....since I suspect it's based more on consensual delusions & back-scratching within the industry than actual data.
Does Nike *actually* get $3 million more profit if they have a superbowl ad, than if they didn't? If they don't, then do they really need to pay that cutie-pie that is the assistant to the assistant director $85k/year to fetch donuts and sort the mail? Or the still photographer an annualized contract rate of $160k/year to shoot the 'making of the commercial' art book pictures? Aside from the shlubs who sling lights and mikes and do the tech work, the media industry is generally staggeringly overcompensated. I wonder when someone will notice?
The choice is: - term limits, and a relatively fresh crop of legislators with little to no experience bumbling along while a class of essentially-permanent bureaucrat mandarins run things because they actually understand how all the shit works
or
- no term limits, and a permaclass of legislators who can be the target of massive donor investment because they know how to work the system, get things done, and have long, long times in office to accomplish it. The flip side is that they can at least run the country, aside from the bit that they're skimming for themselves.
Ether a bumbling government, or a corrupt one?
I'll take bumbling, because corrupt has gotten so greedy that they aren't really even performing any of the basic functions of government.
I rather believe that the Founding Fathers made this choice clear - they assumed that people were venal and corruptible, and a regular changeover at the top was critical to preventing *exactly* the sort of sui generis nobility that we seem to have.
But that's only one (minor) part of the gearwheel of geopolitics: - will the US actually do it? - most importantly, do the Chinese BELIEVE the US will do it?
What spectators seem to regularly misunderstand about diplomacy is that it's not what a country will actually do, it's what the OTHER country believes you'll do that matters.
The road to pretty much every war, ever, is paved with mis-estimations of what one's opponent's response "should have been".
It's why clear communication and credibility is utterly essential between states. The problem, of course, is when a country believes it can leverage its "reputation" beyond its actual limits...someone will eventually call the bluff, and then *every* assertion made is open to question until credibility is re-established.
It's why only Nixon could connect with China - when he made a threat, other statesmen felt he was actually crazy and desperate enough to carry through with it. Agree or disagree about whether GWB made the right move in invading Iraq, his credibility in threatening military action was unquestionable. Obama is perceived widely as an intellectualist milquetoast, so his 'threats' and 'red lines' are inherently disbelieved - every time he makes such a statement and doesn't follow through, it merely reinforces this perception.
So now we have a revanchist China and a US with a diplomatic quiver that's essentially empty of any confrontational tools EXCEPT two: 1) concession, or 2) actual deployment of forces....the worst, least flexible place to be.
If Ukraine is willing to sell its nuclear warheads for what diplomatically amounts to a string of beads, then perhaps they aren't ready to be an independent state?
- The context of the Ukrainian "surrender of it's nukes" was that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they ended up with the ownership of a number of nuclear warheads. - Given the context of the time, and granting the facts that they could neither secure them properly nor likely even use them as the arming codes were in Russian hands, the US, UK, and Russia signed a memo of understanding with Ukraine in exchange for their sending the warheads for reprocessing.
In the first place, this memo stated that the signatories: "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine..." and "...refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...." Further, they agreed to seek UN security council action "...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"
As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no guarantee of territorial integrity (as has been implied heavily by media reporting). No terms of mutual defense, or assistance.
Finally, that this was a MEMO and not a ratifiable treaty lies at the heart of the matter: it was a dead-letter the moment it was signed, not worth the ink used to print it. Without treaty status it was merely an agreement in principle, of the moment, and utterly without binding power by the long-accepted standards of geopolitics.
By the letter of the memo, the US and UK have in fact fulfilled their obligations. (Russia clearly didn't "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.")
It should be clear, then, that Ukraine wasn't exactly beating its swords into plowshares; more accurately they were giving away their swords that they couldn't use anyway, in return for a tepid, unenforceable agreement that only was relevant in the event of an actual nuclear exchange. Was it worth it? It's been 20 years during which - pretty much - Russia has paid Ukraine's bills, sold them cheap gas, and largely subsidized their entire existence.
I'd agree that the spirit of the thing was much more broadly (and inaccurately) celebrated; on whose responsibility that rests, I'll leave to others. The fact is that in geopolitics and diplomacy, details MATTER.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe Putin's seizure of the Crimea was legitimate by ANY standard. He's an old school Soviet (if not Tsarist) Man who has adroitly outmaneuvered the severely-outclassed US and EU administrations with a coup akin to Munich 1939.
