Ownership (shares) should be valued at the time they are awarded. That's the reason why the founders ownership counts for nothing, not some special case. Get shares for Apple whilst it's still in a garage, they aren;t worth much at the time. Get them when it's a billion dollar company, then that's a hefty add to your rewards package.
The causation comes not from going to museums but from the feeling of being lucky.
I can't see it. This wasn't a lottery of students. It was a lottery of groups. It's unlikely the schools even mentioned the field trip to the students until the school had won the place. Why raise their hopes only to dash them.
You would equally say that watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos could help students see the big picture.
Well, except for the fact that you don't have evidence for that. It's a bit strange pulling apart a scientific study about the good effects of visiting an art gallery and then adding an assumption about something else that you want to believe is true, even thought you have no evidence for it.
Sure you can. The fact that they went to an art museum may be completely irrelevant. It could be as simple as students being singled out for special, positive, attention.
They don't appear to have been singled out. The selection seems to have been by school group, not individual.
So the causation of field trips, vs not having field trips seems sound. Even if the actual destination being an art gallery is open to question.
The kids who are smart, driven, and interested in stuff have.... wait for it... parents who are smart, driven, and interested in stuff. Those parents, are ALSO more likely to approve a field trip.
If you can think of a potential flaw in the few seconds between reading a summary and posting a message, why would you assume that the scientists that did the study didn't think of that and account for it? Unless you've read the actual paper, don't make assumptions that the scientists are stupid.
I don't know about you, but 40 years on, I've forgotten most of the days I spent in the classroom. But I remember most of the field trips, and life lessons that I learned on them.
I'm not at all surprised that kids that visited a good museum once outperformed kids that had never visited one, on many different measures. Educational visits are big influences on children's minds.
However, many CEO's are paid the really large dollars via options and stock grants so they are also owners. SO that is OK based on your statement.
No. Your point was about people who CREATED the company. At the point of giving stocks and options to employed CEOs, that is part of a rewards package, which can and should be counted as salary. Creators of the company get their ownership when the company is still worth zero, and thus isn't relevant to wage caps.
Except the Swiss proposal was 12x the lowest paid worker, not some combination of wages. The Swiss, being a sensible people, voted that down.
I don't know the details of the Swiss proposal, nor care that it was voted down. The question is whether legislation of this sort is a good idea: To limit the differential between the ordinary workers and the top execs. The implementation details are complicated and may be different from the Swiss proposal.
Dirt tracks, managed by locals associations who's money comes from government ISN'T private enterprise in any rational view.
You then talk about healthcare when I mention welfare. And somehow the Sweden isn't such a good example any more,
And then we have Netherlands schools which even you admit are government financed, even the ones that have some kind of "independent" status.
The global point is that in general, a field taken over by the government removes incentive by removing competition
No. Private enterprise is good at providing things where the profit motive is aligned with the public good. It's poor when that is not true. It's also poor in the case of natural monopolies.
Healthcare profit is aligned with making more treatments, not keeping people healthy. So it's better as a government thing.
Railway privatisation in the UK has been a disaster because it's a natural monopoly. It only makes sense to have a single rail route between any two places, and that means that trains can't overtake each other, and are dependant on each other's timetables. So you end up with each train company running completely different routes. Which is not competition. And a customer journey may require travelling with multiple companies for different parts of their journey. Which is a problem because they don't naturally cooperate very well for scheduling, problems and ticketing.
Then, the need of private companies to make profits for their shareholders meant that rail fares rose as they had never done before.
To top it all, when the railways were privatised, maintainance went to the lowest bidder, which means most of the decades of experience of engineers working with a single national service was lost. And a number of serious train disasters followed.
Privatising the railways in the UK cost hundreds of lives, and raised prices. Not because profit wasn't aligned with the public good, but because it's a natural monopoly, and the government serve the public good better.
From the very first "Retina" screen, Apple has been consistent in saying that once you get beyond the eye's ability to differentiate pixels at the normal viewing distance there is no point adding extra pixels.
