You speak as if you've never read about the US opioid epidemic and how we got here. Do realize, this makes you sound like a religious prohibitionist extremist..
Your proposal is bunk. Someone who became addicted to prescription opiates does not deserve to play roulette with their life by being forced to buy street drugs after their own physician arbitrarily decides not to provide any more.
A prescribed drug, mind you, where one of the known side effects (of opiate consumption) is addiction, but the physicians prescribing aren't responsible for curing the addicts they create. Because <regulations, guidelines, prescribing practices, etc> mandate they cut patients off. This is "Just say No" all over again, but now it's the doctors saying "No."
What utter BS..
And to think that possession of fentanyl testing equipment is illegal in dozens of US States. It's as if the laws are designed to funnel humans to be slaughtered by adulterated product. Under the revenge-ethics banner of "they deserve it".
The US system:
- humans that are too poor to pay an expensive private doctor get to buy street drugs.
- Rich folks get private doctors that will prescribe what they physically depend on.
Ex:
Prince didn't accidentally die from taking Fentanyl-poisoned street drugs. He was adequately supplied with whatever he needed, for years. Years! While also functioning!
Prince was a functioning human, while also being addicted. There, I said it.
What harm to society was he? Why must we eliminate all addicts as you suggest?
I am not only aware of the opioid epidemic, but my family is strongly involved in rehabilitation clinic work in Europe.
My proposal is to reduce use through education, rehabilitation (including tapering/MAT), and not facilitating continued use. I also propose not using language such as "safe use". Please see the approach Portugal took in 2001 where narcotics possession was legalized but interventions such as rehabilitation were enforced — this is my proposal. The approach can be supplemented by harm reduction, but harm reduction alone is ineffective and selling it as a "safe" alternative to rehabilitation programs is malicious, as can be very evidently seen in the US.
Accurately describes the public costs of private for-profit businesses' whipsawing the labor force, and foisting all the consequential costs of periodic waves of unemployment onto the public.
Every corporate downsizing is an example of a "private decision" with clearly visible public costs, unemployment insurance payouts among them.
Social and emotional distress have a cost, not just to the employee, but their social group and family.
But, did I catch your opinion correctly? You believe we(society) are(is) providing unemployment benefits for too many months?
In your mind, who benefits from decreasing that assistance benefit? Cui bono?
Obviously the employee being let go gets the biggest benefit - but those rights aren't free, is all i'm saying. It leads to more onerous interviews, a more stagnant and slow-moving economy, etc. eg. 6mo of guaranteed severance if the company lets you go just seems huge to me. Obviously degrees to the implementation, but still, I feel like it's a huge loss in flexibility to the company, and economy as a whole.
My presumption is that companies will generally be more reluctant to hire when severances are higher, and vice-versa. You're probably not really winning anything on average, with the inexperienced losing out the most in terms of just trying to get any job at all given the possible expense to most companies. Small companies even more so, given they'd be less able to absorb the cost of those benefits.
Anyway, can speculate all I want, I'm just saying there's no free lunch.
It's an incredibly shit deal, currently, and the only reason it's not already a crisis (instead, a kind of slow-motion catastrophe) is that many teachers feel like they'd be abandoning the kids if they left the career. They're staying only because they feel morally obligated to—the work environment's mediocre at best (and has been trending worse for years), and the pay's bad and getting worse relative to the alternatives practically by the day.
Wages are falling really far behind even the kinds of careers HN types joke about, the ones that humanities and liberal arts majors end up in if they don't just work at Starbucks—and guess what sorts of jobs the top 20% or so of teachers with some years of experience can walk straight into? Yep, exactly those jobs. Hell, the comp at one gas station chain around here is on par with a mid-career teacher in the area, after you've been there a couple years, and you don't need a degree to get that job. If you're an assistant manager by five years in (and if you're bright enough to be someone we want teaching, you will be) you'll be out-earning local teachers with more experience than that. W. T. F.
So, good for the upcoming crop of students, they shouldn't get a teaching degree, it's an astonishingly horrible deal and unlikely to get better.
Where in the paper is this stated? As far as I can tell, they treat each "bachelor’s degree-holding workers" as equivalent to each other.
There's no reason to expect that someone with a bachelor's degree in computer science from UCLA would earn the same as someone with a bachelor's degree in child development from Cal State LA.
And do the wage comparisons compare total compensation (including the present value of future pensions), or just current salaries? In my local school district, about 30% of total compensation is pensions (i.e. you need to add 43% to base salary to calculate total cash compensation). Also, teachers don't work for the full year; many earn additional income during the summer break.
ISOs may have a 10 year limit, but that's only for their ISO tax treatment status... they don't (necessarily) need to expire. They can convert to NSO by way of an extension. https://www.esofund.com/blog/nso-extension
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction