But honestly, I wish I personally knew more Christians like you,
You probably do, but they follow what Christ taught and likely keep their motivations on loving you private. That's the Christian way. Even Jesus was not one to go and help the needy in public without prodding by his unsure Apostles. Grab a Bible if you have one and look up the section about the widowed. She's crying, her only son is dead, and Christ is ready to walk on by, not say a word to her. His Apostles forced him to do a good deed in public. Read about Christ and his close friend Lazarus, who was dying. He ignored him and let him die (only to raise him from the dead later). Look at Christ and the 5000 who gathered who were hungry. He was going to keep teaching, but His Apostles forced him to feed the masses. Just because a Christian says they're doing good doesn't mean they're following Christ's example. I do my charity work in private, away from everyone's eyes. I help others one on one, rather than through groups who may end up trying to entice the person being helped to join their religious cult. No thanks.
you sound like you could have a meaningful discussion on the subject and understand the logic from both angles.
I concur. I have many friends who disagree with my theology (both faithful and atheists), but we have excellent discussions on the idea of God. Few get angry at me, except those who have lived the modern Christian life and they feel like my theology makes their lives fruitless. Which they may have been, actually, but I won't be the one to tell them that:)
So many people think that the questioning of one's faith is the same thing as an attack of one's faith.
Those people don't have faith, then. They have religion. They think Christ taught a set of rules to follow, even though He really didn't, but the two I've mentioned, which non-Christians can easily do and actually seem to do more often than Christians do.
You seem like you'd be able to reason the difference. I'm an avowed Atheist, but I admire people of faith that can look at their faith logically.
Atheists don't worry me, because I believe God loves everyone unconditionally, and sets no precedent for a believer versus a non-believer. Christ didn't teach about Hell, either, no matter what most Christians may try to scare you with. Hell does not exist. So even if you don't believe in Christ, you're not going to get tormented, I believe. The only thing a non-believer may miss is seeing the Kingdom as it exists on earth, which does offer a sense of peace and harmony that many of my non-believer friends lack. Then again, many of my believer friends lack it also, because they don't have faith, they have religion. It's sad.
The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian".
More like I am abandoning things that men introduced into Christianity. Google Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, and read it. It's an exceptional review of things I've been decrying for a decade about "church." Christians today have abandoned Christ's teachings, instead trying to hold to what the Apostles did to hold the Body together before Christ's final return in their very generation.
You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible,
Of course I do, because Scripture, especially the New Testament, is more allegory and example than it is literally acceptable. There's too much that makes no sense from a physical standpoint to accept it as literal, and since God decided not to have it written to decipher what would be considered literal and what figurative, we should try to look at the substance of what Christ was teaching (or the previous Prophets).
you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically the way deists like Einstein and Spinoza viewed the notion - as a concept, not an entity
God reigns in Heaven, of course he is not physical. God does not send blessings or miracles down anymore. This is why so many people RUN from God, because they say "If God exists, why has He forsaken me?" God does not worry about simple things like disease or war or abortion or homosexuality, because of what Christ did in His life and through His Parousia. God is reconciled to man.
God also can't be looked at anthropomorphically because God is more than man, He is all. Alpha and Omega, remember?
- and you bandy about abstractions like "SPIRITUAL" and "the Word" that would certainly have gotten you killed for heresy or apostasy in prior centuries.
More reason for people to run from religion. I say so be it: run from religion, and instead embrace the love that God wanted for thousands of years, the same love that Christ encapsulated so well in the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings.
So I'm curious why you bother calling yourself a "Christ-follower" at all.
Hmm, let's see. Christ showed that prayer is done in secret, as He always prayed in secret away from people. I never prayer in public. Prayer in schools? Heresy. Prayer in the Temple? Heresy. I do what Christ did.
Christ destroyed the Temple to bring forth a new temple in our bodies. I don't give offerings to any congregation because I don't believe in the buildings that "Christians" are building, wasting money that they could better use to help their neighbor, their brother, their community. I do what Christ did.
Christ spoke of loving others as you love God. I would never harbor hatred against Muslims, or Atheists, or Russians, or Blacks or whoever, because I know that God is Love, and for me to love another is to bring a piece of God into my life, spiritually. I do what Christ did.
Why not just be a deist or plain old agnostic who appreciates mysticism? One of Dennett's 'murkies' - people who love the mystery of faith, not the details. Then you wouldn't have to bother being annoyed by other Christians tarnishing a label you've chosen to share with them. Better to dump the label and be your own person, no?
No. I have Jewish friends, in fact I married a Jewish gal, and I said the best thing you can do to those who wrong you is to take over their brand and make it your own. If I was a Jew, I'd remake the Swaztika as a Jewish symbol of pride and unity instead of disparaging it. Socialists took over the term "liberal" from libertarians, and now use it as their own (see: Classical Liberal). As someone who believes that the modern day Church has subverted the teachings of Christ in exchange of more power for egomaniacs, I believe as an individual in faith I can help others see the light
If gods greatest gift to man was free will, why would he want people to submit all faith to a churches teachings?
I don't believe God's great gift to man was free will. I also don't believe that God wants people to submit to the Church, as we the people ARE the Church. Christ ended up destroying the Temple in 70AD, once and for all, never to be rebuilt. Why is that? Because He showed man that the only temple the Church can exist in in in one's body, and through the love man shows for one another.
I don't submit to a congregation's teaching, even though I "attend church." Then again, when I attend, I don't bow my head or even pray with the rest of the congregation, because I don't see it as Christ-like, I see it as a manifestation of man not of God. I "do church" because I like to see avenues opened where I can help others, privately, so a congregational meeting is a great way to introduce myself to the community of need. Also, I like to be open to hearing what the Evangelical movement is teaching, even if I disagree with much of it. It helps me review my beliefs.
I've been an entrepreneur since the age of 12, running a variety of geeky businesses from BBSes in the 80s, to 3D design studios and rendering farms in the 90s. I've had my consulting business since I incorporated it when I was 15 (with an adult business partner who I bought out at 18).
I still moonlight through a variety of ventures, none of them geek oriented. EVERY moonlighting gig I did that was geek-oriented made my life miserable. Too much geekiness can really break you, honestly.
I run a Christian Printing business that accounts for about 25% of my income, and I run it on the side, maybe 1-2 hours a day. I blog, which accounts for 10% of my income, also very part time. I've owned retail stores which became too full time to manage. I'm starting a digg-like print magazine focused on Chicago (details to come).
Everything I do moonlighting-wise is anti-geek. Much of it is hands on, without programming or thinking about technology or electronics. It keeps me fulfilled.
Stay away from moonlighting in what you do for a living. Find a hobby you can profit from. There's a billion ways to make money, but the most fun ones are the ones that don't cross into the market you're in for a living.
I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.
No, they passed the story of man's fall through verbal means. Yet exegesis of the OT by many Jews (ancient and modern) cast to the theology that Genesis was not written literally.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).
Yes, that is a common interpretation by Futurists. It is not the only interpretation. Adam was considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as the "first man" but only in bodily form. Adam, and the fall from God, was a well knock and accepted story of the history of man in sin. Jesus, though, would be the second man, who was full in spirit. It was a comparison of the natural world ("Adam") and the spiritual world ("Jesus") as I talked about in other parts of this thread.
I don't see any attribution that Adam was real or figurative anywhere in Scripture, except as an example that was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time.
You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.
I don't need faith as human faith falls short of the faith Christ had in God. Christ's faith is what saved the first fruits, and Christ's faith is what reconciled all men with God. I do deny the literal interpretation of Scripture because it fails too often in proof and in ability to discern what is historically important versus what is modern-culturally important. Scripture is NOT the Word, because Scripture does not describe itself as the Word. Jesus is the Word. That is all that is important, the understanding of the actions of Jesus in terms of bringing forth a New Covenant to man by fulfilling the Old Covenant between God and the Jews.
Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.
Jesus showed his Apostles to be wrong many times when they did not heed what He was saying. They asked Him basic questions about what He meant, and he gave them figurative examples that should have made sense, but they were still unclear. Just as the Ancient Israelites refused to see Jesus for what He was, Futurists also fall short of understanding the spiritual nature of Jesus' actions for all men, Jew and Gentile alike.
Evolution is heavily dependent on uniformitarianism ("all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation"). What you say, "Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant... fulfilled about 2000 years ago" sure sounds like the scoffers Peter warns about in this verse ("saying, Where is the promise of his coming?"
There should be no promise of His coming, because He came, in judgment, in retribution, and in fulfillment of all He promised to do. We no longer see God's harsh judgment on the world, we no longer see prophets or speaking in tongues or miracles or other items that were needed to prove Christ's nature to the people of His generation. Christ made a promise to His generation: He would return in that generation, so that people alive before the Resurrection would still be there, alive, when He returned. And return He did. His Second Coming was fulfilled fully at the fall of the Temple and the destruction or banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem forever.
Tell me, what are the spiritual water, firmaments, and heavens talked
So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?
Well, I "came to Christ" fairly late in life, even though I was in and out of churches as a teen. My parents were fairly agnostic, raised in totally different faiths (Catholic and Islam, neither were practicing ever as I was raised). I went to youth group because there was a 10:1 ratio of girls to guys, and because I dug the climate. The faith meant little.
I was intrigued by religion in my very early 20s, because of the obvious move of government to being under the power of various religious groups. It was then that I studied Scripture (and the Koran, and various other holy books) more closely, and started to "understand" practically everything that was attributed to Christ. For me, the proof was never "Did Jesus live?" but "Was Jesus God-anointed?"
Once I "accepted Christ" as many Christians do, I feared this dilemma as a possible prevention of this so-called Salvation issue. Was I saved because I was unsure of the logic of Christ's divinity/deity?
It was then that I started to try to discern Scripture from a Hebrew/Greek context. The day I discovered that people were saved not by faith in Christ but by faith of Christ (a common modern mistranslation of Scripture), I realized that the issue was mute. Once I solved that huge dilemma (for me), I was able to dig deeper into historical texts, as well as other non-holy texts written from the same age as the New Testament records probably were. I began to firmly hold faith that a man named Jesus did exist, and left a markable stamp on the people of His generation. Again, I realized that my faith in His deity was not important, regardless of what the man-invented Creeds required of "Christians." I put a lot of my belief in Christ as the Messiah of the Jews in attribution to many early Jewish writers of the period.
