This kind of bullshit is why exchanges shouldn't be run by traders. They should be run by a publicly funded non-profit entity with paid staff members who aren't permitted to trade or gain financially from public trading or be employed by publicly traded companies. All their personal finances and taxes should be a matter of public record. In turn they should be paid an insanely high salary to compensate for the fact that they can't invest in retirement accounts and to keep them contented and less inclined to bribery. Those individuals should also be policed by the SEC.
I'd say make the exchanges government run but that would result in the same backslapping that goes on now with the rich paying congress critters to lock in laws and statutes that benefit them. Usually if congress did a non-profit they'd fill its board with industry leaders (the same arses who run it now) we need independent people with no financial interest that would be considered bias.
Racism is wrong right up to the point where data indicates it is accurate. We shouldn't redefine reality for the sake of avoiding racism. Although this doesn't sound like racism so much as geneticism.
I realize it is far more pc to say to everything is about personal drive and nurture but nature may just be a factor as well.
This sounds like automakers wanting to lock in monopolies on the airbag market. This is illegal with every other part in the car, it sounds like the manufacturers want to use FUD to make airbags an exception.
There is nothing about an airbag being made by a third party that automatically makes it less effective than one made by a dealer. Most likely the 'authentic' airbags are made in the same Chinese factories as the knockoffs.
Making the chances of success equal for children and taking away advantages not actually earned by the child is not punishing success. The only advantage you should be able to pass down generations is genetic. You might argue that the successful are successful as a result of merit but your merit and accomplishments do not belong to your kids. They need to achieve their own success by rising to success without being given any advantage over their counterparts with parents that aren't successful.
Saying the wealthy do not deserve to dodge paying taxes on the wealth they hold is not demonizing or punishing either. For the most part, taxes are spent supporting and protecting wealth. If you have a billion dollars it represents substantial wealth and that wealth cost society much more to protect, police, defend, transport, and build. This cost doesn't just happen when the wealth is created but also when it is maintained. As a consequence your tax burden should be proportional to the amount of wealth you have because your burden on public services is proportional to the same. If you have a million times more wealth than me you should pay a million times the tax I do. How much income we had shouldn't be a factor.
Even the "taxes are punishment" argument fails to negate this. Taxing income is punishing the generation of wealth. Taxing wealth is therefore punishing the hording of wealth while rewarding fluidity of wealth and wealth generation that exceeds the tax rate. Additionally it is most fair. The more benefit you've derived from the policies, laws, and protections of society the more you give back. If you aren't accumulating wealth then society isn't really doing you much good.
In short, if you have a billion dollars worth of wealth it costs a billion times more public resources than one dollar's worth of wealth and this is an ongoing and not a one-off cost. Lots of people might have used that wealth but it is the person who ended up with it and enjoys the benefit of that portion of societies output who owes the cost to maintain it. As such, you should not tax income but rather wealth and you should tax every dollar of it (including the valuation of non-liquid wealth).
If you make a great deal of money but don't manage to accumulate wealth then your tax burden should be low. That wealth ended up in the hands of someone and that someone is who should owe the burden. It shouldn't matter if that "someone" is some form of paper entity. A corporation with a billion dollars worth of holdings that made $1 profit should pay based on the billion not the $1 because it will have used far more resources to maintain that billion worth of holdings than a corp that has no holdings and made $1.
This doesn't stop someone from being wealthy but it does encourage the wealthy to spend the wealth and use it in more aggressive ways that stimulate the economy. It also requires them to pay a truly fair tax based on how much they cost society without allowing for loopholes or tax tricks.
Sharing WIFI is not criminal negligence. If a profiteering corporation sells internet connectivity it is afforded protection as a common carrier. Why should a private individual kindly doing the same out of generosity and not profit motive not be afforded the same protection?
This is no different than sharing any resource. If I have a chainsaw and I leave it by the front door with a sign that says it is open to community borrowing; my generosity shouldn't cost me legal responsibility if a neighbor borrows it and uses it to kill his wife.
Bottom line, being frustrated because it is difficult to positively identify the criminal does not make it okay to prosecute someone tangentially related to some tool used in the commission of the crime simply because they are easy to identify.
