Which is why I would nevere allow a union in my company, because there is nothing civilized about government destroying my individual right to own and operate private property the way I see fit and interfere with my hiring and firing decisions. As to TFA, if this ends up in court somehow, it would only strengthen the case against hiring members of government protected groups, including women. They cost the company much more than any value they may bring under such conditions.
We don't need people to have higher incomes; we need things to cost less.
Terrific, please tell us how you plan to rein in corporate profits and executive salaries to achieve this. Then tell us how you won't be sued out of existence or harassed until you give up and move to someplace where there are no phones.
The only thing that will reduce prices is removing barriers to entry for things that don't need barriers - not adding more barriers.
Oh, you're one of those 'invisible hand' guys. Nevermind, no point in continuing.
All good, except....
> don't borrow money... not for a house
That depends - a home is a *secured* loan. You can always 'give it back' and rent. A *humble* home is better than renting for decades.
> You don't need to drink, to
No. (Almost all) people *need* a spouse. For love, for the work of life. On the purely economic side, its efficient to have 2 (or 1.5) incomes to pay one mortgage, two people to share household goods, groceries, cooking, cleaning...
Your health will (almost certainly) fail if you strike it out without a spouse.
So you want communism? Will you abolish the state and thus get rid of all taxes? Marx wrote in his newspaper thatit is duty of every individual to stop paying taxes, he was even brought to court for that, before they threw him out. As to promoting Leninism.... I would give a lot to meet you in a dark alley sometime...
To be fair, probiotics and alternative medicine people have said all kinds of ridiculous things for decades as well. I remember all too well the "ruby infused sun water" that was said to be a sure cure for my ear infections as a kid. That's just one of many similarly silly claims, as by recent protests against scam medical practices by actual doctors purposely trying to "overdose" on homeopathics...
The value isn't in having the "right answer" - it's in knowing which answers are are, in fact, right. "Alternative medicine" types tend to babble incoherently, a practice which does, occasional, manage to burble a right answer.
"We cannot manage our very complex, highly sophisticated capital structure with what's coming out of our high schools," said Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve."
That's a red herring, because we don't need to; we need to manage it with what's coming out of our universities.
Wouldn't people get more risk-averse and change the probabilities?
The amount of control you have over the probability of an accident long term is miniscule.
it doesn't matter how risk adverse you are, over 10k years SOMETHING will happen to you. Even a man in a vault is toast (literally) if an unknown volcano cooks him in place.
All you can do is not make the odds substantially worse, but you can never make them really good over a long enough period of time.
If your argument was valid, then it would be reflected in the numbers.
Those numbers codify a truth that was, not a truth that is or will be.
The "numbers" would also have said a country could not best the British Empire, until it happened.
Also another point to consider, is that the numbers are obscuring a possible truth - that someone who can succeed in college would not do just as well financially over time by skipping college. It just happens that in the last few decades pretty much everyone went to college that could, so it's obscuring how many people could have succeeded without college too.
"Society" is willing to pay for a college degree; people with degrees make more over their lifetime than people without degrees. Unfortunately, the dismal science of economics tells us that given such a situation, we should expect the cost of college to rise to the present value of all that extra income, leaving the hapless student with no gain.
It was even true in the 60's and 70's-- Bell Labs funded an enormous amount of fundamental research with the money raked in by their monopoly. The cosmic microwave background (which really still has not practical value) was discovered by Bell Labs researchers. As they shut down the research they went on to populate a lot of university physics departments. IBM also funded a great deal of basic research. Xerox funded a lot of more practical stuff, but was terrible at commercializing it. Jobs at those places were at least as desirable for researchers in the 60's and 70's as faculty jobs.
Take the Fourier transform for instance -- once upon a time, it would have been considered pure math, but today, DSP wouldn't exist without it. To focus only on those that *we* think are utilitarian can be extremely myopic, not to mention downright arrogant.
The Fourier transform was a direct result of the desire to better understand heat transfer while boring cannons. You should pick a better example, though they can be hard to find. Most discoveries seem to come from an itch that needs to be scratched.
Amazon sells most goods from China, but Alibaba will be able to underprice Amazon.
I totally agree with your point, but so far the move of listing on a U.S. stock exchange seems to mean just raising capital - not necessarily a greater expansion of U.S. sales.
I wouldn't want to be hanging onto Amazon stock right now...
I'm not sure why given that revenue drops seem to only make Amazon stock go up in value, not down. A strong competitor should REALLY raise the AMZN share price...
On a personal note, I would really welcome a strong competitor to Amazon, because right now there just is not anyone filling that role.
Because any geek who knows his/her science knows what forever means AND thus logically won't want to live forever
That does not follow, at all.
I doubt people are psychologically able and stable enough to _enjoy_ a mere billion years of existence. A thousand years, ten thousand years, maybe
Statistically speaking even if your body can live forever, some kind of accident will almost certainly kill you in that ten thousand year timeframe. So a real geek knowing that would have no problem with any technology that lets you live "forever" knowing the actual range of life will be "reasonably" short due to many other circumstances.
All genuine degrees have value in getting a job....But the practical advantage of the skills they've gained, and the character that has been built.
I personally think all degrees of any kind can have value in getting a job - but not many have value equal to the expense it took to get the degree.
The problem is that a degree itself matters more to getting a job very short term - say three to five years after the degree. After that point what matters more is skill and "character" as you say.
But both skill and character are easily accumulated without amassing college debt. And lack of debt gives a young person a lot more choice in how they can gain skill and build character, in a lot of cases if someone applied themselves they could easily be in a better position to get a job at the time most people are leaving college, than the college graduate would just after leaving school.