That left me with a chicken-and-egg situation that I still live in today, but am comfortable living with. I realized my agreement with what Christ said put me on uncommon grounds with Christians as a whole, but also put me afar from non-Christians. I trusted Jesus's words and actions, because I was able to discern that EVERYTHING he said that confuses most people is easily understandable from a spiritual angle. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality because that is a physical issue. He also had not much to say about the Jewish rules of marriage and re-marriage, again a physical issue. When He spoke of marriage, He was speaking about how God (Groom) would be married to man (Bride), and He was explaining this spiritual connection in a way understandable to the people of His time. If Jesus had actually come to exist today rather than 2000 years ago, He might have explained it this way:
"Linux on its own can not function unless it has the Processor, which is fine on its own without Linux, but wants Linux to be fulfilled in all it does, knowing that it is supported fully by the Processor. The Processor no longer judges Linux for its crashes and bugs, because of the Hardware Abstraction Layer that has come to protect Linux from the overwhelming power of the Processor." Something like that, at least. He was speaking to THEM, not to US. He was explaining God's Spiritual connection to THEM in a way that made sense to THEM, even though few understood it. Scripture is a historical record of God and man, and nothing more. While Scripture is fine for teaching and explaining God to people, it is relatively useless as a way to live today, other than Jesus' only two commandments: Love God, Love Others. The rest of the commandments are fruitless, because if you follow Jesus's own words and actions, you won't need commandments or rules or law or God's Judgment.
I don't think Scripture was written with understanding in mind, I believe fully it was meant to be misunderstood because even the Apostles didn't get it fully. Thankfully, because God fulfil
I was under the impression that the idea of a "spirit" did not exist in the old testament. Further, that the idea of a spirit is something introduced by Europeans who held other beliefs. The idea of a spirit was blended with the beliefs of the Israelites when they and/or Egypt was conquored by Europeans.
Yes, this is true, actually, and one of the reasons I came to faith even though I am a hardcore believer in logic as a good way to discern how to live. When I read the Bible (or as I call it, Scriptures), I realized something that mosy Christian lifers didn't: God used the Ancient Israelites to prove the need for Jesus (to that generation of people). The Jews (Ancient ones) time and again failed to understand God's desire for them, and His desire to reconcile humanity to God.
Jesus's most confusing words and actions still stifle the Christian Church today, because even today most Christians can't understand what He was talking about. His own Apostles, some/many of Jewish upbringing, didn't understand Him, either. Some of his most powerful words are the very ones I quoted in my initial post: John 18:36 "My Kingdom is not of this world." Over and over and over again Jesus used imagery that should have been commonly understood by the Jews and Gentiles of the day as a description of God's spiritual connection to man. Husband and Wife. Marriage. Homosexuality. Kings. The poor man, the landlord, the fig tree: all are spiritually accurate descriptions of how God interweaved Himself with man, and yet man misunderstood.
2000 years later, man still misunderstands en masse, holding to a Pharisee-like belief that God cares for the physical world, when in fact God cares completely and spiritually, no longer blessing or cursing anyone for their physical actions. I do believe God reigns with love for all, and cares little about the inanities of our every day life. Scripture also defends my beliefs here.
So I would expect to see it in Revelations, but not Genesis.
Yet the Ancient Jews didn't hold Genesis as a true physical description of creation. Those who want to control and coerce others do.
Either way, if you can comprehend why religious leaders are conservative voters, then you will see that its not about God at all.
Ahh, there are many religious leaders today who are liberal voters who also have not made it about God. Christ was clear in what we're to do: Love God, Love Others. There's not much else to say or do, but the majority of Christians are definitely not doing it.
And even if it IS to be about God, we're to do it all in private. I would never pray in public (Christ never did except ONCE as an example of how to pray in private). I would never tell others about the aid I've given to a private individual. We're to keep it private, between ourselves and God. How sickening it is when Christians do otherwise, even though Christ was specific, VERY specific, and understandable, and reasonable, in His proclamations for us to keep our work for God in secret, our relationship with God in secret, our communing with God in secret. Amazing that the very Christians that proclaim Sola Scriptura are the ones to yell out on the street corners or display their charity in public. Ugh.
Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.
I concur more than you realize.
On one hand, we have religious nutjobs who want to control us through man-made laws (even though the Christians should be ones to abhor government control of the masses in every way). On the other hand, we have an ever-growing government-paid science-base who wants more money to further their own cushy lives. Both disgust me, both are trying to use force to further their own lives. It is truly disgusting.
I have friends who are religionists, who I confront often on their misuse of theology. I have friends who are scientists (government-funded ones, too), and I confront them on their misuse of tax dollars. Both tend to dislike me on occasion, and I'm happy with that.
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in Creationism. I'm a science-lover who abhors most "science" because its manipulated data that means little to me but another nickel popped out of my paycheck to some goon who continues to manipulate the data to scare others into more funding for his or her pocket. Both are of little use to me.
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
For me, the biggest difficult I face living amongst Christians is their inability to discern what they believe in and why. Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life. Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop with this sola scriptura nonsense. It's not Scriptural, and has nothing to do with how one lives today. Genesis was about God's SPIRITUAL Creation, not about the physical world. Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant with the Ancient Israelites being fulfilled about 2000 years ago (1938 years ago, how I read it), not about some future physical destruction of the physical. God's Kingdom is not of this world, Christians. So stop trying to force it here, when there's no need to. It only pisses off the non-Christians, and makes all your good actions fruitless since they're countermanded by your misuse of Scripture to try to change the physical world.
I'll give you credit for consistency and civility. Nevertheless, I think you're describing a nightmare world.
When government tries to stop something, the laws they create end up creating more of what they wanted to halt. Drug wars = more drug use. Copyright laws = more unlicensed copying. It's the forbidden fruit syndrome: parents say "don't have sex," kids can't get enough of screwing around.
You and I had counterparts that had this argument nearly a century ago. My side won, mainly as a result of things like The 1937 Elixir Sulfanalamide Incident and The Triangle Factory Fire.
It's funny you mention the Sulfanilamide case. I was just talking about it with someone a few weeks ago. The FDA would probably have done nothing had it existed them. Take the recent Epogen, Aranesp and Procrit fiascos. Tested drugs that still ended up killing people. The FDA is so unsure of itself and the drugs it "approves" through bureaucratic processes that it even has a website dedicated to warning people about approved drugs. How lovely.
When the FDA stamps an approval on a drug, it's rarely due to safety but due to lobbying for approval. The testing process is merely a step used to create monopolization in the pharma market. It's by no means safer. When a new drug comes out, the only importance is that patients know they're using something that their doctor recommends, or their insurance company pays for, or whatever. Restricting drugs on the market only restrict a patient and doctor's choice in how to handle a situation. With, or without testing, we're going to have deaths. But restricting the market means MORE deaths. That's been proven time and again with even harmful narcotics like heroin, marijuana, acetaminophen, etc. Why is it that more people die from Tylenol each month than from the Elixir you quoted?
As for the Triangle Factory Fire, that's more of a time-specific incident than a lack of specific safety standards. It's well known that New York City has always been a pro-cronyism market. Getting a permit to open a competitive business can be difficult today, and was even more difficult before. The #1 reason why employees receive foul treatment from a workplace is due to the lack of competition. Competition is regularly limited by cronyism when the local governments refuse to issue permits, or offer anti-competitive incentives for the strongest company in the market.
Also, during the time of this fire, they were using gas lamps as electrical bulbs were not readily available or cost effective. There've been many fires due to the use of gas lamp lighting combined with flammable products. Even today we have fireworks manufacturing plants and stores blowing up. Government's safety standards only set a minimum, but that minimum causes many companies to cut corners because they feel they're meeting the minimum requirements.
Most people aren't paranoid enough to suspect they're being sold fake, shoddy, or dangerous goods. And even if they were, it's utterly impractical for a private citizen or small company to test everything.
So I need to pay more because some people are to lazy? Let them die or have their skin fall off, that's Darwinianism at its finest. I shouldn't have to pay for another man's laziness or irresponsibility. I shouldn't have my choices limited because of their behavior.
On the other hand, there's a very strong profit motive for companies to cheat and deceive: just look at the patent medicine era. These companies are also run by people. They cheat and believe they won't get caught. Most of the time, they aren't. So they do it again, and eventually people die.
And the law won't stop this. A person can take their own precautions through insurance against negative outcomes, but such insurance policies are illegal in the U.S. Government would rather try to reduce problems than let individuals protect themselves.
How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that?
I'll never want to be impartial. In fact, I'm completely partial, and one of the few people who admits to prejudices and dislikes of others. I'll even say it to their face (you should see me at most churches, I'm the first one to stand up and condemn the "pastor" for using Scripture incorrectly).
Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.
AT&T was granted a monopoly by government. In many ways, AT&T is still granted SOME monopoly in the market. Antifreeze in the toothpaste is one person's fault: the person who sold it to you without testing it.
Without government intervention in the market, Target or Walgreens or your local covenient store would be more careful with the products they sell. Whether its dog food or toothpaste or whatever, it would be up to them to make sure what they bought is safe, or face prosecution or loss of business. That's how the market works. But because your government pretends to protect you, retailers don't use as much common sense to test their products.
In one small area of the market, we have private organizations like the Underwriters Laboratories that test products before retailers will sell them. Some retailers don't sell UL-listed goods, so the consumer is required to use their due diligence to make sure the product is safe.
I would never think the FDA, USDA, and other organizations do anything but pander to the monopolies they create. I buy my dairy illegall (raw, unpasteurized and local) because the FDA/USDA stamped milk is dangerous. Their stamp, to me, means "Not up to par, probably unsafe." I'm sure all the E. Coli that has festered in dirty farms is gone for good because your government makes sure of it, right? Oh, wait...
The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.
