On the other hand, the turbo is faster so unless you're really pegging that single core for a prolonged period of time, the new chip is going to have a small performance edge. Also, the bigger L3 cache will probably be helpful in certain applications.
Any alien species capable of recovering it is likely to be pretty advanced unless they're so far outside of our understanding of what constitutes life that we wouldn't recognize them as such. It could well be another 50 years before we as humans achieve the kind of space travel that would allow us to recover such an alien spacecraft of similar design, assuming it passes really close. Another 50 years of advancement in technology seems just about as alien to me. We might even be pretty good at decoding an alien language because we've got so many different ones ourselves.
Yeah, but when everyone has all of their dirty laundry aired so to speak no one is going to care. We might see a kind of neo-Puritanism for a while and a few witch trials to go along with it, but eventually it will settle down because everyone's cringe-inducing crap from their younger years will be online and you know the old saying about people in glass houses.
There's a youtube video out there that has the full album if you care to listen to the whole thing. So far it's a pretty interesting blend, that's really hard to put a label on. One song reminded me of The Postal Service and another sounded a little like something Fleetwood Mac could have done. I'll have to finish the whole thing, but so far it's something I'd consider purchasing.
It isn't. Humans are the only species on this planet that have even bothered to stop and think about their own ecological impact. Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.
Equating humanity to a disease is just going to lead to bad thinking, because your solution is that humanity should be wiped out. That's what any person would tell you they'd want to do if they had cancer. So if you think humanity is a cancer, why haven't you taken the first logical step towards fixing the problem and ended your own existence? If you won't even do that, then what makes you think you get to demand that the lives' of others is ended?
I expect that in time we'll start moving to genetically engineered factory farmed fish as natural stocks become depleted and prices raise. They've existed in various forms for around 30 years now, and only recently was a type of genetically modified salmon approved for human consumption by the FDA. Switching over to engineered fish that could supply a lot of the demand would go a long way towards letting native ocean populations recover. Further down the road, I expect we'll just be able to grow meat without even needing to raise the animal and that we'll be able to do so more cheaply than fishing or even raising animals.
It's mostly just been that an overly vocal anti-GMO crowd complaining about all of this and the average consumer not caring enough because natural fish aren't too expensive.
This website has the first page visible for free. You can see the other pages, but they have a blur effect (I wonder if a sufficiently good algorithm could make a good guess at restoring the actual text) over top of it, so you can't read anything, but charts are still visible.
I don't think this is an actual scientific study. There's even a big "Analysis" at the top of the first page in the header, so I'm guessing someone just crunched some numbers to solve a Fermi problem of sorts. Not that you can't do data analysis, but without reading the full thing who really knows how good that analysis is.
Also, shouldn't this paper be free anyhow since LBNL is run through the DOE?
You just don't understand just how lucky he would have to get. I don't know what key size Apple is using but AES supports up to 256-bit keys. Here's a quote from HHGTG:
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
2^256 is just as massive. The lower bound for the estimated number of atoms in the known observable universe is 10 ^ 78, which is only slightly more than the number of combinations you can have with a 256-bit key. So everything that exists in that really big space is only slightly more numerous than the possible combinations for one key.
It's way more likely that someone who designed the secure enclave made a mistake while doing so that left the system open to attack.
I don't believe that being a Feminist implies "death to all men" as there are some like Christian Hoff Sommers that are quite opposed to the brand of feminism that tends to get a person labeled as a feminazi. The modern wave of feminism may not consider people such as Sommers as feminists though so there's some debate to be had there still.
Nazism on the other hand basically requires antisemitism or white race-based nationalism by definition. These things are parts of their 25-point program that was promulgated early in the party's history.
I don't know if earlier more radical feminists were big on things like "death to all men" as a whole. Dworkin certainly had some things to say about men that weren't particularly nice, but I don't think she advocated for killing them in the same way Nazi's wanted to exterminate the Jews. The SCUM Manifesto certainly did though and it is interesting to note that the author Valerie Solanas tried to kill Andy Warhol, but I don't think there was a wide degree of support for her or her book.
