You're right! It is the same for every job. If you work as an employee, you're not generating wealth, period. It doesn't matter if you're moping floors, working as a surgeon at a hospital, writing code, or parking cars as a valet. You're trading your time and labor for money. Nothing more.
I'm not shitting on anybody's job and I never made any value judgements on anybody's career. That happened inside your own head. I'm simply speaking to AOC's target audience (those who work hard for little pay and will continue to do so until they understand economics) and stating that working as an employee, regardless of who it is for, is not a wealth-generating relationship. AOC's entire premise is a lie.
Please, for your own sake, take an economics and/or a business class.
"Bullshit! If you weren't producing wealth then why would the corporation pay you to show up."
Because they want your time and labor are willing to trade you money for it. I might want your time and labor to mow my lawn and offer you $50 for it. I'm not generating any wealth in that scenario and neither are you. We're trading. The wealth generation comes from companies raising capital, taking risks, creating systems that scale, and providing products or services that people are willing to pay for at prices that produce a profit. Paying someone for their time and labor is a trade. While wealth is being shared in that relationship, it is not being generated. It is the company/customer relationship that generates wealth, not the employer/employee relationship.
"Bullshit! The corporation is not trading wealth for your time out of the badness of their hearts. They are paying you because you are generating more wealth for them than they are paying you."
No, they are paying you because they want your time and labor. Many small businesses in the world create wealth without any employees at all. Without creating a company and without trading your time and labor with an employer for money, how much money does your time and labor generate? None!
"We should be working the least amount we've ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we're not," she said. "We're paid by how little we're desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire."
If you're just showing up for a McJob, you're not producing wealth and you're not paid to produce wealth. You're trading your hours for dollars. The corporation is generating wealth and they're trading a portion of that wealth with you for your time and labor. That is the key thing to understand and if more people did, we'd have more wealthy people in the world.
Sounds like a money-grab scheme to me. The last thing in the world we need is a government-sponsored Ministry of Propaganda. Imagine what it would look like if Trump controlled the news (or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, etc.). Worst idea ever!
I understand what you're saying, but where would we be without corporate wealth? I've made my entire fortune by working for corporations. I have the house I do because of corporations. The food I eat comes from corporations and is paid for by the money I make working at a corporation, as are the clothes I wear and the cars I drive. Without corporations, we'd still be riding horses and eating dung for dinner.
I understand that it is popular to be greedy and envious of "the rich," but my life is what it is because of them, and our government is what it is because of them as well. Kill all the corporations if you want to, but then where will we be?
Don't you think that the opposite side feels that Democrat faithfuls are ideological fools?
The fact is that both parties are corrupt (as evidenced by all the untruths spoken tonight). In my opinion, anyone who is faithful to either party is playing team-sport politics and needs to grow up and stop playing games.
I completely agree. I'm also convinced that 99% of the time, the interviewer has no idea what to do with the information given by the applicant anyway.
I refuse to ask stupid puzzle questions when I interview people, and I never accept jobs at companies who do. I'm much more interested in the applicant's ability to write good code and architect a solution to a real-world problem. Having them parrot back code to produce the Fibonacci sequence is utterly irrelevant to either of those goals.
Another interview question I think shows the ineptitude of the interviewer is, "What is your greatest weakness?" What the hell are they looking for? A personal confession? "Well, I do have a penchant for sexual harassment and committing adultery with all the senior executive's wives, but if you hire me, I'll try to keep it under control."
Then why beat around the damn bush? Why not just say what you're looking for and have an honest discussion about it with somebody? I hate interviews where I feel like I'm being tricked into answering some hidden question.
I don't believe PHP is fine at all. It encourages poor development practices by making it much easier to combine database calls, business logic, and presentation all in the same file than it is to code things right. It also becomes unweildy with even modest-sized websites, in my opinion. ASP.NET, though more manageable, also encourages poor coding practices with the VB-esque features for ASP.NET in Visual Studio by mixing logic and presentation into the same file (unless it has gotten drastically better during the last five years since I last used it). I also don't particularly like the way ASP.NET deals with HTTP headers and sessions, though it has been so long I can't really remember what it was I found repulsive.
