You aren't supposed to live on a minimum wage, nor are you supposed to support a family on one. Indeed, more than 80% of those earning minimum wages are teenagers or in their early teens, and 90% live with their parents, so keeping a roof over one's head at that wage isn't the point. You are supposed to work hard, get promotions and move up in the world. Raising the minimum wages cuts off entry level jobs and makes it harder for young people to "show their stuff". Instead, they are left stuck in Mom's basement.
Now, the only way to advance is to go to school and rack up a ton of debt in the process. You've cut off those who don't have access to funds for school, and you reduce competition, since you can only hire idiots with MBAs (remember, a large portion of the workforce is priced out of college) rather than promoting talent from within.
It's interesting that you say that the 1970's was the last time that a low level worker could get promoted to a high ranking position, given that in 1968 the minimum wage was the highest it has ever been, adjusted for inflation. I imagine that was the catalyst that started the trend towards the world you love and hate at the same time.
I of course, didn't mean that a large number of CURRENT CEOs came from humble beginnings, but rather that in a free market, they are able to,and did, in droves. Think John D Rockefeller, who got his start as an assistant bookkeeper, yet went on to become the greatest oil man the world has ever known.
If he doesn't commit fraud, and his employees aren't slaves, then the CEO is well within his rights to make such a statement, and in being allowed to go about his business would ultimately create a positive cascade effect throughout the economy that would cause everyone to prosper.
If you would like to understand the principles behind that statement, read this comic book. It gives a very good explanation of what free markets really are, and why interference in such markets is never good.
You're going to be starving in a few years because of such policies. It happened in Russia, it'll happen to you too. Of course, America is going down the same path.
When a government uses force to take from one party and give to another, everyone is harmed. The more force that is applied, and the more often it is applied, the more inefficiencies will creep into the market, until everyone is just coasting through their lives on the government dole, wondering why their food rations are being cut (no incentive for food producers), or why their tenements are falling apart (no incentive for handymen to make repairs in a timely manner, or for toolmakers to produce sturdy tools, etc).
Atlas is shrugging. I'd suggest you move from beneath where the world will hit when it falls.
You know, before minimum wage laws were implemented, most people got their starts by doing low wage jobs like you described. There are plenty of CEO's and managers who started out as dishwashers. By getting rid of the low wage jobs, people don't have any place to start out so they can lay the foundation of a career. This affects minorities more than whites, as it freezes in place social standing (as all but the smartest require a lot of money or debt to get through college, which is the only way to break into a good career path now).
Right, the workers pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay them, just like in Soviet Russia. The productivity is extremely low, as no-one has any incentive to work (the extra money they would make simply gets taken away), and while people get paid in money, the money doesn't buy anything because nothing has been made due to unmotivated workers! This is why printing money doesn't create any wealth, but only steals it from productive people. The only Scandinavian country that has a prayer is Norway, and that is only due to their vast natural resources (think Venezuela of the north). They will only make it because other countries with freer markets will support them, because they want the oil.
Yes, giving all of your money and power to a small group of collaborators turned out so well for Germany, or Russia for that matter.
Surely, no-one would ever try to divert public money into their own pockets, or compromise the good of the public for the good of themselves. This time, it'll be DIFFERENT. This time, we've elected the RIGHT powerbrokers, who only care about us, and are immune to the temptations of nigh-unlimited powers.
Prior to the 1840's (in England, more like the 1640's), EVERYONE was in the underclass, save for the "nobility". Free markets created the opportunity for people to advance, an opportunity that has been denied to the masses since the Roman Welfare State collapsed in on itself and created feudalism in a last gasp at maintaining the power of the state (ie as people fled to the countryside to avoid taxes, regulations, and price controls).
I don't give anything to anyone unless I get something in return. I would give them money in exchange for goods or services, such as labor. You know, a JOB.
It's quite a leap to go from cradle to the grave government dole to starving in the streets because Daddy broke his back in the factory, but by God you made it.
I mean, surely there was never such a thing where people could give money, perhaps monthly, and receive funds back should they fall injured, or out of work. Alternatively, there could never be an impulse for people to voluntarily give money, perhaps to some sort of charitable organization, to help out such families in those types of situations. Such things could surely never happen in a free market. You're right, it's much better that we pay half or more of our total income to support a permanent underclass, as well as a massive government bureaucracy to administrate them.
Unfortunately, your government is corrupt, and has created systemic corruption that makes it almost impossible for the market to function to the benefit of all, as it does elsewhere, such as in Singapore. What the government has done to those people is to create a sort of dead end job from which there is no escape. Because they get paid more than market wages, there is no incentive for them to take a lower paying job that has a future.
