The republicans are attacking Social Security too and it's pissing people off; and yes, you nailed it with Clinton and the Glass-Stegall repeal. Do you know what these things have in common? They're all protections built by or in following of FDR's recovery policies.
Then we've got the far-right wingnuts--the crazies who are attacking McMaster at the moment. I'm no fan of the current administration, but a quick look over McMaster's history shows military officer experience in real wars, as well as a frigging Ph.D. study into American history culminating in a dissertation on the Vietnam War. The NY Times liked his book, but criticized him for focusing on the failings of the American administration and not talking much at all about the superior military strategy of the Vietnamese; and their criticism misses the point entirely: McMaster looked at what we did wrong, instead of making excuses about how losing wasn't our fault. Maybe we'd still have lost the Vietnam War if everyone fixed all the stuff he talked about the first time through; and on-balance, addressing those issues would only reduce our losses and improve our effectiveness in military strategic exercises--which is highly-relevant to his current job.
I've got a Project Management certification. What we're talking about here is critical Lessons Learned knowledge. It sort of stands out to me that he knows not just how to do his job, but also how to improve his organization's capacity to accomplish its mission in total. We need that in any administration.
So what do we have? Pizzagate morons slinging mud because he's not a fan of their right-wing extremism. Great.
On the other side, extreme far-left wingnuts are trying to take Democratic seats in office to pull the party to the left. The folks that far out don't offer any real progressive policies; instead, they talk about breaking down the rich, the banks, anything they see as "too capitalist" or "having more than they need". No talk about how we're going to take care of the poor or working-class American.
Of course none of them are thinking too hard about how to protect this country--economically, militarily, or even politically. They're throwing tantrums and putting us at risk of a fascist or socialist regime, creating either Hitler's Germany or Lenin's USSR. Yes, the people attacking McMaster are the same bunch of folks who espouse that what we need to straighten our continent out is to make America white again--or at least they're mixed in there, and they're venting those ideals right along with their vitriolic attacks.
Have you ever stopped to consider the political risks a nation faces internally from highly-polarized politics? It's horrifying.
They're called "short" positions for a reason. Holding short for months at a time is a good way to get trashed.
Even holding short ETFs for a while can be damaging over the course of the market trading levelly. SPY ends up the same price you bought it months ago, but SH or SPXU end up down by 10% or 30%. You really have to catch it when the market is just about to go, not when you're starting to feel like it's going to be a bad time to be in the market some time in the next year.
As impressive as it might seem to nail a dramatic market event down to a year's time span, hitting the right week should obviously be a non-trivial exercise. What you do instead is wait for the market to shit itself and then, when it stops freefalling, you buy into SPY or UPRO (depending on how much risk you want to take) and wait out the next 4-5 years. You can even buy SPY when you think the peak recession is passed, and then sell it for UPRO when you're sure of it, thus controlling your initial risk while still taking the opportunity to get in early. That last bit where the market's done recovering shows itself off for about two years, so you know to get out.
Someone might buy some of your Dogecoins. That still won't change the fact that you have a million of them and there's no way you're selling a million of them at $1000 each.
Here's the fun part: a bunch of folks are trading Dogecoins back and forth at around $1,000 each, making small gains and losses. It's enough money moving around to account for thousands of trades a day. Since they're selling in the $970-$1,050 range, people value your whole pile of a million Dogecoins at somewhere around a billion dollars, despite the fact that all the Dogecoins out there got spread around at $5 each and the net movement between parties doesn't show anyone picking up lots and lots of Dogecoin they didn't have before.
The stock market is run by perceptions. You're talking about a perception shift to drive the market down, which is what the stock market experiences in a bust.
The problem is the stock market isn't the economy.
We have these businesses fueled by more and more venture capital, big loans, and the like, where people are giving them money to go be useless in the belief that they'll return money. In 2000, this resulted in a lot of rich folk hemmoraging money and taking big losses, only to come out major shareholders in Amazon.com and the like--they lost millions, and got to hold a little nest egg that turned into hundreds of millions a decade later.
When the bubble bursts, VC will dry up; rent will come due; and the capacity to continue marketing and incrementally-improving products that nobody's actually willing or able to pay for (unless they stop paying for something else) dries up. Everyone involved loses their job, and you get a wave of unemployment.
I don't know how to prevent that one, either. I've been thinking the next recession is late-2017/early-2018; there is no way to get any mitigating policy in place by then, so it's coming.
I did design policy specifically to let the recessions hit, but prevent them from doing so damned much damage. I've been sitting on it for 4 years; that's why I'm running for Congress. It's not that anyone's told me there are problems with my plans; it's that nobody's even listening. I keep trying to get access to better expertise than my own and they're all too busy; at least a run for some status might get me enough attention to get someone's ear for ten minutes (albeit, a win would net me a chance to form a committee to explore the problem with vigor).
Corporations aren't legally people. They're legal entities which can shield their members from certain liabilities in some situations, although there are many situations which will legally pierce the corporate veil.
GoDaddy can refuse service for any reason to any person... kind of. There are protected classes laws, and so you can't refuse service for being black. Likewise, you can't refuse service for displaying gang signs and posting pictures of yourself with marijuana if there is a pattern of refusing service for such things significantly more-frequently to blacks, because it is obvious to a reasonable person that you are denying many simply for being black--and this becomes a more-dependable position as the proportion changes, right up to the point where few non-black customers get ejected when behaving in such a manner and so and nobody is buying your bullshit.
A reasonable person might assume GoDaddy doesn't want to associate with this person for any number of reasons--such as their political opinions--and that they have tolerated this person as a customer in the past. The person's behavior in mocking a victim of brutal murder might, reasonably, be the sort of thing which GoDaddy simply isn't going to tolerate, even if you have some sort of case for being a protected class by your political opinions (California), race, sexuality, etc. in connection with your use of the service. A reasonable person examining the situation would give some weight to the reactionary argument--that the customer did a thing, and that thing was so intolerable that it transcends all other concerns, and so discrimination against protected classes isn't a factor.
So in this case, GoDaddy can get away with this easily enough. They're also supporting free speech by tolerating this user for a further 24 hours so that he can get his site backed up, possibly transferred, and keep running--just without their involvement. They haven't taken his domain and his hosting hostage, or blocked him from accessing his own material. It appears to me they've taken every moral high-ground they can get and told him to move along out of their sights.
Therefore you know I did not come close to stating that, or implying, "universally".
