As for the baker, you didnt hear about the baker being forced to pay over 100 grand to a lesbian couple because they refused to bake them a custom cake????
Did you hear that the baker illegally gave out personally identifying information about the lesbian couple, and encouraged people to contact them to voice displeasure (or called for public harassment of the lesbians, depending on how you'd like to word it). The payment wasn't just for not making a cake, but for calling down death threats on innocent people. Or have you not figured out how to work that google thing yet?
And when you wait outside a gay bar, and find a guy who walks out alone, or walks out with another guy, then drives home alone; you follow them, do s swoop and squat, or just bump them from behind. Then, when they get out to exchange data, you tie them up, and drag them behind your car until they are nearly dead, then carve "die faggot"on them, and leave them for dead, you'll sometimes get charged with a hate crime.
In general the fights in gay bars where the straight guy tells his friends (I'd say straight friends, but half of then are gay, but in the closet) he's planning on beating up some fags, then goes to a known gay bar, waiting for the first guy to talk to him, so he has an excuse to beat him up, that's an innocent misunderstanding as well?
Scarcity is the only intrinsic cost. A diamond in the ground nobody knows about or has ever done anything to defend or develop, is still worth money, unrelated to the labor to defend the land or extract it.
And those people who already make $15/hour? They see no more money, but get to pay more for everything.
So someone making $10 an hour who gets a 50% raise will not be paid any more? Congrats, you flunked basic math, in addition to basic economics.
They will have to raise prices.
Reality tells us that the price increase is less than the 50% increase of the pay rise, and so the benefits overall are for the minimum wage workers. But you don't let reality interfere with your theories.
Scale matters not just for the loss/debt, but on the ability to pay it back. Compare the GDP of each. Greece's problem exceeds their GDP, China's doesn't.
I'm not sure what Fractional Reserve banking has to do with it...
Nothing. Anyone who says "factional reserve" or "fiat" when discussing money can be safely ignored with no value lost. It's a chance for the loons to pitch their pet theories in situations too complicated for anyone to easily prove them wrong. Though they are still quite clearly wrong.
His argument is that if you loan a coworker $10 to get lunch, and after he buys the lunch, if he drops it in the road and it's run over and destroyed, then your $10 will never be paid back, and the shop he got the $10 meal from has the $10 magically disappear from within their register. If that's not reality, then the ACs complaints are just the insane ravings of an AC with a pet theory to push, regardless of reality.
So people who invested more money than they have at a time when the market was priced too high are going to have a really terrible time for a while and it sucks for them, but the Chinese economy as a whole should be fine.
Someone who sold short on margin (or a Put), should be making out like a bandit. It's not "margin" that's the problem. It's stock speculation. Speculation drives up price, and speculation is fickle. Whether the speculation is done with real money, or borrowed doesn't change the speculation that moved the market. I have money in China stocks, and this doesn't bother me. I sold nothing, but bought more. It's going to go back up. It's still up for the year.
Someone originally originally cleared the land, built any structures on it, provided all the supplies for doing so. And before all of that, the government claimed the land, fought wars to defend that claim, and went through the work of subdividing it into states, counties, cities/towns, plats, etc. All of that is labor.
So, the value in land is unrelated to market forces. Then why isn't land in West Virgina, where they've had more wars than Califronia, worth so much less than beachfront in CA? The labor people have invested in WV is more than CA, but the land value is less.
Regardless, it is all based on labor.
You may assert that all you like. But it will never be true. There are sources of value other than labor, and labor is not the primary determiner of value.
You are only eroding the middle class because as the poor moves into middle class, our class system attacks the middle. In the long term, you make a new poor that's better off than the old poor, without any negative effect on the middle that wouldn't have been there anyway. More effective (economically, as it's impossible politically) is to cap income. A solid income cap at $1M would do much more to help the poor than raising the minimum wage, but the 1% have asserted that such a thing would collapse the economy, though when it was done in the past, it spurred one of the greatest growth spurts in history. But the 1% apologists assert that was related to the war, not the taxes.
Wall Street is a fucking Ponzi scheme, not some objective valuation.
Most of the mutual funds work off analytics that are objective (at least the good ones that follow Berkshire Hathaway policies). Individual investors are idiots, but they don't really move the markets.
