You cited video encoding not being fast (for streamers, it does) and source code compilation, trying to describe a tiny segment of the population who are engaged in nerd things. That seems to exclude consumers of something called "entertainment", who make up a rather large market segment: the video game industry is over twice the size of the film industry.
Unless you want to suggest that movies only appeal to a vanishingly-small sector of the market--so much so that video games don't count as anything significant to the PC industry at large--you've got to account for those $1,000 CPUs becoming the new $200 CPU a year down the line, at which point they suddenly matter to your average PC gamer. They don't matter to your average secretary, who still won't use the bazillion cores in last year's top-end CPU to make Microsoft Word run any faster.
If you're putting SMT and non-SMT next to each other this generation, only those super-elite gamers who buy tons of bullshit will care...this year. Next year, it's going to be everybody else.
Individual workers don't have bargaining power because they can't control the entirety of the bargaining unit. Your employer can replace you with an individual with better terms. Unions bargain a contract which covers all workers of a certain class: if the employer hires someone new, that worker is also covered by the bargaining contract.
In other words: individual bargaining--YOU--carries zero weight because we can hire someone else and fire you, negotiating lower salary and benefits with your replacement. Collective bargaining carries total weight because we can fire you and replace you with someone who gets similar salary. In an IT union, salaries would likely be more-flexible, and locked into pay grades: we can't replace an $80k worker with a $60k worker because the position is $75k-$85k. The union, however, also negotiates a just-cause replacement, so they can't simply replace you with someone cheaper anyway.
Generally, IT job positions have pay grades, and you get a range inside there. That's how it works in government positions.
Unionized workers can negotiate salaries however, including by putting those positions into a hierarchy of pay grades and leaving it up to the individual to negotiate within that range. Much of the time, the workers don't know all the details of negotiating on their own, so the union sends experts to handle that. Unions are more-organized than the average worker and tend to have more control over the bargaining process in the same way a lawyer has more control over a class-action lawsuit.
Yeah I never did finish that one out. The goals are basically what you said: providing bargaining power to protect the employee. I was more interested in the details.
However Millenials dont' seem to subscribe to the idea of career longevity. So Unions aren't going to happen in the IT industry.
I actually factored that in. Under Employment Security on page 4:
IT Workers generally avoid job protectionism: workload sharing, cross-training, and work automation are all commonly held in high regard among IT Workers. Gregory Ferenstein polled workers in 2013 and found technology workers heavily-biased toward advancing technology, even technology which replaced their own jobs.
There are certain breaches of security which upset IT workers immensely, however. The most notable is the one-to-one replacement with cheaper workers. People talk about immigrants a lot due to xenophobia; however, once in a while you hear a quiet mumble about employers firing higher-paid workers to bring in the new college graduates who will work for $10k less.
At the same time, IT Workers have a well-developed dislike for one-to-one replacement with cheaper offshore or immigrant labor, and generally good working relationships with immigrant and outsourced labor brought in to expand the workforce or provide immediately-required skill as yet unmet in the organization.
In general, IT Workers will prefer labor contracts which favor repurposing of their labor where possible, offering growth with the employer as they improve efficiency with better IT hardware, software, and processes. Dismissal for just cause is critical: IT Workers fear being replaced just because the next guy is willing to do their job for lower pay.
The just-cause protection has some broad appeal to all sorts of workers. It's one I've also attempted to get encoded into employment law in general.
In the IT industry, salaries and benefits also reflect career. If you go into a government job maintaining legacy technology, for example, your career advancement is shot. As a result, these jobs pay huge wages and huge benefits: you're stuck there, you're not moving up, and a job making half as much with career advancement prospects in a few years is much more valuable.
That's why we need a comp time policy at the Federal level for salaried workers. Nothing extreme--you get your hourly rate (not time-and-a-half) paid out each quarter at request or they give it to you as additional time off later--since states can put in stronger policies.
It is an answer to the question. The economic environment under the Dividend isn't fundamentally-different from the environment otherwise, and the Dividend isn't fundamentally-different from an employment income in the context of worker behavior. The outcome behaviors are bound by similar broad impacts.
You're looking for a simple answer like "how do we keep paying for it when nobody works?" and ignoring that we couldn't pay salaries or have jobs or manufacture anything if everybody quit working. The question is usually "what bounds the outcome?" The worst case is always an apocalypse--hell, the worst case is every human being on the planet wakes up tomorrow and decides to go to the kitchen and cut their own throat, but why doesn't that happen?
If you're looking for just a proportional answer--of course X% of people will drop out because many people are depressed and unmotivated--the answer is that the system withstands something around a 15% drop at least, based on some earlier bounds I used years ago. Those bounds are technically kind of pointless: the system still works with a rather large drop, but degrades as you damage the economy (high unemployment rates). As stated above: wage competition starts to show up as the labor force shrinks, which draws more interest in working (more reward for less labor).
I designed the Dividend to not collapse in recessions and significant depressions, where sudden economic damage causes a lot of people to drop out of the workforce against their will. It might survive (and correct) a repeat of the Great Depression; it's more likely to simply prevent any such thing (constant and well-targeted stimulus where the cracks form). Everything else is a sort of fuzzy social concept that we only know works because society hasn't already collapsed as people decide stealing from everyone else is simpler than working; anybody who says they have a solid, physical answer to that is lying.
People will need to work longer to pay their tax and to still have a wage above the poverty line
Not really. You only need to clip per-person productivity back when consumer purchasing power shoots up, meaning your end goal is to land at about the same purchasing power or slightly-more. Taxes take a percentage of that, so no change.
The only way to cover the UBI is to tax anyone still working a lot more.
Nope. Restructuring the tax system works out oddly, but it does work out. I like to do the math when I can.
Re "manipulate the economy" Governments who do that fail.
Governments which don't do that fail, too. It's like eating: if you eat too much, you get fat, develop diabetes, get heart disease, form various forms of cancer, and die. Too little and you starve. Exercise can kill you in excess, too.
Re "universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market" thats going to need more extra tax collection to cover. Plus that new UBI cost too?
You assume our government is currently optimally-efficient and that every tax dollar provides the maximum effect. The Universal Dividend works out to a relatively-modest tax cut that can cover universal healthcare and maybe universal college. Improving the efficiency of our healthcare system cuts back the government spending portion by another half-trillion per year.
Re "engineering goal". Nobody wants to have their way of life set as a government backed engineering goal.
False. Nobody wants their way of life degraded by a government-backed engineering goal. If the government can make the population plainly wealthier, they want that. Generally, they accept being a little less wealthy for goals like security (public safety, military, economic stability, social safety nets); we can make the economic programs turn out a general increase in the per-capita wealth, which means the wealthiest don't have to end up one bit less-wealthy for everyone else to end up more-wealthy.
Stability and consumer market health mean buying more quality-of-life goods (luxuries like larger houses, cars, cell phones, better food) and less economic intervention, stabilization, and welfare spending (people in poverty can't support themselves, so a less-stable market is less-efficient). In simple terms: reducing localized poverty increases the proportion of the population able to find employment and thus work, which increases the per-capita production, thus productivity, thus total purchasing and per-person purchasing power (income).
Achieve those goals and you have less direct government intervention. Fail them and you get more direct action to prop up an unstable and pathological system--and then the socialists come out of the works claiming capitalism in all its forms is an utter failure (a huge leap of logic when capitalism in one poorly-managed form experiences localized and periodic market failure).
