Imagine someone hacking those robots and turning them against your citizens or all humans. Don't you want a way to stop them? Don't forget all the recent hacks. Everything is hackable with enough determination and resources. And military robots sure are a very good target.
Those are very real potential threats, but probably the most real threat is enemy nations having better military technology than us ("us" is relative). The mere existence of nuclear weapons is also an existential threat, but no where near as dangerous as only your enemies having nuclear weapons.
The military doesn't have the luxury of holding back because of the worry about all the negative consequences of new military technology. If the technology can exist, someone will develop it. The best defense I can think of is developing it yourself so at least you can understand the true dangers and potentially build countermeasures against them.
And yet you believe in global warning? Really? You can believe this happens ONLY in these journals but you can be sold a bag of slick on global warming and pump out trillions of dollars to scammers??? Fools by any other name are... idiots.
On the contrary, this is another example of why consensus is important in determining what research findings laymen should trust. You can likely find a handful of published scientific papers to prove just about anything. This story shows you can probably just publish them yourself (like how Andrew Wakefield fueled the anti-vaxxer craze). 95% consensus is the same as 100% with a few kooks and paid off PhDs thrown in. When you see a 90%+ consensus among scientists and published research, believing it is false just because it is inconvenient is not wisdom. It's ignorance. Dangerous ignorance in the case of climate change denial.
"That's their problem. Either I'm worth the extra money to you or I'm not. I think I am, but if you disagree I'm confident I can find employment elsewhere."
It is the company's problem, including the other employees, if they cannot attract enough top talent to compete in the marketplace. On two occasions I have had to say no to a company which really needed help because their pay grades were too strict. My wife works at one of those companies and their IT problems in particular will probably never be solved if they cannot hire some $175k+ talent (Midwest suburbs, so not as high as the coasts).
This might not be a big problem for an entire country which operates similarly, but in the US not being able to pay top performers far more than regular staff is a recipe for disaster. And unfortunately everyone thinks they are awesome. Not many senior developers making $140k salaries are going to admit to themselves that their $190k "peer" is that much more useful to the company.
That article is garbage, since Norwegians make far more than $19k on average and Norwegians do not have the highest average salaries. Norway is doing quite well for itself but this article is simply not accurate.
Sorry, you failed marketing. With nothing much to distinguish it, obviously price is a significant factor in people not buying it. Certainly true in my case.
I am sorry but you either are not in marketing or aren't very good at it. A flagship product is still going to have a flagship price, even if it is a first iteration. The original XBox was the same price as the Playstation 2 and that product has done very well in the marketplace. Generally you may see a $50-100 discount for a new player, and you indeed do see that with the Pixel. The top of the line iPhone and Galaxy phones are in the $900 range while the Pixel 2 XL is rumored to be in the $800 range. But feature for feature the Pixel 2 XL is in the same league as both phones. It is a great value.
For people used to buying $400 phones, none of these phones are marketed at you.
The Google Pixel phones are also very nice although they haven't sold that well in their first year.
Could be something about the price, dur dur?
The price is in the same ballpark as iPhones and the Galaxy line, at it is comparable in specs to those phones. It doesn't appear that price is a significant factor.
For iPhones (and Galaxy / Pixel) quality has more to do with features and capabilities than it does long lasting craftsmanship. Not many people claim high end phones are made of parts which will last longer than cheaper phones, they claim they have better quality cameras / larger screens / better resolution / faster processors / etc.
I would be very surprised if cheaper phones didn't have a much longer shelf life than high end phones. They are not cramming as much processing power into such a small mobile device so they are probably more reliable on average.
...and an Android phone is? (Hint: designed by Google in California)
Well the closest competitor to Apple phones right now is Samsung, so your hint should probably be "designed by Samsung in South Korea". The Google Pixel phones are also very nice although they haven't sold that well in their first year. The quality seems high enough that they can gain plenty of market share if they keep at it though.
Bottom line, trusting anything to remain private on this planet is foolhardy.
You don't need a Facebook account to be on Facebook. In many cases you can find photos of a person by just knowing their spouse, family members or close friends. I recently found a picture of myself on Yelp because a friend posted a photo of us in a bar. I was marginally involved with my 20 year high school reunion planning and many people were tracked down through family members who were on Facebook or LinkedIn.