I think SuperKendall and others are just repeating that.
Easy to say that because the other thing didn't happen. There's no doubt in my mind that the people that hate government would have blamed government had they not done the bail out.
but you're somehow sure it's not the result of gender discrimination? How does that work?
It seems to be a comprehension problem on your part. I don't say in my post that there is no gender discrimination. But unlike some others here I don't assume there is either.
Women might well be avoiding coding because of the social environment. But why is that a necessary component of coding jobs -- if it's not that's an example of gender discrimination, not evidence against it.
It's not a necessary component. For example there's pair programming. So where are the women's start-ups that are doing that? There are lots of women doing tech start ups, but the founders don't seem to start off doing the coding tasks as their male counterparts often do.
All people, regardless of gender, are different and have different interests. Some of them will be more interested in coding than others. But given an arbitrary segregation factor -- eye color, for example -- wouldn't you expect the distribution of the general public to match the distribution among coders?
No. Just as I wouldn't expect a dance class to have as many men, or a fishing club to have as many women. Science shows us that men and women differ in their mental skills. For example women are better communicators and men are better at spacial tasks. And experience shows us that men and women differ in their tastes. So why would we expect any specific kind of job to attract an equal number of men and women.
Equality is about equality of opportunity. It's not about trying to make sure that ever category of work is a 50/50 split of men and women. Doing so would push people into jobs they wouldn't otherwise choose.
The truth is that in order to be effective programmer you need very particular mindset which can be found both in men and women. Whatever statistical differences found between men and women are irrelevant in each particular case.
What evidence do you have for that "truth"? There's a scientific consensus that men and women differ in their mental skills in many ways. For example women are scientifically proven to be better communicators, and men to be better at spacial tasks.
Who says the pros and cons of all these skill differences balance out and become irrelevant for the role of programmer?
How is software engineering not social? I work as a part of a team and frequently interact with my team to see how my little piece of the pie needs to talk with their pieces.
I never said there was no element of socialising with coding. Just that women may prefer jobs where there is more. There are many jobs where people talk to other people all day every day.
The whole "anti-social software guy" as the norm is absolutely untrue.
I'm not making it up. I've been a programmer off and on since the early 1980s. I know very it's not untrue. Both as a tendency, and a normal part of the job, there are huge swathes of time where coders are not talking to others.
I've done other types of jobs too, so I have comparisons.
The idea that women are more social and men are more technical is not some law written in stone. Might we have tendencies? Probably. But part of being human is being able to improve oneself beyond one's tendencies.
I absolutely agree. But tendencies will of course appear in the stats, and that's what we see here. If the story were instead about barriers to women being employed as programmers I too would oppose that. But that's not the story, and it's not what I see. What I actually see is that employers would love to employ more women programmers. If only they had them applying for jobs. And universities would be just as happy, and even will promote to get more women into CS. But they just don't appear to want to in as many numbers as men do.
And I don't see a problem with that. Equality is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Sigh. Its like you simply do not know what you are talking about and refuse to listen when it is explained. When CEO salaries are reported, they include the values of the bonuses and benefits. Go ahead and look up what they clain it is. The site i posted is a union arguing exactly what the topic is and they do it specifically.
Which has precisely nothing to do with anything I've written. Have you crossed your wires, and think you're responding to someone else?
Also, you listed nothing about tax breaks i didn't already list like location.
Then you accept my point that large companies get tax breaks small companies don't. Specific example, Cupertino gives tax breaks to Apple. As part of the agreement for permission to build their new campus, they are reducing the size of the tax break, but there will still be one. Such tax breaks are not available to a mom & pop shop setting up there.
Forget about peer-reviewed scientific journals, Wikipedia is where it's at.M
Did you learn about primary sources and secondary sources at university? Don't compare them. Peer reviewed scientific journals are where it's at for primary sources. Wikipedia is an excellent, and self repairing and updating secondary source, from which you can find summaries of what's in primary sources.
