Actually, transferring that to the Internet, you have to walk into the MicroCenter and turn the display around, then go back outside the window and look at it again to get a view of what's there. Every time you want to see it, you have to walk inside, fiddle with things, then walk back out.
You do know that nothing is actually "on the Internet", right? Do we need to explain to you how the Internet works?
When you request a public Web page, you're accessing and using their machinery.
My entire argument was "available to the public" versus "except you; you get the hell out right now." A technical mechanism is infeasible: if they want the data to be publicly-viewable and don't want people to do certain things, then a password doesn't work; and firewalls and the like will have to contend with modern global, auto-scaling, IP-changing data centers where you can't just single out a particular actor by IP address or any other identifier.
Legal scholars can argue whatever they want, while other legal scholars come behind them and argue that they're wrong. That's kind of what lawyers do. Your argument essentially claims that anything they put up is a public property and that they can't have any terms of use for anonymously-accessible assets. Considering I can ping your server anonymously, a DDoS would be legal under your reasoning--without even going to reducto-ad-absurdium.
it's difficult in-practice to establish a verifiable packet identity on the Internet. IP addresses change, and you can do goofy shit like put the data scrapes in AJAX requests to distribute their source.
Blocking an individual entity from a Web site is hard and has collateral damage.
Wikipedia has tried this, with collateral damage and limited success. I've seen people get sent to jail for harassment and legally barred from accessing certain sites and systems under restraining order, and then continue to access them with no reasonable way to prove their identity (i.e. could be someone else pretending to be said person).
These days, it's different. Those IP addresses are probably automatically-assigned or internal to cloud infrastructure. IAAS may share addresses across clients. The IPs may appear from a range of hundreds of subnets coming from auto-scaling AWS infrastructure, constantly provisioning and releasing addresses.
In other words: "Block it at the firewall" can easily mean "Block everything coming from AWS, Azure, DigitalOcean, and all other data centers all over the world." Difficult (nigh-impossible) and prone to huge amounts of collateral damage.
Then: the courts have already told you this is a matter of you having a public Web site, and you can deal with them "accessing" it yourself because you apparently have no right to tell people they're not allowed in due to their use of your published information. Now you have people jumping from address to address, and you're forced to play firewall whack-a-mole.
LinkedIn supplies service to the public at-large, in the same way that a MicroCenter supplies retail service to the public at-large. All members of the public are allowed to enter a MicroCenter. You walk up to the doors and they open automatically.
You can be trespassed for no reason by a retail center or other physical location open to the public at-large. The doors still open to you, but you're not allowed in. It's the same with a Web site: it's difficult in-practice to establish a verifiable packet identity on the Internet. IP addresses change, and you can do goofy shit like put the data scrapes in AJAX requests to distribute their source.
In other words: you're by default authorized to access LinkedIn's public assets. You're not allowed to access stuff requiring a logged-in session until you've gotten log-in credentials, because there are actual systems in place to stop you from doing that, implying that you're not supposed to force access there. Basically, civilized understanding of the expectations of your host on the face.
If LinkedIn tells you to stop, you've now had your authorization revoked. You can't claim a restraining order is invalid because someone's outside and you can also be anywhere outside, and you also can't claim that LinkedIn can't de-authorize you unless they specifically identify and block you. Blocking an individual entity from a Web site is hard and has collateral damage.
So the CFAA is actually a valid vehicle here, since "abuse" is essentially defined as "accessing a system to which you are not authorized." The reasonable person test holds up a lot of behavior, largely because it's unreasonable for a person to determine if a certain behavior or function on a Web site might not be something they're allowed to touch, or whatnot, given the reasonable behavior of people at-large. A lot of stuff happens that won't pass CFAA as fraud or abuse, even though it's inconvenient and unintended. By the same token, when somebody has told you to stop accessing their systems in a certain way and you do it anyway, a reasonable person might assume you were, you know, told not to, and not allowed to do that, and that you know damned well you're not allowed to do that.
That's not to say threats, lawyers, and other anti-social behavior are good business. Poor diplomacy here. Effective in the legal field, but not your best option.
You haven't proven you're willing to work for free; you've only taken the first step in nurturing your conflict-avoiding personality and coddling your insecurities. What if you get that first job and you're not stellar, so they fire you in a week for not knowing wtf you're doing? What if you don't know wtf you're doing?!
What if you keep pressing for better pay, and get passed up at interviews?
Surely the offer must be reasonable. Why risk putting an idiotic number into that "desired salary" box? Just write "Negotiable" and let them set the tone.
From an economic standpoint, wasted millions of dollars equates to a slowed economy and an increase in poverty in the general. Wasted money and waste labor really can lead to life-sustaining services not reaching the poor, resulting in poverty, disease, and death.
Man we should fix that last metabolic pathway in the Vitamin C cycle. Vitamin C is awesome. Mega-dosing Vitamin C won't cure your cold or flu; but high doses (like, 500mg/day) will remove mercury and lead from your body.
