Great, now go learn the difference between "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome." Hint: everybody is, in fact, free to leave for a better paying job. However! Not everybody is qualified to get a better paying job
Yeah, I get that. But if someone is not qualified to get a better paying job, and has little means to improve their qualification, can we really say they are free to leave for a better job? I don't think so. It's like saying I'm free to become an astronaut. Technically that's true, but there is no practical way I am going to become an astronaut.
I do get what you're saying. It's just annoying to me when people talk about simply getting another job like it's no big deal. To many it is quite a big deal and not easy to do.
The REAL question you should be asking is, are the "below average" earners earning at least enough to match the guaranteed minimum you're arguing for?
The answer too often is "no".
Awesome, so can we agree that the only legitimate use for tax revenues is infrastructure spending? If so, that should allow us to set the taxes much lower than their current rates, so everybody should be happy with that. Or did you think that infrastructure maintenance & investment spending was a major component of the federal budget? (Hint: It's not.)
No, we can't agree that the only legitimate use of tax revenue is infrastructure spending. If the economic system won't do it, the government must provide for the general welfare. So we need social safety nets and other programs for those the economy has left behind. Plus there's NASA and research and whatever else.
I know that infrastructure spending is not a big part of the budget. Without looking it up I'd say the bulk of the federal budget is taken up with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt.
I havent done a day of union work in my adult life, and I would hardly call the work I do "slave labor". In fact we have by many measures one of the cushiest lifestyles in the world -- median pay, mean pay, average household purchasing power, etc.
I mean, i know this is slashdot and all, but seeing ignorant, inflamatory posts getting modded +5 gets a little old, you know?
Go be a waiter in a diner for 5 years and see if you feel the same way. Also, having a cushy lifestyle does not preclude one from being a slave. In the old South if one was a "house negro" (sorry, that was the term) they had a much more comfortable lifestyle than a slave in the fields.
That's just the thing though. When my ship comes in, it is because I am here at 2 in the morning, reading a little/. after testing a hard drive for errors so I can install it in a customer's computer in the morning. And I still have a half hour of paperwork to do before I go to bed for three hours. You are not next to me helping me do this. The government is not doing this work for me. I am doing it, on my own, for my own business. That I sure as hell did build. Without your or the government's help.
So when my ship comes in, keep your fucking hands off of it.
Unless you are a one-man operation, you built your company with the help of your employees and investors. And the government had a hand in the fact that there are even hard drives for you to test. I'm not trying to disparage you or diminish your accomplishment. I am just tired of this idea that no one owes anyone anything because we are all such rugged individuals.
Perhaps putting in that last brick has a lot of value, and that you're trying to excuse a taker's mentality by claiming that nobody is responsible for their success, that it is society's success.
A taker's mentality like I've got mine and fuck everyone else?
Slaves are not paid. If you are paid and free to leave for a better job, you are not a slave. Possibly an idiot but not in any way a slave.
And if everyone were free to leave for a better paying job, there would be no low paying jobs because everyone would have left. So it seems something is missing in your analysis.
Who paid for their education? Disproportionately the people you're looking to demonize. The government has no money but what it takes from its citizens first, so no, the government was not really who footed the bill, were they?
But business and the rich at the top of it have no money but what they take from their customers. So who is really paying the bills? What's that you say? That their customers received a good or service in the exchange? Well business and the rich get roads and infrastructure and police and fire departments and a military and courts to protect their interests for the money the government takes from them. So the mechanism is different, but everyone's getting something for their money.
You have a hard time seeing that as wrong because they're an easy target. Why do you rob banks? Because that's where they keep the money. If you actually gave two shits about fairness, you'd be advocating a flat tax rate.
That's just fucking hilarious. A flat tax rate is fair? Yeah, because 20% of $30,000 has the same impact on living standards as 20% of $200,000,000.
Which is all fine and capitalistic. What isn't is asking them to pay a portion of their income for the privilege of being able to buy them at all.
Which they do. It's called interest. Every dollar in existence has interest attached to it. It's the fee we all pay to the banks in order to have money at all.
