I remember a TED talk about some Swedish economics professor who was examining the widely held belief that everybody seems to have that the whole world is always getting poorer, and he found it to not be the case at all, rather quite the opposite. The problem is that people tend to measure wealth in terms of income, and income is a terrible way of measuring wealth because it doesn't show actual purchasing power, and further it confuses the difference between money and wealth (there's quite a difference.)
What he used were metrics like how many people can afford airfare halfway across the world at different points in time, how many people can afford how much food at different points in time, how many people could afford a car at different points in history, then for luxury items, etc. What is data clearly showed was that as time has been passing by, even though incomes aren't necessarily increasing, how much nice things people can afford has always been increasing. And this holds true for virtually all of the world's economies, from the very poor to the very rich.
The concept of a "race to the bottom" is a total myth. People who propagate this myth tend to have the notion that when things become cheaper, they become inferior. That just doesn't fit with reality at all. Some people might get paid less, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can afford less, in fact it's usually the opposite because overall they can afford more. Though it's likely that they won't get paid less at all, namely because lower price means more people can afford a given good, which means more sales volume.
If anybody recalls back in the early 80's, there were those 50" projection TVs that only higher income people had (in 2016 dollars those would be about $6,167.53.) Those TV's had absolute shit picture quality compared to $1,000 TVs of the same or larger size that you can obtain today. The newer TVs also last longer (those projection ones barely lasted a few years; not to mention the setup was so damn big and horribly energy inefficient.)
The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness?
I already know that's false without even having to look it up. You can't own land (or any other real property for that matter) in Mexico unless you're a Mexican citizen.
Actually it was mostly the USA that won that, with Canada coming in a distant second. Mexico's economy is now worse off post NAFTA, but that isn't because of NAFTA, rather it's because what new jobs they gained were lost to China shortly afterwards. Though they'd probably be even worse off had it not been for NAFTA.
Oh well, I guess we can look forward to President Trump next year.
I kind of doubt it. Trump has alienated so much of the voting base that there's no way he'll win in the general election. And given that Hillary is almost guaranteed to be the D nomination, she's probably going to win.
She'll likely be a one termer though; whoever the next president is is going to have to deal with a bad economy. That, and the amount of dirt that will surface about her during this time will probably be enormous. My name for her is "The Queen of Corruption".
It seems you counter your own argument. Being white had something to do with it in 6/13 of the states. Also I seem to recall that while slaves/blacks were allowed to vote, that their vote counted as 3/5ths of a white person
That is not correct. Slaves were defined as "lesser persons", not strictly as blacks, (indeed, in the early days of the colonial times, Irishmen were often imported as slaves) and furthermore, that 3/5ths was only used for census figures when determining how many representatives that a given state could have.
and that they often didn't actually cast their own votes as it was done by their master "on their behalf"... Meaning if you were wealthy enough to own multiple slaves you got several votes.
Also incorrect; in their state they were either allowed to vote or they didn't vote at all. And even then, NOBODY voted in federal elections; that was something the state government did (the state government would appoint its own senators and its own electors for POTUS.)
Except this is less accurate (it measures frame rates much earlier in the pipeline; well before the frame is actually rendered by the driver) and it's impossible to do any kind of overlay, look for dropped frames, measure tearing, etc.
He's probably referring to Al Gore's nobel peace prize acceptance speech, which itself was an allusion to a study by the US Navy that said the ice caps could be fully gone in as early as 7 years, or as late as 22 years from 2007.
Though to be honest I don't think even the later date would be anywherre close to accurate. If the Pangaea theory is correct, we still had ice caps several million years ago while the earth was necessarily much warmer (and had much higher CO2 content, and high biodiversity, which included dinosaurs and very large insectae.) Also if the Pangaea theory is correct, we'll probably have Pangaea Ultima as well, which will include similar conditions with or without carbon emissions.
You didn't necessarily have to be a land owner (and certainly didn't have to be wealthy) to vote in the early days. Back in those days the only way it was possible to prove that you actually lived in the state whose government you were voting for is if you had to have some kind of proof in public record that you resided in said state. This was to prevent people from hopping over the border into the next state in order to game its election (this did actually happen in those days, hence the existence of laws aimed at preventing it.) That didn't necessarily have to be land, however having your name written on a deed for a piece of immovable property was a really easy (and common) way of achieving this.