Vitamin C regulates prolactin, helps generate Dopamine and Norepinephrine, donates two electrons to act as a powerful anti-oxidant while itself not radicalizing, helps with cell wall building, helps to counter damage and stress caused by cortisol release, and generally does a whole lot of important stuff to your body. Vitamin C improves sleep, cholesterol levels, attentiveness, and (yes) the functioning of your immune system, relative to a C-deficient human.
Humans have the framework to produce Vitamin C in the liver, and carry a defective gene for the last coding protein. That's why we need dietary Vitamin C. Most animals produce it internally, which is why your cat isn't on a steady diet of oranges and prune juice.
There are some tasks that just doesn't make sense for America to do anymore.
This is correct; however,
It is just trying to find people willing to do that particular work. Kids today are not looking for manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing jobs in America are for higher cost items, because these jobs require people with real skills to build.
That isn't.
The Chinese are fantastically-skilled manufacturers. They have the capacity to produce the highest-quality goods--or any quality of goods--at the lowest cost in terms of labor (hours), not just in terms of wage-labor (wages x labor).
People economize. People want to expend ('spend) the least means for the greatest ends. In other words: they want to get things as cheap as they can. Less work, less money, less whatever from them, more of what they want to them.
Americans, thus, have a huge demand for the lowest-price goods they can get. To American business, that doesn't just mean outsourcing to cheap Chinese labor; it means paying the Chinese half as much to make a low-quality good when they could damned well get a high-quality good that no American manufactory could ever produce at a reasonable price at any quality level. People don't want a $36 electric can-opener that their grandchildren will inherit; they want a $19 can-opener that they'll replace in 5 years with a fancier model for some unfathomable reason (this one cuts from the side to produce no sharps on the lid--just on the can!).
Do you know why there are no manufacture jobs to make can openers in America?
Because you can't pay American workers. Nobody's buying the product for $100 (the American wage is higher, after all); and the Americans can't make it as well as the Chinese, besides. You don't have a revenue stream. Those jobs don't exist because of lack of demand.
Trade advantage. We're richer because we get the same products cheaper.
This 5% unemployment isn't going away; it'll spike in the next recession, and then recede to around 5% again. We're at 4.7% now and we're not going to see 3%, although we might be able to squeeze a bit more out if we can go expending peoples's savings (notably, the huge savings of venture capitalists) to create unsupportable jobs and start-ups that will eventually collapse as the rich-people money runs out.
We're not going to see permanent 10% unemployment or permanent 3% unemployment; we're not losing jobs to China. Oddly enough, manufacturing e.g. pants in America instead of China would decrease total American jobs: we lose the retail, shipping, and other support jobs that are based purely on volume of goods (a retail cashier scans 980 items per hour; a 40-foot trailer carries 20,000 pairs of pants) when the American factories crank out expensive goods. People can afford fewer of those high-priced goods, after all; and the American factory worker can't spend his money until he's earned his money, so it ticks around like a clock (in a computer, synchronizing the pipeline).
Theoretically, 178,000 Chinese workers (40-hour week) supply all the import men and boys's cotton trousers and shorts America buys; there are 158,000,000 working Americans. "The money stays in America" only means it goes to those 178,000 Americans--theoretically. When the money can't buy as much, it goes to fewer Americans--say 59,000 (3x as expensive). Those Americans can't offset the loss of purchasing power of the other 158,000,000, and so less is purchased in total, less is moved and retailed, and many of those others lose their jobs.
Why can't Americans buy so many pants when pants cost $30 or $50 instead of $15? Because the American worker must work twice as long to earn that wage!
I'm about 100% certain the congressmen don't see it that way. Many involved honestly believe that the ACA is a defunct, socialist blight that drains the economy and slows us all down. Their perspective is likely that the ACA depletes wealth and decreases jobs such that the people at the bottom would be much-wealthier without it, since they get to ride the wave of economic growth.
The problem is they're wrong.
As for current actions? Once you've made a decision like the above, you don't re-make it. As you start doing stupider stuff to try to satisfy your world-view, you fail to validate your new actions against your overall understanding of the situation. The problem is these are distinct: "The ACA is a drain on our economy" and "let's repeal random bits of the ACA" are not logically-connected, because the ACA without certain bits would be even worse than your beliefs about what the ACA does to our economy. If you're not stopping to check whether or not your specific action makes the situation worse, you're being reckless--and, as I've said, these people are prone to hold strongly to a poorly-validated and incorrect ideological belief (mostly emotional) and thus not prone to validate the logistics. Such validation might tell them their core belief is wrong in the first place.
No, the Republicans are terrified of that outcome. If they mess with the ACA--what they've dubbed "Obamacare"--and there's any trouble, like an economic recession or a mass loss of healthcare or whatever, then they've highlighted that Obama was the greatest President to ever live and Republicans will destroy the lives of the very people who trust them. It's the greatest support anyone can rally for the Democrats.
They set this up. They attacked Obamacare, and they gave it a public handle that names exactly who brought it to America. They blame the Democrats for this. Now, if they touch it and create a situation that's objectively-worse and everybody knows it, they've created the exact situation lay-persons interpret as proof that what they messed with was done right (as opposed to only proof that what you did was either insufficient to halt a crisis or just wrong).