Asking someone to pay more because "others" paid for earlier work to make their accumulation of wealth possible is most certainly denying the right for them to keep the wealth they've earned.
But that's the point. They only were able to earn that money because of the society and infrastructure that we all pay for. Saying they should keep all of their earnings ignores the contribution that society makes. I'm sure you would agree that if someone or something makes a contribution, they should be compensated.
Should the poor have to give a portion of their income to the rich because now even poor people have a car, a TV, climate control in their home, clean water, refrigerated food, and cold beer?
They do, it's called interest. Those poor people bought all that stuff on credit. Maybe not the food and beer, but then again maybe so. Actually, since every dollar created is borrowed into existence, we all give a portion of our income to the rich.
Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to charge ten times the cash and do a quarter of the work deserves to starve.
Kind of like how the business lowers their production costs by hiring low cost labor but still sells their tires for the same price, pocketing the difference? Why would one not want to charge as much as possible for their labor? The French actually value their free time, and don't want to be wage slaves to their employers.
I have wondered why, in a society who's needs are over-filled, we are so concerned with productivity. Couldn't we all, at this point afford to take a little time off? Don't we have more job seekers than jobs? Seems our capacity outstrips our need. Yet we still need to work longer hours for less pay and always be more productive. Why? Because the system requires it. The profit motive doesn't understand leisure time. ROI doesn't care about human spirit and dignity. the monetary system needs constant growth or it will collapse. So we all stay on the treadmill not for ourselves, but to support a system that constantly requires more.
That said, I personally disagree with the decoupling of civilians from enemy aggressors, as well as the focus on eliminating collateral damage. Sure, it makes you look nice in the papers, but if you're going to war with someone, it should be all-out war. Bring everybody in, decimate the aggressors, and be done with it. I'm tired of this line that we need to make sure that we're sensitive to the people that live there, when any one of them could strap a bomb on and kill twenty American soldiers.
Also, while I was and am a supporter of what the US did in Iraq, both from a 'remove Saddam' and 'build a relatively healthy, friendly nation,' I've become wholly unsupportive of our action in Afghanistan. We're just spinning our wheels in a country where we'll never be able to implement a healthy government, spending a metric crapload of money on people that will never support us, and overextending our active duty military (and reservists) such that we're now going to furlough them or lay them off, further reducing our expeditionary capabilities.
I think there are a few issues at play here, and you have hit on one of the fundamental contradictions of American military and foreign policy. The American people see themselves as the Good Guys. And the Good Guys don't decimate entire populations. They don't kill women and children and old men. So you can't just do all-out war on civilian populations because it runs counter to modern morality and the nation's self-image. But as you point out, that leaves your forces open to insurgency and guerrilla warfare. Can an invader out-last a homegrown insurgency? Personally I doubt it, but I haven't studied the history too closely.
In addition to that, there are the stated and actual goals. If your goal is to depose a dictator and bring modern civil life to the country, you can't just kill everyone. In fact, just the opposite, you need to make friends with them. Hearts and minds and all that. Similarly, if you want to invade to take control of government and commercial power to further your commercial and geo-strategic interests, you can't just decimate the country. You need the infrastructure and bureaucracy. But again, if the people end up not liking you your soldiers will be open to insurgency and guerrilla warfare.
This is the dynamic the US finds itself in in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The stated and unstated goals, and modern morality and self-image make restraint paramount. But having to use restraint makes using the military to achieve those goals difficult. The military is a tool of death and destruction and it's tricky to kill and destroy your way to peace and prosperity.
China benefits from a functional United States. So long as the benefits outweigh any prize that would remove them in the taking, Americans are fairly safe from Chinese attack.
This was my first thought. What possible motive would the Chinese have for wanting to bring down the US power grid? Do they want the value of the dollar to plummet? The US and China are economically interdependent. Sure, they want to spy on us. But everyone spies on everyone these days. This supposed threat is just fear mongering.