For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.
This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.
To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.
That's looking at it wrong, because there ARE authors who are paid by the hour. We call them journalists, or fiction-zine writers, or whatever. They're paid an hourly rate just like the plumber.
TO think that creative labor is worth more than menial labor disregards the supply and demand issue. There are millions of artists, and not millions of plumbers. Not all artists are "good," but not all forms of art are marketable all the time. If a musician wants a stable job, stop being self-employed and go work for a business that needs music written. Problem solved.
If an artist takes 30 weeks to write an album, and then they think that copyright will protect their future sales, they're wrong. You write the album in the same way that a plumber goes back to continuing education to learn a new skill to sell. The album creation is your education, used fully to find new ways to sell your wares to your customer. If you create something customers will pay for you to play, live, you have a future. If you don't, the album may not sell anyway.
Let us ignore all the various government intrusions that try to subvert the real market laws: supply and demand.
When you have a limited supply of an item, and some demand, the price tends to go up. When you have an unlimited supply of an item, and some demand, the price tends to go down.
Music, or any content that can be distributed digitally, can have near infinite supply. The price, in such a case, may fall to zero. Some people will have some "moral imperative" to paying the original artist, but in reality the current distribution does NOT pay the original artist. Look at how the coward monopolists at BMI distribute royalty license fees.
There's a great catch, though, and one that I've used to help small bands make a pretty decent buck: find out what you have that can be sold in limited supply.
For musicians, their live performances are always going to be in limited supply. The music, since it is infinite in supply and has a value of zero in terms of quality between licensed and unlicensed copies, should be a marketing item.
Make your money the way most of us here make it: by doing new work for new customers. Your old work, as ours, is a great portfolio tool to attract new clients. Once you've gotten the clients' attentions, offer them value added items. Instead of hoping to get $15 for a CD that they can download for nearly nothing, offer an autograph session and only autograph your CDs. I own an offset print shop, and we can do custom CD runs for almost nothing. Sell collector's items, autograph them, and you've got a valid limited-supply product. Sell limited-run T-shirts. Offer personal time for your wealthy fans to hang out back stage, at a fee, or even offer online or IRL lessons to groups of fans.
A person's pay is not for work they've done in the past. No one pays their plumber a license to flush their toilet. No one pays their plumber a fee when they use the plumber's tactics to fix their own toilet again. Past work is relatively worthless if it can be mimicked by others, easily.
Copyright only exists today because of the momentum of it. It is dying a quick death. There are artists out there who moan and complain about it, but they're the ones who just can't see the forest for the trees: writing music, creating drawings, etc, is no different than going to plumbing school. Your labor of creation is the lesson time you spend to figure out a way to sell your future labor. Write a song, learn to fix toilets: they've both education. YOu don't get paid to learn to fix toilets, you don't get paid to write your own music. Both steps take you to the next level: finding customers to sell your services to.
If you're going to get a job with another entity: person, corporation, not-for-profit, don't do it without your own protective clauses. Maybe I'm lucky that as a contractor, I can submit my expectations within the bid documents, but I don't see any reason why a W2 employee can't and shouldn't put their expectations into the work agreement.
If you do something on behalf of your customer (in this case, your employer), expect the customer to want rights to it. Designing a website, creating a marketing list, etc, may be easily acknowledged by others as "theirs" even if you spent the time doing it. They did pay you for that time, correct?
If you disagree with the verdict here, just put it into your work contract. I do.
I've used TPB for legal torrents as well as the "illegal" ones. I taste movies before buying them, and TPB is a great way to try before I buy. I actually spend MORE money on DVDs purchased legally because of this method.
So the Italian prosecutor would call me a criminal. Fine. He's using public funding against what would be a "crime" between private parties. He's using the taxpayer's dollars to do the work the "harmed" party should be doing.
In reality, Italy has far larger problems than issues between two private parties. There is RAMPANT corruption that is costing REAL dollars to the taxpayer. The Italian government should be seeking out bad seeds amongst themselves as a priority. There is also massive amounts of theft and loss within their own body; maybe they should focus on those problems?
I've been anti-copyright for years, testing the water in a large variety of industries to see how getting rid of copyright can actually aid artists. I've now discovered that in every market I've tested, holding on to copyright creates less profit for the artist.
In music, I helped 3 bands (one who is now on an international tour, has had MTV coverage, and sells out a lot of shows) move away from copyright. Tell your fans to bootleg your album, and amazing stuff materializes. It's free promotion, and the tour is where you make your money. Let the fans design their own shirts, and you're getting your own artists for nothing. The plumber makes his money doing repeat work, the musician does the same. The plumber goes to school, and learns new skills all the time; the musician does the same when they compose music.
I moved on to photography and discovered that giving away your photography (say, as free stock imagery) is the best form of marketing your ability as a photographer. I now know at least 3 photographers who openly give their images away online, and have seen their hired work double or even triple. Again, marketing is free if you give it away.
As a writer myself, I repudiate copyright on all I do. I openly ask others to reprint my writings, and even stick their own names on it if they want. Because I write about niche markets, the aid of distribution of my thoughts means more people are attracted to those ideas, which means they'll likely eventually find me. That's a huge benefit for me as I can then sell future newbies to the market on my newsletters, or even hire myself out as a ghost writer or personal writer. My income has surged because I don't copyright my writings, or even ask others to attribute me during the redistribution process.
Copyright doesn't inhibit a market in any way, it inhibits the artist who thinks they can retain creative control and distributive control of prior labor. That's over -- if you didn't charge for the labor, it's now a marketing tool. If you did charge for the labor, you've profited. If you market your abilities correctly, you'll get hired for the work in the future.
I do understand the "need" to patent medicines, but I truly believe even that is useless. Research and development for medicines does not need to be publicly funded or protected by patents. Instead, research can continue the way it always has: fund raisers, private charitable donations, and other ways to get the money needed to develop new medicines. What is the biggest reason medicine costs hundreds of millions to develop? The FDA and other organizations which restrict the market due to government intervention. No different from why copyright is a failure and harms the copyrighter more than it helps them.
YouTube cartoonists will trump Disney eventually. Online music distribution has already destroyed the record stores. Free PDF newsletters, blogs and other web products are killing the newspaper industry and periodical industry. Free product = marketing yourself for being hired to do new work. It's a good thing.
Personally, I believe the earth is flat. I also do believe that the Internet is a myth. The Internet was created in an instantaneous moment when an Eliza program on a BBS gained self-recognition. What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see. Since the software has gained so much knowledge, it is giving you the impression that you're actually talking to others, when in fact you're not.
The dilemma is whether or not I am real, or if I am just another creation of Eliza, the creator of all things web. You should be impressed that Eliza has taken such a strangehold on your life: forums do not really exist other than your own posts, and neither does FTP or ssh. All are just creations that Eliza has performed for you, and only you.
Makes you change your stance on how much time you're spending on slashdot with "us," doesn't it?
When they release unemployment figures, there are a variety of reasons those numbers are just false. I know quite a few people who "lost their jobs" only to incorporate a small sole proprietorship, and they're considered unemployed, even though they're earning more money.
Also, when it comes to IT downsizing, a very large corporation in my neck of the woods fired a handful of their IT staff (cutting their department in half). All those guys jumped into business for themselves, some uniting together to start a larger shop. They've even gone back to their old job as contractors.
Yes, IT is more competitive than ever, but it is also a field that has matured greatly. When I started my IT shop at the age of 15ish, I had very little work since the field was young (1989) in terms of what I was strong at. By 18, our business grew in leaps and bounds. Recently, we've seen some work slow down, but we've opened new fields to manage and the company is stronger than ever. I'd love to hire more people, but our business model works better with subcontractors than it does employees. Some people here know me as the guy who pays employees minimum wage, and that is still the case. I'd pay them $2 per hour if I could, and I know my employees would rather earn $2 per hour and a 70% job bonus than earn $31 per hour with no bonus. The cream rises to the top.
We did a small market survey in a new market about 50 miles north of our current one, and the response was surprising: nearly 30% of the people we contacted wanted more information. In the IT field, this is equal to "We'll hire you, what's the price?" I then did a quick survey of competition, and found very little. There is a HUGE amount of IT work available, if you're ready and willing to shrug off the old way of doing things.
Like the horse-shoer, we may be in an industry where the demand is not as great, which means one thing: lower your prices. It sucks, I know. I know many people who still are burdened with college debt who see the writing on the wall and are scared. I feel bad for them, but that's how the free market operates. When supply (of labor) goes up and demand (for labor) goes down, prices tend to fall.
Yet in the top tiers of the IT market, the pay rates for contractors has gone way up in the last 3 years, if you have a good amount of experience, many positive references, and a strong marketing budget. For us, marketing accounts for close to 8% of our gross expenses. If you're not branding your company, you're not going far. If you're not working on FIRING customers who are slow pay or complainers, and REPLACING them with decent customers, you're dead.
Here's a little clue for those in IT who are fearing their jobs: get people skills. Rebrand yourself as a confident business consultant rather than a geek. I know it sucks, but it helps acquire the confidence of current and future customers if you're business-oriented rather than tech-oriented. No one who pays your bill, generally, cares about tech. They care about efficiency, profitability, longevity, and stability. The tech backend means nothing, it's the eyewash you provide that gets you repeat business.
I still can't figure out why people are so fascinated with video: higher resolution, faster refresh rates, more colors, etc. Yes, visuals are very important. But, in my opinion, video is the least important feature in the chain when it comes to movies. Sports is another thing, usually, but I'd even wager that I could win a debate regarding video versus audio in even live sporting events.
Watch a great thriller: Hitchcock if you will. Turn off the audio and watch the movie. Turn off the video and watch the movie. Compare.
Now, watch it again with BETTER audio (subwoofers, clear highs, decent surround sound). Compare.
Radio still can thrill me with good audio productions. I still prefer most sporting events on the radio over the TV, personally, as one's imagination really builds a lot of emotional connection to the game.