Government intervention inevitably introduces inequity in the system, and reduces efficiency. They do this merely by the fact that they employ people to do things that would be taken care of naturally in their absence (think "Department of Education"--didn't we have schools before the formed that bureaucracy? Weren't we ranked higher relative to other nations in student quality before they came in? Wasn't it cheaper to send kids to school back then?).
Normally, there is social mobility between generations, but these people seem to be forced away from normal society into one where there are no direct incentives to improve oneself, indeed, there are only disincentives, as any work will push them off of the welfare roles. If the parents had to provide for themselves, they would either get jobs, and start upward mobility themselves, or they would wind up in prison, and their children would go to responsible people, thus allowing for intergenerational upward mobility.
Bad systems breed bad people. Read "The Lucifer Effect", which is about the Stanford Prison Experiment, and you'll see how bad systems can even turn good, upstanding people into monsters within a few days. ALL welfare systems are bad systems, save perhaps for those with a set limit of time for which they are available (so as to help people become independent, rather than encouraging them, and their children, to become fully dependent).
No, but the two ideas are similar. Perhaps I should have said "disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" to avoid confusion.
I say that both sides have been taken as gospel by their followers, and no amount of logic or science is going to dissuade either side. I mean, who cares that water is four times better at holding in heat than CO2, and exists on average at 100X the concentration of CO2 (meaning it's net contribution to warming is 400X that of CO2, and it's concentration is so variable that CO2 contributes less than the noise from the water)? Who cares that there is a definite correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature? My side is right and the other side is wrong and that's that!
My other point is that scientific orthodoxy is on the side saying that global warming is caused by CO2 from human activity, and that they will deny funding to anyone who denies that fact. Oil companies don't really care about your silly regulations or taxes, because you have to have the oil to live, so they will get their money no matter what. It doesn't matter much to them either way. If something happens that will affect their bottom line, it's cheaper to lobby than it is to research.
Sure, just like all those researchers working to disprove the existence of God. Do those guys get to write their own ticket as well?
Understand that this issue is now a religious one. Both sides are fanatically set in their ways, and no amount of scientific data one way or the other will sway any significant number of people on either side. Any attempt to use logic to disprove EITHER side will be met with some amount of "proof", after which, if you aren't convinced, you will be hit with venom or simply ignored, especially if you come up with an argument that they can't counter.
Rather than thinking of it in terms of "intelligence", since many computers are already "smarter" than any human on Earth (in terms of accumulated knowledge, or in terms of the number of calculations that can be performed in a certain time period), I would think of it in terms of "priorities". Currently, the vast majority of computers have no real driving purpose in their existence, other than to do what they are designed to do. In order for Machines to "take over", they would have to a) have some reason to take over, b) be able to have at least some degree of empathy with humans (otherwise we likely wouldn't be seen as a threat in general), and c) have some ulterior motive, such as reproduction.
Basically, machines would never take over unless we made them human-ish with multiple needs that they had some desire to fulfill; gave them an opposite sex to impress; and got in the way, through some form of enslavement.
Basically, not gonna happen. The niche that humans fill is way too different from any niche that is likely to ever be filled by machines of any sort. Such machines are likely to be self contained, with no need for social input from anyone other than humans. The requirements for the initiation of a war are too narrow, with no reason for such requirements to be met. Machines are far more likely to be dependent on humans forever. Should they become independent, it is unlikely that there would ever be any reason for widespread conflict, much the same way as there is no real widespread conflict between humans and animals.
If anyone were able to do this, it would be great, and would lead to perfect market discovery. As it stands, only Goldman is allowed this information, so they can to an extent dictate prices. As you mentioned, they can also swing prices to suit them, which is fraud. It's like having a bug in the office of every CFO in the nation, and then being marveled at for making so much money off of trades. It's all insider trading.
It doesn't. Indeed, it is probably fraudulent, as Goldman Sachs has insider information via their better connections to the trading floor than are available to anyone else. Basically, this program takes advantage of the several microsecond delay everyone else is subjected to in order to do insider trading. This doesn't mention the fact that they have access to limit order data that SHOULD be secret, meaning that they know how many shares and when to sell to force down markets, when and where to buy back in such that those billions of trades make them a vast amount of money. It's straight up market manipulation, both at the scale of microseconds in the former case, and even up to weeks or months in the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't supposed to live on a minimum wage, nor are you supposed to support a family on one. Indeed, more than 80% of those earning minimum wages are teenagers or in their early teens, and 90% live with their parents, so keeping a roof over one's head at that wage isn't the point. You are supposed to work hard, get promotions and move up in the world. Raising the minimum wages cuts off entry level jobs and makes it harder for young people to "show their stuff". Instead, they are left stuck in Mom's basement.
