I didn't say that the rich are "so incompetent," I said that their ranks often include some of the most incompetent. As for how they stay wealthy, it's because once you reach real wealth, you could spend the rest of your life snorting miles of cocaine, and still have enough money for your grandchildren to do the same.
Plus, compound interest, good attorneys, tax havens, and accountants, along with governments bending over backwards to help you retain your wealth.
Your assumption is that wealth is gathered by the intelligent or is otherwise inherently meritocratic, when, in practice, it's mostly about maintaining power and setting the rules to your favor.
There were fake comments, but the comments that were claimed by Pai to be part of the "hack" (the pro-net neutrality comments, particularly in response to John Oliver) were real.
Do I need a fucking citation to claim that someone is lying when they say that the sky is green? The hacking claim was a pathetic deflection, and everybody knew it.
Obama could have actually gotten plenty of political credit for blocking Pai. He's the most blatant shill ever, and ISPs are less popular than the government.
Pai laid out a plan to suck off Comcast because that was why he was hired. Any positive effects that you are hallucinating are merely incidental, and the fact that Google, Facebook, et al abuse their has nothing to do with the fact that the FCC rubber stamped the right for ISPs to abuse their power.
Oh look, more "job creators" bullshit. The rich aren't "creating jobs" out of the goodness of their heart. They hire people because they get more out of them than they pay them. That's very much the definition of a leech.
You can argue that there is a role for the wealthy in society, but that doesn't mean they should be in charge of anything. In fact, I'd argue that they are often among the most incompetent people.
The other major reason is that someone from Wells Fargo bullshitted them in the first place, and not being finance professionals, they believed that the bank actually wanted to give them a loan for a mortgage.
I think what you're talking about has already happened. The best example would likely be Ada SPARK, but that's in the very opposite direction of the "Java is too hard" mindset that TFA advocates.
Your argument would be valid if the DNC was a private business, but speaking realistically, they are a part of the government for all practical purposes. They have a duopoly on political power in this country, and they receive plenty of tax dollars, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to abide by their own fucking rules..
Tribalist bullshit like your post is why we have Trump.
40 hours is roughly the point where we start to see really deep declines in productivity, but we'd still see greater improvements with even shorter work weeks. And, by shortening the numbers of hours worked, we'd end up with more jobs to go around, and less filling the time between useful tasks.
The reason that Facebook has a problem isn't that it allowed the Rooskies to bamboozle us. The reason that Facebook has a problem is that it's a pro-social advertising and data-mining platform.
There are some marginal improvements with the different reacts, but Facebook encourages spreading things people like over stopping things people don't like. That, along with the bubble effect, make it a series of big circlejerks instead of a conversation, where things like 'nuance' can reside. As it turns out, circlejerks tend to be less productive and more sensationalist. Color me surprised.
Electoral college would function like that if electoral college votes were proportional. Our current system gives the most leverage to the states that are large, but not firmly controlled by either party.
Productivity growth is absolutely due largely to automation.
As for labor, you've kind of got things backwards, dirt cheap labor is letting us undervalue human time, which is holding up the growth of automation and freedom from the need to work.
Yeah, the real confounding variable that might actually screw things up is that our current society depends upon certain lousy jobs that have lousy pay, and those jobs could not be filled at current rates by workers who aren't desperate.
Keep in mind, though, that the shift would actually be to what would be more "correct" costs, but the transition might be painful.
Then you'll presumably have a GINI coefficient of 0. Not that this would be at all relevant to the conversation, since that scenario would require an existing infrastructure where the GINI coefficient is 1. Although I'm sure you do think in such binary terms, that scenario doesn't exist in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that the rich are "so incompetent," I said that their ranks often include some of the most incompetent. As for how they stay wealthy, it's because once you reach real wealth, you could spend the rest of your life snorting miles of cocaine, and still have enough money for your grandchildren to do the same.
Plus, compound interest, good attorneys, tax havens, and accountants, along with governments bending over backwards to help you retain your wealth.
Your assumption is that wealth is gathered by the intelligent or is otherwise inherently meritocratic, when, in practice, it's mostly about maintaining power and setting the rules to your favor.