Wealth never did enter into the equation, and neither did being white. In fact, after Independence was declared (1776) and both before and after the constitution was even a thing, (1788) blacks did actually have the right to vote in 7 of the original 13 states.
Transient/homeless people were able to vote once public record keeping got much better. Remember that back in those days, there were no ID cards, no social security numbers, etc.
Even though the whole "pathogen" thing is retarded beyond belief, if it is truly county property, then IMO it's a no brainer to let the government access it.
The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries (assuming you ignore the fringes of both).
By "most other countries" you're probably referring to Europe. Most other countries should by definition include the entire middle east, as well as every autocratic nation in Asia (in other words, just about every Asian country, including the former iron curtain nations.)
But even then, Europe wouldn't be accurate either. There's been a very big fascist uprising in Europe as of late. That is to say, they fascist parties in France and Denmark have over 28% of the vote, and about 15 other European countries have some 15% of the vote going to their respective fascist parties. And when I say 'fascist party' I mean they actually identify themselves as fascist.
As a result of that, there are quite a number of actual fascists in the EU parliament.
Any time you're asked to fix a computer with Windows 8 or 10, do the person a favor and unpin the Windows Store icon from the taskbar and start menu to make room for things that are actually useful.
So, two soldiers of one of the best-trained, best-equipped military forces on the planet were using a consumer-oriented phone app for navigation?
I think you're confusing personal property with military equipment. Just because you're in the military doesn't mean you're on duty 24/7. A slight majority your life (in the US military at least) is probably spent wearing civilian clothing and driving a civilian car, only wearing a military uniform and operating military equipment if you're on duty. The later typically occurs on weekdays similar to a 9 to 5 job, with occasional field exercise and other extra duties, minus leave and pass.
In case you haven't yet read the background on this incident:
These guys were wearing regular civilian clothes and in a civilian vehicle and were passing through a Palestinian neighborhood. The locals really didn't take kindly to jews passing through their turf, so they surrounded the vehicle and began throwing everything from stones to molotov cocktails at it. In other words, an unprovoked assault. One of them had a cell phone and called for help. Standard Israeli response to this situation is to overwhelm in order to extract safely so that nobody gets held for ransom.
A bunch of baboons got hurt, and one got killed. Meanwhile you are siding with the baboons.
Well if you want to talk about idiocy, look at how Maricopa County got it's name. It comes from the name of an Indian tribe who called themselves Piipash, but when the conquistadors came in they heard about them from another tribe who called them "Kokmalik'op" which means "enemies in the big mountains", but since the Spanish (as in from Spain; not Mexicans who didn't exist at the time) tend to mangle every single word that doesn't include phonographs in their own language (which itself has a relatively small set of phonograms) they rendered "kokmalikop" as "maricopa" (sounds like "mod-ee-copa") that's what we call them today, and how Maricopa County has its namesake.
We probably do need a better human analog for this kind of research. I can't help but wonder how many potential cures have been missed because the initial tests on mice failed where they would have had at least some degree of success on a human, with only a little modification to perfect it.
It would be interesting to see if this method might be effective for other chronic viral infections, such as rabies or hepatitis infections that were found after symptoms began showing up where it's too late for vaccination.
When you're staring at the want ads, on line job sites, the newspaper jobs section and anything else you can think of to find a job because you graduated 5 months ago and you're still looking for something that pays more than minimum wage, you notice something very disturbing. There are literally thousands of job postings for minimum wage jobs, and almost no postings for anything that would be considered middle class or up (maybe 1 listing in 20).
There's actually a very good reason for that. If you've ever been in a position where you need to hire somebody, the want ads almost always suck. The people that apply for jobs in the want ads just go work for the first person that will actually hire them, and will leave at the drop of a hat. They aren't high quality workers at all, which is why they make minimum wage.
If ask any professional you'll ever meet about how they find their jobs, almost none of them will tell you they use any kind of job search. By far the best way is to network with people you know. You ask around if they know somebody who knows somebody, and when you draw that connection, you're likely to find a good quality job. Likewise, employers like these networks because they find good quality employees. Alternatively, recruiters like to do some spying at other companies and poach their talent.