Neither am I giving Obama a pass. The US was never going to (nor should it reasonably ever consider) become directly involved in a territory adjacent to Russia. Any rational view would recognize that Ukraine is substantially within the Russian sphere of influence. NEVERTHELESS, the US has ample tools in its toolbox to deal with "bad actors" in many indirect ways, and reassure our actual allies of our firm commitment to their security. Yet the US response has been confused, dilatory, impotent, and in many ways strengthened Putin's propaganda hand (The US sent the head of the CIA to a state where Russia accused the public movements of being 'inspired' by the west....seriously?). That Russia has - by most measures - pulled this off without lasting diplomatic consequence is shameful.
My point is this: the characterization of the Memo in the media has been deeply flawed. For all the criticisms that can be fairly laid at the doorstep of the west on this matter, failing to live up to that memo is NOT one of them.
Japan has had the technical know-how to build nuclear weapons since the 1970s, certainly.
The concern China expresses over the Japanese nuclear program is precisely the same concern a bully expresses when some local kid starts taking karate lessons.
My main concern is that this may motivate the Chinese to increase their timetable for local seizure of various contested properties, in order to establish them as Chinese by fait accompli before Japan actually nuclearises and freezes the situation into a status quo. Of course, that would only increase Japan's motivation to militarize..
A vicious cycle indeed; unfortunately, to expect China to behave toward its neighbors as anything other than Fascist Italy is apparently unrealistic.
"...we are not getting the most qualified and motivated but a small sub-set of that group (white males) and standards could be raised if we could choose from a larger set...." Bullshit, pure and simple on two levels. First, I don't see any of these companies hesitating when hiring South- or East-Asian ethnicities. In fact, they're begging for more visa slots to bring more in. Yet somehow they're inherently racist? These companies have one mandate: to hire the best possible talent AVAILABLE at the lowest possible price. They are doing so.
Second, If that pool is too white or too asian (and let's be honest about what you're really saying: not black or hispanic enough - you know, the races that apparently need special protection while others don't?) it's not those companies' responsibility (nor, I'd say, really anyone's except that ethnicity) to 'fix that culture'.
Ironically, then, my own touch of Asperger's has probably inoculated me against this particular contagion (and is likely broadly true for others).
Yes, I have an fb account because it's the only way my kids band directors communicate schedules./sigh.
But fb is the global scale version of trivia, meaningless social interaction for its own sake, and the sort of insane Smalltalk that absolutely drives me nuts.
We knew that simple open policies would never stand in the face of governments who seem to have a vested interest in being invasive, provincial, and self-absorbed.
What I see here is a significant growth in the value of offshore, internationally-neutral server farms.
That, or Google could 'accidentally' remove all Canadian government link results from its data bases for a couple of months....just to see how they like a proprietary internet up there.
By that same logic, we should immediately end all drug addiction programs. And AFDC, of course.
And hell, let's get rid of AIDS medication and research, as it's - barring a vanishingly small % of people who are infected by tainted blood or raped - a disease passed ENTIRELY through behavior choices by its victims.
I'm *not* saying that being fat is a disability, I think that's a pretty stupid position. But I find it curious that so many people like to wave the "...old fashioned responsibility and personal accountability..." at fat people, but then don't apply it anywhere else in life?
I'm not sure that's the logically-reasonable proposition.
Essentially you're saying that life is absurdly unlikely to develop. It would seem that if life is unlikely to develop, it wouldn't be completely ubiquitous on Earth itself. I mean, we're not just talking about eukaryotes that participate in the photosynthesis-cycle (i.e. us), there are entire flourishing ecosystems of extremophiles that never see the sun. Hell, we're even finding bacteria INSIDE ROCKS, floating in the stratosphere, and at amazing depths underground.
Further, as the five mass-extinctions (that we know about) prove, "life" is astonishingly resilient.
It's hard for me to reconcile logically that something would be simultaneously special, precious, and so unique that it only happens once in hundreds of billions of examples....and then proceed to occupy every conceivable niche AND manage to survive repeated massive extinction events.
We can agree to disagree, that just seems inconsistent to me.
It's almost like a significant part of the electorate are pissed off enough to actually get out of their chairs and vote?
