I don't even remotely see where you're coming from here.
And with all due respect, I don't understand why so many people miss the point I made.
Australia's approach doesn't to anything to change your lifestyle, your comfort, etc
*banging head in keyboard*
YES IT DOES!!!
Why do you think I haven't changed to CFL's? Think about it for a minute.
-Do I like saving money? -Do my investments currently earn less than the effective 100% ROR you get on CFL's?
It's much harder and controversial to dictate behavior - exactly the point that you make - but your conclusion that this is an attempt to dictate behavior doesn't make any sense.
No, you're completely misunderstanding my points. I was discussing the relative merits of a) banning individual, specific behaviors vs. b) taxing the negative outcome that the individual, specific behavior contributes to.
It's not about whether "behavior in the face of potential emergency" should be dictated or not dictated. It's about the level of generality of this dictation. Do you want to ban each and every behavior some beancounter decided is wasteful? Or do you want to assess people the costs of the negative output and let them decide for themselves which activities are still worth it?
That mega-mansion? Now it will use less energy with the same number of lights installed and turned on...
Yes, but what you seem to have missed in all of that is that the law makes living in a large house with CFL's less penalized than living in a tiny apartment with incandescents, even though the latter uses far less energy. That doesn't bother you? Or, it does bother and, you propose to restrict home sizes, in the hopes that THAT would be the silver bullet? Or, it does bother you, and you recognize the futility of that, and you get the point I was trying to make in my original post?
Where is the problem here? Do you really think a lower electrical bill will lead to more heating expenditure? Most people I know whine about their bill, but they like to stay warm no matter what.
But *how* warm do they want to be? On some level, they make a tradeoff against the bill. Or maybe they'll spend the savings heating the pool, which of course, you now have to regulate.
I think this idea is outstanding - if nothing else, many people don't even know that CF bulbs are out there - this is a chance to build that awareness in Australia, and maybe more countries will follow suit.
Right, but you can build awareness without banning. Even a heavy tax on incandescents would be much better than banning them completely, as another poster pointed out.
The vast majority of people is not informed about the savings that can be realized with EEL and led illumination.
So... inform them?
Btw, I strongly disagree that this is mostly a matter of being uninformed. I am aware of the cost savings, AND consider any ROR above 13%/year to be awesome.
Do you really, honestly think I don't have a good reason for not switching?
Why do photographers light with incandescents?
Why do autistics?
Why does any kind of office relying on artistic creativity?
They're not gonna use more light just because it's cheaper, as demonstrated in every other part of the world where similar measures where taken.
I didn't claim that. If you'd followed my sig's advice, my concern was that people would simply replace that energy -- not light -- savings with another. So I'm not spending what I'm used to spending for electricity? Great, now I can have more heating.
What energy-free activity do you think people are going to do when they get this windfall of cash?
The point is, to reduce people's energy uses, without changing the incentive structure involved in using energy, is counterproductive.
Not really. The method he's described is possible with and without copyright. But as long as there exist artistic works that would not be made but for some kind of copyright, we're better off having copyright laws. Then we get artists profiting through the method he's described, AND the work that requires copyright.
I find the difference in approach interesting, though. The California proposal, judging by the press releases, seems to be about banning sale of incandescents. The Australian proposal is simply upping the energy efficiency standards to the point where incandescent bulbs no longer qualify.
So? They're both mind-numbingly stupid.
Those of you who follow my posts know that restrictions on incandescents (and any other input-based methods of getting people to reduce an output) make me absolutely livid. They unfairly single out those who want to feel comfortable (rather than institutionalized) at home, with no regard whatsoever for people's total output.
Apparently, if I use CFLs, but keep them on ten times as much -- hey, that's fine! If I want to have a HUGE house with enormous heating/cooling requirements -- hey, that's fine! If I want to drive around for no reason whatsoever -- hey, that's fine! If I want to heat my pool -- have at it!
The more realistic result of conversion to CFLs is "Hey honey, our electric bill is a lot lower! Look at that!" "Great, dear! Now we don't have to worry about turning up the heat in winter!"
If you want to control carbon emissions, calculate the marginal externality cost and charge it to people. If they reduce -- great. If they don't -- you can fix their damage. Plus, it lets them pick whichever method is least inconvenient. The market would then incorporate externalities into prices.