The people posting the "death to all men" stuff on Twitter or Tumblr blogs are probably about the same as the people posting edgy right-wing shit on 4chan, mostly younger teenagers or college kids that aren't going to do anything because they spend their life in doors on the internet. The mainstream internet feminists that get associated with the social justice crowd certainly advocating that position or aren't publicly stating it at any rate.
There are probably a few people who operate that way, but I think they are a very small minority. Otherwise services like Netflix and Spotify would be failing miserably instead of increasing their subscriber count.
At some point you'll end up spending more money trying to chase them down than you actually lose from them.
Actually it sounds like content producers have an untapped market problem. Here you have people wanting to consume your content but are having to turn to pirate sources to do so, so either you aren't providing a way for potential customers to pay you for your content or assuming the case where all of these people are too poor to even pay $.01, to show them a small amount of advertisement along side of your content.
Knowing this crowd though, they'll still fid a watch to bitch and moan about demand for their product. Oh to have their problems.
Except companies do not think and do not figure anything out.
Then why do some companies go out of business, while others succeed? A company obviously can't be successful if it doesn't have intelligent people in charge making good decisions, but it's still useful to talk about this collection as a whole.
Because he has no money.
What nonsense. The fact that he's posting on a tech forum on the internet suggests he probably personally makes above the median U.S. household income or not much below it. He may not have millions of dollars, but if you have a strategy whereby you can always get the best return, he'll soon outstrip anyone else. Individual corporate raiders can't perpetually destroy companies for their own short-term gains because eventually their reputation for such will catch up with them. You can still argue that it happens, simply with new players who use the tactics, but assuming he can identify them he'll soon have more money than all of them because he can ride the short-term gains from that strategy indefinitely while the people actually doing it have a limited number of times they can do it.
Imagine the worst has already happened and USA is finally a devastated territory with 100% unemployment, not a single company producing anything and not a single dime on its citizens' starved pockets
I don't think this will happen in the U.S. as people are generally free to find new enterprises to engage in and ways to create wealth. You only see this starvation in places like Venezuela where failed socialist policies have punished success or taken away the means of production from the successful people that had a hand in their creation and maintenance. If free markets and businesses are so short-sighted and awful, why are they producing the best societal outcomes? It defies logic to look at the world and think that way.
But stop to think about it for a minute. If 100% of the U.S. is out of work and starving and willing to work for anything at all, wouldn't it be far cheaper for this rich people who have supposedly taken all of the wealth for themselves to pay people in the U.S. to fill the same roles that they would be paying other people in foreign markets to fill? It would obviously be cheaper and these people are clearly motivated by greed. Once again, this scenario you've constructed just doesn't make any sense or hold logically.
But then you must agree that if a $1 increase in minimum wage is good, that a $2 would be better yet because you obviously believe that worker spending is better for society as a whole. At what point should we stop increasing minimum wages, because it seems that if $2, then $3 should be better still and so on. Also, I'm not sure how a worker spending $1 on a hot dog for himself is any more beneficial than a business spending $1 on staples for their own business to society as a whole. I think you really need to expand on that and illustrate the differences between how people who are working class spend differently than those who are wealthy. Also everyone spending locally means that local businesses don't get business outside of their local area and I think that ultimately creates results similar to that which you would expect from high degrees of protectionism, where you see a net reduction in wealth.
Also, based on what you've written wouldn't it also be smarter for the U.S. to drop their tax rates so that all of these rich people from around the world start moving their money here? Or do you feel as though that money wouldn't actually benefit anyone?