Based on some of the comments I see coming out of people living in those four cities it seems pretty clear to me that some of them are completely out of touch with reality everywhere else.
I completely agree with you there. But the problem is equally bad for those are completely out of touch with the reality inside those cities and many others in the country. People out of touch with society's advancements in the past half century, both technological and social. No one group or even small handful of groups own the blame for this. Nearly all of us are part of the problem.
Certainly anyone thinking the "pretentious elitists" are the primary cause of the problem are also a major part of the problem.
"Meet regular folks". Yeah, you're the moron living in an ivory tower dude. Just fuck off and leave us alone.
There is a real problem in this country where people stay within their own "bubble", whether that is a liberal elite bubble or rural American bubble or whatever. Making a concerted effort to reach outside of those bubbles is a good thing and not something which should be criticized. You may criticize the method used to reach out if you feel it is ineffective, but deriding the entire idea of reaching out to people in different socioeconomic and cultural circumstances is hopelessly ignorant of this issue in our society.
I easily get $10,000 of utility out of my phone. If I had to pay $10K, I would.
But luckily for me a $400 phone has 99% of the (theoretical) utility of a $10,000 phone. I don't get $9600 more utility out of a $10,000 phone than I do out of a $400 phone.
The thing about the cost of utility is it's rarely linear in nature. Similar to a bell curve, you get significant utility for your money at the mid-range, and much less extra utility for your money at the high-end. An outback steakhouse steak is maybe 50% more than a Denny's steak, and significantly better. A Ruth Chris steak is triple the cost of an outback steak, for arguably an equal extra increase in quality. An argument could be made you can eat 3x as many Outback steaks and Ruth Chris steaks, but at a certain income level you are going to be paying a premium for any increase in utility.
Once you can afford a monthly $1k grocery bill, $1k restaurant bill, $4k mortgage, $1k car loan, etc. you are not going to find many places to improve the utility of your life on the cheap. The upper middle class is growing rapidly and there are many more people with $250k+ household incomes you can afford the type of budget I list above. At this point a $1500 phone, which has become as core to peoples' lives as their house or car, isn't that unreasonable.
But for people who would struggle to buy a $30k car, I would agree a $1k+ phone is not worth the extra utility.
Not only is status value pointless to me, but it doesn't even help define someone's status.
Making effort to not be persuaded by status symbols is a laudable goal, but it shows lack of self-awareness if you believe you are above such things. Everyone is affected by status symbols, although of course we are all affected differently.
Studies have shown workers have more job satisfaction if their company's physical setting shows a certain level of status. Dating is significantly impacted by your status, and it helps in both getting dates and maintaining long term relationships. Displaying status helps you both get a job and succeed in your position. There are probably no aspects of human life which are unaffected by status symbols.
Status symbols are by no means the only factor in any situation, but anyone who ignores status handicaps themselves throughout life. You can still do well in life with almost any handicap, but why self inflict one on yourself. In theory it would be great to do away with them but our society is no where close to making that a viable reality.
I like people like you - because without you I couldn't buy top of the range goods for pennies on the pound.
And I like people like you, because you provide a secondary market to lower the effective price of the latest high end products. You make my new car $20k less expensive since I can trade the old one in. And you save me about $200 every other year for each new phone I buy since I can sell mine back to Verizon.
It's good there are different people with different priorities who can help each other out. Be careful not to be too smug in thinking your way is best though. Because I'm fairly certain there are billions of people who think your $5k car purchase is just as frivolous as my $50k car purchase.
$250K is plenty. I make half that, and live in the Seattle area, and I'm quite comfortable. Big house, 3 cars, 2 kids in private school. By the standards of a spoiled brat I'm just middle-class, but by any sane definition, I'm well-off. $250K a year in Seattle is rich, and anyone who says otherwise just needs to adjust their expectations.
You border what would be considered the middle class and upper middle class boundary, since you have just under double the median income for a family with two kids in your area. A google search for affordable suburbs of Seattle brings up places like Kenmore, where a decent quality "large" (2500+ft) house runs you $650k at least. Two kids in private school (low end $2k/month) and a mortgage on a big house ($3k/month) leaves you only about $2500 per month for everything else on a $125k family income. While you could certainly make ends meet, that is hardly well off.