I would recommend one of the many ORM-based MVC frameworks available, e.g. Ruby on Rails (Ruby), Django (Python), Play! (Java/Scala), etc. These types of frameworks encourage good coding practices by keeping your business logic and HTML code separated, as they should be. It is also a lot easier to use an ORM rather than trying to hand code a bunch of SQL statements yourself. Of these three examples I mentioned above, my preference is Django because I think Python is a more clear, productive, and expressive language than the other two, but there are many frameworks to choose from, so you can work in a language that you like.
If you really like PHP, CakePHP is a MVC option, but in my only experimentation with it, I found it too inflexible. It may have improved since then though. I don't know.
I completely agree! The only thing I recall learning from a Deitel & Deitel book was a deep appreciation for authors who could quickly get to the point.
That is quite possibly the most incoherent rant I have ever read. I'm not really sure what type of development the author is talking about as he backflips from Python to kernels, and PostgreSQL to schedulers, but I simply couldn't find a hint of sense from beginning to end. I think he got a bit heavy into the Tequila he mentioned, passed out, and his Rhesus Monkey banged out the article through hyperactive dung flinging. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
The main difference between a republic and a democracy is this:
A democracy is a form of government where unlimited and absolute power belongs to The Majority (or in other words, as I described it earlier, democracy is mob rule). In a democracy, minorities have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true of both direct democracies and representative democracies. The inevitable outcome of a democracy is tyranny at the hand of The Majority.
On the contrary, a republic is a system of government that seeks to control The Majority strictly in order to protect the rights of the individual. It prescribes a constitutionally limited and representational government, whereas a democracy does not.
I know to some, the terms "republic" and "democracy" seem synonymous, but they are not. I believe that particular muddying of the waters has been intentional over the years.
The real core and defining difference between these two forms of government is the formation of a ratified constitution through a constitutional convention, which limits the power of both the government AND The Majority.
You cannot limit your understanding of varying forms of government to a blurb in a dictionary. There are a lot of books about the history surrounding the formation of the Constitution of The United States of America that will give you a lot of insight into various forms of government, and why the framers of the Constitution did NOT want a democracy. "The Federalist" is probably a good one to start with.
There is a distinct form of government called a democracy. It is basically "mob rules". We certainly are not that, though we have gotten closer as the years between the 18th and 21st century have marched on.
It couldn't be that Utah chose to teach that the U.S. is a republic because it IS. No, it has to be because the word "democracy" looks like the word "democrat." Those wacky conservatives! Always teaching truth for the wrong reasons!
Anybody who uses the terms "right wing," "left wing," "Republicans," or "Democrats," prior to unleashing some political invective instantly loses all credibility with me. Considering the current state of the U.S. government, attributing negative tendencies or blame for our myriad problems on one political stance or party (especially when that attribute is lying) tells me that you are an ideologue who is either blinded by devotion, or simply not paying attention.
I was interested in the Nexus One and would have bought one in a second, even at the full, unsubsidized price, had it been available on Verizon. I had service on T-Mobile before and wouldn't use them again no matter what kind of phone they sold. Their data speeds are just way too slow in my area. This is the same reason I never bought an iPhone as well.
So, at least in my case, the failure isn't that selling a phone online doesn't work, but rather that you can't buy a phone online and use it with whichever service provide you prefer.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right! It is the same for every job. If you work as an employee, you're not generating wealth, period. It doesn't matter if you're moping floors, working as a surgeon at a hospital, writing code, or parking cars as a valet. You're trading your time and labor for money. Nothing more.