Nope. You pay a person "rent" for land, that's unrelated to any labor. You pay for materials that's related to "value", which may, or may not be based on labor. Labor is only one of the costs. The reason China is cheaper to manufacture in isn't the labor cost, but the environmental regulations. When you can externalize your pollution (dump it into the environment and ignore it) your costs drop, unrelated to the labor cost. Between that and OSHA, you can account for most of the cost difference without even looking at labor costs.
In my experience, you never get to talk to a live person without explicitly taking action to do so (which initiates a voluntary agreement to have a dialog and therefore does not constitute an unsolicited call).
Your experience is wrong. No action you take after they call can make that call soliscited. Your logic is that you must explicitly authorize the call and caller before you can request to be taken off their list. That's the opposite of reality.
I just quietly sit there, letting them talk. Wastes their time and money, and I'm usualy not doing anything important, so ignoring the phone is easily multi-tasked.
Though you highlight the real problem. The numbers are traded. Bob's telemarketing company will start up. It buys a list. The list is "bad", having lots of "please remove me from your list" people. Though, legally, since they didn't tell that to Bob, he can call them. If they tell them to take them off his list, he's banned by law from calling them again, but perfectly legal to sell that list on to someone else with the name on it. So a "do not call" person can legally be called 1,000 times from the same list, so long as they are from 1000 different companies.
The law didn't account for bad actors. Someone trying to break a law can often find a way to circumvent it without breaking it.
The studies on humans show we work best with a 6 hour shift. When there are no external factors (no stores to shop at, no sun to set a clock), humans work best with even shorter work times. 3 hours on, 3 hours off will get more working hours in a day, and they'll be higher quality hours. Though that only works in a place like a submarine, where you have food and sleep 30 seconds from work. A 1 hour commute would break the 3/3 schedule.
We stick to the past, even when the past is proven wrong. We shouldn't be working 8-10 hour days. We don't even need 8 hours uninterrupted sleep. But we work off that schedule because it's convenient.
Bear in mind too that many small practices shut down if the doctor cannot come to work regardless of reason.
That's why PAs exist. They are the doctor, for most purposes, and the doctor doesn't need to be there. They must be "supervised" by a doctor, but I've been told that supervision doesn't require an on-site presence.
The small practices near me stay open, with the PA running it, if the doctor isn't around.
Sick day's ?? you mean you guys have a limited number of days you are allowed to be ill?
There's no practical limit to the number of days you can be sick, but a limit on the number of sick days that are paid. So you call in "sick" on the sunny days, and go to work on the days you are sick.
Also, in the US, most PTO is in a single group. You get paid time off, regardless of whether it's "sick" "vacation" or such. So taking a day when you are actually sick will reduce the number of days you have for vacations.
I just bought a 1 TB for $77 from Amazon, so I don't think they need a huge drop. http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-... (though the price has risen $2 since I bought it last month).
Yeah, the Toshiba 18.3 I had was mediocre in spec, and shoddy in build quality. Though my next laptop may be a http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/l... As 17.3 is much better than 15.3, and 10-point touch. I liked the Acer R7, but they mostly abandoned the line, and never ramped up the screen size.
I want a big touch screen on my laptop, but not with sub-standard specs to go with it. The Y70 specs are good ($1300 for an i7, 16G RAM, 960M, and 1TB HD), and it's touch and a big screen.
So has nearly everyone else. The big batteries that go in the same slot, but stick out. The 9-cell upgrade for the 6-cell basic. They are designed to mainly increase weight, and aren't a thickness-adder for a thin laptop.
"Might", Reality proves that those who would pay $6k for a laptop wouldn't. So the only actual data is consumers don't cough up for a battery that makes it thicker and heavier. The few who would can be served with other options. So many laptops still have dock ports, so make a snap-on battery for them. I've seen a few around, and nobody buys them, and they don't make many because people don't want them.
If they were high-demand, people would make 3rd party battery packs, a sliver on the bottom the laptop clips into that plugs into the regular power cord.
Slashdot Mirror
As for the baker, you didnt hear about the baker being forced to pay over 100 grand to a lesbian couple because they refused to bake them a custom cake????
