Whether or not we need to account for that ratio depends on whether we expect them to be reintegrated into society soon. If it's a "stuck on an abandoned island for decades" scenario, then yes. If it's a rescue back to the mainland, though, men are useless, because there's already pretty close to a 1:1 ratio in society.
As for the selection of women, quantity is likely more important than quality for service, since the Coolidge effect would likely be in play.
It's more the idea that men are the expendable gender. After all, one man can get multiple women pregnant, but one women can (practically speaking) only carry one man's child at a time.
Look, anybody who isn't completely in the dark knows that nicotine is bad for one's overall health (it is a naturally occurring pesticide, after all). We don't really need studies to know that.
In practice, e-cigs are a cigarette replacement, hence the name. Comparing them to cigarettes is thus the most important benchmark for serious inquiry about their health effects.
How can anyone be this bad at their core business?
Their core business is maintaining an oligopoly on an essential service, and they do that well. Keeping information safe is not part of their core business, and thus, they pay little attention to it.
Neither party is involved in the engineering of self-driving cars, so I'm highly skeptical of that assessment. Might as well be written on the back of a napkin.
Private companies hire employees because they get more benefits from them than the cost of hiring them. Thus, there is no need to incentivize these companies, because they are engaging in theoretically mutually beneficial deals. Thus, anything that is given to them to entice them is an unnecessary wasting of a resource, and efficient allocation of resources is the bulk of the argument for capitalism.
Take that option away and it's more likely the city will wither away and die. This is great for real estate developers and land owners in the big cities as demand for their product increases because businesses have fewer incentives to expand in other areas. However as the cost of living as well as congestion rise faster in these big cities as a result, the middle class and below will be more likely to be hurt than helped.
You just made my argument for me. Without these incentives, big cities can only expand so much before the cost becomes prohibitive. That's precisely why Amazon is building outside of Seattle. The cost of the land is going to be a factor, just as the tax incentives are, and the limited supply of land means that big cities can't maintain a grip other than having vastly superior infrastructure that overrides the costs of high population density.
Under a system where preferential tax treatment was not allowed, would a city also be banned from using general revenue to build a new sewer treatment plant and extending water, electricity, sewers, transportation and telecommunication infrastructure to an area in hopes of attracting businesses to the area with "shovel ready building pads" as that's as much of a subsidy as waiving property taxes for ten years for any company building a facility on that same land.
No, because unlike tax incentives, infrastructure spending typically does not have significant negative externalities. I'll be upset if my children don't have textbooks because our tax revenue has dried up, I'm not going to be upset that my streets are filled with sewage.
Ad hominem is only a fallacy if there is not a substantial argument to accompany it. I can and will undermine your argument and call you a cunt in the same post, and that's perfectly valid reasoning. Perhaps not polite, but politeness doesn't belong in political discussion, which by its very nature involves forces operating on an abominable scale.
Plus, you are merely repeating the ridiculous rhetoric of "job creators" that both parties have used to prop up an oligarchy in this country for the past few decades. I don't think it's necessary to write a doctoral thesis on why corporate welfare is bad, because tomes have already been written on the subject, and both conservatives and liberals are against such policies in the abstract (although the ideologically impure are okay with it in specific cases if it is in their personal interest). If corporate welfare is a good idea, sell the idea on corporate welfare. But that framing is incredibly unpopular, and for good reason. This is, without a doubt, an instance of corporate welfare, and if you support it, you support corporate welfare. That's why I insult your position, on top of briefly explaining the problems with it.
You and other keep asking why, and the answer is quite simple. This dynamic almost perfectly models a prisoner's dilemma, where cooperation is the most productive, mutual defection is the least productive, but mutual defection is the strategy that is at Nash Equilibrium. I'm sorry that this discussion isn't especially riveting, but its the game that applies best, it's the go-to example of the shortcomings of simple rational self-interest, and it's been established that the only winning move is not play. Since we have that move at our disposal, I support the obvious course of action that we use that move.
Because it prevents a prisoner's dilemma, benefiting all players. Same reason that sports professionals aren't allowed to take steroids, even though they otherwise maintain autonomous control of their own bodies. Also, the same reason that tobacco companies are limited in their advertising (something the industry lobbied for).
