Counterpoint: cow meat takes 10-20 times as much farmland as wheat to feed a person. Eating a steak is very much like eating 20 loaves of bread of the same nutrition.
Review of the data shows there to be some accuracy to what you've said. I mean I'm not sold on the secondary points about weath v. stuff(because I find it silly and misdirectional), but the actual data regarding corporate equities suggests sub-typical returns.
But that's not true. Income on investment has been absurdly high for a while now, and (almost) everyone who works for money has been getting less on average not even factoring in the way unemployment affects that income.
No it's based on the flawed assumption that companies hire employees based on available resources, not the amount of work they have to get done. If you lower their tax burdens(and their investor's) then they'd hire more people. The reality is that companies will perform layoffs with record profits(mine sure did).
Except that, you know, in the face of absurdly high corporate profits, employees still eat the bullet because that's made up nonsense. Trickle down never works. It has never worked. And trying just leads to abuse and human suffering.
Nope, sorry. That's not how it works. You can formulate a hypothesis and still objectively test it, in spite of personal attachment. "People like proving things more than disproving" doesn't contravene the basic principles of science and you're going to have to try harder.
Yes, always be aware of the corrupting influence of money. Short of outright fabricating the data(not impossible), how do you posit bias was injected into the study?
Yes, that's a good point. What measures do you think "we," which presumably refers to mild-to-moderately informed laypeople, can put into place to help?
Not trying to be sarcastic, I genuinely wonder what practical options exist.
None of that is even remotely close answering the question of exactly what "political career" he was participating in, the only point I raised. I didn't even watch the stupid movie.
That is an obvious and totally incorrect solution. We don't have magic software(or any other non-human decision maker) that can make responsible judgements about people. It doesn't exist. Humans are our best option.
Here's an old classic: Murders go up with ice cream sales. The relationship here is that both go up in the summer. Neither necessarily causes the other, but a factor relates to both.
On the other hand, even the most casual of observation of American politics will reveal this particular mechanic works exactly as described. The number of republicans in any official capacity who even acknowledge the existence of a preponderance of evidence can be counted on your fingers.
Not just that, but "correlation is not causation" is only true in that those could be correlated due to a secondary cause. The phrase isn't meant to imply a complete lack of connection, just that the connection isn't necessarily the intuitive one.
Your own opinions aren't objective. That should be an assumption on your part. I too try to make objective assessments when possible, but I don't presume that action leads to objective perceptions.
I have the utmost sympathy for the suffering of call center workers. I've read more than enough horror stories. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's equally harmful to mental health(if the relationship here is causative).
Slashdot Mirror
Counterpoint: cow meat takes 10-20 times as much farmland as wheat to feed a person. Eating a steak is very much like eating 20 loaves of bread of the same nutrition.
Review of the data shows there to be some accuracy to what you've said. I mean I'm not sold on the secondary points about weath v. stuff(because I find it silly and misdirectional), but the actual data regarding corporate equities suggests sub-typical returns.
But that's not true. Income on investment has been absurdly high for a while now, and (almost) everyone who works for money has been getting less on average not even factoring in the way unemployment affects that income.
Hope you don't mind that it's less than the average developer was getting in 1999 even before inflation adjustment.
No it's based on the flawed assumption that companies hire employees based on available resources, not the amount of work they have to get done. If you lower their tax burdens(and their investor's) then they'd hire more people. The reality is that companies will perform layoffs with record profits(mine sure did).
Except that, you know, in the face of absurdly high corporate profits, employees still eat the bullet because that's made up nonsense. Trickle down never works. It has never worked. And trying just leads to abuse and human suffering.
Nope, sorry. That's not how it works. You can formulate a hypothesis and still objectively test it, in spite of personal attachment. "People like proving things more than disproving" doesn't contravene the basic principles of science and you're going to have to try harder.
Pretty on the nose there. The headline asks "This time it's different?" The answer is "yes, this time the employees aren't seeing any of the money"
Yes, always be aware of the corrupting influence of money. Short of outright fabricating the data(not impossible), how do you posit bias was injected into the study?
Yes, that's a good point. What measures do you think "we," which presumably refers to mild-to-moderately informed laypeople, can put into place to help?
Not trying to be sarcastic, I genuinely wonder what practical options exist.
Someone could mistake that post for serious.
Yeah, if we want to inject completely arbitrary politics into it, clearly the U.S. bombing middle eastern countries raises mortality rates in Europe.
Actually, considering the last decade's average temperatures are basically unprecedented, that might be harder than you claim.
None of that is even remotely close answering the question of exactly what "political career" he was participating in, the only point I raised. I didn't even watch the stupid movie.
I can't help you with your anger issues.
That is an obvious and totally incorrect solution. We don't have magic software(or any other non-human decision maker) that can make responsible judgements about people. It doesn't exist. Humans are our best option.
Here's an old classic:
Murders go up with ice cream sales. The relationship here is that both go up in the summer. Neither necessarily causes the other, but a factor relates to both.
I don't get your suggestion, the TV show was actually quite clever by "adult animation" standards.
That would be no elections won, that would reflect a failure. He never so much as set foot in a primary.
On the other hand, even the most casual of observation of American politics will reveal this particular mechanic works exactly as described. The number of republicans in any official capacity who even acknowledge the existence of a preponderance of evidence can be counted on your fingers.
Oh, yeah, all those elections he ran in after that movie. How many was that?
Oh, well, I really wish I hadn't been modded up for something I read on the internet then. Makes me feel bad.
Not just that, but "correlation is not causation" is only true in that those could be correlated due to a secondary cause. The phrase isn't meant to imply a complete lack of connection, just that the connection isn't necessarily the intuitive one.
But that isn't what I meant at all? I mean, it just seems like you want an obviously wrong argument you can smugly feel superior to.
Your own opinions aren't objective. That should be an assumption on your part. I too try to make objective assessments when possible, but I don't presume that action leads to objective perceptions.
I have the utmost sympathy for the suffering of call center workers. I've read more than enough horror stories. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's equally harmful to mental health(if the relationship here is causative).