adiabatic compression:P same principle works on lighting a piece of tinder in an air cylinder - hence the high compression ratio's for diesel. but I digress...
>If their code is so useful in the first place (and it is by virtue of the fact that most companies would rather hire one talented developer than several mediocre ones), why not ensure they stay? >>Because it is usually quite possible to hire developers that are just as good, but that are not jerks. They may be slightly less brilliant, but they make up for it because they can actually work well in a team.
Presuming your original assertion is correct. I'm not convinced that brilliance is mutually exclusive of teamwork; else how do you explain Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project? Personally I've always felt that a true measure of a man is not his dick-size, wallet, girlfriend, car or what have you, but rather his ability to work with others to accomplish a goal -- note there is no presumption of liking a person built into that statement. I've worked with people for years I would have cheerfully beaten to a bloody pulp and paid for the privilege.
>By way of disclosure I am one of those developers - and I argue to have things taken off of my plate (documented, designed etc) outside of my scope specifically because I dont know what will happen tomorrow (hit by a bus, food poisoning etc) and a team of people like u most likely will take over. >>First of all, you assume that I'm one of the "rank and file" devs. In practice, I had been in the role of "star developer" in my division in the past, so I know how that works from the other side. But note that we aren't talking about this phenomenon in general, but about a very specific subset of such people, who are "good" (for some definition of it) on the technical side, but are arrogant and uncooperative with other people whom they perceive to be lesser.
I get arrogant all the time; I'm also the person people come to when they're having: a) legal problems b) medical problems c) life problems d) work-related problems e) loans f) cheering up. Arrogance (as a word) is nothing more than someone's description who knows their shit cold *and knows it*. I dont presume to know everything; I do presume to know that *what I do know*, I know *well*. I am extremely uncooperative when it comes to bullshit. I am *extremely* cooperative when it comes to solving business issues including employee quality-of-life. I fit the articles profile quite well, and I am sick of hearing about it -- y'all are venting, which I understand - this is merely my response (that if you brought this up in front of said coworkers, they would undoubtedly mirror) -- GROW UP, GET A THICKER SKIN and READ/LEARN OUTSIDE OF WORK.
>Your requirements for (excessive) documentation is a direct transfer from my finite amount of time available on this earth (solving problems) subsidizing your mediocrity. GROW! >>Why do you assume that I require "excessive" documentation? When I say "bad docs", I mean stuff like 50 kLoC of code that has not a single comment in it; not forgetting to fill in the "detailed description" in the documentation comment for a private method!
When someone usually bitches about documentation, its generally because they want every function documented with fancy descriptions & uml. write your code small, modular, with unit tests. its not rocket science. If you do something tricky (like using a GPU to calculate veroni diagrams) then include a link to a paper, or a psuedocode overview of the algorithm/engine in question; assumptions on input, same. todo/suggestion for improvement, same. other than that the code should pretty much speak for itself.
>>By the way, regarding the "finite amount of time" - that's all well and good when you solve problems for your own sake.
I would say stop right there;) I own my time, regardless of compensation, agreement or anything else other than involuntary incarceration. Anyone that forgets that (including the bulls) learns otherwise *quickly*.
>>But when you're at work, the time is not "yours", really - it's bought by the company you w
pay them more to keep them and stay out of their way. then you dont have to pay the "cleanup" costs. Its not hard, I dont hear anyone bitching about executive pay or perks. If their code is so useful in the first place (and it is by virtue of the fact that most companies would rather hire one talented developer than several mediocre ones), why not ensure they stay?
By way of disclosure I am one of those developers - and I argue to have things taken off of my plate (documented, designed etc) outside of my scope specifically because I dont know what will happen tomorrow (hit by a bus, food poisoning etc) and a team of people like u most likely will take over. The number of times I've told management "yes its possible but do you really want me to responsible for the well-being of your company, if I drop dead where will that leave you?" cannot be counted. But if you are coding with fools (and yes, I've worked with my fair share of body-shop consultants), no amount of documentation will suffice. They are simply not qualified in what should be their area of expertise.