People who hire out of the want ads don't necessarily want somebody intelligent, they just need an extra pair of hands, and if that extra pair of hands just disappears one day they can find another pair of hands because there are so many that they are a dime a dozen. Thus they don't value their time very much, and therefore don't pay much either.
Her lifestyle choice was living in San Francisco. I personally know an accountant who makes about $96,000 a year, and was offered nearly double that for a job in San Francisco, but he refused it. Why? Well, $96,000 is a lot of money here; definitely qualifies for upper middle class. Hell, I make $50,000 a year and I live in a resort style luxury apartment with two olympic sized swimming pools and concierge trash service in a 1077 square foot unit.
However making $192,000 in San Francisco is likely to make you end up living paycheck to paycheck living in an apartment barely the size of a closet.
That said, I don't care what her role at Yelp is, she could very easily find a similar job in another area that doesn't have such a high cost of living. That's on her, not on her employer.
No the problem is that her former EMPLOYER wants her to work in the most expensive city in the US, and gives no fucks about how she makes that happen on what they want to pay.
They offered her a job that's in that area, however they likely made no requirement that she live there. Likewise how she makes ends meet isn't their business, nor should it be. I'd personally be annoyed if my employer managed my finances.
What she made is easily a living wage in most places. The problem is she wants to live in THE most expensive place in the US. It's not expensive because somebody decided to make it that way, it's expensive because the demand to live there is high and there aren't enough domiciles to meet that demand. So what happens? People outbid one another, hence putting upward pressure on the cost of living there.
There's really an easy fix for this: Move somewhere else. If her employer finds that they can't attract enough talent because nobody wants to live where their workplace is, then that situation will sort itself out naturally. However in choosing the living situation that she did, she created that mess for herself.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
I remember a TED talk about some Swedish economics professor who was examining the widely held belief that everybody seems to have that the whole world is always getting poorer, and he found it to not be the case at all, rather quite the opposite. The problem is that people tend to measure wealth in terms of income, and income is a terrible way of measuring wealth because it doesn't show actual purchasing power, and further it confuses the difference between money and wealth (there's quite a difference.)
What he used were metrics like how many people can afford airfare halfway across the world at different points in time, how many people can afford how much food at different points in time, how many people could afford a car at different points in history, then for luxury items, etc. What is data clearly showed was that as time has been passing by, even though incomes aren't necessarily increasing, how much nice things people can afford has always been increasing. And this holds true for virtually all of the world's economies, from the very poor to the very rich.
The concept of a "race to the bottom" is a total myth. People who propagate this myth tend to have the notion that when things become cheaper, they become inferior. That just doesn't fit with reality at all. Some people might get paid less, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can afford less, in fact it's usually the opposite because overall they can afford more. Though it's likely that they won't get paid less at all, namely because lower price means more people can afford a given good, which means more sales volume.
If anybody recalls back in the early 80's, there were those 50" projection TVs that only higher income people had (in 2016 dollars those would be about $6,167.53.) Those TV's had absolute shit picture quality compared to $1,000 TVs of the same or larger size that you can obtain today. The newer TVs also last longer (those projection ones barely lasted a few years; not to mention the setup was so damn big and horribly energy inefficient.)
The devil is in the details. For instance, were Mexican cornfields previously run as family owned farms, and those former farm owners are now picking mangos for a multinational agribusiness?
I already know that's false without even having to look it up. You can't own land (or any other real property for that matter) in Mexico unless you're a Mexican citizen.
Actually it was mostly the USA that won that, with Canada coming in a distant second. Mexico's economy is now worse off post NAFTA, but that isn't because of NAFTA, rather it's because what new jobs they gained were lost to China shortly afterwards. Though they'd probably be even worse off had it not been for NAFTA.
Since it's a North Korean sub, I was thinking somebody knocked on the hatch.
Oh well, I guess we can look forward to President Trump next year.
I kind of doubt it. Trump has alienated so much of the voting base that there's no way he'll win in the general election. And given that Hillary is almost guaranteed to be the D nomination, she's probably going to win.
She'll likely be a one termer though; whoever the next president is is going to have to deal with a bad economy. That, and the amount of dirt that will surface about her during this time will probably be enormous. My name for her is "The Queen of Corruption".
