note that the poor suffer disproportionately from the effects of air pollution
Scenario: Let's say you owe the court system money. You can either afford your court fees or a car. Either way you go to prison because you can't drive to work in the former situation. So, how much do you care about air pollution? If you met some snot telling you to be grateful about clean air, you'd probably be inclined to beat that person up.
As my grandfather would say..."Pull your head out of your ass, young man."
Don't underestimate the power of organized religion in Russia....
dafuq??
I have to admit, I bought this line of shit for a few minutes, then realized what happened later.
It's still wrong, but you're really misreprenting...
There it is. See it? That first clause? Something made of straw man? Pff....too bad nothing can be done, right? Oh well, I guess Senor Putin is just fun and games and can't be bothered...
Really, when the chances are my son will be a straight, middle class white guy who maybe has sex with 3 or 4 women in his life, just like his dad?
All you need to do is go to a local bar to see how well circumcision works for a society...always loads of 40-50 something women with rings on, and totally DTF.
We're a cougar society, all the old guys have broken dicks. Severed/damaged veins become varicose and stop working over time, no matter where they are in the body...
Those positive reports tend to come from two groups:
Men who suffer from phimosis will have a much improved sex life. (Even though they don't realize that it would have been much better if they stretched the area out rather than amputated it).
Many of the adult men who get circumcisions and who are otherwise healthy and have no phimosis are bisexual or homosexual. Anal sex is much improved by the procedure.
That is a often repeated meme, but no, its the same thing with basically the same result. Female circumcision does reduce incidents of urinary tract infections similarly, and since the pleasure is taken out of it, they're less promiscuous and have a far lower rate of STDs.
Does that make it right? No!
And for the record, your ignorance shows...no FGM practices mutilate the vagina, rather they amputate the labia and the clitoris or the clitoral hood.
If we circumcise 100 infants, at a cost of $33,000, we prevent 1 case of urinary tract infection, at a cost of $100 for a doctor's visit and penicillin regimen.
Obviously we can see which of the doctors and patients benefit from this arrangement...
No... a flat tax would be a huge tax cut for the middle class, while raising taxes on the poor and the rich classes (both have effective tax rates that are quite low). This effect is amplified in high cost-of-living areas, since the additional amount of money it takes to eat and sleep can take you into a higher tax bracket.
That is why the idea is gaining popularity with the middle class...the current tax system is designed to screw us! If you're reading this, your taxes would go down if a flat tax was instituted.
However....such a policy would be ludicrous to implement during a recession, or even a flat economy. Same as ye olde health care reform, there is going to be unforeseen economic fallout.
Where do the planes go when they crash? That's right...into your data center!
And its not just fire...what if somebody innocently takes a red stapler, and nerd rage against the company ensues?
Backups actually prevent disasters from occurring in the first place...aka if Red Stapler guy realizes that your data is secure offsite and easily restorable, he's not going to bother to rm -rf *.
And that pilot, about to die a fiery death, will realize that no one will be miserable if he pilots the plane into your datacenter, so he will set course for another datacenter.
No, it'll result in less needy people in the world, resulting in far, far less "meaningful" work for humanitarians, social workers, and religious workers . That is why idealist-type personalities are instinctively scared of this sort of thing. It's going to be a dull, meaningless world for them and they know it.
All the work done by the progressive movement to get themselves jobs will be slowly be undone not because the world would become more conservative, but because it will not be needed anymore. But keep in mind, the more productive the population is, the more social government makes sense since it doesn't cost nearly as much, so you Socialist types should be excited.
So, stop worrying, we'll be fine. Athiest, socialist, less diverse, and less artistic. Not a bad trade off. Humans have evolved on our brains, not anything else. We will never completely adapt to our environment, whatever it is, because too many will outsmart their way into survival to allow a change in the gene pool... so if we want real progress we have to start hacking it.
And if you think this will apply to all humanity? Hahaha no. The poor countries will not see this technology, we'll still need currency vassals to produce our plastic crap, same as now, and same idea as Rome in Roman times. So, I'm certain you'll still have a place to go if you need to escape the dull, ideal world and "help" people.
Seriously, high FPS is important cause when I'm in the zone, I can point and already be firing before I'm necessarily consciously aware of it. Twitch fire does not adhere to the 60 fps rule
I like where you are going with that, and I'll add to it:
Lashing out at people up who joke around and trigger your social anxieties is not OK, especially since keeping other people in check will do very little to fix your problem or make you happier. Your only possible outcome be taking one crooked step towards the impossible goal of feeling in control, while only succeeding in bringing others down to your level of misery.
I think GP misunderstands the terse negative feedback. Nobody is telling you how to feel when they return your negative feedback, but rather drawing attention to how what you expressed indicates how grossly entrenched you are in something that is warped and totally lacking in mental and spiritual sunshine. It is something we typically learn in early childhood so it does tend to come out in childish, almost subconscious ways, like "feck off" or "eww you're gross and creepy or something".