I lost a employment opportunity specifically because I told the CEO in the interview -- "{I can do what you want...} just dont stick me with someone stupid {as a coworker}" -- the reason why I didn't get the job? The ceo knew his employees were crap. And to be perfectly blunt, he did both of us a favor;) I've worked with brilliant people (and it is the finest pleasure I've known), and I've worked with average people (cutting wrists!), and the pleasure of *not* having to explain for the umpteenth time how 2+2=4 is incalculable.
Brilliance is the ability to *not* have to deal with stupidity, office politics, societal constraints that are harebrained, etc. The paycheck is almost incidental. Freedom to operate and innovate is not. Instead of resenting it, aspire to it. Or at the very least, stay out of our way.
My apologies its a bit more personal than I intended but in the end, it is personal:P Your requirements for (excessive) documentation is a direct transfer from my finite amount of time available on this earth (solving problems) subsidizing your mediocrity. GROW!
managers get paid more 'cause we're the one's who a)give a shit about performance and b)capable of dealing with the unexpected crap that arises during the course of business. the lack of business sense (or worse, common sense) is so appalling at the minimum wage level I'ld rather just automate rather than deal with the stupidity.
and in case u want (dis)proof;) witness all those lovely mining/meatprocessing plants with safety records from the 1800's paying crap wages.... occasionally a crappy job is better than no job.
>> Well enjoy it while you can, because the free ride isn't going to last forever.......the day this happens, I will. Nobody owns an idea; nothing is sanctosanct
Nothing, I repeat *nothing* you threaten me with will *ever* change that fact.
And if it requires I join in the multitudes demonstrating this fact, I will.
You can take ur systems of control and bite me fanboy.
a) soil-less (hydroponic, aeroponic &/or nutrient film) b) concrete with rebar (gives you the strength to volume ratio necessary) + its waterproof if coated in a thin-layer of portland cement c) rotting plant matter goes to the compost bin (for stripping of nutrients) which feed into a nutrient sanitizer with methane gases composted to provide an extended-solar boost;) but I digress....
>That's not your humanitarian aid at work, that's American consumption fueling fewer deaths due to water poisoning, hunger, etc. in third world countries/regions
is that including the illegal wars, massive disposable mine drops, electronics scavenging, gold/diamond/magnesium/vanadium mine-labor, sweatshops, us-supported dictatorships or buying up all the local land at 5 to 1 purchasing power (bare minimum) to set up agro-business farms and export all the food away to developing countries?
Lord - if you're going to raise that argument, at least have the decency to actually look it up and tell us how much it buys -- then you can find out what we already know - a horrible life-scarring job is better then none unless u're willing to turn to brigandage (of which apparently, a lot of chinese are not).
>>we have both of those already. >Except for the massive unemployment and I'm not supporting a "family" on a minimum job.
a) check your headlines - unemployment at 26 year high b) try it sometime before you attempt to speak intelligently on the subject.
>>LORD. Yer landlord outsources said importation of Chinese workers for free (re: landscaping companies all use either illegal labor or recently legalized temporary labor) >But why do that when we can have our own employee for the whole month? Mow lawns, fix up the house, cook food, fetch the mail, wash the cars, etc.
its called the H1-B program. we also have that.
>>A market does that efficiently - everbody parrots that, nobody actually proves that statement. >There's a simpler explanation. You ignore the evidence. Markets are everywhere. You get more than a few people together who have stuff and need other stuff, then markets spontaneous crop up. There's millennia of history here.
So to does war crop up everywhere - you get more than a few people together who have stuff, need stuff and disagree, and wars sponstaneously crop up - there's a millenia of history there to. Doesn't mean its efficient or desireable.
>What gross errors? The tasks are not equivalent because they aren't taking place in the same location, aren't serving the same customers, etc. The former janitor is simply 30 times as valuable.
At this point I would think you are trolling.
>>take into account the actual exchange rates for cross-currency transactions (of which we *all* pay the price in the form of duties, financial fees etc). I take the extreme example here, but realistically this sort of disparate valuation exists throughout.
>>These inefficiencies would still exist in a one currency world. You'd have to eliminate the segregation imposed by having more than one government.
I'ld settle for the orders of magnitude less reduction (read: multiplicative inefficiencies) as a start. certes it would not be a complete solution - but a good start.
