Power in the hands of humanity is inherently untrustworthy.
Can we stop concentrating power then? How about if we keep more power with individuals? Since the government has a military and a police force and uses violence and threats against people who oppose them, they should be the last "inherently untrustworthy" humans who should ever be allowed more power.
You should go ahead and pay. Just leave me out. I don't go to museums, parks, or space. I'll accept a private certification for my meat inspections, like the guys who certify food as kosher. Or they can tax the meat itself instead of raiding my paycheck. My roads can be funded with fuel taxes and my air traffic control with airline ticket taxes and landing fees -- like they already are.
The people who steal one third of my paycheck! Who will spy on me? Who will treat me with contempt? Who will give my money to people who don't work? Who will blow up those nasty foreigners with drones? Who will second-guess my personal choices?
And what about the cronies!!? How will they get their schemes funded? Won't someone please think of the cronies!!!?
Why are these hypothetical aliens always so judgmental and intolerant? What did they ever do for anyone? They have the energy to get here from other planets, but they've left us here, alone, digging in the sand for something to burn to keep from freezing in the winter. And now they want to sit on their thrones and second-guess our choices? Fuck them.
Only when you're deciding to not hire someone. Or when you're deciding not to photograph someone's wedding. Or when you're deciding not to buy overpriced health insurance.
Then it's not your money or your labor and you'll be forced to pay and/or work against your will.
New products are never hyped. That would be dishonest. Gadget slogans are all like:
- "We like it well enough, but you should make up your own mind." - "We tried to improve it over last year's model. We think we succeeded -- at least partially." - "It has some benefits for some people. It has some drawbacks for some other people. Be careful buying it to make sure it's good for you."
It's the new Internet-forum-approved marketing trend! Internet forum whining and moralizing about dubious gadget hype finally won everyone over!
For reference, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 happened 95 years ago. We probably won't be seeing another WWI-style transition where previously relatively isolated populations are suddenly exposed to a whole new world of infectious diseases.
I like how you said "labor costs are not particularly affected by regulation" and then, in your very next post, you mention the minimum wage and health care, both of which are highly regulated and impose costs on employers for each employee hired.
Oh come on. Labor costs have nothing to do with the taxes you see on a paycheck. Those are the taxes that the employee pays, not the employer.
In addition to all the taxes deducted from the gross pay on a paycheck, employers in the US pay 6.2% FICA tax, 1.45% Medicare tax, FUTA tax, ACA tax for each employee with a health plan, ACA fines for each employee without a health plan, worker's comp, unemployment tax, and other local and state taxes like the Employment Training Tax in California. Employers also have lots of expensive rules to follow. Cutting some of these taxes and eliminating some of these rules would make it less costly (and therefore more profitable) to hire someone, with no change in the employee's gross or net pay. If we want more people hired, we might want to seriously think about it.
Lots of the rest of your post is good.
I'm not sure why you want to deny everyone who can't (or doesn't want to) do $15 worth of work in a hour the opportunity to earn a paycheck though. You might want to consider that some more. Every high school student n the country shouldn't be deprived of a job just because one person has a sob story about "How am I supposed to support my 3 kids on $8.75/hour?"
My post wasn't about whose fault anything is. Saying "it's not my fault" doesn't make problems go away, nor does it make money appear. We have problems. Retirees are part of "we". Retirees should try to help solve the problems we have.
To bring the discussion back on topic: retirees should try to help make their society wealthier if they want their society to be able to fund pure research. Retirees might want to try producing more or using up less.
The labor markets are saturated, and wealth is concentrating on the top. There just isn't a market for lots of labor anymore, manufacturing is increasingly automated, services like retail is becoming more automated (thanks Amazon!), so why not soak the rich and use the money to support more research instead of letting all that capital idle at the top?
This is in danger of going off topic now, but if labor markets are saturated, it's because companies can't make a higher profit by hiring more employees. If we could find a way to increase the profitability of these companies and/or to reduce the cost of hiring more employees, then the companies would hire more people. Labor markets would become saturated at a higher level of employment. More profits would be earned, and, all other things being equal, the society would be wealthier and be more able to fund pure scientific research.
Labor costs could be reduced without any wage or salary changes by cutting the costs of liability and regulatory compliance. Beyond that, various taxes could also be cut. Profitability could be increased through similar changes -- especially by cutting the US corporate tax rates from the world's highest to a rate more in line with international norms. If we want (the benefits of) a wealthier society, we should think about these and other ways our society can be wealthier.
