Programming jobs are not much to brag about. Many IT people don't just check out after 5pm. They are on-call after work, stay up late at night trying to finish X or fix Y. They are expected to show up to the office on the weekends to do Z. In the meantime, the HR people are relaxing at home with their families.
As long as programming jobs are worse than regular jobs, people will require higher compensation to take those jobs. More stress, more requirements = higher compensation.
Um. Then you need to hire people for that. Sorry, but, "i'm not paid to be on call 24/7 but I am anyway" is not a reasonable argument. Fix it or deal with it and move on.
And what do you mean, "worse than regular jobs?" Have you looked around much lately? Sitting in front of a computer all day doing what you love pales in comparison to about 95% of all jobs on the earth. And do you really think "HR" people just go home and chill? Everyone has responsibilities that exceed their billed hours. That is part of life.
Aside from people using it to sell things/their business, most people will not lose much of anything. In fact, they will probably gain, since they won't be spending XXX minutes on FB each month.
I remember the first time I learned of Kim - 10+ years ago.
From the early days, his questionable 'projects', his legal troubles back home, his money making schemes, him defrauding people on BMW M5 forums, etc. Then I didn't hear about him for 10 years.
When his name came out during the Megaupload uproar, I immediately remembered his name and his antics and without knowing anything about Megaupload I knew he was guilty as sin just based on his record.
With respect, not at all. Just like it is said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, continually giving this guy the benefit of the doubt is naive.
I judge people based on their past actions. Not on their hypothetical potential. Kim has a history of fraud and questionable activities going back _decades_. If that makes my way of thinking frightening to you, so be it.
People are oddly repetitive, and most tend to show the same character in the future that they've shown in the past.
That much is true.
But to take that notion and to say that all people will always repeat their past... that isn't true.
For whatever percent of people that would repeat their past, there remains at least a few that will learn from their past and change their future behaviour.
What is scary is that what you've expressed does not allow for rehabilitation or for people to learn from their past. What you've expressed is a view that once someone has been judged, then that leopard cannot change it's spots.
Taking your view to the logical conclusion: Experience counts for nothing, as no-one can learn from it. Teaching counts for nothing, as no-one can learn from it.
Here we are on HN, where one of the mantras repeated over and over is test and pivot. Try something, find you're wrong, learn from it, seek a different direction. To learn from failure what not to do in the future.
Your moral philosophy is that personal change and improvement is impossible as the leopard cannot change it's spots. This precludes from the outset any chance for social mobility, any chance of rehabilitation, any chance of humanity learning from our own history.
But that's not a tax cheat - that's how the tax system is supposed to work. If the total sum of losses is greater or equal to the sum of profits, they haven't actually made any money, and shouldn't be taxed.
It's just people who are promised "net points" that get screwed, not the tax man.
So we should do away with all regulation then? That way there's nothing left for the powerful to co-opt? (I'm sure that there's nothing left to stop them either is inconsequential, as the marketplace or something will just magically save us from that, I mean if you don't like working for 40 years and then being left for dead you can always get another job. Anyway we can sort out the details later, uh, after the election.)
This is rubbish. Plenty of nations (i.e. all first world nations) have implemented national schemes of some sort, and none of them suffer from the stuff that you read about coming from the right's bullshit machine. Maybe you're right though, maybe the fact that the US is one of the most corrupt nations on Earth and that its citizens are remarkably comfortable with this fact, means they can't do health care. That's got nothing to do with the concept of nationalized health care and definitely not with regulation in general, but is rather a consequence of an irresponsible citizenry and their terrible social organization.
Being cognizant of the danger of unnecessary concentrations of power in our society does not mean that there's no reason to concentrate power.
It means having a healthy understanding of the side-effects of that concentration of power and gives yet another reason to keep government's focus on the narrow side.
Plenty of nations (i.e. all first world nations) have implemented national schemes of some sort, and none of them suffer from the stuff that you read about coming from the right's bullshit machine.
