I spent a while picking through C+K's myth and measurement to see if I could grok their minimum wage model
my interpretation is that it works via (1) reducing time spent in search/vacancies, hence increasing employment (2) pricing low-wage low-productivity workers out of the market
if (1) winds up being greater than (2), then you get the reduction in unemployment. this is substantially more likely near the bottom end, where search costs are probably a substantial fraction of labour wages
(2) is important because it underpins the model's consistency with elastic labour demand, which is quite appealing in the context of keynesian stimulus (say). or immigration-on-wage studies.
A bunch of the crew of DS9 end up in the original star trek era, on the enterprise. Their temporal transgression is investigated by the Temporal Crimes unit.
A bunch of the crew of DS9 end up in the original star trek era, on the enterprise. Their temporal transgression is investigated by the Temporal Crimes unit.
A bunch of the crew of DS9 end up in the original star trek era, on the enterprise. Their temporal transgression is investigated by the Temporal Crimes unit.
It's honestly one of the best episodes of Trek. You wouldn't think a blatant rehash of an old Trek story would be, but they do an amazing job with it.
In the early 1980s in Takasera, a village in Rukum District in western Nepal, a group of locals decided to begin a development project and bought a Swiss-made water mill which would power machinery such as a press to make oil and a saw mill. The community sent a group of men to Kathmandu who learned how to dismantle the machinery and then put it back together again. The machinery was brought back and successfully put into operation. In 1984, a government official wrote saying that in autonomously undertaking this project the community had “usurped the role of the king” and the mill would have to be shut down. When the locals refused, the police was sent to destroy the mill. The mill was only saved because the villagers were able to ambush and disarm the police.
So why was the Nepalese government opposed to the mill? The answer is that the monarchy and the elite surrounding it, who controlled the government, were afraid of becoming political losers. Economic progress brings social and political change, eroding the political power of elites and rulers, who in response often prefer to sacrifice economic development for political stability.
The mill in Takasera was not the first time in Nepalese history that Nepal’s rulers had tried to block development. Historically, the Nepalese political elite have clearly preferred political stability and the political status quo to development and this had inhibited them from taking the actions which were needed to promote development. In the 19th century a position of hereditary prime minister, known as the Rana, became the real power in the country and Chandra Shamsher, the Rana between 1901 and 1929, told the British King George V that the British faced the opposition of Indian nationalism because they had made the mistake of educating Indians. He closed down as many as 30 schools in Nepal, not wanting to face a similar opposition in Nepal. He went further and deliberately tried to keep his country isolated, for example by refusing to build a road linking the Kathmandu valley to India in the 1920s.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Played a match of CODBLOPSII (is that the acronym?) since it's free this weekend.
10% would be less that $400,000.
10% would be between $400,000 and $485,000.
17 homes would be included under the Gateway Housing plan.
He said these prices were "more affordable in the Auckland context".
Edit: Don't see anything about counsel housing.
it's funded out of an implicit tax on the other units, so it is never a terribly large share, unless the market is so tightly squeezed that the developer can overcharge silly on the other units
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
Swag swag swag swag
My drink is pink because I support the Tatas .
Wrong month?
Fuck yo couch
In the early 1980s in Takasera, a village in Rukum District in western Nepal, a group of locals decided to begin a development project and bought a Swiss-made water mill which would power machinery such as a press to make oil and a saw mill. The community sent a group of men to Kathmandu who learned how to dismantle the machinery and then put it back together again. The machinery was brought back and successfully put into operation. In 1984, a government official wrote saying that in autonomously undertaking this project the community had “usurped the role of the king” and the mill would have to be shut down. When the locals refused, the police was sent to destroy the mill. The mill was only saved because the villagers were able to ambush and disarm the police.
So why was the Nepalese government opposed to the mill? The answer is that the monarchy and the elite surrounding it, who controlled the government, were afraid of becoming political losers. Economic progress brings social and political change, eroding the political power of elites and rulers, who in response often prefer to sacrifice economic development for political stability.
The mill in Takasera was not the first time in Nepalese history that Nepal’s rulers had tried to block development. Historically, the Nepalese political elite have clearly preferred political stability and the political status quo to development and this had inhibited them from taking the actions which were needed to promote development. In the 19th century a position of hereditary prime minister, known as the Rana, became the real power in the country and Chandra Shamsher, the Rana between 1901 and 1929, told the British King George V that the British faced the opposition of Indian nationalism because they had made the mistake of educating Indians. He closed down as many as 30 schools in Nepal, not wanting to face a similar opposition in Nepal. He went further and deliberately tried to keep his country isolated, for example by refusing to build a road linking the Kathmandu valley to India in the 1920s.
I wonder how [former] Tibet compares to that.
I hear conflicting narratives. On the one hand is the well-known one about the annexation being evil, but then the other one I hear is that the old regime was oppressive and backwards and awful and pretty much deserved to be dismantled.
basically, when governments try to sell AFFORDABLE HOUSING, and you see them trying to push specific and actual units that will be AFFORDABLE, you've been sold a political lie
the affordability only turns up when they flood the market with new construction; then the affordable units are the newly-vacated ones as people all take one step up the ladder each
now what actually happens instead is often AFFORDABLE HOUSING in particular neighbourhoods, in which case this government isn't really prepared to meet housing demand, rather there's a wait-list somewhere and you're almost certainly not on it
In the early 1980s in Takasera, a village in Rukum District in western Nepal, a group of locals decided to begin a development project and bought a Swiss-made water mill which would power machinery such as a press to make oil and a saw mill. The community sent a group of men to Kathmandu who learned how to dismantle the machinery and then put it back together again. The machinery was brought back and successfully put into operation. In 1984, a government official wrote saying that in autonomously undertaking this project the community had “usurped the role of the king” and the mill would have to be shut down. When the locals refused, the police was sent to destroy the mill. The mill was only saved because the villagers were able to ambush and disarm the police.