Yup. So I wouldn't support CRIMINAL negligence charges against someone who failed to inquire with interpol regarding the counterfeiting record of someone before loaning them a printing press.
I'm not saying that nothing that fails to cause physical damage to a person is a crime. I'm saying that negligence shouldn't be considered criminal unless it is intentional and leads to physical harm.
Person trips and falls on stairs, landlord didn't check stairs for safety in recent history. Negligence but not criminal. Same scenario but landlord had been notified the stairs were dangerous and wanted to wait an extra month so he could get the tax break on the next year. Negligence should definitely be criminal.
Leaving your wifi unsecured may be stupid and arguably negligent (although I see nothing wrong with providing free unsecured wifi) but there is nothing criminal there. There might be room for civil liability if someone used his connection to deface a website for instance, but even that is questionable. Anyone providing open wifi is acting as a common carrier. There is no justification for giving this status to corporate profiteers selling connectivity and not give it to private citizens generously providing the same to others for free.
"When comparing to a 100 suspects that are not related (remember the profile will tell us if they are related.) You are more like 99.99999999% sure. Even far more than that. "
Wrong. The reliability of the person doing the testing accurately is not anywhere near 99.99999999% or even 99.999% and represents the absolute maximum assurance the test can provide. That is comparable to saying something weighs 1.34545g when your scale is only accurate to +/-.1g.
The lack of randomness does not make DNA profiling a better indicator, it skews the odds the other way. It proves that there are relationships in these markers. If I have a one byte binary number you can say that there are 2^8 possible numbers so the chances of a randomly picked number matching mine are 2^8. But the moment that number has a meaning the uniqueness of the indicator drops. If it is human readable English text then there are only 96 possibilities and my random selection now has a 1 in 96 possibility of matching. If it was a "random" keypress the odds become much better and a simple number can no longer express the odds because some numbers are more probable than others, for instance if my random key is a home row key the odds are dramatically better than 96 to 1. More like 20 to 1 and even within the home row some keys are more likely than others.
The point being, while we suspect these markers are very unique, there definitely have not been any studies on a sample set nearly large enough to assert a 1 in 99.99999999% probability with any degree of confidence. Those type of odds assume there is no relation between these markers and any relation can drop the real probability by several orders of magnitude.
If I remember correctly there are actually two companies that sell almost all DNA testing supplies to crime labs in the US and they pick the genetic markers that are used. So while DNA profiling is not specifically tied to a single set of markers dictated by a private company, that is the practical result.
That probability you speak of is based on the assumption that the DNA markers being used have no correlation. That assumption is not factual. And 99% is nowhere near enough to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden. That means one in a hundred are false positives. That isn't even good enough to uniquely identify a staff member at many local businesses let alone uniquely identify a suspect for criminal conviction. There are 45 murder cases a day in the US. These days there is at least one DNA sample involved in most of them. At 99% that would mean at least one false positive at least once every couple days.
If the odds aren't good enough for a casino or lottery ticket to pay out a ten million dollar jackpot they are nowhere near good enough to provide the basis for convicting potentially innocent people. It is better to let a hundred guilty guys off than to wrongly imprison a single innocent person.
Only intentional and willful negligence leading to the harm of actual people where the negligent party had reasonable cause to suspect that might happen. Creating the potential to hinder the copyright cartels and police state from positively identifying and tracking an individual and their actions is a far cry from harming real people.
There is no physical harm that directly results from the use of an internet connection. A killer could rig up some kind of click to kill site to a machine or something but I don't think that has a "reasonable" probability of happening.
Not only that, but the current testing methodology is questionable. Instead of matching the whole DNA sequence, they use a series of markers that a private company decided uniquely identifies a person. There is no evidence to support this. The statistical probabilities given that someone has the same DNA are based on the completely unsupported assertion that there is no genetic relation between these markers.
