"This completely misses the point in multiple ways. Teaching everyone to code does not mean that everybody becomes an expert. It means that everyone is introduced to coding at a young age so more kids can become masters earlier if they want to" It's not that I'm completely opposed to this idea, but this borders on the now-popular idea of "teach every kid everything as soon as possible so they will be super smart". "If you think plumbers won't need any programming skills? You've lost your mind. Eventually toilets, pipes and the like will all be controlled by computers and code that will solve most plumbing issues." Most occupations now involve interacting with the computer in some way, but I don't think most of those occupations require programming knowledge. I imagine most plumbers will use the software without knowing the internals.

Sure, coding is a way to improve logic skills, but it's not the only way. People commenting act as if coding is the only path to thinking logically. Coders think you need to code to be smart. Go figure. But if Bloomberg does code more, maybe he would spend less time ensuring that we don't feed homeless people without permission. But then again, he would probably start to micromanage the way every New Yorker codes, so it's a tradeoff.

I always promised myself I wouldn't be like my dad, always watching the thermostat making sure it never got above 70. How quickly things change.

Another way to look at it is this. Let's say companies stop paying for health insurance premiums, so now the employee pays 100%. You look at 100% and say, "wait a minute, that's more than 10% or 50% or whatever". But there's more. Phil's theory, and a reasonable one based on some theory called supply and demand, is that due to a decrease in demand overall premium prices are lower, so you will still be paying a much lower cost.

Spencer, I admit the point of the post is not completely intuitive, but it does make sense. When people don't have to pay for things themselves, they will consume more. More consumption equals more cost. Because of the nature of health care, everyone shares increasing costs. If I may attempt an analogy, it is like heating costs of a person who owns a small condo and pays their own heating bills vs. someone who rents an apartment and utilities are covered. Which space is going to consume more heat and have higher heating bills? It will be the renter because they don't pay for it. The only thing is that average utility cost is factored into the rent bill, and this is adjusted over time, so the renter will eventually pay for it, whether or not they use a lot of heat or not.

I think it would almost be kinda funny to see them charge higher prices for women's games just to see the result. However, I don't want to see support for women's athletics suffer, because I think the administration at colleges would be stubborn enough not to lower prices for a while.