It would be the end of the Republican party. Forever. They've never demonstrated directly to the strong Republican support base in these poorer counties that the other guy is doing it right; if they fuck up Obamacare after declaring they're going to touch it in any way because it's so bad and needs to be broken down and hauled off to the landfill, then even the most radical fanatics will probably quietly withdraw their support, and the delusional schizotypals will just imagine that it all never happened. They'll never get mindshare again.
That is the hazard of pushing too hard to brand something as significant as the ACA to the party and president they want to smear: attacking it risks sending the exact opposite message if the outcome is unsavory to the American people.
They've found something even worse with the healthcare vote, too. A partial measure? That's not a plan; it's ridiculous. Either repeal it all and put down a structured, planned bill; leave it in place; or improve upon it. Just clipping pieces for politics will cause destabilization of the healthcare industry and severe economic fall-out with worse consequences than even rolling back Obamacare in full!
It's ludicrous that we have people who aren't trying to improve the situation, but rather are just fucking around with healthcare. This isn't even a policy issue; it's plain reckless behavior and puts the American people at risk.
He is protecting them! Now they won't be faced with bullets, or coopted into the embarrassment that is this administration's international politics and military decisions.
There is great danger it seems to me to arise from the constant habit which prevails where anything is opposed or objected to, of referring without rhyme or reason to the Constitution as a means of preventing its accomplishment, thus creating the general impression that the Constitution is but a barrier to progress instead of being the broad highway through which alone true progress may be enjoyed.
Apparently this also works for privacy.
Most privacy complaints I've seen are of two flavors: something people are leaking like crazy anyway; or something innocuous and, besides, expensive and difficult to handle.
Of the latter, we have things which expose little about you in and of themselves, but which might tell us some things in aggregate by focused investigation. I'm not talking about Siri recording all your speech in the Cloud; I'm talking about things like isolated handwriting and speaking samples, browsing habits, and demographics of visitors to a Web site. A Web site can track your activities because you go there, but people don't want the Web site to track your activities (cookies), or to identify that you are male and 25-35 years old.
As I've stated: focusing on an individual and drawing a picture of one person's activities--assuming you can positively-identify that individual in the various data sources available to you--might tell you a disturbing amount about them. Otherwise, you are a statistic in a sea of information, invisible because nobody cares about you in particular.
In general, businesses want to analyze data to identify links between behaviors. They want to know if a demographic exists that will buy a particular product, and if they can subdivide it into the various demographics sensitive to the different presentations of said product. Such analysis is bulky and complex; it's extremely-expensive, and nobody wants to do it. The most economic use of all of this data, therefor, is to provide a service of aggregate data to fit a stated need, which would de-personalize the raw data as a matter of course.
It therefor occurs to me that we should embrace the progress provided by big data services in a way which demands strict privacy protections: we should regulate the transfer of raw, identifiable data sets, and encourage the service of aggregation. We should also find a way of storing the data as depersonalized as possible, of aging it, and of destroying it. We should also declare, as a matter of Congressional law affirming Constitutional law, that said data is protected under fourth-amendment provisions against unlawful search and seizure, and so the Government can only make such a data request with a court order of narrow scope to select individuals--and that scope must pass reasonable Judiciary review to issue a warrant, such that overly-broad requests are hopefully excluded.
We should allow an organization to file to receive data from a source within another organization. This filing will specify the scope and form of the data, and what depersonalization is available to them in transit: any extraneous data need not be there, and shall be expunged before transfer. Mandatory independent audits performed on-site would sample incoming data, exposing some potentially-raw data to the auditors, but never shipping it off-site in bulk, thus minimizing exposure while maintaining regulatory capacity by independent reporting.
Such an organization may perform the service of aggregating results for third parties. If an advertiser wants to sell targeted advertising, he can create and measure markets, but not people. You are not a man; you are a proportion of a statistic, inseparable from a whole unit. There may be 100,000 households in a small city including a member fitting your description as per the query, and you are incorporated into this regional statistic for the client. Just as the voter has no voice but that which booms from the polls, you have no identity but that which arises from the common trends in large amounts of data.
They don't seem to have any idea on how economics works, either.
The cable and telcos have regional monopolies. Airlines, food, eyeglasses, and the beer industry? Seriously? These are all industries rife with healthy competition!
I keep thinking maybe I need to move into the Democrat party to make change; and I keep thinking I don't want to give them the victory. This shit is why. Maybe I should try to spearhead social progress using their party's favor to back me, and use the effort to crush their broken leadership.
Not that we need to crush Hillary at this point; she's not going to survive the next election, and the Democrats can't run her again and hope to win. Hopefully they don't run that fool Sanders.
Having the ability to have a stay at home spouse could and should be viewed as a form of luxury spending in some cases
Why?
or a complete failure to make available affordable childcare for many spouses who would like to be working but for whom the cost/wages ratio sucks in many other cases
Those are U-5.