Not too many people have katana's, not too many people keep chopsticks in their silverware drawer. So you could argue that someone having both these things makes it highly unlikely the suspect is the killer. In reality, I'd venture most everyone with a katana also has chopsticks. Having both is slightly more statistically unique than having one but it is nowhere near as distinct as the individual probabilities of having these items would suggest. The same may well be true of these markers or of certain value combinations of them.
I wouldn't buy something based on a companies claim of statistical success because it is too easy to use selective information and to spin results. Why are we using this same kind of data to send people to prison.
It has never made sense to me that those who are skeptical of other areas are considered sane, rational, and prudent but those who are skeptical of government and government staff are immediately considered nuts. No matter how many times the government is caught in corruption and coverups, most often by their own admission declassified much later anyone suggesting they are currently corrupt and/or engaging in coverups is considered irrational. You can say this was a long time ago, but there is nothing to indicate anything has changed. This is only old news because the government gives itself an unusually long amount of time before it has to declassify information.
If you don't have anything to hide then what are you afraid of? It seems backwards. The government has to account to us, we are entitled to hide things from it. The reverse is not true. The government has no right to privacy from its people. It seems rational to assume that in all cases where the government does not operate in complete transparency it is probably obscuring things for a reason.
If you are getting the same amount done at the end of the day then from the standpoint of the company you aren't more valuable at all. Your value to the company equates to your output. The guy who puts in more hours to produce the same output is more likely to take abuse when needed, work holidays, push for deadlines, complain less and cause less headaches for me by stirring up dissent among the other staff. So he is still better.
"Here in the US, we have a tax on entrenched wealth being passed from generation to generation."
The corporate game bypasses this for the very wealthy. As long as you continue to reinvest money it isn't profit and isn't taxed. So you simply continue to expand aka reinvest the dividends. It is a no contribution limit retirement account that can be passed from generation to generation. The death tax can also be bypassed with trusts and things bought for your children while you are still alive and with high priced private school educations. In online games they call it "tinking" and it is generally viewed as a form of cheating.
The death tax mostly impacts those who need some notable portion of their wealth liquid at any moment. It will hit the one percent but the one percent is a decoy to distract you from the.0001%.
The third party candidates aren't any better than the two party ones.
There is only one way to cast a vote that says the entire political process is a corrupt farce and that is not to participate in it. Stop doing it, join your local militia instead.
" If you don't vote at all, that's not really a vote, because then everyone will just say you're apathetic"
In the current system.0001% have most of the say in what happens be it in congress, the presidency, or even the courtroom and your vote only changes how that say is spun in the media. Third party votes don't change that. They are just different spin engines. Voting in the current system amounts to picking a flavor of BS. You are just supporting a less popular flavor.
Vote for none of the above. The only vote that indicates you think the system is utterly broken and that you are prepared to support those who will take effective action to end it.
YOU ARE WRONG SIR!!! Obama worked to end the military-industrial-complex when he voted to privatize NASA! Except he voted to do it with public money in the form of funneling the NASA budget to private contractors of course. And it really wasn't much of a change, because NASA already funneled all its money to private contractors instead of building for itself. But it's the spin that counts!
Yeah, 10k that would SUCK! Of course the "people" that make up the backbone of this country have part-time jobs at office supply stores these days (because they no longer offer full time positions, benefits and scheduling flexibility, full-time staff have too much leverage) and make 8-12k TOTAL per year.
Third party doesn't accomplish much either. I wouldn't want most of those guys as president either.
Don't feel compelled to pick one, if there is nobody there worth picking then vote none of the above. Lack of participation in the political system is a vote as well. A vote that you are no longer fooled by the political system or buy that it is anything more than a rigged game to control the masses. We need reform but nothing you do in the voting booth will EVER end the system put in place to divide society into economic classes.
They revise the system now and then to more effectively yoke the lower classes and solidify the position of the upper class but the end goal is the same as it was in feudal society. The voting booth only exists to give enough illusion of participation that people don't feel oppressed enough to actually do something about it. If people did do something about it, people of the upper classes would worm their way in and make sure the new regime served the same purpose as the old one. Easy to do, just help make sure some of the new guard becomes the new old guard and greed will do the rest.