"Soak the rich" produces the opposite of higher profitability. Profits -- or the benefits of profits -- are enjoyed after taxes. If a rich person can't enjoy the benefits of higher profits, he won't bother to produce anything beyond some minimum level and he certainly won't burden himself with unprofitable employees. When he cuts his investments in response to being "soaked", you'll have a poorer society with fewer people employed. That society might be able to spend a few extra dollars on pure research for a few years, but then the money will be gone and there will be none to replace it.
How about we fund a "research class" instead of a "leisure class"?
Do you include all the people who are retired but still physically able to work in your "leisure class"? They certainly enjoy their leisure. Do you think we should cut subsidies for this leisure and use some of the money to fund more research?
This should be no surprise, since these positions are for pure scientific research with no way to calculate the ROI for the money spent. Countries have debt problems caused by borrowing and their budgets are already stretched to pay benefits for retirees and other non-workers. Add a long recession, a weak recovery, and very little prospect for robust future economic growth, and ultimately you don't end up with the sort of fiscal environment that can support lots of pure research.
Wealthy societies have discretionary funds for things like pure scientific research. Poor societies have to struggle just to get by. If you want more pure research, you need more people in your society to be employed productively. And you need them to generate lots of wealth -- far beyond "the amount they need" or "their fair share" -- so there will be a lot extra left over for things like pure research.
They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see press freedoms abridged around the world to cover up US Government lawlessness. And they were right!
Slashdot Mirror
Power in the hands of humanity is inherently untrustworthy.
Can we stop concentrating power then? How about if we keep more power with individuals? Since the government has a military and a police force and uses violence and threats against people who oppose them, they should be the last "inherently untrustworthy" humans who should ever be allowed more power.
You should go ahead and pay. Just leave me out. I don't go to museums, parks, or space. I'll accept a private certification for my meat inspections, like the guys who certify food as kosher. Or they can tax the meat itself instead of raiding my paycheck. My roads can be funded with fuel taxes and my air traffic control with airline ticket taxes and landing fees -- like they already are.
The people who steal one third of my paycheck! Who will spy on me? Who will treat me with contempt? Who will give my money to people who don't work? Who will blow up those nasty foreigners with drones? Who will second-guess my personal choices?
And what about the cronies!!? How will they get their schemes funded? Won't someone please think of the cronies!!!?
Dude, it's football season.
Are they talking about it on Facebook? If so, this "football season" of yours may make a great Slashdot story.
This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.
Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?
It's a good day for a news story like this. Congress is spending the weekend trying to repeal the 2.3% Obamacare tax on devices like this.
Why are these hypothetical aliens always so judgmental and intolerant? What did they ever do for anyone? They have the energy to get here from other planets, but they've left us here, alone, digging in the sand for something to burn to keep from freezing in the winter. And now they want to sit on their thrones and second-guess our choices? Fuck them.
Only when you're deciding to not hire someone.
Or when you're deciding not to photograph someone's wedding.
Or when you're deciding not to buy overpriced health insurance.
Then it's not your money or your labor and you'll be forced to pay and/or work against your will.
Because no one could ever guess a pin from fingerprint smears on a phone surface.
New products are never hyped. That would be dishonest. Gadget slogans are all like:
- "We like it well enough, but you should make up your own mind."
- "We tried to improve it over last year's model. We think we succeeded -- at least partially."
- "It has some benefits for some people. It has some drawbacks for some other people. Be careful buying it to make sure it's good for you."
It's the new Internet-forum-approved marketing trend! Internet forum whining and moralizing about dubious gadget hype finally won everyone over!
Flaws in Apple products are big news. Similar flaws in non-Apple products ... not news.
And yeah, it's probably slower. There are a lot more zooms and fades and animations for various transitions between apps and such.
For reference, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 happened 95 years ago. We probably won't be seeing another WWI-style transition where previously relatively isolated populations are suddenly exposed to a whole new world of infectious diseases.
This argument assumes the people "protecting" us are less dangerous than the flu.
It has to be an emergency or they might not get their funding.
I thought it was just Vancouver and Montreal, with nothing but polar bears and bleached reindeer skeletons in between.
