan for the church in the world.)

*No need to start a big discussion about whether you personally have. But if X then Y should be understandable to non-Christians even if you would argue against X.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #934 on: August 05, 2018, 11:50:54 AM »
Brief reply:

Even if you believe in God, it's hard to truly place him at the centre of your life as you ought to. There are so many other things competing for your time and energy. Much like Mustachianism, it's easy to be tempted by the easy, fun, right-now thing.

And the thing about church is that it is in the world but not of the world. Once you have accepted the church as the conduit of God's authority, worldly standards just don't apply - so arguing that the church should update and "get with the programme" is poor logic. The world needs to get with the church, not the other way around. It's predicated on a belief in Jesus founding the church as a divine institution, but once you've accepted that* it seems pretty weird to apply the logic of the fallen world to the ideal pattern for the church.

(Obviously it's run by humans so fucks up a lot. But we can still know and strive towards the perfect divine plan for the church in the world.)

*No need to start a big discussion about whether you personally have. But if X then Y should be understandable to non-Christians even if you would argue against X.

Fair point. I actually don't have a problem with churches/mosques/temples/synagogues setting standards of behavior and practice for themselves. I was raised in a religious family and attended Catholic schools. I understand why people believe in God (although I am not one of them). The problem is that in the USA and many other places, those standards increasingly spill over in what should be secular arenas.

I guess what I don't get is why there has to be so much influence of religious belief in secular areas. I don't want to live in a theocracy. Different issue, and you're right that it isn't fair to conflate the two.

ChpBstrd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #935 on: August 05, 2018, 12:00:09 PM »
Why do priests have to be men?  Why do they have to be celibate?  I know lots of wonderful, competent nuns - why can't they be priests, cardinals and popes?  Seems like the Church is determined to be stuck in ancient times.  No wonder fewer and fewer people here in Italy go to church.

To better understand this dynamic, I recommend some books in the emerging field of economics of religion. I recommend A Theory of Religion by Rodney Stark, Acts of Faith by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, or Rational Choice Theory and Religion, edited by Lawrence Young.

With insights drawn from these sources, I will attempt to answer the questions.

Priests, shamans, and other religious specialists arose as societies formed around farming and herding communities. Their role (or their rationale for consuming resources while not contributing as much productive work, if you prefer) was to facilitate communication with the gods who were responsible for weather, harvests, health, livestock, the outcomes of battles, and other factors humans had little control over. Importantly, these priests claimed they were different than ordinary people - they alone had an ability to communicate with the gods. Also, the gods could be bartered with. So ordinary people would subsidize their priests on the expectation the priests could tell them what kind of sacrifices or behavioral patterns would lead to a successful harvest or pregnancy, for example. To maintain the credibility of this arrangement, priests had to actually be different than ordinary people. Sacrifices made by priests, such as celibacy or living apart from others, served as a conspicuous commitment implying that the priest seriously believed they were intermediaries with gods. This was important because their prescriptions and predictions usually did not occur more often than by chance, and there was always the possibility others would attempt to leave the fields and attempt to usurp the priests. A "legitimate" priest made their own visible and costly sacrifices that they could say were the will of the gods.

Religious leaders were generally male because monotheistic religions almost always assume a male god. In an era when women were somewhere between men and livestock in terms of their dignity, and warrior strong-men ascended to alpha-male status through brutality and strength, it made sense to think of god as the man ranking above the king, who ranks above the generals, who rank above the captains, and so on all the way down to women and slaves at the bottom of the violence-based hierarchy. For the god to support the king (a politically important function), they would need to have some things in common - namely a strong desire to achieve alpha male status through masculine activities such as warfare. To people in such a cultural frame, a female would be the last person able to relate to such a god.

Raymond Reddington

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: NYC
  • "The Concierge of Cash"
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #936 on: August 05, 2018, 01:43:56 PM »
Having just attended my first mass in a very long time, I don't get organized religion.  The priest was going on and on about believing in God and praising God.  I'm not a believer but I don't really understand why believers need to go on and about it - almost like they are trying to convince themselves.  Surely, if you believe in God there should  be no need to keep repeating over and over again that you believe in him?

Apart from that, I don't get the Catholic church.  Why do priests have to be men?  Why do they have to be celibate?  I know lots of wonderful, competent nuns - why can't they be priests, cardinals and popes?  Seems like the Church is determined to be stuck in ancient times.  No wonder fewer and fewer people here in Italy go to church.

I agree completely. Religion presently exists to serve itself. The droning on about God and praising Him and leagues of angels singing his glories eternally. Makes God sound like a real jerk.

