I love when people who have no understanding of econ101 tell me I don't understand Econ101 and then spend the rest of their comment proving that they don't understand econ101.

Companies don't care about making revenue. They care about making profit. A company absolutely will choose to earn less revenue when it means more profit. Because every hour of Sally's work is a net $1 loss in profit, earning $13 in revenue through Sally's work means $14 loss in costs. The company will always be better off not having Sally work.

I think you have the wrong idea of what it means to work hard. It doesn't mean be inefficient at a task. It means be persistent as you identify growth opportunities and worthy calculated risks. Many people do not do that and look for a "safe" 9-5 job where thry operate in a well defined box and don't have surprises or expectations of upward mobility (except s cost of living raise).

I didn't talk at all about monetization. I would continue explaining, but it is clear that you cannot allow yourself to understand, probably due to worry that your long-held worldview might come into question. Best wishes.

This is a very limited view on competition. Competition creates organization and cooperation without a central plan. Your view is too limited because it ignores that resources are much more plentiful in competitive markets.

Right. I forgot about how there is no competition in open source software. What Linux distribution do you run, by the way?

The world organizes itself by competition. It's not always monetary competition. But it is competition.

I think you read my comment too fast or something.

I don't know whether their definition of grit is right and I don't know if their magic algorithm is right. I do know that our schools do not teach grit. I do know that our schools have you do 40 copies of the same math problem for homework. I share concerns about the gamification of education, but the particular issue you bring up was it created by educational games.

> Nothing wrong with encouraging kids to work hard, but are you comfortable with Google and Khan Academy using (presumably) tax-free money and their mysterious "grit algorithm" to determine education haves and have-nots?

Yes. I am comfortable trying a bunch of things to see what works. Many people are comfortable continuing what we know doesn't work. I am not.

The world is about competition. Even non-profit organizations are about competition. It might make you feel better to teach kids what you call "cooperation", but since you think cooperation is the opposite of competition, then you should be kept away from teaching children anything about life. People like you have heavily influenced education for 3 or 4 decades, and as a result we are churning out people who have no idea how the world works, and especially how markets work (to enable efficient cooperation).

The current education system doesn't work, and some will be troubled as we attempt various other ways that might work. Some will be troubled as we displace people who currently operate the system that doesn't work.

As for the linked complaint about grit implying that poor kids are poor because they don't try hard, who cares what it implies? I don't care if it hurts someone's feelings to misinterpret what this may or may not imply. I don't care if poor kids are poor because of external reasons. What does it matter? Should we spend our time explaining to them that they are victims of a system and have no hope, or should we teach them how to work hard? Perhaps grit is even more important for poor kids who have to work even harder to get out from where they started?

Politically correct jerks can be offended all they want. That doesn't help kids achieve.

First time any terrorist act happens, it will be blamed on the loss of domestic spying powers. This is how the politics game works.

Yes, let's stick to the news sources that are unbiased like...

I love this argument. Left wing nuts expand the welfare state to no end. And then point out that people are using the endless welfare programs. Then that is somehow reason to do even more idiotic left wing nut policies so we can reduce usage of welfare programs.

Before I get stuck in an infinite loop of left wing idiocy, I would like to ask: if your goal is to control welfare spending, then why the hell do you keep expanding welfare programs?

The most hilarious part is that your prime example was Medicaid. It was you left wing nuts that just told us in 2009 that we had to expand Medicaid to everyone and their brother in order to achieve health care utopia. And now you're complaining that a lot of people are on Medicaid? You set the fscking eligibility criteria!

Go away, clown.

Sorry, but why do I give a damn about the level of consumption of anyone else? You say I am happiest when everyone consumes the same amount? It would be nice to see an explanation of that, because I don't get it.

Making the min wage $15/he does not mean bob gets $15/hr. Bob will get whatever the local unemployment compensation agency determines is the right amount of money.