If getting everyone to be working was a priority we would have deeply subsidized childcare
That would be economically-inefficient: we have to compensate (wages) childcare workers and their entire supply chain for their time (labor); if you can't trade your labor for their labor, then they're expending more of it to do the job than you are (or are overcharging and concentrating wealth at the expense of making others poor). Subsidization is just making sure everyone chips in to pay them for being inefficient, or just lines their pockets.
and a higher emphasis on flexible and even reduced working hours
I like reduced working hours; however, you must understand that a reduction in working hours is a reduction in wealth. If we are able to make technical progress the likes of which gives us 1.5 times the wealth, we can work 2/3 the working hours and neither gain nor lose the ability to purchase and produce.
Wealth is important. If we compare any level of technical progress to itself with fewer labor-hours, then we see a diminishing of wealth. If you are to work 40 hours to make a thing and then trade your week's pay for another thing worth 40 hours of labor on even average wage grounds, then you can make an even trade. If, on the other hand, you work only 30 hours at the same general efficiency you produce 75% as much.
When it comes time to pay for the 40 hours of labor invested in the next product, you will come up short; and, at the same time, you will be able to pay the full-time 30-hours wage of the person producing that thing you intended to buy. This is insufficient now because we have had to hire a new worker as well, and he supplied the additional 10 hours to make the thing you now cannot afford.
If we keep wages as they are on a weekly basis, then a $600/week wage would become a full-time $600/week wage plus $200/week for that last 10 hours in our above scenario. You, on the other hand, are still making your $600/week--the same you were making for 40 hours, now only for 30--and so cannot afford $800 on a week's wage. This makes perfect sense, of course: we are trading the products of time, and the laws of thermodynamics are inviolable.
That isn't to say that we'd follow such a model strictly. I believe office work is generally-inefficient today in many cases. Few office jobs employ workers vigorously, and there is much downtime. This downtime is necessary for the workers's minds to relax, consolidate, and integrate information vital to their jobs. Such downtime occurs when a worker's attention is elsewhere, rather than studiously pouring over his assigned task; and this provision of downtime can occur at any time interspersed with the working hours. Thus if office workers are spending an average of two hours per day making effective use of this downtime by browsing Internet news and chatting with coworkers, then reducing working hours by two per day would not necessitate a 25% reduction in their labor efficiency.
At the same time, time is directly-applicable to some work. Service work, construction labor, accounting, and a large amount of programming all involve direct labor. For many office jobs, a large part of downtime efficiency stems from discussing work casually with coworkers, making coworker interaction an important part of productivity. In some ways, a phase-out of the 40-hour work week for the 32-hour or 28-hour work week would need to come in steps to target first the office environment, then the services sectors.
As Winston Churchill once importantly stated: It is the heart of c
It centralizes the effort and makes it less time-consuming to at least somewhat defend yourself against stupidity.
For a site run by a couple retardedly-biased hyperliberals, they keep their facts surprising-straight. A few disputes around the edges in tone from time to time, but nothing Hannity-like. Mostly they stay away from political opinion pieces, anyway, so they're restricted on how much political bullshit they can worm into their material.
You also have to filter those people out because most of them aren't working due to no need to work. The ones who are discouraged generally aren't working and are on welfare; the others... aren't in need of work and don't qualify for welfare.
U-6 is 8.6% in the US right now. U-3 is 4.4%. U-4 counts those people who "have given up looking for work," and is 4.7%.
The summary is hilarious: it claims we should count stay-at-home spouses as unemployed. Maybe we should get behind lazy wenches and beat them until they get up and work; everything in the kitchen is run by dishwashers and microwaves, and you women have all gotten lazy while the men keep you fed and fat!
I occasionally run into people who earnestly claim that 100% of persons over the age of 18 should have jobs. They're crazy.
U-6 is useless. It includes people who are underemployed, but doesn't tell us about underemployment.
Say there are 4,000 working hours divided among 100 people in every 2,000. 40 hours per person, full-time employment. Underemployment = 0%.
Now say there are 3,000 working hours divided among those 100 people. 30 hours per person, full-time. Underemployment = 5%.
Now let's say they're fighting over 1,000 hours, 10 hours per person. Underemployment = 5%.
So you have 100 full-time jobs, 75 full-time jobs, and 25 full-time jobs divided across 100 people in these three scenarios. In the first, they're just employed; in the other two, they're just underemployed.
There's a huge difference between those last two situations.
You are not counted as "unemployed" anymore in the Unemloyment Rate if you haven't been able to find a job in a long time or you've given up.
Actually, you're counted in U-4 if you've been unemployed long and are discouraged. U-4 is 0.1%-0.4% higher than U-3, which is the commonly-reported number.
Labor force participation rate is used mostly to lie about unemployment here in the US. People claim that there is no recovery of employment, but rather that labor force participation has decreased.
Basically, they claim that we still have 10% U-3, and just fewer looking for work. Thing is if you adjust U-3 to the labor force participation rate of our 10% peak, then our 4.7% number becomes 4.9%!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, transferring that to the Internet, you have to walk into the MicroCenter and turn the display around, then go back outside the window and look at it again to get a view of what's there. Every time you want to see it, you have to walk inside, fiddle with things, then walk back out.
You do know that nothing is actually "on the Internet", right? Do we need to explain to you how the Internet works?
