Interesting. We're currently facing a situation where we may be forced to pay higher prices for goods/services because our parent company requires purchasing goes through them. They also restrict our vendor and product choices, and don't invest in us. In my case, it's clearly a BAD thing for the subsidiary I'm employed by. There is only one benefit I've seen from the top-down, large company thing, and that's decent benefits; probably noticeably better than a firm our size would have if we weren't a subsidiary.
Unfunded liabilities (conservative), with a nod to the horribly underfunded private and municipal pensions: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...
Keep in mind that once the dollar is effectively an also-ran currency, interest rates will go up on US treasuries. This will make the current debt interest payments unsustainable once the old debt is rolled into newer, higher-interest debt.
What do you have to say when presented with this information?
I was going to caution you about linking to NYT for medical articles, but saw that the link was written by an MD and also confirms specific details my spouse's special professional expertise (school psychology) confirms. No mod points, so just "thank you".
Nope. Debt is debt. There's something like $220 trillion unfunded liabilities we will have to pay out for Social Security and Medicare over the next several decades (I forget exactly how long that time frame is). And other countries are switching away from the dollar for reserves and for energy purchases. You can say I'm wrong, but if you look at the various realities, I'm not actually wrong.
So you say, but what about when you legitimately come up against someone who says something sincerely, that you'd assume was a troll? I was called all kind of nasty names for not being a Socialist when I recently encountered a self-proclaimed Marxist who denied Mao and Stalin were mass murderers. When I told him I absolutely thought Stalin was responsible for the Holodor and more, he called me a Nazi sympathizer.
I couldn't tell at first if he was trolling, but I later learned from a friend he was completely serious. It was like being on a different planet.
I wouldn't even say one party is more extreme than the other in terms of policy. In policy, they're identical: The socialized health care plan advanced by Obama was designed by Romney (the losing Presidential candidate). The immigration amnesty plan advanced by Obama is very similar to one Bush II suggested. Both parties promote corporate welfare, bank favoritism, and violence via the military or police.
The difference is in social rhetoric, mostly. Republicans pretend to be about socially conservative values, Democrats pretend to be about socially liberal values. If you look at actual policy, there is almost no effective difference. Abortion and homosexual marriage are huge hot-button issues, but day-to-day make no difference for 99% of policy (I acknowledge either issue could be life-changing for some nontrivial percentage of individuals).
I acknowledge that Clinton was a fairly good administrator (though I disagreed with his policies), and would note he was considered "moderate". I don't think there's much relationship between his being a decent administrator and being moderate, though. Mostly a decent economy helped in that regard.
You know it's kind of a funny thing, I think it's a worthwhile effort to define the terms we're using, because in my opinion a significant part of disagreement comes from poorly defined terms.
That said, a very large part of your response is based around capitalism (Capitalism, if you like, no pun intended), when I didn't use that term at all (I used the term "capital", only). I don't think it was a conscious decision on my part not to use that term, but because Capitalism has become terribly vague and can apparently mean many different things to many different people, I'm glad I didn't use it.
So, I guess, I'd respond quite simply by saying maybe we got off topic, and could you swing back around to your characterization of libertarians as not believing in cooperation, when the free market they talk about is understood explicitly to be an engine of value creation through diversification and specialization?
In other words, with successful people directing resources, a hierarchical group can out produce what a bunch of loaners that barely co-operate with each other because each of them think they are the smartest one.
I don't think you're at all correct in assuming libertarians don't believe in cooperation. Voluntaryism is the epitome of cooperation. Specialization and diversification of labor, and the productivity benefits it brings (compounded by capital investment), are critical to the free market economics most self-described libertarians espouse. It was Maoist economics that wanted to see individual innovation and choice-based economics replaced with top-down planning and uniformity of approach, which didn't work very well.
They adopt new editions because they cannot ensure that students have access to older editions.