Environmentalists: isn't that solution a LOT better than setting up millions of pages of regulations for how big a house you can have, how fuel-efficient your car can be, who needs to get a prescription for a light bulb, etc?
The extent to which a person wants to control individual behaviors rather than ascertain that the quantifiable damages have been compensated, is the extent to which that person is merely using supposed environmental concerns as a pretense to control others.
Refusal to quantify the damage, and instead say "Just don't do it" is the mark of a charlatan.
Copyright does not guarantee any kind of income to those who actually create works of art,
Copyright doesn't guarantee income to anyone -- after all, your intellectual works could be garbage. But a lot of people think that it does not help to generate income for the artists, since "the big evil record companies take it all". But this is common misconception. How much would the record companies pay the artists if they couldn't own the intellectual property at all?
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
"Sir, we've been looking for someone like you for ages! Trauma Center was really just a way of finding who was best equipped to operate against G.U.I.L.T. Your Nintendo Wii reported your results. You are the top player. We need you to join the fight with us." "Um, the 80s called. They want their sci-fi plots back."
False accusations are no laughing matter. You shouldn't expect to be able to drop an accusation and walk away easily. How about if I accused someone of stalking me, then word gets out, he loses his job, and then just before trial, "oops, just kidding!"
That's not how it's supposed to work. And these were police officers abusing their trust, not some jealous bitter woman trying to snare an ex.
Or maybe, just maybe, the comment you replied to went right over your head.
It didn't.
There is simply no excuse for the tits remark, however. That was just plain insulting and had nothing to do with the discussion.
It had plenty to do with the discussion: specifically, the matter of whether you should do something merely because you have no legal obligation not to.
Well, yeah, but it was mainly your posts' incoherence.
However, I have some good news: you do have a choice. All you have to do is set your contributions in your 401k to the target date fund (or "life cycle" fund) as they're called, with the target date closest to when you plan to retire. This allocates your funds exactly as a DB plan would, if it weren't run by idiots. It invests in aggressive growth when far from your retirement date, gradually becoming more conservative as you come to need to draw income from it. You can annuitize it at the end if you wish (so it pays until death).
Remember, pension plans aren't magic. They can't do anything you can't already do within a 401k. All it does is add an additional layer of people who can underfund it, raid it, or default on the obligation. With the target date fund, they can do none of that, and your benefits keep accruing if you leave your present job. If it does better than needed to meet your goals, you keep all of it. If it does worse, you still get to keep whatever's there instead of being dumped on the PBGC. And you never have to monitor it.
The world doesn't revolve around you and no one is obligated to break the law to satisfy selfish beliefs that the law doesn't apply to you.
Staying to the right when not passing, isn't illegal. It's common courtesy. In fact, as others pointed out, not to do so, is illegal. Even if you're going the speed limit.
Now, go back to calling waitresses "sugartits". After all, you don't have a legal obligation not to do that, and the world doesn't revolve around the self esteem of waitresses.
Yeah, why don't they cure a more damaging disease -- like the one that causes you to be utterly unable to communicate an idea, and still expect your romantic interests to be able to immediately infer it from subtle hints. I believe the literature calls it femalism.
Much as I'd like to respond to your... points, I can see, based on your general thought process, why DB plans appeal to you, and why further comments would be fruitless.
Well, I've long doubted that the accelerometers were imprecise enough to impede (at least short-term) dead-reckoning (inferring position by acceleration integration and last known position). But I'll grant that it is for purposes of argument.
Even so, look at WiiSports baseball. The bat you see on the screen is positioned based on just the verticle tilt of the controller, which it precisely detects from the apparent gravity vector. (Which it can somehow see through the linear acceleration noise of your motions.) Try it for yourself and see how closely it tracks the orientation of your bat. If the game required that your saber be mostly pointed at the sensor bar -- not an unreasonable constraint -- it could get the current horizontal and vertical tilt of the saber pretty accurately, which would suffice for good motion tracking.
Well, it's good to hear there are laws about this. If a similar law were in place in Texas (where I live) and I actually did the camcorder experiment, I could find at least 30 cars a day who should be pulled over.
But I don't think those laws are going to be enforced any time soon, just as with the subwoofer thugs:-/
Even if I accept that I should never exceed the posted limit by any margin, and even if you shouldn't either, still, why does that imply you should use the passing (inner) lane for non-passing?