When you request a public Web page, you're accessing and using their machinery.
My entire argument was "available to the public" versus "except you; you get the hell out right now." A technical mechanism is infeasible: if they want the data to be publicly-viewable and don't want people to do certain things, then a password doesn't work; and firewalls and the like will have to contend with modern global, auto-scaling, IP-changing data centers where you can't just single out a particular actor by IP address or any other identifier.
Legal scholars can argue whatever they want, while other legal scholars come behind them and argue that they're wrong. That's kind of what lawyers do. Your argument essentially claims that anything they put up is a public property and that they can't have any terms of use for anonymously-accessible assets. Considering I can ping your server anonymously, a DDoS would be legal under your reasoning--without even going to reducto-ad-absurdium.
Let's try this again.
it's difficult in-practice to establish a verifiable packet identity on the Internet. IP addresses change, and you can do goofy shit like put the data scrapes in AJAX requests to distribute their source.
Blocking an individual entity from a Web site is hard and has collateral damage.
Wikipedia has tried this, with collateral damage and limited success. I've seen people get sent to jail for harassment and legally barred from accessing certain sites and systems under restraining order, and then continue to access them with no reasonable way to prove their identity (i.e. could be someone else pretending to be said person).
These days, it's different. Those IP addresses are probably automatically-assigned or internal to cloud infrastructure. IAAS may share addresses across clients. The IPs may appear from a range of hundreds of subnets coming from auto-scaling AWS infrastructure, constantly provisioning and releasing addresses.
In other words: "Block it at the firewall" can easily mean "Block everything coming from AWS, Azure, DigitalOcean, and all other data centers all over the world." Difficult (nigh-impossible) and prone to huge amounts of collateral damage.
Then: the courts have already told you this is a matter of you having a public Web site, and you can deal with them "accessing" it yourself because you apparently have no right to tell people they're not allowed in due to their use of your published information. Now you have people jumping from address to address, and you're forced to play firewall whack-a-mole.
Actually, LinkedIn has a point.
LinkedIn supplies service to the public at-large, in the same way that a MicroCenter supplies retail service to the public at-large. All members of the public are allowed to enter a MicroCenter. You walk up to the doors and they open automatically.
You can be trespassed for no reason by a retail center or other physical location open to the public at-large. The doors still open to you, but you're not allowed in. It's the same with a Web site: it's difficult in-practice to establish a verifiable packet identity on the Internet. IP addresses change, and you can do goofy shit like put the data scrapes in AJAX requests to distribute their source.
In other words: you're by default authorized to access LinkedIn's public assets. You're not allowed to access stuff requiring a logged-in session until you've gotten log-in credentials, because there are actual systems in place to stop you from doing that, implying that you're not supposed to force access there. Basically, civilized understanding of the expectations of your host on the face.
If LinkedIn tells you to stop, you've now had your authorization revoked. You can't claim a restraining order is invalid because someone's outside and you can also be anywhere outside, and you also can't claim that LinkedIn can't de-authorize you unless they specifically identify and block you. Blocking an individual entity from a Web site is hard and has collateral damage.
So the CFAA is actually a valid vehicle here, since "abuse" is essentially defined as "accessing a system to which you are not authorized." The reasonable person test holds up a lot of behavior, largely because it's unreasonable for a person to determine if a certain behavior or function on a Web site might not be something they're allowed to touch, or whatnot, given the reasonable behavior of people at-large. A lot of stuff happens that won't pass CFAA as fraud or abuse, even though it's inconvenient and unintended. By the same token, when somebody has told you to stop accessing their systems in a certain way and you do it anyway, a reasonable person might assume you were, you know, told not to, and not allowed to do that, and that you know damned well you're not allowed to do that.
That's not to say threats, lawyers, and other anti-social behavior are good business. Poor diplomacy here. Effective in the legal field, but not your best option.
You haven't proven you're willing to work for free; you've only taken the first step in nurturing your conflict-avoiding personality and coddling your insecurities. What if you get that first job and you're not stellar, so they fire you in a week for not knowing wtf you're doing? What if you don't know wtf you're doing?!
What if you keep pressing for better pay, and get passed up at interviews?
Surely the offer must be reasonable. Why risk putting an idiotic number into that "desired salary" box? Just write "Negotiable" and let them set the tone.
They don't accept the risk of assholes, though; in general, we create a society to stop assholes from causing us harm.
From an economic standpoint, wasted millions of dollars equates to a slowed economy and an increase in poverty in the general. Wasted money and waste labor really can lead to life-sustaining services not reaching the poor, resulting in poverty, disease, and death.
Man we should fix that last metabolic pathway in the Vitamin C cycle. Vitamin C is awesome. Mega-dosing Vitamin C won't cure your cold or flu; but high doses (like, 500mg/day) will remove mercury and lead from your body.
Vitamin C regulates prolactin, helps generate Dopamine and Norepinephrine, donates two electrons to act as a powerful anti-oxidant while itself not radicalizing, helps with cell wall building, helps to counter damage and stress caused by cortisol release, and generally does a whole lot of important stuff to your body. Vitamin C improves sleep, cholesterol levels, attentiveness, and (yes) the functioning of your immune system, relative to a C-deficient human.