Yes, and you know damned well that you implied that more consumers would spend an extra $40 if iPhones cost more than would move to cheaper options to save $40. You are implying that the overall spending would be higher and thus that an increase in spending won't cause a decrease in economic activity. Note that an increase in spending on iPhones just concentrates wealth at Apple.
If all of this is true, then Apple should gain higher profit by raising its prices, since people who have the money to spend will spend it.
It is a good thing you are trying to be a politician. You are unable to defend ideas, you lie to try not to look like you are losing and I am sure you will do the same in your campaign. I hope only that others in your area see the levels that you will stoop to in order push ideas that you can not truthfully defend.
Nice ad-hominem attacks. I suppose, after being blasted for trying to claim I was treating economics as a zero-sum game, that it was inevitable you'd bail out in embarrassment. I can do it better, though.
My perspective is based on a large examination of complex economic systems; experience with products and services supplied in the real world (you know, a lot of the best and worst stuff on the market is manufactured in China); and an understanding of complex fiscal decision making by consumers.
Your perspective is based on "people with a lot of money will always spend more money if prices go up because they have it" and "China makes cheap shit, so China must only be capable of making cheap shit."
Very shallow, blunt, single-step reasoning on your part. You live in a very simple world based on very simple ideas, and you ignore anything complex. It's cold outside today, so all that climate change stuff isn't real.
Anyway, this is pointless, since I'm yelling it at your back as you flee with your tail tucked firmly between your legs.
The thought that most (Even though you did the math for ALL) iPhone buyers will buy $40 less stuff because their phone cost $40 more is a fallacy.
Many iPhone buyers have disposable income and most of the $40 will come out of savings.
You should tell Apple that iPhone buyers are universally willing to spend $40 more and they can't find anything else they'd like to spend an additional $40 for than the iPhone they're already buying. Apple has obviously screwed up royally in setting their price at such a steep discount, and would profit greatly by raising the price of the iPhone $40 without actually adding anything to the model.
No it is not. It is just really cheap.
Not mutually-exclusive. The Chinese have the greatest experience with manufacture in the world, and are able to deliver the same results with lower labor investment and faster turn-around compared to any other developed market. They also have a rather low wage market, although the per-hour compensation has been increasing rapidly in recent years as the Chinese export economy has allowed a greater capacity to bring expensive, modern technology into the country, allowing the Chinese to supply even more output with the same labor--enough that doubling the labor cost-per-hour in under a decade still didn't raise the cost-per-unit.
And running for office.
I have shit to do.
You seem to have assumed that burning the pain out of my head is a bad thing. If you've ever had long contact with a schizotypal, you'd quickly learn the dangers of distorted thinking. I've watched people rewrite history--I've seen people alter what just happened while the physical evidence is still around them--and it's unnerving, at best. I've broken someone's little fantasy world and made it impossible for them to return to the same location--not functionally, anyway, instead just devolving into a pile of confused muttering about not being able to remember when they were there, and then forgetting the whole episode afterwards.
I don't make decisions on a fantasy that excludes those experiences which I'd rather forget. I have somewhat-extreme defenses on that front, and a habit of looking directly toward anything that slightly upsets my thoughts; it has served me well.
Yes. That would be a guess that you make
It is one you have demonstrated, at the very least, for your grasp on economics is obviously poor.
I do not work off political ideals. I work off ideals.
Contradictory. You have a belief system to which you adhere, and so you ignore the world around you. When someone challenges your ideals, you move to protect them, and argue to maintain your stance instead of to enrich your knowledge. Welcome to politics.
Thinking that $40 to be spent, must be taken from somewhere is false. If it were true we could not have had the economic growth we have had for the last 100 years. The economy is not a strictly zero sum game.
Purchasing power spent in one place must necessarily be taken from another place. In the absence of inflation, $40 spent in one place must necessarily be taken from another place.
When technical progress occurs, labor time to produce is reduced. That means a full-time wage of the same amount--say $10 per hour--can pay wages equivalent to a greater volume of produced goods. As such, an increase in purchasing power occurs. The economy is not a zero-sum game.
When no such process occurs but an increase in price occurs--as will happen when an increase in cost occurs by increasing the cost expended per hour of labor--a reduction in purchasing power necessarily occurs.
Growth in the economy for the last several thousand years has been based entirely on trade and technical progress. An economy grows by population as well; and populati
If the white whale beaches itself off the coast of Africa. (See how anyone can make any statement at all by just typing and nothing more need be done.)
Right, didn't put in context.
If you think that the idea that an iPhone will cost $40.00 more because of increased labor costs will cost the US 87,000 jobs, show your work their bucko.
It was a demonstrative statement illustrating that what's good for Wisconsin is not necessarily good for America. Still, if you want the demonstration of the basic concept, we can do that.
$40 can't be spent on other things if it's spent on an iPhone that's $40 more expensive. Do consumers not buy iPhone but buy other things, or not buy other things and still buy iPhone?
If they don't buy as many iPhones, the factory creates fewer jobs than projected based on how many laborers are needed to produce some number of iPhones.
If they do buy iPhones, how many per year? Let's use nonsense numbers, since you proposed $40, and I'm tired of doing this with pants (for which I've used real numbers).
Some guy on Quora uses a lot of black magic to claim 36 million iPhone purchases per year.... okay, whatever, I wanted real sales numbers, but I guess we're committed to this nonsense anyway, so I'll take it.
36 million x $40 per year = $1,440 billion.
$1,440 billion is 87,000 minimum wage jobs, just about. That's your ceiling. It's 26,700 median-wage jobs. If we assume median distribution, then that's 26,000 lost. Truck drivers represent a $19.36 average hourly wage and roughly 50% of shipping; retail workers at minimum wage represent a small part of other costs chained to most goods. If we call it ~$15/hr, it's 48,000 jobs.
Why truckers and retailers?
You only put so much on a truck. If you buy less stuff, the per-good cost of shipping doesn't decrease; the number of trucks and shipping hours does. (By the by, shipping a pair of pants from China costs 6 cents; the ground shipping that eventually gets those pants to the retail outlet totals something like $10 after moving from warehouse to warehouse.) The same goes for cashiers scanning 980 items per hour, people stocking shelves, and the like.