I prefer to think of God like this:


The sad part is that as religion is dying out in certain parts of the world, the lack of strong social ties among communities is too. This is why cities seem increasingly hostile and less neighborhoody, IMO. I'd really like to see something make up that cultural/community/service difference, with a non-denominational message. Whether it's Rotary International, Freemasonry and Masonic spouses, but something has to fill the void that religion used to fill in terms of creating fellowship among men and women within their communities.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #937 on: August 05, 2018, 01:58:17 PM »
Aww, I love that little cartoon. It is so different from the concept of god with which I was raised.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
  • Location: London, UK
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #938 on: August 05, 2018, 02:02:35 PM »
Brief reply:

Even if you believe in God, it's hard to truly place him at the centre of your life as you ought to. There are so many other things competing for your time and energy. Much like Mustachianism, it's easy to be tempted by the easy, fun, right-now thing.

And the thing about church is that it is in the world but not of the world. Once you have accepted the church as the conduit of God's authority, worldly standards just don't apply - so arguing that the church should update and "get with the programme" is poor logic. The world needs to get with the church, not the other way around. It's predicated on a belief in Jesus founding the church as a divine institution, but once you've accepted that* it seems pretty weird to apply the logic of the fallen world to the ideal pattern for the church.

(Obviously it's run by humans so fucks up a lot. But we can still know and strive towards the perfect divine plan for the church in the world.)

*No need to start a big discussion about whether you personally have. But if X then Y should be understandable to non-Christians even if you would argue against X.

Fair point. I actually don't have a problem with churches/mosques/temples/synagogues setting standards of behavior and practice for themselves. I was raised in a religious family and attended Catholic schools. I understand why people believe in God (although I am not one of them). The problem is that in the USA and many other places, those standards increasingly spill over in what should be secular arenas.

I guess what I don't get is why there has to be so much influence of religious belief in secular areas. I don't want to live in a theocracy. Different issue, and you're right that it isn't fair to conflate the two.

My perception (never actually been) is that this is very very different in America to how it is in England - that religion is much more in-yer-face in America, and that people do wave it about all over the place. There's a difference between being proud of your faith and being an interfering knobhead which it seems many people have yet to master.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #939 on: August 05, 2018, 02:11:59 PM »
Brief reply:

Even if you believe in God, it's hard to truly place him at the centre of your life as you ought to. There are so many other things competing for your time and energy. Much like Mustachianism, it's easy to be tempted by the easy, fun, right-now thing.

And the thing about church is that it is in the world but not of the world. Once you have accepted the church as the conduit of God's authority, worldly standards just don't apply - so arguing that the church should update and "get with the programme" is poor logic. The world needs to get with the church, not the other way around. It's predicated on a belief in Jesus founding the church as a divine institution, but once you've accepted that* it seems pretty weird to apply the logic of the fallen world to the ideal pattern for the church.

(Obviously it's run by humans so fucks up a lot. But we can still know and strive towards the perfect divine plan for the church in the world.)

*No need to start a big discussion about whether you personally have. But if X then Y should be understandable to non-Christians even if you would argue against X.

Fair point. I actually don't have a problem with churches/mosques/temples/synagogues setting standards of behavior and practice for themselves. I was raised in a religious family and attended Catholic schools. I understand why people believe in God (although I am not one of them). The problem is that in the USA and many other places, those standards increasingly spill over in what should be secular arenas.

I guess what I don't get is why there has to be so much influence of religious belief in secular areas. I don't want to live in a theocracy. Different issue, and you're right that it isn't fair to conflate the two.

My perception (never actually been) is that this is very very different in America to how it is in England - that religion is much more in-yer-face in America, and that people do wave it about all over the place. There's a difference between being proud of your faith and being an interfering knobhead which it seems many people have yet to master.

Yep. We have major elections this year, and in most areas of the country public candidates are almost required to express public belief in a certain form of evangelical Christianity. I'm grateful to live in an area with a very large Muslim population. Christians, Muslims, and other religious/non-religious groups in my area tend to be moderate and tolerant because we're all neighbors, co-workers, classmates, friends and, in some cases, family. Unfortunately, that makes my hometown a major target of the right-wing propaganda machine.