>>How is your market efficient if 100% of the people who are getting screwed would want a higher hourly wage for *exactly* the same labor. And now we get to the very core of your ignorance. Almost everyone wants more than they currently have. Why pay $4 per gallon for gas, when I can pay $3 or $2 per gallon? Why earn just $6.25 an hour, when I can earn $625 per hour? The fundamental problem of economics is that the things we want are scarce - "infinite" needs and wants in a finite universe.
Reconcile scarcity with your patent system and "digital rights" management. That's a classic example of an infinitably copy-able non-scarce resource and yet under your thinking, a cd is worth 17$ USD.
>> Since not everyone can have what they want, we need to have some system in place so that people get what they are willing to settle for.
oho and here we come to the crux of your argument - it isn't about getting what you want; its about getting what you're willing to settle for. Joy - just what I want in the main mechanism for allocation of resources - sheer mediocrity.
>>The market does that quite well. In the absence of interference, every transaction occurs because the parties to the transaction agree to it. And because there are choices, there is competition for these transactions....in the absence of interference..... LOL. what world do you live in? and you forget my favorite, transaction under duress - certes paying taxes is a transaction and falls under that category - what happens if I try to evade my taxes I wonder?
Sir your method of valuation is both naive and crude. Its like you read a micro/macro economics book and actually *believed* everything you read.
>We pretty much agree (as a society, though perhaps not as Slashdotters) that it is immoral to willfully violate a just law.
a just law is where you derail.
>Since copyright is not depriving you of any inalienable rights
When a number is copyrighted, when an idea is owned, and a statement injuctifiable, yes, you are violating my inalienable rights.
There is no compromise; there never will be one - sic semper tyranus! Stop justifying your crappy "repayment" service and do what comes naturally - send your armed thugs around to collect.
>I gather he meant some sort of common global minimum wage, which would be complete nonsense since it would mean either meaningless wage floors in the Developed world, or massive unemployment in the rest of the World.
meaningless wage floors in the Developed world, or massive unemployment in the rest of the World.
HMMM. have you tried living on 6.25 with a family? even if its a dual-income family? HMMM. massive unemployment in the rest of the world?
we have both of those already.
>The point is that the price of goods, labor, etc are locally determined. Sure it matters what price Chinese labor is. But they aren't a plug in replacement for my rental house's lawn service. Those guys make $100 per month per house where I live. My landlord can't import said Chinese worker for free and have him do the lawn.
LORD. Yer landlord outsources said importation of Chinese workers for free (re: landscaping companies all use either illegal labor or recently legalized temporary labor)
>Once we accept that what we pay for something is dependent on location and situation, then it's a simple matter to ask how to best implement the transaction. A market does that efficiently and we haven't found a better approach. In addition, what is the value of something, especially a ephemeral product like labor? Ultimately, it is how much we'd have to pay to obtain or replace it.
-- A market does that efficiently - everbody parrots that, nobody actually proves that statement.
> In addition, what is the value of something, especially a ephemeral product like labor? Ultimately, it is how much we'd have to pay to obtain or replace it.
I would posit a single global currency (one world currency) would prevent the gross errors of magnitude in exchange rates. A person cleaning toilets in America gets paid 6.25 USD per hour; a person cleaning toilets in China gets paid 6.25 USD per month -- how would you justify a 30-fold difference in valuation on the labor for essentially the same task? Its even worse when u take into account the actual exchange rates for cross-currency transactions (of which we *all* pay the price in the form of duties, financial fees etc). I take the extreme example here, but realistically this sort of disparate valuation exists throughout. How is your market efficient if 100% of the people who are getting screwed would want a higher hourly wage for *exactly* the same labor.
Picture putting your propeller against a solid wall (negative pressure region towards the wall) Picture your propeller developing such a high pull that it literally sucks material through the wall (or in the proposed case above, from surrounding regions of the wall similar to ground effect in aerodynamics)
Magnetic monopole;)
Magnetism (the movement of electrons) is usually limited to the surface of a material (or some penetration depth thereof depending on field strength). in essence what you want is a positive (or negative) pressure differential without experiencing both at the same time;) this could be accomplished with the theoretical wall structure listed above (positive pressure exists only because the negative pressure is eliminated bya constant source of free electrons).
Your right. I should just start robbing people like you. Then you would be worth nothing and I would be very very rich (and hence very valuable);
hence no-one would listen to your opinion since you are value-less and everyone would pay more and more to listen to me hence relieving me of the need to *physically* rob you -- I can just harness other peoples greed/stupidity.
point taken?
