Ten oz
-
Posts
5551 -
Joined
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ten oz
-
-
21 hours ago, dimreepr said:
Will that be followed?
Regardless of how we look at the numbers wages do not keep up with GDP. Or to say it another way the amount of purchasing power individuals have is not proportional to the total productivity (goods or services produced) of the economy. Greater performance and greater corporate value doesn't guarantee greater economic stability for individuals. Not surprisingly the big shift between GDP and pay stated widening in the 80's. That is when a focus on Market Value became the primary metric for economic health. The mantra for 40yrs has been that making companies more profitable will produce more jobs, better wage, and etc. It has worked. Instead we have just produced a culture of cooperate greed which sees itself as entitled to billions in trade for minimum paying employment.
0 -
18 hours ago, Strange said:
And the problems arise because too often people are not randomly selective, but choose characteristics based on their personal prejudices.
Absolutely. I think modern ideas about race are akin to the Hamitic Hypothesis. We can also find differences between people if we look closely enough and our own biases and cultural traditions shape our views about those differences.
0 -
11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Precisely
Which is an argument for a different metric.
0 -
8 minutes ago, studiot said:
The BUI experiment in Finland recently ended as being classed a failure.
While I am not for BUI I think grading limited trials like the in Finland is difficult. Your link points out that success is determined by the metric one is using. If the goal was for individuals to find jobs it was a failure. If the goal was to improve peoples quality of life it was a success. This is a point Andrew Yang hit on a bit both on Sam Harris's and Joe Rogan's podcasts. That our current economic metric is GDP. However by that metric everyone is inferior to automatic/AI.
1 -
Just now, dimreepr said:
Not my point.
Please elaborate. As previously stated I cannot discern what you mean given your limited response.
0 -
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
not every truck driver is a builder.
Not every infrastructure related job requires building experience.
0 -
2 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:
Yes, the races are superficial differences in appearance. That's what I've been saying all along. This is why geneticist can't use genetic diversity to show the different races.
Right, but you seem to be being randomly selective about which superficial differences matter. Between sets of Caucasians one can fairly easily group them to regions based on hair color and height yet they aren't considered different races. Likewise people living in Asian can be easily grouped based on skin tone and height. Also there are populations living in Asia who have the same skin tone as people in Africa yet they are considered different races. The definitions are too loose to be meaningful.
0 -
22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Yet the productivity would rise and be shareable ...
There is not enough information in your response for me to discern what you mean.
9 minutes ago, Sensei said:People with money (e.g. from past generations) rarely rely on FED controlled interest rates, because they are close to zero profit and simply not interesting for them, if they are smart. FED controlled interest rates hit more people without money (therefor they need to lend it in the first place) rather than rich man. Increase of interest rates can ruin their full-of-debts poor budget which was barely closing-up at lower rates..
We should distinguish investing in start-up new businesses, investing in stocks, investing in lands and buildings, investing in resources etc. etc. If rich man is investing in building new property for lease, somebody else still has to work harder, earn and pay him/her rent.. Leaser is pushed more, not property owner.. Pressing property owner by government (by increasing land and property taxes), will result in increase of rent for leasers, and again they are struck the most.
I don't disagree. As it applies to giving everyone a basic income my point was that different forces influence the buying power of money. The system is fluid and not constant. Simply giving everyone a thousand dollars wouldn't mean that everyone would have a thousand dollars (as it is valued today) in buying power.
0 -
5 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:
As stated earlier many people from around the world intermarry. This makes identifying races very difficult in most instances. But there are times that race can be easily distinguished. For example, if you placed 100 people from Southern Africa in a room with 100 native Japanese with 100 native Swedes with 100 native Australians you could sort out the members of each of these populations with 100% accuracy. However if you placed 100 Egyptians in another room with 100 Sudanese, with 100 Turkish people, with 100 Jordanians, it would be extremely difficult to sort out these people.
Some people are very different. Some are very similar.
You could sort people by any number of differences. The average male height in the Netherlands is just over 6ft while in Serbia it's 5'5. In a room full of men from Scandinavia and Eastern Union I would be able to distinguish people with a high level of accuracy just based on height. That doesn't they are different races does it? I think you are ignoring the actual levels of genetic diversity within and between populations in favor of superficial differences in appearance.
0 -
Andrew Yang is running for President and Basic Universal Income of $1,000 a month is a major part of his platform. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently speaking about it at length.