Yes, high res is amazing, and it can be "lifelike" but without a good audio backend, it's trash. Instead of spending tons of cash on the best video chain, spend a bit firming up your audio system, including minimizing reflections in your theatre room, reducing vibrations of the floor or furniture, etc. It's a worthwhile investment, and you'll get great music quality, to boot.
If you think that a 401(k) is for idiots, then you obviously have no understanding of retirement planning. Yes, if someones makes gobs and gobs of money, they could just put it in safe and take it out as needed. Here, in the real world, we have something called income taxes, capital gains taxes, inflation, and an average market return of 8-12% a year (depending on what view you take). Plus, if you are lucky like me, you can get matching on a 401(k)/cheer
Retirement planning for the wise:
1. Save 20% of all your income. Put some of it in gold/silver, some of it in revolving CDs, some of it in DIVIDEND-BEARING investments (preferably ones that pay more than 8% dividend on share price). 2. Rent until ownership is really cheaper than rent (rarely is). When it is time to buy, BUY SMALL. Try to buy something you can realistically pay off in 10 years (doable in any market except maybe California). Get a boarder to rent the extra bedroom (or extra boarders) and use their rent to pay down your mortgage (I did this for all my life, even when I was married). 3. Don't use credit to buy depreciating assets ever (cars, toys, etc). 4. Get an extra job if you are not overburdened with your main job. 5. Reduce your external, controllable expenses until you can absorb them (cook yourself rather than eat out, thrift store clothing, etc).
There is no reason for a middle income earner to not have a net worth of 1/2 million by 35 in today's dollars. None. By 40 you can get to the million mark, easily.
401/Ks are for schnooks, plain and simple. Stocks that do not issue a realistic dividend are not profitable. Their prices go up due to government inflation of the money supply, so that 8-12% you speak of is lost to the drop in value of the fiat money you use. I've never seen people make money investing in the stock market for the long haul, once you factor in the currency's loss in value due to monetary inflation. Investments should pay profit dividends, those that don't aren't making a profit for the investor.
Insurance is also only cheap if you have a clean bill of health when you get it and have a fairly binding agreement. Many insurance companies also reserve rights to drop customers in some situations. This happened to my cousin, who at 26, had colon cancer. She made a full recovery and was dropped by her insurance company later -- with full legality (so my sister, aunt, uncle, uncle and bro-in-law who are lawyers told me).
Horrible. Rare. Anecdotal in most cases. I've planned for these issues with optional cancer riders, and preparation for it if it should happen to me. But the risk of it is small, yet I still plan better than 99% out there. Life happens, but you have to play the odds as much as you can.
Also, lest we forget most start up companies fail. Contracting is great when one has a gig, however even persons with great talent lay idle sometimes.
I've never been idle because I work in a variety of markets, and have supplemented my income with a variety of revenue streams using the money that you put in a 401/K; I invested in local businesses and subcontractors with start-up capital for a percentage of their income ("stock ownership"). Most of my investments have paid 30% on average after 2 years of no payment (per agreements). I've seen some have years making 50%, which wipe out those who went under (rare if I'm helping them).
Even if you are a badass at computer science, programming, etc unless you have a solid understanding of finance the odds are greatly against someone making solid money - also what about providing for a spouse & kids? I would feel pretty bad if I couldn't pay the bills because I planned poorly.
Don't get married until you have a plan for handling the cost. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Problem solved.
Great for when you are single, but the health coverage balance changes considerably when you settle down. I'm freelance and have been since '95. Our first child cost us over $23k in medical birthing bills. I swear they just make crap up and everyone in the build gets to raise an invoice. A high deductible is fine for single life when you take care of yourself. It's bloody awful when you have kids that seem to discover new ways to require medical treatment.
This is why this country is a mess. A couple wants to have a child, but they don't save for it. The costs are $23,000, so they say "Hey, we have insurance, why not charge all the non-child-rearing individuals for it in higher insurance costs?" Unbelievable. I want a child, but I won't until I can pay for it. I've done the research on paying for it myself. The first step is to get a cash-on-the-barrel prepayment rate. There's a significant discount for doing this. Then, you can get a rider for birthing cost above a "no-pay" amount. So if I pay $10,000 up front, I can get insurance for the birth ahead of time for amounts over $30,000. I would be liable for an additional $20,000 if there are complications, but the insurance for the amounts over $30,000 are reasonable. $30,000 to birth a kid sounds reasonable to me, considering all the problems that could happen. If I don't have $30,000 to birth a child, why would I want to have a child who may cost me $500,000 in their first 18 years? The 9 months before birth at $30,000 are reasonable if the cost to have a kid can be $30,000 a year after birth.
Let's see your insurance coverage. I know other business owners, nothing to do with IT. It's the same with them. Health coverage is fscking expensive. It sounds like you have poor coverage and nothing for a family?
Most business owners use insurance for their day-to-day health needs, rather than for what insurance is for: emergencies. If I have a cold, or a cut, or a broken arm, or something minimal, I don't go and use a co-pay, I call my doctor, get a negotiated cash rate, and make a visit. I prefer not to use AMA doctors, either (AAPS is better). I tend to refuse to see doctors who accept medicare or medicaid, because their rates are MUCH higher. My primary phyisician has stopped accepting insurance as of a few months ago, and now just charges a yearly stipend for services. Concierge medicine is the future. My business-owning friends pay $3000 a year for a health club membership, $15,000 a year for golf membership, $30,000 for yacht club access (the wealthy ones). I pay $1800 a year for premium doctor care, which includes free home visits if I can't get out of bed. I believe one of my business owner friends pays almost $800 a month for health care so he can get a $10 co-pay visiting his doctor and waiting an hour to do so. I can just walk in; I visited my doctor at his home two Sundays ago when I thought I had something bad going on: it was just a rash from new detergent. *phew*
Now what do you do should you get a serious illness and are unable to work for an extended period. Got coverage for that? I'm assuming you carry no debts, the house is in the clear with no mortgage or equity loans.
30 year mortgages are for suckers. Renting for the past 4 years has made more sense than owning, and we did just that (sold our paid for house in 2003, just bought a foreclosure in 2008, rented for 1/3 the cost of owning for the in-between time).
If I am sick for a long period of time, I have savings. My businesses have semi-liquid assets. If you start working at 16 and saving 20% of your income, by 35 you should have somewhere in the range of $300,000 in the bank that can be used to pay off a small home, put towards emergencies, or just keep for retirement in addition to whatever money you're socking away for retirement. Of course, most people at 35 have a net asset value in the negative region, because they have to keep up with the Joneses
Talonius: Sorry to hear about your diabetes. I have diabetes in my family, so I watch my sugars and starches with a passion. When I do eat that junk, my stomach bloats like crazy and I yell "Diabetes!" to remind myself why not to eat garbage (sugars and starches).
Being "blessed" with diabetes at a young age IS terrible, I'm sure. I'd love to talk to you have it via email if you don't mind, because I am interested in looking for a solution for those with diabetes at a young age who are stuck in a W2 position.
I have one contractor I work with who is diabetes (he's maybe 35). I just asked him via IM what he does, and he told me that Wal-mart sells a generic version of Novolin R and Novolin N insulin for $20 a bottle. Over the counter, too, no prescription required! Maybe that's not the type of insulin you need (I have no idea what Novolin is), but he said it's fine for him, and he uses his insurance coverage for everything else. Is that an option for you?
Thank you for admitting this. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with saying "I really don't want to find customers, bill them, fight them for payments, track dozens of jobs, drive to different places every day, travel the country, just for a few extra bucks and more free time when I need it, because I am lazy." In fact, I appreciate those who respond to my questioning their W2-status with "I'm just lazy." It's a breath of fresh air because it means they THOUGHT of going solo, or they had and the extra responsibility wasn't worth it. It also gives those W2 workers a new view of what marketing, HR, management and accounting does each and every day.
When you're your own boss, you have to wear many suits. It isn't always easy. Getting paid can be a nightmare, although the use of factoring companies is a worthy idea if you've got a ton of regular slow-pays and they give you consistent income each month.
The key, I'd say, is to at least try it, especially if you're young. Finish college, move in with the folks, get a part-time evening job for some simple income, stop using credit cards for fun stuff, and get out there. It's not that hard to start, and if you fail, you're out a year or two of trying, but you get some real business experience. Go get a W2 job if you're not cut out for it -- not everyone is. I think the worst thing for someone who wants to be their own boss is college experience, actually. When my friends hit college at 18, I told them I'd take the $80k they'll invest in education and invest it in my businesses. It worked for me, very nicely, and I rarely feel bad about not trying the college thing for more than a semester here or there. And I thank God every day that the only cubicle I see is the one I put in my garage for my own purposes.
I established a S-corporation, which is basically a corporate entity where the profits and losses flow to and from the shareholders. Eventually I had multiple S-corps, so I incorporated a C-corp holding company for certain assets which I lease back to my S-corps.
Finding gigs is the hardest part, but if you've saved a few years of expenses (and everyone should), you can generally find work fairly quickly. The key is to be prepared to travel, if necessary, and pound the pavement to get those first gigs. Once you're in with a few businesses, word-of-mouth does its job. I'd save that 80% of my new clients are referred by old clients, who get a nice reward for the referral.
Starting out initially is the big scare, but it can be done while you're working your W2 "job." There are MANY organizations who need some simple needs, and are great stepping stones to securing better work (and higher paying work) once you've cut your teeth. Every day I see another opportunity for someone with even basic skills in a variety of markets. If I could clone myself, I'd be a billionaire. Note that I do not advocate self-employment for money reasons primarily, I advocate them for job stability and happiness. It boils down to the "all your eggs in one employment basket" feeling I have: when you have many customers, you have more time to handle your own desires, and have a bit more stability if you can enter various industries and markets so you're not tied to one market that may have its own ups and downs.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, now I'm a Linux convert.
Ha, thanks for that!