Incidentally, ^^^ thats the missing step in all of those: 1. blah 2. blah 3. ??? 4. profit!
$100 per month isn't doing valuable labor? Depends on how many units (and of what) he's assembling eh? Looking at a wage-rate as a summation of the valuableness of a worker (or productivity-rate) is a *horrible* assumption, even here in the USA.
except that he paid $50 the first time:P clearly thats his valuation point:) Perhaps the low price induced him to make the first purchase and having had mp3 nirvana, he would spend the $400 dollars on the second purchase, not unlike crack sales I'ld imagine. Its debateable whether or not he would have purchased the original unit at $400, since clearly he at least *waited* until a $50 dollar unit became available. hence $400-$450...
#1 - You're valuing the newly purchased device at the full amount paid. This is not necessarily the case (depreciation, resale value etc). In this case he already obtained a significant discount off the device so it would be safe to assume he has already hit the floor of the price both in terms of resale value, and certes, given the solid-state nature of the device, depreciation (excluding any tax liability). Some goods lose their value (depreciate 100%) on purchase.
#2 - You're discounting the intent of his original purchase - which is to be able to listen to mp3's - for him to reacquire the original value (relative to him), would be 50$ = listen to music. for him to reacquire the it, it would be 50$ (written off as a loss) = no music currently + $400 = listen to music. hence $450 = listen to music, the actual cost of this failure.
Now if he can reacquire it for cheaper (say the original $50) its only a $100.
Slashdot Mirror
adiabatic compression :P same principle works on lighting a piece of tinder in an air cylinder - hence the high compression ratio's for diesel.
but I digress...
>If their code is so useful in the first place (and it is by virtue of the fact that most companies would rather hire one talented developer than several mediocre ones), why not ensure they stay?
>>Because it is usually quite possible to hire developers that are just as good, but that are not jerks. They may be slightly less brilliant, but they make up for it because they can actually work well in a team.
Presuming your original assertion is correct. I'm not convinced that brilliance is mutually exclusive of teamwork; else how do you explain Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project? Personally I've always felt that
a true measure of a man is not his dick-size, wallet, girlfriend, car or what have you, but rather his ability to work with others to accomplish a goal -- note there is no presumption of liking a person built into that
statement. I've worked with people for years I would have cheerfully beaten to a bloody pulp and paid for the privilege.
>By way of disclosure I am one of those developers - and I argue to have things taken off of my plate (documented, designed etc) outside of my scope specifically because I dont know what will happen tomorrow (hit by a bus, food poisoning etc) and a team of people like u most likely will take over.
>>First of all, you assume that I'm one of the "rank and file" devs. In practice, I had been in the role of "star developer" in my division in the past, so I know how that works from the other side. But note that we aren't talking about this phenomenon in general, but about a very specific subset of such people, who are "good" (for some definition of it) on the technical side, but are arrogant and uncooperative with other people whom they perceive to be lesser.
I get arrogant all the time; I'm also the person people come to when they're having: a) legal problems b) medical problems c) life problems d) work-related problems e) loans f) cheering up. Arrogance (as a word) is nothing more than someone's description who knows their shit cold *and knows it*. I dont presume to know everything; I do presume to know that *what I do know*, I know *well*. I am extremely uncooperative when it comes to bullshit. I am *extremely* cooperative when it comes to solving business issues including employee quality-of-life. I fit the articles profile quite well, and I am sick of hearing about it -- y'all are venting, which I understand - this is merely my response (that if you brought this up in front of said coworkers, they would undoubtedly mirror) -- GROW UP, GET A THICKER SKIN and READ/LEARN OUTSIDE OF WORK.
>Your requirements for (excessive) documentation is a direct transfer from my finite amount
of time available on this earth (solving problems) subsidizing your mediocrity. GROW!
>>Why do you assume that I require "excessive" documentation? When I say "bad docs", I mean stuff like 50 kLoC of code that has not a single comment in it; not forgetting to fill in the "detailed description" in the documentation comment for a private method!
When someone usually bitches about documentation, its generally because they want every function documented with fancy descriptions & uml. write your code small, modular, with unit tests. its not rocket science.