Baloney. I was in college long enough to see MULTIPLE examples of books with swapped chapters 2-3 every edition. 2 editions old was identical to current. And there's NO REASON to swap the chapters except to cause pagination confusion, and require the new edition. Most of the books for math and science had answer keys in the back. Texts for majors are revised more infrequently because there's not as much profit to be made in books that only 4% of the students will buy, so resources are put toward the general ed and widely used texts.
Advertisers go for kids because adults don't switch brands. Things as value-neutral as toothpaste. Imagine basing your worldview on believing the government is protecting you, then having a guy go on about the TSA and/or Snowden and/or the lies about WMDs in Iraq. So I don't think it gets quite as far as limits of insights, as it does chosen beliefs becoming part of identity. Attack the belief, and you're essentially attacking the identity.
Apology accepted, though I've been attacked so viciously for saying less and barely noticed the critical tone. I was called a vicious privileged asshole for posting US DOJ crime stats.:-)
Lots of very intelligent people, when simply questioned about how they choose or reconcile their beliefs, will get angry. I continue to ask them questions that make them angry.
You're kidding, right? Don't you know there are gentlemen's agreements between doctoral programs and publishers and schools to require the "newest" edition of the book each year just so the publisher and PhD can charge for new books which have changed only to change pagination? You think they'd actually want to save kids money? Do you also believe that universities want to educate students to help them think critically and independently?
When did I say they were idiots? I didn't. I said people refuse to think for themselves. I'm talking about people who have said, "I don't want to think about it, that's what government is for." Verbatim, and many other near variants, when I challenge the status quo on everything from the drug laws to the banking system. I actually had a guy recently say to me, after I was critical of the banking system, "Well, it's what we have, and it works." And he's a fairly intelligent guy. He just doesn't want to think about that question, because it's emotionally painful to realize how screwed up things are.
So many people refuse to think for themselves. I don't really have a problem with that, except when they persecute me for exercising that right myself.
How is this any different from regular vandalism? We see this stuff throughout history. Everything from gang signs, to burning crosses, to vulgar language spray painted on a street sign.
I disagree. Back then, we had dedicated people for source control, test automation, QA, build management, and so on. Now, that's been added to the senior engineer responsibilities. I do not believe that it was nearly as common to require senior developers to do all of that and still build systems 15, 20, 30 years ago.
As a senior engineer today, I'm responsible not only for knowing the primary back end language (C#) for my web application, but also HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and the UI toolkit library. I'm also expected to understand database design, including being able to have an intelligent conversation about the physical schema, and I'm expected to be able to design tables, indexes, and optimize queries. I also have to know security, build tools, the automation scripting language for my platform (now PowerShell), and the deployment system (WiX to create MSIs). I'm also the source control administrator (Subversion).
I also have to read requirements that are maybe 5% of the value of those I got 15 years ago, and be a business analyst to figure out the rest.
Now fifteen years ago, I could probably have gotten away with knowing C/C++, a little scripting in Perl/Bash, and be decent at a CLI. I can probably write a multithreaded TCP/IP server in C without need for Google, which I haven't done in at least 12 years, but have to constantly Google things for what I now do daily.
I don't think things have changed fundamentally, but they haven't stayed the same. We're getting shallower, broader, and less efficient for it.
I'm in a similar spot. I'm getting a little high salary-wise and don't want to lose a 15 minute zero-stress commute, or a great team, and so I'm OK with being paid slightly under market for a while. There are benefits other than money at a certain point that can be worth more to the individual.
And, if the worker wants to, he should ask for a raise and more work. This would benefit him and the business financially; whether it would happen depends on the wisdom of his managers. Less efficient firms would be forced to innovate in kind or suffer competitive disadvantages.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mis-read GP.
You do? I don't understand why. I think we're in agreement. I wasn't being sarcastic.
And guess what kind of BS the news tends to spout, in the days of a "Progressive" administration?
Let me think...Thomas Paine style classical liberalism? No, not that...
