Either the factors actually affect recidivism or they don't. If they do, then it's win-win, since the point of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime. If they don't, it's a bad algorithm, and it should be challenged.
It has nothing to do with skill at all. He was paying what was standard, and then basically doubled that pay. Why is the concept that paying the same workers more can produce better results so difficult for you to grasp?
Not really. Any idiot could do those jobs after being trained. He just found that workers that could afford to eat three meals a day were able to stick around longer, cutting down on the costs of training 5 people to keep 1 around for more than a few months.
Overall, I want a lot less government, I would just prefer it be in the right areas. I'm talking about getting the government off the backs of 99% of the population, and shifting corporate regulations from creating barriers to entry to protecting against abuse from oligopolies.
I didn't say I advocated a free market. But the defense of the Koch's is essentially a free market defense, and they are the furthest thing from a free market. Just the property damage their pollution causes would be enough to bankrupt them, were it not for the highly preferential treatment they get.
It will be disruptive, but disruptive in the way that workers are able to reasonably negotiate with employers. Basically, all that supply and demand stuff starts actually working more like the textbooks.
Both poverty and shitty employment are stressful, and stress increases the risk of addiction. In fact, part of what often defines "shitty jobs" is insufficient income for real social mobility.
and the most profitable investment is in buying off the government. The people I'm attacking are the people that an actual free market would have eviscerated years ago.
AC above did a pretty good job of it. Now, you can argue about where exactly to draw the line, but a clear example would be the Koch Brothers. That they inherited money from their father, who earned it largely by selling oil refinieries to both Stalin and Hitler, just adds to the cartoonishness of it. If I was working a job that netted me $40k a year, I paid no taxes, and saved every penny, it would take me literally a million years to reach their $40 billion mark. For reference, that's 5 times the length that modern humans have been around. Thus, they've either gamed the system, or they grow strong under a yellow sun. If that's the case, we should feel safe shooting bullets at them.
Plus, executive pay has gone up far faster than the pay of the average worker, especially in the US. Management is becoming less and less relevant to productivity, and yet they are getting more and more of the gains from increased productivity.
No, I'm not claiming that all rich people stole their money. However, there is a certainly level of wealth that is no mathematically possible to have been earned. The Koch brothers have $40 billion each. If I made $40k a year, paid no taxes, and saved every penny of it, it would take me literally a million years to have as much money as they do. Sure, you can say that they were smarter or worked harder, but when it takes 5 times as long as modern humans have existed to catch up, Occam's razor says that they either stole a substantial portion of it, or they can leap tall building in a single bound. Since no billionaires have adopted the superhero life, it would seem that the former conclusion is correct.
Because your drinking may cause you to lose your shitty job, or the stress/boredom of not being able to move forward socially or accomplish goals can drive you to drinking. Hence, why alcoholism and opioid addiction are often found in towns where industry has died.
No, we're taking the money back from the legalized thieves who've been stealing from the rest of us for the last few decades. It's even in those thieve's rational self-interest, since starving people are less productive, less violent, and less hygienic, and they couldn't spend all of their money even if they, their children, and their grandchildren, spent the rest of their lives snorting miles of the finest cocaine. However, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. Thus, the ultra-wealthy cling desperately to all the money they can despite those facts.
Now, we're taking from people like the Koch family, who inherited money and industry from their father, a man who literally sold oil refineries to both Stalin and Hitler. They have since used that wealth to buy off politicians for favorable policies that allowed them to multiply your wealth.
No, it would only scale directly with inflation if everyone got a proportional bonus. Bill Gates getting $16k extra a year doesn't change anything for him, but it does change things for someone making $20k.
What, a headline doesn't include all of the nuances? What seems to be happening is that young people are focusing on things like education, since they can afford more of it now.
From what I can gather, it seems that about the average level of approval for one's own representatives is around 47%. So, it's more like they think he's okay or tolerable.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell yeah. I want ALL of our politicians dirty laundry aired. And American hackers can do the same to Putin. Then everybody wins.
No, he just knows that WaPo has ties to the CIA, so they should be viewed with similar skepticism as Russia Today.
Either the factors actually affect recidivism or they don't. If they do, then it's win-win, since the point of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime. If they don't, it's a bad algorithm, and it should be challenged.