And while sex can be used as a convenient component when you are making excuses for yourself, the root issue it certainly is not a matter of sex, but maturity.
This is true, but remember that not every system will work everywhere.
Transferring the CEO's salary really does very little in the long run, in our hypothetical example, the floor worker salary goes up to $35K, and we lose the interest of the President...he'll just go retire somewhere, leading to a slump in business. Also consider that there could emerge other benefits that taxes cannot touch, which will become accepted compensation in lieu of money.
In the real world US, making every income roughly even for all, by itself, will will make everything converge on $28K. Which will eventually fall to lower levels as the extra marginal productivity spurred by a competitive market levels wanders off into retirement or less hours.
By northern Europe, I assume you are talking about Sweden. They are unique. You have a hardy, homogeneous population that came to be through a different evolutionary path than the bulk of humanity...the "laid-back" types were strictly selected against due to the harsh climate. The culture is also highly influenced by the climate, leading to a more strongly collective mentality. It makes sense for them, because the reality of where they are leads them in that direction naturally.
The US does not have that advantage. We do not have homogeneity, and the "help your fellow man" is not as strong as the "screw The Man" sentiment. A socialist culture requires an entire country to bond together as a family, in a sense, and to work hard for the sake of it. We have large pockets of culture where work is not valued at all. We don't have enough high-strung, Northern Germanic types who are instinctively driven to work hard regardless of what is happening in the world.
In seriousness, there are many people that feel that "this was coming", or "it was going to happen eventually", and discounts the costs involved, since it has been done in many other developed nations with varying levels of success, generally positive.
But, our particular situation is unique. The US carries much more than our fair share of medical research and investment, and it comes out in our costs. Medicine is many, many times more expensive here than anywhere else, and our system encourages it...there is so much profit to be made, that investors will nod to controversial or even small quality-of-life items, and very talented individuals will opt for medicine as a career choice. And what comes to the top is the very best, because everything must be thoroughly vetted by the FDA, and the medical community in general. The that is why people are screaming bloody murder, because something will have to collapse...either the best-of-the-best research institutions and physicians...or the businessman. So you have our current situation...physicians feeling the pain and looking at bailing out, and 72% of businesses have been forced to limit hiring.
It is what it is.
This article gives you an idea of where we are at. Reading the numbers that Europe contributes can give you an idea where we are going.
Your progressive radio host of choice may be dismissing this, but there is a little more to the business side of the story than mere Republican posturing.
But, lets dive into the ugly details. We owe it to society to do the due diligence on such a huge issue.
Upon detailed inspection, you realize that a grand portion of the GDP is simply "passing the potato". Fixed costs tend to dominate your world unless you are Apple.
Let's use the example of a 100 seat call center. Your "peons" on average make $25k, so your fixed yearly payroll is 2.5mil.
So, let's say you take in 10 mil of billable services per year. That means we're adding $10 million/yr to the GDP.
Obviously since we are adding $10 million to the GDP, we must be able to pay our peons $50k each, for a total of $5 million! That is only 50%!
Well, not so much. The problem boils down to people are selfish and they will screw you if you don't satisfy them! Its business, nothing personal. Welcome to our world of diverse personalities.
So, for our example, let's say you must pay $2.5 mil a year to your smart, extremely charismatic, and well-connected President. He's smart, he knows every client personally, and he could go off and start another company, shed the legacy trappings and make it better, steal all your customers, and force you into bankruptcy within a year. Guaranteed.
He is worth every penny.
You have 5 managers, for a total of $750k. They're smart, they know how to eat shit from clients, they motivate your peons and work against the dead sea effect, and without them you would have no credibility as a company, and your peons would play solitaire all day and get nothing done.
They are worth every penny.
You bring in 3 IT consultants, for an average total of $400k. Collectively they know every subsystem, quirk, problem, and detail there is to know about the systems you have in place. Your business would be completely non-functional within a few months without them.
They are worth every penny.
I could give more examples, but the main point is that some people are more valuable to a business than others. If you make the minimum wage $50k, then eventually only people who are worth that much will be left employed. There are many other ways of rewarding people other than direct salary. If you are an IT professional of some sort, obviously elimination of low level jobs wouldn't bother you too much, and actually it may sound superb. But there would be a tremendous push to automate *everything*. Tokyo could be coming to a suburb near you.
And rather than kicking at least *some* value into the system, the less productive and bright individuals will be left to produce nothing. And THAT will be the fall of this hypothetical society that you propose.
You have to consider the human element, the human need to be valuable and needed. Without that, these people will not accept willingly accept the message that they are somehow useless, dysfunctional, or inadequate. (Much like how a rich individual would rebel, to the point of suicide [think Great Depression] of taking a commoner's place in society.) Rather than face that, they will turn to drugs and alcohol, they will commit crimes, they will rebel, they will congregate, and they will fight, whether it manifests as sporadic "flash mobs" or outright civil war.