Wikipedia is certainly a perfect place to find out what the primary sources are.
As an aside, they are also not in conflict on the fact that the scientific consensus is that Homeopathy has no effect beyond placebo.
So, do you believe that the consensus is that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo? Or are you simply arguing that it is effective beyond placebo dispite knowing that the concensus is that it isn't?
Either way, you're wrong.
Or are you finally ready to retract one of your earlier statements?
I don't retract my statement, as we both now know it's correct. You foolishly thought it wasn't at the start, and don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong.
As for my star up example; do you really believe someone who puts all their money and time into creating a company shouldn't reap the benefits but that his or her payout should be limited based on some arbitrary number?
This isn't about owners, it's about CEOs and other execs. Owners get their rewards through their ownership of the company, in whole or part. CEOs are employees. Sometime they get shares or share options as part of their pay for being employees. But they are are CEOs not owners. Of course some times owners are CEOs. But it's not the ownership part of their rewards that is the topic of this ratio.
Or they should be forced to give multi-million dollar payouts to everyone on staff?
No such forcing is being required. That would be the result of a very extraordinary minimum wage requirement, not a wage ratio. And of course in either case no normal company could end up that way. If money is redistributed from the execs to the ordinary workers, it gets split lots of ways, and will result in a reasonable rise, not the fantasy sized ones you suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave the spacial/communication aspects as examples. There are plenty more, and tend to favour men for tasks like programming.
http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/
And don't underestimate spacial ability for programming. Visualising data structures for example is covered.
Ownership (shares) should be valued at the time they are awarded. That's the reason why the founders ownership counts for nothing, not some special case. Get shares for Apple whilst it's still in a garage, they aren;t worth much at the time. Get them when it's a billion dollar company, then that's a hefty add to your rewards package.
Making them nice people is as far as I am concerned up to them, I don't give a damn if others are tolerant or Nazis at heart.
Really? You don't care if all your neighbours and colleagues are intolerant nazis? What an insular life you must lead.
The causation comes not from going to museums but from the feeling of being lucky.
I can't see it. This wasn't a lottery of students. It was a lottery of groups. It's unlikely the schools even mentioned the field trip to the students until the school had won the place. Why raise their hopes only to dash them.
You would equally say that watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos could help students see the big picture.
Well, except for the fact that you don't have evidence for that. It's a bit strange pulling apart a scientific study about the good effects of visiting an art gallery and then adding an assumption about something else that you want to believe is true, even thought you have no evidence for it.
Sure you can. The fact that they went to an art museum may be completely irrelevant. It could be as simple as students being singled out for special, positive, attention.
They don't appear to have been singled out. The selection seems to have been by school group, not individual.
So the causation of field trips, vs not having field trips seems sound. Even if the actual destination being an art gallery is open to question.
That is, people that are doubtful that art will magically fix kids.
Hmm, your cultural bias has caused you to reject the possibility that the scientific method works.
I suggest you stop watching Fox News.
The kids who are smart, driven, and interested in stuff have.... wait for it... parents who are smart, driven, and interested in stuff. Those parents, are ALSO more likely to approve a field trip.
If you can think of a potential flaw in the few seconds between reading a summary and posting a message, why would you assume that the scientists that did the study didn't think of that and account for it? Unless you've read the actual paper, don't make assumptions that the scientists are stupid.
I don't know about you, but 40 years on, I've forgotten most of the days I spent in the classroom. But I remember most of the field trips, and life lessons that I learned on them.
I'm not at all surprised that kids that visited a good museum once outperformed kids that had never visited one, on many different measures. Educational visits are big influences on children's minds.
Hmm. My first reaction when seeing the photos was: That's the worst seam between front and back I've ever seen.
Followed by Who the fuck picked that colour!?
However, many CEO's are paid the really large dollars via options and stock grants so they are also owners. SO that is OK based on your statement.
