Is moving an option? I never would have guessed it when I moved to DC (I lived there for about 4 years), but it is not unusual for working professionals in that town to share homes and town-homes. If your work is in Fairfax, you can probably find a reasonable room-mate situation way closer for $600-$800 a month. Check Craigslist, there are a ton of legitimate and affordable housing options there that you won't find anywhere else. You could probably get a place near the Fairfax metro and take a bus to work easily enough.
The problem with a player rewards system is that it's just too much work to maintain. Sure it seems simple, info goes in a database then print and mail cards based on parameters. If that's all it was they may never have gotten rid of it, but then you have things like addresses not being updated, a small amount of items lost in the mail, a small amount getting packed incorrectly, etc. The cost of keeping up with all the little problems becomes prohibitive as the player base grows. So I don't think we'll see player rewards looking anything like they used to even though I loved the program.
It might be nice if instead wizards let the stores handle player rewards. Send out some promos they can use to give to regular attendees, especially those who don't win a lot, just a way to say thanks for supporting our LGS!
Single people probably take more vacations. Easier to budget and plan and coordinate with just one. I here the magic cruise is a fun time. Just do something that strikes our fancy and don't worry about whether it's good enough or right.
Just do something, anything, that personally addresses the problem on an individual level.
The problem doesn't exist on the individual level. It exists on a global, systemic level. Charity can stop some people from starving to death but only a restructuring of the global system of resource distribution will prevent people from going hungry in the first place.
So, basically, just do two things at the same time: alleviate immediate suffering while working to prevent future suffering.
Excluding places where government deliberately restricts access to food, the problem is totally individual. These are real people with real struggles and real issues and their own unique individual stories. It sounds like a lot when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering, but puddlejumper has a point. A problem like this does not get solved by creating an authoritative agency that goes out and crams food down people's throats. It gets solved by caring individuals taking time and resources out of their own lives to help someone else by not just feeding them, but also listening to them and reminding them that they are a part of this social creature called humanity. It seems to me there are plenty of people who are not impoverished. If we each helped someone directly, then we could eliminate a lot of suffering in the world. It is an individual solution that can solve a global problem.
I play a similar deck except it's strictly simic. I use Bident of Thasa which works wonderfully. Surprisingly it's tap ability to force the opponent to attack all out is very useful as well and has won me several games, plus the draw works very well. Might be something to play with having some combination of Bident and Whispering Madness.
Since the original topic was income disparity, I thought I'd share some thoughts on that.
It seems to me that somewhere around the 60's and 70's watching national TV shows started becoming very normal. This provided entrepreneurs an avenue for increased mass marketing which in turn helped create an increasing number of large corporations.
As more and more business was done by large corporations, more and more legislation relating to businesses had the large corporate model in mind. Large corporations often have a large amount of resources to devote to knowing and following regulations, so lawmakers could worry less about how complicated and difficult following regulations would be.
Also as more national corporations rise brand recognition becomes an increasingly important factor to shoppers who often prefer the recognized brand and it's guarantee of satisfaction over the less well known local brands.
Over time we've created an environment that favors large corporations and almost actively discourages young, bright, motivated entrepreneurs by setting the initial hurdles so high that most would rather just work for someone else than risk 10's or 100's of thousands trying out their own ideas.
It makes sense to me that large corporations will have greater income disparity than smaller corporations and independent businesses. If an organization has 5,000 employees in 100 locations around the country, there will by necessity be several levels of management. For every level of management and administration, there is a bump in the disparity of income between to lower level and the top level employees.
If we as consumers favor doing business at smaller organizations and at the same time we can convince law makers to ease regulations on smaller businesses and somehow find a sensible way to discourage (not disallow) businesses getting too large, then I think the income disparity in this country will begin to close once again.
I do see a lot happening on the consumer end, but I think we still need to improve regulation to be not only more favorable to small businesses, but also provide some incentives for entrepreneurs to try striking out on their own instead of working for some large corporation.
Ends to a means? You have seen the defense spending of late...right?
As long as we have homeless and people starving we are spending the monies in the wrong areas.
Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
I'm not understanding your position. I see you have some vehement one liners opposing me, but I'd like to know what do you think ought to be done?
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
So, what does it mean to you? What would a system that "works" accomplish? Not just the ends, but the means to get there as well.
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
I think you misunderstood my point. Poor is a relative term while poverty is not. The point is there will always be rich and poor in a capitalist system, but poverty isn't inevitable.
So . . . what's wrong with having less than someone else? If I can take care of all my needs and have a bit left over to enjoy myself with, what does it matter if someone else has 10 or 100 times more than me? Why should my evaluation of my position be in any way measured by someone else's success or lack thereof?
Yet those that capitalism works for feel those that are struggling in the system are not worth their time or money to help.
