Along the same lines of your experience, I went to a full time, lower tier I MBA program coming in with an engineering undergraduate degree and 10 years of work history. Applying myself, I found the coursework to be a valuable introduction to fields such as finance and datamining. With this foundation, I was able through self study to become fairly proficient in econometric analysis and financial modeling. The MBA does not make one an expert in anything, but it does provide an overview of how firms and the economy work at a slightly academic level.
Many, however, use these programs as a personal brand builder without focusing on what is actually taught. For them, networking is the far greater asset offered by the better programs. Support for this can be found in that some top programs do not even report grades to recruiters. Apparently, the stress of learning material really puts a damper on network building. Unfortunately, many of these individuals will rise to the top of organizations and will make bad decisions. This coupled with the diploma mills that provide MBA's to the me too crowd give the MBA a reputation.
As in most things, the MBA is not as bad as some one would suggest, but it is not a magic bullet to wealth or understanding either.
You are advocating a society that is destined for evolutionary obliteration. For now, we live in a society where economic - thus biological success- depends on a skill set related to working at fairly specialized mental and social tasks in an office environment. If only these people have kids, we have destroyed our biological diversity and made us vulnerable to any environmental or serious economic shift (eg. think war or pestilence).
You are confusing technological advancement with purchasing power. The “luxuries” that you cite are not included in the areas where people actually spend most of their money. Housing, transportation, food, education, and medical care account for 88% of dollars expended by the average person. All of these have risen in real terms outpacing or equaling income gains for most.
(As a side note, the luxury features you cite in cars are actually a function of higher real prices. When base costs of something go up, relative cost added by options decreases and those options are consumed in greater quantities.)
By your reasoning, Andrew Carnegie would be the poorest person in the world for no amount of expenditure by him could have purchased an iPad..However, few would agree with you.
The prosperity you speak of is the externality of possessing a vibrant economic ecosystem. Those that understand ONLY comparative advantage overlook this. Heck, most of those that understand comparative advantage do not even realize what limiting assumptions underlie its principle.
If globalization were such a great policy why has US median income stagnated for almost 20 years?
Actually, there are studies out of Harvard that show that standard of living is tied to the diversity of products a nation produces. The US has seen the value of its input to production slip for many sectors for the last 15 years. This would indicate that the US is experiencing declining economic diversity which is a bad thing. You are conflating network value created in apps such as Facebook with economic activity that actually improves standard of living.
While there is a statistical link, this does not necessarily imply causation. Perhaps those who spent time drinking did not engage in intellectual pursuits. If you are drowning your sorrows, are you likely to be reading a book after dinner? Similar relationships could have been found by those who bowl.....
This is nothing. Governments try to influence elections all of the time. The US did in the French and Israeli elections of recent note. Moreover, it is well known that Russia tried to influence our elections during the Cold War. Regardless, there has been no solid evidence to link Russian activity with Trump. Instead, this is innuendo by those trying to delegitimize the Trump Presidency. In that, it is an attack on our Republic and our voters.
In contrast, we have a real scandal with the Seth Rich murder. We have two dead bodies, evidence that he was in contact with Wikileaks, and motive. Where is the call for investigation here?
1. How does this implicate Trump? 2. It has also been released that our intelligence community can hack and leave crumbs that implicate other parties. So the viability of the Russian argument goes out the window.
The bottom line truth is that most people are glad that the hypocrisies of the DNC and Hillary are out in the open, Russia or not.
A related question is which of these companies is actually increasing the productivity of Americans. Several such as Facebook and Microsoft have simply achieved a monopoly position in their sector; this accounts for much of their success and employment growth. For society to benefit in the long term, worker productivity across the board needs to rise.
This is why the mantra that the tech industry means everything to the economy is bunk. Its purpose is to justify more visa programs. The real opportunity in tech is to apply technology across the economy increasing the efficiency of mom and pop workers everywhere.
Actually, research has shown that pessimistic people tend to have a more accurate grasp on reality. (Eg. Eighty percent of small businesses fail. Pessimists will avoid this like the plague. Only optimists will attempt something that is most likely not in their favor.) So, if researchers are indeed pessimistic (I do not know though that is a given) -- I will take their opinion over that of a CEO.
Your linked data actually proves the point that Americans are a free society due to guns. If one looks at the list, there are nations that have greater deaths per capita from homicide with far fewer guns per capita. There are also nations that have extremely low homicide rates with high guns per capita. So, the correlation that guns lead to the death by homicide is not there. Rather, culture drives the death not the tool.