Even if you are wrong about the markets it would be hard not to make money on companies that are backed up and usually owned by one of the largest nations in the world, the one that is willing to cheat and defraud on a global scale to get ahead.
The most common vehicle in 10 years will be the autonomous Dodge caravan, taxiing us all around. Rich people will have maybe their own auto-Bently's or something, but the rest of us will just share a car.
As someone who drives a performance car with a manual transmission, I hope to God you're wrong.
I've got an 05 car without anitlocks or traction control and an 08 car with both. Guess which one I drive in heavy winter weather? Just because the last fifty miles were cleared perfectly doesn't mean the 500 ft when I want to be able to stop aren't pure ice. I want all the "oh shit where did my dry road go" gizmos on my car I can get since I can't spot ice a few hundred feet ahead of me in the dark.
I have a 2006 car with anti-lock brakes, but no traction control. It's the perfect combination for me. Anti-lock brakes are great for threshold braking, and I don't have traction control getting in my way. If one learns proper skid control, traction control is really not necessary. I personally hate it because it takes power away from me just when I want it most. Besides, if you are actually on ice no amount of traction control will save you. There is no traction to control! People would be better off buying better tires than having electronic doodads.
But touch screens are shiny and new and advanced and exciting! Don't you want your car to be advanced and exciting? How else will it get you laid? Madison Avenue knows what to do!
Per the summary, call me Steve McQueen. My car has no touch screen, a manual transmission, and no traction control. I love it.
Slashdot Mirror
35mb its faster than any consumer will ever need!
Can I quote you on that in 10 years? I remember when 756 kbps was faster than any consumer would ever need. It didn't last long.
Whoosh!
I sound like a caustic uncaring bastard for daring to post this? I must have some sort of empathy deficiency disorder.
In keeping with your viewpoint, I would say that no, you do not have an empathy deficiency disorder. You could just be a heartless prick.
Great, now go learn the difference between "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome." Hint: everybody is, in fact, free to leave for a better paying job. However! Not everybody is qualified to get a better paying job
Yeah, I get that. But if someone is not qualified to get a better paying job, and has little means to improve their qualification, can we really say they are free to leave for a better job? I don't think so. It's like saying I'm free to become an astronaut. Technically that's true, but there is no practical way I am going to become an astronaut.
I do get what you're saying. It's just annoying to me when people talk about simply getting another job like it's no big deal. To many it is quite a big deal and not easy to do.
The REAL question you should be asking is, are the "below average" earners earning at least enough to match the guaranteed minimum you're arguing for?
The answer too often is "no".
Awesome, so can we agree that the only legitimate use for tax revenues is infrastructure spending? If so, that should allow us to set the taxes much lower than their current rates, so everybody should be happy with that. Or did you think that infrastructure maintenance & investment spending was a major component of the federal budget? (Hint: It's not.)
No, we can't agree that the only legitimate use of tax revenue is infrastructure spending. If the economic system won't do it, the government must provide for the general welfare. So we need social safety nets and other programs for those the economy has left behind. Plus there's NASA and research and whatever else.
I know that infrastructure spending is not a big part of the budget. Without looking it up I'd say the bulk of the federal budget is taken up with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt.
I havent done a day of union work in my adult life, and I would hardly call the work I do "slave labor". In fact we have by many measures one of the cushiest lifestyles in the world -- median pay, mean pay, average household purchasing power, etc.
I mean, i know this is slashdot and all, but seeing ignorant, inflamatory posts getting modded +5 gets a little old, you know?
Go be a waiter in a diner for 5 years and see if you feel the same way. Also, having a cushy lifestyle does not preclude one from being a slave. In the old South if one was a "house negro" (sorry, that was the term) they had a much more comfortable lifestyle than a slave in the fields.
Did your next employer want references from your last employer? They often do.
That's just the thing though. When my ship comes in, it is because I am here at 2 in the morning, reading a little /. after testing a hard drive for errors so I can install it in a customer's computer in the morning. And I still have a half hour of paperwork to do before I go to bed for three hours. You are not next to me helping me do this. The government is not doing this work for me. I am doing it, on my own, for my own business. That I sure as hell did build. Without your or the government's help.