But honestly, I wish I personally knew more Christians like you,
You probably do, but they follow what Christ taught and likely keep their motivations on loving you private. That's the Christian way. Even Jesus was not one to go and help the needy in public without prodding by his unsure Apostles. Grab a Bible if you have one and look up the section about the widowed. She's crying, her only son is dead, and Christ is ready to walk on by, not say a word to her. His Apostles forced him to do a good deed in public. Read about Christ and his close friend Lazarus, who was dying. He ignored him and let him die (only to raise him from the dead later). Look at Christ and the 5000 who gathered who were hungry. He was going to keep teaching, but His Apostles forced him to feed the masses. Just because a Christian says they're doing good doesn't mean they're following Christ's example. I do my charity work in private, away from everyone's eyes. I help others one on one, rather than through groups who may end up trying to entice the person being helped to join their religious cult. No thanks.
you sound like you could have a meaningful discussion on the subject and understand the logic from both angles.
I concur. I have many friends who disagree with my theology (both faithful and atheists), but we have excellent discussions on the idea of God. Few get angry at me, except those who have lived the modern Christian life and they feel like my theology makes their lives fruitless. Which they may have been, actually, but I won't be the one to tell them that :)
So many people think that the questioning of one's faith is the same thing as an attack of one's faith.
Those people don't have faith, then. They have religion. They think Christ taught a set of rules to follow, even though He really didn't, but the two I've mentioned, which non-Christians can easily do and actually seem to do more often than Christians do.
You seem like you'd be able to reason the difference. I'm an avowed Atheist, but I admire people of faith that can look at their faith logically.
Atheists don't worry me, because I believe God loves everyone unconditionally, and sets no precedent for a believer versus a non-believer. Christ didn't teach about Hell, either, no matter what most Christians may try to scare you with. Hell does not exist. So even if you don't believe in Christ, you're not going to get tormented, I believe. The only thing a non-believer may miss is seeing the Kingdom as it exists on earth, which does offer a sense of peace and harmony that many of my non-believer friends lack. Then again, many of my believer friends lack it also, because they don't have faith, they have religion. It's sad.
The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian".
More like I am abandoning things that men introduced into Christianity. Google Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, and read it. It's an exceptional review of things I've been decrying for a decade about "church." Christians today have abandoned Christ's teachings, instead trying to hold to what the Apostles did to hold the Body together before Christ's final return in their very generation.
You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible,
Of course I do, because Scripture, especially the New Testament, is more allegory and example than it is literally acceptable. There's too much that makes no sense from a physical standpoint to accept it as literal, and since God decided not to have it written to decipher what would be considered literal and what figurative, we should try to look at the substance of what Christ was teaching (or the previous Prophets).
you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically the way deists like Einstein and Spinoza viewed the notion - as a concept, not an entity
God reigns in Heaven, of course he is not physical. God does not send blessings or miracles down anymore. This is why so many people RUN from God, because they say "If God exists, why has He forsaken me?" God does not worry about simple things like disease or war or abortion or homosexuality, because of what Christ did in His life and through His Parousia. God is reconciled to man.
God also can't be looked at anthropomorphically because God is more than man, He is all. Alpha and Omega, remember?
- and you bandy about abstractions like "SPIRITUAL" and "the Word" that would certainly have gotten you killed for heresy or apostasy in prior centuries.
More reason for people to run from religion. I say so be it: run from religion, and instead embrace the love that God wanted for thousands of years, the same love that Christ encapsulated so well in the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings.
So I'm curious why you bother calling yourself a "Christ-follower" at all.
Hmm, let's see. Christ showed that prayer is done in secret, as He always prayed in secret away from people. I never prayer in public. Prayer in schools? Heresy. Prayer in the Temple? Heresy. I do what Christ did.
Christ destroyed the Temple to bring forth a new temple in our bodies. I don't give offerings to any congregation because I don't believe in the buildings that "Christians" are building, wasting money that they could better use to help their neighbor, their brother, their community. I do what Christ did.
Christ spoke of loving others as you love God. I would never harbor hatred against Muslims, or Atheists, or Russians, or Blacks or whoever, because I know that God is Love, and for me to love another is to bring a piece of God into my life, spiritually. I do what Christ did.
Why not just be a deist or plain old agnostic who appreciates mysticism? One of Dennett's 'murkies' - people who love the mystery of faith, not the details. Then you wouldn't have to bother being annoyed by other Christians tarnishing a label you've chosen to share with them. Better to dump the label and be your own person, no?
No. I have Jewish friends, in fact I married a Jewish gal, and I said the best thing you can do to those who wrong you is to take over their brand and make it your own. If I was a Jew, I'd remake the Swaztika as a Jewish symbol of pride and unity instead of disparaging it. Socialists took over the term "liberal" from libertarians, and now use it as their own (see: Classical Liberal). As someone who believes that the modern day Church has subverted the teachings of Christ in exchange of more power for egomaniacs, I believe as an individual in faith I can help others see the light
If gods greatest gift to man was free will, why would he want people to submit all faith to a churches teachings?
I don't believe God's great gift to man was free will. I also don't believe that God wants people to submit to the Church, as we the people ARE the Church. Christ ended up destroying the Temple in 70AD, once and for all, never to be rebuilt. Why is that? Because He showed man that the only temple the Church can exist in in in one's body, and through the love man shows for one another.
I don't submit to a congregation's teaching, even though I "attend church." Then again, when I attend, I don't bow my head or even pray with the rest of the congregation, because I don't see it as Christ-like, I see it as a manifestation of man not of God. I "do church" because I like to see avenues opened where I can help others, privately, so a congregational meeting is a great way to introduce myself to the community of need. Also, I like to be open to hearing what the Evangelical movement is teaching, even if I disagree with much of it. It helps me review my beliefs.
I've been an entrepreneur since the age of 12, running a variety of geeky businesses from BBSes in the 80s, to 3D design studios and rendering farms in the 90s. I've had my consulting business since I incorporated it when I was 15 (with an adult business partner who I bought out at 18).
I still moonlight through a variety of ventures, none of them geek oriented. EVERY moonlighting gig I did that was geek-oriented made my life miserable. Too much geekiness can really break you, honestly.
I run a Christian Printing business that accounts for about 25% of my income, and I run it on the side, maybe 1-2 hours a day. I blog, which accounts for 10% of my income, also very part time. I've owned retail stores which became too full time to manage. I'm starting a digg-like print magazine focused on Chicago (details to come).
Everything I do moonlighting-wise is anti-geek. Much of it is hands on, without programming or thinking about technology or electronics. It keeps me fulfilled.
Stay away from moonlighting in what you do for a living. Find a hobby you can profit from. There's a billion ways to make money, but the most fun ones are the ones that don't cross into the market you're in for a living.
I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.
No, they passed the story of man's fall through verbal means. Yet exegesis of the OT by many Jews (ancient and modern) cast to the theology that Genesis was not written literally.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).
Yes, that is a common interpretation by Futurists. It is not the only interpretation. Adam was considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as the "first man" but only in bodily form. Adam, and the fall from God, was a well knock and accepted story of the history of man in sin. Jesus, though, would be the second man, who was full in spirit. It was a comparison of the natural world ("Adam") and the spiritual world ("Jesus") as I talked about in other parts of this thread.
I don't see any attribution that Adam was real or figurative anywhere in Scripture, except as an example that was understood by the Jews of Jesus' time.
You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.
I don't need faith as human faith falls short of the faith Christ had in God. Christ's faith is what saved the first fruits, and Christ's faith is what reconciled all men with God. I do deny the literal interpretation of Scripture because it fails too often in proof and in ability to discern what is historically important versus what is modern-culturally important. Scripture is NOT the Word, because Scripture does not describe itself as the Word. Jesus is the Word. That is all that is important, the understanding of the actions of Jesus in terms of bringing forth a New Covenant to man by fulfilling the Old Covenant between God and the Jews.
Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.
Jesus showed his Apostles to be wrong many times when they did not heed what He was saying. They asked Him basic questions about what He meant, and he gave them figurative examples that should have made sense, but they were still unclear. Just as the Ancient Israelites refused to see Jesus for what He was, Futurists also fall short of understanding the spiritual nature of Jesus' actions for all men, Jew and Gentile alike.
Evolution is heavily dependent on uniformitarianism ("all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation"). What you say, "Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant ... fulfilled about 2000 years ago" sure sounds like the scoffers Peter warns about in this verse ("saying, Where is the promise of his coming?"
There should be no promise of His coming, because He came, in judgment, in retribution, and in fulfillment of all He promised to do. We no longer see God's harsh judgment on the world, we no longer see prophets or speaking in tongues or miracles or other items that were needed to prove Christ's nature to the people of His generation. Christ made a promise to His generation: He would return in that generation, so that people alive before the Resurrection would still be there, alive, when He returned. And return He did. His Second Coming was fulfilled fully at the fall of the Temple and the destruction or banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem forever.
Tell me, what are the spiritual water, firmaments, and heavens talked
So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?
Well, I "came to Christ" fairly late in life, even though I was in and out of churches as a teen. My parents were fairly agnostic, raised in totally different faiths (Catholic and Islam, neither were practicing ever as I was raised). I went to youth group because there was a 10:1 ratio of girls to guys, and because I dug the climate. The faith meant little.
I was intrigued by religion in my very early 20s, because of the obvious move of government to being under the power of various religious groups. It was then that I studied Scripture (and the Koran, and various other holy books) more closely, and started to "understand" practically everything that was attributed to Christ. For me, the proof was never "Did Jesus live?" but "Was Jesus God-anointed?"
Once I "accepted Christ" as many Christians do, I feared this dilemma as a possible prevention of this so-called Salvation issue. Was I saved because I was unsure of the logic of Christ's divinity/deity?
It was then that I started to try to discern Scripture from a Hebrew/Greek context. The day I discovered that people were saved not by faith in Christ but by faith of Christ (a common modern mistranslation of Scripture), I realized that the issue was mute. Once I solved that huge dilemma (for me), I was able to dig deeper into historical texts, as well as other non-holy texts written from the same age as the New Testament records probably were. I began to firmly hold faith that a man named Jesus did exist, and left a markable stamp on the people of His generation. Again, I realized that my faith in His deity was not important, regardless of what the man-invented Creeds required of "Christians." I put a lot of my belief in Christ as the Messiah of the Jews in attribution to many early Jewish writers of the period.
