it usually comes from people who would have done something more useful with it than the employee spending it on consumption
So circulating money in the economy is worse than keeping it in the bank or tied up in illiquid assets? You know that's how deflation starts - and deflation is really ugly.
Morality is a human construct. The fact that what we consider moral or ethical changes with popular belief shows that it is a popularity contest of sorts. For example, as more people abandon religion as their ultimate guide to right and wrong, child beating and spousal rape have been criminalized. 42 years ago the medical community officially declared that same-sex attraction, until then considered a treatable illness, was not.
Now you claim I am a freak and mentally ill because I am a transsexual. The medical community disagrees with you. So does the law.
Also, while you think that burning at the stake is "the popular thing to do with freakish people," it certainly isn't in my part of the world. So, unless you're posting from Uganda, which American right-wing religious zealots exported hatred of those who are LGBTtQ, your statement is another lie. After all, our society sets what is and what isn't moral and ethical, and where I sit, we have laws against that.
If you expect moral behavior from people, history disagrees with you. This is compounded by the fact that what is considered moral changes over time - radically. One example is same-sex marriage, which since the turn of the century has been gaining public support and legal acceptance (and which the US Supreme Court will probably also recognize as a Constitutional right soon).
As I pointed out before, in an amoral universe, the only sense of ethics and morality comes from us. We get to decide. Why do you have a problem with that, since there's no evidence that the universe is ethical or just or moral?
Lie, duh! Oh, right, you believe that just because people believe there is a god, that's a reason to believe there is a god. No logic there!
Same as people who believed that an eclipse was caused by a toad/wolf/dragon/bear was eating the sun and had to be chased away by banging pots/magic/whatever. Just because people believed it is not a reason to believe in it.
66 percent of elementary students and 58 percent of middle school students regularly use a tablet. In 2013, 52 percent of elementary school students and 43 percent of middle school students reported that they regularly used a small or full-size tablet.
While 75 percent of high school students regularly use a smartphone, only 42 percent of high school students regularly use a tablet at home or school.
The kids already have the devices - they just don't use them all that much for school work. Why? Because laptops in the classroom results in lower grades. And the distraction of smartphones is even worse.
When a corporation (or anyone else) purchases labor, they are the customers of the people selling the labor. Only customers create jobs.
If the corporation didn't purchase the labor, where would the jobs be (and this is a serious question as we move to automate more jobs). The answer is - there would be no jobs, because there would be no need to purchase labor - the corp would no longer be creating jobs because it would no longer be buying labor, either directly, or through other entities that in turn buy labor.
So, when you say "I know what it means to buy labour thus creating jobs," would those jobs have been created if you had not bought the labor? No. And when you buy it, you are the customer of the person selling their labor. You being the buyer makes you the customer. No getting around that. So, corporations don't create jobs because they're corporations, but because they're customers to those selling their labor.
You, on the other hand, made the claim (debunked above) that demand is a consequence of production. To the contrary, the fewer people selling their labor because their services are no longer needed because companies are buying less labor, the less consumer demand, because people just don't have the money to be customers in their turn.
I didn't have to add any caveats, because my original statement is true on its own - only customers create jobs, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Never said society was rational - that would be an obvious falsehood. Our "morals and ethics" have, as I've pointed out previously, changed in contradictory ways over time. Nevertheless even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Look at how many people use the bible as an excuse - they're not acting rationally based on any evidence. The bible is worse than wikipedia. While they're both written by a bunch of people, at least with wikipedia we can independently verify the sources.
That would be seen as a bad thing by schools - after all, if they saw that going back for another degree and building up more debt when you can't find a job is a bad idea, the schools would have to keep tuition hikes under the rate of inflation.
Nice to ignore my point - that WE get to decide the rules. These rules are not based on any natural facts - they are quite arbitrary. As such, they are subject to change. See stuff like same-sex marriage.
There is no morality as a part of nature - only what we decide is moral and ethical. If you have a problem with that, then you need to look up the definition of society.
You still don't get it. Your own citation acknowledges that it may very well be that the masses believed in a flat earth at one time. So, unless you have a time machine (which I seriously doubt) or the results of historic polls of the general population, my position, according to your own citation, is quite reasonable.
I don't have to provide absolute proof, just reasonable proof. Just as you can't provide absolute proof against it.
Kids today know how to use today's electronic toys. There's nothing for them to learn that won't be obsolete and/or just plain wrong by the time they finish their education. And giving them laptops will NOT boost their learning rate - cut-n-paste from wikipedia or google is not "getting an education."
When you say it's not my cite but yours, you're lying. You're the one who linked to it first, not me. You can't pick and choose just the portions of your citation that agree with you and ignore the rest. That is not only intellectually dishonest, but just plain dumb.
There is no "fact" that makes any of those actions illegal. They're all common in nature. For example, ants enslave other ants all the time.