So, let's make the point clear: What you are proposing is that a person must have a very high personal value to participate in society.
Obviously, *YOU*, and everyone you know, has a high enough personal value to contribute, and make such a society work. What you fail to grasp is that not everyone is as gifted as yourself and the people you surround yourself with.
So the end-game there ends up being pretty un-human...eugenics will be brought up, forced sterilization, war, government bankruptcy.... Basically there will eventually be a huge demand for closing the door on a large swath of the human race. Even if it doesn't happen, the demand will be there.
And you know what, as someone who doesn't stand to lose a
I can understand your frustration with the concept, but these are what real PHB's out there in the field feel...its not the same as what you or I would feel, so you can't apply the same rules or the same logic, nor do they really care much about the world economy, since the general perception is that where the US goes, the world goes, and that pretty much holds. US Exports to Spain were 10 billion last year, the bulk of which were inelastics like food and medicine. Greece 1 billion, Italy 16 billion. Its a small amount in the big picture. Whether or not the reasons are out to lunch or not, they are quite real to business people out there.
Businesses have never talked about "holding back until the elections" and even today the only ones saying this are republican talking heads.
Never say never:
There is at least one disgruntled small businessment that has spoken out. Of course few businesses are going to publicize their fears of the future, that would be bad for investors. Personally I've met with enough C-level people to claim a decent statistical sample. They and many they've talked to expresses the same exact concerns, and about 50% of that sample have admitted to taking at least some small action on those concerns. The only notable exception are left on the political spectrum, although the feeling there tends to be less positive and more neutral and dismissive. Sounds like its not a big deal on the surface, but it is similar to how a 1 degree change in the Earth's average temperature works. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but the impact is huge.
Since the attitude is so prevalent, I understand why it looks like some kind of Republican talking point, and that may be part of it. Some Tea Partiers are encouraging the practice of hampering the economy by avoiding hiring until November. Yet, I've never heard of anyone who matters taking the Tea Party in general seriously other than a few specific candidates who are simply trying to court that particular vote... so I doubt that is the cause.
But, it doesn't matter now, because now the idea has taken hold, and there is nobody credible (aka without a political agenda) saying "hey! everything is A-OK! start spending!"
I'm not trying to argue something inane like "GWB is gr8 and Clinton sux0rs!!11", as you seem to be suggesting.
Remember, we don't have much to compare the current situation here. The heath care reform is the most shocking thing ever done in the US since the New Deal.
There was no recession during either of Clinton's, and either of Bush's election campaigns. The first of these cases was the 91/92 recession, which was mild, wasn't talked much about, and was pretty much already over by the time the election was in full swing. So, that would be a bad comparison.
You have to be careful when looking at the 90's as a shining example of what is awesome. The initial benefits of globalization rushed up on us like a ocean wave, and in the 2000's settled back to whence it came. Then another wave came back to us in the form of international loans. The current recession is a push-back from that. I don't think any other industry felt that initial motion of capital so clearly as those in IT.
But, back to my point. The fact that there are billions in capital and millions of jobs waiting on this election is real. You can't wish it away, you can't make it irrelevant by getting angry about it, and you can't make it not true by modding it -1 if it is discussed on Slashdot. That is the quiet reality going on behind the scenes, and you'd be a fool to ignore it.
I've chatted about the economy with quite a few principals, and it is still heavy on everyone's mind. The *perception* is that Obama and friends are out to legislate policy that is well known to cool down economies (hello Europe), come what may, and that they are only interested in bailing out big players who are bankrolling the party. Doesn't leave much room for the small- and medium-size businessman. Much of that perception is the administration's fault (look where the bail-out money and the health care waivers are going).
Even if that means nothing in the long run, and the perception is incorrect, it still has a big impact. Keep in mind, globalization has been squeezing businesses (and individual workers) for some time now, and the general response from government has been "deal with it" or that it is "positive competition beneficial to the consumer". So, we see a similar response...hunker down, cut jobs, and outsource. (As you've read in the employment threads, consultants are rolling in dough right now)
Essentially what Romney has promised is a return to the past by cutting the new legislation and government growth. Anyone who knows economics knows that, historically, that will screw the economy in the short-term, but nobody cares because in two years we'll be back to normal, and that happens to be about the same amount of time required to see a return on investment anyway.
So, like it or not, a conservative-leaning election is the finger on the trigger for *billions* of investment dollars, and *millions* of new jobs. (Yeah yeah, that "isn't fair", I know). People are more familiar with the Reagan (circa 1981) and Bush (circa 2002) formula...make hard cuts that screws everyone over for a short period of time, then ride the boom that follows. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that perception, but it is what it is.
Anyone who doesn't follow that formula gets boned. Obama and Bush Sr. are in the same boat here.
Trust me, I have no love for Romney and his frequent promises of skyrocketing immigration and an obscenely high H1-B cap. But in the long run we're better off with him, no matter what he does, due to the perceptual niche he occupies.