Did you hear that the baker illegally gave out personally identifying information about the lesbian couple, and encouraged people to contact them to voice displeasure (or called for public harassment of the lesbians, depending on how you'd like to word it). The payment wasn't just for not making a cake, but for calling down death threats on innocent people. Or have you not figured out how to work that google thing yet?
And when you wait outside a gay bar, and find a guy who walks out alone, or walks out with another guy, then drives home alone; you follow them, do s swoop and squat, or just bump them from behind. Then, when they get out to exchange data, you tie them up, and drag them behind your car until they are nearly dead, then carve "die faggot"on them, and leave them for dead, you'll sometimes get charged with a hate crime.
In general the fights in gay bars where the straight guy tells his friends (I'd say straight friends, but half of then are gay, but in the closet) he's planning on beating up some fags, then goes to a known gay bar, waiting for the first guy to talk to him, so he has an excuse to beat him up, that's an innocent misunderstanding as well?
There are more millionaires in India than Russia
labor is the only intrinsic cost.
Scarcity is the only intrinsic cost. A diamond in the ground nobody knows about or has ever done anything to defend or develop, is still worth money, unrelated to the labor to defend the land or extract it.
And those people who already make $15/hour? They see no more money, but get to pay more for everything.
So someone making $10 an hour who gets a 50% raise will not be paid any more? Congrats, you flunked basic math, in addition to basic economics.
They will have to raise prices.
Reality tells us that the price increase is less than the 50% increase of the pay rise, and so the benefits overall are for the minimum wage workers. But you don't let reality interfere with your theories.
There was real money in there, but it's harder to get that number, so we use the valuation, that's trivially easy to track.
A lot of people in China bought at very high valuations and hoped to sell at an even higher level to a "greater fool" to make a profit.
If you look around the poker table and can't identify the rube/fool/sucker, it's you.
Scale matters not just for the loss/debt, but on the ability to pay it back. Compare the GDP of each. Greece's problem exceeds their GDP, China's doesn't.
I'm not sure what Fractional Reserve banking has to do with it...
Nothing. Anyone who says "factional reserve" or "fiat" when discussing money can be safely ignored with no value lost. It's a chance for the loons to pitch their pet theories in situations too complicated for anyone to easily prove them wrong. Though they are still quite clearly wrong.
His argument is that if you loan a coworker $10 to get lunch, and after he buys the lunch, if he drops it in the road and it's run over and destroyed, then your $10 will never be paid back, and the shop he got the $10 meal from has the $10 magically disappear from within their register. If that's not reality, then the ACs complaints are just the insane ravings of an AC with a pet theory to push, regardless of reality.
That and 25% off is a 33% penalty, so the numerical psychology has some effect in addition to the loss side of the psychology.
So people who invested more money than they have at a time when the market was priced too high are going to have a really terrible time for a while and it sucks for them, but the Chinese economy as a whole should be fine.
Someone who sold short on margin (or a Put), should be making out like a bandit. It's not "margin" that's the problem. It's stock speculation. Speculation drives up price, and speculation is fickle. Whether the speculation is done with real money, or borrowed doesn't change the speculation that moved the market. I have money in China stocks, and this doesn't bother me. I sold nothing, but bought more. It's going to go back up. It's still up for the year.
Someone originally originally cleared the land, built any structures on it, provided all the supplies for doing so. And before all of that, the government claimed the land, fought wars to defend that claim, and went through the work of subdividing it into states, counties, cities/towns, plats, etc. All of that is labor.
So, the value in land is unrelated to market forces. Then why isn't land in West Virgina, where they've had more wars than Califronia, worth so much less than beachfront in CA? The labor people have invested in WV is more than CA, but the land value is less.
Regardless, it is all based on labor.
You may assert that all you like. But it will never be true. There are sources of value other than labor, and labor is not the primary determiner of value.
You are only eroding the middle class because as the poor moves into middle class, our class system attacks the middle. In the long term, you make a new poor that's better off than the old poor, without any negative effect on the middle that wouldn't have been there anyway. More effective (economically, as it's impossible politically) is to cap income. A solid income cap at $1M would do much more to help the poor than raising the minimum wage, but the 1% have asserted that such a thing would collapse the economy, though when it was done in the past, it spurred one of the greatest growth spurts in history. But the 1% apologists assert that was related to the war, not the taxes.
Wall Street is a fucking Ponzi scheme, not some objective valuation.