So when my ship comes in, keep your fucking hands off of it.
Unless you are a one-man operation, you built your company with the help of your employees and investors. And the government had a hand in the fact that there are even hard drives for you to test. I'm not trying to disparage you or diminish your accomplishment. I am just tired of this idea that no one owes anyone anything because we are all such rugged individuals.
He's gonna go Galt and show the rest of us!
Perhaps putting in that last brick has a lot of value, and that you're trying to excuse a taker's mentality by claiming that nobody is responsible for their success, that it is society's success.
A taker's mentality like I've got mine and fuck everyone else?
Slaves are not paid. If you are paid and free to leave for a better job, you are not a slave. Possibly an idiot but not in any way a slave.
And if everyone were free to leave for a better paying job, there would be no low paying jobs because everyone would have left. So it seems something is missing in your analysis.
Who paid for their education? Disproportionately the people you're looking to demonize. The government has no money but what it takes from its citizens first, so no, the government was not really who footed the bill, were they?
But business and the rich at the top of it have no money but what they take from their customers. So who is really paying the bills? What's that you say? That their customers received a good or service in the exchange? Well business and the rich get roads and infrastructure and police and fire departments and a military and courts to protect their interests for the money the government takes from them. So the mechanism is different, but everyone's getting something for their money.
You have a hard time seeing that as wrong because they're an easy target. Why do you rob banks? Because that's where they keep the money. If you actually gave two shits about fairness, you'd be advocating a flat tax rate.
That's just fucking hilarious. A flat tax rate is fair? Yeah, because 20% of $30,000 has the same impact on living standards as 20% of $200,000,000.
Which is all fine and capitalistic. What isn't is asking them to pay a portion of their income for the privilege of being able to buy them at all.
Which they do. It's called interest. Every dollar in existence has interest attached to it. It's the fee we all pay to the banks in order to have money at all.
Asking someone to pay more because "others" paid for earlier work to make their accumulation of wealth possible is most certainly denying the right for them to keep the wealth they've earned.
But that's the point. They only were able to earn that money because of the society and infrastructure that we all pay for. Saying they should keep all of their earnings ignores the contribution that society makes. I'm sure you would agree that if someone or something makes a contribution, they should be compensated.
Should the poor have to give a portion of their income to the rich because now even poor people have a car, a TV, climate control in their home, clean water, refrigerated food, and cold beer?
They do, it's called interest. Those poor people bought all that stuff on credit. Maybe not the food and beer, but then again maybe so. Actually, since every dollar created is borrowed into existence, we all give a portion of our income to the rich.
Just cause you choose a profession does not mean you should be entitled to it for life if you do no perform...
Tell that to Wall Street.
Another communist country down the toilet!
It's a testament to American propaganda that anything not American Capitalism is called communism or socialism.
So if the workers do like their bosses do it's wrong? Less work and big pay is what management is all about.
For them, not you. Now get back to work.
Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to charge ten times the cash and do a quarter of the work deserves to starve.
Kind of like how the business lowers their production costs by hiring low cost labor but still sells their tires for the same price, pocketing the difference? Why would one not want to charge as much as possible for their labor? The French actually value their free time, and don't want to be wage slaves to their employers.
I have wondered why, in a society who's needs are over-filled, we are so concerned with productivity. Couldn't we all, at this point afford to take a little time off? Don't we have more job seekers than jobs? Seems our capacity outstrips our need. Yet we still need to work longer hours for less pay and always be more productive. Why? Because the system requires it. The profit motive doesn't understand leisure time. ROI doesn't care about human spirit and dignity. the monetary system needs constant growth or it will collapse. So we all stay on the treadmill not for ourselves, but to support a system that constantly requires more.
Am I coming off too Marxist? I never know...
I don't disagree with you there, at all.