As for consuming the whole cost, the United States has a stable economy. It's drawing money in through exports, sending money out through imports, and has productivity and growth making up the difference (else our trade imbalance would mean we'd be losing more and more jobs each year, and recovery from a recession wouldn't be a thing). The whole cost of that $40 is lain on the economy each pay cycle--it goes into an American pocket to be spent in the *next* cycle--else we'd have essentially infinite spending capacity in instantaneous time (i.e. we'd violate the laws of thermodynamics--all of them--by violating the laws of causality).
So you have one of two situations: a loss of purchasing of iPhones and a creation of fewer jobs, or a loss of purchasing of other things and a creation of fewer jobs. The loss of purchasing of iPhones may also cause the loss of jobs, either at Apple (as people jump to lower-price Android phones) or in retail and shipping as well as Apple (as people simply go longer between iPhone purchases).
When you do this with real numbers, you compare the labor-hours worked to afford a purchaseable product. That inevitably shows that Americans work longer to purchase the same products, which takes us right back to the first law of thermodynamics--because you can't just magic up time and the energy expended over time. If you work 6 hours instead of 3 to buy some pants, then you can't trade the product of 3 more hours of work to buy whatever else you used to buy unless you work 3 more hours, assuming that other thing isn't more-expensive. The result is less labor trade, meaning fewer supportable jobs: the factory workers get work at someone else's loss, and less work is traded in
The spending of money has to come from somewhere--notably, taxpayer pockets. That reduces the capacity of consumer demand, which is what creates jobs. (Corporate taxes reduce agility--the capacity to change rapidly to a rapidly-changing market and supply the appropriate jobs--but it has a much-smaller impact on total job availability than consumer buying power and, thus, consumer taxation.)
The other side of this is Wisconsin wants a factory producing a product that sells outside of Wisconsin. From the perspective of America as a whole, producing these things using American labor increases costs, and so has an impact of reducing total available jobs if we buy from them rather than picking up the cheap (and identical) Chinese one. From the perspective of Wisconsin, if America loses 87,000 jobs and Wisconsin gains 35,000 jobs, Wisconsin has boosted its job market and increased its tax revenue (never mind that America is at a net 52,000 loss of jobs--fuck America, this is Wisconsin and Wisconsin cares about Wisconsin first!).
The ultimate win for Wisconsin is for people to actually buy the stuff they manufacture while they import from China instead of dogfooding their own product.
It makes sense if Amazon holds the stock and then gives it to the employee, losing an asset.
It doesn't make sense if Amazon issues new stock, since that creates an asset (and dilutes the share value). That new asset is income to Amazon, then is handed over and is an expense; if it's issued directly to the employee, then the value of that income-expense is net-zero and it shouldn't get them a tax discount.
Is a Consumer Reports subscription worth it for $35/year? Without expletives and the kind of hard-hitting commentary great minds like those at the The Rolling Stone are willing to lay down, I'm on the fence.
I like it. It needs a clause to exempt all attempts to break the anonymization "by any party for the purpose of research into anonymization and the validation of strength of anonymization itself" so as to ensure re-identification to identify (and retention of re-identified data) is an offense whereas re-identification to show that it can be done and how is perfectly-legal.
Probably clearer and better, yeah. I still say that there was, in fact, review (and editing!) of the reports by Monsanto and their legal representatives, and that we can't claim McClellan ordered such contact to not be reported.
I've a vested interest in seeing people of integrity in positions of power. From what I can tell, McClellan acted to maximize disclosure and minimize collusion, albeit with minimal apparent involvement himself he doesn't have much power until someone elevates a problem to his awareness. We should be focusing on Monsanto and the panel which accepted a paper with undisclosed editing by its key stakeholder.
Consultation with Monsanto or their legal representatives. Consultants for Monsanto hired by Intertek would be legal representatives in some fashion.
They put in the disclosure that they didn't consult with Monsanto when writing the paper, even though there's a hell of a lot of consultation with Monsanto going on in the review of the reports. Saying that McClellan instructed them not to disclose that Monsanto had been consulted in reviewing the reports is... at odds with the facts.
The whole thing is a mess. I was pointing out a logical inconsistency that seems to attribute blame to someone who didn't conspire to create this mess.
I've had useless coworkers in several fields, races, and genders. Most of the time I encounter a girl programmer, she's not very good--probably because about 95% of all programmers I encounter are not very good. Pigeon hole principle.
So, to recap: I've encountered about 12-15 male programmers who weren't very good and 2 female programmers who weren't very good in the past 10 years. I've encountered 1 non-shitty male programmer and 0 non-shitty female programmers. Jeff Attwood doesn't count because I haven't worked directly with him or had to support his development team. Statistically, there's a huge problem with sample size here.
As for leadership positions? The field of project management is strangely full of men who function as mindless bureaucrats and women with star performance. I don't know why. Tres Roeder spearheaded the inclusion of project stakeholder management in the latest edition of the PMBOK; maybe women are pretty good at that and men are generally fucking terrible. We can make guesses all day, and most of them will probably be wrong.
Let's try not to draw conclusions from low-quality information, or make simple conclusions about vastly-complex topics.
The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue.
Just a paragraph up:
Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired--"ie by Intertek," McClellan wrote. "If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed."
McClellan instructed them to disclose any contact. If they didn't, then that's not a fault of McClellan's instructions, and McClellan's instructions were not followed.
Men and women aren't neurologically or biologically equivalent, but have the same neurological facilities and the same capacity. Intelligence is a matter of tool use.
As for the correct ratio... some women like being programmers. Lots of women are excellent project managers--I have no earthly idea why that's a trend. Sure, men are particularly more-interested in things like cars or computers than women, but women are really good at project management when it takes their interest, and men are really good at being bureaucrats without necessarily making any headway. That means Rita Mulcahy was pretty archetypal, while Tres Roeder breaks the mold.
Women who got into tech on their own interests are interested (of course), and interest drives motivation. Motivation lowers the amount of neurological load involved in approaching a task: things are easy because you don't have to fight against your brain's impulse to get away from the energy expenditure. Both men and women have the same intellectual facilities to structure and control their assimilation of information, and can either apply them and become very good at what they do or not apply them and be very bad at what they do.
So comparing a sample man programmer with a sample woman programmer gives you something that's probably the same capacity, although there's variance over the entire population because individuals will use their mental facilities with varying degrees of deliberation whether they're male, female, black, white, or whatever. They can all reach the same capacity, but they don't.