Something about your story is quite misleading. Perhaps you bought a house when prices were more reasonable, have 3 older completely paid off cars, or have a dual income which brings you above $125k family income. But it is completely disingenuous to claim $125k per year gives you the type of lifestyle you describe without significant sacrifices in other areas of your budget.
The proportion who start between 18 and 21 is probably insubstantial.
But the number of 17 year olds with 21 year old friends is much less than the number of 17 year olds with 18 year old friends. The goal is simply to make it less available.
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Banning stuff doesn't make them go away. People tend to smoke because they want to regardless of whether it is illegal. Marijuana smoking rates went from about 10% to 12% in Colorado after it became legal so it isn't like there was a huge population of people who wanted to smoke but didn't only because it was illegal.
Methods such as increasing the legal age and increasing taxes do reduce the number of new smokers, although unfortunately higher taxes have little effect on heavy/long-term smokers. But since it is so hard to get people who still smoke today to quit, stopping new smokers seems to be a practical goal.
Everybody is aware of the health risk. Some people decide the benefit outweighs the risk.
People smoke because of addiction. I have never met even a reasonably intelligent person who is a smoker who didn't ultimately want to quit. They just didn't have the inner drive to quit yet. Nearly no one is making a benefit / risk analysis when choosing to smoke, they are being driven by addiction.
smoking is good for people with mental health issues. Would you prefer them to get more anxiety attacks and commit suicide?
There is no way you are getting that information from someone with any training in fighting mental health issues. Quitting smoking is well known to help combat mental health issues. Smoking is a very poor method of self medication to reduce stress and anxiety. While smokers may believe otherwise, smoking increases stress and anxiety. Smoking provides a very temporary sense of relaxation and without smoking a few packs a day will create an overall increase in stress and anxiety throughout a smoker's day.
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40).
According to social security, retirement age is 66, and will soon go up to 67. So that rate is bullshit, too.
And people can work before the age of 25 too, but it does a good job of removing teachers and the many occupations with pensions that kick in before the age of 66 (like teachers). Changing demographics (people getting older) and changing education (more people in college longer) skew the statistics if you include those who are close to schooling age or close to retirement age. Not everyone ends college at 22 and retires at 67.
You claim Labor Force Participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working, but then link to a chart which lists the participation rate of everyone 16 and up.
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40). But if you take away the second half of the 90's, where it peaked, our current participation rate is only about 1% lower than the average over the last 30 years. It has also been trending up since 2014.
Those who are physically unable to work, students, stay at home parents, or whatever are all included as part of the 19% in this statistic.
These figures still show around 1-2 million people who would have been working 15 years ago and aren't today, but the problem certainly is "exploding" as you put it. A bigger problem which isn't reflected in this statistic is how stagnant wages have been; mostly as a product of our economy losing $20/hour jobs and replacing them with $12/hour jobs.
which in turn is due to insanely high wages for a select few.
While I am a believer that wealth inequality is a problem for this country, those insanely high wages paid to executives rarely have a significant impact on the price you pay for content. Time Warner Inc, for instance, paid about $83 million in total compensation in 2016 to the five executives it listed in its annual SEC statement. That is 0.3% of their total revenue. Which would mean that out of a $15 payment to Time Warner, about 4 cents is going to excessively high executive pay. Even if you double this amount to account for numerous SVP, VP, Director positions making $250k-$1M in total compensation, still less than 10 cents of your HBO bill is likely going to upper management compensation.
A single package with everything would allow that insanity to be moderated as they would not be using them as ratings sledgehammers that you must buy whatever the price in order to secure both viewers and other content.
Having content providers compensated primarily by their ratings seems like a good thing to me. I like there to be significant financial incentives to produce quality content.
I would pay $50/month if there was a service that offered everything ever produced, both audio and video, on demand and without commercials.
Based on the profitability of various content providers, it's doubtful such a service would profitable at even $100 per month. Average cable bills are only $100 per month now, don't offer the kind of service you are asking for, and have net margins that average around 10% across the industry.
My guess is you would be looking at more like $200 per month for such a service if you didn't want quality of programming to significantly diminish over time. I would still prefer this model at that price if it existed though.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine someone hacking those robots and turning them against your citizens or all humans. Don't you want a way to stop them?
Don't forget all the recent hacks. Everything is hackable with enough determination and resources. And military robots sure are a very good target.