However, we have our own sense of what is right and wrong - to use - and we reserve the right to impose it on others. There's a problem with this, because too often it's turned out that our sense of right and wrong is wrong, as history shows.
Still, we're going to apply our own rules because that's the way we roll, and the way we advance. Anarchy just doesn't cut it. We even act against our own belief of "survival of the fittest" by rejecting social darwanism (except for some who have gone full retard). Is it reasonable? It could be argued either way. Most of us are offended by social darwinism, just like most of us are offended by discrimination - but both of those were popular - maybe even the prevailing view - 100 years ago.
Just because the universe is amoral doesn't mean we can't choose to define our own morals and ethics.
Corporations hire people in their role as customers buying the output of workers. It is in their role of customer for workers efforts that they create jobs. In other words, customers ALWAYS create jobs. What part of that don't you get?
Or let's put it this way - if corporations did NOT buy the work of workers, would there be any jobs? Nope.
And I showed you that your own cite said that it was quite possible the majority believed the world was flat. Not my cite, yours. Why do you have a problem getting that.
The majority do not believe things for a reason. Belief in something that contradicts the facts isn't reasonable. They can make excuses for it, but they don't have a reason - just excuses.
The majority is wrong so often that trying to say they do things "rationally" - based on reason - is just wrong.
Believing something by fiat - for example, the bible - is not using your head rationally. It's willful ignorance, not reason.
As someone who was (apparently) dissatisfied with their gender, I don't think you can really fault someone for wanting to exemplify a gender. There are clearly differences between men and women, and efforts to ignore that are to our collective detriment.
Of course there are clearly differences between men and women. As Charles deGaulle said,
Vivre la difference." However, that doesn't negate my point that the traits outlined above aren't limited to any one gender.
The poster I was replying to was stereotyping both men and women, to the detriment of both. I have a saying for critics - "I am more than my genes." In reality, that applies pretty much to everyone, of both sexes.
The SJWs have tried to have it both ways - there are no differences except when they need to put their opponents down.
Thanks - I try:-) Now if we can just get rid of the obnoxious and polarizing intellectual progeny of Germain Greer and her ilk, maybe we can make some progress. I think everyone is getting tired of "social justice warriors". Time for some "social justice peace-makers" (but peace-maker not in the sense of a Colt 45).
Slashdot Mirror
it usually comes from people who would have done something more useful with it than the employee spending it on consumption
So circulating money in the economy is worse than keeping it in the bank or tied up in illiquid assets? You know that's how deflation starts - and deflation is really ugly.
What good is vocational training when those vocations are being automated out of existence?
And the poor are more likely to put pretty much all their income back into the economy in their day-to-day living, whereas the rich don't.
"Basic income" is a subsidy to businesses that don't want to pay a living wage. Why should taxpayers subsidize big business more than it already does?
Morality is a human construct. The fact that what we consider moral or ethical changes with popular belief shows that it is a popularity contest of sorts. For example, as more people abandon religion as their ultimate guide to right and wrong, child beating and spousal rape have been criminalized. 42 years ago the medical community officially declared that same-sex attraction, until then considered a treatable illness, was not.
Now you claim I am a freak and mentally ill because I am a transsexual. The medical community disagrees with you. So does the law.
Also, while you think that burning at the stake is "the popular thing to do with freakish people," it certainly isn't in my part of the world. So, unless you're posting from Uganda, which American right-wing religious zealots exported hatred of those who are LGBTtQ, your statement is another lie. After all, our society sets what is and what isn't moral and ethical, and where I sit, we have laws against that.
If you expect moral behavior from people, history disagrees with you. This is compounded by the fact that what is considered moral changes over time - radically. One example is same-sex marriage, which since the turn of the century has been gaining public support and legal acceptance (and which the US Supreme Court will probably also recognize as a Constitutional right soon).
As I pointed out before, in an amoral universe, the only sense of ethics and morality comes from us. We get to decide. Why do you have a problem with that, since there's no evidence that the universe is ethical or just or moral?
Lie, duh! Oh, right, you believe that just because people believe there is a god, that's a reason to believe there is a god. No logic there!
Same as people who believed that an eclipse was caused by a toad/wolf/dragon/bear was eating the sun and had to be chased away by banging pots/magic/whatever. Just because people believed it is not a reason to believe in it.
What is this "Drives (C, D, E...)" you speak of? Even in Windows, you rarely see a drive letter for anything any more. :-)
Sweet :-)
66 percent of elementary students and 58 percent of middle school students regularly use a tablet. In 2013, 52 percent of elementary school students and 43 percent of middle school students reported that they regularly used a small or full-size tablet. While 75 percent of high school students regularly use a smartphone, only 42 percent of high school students regularly use a tablet at home or school.
The kids already have the devices - they just don't use them all that much for school work. Why? Because laptops in the classroom results in lower grades. And the distraction of smartphones is even worse.
When a corporation (or anyone else) purchases labor, they are the customers of the people selling the labor. Only customers create jobs.