If you do something tricky (like using a GPU to calculate veroni diagrams) then include a link to a paper, or a psuedocode overview of the algorithm/engine in question; assumptions on input, same. todo/suggestion for improvement, same. other than that the code should pretty much speak for itself.
>>By the way, regarding the "finite amount of time" - that's all well and good when you solve problems for your own sake.
I would say stop right there ;) I own my time, regardless of compensation, agreement or anything else other than involuntary incarceration. Anyone that forgets that (including the bulls) learns otherwise *quickly*.
>>But when you're at work, the time is not "yours", really - it's bought by the company you w
pay them more to keep them and stay out of their way. then you dont have to pay the "cleanup" costs. Its not hard, I dont hear anyone bitching about executive pay or perks. If their code is so useful in the first place (and it is by virtue of the fact that most companies would rather hire one talented developer than several mediocre ones), why not ensure they stay?
By way of disclosure I am one of those developers - and I argue to have things taken off of my plate (documented, designed etc) outside of my scope specifically because I dont know what will happen tomorrow (hit by a bus, food poisoning etc) and a team of people like u most likely will take over. The number of times I've told management "yes its possible but do you really want me to responsible for the well-being of your company, if I drop dead where will that leave you?" cannot be counted. But if you are coding with fools (and yes, I've worked with my fair share of body-shop consultants), no amount of documentation will suffice. They are simply not qualified in what should be their area of expertise.
I lost a employment opportunity specifically because I told the CEO in the interview -- "{I can do what you want...} just dont stick me with someone stupid {as a coworker}" -- the reason why I didn't get the job? The ceo knew his employees were crap. And to be perfectly blunt, he did both of us a favor ;) I've worked with brilliant people (and it is the finest pleasure I've known), and I've worked with average people (cutting wrists!), and the pleasure of *not* having to explain for the umpteenth time how 2+2=4 is incalculable.
Brilliance is the ability to *not* have to deal with stupidity, office politics, societal constraints that are harebrained, etc.
The paycheck is almost incidental. Freedom to operate and innovate is not. Instead of resenting it, aspire to it.
Or at the very least, stay out of our way.
My apologies its a bit more personal than I intended but in the end, it is personal :P
Your requirements for (excessive) documentation is a direct transfer from my finite amount
of time available on this earth (solving problems) subsidizing your mediocrity. GROW!
methinks you are bitter :P /me quaffs
yup, definately a stout.
+5 funny +5 insightful +5 right-on-the-money :P
LOL
thats nice in theory but....
managers get paid more 'cause we're the one's who a)give a shit about performance and b)capable of dealing with the unexpected crap that arises during the course of business.
the lack of business sense (or worse, common sense) is so appalling at the minimum wage level I'ld rather just automate rather than deal with the stupidity.
and in case u want (dis)proof ;) witness all those lovely mining/meatprocessing plants with safety records from the 1800's paying crap wages.... occasionally a crappy job
is better than no job.
I dont feel the need to share files. But....
>> Well enjoy it while you can, because the free ride isn't going to last forever... ....the day this happens, I will. Nobody owns an idea; nothing is sanctosanct
Nothing, I repeat *nothing* you threaten me with will *ever* change that fact.
And if it requires I join in the multitudes demonstrating this fact, I will.
You can take ur systems of control and bite me fanboy.
I hear judges don't do to well in prisons.
easily solved:
a) soil-less (hydroponic, aeroponic &/or nutrient film) ;)
b) concrete with rebar (gives you the strength to volume ratio necessary) + its waterproof if coated in a thin-layer of portland cement
c) rotting plant matter goes to the compost bin (for stripping of nutrients) which feed into a nutrient sanitizer with methane gases composted to provide an extended-solar boost
but I digress....
welcome to the future ;)
>That's not your humanitarian aid at work, that's American consumption fueling fewer deaths due to water poisoning, hunger, etc. in third world countries/regions
is that including the illegal wars, massive disposable mine drops, electronics scavenging, gold/diamond/magnesium/vanadium mine-labor, sweatshops, us-supported dictatorships or buying up all the local land at 5 to 1 purchasing power (bare minimum) to set up agro-business farms and export all the food away to developing countries?
come on now.
be serious.