So, as I and I'm sure any other independent voter, see Obama's activities and really love some things that he is trying to do (insurance reform) and are ecstatic about what he has been able to knock out of the ball park (persecuting and convicting H1-B visa violators). But it isn't enough, and as a matter of practicality, I have to vote for Romney. There is just too much prosperity consigned to his coattails at this particular moment. If times were better, I'd vote differently.
And I know i'm going to get super angry replies and downmods from non-independents from both sides, but it has to be said. You should not ignore the human element when casting your ballot. There is a good time for Democrats and a good time for Republicans. (Honestly, Kerry would have done a better job, and so would have McCain) And with the situation in front of us, sans the frothy idealism, there is only one good way to go here.
I have to concur, unfortunately, although it isn't as widespread as it once was. Mainly small towns. There are still a handful of privately owned "Whites-only" restaurants. I live about 5 miles from one. There is a sign, "blacks go to the back". If any blacks come, they are served from the kitchen back door. The restaurant is the owner's personal property so it is perfectly legal. He also refuses service to anyone who isn't "dressed nice". Its...unique, like a time machine. He isn't a mean guy, he's one of those people that must have everything "just so". He decided what "just so" was back in 1950-something, and hasn't changed his mind, nor has anyone really challenged him.
There are some places out there that time hasn't touched, for better or worse. The owner and 95% his clientele are so old I doubt it will be around much longer, but it is still there, here in 2012.
I've looked at moving to Germany...it's not a slam dunk career move. When you factor in exchange rates, cost of living, take home pay AFTER taxes, etc, the US is still the better choice by a large margin compared to any other place . It looks like Canada is #2, Australia #3 as far as IT worker living standard goes. Then there is the culture shock, homesickness, political chaos, social isolation, the German expectation of punctuality. It's the most modernized country in the old world...aka the cool old architecture has been knocked down.
I'd be interested to hear the stories from people who did make it over there, any good ones?
So yeah. I do hate payday lenders. And no, I've never needed to use one. But I still have a legitimate reason for hating them: their client base is, by and large, people who are at the lower income tiers and can *least* afford to pay the exorbitant rates they have.
Their client base is actually, by and large, lower middle to middle class. Of course, I'm sure you can cite one example... I have had the daunting task of referencing tens of millions of these sort of records while doing this that or the other thing for some clients. As your sole point of reference on this topic, I'm observing that you're making things up and getting emotional about it.
I have an overdraft on my chequing account
I suppose banking is cheaper in the UK, in the US it is quite expensive. As little as a $0.01 cent overdraw is usually an automatic $35.00 fee without additional protection (which requires good credit to obtain).
And they are set up in such a way that keeps the poor down. They need to go.
They are a tool like any other, and to judge an entire ecosystem of commerce on a few hard luck cases is short-sighted. The majority have no trouble. The ones that do typically walk away, and a few come back later when times are better.
they are the dregs of society, and they are feeding on the poor.
There are some adults lending to other adults as a service.
They charge for this service.
Some of them are easier to borrow from then others. The easy ones tend to charge more (aka be mean and nasty and EV1L!!!), as they are taken advantage of more often.
So yeah. I do hate payday lenders. And no, I've never needed to use one.
I believe your viewpoint is a symptom of some sort of loneliness...The only thing you reference in your post is what you do and how you feel. What you are talking about has nothing to do with what is actually happening *outside*, you know, the great green and blue and concrete world out there. Even the "bad" stuff really isn't bad, its just life. Everything has a place, even the big bad evil moneychangers.
So, if your car breaks down, just walk that 15 miles to work? There are plenty of cases where the expense makes sense. You gotta do what you gotta do.
The loans are too small for it to be practical to take legal action...your typical loan is $300 with a $90 finance charge. A lawyer costs much more than that... So yeah, you can walk away and forget about it. And many people do, fraud and default is rampant, and that fact makes the entrapment argument is kind of silly.
And the funny part is, despite the expense, the only people who hate payday loans are the people who have never had one. The lenders are scared of being legislated into the dog house, so they're careful and play nice.
If a customer is having trouble, all they have to do is say so. Generally they'll stop assessing interest, and then they'll create an installment plan that works best (e.g. one that makes the customer happy so they won't walk away).
Although, there are some bad eggs, and typically they do business from overseas or from indian reservations. Those are where your horror stories come from.
People don't have a clue as to how difficult that business is!
You have to look at losses as well to judge. Imagine you put your entire savings on the street, and anyone who came to you and said "hey, can I borrow some money?", you simply hand them a stack of bills. How many of those people are going to pay you back?
The loans are expensive because the default rates are phenomenally high (depending on the biz, up to 50% simply walk away from the loan at some point). And they have a specific purpose...they are much, much cheaper than bank overdrafts. The APR's for an NSF fee can run into the Millions of %.
