RedDenver

Reverse osmosis has been around for decades - this is just a new material for RO. The issue with RO is cost of the membrane, so using graphene only makes sense if it can be produced more cost effectively (more cost effectively over the life of the membrane so how long it lasts matters a lot). Without more details it's hard to know if this is going to make any sort of difference.

Fox Business Host Charles Payne Warns GM Layoffs Could Make Americans Turn to ‘Socialism’ There's a video in the article that shows the discussion on Fox Business. (I wasn't able to link the video directly or I'd have done that.)

I'm guessing @BigRedBuster agrees with that but disagrees with the specifics of the GM firings and plant closings that were being discussed.

Again, I'm not saying that businesses should or should not have investors, but rather that investors are the drivers for maximizing profits.

Yes, you're actually making my point. It's the investors that drive the "need" to not only make a profit but maximize profit. My disagreement is with BRB's post that attempts to separate the investors/shareholders from the reason that GM is laying off workers and closing plants. GM is in no danger of going under and has made billions in profits for years - it's about maximizing profits, which is due to the greed of the shareholders. Right or wrong, that's just how the system works.

Correct. It's not puzzling to me at all, but you're not seeing what's obvious: a business can't go under if it always breaks even. "MUST make a profit" isn't required for staying in business. However, investors want a return on their investment, which leads back to your post that I disagreed with to start this tangent: The stockholders want a ROI and executives at GM would start losing their jobs if the shareholders aren't happy with the profits. That's pretty much the definition of "greed from the stock holders".

Explain the math to me how you can't pay your bills if you're breaking even. Breaking even means you have enough to cover your bills.

Then let me ask you a question: why does a company need to make a profit as opposed to breaking even?

Fried eggs and toast for breakfast; leftover chicken enchiladas for lunch; going to use leftover grilled chicken in farfalle alfredo for dinner (sounds fancier than bow tie pasta)

+1 for kolaches

You should read the next sentence.

When was the last time we had a commit at every spot by the end of November? Seems to me that we're recruiting better by just having enough bodies at all the spots. Also, have you included Guy Thomas transferring in your numbers, Mavric?

Common problem

They don't actually need to make a profit. Breaking even is enough to not need to fire 14,000+ workers and close factories. Is it because the stockholders don't want to invest in a company that's breaking even in the short term? But there's also the question of why GM is paying so much to their executives who apparently can't even keep their business in the black during a long, strong economic period and a big tax break. I mean, how in the world do they possibly justify these bonuses (the bonus are multiple times larger than their base salary):

Some other considerations for whether and how much we should fund colleges are taxpayer benefits and benefits to local economies: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9461/index1.html https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-colleges-do-for-local-economies-a-direct-measure-based-on-consumption/

Here's an article detailing how state cuts of higher education (particularly during a recession) have resulted in students paying more and more of the costs of college and the state paying less and less.

Does that look like a copy machine and a stack of paper behind them?

I laughed

I don't understand. He posted an article that answered your question: Or are you trying to say that TE turned OT trends are only relevant for Nebraska under different coaches than we have today? That seems ridiculous.

I also gave him a C+ for the same reasons.

I think you're overestimating how much cutting internet access will actually save money. For example, Michigan is updating it's internet and wifi for $24.5 million, which will be updated roughly every 5 years for around $12.25 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider that there's about 44000 students that works out to about $111/student/year for the first 5 years and then about $55/student/year after that. And that's a for a state-of-the-art system.

That's not actually true. Where did the money for the defense budget come from? Or the tax cut? Congress signed a bill and the money gets paid. (It does however increase the deficit to spend more than what's being taken in in taxes.)

Free college is estimated to cost $60-75 billion per year. The defense budget increased by more than $133 billion (23% increase) under Trump and the GOP Congress. If we can increase the defense budget without a "how do we pay for this?" debate, then we can pay for free college. At the very least, we could use the defense budget increase for free college instead (and still have tens of billions left over).

Wow. A moment of humanity on Fox News.

My issue is more about the assumption that degree is strongly tied to job/economy such that we end up in bad solutions like wanting to reduce the number of people with degrees. Although I agree with the general idea that jobs shouldn't all be requiring the degrees that they currently are. I'm in favor of the idea of decoupling education/degree from employment - at least to the extent that's practicable. Let me propose the opposite solution as a thought experiment (of course this also is not going to work but I think it's better than reducing degrees): everyone has a degree. There's great benefit to our society having Taco John's managers or even cashiers with degrees. The only downside is the cost of them going to college, which is more a problem with the way we fund colleges than with getting or having a degree.