As long as wealth can be passed from generation to generation; taxation isn't applied to entrenched wealth but new wealth; and paper entities exist that allow one to profit from abuses without assuming liability for them; nothing will change. So long as these things remain, it won't matter who is voted in or what form the government takes.
And yet... millions of people who feel that way are going to vote for them anyway.
Seriously people, grow a pair and vote for a third party or none of the above. Not voting is a vote. If record lack of turn-out at the polls isn't a strong enough sign of dissent to get a response then there is no peaceful action left.
Who knows, maybe one of these days we will get rid of political parties and force candidates to run on their individual stances, past records, and merits. No more herding everyone like brainless cattle into two corals.
All employees should be working at 100% of their ability during every hour and if employees are competent and giving full effort there shouldn't be drastic variations in work output. So the big variable should be number of hours worked.
In general the idea is that anyone who isn't giving full effort every hour of every day is a bad employee waiting to be caught and fired no matter how "good" they are at the job function. If you are giving full effort and producing substantially less you probably would benefit from training by someone who is "good" at the task and be able to produce increased output. Working extra hours is a sign of commitment to the task. So the guy who works extra hours but produces low output you train. The guy with high output who does the minimum needed to not look bad vs peers you try to motivate. The guy who produces high output and works extra hours you give maximum increases. The guy who produces high output, works extra hours, and is always telling you about the work that needed doing that he found and just did or is in the process of doing before you can tell him about it, you promote.
That is why this type of argument always fail with management. Why should producing more an hour mean you work less hours when it can mean you work the same number of hours and produce more?
It isn't all bullshit. There isn't a one to one correlation but in general when the company is raking in profits it is a hell of a lot easier to get broken things replaced and fixed and to get pay and benefit increases. Even in a fortune 500 where nobody gets real pay increases without a promotion, the company being flush means expansion which means room to promote more staff.
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of bullshit is why exchanges shouldn't be run by traders. They should be run by a publicly funded non-profit entity with paid staff members who aren't permitted to trade or gain financially from public trading or be employed by publicly traded companies. All their personal finances and taxes should be a matter of public record. In turn they should be paid an insanely high salary to compensate for the fact that they can't invest in retirement accounts and to keep them contented and less inclined to bribery. Those individuals should also be policed by the SEC.
I'd say make the exchanges government run but that would result in the same backslapping that goes on now with the rich paying congress critters to lock in laws and statutes that benefit them. Usually if congress did a non-profit they'd fill its board with industry leaders (the same arses who run it now) we need independent people with no financial interest that would be considered bias.
Racism is wrong right up to the point where data indicates it is accurate. We shouldn't redefine reality for the sake of avoiding racism. Although this doesn't sound like racism so much as geneticism.
I realize it is far more pc to say to everything is about personal drive and nurture but nature may just be a factor as well.
The last thing Disney corp would want is walt disney revived.
This sounds like automakers wanting to lock in monopolies on the airbag market. This is illegal with every other part in the car, it sounds like the manufacturers want to use FUD to make airbags an exception.
There is nothing about an airbag being made by a third party that automatically makes it less effective than one made by a dealer. Most likely the 'authentic' airbags are made in the same Chinese factories as the knockoffs.
Making the chances of success equal for children and taking away advantages not actually earned by the child is not punishing success. The only advantage you should be able to pass down generations is genetic. You might argue that the successful are successful as a result of merit but your merit and accomplishments do not belong to your kids. They need to achieve their own success by rising to success without being given any advantage over their counterparts with parents that aren't successful.
Saying the wealthy do not deserve to dodge paying taxes on the wealth they hold is not demonizing or punishing either. For the most part, taxes are spent supporting and protecting wealth. If you have a billion dollars it represents substantial wealth and that wealth cost society much more to protect, police, defend, transport, and build. This cost doesn't just happen when the wealth is created but also when it is maintained. As a consequence your tax burden should be proportional to the amount of wealth you have because your burden on public services is proportional to the same. If you have a million times more wealth than me you should pay a million times the tax I do. How much income we had shouldn't be a factor.
