All of this is a symptom of how far the stock market has branched from its purposes - it's not just a way people have involved distributed judgement of the worthiness of societal ventures anymore, now we have huge parasites in the system, feeding on each other. When the boot comes down, I don't think we should cry. Only a few of these people make an honest living that benefits society.
Fair. My complaint is probably a bit off-topic for this thread. I am bothered by the effective control that app stores provide vendors. I think this is pretty important, probably moreso than any locking down of OS that Apple may or may not do (reference: Sony).
There's a danger when app distribution becomes most commonly steered through channels the device vendor controls. In older times, one had other options but Best Buy to reasonably distribute software, and people used them.
I guess I dispute most of what you say, but I again recognise that there's reasonable coherency there. I don't see social ties as requiring advanced technology and feel that on the whole while the apps you describe can help, by and large lassiez-faire markets on the large scale tend to harm social ties rather than aid them. I think legislation can legitimately help with opportunity (particularly with public education, but not only that), and I don't think markets are a good default metric for measuring that. Likewise, I don't see justice as well-defined or served by markets. I see work conditions as being more a product of the labour movement than increased efficiencies - Indonesia has access to most of the same technologies as we do, but they lack our labour protections, so it's cheaper to just use plenty of people rather than invest in technologies that require fewer people. Outsourcing skirts labour protections, and is thus bad for the world.
I am comfortable with government use of force in order to support the public good. As a society, we decide things, and these usually are not things that the market happens to decide (otherwise, no point, eh?). The purpose of the state is to serve the public good, and if that means forcing individuals who stand against the public good to step down, so be it.
I recognise that the state may abuse its power, particularly if it is dominated by powerbrokers. I recognise that state solutions are often imperfect. However, I think we're better off with a strong state than without it.
I agree that quality of life is impacted by access to material goods (and services) but I don't think that's the whole picture. Social ties, opportunity, justice, reasonable working conditions, many of the things unions fight for or laws ensure are also worthwhile for quality of life. Market systems both typically require considerable government support (enabling laws for corporations and specifics of laws on liability, commerce, and contracts, as examples) and have a very complex relationship to whatever kinds of efficiencies we're interested in. I think it's worth paying the cost to society, generally, for the things unions have fought. Likewise, I think it's worth paying whatever costs their are to society for useful regulation, social programmes, and the like.
I'm curious about your use of the term special treatment - what is your notion of regular treatment? To me, it's legitimate/normal treatment to live a life of reasonable means, security, and privilege in exchange for productive labour for society, and special treatment is departure from that. Sometimes special treatment is warranted, e.g. if someone is a really good worker, has a great idea, or is otherwise exceptional, society may decide to give them extra privilege. I suspect we're working from different enough frameworks that you're using the term in a way rather different than I am (is your notion of special treatment deviation from "what you can get out of the market for your labour"? Is it something else?). I'm not meaning this as an argumentative trick - I'm just curious.
Your facts don't lead to the conclusion you assert - you're still equating quality of life with material goods (and I believe that you're misattributing to capitalism what should be attributed to science).
Also, why should we accept your ideas about the proper role of government?
You lost me in two ways starting with "The only way to achieve this", first in that it defines material wealth as more fundamental for quality of life than other metrics, and second that you believe "total competition" is the best way achieve that. I think you'd need to work pretty hard to argue either point (you go slightly further than Nozick did in the early forms of his philosophy).
You might be able to build a definition of fairness that is compatible with libertarian philosophy if you define it in terms of quality of life or individual special interests (maybe? it's a bit unusual if disparities in basic/reasonable needs or ability to exercise civil rights are considered fair), but I don't think that's what most people mean when they think of fairness (not that there's only one definition everyone agrees on, just yours is fairly different from the cloud of definitions).
I don't dispute that you probably have a self-consistent, coherent perspective, but I don't feel it's particularly appealing. As is often the case in discussions of this sort, we could go back and forth arguing from our different philosophical foundations if you like with little chance of convincing the other:)
I don't think we'd get fewer positions; it seems more likely that the nature of residency would be forced to change. I understand exactly what you mean by paying dues (plenty of doctors and lawyers in the family) - it's fair to do that to a certain extent, but other professions don't do it in such an inhumane way. Structural reform of residency is, I think, highly desirable - it may not be predictable how it will change, but the need for doctors will continue, and if it becomes impossible to treat would-be doctors in abusive ways that actually hamper their ability to improve as doctors alongside ruining their personal lives, then everything else will reshape based on that.