Circular logic. It's legal precisely because the government hasn't done anything. If the government makes those deals illegal, it's not legal anymore. As for why, it's because it represents a well known game with a strongly negative Nash equilibrium. All players gain a net benefit by removing the option to defect. This is precisely the kind of thing that government or rules are actually useful for.
While I'm not a fan of it, we've already got a precedent of "do what we want or we'll deny you important federal funds.' So, if states try to have a subsidy race-to-the-bottom and unfair taxation practices, then no money for roads. That's completely legal under current case law, so now the conversation is whether or not we should. A prisoner's dilemma creates a vicious cycle, so we should stop it, one way or another.
People aren't decrying democracies, they are decrying prisoner's dilemmas. Where democracy comes in is in public support for getting rid of prisoner's dilemmas, and when idiots like you stop spewing Ronald Reagan's brand of bullshit propaganda, public support for those better policies rises. Hence why we are calling you out for your idiotic stances.
Worse yet, those people don't even have consistency. States are the least specialized form of government in our system. The premise of decentralized control is good, but states are at the middle. Thus, if Republicans really believed in local government, they would side with counties and municipalities over states. But no, they just always support the state-level government, because it's just right for maintaining a corporate fiefdom.
How is City A "compelled" to offer incentives to a private business any more than Best Buy is "compelled" to price match Walmart's prices?
I'm not claiming that cities are MORE compelled than corporations to compete. I'm claiming that corporations competing is a good thing, while governments competing is a bad thing.
If the Federal Government were to try to "fix" this (non)problem, it would be an action by an even smaller percentage of well connected people forcing their judgement on individual communities.
No it would be a government that is not directly controlled by this issue solving a classic game theory problem (prisoner's dilemma) by changing the rules to have a less destructive game.
Yes, the people making that decision would be a highly privileged group, but ANYTHING the federal government does is the same. Stopping companies from selling tainted drugs would fit that bill as well, but we generally aren't whining that the FDA prevents corporations from poisoning their customers (other problems, sure, but that's largely due to the fact that we allow so much money in our political system).
Your claims of elite control are facetious. Among people who are aware of how these things pan out in practice, corporate welfare is very unpopular. In fact, if you correctly call it "corporate welfare" instead of that "job creator" garbage, the general public is strongly against it.
GP making absurd claims doesn't mean your claims are not absurd. His claims were hyperbolic, but yours are just naive. You are assuming that jobs in that area will not exist at all without Amazon, hence why you are assuming a $15k gain per person per year. You might as well be reading from Amazon's corporate propaganda. Hell, they probably aren't as brazen enough to make such a ridiculous claim, and at least assume that SOME of the jobs are going to be moving from other employers.
Are these "lawyers and accountants" the ones they're replacing with robots after hiring them for a year?
No, they are the ones that make sure that they get away with paying even less taxes than they agreed to, and that they aren't compelled to actually provide 50,000 jobs. So, they'll have 10,000 full time minimum wage jobs, 7,000 part time jobs, and if you even think about holding them responsible for what they've agreed to, they'll pack up and go home.
Are you also going to assume spherical cows, are are we going to discuss the real world where corporations are amoral, sociopathic, and hire enough lawyers and accountants to make sure that they win no matter what?
No city, county, or state is "compelled" to offer incentives to Amazon and no sane city, county, or state (all controlled by democratically elected voters) would do so if it hurt them.
You are making some really ridiculous statements without support for your premises.
1.Governments are sane.
2. Governments are democratically controlled by voters.
3. Governments and citizens have perfect information.
The reality is that a small handful of well connected people will get bulk of the benefits, the public will suffer, but they'll get popular support because people will do mental gymnastics to insist that this is indeed a net benefit. Since Joe Sixpack doesn't understand macroenomics, you can just yell about jobs and throw in some buzzwords and get enough public support to not lose re-election over this.
Amazon is definitely crossing state lines, so amazon in general is definitely interstate commerce. This particular deal isn't shipping goods across state lines, but it is part of an interstate bidding war, and thus would fall under "necessary and proper."
I will agree that the interstate commerce clause has been expanded beyond where it should, but this is preventing a prisoner's dilemma, which is exactly the kind of thing you need a federal government for.