The differences in men and women provide different methods of thought: you reach your conclusions through a different order of operations, incorporation of different information, and so forth. Culture, age, life experience, and everything cause variations here. With a well-developed intellect, these differences can sometimes block at different problems. That means having different people of diverse backgrounds and diverse methods of thinking on your team--all having developed intellects--routes around problems and produces high-quality results.
It's easy to show that women generally have interest in different things than men. The problem is people take this out to incorrect conclusions. "...thus, all women belong back in the kitchen, and will never be good at man's work." Doesn't work that way. This kind of abuse of reasoning has caused immeasurable pain and suffering in our history, such as when Hitler identified that the media was pushing views he thought detrimental to Germany, then that the media was run by jews, and concluded (by some method of horribly-broken reasoning) that exterminating the jews would eliminate all the problems faced by Germany.
People want a simple answer. It's not simple. Most people don't even know what the human mind is truly capable of. It's an immense array of tools that can be put to skilled use, and nobody does so; you're just an in-born programming, mechanical, or mathematical genius.
because he proposed a series of sexist [...] stereotypes which belong in the 19th century
I prefer to point out that people draw the wrong conclusions from facts rather than to ignore facts.
It's become fashionable in an extreme minority voice to claim that women and men are identical or markedly different in various capacities, whether those are particular capabilities (strength, intellect) or behaviors (interests, emotional expression). For whatever reason, these people ignore facts in one direction or another.
For example: men and women both possess the same intellectual faculties, and can employ them to the same effectiveness. People in general aren't of greater or lesser intelligence; they have greater or lesser intellect--they have applied their facilities to different degrees, and may thus have made more of their intelligence. Women are just as capable as men in intellectual pursuits.
It is also a fact that the neurological and hormonal systems in men and women differ, leading to differences in thinking. This is an accurate assessment, and begins the problem of people drawing inaccurate conclusions to suit their biases.
That women think differently can be suppressed: our executive functions allow us to suppress our emotional responses, our biases, even our responses to pain. That's why women can function in high-pressure, high-intellect jobs just as well as men--that is to say: a man or a woman without the properly developed defense mechanisms will simply whine a lot when the pressure comes on, and otherwise will handle the situation quite well.
That leaves the advantages of different thinking: a boost of group creativity. A group with a single mind--one culture, one gender, one set of life experiences--will always approach a problem in one way. Mix in cultural changes, varied life experiences, and even the biological pressures that cause women and men to think differently and you have increased the strength of that team's problem-solving ability.
If you want to put women back into the kitchen, you point out that they're not men, thus inferior. If you want to get some work done, you point out that they're not men, thus represent a potential opportunity. This is unfortunately impolitic, and so we only hear from people who are unafraid to attack others for their particular differences, whether that be race, gender, or culture.
Then your life is wasted driving all over the place. Next question.
I am, unfortunately, an east-coast politician and thus see transportation as an issue of congested cities and poverty reduction. When you get out west, it's an issue of enormous loss of labor and quality-of-life just... driving around a lot. With a one-hour one-way commute, a five-day work week incurs an extra day and a quarter of unpaid time just getting to and from work; this is unsavory.
Hopefully that hyperloop thing pans out and you all get a way to make your commute 1/4 as long. It's too new a technology for me to validate commercial viability; Elon Musk can figure that part out, and the senators from the midwest can argue over if we should give national taxpayer money to speed this technology along. I will say that making all distances shorter does nice things for the economy, but might eventually lead to a world of grey people.
Unsubsidized utility-scale PV solar electricity production has a cost range spanning the lower third of the cost range of combined gas cycle electricity production, which is by far the cheapest method of electricity production from fossil fuel. That incorporates cap-ex and op-ex into the TCO.
When I was 19, I used to eat while driving on 695. I would swerve all over the road now and then, and would have probably been a safer driver with free hands and 3-4 beers in me, but I pulled it off.
Going more than about 4 hours without a solid meal (or some modafinil) in you will mess with your reaction time. You don't look like a danger to others, but you're well into sub-optimal, and your mistakes are more-surprising when they happen. Call it 1-2 beers. We're not talking Duvel here.
Your brain runs on ATP, glucose, and acetone. It burns out its fuel supplies eventually, and needs time to consolidate new memories, produce more neurotransmitters, and regenerate supplies of ATP from glucose. It requires one hell of a lot of fuel. The "stop to let your brain un-fuck itself a bit" argument is akin to "your brake line is leaking slightly and you need to stop every 4-5 hours to top up some fluid": I've also let my brake lines get way low, d00d, and had the car complain at me that brakes were starting to fail, and continued to drive for another thousand miles, and nothing bad happened; I don't do that anymore, and would you want to be on the same road with me if I did?
Basically, you're facing an argument like "you shouldn't drive when drunk," and your answer is "I'm only slightly drunk, so it's fine!" Of course it's fine. Usually. Hopefully. Hell we can all probably make it home smashed most of the time, as long as the roads are wide and there's not much traffic. There's a reason we arrest you for this shit.
The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto"
The title was "PC Considered Harmful" and talked about how the ideological political-correctness push to get women in tech positions is some kind of fantasy that ignores that women don't want to be in tech positions except because society tells them they're being left out and that they should be outraged. It generated a lot of outrage.
There are marked differences between the physiology and neurophysiology of men and women, as well as in the endocrine system. Not differences in capacity, but responsiveness to stimuli. The guy apparently extrapolated this to a 10-page-long Randian diatribe that amounts to, "...Thus, women should get back in the kitchen." It's engineer's myopia.
There are plenty of women interested in technology, and they're still women. Enough broad-spanning knowledge about human creativity quickly draws the conclusion that these are highly-valuable resources, since the differences in how women's minds operate as a general trend on any given input will tend to break up the mental logjams engineering teams frequently experience. High-impact problem solvers have also resorted to educating non-experts (e.g. a janitor) as to problem-solving processes, then dumping the facts on them and waiting for whatever stupid question they ask--because it's almost always something from which all the smart people reflexively reasoned away without a moment's thought, and the exact problem a frightening proportion of the time.
There's a lot to leverage about the dissimilarities in people of different backgrounds and the method by which their minds work, whatever the cause. To reason that one group is necessarily-superior in every way because they're the common case and thus that the other group is useless and should stay out of man's work is short-sighted and plainly ignorant. It's the kind of vulgar conclusion to which an uneducated peasant of a medieval state with neither welfare nor a proper school system would come.