Everyone assumes (people who hate payday lenders, AND people who want to enter the payday business) that they're disgustingly profitable, but that isn't quite the whole story. There are only a few exceptional people on this planet who possess both extremely poor financial planning aptitude, and yet have mad skills at flawlessly servicing their financial obligations.
Although, from what I've seen, these lenders tend to hire the cheapest option for their IT and web dev (clueless foreigners). I'm really surprised these security breaches don't happen more often.
Slashdot Mirror
Scenario: Let's say you owe the court system money. You can either afford your court fees or a car. Either way you go to prison because you can't drive to work in the former situation. So, how much do you care about air pollution? If you met some snot telling you to be grateful about clean air, you'd probably be inclined to beat that person up.
As my grandfather would say..."Pull your head out of your ass, young man."
Don't underestimate the power of organized religion in Russia....
dafuq??
I have to admit, I bought this line of shit for a few minutes, then realized what happened later.
It's still wrong, but you're really misreprenting...
There it is. See it? That first clause? Something made of straw man? Pff....too bad nothing can be done, right? Oh well, I guess Senor Putin is just fun and games and can't be bothered...
Really, when the chances are my son will be a straight, middle class white guy who maybe has sex with 3 or 4 women in his life, just like his dad?
All you need to do is go to a local bar to see how well circumcision works for a society...always loads of 40-50 something women with rings on, and totally DTF.
We're a cougar society, all the old guys have broken dicks. Severed/damaged veins become varicose and stop working over time, no matter where they are in the body...
Those positive reports tend to come from two groups:
Men who suffer from phimosis will have a much improved sex life. (Even though they don't realize that it would have been much better if they stretched the area out rather than amputated it).
Many of the adult men who get circumcisions and who are otherwise healthy and have no phimosis are bisexual or homosexual. Anal sex is much improved by the procedure.
Anyone else will seriously regret it.
That is a often repeated meme, but no, its the same thing with basically the same result. Female circumcision does reduce incidents of urinary tract infections similarly, and since the pleasure is taken out of it, they're less promiscuous and have a far lower rate of STDs.
Does that make it right? No!
And for the record, your ignorance shows...no FGM practices mutilate the vagina, rather they amputate the labia and the clitoris or the clitoral hood.
Here's some numbers for you:
If we circumcise 100 infants, at a cost of $33,000, we prevent 1 case of urinary tract infection, at a cost of $100 for a doctor's visit and penicillin regimen.
Obviously we can see which of the doctors and patients benefit from this arrangement...
Judging by yet another Republican-bashing karma whore...I'd say no
No... a flat tax would be a huge tax cut for the middle class, while raising taxes on the poor and the rich classes (both have effective tax rates that are quite low). This effect is amplified in high cost-of-living areas, since the additional amount of money it takes to eat and sleep can take you into a higher tax bracket.
That is why the idea is gaining popularity with the middle class...the current tax system is designed to screw us! If you're reading this, your taxes would go down if a flat tax was instituted.
However....such a policy would be ludicrous to implement during a recession, or even a flat economy. Same as ye olde health care reform, there is going to be unforeseen economic fallout.
What's a card?
Where do the planes go when they crash? That's right...into your data center! And its not just fire...what if somebody innocently takes a red stapler, and nerd rage against the company ensues? Backups actually prevent disasters from occurring in the first place...aka if Red Stapler guy realizes that your data is secure offsite and easily restorable, he's not going to bother to rm -rf *. And that pilot, about to die a fiery death, will realize that no one will be miserable if he pilots the plane into your datacenter, so he will set course for another datacenter.
No, it'll result in less needy people in the world, resulting in far, far less "meaningful" work for humanitarians, social workers, and religious workers . That is why idealist-type personalities are instinctively scared of this sort of thing. It's going to be a dull, meaningless world for them and they know it.
All the work done by the progressive movement to get themselves jobs will be slowly be undone not because the world would become more conservative, but because it will not be needed anymore. But keep in mind, the more productive the population is, the more social government makes sense since it doesn't cost nearly as much, so you Socialist types should be excited.
So, stop worrying, we'll be fine. Athiest, socialist, less diverse, and less artistic. Not a bad trade off. Humans have evolved on our brains, not anything else. We will never completely adapt to our environment, whatever it is, because too many will outsmart their way into survival to allow a change in the gene pool... so if we want real progress we have to start hacking it.
And if you think this will apply to all humanity? Hahaha no. The poor countries will not see this technology, we'll still need currency vassals to produce our plastic crap, same as now, and same idea as Rome in Roman times. So, I'm certain you'll still have a place to go if you need to escape the dull, ideal world and "help" people.
Haha, now there is a diehard Wolf:ET fan.
Seriously, high FPS is important cause when I'm in the zone, I can point and already be firing before I'm necessarily consciously aware of it. Twitch fire does not adhere to the 60 fps rule
I like where you are going with that, and I'll add to it:
Lashing out at people up who joke around and trigger your social anxieties is not OK, especially since keeping other people in check will do very little to fix your problem or make you happier. Your only possible outcome be taking one crooked step towards the impossible goal of feeling in control, while only succeeding in bringing others down to your level of misery.