It seems you counter your own argument. Being white had something to do with it in 6/13 of the states. Also I seem to recall that while slaves/blacks were allowed to vote, that their vote counted as 3/5ths of a white person
That is not correct. Slaves were defined as "lesser persons", not strictly as blacks, (indeed, in the early days of the colonial times, Irishmen were often imported as slaves) and furthermore, that 3/5ths was only used for census figures when determining how many representatives that a given state could have.
and that they often didn't actually cast their own votes as it was done by their master "on their behalf"... Meaning if you were wealthy enough to own multiple slaves you got several votes.
Also incorrect; in their state they were either allowed to vote or they didn't vote at all. And even then, NOBODY voted in federal elections; that was something the state government did (the state government would appoint its own senators and its own electors for POTUS.)
Except this is less accurate (it measures frame rates much earlier in the pipeline; well before the frame is actually rendered by the driver) and it's impossible to do any kind of overlay, look for dropped frames, measure tearing, etc.
He's probably referring to Al Gore's nobel peace prize acceptance speech, which itself was an allusion to a study by the US Navy that said the ice caps could be fully gone in as early as 7 years, or as late as 22 years from 2007.
http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...
Though to be honest I don't think even the later date would be anywherre close to accurate. If the Pangaea theory is correct, we still had ice caps several million years ago while the earth was necessarily much warmer (and had much higher CO2 content, and high biodiversity, which included dinosaurs and very large insectae.) Also if the Pangaea theory is correct, we'll probably have Pangaea Ultima as well, which will include similar conditions with or without carbon emissions.
You didn't necessarily have to be a land owner (and certainly didn't have to be wealthy) to vote in the early days. Back in those days the only way it was possible to prove that you actually lived in the state whose government you were voting for is if you had to have some kind of proof in public record that you resided in said state. This was to prevent people from hopping over the border into the next state in order to game its election (this did actually happen in those days, hence the existence of laws aimed at preventing it.) That didn't necessarily have to be land, however having your name written on a deed for a piece of immovable property was a really easy (and common) way of achieving this.
Wealth never did enter into the equation, and neither did being white. In fact, after Independence was declared (1776) and both before and after the constitution was even a thing, (1788) blacks did actually have the right to vote in 7 of the original 13 states.
Transient/homeless people were able to vote once public record keeping got much better. Remember that back in those days, there were no ID cards, no social security numbers, etc.
Even though the whole "pathogen" thing is retarded beyond belief, if it is truly county property, then IMO it's a no brainer to let the government access it.
The part you are missing is that the left in the US is often further to the right than the right in most other countries (assuming you ignore the fringes of both).
By "most other countries" you're probably referring to Europe. Most other countries should by definition include the entire middle east, as well as every autocratic nation in Asia (in other words, just about every Asian country, including the former iron curtain nations.)
But even then, Europe wouldn't be accurate either. There's been a very big fascist uprising in Europe as of late. That is to say, they fascist parties in France and Denmark have over 28% of the vote, and about 15 other European countries have some 15% of the vote going to their respective fascist parties. And when I say 'fascist party' I mean they actually identify themselves as fascist.
As a result of that, there are quite a number of actual fascists in the EU parliament.
A good way to help fix this:
Any time you're asked to fix a computer with Windows 8 or 10, do the person a favor and unpin the Windows Store icon from the taskbar and start menu to make room for things that are actually useful.
If they want access to encrypted data, just give it to them. If they need it decrypted, that's their problem.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend real baboons by identifying Palestinians as baboons.
So, two soldiers of one of the best-trained, best-equipped military forces on the planet were using a consumer-oriented phone app for navigation?
I think you're confusing personal property with military equipment. Just because you're in the military doesn't mean you're on duty 24/7. A slight majority your life (in the US military at least) is probably spent wearing civilian clothing and driving a civilian car, only wearing a military uniform and operating military equipment if you're on duty. The later typically occurs on weekdays similar to a 9 to 5 job, with occasional field exercise and other extra duties, minus leave and pass.
And his case (just like mine, as I did the same thing) was voluntary. In Israel it's compulsory for ALL of them.