I'm not shitting on anybody's job and I never made any value judgements on anybody's career. That happened inside your own head. I'm simply speaking to AOC's target audience (those who work hard for little pay and will continue to do so until they understand economics) and stating that working as an employee, regardless of who it is for, is not a wealth-generating relationship. AOC's entire premise is a lie.
Please, for your own sake, take an economics and/or a business class.
"Bullshit! If you weren't producing wealth then why would the corporation pay you to show up."
Because they want your time and labor are willing to trade you money for it. I might want your time and labor to mow my lawn and offer you $50 for it. I'm not generating any wealth in that scenario and neither are you. We're trading. The wealth generation comes from companies raising capital, taking risks, creating systems that scale, and providing products or services that people are willing to pay for at prices that produce a profit. Paying someone for their time and labor is a trade. While wealth is being shared in that relationship, it is not being generated. It is the company/customer relationship that generates wealth, not the employer/employee relationship.
"Bullshit! The corporation is not trading wealth for your time out of the badness of their hearts. They are paying you because you are generating more wealth for them than they are paying you."
No, they are paying you because they want your time and labor. Many small businesses in the world create wealth without any employees at all. Without creating a company and without trading your time and labor with an employer for money, how much money does your time and labor generate? None!
No, you're an idiot. Take an economics or a business class.
"We should be working the least amount we've ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we're not," she said. "We're paid by how little we're desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire."
If you're just showing up for a McJob, you're not producing wealth and you're not paid to produce wealth. You're trading your hours for dollars. The corporation is generating wealth and they're trading a portion of that wealth with you for your time and labor. That is the key thing to understand and if more people did, we'd have more wealthy people in the world.
Sounds like a money-grab scheme to me. The last thing in the world we need is a government-sponsored Ministry of Propaganda. Imagine what it would look like if Trump controlled the news (or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, etc.). Worst idea ever!
^^^THIS!!!^^^
I'm a liberal as well. Leftism is the antithesis to liberalism, in my opinion, and leads to serfdom; in both body and mind.
I would say PBS and NPR tend embrace a leftist, rather than a liberal point of view.
Don't forget Congress. It was they who voted for and authorized the war.
The effort is not worth running Office. I felt the same way about keys and activation though, so I moved to something else.
It is definitely in poor taste, but they have the right to do so.
I understand what you're saying, but where would we be without corporate wealth? I've made my entire fortune by working for corporations. I have the house I do because of corporations. The food I eat comes from corporations and is paid for by the money I make working at a corporation, as are the clothes I wear and the cars I drive. Without corporations, we'd still be riding horses and eating dung for dinner.
I understand that it is popular to be greedy and envious of "the rich," but my life is what it is because of them, and our government is what it is because of them as well. Kill all the corporations if you want to, but then where will we be?
Don't you think that the opposite side feels that Democrat faithfuls are ideological fools?
The fact is that both parties are corrupt (as evidenced by all the untruths spoken tonight). In my opinion, anyone who is faithful to either party is playing team-sport politics and needs to grow up and stop playing games.
The real news here is that somebody would be willing to download Windows 8, pirated or otherwise.
I completely agree. I'm also convinced that 99% of the time, the interviewer has no idea what to do with the information given by the applicant anyway.
I refuse to ask stupid puzzle questions when I interview people, and I never accept jobs at companies who do. I'm much more interested in the applicant's ability to write good code and architect a solution to a real-world problem. Having them parrot back code to produce the Fibonacci sequence is utterly irrelevant to either of those goals.
Another interview question I think shows the ineptitude of the interviewer is, "What is your greatest weakness?" What the hell are they looking for? A personal confession? "Well, I do have a penchant for sexual harassment and committing adultery with all the senior executive's wives, but if you hire me, I'll try to keep it under control."
Then why beat around the damn bush? Why not just say what you're looking for and have an honest discussion about it with somebody? I hate interviews where I feel like I'm being tricked into answering some hidden question.