I think GP misunderstands the terse negative feedback. Nobody is telling you how to feel when they return your negative feedback, but rather drawing attention to how what you expressed indicates how grossly entrenched you are in something that is warped and totally lacking in mental and spiritual sunshine. It is something we typically learn in early childhood so it does tend to come out in childish, almost subconscious ways, like "feck off" or "eww you're gross and creepy or something".
And while sex can be used as a convenient component when you are making excuses for yourself, the root issue it certainly is not a matter of sex, but maturity.
This is true, but remember that not every system will work everywhere.
Transferring the CEO's salary really does very little in the long run, in our hypothetical example, the floor worker salary goes up to $35K, and we lose the interest of the President...he'll just go retire somewhere, leading to a slump in business. Also consider that there could emerge other benefits that taxes cannot touch, which will become accepted compensation in lieu of money.
A helpful chart
In the real world US, making every income roughly even for all, by itself, will will make everything converge on $28K. Which will eventually fall to lower levels as the extra marginal productivity spurred by a competitive market levels wanders off into retirement or less hours.
By northern Europe, I assume you are talking about Sweden. They are unique. You have a hardy, homogeneous population that came to be through a different evolutionary path than the bulk of humanity...the "laid-back" types were strictly selected against due to the harsh climate. The culture is also highly influenced by the climate, leading to a more strongly collective mentality. It makes sense for them, because the reality of where they are leads them in that direction naturally.
The US does not have that advantage. We do not have homogeneity, and the "help your fellow man" is not as strong as the "screw The Man" sentiment. A socialist culture requires an entire country to bond together as a family, in a sense, and to work hard for the sake of it. We have large pockets of culture where work is not valued at all. We don't have enough high-strung, Northern Germanic types who are instinctively driven to work hard regardless of what is happening in the world.
Last word!
In seriousness, there are many people that feel that "this was coming", or "it was going to happen eventually", and discounts the costs involved, since it has been done in many other developed nations with varying levels of success, generally positive.
But, our particular situation is unique. The US carries much more than our fair share of medical research and investment, and it comes out in our costs. Medicine is many, many times more expensive here than anywhere else, and our system encourages it...there is so much profit to be made, that investors will nod to controversial or even small quality-of-life items, and very talented individuals will opt for medicine as a career choice. And what comes to the top is the very best, because everything must be thoroughly vetted by the FDA, and the medical community in general. The that is why people are screaming bloody murder, because something will have to collapse...either the best-of-the-best research institutions and physicians...or the businessman. So you have our current situation...physicians feeling the pain and looking at bailing out, and 72% of businesses have been forced to limit hiring.
It is what it is.
This article gives you an idea of where we are at. Reading the numbers that Europe contributes can give you an idea where we are going.
Your progressive radio host of choice may be dismissing this, but there is a little more to the business side of the story than mere Republican posturing.
I know, this sounds very sweet.
But, lets dive into the ugly details. We owe it to society to do the due diligence on such a huge issue.
Upon detailed inspection, you realize that a grand portion of the GDP is simply "passing the potato". Fixed costs tend to dominate your world unless you are Apple.
Let's use the example of a 100 seat call center. Your "peons" on average make $25k, so your fixed yearly payroll is 2.5mil.
So, let's say you take in 10 mil of billable services per year. That means we're adding $10 million/yr to the GDP.
Obviously since we are adding $10 million to the GDP, we must be able to pay our peons $50k each, for a total of $5 million! That is only 50%!
Well, not so much. The problem boils down to people are selfish and they will screw you if you don't satisfy them! Its business, nothing personal. Welcome to our world of diverse personalities.
So, for our example, let's say you must pay $2.5 mil a year to your smart, extremely charismatic, and well-connected President. He's smart, he knows every client personally, and he could go off and start another company, shed the legacy trappings and make it better, steal all your customers, and force you into bankruptcy within a year. Guaranteed.
He is worth every penny.
You have 5 managers, for a total of $750k. They're smart, they know how to eat shit from clients, they motivate your peons and work against the dead sea effect, and without them you would have no credibility as a company, and your peons would play solitaire all day and get nothing done.
They are worth every penny.
You bring in 3 IT consultants, for an average total of $400k. Collectively they know every subsystem, quirk, problem, and detail there is to know about the systems you have in place. Your business would be completely non-functional within a few months without them.
They are worth every penny.
I could give more examples, but the main point is that some people are more valuable to a business than others. If you make the minimum wage $50k, then eventually only people who are worth that much will be left employed. There are many other ways of rewarding people other than direct salary. If you are an IT professional of some sort, obviously elimination of low level jobs wouldn't bother you too much, and actually it may sound superb. But there would be a tremendous push to automate *everything*. Tokyo could be coming to a suburb near you.