Lord - if you're going to raise that argument, at least have the decency to actually look it up and tell us how much it buys -- then you can find out what we already know - a horrible life-scarring job is better then none unless u're willing to turn to brigandage (of which apparently, a lot of chinese are not).
score: +10 funny ;)
/me coughs fractal antennae
>Never, never, never, never confuse following that law with doing what's right.
AMEN BROTHER!
>>we have both of those already.
>Except for the massive unemployment and I'm not supporting a "family" on a minimum job.
a) check your headlines - unemployment at 26 year high
b) try it sometime before you attempt to speak intelligently on the subject.
>>LORD. Yer landlord outsources said importation of Chinese workers for free (re: landscaping companies all use either illegal labor or recently legalized temporary labor)
>But why do that when we can have our own employee for the whole month? Mow lawns, fix up the house, cook food, fetch the mail, wash the cars, etc.
its called the H1-B program. we also have that.
>>A market does that efficiently - everbody parrots that, nobody actually proves that statement.
>There's a simpler explanation. You ignore the evidence. Markets are everywhere. You get more than a few people together who have stuff and need other stuff, then markets spontaneous crop up. There's millennia of history here.
So to does war crop up everywhere - you get more than a few people together who have stuff, need stuff and disagree, and wars sponstaneously crop up - there's a millenia of history there to. Doesn't mean its efficient or desireable.
>What gross errors? The tasks are not equivalent because they aren't taking place in the same location, aren't serving the same customers, etc. The former janitor is simply 30 times as valuable.
At this point I would think you are trolling.
>>take into account the actual exchange rates for cross-currency transactions (of which we *all* pay the price in the form of duties, financial fees etc). I take the extreme example here, but realistically this sort of disparate valuation exists throughout.
>>These inefficiencies would still exist in a one currency world. You'd have to eliminate the segregation imposed by having more than one government.
I'ld settle for the orders of magnitude less reduction (read: multiplicative inefficiencies) as a start. certes it would not be a complete solution - but a good start.
>>How is your market efficient if 100% of the people who are getting screwed would want a higher hourly wage for *exactly* the same labor.
And now we get to the very core of your ignorance. Almost everyone wants more than they currently have. Why pay $4 per gallon for gas, when I can pay $3 or $2 per gallon? Why earn just $6.25 an hour, when I can earn $625 per hour? The fundamental problem of economics is that the things we want are scarce - "infinite" needs and wants in a finite universe.
Reconcile scarcity with your patent system and "digital rights" management. That's a classic example of an infinitably copy-able non-scarce resource and yet under your thinking, a cd is worth 17$ USD.
>> Since not everyone can have what they want, we need to have some system in place so that people get what they are willing to settle for.
oho and here we come to the crux of your argument - it isn't about getting what you want; its about getting what you're willing to settle for. Joy - just what I want in the main mechanism for allocation of resources - sheer mediocrity.
>>The market does that quite well. In the absence of interference, every transaction occurs because the parties to the transaction agree to it. And because there are choices, there is competition for these transactions. ...in the absence of interference..... LOL. what world do you live in? and you forget my favorite, transaction under duress - certes paying taxes is a transaction and falls under that category - what happens if I try to evade my taxes I wonder?
Sir your method of valuation is both naive and crude. Its like you read a micro/macro economics book and actually *believed* everything you read.
>We pretty much agree (as a society, though perhaps not as Slashdotters) that it is immoral to willfully violate a just law.
a just law is where you derail.
>Since copyright is not depriving you of any inalienable rights
When a number is copyrighted, when an idea is owned, and a statement injuctifiable, yes, you are violating my inalienable rights.
There is no compromise; there never will be one - sic semper tyranus! Stop justifying your crappy "repayment" service and do what
comes naturally - send your armed thugs around to collect.
>I gather he meant some sort of common global minimum wage, which would be complete nonsense since it would mean either meaningless wage floors in the Developed world, or massive unemployment in the rest of the World.
meaningless wage floors in the Developed world, or massive unemployment in the rest of the World.
HMMM. have you tried living on 6.25 with a family? even if its a dual-income family?
HMMM. massive unemployment in the rest of the world?
we have both of those already.
>The point is that the price of goods, labor, etc are locally determined. Sure it matters what price Chinese labor is. But they aren't a plug in replacement for my rental house's lawn service. Those guys make $100 per month per house where I live. My landlord can't import said Chinese worker for free and have him do the lawn.