Broad generalizations. Actually, many first world nations have had huge problems with their national schemes from poor medical services and poor availability of actual treatment to larger economic issues resulting from overspending on social programs like health care.
The bottom line for me is that the health care law passed is a huge and complicated power grab of a mess that did nothing to address the main issues that needed to be addressed: Reduction of the middlemen and price-hiding tactics standing between healthcare providers and consumers. The government had a real opportunity to cut the ties between place-of-work and healthcare. They had a real opportunity to give consumers the tools and rights they needed so that they could be informed purchasers of healthcare services.
We'd have exactly the same problem even if there was no government to co-opt at all, though. In particular the Libertarian market-based approach has exactly the same problem. If businesses can convince newspapers to smear politicians who're inconvenient to them, there's nothing stopping them doing the same to researchers who've discovered their drug is killing people, or doctors who've noticed their factory workers are being slowly poisoned, or anyone else who tries to give consumers the information required to make sound decisions.
I agreed with what you said up until the last paragraph. Providing a system in which individuals and families more directly choose their health care spending from providers is not a solution to health care access problems. There must be some kind of program available nationwide that serves those that would never be able to purchase health care on their own, due to poverty, homelessness, and disability (among other things). However, this is the fundamental issue for health care at the moment: many government officials simply do not believe that those people should be served at all and that no program should be created or expanded to do so. In fact, those politicians actually want to go the other way with it and reduce the effectiveness of Medicare and Medicaid. This is the real political environment in which the PPACA was introduced and passed.
We can argue whether other approaches would have worked for new health care legislation, but the whole point of any reforms is that it can actually be achieved. Universal health care systems and privatization schemes do not have enough support politically to be feasible, which has a lot to do with other political and social issues in the US.
Why are people like you incapable of having a debate about something on its merits, instead relying on straw man arguments and attacks?
> So we should do away with all regulation then?
The parent didn't say that and nobody outside of the former Paul campaign has ever suggested. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
> Anyway we can sort out the details ... after the election
Stop using month-old Democratic talking points for your arguments and maybe people would take you more seriously.
> Plenty of nations ... have implemented national schemes ... and none of them suffer from the stuff that you read about coming from the right's bullshit machine.
So there it is, the right's "bullshit machine" as you put it. Let's ignore the fact that the US is several times the size of any western European country, much less homogenous and with a greater income disparity even between the 2nd and 4th quintiles. But yes, because it works for 62 million Britons, clearly if someone doesn't think it will work for 312 million Americans they (a) are racist; (b) are stupid; (c) hate poor people; (d) all of the above.
> The parent didn't say that and nobody outside of the former Paul campaign has ever suggested. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
It's implied. It's what always comes after that part. I nipped it in the bud. You're welcome.
> Stop using month-old Democratic tal...
You're an idiot.
> But yes, because it works for 62 million Britons, clearly if someone doesn't think it will work for 312 million Americans they (a) are racist; (b) are stupid; (c) hate poor people; (d) all of the above.
Even countries with irresponsible citizenry and terrible social organization often manage some form of nationalised healthcare though, so that can't be it. I'm betting on it just being a side effect of making bribery, sorry, lobbyists donating to campaign finance, a respectable part of the political process.
Anyone worth their salt could've Googled their leaderships history of creating big IPOs that end up crushing and burning. Most were complicit in it, or just rationalized it to themselves that it was different.
Second, the people who make the company - the early people - are on better terms. The guy who got hired the month before IPO shouldn't be expecting much.
The real scam was to use cash back or frequent flyer cards to buy money from the US mint. Apparently they were required to sell $1 coins online to get them into cerculation. So people were buying thousands of dollars worth of them (free shipping!) and depositing them right into their bank.
Supposedly you can't do it anymore but I don't remember how they prevented it while still trying to get the $1 coins into circulation.
As long as programming jobs are worse than regular jobs, people will require higher compensation to take those jobs. More stress, more requirements = higher compensation.