Where in the world do you get that from? If that were true then no capitalist in the world would donate to charities, yet in our last election the republican/capitalist candidate donated by himself more money to charitable causes than the other candidate, his wife and his running mate earned earned in total.
Political and even ideological affiliation have little do do with how we feel about helping people. Generally people want to improve their position and generally people want to improve other people's positions as well. Maybe when that is realized an actual civil discourse can be had.
Although, just between you and me, even if you determine that you're not ready for this sort of thing, call the poor thing up and apologize for being a jerk, because trust me -THAT'S the guy you want be. Not this other guy.
This is the important part and I didn't want it to get buried at the bottom of a long post.
Life in unfair and sucks sometimes. You ought to apologize. Not to make things right, not to get back together or anything, just because it's the right and decent thing to do.
This sound very similar to what Dragon's Maze did with it's land. One spot was dedicated to land and it was either common (a gate), rare (shock land) or mythic (maze's end). It seems completely reasonable to me to do this with Modern and Legacy staples. I approve.
It might be nice if instead wizards let the stores handle player rewards. Send out some promos they can use to give to regular attendees, especially those who don't win a lot, just a way to say thanks for supporting our LGS!
Excluding places where government deliberately restricts access to food, the problem is totally individual. These are real people with real struggles and real issues and their own unique individual stories. It sounds like a lot when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering, but puddlejumper has a point. A problem like this does not get solved by creating an authoritative agency that goes out and crams food down people's throats. It gets solved by caring individuals taking time and resources out of their own lives to help someone else by not just feeding them, but also listening to them and reminding them that they are a part of this social creature called humanity. It seems to me there are plenty of people who are not impoverished. If we each helped someone directly, then we could eliminate a lot of suffering in the world. It is an individual solution that can solve a global problem.
It seems to me that somewhere around the 60's and 70's watching national TV shows started becoming very normal. This provided entrepreneurs an avenue for increased mass marketing which in turn helped create an increasing number of large corporations.
As more and more business was done by large corporations, more and more legislation relating to businesses had the large corporate model in mind. Large corporations often have a large amount of resources to devote to knowing and following regulations, so lawmakers could worry less about how complicated and difficult following regulations would be.
Also as more national corporations rise brand recognition becomes an increasingly important factor to shoppers who often prefer the recognized brand and it's guarantee of satisfaction over the less well known local brands.
Over time we've created an environment that favors large corporations and almost actively discourages young, bright, motivated entrepreneurs by setting the initial hurdles so high that most would rather just work for someone else than risk 10's or 100's of thousands trying out their own ideas.
It makes sense to me that large corporations will have greater income disparity than smaller corporations and independent businesses. If an organization has 5,000 employees in 100 locations around the country, there will by necessity be several levels of management. For every level of management and administration, there is a bump in the disparity of income between to lower level and the top level employees.
If we as consumers favor doing business at smaller organizations and at the same time we can convince law makers to ease regulations on smaller businesses and somehow find a sensible way to discourage (not disallow) businesses getting too large, then I think the income disparity in this country will begin to close once again.
I do see a lot happening on the consumer end, but I think we still need to improve regulation to be not only more favorable to small businesses, but also provide some incentives for entrepreneurs to try striking out on their own instead of working for some large corporation.
I like it.
Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
I'm not understanding your position. I see you have some vehement one liners opposing me, but I'd like to know what do you think ought to be done?
So, what does it mean to you? What would a system that "works" accomplish? Not just the ends, but the means to get there as well.
What is a system supposed to do for people that they can't do now?
How do you define the system working for someone? It looks like in 2011 the median income in the US was about $50k, if poverty level is defined as ~$20k, then it would seem the current system is working for the majority. So I'm thinking you must have a different definition of what that means.
So . . . what's wrong with having less than someone else? If I can take care of all my needs and have a bit left over to enjoy myself with, what does it matter if someone else has 10 or 100 times more than me? Why should my evaluation of my position be in any way measured by someone else's success or lack thereof?
Where in the world do you get that from? If that were true then no capitalist in the world would donate to charities, yet in our last election the republican/capitalist candidate donated by himself more money to charitable causes than the other candidate, his wife and his running mate earned earned in total.
Political and even ideological affiliation have little do do with how we feel about helping people. Generally people want to improve their position and generally people want to improve other people's positions as well. Maybe when that is realized an actual civil discourse can be had.
This is the important part and I didn't want it to get buried at the bottom of a long post.
Life in unfair and sucks sometimes. You ought to apologize. Not to make things right, not to get back together or anything, just because it's the right and decent thing to do.
This sound very similar to what Dragon's Maze did with it's land. One spot was dedicated to land and it was either common (a gate), rare (shock land) or mythic (maze's end). It seems completely reasonable to me to do this with Modern and Legacy staples. I approve.