I'm talking about gains. Your gains "now" (pre-investment) are zero. Unless your money has a time machine.

Indeed. It's usually described as a raise. Despite very often actually being less than the rate of inflation. I guess "Congratulations! You're getting a 3%-4%=-1% 'raise'!" doesn't have the same ring to it.

Does inflation make sense?

Hi bobbied. I see your posts in this thread. You come across as either disingenuous or willfully obtuse.

I hate both mainstream political parties equally, so don't think I'm some Republican-bashing Democrat. I just wanted to point out that your niggling seems a lot like a no-true-Scotsman informal fallacy. Nobody ever claimed that all Republicans nationwide are actively campaigning for a repeal of the minimum wage. The statement you objected to initially, "Watch Republicans campaign again to get rid of the minimum wage", is not an exaggeration as long as repeal of the minimum wage is supported by one or more Republicans, but especially so if the primary support for this position comes from the Republican crowd. Since this is indeed the case, the statement is reasonable.

Why a 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA? Is there some benefit to paying taxes on your gains?

I was a cashier at the local supermarket in high school. Of course, all supermarkets are unionized. Do you have any idea how hard it was to get this job?

Not hard. I applied. I was working that same week. If the union was a barrier to entry, it wasn't one big enough for me to have noticed. What the fuck are you talking about?

74193 gage views or ad views per year? At the start, you're talking ad views in the context of CPM. Then you switch over to page views. I don't see an explicit conversion from ads to pages. What ads/page factor were you using to do this conversion? Hopefully not 1/1, because that doesn't seem representative of most websites.

You're both partly wrong.

There are six degrees of freedom here. Three linear, and three angular. Tilting a phone is synonymous with applying angular acceleration to it. A phone existing in a tilted state relative to the ground is experiencing no angular acceleration, but its angle of tilt can be determined by combining the three linear acceleration readings into one vector (assuming the phone is stationary relative to the Earth). The word "tilt" here is ambiguous in that it could relate to either angular or linear acceleration, so you probably shouldn't be using it.

That being said, I don't know if the sensors in phones actually measure angular acceleration (which is what a gyroscope would do). When you "play a racing game" on your phone, can you fool it into thinking you're tilting the phone merely by translating (in the geometric sense) the phone from side to side without rotating it? If so, your sensor is inferring orientation from linear acceleration measurements. If not, it actually has a gyroscope (and is capable of direct angular acceleration measurements).

Off-topic: Are you or your employer hiring in the NY/NJ area?

Yes, god forbid people "leave themselves logged in" to their email accounts on their mobile device. I guess we're not supposed to use push email but instead enter our email passwords into our phones every few seconds to get timely email alerts?

It's too bad that the cell network itself lacks any meaningful security mechanisms. I mean, if someone gets a hold of your phone, they can just start texting and calling without having to "log in" on the network at all. It's amazing that the world hasn't collapsed as a result.

I realize that's a popular position, but I don't think you've demonstrated that this assumption (that the perception is false) has any basis in reality. You may say that I'm some sort of misogynist for not assuming equal economic value between the sexes, and I'm okay with that. I don't adopt popular positions due to their popularity alone, so I withhold judgement on the economic equality of the sexes.

By (perhaps wrongly) assuming this equality, you logically conclude that women don't get paid less than men, because if they did some savy entrepreneur would snap them up for cheap labor. Since this hasn't happened, your conclusion holds.

By (perhaps wrongly) assuming that women are indeed underpaid, I logically conclude that women as employees have less economic worth than men, because if they weren't some savy entrepreneur would snap them up for cheap labor. Since this hasn't happened, my conclusion holds.

It comes down to the fact that nobody is creating a highly competitive women-only company with cheap female labor. It's possible that you're right and that this is because, contrary to all available statistics, women aren't actually any cheaper. I just think that it's more likely that women are really underpaid for various social and biological reasons (some valid, some not). If you insist on ignoring any data that compares pay between the sexes, then this is just a rhetorical debate.

Perhaps it didn't occur to you that maybe on average women are perceived to only be 70% as valuable as men (consistent with salary statistics) and that this perception discourages employers from being willing to pay them 85% of a typical male salary (effectively overpaying them by 21%). You seem to be assuming that women are perceived to have comparable value to men, which is literally begging the question.

But the fact that there's people like Bill Gates who have so ridiculously much more money than I'll ever have doesn't really bother me. I have good place to live, a working car, food and drink on my table and sure I could have fun with a billion dollars, but I'm not hurting myself either.

I too have all those things, but Bill's money does bother me. Because I'm aware that there are plenty of people who have no job, no money, who are short on food, shelter, and healthcare for them and their families. Bill's money would go a long way towards helping them in their plight, but that'll never happen because it's perpetually tied up in a trust so that the Gates family name will live on in a positive light.

Killing the ten richest Americans and redistributing their wealth would amount to a stimulus package of $1000 per American. It would also discourage people from exploiting the economy so badly that they end up in the top 10. To me, $1000 isn't going to change my life, but there are millions of people in this country whose lives would be totally different with that kind of money.

It's a joke/quote.

I just vomited a little. If you find Lewinsky to be "hot", all hope is lost for you my friend.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.