OK, what is the first small change you would make to get there? Something big enough to make a difference, but small enough that it can be fixed if it causes too much damage.
Did you read their methodology? Or are you unable to understand that kind of thing? I gave you some pretty specific criticisms of their methodology. Is your IQ too low to understand what I wrote?
You don't keep any of what you produce, except in unusual circumstances. You trade the product of your labor in exchange for money. Why? Why would you do that? Because you would rather have money than the product of your labor. Why does your boss pay you? Because he wanted the product more than he wanted money. The end result is both sides have been enriched by the exchange. You probably won't understand that though, you seem to have a low IQ.
I don't think you understand how peer review works. You don't just "publish it for a long time" and then hope it gets reviewed. You submit your work to a journal, and then it gets reviewed. Besides that, specific criticisms of their methodology include that they don't have actual data, that they lump part time workers in with full time workers, and they don't account for benefits. I see no particular reason to take these people seriously. An actual study would be very interesting.
This particular paper is written by a think tank. Think tanks notoriously don't actually think, they are propaganda tools (like the Cato institute). It's not peer reviewed. Another poster pointed out that they lumped part-time workers in with full time workers. Another difficult point is that in the 60s CEOs often got compensated with nonmonetary (but valuable) benefits to get around tax laws. All these things need to be taken into consideration before drawing conclusions, but most people don't.
Essentially by trading and economic activity we end up with more in aggregate than we had at the beginning. Thus your boss pays you to work, and you give him whatever, and each is better off than you were at the beginning of the day. It goes much deeper than that but I'm sure you can follow the trail if you want to.
There's no need for you to comment with such ignorance of economics. Take a class, you'll learn important concepts like the "supply/demand curve" and why it's a curve, and what the axises are, because clearly you haven't figured that out.
That's an interesting thought. We already do it to some degree with property tax, and the side effects seem minimal. You aren't penalizing wealth creation, you're penalizing hoarding. In practice it will be very difficult to deal with loopholes.
Well that's true, but it's a problem that will continue to exist as long as people don't educate themselves. When people spend all their time worrying about "more regulation vs less regulation" or "should James Remote be fired?" They stop paying attention to corruption. Like while everyone was worried about the Russians, Congress pushed through a lot of cuts.
I don't know if he's worth it, but I want to point out you are measuring the wrong thing there.
People don't get paid based on how hard they work (otherwise cherry pickers would get paid much, much more than computer programmers). People get paid based on the value they produce.
If you want to know if it is worth it, you can't measure how hard they work, you have to measure the value they have. Which may be rather low.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think she'll run for president?
You missed at least one of my criticisms, mixing part-time and full-time workers. Did you miss any other of my criticisms?
OK, what is the first small change you would make to get there? Something big enough to make a difference, but small enough that it can be fixed if it causes too much damage.
Did you read their methodology? Or are you unable to understand that kind of thing? I gave you some pretty specific criticisms of their methodology. Is your IQ too low to understand what I wrote?
You don't keep any of what you produce, except in unusual circumstances. You trade the product of your labor in exchange for money. Why? Why would you do that? Because you would rather have money than the product of your labor. Why does your boss pay you? Because he wanted the product more than he wanted money. The end result is both sides have been enriched by the exchange. You probably won't understand that though, you seem to have a low IQ.
I don't think you understand how peer review works. You don't just "publish it for a long time" and then hope it gets reviewed. You submit your work to a journal, and then it gets reviewed. Besides that, specific criticisms of their methodology include that they don't have actual data, that they lump part time workers in with full time workers, and they don't account for benefits. I see no particular reason to take these people seriously. An actual study would be very interesting.
I hope they're comfortable for you.
So you link to more stuff from the same crappy non-peer reviewed think tank? You can do better.
This particular paper is written by a think tank. Think tanks notoriously don't actually think, they are propaganda tools (like the Cato institute). It's not peer reviewed. Another poster pointed out that they lumped part-time workers in with full time workers. Another difficult point is that in the 60s CEOs often got compensated with nonmonetary (but valuable) benefits to get around tax laws. All these things need to be taken into consideration before drawing conclusions, but most people don't.
Clearly the only reason you are not a rich CEO is because you don't want to be. Am I right?
So you don't have to wear those dirty old shoes anymore.
Essentially by trading and economic activity we end up with more in aggregate than we had at the beginning. Thus your boss pays you to work, and you give him whatever, and each is better off than you were at the beginning of the day. It goes much deeper than that but I'm sure you can follow the trail if you want to.
There's no need for you to comment with such ignorance of economics. Take a class, you'll learn important concepts like the "supply/demand curve" and why it's a curve, and what the axises are, because clearly you haven't figured that out.
Wow, calm down.
That's a start, but keep thinking. Malboge programmers are rarer than Java programmers, but no one is paying them millions for that skill. Why not?
That's an interesting thought. We already do it to some degree with property tax, and the side effects seem minimal. You aren't penalizing wealth creation, you're penalizing hoarding. In practice it will be very difficult to deal with loopholes.
As if you've ever read anything about global warming beyond pop science and crap websites.
Well that's true, but it's a problem that will continue to exist as long as people don't educate themselves. When people spend all their time worrying about "more regulation vs less regulation" or "should James Remote be fired?" They stop paying attention to corruption. Like while everyone was worried about the Russians, Congress pushed through a lot of cuts.
Bargaining power is known as "value." There is value in what you produce.
I don't think you would be satisfied with Medicare. You'd constantly be complaining.
No, if you think it's a zero sum game, you need to read fewer conspiracy sites and read a book about economics.
Cherry pickers don't negotiate, man. You're on crack.
I agree with you there. The Great Game of Business is a good starting place and proves it's viable. All you need is respect for your employees.
How do I get that job?
I don't know if he's worth it, but I want to point out you are measuring the wrong thing there.
People don't get paid based on how hard they work (otherwise cherry pickers would get paid much, much more than computer programmers). People get paid based on the value they produce.
If you want to know if it is worth it, you can't measure how hard they work, you have to measure the value they have. Which may be rather low.