I still think you need to address what happens when people drop out of the system and start depending on UBI.
They look across the street at the part-time minimum-wage worker who has 3x the standard-of-living and realize life is hard and SNAP won't pay for their food forever, even if the Dividend will always come.
As I said: the Dividend isn't "we're going to somehow give you $20,000 so you can live and eat." It's a piece of productivity. If productivity falls, so does the Dividend. The tax rates don't go up. At worst, you have a labor shortage, and wages start rising to attract workers; although my Dividend is based in a 1/8 FICA (which pulls a bit less than 1/8 of the GNI) and my structural minimum wage is based in 1/4 of the per-adult GNI, so working a minimum-wage job full-time always tends to triple your income (double for a 2-adult household) versus just having the Dividend.
You can sort of replace the Dividend with prostitution or drug dealing and ask the same question. The answer is a bit different, notably in poverty-stricken areas where prostitution and drugs don't bring more jobs and allow more people to work but the Dividend does.
For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.
You actually need both--a Dividend (which isn't tied to providing "enough", but to providing a portion of all income) and your targeted social insurances. It works out pretty well for complex reasons, and you can implement it without raising tax burdens or deficit spending due largely to how it's distributed (accounting the payment as a tax refund winds up restructuring $1.1 trillion into $2.0 trillion of Federal spending, of which $1.2 trillion is paying back taxpayers to cover the FICA they paid anyway, overall restructuring $1.1 trillion into around $0.8 trillion).
Mostly, you hide the cost by reducing inefficiencies in the welfare system: You structure Social Security's retirement and disability benefits on top the Dividend so recipients receive the same benefits in total, and you include the Dividend in the means test for social insurances like SNAP and HUD Housing Assistance. You replace the EITC (which pays annually) with the Dividend (which pays twice per month). You end up pushing a lot of households up above poverty guidelines by dumping $6,000 or $12,000 (2 adults, 2 Dividends, 2016) on them throughout the year, so they don't even qualify for aid anymore.
The Dividend makes local economies more-stable, and drives them up toward middle-class. That means fewer welfare claims. It also means the people claiming welfare benefits, being less-poor, get less in benefits; and those budgets spread to more people, achieving greater results and also having a bigger impact on local economies, creating jobs and drawing people out of poverty. Spend less and get more.
Aside from just using the efficiency gains brought by making our social insurances more-effective, you adjust the taxes so the upper income earners and the businesses pay about the same tax rate when counting the general income tax and the Dividend FICA. The cost to build this system from scratch is huge; the cost to build a system incorporating our current social insurances but providing better outcomes is a touch lower than the cost of our current social insurances. "We're paying less to get a better version of X" doesn't mean that better version of X isn't horrendously-expensive, but let's not look too closely.
Poor people in the West are generally poor for two reasons: they were poor when they got here and they're in that first generation, or because they've made stupid choices.
There's also the problem of not being able to reach jobs, enter jobs, or maintain jobs. Education and transit. If you have to walk 5 miles to work every day, that's not happening. If it takes 5 hours to go 3 miles by bus, that's not reliable. Minimum wage has fallen from 48% of the median income in 1950 to 25% of the median in 2016; the cost of transit often erodes the benefit of employment.
Jobs become available by consumer spending, in any case. Development follows rail because rail stops only move if you spend hundreds of billions of dollars; bus stops move with the stroke of a pen. Rail stops are places where people with money get off. They come to your business and buy stuff, and you use the income to pay wages.
As you can imagine, an area collapsed into localized poverty isn't an attractive place to open up a business. Middle-class folks generally don't drive into the slums to buy things; and the slum population doesn't have much money to buy. Further, if you're selling to the local economy only, you're sending money out the supply chain and the tax chain: part of the revenue comes back around, part goes out, and the capacity of the local economy to supply jobs falls further.
You can actually implement a Universal Dividend without raising taxes. There are a bunch of other things we can do to eventually lower taxes--notably, our healthcare and corrections systems are inefficient, and correcting these things lowers medicare expenditure by $500Bn even when providing universal healthcare coverage.
Corrections is smaller. Reducing crime and returning people to society as productive citizens saves only a little government spending. It mostly reduces the private costs of crime and increases productivity because more people can work and consume (consumption is the demand that creates jobs).
A Universal Dividend acts as a sort of tax refund, as well, paying continuously. Nearly half of all households would have a negative income tax burden in the rough 2016 model; that gets larger and extends higher as time passes due to the way I constructed the Dividend (it takes a fixed tax on all income, so grows faster than inflation so long as you don't raise or lower the FICA tax rate). Higher-income households aren't exposed to additional tax burden in that model, either; nor are businesses.
Because consumers are more-stable and localized recessions are resolved, we end up with a sort of labor shortage: this form of clean-up corrects some inefficient fiscal strategy to the tune of several hundred billion dollars, and puts a lot of spending power into the hands of the lower- and middle-class consumer. The reciprocal effect--notably the income multiplier effect, where part of income becomes further wages--would drag a 5% U3 unemployment economy down to -12% unemployment or thereabouts.
That's actually a bad thing (it causes a HUGE amount of inflation).
You combat this by cutting back working hours: people working fewer hours produce less, and have fewer labor-hours to trade for goods. Think about it: if you're working 40 hours to make a thing but then weekly labor hours are cut from 40 to 30, then in one week you earn enough to buy 3/4 of that thing. Pair this with structural wage--the minimum wage represents a yearly income of 1/4 the per-adult income--and now many things have gotten more-expensive and labor demand shifts and shrinks.
We can manipulate the economy rather than trying to be oracles and reaching our fingers into it to fiddle around like the Soviets did. We draw guidelines around it. We nudge it a bit.
We can get down to 28-hour work weeks in a few years while coming out richer than we are now, with higher productivity, and with lower taxes. I think it will take a decade or two to hit something like 25% top tax rate, 8% middle-income tax rate offset by the Dividend to be just a touch negative, universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market. That's not an economic prediction; it's an engineering goal.
You don't get there by an economic dictatorship. You get there by shaping. A universal dividend is part of that shape. So are things like investigations into our healthcare system (it's extremely inefficient) and advisories published to healthcare providers giving them methods to reduce costs and improve outcomes (they're not so voluntary: you can not follow the advisory, and the next hospital over will cut their costs and their prices in half and put you out of business--welcome to capitalism! You're getting bought out now).
I designed the Dividend to operate with a hands-off approach for a reason. You set it, you step back, and you let it adjust. Human actions--determining the new rates, auditing, etc.--are dictated by constraints like the FICA tax rate (which doesn't change--ever), the distribution being even to the number of adults, and the amount that can float in the Trust to cover miscalculations and economic disruptions. The economy will react to it in a natural way; it provides a firm foundation for other policy.
If the choice is between basic incomes and basic jobs, there are a number of massive problems with a basic jobs program which don't exist for a basic income program.
Throw out all of the human-factor arguments and stick to economics.
A sort of Universal Dividend--paying based on a percentage of all income collected as a tax (a social insurance premium) divided among all adults--doesn't attempt to provide a fixed benefit. The American Citizen's Dividend provides some excellent stability, along the lines of the stability of the American economy, and still goes up and down a bit. It trends upwards, as does the American GNI-per-Capita.