Why do you want to hold people up, even if they shouldn't be driving that fast? I can understand if there's only one lane going your direction. But when there's three, why would want to stay in the passing lane forever, when you're not passing?
I'm sure it's legal to do that. It's also legal to call your grandmother a fat cow, and not tip your server. Why be a jerk?
I was actually considering putting a digital camcorder in my car to record what I see, to show people how idiotic the drivers are in my area. Basically, what they do is camp the passing lane or otherwise form walls that slow down traffic well below what should be possible given the road size and traffic level. Yes, even 18-wheelers camp the passing lane. On a three-lane freeway.
Then one time I saw a police car on the freeway that did exactly that. Thanks, Officer Jerk, for setting a great example.
Personally, I wish more cops would speed. Everyone feels compelled to go slower than the police, so whenever a police car is nearby, the cars around them turn to molasses. It's amazing.
Seriously, even as I like the Wii, I can see some "cracks in the armor". It's missing out on a lot of potential. Here are some things it needs:
a) Real calibration. Actually be able to tell it where your screen boundaries are located so that where you're pointing is a lot closer to where the dot is, enabling shooters that don't show your crosshairs. Preferably in the OS.
b) The Wiisaber. That alone will double sales.
c) Games that involves holstering the wiimote to one or more limbs. E.g. a dancing game or a bounty hunter type game where you have to hit a button on your arm to launch a rope. (I know Konami has a DDR like the former coming up, but sooner would have been nice.)
d) Online play.
Also, Zelda should have required you to pull back to load an arrow, so it's more realistic.
You miss the advantage of DB pensions, the defined benefit.
And you're mssing the disadvantage of DB pensions, which is that this benefit is pretty ill-defined.
If I make it 20 years, I won.
More like, "If your employer doesn't fire you to dodge paying benefits when you inevitably get to the point where the pension is worth more than the value of your additional labor AND the pension is fully funded and never raided", you won. Looking at the last 30 years, those are bigger if's than you may have thought.
Now, I would want to be working for something as huge and conservative as IBM to know that my company won't be bought out and my pension fund raided, but that is a side issue.
A side issue? Not really. It's the central issue. You're relying on the money being there, and it can disappear based on managerial incompetence. How do you know which companies are going to screw it up, in advance? The steel companies and airlines were "huge and conservative". What happeend to their pensions? If you don't have control over the account, don't expect it to be there.
That is how society worked years ago. People got a job and kept it for 20 years. I think we should go back to doing that. Find a good company and stick with it for a lifetime.
I can understand why someone would want to work for a company for his lifetime. I cannot understand why someone would want to have the option of leaving severely punished so that his employer can treat him like dirt as his magic year approaches.
Here's what I would have done if I were an employer 50 years ago: Offer a huge pension with zero vestiture until 65, at which point it kicks in 100%. Oh, and fire anyone right before 65.
Cause apparently, people fell for that.
I feel bad for people who find a company that's worth spending 20 years working for, yet has to fill out the 401k paperwork every year.
Yeah, I'm sorry that responsibility for your own life comes with so much of that dreaded paperwork. The lifetime paperwork involved in 401k plans is probably 1/20th of a mortgage application, but I guess the later is different because that's "the American way".
And if you're at the same company, there is no new 401k paperwork each year, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean rebalancing? There are target date funds in which you don't have to rebalance. Even so, 15 minutes every year could never hold a candle to mortgage/home-ownership paperwork.
people could not be hired or promoted on the basis of general intelligence.
Sure they can. Employers just:
a) pretend a college degree is relevant to your job b) require it c) let the college board give them an SAT d) only hire people from colleges with high average SAT score
Yep -- requiring most young people to take on a mountain of debt at a young age is much, much better than giving an IQ test for a job.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even remotely see where you're coming from here.
And with all due respect, I don't understand why so many people miss the point I made.
Australia's approach doesn't to anything to change your lifestyle, your comfort, etc
*banging head in keyboard*
YES IT DOES!!!
Why do you think I haven't changed to CFL's? Think about it for a minute.
-Do I like saving money?
-Do my investments currently earn less than the effective 100% ROR you get on CFL's?
It's much harder and controversial to dictate behavior - exactly the point that you make - but your conclusion that this is an attempt to dictate behavior doesn't make any sense.