No. Your point was about people who CREATED the company. At the point of giving stocks and options to employed CEOs, that is part of a rewards package, which can and should be counted as salary. Creators of the company get their ownership when the company is still worth zero, and thus isn't relevant to wage caps.
Except the Swiss proposal was 12x the lowest paid worker, not some combination of wages. The Swiss, being a sensible people, voted that down.
I don't know the details of the Swiss proposal, nor care that it was voted down. The question is whether legislation of this sort is a good idea: To limit the differential between the ordinary workers and the top execs. The implementation details are complicated and may be different from the Swiss proposal.
"When a Libertarian cites Sweden, you know there's something fishy going on."
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-a-libertarian-cites-sweden-you-know-theres-something-fishy-going-on/
Dirt tracks, managed by locals associations who's money comes from government ISN'T private enterprise in any rational view.
You then talk about healthcare when I mention welfare. And somehow the Sweden isn't such a good example any more,
And then we have Netherlands schools which even you admit are government financed, even the ones that have some kind of "independent" status.
The global point is that in general, a field taken over by the government removes incentive by removing competition
No. Private enterprise is good at providing things where the profit motive is aligned with the public good. It's poor when that is not true. It's also poor in the case of natural monopolies.
Healthcare profit is aligned with making more treatments, not keeping people healthy. So it's better as a government thing.
Railway privatisation in the UK has been a disaster because it's a natural monopoly. It only makes sense to have a single rail route between any two places, and that means that trains can't overtake each other, and are dependant on each other's timetables. So you end up with each train company running completely different routes. Which is not competition. And a customer journey may require travelling with multiple companies for different parts of their journey. Which is a problem because they don't naturally cooperate very well for scheduling, problems and ticketing.
Then, the need of private companies to make profits for their shareholders meant that rail fares rose as they had never done before.
To top it all, when the railways were privatised, maintainance went to the lowest bidder, which means most of the decades of experience of engineers working with a single national service was lost. And a number of serious train disasters followed.
Privatising the railways in the UK cost hundreds of lives, and raised prices. Not because profit wasn't aligned with the public good, but because it's a natural monopoly, and the government serve the public good better.
From the very first "Retina" screen, Apple has been consistent in saying that once you get beyond the eye's ability to differentiate pixels at the normal viewing distance there is no point adding extra pixels.
I think SuperKendall and others are just repeating that.
Easy to say that because the other thing didn't happen. There's no doubt in my mind that the people that hate government would have blamed government had they not done the bail out.
but you're somehow sure it's not the result of gender discrimination? How does that work?
It seems to be a comprehension problem on your part. I don't say in my post that there is no gender discrimination. But unlike some others here I don't assume there is either.
Women might well be avoiding coding because of the social environment. But why is that a necessary component of coding jobs -- if it's not that's an example of gender discrimination, not evidence against it.
It's not a necessary component. For example there's pair programming. So where are the women's start-ups that are doing that? There are lots of women doing tech start ups, but the founders don't seem to start off doing the coding tasks as their male counterparts often do.
All people, regardless of gender, are different and have different interests. Some of them will be more interested in coding than others. But given an arbitrary segregation factor -- eye color, for example -- wouldn't you expect the distribution of the general public to match the distribution among coders?
No. Just as I wouldn't expect a dance class to have as many men, or a fishing club to have as many women. Science shows us that men and women differ in their mental skills. For example women are better communicators and men are better at spacial tasks. And experience shows us that men and women differ in their tastes. So why would we expect any specific kind of job to attract an equal number of men and women.
Equality is about equality of opportunity. It's not about trying to make sure that ever category of work is a 50/50 split of men and women. Doing so would push people into jobs they wouldn't otherwise choose.
The truth is that in order to be effective programmer you need very particular mindset which can be found both in men and women. Whatever statistical differences found between men and women are irrelevant in each particular case.
What evidence do you have for that "truth"? There's a scientific consensus that men and women differ in their mental skills in many ways. For example women are scientifically proven to be better communicators, and men to be better at spacial tasks.