And rather than kicking at least *some* value into the system, the less productive and bright individuals will be left to produce nothing. And THAT will be the fall of this hypothetical society that you propose.
You have to consider the human element, the human need to be valuable and needed. Without that, these people will not accept willingly accept the message that they are somehow useless, dysfunctional, or inadequate. (Much like how a rich individual would rebel, to the point of suicide [think Great Depression] of taking a commoner's place in society.) Rather than face that, they will turn to drugs and alcohol, they will commit crimes, they will rebel, they will congregate, and they will fight, whether it manifests as sporadic "flash mobs" or outright civil war.
So, let's make the point clear: What you are proposing is that a person must have a very high personal value to participate in society.
Obviously, *YOU*, and everyone you know, has a high enough personal value to contribute, and make such a society work. What you fail to grasp is that not everyone is as gifted as yourself and the people you surround yourself with.
So the end-game there ends up being pretty un-human...eugenics will be brought up, forced sterilization, war, government bankruptcy.... Basically there will eventually be a huge demand for closing the door on a large swath of the human race. Even if it doesn't happen, the demand will be there.
And you know what, as someone who doesn't stand to lose a
Never say never: There is at least one disgruntled small businessment that has spoken out. Of course few businesses are going to publicize their fears of the future, that would be bad for investors. Personally I've met with enough C-level people to claim a decent statistical sample. They and many they've talked to expresses the same exact concerns, and about 50% of that sample have admitted to taking at least some small action on those concerns. The only notable exception are left on the political spectrum, although the feeling there tends to be less positive and more neutral and dismissive. Sounds like its not a big deal on the surface, but it is similar to how a 1 degree change in the Earth's average temperature works. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but the impact is huge.
Since the attitude is so prevalent, I understand why it looks like some kind of Republican talking point, and that may be part of it. Some Tea Partiers are encouraging the practice of hampering the economy by avoiding hiring until November. Yet, I've never heard of anyone who matters taking the Tea Party in general seriously other than a few specific candidates who are simply trying to court that particular vote... so I doubt that is the cause.
But, it doesn't matter now, because now the idea has taken hold, and there is nobody credible (aka without a political agenda) saying "hey! everything is A-OK! start spending!"
I'm not trying to argue something inane like "GWB is gr8 and Clinton sux0rs!!11", as you seem to be suggesting.
Remember, we don't have much to compare the current situation here. The heath care reform is the most shocking thing ever done in the US since the New Deal.
There was no recession during either of Clinton's, and either of Bush's election campaigns. The first of these cases was the 91/92 recession, which was mild, wasn't talked much about, and was pretty much already over by the time the election was in full swing. So, that would be a bad comparison.
You have to be careful when looking at the 90's as a shining example of what is awesome. The initial benefits of globalization rushed up on us like a ocean wave, and in the 2000's settled back to whence it came. Then another wave came back to us in the form of international loans. The current recession is a push-back from that. I don't think any other industry felt that initial motion of capital so clearly as those in IT.
But, back to my point. The fact that there are billions in capital and millions of jobs waiting on this election is real. You can't wish it away, you can't make it irrelevant by getting angry about it, and you can't make it not true by modding it -1 if it is discussed on Slashdot. That is the quiet reality going on behind the scenes, and you'd be a fool to ignore it.
It still matters though.
I've chatted about the economy with quite a few principals, and it is still heavy on everyone's mind. The *perception* is that Obama and friends are out to legislate policy that is well known to cool down economies (hello Europe), come what may, and that they are only interested in bailing out big players who are bankrolling the party. Doesn't leave much room for the small- and medium-size businessman. Much of that perception is the administration's fault (look where the bail-out money and the health care waivers are going).
Even if that means nothing in the long run, and the perception is incorrect, it still has a big impact. Keep in mind, globalization has been squeezing businesses (and individual workers) for some time now, and the general response from government has been "deal with it" or that it is "positive competition beneficial to the consumer". So, we see a similar response...hunker down, cut jobs, and outsource. (As you've read in the employment threads, consultants are rolling in dough right now)
Essentially what Romney has promised is a return to the past by cutting the new legislation and government growth. Anyone who knows economics knows that, historically, that will screw the economy in the short-term, but nobody cares because in two years we'll be back to normal, and that happens to be about the same amount of time required to see a return on investment anyway.
So, like it or not, a conservative-leaning election is the finger on the trigger for *billions* of investment dollars, and *millions* of new jobs. (Yeah yeah, that "isn't fair", I know). People are more familiar with the Reagan (circa 1981) and Bush (circa 2002) formula...make hard cuts that screws everyone over for a short period of time, then ride the boom that follows. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that perception, but it is what it is.
Anyone who doesn't follow that formula gets boned. Obama and Bush Sr. are in the same boat here.
Trust me, I have no love for Romney and his frequent promises of skyrocketing immigration and an obscenely high H1-B cap. But in the long run we're better off with him, no matter what he does, due to the perceptual niche he occupies.
