> The secret to having more money is not to earn more, it's to spend less.
I honestly thought it was the complete opposite? The whole "being poor is expensive" thing? That buying expensive shoes is economically better longer term vs buying cheap shoes?
Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm not OP you replied to.
I moved to London in early 2013, and it definitely wasn't that popular. I had my own group of coffee buddies but I was the only one drinking it.
Even today only 1 in 10 coffee drinkers have it [0].
Note that I did drink flat white all the time back then, it just didn't always appear on the menu. You just had to ask nicely and most people would make you one (or try anyway).
Note that Starbucks and Costa do not make flat white IMO, even if they sell a drink called that.
That said, today is way different and flat whites are everywhere.
That's a bit harsh. I moved to London in 2013 and I remember I had to order flat white off-menu most of the time back then. Most places knew how to make it but just charged capuchino on the bill. Today it's everywhere.
> 200 years later, with a population that's multiplied several magnitudes over - would you expect to still see a completely equal people? I wouldn't
I would. South Koreans are 2-3 inches taller than North Koreans, plus a miriad of other biological differences, in a relatively short span of time. This is for the same ethnicity, yet alone race.
For me, that alone is proof we are much more similar than we think, and environmental factors, which your hypothetical scenario accounts for perfectly, has a much greater impact on us compared to genetics.
Which is why, for perfectly randomly selected humans raised identically for 200 years, I would not expect significant differences.
Haha, honestly, this is so common that when someone at work wants to talk about a product and starts with a compliment, my mind immediately tries to figure out what could be wrong with it.
It's not bad. But it doesn't matter how much tuition costs or what degrees offer pay or not. Everyone will study whatever they want, borrow at 1000% interest if necessary or 1% interest for "profitable" degrees, and then dump the dept as soon as they graduate.
Or am I missing something? Original question, what's stopping everyone from defaulting right after graduation?
If student loans can be defaulted, it doesn't matter what the investor thinks or what interest you get or if you're backed up by the government or not.
Even if you study [insert profitable degree], the rational action to do after graduating is to default, since students typically don't have much to lose.
I'm not sure you read the article. The whole point of a "reasonable person" is that it represents an "average person".
> this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgement as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public
This is why we have a jury of our peers picked at random. The randomness is not random.
> They could have just chosen not to compete in a market with unregulated definitions.
I don't think it's about regulating words. If you promise to sell a blue dog but sell a green dog, I don't expect a regulation saying blue has to be blue.
This reminds me of a HN comment (sorry, can't remember which) where it explained that one of the major differences between US and European law is technicality vs the spirit of the law. Where in the US you can get away with a lot because it's "technically" legal, it wouldn't fly in Europe just because the fine print says so. It's plain old false advertisement.
No, it's not clear, because you're talking about refugees in particular vs immigration in general. Two groups subject to very different laws and circumstances.
> Why should we pay (with our taxes) for poor kiwis who can't afford a house?
Why pay taxes at all for a country you're not citizen of? /s
Seriously now, it's because you live there. Their government makes the rules, you decided to live there and, by extension, decided to follow their rules.
> I mean, yeah, Labour party is in power in NZ at the moment, hence such policies like 'Let's increase salaries to poor workers, let's give them houses, let's increase maternity leave etc.'. The problem is that somebody has to pay for that
And, given which democratically elected government is in power, it's their right to choose how to spend their money.