FindingFI

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #940 on: August 05, 2018, 08:41:15 PM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Another variant: "People who run on windy roads with blind bends and absolutely no shoulder to speak of" especially when there are significantly less dangerous roads nearby.  I am talking line at the edge of the pavement, maybe 6 inches and then roadside brush and trees.  They actually do pop up out of nowhere.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #941 on: August 05, 2018, 09:26:42 PM »
My perception (never actually been) is that this is very very different in America to how it is in England - that religion is much more in-yer-face in America, and that people do wave it about all over the place. There's a difference between being proud of your faith and being an interfering knobhead which it seems many people have yet to master.

I don't know about England, but I've lived my entire life in the USA, and I've never felt religion was in my face, with perhaps the exception of Christmas, because we always had Christmas trees and decorations in the house growing up, so that would last a month or so, plus so many of the neighbors and people all over town who had decorations out.

A politician simply saying, "God Bless America," or driving by a church doesn't exactly feel "in my face" if that's what you mean.  It's quick, fleeting, and pretty much forgotten.   Of course, there's the whole terrorist angle on religion, which you hear about in the news a lot, but I don't know anyone personally outside of the military that has been directly impacted.  Granted, some people across the country have been directly affected by it and lost their lives as a result.  The problem is even worse overseas.

Raymond Reddington

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: NYC
  • "The Concierge of Cash"
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #942 on: August 05, 2018, 11:28:50 PM »
My perception (never actually been) is that this is very very different in America to how it is in England - that religion is much more in-yer-face in America, and that people do wave it about all over the place. There's a difference between being proud of your faith and being an interfering knobhead which it seems many people have yet to master.

I don't know about England, but I've lived my entire life in the USA, and I've never felt religion was in my face, with perhaps the exception of Christmas, because we always had Christmas trees and decorations in the house growing up, so that would last a month or so, plus so many of the neighbors and people all over town who had decorations out.

A politician simply saying, "God Bless America," or driving by a church doesn't exactly feel "in my face" if that's what you mean.  It's quick, fleeting, and pretty much forgotten.   Of course, there's the whole terrorist angle on religion, which you hear about in the news a lot, but I don't know anyone personally outside of the military that has been directly impacted.  Granted, some people across the country have been directly affected by it and lost their lives as a result.  The problem is even worse overseas.

This country is unique in that religion provides a safe haven for children growing up - bible study groups with access to playgrounds, drug free areas, and youth groups that allow them to make friends, volunteer, and otherwise put down roots in their communities. Probably over 80% of the square footage of the country benefits from these programs in some way. There is an inherent good that comes from this - but the good does not come from the religious aspect of it, it comes from the community aspect.

The failure of religion is when it tries to govern. That's when it's most in your face. And in certain parts of the country, by people who are specifically told to "spread the word of God" who take that rather literally.

The failure of society is that after empowering secularists (of which I am very much one), society has completely failed to replicate the moral grounding and social ties that religious organizations have created through the aforementioned programs. I guess the thinking was along the lines of "the schools will facilitate that," which is utter BS because the schools are not given the leeway to do this, and often suffer from overcrowding/understaffing/lack of authority as it is. This is creating more and more people who just don't give a damn about their society/community anymore. What passes for pop culture anymore certainly doesn't help either. If eventually humans are going to move away from organized religion and towards a secular humanism rooted in a just code of ethics, then the agent of delivery for instilling that code of ethics in our citizens needs to be considered. Because right now it's a free for all, morality is subjective, and basically boils down to "but did you get caught though?" and "but was it worth it though?"
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 11:31:08 PM by Raymond Reddington »

Hula Hoop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 702
  • Location: Italy
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #943 on: August 06, 2018, 01:31:12 AM »
Brief reply:

Even if you believe in God, it's hard to truly place him at the centre of your life as you ought to. There are so many other things competing for your time and energy. Much like Mustachianism, it's easy to be tempted by the easy, fun, right-now thing.

And the thing about church is that it is in the world but not of the world. Once you have accepted the church as the conduit of God's authority, worldly standards just don't apply - so arguing that the church should update and "get with the programme" is poor logic. The world needs to get with the church, not the other way around. It's predicated on a belief in Jesus founding the church as a divine institution, but once you've accepted that* it seems pretty weird to apply the logic of the fallen world to the ideal pattern for the church.

(Obviously it's run by humans so fucks up a lot. But we can still know and strive towards the perfect divine plan for the church in the world.)

*No need to start a big discussion about whether you personally have. But if X then Y should be understandable to non-Christians even if you would argue against X.

Fair point. I actually don't have a problem with churches/mosques/temples/synagogues setting standards of behavior and practice for themselves. I was raised in a religious family and attended Catholic schools. I understand why people believe in God (although I am not one of them). The problem is that in the USA and many other places, those standards increasingly spill over in what should be secular arenas.

I guess what I don't get is why there has to be so much influence of religious belief in secular areas. I don't want to live in a theocracy. Different issue, and you're right that it isn't fair to conflate the two.

My perception (never actually been) is that this is very very different in America to how it is in England - that religion is much more in-yer-face in America, and that people do wave it about all over the place. There's a difference between being proud of your faith and being an interfering knobhead which it seems many people have yet to master.

Unfortunately, Italy is like this too.  It's not an officially Catholic country but the Catholic church basically dictates policy on reproductive rights, abortion, divorce, adoption, gay marriage, sterilization as contraception (illegal here), IVF, end of life issues etc.  I always find it ironic that churches here are empty on Sundays yet the Church as an institution has so much political power.  I also think it's very strange that a supposedly Catholic country has one of the world's lowest birth rates.  Obviously, a lot of people aren't following Catholic teachings.

Imma

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: Europe
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #944 on: August 06, 2018, 04:09:15 AM »
Brief reply:

Even if you believe in God, it's hard to truly place him at the centre of your life as you ought to. There are so many other things competing for your time and energy. Much like Mustachianism, it's easy to be tempted by the easy, fun, right-now thing.

And the thing about church is that it is in the world but not of the world. Once you have accepted the church as the conduit of God's authority, worldly standards just don't apply - so arguing that the church should update and "get with the programme" is poor logic. The world needs to get with the church, not the other way around. It's predicated on a belief in Jesus founding the church as a divine institution, but once you've accepted that* it seems pretty weird to apply the logic of the fallen world to the ideal pattern for the church.

(Obviously it's run by humans so fucks up a lot. But we can still know and strive towards the perfect divine plan for the church in the world.)

*No need to start a big discussion about whether you personally have. But if X then Y should be understandable to non-Christians even if you would argue against X.

Fair point. I actually don't have a problem with churches/mosques/temples/synagogues setting standards of behavior and practice for themselves. I was raised in a religious family and attended Catholic schools. I understand why people believe in God (although I am not one of them). The problem is that in the USA and many other places, those standards increasingly spill over in what should be secular arenas.

I guess what I don't get is why there has to be so much influence of religious belief in secular areas. I don't want to live in a theocracy. Different issue, and you're right that it isn't fair to conflate the two.

My perception (never actually been) is that this is very very different in America to how it is in England - that religion is much more in-yer-face in America, and that people do wave it about all over the place. There's a difference between being proud of your faith and being an interfering knobhead which it seems many people have yet to master.

Unfortunately, Italy is like this too.  It's not an officially Catholic country but the Catholic church basically dictates policy on reproductive rights, abortion, divorce, adoption, gay marriage, sterilization as contraception (illegal here), IVF, end of life issues etc.  I always find it ironic that churches here are empty on Sundays yet the Church as an institution has so much political power.  I also think it's very strange that a supposedly Catholic country has one of the world's lowest birth rates.  Obviously, a lot of people aren't following Catholic teachings.

When I read this, I'm so glad I'm in western Europe and not in the US or parts of Europe where the church is an important political factor. We have a truly secular society, while at the same time not really restricting religious people in practising their beliefs. For example, parents can choose between secular school and religious schools, both are state funded, as long as they meet certain educational criteria (this includes teaching evolution theory and sex education). This has the additional advantage of limiting the influence of churches on schools, because they are financially independent.   

One consequence of secularisation is that we don't have a lot of moderate churches left. Most people no longer go to church, only the very orthodox still do. When a majority of people go to church, churches are forced to preach moderate views. When only the most devout people still go to church, there's less space for moderate teaching. I grew up in a catholic area and the catholic church is purging moderate priests there. When I grew up (in the 90s, not half a century ago) most people still felt some kind of attachment to chuch, even though they didn't go to Mass every week, and my town's priest was a very wise, moderate man with a lot of informal influence in the town. He was replaced by a hardliner about 15 years ago. A lot of believers left. At the same time, a very tight-knit, hardline conservative church community has originated, with many young members. For the first time since the 60s, there's a growing movement of young people choosing to enter a convent or the priesthood (although it's of course still a very small group).  It seems that the catholic church is actively trying to purge moderates in favour of a smaller group of conservative believers. I understand why they make that choice, but it alienates the church from society.