(Of course, it didn't hurt that the Republicans are, in fact, the minority party of the US, that the 'angered mobs' are on his side of the aisle splitting their already-smaller vote, and Democrats gleefully helped as much as they could.)
And while I know the mass media likes to characterize the Tea Party as a bunch of right-wing whacko racists (coincidentally parroting the Left's talking points, of course), the FACT of the Tea Party is that its founding impetus came solely and simply from people sick and tired of unconstrained government spending coming out of their own piggy banks.
These aren't (necessarily) the sort of strawmen angry libertarians that they're portrayed to be - they recognize that taxes are a necessary part of civilization and having government to some degree is an intrinsic good. But when that government is unconstrained and irresponsible, eventually people get angry.
Likely, though, this 'revolt' will only empower the Democrats, as they are the party in power and most are willing to rationalize anything to accept/continue that status. They wouldn't jeopardize that just to protest, even if they agreed.
That's a direct quote, by the way: "..."When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science..."
Huh. A hit-piece on Republicans talking about how stupid they must be.
I like the tautology at the end: "You're stupid because you reject what I say!" "Uh, no?" "SEE?!?!!?"
Sounds compelling.
I'll quote Jonah Goldberg: "If you say that about homosexuals, you are tolerant and realistic. If you say it about blacks, you are racist (unless youâ(TM)re black yourself). If you say it about women, you may or may not be sexist, depending on who is manning (er, womanning) the feminist battle stations. If you say it about men, you just might be a writer for Esquire. But if you say it about conservatives, youâ(TM)re a scientist."
Quick tip: resisting the growth of the STATE isn't the same as resisting change. I'd cheerfully advocate lots of changes: eliminating Social Security, for example. That would be a huge change. Will you join with me in embracing change?
(And seriously, who replies to their own post just to post MORE? Do you 'like' your own facebook posts too?)
"... might solidify an underclass..." Hadn't even thought of that, frankly, but it's a good point.
Makes it even more clear why the Democrats are behind it. Their 'social agenda' - no matter how high-minded it may have been intentioned by some - since the Great Society has done more to establish and fix a permanent seething underclass of resentful poor who are convinced that they are victims of "the system" regardless of their personal choices, and that their only salvation is by Mommy Government ripping whatever it can from the wealthy. (At least, that latter bit is the storyline; the wealthy power brokers in the beltway - of both parties - seem to just keep getting richer....)
...one of the things that is rarely communicated in these sorts of announcements are the error bars in the 'estimate'. Asserting something categorically "is" or "isn't" from what we know is just silly.
We also believe that we've just discovered terrestrial planets 17x the mass of Earth that, according to our calculations, should be Neptunian "small" gas giants.
Like so many sciences, the more we discover, the more we realize how very little we know.
I think it was Carl Sagan who said that - in the context of astronomy & cosmology - we're essentially postulating the entire earth from the equivalent of a cup of seawater. That's probably rather optimistic.
The idea that raising the minimum wage will help people is baffling.
A business is actually a rather simple thing. Sales - Costs = Profit. If you increase costs, what alternatives does a business owner have?
Of course, the first assumption by the left is that the idle rich (ie anyone who owns a business) can just accept that their profits are lower. Except, this is based on some sort of cognitive dissonance. IF a business owner is likely to be reasonable enough to take the bite from their profit, then they are already likely paying their workers reasonably and taking a reasonable profit. If they are the exploitative sort of business owner that's largely assumed by higher minimum-wage advocates, it's a dead certainty that they won't take the bite in their profits, they'll do something else.
So what else can they do? They can increase sales without increasing costs. They're already likely selling as much as they possibly can, so that's out. So all they can do to maintain profits is to CUT COSTS...fire whomever they can. Automate what they can (higher capital costs, but lower long-term costs and likely better efficiencies...and no health/pension costs either).
Slashdot Mirror
....since I suspect it's based more on consensual delusions & back-scratching within the industry than actual data.
Does Nike *actually* get $3 million more profit if they have a superbowl ad, than if they didn't? If they don't, then do they really need to pay that cutie-pie that is the assistant to the assistant director $85k/year to fetch donuts and sort the mail? Or the still photographer an annualized contract rate of $160k/year to shoot the 'making of the commercial' art book pictures? Aside from the shlubs who sling lights and mikes and do the tech work, the media industry is generally staggeringly overcompensated. I wonder when someone will notice?
