I think there are two main factors driving this: - Up until about the 70s, there was no competition for labor...the US was its own market and very few people ever even left the country for extended periods. - The labor/management balance has shifted dramatically in favor of management.
Actually, I believe the main cause was women entering the workforce. In our parents and grandparents time, most married women didn't work. Now they do. Effectively, we now all work twice as much to get the same stuff simply because inflation has made it that way.
It's the literal definition of bigotry - a general dislike of a large group for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that group can control, or anything that applies to all members.
Actually the definition of bigotry has nothing to do with whether you can control it or not. In fact, the term bigot originated with hating heretics and foreigners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
It can apply to anything from "I just don't like republicans" to "I just don't like religious zealots" to "I just don't like rich people" or "I just don't like Americans" or "I just don't like nerds". Blanket dislike of groups of people exists all over the world, many times for things out of their control. Often it's because of behavior exhibited by their group. But that could be applied to homosexuals as well, at least of the flaming variety.
I also find it odd that you believe you can just easily choose your personality/political views/religion (particularly personality). Alot of that stuff is really baked into a person through their life experiences. You can't just wake up one day and "be different" with the flip of a switch.
Now you can ask me why, in such a system, you would feel -motivated- to work twice as hard if it just makes the commune as a whole, instead of yourself, slightly wealthier, and that's a perfectly valid question. You probably wouldn't feel motivated to work twice as hard and spend 20 hours a day in the fields. Why is that "bad"? I expect you would be motivated to do something else with that time... create music or art, teach the children to fish or program computers, or perhaps you will experiment with new farming techniques to try and discover a better way of farming so that commune will collectively have to work even less, enabling everyone to spend even more time on non-farming pursuits... or whatever else you find personally fulfilling instead of trying to amass excess wealth. Are you going to try to convince me that this would be somehow a "worse" system?
Now who's loaded the argument. You assume that the majority of people are going to use that free time contributing to society. In reality, that's likely far from true. Most people would spend their time drinking beer, watching tv, or general recreation/laziness activities. Just look at what people do with their free time now. Look at countries with short work weeks. The Dutch average 29 hours a week at work (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2013/07/10/worlds-shortest-work-weeks/). Tell me: are they the pinnacle of innovation? What are they doing with their free time? Now I'm not saying it's not a good thing in general to have a shorter work week, but trying to claim people would automatically use the vacated time for the greater good of society is incredibly disingenuous.
You haven't met many CEOs, have you? Those that are CEOs or owners of small companies are indeed extremely busy. They also make shit money. Those that make the obscene salaries on the other hand have enough time for mistresses, hobbies and extra-curricular activities - far more so than any working drone underneath them.
You do know that most large companies started small, right? And that many of those obscenely paid CEOs went through the "extremely busy/shit money" period? I always saw the "obscene period" as a payout for the years/decades you worked building something successful, because as you said yourself: those years aren't pleasant, or easy. Of course, this doesn't account for the CEOs that fail and just bounce from company to company in high positions, but I believe that's a different problem.
Voting third party is a waste of a vote pure and simple. That is until they go grass roots and start having a bottom up support structure. They would be better off infiltrating the existing parties like the TEA party does and stand their ground that way.
You act as though the tea party wasn't going after big positions too. Ron Paul didn't pull in many votes during the presidential election, but his campaign helped leaps and bounds for progressing the movement. You're far too short sighted in your belief that a third party vote is a waste of a vote. Even gaining visibility and/or sending a message helps in a big way to progress your cause.
"not as good at gerrymandering"
You obviously haven't seen California's maps.
Or Maryland's: http://www.newrepublic.com/art...
The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So when someone wants to claim that gun ownership does not increase violent crime, that person has to prove that claim just as much as someone claiming it does.
Proving a correlation and stating no correlation have different burdens of proof. The latter is merely the null state. It'd be different, on the other hand, to say that making gun laws looser decreases violent crime (because again, you're trying to prove a correlatory connection). Saying guns have no effect/correlation is a different, and lower, burden of proof.
The problem is not guns, it's gun culture. Canada just has less of it.
The problem is not gun culture, it's culture (namely, crazy people).
In the UK increased restrictions on gun ownership actually show the opposite pattern
Howso? The accounts I've heard point to increased crime: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
"The criminal who is not outright stupid understands the risk of assaulting an armed citizen."
I would this this logic would make crime go up. If you believe someone is armed, and you are ok with assaulting them, then your best bet is to shoot them in the back of the head from the get go. Then, you don't have to worry about them pulling out their gun.
So what's the plan for the 6 other armed citizens standing around you when you go after the first guy?
I will never understand how some peoples brains hear "Must discriminate against white people!" whenever someone says "Must not discriminate against black people".
Because Google doesn't look, seem, or act like the kind of company that goes out of their way to actively discriminate rather than just taking the best and most talented people they can find. Hell, the vast number of PHDs they hire is proof enough of that. So, when a company with a known of reputation of picking only the best candidates suddenly says "we need to become more diverse", then yes that is the first and most natural reaction.
Why is Elliot Rodger being put into the Nerd category? I have not seen anything on this guy that would put him in the Geek or Nerd category.
I would say the lengthy mentions of "World of Warcraft" in the manifesto are pretty telling...
Maybe the graduates moving into my industry are predominantly from a single race
For purely coincidental reasons?
Umm, yes? Why is this so surprising to you? I wouldn't expect to see perfect diversity across all career paths. Different races have different genetics as well as different cultures. It's the same reason we don't see equal weighting among the genders (which is also not discrimination -- the fact that 120 lb women don't want to compete against 300 lb men in pro football for instance is in no way a sign of discrimination -- it'd be crazy to expect equal demographics).