The rich get richer not necessarily because they follow different rules (although I'm not going to say that having wealth can't help you avoid or mitigate a whole host of problems) but rather because the economy is a game that while not zero-sum still allows for players to make moves that improve their overall standing. This tends to create a compounding effect where success makes future success even easier. If you start a business and make some money you're going to acquire business contacts that will be beneficial to future endeavors, a reputation for success which makes getting future funding easier, and a whole host of other things on top of that. Even if you have two players engaged in a type of game where both have an equal chance at winning for any one contest within the larger game, the person who starts with more is going to win over the long term because they can sustain a larger string of losses.
If it's just a case of wanting a good safety net for people, a minimum wage is an awful way to accomplish it in my opinion.
First of all half of the population will always have an IQ less than 100 because of how IQ is defined and calculated, but that doesn't mean that an IQ of 100 today will be the same as an IQ of 100 in 20 years. The Flynn effect is something that's been known about for a while now. There are a lot of possible explanations for this, but I suspect that one of the causes is that society is selecting for it as a trait. People who are incapable of any job are likely to be less reproductively successful than those who can get some kind of job so the genetic components of intelligence that don't favor higher IQs aren't going to be passed on to the next generation.
If we really get to a point where automation is replacing huge amounts of the population and they can't work, I suspect the government will start to step in and just requiring as a part of welfare payments that these people not have more than one child, or that we'll have some type of GATACCA type situation where no matter what the parents are like, that we'll be able to create offspring that are highly intelligent.
Personally I don't think it's fair in the sense that you've touched upon, but I'm also in favor of one. Not necessary because I believe that people deserve a UBI or that it's morally good to provide one, but I think that for pragmatic reasons that it's more expensive not to have one.
People are going to try to survive and if they can't find a job (in part because someone has mandated that all jobs must be paid a minimum amount and that person is not capable of doing anything worth that minimum amount) they're going to invariably turn to crime like theft or will engage in black market enterprises (e.g. dealing drugs) where there is no minimum wage and they can sell their labor for what it's worth. Putting aside black-market enterprises, an increase in theft necessitates and increase in police forces, the court system, in prisons, and a lot of other things. Those aren't free, so what I might save in taxes by having a UBI, I end up paying in taxes for an increase in the size of government.
I think that providing a UBI while eliminating the minimum wage would go a long way towards reducing the size of the welfare state while providing a safety net for people to fall back on or subsist on while transitioning between jobs, etc. I don't think a UBI should be a living income either, rather just one that you could subsist on. $6,000 yearly would probably be a good starting point at the federal level. Different states and cities could be free to provide additional amounts on top of that if they like.
To me, the case for a UBI comes down to being pragmatic and very little else. You're never going to get any kind of system where you don't have to spend some of your money. Even the extreme libertarians that advocate non-government schemes where corporations are established to guarantee people's rights (I forgot what the exact name for the scheme was, but I watched a video explaining the concept some time ago) still results in you spending some of your money, with the only real difference being that under their scheme it's entirely voluntary on your part as an individual instead of coercive action on the part of government. You could argue that free choice is always better, but at the same time I'm not going to advocate throwing out the current system that accomplishes the same result until you've tried this experiment in the real world somewhere and shown that it works in practice.
People are greedy as fuck. How often do you pay more for goods or services than you think you need to or make a selection of one that's more expensive when you don't perceive any difference in quality between two choices? Similarly, I doubt you'll go to work for an employer that offers you less money if all other factors (e.g. cost of living, distance to work, etc.) are equal. I'm guessing that 999 out of 1000 times you don't do either of those (or other similar) actions because you're greedy as well just like pretty much everyone else on the planet to some degree. Since companies are just entities composed of several greedy people, why should you expect them to act any other way?
And as evidenced by the utter failure of many outsourcing efforts in tech, they'll even do it to the point where they destroy their companies.
But that's just the market at work. If outsourcing worked, we wouldn't have all of our tech jobs in the U.S. any more. Just because a particular company fails doesn't mean that the jobs are completely and permanently lost. Obviously that company existed to fill some need in the market to begin with or they wouldn't have existed long enough to even try outsourcing, so those workers will go to other companies or some might even form their own because that demand still exists.