Most of the mutual funds work off analytics that are objective (at least the good ones that follow Berkshire Hathaway policies). Individual investors are idiots, but they don't really move the markets.
Nope. You pay a person "rent" for land, that's unrelated to any labor. You pay for materials that's related to "value", which may, or may not be based on labor. Labor is only one of the costs. The reason China is cheaper to manufacture in isn't the labor cost, but the environmental regulations. When you can externalize your pollution (dump it into the environment and ignore it) your costs drop, unrelated to the labor cost. Between that and OSHA, you can account for most of the cost difference without even looking at labor costs.
Reality has shown that increased minimum wage decreases unemployment.
In my experience, you never get to talk to a live person without explicitly taking action to do so (which initiates a voluntary agreement to have a dialog and therefore does not constitute an unsolicited call).
Your experience is wrong. No action you take after they call can make that call soliscited. Your logic is that you must explicitly authorize the call and caller before you can request to be taken off their list. That's the opposite of reality.
I just quietly sit there, letting them talk. Wastes their time and money, and I'm usualy not doing anything important, so ignoring the phone is easily multi-tasked.
Though you highlight the real problem. The numbers are traded. Bob's telemarketing company will start up. It buys a list. The list is "bad", having lots of "please remove me from your list" people. Though, legally, since they didn't tell that to Bob, he can call them. If they tell them to take them off his list, he's banned by law from calling them again, but perfectly legal to sell that list on to someone else with the name on it. So a "do not call" person can legally be called 1,000 times from the same list, so long as they are from 1000 different companies.
The law didn't account for bad actors. Someone trying to break a law can often find a way to circumvent it without breaking it.
The studies on humans show we work best with a 6 hour shift. When there are no external factors (no stores to shop at, no sun to set a clock), humans work best with even shorter work times. 3 hours on, 3 hours off will get more working hours in a day, and they'll be higher quality hours. Though that only works in a place like a submarine, where you have food and sleep 30 seconds from work. A 1 hour commute would break the 3/3 schedule.
We stick to the past, even when the past is proven wrong. We shouldn't be working 8-10 hour days. We don't even need 8 hours uninterrupted sleep. But we work off that schedule because it's convenient.
Bear in mind too that many small practices shut down if the doctor cannot come to work regardless of reason.
That's why PAs exist. They are the doctor, for most purposes, and the doctor doesn't need to be there. They must be "supervised" by a doctor, but I've been told that supervision doesn't require an on-site presence.
The small practices near me stay open, with the PA running it, if the doctor isn't around.
He's already a member (presumably a registered doctor in the US), the AMA. That's a labor union.
Sick day's ?? you mean you guys have a limited number of days you are allowed to be ill?
There's no practical limit to the number of days you can be sick, but a limit on the number of sick days that are paid. So you call in "sick" on the sunny days, and go to work on the days you are sick.
Also, in the US, most PTO is in a single group. You get paid time off, regardless of whether it's "sick" "vacation" or such. So taking a day when you are actually sick will reduce the number of days you have for vacations.
I just bought a 1 TB for $77 from Amazon, so I don't think they need a huge drop. http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-... (though the price has risen $2 since I bought it last month).
Yeah, the Toshiba 18.3 I had was mediocre in spec, and shoddy in build quality. Though my next laptop may be a http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/l... As 17.3 is much better than 15.3, and 10-point touch. I liked the Acer R7, but they mostly abandoned the line, and never ramped up the screen size.
I want a big touch screen on my laptop, but not with sub-standard specs to go with it. The Y70 specs are good ($1300 for an i7, 16G RAM, 960M, and 1TB HD), and it's touch and a big screen.
So has nearly everyone else. The big batteries that go in the same slot, but stick out. The 9-cell upgrade for the 6-cell basic. They are designed to mainly increase weight, and aren't a thickness-adder for a thin laptop.
"Might", Reality proves that those who would pay $6k for a laptop wouldn't. So the only actual data is consumers don't cough up for a battery that makes it thicker and heavier. The few who would can be served with other options. So many laptops still have dock ports, so make a snap-on battery for them. I've seen a few around, and nobody buys them, and they don't make many because people don't want them.
If they were high-demand, people would make 3rd party battery packs, a sliver on the bottom the laptop clips into that plugs into the regular power cord.