Humans have the framework to produce Vitamin C in the liver, and carry a defective gene for the last coding protein. That's why we need dietary Vitamin C. Most animals produce it internally, which is why your cat isn't on a steady diet of oranges and prune juice.
There are a number of things to consider.
There are some tasks that just doesn't make sense for America to do anymore.
This is correct; however,
It is just trying to find people willing to do that particular work. Kids today are not looking for manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing jobs in America are for higher cost items, because these jobs require people with real skills to build.
That isn't.
The Chinese are fantastically-skilled manufacturers. They have the capacity to produce the highest-quality goods--or any quality of goods--at the lowest cost in terms of labor (hours), not just in terms of wage-labor (wages x labor).
People economize. People want to expend ('spend) the least means for the greatest ends. In other words: they want to get things as cheap as they can. Less work, less money, less whatever from them, more of what they want to them.
Americans, thus, have a huge demand for the lowest-price goods they can get. To American business, that doesn't just mean outsourcing to cheap Chinese labor; it means paying the Chinese half as much to make a low-quality good when they could damned well get a high-quality good that no American manufactory could ever produce at a reasonable price at any quality level. People don't want a $36 electric can-opener that their grandchildren will inherit; they want a $19 can-opener that they'll replace in 5 years with a fancier model for some unfathomable reason (this one cuts from the side to produce no sharps on the lid--just on the can!).
Do you know why there are no manufacture jobs to make can openers in America?
Because you can't pay American workers. Nobody's buying the product for $100 (the American wage is higher, after all); and the Americans can't make it as well as the Chinese, besides. You don't have a revenue stream. Those jobs don't exist because of lack of demand.
Trade advantage. We're richer because we get the same products cheaper.
This 5% unemployment isn't going away; it'll spike in the next recession, and then recede to around 5% again. We're at 4.7% now and we're not going to see 3%, although we might be able to squeeze a bit more out if we can go expending peoples's savings (notably, the huge savings of venture capitalists) to create unsupportable jobs and start-ups that will eventually collapse as the rich-people money runs out.
We're not going to see permanent 10% unemployment or permanent 3% unemployment; we're not losing jobs to China. Oddly enough, manufacturing e.g. pants in America instead of China would decrease total American jobs: we lose the retail, shipping, and other support jobs that are based purely on volume of goods (a retail cashier scans 980 items per hour; a 40-foot trailer carries 20,000 pairs of pants) when the American factories crank out expensive goods. People can afford fewer of those high-priced goods, after all; and the American factory worker can't spend his money until he's earned his money, so it ticks around like a clock (in a computer, synchronizing the pipeline).
Theoretically, 178,000 Chinese workers (40-hour week) supply all the import men and boys's cotton trousers and shorts America buys; there are 158,000,000 working Americans. "The money stays in America" only means it goes to those 178,000 Americans--theoretically. When the money can't buy as much, it goes to fewer Americans--say 59,000 (3x as expensive). Those Americans can't offset the loss of purchasing power of the other 158,000,000, and so less is purchased in total, less is moved and retailed, and many of those others lose their jobs.
Why can't Americans buy so many pants when pants cost $30 or $50 instead of $15? Because the American worker must work twice as long to earn that wage!
Finally, there's this:
Putting workers pay and working conditions aside.
Chinese wage and social insurances were
I'm about 100% certain the congressmen don't see it that way. Many involved honestly believe that the ACA is a defunct, socialist blight that drains the economy and slows us all down. Their perspective is likely that the ACA depletes wealth and decreases jobs such that the people at the bottom would be much-wealthier without it, since they get to ride the wave of economic growth.
The problem is they're wrong.
As for current actions? Once you've made a decision like the above, you don't re-make it. As you start doing stupider stuff to try to satisfy your world-view, you fail to validate your new actions against your overall understanding of the situation. The problem is these are distinct: "The ACA is a drain on our economy" and "let's repeal random bits of the ACA" are not logically-connected, because the ACA without certain bits would be even worse than your beliefs about what the ACA does to our economy. If you're not stopping to check whether or not your specific action makes the situation worse, you're being reckless--and, as I've said, these people are prone to hold strongly to a poorly-validated and incorrect ideological belief (mostly emotional) and thus not prone to validate the logistics. Such validation might tell them their core belief is wrong in the first place.
No, the Republicans are terrified of that outcome. If they mess with the ACA--what they've dubbed "Obamacare"--and there's any trouble, like an economic recession or a mass loss of healthcare or whatever, then they've highlighted that Obama was the greatest President to ever live and Republicans will destroy the lives of the very people who trust them. It's the greatest support anyone can rally for the Democrats.
They set this up. They attacked Obamacare, and they gave it a public handle that names exactly who brought it to America. They blame the Democrats for this. Now, if they touch it and create a situation that's objectively-worse and everybody knows it, they've created the exact situation lay-persons interpret as proof that what they messed with was done right (as opposed to only proof that what you did was either insufficient to halt a crisis or just wrong).