Slashdot Mirror
The republicans are attacking Social Security too and it's pissing people off; and yes, you nailed it with Clinton and the Glass-Stegall repeal. Do you know what these things have in common? They're all protections built by or in following of FDR's recovery policies.
Then we've got the far-right wingnuts--the crazies who are attacking McMaster at the moment. I'm no fan of the current administration, but a quick look over McMaster's history shows military officer experience in real wars, as well as a frigging Ph.D. study into American history culminating in a dissertation on the Vietnam War. The NY Times liked his book, but criticized him for focusing on the failings of the American administration and not talking much at all about the superior military strategy of the Vietnamese; and their criticism misses the point entirely: McMaster looked at what we did wrong, instead of making excuses about how losing wasn't our fault. Maybe we'd still have lost the Vietnam War if everyone fixed all the stuff he talked about the first time through; and on-balance, addressing those issues would only reduce our losses and improve our effectiveness in military strategic exercises--which is highly-relevant to his current job.
I've got a Project Management certification. What we're talking about here is critical Lessons Learned knowledge. It sort of stands out to me that he knows not just how to do his job, but also how to improve his organization's capacity to accomplish its mission in total. We need that in any administration.
So what do we have? Pizzagate morons slinging mud because he's not a fan of their right-wing extremism. Great.
On the other side, extreme far-left wingnuts are trying to take Democratic seats in office to pull the party to the left. The folks that far out don't offer any real progressive policies; instead, they talk about breaking down the rich, the banks, anything they see as "too capitalist" or "having more than they need". No talk about how we're going to take care of the poor or working-class American.
Of course none of them are thinking too hard about how to protect this country--economically, militarily, or even politically. They're throwing tantrums and putting us at risk of a fascist or socialist regime, creating either Hitler's Germany or Lenin's USSR. Yes, the people attacking McMaster are the same bunch of folks who espouse that what we need to straighten our continent out is to make America white again--or at least they're mixed in there, and they're venting those ideals right along with their vitriolic attacks.
Have you ever stopped to consider the political risks a nation faces internally from highly-polarized politics? It's horrifying.
They're called "short" positions for a reason. Holding short for months at a time is a good way to get trashed.
Even holding short ETFs for a while can be damaging over the course of the market trading levelly. SPY ends up the same price you bought it months ago, but SH or SPXU end up down by 10% or 30%. You really have to catch it when the market is just about to go, not when you're starting to feel like it's going to be a bad time to be in the market some time in the next year.
As impressive as it might seem to nail a dramatic market event down to a year's time span, hitting the right week should obviously be a non-trivial exercise. What you do instead is wait for the market to shit itself and then, when it stops freefalling, you buy into SPY or UPRO (depending on how much risk you want to take) and wait out the next 4-5 years. You can even buy SPY when you think the peak recession is passed, and then sell it for UPRO when you're sure of it, thus controlling your initial risk while still taking the opportunity to get in early. That last bit where the market's done recovering shows itself off for about two years, so you know to get out.
Someone might buy some of your Dogecoins. That still won't change the fact that you have a million of them and there's no way you're selling a million of them at $1000 each.
Here's the fun part: a bunch of folks are trading Dogecoins back and forth at around $1,000 each, making small gains and losses. It's enough money moving around to account for thousands of trades a day. Since they're selling in the $970-$1,050 range, people value your whole pile of a million Dogecoins at somewhere around a billion dollars, despite the fact that all the Dogecoins out there got spread around at $5 each and the net movement between parties doesn't show anyone picking up lots and lots of Dogecoin they didn't have before.
The stock market is run by perceptions. You're talking about a perception shift to drive the market down, which is what the stock market experiences in a bust.
The problem is the stock market isn't the economy.
We have these businesses fueled by more and more venture capital, big loans, and the like, where people are giving them money to go be useless in the belief that they'll return money. In 2000, this resulted in a lot of rich folk hemmoraging money and taking big losses, only to come out major shareholders in Amazon.com and the like--they lost millions, and got to hold a little nest egg that turned into hundreds of millions a decade later.
When the bubble bursts, VC will dry up; rent will come due; and the capacity to continue marketing and incrementally-improving products that nobody's actually willing or able to pay for (unless they stop paying for something else) dries up. Everyone involved loses their job, and you get a wave of unemployment.
Then: the stock market shits itself in terror.
I don't know how to prevent that one, either. I've been thinking the next recession is late-2017/early-2018; there is no way to get any mitigating policy in place by then, so it's coming.
I did design policy specifically to let the recessions hit, but prevent them from doing so damned much damage. I've been sitting on it for 4 years; that's why I'm running for Congress. It's not that anyone's told me there are problems with my plans; it's that nobody's even listening. I keep trying to get access to better expertise than my own and they're all too busy; at least a run for some status might get me enough attention to get someone's ear for ten minutes (albeit, a win would net me a chance to form a committee to explore the problem with vigor).
They said it's valued at over a billion, not that it's worth that much.
Corporations aren't legally people. They're legal entities which can shield their members from certain liabilities in some situations, although there are many situations which will legally pierce the corporate veil.
GoDaddy can refuse service for any reason to any person... kind of. There are protected classes laws, and so you can't refuse service for being black. Likewise, you can't refuse service for displaying gang signs and posting pictures of yourself with marijuana if there is a pattern of refusing service for such things significantly more-frequently to blacks, because it is obvious to a reasonable person that you are denying many simply for being black--and this becomes a more-dependable position as the proportion changes, right up to the point where few non-black customers get ejected when behaving in such a manner and so and nobody is buying your bullshit.
A reasonable person might assume GoDaddy doesn't want to associate with this person for any number of reasons--such as their political opinions--and that they have tolerated this person as a customer in the past. The person's behavior in mocking a victim of brutal murder might, reasonably, be the sort of thing which GoDaddy simply isn't going to tolerate, even if you have some sort of case for being a protected class by your political opinions (California), race, sexuality, etc. in connection with your use of the service. A reasonable person examining the situation would give some weight to the reactionary argument--that the customer did a thing, and that thing was so intolerable that it transcends all other concerns, and so discrimination against protected classes isn't a factor.
So in this case, GoDaddy can get away with this easily enough. They're also supporting free speech by tolerating this user for a further 24 hours so that he can get his site backed up, possibly transferred, and keep running--just without their involvement. They haven't taken his domain and his hosting hostage, or blocked him from accessing his own material. It appears to me they've taken every moral high-ground they can get and told him to move along out of their sights.