Even the "taxes are punishment" argument fails to negate this. Taxing income is punishing the generation of wealth. Taxing wealth is therefore punishing the hording of wealth while rewarding fluidity of wealth and wealth generation that exceeds the tax rate. Additionally it is most fair. The more benefit you've derived from the policies, laws, and protections of society the more you give back. If you aren't accumulating wealth then society isn't really doing you much good.
In short, if you have a billion dollars worth of wealth it costs a billion times more public resources than one dollar's worth of wealth and this is an ongoing and not a one-off cost. Lots of people might have used that wealth but it is the person who ended up with it and enjoys the benefit of that portion of societies output who owes the cost to maintain it. As such, you should not tax income but rather wealth and you should tax every dollar of it (including the valuation of non-liquid wealth).
If you make a great deal of money but don't manage to accumulate wealth then your tax burden should be low. That wealth ended up in the hands of someone and that someone is who should owe the burden. It shouldn't matter if that "someone" is some form of paper entity. A corporation with a billion dollars worth of holdings that made $1 profit should pay based on the billion not the $1 because it will have used far more resources to maintain that billion worth of holdings than a corp that has no holdings and made $1.
This doesn't stop someone from being wealthy but it does encourage the wealthy to spend the wealth and use it in more aggressive ways that stimulate the economy. It also requires them to pay a truly fair tax based on how much they cost society without allowing for loopholes or tax tricks.
Sharing WIFI is not criminal negligence. If a profiteering corporation sells internet connectivity it is afforded protection as a common carrier. Why should a private individual kindly doing the same out of generosity and not profit motive not be afforded the same protection?
This is no different than sharing any resource. If I have a chainsaw and I leave it by the front door with a sign that says it is open to community borrowing; my generosity shouldn't cost me legal responsibility if a neighbor borrows it and uses it to kill his wife.
Bottom line, being frustrated because it is difficult to positively identify the criminal does not make it okay to prosecute someone tangentially related to some tool used in the commission of the crime simply because they are easy to identify.
Yup. So I wouldn't support CRIMINAL negligence charges against someone who failed to inquire with interpol regarding the counterfeiting record of someone before loaning them a printing press.
I'm not saying that nothing that fails to cause physical damage to a person is a crime. I'm saying that negligence shouldn't be considered criminal unless it is intentional and leads to physical harm.
Person trips and falls on stairs, landlord didn't check stairs for safety in recent history. Negligence but not criminal. Same scenario but landlord had been notified the stairs were dangerous and wanted to wait an extra month so he could get the tax break on the next year. Negligence should definitely be criminal.
Leaving your wifi unsecured may be stupid and arguably negligent (although I see nothing wrong with providing free unsecured wifi) but there is nothing criminal there. There might be room for civil liability if someone used his connection to deface a website for instance, but even that is questionable. Anyone providing open wifi is acting as a common carrier. There is no justification for giving this status to corporate profiteers selling connectivity and not give it to private citizens generously providing the same to others for free.
"When comparing to a 100 suspects that are not related (remember the profile will tell us if they are related.) You are more like 99.99999999% sure. Even far more than that. "
Wrong. The reliability of the person doing the testing accurately is not anywhere near 99.99999999% or even 99.999% and represents the absolute maximum assurance the test can provide. That is comparable to saying something weighs 1.34545g when your scale is only accurate to +/- .1g.
The lack of randomness does not make DNA profiling a better indicator, it skews the odds the other way. It proves that there are relationships in these markers. If I have a one byte binary number you can say that there are 2^8 possible numbers so the chances of a randomly picked number matching mine are 2^8. But the moment that number has a meaning the uniqueness of the indicator drops. If it is human readable English text then there are only 96 possibilities and my random selection now has a 1 in 96 possibility of matching. If it was a "random" keypress the odds become much better and a simple number can no longer express the odds because some numbers are more probable than others, for instance if my random key is a home row key the odds are dramatically better than 96 to 1. More like 20 to 1 and even within the home row some keys are more likely than others.
The point being, while we suspect these markers are very unique, there definitely have not been any studies on a sample set nearly large enough to assert a 1 in 99.99999999% probability with any degree of confidence. Those type of odds assume there is no relation between these markers and any relation can drop the real probability by several orders of magnitude.