I don't believe PHP is fine at all. It encourages poor development practices by making it much easier to combine database calls, business logic, and presentation all in the same file than it is to code things right. It also becomes unweildy with even modest-sized websites, in my opinion. ASP.NET, though more manageable, also encourages poor coding practices with the VB-esque features for ASP.NET in Visual Studio by mixing logic and presentation into the same file (unless it has gotten drastically better during the last five years since I last used it). I also don't particularly like the way ASP.NET deals with HTTP headers and sessions, though it has been so long I can't really remember what it was I found repulsive.
I would recommend one of the many ORM-based MVC frameworks available, e.g. Ruby on Rails (Ruby), Django (Python), Play! (Java/Scala), etc. These types of frameworks encourage good coding practices by keeping your business logic and HTML code separated, as they should be. It is also a lot easier to use an ORM rather than trying to hand code a bunch of SQL statements yourself. Of these three examples I mentioned above, my preference is Django because I think Python is a more clear, productive, and expressive language than the other two, but there are many frameworks to choose from, so you can work in a language that you like.
If you really like PHP, CakePHP is a MVC option, but in my only experimentation with it, I found it too inflexible. It may have improved since then though. I don't know.
I completely agree! The only thing I recall learning from a Deitel & Deitel book was a deep appreciation for authors who could quickly get to the point.
That is quite possibly the most incoherent rant I have ever read. I'm not really sure what type of development the author is talking about as he backflips from Python to kernels, and PostgreSQL to schedulers, but I simply couldn't find a hint of sense from beginning to end. I think he got a bit heavy into the Tequila he mentioned, passed out, and his Rhesus Monkey banged out the article through hyperactive dung flinging. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
The main difference between a republic and a democracy is this:
A democracy is a form of government where unlimited and absolute power belongs to The Majority (or in other words, as I described it earlier, democracy is mob rule). In a democracy, minorities have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true of both direct democracies and representative democracies. The inevitable outcome of a democracy is tyranny at the hand of The Majority.
On the contrary, a republic is a system of government that seeks to control The Majority strictly in order to protect the rights of the individual. It prescribes a constitutionally limited and representational government, whereas a democracy does not.
I know to some, the terms "republic" and "democracy" seem synonymous, but they are not. I believe that particular muddying of the waters has been intentional over the years.
The real core and defining difference between these two forms of government is the formation of a ratified constitution through a constitutional convention, which limits the power of both the government AND The Majority.
You cannot limit your understanding of varying forms of government to a blurb in a dictionary. There are a lot of books about the history surrounding the formation of the Constitution of The United States of America that will give you a lot of insight into various forms of government, and why the framers of the Constitution did NOT want a democracy. "The Federalist" is probably a good one to start with.
There is a distinct form of government called a democracy. It is basically "mob rules". We certainly are not that, though we have gotten closer as the years between the 18th and 21st century have marched on.
It couldn't be that Utah chose to teach that the U.S. is a republic because it IS. No, it has to be because the word "democracy" looks like the word "democrat." Those wacky conservatives! Always teaching truth for the wrong reasons!
Anybody who uses the terms "right wing," "left wing," "Republicans," or "Democrats," prior to unleashing some political invective instantly loses all credibility with me. Considering the current state of the U.S. government, attributing negative tendencies or blame for our myriad problems on one political stance or party (especially when that attribute is lying) tells me that you are an ideologue who is either blinded by devotion, or simply not paying attention.
I was interested in the Nexus One and would have bought one in a second, even at the full, unsubsidized price, had it been available on Verizon. I had service on T-Mobile before and wouldn't use them again no matter what kind of phone they sold. Their data speeds are just way too slow in my area. This is the same reason I never bought an iPhone as well.
So, at least in my case, the failure isn't that selling a phone online doesn't work, but rather that you can't buy a phone online and use it with whichever service provide you prefer.
I think you mean, "Hmm live with high taxes or live where people push their bias, instead of mine, into the school books..."
Even if it is blocked, you can use corkscrew to circumvent it.