Therefore you know I did not come close to stating that, or implying, "universally".
Yes, and you know damned well that you implied that more consumers would spend an extra $40 if iPhones cost more than would move to cheaper options to save $40. You are implying that the overall spending would be higher and thus that an increase in spending won't cause a decrease in economic activity. Note that an increase in spending on iPhones just concentrates wealth at Apple.
If all of this is true, then Apple should gain higher profit by raising its prices, since people who have the money to spend will spend it.
It is a good thing you are trying to be a politician. You are unable to defend ideas, you lie to try not to look like you are losing and I am sure you will do the same in your campaign. I hope only that others in your area see the levels that you will stoop to in order push ideas that you can not truthfully defend.
Nice ad-hominem attacks. I suppose, after being blasted for trying to claim I was treating economics as a zero-sum game, that it was inevitable you'd bail out in embarrassment. I can do it better, though.
My perspective is based on a large examination of complex economic systems; experience with products and services supplied in the real world (you know, a lot of the best and worst stuff on the market is manufactured in China); and an understanding of complex fiscal decision making by consumers.
Your perspective is based on "people with a lot of money will always spend more money if prices go up because they have it" and "China makes cheap shit, so China must only be capable of making cheap shit."
Very shallow, blunt, single-step reasoning on your part. You live in a very simple world based on very simple ideas, and you ignore anything complex. It's cold outside today, so all that climate change stuff isn't real.
Anyway, this is pointless, since I'm yelling it at your back as you flee with your tail tucked firmly between your legs.
The thought that most (Even though you did the math for ALL) iPhone buyers will buy $40 less stuff because their phone cost $40 more is a fallacy. Many iPhone buyers have disposable income and most of the $40 will come out of savings.
You should tell Apple that iPhone buyers are universally willing to spend $40 more and they can't find anything else they'd like to spend an additional $40 for than the iPhone they're already buying. Apple has obviously screwed up royally in setting their price at such a steep discount, and would profit greatly by raising the price of the iPhone $40 without actually adding anything to the model.
No it is not. It is just really cheap.
Not mutually-exclusive. The Chinese have the greatest experience with manufacture in the world, and are able to deliver the same results with lower labor investment and faster turn-around compared to any other developed market. They also have a rather low wage market, although the per-hour compensation has been increasing rapidly in recent years as the Chinese export economy has allowed a greater capacity to bring expensive, modern technology into the country, allowing the Chinese to supply even more output with the same labor--enough that doubling the labor cost-per-hour in under a decade still didn't raise the cost-per-unit.
And running for office.
I have shit to do.
You seem to have assumed that burning the pain out of my head is a bad thing. If you've ever had long contact with a schizotypal, you'd quickly learn the dangers of distorted thinking. I've watched people rewrite history--I've seen people alter what just happened while the physical evidence is still around them--and it's unnerving, at best. I've broken someone's little fantasy world and made it impossible for them to return to the same location--not functionally, anyway, instead just devolving into a pile of confused muttering about not being able to remember when they were there, and then forgetting the whole episode afterwards.
I don't make decisions on a fantasy that excludes those experiences which I'd rather forget. I have somewhat-extreme defenses on that front, and a habit of looking directly toward anything that slightly upsets my thoughts; it has served me well.
Yes. That would be a guess that you make
It is one you have demonstrated, at the very least, for your grasp on economics is obviously poor.
I do not work off political ideals. I work off ideals.
Contradictory. You have a belief system to which you adhere, and so you ignore the world around you. When someone challenges your ideals, you move to protect them, and argue to maintain your stance instead of to enrich your knowledge. Welcome to politics.
Thinking that $40 to be spent, must be taken from somewhere is false. If it were true we could not have had the economic growth we have had for the last 100 years. The economy is not a strictly zero sum game.
Purchasing power spent in one place must necessarily be taken from another place. In the absence of inflation, $40 spent in one place must necessarily be taken from another place.
When technical progress occurs, labor time to produce is reduced. That means a full-time wage of the same amount--say $10 per hour--can pay wages equivalent to a greater volume of produced goods. As such, an increase in purchasing power occurs. The economy is not a zero-sum game.
When no such process occurs but an increase in price occurs--as will happen when an increase in cost occurs by increasing the cost expended per hour of labor--a reduction in purchasing power necessarily occurs.
Growth in the economy for the last several thousand years has been based entirely on trade and technical progress. An economy grows by population as well; and populati
If the white whale beaches itself off the coast of Africa. (See how anyone can make any statement at all by just typing and nothing more need be done.)
Right, didn't put in context.
If you think that the idea that an iPhone will cost $40.00 more because of increased labor costs will cost the US 87,000 jobs, show your work their bucko.
It was a demonstrative statement illustrating that what's good for Wisconsin is not necessarily good for America. Still, if you want the demonstration of the basic concept, we can do that.
$40 can't be spent on other things if it's spent on an iPhone that's $40 more expensive. Do consumers not buy iPhone but buy other things, or not buy other things and still buy iPhone?
If they don't buy as many iPhones, the factory creates fewer jobs than projected based on how many laborers are needed to produce some number of iPhones.
If they do buy iPhones, how many per year? Let's use nonsense numbers, since you proposed $40, and I'm tired of doing this with pants (for which I've used real numbers).
Some guy on Quora uses a lot of black magic to claim 36 million iPhone purchases per year. ... okay, whatever, I wanted real sales numbers, but I guess we're committed to this nonsense anyway, so I'll take it.
36 million x $40 per year = $1,440 billion.
$1,440 billion is 87,000 minimum wage jobs, just about. That's your ceiling. It's 26,700 median-wage jobs. If we assume median distribution, then that's 26,000 lost. Truck drivers represent a $19.36 average hourly wage and roughly 50% of shipping; retail workers at minimum wage represent a small part of other costs chained to most goods. If we call it ~$15/hr, it's 48,000 jobs.
Why truckers and retailers?
You only put so much on a truck. If you buy less stuff, the per-good cost of shipping doesn't decrease; the number of trucks and shipping hours does. (By the by, shipping a pair of pants from China costs 6 cents; the ground shipping that eventually gets those pants to the retail outlet totals something like $10 after moving from warehouse to warehouse.) The same goes for cashiers scanning 980 items per hour, people stocking shelves, and the like.