If I remember correctly there are actually two companies that sell almost all DNA testing supplies to crime labs in the US and they pick the genetic markers that are used. So while DNA profiling is not specifically tied to a single set of markers dictated by a private company, that is the practical result.
That probability you speak of is based on the assumption that the DNA markers being used have no correlation. That assumption is not factual. And 99% is nowhere near enough to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden. That means one in a hundred are false positives. That isn't even good enough to uniquely identify a staff member at many local businesses let alone uniquely identify a suspect for criminal conviction. There are 45 murder cases a day in the US. These days there is at least one DNA sample involved in most of them. At 99% that would mean at least one false positive at least once every couple days.
If the odds aren't good enough for a casino or lottery ticket to pay out a ten million dollar jackpot they are nowhere near good enough to provide the basis for convicting potentially innocent people. It is better to let a hundred guilty guys off than to wrongly imprison a single innocent person.
Only intentional and willful negligence leading to the harm of actual people where the negligent party had reasonable cause to suspect that might happen. Creating the potential to hinder the copyright cartels and police state from positively identifying and tracking an individual and their actions is a far cry from harming real people.
There is no physical harm that directly results from the use of an internet connection. A killer could rig up some kind of click to kill site to a machine or something but I don't think that has a "reasonable" probability of happening.
DNA shouldn't. Just because DNA is accepted where it shouldn't be doesn't mean IP's should be.
Lame joke. There is nothing gross about two hot twins going at it or a 3way with the same. Arguably the hottest thing ever.
Not only that, but the current testing methodology is questionable. Instead of matching the whole DNA sequence, they use a series of markers that a private company decided uniquely identifies a person. There is no evidence to support this. The statistical probabilities given that someone has the same DNA are based on the completely unsupported assertion that there is no genetic relation between these markers.
Not too many people have katana's, not too many people keep chopsticks in their silverware drawer. So you could argue that someone having both these things makes it highly unlikely the suspect is the killer. In reality, I'd venture most everyone with a katana also has chopsticks. Having both is slightly more statistically unique than having one but it is nowhere near as distinct as the individual probabilities of having these items would suggest. The same may well be true of these markers or of certain value combinations of them.
I wouldn't buy something based on a companies claim of statistical success because it is too easy to use selective information and to spin results. Why are we using this same kind of data to send people to prison.
Hold on. Need to think back on how this type of argument works. I know you are but what am I?
It has never made sense to me that those who are skeptical of other areas are considered sane, rational, and prudent but those who are skeptical of government and government staff are immediately considered nuts. No matter how many times the government is caught in corruption and coverups, most often by their own admission declassified much later anyone suggesting they are currently corrupt and/or engaging in coverups is considered irrational. You can say this was a long time ago, but there is nothing to indicate anything has changed. This is only old news because the government gives itself an unusually long amount of time before it has to declassify information.
If you don't have anything to hide then what are you afraid of? It seems backwards. The government has to account to us, we are entitled to hide things from it. The reverse is not true. The government has no right to privacy from its people. It seems rational to assume that in all cases where the government does not operate in complete transparency it is probably obscuring things for a reason.
"The fact that there are no disc-shaped aircraft in the skies today, though, suggests that"
That is an unsupported assertion, not a fact.
If you are getting the same amount done at the end of the day then from the standpoint of the company you aren't more valuable at all. Your value to the company equates to your output. The guy who puts in more hours to produce the same output is more likely to take abuse when needed, work holidays, push for deadlines, complain less and cause less headaches for me by stirring up dissent among the other staff. So he is still better.
"Here in the US, we have a tax on entrenched wealth being passed from generation to generation."
The corporate game bypasses this for the very wealthy. As long as you continue to reinvest money it isn't profit and isn't taxed. So you simply continue to expand aka reinvest the dividends. It is a no contribution limit retirement account that can be passed from generation to generation. The death tax can also be bypassed with trusts and things bought for your children while you are still alive and with high priced private school educations. In online games they call it "tinking" and it is generally viewed as a form of cheating.