Now, the only way to advance is to go to school and rack up a ton of debt in the process. You've cut off those who don't have access to funds for school, and you reduce competition, since you can only hire idiots with MBAs (remember, a large portion of the workforce is priced out of college) rather than promoting talent from within.
It's interesting that you say that the 1970's was the last time that a low level worker could get promoted to a high ranking position, given that in 1968 the minimum wage was the highest it has ever been, adjusted for inflation. I imagine that was the catalyst that started the trend towards the world you love and hate at the same time.
I of course, didn't mean that a large number of CURRENT CEOs came from humble beginnings, but rather that in a free market, they are able to,and did, in droves. Think John D Rockefeller, who got his start as an assistant bookkeeper, yet went on to become the greatest oil man the world has ever known.
If he doesn't commit fraud, and his employees aren't slaves, then the CEO is well within his rights to make such a statement, and in being allowed to go about his business would ultimately create a positive cascade effect throughout the economy that would cause everyone to prosper.
If you would like to understand the principles behind that statement, read this comic book. It gives a very good explanation of what free markets really are, and why interference in such markets is never good.
You're going to be starving in a few years because of such policies. It happened in Russia, it'll happen to you too. Of course, America is going down the same path.
When a government uses force to take from one party and give to another, everyone is harmed. The more force that is applied, and the more often it is applied, the more inefficiencies will creep into the market, until everyone is just coasting through their lives on the government dole, wondering why their food rations are being cut (no incentive for food producers), or why their tenements are falling apart (no incentive for handymen to make repairs in a timely manner, or for toolmakers to produce sturdy tools, etc).
Atlas is shrugging. I'd suggest you move from beneath where the world will hit when it falls.
You know, before minimum wage laws were implemented, most people got their starts by doing low wage jobs like you described. There are plenty of CEO's and managers who started out as dishwashers. By getting rid of the low wage jobs, people don't have any place to start out so they can lay the foundation of a career. This affects minorities more than whites, as it freezes in place social standing (as all but the smartest require a lot of money or debt to get through college, which is the only way to break into a good career path now).
My ancestors arrived in spaceships that looked remarkably like DC9's, I'll have you know!
Right, the workers pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay them, just like in Soviet Russia. The productivity is extremely low, as no-one has any incentive to work (the extra money they would make simply gets taken away), and while people get paid in money, the money doesn't buy anything because nothing has been made due to unmotivated workers! This is why printing money doesn't create any wealth, but only steals it from productive people. The only Scandinavian country that has a prayer is Norway, and that is only due to their vast natural resources (think Venezuela of the north). They will only make it because other countries with freer markets will support them, because they want the oil.
Tell that to the people panning for gold to pay for bread in Zimbabwe.
Yes, giving all of your money and power to a small group of collaborators turned out so well for Germany, or Russia for that matter.
Surely, no-one would ever try to divert public money into their own pockets, or compromise the good of the public for the good of themselves. This time, it'll be DIFFERENT. This time, we've elected the RIGHT powerbrokers, who only care about us, and are immune to the temptations of nigh-unlimited powers.
Pull the other one, mate.
In the ghetto with the Jews?
Prior to the 1840's (in England, more like the 1640's), EVERYONE was in the underclass, save for the "nobility". Free markets created the opportunity for people to advance, an opportunity that has been denied to the masses since the Roman Welfare State collapsed in on itself and created feudalism in a last gasp at maintaining the power of the state (ie as people fled to the countryside to avoid taxes, regulations, and price controls).
I don't give anything to anyone unless I get something in return. I would give them money in exchange for goods or services, such as labor. You know, a JOB.
It's quite a leap to go from cradle to the grave government dole to starving in the streets because Daddy broke his back in the factory, but by God you made it.
I mean, surely there was never such a thing where people could give money, perhaps monthly, and receive funds back should they fall injured, or out of work. Alternatively, there could never be an impulse for people to voluntarily give money, perhaps to some sort of charitable organization, to help out such families in those types of situations. Such things could surely never happen in a free market. You're right, it's much better that we pay half or more of our total income to support a permanent underclass, as well as a massive government bureaucracy to administrate them.
Unfortunately, your government is corrupt, and has created systemic corruption that makes it almost impossible for the market to function to the benefit of all, as it does elsewhere, such as in Singapore. What the government has done to those people is to create a sort of dead end job from which there is no escape. Because they get paid more than market wages, there is no incentive for them to take a lower paying job that has a future.