It would be the end of the Republican party. Forever. They've never demonstrated directly to the strong Republican support base in these poorer counties that the other guy is doing it right; if they fuck up Obamacare after declaring they're going to touch it in any way because it's so bad and needs to be broken down and hauled off to the landfill, then even the most radical fanatics will probably quietly withdraw their support, and the delusional schizotypals will just imagine that it all never happened. They'll never get mindshare again.
That is the hazard of pushing too hard to brand something as significant as the ACA to the party and president they want to smear: attacking it risks sending the exact opposite message if the outcome is unsavory to the American people.
They've found something even worse with the healthcare vote, too. A partial measure? That's not a plan; it's ridiculous. Either repeal it all and put down a structured, planned bill; leave it in place; or improve upon it. Just clipping pieces for politics will cause destabilization of the healthcare industry and severe economic fall-out with worse consequences than even rolling back Obamacare in full!
It's ludicrous that we have people who aren't trying to improve the situation, but rather are just fucking around with healthcare. This isn't even a policy issue; it's plain reckless behavior and puts the American people at risk.
He is protecting them! Now they won't be faced with bullets, or coopted into the embarrassment that is this administration's international politics and military decisions.
There is great danger it seems to me to arise from the constant habit which prevails where anything is opposed or objected to, of referring without rhyme or reason to the Constitution as a means of preventing its accomplishment, thus creating the general impression that the Constitution is but a barrier to progress instead of being the broad highway through which alone true progress may be enjoyed.
Apparently this also works for privacy.
Most privacy complaints I've seen are of two flavors: something people are leaking like crazy anyway; or something innocuous and, besides, expensive and difficult to handle.
Of the latter, we have things which expose little about you in and of themselves, but which might tell us some things in aggregate by focused investigation. I'm not talking about Siri recording all your speech in the Cloud; I'm talking about things like isolated handwriting and speaking samples, browsing habits, and demographics of visitors to a Web site. A Web site can track your activities because you go there, but people don't want the Web site to track your activities (cookies), or to identify that you are male and 25-35 years old.
As I've stated: focusing on an individual and drawing a picture of one person's activities--assuming you can positively-identify that individual in the various data sources available to you--might tell you a disturbing amount about them. Otherwise, you are a statistic in a sea of information, invisible because nobody cares about you in particular.
In general, businesses want to analyze data to identify links between behaviors. They want to know if a demographic exists that will buy a particular product, and if they can subdivide it into the various demographics sensitive to the different presentations of said product. Such analysis is bulky and complex; it's extremely-expensive, and nobody wants to do it. The most economic use of all of this data, therefor, is to provide a service of aggregate data to fit a stated need, which would de-personalize the raw data as a matter of course.
It therefor occurs to me that we should embrace the progress provided by big data services in a way which demands strict privacy protections: we should regulate the transfer of raw, identifiable data sets, and encourage the service of aggregation. We should also find a way of storing the data as depersonalized as possible, of aging it, and of destroying it. We should also declare, as a matter of Congressional law affirming Constitutional law, that said data is protected under fourth-amendment provisions against unlawful search and seizure, and so the Government can only make such a data request with a court order of narrow scope to select individuals--and that scope must pass reasonable Judiciary review to issue a warrant, such that overly-broad requests are hopefully excluded.
We should allow an organization to file to receive data from a source within another organization. This filing will specify the scope and form of the data, and what depersonalization is available to them in transit: any extraneous data need not be there, and shall be expunged before transfer. Mandatory independent audits performed on-site would sample incoming data, exposing some potentially-raw data to the auditors, but never shipping it off-site in bulk, thus minimizing exposure while maintaining regulatory capacity by independent reporting.
Such an organization may perform the service of aggregating results for third parties. If an advertiser wants to sell targeted advertising, he can create and measure markets, but not people. You are not a man; you are a proportion of a statistic, inseparable from a whole unit. There may be 100,000 households in a small city including a member fitting your description as per the query, and you are incorporated into this regional statistic for the client. Just as the voter has no voice but that which booms from the polls, you have no identity but that which arises from the common trends in large amounts of data.
They don't seem to have any idea on how economics works, either.
The cable and telcos have regional monopolies. Airlines, food, eyeglasses, and the beer industry? Seriously? These are all industries rife with healthy competition!
I keep thinking maybe I need to move into the Democrat party to make change; and I keep thinking I don't want to give them the victory. This shit is why. Maybe I should try to spearhead social progress using their party's favor to back me, and use the effort to crush their broken leadership.
Not that we need to crush Hillary at this point; she's not going to survive the next election, and the Democrats can't run her again and hope to win. Hopefully they don't run that fool Sanders.
Musk is talking about his secret exposure to "the very cutting edge". He thinks he understand current AI technology and that it is very dangerous.
Having the ability to have a stay at home spouse could and should be viewed as a form of luxury spending in some cases
Why?
or a complete failure to make available affordable childcare for many spouses who would like to be working but for whom the cost/wages ratio sucks in many other cases
Those are U-5.