It has nothing to do with skill at all. He was paying what was standard, and then basically doubled that pay. Why is the concept that paying the same workers more can produce better results so difficult for you to grasp?
It was not about high quality workers. It was about reducing his ridiculous turnover rates.
Not really. Any idiot could do those jobs after being trained. He just found that workers that could afford to eat three meals a day were able to stick around longer, cutting down on the costs of training 5 people to keep 1 around for more than a few months.
Overall, I want a lot less government, I would just prefer it be in the right areas. I'm talking about getting the government off the backs of 99% of the population, and shifting corporate regulations from creating barriers to entry to protecting against abuse from oligopolies.
I didn't say I advocated a free market. But the defense of the Koch's is essentially a free market defense, and they are the furthest thing from a free market. Just the property damage their pollution causes would be enough to bankrupt them, were it not for the highly preferential treatment they get.
It will be disruptive, but disruptive in the way that workers are able to reasonably negotiate with employers. Basically, all that supply and demand stuff starts actually working more like the textbooks.
Both poverty and shitty employment are stressful, and stress increases the risk of addiction. In fact, part of what often defines "shitty jobs" is insufficient income for real social mobility.
and the most profitable investment is in buying off the government. The people I'm attacking are the people that an actual free market would have eviscerated years ago.
AC above did a pretty good job of it. Now, you can argue about where exactly to draw the line, but a clear example would be the Koch Brothers. That they inherited money from their father, who earned it largely by selling oil refinieries to both Stalin and Hitler, just adds to the cartoonishness of it. If I was working a job that netted me $40k a year, I paid no taxes, and saved every penny, it would take me literally a million years to reach their $40 billion mark. For reference, that's 5 times the length that modern humans have been around. Thus, they've either gamed the system, or they grow strong under a yellow sun. If that's the case, we should feel safe shooting bullets at them.
Plus, executive pay has gone up far faster than the pay of the average worker, especially in the US. Management is becoming less and less relevant to productivity, and yet they are getting more and more of the gains from increased productivity.
How cute, you think tens of millions is rich.
No, I'm not claiming that all rich people stole their money. However, there is a certainly level of wealth that is no mathematically possible to have been earned. The Koch brothers have $40 billion each. If I made $40k a year, paid no taxes, and saved every penny of it, it would take me literally a million years to have as much money as they do. Sure, you can say that they were smarter or worked harder, but when it takes 5 times as long as modern humans have existed to catch up, Occam's razor says that they either stole a substantial portion of it, or they can leap tall building in a single bound. Since no billionaires have adopted the superhero life, it would seem that the former conclusion is correct.
Because your drinking may cause you to lose your shitty job, or the stress/boredom of not being able to move forward socially or accomplish goals can drive you to drinking. Hence, why alcoholism and opioid addiction are often found in towns where industry has died.
No, we're taking the money back from the legalized thieves who've been stealing from the rest of us for the last few decades. It's even in those thieve's rational self-interest, since starving people are less productive, less violent, and less hygienic, and they couldn't spend all of their money even if they, their children, and their grandchildren, spent the rest of their lives snorting miles of the finest cocaine. However, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. Thus, the ultra-wealthy cling desperately to all the money they can despite those facts.
Now, we're taking from people like the Koch family, who inherited money and industry from their father, a man who literally sold oil refineries to both Stalin and Hitler. They have since used that wealth to buy off politicians for favorable policies that allowed them to multiply your wealth.
No, it would only scale directly with inflation if everyone got a proportional bonus. Bill Gates getting $16k extra a year doesn't change anything for him, but it does change things for someone making $20k.
What, a headline doesn't include all of the nuances? What seems to be happening is that young people are focusing on things like education, since they can afford more of it now.
The money comes disproportionately from the people that hold a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth.
The drastic reduction in desperate workers gives employers less leverage.
Of course, his business might actually make more money, since more people have money that they will actually spend.
You've got cause and effect backwards. People largely abuse drugs and alcohol to cope with things like their shitty jobs.
From what I can gather, it seems that about the average level of approval for one's own representatives is around 47%. So, it's more like they think he's okay or tolerable.
You're missing the point. in order to get voters out, you need to actually give them something to vote for instead of something to vote against.