It is also caused by a very simple rule. If everyone has a certain amount of money, noone cares about that amount anymore as much, meaning they are not as willing to part with goods for so little anymore. As goods raise in price, so does the cost of basic neccessities, and following that salaries.
I don't know..How many middle class people do you know that own stock?
I have no idea. Though, stock is mostly owned by middle-class people, either directly, or through funds.
And if money were spread more evenly, more people would have surplus money leftover after expenses to invest.
No, they would not. The very basically rule of inflation is, the more people have, the less it is worth.
"As a corporation expands, it has more jobs to fill."
That's assuming it expands. Sometimes its not a good idea for a company to expand, even if they can afford it. The fact is while there is a coorelation between corporate profits and corporate expansion, it isn't as strong as you imply.
It is as strong. So strong, that when there is a suprlus of cash, people are suprised if it is spent on the shareholders rather than on expanding.
Expansion can happen with even the addition of one job. That happens continuously.
In 1983 the wealthiest 1% of the population of america had 33.8% of America's wealth. In 1989 the wealthiest 1% of the population of america had 37.4% of America's wealth.
OK, that's a better number, thanx.
Note though, that it still doesn't account for the fact that even more people were "rich".
But the post I was responding to was still wrong in saying that the rich people foot 50% of the bill. It's just as impossible at 40% as it is at 35%.
But they *do*. Don't forget, only about 10% of all people pay taxes as it is.
There simply are not enough rich people for it to make that much of a difference.
The definition of "rich", that is people in the highest tax bracket, is about 75,000. Not much at all. In fact, in representatives paid taxes, they'd all be considered rich.
but what reason would they have to start a company.
Money gets research and products. Businesses start new businesses all the time based on how much money they have.
Most people who start companies are seeking independence or advancement of their career.
Or just found a niche and need the money. Which i think is actually most of the cases.
What reason do the rich have to open a company.
100% stock in a "sure fire" investment.
So if the jobs were diversified in many smaller businesses, like the rest of the US, the job market would be more stable, and less at the whims of GM's CEO.
First of all, they are diversified. Because of government regulations, the Big Three do not always like to hire people directly. Instead, they hire through a secondary company. (I was in fact offered such a job.)
Second, if the Big Three diversified, there would be less jobs around. Basically, the overhead to start a new company costs possible jobs. When a large comapny opens a new division, they do not have these issues.
Third, when the Big Three lay off direct hire employees, usually blue collar, they are unionized, ands as such they have less control. Noone's "whims" can fire so many people without threatening a strike.
Venture capitalists would have nothing to invest in if it weren't for the middle-class business owners.
True. the middle class entrepeneur plants the seed, but it is the rich VC that (provides the fertilizer that) makes it grow. A partnership that pronounces the importance of both. My point was not to put down the middle class entrpeneur.
And I don't think it's a rule that venture capitalists have to be rich.
The company that the VCs use to invest must be rich. VCs must be swooned, and doing a few is fine, but too many and nothing will get done. Also, VCs are tempted to invest by how much of a share they are buying, so there can not be too many VCs.
And, while the VC company could be made up of many people, it is unlikely they will agree on anything (though some mutual funds are based on this, but they do not go into VC because of the risk). So, as a rule, VCs are rich.
If the wealth were distributed more equally, more people could invest.
Not true.
One, if spread evenly the value of money lowers, and inflation rises, making both less money availible and money invested worthless.
Two, most people when they have money spend it. Only a few who are rich, after they spend some money on themselves, then use the extra moey to invest. If spread evenly, everyone would spend on themselves, and nothing would be left over to invest.
Funny, I thought thought the point of a corporation was to maximize the profits of the shareholders, not maximize the wages of employees.
Shareholders rarely get anything from a company, other than the ability to sell the stock at a higher rate. That rate is based on the value of the company. Ultimately, this has little to do with worker's wages.
Anyway, wages are not the point. As a corporation expands, it has more jobs to fill.
And I wonder how many poor people own large shares of stock in corporations.
The first part of your statement excludes the second part.
The fact is if Bill Gates buys a few [hundred] Chevy's, worker 45867 isn't going to see a cent.
Actually, it's 39.6, temporarily coming down, this year at 38.6. Of course, that is besides state taxes, which in most cases will make a burden of over 40%.
Since when do rich people create jobs? Do rich people have magical job-creating powers? Do jobs just pop out of rich people's orfices?