If getting everyone to be working was a priority we would have deeply subsidized childcare
That would be economically-inefficient: we have to compensate (wages) childcare workers and their entire supply chain for their time (labor); if you can't trade your labor for their labor, then they're expending more of it to do the job than you are (or are overcharging and concentrating wealth at the expense of making others poor). Subsidization is just making sure everyone chips in to pay them for being inefficient, or just lines their pockets.
and a higher emphasis on flexible and even reduced working hours
I like reduced working hours; however, you must understand that a reduction in working hours is a reduction in wealth. If we are able to make technical progress the likes of which gives us 1.5 times the wealth, we can work 2/3 the working hours and neither gain nor lose the ability to purchase and produce.
Wealth is important. If we compare any level of technical progress to itself with fewer labor-hours, then we see a diminishing of wealth. If you are to work 40 hours to make a thing and then trade your week's pay for another thing worth 40 hours of labor on even average wage grounds, then you can make an even trade. If, on the other hand, you work only 30 hours at the same general efficiency you produce 75% as much.
When it comes time to pay for the 40 hours of labor invested in the next product, you will come up short; and, at the same time, you will be able to pay the full-time 30-hours wage of the person producing that thing you intended to buy. This is insufficient now because we have had to hire a new worker as well, and he supplied the additional 10 hours to make the thing you now cannot afford.
If we keep wages as they are on a weekly basis, then a $600/week wage would become a full-time $600/week wage plus $200/week for that last 10 hours in our above scenario. You, on the other hand, are still making your $600/week--the same you were making for 40 hours, now only for 30--and so cannot afford $800 on a week's wage. This makes perfect sense, of course: we are trading the products of time, and the laws of thermodynamics are inviolable.
That isn't to say that we'd follow such a model strictly. I believe office work is generally-inefficient today in many cases. Few office jobs employ workers vigorously, and there is much downtime. This downtime is necessary for the workers's minds to relax, consolidate, and integrate information vital to their jobs. Such downtime occurs when a worker's attention is elsewhere, rather than studiously pouring over his assigned task; and this provision of downtime can occur at any time interspersed with the working hours. Thus if office workers are spending an average of two hours per day making effective use of this downtime by browsing Internet news and chatting with coworkers, then reducing working hours by two per day would not necessitate a 25% reduction in their labor efficiency.
At the same time, time is directly-applicable to some work. Service work, construction labor, accounting, and a large amount of programming all involve direct labor. For many office jobs, a large part of downtime efficiency stems from discussing work casually with coworkers, making coworker interaction an important part of productivity. In some ways, a phase-out of the 40-hour work week for the 32-hour or 28-hour work week would need to come in steps to target first the office environment, then the services sectors.
As Winston Churchill once importantly stated: It is the heart of c
Actually we have a total number of non-retired above age 16, called the labor force. That's how we get labor force participation rate.
It centralizes the effort and makes it less time-consuming to at least somewhat defend yourself against stupidity.
For a site run by a couple retardedly-biased hyperliberals, they keep their facts surprising-straight. A few disputes around the edges in tone from time to time, but nothing Hannity-like. Mostly they stay away from political opinion pieces, anyway, so they're restricted on how much political bullshit they can worm into their material.
Web hosting is as old as Geocities or earlier.
Conspiracies are the realm of the ignorant and the schizotypal.
You also have to filter those people out because most of them aren't working due to no need to work. The ones who are discouraged generally aren't working and are on welfare; the others ... aren't in need of work and don't qualify for welfare.
U-6 is 8.6% in the US right now. U-3 is 4.4%. U-4 counts those people who "have given up looking for work," and is 4.7%.
The summary is hilarious: it claims we should count stay-at-home spouses as unemployed. Maybe we should get behind lazy wenches and beat them until they get up and work; everything in the kitchen is run by dishwashers and microwaves, and you women have all gotten lazy while the men keep you fed and fat!
I occasionally run into people who earnestly claim that 100% of persons over the age of 18 should have jobs. They're crazy.
U-6 is useless. It includes people who are underemployed, but doesn't tell us about underemployment.
Say there are 4,000 working hours divided among 100 people in every 2,000. 40 hours per person, full-time employment. Underemployment = 0%.
Now say there are 3,000 working hours divided among those 100 people. 30 hours per person, full-time. Underemployment = 5%.
Now let's say they're fighting over 1,000 hours, 10 hours per person. Underemployment = 5%.
So you have 100 full-time jobs, 75 full-time jobs, and 25 full-time jobs divided across 100 people in these three scenarios. In the first, they're just employed; in the other two, they're just underemployed.
There's a huge difference between those last two situations.
You are not counted as "unemployed" anymore in the Unemloyment Rate if you haven't been able to find a job in a long time or you've given up.
Actually, you're counted in U-4 if you've been unemployed long and are discouraged. U-4 is 0.1%-0.4% higher than U-3, which is the commonly-reported number.
Labor force participation rate is used mostly to lie about unemployment here in the US. People claim that there is no recovery of employment, but rather that labor force participation has decreased.
Basically, they claim that we still have 10% U-3, and just fewer looking for work. Thing is if you adjust U-3 to the labor force participation rate of our 10% peak, then our 4.7% number becomes 4.9%!