....if it comes to patents that they want to use but don't hold, the Chinese will likewise lead in the number of graphene patents IGNORED.
IP = not a big deal for China....unless they hold it.
It's so much easier to compete when the rules apply only to everyone else.
The choice is:
- term limits, and a relatively fresh crop of legislators with little to no experience bumbling along while a class of essentially-permanent bureaucrat mandarins run things because they actually understand how all the shit works
or
- no term limits, and a permaclass of legislators who can be the target of massive donor investment because they know how to work the system, get things done, and have long, long times in office to accomplish it. The flip side is that they can at least run the country, aside from the bit that they're skimming for themselves.
Ether a bumbling government, or a corrupt one?
I'll take bumbling, because corrupt has gotten so greedy that they aren't really even performing any of the basic functions of government.
I rather believe that the Founding Fathers made this choice clear - they assumed that people were venal and corruptible, and a regular changeover at the top was critical to preventing *exactly* the sort of sui generis nobility that we seem to have.
" All the reactors we have now were designed in the '50s. "
And why's that? Because the ecology-fanatics brought a complete halt to civil nuclear development.
And who is telling us we need to get rid of coal now?
"The most transparent administration ever."
Actually, true. Probably not how they meant it. Or maybe it was?
The US has stated that, true.
But that's only one (minor) part of the gearwheel of geopolitics:
- will the US actually do it?
- most importantly, do the Chinese BELIEVE the US will do it?
What spectators seem to regularly misunderstand about diplomacy is that it's not what a country will actually do, it's what the OTHER country believes you'll do that matters.
The road to pretty much every war, ever, is paved with mis-estimations of what one's opponent's response "should have been".
It's why clear communication and credibility is utterly essential between states.
The problem, of course, is when a country believes it can leverage its "reputation" beyond its actual limits...someone will eventually call the bluff, and then *every* assertion made is open to question until credibility is re-established.
It's why only Nixon could connect with China - when he made a threat, other statesmen felt he was actually crazy and desperate enough to carry through with it. Agree or disagree about whether GWB made the right move in invading Iraq, his credibility in threatening military action was unquestionable. Obama is perceived widely as an intellectualist milquetoast, so his 'threats' and 'red lines' are inherently disbelieved - every time he makes such a statement and doesn't follow through, it merely reinforces this perception.
So now we have a revanchist China and a US with a diplomatic quiver that's essentially empty of any confrontational tools EXCEPT two: 1) concession, or 2) actual deployment of forces....the worst, least flexible place to be.
If Ukraine is willing to sell its nuclear warheads for what diplomatically amounts to a string of beads, then perhaps they aren't ready to be an independent state?
I'm of nordic descent, and I find the MN Vikings a hideous embarrassment to the historically mighty and ferocious "viking" concept.
Can I have their name changed too?
I don't know if you're just trying to be histrionic or what, but to be clear:
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search...
- The context of the Ukrainian "surrender of it's nukes" was that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they ended up with the ownership of a number of nuclear warheads.
- Given the context of the time, and granting the facts that they could neither secure them properly nor likely even use them as the arming codes were in Russian hands, the US, UK, and Russia signed a memo of understanding with Ukraine in exchange for their sending the warheads for reprocessing.
In the first place, this memo stated that the signatories: "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine..." and "...refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...." Further, they agreed to seek UN security council action "...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"
As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no guarantee of territorial integrity (as has been implied heavily by media reporting). No terms of mutual defense, or assistance.
Finally, that this was a MEMO and not a ratifiable treaty lies at the heart of the matter: it was a dead-letter the moment it was signed, not worth the ink used to print it. Without treaty status it was merely an agreement in principle, of the moment, and utterly without binding power by the long-accepted standards of geopolitics.
By the letter of the memo, the US and UK have in fact fulfilled their obligations. (Russia clearly didn't "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.")
It should be clear, then, that Ukraine wasn't exactly beating its swords into plowshares; more accurately they were giving away their swords that they couldn't use anyway, in return for a tepid, unenforceable agreement that only was relevant in the event of an actual nuclear exchange. Was it worth it? It's been 20 years during which - pretty much - Russia has paid Ukraine's bills, sold them cheap gas, and largely subsidized their entire existence.