If the corporation didn't purchase the labor, where would the jobs be (and this is a serious question as we move to automate more jobs). The answer is - there would be no jobs, because there would be no need to purchase labor - the corp would no longer be creating jobs because it would no longer be buying labor, either directly, or through other entities that in turn buy labor.
So, when you say "I know what it means to buy labour thus creating jobs," would those jobs have been created if you had not bought the labor? No. And when you buy it, you are the customer of the person selling their labor. You being the buyer makes you the customer. No getting around that. So, corporations don't create jobs because they're corporations, but because they're customers to those selling their labor.
You, on the other hand, made the claim (debunked above) that demand is a consequence of production. To the contrary, the fewer people selling their labor because their services are no longer needed because companies are buying less labor, the less consumer demand, because people just don't have the money to be customers in their turn.
I didn't have to add any caveats, because my original statement is true on its own - only customers create jobs, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Then why do you do it?
Never said society was rational - that would be an obvious falsehood. Our "morals and ethics" have, as I've pointed out previously, changed in contradictory ways over time. Nevertheless even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Look at how many people use the bible as an excuse - they're not acting rationally based on any evidence. The bible is worse than wikipedia. While they're both written by a bunch of people, at least with wikipedia we can independently verify the sources.
how to handle money (e.g. avoiding bad debts)
That would be seen as a bad thing by schools - after all, if they saw that going back for another degree and building up more debt when you can't find a job is a bad idea, the schools would have to keep tuition hikes under the rate of inflation.
Subvocalization and the silent speech interface eliminate the need to speak out loud for "dictation".
Nice to ignore my point - that WE get to decide the rules. These rules are not based on any natural facts - they are quite arbitrary. As such, they are subject to change. See stuff like same-sex marriage.
There is no morality as a part of nature - only what we decide is moral and ethical. If you have a problem with that, then you need to look up the definition of society.
You still don't get it. Your own citation acknowledges that it may very well be that the masses believed in a flat earth at one time. So, unless you have a time machine (which I seriously doubt) or the results of historic polls of the general population, my position, according to your own citation, is quite reasonable.
I don't have to provide absolute proof, just reasonable proof. Just as you can't provide absolute proof against it.
Kids today know how to use today's electronic toys. There's nothing for them to learn that won't be obsolete and/or just plain wrong by the time they finish their education. And giving them laptops will NOT boost their learning rate - cut-n-paste from wikipedia or google is not "getting an education."
When you say it's not my cite but yours, you're lying. You're the one who linked to it first, not me. You can't pick and choose just the portions of your citation that agree with you and ignore the rest. That is not only intellectually dishonest, but just plain dumb.
There is no "fact" that makes any of those actions illegal. They're all common in nature. For example, ants enslave other ants all the time.
However, we have our own sense of what is right and wrong - to use - and we reserve the right to impose it on others. There's a problem with this, because too often it's turned out that our sense of right and wrong is wrong, as history shows.
Still, we're going to apply our own rules because that's the way we roll, and the way we advance. Anarchy just doesn't cut it. We even act against our own belief of "survival of the fittest" by rejecting social darwanism (except for some who have gone full retard). Is it reasonable? It could be argued either way. Most of us are offended by social darwinism, just like most of us are offended by discrimination - but both of those were popular - maybe even the prevailing view - 100 years ago.
Just because the universe is amoral doesn't mean we can't choose to define our own morals and ethics.
Or let's put it this way - if corporations did NOT buy the work of workers, would there be any jobs? Nope.
And I showed you that your own cite said that it was quite possible the majority believed the world was flat. Not my cite, yours. Why do you have a problem getting that.
The majority do not believe things for a reason. Belief in something that contradicts the facts isn't reasonable. They can make excuses for it, but they don't have a reason - just excuses.
The majority is wrong so often that trying to say they do things "rationally" - based on reason - is just wrong.
Believing something by fiat - for example, the bible - is not using your head rationally. It's willful ignorance, not reason.
As someone who was (apparently) dissatisfied with their gender, I don't think you can really fault someone for wanting to exemplify a gender. There are clearly differences between men and women, and efforts to ignore that are to our collective detriment.
Of course there are clearly differences between men and women. As Charles deGaulle said, Vivre la difference." However, that doesn't negate my point that the traits outlined above aren't limited to any one gender.
The poster I was replying to was stereotyping both men and women, to the detriment of both. I have a saying for critics - "I am more than my genes." In reality, that applies pretty much to everyone, of both sexes.
The SJWs have tried to have it both ways - there are no differences except when they need to put their opponents down.
Thanks - I try :-) Now if we can just get rid of the obnoxious and polarizing intellectual progeny of Germain Greer and her ilk, maybe we can make some progress. I think everyone is getting tired of "social justice warriors". Time for some "social justice peace-makers" (but peace-maker not in the sense of a Colt 45).