We live in a capitalist society. Generally, the rich either invest in other companies, or they open ones themselves. This creates job openings.
Further, jobs are created by any company when there is money being spent. Since rich people can spend more, they help the economy more, thus creating new jobs in a ripple effect.
The majority of jobs are created by small-medium sized businesses.
Guess you don't live in Detroit. Here the "Big Three" either directly or indirectly employ a grerat deal of people. Layoffs are usually in the area of ten thousand.
In *all* of the US, you are correct, in big cities, however, you probably are not.
Very few of the owners of these businesses would be considered rich.
And in many cases the venture capitalists are. And it's the VCs that allow jobs to be created.
Guess who usually ends up on the down side of the rich people's business interests?
The rich people themselves, after the government taxes them to death.
Most (nonfanatical) democrats don't base their ideas on taxation on "jealousy and class warfare", but instead on stopping a growing trend. The division of wealth in America is changing. The rich are becoming richer, and everyone else is getting poorer.
That happens because of taxation. This is very simple.
If rich people do not spend money, the split gets greater as the poor work harder and spend, and the rich keep their money. If the rich people spend money, the poor get it. Who do you think they purchase items and services from?
So, the important thing here is to encourage the rich to spend money.
Under Carter, the top tax bracket for personal income was about 70%. Rich people didn't take home their money, as they'd lose most of it in taxes. Comes Reagen, drops the rate top 28%, and the economy booms. Rich people take home money because of lower taxes, and spend it. Their spending gives more money to the rank and file "poor guy", and everybody wins.
(From The Annotated Alice "The Definitive Edition".)
16. The opening stanza of " Jabberwocky" first appeared in Mischmasch, the last of a series of private little "periodicals" that young Carroll wrote, illustrated and hand-lettered for the amusement of his brothers and sisters. In an issue dated 1855 (Carroll was then twenty-three), under the heading "Stanza of.Anglo-Saxon Poetry," the following "curious fragment" appears:...
Carroll then proceeds to interpret the words as follows:
BRYLLYG ( derived from the verb to BRYL or BROIL), "the time of broiling dinner, i.e. the close of the afternoon."
SLYTHY (compounded of SLIMY and LITHE). "Smooth and active."~
TOVE. A species of Badger. They had smooth white hair, long hind legs, and short horns like a stag; lived chiefly on cheese.
GYRE, verb (derived from GYAOUR or GIAOUR, "a dog"). Th scratch like a dog.
GYMBLE (whence GIMBLET). "Th screw out holes in anything."
WABE (derived from the verb to SWAB or SOAK). "The side of a hill" (from its being soaked by the rain).
MIMSY (whence MIMSERABLE and MISERABLE). "Unhappy."
BOROGOVE. An extinct kind of Parrot. They had no wings, beaks turned up, and made their nests under sundials: lived on veal.
MOME (hence SOLEMOME, SOLEMONE, and SOLEMN). "Grave."
RATH. A species of land turtle. Head erect: mouth like a shark: forelegs curved out so that the animal walked on its knees: smooth green body: lived on swallows and oysters.
OUTGRABE, past tense of the verb to OUTGRIBE. (It is connected with old verb to GRIKE, or SHRIKE, from which are derived "shriek" and "creak"). "Squeaked."
Hence the literal English of the passage is:
"It was evening, and the smooth active badgers were scratching and boring holes in the hill-side; all unhappy were the parrots; and the grave turtles squeaked out."
There were probably sundials on the top of the hill, and the "borogoves" were afraid that their nests would be undermined. The hill was probably full of the nests of "raths", which ran out, squeaking with fear, on hearing the "toves" scratching outside. This is an obscure, but yet deeply-affecting, relic of ancient Poetry.
Change password to something ridiculous, then change it right back. If it remembers three last password, change it four times. If it remembers it for a time, make the password very easy to remeber. "01234567", "12345678", and "23456789". The harder they make it on the user, the more the user will use it less.
I once left a critical review at BN.com. yet it never made it. I then check other reviews, and found basically no negative reviews. Amazon many times has negative reviews on books. So, i really only by from them now.
Programming done "properly" is both design and coding. Ideally, (and crucial on large projects) there is design of all functions including "in and out". Anyone whose coded in Assembly knows this is a must.
If properly speced, bounds checking and others tests are very simple to write, and either Q&A can do it, or a day can be set aside where you listen to your favorite music, book on tape, or movie, and test each module. Testing is simple, and many suites make it even easier.