You combine this with social insurances--unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance--for efficiency. The Dividend itself isn't enough to live on ($6,000 per adult per year in 2016), and provides a foundation.
You end up with a no-deficit economic stimulus--something considered impossible by economists.
The Dividend itself pays from what is there. If you have a job, the Dividend represents a smaller portion of your income; and, indeed, if you have a job, you have tax burden. The Dividend is untaxed (we tax your $100k for general, FICA, etc., and dump the FICA backing the Dividend into someone else's hands; the productivity which earned that Dividend payment has already been taxed), but your other earnings are taxed!
For a person with lower income, the Dividend represents more of their buying power; and in a local economy experiencing localized poverty or a sudden unemployment shock, the Dividend represents a strong localized economic stimulus--just like all other forms of welfare. The Dividend, then, more-strongly stimulates the economy wherever it has weakness. It would react to a 6% drop in productivity (think 2008 Great Recession) by paying 94% as much per person; yet it would have a much greater impact suddenly on certain people and certain cities and towns where the economy just collapsed out from under them and unemployment has become rampant.
As these people get jobs, welfare withdraws. The first jobs aren't major export businesses; they're servicing the local economy. They're selling to the same poor people in the area. Everyone gets a McDonalds or a Target job, half the money goes up the supply chain and to Federal taxes, and welfare goes away. These people no longer receive unemployment checks, food stamps, and housing assistance; they can no longer replace that lost cash. Purchasing falls; jobs become unsupportable; unemployment rises.
The Dividend keeps paying anyway.
Rather than this collapse, the Dividend provides a basis to establish a new equilibrium as welfare draws back. There's more money after each pay cycle, and more spending. Eventually, some people can remodel their bathrooms, and now you need to move a few folks from $10/hr cashier jobs to $30/hr plumbing and construction jobs. The mean income starts to rise--rapidly thanks to welfare, then moderately thanks to the Dividend alone, then more-slowly as you approach middle-class and the Dividend's impact on your local economy fades.
That's the power of a no-deficit economic stimulus.
Now: what happens when you replace the Dividend with guaranteed jobs?
A similar impact, except that the government must increase its outlays as people come onto the service. The Dividend always pays; welfare and job guarantees pay when used. Rather than being ready to smoothly handle the current state, the job guarantee struggles and spends additional until people get off those jobs.
The job guarantee also pays minimum wage (otherwise people would work there instead of other, lower-paying private jobs). Anyone making over minimum wage is not a source for stimulus to enter the local economy. This doesn't raise us from poverty.
You can certainly do both. Dividend, Unemployment, and Job Guarantee. Unemployment Insurance is an optimization: it adds extra stimulus to a loc
The American Citizen's Dividend (a Universal Dividend) I proposed shrinks when GNI-per-Capita shrinks. That means...
if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI
...the benefit would shrink because there would be no tax source due to no production and no (purchasing-power) income.
There are other controls.
The Dividend in 2016 would have been $6,000 per adult per year. You also have your welfare system--means-tested and all--which is necessary for support. The Dividend isn't enough to survive; the welfare system covers the gap.
This makes a lot of sense: egalitarian social insurances are inefficient; yet targeted social insurances stasis a local economy because people get jobs and get off welfare, thus removing the inflow. The first jobs in an impoverished local economy are service to the local economy, which doesn't draw economic support from outside, so the economy is dependent on continuous transfers and can't otherwise support jobs. A Dividend provides a basis onto which that barely-functional job market may settle, and continues to add consumer purchasing power to drive up the mean earnings possible among the job market.
If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.
You only need an answer for why the system rejects error states and converges toward optimum. It may not converge to exactly optimum, but it should move away from failure and toward success rather than decaying when internal or external factors change.
It'll be the gaming crowd with $1,000 CPUs they're going to replace in 4 months with another $1,000 CPU talking about how many AIs and individual bullets they can have on-screen at any given time without lag.
More execution threads may consume more cache, but CPUs have cache coherence algorithms and can share when accessing the same physical addresses. This reduces the impact when executing the same process in two threads.
SMT (and multicore processing in general) would benefit greatly by coalescing L1 caches (including TLB) where the running processes are assigned the same page table. L2, of course, uses physical addresses.
As human rights, these rights extend to all , even to the most repugnant speakers—including white supremacists—and pursuant to ACLU policy, we will continue our longstanding practice of representing such groups in appropriate circumstances to prevent unlawful government censorship of speech. We have seen the power to suppress speech deployed against those fighting for the rights of the weak and the marginalized, including racial justice advocates and pipeline protesters at Standing Rock. As the Board put it, “although the democratic standards in which the ACLU believes and for which it fights run directly counter to the philosophy of the Klan and other ultra-right groups, the vitality of the democratic institutions the ACLU defends lies in their equal application to all.”
Hmm.
Because we believe speech rights extend to all, and should be protected even when a speaker expresses views fundamentally opposed to our own, we have defended speakers who oppose abortion rights and who espouse homophobic, sexist, or racist views.
Okay...
We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it agrees, both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.The organization may lose credibility with allies, supporters, and other communities, requiring the expenditure of resources to mitigate those harms. Thus, there are often costs both from defending a given speaker and not defending that speaker. Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech rights.
Sounds reasonable.
It looks like they're simply examining and commenting on the complexities of ethics systems with their difficult internal conflicts.
There are six primary face shapes. Some argue that there are seven or nine; and some folks say there are approximately twenty-six faces and everyone is easily-confused with everyone else in one of those groups.
Black people have less dynamic range. Black people are black because their skin contains more melanin. White people can darken areas of their skin by producing more melanin, such as by tanning and freckles.
Black people reflect less light, and detail is less-obvious. Humans are pretty good at compensating; machines have trouble finding borders due to lack of contrast. Remember a human can see a face as a face, but then notice a pore as a pore and identify every fine detail as a separate aspect if we so choose; machines have to be taught to do that, then have to learn how to make the distinctions correctly.
Result? Facial recognition sucks. People train facial recognition by looking at small sets of faces and trying to find a way to differentiate specifically to that set; it continues to suck in practice on larger sets. Facial recognition sucks really bad if you're black because it thinks there are only five black people.
I can't readily recognize faces. I actually won't recognize people I know; and then I'll fail to recognize them entirely if they change their hair. It takes a few tries, and I mostly go by things like gait, body composition, behavior, voice, and so forth. I'm really sensitive to voice, and can identify someone's voice even if they manipulate it to disguise themselves--and can point out that someone sounds exactly like another person I know while also differentiating their voice with perfect reliability.
Let that sink in: I can't recognize you in real life even if I have an endless array of video and photographs for a few weeks or months ahead of time; but I can recognize your voice immediately from one sample, no matter what you do to distort it, short of electronic manipulation of a recording. Every voice is distinct. Twins have distinct voices.
Computers are known to be better at facial recognition than humans.
Here's a question: do they have healthcare or not?
Corp-to-corp contractors should get healthcare from their contracting corporation. Self-employed contractors...it must be a nightmare to manage that many contracts, holy crap.
My state politics are not extreme and the extremists get booted out pretty quickly. That may change but for the last few number of years has been ok. I don't mind my congressmen. My 3 federal votes seem working fine for me. Although, I wish I only had 2 federal election votes.
Fair enough. The big one is the Federal election. States tend to have a lean that holds them in place, but that's started to shift too.