I'd agree that the spirit of the thing was much more broadly (and inaccurately) celebrated; on whose responsibility that rests, I'll leave to others. The fact is that in geopolitics and diplomacy, details MATTER.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe Putin's seizure of the Crimea was legitimate by ANY standard. He's an old school Soviet (if not Tsarist) Man who has adroitly outmaneuvered the severely-outclassed US and EU administrations with a coup akin to Munich 1939.
Neither am I giving Obama a pass. The US was never going to (nor should it reasonably ever consider) become directly involved in a territory adjacent to Russia. Any rational view would recognize that Ukraine is substantially within the Russian sphere of influence. NEVERTHELESS, the US has ample tools in its toolbox to deal with "bad actors" in many indirect ways, and reassure our actual allies of our firm commitment to their security. Yet the US response has been confused, dilatory, impotent, and in many ways strengthened Putin's propaganda hand (The US sent the head of the CIA to a state where Russia accused the public movements of being 'inspired' by the west....seriously?). That Russia has - by most measures - pulled this off without lasting diplomatic consequence is shameful.
My point is this: the characterization of the Memo in the media has been deeply flawed. For all the criticisms that can be fairly laid at the doorstep of the west on this matter, failing to live up to that memo is NOT one of them.
Japan has had the technical know-how to build nuclear weapons since the 1970s, certainly.
The concern China expresses over the Japanese nuclear program is precisely the same concern a bully expresses when some local kid starts taking karate lessons.
My main concern is that this may motivate the Chinese to increase their timetable for local seizure of various contested properties, in order to establish them as Chinese by fait accompli before Japan actually nuclearises and freezes the situation into a status quo. Of course, that would only increase Japan's motivation to militarize..
A vicious cycle indeed; unfortunately, to expect China to behave toward its neighbors as anything other than Fascist Italy is apparently unrealistic.
"...we are not getting the most qualified and motivated but a small sub-set of that group (white males) and standards could be raised if we could choose from a larger set. ..."
Bullshit, pure and simple on two levels.
First, I don't see any of these companies hesitating when hiring South- or East-Asian ethnicities. In fact, they're begging for more visa slots to bring more in. Yet somehow they're inherently racist?
These companies have one mandate: to hire the best possible talent AVAILABLE at the lowest possible price. They are doing so.
Second, If that pool is too white or too asian (and let's be honest about what you're really saying: not black or hispanic enough - you know, the races that apparently need special protection while others don't?) it's not those companies' responsibility (nor, I'd say, really anyone's except that ethnicity) to 'fix that culture'.
Ironically, then, my own touch of Asperger's has probably inoculated me against this particular contagion (and is likely broadly true for others).
Yes, I have an fb account because it's the only way my kids band directors communicate schedules. /sigh.
But fb is the global scale version of trivia, meaningless social interaction for its own sake, and the sort of insane Smalltalk that absolutely drives me nuts.
We knew that simple open policies would never stand in the face of governments who seem to have a vested interest in being invasive, provincial, and self-absorbed.
What I see here is a significant growth in the value of offshore, internationally-neutral server farms.
That, or Google could 'accidentally' remove all Canadian government link results from its data bases for a couple of months....just to see how they like a proprietary internet up there.
Football is, like basketball, largely a game of reaction.
How could "spying" on a training camp be that useful?
You don't understand: in America everyone is above average.
So you're suggesting that a K-12 focus on self-esteem doesn't result in outstanding academic ability?
This just in: difficult things are hard, and most people can't do them.
By that same logic, we should immediately end all drug addiction programs. And AFDC, of course.
And hell, let's get rid of AIDS medication and research, as it's - barring a vanishingly small % of people who are infected by tainted blood or raped - a disease passed ENTIRELY through behavior choices by its victims.
I'm *not* saying that being fat is a disability, I think that's a pretty stupid position. But I find it curious that so many people like to wave the "...old fashioned responsibility and personal accountability..." at fat people, but then don't apply it anywhere else in life?
I'm not sure that's the logically-reasonable proposition.
Essentially you're saying that life is absurdly unlikely to develop.
It would seem that if life is unlikely to develop, it wouldn't be completely ubiquitous on Earth itself. I mean, we're not just talking about eukaryotes that participate in the photosynthesis-cycle (i.e. us), there are entire flourishing ecosystems of extremophiles that never see the sun. Hell, we're even finding bacteria INSIDE ROCKS, floating in the stratosphere, and at amazing depths underground.
Further, as the five mass-extinctions (that we know about) prove, "life" is astonishingly resilient.