Those are very real potential threats, but probably the most real threat is enemy nations having better military technology than us ("us" is relative). The mere existence of nuclear weapons is also an existential threat, but no where near as dangerous as only your enemies having nuclear weapons.
The military doesn't have the luxury of holding back because of the worry about all the negative consequences of new military technology. If the technology can exist, someone will develop it. The best defense I can think of is developing it yourself so at least you can understand the true dangers and potentially build countermeasures against them.
And yet you believe in global warning? Really? You can believe this happens ONLY in these journals but you can be sold a bag of slick on global warming and pump out trillions of dollars to scammers??? Fools by any other name are ... idiots.
On the contrary, this is another example of why consensus is important in determining what research findings laymen should trust. You can likely find a handful of published scientific papers to prove just about anything. This story shows you can probably just publish them yourself (like how Andrew Wakefield fueled the anti-vaxxer craze). 95% consensus is the same as 100% with a few kooks and paid off PhDs thrown in. When you see a 90%+ consensus among scientists and published research, believing it is false just because it is inconvenient is not wisdom. It's ignorance. Dangerous ignorance in the case of climate change denial.
"Well, we'd really love to give you a raise, but we'd have problems if everyone saw how much more you're making..."
That is a Good Thing. If two people are doing equal work, one should not get a raise just for being more assertive.
What makes you think they are doing equal work?
"That's their problem. Either I'm worth the extra money to you or I'm not. I think I am, but if you disagree I'm confident I can find employment elsewhere."
It is the company's problem, including the other employees, if they cannot attract enough top talent to compete in the marketplace. On two occasions I have had to say no to a company which really needed help because their pay grades were too strict. My wife works at one of those companies and their IT problems in particular will probably never be solved if they cannot hire some $175k+ talent (Midwest suburbs, so not as high as the coasts).
This might not be a big problem for an entire country which operates similarly, but in the US not being able to pay top performers far more than regular staff is a recipe for disaster. And unfortunately everyone thinks they are awesome. Not many senior developers making $140k salaries are going to admit to themselves that their $190k "peer" is that much more useful to the company.
That article is garbage, since Norwegians make far more than $19k on average and Norwegians do not have the highest average salaries. Norway is doing quite well for itself but this article is simply not accurate.
Sorry, you failed marketing. With nothing much to distinguish it, obviously price is a significant factor in people not buying it. Certainly true in my case.
I am sorry but you either are not in marketing or aren't very good at it. A flagship product is still going to have a flagship price, even if it is a first iteration. The original XBox was the same price as the Playstation 2 and that product has done very well in the marketplace. Generally you may see a $50-100 discount for a new player, and you indeed do see that with the Pixel. The top of the line iPhone and Galaxy phones are in the $900 range while the Pixel 2 XL is rumored to be in the $800 range. But feature for feature the Pixel 2 XL is in the same league as both phones. It is a great value.
For people used to buying $400 phones, none of these phones are marketed at you.
The Google Pixel phones are also very nice although they haven't sold that well in their first year.
Could be something about the price, dur dur?
The price is in the same ballpark as iPhones and the Galaxy line, at it is comparable in specs to those phones. It doesn't appear that price is a significant factor.
For iPhones (and Galaxy / Pixel) quality has more to do with features and capabilities than it does long lasting craftsmanship. Not many people claim high end phones are made of parts which will last longer than cheaper phones, they claim they have better quality cameras / larger screens / better resolution / faster processors / etc.
I would be very surprised if cheaper phones didn't have a much longer shelf life than high end phones. They are not cramming as much processing power into such a small mobile device so they are probably more reliable on average.
...and an Android phone is? (Hint: designed by Google in California)
Well the closest competitor to Apple phones right now is Samsung, so your hint should probably be "designed by Samsung in South Korea". The Google Pixel phones are also very nice although they haven't sold that well in their first year. The quality seems high enough that they can gain plenty of market share if they keep at it though.
Bottom line, trusting anything to remain private on this planet is foolhardy.
You don't need a Facebook account to be on Facebook. In many cases you can find photos of a person by just knowing their spouse, family members or close friends. I recently found a picture of myself on Yelp because a friend posted a photo of us in a bar. I was marginally involved with my 20 year high school reunion planning and many people were tracked down through family members who were on Facebook or LinkedIn.
I do not think you understand the impracticality of that
I do not think you understand the impracticality of hiring in Europe.
