I don't care what their going wage is, I care if their worker protections and worker rights are equal to ours. Otherwise, making our workers compete with them on a wage basis is completely ridiculous. There should be severe tariffs for goods coming from countries with lax worker protections.
Exactly, for all definitions of fine that include a third of our society being cut off from the benefits that their labor has produced for the rest of us, so that a few can have ludicrous excesses.
There is a tiny (about 1%) fringe that attempts to exploit the system.
There is a tiny (about 1%) fringe with serious mental illness who cannot survive without help.
And then there is a large contingent of poor (15-30%), frozen out of education and capital, who can't get jobs even though they'd like to work. The jobs aren't there, they aren't qualified, and they have no path to getting more qualified. For every celebrated success story who manages to escape from that situation, there are a hundred who tried and failed.
That's not a very good argument if his premise is that wealth should be distributed from the uber-rich to the less fortunate, unless of course he happens to be one of the uber-rich.
An air of sophistication is a good thing in most people's minds. Maybe you needed to go to college to learn a different word? Perhaps you meant superiority?
Thank you. I hate those assholes. If I'd had a million dollars worth of capital 15 years ago, I'd be a billionaire. As it stands, I still don't have a million dollars worth of capital.
Let's just define the exploitation as paying someone less than 50% of their real value to you. You're clearly correct: paying more than 100% makes no sense at all. But paying less than 50% means taking advantage of the power differential in the negotiation, the very definition of exploitation.
Boo hoo, I lost my powerful lifestyle. I have to sit quietly with my hundreds of millions of dollars in my mansion, drowning my sorrows in the second best alcohol money can buy (second best, because yes, I know they wont sell the best stuff to the 'unsuccessful')!
Most investors have a wide choice of investment opportunities. Most investment opportunities describe in great detail how they will invest your money when you hand it over.
If you're making only 60k as a game programmer, you are in one of a few situations:
1) you are very junior 2) you are expecting a 50-200% bonus annually on top of your salary from successful titles. 3) you have very limited talent 4) you should really switch employers
As a simple example, Zynga is hiring like crazy right now, and offering salaries in the 120K+ range (with bonuses adding 10-150% more)
Of course, it can also mean a factory shuts down, and moves production to a country with fewer human rights protections, promoting slavery, but really who minds the little details.
The nationwide average for senior programmer is about 90K. Factor in the NY city COL factor, and if you are at only 100K, you are probably not high on the talent factor.
The problem with your theory is that those traders do not typically have their own skin in the game, while they still get a percentage of the win on their successes. So there is no downside. Win once, and you are set to retire if you want. But you can keep playing until you make a massive loss, and keep all your winnings even when you do.
He said the equivalent of $29,000, and phrased it as 'the equivalent of USD 29.000'. I'd put a bet on him being from a country that uses . as their money-thousands separator.
I know 2 guys who left my current company to do this (for different employers). Both are comfortably into the mid-6-figures. If you're good, you can get the pay. The fact that you're not getting the pay... probably says something about your talent.
Sure we do. Numerous solutions have been proposed, every one of them less expensive than the collapse of civilization in terms of both lives and capital.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, Marx wants the workers to own the means of production, my position has nothing to do with that.
I don't care what their going wage is, I care if their worker protections and worker rights are equal to ours. Otherwise, making our workers compete with them on a wage basis is completely ridiculous. There should be severe tariffs for goods coming from countries with lax worker protections.
Exactly, for all definitions of fine that include a third of our society being cut off from the benefits that their labor has produced for the rest of us, so that a few can have ludicrous excesses.
Almost no one is 'opting' out.
There is a tiny (about 1%) fringe that attempts to exploit the system.
There is a tiny (about 1%) fringe with serious mental illness who cannot survive without help.
And then there is a large contingent of poor (15-30%), frozen out of education and capital, who can't get jobs even though they'd like to work. The jobs aren't there, they aren't qualified, and they have no path to getting more qualified. For every celebrated success story who manages to escape from that situation, there are a hundred who tried and failed.
Redistribute their capital and get to work, at last, hooray!
That's not a very good argument if his premise is that wealth should be distributed from the uber-rich to the less fortunate, unless of course he happens to be one of the uber-rich.
An air of sophistication is a good thing in most people's minds. Maybe you needed to go to college to learn a different word? Perhaps you meant superiority?
for example:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superiority%20complex
vs
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistication
It's worse than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Thank you. I hate those assholes. If I'd had a million dollars worth of capital 15 years ago, I'd be a billionaire. As it stands, I still don't have a million dollars worth of capital.
The extra money is lying around in the CEOs salary. He's grossly overpaid due to cronyism.
Let's just define the exploitation as paying someone less than 50% of their real value to you. You're clearly correct: paying more than 100% makes no sense at all. But paying less than 50% means taking advantage of the power differential in the negotiation, the very definition of exploitation.
Boo hoo, I lost my powerful lifestyle. I have to sit quietly with my hundreds of millions of dollars in my mansion, drowning my sorrows in the second best alcohol money can buy (second best, because yes, I know they wont sell the best stuff to the 'unsuccessful')!
Most investors have a wide choice of investment opportunities. Most investment opportunities describe in great detail how they will invest your money when you hand it over.
If you're making only 60k as a game programmer, you are in one of a few situations:
1) you are very junior
2) you are expecting a 50-200% bonus annually on top of your salary from successful titles.
3) you have very limited talent
4) you should really switch employers
As a simple example, Zynga is hiring like crazy right now, and offering salaries in the 120K+ range (with bonuses adding 10-150% more)
Of course, it can also mean a factory shuts down, and moves production to a country with fewer human rights protections, promoting slavery, but really who minds the little details.
And it's worse than that even: we're playing in a rigged universe where the pool of resources is constantly decreasing!
The nationwide average for senior programmer is about 90K. Factor in the NY city COL factor, and if you are at only 100K, you are probably not high on the talent factor.
The problem with your theory is that those traders do not typically have their own skin in the game, while they still get a percentage of the win on their successes. So there is no downside. Win once, and you are set to retire if you want. But you can keep playing until you make a massive loss, and keep all your winnings even when you do.
He said the equivalent of $29,000, and phrased it as 'the equivalent of USD 29.000'. I'd put a bet on him being from a country that uses . as their money-thousands separator.
Liar. Licking is a chronic problem on the NY trains.
Sure, if you can make a strong argument, agreed to by 90+% of the population, as to why his job is a net detriment to society.
I know 2 guys who left my current company to do this (for different employers). Both are comfortably into the mid-6-figures. If you're good, you can get the pay. The fact that you're not getting the pay ... probably says something about your talent.
Sure we do. Numerous solutions have been proposed, every one of them less expensive than the collapse of civilization in terms of both lives and capital.
It's very very clearly worse beyond about 3C.
Billions of people can't move north. Europe/Russia would both respond with nuclear force, which would pretty much end our civilization.