No, you're completely misunderstanding my points. I was discussing the relative merits of a) banning individual, specific behaviors vs. b) taxing the negative outcome that the individual, specific behavior contributes to.
It's not about whether "behavior in the face of potential emergency" should be dictated or not dictated. It's about the level of generality of this dictation. Do you want to ban each and every behavior some beancounter decided is wasteful? Or do you want to assess people the costs of the negative output and let them decide for themselves which activities are still worth it?
That mega-mansion? Now it will use less energy with the same number of lights installed and turned on...
Yes, but what you seem to have missed in all of that is that the law makes living in a large house with CFL's less penalized than living in a tiny apartment with incandescents, even though the latter uses far less energy. That doesn't bother you? Or, it does bother and, you propose to restrict home sizes, in the hopes that THAT would be the silver bullet? Or, it does bother you, and you recognize the futility of that, and you get the point I was trying to make in my original post?
Where is the problem here? Do you really think a lower electrical bill will lead to more heating expenditure? Most people I know whine about their bill, but they like to stay warm no matter what.
But *how* warm do they want to be? On some level, they make a tradeoff against the bill. Or maybe they'll spend the savings heating the pool, which of course, you now have to regulate.
I think this idea is outstanding - if nothing else, many people don't even know that CF bulbs are out there - this is a chance to build that awareness in Australia, and maybe more countries will follow suit.
Right, but you can build awareness without banning. Even a heavy tax on incandescents would be much better than banning them completely, as another poster pointed out.
Please read my original post again if you would.
And what's your reason for considering that assumption unreasonable? Give me a scenario.
The vast majority of people is not informed about the savings that can be realized with EEL and led illumination.
... inform them?
So
Btw, I strongly disagree that this is mostly a matter of being uninformed. I am aware of the cost savings, AND consider any ROR above 13%/year to be awesome.
Do you really, honestly think I don't have a good reason for not switching?
Why do photographers light with incandescents?
Why do autistics?
Why does any kind of office relying on artistic creativity?
They're not gonna use more light just because it's cheaper, as demonstrated in every other part of the world where similar measures where taken.
I didn't claim that. If you'd followed my sig's advice, my concern was that people would simply replace that energy -- not light -- savings with another. So I'm not spending what I'm used to spending for electricity? Great, now I can have more heating.
What energy-free activity do you think people are going to do when they get this windfall of cash?
The point is, to reduce people's energy uses, without changing the incentive structure involved in using energy, is counterproductive.
Not really. The method he's described is possible with and without copyright. But as long as there exist artistic works that would not be made but for some kind of copyright, we're better off having copyright laws. Then we get artists profiting through the method he's described, AND the work that requires copyright.
Right?
So what difference does copyright law make to you?
-You don't assert it.
-You make money without it.
-You don't infringe it.
I find the difference in approach interesting, though. The California proposal, judging by the press releases, seems to be about banning sale of incandescents. The Australian proposal is simply upping the energy efficiency standards to the point where incandescent bulbs no longer qualify.
So? They're both mind-numbingly stupid.
Those of you who follow my posts know that restrictions on incandescents (and any other input-based methods of getting people to reduce an output) make me absolutely livid. They unfairly single out those who want to feel comfortable (rather than institutionalized) at home, with no regard whatsoever for people's total output.
Apparently, if I use CFLs, but keep them on ten times as much -- hey, that's fine! If I want to have a HUGE house with enormous heating/cooling requirements -- hey, that's fine! If I want to drive around for no reason whatsoever -- hey, that's fine! If I want to heat my pool -- have at it!
The more realistic result of conversion to CFLs is "Hey honey, our electric bill is a lot lower! Look at that!" "Great, dear! Now we don't have to worry about turning up the heat in winter!"
If you want to control carbon emissions, calculate the marginal externality cost and charge it to people. If they reduce -- great. If they don't -- you can fix their damage. Plus, it lets them pick whichever method is least inconvenient. The market would then incorporate externalities into prices.
Environmentalists: isn't that solution a LOT better than setting up millions of pages of regulations for how big a house you can have, how fuel-efficient your car can be, who needs to get a prescription for a light bulb, etc?
The extent to which a person wants to control individual behaviors rather than ascertain that the quantifiable damages have been compensated, is the extent to which that person is merely using supposed environmental concerns as a pretense to control others.