If we've got bacteria that can shield cells from the effects of chemotherapy, then that could potentially be very useful. If we can get it to do the same thing for the rest of the body in a relatively benign way, then it might greatly improve outcomes for chemo patients.
Because this is utilizing the waste of one process (computing) for another useful purpose (heating), and results in net benefits for everyone. The office doesn't pay for heating, and the party utilizing the computing doesn't pay for cooling.
Slashdot Mirror
What is that in hogsheads?
Whether or not we need to account for that ratio depends on whether we expect them to be reintegrated into society soon. If it's a "stuck on an abandoned island for decades" scenario, then yes. If it's a rescue back to the mainland, though, men are useless, because there's already pretty close to a 1:1 ratio in society.
As for the selection of women, quantity is likely more important than quality for service, since the Coolidge effect would likely be in play.
It's more the idea that men are the expendable gender. After all, one man can get multiple women pregnant, but one women can (practically speaking) only carry one man's child at a time.
Look, anybody who isn't completely in the dark knows that nicotine is bad for one's overall health (it is a naturally occurring pesticide, after all). We don't really need studies to know that.
In practice, e-cigs are a cigarette replacement, hence the name. Comparing them to cigarettes is thus the most important benchmark for serious inquiry about their health effects.
Their core business is maintaining an oligopoly on an essential service, and they do that well. Keeping information safe is not part of their core business, and thus, they pay little attention to it.
Neither party is involved in the engineering of self-driving cars, so I'm highly skeptical of that assessment. Might as well be written on the back of a napkin.
Private companies hire employees because they get more benefits from them than the cost of hiring them. Thus, there is no need to incentivize these companies, because they are engaging in theoretically mutually beneficial deals. Thus, anything that is given to them to entice them is an unnecessary wasting of a resource, and efficient allocation of resources is the bulk of the argument for capitalism.
You just made my argument for me. Without these incentives, big cities can only expand so much before the cost becomes prohibitive. That's precisely why Amazon is building outside of Seattle. The cost of the land is going to be a factor, just as the tax incentives are, and the limited supply of land means that big cities can't maintain a grip other than having vastly superior infrastructure that overrides the costs of high population density.
No, because unlike tax incentives, infrastructure spending typically does not have significant negative externalities. I'll be upset if my children don't have textbooks because our tax revenue has dried up, I'm not going to be upset that my streets are filled with sewage.
Ad hominem is only a fallacy if there is not a substantial argument to accompany it. I can and will undermine your argument and call you a cunt in the same post, and that's perfectly valid reasoning. Perhaps not polite, but politeness doesn't belong in political discussion, which by its very nature involves forces operating on an abominable scale.
Plus, you are merely repeating the ridiculous rhetoric of "job creators" that both parties have used to prop up an oligarchy in this country for the past few decades. I don't think it's necessary to write a doctoral thesis on why corporate welfare is bad, because tomes have already been written on the subject, and both conservatives and liberals are against such policies in the abstract (although the ideologically impure are okay with it in specific cases if it is in their personal interest). If corporate welfare is a good idea, sell the idea on corporate welfare. But that framing is incredibly unpopular, and for good reason. This is, without a doubt, an instance of corporate welfare, and if you support it, you support corporate welfare. That's why I insult your position, on top of briefly explaining the problems with it.
You and other keep asking why, and the answer is quite simple. This dynamic almost perfectly models a prisoner's dilemma, where cooperation is the most productive, mutual defection is the least productive, but mutual defection is the strategy that is at Nash Equilibrium. I'm sorry that this discussion isn't especially riveting, but its the game that applies best, it's the go-to example of the shortcomings of simple rational self-interest, and it's been established that the only winning move is not play. Since we have that move at our disposal, I support the obvious course of action that we use that move.
Because it prevents a prisoner's dilemma, benefiting all players. Same reason that sports professionals aren't allowed to take steroids, even though they otherwise maintain autonomous control of their own bodies. Also, the same reason that tobacco companies are limited in their advertising (something the industry lobbied for).
Circular logic. It's legal precisely because the government hasn't done anything. If the government makes those deals illegal, it's not legal anymore. As for why, it's because it represents a well known game with a strongly negative Nash equilibrium. All players gain a net benefit by removing the option to defect. This is precisely the kind of thing that government or rules are actually useful for.