The programs can say what they like - the reasons given are rubbish. People cannot effectively learn when they're sleep-deprived or sufficiently stressed - the shift-length as-is is well past the point of diminishing returns and is likely past the point where additional hours are counterproductive.
I'd agree that the finances of medical school bear some reworking - subsidising higher education heavily in general would be a good idea. Pay during residency might be another good topic for unions.
Unions don't have to be anti-merit. It's not hard to imagine structures that permit some amount of merit-based pay differentiation without being either excessive in rewards or excessively damaging to worker interests.
I like progress, but in what direction? I hope not the directions you define. Like anyone, I prefer progress towards my values, and productive efficiency is not something I think is a great way to measure societies (unless among many other factors).
P.S. Saying "I am a XXXX" is not likely to convince anyone in a discussion. At best, people don't care, unless the discussion is about you - usually they'd rather talk about whatever's being discussed than what flags people wave above their head.
Your example is a better reason to internationalise labour and get them more heavily involved in the books of the business - were they to actually know the profits and costs of the businesses where they work, they would be better able to achieve better worker control and equitibility and avoid strangling their host.
In my example, for important industries, such as medicine, we can expect the public pressure to yield to reasonable demands would be immense. We can expect the hospitals would bend quickly. As they should.
It might not be a good fit for you, unless it helps create expectations of rates that are in your favour, or leads to different "best practices" that are in your favour.
There's no guarantee that it's going to improve everyone's lot even if it is best for society or the industry as a whole.
If you say "oh hey only do this if you feel like it", collective bargaining gives way to a "race to the bottom" as employers hire the people who are willing to break ranks. The benefit of all is better served by standing together.
Unions still serve the same role they ever did. It's an important role.
It may impose cost, but whatever costs it imposes are the other side of keeping it being a reasonable and workable thing to be an actor.
In modern times, we don't need less collective bargaining, we need more. If, for example, medical interns had a union to prevent 16-hour shifts, I imagine we could agree that to be a step forward. Cost to consumer is not the only thing worth optimising in society, and harmful competition still exists.
Sometimes that well-intentioned-ness is really good. For example, I have not spoken with my father for over five years and would not want him to be treated any differently than some random person off the street in getting information or visiting should I ever become seriously ill. The doctors should not need to hear me explain that, and I would be livid if they used their "good judgement" to override the rules.
I don't care if my father (or anyone else) isn't getting information they think they "need". They can go stuff it.
Unfortunately, in the US we don't tend to protect terms very much - this is an area where we don't get the nuances of wanting political or personal expression to be relatively unconstrained versus the desire to ensure honesty in certain areas worked out correctly. Chances are somebody made up a board (maybe her?) and declared her to be a doctor - I suspect that using the title of doctor in that way is legal in most states.
I think occasionally one finds the term "Engineer" protected by law.
I see nothing in that site that indicates approval. It appears to be simple facts about the history of the formula. Saying "This is FOO brand" is different than noting "We make X, which was originally concocted by FOO".
Of course academia is sometimes predisposed towards ideas, but generally these ideas are more about the value of education - individual academes vary in their politics, but academia as a unit is not particularly political.
Academia remains the best path to truth, even given whatever inevitable biases may be part of either individuals or institutions. There are no credible alternatives.
Sold? It's not a party political broadcast - it's science, done with studies. In the long run, science has proven to be a better path to knowledge than anything else. Some errors happen, but it's the best bet to go with academia.
If only we could get all the ostrich-minded lot like you to move there. Still, it'll be small consolation being able to say "I told you so" when it's going to affect the rest of us anyhow. In a more just reality, there'd be two planets, one that could be stewarded responsibly, and one that denialists could ruin.
Do we actually have technology to deal without a copilot? What if the pilot becomes ill, passes out, or similar? Can an autopilot entirely fly and land the plane?