Based on some of the comments I see coming out of people living in those four cities it seems pretty clear to me that some of them are completely out of touch with reality everywhere else.
I completely agree with you there. But the problem is equally bad for those are completely out of touch with the reality inside those cities and many others in the country. People out of touch with society's advancements in the past half century, both technological and social. No one group or even small handful of groups own the blame for this. Nearly all of us are part of the problem.
Certainly anyone thinking the "pretentious elitists" are the primary cause of the problem are also a major part of the problem.
Rural America IS America. The rest is a bubble filled with pretentious elitists. Who, by the way, hate the occupants of said bubble with a passion.
I'm not sure if you are trying to make a joke, but if not this is a worst case example of the ignorance which comes from this bubble mentality.
"Meet regular folks". Yeah, you're the moron living in an ivory tower dude. Just fuck off and leave us alone.
There is a real problem in this country where people stay within their own "bubble", whether that is a liberal elite bubble or rural American bubble or whatever. Making a concerted effort to reach outside of those bubbles is a good thing and not something which should be criticized. You may criticize the method used to reach out if you feel it is ineffective, but deriding the entire idea of reaching out to people in different socioeconomic and cultural circumstances is hopelessly ignorant of this issue in our society.
I easily get $10,000 of utility out of my phone. If I had to pay $10K, I would.
But luckily for me a $400 phone has 99% of the (theoretical) utility of a $10,000 phone. I don't get $9600 more utility out of a $10,000 phone than I do out of a $400 phone.
The thing about the cost of utility is it's rarely linear in nature. Similar to a bell curve, you get significant utility for your money at the mid-range, and much less extra utility for your money at the high-end. An outback steakhouse steak is maybe 50% more than a Denny's steak, and significantly better. A Ruth Chris steak is triple the cost of an outback steak, for arguably an equal extra increase in quality. An argument could be made you can eat 3x as many Outback steaks and Ruth Chris steaks, but at a certain income level you are going to be paying a premium for any increase in utility.
Once you can afford a monthly $1k grocery bill, $1k restaurant bill, $4k mortgage, $1k car loan, etc. you are not going to find many places to improve the utility of your life on the cheap. The upper middle class is growing rapidly and there are many more people with $250k+ household incomes you can afford the type of budget I list above. At this point a $1500 phone, which has become as core to peoples' lives as their house or car, isn't that unreasonable.
But for people who would struggle to buy a $30k car, I would agree a $1k+ phone is not worth the extra utility.
Not only is status value pointless to me, but it doesn't even help define someone's status.
Making effort to not be persuaded by status symbols is a laudable goal, but it shows lack of self-awareness if you believe you are above such things. Everyone is affected by status symbols, although of course we are all affected differently.
Studies have shown workers have more job satisfaction if their company's physical setting shows a certain level of status. Dating is significantly impacted by your status, and it helps in both getting dates and maintaining long term relationships. Displaying status helps you both get a job and succeed in your position. There are probably no aspects of human life which are unaffected by status symbols.
Status symbols are by no means the only factor in any situation, but anyone who ignores status handicaps themselves throughout life. You can still do well in life with almost any handicap, but why self inflict one on yourself. In theory it would be great to do away with them but our society is no where close to making that a viable reality.
I like people like you - because without you I couldn't buy top of the range goods for pennies on the pound.
And I like people like you, because you provide a secondary market to lower the effective price of the latest high end products. You make my new car $20k less expensive since I can trade the old one in. And you save me about $200 every other year for each new phone I buy since I can sell mine back to Verizon.
It's good there are different people with different priorities who can help each other out. Be careful not to be too smug in thinking your way is best though. Because I'm fairly certain there are billions of people who think your $5k car purchase is just as frivolous as my $50k car purchase.
$250K is plenty. I make half that, and live in the Seattle area, and I'm quite comfortable. Big house, 3 cars, 2 kids in private school. By the standards of a spoiled brat I'm just middle-class, but by any sane definition, I'm well-off. $250K a year in Seattle is rich, and anyone who says otherwise just needs to adjust their expectations.
You border what would be considered the middle class and upper middle class boundary, since you have just under double the median income for a family with two kids in your area. A google search for affordable suburbs of Seattle brings up places like Kenmore, where a decent quality "large" (2500+ft) house runs you $650k at least. Two kids in private school (low end $2k/month) and a mortgage on a big house ($3k/month) leaves you only about $2500 per month for everything else on a $125k family income. While you could certainly make ends meet, that is hardly well off.