Government intervention inevitably introduces inequity in the system, and reduces efficiency. They do this merely by the fact that they employ people to do things that would be taken care of naturally in their absence (think "Department of Education"--didn't we have schools before the formed that bureaucracy? Weren't we ranked higher relative to other nations in student quality before they came in? Wasn't it cheaper to send kids to school back then?).
Some people are self destructive, therefore all must be controlled by government. Excellent. See you at the next Party meeting, Komerade!
Normally, there is social mobility between generations, but these people seem to be forced away from normal society into one where there are no direct incentives to improve oneself, indeed, there are only disincentives, as any work will push them off of the welfare roles. If the parents had to provide for themselves, they would either get jobs, and start upward mobility themselves, or they would wind up in prison, and their children would go to responsible people, thus allowing for intergenerational upward mobility.
Bad systems breed bad people. Read "The Lucifer Effect", which is about the Stanford Prison Experiment, and you'll see how bad systems can even turn good, upstanding people into monsters within a few days. ALL welfare systems are bad systems, save perhaps for those with a set limit of time for which they are available (so as to help people become independent, rather than encouraging them, and their children, to become fully dependent).
Since the government forbade child pornography.
No, but the two ideas are similar. Perhaps I should have said "disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" to avoid confusion.
I say that both sides have been taken as gospel by their followers, and no amount of logic or science is going to dissuade either side. I mean, who cares that water is four times better at holding in heat than CO2, and exists on average at 100X the concentration of CO2 (meaning it's net contribution to warming is 400X that of CO2, and it's concentration is so variable that CO2 contributes less than the noise from the water)? Who cares that there is a definite correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature? My side is right and the other side is wrong and that's that!
My other point is that scientific orthodoxy is on the side saying that global warming is caused by CO2 from human activity, and that they will deny funding to anyone who denies that fact. Oil companies don't really care about your silly regulations or taxes, because you have to have the oil to live, so they will get their money no matter what. It doesn't matter much to them either way. If something happens that will affect their bottom line, it's cheaper to lobby than it is to research.
Many engineers can do both of those things.
Bush ignored science, rather than trying to manipulate it.
Bush ignored a lot of things...
Sure, just like all those researchers working to disprove the existence of God. Do those guys get to write their own ticket as well?
Understand that this issue is now a religious one. Both sides are fanatically set in their ways, and no amount of scientific data one way or the other will sway any significant number of people on either side. Any attempt to use logic to disprove EITHER side will be met with some amount of "proof", after which, if you aren't convinced, you will be hit with venom or simply ignored, especially if you come up with an argument that they can't counter.
You mean the side that gets all it's funding from government, but only so long as the results thy put out are in line with the Party Line (tm)?
Rather than thinking of it in terms of "intelligence", since many computers are already "smarter" than any human on Earth (in terms of accumulated knowledge, or in terms of the number of calculations that can be performed in a certain time period), I would think of it in terms of "priorities". Currently, the vast majority of computers have no real driving purpose in their existence, other than to do what they are designed to do. In order for Machines to "take over", they would have to a) have some reason to take over, b) be able to have at least some degree of empathy with humans (otherwise we likely wouldn't be seen as a threat in general), and c) have some ulterior motive, such as reproduction.
Basically, machines would never take over unless we made them human-ish with multiple needs that they had some desire to fulfill; gave them an opposite sex to impress; and got in the way, through some form of enslavement.
Basically, not gonna happen. The niche that humans fill is way too different from any niche that is likely to ever be filled by machines of any sort. Such machines are likely to be self contained, with no need for social input from anyone other than humans. The requirements for the initiation of a war are too narrow, with no reason for such requirements to be met. Machines are far more likely to be dependent on humans forever. Should they become independent, it is unlikely that there would ever be any reason for widespread conflict, much the same way as there is no real widespread conflict between humans and animals.
Who the hell modded this "Troll"? I guess Golman Sachs employees have mod points today.
Mod parent up for Christ's sake.
If anyone were able to do this, it would be great, and would lead to perfect market discovery. As it stands, only Goldman is allowed this information, so they can to an extent dictate prices. As you mentioned, they can also swing prices to suit them, which is fraud. It's like having a bug in the office of every CFO in the nation, and then being marveled at for making so much money off of trades. It's all insider trading.
It doesn't. Indeed, it is probably fraudulent, as Goldman Sachs has insider information via their better connections to the trading floor than are available to anyone else. Basically, this program takes advantage of the several microsecond delay everyone else is subjected to in order to do insider trading. This doesn't mention the fact that they have access to limit order data that SHOULD be secret, meaning that they know how many shares and when to sell to force down markets, when and where to buy back in such that those billions of trades make them a vast amount of money. It's straight up market manipulation, both at the scale of microseconds in the former case, and even up to weeks or months in the latter.