That left me with a chicken-and-egg situation that I still live in today, but am comfortable living with. I realized my agreement with what Christ said put me on uncommon grounds with Christians as a whole, but also put me afar from non-Christians. I trusted Jesus's words and actions, because I was able to discern that EVERYTHING he said that confuses most people is easily understandable from a spiritual angle. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality because that is a physical issue. He also had not much to say about the Jewish rules of marriage and re-marriage, again a physical issue. When He spoke of marriage, He was speaking about how God (Groom) would be married to man (Bride), and He was explaining this spiritual connection in a way understandable to the people of His time. If Jesus had actually come to exist today rather than 2000 years ago, He might have explained it this way:
"Linux on its own can not function unless it has the Processor, which is fine on its own without Linux, but wants Linux to be fulfilled in all it does, knowing that it is supported fully by the Processor. The Processor no longer judges Linux for its crashes and bugs, because of the Hardware Abstraction Layer that has come to protect Linux from the overwhelming power of the Processor." Something like that, at least. He was speaking to THEM, not to US. He was explaining God's Spiritual connection to THEM in a way that made sense to THEM, even though few understood it. Scripture is a historical record of God and man, and nothing more. While Scripture is fine for teaching and explaining God to people, it is relatively useless as a way to live today, other than Jesus' only two commandments: Love God, Love Others. The rest of the commandments are fruitless, because if you follow Jesus's own words and actions, you won't need commandments or rules or law or God's Judgment.
I don't think Scripture was written with understanding in mind, I believe fully it was meant to be misunderstood because even the Apostles didn't get it fully. Thankfully, because God fulfil
I was under the impression that the idea of a "spirit" did not exist in the old testament. Further, that the idea of a spirit is something introduced by Europeans who held other beliefs. The idea of a spirit was blended with the beliefs of the Israelites when they and/or Egypt was conquored by Europeans.
Yes, this is true, actually, and one of the reasons I came to faith even though I am a hardcore believer in logic as a good way to discern how to live. When I read the Bible (or as I call it, Scriptures), I realized something that mosy Christian lifers didn't: God used the Ancient Israelites to prove the need for Jesus (to that generation of people). The Jews (Ancient ones) time and again failed to understand God's desire for them, and His desire to reconcile humanity to God.
Jesus's most confusing words and actions still stifle the Christian Church today, because even today most Christians can't understand what He was talking about. His own Apostles, some/many of Jewish upbringing, didn't understand Him, either. Some of his most powerful words are the very ones I quoted in my initial post: John 18:36 "My Kingdom is not of this world." Over and over and over again Jesus used imagery that should have been commonly understood by the Jews and Gentiles of the day as a description of God's spiritual connection to man. Husband and Wife. Marriage. Homosexuality. Kings. The poor man, the landlord, the fig tree: all are spiritually accurate descriptions of how God interweaved Himself with man, and yet man misunderstood.
2000 years later, man still misunderstands en masse, holding to a Pharisee-like belief that God cares for the physical world, when in fact God cares completely and spiritually, no longer blessing or cursing anyone for their physical actions. I do believe God reigns with love for all, and cares little about the inanities of our every day life. Scripture also defends my beliefs here.
So I would expect to see it in Revelations, but not Genesis.
Yet the Ancient Jews didn't hold Genesis as a true physical description of creation. Those who want to control and coerce others do.
Either way, if you can comprehend why religious leaders are conservative voters, then you will see that its not about God at all.
Ahh, there are many religious leaders today who are liberal voters who also have not made it about God. Christ was clear in what we're to do: Love God, Love Others. There's not much else to say or do, but the majority of Christians are definitely not doing it.
And even if it IS to be about God, we're to do it all in private. I would never pray in public (Christ never did except ONCE as an example of how to pray in private). I would never tell others about the aid I've given to a private individual. We're to keep it private, between ourselves and God. How sickening it is when Christians do otherwise, even though Christ was specific, VERY specific, and understandable, and reasonable, in His proclamations for us to keep our work for God in secret, our relationship with God in secret, our communing with God in secret. Amazing that the very Christians that proclaim Sola Scriptura are the ones to yell out on the street corners or display their charity in public. Ugh.
Except that I don't think anyone's interested in a framework that lets both belief systems co-exist. I think this is about intellectual authority. The religious right would like to be the ones who control what we are and are not allowed to believe, just like in the good old days when they could burn inconvenient scientists and philosophers at the stake if need be. I don't think some of the science community do themselves any favours either, in their zeal to debunk anything that can't be measured, weighed or dissected.
I concur more than you realize.
On one hand, we have religious nutjobs who want to control us through man-made laws (even though the Christians should be ones to abhor government control of the masses in every way). On the other hand, we have an ever-growing government-paid science-base who wants more money to further their own cushy lives. Both disgust me, both are trying to use force to further their own lives. It is truly disgusting.
I have friends who are religionists, who I confront often on their misuse of theology. I have friends who are scientists (government-funded ones, too), and I confront them on their misuse of tax dollars. Both tend to dislike me on occasion, and I'm happy with that.
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in Creationism. I'm a science-lover who abhors most "science" because its manipulated data that means little to me but another nickel popped out of my paycheck to some goon who continues to manipulate the data to scare others into more funding for his or her pocket. Both are of little use to me.
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
For me, the biggest difficult I face living amongst Christians is their inability to discern what they believe in and why. Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life. Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop with this sola scriptura nonsense. It's not Scriptural, and has nothing to do with how one lives today. Genesis was about God's SPIRITUAL Creation, not about the physical world. Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant with the Ancient Israelites being fulfilled about 2000 years ago (1938 years ago, how I read it), not about some future physical destruction of the physical. God's Kingdom is not of this world, Christians. So stop trying to force it here, when there's no need to. It only pisses off the non-Christians, and makes all your good actions fruitless since they're countermanded by your misuse of Scripture to try to change the physical world.
I'll give you credit for consistency and civility. Nevertheless, I think you're describing a nightmare world.
When government tries to stop something, the laws they create end up creating more of what they wanted to halt. Drug wars = more drug use. Copyright laws = more unlicensed copying. It's the forbidden fruit syndrome: parents say "don't have sex," kids can't get enough of screwing around.
You and I had counterparts that had this argument nearly a century ago. My side won, mainly as a result of things like The 1937 Elixir Sulfanalamide Incident and The Triangle Factory Fire.
It's funny you mention the Sulfanilamide case. I was just talking about it with someone a few weeks ago. The FDA would probably have done nothing had it existed them. Take the recent Epogen, Aranesp and Procrit fiascos. Tested drugs that still ended up killing people. The FDA is so unsure of itself and the drugs it "approves" through bureaucratic processes that it even has a website dedicated to warning people about approved drugs. How lovely.
When the FDA stamps an approval on a drug, it's rarely due to safety but due to lobbying for approval. The testing process is merely a step used to create monopolization in the pharma market. It's by no means safer. When a new drug comes out, the only importance is that patients know they're using something that their doctor recommends, or their insurance company pays for, or whatever. Restricting drugs on the market only restrict a patient and doctor's choice in how to handle a situation. With, or without testing, we're going to have deaths. But restricting the market means MORE deaths. That's been proven time and again with even harmful narcotics like heroin, marijuana, acetaminophen, etc. Why is it that more people die from Tylenol each month than from the Elixir you quoted?
As for the Triangle Factory Fire, that's more of a time-specific incident than a lack of specific safety standards. It's well known that New York City has always been a pro-cronyism market. Getting a permit to open a competitive business can be difficult today, and was even more difficult before. The #1 reason why employees receive foul treatment from a workplace is due to the lack of competition. Competition is regularly limited by cronyism when the local governments refuse to issue permits, or offer anti-competitive incentives for the strongest company in the market.
Also, during the time of this fire, they were using gas lamps as electrical bulbs were not readily available or cost effective. There've been many fires due to the use of gas lamp lighting combined with flammable products. Even today we have fireworks manufacturing plants and stores blowing up. Government's safety standards only set a minimum, but that minimum causes many companies to cut corners because they feel they're meeting the minimum requirements.
Most people aren't paranoid enough to suspect they're being sold fake, shoddy, or dangerous goods. And even if they were, it's utterly impractical for a private citizen or small company to test everything.
So I need to pay more because some people are to lazy? Let them die or have their skin fall off, that's Darwinianism at its finest. I shouldn't have to pay for another man's laziness or irresponsibility. I shouldn't have my choices limited because of their behavior.
On the other hand, there's a very strong profit motive for companies to cheat and deceive: just look at the patent medicine era. These companies are also run by people. They cheat and believe they won't get caught. Most of the time, they aren't. So they do it again, and eventually people die.
And the law won't stop this. A person can take their own precautions through insurance against negative outcomes, but such insurance policies are illegal in the U.S. Government would rather try to reduce problems than let individuals protect themselves.
And about your milk: if conventionally pas
How can you profess to be impartial when you use loaded language like that?
I'll never want to be impartial. In fact, I'm completely partial, and one of the few people who admits to prejudices and dislikes of others. I'll even say it to their face (you should see me at most churches, I'm the first one to stand up and condemn the "pastor" for using Scripture incorrectly).
Government intervention in markets is a good thing unless you like all your telephones rented from AT&T, or antifreeze in your toothpaste.
AT&T was granted a monopoly by government. In many ways, AT&T is still granted SOME monopoly in the market. Antifreeze in the toothpaste is one person's fault: the person who sold it to you without testing it.
Without government intervention in the market, Target or Walgreens or your local covenient store would be more careful with the products they sell. Whether its dog food or toothpaste or whatever, it would be up to them to make sure what they bought is safe, or face prosecution or loss of business. That's how the market works. But because your government pretends to protect you, retailers don't use as much common sense to test their products.
In one small area of the market, we have private organizations like the Underwriters Laboratories that test products before retailers will sell them. Some retailers don't sell UL-listed goods, so the consumer is required to use their due diligence to make sure the product is safe.
