The UK has a minimum wage that scales with age. The "apprentice" minimum wage is below the US minimum wage. Even the highest level is equivalent to US $10/hour. And while low for Europe, youth unemployment is still high by US standards.
Germany is a bit of a special case, being somehow able to pull off both strong employment protections and full employment. Many people chalk it up to the youth apprenticeships that sort of exempt the youth from the normal employment protections - but this would illustrate my point, rather than refute it. Countries in Europe have needed to weaken their employment rules to improve employment prospects. This tradeoff is well-understood and is not controversial.
I'm always a bit amused at "free market" types being in support of limited-liability corporations. Nothing, save perhaps IP law, is a larger example of government distortion of the free market.
I'm not sure how to respond to your comment. We don't typically hit Wendy's as a night out on the town - we usually hit Wendy's when we are already out and want the convenience of a fast meal. The "human service" at Wendy's is generally the least-pleasant part of the whole experience.
The problem is that Ron Paul also talks about currency like it should be an investment rather than a means of exchange, and so it's hard to take him seriously.
However, if you understand how a monetary system is supposed to work, you need money to flow.
A monetary system is meant to support economic activity. It "works" by providing a reliable, trusted, and standardized means of exchange so that we don't need to barter physical goods all the time or work out complex currency transactions. It is not "supposed to work" in the way you mean. If all you need is money to flow, then just letting two computers bat it back and forth as quickly as they can would make us all fabulously wealthy.
What you need to lift everyone's standard of living is wealth creation. You don't create wealth by artificially supporting someone's wages, be it through direct government assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, etc) or indirect assistance like minimum wage. I'm not smart enough to know how to take an untrained - possibly untrainable - adult and make them into a generator of wealth, but I do know that your ideas about the velocity of money are not what you think they are. I'd start by improving and equalizing access to education, and putting into place an incentive structure for government safety nets which rewards the bureaucrats for getting people back on their own two feet.
then spend lots of tax dollars propping those people up with food stamps, etc, or just paying indirectly with theft and other criminal behaviour.
As opposed to the European way of making employees so expensive that you have 20% youth unemployment, who you then prop up with social programs, theft and other criminal behavior?
I'm not opposed to minimum wage (and frankly I wish we'd just tie it to inflation so we don't need to constantly adjust it). But lets not pretend that this will magically get people off of government assistance or eliminate crime.
First, most of those offshore pennies were never onshore to begin with - they were earned overseas. Second, what do you think happens to "cash and short term investments"? Do you picture a giant Scrooge McDuck money vault? Because that's not what happens.
Your also ignoring that the economy has winners and losers.
I'm not ignoring it, it just wasn't a part of the discussion until this moment. Of course it has winners and losers, but what do you mean by this? If you mean it is a zero-sum game, then you are wrong. Wealth can be created - a winner does not necessarily create a loser.
An appropriately managed government befits us all.
Sure, and unicorn blood provides immortality. We just need to find a unicorn.
The wealthy use all sorts of government services the poor don't need or aren't even aware exists.
It's not "cruft", it is necessary functionality that is split into independent departments. Medicaid still has costs associated with revenue, it's just buried in the IRS budget. The idea that you can take a small sliver of the US government and analyze it in isolation as if it were a standalone company is fundamentally flawed. What is the "SG&A" of the entire federal government? Wanna bet not 5-10%?
What makes you think it is random? Are you arguing that the piece didn't deliberately slant the information towards alarmism? You think it is not biased?
"There’s no real way to compare this to the private sector, because the private sector just doesn’t run programs like this. "
But he didn't let that stop him. Tell you what, relieve Aetna of their need to write and sell policies, collect revenue, invest money, fund pensions, and negotiate with thousands of individual health providers, and then we'll see how well they compare. Until then, the comparison seems silly - and in any case misses the point. What is the point of government assistance? Is it to get people back on their own two feet? Why are you talking about efficiency as a measure, then? Am I supposed to be impressed that they can write checks while only taking 5-10% off the top? What do these checks accomplish? Measure how you are helping people with these programs, even if that means "wasting" money evaluating performance.
