Cops generally make a lot more than the official base pay. They get lots of routine highly compensated overtime even when working only 2000 hours a year. Published figures usually aren't representative. Seniority gives mid career cops lots of opportunities to pad overtime hours. Check the actual pay instead of salary schedules.
Also, retirement with nearly full pay at age 50 is common.
>So what is the hack that keeps us from constantly taking our luxuries for granted?
There is no hack. Humans are wired to seek novelty. Novelty by definition wears off. The best thing I've found is to try to seek novelty in creating rather than consuming, but our very nature ensures contentedness is an elusive goal.
Many people attempt to attain contentedness through religion. I'm religious myself, but I think that man was made to create, and to improve the world, so being content with the status quo isn't really something I've tried to work on.
That being said, I think that it is important to attempt to be thankful for what you have while still working towards the future.
Rather, I would say that we normalize to anything. It's awful for sustaining happiness, but pretty good for fighting unhappiness. Think of it this way; our lives are 100x better than those of our ancestors, and yet we aren't much happier. That means the people who lived to be thirty and rubbed sticks together to make fire, were no less happy. That is a powerful thing.
>The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter...
I don't think you can say that at all. Of course burning plant matter produces carcinogens, but studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk. There have been some studies that show that smoking tobacco and marijuana together increases cancer risk beyond that of tobacco alone.
Smokeless tobacco causes mouth and throat cancers, so something is going on with tobacco itself (or something else common to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco).
There is some evidence that radioactive carcinogens found in tobacco play a part in cancer risk.
"findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use,"
"In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."
By greatly, I meant as bad as tobacco which dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer.
The previous poster was commenting on the health risks of tobacco being caused entirely by burning plant matter. However, the evidence suggests this isn't true.
But the simple fact is that it happens, and what really enables it is the fact that there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. The police are incredibly well-protected from any sort of accountability. The will to reprimand has to come from the inside, and that is usually done silently, if it's done at all. Cops are big on loyalty.
What do you suppose they hoped to convey to your brother with that statement?
It's quite possible that their experience with black guests was negative. But by telling your brother of those negative experiences (which he had no need to know), weren't they, at least in some sense, effectively differentiating themselves from another, negative category of blacks?
They told him this after he was there for a while and got to know them, and he said it came up in normal conversation.
I suppose they could have been trying to differentiate themselves, or, they could have been attempting to bond with him over their (perceived on my brother's part) mutual dislike of lower class black people.
But given the situation, I think it's more likely that they had no ulterior motive. They had a few bad experiences with black guests, and decided to use race as a heuristic for determining suitability as a guest.
This is how nearly all racism starts, it's unfair and we should strive to eliminate it, but people are always going to make generalizations.
>what a great asset horses would be when both sides have used their precision missiles to take out all of the supporting infrastructure. No maintenance or fuel supply line needed, they even double as their own horse manufacturing line.
Think about what you're saying for a second. It takes years and plenty of manpower and supplies to raise a horse for riding. Riding horses most definitely do not self replicate in any useful fashion or time-frame.
Horses are in no way useful, at scale, in modern warfare. They require far more training, manpower, and time
per-mile-covered than a motorized vehicle. If both sides have obliterated their respective infrastructures to the point that they rely on horses, each would have long since lost the capability to wage a modern war.
While $750,000 is a lot of money, it's still middle class, and generally (around here anyway) restaurant franchise owners are those who are upwardly mobile, as opposed to educated and already in the upper classes of society.
And yes, those who open one franchise successfully are likely to open more. However where I live, about half the McDonald's restaurants I used to visit as a kid are now Chinese and Indian restaurants...
>While $750,000 is a lot of money, it's still middle class
Many sociologists consider anyone with a net worth of more than $1,000,000 rich (someone with $750k in cash likely has a net worth north of a million). Granted, that number is somewhat arbitrary and it depends on where you live.
Your original description of the average McDonald's owner was of someone who clawed his way into the middle class. Implying that he started out poor and saved up until he could afford to buy a business. This may (or may not) be true of other less expensive franchises, but based on the available evidence, I'd wager that a very small percentage of McDonald's owners fit this description.