As for consuming the whole cost, the United States has a stable economy. It's drawing money in through exports, sending money out through imports, and has productivity and growth making up the difference (else our trade imbalance would mean we'd be losing more and more jobs each year, and recovery from a recession wouldn't be a thing). The whole cost of that $40 is lain on the economy each pay cycle--it goes into an American pocket to be spent in the *next* cycle--else we'd have essentially infinite spending capacity in instantaneous time (i.e. we'd violate the laws of thermodynamics--all of them--by violating the laws of causality).
So you have one of two situations: a loss of purchasing of iPhones and a creation of fewer jobs, or a loss of purchasing of other things and a creation of fewer jobs. The loss of purchasing of iPhones may also cause the loss of jobs, either at Apple (as people jump to lower-price Android phones) or in retail and shipping as well as Apple (as people simply go longer between iPhone purchases).
When you do this with real numbers, you compare the labor-hours worked to afford a purchaseable product. That inevitably shows that Americans work longer to purchase the same products, which takes us right back to the first law of thermodynamics--because you can't just magic up time and the energy expended over time. If you work 6 hours instead of 3 to buy some pants, then you can't trade the product of 3 more hours of work to buy whatever else you used to buy unless you work 3 more hours, assuming that other thing isn't more-expensive. The result is less labor trade, meaning fewer supportable jobs: the factory workers get work at someone else's loss, and less work is traded in
The spending of money has to come from somewhere--notably, taxpayer pockets. That reduces the capacity of consumer demand, which is what creates jobs. (Corporate taxes reduce agility--the capacity to change rapidly to a rapidly-changing market and supply the appropriate jobs--but it has a much-smaller impact on total job availability than consumer buying power and, thus, consumer taxation.)
The other side of this is Wisconsin wants a factory producing a product that sells outside of Wisconsin. From the perspective of America as a whole, producing these things using American labor increases costs, and so has an impact of reducing total available jobs if we buy from them rather than picking up the cheap (and identical) Chinese one. From the perspective of Wisconsin, if America loses 87,000 jobs and Wisconsin gains 35,000 jobs, Wisconsin has boosted its job market and increased its tax revenue (never mind that America is at a net 52,000 loss of jobs--fuck America, this is Wisconsin and Wisconsin cares about Wisconsin first!).
The ultimate win for Wisconsin is for people to actually buy the stuff they manufacture while they import from China instead of dogfooding their own product.
It makes sense if Amazon holds the stock and then gives it to the employee, losing an asset.
It doesn't make sense if Amazon issues new stock, since that creates an asset (and dilutes the share value). That new asset is income to Amazon, then is handed over and is an expense; if it's issued directly to the employee, then the value of that income-expense is net-zero and it shouldn't get them a tax discount.
Is a Consumer Reports subscription worth it for $35/year? Without expletives and the kind of hard-hitting commentary great minds like those at the The Rolling Stone are willing to lay down, I'm on the fence.
It's a "don't-peek" law I guess.
I like it. It needs a clause to exempt all attempts to break the anonymization "by any party for the purpose of research into anonymization and the validation of strength of anonymization itself" so as to ensure re-identification to identify (and retention of re-identified data) is an offense whereas re-identification to show that it can be done and how is perfectly-legal.
Probably clearer and better, yeah. I still say that there was, in fact, review (and editing!) of the reports by Monsanto and their legal representatives, and that we can't claim McClellan ordered such contact to not be reported.
I've a vested interest in seeing people of integrity in positions of power. From what I can tell, McClellan acted to maximize disclosure and minimize collusion, albeit with minimal apparent involvement himself he doesn't have much power until someone elevates a problem to his awareness. We should be focusing on Monsanto and the panel which accepted a paper with undisclosed editing by its key stakeholder.
Consultation with Monsanto or their legal representatives. Consultants for Monsanto hired by Intertek would be legal representatives in some fashion.
They put in the disclosure that they didn't consult with Monsanto when writing the paper, even though there's a hell of a lot of consultation with Monsanto going on in the review of the reports. Saying that McClellan instructed them not to disclose that Monsanto had been consulted in reviewing the reports is ... at odds with the facts.
The whole thing is a mess. I was pointing out a logical inconsistency that seems to attribute blame to someone who didn't conspire to create this mess.
I've had useless coworkers in several fields, races, and genders. Most of the time I encounter a girl programmer, she's not very good--probably because about 95% of all programmers I encounter are not very good. Pigeon hole principle.
So, to recap: I've encountered about 12-15 male programmers who weren't very good and 2 female programmers who weren't very good in the past 10 years. I've encountered 1 non-shitty male programmer and 0 non-shitty female programmers. Jeff Attwood doesn't count because I haven't worked directly with him or had to support his development team. Statistically, there's a huge problem with sample size here.
As for leadership positions? The field of project management is strangely full of men who function as mindless bureaucrats and women with star performance. I don't know why. Tres Roeder spearheaded the inclusion of project stakeholder management in the latest edition of the PMBOK; maybe women are pretty good at that and men are generally fucking terrible. We can make guesses all day, and most of them will probably be wrong.
Let's try not to draw conclusions from low-quality information, or make simple conclusions about vastly-complex topics.
The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue.
Just a paragraph up:
Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired--"ie by Intertek," McClellan wrote. "If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed."
McClellan instructed them to disclose any contact. If they didn't, then that's not a fault of McClellan's instructions, and McClellan's instructions were not followed.
Men and women aren't neurologically or biologically equivalent, but have the same neurological facilities and the same capacity. Intelligence is a matter of tool use.
As for the correct ratio... some women like being programmers. Lots of women are excellent project managers--I have no earthly idea why that's a trend. Sure, men are particularly more-interested in things like cars or computers than women, but women are really good at project management when it takes their interest, and men are really good at being bureaucrats without necessarily making any headway. That means Rita Mulcahy was pretty archetypal, while Tres Roeder breaks the mold.
Women who got into tech on their own interests are interested (of course), and interest drives motivation. Motivation lowers the amount of neurological load involved in approaching a task: things are easy because you don't have to fight against your brain's impulse to get away from the energy expenditure. Both men and women have the same intellectual facilities to structure and control their assimilation of information, and can either apply them and become very good at what they do or not apply them and be very bad at what they do.
So comparing a sample man programmer with a sample woman programmer gives you something that's probably the same capacity, although there's variance over the entire population because individuals will use their mental facilities with varying degrees of deliberation whether they're male, female, black, white, or whatever. They can all reach the same capacity, but they don't.