Slashdot Mirror
All of this is a symptom of how far the stock market has branched from its purposes - it's not just a way people have involved distributed judgement of the worthiness of societal ventures anymore, now we have huge parasites in the system, feeding on each other. When the boot comes down, I don't think we should cry. Only a few of these people make an honest living that benefits society.
Fair. My complaint is probably a bit off-topic for this thread. I am bothered by the effective control that app stores provide vendors. I think this is pretty important, probably moreso than any locking down of OS that Apple may or may not do (reference: Sony).
There's a danger when app distribution becomes most commonly steered through channels the device vendor controls. In older times, one had other options but Best Buy to reasonably distribute software, and people used them.
All's Welsh that ends Welsh!
I guess I dispute most of what you say, but I again recognise that there's reasonable coherency there. I don't see social ties as requiring advanced technology and feel that on the whole while the apps you describe can help, by and large lassiez-faire markets on the large scale tend to harm social ties rather than aid them. I think legislation can legitimately help with opportunity (particularly with public education, but not only that), and I don't think markets are a good default metric for measuring that. Likewise, I don't see justice as well-defined or served by markets. I see work conditions as being more a product of the labour movement than increased efficiencies - Indonesia has access to most of the same technologies as we do, but they lack our labour protections, so it's cheaper to just use plenty of people rather than invest in technologies that require fewer people. Outsourcing skirts labour protections, and is thus bad for the world.
I am comfortable with government use of force in order to support the public good. As a society, we decide things, and these usually are not things that the market happens to decide (otherwise, no point, eh?). The purpose of the state is to serve the public good, and if that means forcing individuals who stand against the public good to step down, so be it.
I recognise that the state may abuse its power, particularly if it is dominated by powerbrokers. I recognise that state solutions are often imperfect. However, I think we're better off with a strong state than without it.
I agree that quality of life is impacted by access to material goods (and services) but I don't think that's the whole picture. Social ties, opportunity, justice, reasonable working conditions, many of the things unions fight for or laws ensure are also worthwhile for quality of life. Market systems both typically require considerable government support (enabling laws for corporations and specifics of laws on liability, commerce, and contracts, as examples) and have a very complex relationship to whatever kinds of efficiencies we're interested in. I think it's worth paying the cost to society, generally, for the things unions have fought. Likewise, I think it's worth paying whatever costs their are to society for useful regulation, social programmes, and the like.
I'm curious about your use of the term special treatment - what is your notion of regular treatment? To me, it's legitimate/normal treatment to live a life of reasonable means, security, and privilege in exchange for productive labour for society, and special treatment is departure from that. Sometimes special treatment is warranted, e.g. if someone is a really good worker, has a great idea, or is otherwise exceptional, society may decide to give them extra privilege. I suspect we're working from different enough frameworks that you're using the term in a way rather different than I am (is your notion of special treatment deviation from "what you can get out of the market for your labour"? Is it something else?). I'm not meaning this as an argumentative trick - I'm just curious.
Your facts don't lead to the conclusion you assert - you're still equating quality of life with material goods (and I believe that you're misattributing to capitalism what should be attributed to science).
Also, why should we accept your ideas about the proper role of government?
You lost me in two ways starting with "The only way to achieve this", first in that it defines material wealth as more fundamental for quality of life than other metrics, and second that you believe "total competition" is the best way achieve that. I think you'd need to work pretty hard to argue either point (you go slightly further than Nozick did in the early forms of his philosophy).
You might be able to build a definition of fairness that is compatible with libertarian philosophy if you define it in terms of quality of life or individual special interests (maybe? it's a bit unusual if disparities in basic/reasonable needs or ability to exercise civil rights are considered fair), but I don't think that's what most people mean when they think of fairness (not that there's only one definition everyone agrees on, just yours is fairly different from the cloud of definitions).
I don't dispute that you probably have a self-consistent, coherent perspective, but I don't feel it's particularly appealing. As is often the case in discussions of this sort, we could go back and forth arguing from our different philosophical foundations if you like with little chance of convincing the other :)
I don't think we'd get fewer positions; it seems more likely that the nature of residency would be forced to change. I understand exactly what you mean by paying dues (plenty of doctors and lawyers in the family) - it's fair to do that to a certain extent, but other professions don't do it in such an inhumane way. Structural reform of residency is, I think, highly desirable - it may not be predictable how it will change, but the need for doctors will continue, and if it becomes impossible to treat would-be doctors in abusive ways that actually hamper their ability to improve as doctors alongside ruining their personal lives, then everything else will reshape based on that.