The death tax mostly impacts those who need some notable portion of their wealth liquid at any moment. It will hit the one percent but the one percent is a decoy to distract you from the .0001%.
The third party candidates aren't any better than the two party ones.
There is only one way to cast a vote that says the entire political process is a corrupt farce and that is not to participate in it. Stop doing it, join your local militia instead.
" If you don't vote at all, that's not really a vote, because then everyone will just say you're apathetic"
In the current system .0001% have most of the say in what happens be it in congress, the presidency, or even the courtroom and your vote only changes how that say is spun in the media. Third party votes don't change that. They are just different spin engines. Voting in the current system amounts to picking a flavor of BS. You are just supporting a less popular flavor.
Vote for none of the above. The only vote that indicates you think the system is utterly broken and that you are prepared to support those who will take effective action to end it.
Newsflash, BOTH sides are the same side.
YOU ARE WRONG SIR!!! Obama worked to end the military-industrial-complex when he voted to privatize NASA! Except he voted to do it with public money in the form of funneling the NASA budget to private contractors of course. And it really wasn't much of a change, because NASA already funneled all its money to private contractors instead of building for itself. But it's the spin that counts!
Yeah, 10k that would SUCK! Of course the "people" that make up the backbone of this country have part-time jobs at office supply stores these days (because they no longer offer full time positions, benefits and scheduling flexibility, full-time staff have too much leverage) and make 8-12k TOTAL per year.
Third party doesn't accomplish much either. I wouldn't want most of those guys as president either.
Don't feel compelled to pick one, if there is nobody there worth picking then vote none of the above. Lack of participation in the political system is a vote as well. A vote that you are no longer fooled by the political system or buy that it is anything more than a rigged game to control the masses. We need reform but nothing you do in the voting booth will EVER end the system put in place to divide society into economic classes.
They revise the system now and then to more effectively yoke the lower classes and solidify the position of the upper class but the end goal is the same as it was in feudal society. The voting booth only exists to give enough illusion of participation that people don't feel oppressed enough to actually do something about it. If people did do something about it, people of the upper classes would worm their way in and make sure the new regime served the same purpose as the old one. Easy to do, just help make sure some of the new guard becomes the new old guard and greed will do the rest.
As long as wealth can be passed from generation to generation; taxation isn't applied to entrenched wealth but new wealth; and paper entities exist that allow one to profit from abuses without assuming liability for them; nothing will change. So long as these things remain, it won't matter who is voted in or what form the government takes.
And yet... millions of people who feel that way are going to vote for them anyway.
Seriously people, grow a pair and vote for a third party or none of the above. Not voting is a vote. If record lack of turn-out at the polls isn't a strong enough sign of dissent to get a response then there is no peaceful action left.
Who knows, maybe one of these days we will get rid of political parties and force candidates to run on their individual stances, past records, and merits. No more herding everyone like brainless cattle into two corals.
All employees should be working at 100% of their ability during every hour and if employees are competent and giving full effort there shouldn't be drastic variations in work output. So the big variable should be number of hours worked.
In general the idea is that anyone who isn't giving full effort every hour of every day is a bad employee waiting to be caught and fired no matter how "good" they are at the job function. If you are giving full effort and producing substantially less you probably would benefit from training by someone who is "good" at the task and be able to produce increased output. Working extra hours is a sign of commitment to the task. So the guy who works extra hours but produces low output you train. The guy with high output who does the minimum needed to not look bad vs peers you try to motivate. The guy who produces high output and works extra hours you give maximum increases. The guy who produces high output, works extra hours, and is always telling you about the work that needed doing that he found and just did or is in the process of doing before you can tell him about it, you promote.
That is why this type of argument always fail with management. Why should producing more an hour mean you work less hours when it can mean you work the same number of hours and produce more?
It isn't all bullshit. There isn't a one to one correlation but in general when the company is raking in profits it is a hell of a lot easier to get broken things replaced and fixed and to get pay and benefit increases. Even in a fortune 500 where nobody gets real pay increases without a promotion, the company being flush means expansion which means room to promote more staff.