If you think the problem exists on a meta-level where it's individuals tanking businesses for their own short-term game, then eventually companies will start to figure this out and adapt to prevent this from happening. That might take a little time, but everyone else invested in the business is also greedy to some extend and obviously don't want to see their value being destroyed for the sole benefit of one person. There's also reputation to consider as I don't think you can go around intentionally tanking companies for your own sole benefit for too long before people wise up to it.
Or to think of it another way, if you think all of these companies are just acting for short-term gains, why not try to identify the pattern and invest your own money in them so that you can capitalize off of those gains? Then you can use all of that money that you're acquiring to spend on whatever you like to make the world a better place or at least one that is more aligned to your moral belief system.
Yes, but this assumes the businesses that saved that $1 in wages aren't going to spend it on something else. Paying a higher minimum wage doesn't magically create additional money. You don't think businesses or rich people just hoard piles of money like dragons with gold do you?
All you change is where the money gets spent. If you have 10 employees a $1 raise works out to about $20,000 per year. Either the business eats the added cost from their profits or they pass the $20,000 on to customers or some combination of both. If they eat it from profits it's $20,000 less to return to shareholders or invest in some other endeavor which also means spending it on someone else's labor.
If you still can't see that it makes no difference imagine that all workers and all businesses put the amount into a savings account. 10 workers each put $2,000 in the bank or the business puts $20,000 in the bank. The same applies to if they spend all of it.
Well if you're trying to write to persuade you'd better take how people will react to what you're saying into account. A lot of reporters or commentators have been badly twisting his words or making outright false claims about what he wrote to sway people based on emotions and there really isn't anything you can do to stop someone else from telling lies, but you can tailor your message so that the people who do actually read it come away with the impression you intended to leave upon them.
You probably need to break the categories down further. I bet that men and women tend to choose different specialties within law and medicine. Also we don't know that in even more time that there won't be majority women in those fields.
For example if you go back far enough, women weren't veterinarians either, but now the majority of people enrolling in these degree programs are women, almost to the same extent that men enroll in engineering degrees. Does this now mean there is sexism here we need to correct? Of course not, it just means that women are more interested in being vets.
I think there are a lot of people who want to make the world a better place, so for them the reasoning goes that money can be used to improve peoples' lives (true in a general sense), so if you give people more money they can use it to improve their lives and the world is a better place. They now think they've satisfied their objective so they don't feel too compelled to think beyond that point and most people in general aren't really good at sitting down and honestly dissecting all of the things that may be wrong with their thinking. Add to that a vague understanding of what money is and it becomes even more fuzzy. I suppose thhere are also people making minimum wage who would advocate for increases out of their own self-interest.
It's also not trivial to explain this as it relies on a lot of concepts that most people aren't familiar with and probably aren't terribly relevant to their daily lives so there isn't a lot of impetus to acquire that knowledge. You could probably ask people that if $15 dollar minimum wage is good, wouldn't $25 be even better and extrapolate from there. I suspect at some point their brain will start telling them that something isn't quite right, though they may not really be able to understand exactly what it is beyond an inkling that something isn't quite right. That line of reasoning does really cut to the heart of the minimum wage problem though as if you're picking any amount of money for a minimum wage and it's less ideal than some other amount, why aren't you picking the better amount? From there it becomes a question of how to figure out or calculate the best amount and I'm not sure if there's any agreed upon method of doing that. I suppose the free market crowd would generally agree that the ideal minimum wage is $0, but outside of those economic schools of thought, I suspect you'd get all kinds of different answers. Yet only one of them (at most as there is a chance no one is correct) can be correct so how do you pick which one to use?
Orwell had a pretty good commentary on the definition of fascism. It's kind of a worthless label in that as Orwell points out it's been applied to just about every different political group and doesn't have much of a shared definition in common use.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the turbo is faster so unless you're really pegging that single core for a prolonged period of time, the new chip is going to have a small performance edge. Also, the bigger L3 cache will probably be helpful in certain applications.