Refusal to quantify the damage, and instead say "Just don't do it" is the mark of a charlatan.
Copyright does not guarantee any kind of income to those who actually create works of art,
Copyright doesn't guarantee income to anyone -- after all, your intellectual works could be garbage. But a lot of people think that it does not help to generate income for the artists, since "the big evil record companies take it all". But this is common misconception. How much would the record companies pay the artists if they couldn't own the intellectual property at all?
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
Not unless you work there.
Wait -- is this is a second person who doesn't get the point?
I can see it now:
"Sir, we've been looking for someone like you for ages! Trauma Center was really just a way of finding who was best equipped to operate against G.U.I.L.T. Your Nintendo Wii reported your results. You are the top player. We need you to join the fight with us."
"Um, the 80s called. They want their sci-fi plots back."
False accusations are no laughing matter. You shouldn't expect to be able to drop an accusation and walk away easily. How about if I accused someone of stalking me, then word gets out, he loses his job, and then just before trial, "oops, just kidding!"
That's not how it's supposed to work. And these were police officers abusing their trust, not some jealous bitter woman trying to snare an ex.
Or maybe, just maybe, the comment you replied to went right over your head.
It didn't.
There is simply no excuse for the tits remark, however. That was just plain insulting and had nothing to do with the discussion.
It had plenty to do with the discussion: specifically, the matter of whether you should do something merely because you have no legal obligation not to.
Is it starting to make sense now?
Even if, in that specific area, there is a rule about that (and there may or may not be), it is not your business to enforce the law.
That's a good point.
Next task: find where I claimed otherwise.
Oh, and by the way, I don't go insulting people for posting something I disagree with.
Neither do I. I do, however, point out the logical implications of people's positions, and sometimes it goes over their heads.
Well, yeah, but it was mainly your posts' incoherence.
However, I have some good news: you do have a choice. All you have to do is set your contributions in your 401k to the target date fund (or "life cycle" fund) as they're called, with the target date closest to when you plan to retire. This allocates your funds exactly as a DB plan would, if it weren't run by idiots. It invests in aggressive growth when far from your retirement date, gradually becoming more conservative as you come to need to draw income from it. You can annuitize it at the end if you wish (so it pays until death).
Remember, pension plans aren't magic. They can't do anything you can't already do within a 401k. All it does is add an additional layer of people who can underfund it, raid it, or default on the obligation. With the target date fund, they can do none of that, and your benefits keep accruing if you leave your present job. If it does better than needed to meet your goals, you keep all of it. If it does worse, you still get to keep whatever's there instead of being dumped on the PBGC. And you never have to monitor it.
The world doesn't revolve around you and no one is obligated to break the law to satisfy selfish beliefs that the law doesn't apply to you.
Staying to the right when not passing, isn't illegal. It's common courtesy. In fact, as others pointed out, not to do so, is illegal. Even if you're going the speed limit.
Now, go back to calling waitresses "sugartits". After all, you don't have a legal obligation not to do that, and the world doesn't revolve around the self esteem of waitresses.
Yeah, why don't they cure a more damaging disease -- like the one that causes you to be utterly unable to communicate an idea, and still expect your romantic interests to be able to immediately infer it from subtle hints. I believe the literature calls it femalism.
Much as I'd like to respond to your ... points, I can see, based on your general thought process, why DB plans appeal to you, and why further comments would be fruitless.
I'm sorry to hear that it pisses you off. What do you think your "very loud diesel engine" (probably unmuffled) does to the parents?
Think about it.
Well, I've long doubted that the accelerometers were imprecise enough to impede (at least short-term) dead-reckoning (inferring position by acceleration integration and last known position). But I'll grant that it is for purposes of argument.
Even so, look at WiiSports baseball. The bat you see on the screen is positioned based on just the verticle tilt of the controller, which it precisely detects from the apparent gravity vector. (Which it can somehow see through the linear acceleration noise of your motions.) Try it for yourself and see how closely it tracks the orientation of your bat. If the game required that your saber be mostly pointed at the sensor bar -- not an unreasonable constraint -- it could get the current horizontal and vertical tilt of the saber pretty accurately, which would suffice for good motion tracking.