Interestingly, the largest component of US deaths by guns is suicide. Even in choosing our death, Americans have freedom.
Perhaps those Americans are correct that owning guns secures their freedom. How many lives have been lost under HItler, Stalin, Mao, and others when guns were restricted? How does the freedom of the average European compare with that of an American? Just last week, a Dane was charged with blasphemy for burning a Quran. Is that Dane truly free? Most Americans would say no. Freedom has its price, and most US citizens are comfortable with that.
Your post nails the problem. Too many look at the issue from a personal perspective and a short term time horizon. Almost every genetic trait has a tradeoff. For instance, cognitive ability optimized for analysis may limit creativity. Remove variability in the population and send the collective genome in a given direction, and humankind has a lower probability of long term (50k+ year) survival.
In short, genetic modification is akin to taking a genetic algorithm and converting it to a deterministic solver. In the end, you well may miss the optimal solution especially as the parameters of the problem change over time.
There are several points missing in your argument.
1. They typical iPhone brings generates roughly $500 – 600 in revenue. Labor is a small component of that. In terms of labor time, we are talking roughly 10-13 hours (studies in 2012 demonstrated this). With a US wage differential, one adds roughly $150 dollars in cost.
2. The $150 in cost is not borne entirely by consumer. Rather, it is split by everyone in the transaction including investors and other suppliers.
3. Competitive effects would be muted by tariffs and tax incentives against foreign or offshoring competitors.
In the end, the US consumer would pay more for his or her iPhone (less than the labor differential). However, they would not be paying for unemployment or healthcare for underemployed fellow citizens. Moreover, producing within the US creates positive externalities of knowledge transfer to other industries. In short, the idea that electronics cannot be made in the US is false. Companies such as Element that make televisions here support the sustainability of US manufacturing.
The Lump of Labor Fallacy says nothing about the wages of those employees. In fact, the fallacy relies on the premise that by expanding aggregate labor supply, you move the market clearing wage lower. Then, your equilibrium between supply and demand accommodates a greater number of employees. The problem is other sectors of society are not undergoing the same wage pressures. So, in the competitive market for goods and services, the affected employees are shafted.
Slashdot Mirror
Along the same lines of your experience, I went to a full time, lower tier I MBA program coming in with an engineering undergraduate degree and 10 years of work history. Applying myself, I found the coursework to be a valuable introduction to fields such as finance and datamining. With this foundation, I was able through self study to become fairly proficient in econometric analysis and financial modeling. The MBA does not make one an expert in anything, but it does provide an overview of how firms and the economy work at a slightly academic level.
Many, however, use these programs as a personal brand builder without focusing on what is actually taught. For them, networking is the far greater asset offered by the better programs. Support for this can be found in that some top programs do not even report grades to recruiters. Apparently, the stress of learning material really puts a damper on network building. Unfortunately, many of these individuals will rise to the top of organizations and will make bad decisions. This coupled with the diploma mills that provide MBA's to the me too crowd give the MBA a reputation.
As in most things, the MBA is not as bad as some one would suggest, but it is not a magic bullet to wealth or understanding either.
You are advocating a society that is destined for evolutionary obliteration. For now, we live in a society where economic - thus biological success- depends on a skill set related to working at fairly specialized mental and social tasks in an office environment. If only these people have kids, we have destroyed our biological diversity and made us vulnerable to any environmental or serious economic shift (eg. think war or pestilence).
I for one do not want to see that future.
You are confusing technological advancement with purchasing power. The “luxuries” that you cite are not included in the areas where people actually spend most of their money. Housing, transportation, food, education, and medical care account for 88% of dollars expended by the average person. All of these have risen in real terms outpacing or equaling income gains for most.
(As a side note, the luxury features you cite in cars are actually a function of higher real prices. When base costs of something go up, relative cost added by options decreases and those options are consumed in greater quantities.)
By your reasoning, Andrew Carnegie would be the poorest person in the world for no amount of expenditure by him could have purchased an iPad..However, few would agree with you.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
The prosperity you speak of is the externality of possessing a vibrant economic ecosystem. Those that understand ONLY comparative advantage overlook this. Heck, most of those that understand comparative advantage do not even realize what limiting assumptions underlie its principle.
If globalization were such a great policy why has US median income stagnated for almost 20 years?