It's hard for me to reconcile logically that something would be simultaneously special, precious, and so unique that it only happens once in hundreds of billions of examples....and then proceed to occupy every conceivable niche AND manage to survive repeated massive extinction events.
We can agree to disagree, that just seems inconsistent to me.
It's almost like a significant part of the electorate are pissed off enough to actually get out of their chairs and vote?
(Of course, it didn't hurt that the Republicans are, in fact, the minority party of the US, that the 'angered mobs' are on his side of the aisle splitting their already-smaller vote, and Democrats gleefully helped as much as they could.)
And while I know the mass media likes to characterize the Tea Party as a bunch of right-wing whacko racists (coincidentally parroting the Left's talking points, of course), the FACT of the Tea Party is that its founding impetus came solely and simply from people sick and tired of unconstrained government spending coming out of their own piggy banks.
These aren't (necessarily) the sort of strawmen angry libertarians that they're portrayed to be - they recognize that taxes are a necessary part of civilization and having government to some degree is an intrinsic good. But when that government is unconstrained and irresponsible, eventually people get angry.
Likely, though, this 'revolt' will only empower the Democrats, as they are the party in power and most are willing to rationalize anything to accept/continue that status. They wouldn't jeopardize that just to protest, even if they agreed.
Has he been properly briefed, that the main mission of NASA is muslim outreach?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
That's a direct quote, by the way: ..."
"..."When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science
...under "Even MORE of the sky is falling!"
News at 11.
Huh. A hit-piece on Republicans talking about how stupid they must be.
I like the tautology at the end: "You're stupid because you reject what I say!" "Uh, no?" "SEE?!?!!?"
Sounds compelling.
I'll quote Jonah Goldberg: "If you say that about homosexuals, you are tolerant and realistic. If you say it about blacks, you are racist (unless youâ(TM)re black yourself). If you say it about women, you may or may not be sexist, depending on who is manning (er, womanning) the feminist battle stations. If you say it about men, you just might be a writer for Esquire. But if you say it about conservatives, youâ(TM)re a scientist."
Quick tip: resisting the growth of the STATE isn't the same as resisting change.
I'd cheerfully advocate lots of changes: eliminating Social Security, for example. That would be a huge change. Will you join with me in embracing change?
(And seriously, who replies to their own post just to post MORE? Do you 'like' your own facebook posts too?)
"... might solidify an underclass..."
Hadn't even thought of that, frankly, but it's a good point.
Makes it even more clear why the Democrats are behind it.
Their 'social agenda' - no matter how high-minded it may have been intentioned by some - since the Great Society has done more to establish and fix a permanent seething underclass of resentful poor who are convinced that they are victims of "the system" regardless of their personal choices, and that their only salvation is by Mommy Government ripping whatever it can from the wealthy.
(At least, that latter bit is the storyline; the wealthy power brokers in the beltway - of both parties - seem to just keep getting richer....)
...one of the things that is rarely communicated in these sorts of announcements are the error bars in the 'estimate'. Asserting something categorically "is" or "isn't" from what we know is just silly.
We also believe that we've just discovered terrestrial planets 17x the mass of Earth that, according to our calculations, should be Neptunian "small" gas giants.
Like so many sciences, the more we discover, the more we realize how very little we know.
I think it was Carl Sagan who said that - in the context of astronomy & cosmology - we're essentially postulating the entire earth from the equivalent of a cup of seawater. That's probably rather optimistic.
The idea that raising the minimum wage will help people is baffling.
A business is actually a rather simple thing.
Sales - Costs = Profit.
If you increase costs, what alternatives does a business owner have?
Of course, the first assumption by the left is that the idle rich (ie anyone who owns a business) can just accept that their profits are lower. Except, this is based on some sort of cognitive dissonance. IF a business owner is likely to be reasonable enough to take the bite from their profit, then they are already likely paying their workers reasonably and taking a reasonable profit. If they are the exploitative sort of business owner that's largely assumed by higher minimum-wage advocates, it's a dead certainty that they won't take the bite in their profits, they'll do something else.
So what else can they do?
They can increase sales without increasing costs. They're already likely selling as much as they possibly can, so that's out.
So all they can do to maintain profits is to CUT COSTS...fire whomever they can.
Automate what they can (higher capital costs, but lower long-term costs and likely better efficiencies...and no health/pension costs either).