Who says the pros and cons of all these skill differences balance out and become irrelevant for the role of programmer?
How is software engineering not social? I work as a part of a team and frequently interact with my team to see how my little piece of the pie needs to talk with their pieces.
I never said there was no element of socialising with coding. Just that women may prefer jobs where there is more. There are many jobs where people talk to other people all day every day.
The whole "anti-social software guy" as the norm is absolutely untrue.
I'm not making it up. I've been a programmer off and on since the early 1980s. I know very it's not untrue. Both as a tendency, and a normal part of the job, there are huge swathes of time where coders are not talking to others.
I've done other types of jobs too, so I have comparisons.
But he's not doing that. He's not doing anything, because he's said nothing.
Of the 3 quotes only the 3rd is bigoted. If he's actually tried to justify his point we might have seen where his thinking was flawed.
No.
The idea that women are more social and men are more technical is not some law written in stone. Might we have tendencies? Probably. But part of being human is being able to improve oneself beyond one's tendencies.
I absolutely agree. But tendencies will of course appear in the stats, and that's what we see here. If the story were instead about barriers to women being employed as programmers I too would oppose that. But that's not the story, and it's not what I see. What I actually see is that employers would love to employ more women programmers. If only they had them applying for jobs. And universities would be just as happy, and even will promote to get more women into CS. But they just don't appear to want to in as many numbers as men do.
And I don't see a problem with that. Equality is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Sigh. Its like you simply do not know what you are talking about and refuse to listen when it is explained. When CEO salaries are reported, they include the values of the bonuses and benefits. Go ahead and look up what they clain it is. The site i posted is a union arguing exactly what the topic is and they do it specifically.
Which has precisely nothing to do with anything I've written. Have you crossed your wires, and think you're responding to someone else?
Also, you listed nothing about tax breaks i didn't already list like location.
Then you accept my point that large companies get tax breaks small companies don't. Specific example, Cupertino gives tax breaks to Apple. As part of the agreement for permission to build their new campus, they are reducing the size of the tax break, but there will still be one. Such tax breaks are not available to a mom & pop shop setting up there.
Forget about peer-reviewed scientific journals, Wikipedia is where it's at.M
Did you learn about primary sources and secondary sources at university? Don't compare them. Peer reviewed scientific journals are where it's at for primary sources. Wikipedia is an excellent, and self repairing and updating secondary source, from which you can find summaries of what's in primary sources.
Wikipedia is certainly a perfect place to find out what the primary sources are.
As an aside, they are also not in conflict on the fact that the scientific consensus is that Homeopathy has no effect beyond placebo.
So, do you believe that the consensus is that homeopathy is effective beyond placebo?
Or are you simply arguing that it is effective beyond placebo dispite knowing that the concensus is that it isn't?
Either way, you're wrong.
Or are you finally ready to retract one of your earlier statements?
I don't retract my statement, as we both now know it's correct.
You foolishly thought it wasn't at the start, and don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong.
Because while men and women are undoubtedly different the difference in numbers in this area is far greater than their inequality.
Far greater? How are you quantifying these two things?
As for my star up example; do you really believe someone who puts all their money and time into creating a company shouldn't reap the benefits but that his or her payout should be limited based on some arbitrary number?
This isn't about owners, it's about CEOs and other execs. Owners get their rewards through their ownership of the company, in whole or part. CEOs are employees. Sometime they get shares or share options as part of their pay for being employees. But they are are CEOs not owners. Of course some times owners are CEOs. But it's not the ownership part of their rewards that is the topic of this ratio.
Or they should be forced to give multi-million dollar payouts to everyone on staff?
No such forcing is being required. That would be the result of a very extraordinary minimum wage requirement, not a wage ratio. And of course in either case no normal company could end up that way. If money is redistributed from the execs to the ordinary workers, it gets split lots of ways, and will result in a reasonable rise, not the fantasy sized ones you suggest.
Nothing about a fiasco there. Just a lot of credulous Android fans that will believe anything.