Interesting. We're currently facing a situation where we may be forced to pay higher prices for goods/services because our parent company requires purchasing goes through them. They also restrict our vendor and product choices, and don't invest in us. In my case, it's clearly a BAD thing for the subsidiary I'm employed by. There is only one benefit I've seen from the top-down, large company thing, and that's decent benefits; probably noticeably better than a firm our size would have if we weren't a subsidiary.
I'm always happy to provide citations.
China/Russia dropping the dollar: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c79...
China/Russia dropping the dollar: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
Unfunded liabilities (conservative), with a nod to the horribly underfunded private and municipal pensions: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...
Keep in mind that once the dollar is effectively an also-ran currency, interest rates will go up on US treasuries. This will make the current debt interest payments unsustainable once the old debt is rolled into newer, higher-interest debt.
What do you have to say when presented with this information?
I was going to caution you about linking to NYT for medical articles, but saw that the link was written by an MD and also confirms specific details my spouse's special professional expertise (school psychology) confirms. No mod points, so just "thank you".
Pretty much everybody who never read Hazlitt. Or, more accurately, people who would refuse to read Hazlitt.
Nope. Debt is debt. There's something like $220 trillion unfunded liabilities we will have to pay out for Social Security and Medicare over the next several decades (I forget exactly how long that time frame is). And other countries are switching away from the dollar for reserves and for energy purchases. You can say I'm wrong, but if you look at the various realities, I'm not actually wrong.
So you say, but what about when you legitimately come up against someone who says something sincerely, that you'd assume was a troll? I was called all kind of nasty names for not being a Socialist when I recently encountered a self-proclaimed Marxist who denied Mao and Stalin were mass murderers. When I told him I absolutely thought Stalin was responsible for the Holodor and more, he called me a Nazi sympathizer.
I couldn't tell at first if he was trolling, but I later learned from a friend he was completely serious. It was like being on a different planet.
we're the richest country in the history of the earth
No, we're in deeper debt than any society in history.
there is a concerted effort to reduce availability of analytical-minded teaching
If you also think we're the richest country in the history of earth, you might want to reconsider what you think of as "analytical-minded teaching".
The difference is in social rhetoric, mostly. Republicans pretend to be about socially conservative values, Democrats pretend to be about socially liberal values. If you look at actual policy, there is almost no effective difference. Abortion and homosexual marriage are huge hot-button issues, but day-to-day make no difference for 99% of policy (I acknowledge either issue could be life-changing for some nontrivial percentage of individuals).
I acknowledge that Clinton was a fairly good administrator (though I disagreed with his policies), and would note he was considered "moderate". I don't think there's much relationship between his being a decent administrator and being moderate, though. Mostly a decent economy helped in that regard.
You know it's kind of a funny thing, I think it's a worthwhile effort to define the terms we're using, because in my opinion a significant part of disagreement comes from poorly defined terms.
That said, a very large part of your response is based around capitalism (Capitalism, if you like, no pun intended), when I didn't use that term at all (I used the term "capital", only). I don't think it was a conscious decision on my part not to use that term, but because Capitalism has become terribly vague and can apparently mean many different things to many different people, I'm glad I didn't use it.
So, I guess, I'd respond quite simply by saying maybe we got off topic, and could you swing back around to your characterization of libertarians as not believing in cooperation, when the free market they talk about is understood explicitly to be an engine of value creation through diversification and specialization?
In other words, with successful people directing resources, a hierarchical group can out produce what a bunch of loaners that barely co-operate with each other because each of them think they are the smartest one.
I don't think you're at all correct in assuming libertarians don't believe in cooperation. Voluntaryism is the epitome of cooperation. Specialization and diversification of labor, and the productivity benefits it brings (compounded by capital investment), are critical to the free market economics most self-described libertarians espouse. It was Maoist economics that wanted to see individual innovation and choice-based economics replaced with top-down planning and uniformity of approach, which didn't work very well.
They adopt new editions because they cannot ensure that students have access to older editions.