So, as I and I'm sure any other independent voter, see Obama's activities and really love some things that he is trying to do (insurance reform) and are ecstatic about what he has been able to knock out of the ball park (persecuting and convicting H1-B visa violators). But it isn't enough, and as a matter of practicality, I have to vote for Romney. There is just too much prosperity consigned to his coattails at this particular moment. If times were better, I'd vote differently.
And I know i'm going to get super angry replies and downmods from non-independents from both sides, but it has to be said. You should not ignore the human element when casting your ballot. There is a good time for Democrats and a good time for Republicans. (Honestly, Kerry would have done a better job, and so would have McCain) And with the situation in front of us, sans the frothy idealism, there is only one good way to go here.
I have to concur, unfortunately, although it isn't as widespread as it once was. Mainly small towns. There are still a handful of privately owned "Whites-only" restaurants. I live about 5 miles from one. There is a sign, "blacks go to the back". If any blacks come, they are served from the kitchen back door. The restaurant is the owner's personal property so it is perfectly legal. He also refuses service to anyone who isn't "dressed nice". Its...unique, like a time machine. He isn't a mean guy, he's one of those people that must have everything "just so". He decided what "just so" was back in 1950-something, and hasn't changed his mind, nor has anyone really challenged him.
There are some places out there that time hasn't touched, for better or worse. The owner and 95% his clientele are so old I doubt it will be around much longer, but it is still there, here in 2012.
I've looked at moving to Germany...it's not a slam dunk career move. When you factor in exchange rates, cost of living, take home pay AFTER taxes, etc, the US is still the better choice by a large margin compared to any other place . It looks like Canada is #2, Australia #3 as far as IT worker living standard goes. Then there is the culture shock, homesickness, political chaos, social isolation, the German expectation of punctuality. It's the most modernized country in the old world...aka the cool old architecture has been knocked down.
I'd be interested to hear the stories from people who did make it over there, any good ones?
I tried to take the survey, but I couldn't complete it. I'm a cow meat solutions architect.
I wonder if they bothered to include everyone what the salary breakdown would look like.
Their client base is actually, by and large, lower middle to middle class. Of course, I'm sure you can cite one example... I have had the daunting task of referencing tens of millions of these sort of records while doing this that or the other thing for some clients. As your sole point of reference on this topic, I'm observing that you're making things up and getting emotional about it.
I suppose banking is cheaper in the UK, in the US it is quite expensive. As little as a $0.01 cent overdraw is usually an automatic $35.00 fee without additional protection (which requires good credit to obtain).
They are a tool like any other, and to judge an entire ecosystem of commerce on a few hard luck cases is short-sighted. The majority have no trouble. The ones that do typically walk away, and a few come back later when times are better.
There are some adults lending to other adults as a service.
They charge for this service.
Some of them are easier to borrow from then others. The easy ones tend to charge more (aka be mean and nasty and EV1L!!!), as they are taken advantage of more often.
I believe your viewpoint is a symptom of some sort of loneliness...The only thing you reference in your post is what you do and how you feel. What you are talking about has nothing to do with what is actually happening *outside*, you know, the great green and blue and concrete world out there. Even the "bad" stuff really isn't bad, its just life. Everything has a place, even the big bad evil moneychangers.
So, if your car breaks down, just walk that 15 miles to work? There are plenty of cases where the expense makes sense. You gotta do what you gotta do.
The loans are too small for it to be practical to take legal action...your typical loan is $300 with a $90 finance charge. A lawyer costs much more than that... So yeah, you can walk away and forget about it. And many people do, fraud and default is rampant, and that fact makes the entrapment argument is kind of silly.
And the funny part is, despite the expense, the only people who hate payday loans are the people who have never had one. The lenders are scared of being legislated into the dog house, so they're careful and play nice.
If a customer is having trouble, all they have to do is say so. Generally they'll stop assessing interest, and then they'll create an installment plan that works best (e.g. one that makes the customer happy so they won't walk away).
Although, there are some bad eggs, and typically they do business from overseas or from indian reservations. Those are where your horror stories come from.
People don't have a clue as to how difficult that business is!
You have to look at losses as well to judge. Imagine you put your entire savings on the street, and anyone who came to you and said "hey, can I borrow some money?", you simply hand them a stack of bills. How many of those people are going to pay you back?
The loans are expensive because the default rates are phenomenally high (depending on the biz, up to 50% simply walk away from the loan at some point). And they have a specific purpose...they are much, much cheaper than bank overdrafts. The APR's for an NSF fee can run into the Millions of %.
Everyone assumes (people who hate payday lenders, AND people who want to enter the payday business) that they're disgustingly profitable, but that isn't quite the whole story. There are only a few exceptional people on this planet who possess both extremely poor financial planning aptitude, and yet have mad skills at flawlessly servicing their financial obligations.
Although, from what I've seen, these lenders tend to hire the cheapest option for their IT and web dev (clueless foreigners). I'm really surprised these security breaches don't happen more often.