I want the Federal government to have less power over what happens in my state so that I don't have to care about the Cortez's or Sanders of the world. Your ideas seem to give more power to the government which forces me to care and fight against it.
Not really. Voting in Federal elections is the jurisdiction of the Federal government. So is Federal welfare--and the Dividend is essentially a matter of reducing policy-guided control over welfare, among other economic policy actions. Decreasing the amount of action needed decreases the amount of action the population tolerates, so long as you can make the politicians stop meddling for a few terms and let people get used to them having their hands off the controls.
I want you to risk your political power and prove that it works instead of interfering with my state elections.
Implementing state-first won't affect how the State elects Federal seats; that can only happen at the Federal level. That's right: Federal law prohibits implementing this as the way States select their own representation.
Implementing state-first, on the other hand, will tend to do a number of things. First, it won't tend to shift the power balance in states, which have geographic segmentation such that localized elections turn out...similarly. In Maryland, for example, you may trade some three-Democrat delegate jurisdictions for two Democrats and a Republican; and you may trade the other way as well. It won't affect the Senate elections because...well, because they're also localized and tend to win by simple majority, which IS the Condorcet candidate.
The example tends to bleed over. With high voter satisfaction, it becomes both a political strategy and a movement. Neighboring states get pressure to implement similarly. Doing it state-by-state is a better way to impact your state elections than doing it Federally.
Trump winning is not reason enough to condemn the whole system to the whims of political expediency to "make sure it never happens again".
The issue isn't Trump; it's that a large part of the electorate hates Trump. You know the other side is coming as well as I do; and we should never be able to elect a candidate everybody dislikes. If there is a candidate who, if placed one-to-one against all other candidates, would win the majority in every such race, that candidate should win. A Trump or a Bernie, or perhaps a Cortez, should be impossible to elect unless the electorate largely feels satisfied--not most-satisfied, but not largely opposed.
Even the Schulze method was designed because Ranked Pairs wasn't good enough. Ranked Pairs tends to elect a Smith candidate who has a really bad loss, and Schulze elects someone who is also a Smith candidate but who has less of a bad loss--at the expense of sometimes electing one less-favored overall. In other words: Schulze avoids a candidate that more people hate--a lot--even if that candidate is overall better-supported. Of course, they both elect the Condorcet candidate if there is one.
Don't like the primaries? Neither do I. However, they are a private organization and freedom to assemble is not restricted because the goal of that assembly is to elect someone.
They can still elect someone. The point is you allow them to nominate two candidates each, instead of one--if and only if those candidates are nominated by a proportional process. Give a span of options.
Like Obama and coal? Regardless what you think of coal, he did what you fear in a hypothetical.
I spoke with a small business owner who used coal to heat his factory. The equipment to meet the new environmental compliance was too expensive for his budget, and he couldn't move to gas due to coal costing $1,000 and gas costing over $5,000 per month to provide the same heat.
That roll-out should have accounted for this and included things like on-site solar installation aid, subsidies to install commercial-scale heat pumps, and so forth. Many far-more-liberal candidates would look at such a thing and simply decide the factory owner shouldn't come crying to the government for a bail-out.
Easier and more expedient to change the elections and system to favor me and use the courts to force my agenda. That'll show 'em! If you can't beat 'em change the rules.
You seem to have issue with the rules working against your favor half the time, yet don't seem to want the system to stabilize something other than an extreme.
Do you know what happened in 2016? A lot of Democratic voters were ready to vote Bernie. Yes, that's right: Bernie Sanders. They'll get behind Cortez if she runs, I'd wager. Here's the trick, though: those far-left progressives? They have a habit of taking their ball and going home when their candidate loses.
That's right: if it was Bernie-Trump, the Democratic party loyalists would have voted and the Bernie progressives would have voted. Trump would have been crushed. Can you imagine how that would have panned out?
Now, if each party had nominated two candidates by STV, the strong Bernie supporters would have been essentially tossed out in the first round: the Democrats would have nominated Bernie by a slim margin through the progressive vote, and those progressive voters would have lost all voting power for the next round. The remaining Democrats would have nominated Hillary.
The same would have happened with the Republicans, likely nominating Donald Trump (who got 42% of the votes!) plus Kaisch or Rubio (I'd assume Rubio).
Why two? Why not a Condorcet primary?
The primary represents those registered to the party. That mean the middle-Democrat versus the middle-Republican. A double- or triple-nomination elects the farther-extreme and more-centrist candidate, or the distribution three ways. Independent American voters and those in the swing set thus have nominees closer to their own views, and can vote for them in the General Election if they so choose.
There's a large span of "Never Trump" Republicans.
Do you know what that means?
It means a lot of middle-ground Republican votes went to Hillary. Given the span of candidates, those may very well have voted Rubio-Hillary, with others voting Hillary-Rubio, and others voting Bernie-Hillary or Hillary-Bernie. Hillary would have still defeated Bernie in the Condorcet election; Trump would have lost.
The question, then, comes down to this: Can Marco Rubio beat Hillary Clinton under those circumstances?
All of Trump's voters would have likely voted Trump-Rubio. Many of Rubio's voters may have gone Rubio-Trump or Rubio-Hillary, but that still puts them down as a vote against Hillary and for Rubio. Many of Hillary's votes were, in fact, the Rubio-Hillary set who went absolutely against Donald Trump--which means Hillary is losing those votes in the Condorcet model, but more Democrats would have turned out to vote Bernie-Hillary and so would have made her a stronger candidate as well.
I would most estimate that Hillary would have won, simply by gaining the Bernie votes in the Condorcet general to replace those lost to Marco Rubio; although I could be underestimating the number of less-extreme Conservatives who pitched for Hillary just to avoid Trump. Polling suggests Hillary would have gotten 265 votes ag
That is quite that double-speak on an institution that protects the minority in the country. "slim majority" can trample over a "large minority". The majority lost. The minority won. That is protecting the minority.
And when it turns the other way?
What if the complete and total opposition by the 49% of voters who vote against a particular President--a President who will exercise the law in ways permissible by Presidential power, yet with no care for the damage caused to that 49%--actually mattered? What if that opposition said, "You can't have Bernie or Trump; you can have Delaney or LeSasse, who at least put some consideration into the rest of the Nation's needs"?
What if that opposition could, in fact, influence the outcome even though they lost?
You know what's going to happen. A candidate's going to win, and is going to make an entire industry illegal. They're not even going to buy them out; they're going to force them into bankruptcy and failure while creating a Government agency to do it all.
Despite the majority voting for that candidate, the minority could instead have some say in this, instead electing a candidate who brings services and regulations but not a complete take-over. That minority may want no such thing--they may want less regulation and the Government to stay out of it--but they have been overruled. They don't need to be cast aside and ignored.
An institution which shifts us back and forth between 100 and -100 doesn't protect the minority. It doesn't factor the minority in--at all. It's not a consensus; it's a tug of war.
Slashdot Mirror
You cited video encoding not being fast (for streamers, it does) and source code compilation, trying to describe a tiny segment of the population who are engaged in nerd things. That seems to exclude consumers of something called "entertainment", who make up a rather large market segment: the video game industry is over twice the size of the film industry.