Is that considered extreme weather? If so, which half is it in?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/30/a-head-scratcher-no-atlantic-hurricane-by-august-in-first-time-in-11-years/#more-92771
then your local government school doesn't stink. They must all be good -- or at least adequate.
I like how you said "labor costs are not particularly affected by regulation" and then, in your very next post, you mention the minimum wage and health care, both of which are highly regulated and impose costs on employers for each employee hired.
Oh come on. Labor costs have nothing to do with the taxes you see on a paycheck. Those are the taxes that the employee pays, not the employer.
In addition to all the taxes deducted from the gross pay on a paycheck, employers in the US pay 6.2% FICA tax, 1.45% Medicare tax, FUTA tax, ACA tax for each employee with a health plan, ACA fines for each employee without a health plan, worker's comp, unemployment tax, and other local and state taxes like the Employment Training Tax in California. Employers also have lots of expensive rules to follow. Cutting some of these taxes and eliminating some of these rules would make it less costly (and therefore more profitable) to hire someone, with no change in the employee's gross or net pay. If we want more people hired, we might want to seriously think about it.
Lots of the rest of your post is good.
I'm not sure why you want to deny everyone who can't (or doesn't want to) do $15 worth of work in a hour the opportunity to earn a paycheck though. You might want to consider that some more. Every high school student n the country shouldn't be deprived of a job just because one person has a sob story about "How am I supposed to support my 3 kids on $8.75/hour?"
If you don't think labor costs are affected by taxation, you've never seen a paycheck.
Besides that, you have a lot of complaints. Do you have any ideas?
My post wasn't about whose fault anything is. Saying "it's not my fault" doesn't make problems go away, nor does it make money appear. We have problems. Retirees are part of "we". Retirees should try to help solve the problems we have.
To bring the discussion back on topic: retirees should try to help make their society wealthier if they want their society to be able to fund pure research. Retirees might want to try producing more or using up less.
Please explain why the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply in this case.
The labor markets are saturated, and wealth is concentrating on the top. There just isn't a market for lots of labor anymore, manufacturing is increasingly automated, services like retail is becoming more automated (thanks Amazon!), so why not soak the rich and use the money to support more research instead of letting all that capital idle at the top?
This is in danger of going off topic now, but if labor markets are saturated, it's because companies can't make a higher profit by hiring more employees. If we could find a way to increase the profitability of these companies and/or to reduce the cost of hiring more employees, then the companies would hire more people. Labor markets would become saturated at a higher level of employment. More profits would be earned, and, all other things being equal, the society would be wealthier and be more able to fund pure scientific research.
Labor costs could be reduced without any wage or salary changes by cutting the costs of liability and regulatory compliance. Beyond that, various taxes could also be cut. Profitability could be increased through similar changes -- especially by cutting the US corporate tax rates from the world's highest to a rate more in line with international norms. If we want (the benefits of) a wealthier society, we should think about these and other ways our society can be wealthier.
"Soak the rich" produces the opposite of higher profitability. Profits -- or the benefits of profits -- are enjoyed after taxes. If a rich person can't enjoy the benefits of higher profits, he won't bother to produce anything beyond some minimum level and he certainly won't burden himself with unprofitable employees. When he cuts his investments in response to being "soaked", you'll have a poorer society with fewer people employed. That society might be able to spend a few extra dollars on pure research for a few years, but then the money will be gone and there will be none to replace it.
How about we fund a "research class" instead of a "leisure class"?
Do you include all the people who are retired but still physically able to work in your "leisure class"? They certainly enjoy their leisure. Do you think we should cut subsidies for this leisure and use some of the money to fund more research?
This should be no surprise, since these positions are for pure scientific research with no way to calculate the ROI for the money spent. Countries have debt problems caused by borrowing and their budgets are already stretched to pay benefits for retirees and other non-workers. Add a long recession, a weak recovery, and very little prospect for robust future economic growth, and ultimately you don't end up with the sort of fiscal environment that can support lots of pure research.
Wealthy societies have discretionary funds for things like pure scientific research. Poor societies have to struggle just to get by. If you want more pure research, you need more people in your society to be employed productively. And you need them to generate lots of wealth -- far beyond "the amount they need" or "their fair share" -- so there will be a lot extra left over for things like pure research.
If you can't tell the difference from the taste, stop paying $300 per kilogram.
They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see press freedoms abridged around the world to cover up US Government lawlessness. And they were right!