After another frustrating job interview, one thing I don't get is why it's so difficult for employers to understand people with a disability or chronic illness can be good employees too. I have a good CV, a good degree, I have many different skills, but due to an auto-immune disease I just can't work more than 30 hours a week. Because of my illness I'm great at time management, I have a wealth of life experience, I'm super motivated and I'm not the type of person that calls in sick with a minor illness. I haven't been in hospital for years, I don't need any special treatment from an employer. I get told all the time to apply to the organization's special list of "jobs for disabled people" that always seem to be boring and badly paid jobs. I don't want a special job, I want the job that suits my degree and experience, and I know I can do that job, except I can only be in the office for 4 days a week.

I have a law degree and as a result of not being able to find a job I'm working on setting up my own business,  I already have an appointment with a potential first client this week, but I know that I lack legal experience. I know I will learn this on the job, but when you're dealing with customers who put their trust in your skills, that's a huge responsability. In my current job I'm also the only person with a law degree, but at least I don't own that business, so I don't feel like it's my responsability if things were to go wrong.

Hula Hoop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 702
  • Location: Italy
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #945 on: August 06, 2018, 05:18:11 AM »
Imma - aren't you in the Netherlands?  I thought that the Netherlands was a paradise of part time work?  I have Italian friends who moved there and marvelled at how short the working hours are generally and how so many people work part time even in professional jobs.

Would it be possible for you to just get a 30 hours a week job and not disclose your health issue?  I have a health issue too but it does not stop me working full time.  However, even so I keep my mouth shut about it at work.  Maybe you could just say that you're looking for a part time lawyer job and not give them a reason why since so many Dutch people work PT?

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1096
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #946 on: August 06, 2018, 07:42:32 AM »
I don't get how people are looking to retire on corporate profits via the 4% rule while at the same time looking to increase regulations and corporate taxes making them less profitable and 4% withdrawals more risky.

MDfive21

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Location: HTX
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #947 on: August 06, 2018, 08:19:55 AM »
People who wander out into a busy road when they are less than 20m from a proper crossing.

I'll see your "People who wander out into a busy road" and raise you "People who walk or jog on a busy road (on the wrong side, mind you) when there is a perfectly good sidewalk 3 feet away."

Running on the wrong side of the road makes perfect sense because it gives the runner a chance to jump out of the road in the case of an inattentive oncoming driver, versus getting run over from behind by an inattentive driver.  Most runners have eyes in the front of their heads, not the back.

However, this is only necessary on roads without sidewalks.  I can't explain why someone would choose to run on the road (with traffic or against traffic) if there is a sidewalk available.  Maybe for the softer road asphalt versus harder sidewalk concrete?  :o

I've been trying to figure out if this could be the reason (having run many miles on both concrete and asphalt when I was doing training for boxing) . . . and this article seems to be pretty convincing that they're effectively the same to run on:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/Running/Concrete_or_Asphalt__4793.html

like dragoncar said, if you're a serious runner, running on the sidewalk sucks for the same reasons biking on the sidewalk sucks.  it's not so much about speed, but about the consistency of the road vs the sidewalk.  the road is relatively smooth, with either smooth asphalt or at least large area rectangular blocks of concrete.  the sidewalks in Houston are a total joke, as i'm sure they are in a lot of metros.  do a google image search for 'houston sidewalk' for examples.

even on a nice new sidewalk, you have the little curbs on either side of the driveway, plants overgrown across the sidewalk, bends to go around trees or signs or whatever.  it just makes the experience more like an obstacle course than a relaxing run where you get into your groove and crank out the miles.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #948 on: August 06, 2018, 08:25:07 AM »
I don't get how people are looking to retire on corporate profits via the 4% rule while at the same time looking to increase regulations and corporate taxes making them less profitable and 4% withdrawals more risky.

Bread and circuses. Keeping the masses happy is cheaper than a revolution.

Or, alternatively, maybe a society that all can benefit from is more important than any one individual's wealth.

OtherJen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The 'I Don't Get It' thread. Rants accepted.
« Reply #949 on: August 06, 2018, 11:24:33 AM »
like dragoncar said, if you're a serious runner, running on the sidewalk sucks for the same reasons biking on the sidewalk sucks.  it's not so much about speed, but about the consistency of the road vs the sidewalk.  the road is relatively smooth, with either smooth asphalt or at least large area rectangular blocks of concrete.  the sidewalks in Houston are a total joke, as i'm sure they are in a lot of metros.  do a google image search for 'houston sidewalk' for examples.

I thought this might be location-dependent. I Googled "houston sidewalk" and the photos are indeed terrible. Sidewalks in my area don't look like that at all. However, many of the streets in my neighborhood and pretty much the entire state of Michigan look like this.