I would never think the FDA, USDA, and other organizations do anything but pander to the monopolies they create. I buy my dairy illegall (raw, unpasteurized and local) because the FDA/USDA stamped milk is dangerous. Their stamp, to me, means "Not up to par, probably unsafe." I'm sure all the E. Coli that has festered in dirty farms is gone for good because your government makes sure of it, right? Oh, wait...
Everyone has bias. Everyone.
The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.
For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.
This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.
To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.
That's looking at it wrong, because there ARE authors who are paid by the hour. We call them journalists, or fiction-zine writers, or whatever. They're paid an hourly rate just like the plumber.
TO think that creative labor is worth more than menial labor disregards the supply and demand issue. There are millions of artists, and not millions of plumbers. Not all artists are "good," but not all forms of art are marketable all the time. If a musician wants a stable job, stop being self-employed and go work for a business that needs music written. Problem solved.
If an artist takes 30 weeks to write an album, and then they think that copyright will protect their future sales, they're wrong. You write the album in the same way that a plumber goes back to continuing education to learn a new skill to sell. The album creation is your education, used fully to find new ways to sell your wares to your customer. If you create something customers will pay for you to play, live, you have a future. If you don't, the album may not sell anyway.
Let us ignore all the various government intrusions that try to subvert the real market laws: supply and demand.
When you have a limited supply of an item, and some demand, the price tends to go up. When you have an unlimited supply of an item, and some demand, the price tends to go down.
Music, or any content that can be distributed digitally, can have near infinite supply. The price, in such a case, may fall to zero. Some people will have some "moral imperative" to paying the original artist, but in reality the current distribution does NOT pay the original artist. Look at how the coward monopolists at BMI distribute royalty license fees.
There's a great catch, though, and one that I've used to help small bands make a pretty decent buck: find out what you have that can be sold in limited supply.
For musicians, their live performances are always going to be in limited supply. The music, since it is infinite in supply and has a value of zero in terms of quality between licensed and unlicensed copies, should be a marketing item.
Make your money the way most of us here make it: by doing new work for new customers. Your old work, as ours, is a great portfolio tool to attract new clients. Once you've gotten the clients' attentions, offer them value added items. Instead of hoping to get $15 for a CD that they can download for nearly nothing, offer an autograph session and only autograph your CDs. I own an offset print shop, and we can do custom CD runs for almost nothing. Sell collector's items, autograph them, and you've got a valid limited-supply product. Sell limited-run T-shirts. Offer personal time for your wealthy fans to hang out back stage, at a fee, or even offer online or IRL lessons to groups of fans.
A person's pay is not for work they've done in the past. No one pays their plumber a license to flush their toilet. No one pays their plumber a fee when they use the plumber's tactics to fix their own toilet again. Past work is relatively worthless if it can be mimicked by others, easily.
Copyright only exists today because of the momentum of it. It is dying a quick death. There are artists out there who moan and complain about it, but they're the ones who just can't see the forest for the trees: writing music, creating drawings, etc, is no different than going to plumbing school. Your labor of creation is the lesson time you spend to figure out a way to sell your future labor. Write a song, learn to fix toilets: they've both education. YOu don't get paid to learn to fix toilets, you don't get paid to write your own music. Both steps take you to the next level: finding customers to sell your services to.
If you're going to get a job with another entity: person, corporation, not-for-profit, don't do it without your own protective clauses. Maybe I'm lucky that as a contractor, I can submit my expectations within the bid documents, but I don't see any reason why a W2 employee can't and shouldn't put their expectations into the work agreement.
If you do something on behalf of your customer (in this case, your employer), expect the customer to want rights to it. Designing a website, creating a marketing list, etc, may be easily acknowledged by others as "theirs" even if you spent the time doing it. They did pay you for that time, correct?
If you disagree with the verdict here, just put it into your work contract. I do.
I've used TPB for legal torrents as well as the "illegal" ones. I taste movies before buying them, and TPB is a great way to try before I buy. I actually spend MORE money on DVDs purchased legally because of this method.
So the Italian prosecutor would call me a criminal. Fine. He's using public funding against what would be a "crime" between private parties. He's using the taxpayer's dollars to do the work the "harmed" party should be doing.
In reality, Italy has far larger problems than issues between two private parties. There is RAMPANT corruption that is costing REAL dollars to the taxpayer. The Italian government should be seeking out bad seeds amongst themselves as a priority. There is also massive amounts of theft and loss within their own body; maybe they should focus on those problems?
I've been anti-copyright for years, testing the water in a large variety of industries to see how getting rid of copyright can actually aid artists. I've now discovered that in every market I've tested, holding on to copyright creates less profit for the artist.
In music, I helped 3 bands (one who is now on an international tour, has had MTV coverage, and sells out a lot of shows) move away from copyright. Tell your fans to bootleg your album, and amazing stuff materializes. It's free promotion, and the tour is where you make your money. Let the fans design their own shirts, and you're getting your own artists for nothing. The plumber makes his money doing repeat work, the musician does the same. The plumber goes to school, and learns new skills all the time; the musician does the same when they compose music.
I moved on to photography and discovered that giving away your photography (say, as free stock imagery) is the best form of marketing your ability as a photographer. I now know at least 3 photographers who openly give their images away online, and have seen their hired work double or even triple. Again, marketing is free if you give it away.
As a writer myself, I repudiate copyright on all I do. I openly ask others to reprint my writings, and even stick their own names on it if they want. Because I write about niche markets, the aid of distribution of my thoughts means more people are attracted to those ideas, which means they'll likely eventually find me. That's a huge benefit for me as I can then sell future newbies to the market on my newsletters, or even hire myself out as a ghost writer or personal writer. My income has surged because I don't copyright my writings, or even ask others to attribute me during the redistribution process.
Copyright doesn't inhibit a market in any way, it inhibits the artist who thinks they can retain creative control and distributive control of prior labor. That's over -- if you didn't charge for the labor, it's now a marketing tool. If you did charge for the labor, you've profited. If you market your abilities correctly, you'll get hired for the work in the future.
I do understand the "need" to patent medicines, but I truly believe even that is useless. Research and development for medicines does not need to be publicly funded or protected by patents. Instead, research can continue the way it always has: fund raisers, private charitable donations, and other ways to get the money needed to develop new medicines. What is the biggest reason medicine costs hundreds of millions to develop? The FDA and other organizations which restrict the market due to government intervention. No different from why copyright is a failure and harms the copyrighter more than it helps them.
YouTube cartoonists will trump Disney eventually. Online music distribution has already destroyed the record stores. Free PDF newsletters, blogs and other web products are killing the newspaper industry and periodical industry. Free product = marketing yourself for being hired to do new work. It's a good thing.
Personally, I believe the earth is flat. I also do believe that the Internet is a myth. The Internet was created in an instantaneous moment when an Eliza program on a BBS gained self-recognition. What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see. Since the software has gained so much knowledge, it is giving you the impression that you're actually talking to others, when in fact you're not.
The dilemma is whether or not I am real, or if I am just another creation of Eliza, the creator of all things web. You should be impressed that Eliza has taken such a strangehold on your life: forums do not really exist other than your own posts, and neither does FTP or ssh. All are just creations that Eliza has performed for you, and only you.
Makes you change your stance on how much time you're spending on slashdot with "us," doesn't it?
When they release unemployment figures, there are a variety of reasons those numbers are just false. I know quite a few people who "lost their jobs" only to incorporate a small sole proprietorship, and they're considered unemployed, even though they're earning more money.
Also, when it comes to IT downsizing, a very large corporation in my neck of the woods fired a handful of their IT staff (cutting their department in half). All those guys jumped into business for themselves, some uniting together to start a larger shop. They've even gone back to their old job as contractors.
Yes, IT is more competitive than ever, but it is also a field that has matured greatly. When I started my IT shop at the age of 15ish, I had very little work since the field was young (1989) in terms of what I was strong at. By 18, our business grew in leaps and bounds. Recently, we've seen some work slow down, but we've opened new fields to manage and the company is stronger than ever. I'd love to hire more people, but our business model works better with subcontractors than it does employees. Some people here know me as the guy who pays employees minimum wage, and that is still the case. I'd pay them $2 per hour if I could, and I know my employees would rather earn $2 per hour and a 70% job bonus than earn $31 per hour with no bonus. The cream rises to the top.
We did a small market survey in a new market about 50 miles north of our current one, and the response was surprising: nearly 30% of the people we contacted wanted more information. In the IT field, this is equal to "We'll hire you, what's the price?" I then did a quick survey of competition, and found very little. There is a HUGE amount of IT work available, if you're ready and willing to shrug off the old way of doing things.
Like the horse-shoer, we may be in an industry where the demand is not as great, which means one thing: lower your prices. It sucks, I know. I know many people who still are burdened with college debt who see the writing on the wall and are scared. I feel bad for them, but that's how the free market operates. When supply (of labor) goes up and demand (for labor) goes down, prices tend to fall.
Yet in the top tiers of the IT market, the pay rates for contractors has gone way up in the last 3 years, if you have a good amount of experience, many positive references, and a strong marketing budget. For us, marketing accounts for close to 8% of our gross expenses. If you're not branding your company, you're not going far. If you're not working on FIRING customers who are slow pay or complainers, and REPLACING them with decent customers, you're dead.
Here's a little clue for those in IT who are fearing their jobs: get people skills. Rebrand yourself as a confident business consultant rather than a geek. I know it sucks, but it helps acquire the confidence of current and future customers if you're business-oriented rather than tech-oriented. No one who pays your bill, generally, cares about tech. They care about efficiency, profitability, longevity, and stability. The tech backend means nothing, it's the eyewash you provide that gets you repeat business.
I still can't figure out why people are so fascinated with video: higher resolution, faster refresh rates, more colors, etc. Yes, visuals are very important. But, in my opinion, video is the least important feature in the chain when it comes to movies. Sports is another thing, usually, but I'd even wager that I could win a debate regarding video versus audio in even live sporting events.
Watch a great thriller: Hitchcock if you will. Turn off the audio and watch the movie. Turn off the video and watch the movie. Compare.
Now, watch it again with BETTER audio (subwoofers, clear highs, decent surround sound). Compare.