So why was the Nepalese government opposed to the mill? The answer is that the monarchy and the elite surrounding it, who controlled the government, were afraid of becoming political losers. Economic progress brings social and political change, eroding the political power of elites and rulers, who in response often prefer to sacrifice economic development for political stability.
The mill in Takasera was not the first time in Nepalese history that Nepal’s rulers had tried to block development. Historically, the Nepalese political elite have clearly preferred political stability and the political status quo to development and this had inhibited them from taking the actions which were needed to promote development. In the 19th century a position of hereditary prime minister, known as the Rana, became the real power in the country and Chandra Shamsher, the Rana between 1901 and 1929, told the British King George V that the British faced the opposition of Indian nationalism because they had made the mistake of educating Indians. He closed down as many as 30 schools in Nepal, not wanting to face a similar opposition in Nepal. He went further and deliberately tried to keep his country isolated, for example by refusing to build a road linking the Kathmandu valley to India in the 1920s.
I wonder how [former] Tibet compares to that.
I hear conflicting narratives. On the one hand is the well-known one about the annexation being evil, but then the other one I hear is that the old regime was oppressive and backwards and awful and pretty much deserved to be dismantled.
it was oppressive and backwards and awful and pretty much deserved to be dismantled
what exists is almost certainly much better than an independent tibet siphoning the gargantuan stream of bribe money that being an india-china buffer state would generate, into entrenching a violently theocratic state
still, the PRC is doing a terrible job of pursuing materialistic development, and is doing a lot of ethnic cleansing
Posts
I would suck a dozen dicks to get 900 sq ft at $400,000 in a good school district
"So the other 99 live in fear? Come on!"
'either become an inspirational success story or overdose at sixteen. it's entirely up to you.'
Maybe. I haven't really looked into it.
It's part of a greater initiative to get some of the lower income families into houses, and alleviate some of the housing issues we've been having.
It's not the best neighbourhood though. I'd pegs us as lower-middle/middle.
Housing here really is pretty crazy though. Rather save up and move back to a fancy beach house in Cape Town.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
my interpretation is that it works via (1) reducing time spent in search/vacancies, hence increasing employment (2) pricing low-wage low-productivity workers out of the market
if (1) winds up being greater than (2), then you get the reduction in unemployment. this is substantially more likely near the bottom end, where search costs are probably a substantial fraction of labour wages
(2) is important because it underpins the model's consistency with elastic labour demand, which is quite appealing in the context of keynesian stimulus (say). or immigration-on-wage studies.
Well go look in CT. My old house was significantly less that $450 per sqrft. and in one of the best school systems in the state.
Society is just too cowardly to accept my bold awesome plans.
Don't be cruel. I'm sure if we dump them out in the country some kindly rural folk will give them a home.
This looks like English, but I"m not sure.
God.
Like the rurals won't be the first ones into the tanks.
one rather follows the other
A bunch of the crew of DS9 end up in the original star trek era, on the enterprise. Their temporal transgression is investigated by the Temporal Crimes unit.
People into mysticism also go into the tanks.
Looks like you're right. It's mixed housing.
However, it turns out it makes it worse.
3,000 homes built.
10% would be less that $400,000.
10% would be between $400,000 and $485,000.
17 homes would be included under the Gateway Housing plan.
Edit: Don't see anything about counsel housing.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I probably should have added "in commuting range of my job"
I'm sure there are plenty of places that are nice places in that range.
Remarkable.
I'm not mean.
It's honestly one of the best episodes of Trek. You wouldn't think a blatant rehash of an old Trek story would be, but they do an amazing job with it.
Can't help ya there. Speaking of school systems, LA's is spiraling into a dismal pit of doom.
I have to watch the original series based on this footage.
Got 2nd place somehow.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
it's funded out of an implicit tax on the other units, so it is never a terribly large share, unless the market is so tightly squeezed that the developer can overcharge silly on the other units
My drink is pink because I support the Tatas .
Wrong month?
Fuck yo couch
I wonder how [former] Tibet compares to that.
I hear conflicting narratives. On the one hand is the well-known one about the annexation being evil, but then the other one I hear is that the old regime was oppressive and backwards and awful and pretty much deserved to be dismantled.
the affordability only turns up when they flood the market with new construction; then the affordable units are the newly-vacated ones as people all take one step up the ladder each
now what actually happens instead is often AFFORDABLE HOUSING in particular neighbourhoods, in which case this government isn't really prepared to meet housing demand, rather there's a wait-list somewhere and you're almost certainly not on it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMrzdKzQTf8
it was oppressive and backwards and awful and pretty much deserved to be dismantled
what exists is almost certainly much better than an independent tibet siphoning the gargantuan stream of bribe money that being an india-china buffer state would generate, into entrenching a violently theocratic state
still, the PRC is doing a terrible job of pursuing materialistic development, and is doing a lot of ethnic cleansing
the "wait, who appointed you representative and arbitrator of the rights of every single person in this neighbourhood" question rarely comes up
"No."
"Good. We hate that. Now what happened?"
"Explaining that might take some time."
"Is that a joke?"
"No!"
"Good. We hate those too."
i tried
i got like 10 minutes into the pilot and i was cringing so fucking hard i had to stop