Well, it's good to hear there are laws about this. If a similar law were in place in Texas (where I live) and I actually did the camcorder experiment, I could find at least 30 cars a day who should be pulled over.
:-/
But I don't think those laws are going to be enforced any time soon, just as with the subwoofer thugs
If he's *really* not looking ... that's what tire caltrops are for :-)
Great, a non-AC to defend that position.
Even if I accept that I should never exceed the posted limit by any margin, and even if you shouldn't either, still, why does that imply you should use the passing (inner) lane for non-passing?
Why do you want to hold people up, even if they shouldn't be driving that fast? I can understand if there's only one lane going your direction. But when there's three, why would want to stay in the passing lane forever, when you're not passing?
I'm sure it's legal to do that. It's also legal to call your grandmother a fat cow, and not tip your server. Why be a jerk?
I was actually considering putting a digital camcorder in my car to record what I see, to show people how idiotic the drivers are in my area. Basically, what they do is camp the passing lane or otherwise form walls that slow down traffic well below what should be possible given the road size and traffic level. Yes, even 18-wheelers camp the passing lane. On a three-lane freeway.
Then one time I saw a police car on the freeway that did exactly that. Thanks, Officer Jerk, for setting a great example.
Personally, I wish more cops would speed. Everyone feels compelled to go slower than the police, so whenever a police car is nearby, the cars around them turn to molasses. It's amazing.
What have you done with the real Zonk!!!!!!?
Seriously, even as I like the Wii, I can see some "cracks in the armor". It's missing out on a lot of potential. Here are some things it needs:
a) Real calibration. Actually be able to tell it where your screen boundaries are located so that where you're pointing is a lot closer to where the dot is, enabling shooters that don't show your crosshairs. Preferably in the OS.
b) The Wiisaber. That alone will double sales.
c) Games that involves holstering the wiimote to one or more limbs. E.g. a dancing game or a bounty hunter type game where you have to hit a button on your arm to launch a rope. (I know Konami has a DDR like the former coming up, but sooner would have been nice.)
d) Online play.
Also, Zelda should have required you to pull back to load an arrow, so it's more realistic.
You miss the advantage of DB pensions, the defined benefit.
And you're mssing the disadvantage of DB pensions, which is that this benefit is pretty ill-defined.
If I make it 20 years, I won.
More like, "If your employer doesn't fire you to dodge paying benefits when you inevitably get to the point where the pension is worth more than the value of your additional labor AND the pension is fully funded and never raided", you won. Looking at the last 30 years, those are bigger if's than you may have thought.
Now, I would want to be working for something as huge and conservative as IBM to know that my company won't be bought out and my pension fund raided, but that is a side issue.
A side issue? Not really. It's the central issue. You're relying on the money being there, and it can disappear based on managerial incompetence. How do you know which companies are going to screw it up, in advance? The steel companies and airlines were "huge and conservative". What happeend to their pensions? If you don't have control over the account, don't expect it to be there.
That is how society worked years ago. People got a job and kept it for 20 years. I think we should go back to doing that. Find a good company and stick with it for a lifetime.
I can understand why someone would want to work for a company for his lifetime. I cannot understand why someone would want to have the option of leaving severely punished so that his employer can treat him like dirt as his magic year approaches.
Here's what I would have done if I were an employer 50 years ago: Offer a huge pension with zero vestiture until 65, at which point it kicks in 100%. Oh, and fire anyone right before 65.
Cause apparently, people fell for that.
I feel bad for people who find a company that's worth spending 20 years working for, yet has to fill out the 401k paperwork every year.
Yeah, I'm sorry that responsibility for your own life comes with so much of that dreaded paperwork. The lifetime paperwork involved in 401k plans is probably 1/20th of a mortgage application, but I guess the later is different because that's "the American way".
And if you're at the same company, there is no new 401k paperwork each year, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean rebalancing? There are target date funds in which you don't have to rebalance. Even so, 15 minutes every year could never hold a candle to mortgage/home-ownership paperwork.
people could not be hired or promoted on the basis of general intelligence.
:-)
Sure they can. Employers just:
a) pretend a college degree is relevant to your job
b) require it
c) let the college board give them an SAT
d) only hire people from colleges with high average SAT score
Yep -- requiring most young people to take on a mountain of debt at a young age is much, much better than giving an IQ test for a job.