Something about your story is quite misleading. Perhaps you bought a house when prices were more reasonable, have 3 older completely paid off cars, or have a dual income which brings you above $125k family income. But it is completely disingenuous to claim $125k per year gives you the type of lifestyle you describe without significant sacrifices in other areas of your budget.
The proportion who start between 18 and 21 is probably insubstantial.
But the number of 17 year olds with 21 year old friends is much less than the number of 17 year olds with 18 year old friends. The goal is simply to make it less available.
No, the reasonable law would be to make the product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year illegal.
Banning stuff doesn't make them go away. People tend to smoke because they want to regardless of whether it is illegal. Marijuana smoking rates went from about 10% to 12% in Colorado after it became legal so it isn't like there was a huge population of people who wanted to smoke but didn't only because it was illegal.
Methods such as increasing the legal age and increasing taxes do reduce the number of new smokers, although unfortunately higher taxes have little effect on heavy/long-term smokers. But since it is so hard to get people who still smoke today to quit, stopping new smokers seems to be a practical goal.
Everybody is aware of the health risk. Some people decide the benefit outweighs the risk.
People smoke because of addiction. I have never met even a reasonably intelligent person who is a smoker who didn't ultimately want to quit. They just didn't have the inner drive to quit yet. Nearly no one is making a benefit / risk analysis when choosing to smoke, they are being driven by addiction.
smoking is good for people with mental health issues. Would you prefer them to get more anxiety attacks and commit suicide?
There is no way you are getting that information from someone with any training in fighting mental health issues. Quitting smoking is well known to help combat mental health issues. Smoking is a very poor method of self medication to reduce stress and anxiety. While smokers may believe otherwise, smoking increases stress and anxiety. Smoking provides a very temporary sense of relaxation and without smoking a few packs a day will create an overall increase in stress and anxiety throughout a smoker's day.
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40).
According to social security, retirement age is 66, and will soon go up to 67. So that rate is bullshit, too.
And people can work before the age of 25 too, but it does a good job of removing teachers and the many occupations with pensions that kick in before the age of 66 (like teachers). Changing demographics (people getting older) and changing education (more people in college longer) skew the statistics if you include those who are close to schooling age or close to retirement age. Not everyone ends college at 22 and retires at 67.
You claim Labor Force Participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working, but then link to a chart which lists the participation rate of everyone 16 and up.
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40). But if you take away the second half of the 90's, where it peaked, our current participation rate is only about 1% lower than the average over the last 30 years. It has also been trending up since 2014.
Those who are physically unable to work, students, stay at home parents, or whatever are all included as part of the 19% in this statistic.
These figures still show around 1-2 million people who would have been working 15 years ago and aren't today, but the problem certainly is "exploding" as you put it. A bigger problem which isn't reflected in this statistic is how stagnant wages have been; mostly as a product of our economy losing $20/hour jobs and replacing them with $12/hour jobs.
which in turn is due to insanely high wages for a select few.
While I am a believer that wealth inequality is a problem for this country, those insanely high wages paid to executives rarely have a significant impact on the price you pay for content. Time Warner Inc, for instance, paid about $83 million in total compensation in 2016 to the five executives it listed in its annual SEC statement. That is 0.3% of their total revenue. Which would mean that out of a $15 payment to Time Warner, about 4 cents is going to excessively high executive pay. Even if you double this amount to account for numerous SVP, VP, Director positions making $250k-$1M in total compensation, still less than 10 cents of your HBO bill is likely going to upper management compensation.
A single package with everything would allow that insanity to be moderated as they would not be using them as ratings sledgehammers that you must buy whatever the price in order to secure both viewers and other content.
Having content providers compensated primarily by their ratings seems like a good thing to me. I like there to be significant financial incentives to produce quality content.
I would pay $50/month if there was a service that offered everything ever produced, both audio and video, on demand and without commercials.
Based on the profitability of various content providers, it's doubtful such a service would profitable at even $100 per month. Average cable bills are only $100 per month now, don't offer the kind of service you are asking for, and have net margins that average around 10% across the industry.
My guess is you would be looking at more like $200 per month for such a service if you didn't want quality of programming to significantly diminish over time. I would still prefer this model at that price if it existed though.