The differences in men and women provide different methods of thought: you reach your conclusions through a different order of operations, incorporation of different information, and so forth. Culture, age, life experience, and everything cause variations here. With a well-developed intellect, these differences can sometimes block at different problems. That means having different people of diverse backgrounds and diverse methods of thinking on your team--all having developed intellects--routes around problems and produces high-quality results.
It's easy to show that women generally have interest in different things than men. The problem is people take this out to incorrect conclusions. "...thus, all women belong back in the kitchen, and will never be good at man's work." Doesn't work that way. This kind of abuse of reasoning has caused immeasurable pain and suffering in our history, such as when Hitler identified that the media was pushing views he thought detrimental to Germany, then that the media was run by jews, and concluded (by some method of horribly-broken reasoning) that exterminating the jews would eliminate all the problems faced by Germany.
People want a simple answer. It's not simple. Most people don't even know what the human mind is truly capable of. It's an immense array of tools that can be put to skilled use, and nobody does so; you're just an in-born programming, mechanical, or mathematical genius.
because he proposed a series of sexist [...] stereotypes which belong in the 19th century
I prefer to point out that people draw the wrong conclusions from facts rather than to ignore facts.
It's become fashionable in an extreme minority voice to claim that women and men are identical or markedly different in various capacities, whether those are particular capabilities (strength, intellect) or behaviors (interests, emotional expression). For whatever reason, these people ignore facts in one direction or another.
For example: men and women both possess the same intellectual faculties, and can employ them to the same effectiveness. People in general aren't of greater or lesser intelligence; they have greater or lesser intellect--they have applied their facilities to different degrees, and may thus have made more of their intelligence. Women are just as capable as men in intellectual pursuits.
It is also a fact that the neurological and hormonal systems in men and women differ, leading to differences in thinking. This is an accurate assessment, and begins the problem of people drawing inaccurate conclusions to suit their biases.
That women think differently can be suppressed: our executive functions allow us to suppress our emotional responses, our biases, even our responses to pain. That's why women can function in high-pressure, high-intellect jobs just as well as men--that is to say: a man or a woman without the properly developed defense mechanisms will simply whine a lot when the pressure comes on, and otherwise will handle the situation quite well.
That leaves the advantages of different thinking: a boost of group creativity. A group with a single mind--one culture, one gender, one set of life experiences--will always approach a problem in one way. Mix in cultural changes, varied life experiences, and even the biological pressures that cause women and men to think differently and you have increased the strength of that team's problem-solving ability.
If you want to put women back into the kitchen, you point out that they're not men, thus inferior. If you want to get some work done, you point out that they're not men, thus represent a potential opportunity. This is unfortunately impolitic, and so we only hear from people who are unafraid to attack others for their particular differences, whether that be race, gender, or culture.
Then your life is wasted driving all over the place. Next question.
I am, unfortunately, an east-coast politician and thus see transportation as an issue of congested cities and poverty reduction. When you get out west, it's an issue of enormous loss of labor and quality-of-life just ... driving around a lot. With a one-hour one-way commute, a five-day work week incurs an extra day and a quarter of unpaid time just getting to and from work; this is unsavory.
Hopefully that hyperloop thing pans out and you all get a way to make your commute 1/4 as long. It's too new a technology for me to validate commercial viability; Elon Musk can figure that part out, and the senators from the midwest can argue over if we should give national taxpayer money to speed this technology along. I will say that making all distances shorter does nice things for the economy, but might eventually lead to a world of grey people.
Unsubsidized utility-scale PV solar electricity production has a cost range spanning the lower third of the cost range of combined gas cycle electricity production, which is by far the cheapest method of electricity production from fossil fuel. That incorporates cap-ex and op-ex into the TCO.
When I was 19, I used to eat while driving on 695. I would swerve all over the road now and then, and would have probably been a safer driver with free hands and 3-4 beers in me, but I pulled it off.
Going more than about 4 hours without a solid meal (or some modafinil) in you will mess with your reaction time. You don't look like a danger to others, but you're well into sub-optimal, and your mistakes are more-surprising when they happen. Call it 1-2 beers. We're not talking Duvel here.
Your brain runs on ATP, glucose, and acetone. It burns out its fuel supplies eventually, and needs time to consolidate new memories, produce more neurotransmitters, and regenerate supplies of ATP from glucose. It requires one hell of a lot of fuel. The "stop to let your brain un-fuck itself a bit" argument is akin to "your brake line is leaking slightly and you need to stop every 4-5 hours to top up some fluid": I've also let my brake lines get way low, d00d, and had the car complain at me that brakes were starting to fail, and continued to drive for another thousand miles, and nothing bad happened; I don't do that anymore, and would you want to be on the same road with me if I did?
Basically, you're facing an argument like "you shouldn't drive when drunk," and your answer is "I'm only slightly drunk, so it's fine!" Of course it's fine. Usually. Hopefully. Hell we can all probably make it home smashed most of the time, as long as the roads are wide and there's not much traffic. There's a reason we arrest you for this shit.
The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto"
The title was "PC Considered Harmful" and talked about how the ideological political-correctness push to get women in tech positions is some kind of fantasy that ignores that women don't want to be in tech positions except because society tells them they're being left out and that they should be outraged. It generated a lot of outrage.
There are marked differences between the physiology and neurophysiology of men and women, as well as in the endocrine system. Not differences in capacity, but responsiveness to stimuli. The guy apparently extrapolated this to a 10-page-long Randian diatribe that amounts to, "...Thus, women should get back in the kitchen." It's engineer's myopia.
There are plenty of women interested in technology, and they're still women. Enough broad-spanning knowledge about human creativity quickly draws the conclusion that these are highly-valuable resources, since the differences in how women's minds operate as a general trend on any given input will tend to break up the mental logjams engineering teams frequently experience. High-impact problem solvers have also resorted to educating non-experts (e.g. a janitor) as to problem-solving processes, then dumping the facts on them and waiting for whatever stupid question they ask--because it's almost always something from which all the smart people reflexively reasoned away without a moment's thought, and the exact problem a frightening proportion of the time.
There's a lot to leverage about the dissimilarities in people of different backgrounds and the method by which their minds work, whatever the cause. To reason that one group is necessarily-superior in every way because they're the common case and thus that the other group is useless and should stay out of man's work is short-sighted and plainly ignorant. It's the kind of vulgar conclusion to which an uneducated peasant of a medieval state with neither welfare nor a proper school system would come.