Ultimately, the problem with testing is poor design. Poor design means functions and modules are haphazzardly designed, and being unspeced, it is hard to know the "in and out" of them. Thus, it cannot be tested, for it is now known what to test.
Even if it is not kept to, for whatever the reason, it is worthwhile to note that it *should* be 80% time design , 20% coding and debugging. Design, design, design. Find someone who like it, and it'll answer nearly all your problems. There no reason to feel in the dark, and complain that turning on the light removes all the excitement.
This is hilarious. The idea that a month has to do with moons goes back to calenders that were moon based (Muslim Calender, and Jewish calender is partially). On them, there is exactly one full moon per month, being "full" on the fifteenth (or fourteenth, on the now one-day-off Jewish calender).
The Gregorian and Julian calenders are solar based, however, being they have 31 days in some months, it is possible to have to full moon on both the first and 31st day of the month. That this is a rare occurence, is possibly worth noting, but this much atention seem absurd.
One other aspect on centralized code is that standard procedures are followed. Such as, if the is a business rule (as opposed to an enforced data rule) that mentions how when A gets a new line, B must be updated as well, a TRIGGER is not a good idea (that's for data rules), so an SP does it all for you. Now, anyone can use the SP and forget about the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the round earth theory had considerable opposition.
You mean it now has naysayers. Until recently, hardly anyone disputed it, and accepted it as fact,
Good comment.
Agreed. That's why I basically never use Abiword.
This has already been theorized in this JE (mine).
I wonder if this means they found the source of T/F. I/E seems to have to do with dopamine. One more to go!
Glad i could be of service. :)
Inflation is caused by many complex factors.
It is also caused by a very simple rule. If everyone has a certain amount of money, noone cares about that amount anymore as much, meaning they are not as willing to part with goods for so little anymore. As goods raise in price, so does the cost of basic neccessities, and following that salaries.
I don't know..How many middle class people do you know that own stock?
I have no idea. Though, stock is mostly owned by middle-class people, either directly, or through funds.
And if money were spread more evenly, more people would have surplus money leftover after expenses to invest.
No, they would not. The very basically rule of inflation is, the more people have, the less it is worth.
"As a corporation expands, it has more jobs to fill."
That's assuming it expands. Sometimes its not a good idea for a company to expand, even if they can afford it.
The fact is while there is a coorelation between corporate profits and corporate expansion, it isn't as strong as you imply.
It is as strong. So strong, that when there is a suprlus of cash, people are suprised if it is spent on the shareholders rather than on expanding.
Expansion can happen with even the addition of one job. That happens continuously.
In 1983 the wealthiest 1% of the population of america had 33.8% of America's wealth.
In 1989 the wealthiest 1% of the population of america had 37.4% of America's wealth.
OK, that's a better number, thanx.
Note though, that it still doesn't account for the fact that even more people were "rich".
Don't forget, only about 10% of all people pay taxes as it is.
Bah! Scratch that. Stupid mistake....
Fought??
But the post I was responding to was still wrong in saying that the rich people foot 50% of the bill. It's just as impossible at 40% as it is at 35%.
But they *do*. Don't forget, only about 10% of all people pay taxes as it is.
There simply are not enough rich people for it to make that much of a difference.
The definition of "rich", that is people in the highest tax bracket, is about 75,000. Not much at all. In fact, in representatives paid taxes, they'd all be considered rich.
but what reason would they have to start a company.
Money gets research and products. Businesses start new businesses all the time based on how much money they have.
Most people who start companies are seeking independence or advancement of their career.
Or just found a niche and need the money. Which i think is actually most of the cases.
What reason do the rich have to open a company.
100% stock in a "sure fire" investment.
So if the jobs were diversified in many smaller businesses, like the rest of the US, the job market would be more stable, and less at the whims of GM's CEO.
First of all, they are diversified. Because of government regulations, the Big Three do not always like to hire people directly. Instead, they hire through a secondary company. (I was in fact offered such a job.)
Second, if the Big Three diversified, there would be less jobs around. Basically, the overhead to start a new company costs possible jobs. When a large comapny opens a new division, they do not have these issues.
Third, when the Big Three lay off direct hire employees, usually blue collar, they are unionized, ands as such they have less control. Noone's "whims" can fire so many people without threatening a strike.
Venture capitalists would have nothing to invest in if it weren't for the middle-class business owners.