Any alien species capable of recovering it is likely to be pretty advanced unless they're so far outside of our understanding of what constitutes life that we wouldn't recognize them as such. It could well be another 50 years before we as humans achieve the kind of space travel that would allow us to recover such an alien spacecraft of similar design, assuming it passes really close. Another 50 years of advancement in technology seems just about as alien to me. We might even be pretty good at decoding an alien language because we've got so many different ones ourselves.
Yeah, but when everyone has all of their dirty laundry aired so to speak no one is going to care. We might see a kind of neo-Puritanism for a while and a few witch trials to go along with it, but eventually it will settle down because everyone's cringe-inducing crap from their younger years will be online and you know the old saying about people in glass houses.
There's a youtube video out there that has the full album if you care to listen to the whole thing. So far it's a pretty interesting blend, that's really hard to put a label on. One song reminded me of The Postal Service and another sounded a little like something Fleetwood Mac could have done. I'll have to finish the whole thing, but so far it's something I'd consider purchasing.
It isn't. Humans are the only species on this planet that have even bothered to stop and think about their own ecological impact. Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.
Equating humanity to a disease is just going to lead to bad thinking, because your solution is that humanity should be wiped out. That's what any person would tell you they'd want to do if they had cancer. So if you think humanity is a cancer, why haven't you taken the first logical step towards fixing the problem and ended your own existence? If you won't even do that, then what makes you think you get to demand that the lives' of others is ended?
I expect that in time we'll start moving to genetically engineered factory farmed fish as natural stocks become depleted and prices raise. They've existed in various forms for around 30 years now, and only recently was a type of genetically modified salmon approved for human consumption by the FDA. Switching over to engineered fish that could supply a lot of the demand would go a long way towards letting native ocean populations recover. Further down the road, I expect we'll just be able to grow meat without even needing to raise the animal and that we'll be able to do so more cheaply than fishing or even raising animals.
It's mostly just been that an overly vocal anti-GMO crowd complaining about all of this and the average consumer not caring enough because natural fish aren't too expensive.
What does capitalism have to do with this? You should be complaining about the ridiculous duration that the government has set for copyright.
This website has the first page visible for free. You can see the other pages, but they have a blur effect (I wonder if a sufficiently good algorithm could make a good guess at restoring the actual text) over top of it, so you can't read anything, but charts are still visible.
I don't think this is an actual scientific study. There's even a big "Analysis" at the top of the first page in the header, so I'm guessing someone just crunched some numbers to solve a Fermi problem of sorts. Not that you can't do data analysis, but without reading the full thing who really knows how good that analysis is.
Also, shouldn't this paper be free anyhow since LBNL is run through the DOE?
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
2^256 is just as massive. The lower bound for the estimated number of atoms in the known observable universe is 10 ^ 78, which is only slightly more than the number of combinations you can have with a 256-bit key. So everything that exists in that really big space is only slightly more numerous than the possible combinations for one key.
It's way more likely that someone who designed the secure enclave made a mistake while doing so that left the system open to attack.
I don't believe that being a Feminist implies "death to all men" as there are some like Christian Hoff Sommers that are quite opposed to the brand of feminism that tends to get a person labeled as a feminazi. The modern wave of feminism may not consider people such as Sommers as feminists though so there's some debate to be had there still.
Nazism on the other hand basically requires antisemitism or white race-based nationalism by definition. These things are parts of their 25-point program that was promulgated early in the party's history.
I don't know if earlier more radical feminists were big on things like "death to all men" as a whole. Dworkin certainly had some things to say about men that weren't particularly nice, but I don't think she advocated for killing them in the same way Nazi's wanted to exterminate the Jews. The SCUM Manifesto certainly did though and it is interesting to note that the author Valerie Solanas tried to kill Andy Warhol, but I don't think there was a wide degree of support for her or her book.