LORD. Yer landlord outsources said importation of Chinese workers for free (re: landscaping companies all use either illegal labor or recently legalized temporary labor)
>Once we accept that what we pay for something is dependent on location and situation, then it's a simple matter to ask how to best implement the transaction. A market does that efficiently and we haven't found a better approach. In addition, what is the value of something, especially a ephemeral product like labor? Ultimately, it is how much we'd have to pay to obtain or replace it.
-- A market does that efficiently - everbody parrots that, nobody actually proves that statement.
> In addition, what is the value of something, especially a ephemeral product like labor? Ultimately, it is how much we'd have to pay to obtain or replace it.
I would posit a single global currency (one world currency) would prevent the gross errors of magnitude in exchange rates. A person cleaning toilets in America gets paid 6.25 USD per hour;
a person cleaning toilets in China gets paid 6.25 USD per month -- how would you justify a 30-fold difference in valuation on the labor for essentially the same task? Its even worse when u
take into account the actual exchange rates for cross-currency transactions (of which we *all* pay the price in the form of duties, financial fees etc). I take the extreme example here, but
realistically this sort of disparate valuation exists throughout. How is your market efficient if 100% of the people who are getting screwed would want a higher hourly wage for *exactly* the
same labor.
Picture putting your propeller against a solid wall (negative pressure region towards the wall)
Picture your propeller developing such a high pull that it literally sucks material through the wall (or in the proposed case above, from surrounding regions of the wall similar to ground effect in aerodynamics)
Magnetic monopole ;)
Magnetism (the movement of electrons) is usually limited to the surface of a material (or some penetration depth thereof depending on field strength). in essence what you want is a positive (or negative) pressure differential without experiencing both at the same time ;) this could be accomplished with the theoretical wall structure listed above (positive pressure exists only because the negative pressure is eliminated bya constant source of free electrons).
Note the title to our thread - only one way out of this mess....
a mess created by mark-to-market valuation.
>The market doesn't need perfect information to assign a value
you keep using that word value; I do not think you know what it means....
BTW - your definition of value is the same as "mark-to-market" LOOK that one up ;)
I'm fairly sure Mr. Buffet would disagree with you too :)
Your right. I should just start robbing people like you.
Then you would be worth nothing and I would be very very rich (and hence
very valuable);
hence no-one would listen to your opinion since you are value-less
and everyone would pay more and more to listen to me hence relieving
me of the need to *physically* rob you -- I can just harness other
peoples greed/stupidity.
point taken?
Incidentally, ^^^ thats the missing step in all of those:
1. blah
2. blah
3. ???
4. profit!
>To assume otherwise is to assume the market for labor is not working
to assume that assuming otherwise is an assumption, is in and of itself an assumption :P
Would you like to discuss the relative worth of an hour of a man's labor in a dictatorship?
Look up "tautology" and reparse your statement.
$100 per month isn't doing valuable labor?
Depends on how many units (and of what) he's assembling eh?
Looking at a wage-rate as a summation of the valuableness of
a worker (or productivity-rate) is a *horrible* assumption,
even here in the USA.
except that he paid $50 the first time :P clearly thats his valuation point :)
Perhaps the low price induced him to make the first purchase and having had mp3
nirvana, he would spend the $400 dollars on the second purchase, not unlike crack
sales I'ld imagine. Its debateable whether or not he would have purchased the original
unit at $400, since clearly he at least *waited* until a $50 dollar unit became available.
hence $400-$450...
#1 -
You're valuing the newly purchased device at the full amount paid.
This is not necessarily the case (depreciation, resale value etc).
In this case he already obtained a significant discount off the device
so it would be safe to assume he has already hit the floor of the price
both in terms of resale value, and certes, given the solid-state nature
of the device, depreciation (excluding any tax liability). Some goods
lose their value (depreciate 100%) on purchase.
#2 -
You're discounting the intent of his original purchase - which is to
be able to listen to mp3's - for him to reacquire the original value
(relative to him), would be 50$ = listen to music. for him to reacquire
the it, it would be 50$ (written off as a loss) = no music currently
+ $400 = listen to music. hence $450 = listen to music, the actual
cost of this failure.
Now if he can reacquire it for cheaper (say the original $50) its only a $100.