In case you haven't yet read the background on this incident:
These guys were wearing regular civilian clothes and in a civilian vehicle and were passing through a Palestinian neighborhood. The locals really didn't take kindly to jews passing through their turf, so they surrounded the vehicle and began throwing everything from stones to molotov cocktails at it. In other words, an unprovoked assault. One of them had a cell phone and called for help. Standard Israeli response to this situation is to overwhelm in order to extract safely so that nobody gets held for ransom.
A bunch of baboons got hurt, and one got killed. Meanwhile you are siding with the baboons.
Problem is getting the FDA to approve it. Not because of corruption, but just sheer bureaucracy.
The thing is, once something is considered a medical device, and pretty much just because of that fact alone, the price suddenly goes way up.
Well if you want to talk about idiocy, look at how Maricopa County got it's name. It comes from the name of an Indian tribe who called themselves Piipash, but when the conquistadors came in they heard about them from another tribe who called them "Kokmalik'op" which means "enemies in the big mountains", but since the Spanish (as in from Spain; not Mexicans who didn't exist at the time) tend to mangle every single word that doesn't include phonographs in their own language (which itself has a relatively small set of phonograms) they rendered "kokmalikop" as "maricopa" (sounds like "mod-ee-copa") that's what we call them today, and how Maricopa County has its namesake.
We probably do need a better human analog for this kind of research. I can't help but wonder how many potential cures have been missed because the initial tests on mice failed where they would have had at least some degree of success on a human, with only a little modification to perfect it.
It would be interesting to see if this method might be effective for other chronic viral infections, such as rabies or hepatitis infections that were found after symptoms began showing up where it's too late for vaccination.
When you're staring at the want ads, on line job sites, the newspaper jobs section and anything else you can think of to find a job because you graduated 5 months ago and you're still looking for something that pays more than minimum wage, you notice something very disturbing. There are literally thousands of job postings for minimum wage jobs, and almost no postings for anything that would be considered middle class or up (maybe 1 listing in 20).
There's actually a very good reason for that. If you've ever been in a position where you need to hire somebody, the want ads almost always suck. The people that apply for jobs in the want ads just go work for the first person that will actually hire them, and will leave at the drop of a hat. They aren't high quality workers at all, which is why they make minimum wage.
If ask any professional you'll ever meet about how they find their jobs, almost none of them will tell you they use any kind of job search. By far the best way is to network with people you know. You ask around if they know somebody who knows somebody, and when you draw that connection, you're likely to find a good quality job. Likewise, employers like these networks because they find good quality employees. Alternatively, recruiters like to do some spying at other companies and poach their talent.
People who hire out of the want ads don't necessarily want somebody intelligent, they just need an extra pair of hands, and if that extra pair of hands just disappears one day they can find another pair of hands because there are so many that they are a dime a dozen. Thus they don't value their time very much, and therefore don't pay much either.
Her lifestyle choice was living in San Francisco. I personally know an accountant who makes about $96,000 a year, and was offered nearly double that for a job in San Francisco, but he refused it. Why? Well, $96,000 is a lot of money here; definitely qualifies for upper middle class. Hell, I make $50,000 a year and I live in a resort style luxury apartment with two olympic sized swimming pools and concierge trash service in a 1077 square foot unit.
However making $192,000 in San Francisco is likely to make you end up living paycheck to paycheck living in an apartment barely the size of a closet.
That said, I don't care what her role at Yelp is, she could very easily find a similar job in another area that doesn't have such a high cost of living. That's on her, not on her employer.
No the problem is that her former EMPLOYER wants her to work in the most expensive city in the US, and gives no fucks about how she makes that happen on what they want to pay.
They offered her a job that's in that area, however they likely made no requirement that she live there. Likewise how she makes ends meet isn't their business, nor should it be. I'd personally be annoyed if my employer managed my finances.
What she made is easily a living wage in most places. The problem is she wants to live in THE most expensive place in the US. It's not expensive because somebody decided to make it that way, it's expensive because the demand to live there is high and there aren't enough domiciles to meet that demand. So what happens? People outbid one another, hence putting upward pressure on the cost of living there.
There's really an easy fix for this: Move somewhere else. If her employer finds that they can't attract enough talent because nobody wants to live where their workplace is, then that situation will sort itself out naturally. However in choosing the living situation that she did, she created that mess for herself.