True. the middle class entrepeneur plants the seed, but it is the rich VC that (provides the fertilizer that) makes it grow. A partnership that pronounces the importance of both. My point was not to put down the middle class entrpeneur.
And I don't think it's a rule that venture capitalists have to be rich.
The company that the VCs use to invest must be rich. VCs must be swooned, and doing a few is fine, but too many and nothing will get done. Also, VCs are tempted to invest by how much of a share they are buying, so there can not be too many VCs.
And, while the VC company could be made up of many people, it is unlikely they will agree on anything (though some mutual funds are based on this, but they do not go into VC because of the risk). So, as a rule, VCs are rich.
If the wealth were distributed more equally, more people could invest.
Not true.
One, if spread evenly the value of money lowers, and inflation rises, making both less money availible and money invested worthless.
Two, most people when they have money spend it. Only a few who are rich, after they spend some money on themselves, then use the extra moey to invest. If spread evenly, everyone would spend on themselves, and nothing would be left over to invest.
Funny, I thought thought the point of a corporation was to maximize the profits of the shareholders, not maximize the wages of employees.
Shareholders rarely get anything from a company, other than the ability to sell the stock at a higher rate. That rate is based on the value of the company. Ultimately, this has little to do with worker's wages.
Anyway, wages are not the point. As a corporation expands, it has more jobs to fill.
And I wonder how many poor people own large shares of stock in corporations.
The first part of your statement excludes the second part.
The fact is if Bill Gates buys a few [hundred] Chevy's, worker 45867 isn't going to see a cent.
Yes he will.
For one, when Billy Boy
he supports pre-emptive war
Um, what?
They broke agreements, they started fihgts. Hardly preemptive.
he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells
Bah! Ridiculous! Of course he supports that! Stop spewing this nonsense.
He is aginst aborting fetuses for the purpose of study. Once value outweihing another.
FYI: the highest tax bracket is ~34%.
Actually, it's 39.6, temporarily coming down, this year at 38.6. Of course, that is besides state taxes, which in most cases will make a burden of over 40%.
Since when do rich people create jobs?
Do rich people have magical job-creating powers?
Do jobs just pop out of rich people's orfices?
We live in a capitalist society. Generally, the rich either invest in other companies, or they open ones themselves. This creates job openings.
Further, jobs are created by any company when there is money being spent. Since rich people can spend more, they help the economy more, thus creating new jobs in a ripple effect.
The majority of jobs are created by small-medium sized businesses.
Guess you don't live in Detroit. Here the "Big Three" either directly or indirectly employ a grerat deal of people. Layoffs are usually in the area of ten thousand.
In *all* of the US, you are correct, in big cities, however, you probably are not.
Very few of the owners of these businesses would be considered rich.
And in many cases the venture capitalists are. And it's the VCs that allow jobs to be created.
Guess who usually ends up on the down side of the rich people's business interests?
The rich people themselves, after the government taxes them to death.
Most (nonfanatical) democrats don't base their ideas on taxation on "jealousy and class warfare", but instead on stopping a growing trend. The division of wealth in America is changing. The rich are becoming richer, and everyone else is getting poorer.
That happens because of taxation. This is very simple.
If rich people do not spend money, the split gets greater as the poor work harder and spend, and the rich keep their money. If the rich people spend money, the poor get it. Who do you think they purchase items and services from?
So, the important thing here is to encourage the rich to spend money.
Under Carter, the top tax bracket for personal income was about 70%. Rich people didn't take home their money, as they'd lose most of it in taxes. Comes Reagen, drops the rate top 28%, and the economy booms. Rich people take home money because of lower taxes, and spend it. Their spending gives more money to the rank and file "poor guy", and everybody wins.
(From The Annotated Alice "The Definitive Edition".)
.Anglo-Saxon Poetry," the following "curious fragment" appears: ...
16. The opening stanza of " Jabberwocky" first appeared in Mischmasch, the last of a series of private little "periodicals" that young Carroll wrote, illustrated and hand-lettered for the amusement of his brothers and sisters. In an issue dated 1855 (Carroll was then twenty-three), under the heading "Stanza of
Carroll then proceeds to interpret the words as follows:
BRYLLYG ( derived from the verb to BRYL or BROIL), "the time of broiling dinner, i.e. the close
of the afternoon."