Actually, there are studies out of Harvard that show that standard of living is tied to the diversity of products a nation produces. The US has seen the value of its input to production slip for many sectors for the last 15 years. This would indicate that the US is experiencing declining economic diversity which is a bad thing. You are conflating network value created in apps such as Facebook with economic activity that actually improves standard of living.
While there is a statistical link, this does not necessarily imply causation. Perhaps those who spent time drinking did not engage in intellectual pursuits. If you are drowning your sorrows, are you likely to be reading a book after dinner? Similar relationships could have been found by those who bowl.....
Take the blue pill minions so we can control you.
This is nothing. Governments try to influence elections all of the time. The US did in the French and Israeli elections of recent note. Moreover, it is well known that Russia tried to influence our elections during the Cold War. Regardless, there has been no solid evidence to link Russian activity with Trump. Instead, this is innuendo by those trying to delegitimize the Trump Presidency. In that, it is an attack on our Republic and our voters.
In contrast, we have a real scandal with the Seth Rich murder. We have two dead bodies, evidence that he was in contact with Wikileaks, and motive. Where is the call for investigation here?
1. How does this implicate Trump?
2. It has also been released that our intelligence community can hack and leave crumbs that implicate other parties. So the viability of the Russian argument goes out the window.
The bottom line truth is that most people are glad that the hypocrisies of the DNC and Hillary are out in the open, Russia or not.
A related question is which of these companies is actually increasing the productivity of Americans. Several such as Facebook and Microsoft have simply achieved a monopoly position in their sector; this accounts for much of their success and employment growth. For society to benefit in the long term, worker productivity across the board needs to rise.
This is why the mantra that the tech industry means everything to the economy is bunk. Its purpose is to justify more visa programs. The real opportunity in tech is to apply technology across the economy increasing the efficiency of mom and pop workers everywhere.
Actually, research has shown that pessimistic people tend to have a more accurate grasp on reality. (Eg. Eighty percent of small businesses fail. Pessimists will avoid this like the plague. Only optimists will attempt something that is most likely not in their favor.) So, if researchers are indeed pessimistic (I do not know though that is a given) -- I will take their opinion over that of a CEO.
Your linked data actually proves the point that Americans are a free society due to guns. If one looks at the list, there are nations that have greater deaths per capita from homicide with far fewer guns per capita. There are also nations that have extremely low homicide rates with high guns per capita. So, the correlation that guns lead to the death by homicide is not there. Rather, culture drives the death not the tool.
Interestingly, the largest component of US deaths by guns is suicide. Even in choosing our death, Americans have freedom.
Perhaps those Americans are correct that owning guns secures their freedom. How many lives have been lost under HItler, Stalin, Mao, and others when guns were restricted? How does the freedom of the average European compare with that of an American? Just last week, a Dane was charged with blasphemy for burning a Quran. Is that Dane truly free? Most Americans would say no. Freedom has its price, and most US citizens are comfortable with that.
Your post nails the problem. Too many look at the issue from a personal perspective and a short term time horizon. Almost every genetic trait has a tradeoff. For instance, cognitive ability optimized for analysis may limit creativity. Remove variability in the population and send the collective genome in a given direction, and humankind has a lower probability of long term (50k+ year) survival.
In short, genetic modification is akin to taking a genetic algorithm and converting it to a deterministic solver. In the end, you well may miss the optimal solution especially as the parameters of the problem change over time.
There are several points missing in your argument.
1. They typical iPhone brings generates roughly $500 – 600 in revenue. Labor is a small component of that. In terms of labor time, we are talking roughly 10-13 hours (studies in 2012 demonstrated this). With a US wage differential, one adds roughly $150 dollars in cost.
2. The $150 in cost is not borne entirely by consumer. Rather, it is split by everyone in the transaction including investors and other suppliers.
3. Competitive effects would be muted by tariffs and tax incentives against foreign or offshoring competitors.
In the end, the US consumer would pay more for his or her iPhone (less than the labor differential). However, they would not be paying for unemployment or healthcare for underemployed fellow citizens. Moreover, producing within the US creates positive externalities of knowledge transfer to other industries. In short, the idea that electronics cannot be made in the US is false. Companies such as Element that make televisions here support the sustainability of US manufacturing.
The Lump of Labor Fallacy says nothing about the wages of those employees. In fact, the fallacy relies on the premise that by expanding aggregate labor supply, you move the market clearing wage lower. Then, your equilibrium between supply and demand accommodates a greater number of employees. The problem is other sectors of society are not undergoing the same wage pressures. So, in the competitive market for goods and services, the affected employees are shafted.