Unless you want to suggest that movies only appeal to a vanishingly-small sector of the market--so much so that video games don't count as anything significant to the PC industry at large--you've got to account for those $1,000 CPUs becoming the new $200 CPU a year down the line, at which point they suddenly matter to your average PC gamer. They don't matter to your average secretary, who still won't use the bazillion cores in last year's top-end CPU to make Microsoft Word run any faster.
If you're putting SMT and non-SMT next to each other this generation, only those super-elite gamers who buy tons of bullshit will care...this year. Next year, it's going to be everybody else.
Individual workers don't have bargaining power because they can't control the entirety of the bargaining unit. Your employer can replace you with an individual with better terms. Unions bargain a contract which covers all workers of a certain class: if the employer hires someone new, that worker is also covered by the bargaining contract.
In other words: individual bargaining--YOU--carries zero weight because we can hire someone else and fire you, negotiating lower salary and benefits with your replacement. Collective bargaining carries total weight because we can fire you and replace you with someone who gets similar salary. In an IT union, salaries would likely be more-flexible, and locked into pay grades: we can't replace an $80k worker with a $60k worker because the position is $75k-$85k. The union, however, also negotiates a just-cause replacement, so they can't simply replace you with someone cheaper anyway.
Generally, IT job positions have pay grades, and you get a range inside there. That's how it works in government positions.
Unionized workers can negotiate salaries however, including by putting those positions into a hierarchy of pay grades and leaving it up to the individual to negotiate within that range. Much of the time, the workers don't know all the details of negotiating on their own, so the union sends experts to handle that. Unions are more-organized than the average worker and tend to have more control over the bargaining process in the same way a lawyer has more control over a class-action lawsuit.
Yeah I never did finish that one out. The goals are basically what you said: providing bargaining power to protect the employee. I was more interested in the details.
However Millenials dont' seem to subscribe to the idea of career longevity. So Unions aren't going to happen in the IT industry.
I actually factored that in. Under Employment Security on page 4:
IT Workers generally avoid job protectionism: workload sharing, cross-training, and work automation are all commonly held in high regard among IT Workers. Gregory Ferenstein polled workers in 2013 and found technology workers heavily-biased toward advancing technology, even technology which replaced their own jobs.
There are certain breaches of security which upset IT workers immensely, however. The most notable is the one-to-one replacement with cheaper workers. People talk about immigrants a lot due to xenophobia; however, once in a while you hear a quiet mumble about employers firing higher-paid workers to bring in the new college graduates who will work for $10k less.
At the same time, IT Workers have a well-developed dislike for one-to-one replacement with cheaper offshore or immigrant labor, and generally good working relationships with immigrant and outsourced labor brought in to expand the workforce or provide immediately-required skill as yet unmet in the organization.
In general, IT Workers will prefer labor contracts which favor repurposing of their labor where possible, offering growth with the employer as they improve efficiency with better IT hardware, software, and processes. Dismissal for just cause is critical: IT Workers fear being replaced just because the next guy is willing to do their job for lower pay.
The just-cause protection has some broad appeal to all sorts of workers. It's one I've also attempted to get encoded into employment law in general.
In the IT industry, salaries and benefits also reflect career. If you go into a government job maintaining legacy technology, for example, your career advancement is shot. As a result, these jobs pay huge wages and huge benefits: you're stuck there, you're not moving up, and a job making half as much with career advancement prospects in a few years is much more valuable.
That's why we need a comp time policy at the Federal level for salaried workers. Nothing extreme--you get your hourly rate (not time-and-a-half) paid out each quarter at request or they give it to you as additional time off later--since states can put in stronger policies.
Maybe they should form a union.
It is an answer to the question. The economic environment under the Dividend isn't fundamentally-different from the environment otherwise, and the Dividend isn't fundamentally-different from an employment income in the context of worker behavior. The outcome behaviors are bound by similar broad impacts.
You're looking for a simple answer like "how do we keep paying for it when nobody works?" and ignoring that we couldn't pay salaries or have jobs or manufacture anything if everybody quit working. The question is usually "what bounds the outcome?" The worst case is always an apocalypse--hell, the worst case is every human being on the planet wakes up tomorrow and decides to go to the kitchen and cut their own throat, but why doesn't that happen?
If you're looking for just a proportional answer--of course X% of people will drop out because many people are depressed and unmotivated--the answer is that the system withstands something around a 15% drop at least, based on some earlier bounds I used years ago. Those bounds are technically kind of pointless: the system still works with a rather large drop, but degrades as you damage the economy (high unemployment rates). As stated above: wage competition starts to show up as the labor force shrinks, which draws more interest in working (more reward for less labor).
I designed the Dividend to not collapse in recessions and significant depressions, where sudden economic damage causes a lot of people to drop out of the workforce against their will. It might survive (and correct) a repeat of the Great Depression; it's more likely to simply prevent any such thing (constant and well-targeted stimulus where the cracks form). Everything else is a sort of fuzzy social concept that we only know works because society hasn't already collapsed as people decide stealing from everyone else is simpler than working; anybody who says they have a solid, physical answer to that is lying.
People will need to work longer to pay their tax and to still have a wage above the poverty line
Not really. You only need to clip per-person productivity back when consumer purchasing power shoots up, meaning your end goal is to land at about the same purchasing power or slightly-more. Taxes take a percentage of that, so no change.
The only way to cover the UBI is to tax anyone still working a lot more.
Nope. Restructuring the tax system works out oddly, but it does work out. I like to do the math when I can.
Re "manipulate the economy" Governments who do that fail.
Governments which don't do that fail, too. It's like eating: if you eat too much, you get fat, develop diabetes, get heart disease, form various forms of cancer, and die. Too little and you starve. Exercise can kill you in excess, too.
Re "universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market" thats going to need more extra tax collection to cover. Plus that new UBI cost too?
You assume our government is currently optimally-efficient and that every tax dollar provides the maximum effect. The Universal Dividend works out to a relatively-modest tax cut that can cover universal healthcare and maybe universal college. Improving the efficiency of our healthcare system cuts back the government spending portion by another half-trillion per year.
Re "engineering goal". Nobody wants to have their way of life set as a government backed engineering goal.
False. Nobody wants their way of life degraded by a government-backed engineering goal. If the government can make the population plainly wealthier, they want that. Generally, they accept being a little less wealthy for goals like security (public safety, military, economic stability, social safety nets); we can make the economic programs turn out a general increase in the per-capita wealth, which means the wealthiest don't have to end up one bit less-wealthy for everyone else to end up more-wealthy.
Stability and consumer market health mean buying more quality-of-life goods (luxuries like larger houses, cars, cell phones, better food) and less economic intervention, stabilization, and welfare spending (people in poverty can't support themselves, so a less-stable market is less-efficient). In simple terms: reducing localized poverty increases the proportion of the population able to find employment and thus work, which increases the per-capita production, thus productivity, thus total purchasing and per-person purchasing power (income).
Achieve those goals and you have less direct government intervention. Fail them and you get more direct action to prop up an unstable and pathological system--and then the socialists come out of the works claiming capitalism in all its forms is an utter failure (a huge leap of logic when capitalism in one poorly-managed form experiences localized and periodic market failure).
I still think you need to address what happens when people drop out of the system and start depending on UBI.
They look across the street at the part-time minimum-wage worker who has 3x the standard-of-living and realize life is hard and SNAP won't pay for their food forever, even if the Dividend will always come.