There were fake comments, but the comments that were claimed by Pai to be part of the "hack" (the pro-net neutrality comments, particularly in response to John Oliver) were real.
A more neutral alternative would have been "remote." The usage of backwater is pejorative here.
Real comments on a comment page, which is what actually happened, are not hacks. Eat a dick, you bootlicking shitwad.
What does his job not including something preventing that didn't happen have to do with him lying to the public?
Do I need a fucking citation to claim that someone is lying when they say that the sky is green? The hacking claim was a pathetic deflection, and everybody knew it.
It's a lie. They knew that it wasn't a DDoS attack the whole time. They intended to deceive the public, because the truth makes them look bad.
Obama could have actually gotten plenty of political credit for blocking Pai. He's the most blatant shill ever, and ISPs are less popular than the government.
Pai laid out a plan to suck off Comcast because that was why he was hired. Any positive effects that you are hallucinating are merely incidental, and the fact that Google, Facebook, et al abuse their has nothing to do with the fact that the FCC rubber stamped the right for ISPs to abuse their power.
Oh look, more "job creators" bullshit. The rich aren't "creating jobs" out of the goodness of their heart. They hire people because they get more out of them than they pay them. That's very much the definition of a leech.
You can argue that there is a role for the wealthy in society, but that doesn't mean they should be in charge of anything. In fact, I'd argue that they are often among the most incompetent people.
I think you mean that they are using someone who has been gone for a year as a scapegoat to hide their blatant lies.
Actually, the US has some of the worst social mobility of western nations.
Okay. Let's start with Ajit Pai. He is inept and was hired by the previous administration.
The other major reason is that someone from Wells Fargo bullshitted them in the first place, and not being finance professionals, they believed that the bank actually wanted to give them a loan for a mortgage.
To make sure they get the budget increase they want next year.
I think what you're talking about has already happened. The best example would likely be Ada SPARK, but that's in the very opposite direction of the "Java is too hard" mindset that TFA advocates.
Your argument would be valid if the DNC was a private business, but speaking realistically, they are a part of the government for all practical purposes. They have a duopoly on political power in this country, and they receive plenty of tax dollars, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to abide by their own fucking rules..
Tribalist bullshit like your post is why we have Trump.
40 hours is roughly the point where we start to see really deep declines in productivity, but we'd still see greater improvements with even shorter work weeks. And, by shortening the numbers of hours worked, we'd end up with more jobs to go around, and less filling the time between useful tasks.
The reason that Facebook has a problem isn't that it allowed the Rooskies to bamboozle us. The reason that Facebook has a problem is that it's a pro-social advertising and data-mining platform.
There are some marginal improvements with the different reacts, but Facebook encourages spreading things people like over stopping things people don't like. That, along with the bubble effect, make it a series of big circlejerks instead of a conversation, where things like 'nuance' can reside. As it turns out, circlejerks tend to be less productive and more sensationalist. Color me surprised.
Electoral college would function like that if electoral college votes were proportional. Our current system gives the most leverage to the states that are large, but not firmly controlled by either party.
Productivity growth is absolutely due largely to automation.
As for labor, you've kind of got things backwards, dirt cheap labor is letting us undervalue human time, which is holding up the growth of automation and freedom from the need to work.
Yeah, the real confounding variable that might actually screw things up is that our current society depends upon certain lousy jobs that have lousy pay, and those jobs could not be filled at current rates by workers who aren't desperate.
Keep in mind, though, that the shift would actually be to what would be more "correct" costs, but the transition might be painful.
The issue is that you reach the break-even point quite a bit before reaching the per capita income.
UBI would be accompanied by higher taxes, but this is putting too high a tax burden on too low of an income level.
Yeah, because there are 36 million people that collectively have at least an additional $120 billion a year to fund it.
Then you'll presumably have a GINI coefficient of 0. Not that this would be at all relevant to the conversation, since that scenario would require an existing infrastructure where the GINI coefficient is 1. Although I'm sure you do think in such binary terms, that scenario doesn't exist in reality.