The people posting the "death to all men" stuff on Twitter or Tumblr blogs are probably about the same as the people posting edgy right-wing shit on 4chan, mostly younger teenagers or college kids that aren't going to do anything because they spend their life in doors on the internet. The mainstream internet feminists that get associated with the social justice crowd certainly advocating that position or aren't publicly stating it at any rate.
There are probably a few people who operate that way, but I think they are a very small minority. Otherwise services like Netflix and Spotify would be failing miserably instead of increasing their subscriber count.
At some point you'll end up spending more money trying to chase them down than you actually lose from them.
Actually it sounds like content producers have an untapped market problem. Here you have people wanting to consume your content but are having to turn to pirate sources to do so, so either you aren't providing a way for potential customers to pay you for your content or assuming the case where all of these people are too poor to even pay $.01, to show them a small amount of advertisement along side of your content.
Knowing this crowd though, they'll still fid a watch to bitch and moan about demand for their product. Oh to have their problems.
Except companies do not think and do not figure anything out.
Then why do some companies go out of business, while others succeed? A company obviously can't be successful if it doesn't have intelligent people in charge making good decisions, but it's still useful to talk about this collection as a whole.
Because he has no money.
What nonsense. The fact that he's posting on a tech forum on the internet suggests he probably personally makes above the median U.S. household income or not much below it. He may not have millions of dollars, but if you have a strategy whereby you can always get the best return, he'll soon outstrip anyone else. Individual corporate raiders can't perpetually destroy companies for their own short-term gains because eventually their reputation for such will catch up with them. You can still argue that it happens, simply with new players who use the tactics, but assuming he can identify them he'll soon have more money than all of them because he can ride the short-term gains from that strategy indefinitely while the people actually doing it have a limited number of times they can do it.
Imagine the worst has already happened and USA is finally a devastated territory with 100% unemployment, not a single company producing anything and not a single dime on its citizens' starved pockets
I don't think this will happen in the U.S. as people are generally free to find new enterprises to engage in and ways to create wealth. You only see this starvation in places like Venezuela where failed socialist policies have punished success or taken away the means of production from the successful people that had a hand in their creation and maintenance. If free markets and businesses are so short-sighted and awful, why are they producing the best societal outcomes? It defies logic to look at the world and think that way.
But stop to think about it for a minute. If 100% of the U.S. is out of work and starving and willing to work for anything at all, wouldn't it be far cheaper for this rich people who have supposedly taken all of the wealth for themselves to pay people in the U.S. to fill the same roles that they would be paying other people in foreign markets to fill? It would obviously be cheaper and these people are clearly motivated by greed. Once again, this scenario you've constructed just doesn't make any sense or hold logically.
But then you must agree that if a $1 increase in minimum wage is good, that a $2 would be better yet because you obviously believe that worker spending is better for society as a whole. At what point should we stop increasing minimum wages, because it seems that if $2, then $3 should be better still and so on. Also, I'm not sure how a worker spending $1 on a hot dog for himself is any more beneficial than a business spending $1 on staples for their own business to society as a whole. I think you really need to expand on that and illustrate the differences between how people who are working class spend differently than those who are wealthy. Also everyone spending locally means that local businesses don't get business outside of their local area and I think that ultimately creates results similar to that which you would expect from high degrees of protectionism, where you see a net reduction in wealth.
Also, based on what you've written wouldn't it also be smarter for the U.S. to drop their tax rates so that all of these rich people from around the world start moving their money here? Or do you feel as though that money wouldn't actually benefit anyone?
The rich get richer not necessarily because they follow different rules (although I'm not going to say that having wealth can't help you avoid or mitigate a whole host of problems) but rather because the economy is a game that while not zero-sum still allows for players to make moves that improve their overall standing. This tends to create a compounding effect where success makes future success even easier. If you start a business and make some money you're going to acquire business contacts that will be beneficial to future endeavors, a reputation for success which makes getting future funding easier, and a whole host of other things on top of that. Even if you have two players engaged in a type of game where both have an equal chance at winning for any one contest within the larger game, the person who starts with more is going to win over the long term because they can sustain a larger string of losses.