That said, I personally disagree with the decoupling of civilians from enemy aggressors, as well as the focus on eliminating collateral damage. Sure, it makes you look nice in the papers, but if you're going to war with someone, it should be all-out war. Bring everybody in, decimate the aggressors, and be done with it. I'm tired of this line that we need to make sure that we're sensitive to the people that live there, when any one of them could strap a bomb on and kill twenty American soldiers.
Also, while I was and am a supporter of what the US did in Iraq, both from a 'remove Saddam' and 'build a relatively healthy, friendly nation,' I've become wholly unsupportive of our action in Afghanistan. We're just spinning our wheels in a country where we'll never be able to implement a healthy government, spending a metric crapload of money on people that will never support us, and overextending our active duty military (and reservists) such that we're now going to furlough them or lay them off, further reducing our expeditionary capabilities.
I think there are a few issues at play here, and you have hit on one of the fundamental contradictions of American military and foreign policy. The American people see themselves as the Good Guys. And the Good Guys don't decimate entire populations. They don't kill women and children and old men. So you can't just do all-out war on civilian populations because it runs counter to modern morality and the nation's self-image. But as you point out, that leaves your forces open to insurgency and guerrilla warfare. Can an invader out-last a homegrown insurgency? Personally I doubt it, but I haven't studied the history too closely.
In addition to that, there are the stated and actual goals. If your goal is to depose a dictator and bring modern civil life to the country, you can't just kill everyone. In fact, just the opposite, you need to make friends with them. Hearts and minds and all that. Similarly, if you want to invade to take control of government and commercial power to further your commercial and geo-strategic interests, you can't just decimate the country. You need the infrastructure and bureaucracy. But again, if the people end up not liking you your soldiers will be open to insurgency and guerrilla warfare.
This is the dynamic the US finds itself in in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The stated and unstated goals, and modern morality and self-image make restraint paramount. But having to use restraint makes using the military to achieve those goals difficult. The military is a tool of death and destruction and it's tricky to kill and destroy your way to peace and prosperity.
China benefits from a functional United States. So long as the benefits outweigh any prize that would remove them in the taking, Americans are fairly safe from Chinese attack.
This was my first thought. What possible motive would the Chinese have for wanting to bring down the US power grid? Do they want the value of the dollar to plummet? The US and China are economically interdependent. Sure, they want to spy on us. But everyone spies on everyone these days. This supposed threat is just fear mongering.
Making the letter writer's point are we?
Even if you are wrong about the markets it would be hard not to make money on companies that are backed up and usually owned by one of the largest nations in the world, the one that is willing to cheat and defraud on a global scale to get ahead.
That's why I'm all in on Goldman Sachs!
The most common vehicle in 10 years will be the autonomous Dodge caravan, taxiing us all around. Rich people will have maybe their own auto-Bently's or something, but the rest of us will just share a car.
As someone who drives a performance car with a manual transmission, I hope to God you're wrong.
I've got an 05 car without anitlocks or traction control and an 08 car with both. Guess which one I drive in heavy winter weather? Just because the last fifty miles were cleared perfectly doesn't mean the 500 ft when I want to be able to stop aren't pure ice. I want all the "oh shit where did my dry road go" gizmos on my car I can get since I can't spot ice a few hundred feet ahead of me in the dark.
I have a 2006 car with anti-lock brakes, but no traction control. It's the perfect combination for me. Anti-lock brakes are great for threshold braking, and I don't have traction control getting in my way. If one learns proper skid control, traction control is really not necessary. I personally hate it because it takes power away from me just when I want it most. Besides, if you are actually on ice no amount of traction control will save you. There is no traction to control! People would be better off buying better tires than having electronic doodads.
Why not focus on the technology under the hood and stop feeling compelled to add the latest buzzword to the dashboard?
Because excitement and emotion sell cars, not practical merit. Sure, fuel economy is a practical consideration. But really cars are sold on image.
But touch screens are shiny and new and advanced and exciting! Don't you want your car to be advanced and exciting? How else will it get you laid? Madison Avenue knows what to do!
Per the summary, call me Steve McQueen. My car has no touch screen, a manual transmission, and no traction control. I love it.