Maybe that's an exaggeration, but note that nowhere in the article do they state the actual number of square km affected, only saying that it has increased by millions of sq km. That sounds like a lot, but the earth has 360 million sq km of ocean. "Millions" could be less than 1% of the total ocean by surface area. The piece does indeed read like propaganda, and I think I would count myself as a supporter of efforts to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
If you want to subsidize people with rare conditions with tax dollars, just come right out and say it. Don't pretend you are worried about efficiency. Instead you make this asinine attempt to appeal to people based on "the government can do it cheaper", and then lash out with name-calling when your argument is challenged. Anyone with even a smattering of history education knows what happens when the government tries to centrally-plan the economy.
Ignoring the giant qualifier "especially if it can't be politicized", this statement is pretty broad and ambiguous. If you mean all government, inclusive of local government than I'm inclined to agree. You can find examples of well-run, efficient municipal authorities. You can also find horror stories. And the same is true in the private sector (especially when freed from competition by possessing a monopoly). You can find both well-run and horrendous government schools.
But as the scale increases, so does the kruft. By the time you get to the federal level, I think you'll have a hard time finding something run "efficiently" by the standards of the private sector - though admittedly the comparison is hard because it can be hard to find a good analog in the private sector.
You must be kidding. I've been a party to class action lawsuits for the STUPIDIST shit. The latest one is for some food processor blade where I can get $15. Wanna start a pool on how much the attorney's fees end up being?
Do you really think that the US government can manufacture this drug for less than $450k per dose in these low quantities? They'll exceed that just setting up the bureaucracy.
stop using other countries as their own cheap dumping ground
I think the argument is that plastic is a petroleum resource, and China as a global manufacturing base has a lot more capacity to use recycled plastics than GB. If you are going to make the effort to recycle, then it is only logical to return the recycled material to the manufacturing center.
As to the moral question, remember which country it is that is using so much disposable plastic in their manufactured goods. No one holds the high ground - there is demand and there is supply.
Slashdot Mirror
The UK has a minimum wage that scales with age. The "apprentice" minimum wage is below the US minimum wage. Even the highest level is equivalent to US $10/hour. And while low for Europe, youth unemployment is still high by US standards.
Germany is a bit of a special case, being somehow able to pull off both strong employment protections and full employment. Many people chalk it up to the youth apprenticeships that sort of exempt the youth from the normal employment protections - but this would illustrate my point, rather than refute it. Countries in Europe have needed to weaken their employment rules to improve employment prospects. This tradeoff is well-understood and is not controversial.
I'm always a bit amused at "free market" types being in support of limited-liability corporations. Nothing, save perhaps IP law, is a larger example of government distortion of the free market.
I'm not sure how to respond to your comment. We don't typically hit Wendy's as a night out on the town - we usually hit Wendy's when we are already out and want the convenience of a fast meal. The "human service" at Wendy's is generally the least-pleasant part of the whole experience.
The problem is that Ron Paul also talks about currency like it should be an investment rather than a means of exchange, and so it's hard to take him seriously.
That'll create some jobs! Just wish away the bad ones!
However, if you understand how a monetary system is supposed to work, you need money to flow.
A monetary system is meant to support economic activity. It "works" by providing a reliable, trusted, and standardized means of exchange so that we don't need to barter physical goods all the time or work out complex currency transactions. It is not "supposed to work" in the way you mean. If all you need is money to flow, then just letting two computers bat it back and forth as quickly as they can would make us all fabulously wealthy.
What you need to lift everyone's standard of living is wealth creation. You don't create wealth by artificially supporting someone's wages, be it through direct government assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, etc) or indirect assistance like minimum wage. I'm not smart enough to know how to take an untrained - possibly untrainable - adult and make them into a generator of wealth, but I do know that your ideas about the velocity of money are not what you think they are. I'd start by improving and equalizing access to education, and putting into place an incentive structure for government safety nets which rewards the bureaucrats for getting people back on their own two feet.
then spend lots of tax dollars propping those people up with food stamps, etc, or just paying indirectly with theft and other criminal behaviour.
As opposed to the European way of making employees so expensive that you have 20% youth unemployment, who you then prop up with social programs, theft and other criminal behavior?
I'm not opposed to minimum wage (and frankly I wish we'd just tie it to inflation so we don't need to constantly adjust it). But lets not pretend that this will magically get people off of government assistance or eliminate crime.
where are all those offshore Apple pennies,
First, most of those offshore pennies were never onshore to begin with - they were earned overseas. Second, what do you think happens to "cash and short term investments"? Do you picture a giant Scrooge McDuck money vault? Because that's not what happens.