The programs can say what they like - the reasons given are rubbish. People cannot effectively learn when they're sleep-deprived or sufficiently stressed - the shift-length as-is is well past the point of diminishing returns and is likely past the point where additional hours are counterproductive.
I'd agree that the finances of medical school bear some reworking - subsidising higher education heavily in general would be a good idea. Pay during residency might be another good topic for unions.
Unions don't have to be anti-merit. It's not hard to imagine structures that permit some amount of merit-based pay differentiation without being either excessive in rewards or excessively damaging to worker interests.
Thanks! Glad you're keeping it civil and your arguments are strong enough that you feel no need to insult!
I like progress, but in what direction? I hope not the directions you define. Like anyone, I prefer progress towards my values, and productive efficiency is not something I think is a great way to measure societies (unless among many other factors).
P.S. Saying "I am a XXXX" is not likely to convince anyone in a discussion. At best, people don't care, unless the discussion is about you - usually they'd rather talk about whatever's being discussed than what flags people wave above their head.
Your example is a better reason to internationalise labour and get them more heavily involved in the books of the business - were they to actually know the profits and costs of the businesses where they work, they would be better able to achieve better worker control and equitibility and avoid strangling their host.
In my example, for important industries, such as medicine, we can expect the public pressure to yield to reasonable demands would be immense. We can expect the hospitals would bend quickly. As they should.
It might not be a good fit for you, unless it helps create expectations of rates that are in your favour, or leads to different "best practices" that are in your favour.
There's no guarantee that it's going to improve everyone's lot even if it is best for society or the industry as a whole.
If you say "oh hey only do this if you feel like it", collective bargaining gives way to a "race to the bottom" as employers hire the people who are willing to break ranks. The benefit of all is better served by standing together.
Unions still serve the same role they ever did. It's an important role.
It may impose cost, but whatever costs it imposes are the other side of keeping it being a reasonable and workable thing to be an actor.
In modern times, we don't need less collective bargaining, we need more. If, for example, medical interns had a union to prevent 16-hour shifts, I imagine we could agree that to be a step forward. Cost to consumer is not the only thing worth optimising in society, and harmful competition still exists.
Sometimes that well-intentioned-ness is really good. For example, I have not spoken with my father for over five years and would not want him to be treated any differently than some random person off the street in getting information or visiting should I ever become seriously ill. The doctors should not need to hear me explain that, and I would be livid if they used their "good judgement" to override the rules.
I don't care if my father (or anyone else) isn't getting information they think they "need". They can go stuff it.
Unfortunately, in the US we don't tend to protect terms very much - this is an area where we don't get the nuances of wanting political or personal expression to be relatively unconstrained versus the desire to ensure honesty in certain areas worked out correctly. Chances are somebody made up a board (maybe her?) and declared her to be a doctor - I suspect that using the title of doctor in that way is legal in most states.
I think occasionally one finds the term "Engineer" protected by law.
I see nothing in that site that indicates approval. It appears to be simple facts about the history of the formula. Saying "This is FOO brand" is different than noting "We make X, which was originally concocted by FOO".
I don't see what you're saying with that link.
Of course academia is sometimes predisposed towards ideas, but generally these ideas are more about the value of education - individual academes vary in their politics, but academia as a unit is not particularly political.
Academia remains the best path to truth, even given whatever inevitable biases may be part of either individuals or institutions. There are no credible alternatives.
Sold? It's not a party political broadcast - it's science, done with studies. In the long run, science has proven to be a better path to knowledge than anything else. Some errors happen, but it's the best bet to go with academia.
If only we could get all the ostrich-minded lot like you to move there. Still, it'll be small consolation being able to say "I told you so" when it's going to affect the rest of us anyhow. In a more just reality, there'd be two planets, one that could be stewarded responsibly, and one that denialists could ruin.
This wins the award for the day for being the post where the title disagrees most with the article content. Yay!
Do we actually have technology to deal without a copilot? What if the pilot becomes ill, passes out, or similar? Can an autopilot entirely fly and land the plane?
Apostrophes. Learn to use them.