As I said: the Dividend isn't "we're going to somehow give you $20,000 so you can live and eat." It's a piece of productivity. If productivity falls, so does the Dividend. The tax rates don't go up. At worst, you have a labor shortage, and wages start rising to attract workers; although my Dividend is based in a 1/8 FICA (which pulls a bit less than 1/8 of the GNI) and my structural minimum wage is based in 1/4 of the per-adult GNI, so working a minimum-wage job full-time always tends to triple your income (double for a 2-adult household) versus just having the Dividend.
You can sort of replace the Dividend with prostitution or drug dealing and ask the same question. The answer is a bit different, notably in poverty-stricken areas where prostitution and drugs don't bring more jobs and allow more people to work but the Dividend does.
For example, when trying to rationalize how ubi would be more efficient (to say nothing of trying to find the staggering amounts of money needed for such a program) they talk about it replacing other social programs.
You actually need both--a Dividend (which isn't tied to providing "enough", but to providing a portion of all income) and your targeted social insurances. It works out pretty well for complex reasons, and you can implement it without raising tax burdens or deficit spending due largely to how it's distributed (accounting the payment as a tax refund winds up restructuring $1.1 trillion into $2.0 trillion of Federal spending, of which $1.2 trillion is paying back taxpayers to cover the FICA they paid anyway, overall restructuring $1.1 trillion into around $0.8 trillion).
Mostly, you hide the cost by reducing inefficiencies in the welfare system: You structure Social Security's retirement and disability benefits on top the Dividend so recipients receive the same benefits in total, and you include the Dividend in the means test for social insurances like SNAP and HUD Housing Assistance. You replace the EITC (which pays annually) with the Dividend (which pays twice per month). You end up pushing a lot of households up above poverty guidelines by dumping $6,000 or $12,000 (2 adults, 2 Dividends, 2016) on them throughout the year, so they don't even qualify for aid anymore.
The Dividend makes local economies more-stable, and drives them up toward middle-class. That means fewer welfare claims. It also means the people claiming welfare benefits, being less-poor, get less in benefits; and those budgets spread to more people, achieving greater results and also having a bigger impact on local economies, creating jobs and drawing people out of poverty. Spend less and get more.
Aside from just using the efficiency gains brought by making our social insurances more-effective, you adjust the taxes so the upper income earners and the businesses pay about the same tax rate when counting the general income tax and the Dividend FICA. The cost to build this system from scratch is huge; the cost to build a system incorporating our current social insurances but providing better outcomes is a touch lower than the cost of our current social insurances. "We're paying less to get a better version of X" doesn't mean that better version of X isn't horrendously-expensive, but let's not look too closely.
Poor people in the West are generally poor for two reasons: they were poor when they got here and they're in that first generation, or because they've made stupid choices.
There's also the problem of not being able to reach jobs, enter jobs, or maintain jobs. Education and transit. If you have to walk 5 miles to work every day, that's not happening. If it takes 5 hours to go 3 miles by bus, that's not reliable. Minimum wage has fallen from 48% of the median income in 1950 to 25% of the median in 2016; the cost of transit often erodes the benefit of employment.
Jobs become available by consumer spending, in any case. Development follows rail because rail stops only move if you spend hundreds of billions of dollars; bus stops move with the stroke of a pen. Rail stops are places where people with money get off. They come to your business and buy stuff, and you use the income to pay wages.
As you can imagine, an area collapsed into localized poverty isn't an attractive place to open up a business. Middle-class folks generally don't drive into the slums to buy things; and the slum population doesn't have much money to buy. Further, if you're selling to the local economy only, you're sending money out the supply chain and the tax chain: part of the revenue comes back around, part goes out, and the capacity of the local economy to supply jobs falls further.
That means opening a Target or a McDonalds in t
You can actually implement a Universal Dividend without raising taxes. There are a bunch of other things we can do to eventually lower taxes--notably, our healthcare and corrections systems are inefficient, and correcting these things lowers medicare expenditure by $500Bn even when providing universal healthcare coverage.
Corrections is smaller. Reducing crime and returning people to society as productive citizens saves only a little government spending. It mostly reduces the private costs of crime and increases productivity because more people can work and consume (consumption is the demand that creates jobs).
A Universal Dividend acts as a sort of tax refund, as well, paying continuously. Nearly half of all households would have a negative income tax burden in the rough 2016 model; that gets larger and extends higher as time passes due to the way I constructed the Dividend (it takes a fixed tax on all income, so grows faster than inflation so long as you don't raise or lower the FICA tax rate). Higher-income households aren't exposed to additional tax burden in that model, either; nor are businesses.
Because consumers are more-stable and localized recessions are resolved, we end up with a sort of labor shortage: this form of clean-up corrects some inefficient fiscal strategy to the tune of several hundred billion dollars, and puts a lot of spending power into the hands of the lower- and middle-class consumer. The reciprocal effect--notably the income multiplier effect, where part of income becomes further wages--would drag a 5% U3 unemployment economy down to -12% unemployment or thereabouts.
That's actually a bad thing (it causes a HUGE amount of inflation).
You combat this by cutting back working hours: people working fewer hours produce less, and have fewer labor-hours to trade for goods. Think about it: if you're working 40 hours to make a thing but then weekly labor hours are cut from 40 to 30, then in one week you earn enough to buy 3/4 of that thing. Pair this with structural wage--the minimum wage represents a yearly income of 1/4 the per-adult income--and now many things have gotten more-expensive and labor demand shifts and shrinks.
We can manipulate the economy rather than trying to be oracles and reaching our fingers into it to fiddle around like the Soviets did. We draw guidelines around it. We nudge it a bit.
We can get down to 28-hour work weeks in a few years while coming out richer than we are now, with higher productivity, and with lower taxes. I think it will take a decade or two to hit something like 25% top tax rate, 8% middle-income tax rate offset by the Dividend to be just a touch negative, universal healthcare, universal higher education and vocational training, no homeless, no hunger, robust private market. That's not an economic prediction; it's an engineering goal.
You don't get there by an economic dictatorship. You get there by shaping. A universal dividend is part of that shape. So are things like investigations into our healthcare system (it's extremely inefficient) and advisories published to healthcare providers giving them methods to reduce costs and improve outcomes (they're not so voluntary: you can not follow the advisory, and the next hospital over will cut their costs and their prices in half and put you out of business--welcome to capitalism! You're getting bought out now).
I designed the Dividend to operate with a hands-off approach for a reason. You set it, you step back, and you let it adjust. Human actions--determining the new rates, auditing, etc.--are dictated by constraints like the FICA tax rate (which doesn't change--ever), the distribution being even to the number of adults, and the amount that can float in the Trust to cover miscalculations and economic disruptions. The economy will react to it in a natural way; it provides a firm foundation for other policy.
If the choice is between basic incomes and basic jobs, there are a number of massive problems with a basic jobs program which don't exist for a basic income program.
Throw out all of the human-factor arguments and stick to economics.
A sort of Universal Dividend--paying based on a percentage of all income collected as a tax (a social insurance premium) divided among all adults--doesn't attempt to provide a fixed benefit. The American Citizen's Dividend provides some excellent stability, along the lines of the stability of the American economy, and still goes up and down a bit. It trends upwards, as does the American GNI-per-Capita.
You combine this with social insurances--unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance--for efficiency. The Dividend itself isn't enough to live on ($6,000 per adult per year in 2016), and provides a foundation.