Your also ignoring that the economy has winners and losers.
I'm not ignoring it, it just wasn't a part of the discussion until this moment. Of course it has winners and losers, but what do you mean by this? If you mean it is a zero-sum game, then you are wrong. Wealth can be created - a winner does not necessarily create a loser.
An appropriately managed government befits us all.
Sure, and unicorn blood provides immortality. We just need to find a unicorn.
The wealthy use all sorts of government services the poor don't need or aren't even aware exists.
I don't think I ever said otherwise.
Every penny you spend in a store also gets recycled back into the economy... what point were you trying to make?
It's not "cruft", it is necessary functionality that is split into independent departments. Medicaid still has costs associated with revenue, it's just buried in the IRS budget. The idea that you can take a small sliver of the US government and analyze it in isolation as if it were a standalone company is fundamentally flawed. What is the "SG&A" of the entire federal government? Wanna bet not 5-10%?
More evidence of AI stealing jobs.
I'm not arguing with any of that, I'm arguing that the article is shit. You are wise to have not read it.
Roughly :)
The quoted part of the article does not say the same thing that you said. In fact, the part you just quoted makes it sound like a wash.
All of that would be wonderful knowledge for the article to impart.
What makes you think it is random? Are you arguing that the piece didn't deliberately slant the information towards alarmism? You think it is not biased?
"There’s no real way to compare this to the private sector, because the private sector just doesn’t run programs like this. "
But he didn't let that stop him. Tell you what, relieve Aetna of their need to write and sell policies, collect revenue, invest money, fund pensions, and negotiate with thousands of individual health providers, and then we'll see how well they compare. Until then, the comparison seems silly - and in any case misses the point. What is the point of government assistance? Is it to get people back on their own two feet? Why are you talking about efficiency as a measure, then? Am I supposed to be impressed that they can write checks while only taking 5-10% off the top? What do these checks accomplish? Measure how you are helping people with these programs, even if that means "wasting" money evaluating performance.
Hahaha, who says it's a waste of time to post on Slashdot? :)
This isn't killing 1% of humans, it is making 1% of the land area uninhabitable.
Maybe that's an exaggeration, but note that nowhere in the article do they state the actual number of square km affected, only saying that it has increased by millions of sq km. That sounds like a lot, but the earth has 360 million sq km of ocean. "Millions" could be less than 1% of the total ocean by surface area. The piece does indeed read like propaganda, and I think I would count myself as a supporter of efforts to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
If you want to subsidize people with rare conditions with tax dollars, just come right out and say it. Don't pretend you are worried about efficiency. Instead you make this asinine attempt to appeal to people based on "the government can do it cheaper", and then lash out with name-calling when your argument is challenged. Anyone with even a smattering of history education knows what happens when the government tries to centrally-plan the economy.
Ignoring the giant qualifier "especially if it can't be politicized", this statement is pretty broad and ambiguous. If you mean all government, inclusive of local government than I'm inclined to agree. You can find examples of well-run, efficient municipal authorities. You can also find horror stories. And the same is true in the private sector (especially when freed from competition by possessing a monopoly). You can find both well-run and horrendous government schools.
But as the scale increases, so does the kruft. By the time you get to the federal level, I think you'll have a hard time finding something run "efficiently" by the standards of the private sector - though admittedly the comparison is hard because it can be hard to find a good analog in the private sector.
You must be kidding. I've been a party to class action lawsuits for the STUPIDIST shit. The latest one is for some food processor blade where I can get $15. Wanna start a pool on how much the attorney's fees end up being?
Do you really think that the US government can manufacture this drug for less than $450k per dose in these low quantities? They'll exceed that just setting up the bureaucracy.
stop using other countries as their own cheap dumping ground
I think the argument is that plastic is a petroleum resource, and China as a global manufacturing base has a lot more capacity to use recycled plastics than GB. If you are going to make the effort to recycle, then it is only logical to return the recycled material to the manufacturing center.
As to the moral question, remember which country it is that is using so much disposable plastic in their manufactured goods. No one holds the high ground - there is demand and there is supply.