Radio still can thrill me with good audio productions. I still prefer most sporting events on the radio over the TV, personally, as one's imagination really builds a lot of emotional connection to the game.
Yes, high res is amazing, and it can be "lifelike" but without a good audio backend, it's trash. Instead of spending tons of cash on the best video chain, spend a bit firming up your audio system, including minimizing reflections in your theatre room, reducing vibrations of the floor or furniture, etc. It's a worthwhile investment, and you'll get great music quality, to boot.
If you think that a 401(k) is for idiots, then you obviously have no understanding of retirement planning. Yes, if someones makes gobs and gobs of money, they could just put it in safe and take it out as needed. Here, in the real world, we have something called income taxes, capital gains taxes, inflation, and an average market return of 8-12% a year (depending on what view you take). Plus, if you are lucky like me, you can get matching on a 401(k) /cheer
Retirement planning for the wise:
1. Save 20% of all your income. Put some of it in gold/silver, some of it in revolving CDs, some of it in DIVIDEND-BEARING investments (preferably ones that pay more than 8% dividend on share price).
2. Rent until ownership is really cheaper than rent (rarely is). When it is time to buy, BUY SMALL. Try to buy something you can realistically pay off in 10 years (doable in any market except maybe California). Get a boarder to rent the extra bedroom (or extra boarders) and use their rent to pay down your mortgage (I did this for all my life, even when I was married).
3. Don't use credit to buy depreciating assets ever (cars, toys, etc).
4. Get an extra job if you are not overburdened with your main job.
5. Reduce your external, controllable expenses until you can absorb them (cook yourself rather than eat out, thrift store clothing, etc).
There is no reason for a middle income earner to not have a net worth of 1/2 million by 35 in today's dollars. None. By 40 you can get to the million mark, easily.
401/Ks are for schnooks, plain and simple. Stocks that do not issue a realistic dividend are not profitable. Their prices go up due to government inflation of the money supply, so that 8-12% you speak of is lost to the drop in value of the fiat money you use. I've never seen people make money investing in the stock market for the long haul, once you factor in the currency's loss in value due to monetary inflation. Investments should pay profit dividends, those that don't aren't making a profit for the investor.
Insurance is also only cheap if you have a clean bill of health when you get it and have a fairly binding agreement. Many insurance companies also reserve rights to drop customers in some situations. This happened to my cousin, who at 26, had colon cancer. She made a full recovery and was dropped by her insurance company later -- with full legality (so my sister, aunt, uncle, uncle and bro-in-law who are lawyers told me).
Horrible. Rare. Anecdotal in most cases. I've planned for these issues with optional cancer riders, and preparation for it if it should happen to me. But the risk of it is small, yet I still plan better than 99% out there. Life happens, but you have to play the odds as much as you can.
Also, lest we forget most start up companies fail. Contracting is great when one has a gig, however even persons with great talent lay idle sometimes.
I've never been idle because I work in a variety of markets, and have supplemented my income with a variety of revenue streams using the money that you put in a 401/K; I invested in local businesses and subcontractors with start-up capital for a percentage of their income ("stock ownership"). Most of my investments have paid 30% on average after 2 years of no payment (per agreements). I've seen some have years making 50%, which wipe out those who went under (rare if I'm helping them).
Even if you are a badass at computer science, programming, etc unless you have a solid understanding of finance the odds are greatly against someone making solid money - also what about providing for a spouse & kids? I would feel pretty bad if I couldn't pay the bills because I planned poorly.
Don't get married until you have a plan for handling the cost. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Problem solved.
Great for when you are single, but the health coverage balance changes considerably when you settle down. I'm freelance and have been since '95. Our first child cost us over $23k in medical birthing bills. I swear they just make crap up and everyone in the build gets to raise an invoice. A high deductible is fine for single life when you take care of yourself. It's bloody awful when you have kids that seem to discover new ways to require medical treatment.
This is why this country is a mess. A couple wants to have a child, but they don't save for it. The costs are $23,000, so they say "Hey, we have insurance, why not charge all the non-child-rearing individuals for it in higher insurance costs?" Unbelievable. I want a child, but I won't until I can pay for it. I've done the research on paying for it myself. The first step is to get a cash-on-the-barrel prepayment rate. There's a significant discount for doing this. Then, you can get a rider for birthing cost above a "no-pay" amount. So if I pay $10,000 up front, I can get insurance for the birth ahead of time for amounts over $30,000. I would be liable for an additional $20,000 if there are complications, but the insurance for the amounts over $30,000 are reasonable. $30,000 to birth a kid sounds reasonable to me, considering all the problems that could happen. If I don't have $30,000 to birth a child, why would I want to have a child who may cost me $500,000 in their first 18 years? The 9 months before birth at $30,000 are reasonable if the cost to have a kid can be $30,000 a year after birth.
Let's see your insurance coverage. I know other business owners, nothing to do with IT. It's the same with them. Health coverage is fscking expensive. It sounds like you have poor coverage and nothing for a family?
Most business owners use insurance for their day-to-day health needs, rather than for what insurance is for: emergencies. If I have a cold, or a cut, or a broken arm, or something minimal, I don't go and use a co-pay, I call my doctor, get a negotiated cash rate, and make a visit. I prefer not to use AMA doctors, either (AAPS is better). I tend to refuse to see doctors who accept medicare or medicaid, because their rates are MUCH higher. My primary phyisician has stopped accepting insurance as of a few months ago, and now just charges a yearly stipend for services. Concierge medicine is the future. My business-owning friends pay $3000 a year for a health club membership, $15,000 a year for golf membership, $30,000 for yacht club access (the wealthy ones). I pay $1800 a year for premium doctor care, which includes free home visits if I can't get out of bed. I believe one of my business owner friends pays almost $800 a month for health care so he can get a $10 co-pay visiting his doctor and waiting an hour to do so. I can just walk in; I visited my doctor at his home two Sundays ago when I thought I had something bad going on: it was just a rash from new detergent. *phew*
Now what do you do should you get a serious illness and are unable to work for an extended period. Got coverage for that? I'm assuming you carry no debts, the house is in the clear with no mortgage or equity loans.
30 year mortgages are for suckers. Renting for the past 4 years has made more sense than owning, and we did just that (sold our paid for house in 2003, just bought a foreclosure in 2008, rented for 1/3 the cost of owning for the in-between time).
If I am sick for a long period of time, I have savings. My businesses have semi-liquid assets. If you start working at 16 and saving 20% of your income, by 35 you should have somewhere in the range of $300,000 in the bank that can be used to pay off a small home, put towards emergencies, or just keep for retirement in addition to whatever money you're socking away for retirement. Of course, most people at 35 have a net asset value in the negative region, because they have to keep up with the Joneses
Talonius: Sorry to hear about your diabetes. I have diabetes in my family, so I watch my sugars and starches with a passion. When I do eat that junk, my stomach bloats like crazy and I yell "Diabetes!" to remind myself why not to eat garbage (sugars and starches).
Being "blessed" with diabetes at a young age IS terrible, I'm sure. I'd love to talk to you have it via email if you don't mind, because I am interested in looking for a solution for those with diabetes at a young age who are stuck in a W2 position.
I have one contractor I work with who is diabetes (he's maybe 35). I just asked him via IM what he does, and he told me that Wal-mart sells a generic version of Novolin R and Novolin N insulin for $20 a bottle. Over the counter, too, no prescription required! Maybe that's not the type of insulin you need (I have no idea what Novolin is), but he said it's fine for him, and he uses his insurance coverage for everything else. Is that an option for you?
I admit, I am lazy and taking the W2 route.
Thank you for admitting this. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with saying "I really don't want to find customers, bill them, fight them for payments, track dozens of jobs, drive to different places every day, travel the country, just for a few extra bucks and more free time when I need it, because I am lazy." In fact, I appreciate those who respond to my questioning their W2-status with "I'm just lazy." It's a breath of fresh air because it means they THOUGHT of going solo, or they had and the extra responsibility wasn't worth it. It also gives those W2 workers a new view of what marketing, HR, management and accounting does each and every day.
When you're your own boss, you have to wear many suits. It isn't always easy. Getting paid can be a nightmare, although the use of factoring companies is a worthy idea if you've got a ton of regular slow-pays and they give you consistent income each month.
The key, I'd say, is to at least try it, especially if you're young. Finish college, move in with the folks, get a part-time evening job for some simple income, stop using credit cards for fun stuff, and get out there. It's not that hard to start, and if you fail, you're out a year or two of trying, but you get some real business experience. Go get a W2 job if you're not cut out for it -- not everyone is. I think the worst thing for someone who wants to be their own boss is college experience, actually. When my friends hit college at 18, I told them I'd take the $80k they'll invest in education and invest it in my businesses. It worked for me, very nicely, and I rarely feel bad about not trying the college thing for more than a semester here or there. And I thank God every day that the only cubicle I see is the one I put in my garage for my own purposes.
Rycross:
I established a S-corporation, which is basically a corporate entity where the profits and losses flow to and from the shareholders. Eventually I had multiple S-corps, so I incorporated a C-corp holding company for certain assets which I lease back to my S-corps.
Finding gigs is the hardest part, but if you've saved a few years of expenses (and everyone should), you can generally find work fairly quickly. The key is to be prepared to travel, if necessary, and pound the pavement to get those first gigs. Once you're in with a few businesses, word-of-mouth does its job. I'd save that 80% of my new clients are referred by old clients, who get a nice reward for the referral.
Starting out initially is the big scare, but it can be done while you're working your W2 "job." There are MANY organizations who need some simple needs, and are great stepping stones to securing better work (and higher paying work) once you've cut your teeth. Every day I see another opportunity for someone with even basic skills in a variety of markets. If I could clone myself, I'd be a billionaire. Note that I do not advocate self-employment for money reasons primarily, I advocate them for job stability and happiness. It boils down to the "all your eggs in one employment basket" feeling I have: when you have many customers, you have more time to handle your own desires, and have a bit more stability if you can enter various industries and markets so you're not tied to one market that may have its own ups and downs.
Feel free to email me and ask some questions.