You end up with a no-deficit economic stimulus--something considered impossible by economists.
The Dividend itself pays from what is there. If you have a job, the Dividend represents a smaller portion of your income; and, indeed, if you have a job, you have tax burden. The Dividend is untaxed (we tax your $100k for general, FICA, etc., and dump the FICA backing the Dividend into someone else's hands; the productivity which earned that Dividend payment has already been taxed), but your other earnings are taxed!
For a person with lower income, the Dividend represents more of their buying power; and in a local economy experiencing localized poverty or a sudden unemployment shock, the Dividend represents a strong localized economic stimulus--just like all other forms of welfare. The Dividend, then, more-strongly stimulates the economy wherever it has weakness. It would react to a 6% drop in productivity (think 2008 Great Recession) by paying 94% as much per person; yet it would have a much greater impact suddenly on certain people and certain cities and towns where the economy just collapsed out from under them and unemployment has become rampant.
As these people get jobs, welfare withdraws. The first jobs aren't major export businesses; they're servicing the local economy. They're selling to the same poor people in the area. Everyone gets a McDonalds or a Target job, half the money goes up the supply chain and to Federal taxes, and welfare goes away. These people no longer receive unemployment checks, food stamps, and housing assistance; they can no longer replace that lost cash. Purchasing falls; jobs become unsupportable; unemployment rises.
The Dividend keeps paying anyway.
Rather than this collapse, the Dividend provides a basis to establish a new equilibrium as welfare draws back. There's more money after each pay cycle, and more spending. Eventually, some people can remodel their bathrooms, and now you need to move a few folks from $10/hr cashier jobs to $30/hr plumbing and construction jobs. The mean income starts to rise--rapidly thanks to welfare, then moderately thanks to the Dividend alone, then more-slowly as you approach middle-class and the Dividend's impact on your local economy fades.
That's the power of a no-deficit economic stimulus.
Now: what happens when you replace the Dividend with guaranteed jobs?
A similar impact, except that the government must increase its outlays as people come onto the service. The Dividend always pays; welfare and job guarantees pay when used. Rather than being ready to smoothly handle the current state, the job guarantee struggles and spends additional until people get off those jobs.
The job guarantee also pays minimum wage (otherwise people would work there instead of other, lower-paying private jobs). Anyone making over minimum wage is not a source for stimulus to enter the local economy. This doesn't raise us from poverty.
You can certainly do both. Dividend, Unemployment, and Job Guarantee. Unemployment Insurance is an optimization: it adds extra stimulus to a loc
The American Citizen's Dividend (a Universal Dividend) I proposed shrinks when GNI-per-Capita shrinks. That means...
if everyone decided to only be supported by UBI
There are other controls.
The Dividend in 2016 would have been $6,000 per adult per year. You also have your welfare system--means-tested and all--which is necessary for support. The Dividend isn't enough to survive; the welfare system covers the gap.
This makes a lot of sense: egalitarian social insurances are inefficient; yet targeted social insurances stasis a local economy because people get jobs and get off welfare, thus removing the inflow. The first jobs in an impoverished local economy are service to the local economy, which doesn't draw economic support from outside, so the economy is dependent on continuous transfers and can't otherwise support jobs. A Dividend provides a basis onto which that barely-functional job market may settle, and continues to add consumer purchasing power to drive up the mean earnings possible among the job market.
If you can't answer that question with some level of accuracy, you have no business implementing a UBI.
You only need an answer for why the system rejects error states and converges toward optimum. It may not converge to exactly optimum, but it should move away from failure and toward success rather than decaying when internal or external factors change.
It'll be the gaming crowd with $1,000 CPUs they're going to replace in 4 months with another $1,000 CPU talking about how many AIs and individual bullets they can have on-screen at any given time without lag.
More execution threads may consume more cache, but CPUs have cache coherence algorithms and can share when accessing the same physical addresses. This reduces the impact when executing the same process in two threads.
SMT (and multicore processing in general) would benefit greatly by coalescing L1 caches (including TLB) where the running processes are assigned the same page table. L2, of course, uses physical addresses.
As human rights, these rights extend to all , even to the most repugnant speakers—including white supremacists—and pursuant to ACLU policy, we will continue our longstanding practice of representing such groups in appropriate circumstances to prevent unlawful government censorship of speech. We have seen the power to suppress speech deployed against those fighting for the rights of the weak and the marginalized, including racial justice advocates and pipeline protesters at Standing Rock. As the Board put it, “although the democratic standards in which the ACLU believes and for which it fights run directly counter to the philosophy of the Klan and other ultra-right groups, the vitality of the democratic institutions the ACLU defends lies in their equal application to all.”
Hmm.
Because we believe speech rights extend to all, and should be protected even when a speaker expresses views fundamentally opposed to our own, we have defended speakers who oppose abortion rights and who espouse homophobic, sexist, or racist views.
Okay...
We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it agrees, both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.The organization may lose credibility with allies, supporters, and other communities, requiring the expenditure of resources to mitigate those harms. Thus, there are often costs both from defending a given speaker and not defending that speaker. Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech rights.
Sounds reasonable.
It looks like they're simply examining and commenting on the complexities of ethics systems with their difficult internal conflicts.
There are six primary face shapes. Some argue that there are seven or nine; and some folks say there are approximately twenty-six faces and everyone is easily-confused with everyone else in one of those groups.
Black people have less dynamic range. Black people are black because their skin contains more melanin. White people can darken areas of their skin by producing more melanin, such as by tanning and freckles.
Black people reflect less light, and detail is less-obvious. Humans are pretty good at compensating; machines have trouble finding borders due to lack of contrast. Remember a human can see a face as a face, but then notice a pore as a pore and identify every fine detail as a separate aspect if we so choose; machines have to be taught to do that, then have to learn how to make the distinctions correctly.
Result? Facial recognition sucks. People train facial recognition by looking at small sets of faces and trying to find a way to differentiate specifically to that set; it continues to suck in practice on larger sets. Facial recognition sucks really bad if you're black because it thinks there are only five black people.
I can't readily recognize faces. I actually won't recognize people I know; and then I'll fail to recognize them entirely if they change their hair. It takes a few tries, and I mostly go by things like gait, body composition, behavior, voice, and so forth. I'm really sensitive to voice, and can identify someone's voice even if they manipulate it to disguise themselves--and can point out that someone sounds exactly like another person I know while also differentiating their voice with perfect reliability.
Let that sink in: I can't recognize you in real life even if I have an endless array of video and photographs for a few weeks or months ahead of time; but I can recognize your voice immediately from one sample, no matter what you do to distort it, short of electronic manipulation of a recording. Every voice is distinct. Twins have distinct voices.
Computers are known to be better at facial recognition than humans.
Facial recognition is hard.
I've seen FTEs with shit insurance, too. I've seen full-time positions with crap like Aflac before the ACA.
Here's a question: do they have healthcare or not?
Corp-to-corp contractors should get healthcare from their contracting corporation. Self-employed contractors...it must be a nightmare to manage that many contracts, holy crap.
My state politics are not extreme and the extremists get booted out pretty quickly. That may change but for the last few number of years has been ok. I don't mind my congressmen. My 3 federal votes seem working fine for me. Although, I wish I only had 2 federal election votes.
Fair enough. The big one is the Federal election. States tend to have a lean that holds them in place, but that's started to shift too.