Baloney. I was in college long enough to see MULTIPLE examples of books with swapped chapters 2-3 every edition. 2 editions old was identical to current. And there's NO REASON to swap the chapters except to cause pagination confusion, and require the new edition. Most of the books for math and science had answer keys in the back. Texts for majors are revised more infrequently because there's not as much profit to be made in books that only 4% of the students will buy, so resources are put toward the general ed and widely used texts.
Advertisers go for kids because adults don't switch brands. Things as value-neutral as toothpaste. Imagine basing your worldview on believing the government is protecting you, then having a guy go on about the TSA and/or Snowden and/or the lies about WMDs in Iraq. So I don't think it gets quite as far as limits of insights, as it does chosen beliefs becoming part of identity. Attack the belief, and you're essentially attacking the identity.
Apology accepted, though I've been attacked so viciously for saying less and barely noticed the critical tone. I was called a vicious privileged asshole for posting US DOJ crime stats. :-)
Lots of very intelligent people, when simply questioned about how they choose or reconcile their beliefs, will get angry. I continue to ask them questions that make them angry.
You're kidding, right? Don't you know there are gentlemen's agreements between doctoral programs and publishers and schools to require the "newest" edition of the book each year just so the publisher and PhD can charge for new books which have changed only to change pagination? You think they'd actually want to save kids money? Do you also believe that universities want to educate students to help them think critically and independently?
You are a hateful, spiteful old bastard.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
When did I say they were idiots? I didn't. I said people refuse to think for themselves. I'm talking about people who have said, "I don't want to think about it, that's what government is for." Verbatim, and many other near variants, when I challenge the status quo on everything from the drug laws to the banking system. I actually had a guy recently say to me, after I was critical of the banking system, "Well, it's what we have, and it works." And he's a fairly intelligent guy. He just doesn't want to think about that question, because it's emotionally painful to realize how screwed up things are.
So many people refuse to think for themselves. I don't really have a problem with that, except when they persecute me for exercising that right myself.
How is this any different from regular vandalism? We see this stuff throughout history. Everything from gang signs, to burning crosses, to vulgar language spray painted on a street sign.
I disagree. Back then, we had dedicated people for source control, test automation, QA, build management, and so on. Now, that's been added to the senior engineer responsibilities. I do not believe that it was nearly as common to require senior developers to do all of that and still build systems 15, 20, 30 years ago.
I'm not sure I agree 100%.
As a senior engineer today, I'm responsible not only for knowing the primary back end language (C#) for my web application, but also HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and the UI toolkit library. I'm also expected to understand database design, including being able to have an intelligent conversation about the physical schema, and I'm expected to be able to design tables, indexes, and optimize queries. I also have to know security, build tools, the automation scripting language for my platform (now PowerShell), and the deployment system (WiX to create MSIs). I'm also the source control administrator (Subversion).
I also have to read requirements that are maybe 5% of the value of those I got 15 years ago, and be a business analyst to figure out the rest.
Now fifteen years ago, I could probably have gotten away with knowing C/C++, a little scripting in Perl/Bash, and be decent at a CLI. I can probably write a multithreaded TCP/IP server in C without need for Google, which I haven't done in at least 12 years, but have to constantly Google things for what I now do daily.
I don't think things have changed fundamentally, but they haven't stayed the same. We're getting shallower, broader, and less efficient for it.
I'm in a similar spot. I'm getting a little high salary-wise and don't want to lose a 15 minute zero-stress commute, or a great team, and so I'm OK with being paid slightly under market for a while. There are benefits other than money at a certain point that can be worth more to the individual.
I'm happy for you. You're teaching them a lesson; whether they learn it is NOT your problem. Good luck and continued success to you!
And, if the worker wants to, he should ask for a raise and more work. This would benefit him and the business financially; whether it would happen depends on the wisdom of his managers. Less efficient firms would be forced to innovate in kind or suffer competitive disadvantages.
It doesn't matter what percentage of the total population a race is if they aren't sufficiently skilled they won't be hired.
FTFY because I don't think giving dumbed-down degrees, a likely possible proposed solution, would really help.