SLYTHY (compounded of SLIMY and LITHE). "Smooth and active."~
TOVE. A species of Badger. They had smooth white hair, long hind legs, and short horns like a stag; lived chiefly on cheese.
GYRE, verb (derived from GYAOUR or GIAOUR, "a dog"). Th scratch like a dog.
GYMBLE (whence GIMBLET). "Th screw out holes in anything."
WABE (derived from the verb to SWAB or SOAK). "The side of a hill" (from its being soaked by the rain).
MIMSY (whence MIMSERABLE and MISERABLE). "Unhappy."
BOROGOVE. An extinct kind of Parrot. They had no wings, beaks turned up, and made their nests under sundials: lived on veal.
MOME (hence SOLEMOME, SOLEMONE, and SOLEMN). "Grave."
RATH. A species of land turtle. Head erect: mouth like a shark: forelegs curved out so that the animal walked on its knees: smooth green body: lived on swallows and oysters.
OUTGRABE, past tense of the verb to OUTGRIBE. (It is connected with old verb to GRIKE, or SHRIKE, from which are derived "shriek" and "creak"). "Squeaked."
Hence the literal English of the passage is:
"It was evening, and the smooth active badgers were scratching and boring holes in the hill-side;
all unhappy were the parrots; and the grave turtles squeaked out."
There were probably sundials on the top of the hill, and the "borogoves" were afraid that their nests would be undermined. The hill was probably full of the nests of "raths", which ran out, squeaking with fear, on hearing the "toves" scratching outside. This is an obscure, but yet deeply-affecting, relic of ancient Poetry.
Home Alone.
And that Mc kid. Second worst actor ever. Worst actor was the kid on Growing Pains.
The pushoff until the last moment is only about half the population. Using MBTI terms, it is a P thing. Js tend to do things right away.
:)
Perhaps this is where lazyness got trhe term "monkeying around"?
Change password to something ridiculous, then change it right back. If it remembers three last password, change it four times. If it remembers it for a time, make the password very easy to remeber. "01234567", "12345678", and "23456789". The harder they make it on the user, the more the user will use it less.
Nice that you fought it.
I once left a critical review at BN.com. yet it never made it. I then check other reviews, and found basically no negative reviews. Amazon many times has negative reviews on books. So, i really only by from them now.
Just something i looked at once, and quickly too.
Any comments?
That last comment is hilarious. :)
Just had to say your comment made me giggle. :)
His job, he says was to find computer misuse. The boss wasn't misusing the computer, he was possibly misusing his time.
Wow, excelent point. Touché.
Programming done "properly" is both design and coding. Ideally, (and crucial on large projects) there is design of all functions including "in and out". Anyone whose coded in Assembly knows this is a must.
If properly speced, bounds checking and others tests are very simple to write, and either Q&A can do it, or a day can be set aside where you listen to your favorite music, book on tape, or movie, and test each module. Testing is simple, and many suites make it even easier.
Ultimately, the problem with testing is poor design. Poor design means functions and modules are haphazzardly designed, and being unspeced, it is hard to know the "in and out" of them. Thus, it cannot be tested, for it is now known what to test.
Even if it is not kept to, for whatever the reason, it is worthwhile to note that it *should* be 80% time design , 20% coding and debugging. Design, design, design. Find someone who like it, and it'll answer nearly all your problems. There no reason to feel in the dark, and complain that turning on the light removes all the excitement.
This is hilarious. The idea that a month has to do with moons goes back to calenders that were moon based (Muslim Calender, and Jewish calender is partially). On them, there is exactly one full moon per month, being "full" on the fifteenth (or fourteenth, on the now one-day-off Jewish calender).
The Gregorian and Julian calenders are solar based, however, being they have 31 days in some months, it is possible to have to full moon on both the first and 31st day of the month. That this is a rare occurence, is possibly worth noting, but this much atention seem absurd.
One other aspect on centralized code is that standard procedures are followed. Such as, if the is a business rule (as opposed to an enforced data rule) that mentions how when A gets a new line, B must be updated as well, a TRIGGER is not a good idea (that's for data rules), so an SP does it all for you. Now, anyone can use the SP and forget about the rule.
Anyone hear of the movie "Looker". That had some cool ideas.
Now that's pretty funny. :)
This being science, a rough consensus on tentative conclusions and furthur efforts needed would be the reasonable expectation.
The problem is that there ends up being 800 *separate* people. Ten people are more likely to come to a consensus, or at least see each other's points.