I want the Federal government to have less power over what happens in my state so that I don't have to care about the Cortez's or Sanders of the world. Your ideas seem to give more power to the government which forces me to care and fight against it.
Not really. Voting in Federal elections is the jurisdiction of the Federal government. So is Federal welfare--and the Dividend is essentially a matter of reducing policy-guided control over welfare, among other economic policy actions. Decreasing the amount of action needed decreases the amount of action the population tolerates, so long as you can make the politicians stop meddling for a few terms and let people get used to them having their hands off the controls.
I want you to risk your political power and prove that it works instead of interfering with my state elections.
Implementing state-first won't affect how the State elects Federal seats; that can only happen at the Federal level. That's right: Federal law prohibits implementing this as the way States select their own representation.
Implementing state-first, on the other hand, will tend to do a number of things. First, it won't tend to shift the power balance in states, which have geographic segmentation such that localized elections turn out...similarly. In Maryland, for example, you may trade some three-Democrat delegate jurisdictions for two Democrats and a Republican; and you may trade the other way as well. It won't affect the Senate elections because...well, because they're also localized and tend to win by simple majority, which IS the Condorcet candidate.
The example tends to bleed over. With high voter satisfaction, it becomes both a political strategy and a movement. Neighboring states get pressure to implement similarly. Doing it state-by-state is a better way to impact your state elections than doing it Federally.
Trump winning is not reason enough to condemn the whole system to the whims of political expediency to "make sure it never happens again".
The issue isn't Trump; it's that a large part of the electorate hates Trump. You know the other side is coming as well as I do; and we should never be able to elect a candidate everybody dislikes. If there is a candidate who, if placed one-to-one against all other candidates, would win the majority in every such race, that candidate should win. A Trump or a Bernie, or perhaps a Cortez, should be impossible to elect unless the electorate largely feels satisfied--not most-satisfied, but not largely opposed.
Even the Schulze method was designed because Ranked Pairs wasn't good enough. Ranked Pairs tends to elect a Smith candidate who has a really bad loss, and Schulze elects someone who is also a Smith candidate but who has less of a bad loss--at the expense of sometimes electing one less-favored overall. In other words: Schulze avoids a candidate that more people hate--a lot--even if that candidate is overall better-supported. Of course, they both elect the Condorcet candidate if there is one.
Don't like the primaries? Neither do I. However, they are a private organization and freedom to assemble is not restricted because the goal of that assembly is to elect someone.
They can still elect someone. The point is you allow them to nominate two candidates each, instead of one--if and only if those candidates are nominated by a proportional process. Give a span of options.
Imagine what wou
A mixture of unobtanium and fairy dust, contributing to its excessive price. It is, in any case, not thermally-coupled to the CPU.
Like Obama and coal? Regardless what you think of coal, he did what you fear in a hypothetical.
I spoke with a small business owner who used coal to heat his factory. The equipment to meet the new environmental compliance was too expensive for his budget, and he couldn't move to gas due to coal costing $1,000 and gas costing over $5,000 per month to provide the same heat.
That roll-out should have accounted for this and included things like on-site solar installation aid, subsidies to install commercial-scale heat pumps, and so forth. Many far-more-liberal candidates would look at such a thing and simply decide the factory owner shouldn't come crying to the government for a bail-out.
Easier and more expedient to change the elections and system to favor me and use the courts to force my agenda. That'll show 'em! If you can't beat 'em change the rules.
You seem to have issue with the rules working against your favor half the time, yet don't seem to want the system to stabilize something other than an extreme.
Do you know what happened in 2016? A lot of Democratic voters were ready to vote Bernie. Yes, that's right: Bernie Sanders. They'll get behind Cortez if she runs, I'd wager. Here's the trick, though: those far-left progressives? They have a habit of taking their ball and going home when their candidate loses.
That's right: if it was Bernie-Trump, the Democratic party loyalists would have voted and the Bernie progressives would have voted. Trump would have been crushed. Can you imagine how that would have panned out?
Now, if each party had nominated two candidates by STV, the strong Bernie supporters would have been essentially tossed out in the first round: the Democrats would have nominated Bernie by a slim margin through the progressive vote, and those progressive voters would have lost all voting power for the next round. The remaining Democrats would have nominated Hillary.
The same would have happened with the Republicans, likely nominating Donald Trump (who got 42% of the votes!) plus Kaisch or Rubio (I'd assume Rubio).
Why two? Why not a Condorcet primary?
The primary represents those registered to the party. That mean the middle-Democrat versus the middle-Republican. A double- or triple-nomination elects the farther-extreme and more-centrist candidate, or the distribution three ways. Independent American voters and those in the swing set thus have nominees closer to their own views, and can vote for them in the General Election if they so choose.
There's a large span of "Never Trump" Republicans.
Do you know what that means?
It means a lot of middle-ground Republican votes went to Hillary. Given the span of candidates, those may very well have voted Rubio-Hillary, with others voting Hillary-Rubio, and others voting Bernie-Hillary or Hillary-Bernie. Hillary would have still defeated Bernie in the Condorcet election; Trump would have lost.
The question, then, comes down to this: Can Marco Rubio beat Hillary Clinton under those circumstances?
All of Trump's voters would have likely voted Trump-Rubio. Many of Rubio's voters may have gone Rubio-Trump or Rubio-Hillary, but that still puts them down as a vote against Hillary and for Rubio. Many of Hillary's votes were, in fact, the Rubio-Hillary set who went absolutely against Donald Trump--which means Hillary is losing those votes in the Condorcet model, but more Democrats would have turned out to vote Bernie-Hillary and so would have made her a stronger candidate as well.
I would most estimate that Hillary would have won, simply by gaining the Bernie votes in the Condorcet general to replace those lost to Marco Rubio; although I could be underestimating the number of less-extreme Conservatives who pitched for Hillary just to avoid Trump. Polling suggests Hillary would have gotten 265 votes ag
I would only be able to notice if my property is not there when I need it or if it is/was altered.
Nonsense. You'd notice it's not in your driveway at night if you looked outside.
Could be devastating for the cheated on spouse. Maybe grounds for voiding a marriage contract - divorce.
Not if they don't find out.
That is quite that double-speak on an institution that protects the minority in the country. "slim majority" can trample over a "large minority". The majority lost. The minority won. That is protecting the minority.
And when it turns the other way?
What if the complete and total opposition by the 49% of voters who vote against a particular President--a President who will exercise the law in ways permissible by Presidential power, yet with no care for the damage caused to that 49%--actually mattered? What if that opposition said, "You can't have Bernie or Trump; you can have Delaney or LeSasse, who at least put some consideration into the rest of the Nation's needs"?
What if that opposition could, in fact, influence the outcome even though they lost?
You know what's going to happen. A candidate's going to win, and is going to make an entire industry illegal. They're not even going to buy them out; they're going to force them into bankruptcy and failure while creating a Government agency to do it all.
Despite the majority voting for that candidate, the minority could instead have some say in this, instead electing a candidate who brings services and regulations but not a complete take-over. That minority may want no such thing--they may want less regulation and the Government to stay out of it--but they have been overruled. They don't need to be cast aside and ignored.
An institution which shifts us back and forth between 100 and -100 doesn't protect the minority. It doesn't factor the minority in--at all. It's not a consensus; it's a tug of war.