If it's just a case of wanting a good safety net for people, a minimum wage is an awful way to accomplish it in my opinion.
This sounds like something that would make a person want to compete in the BME pain olympics instead.
First of all half of the population will always have an IQ less than 100 because of how IQ is defined and calculated, but that doesn't mean that an IQ of 100 today will be the same as an IQ of 100 in 20 years. The Flynn effect is something that's been known about for a while now. There are a lot of possible explanations for this, but I suspect that one of the causes is that society is selecting for it as a trait. People who are incapable of any job are likely to be less reproductively successful than those who can get some kind of job so the genetic components of intelligence that don't favor higher IQs aren't going to be passed on to the next generation.
If we really get to a point where automation is replacing huge amounts of the population and they can't work, I suspect the government will start to step in and just requiring as a part of welfare payments that these people not have more than one child, or that we'll have some type of GATACCA type situation where no matter what the parents are like, that we'll be able to create offspring that are highly intelligent.
Personally I don't think it's fair in the sense that you've touched upon, but I'm also in favor of one. Not necessary because I believe that people deserve a UBI or that it's morally good to provide one, but I think that for pragmatic reasons that it's more expensive not to have one.
People are going to try to survive and if they can't find a job (in part because someone has mandated that all jobs must be paid a minimum amount and that person is not capable of doing anything worth that minimum amount) they're going to invariably turn to crime like theft or will engage in black market enterprises (e.g. dealing drugs) where there is no minimum wage and they can sell their labor for what it's worth. Putting aside black-market enterprises, an increase in theft necessitates and increase in police forces, the court system, in prisons, and a lot of other things. Those aren't free, so what I might save in taxes by having a UBI, I end up paying in taxes for an increase in the size of government.
I think that providing a UBI while eliminating the minimum wage would go a long way towards reducing the size of the welfare state while providing a safety net for people to fall back on or subsist on while transitioning between jobs, etc. I don't think a UBI should be a living income either, rather just one that you could subsist on. $6,000 yearly would probably be a good starting point at the federal level. Different states and cities could be free to provide additional amounts on top of that if they like.
To me, the case for a UBI comes down to being pragmatic and very little else. You're never going to get any kind of system where you don't have to spend some of your money. Even the extreme libertarians that advocate non-government schemes where corporations are established to guarantee people's rights (I forgot what the exact name for the scheme was, but I watched a video explaining the concept some time ago) still results in you spending some of your money, with the only real difference being that under their scheme it's entirely voluntary on your part as an individual instead of coercive action on the part of government. You could argue that free choice is always better, but at the same time I'm not going to advocate throwing out the current system that accomplishes the same result until you've tried this experiment in the real world somewhere and shown that it works in practice.
People are greedy as fuck. How often do you pay more for goods or services than you think you need to or make a selection of one that's more expensive when you don't perceive any difference in quality between two choices? Similarly, I doubt you'll go to work for an employer that offers you less money if all other factors (e.g. cost of living, distance to work, etc.) are equal. I'm guessing that 999 out of 1000 times you don't do either of those (or other similar) actions because you're greedy as well just like pretty much everyone else on the planet to some degree. Since companies are just entities composed of several greedy people, why should you expect them to act any other way?
And as evidenced by the utter failure of many outsourcing efforts in tech, they'll even do it to the point where they destroy their companies.
But that's just the market at work. If outsourcing worked, we wouldn't have all of our tech jobs in the U.S. any more. Just because a particular company fails doesn't mean that the jobs are completely and permanently lost. Obviously that company existed to fill some need in the market to begin with or they wouldn't have existed long enough to even try outsourcing, so those workers will go to other companies or some might even form their own because that demand still exists.