While I'm not a fan of it, we've already got a precedent of "do what we want or we'll deny you important federal funds.' So, if states try to have a subsidy race-to-the-bottom and unfair taxation practices, then no money for roads. That's completely legal under current case law, so now the conversation is whether or not we should. A prisoner's dilemma creates a vicious cycle, so we should stop it, one way or another.
People aren't decrying democracies, they are decrying prisoner's dilemmas. Where democracy comes in is in public support for getting rid of prisoner's dilemmas, and when idiots like you stop spewing Ronald Reagan's brand of bullshit propaganda, public support for those better policies rises. Hence why we are calling you out for your idiotic stances.
Worse yet, those people don't even have consistency. States are the least specialized form of government in our system. The premise of decentralized control is good, but states are at the middle. Thus, if Republicans really believed in local government, they would side with counties and municipalities over states. But no, they just always support the state-level government, because it's just right for maintaining a corporate fiefdom.
Okay, call it "corporate financial handjobs." Far less innuendo than calling it welfare.
I'm not claiming that cities are MORE compelled than corporations to compete. I'm claiming that corporations competing is a good thing, while governments competing is a bad thing.
No it would be a government that is not directly controlled by this issue solving a classic game theory problem (prisoner's dilemma) by changing the rules to have a less destructive game.
Yes, the people making that decision would be a highly privileged group, but ANYTHING the federal government does is the same. Stopping companies from selling tainted drugs would fit that bill as well, but we generally aren't whining that the FDA prevents corporations from poisoning their customers (other problems, sure, but that's largely due to the fact that we allow so much money in our political system).
Your claims of elite control are facetious. Among people who are aware of how these things pan out in practice, corporate welfare is very unpopular. In fact, if you correctly call it "corporate welfare" instead of that "job creator" garbage, the general public is strongly against it.
GP making absurd claims doesn't mean your claims are not absurd. His claims were hyperbolic, but yours are just naive. You are assuming that jobs in that area will not exist at all without Amazon, hence why you are assuming a $15k gain per person per year. You might as well be reading from Amazon's corporate propaganda. Hell, they probably aren't as brazen enough to make such a ridiculous claim, and at least assume that SOME of the jobs are going to be moving from other employers.
No, they are the ones that make sure that they get away with paying even less taxes than they agreed to, and that they aren't compelled to actually provide 50,000 jobs. So, they'll have 10,000 full time minimum wage jobs, 7,000 part time jobs, and if you even think about holding them responsible for what they've agreed to, they'll pack up and go home.
Are you also going to assume spherical cows, are are we going to discuss the real world where corporations are amoral, sociopathic, and hire enough lawyers and accountants to make sure that they win no matter what?
The evaluation is that there is a problem, and the solution is to change the rules so there isn't a prisoner's dilemma.
You are making some really ridiculous statements without support for your premises.
1.Governments are sane.
2. Governments are democratically controlled by voters.
3. Governments and citizens have perfect information.
The reality is that a small handful of well connected people will get bulk of the benefits, the public will suffer, but they'll get popular support because people will do mental gymnastics to insist that this is indeed a net benefit. Since Joe Sixpack doesn't understand macroenomics, you can just yell about jobs and throw in some buzzwords and get enough public support to not lose re-election over this.
Amazon is definitely crossing state lines, so amazon in general is definitely interstate commerce. This particular deal isn't shipping goods across state lines, but it is part of an interstate bidding war, and thus would fall under "necessary and proper."
I will agree that the interstate commerce clause has been expanded beyond where it should, but this is preventing a prisoner's dilemma, which is exactly the kind of thing you need a federal government for.
If we've got bacteria that can shield cells from the effects of chemotherapy, then that could potentially be very useful. If we can get it to do the same thing for the rest of the body in a relatively benign way, then it might greatly improve outcomes for chemo patients.
Yeah, and if Apple were interested in a particular feature, they certainly wouldn't trash it and then claim they invented it a few years later...
Public statements from for-profit companies are not always trustworthy.
There is that whole "instability of the real estate market causing a global economic crash" thing.
Because this is utilizing the waste of one process (computing) for another useful purpose (heating), and results in net benefits for everyone. The office doesn't pay for heating, and the party utilizing the computing doesn't pay for cooling.