If you think the problem exists on a meta-level where it's individuals tanking businesses for their own short-term game, then eventually companies will start to figure this out and adapt to prevent this from happening. That might take a little time, but everyone else invested in the business is also greedy to some extend and obviously don't want to see their value being destroyed for the sole benefit of one person. There's also reputation to consider as I don't think you can go around intentionally tanking companies for your own sole benefit for too long before people wise up to it.
Or to think of it another way, if you think all of these companies are just acting for short-term gains, why not try to identify the pattern and invest your own money in them so that you can capitalize off of those gains? Then you can use all of that money that you're acquiring to spend on whatever you like to make the world a better place or at least one that is more aligned to your moral belief system.
Yes, but this assumes the businesses that saved that $1 in wages aren't going to spend it on something else. Paying a higher minimum wage doesn't magically create additional money. You don't think businesses or rich people just hoard piles of money like dragons with gold do you?
All you change is where the money gets spent. If you have 10 employees a $1 raise works out to about $20,000 per year. Either the business eats the added cost from their profits or they pass the $20,000 on to customers or some combination of both. If they eat it from profits it's $20,000 less to return to shareholders or invest in some other endeavor which also means spending it on someone else's labor.
If you still can't see that it makes no difference imagine that all workers and all businesses put the amount into a savings account. 10 workers each put $2,000 in the bank or the business puts $20,000 in the bank. The same applies to if they spend all of it.
Well if you're trying to write to persuade you'd better take how people will react to what you're saying into account. A lot of reporters or commentators have been badly twisting his words or making outright false claims about what he wrote to sway people based on emotions and there really isn't anything you can do to stop someone else from telling lies, but you can tailor your message so that the people who do actually read it come away with the impression you intended to leave upon them.
You probably need to break the categories down further. I bet that men and women tend to choose different specialties within law and medicine. Also we don't know that in even more time that there won't be majority women in those fields.
For example if you go back far enough, women weren't veterinarians either, but now the majority of people enrolling in these degree programs are women, almost to the same extent that men enroll in engineering degrees. Does this now mean there is sexism here we need to correct? Of course not, it just means that women are more interested in being vets.
I'm calling it now. A sex chat program or something like it will actually win, but will be disqualified from the competition.
I think there are a lot of people who want to make the world a better place, so for them the reasoning goes that money can be used to improve peoples' lives (true in a general sense), so if you give people more money they can use it to improve their lives and the world is a better place. They now think they've satisfied their objective so they don't feel too compelled to think beyond that point and most people in general aren't really good at sitting down and honestly dissecting all of the things that may be wrong with their thinking. Add to that a vague understanding of what money is and it becomes even more fuzzy. I suppose thhere are also people making minimum wage who would advocate for increases out of their own self-interest.
It's also not trivial to explain this as it relies on a lot of concepts that most people aren't familiar with and probably aren't terribly relevant to their daily lives so there isn't a lot of impetus to acquire that knowledge. You could probably ask people that if $15 dollar minimum wage is good, wouldn't $25 be even better and extrapolate from there. I suspect at some point their brain will start telling them that something isn't quite right, though they may not really be able to understand exactly what it is beyond an inkling that something isn't quite right. That line of reasoning does really cut to the heart of the minimum wage problem though as if you're picking any amount of money for a minimum wage and it's less ideal than some other amount, why aren't you picking the better amount? From there it becomes a question of how to figure out or calculate the best amount and I'm not sure if there's any agreed upon method of doing that. I suppose the free market crowd would generally agree that the ideal minimum wage is $0, but outside of those economic schools of thought, I suspect you'd get all kinds of different answers. Yet only one of them (at most as there is a chance no one is correct) can be correct so how do you pick which one to use?
Orwell had a pretty good commentary on the definition of fascism. It's kind of a worthless label in that as Orwell points out it's been applied to just about every different political group and doesn't have much of a shared definition in common use.