Part of his pitch centers around the the money being used to help offset the coming loss of millions of truck driver and retail jobs from automation and AI. Yang presents his pitch in a logic way but I still can't get on board. I still feel the money would be better spent via large scale infrastructure projects which would create jobs those displaced by Automation could do.
0 -
12 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:
But when someone goes to have thier DNA analyzed. They may be told that their ancestors were from the far east but god forbid if they say you belong to an Asian race. Genetics can be used to specify race but we are ... I'd like to say too politically correct to say that.
I think you are misrepresenting the data. When a person does DNA testing it doesn't specify their race. It specifies the origin of various genes they have. Nearly everyone has genes with origins for a variety of locations. The majority of genes might be traced back to Asia, Europe, Africa, or etc but only a small minority of individuals are 100% traceable to a singular location. At what percentage can a claim of race by made?
Also the way genes are passed down through generations isn't linear. While half a person's genes may come from each parent beyond that is less predictable. Even from ones grandparents (2nd generation) there may already be no contribution from 1 of the 4 at all. At the 7th generation we have 128 individuals we are potentially receiving genes from yet no one individual able to contribute more than a single percent and some don't contribute at all. Here is a simply read from Ancestry.com about it.
Your family tree can be more or less diverse than you are individually.
0 -
1 hour ago, BusaDave9 said:
How different? (species can interbreed between different species. As noted Neandertals have bred with Homo Sapiens.) If there isn't much genetic variation they can't be considered separate species.
While this is true it is worth noting that its believed that Modern Human (Homo Sapiens) females could not mate with Neanderthal males, Link. It also isn't known if Neanderthal females had complications becoming pregnant from Modern Human males or what the mortality rate of the offspring was. So while it is true Neanderthals bred with Modern Humans it is also true that they weren't able to do so equally to the way all perceived races today are able to. Meanwhile genetic diversity among Modern Humans and all the perceived races is known to promotes healthier offspring, Link.
1 hour ago, BusaDave9 said:Within a species there is variation. Some people have dark hair some light. Same can be said of eyes, skin etc. Within a species there is variation. Some people have dark hair some light. Same can be said of eyes, skin etc. So how much variation to say it's a different race?
As previously mentioned the total amount of genetic variation between groups is small than that within. Here is another link exampling the genetics. The genetic variation between people of varying skin colors isn't significant.
You mentioned hair color and eye color yet to my knowledge there are not definitions of race which are based on hair color or eye color. Rather skin color seems to be the thing most commonly pointed out by people. For example as a race a Caucasian person can have any combination of red, blonde, black, or brown hair with brown, green, hazel or blue eyes.
0 -
2 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:
The two issues I'd like to discuss are:
1. Are there different Human races?
2. Can science be diverted by the ideology of some scientists?1 - I think it really depends on how one chooses to define races. Whether it's the appears of skin tone alone or something greater. For example there is as much genetic diversity in Africa and between African populations as there is outside of it, Link. Despite the genetic diversity all Africans are commonly considered the same race. So the superficial differences between peoples seems take priority over genetic ones in most definitions of race.
2- This question seems to imply it already has.
1 -
Face to face interaction requires many skills and intangible attributes that everyone has various amounts of. Tone of voice, posture, ability to emote, symmetry of our facial features, confidence, in addition to what's actually being said all matter in person. Some people are simply better communicators.
Then there are issues of desires. Some people have feelings they know on an intellectual level are unpopular, irrational, or perverse to some degree. They repress those feeling in favor of a facade they think others are more likely to approve of.
I speculate that those who are poor communicators and or hide behind facades built to mask various desires or communication shortcomings are more likely to behave differently online than in person. I think they are the ones who are least able to express themselves and build up a variety of opinions and feelings they need an outlet for. Confident people with good communication skills can express themselves freely, even on sticky issues, and have less a need for an online alter ego.
As for why those alter egos are so often villains I think its because it's the easiest way to get attention. Saying something legitimately thought provoking or intelligent requires more effort than insults. If a person had the ability to get attention via meaningful ideas they probably wouldn't be online seeking attention in the first place.
0 -
59 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:
The right, and especially Pres Trump, constantly are claiming media bias, supposedly supporting the left. Have there been any independent studies on whether that bias actually exists?
People have options when it comes to media. Individuals pick and choose which media to consume. Those who complain about bias simply need to be smarter about which media they select.
0 -
On 1/23/2019 at 5:48 PM, iNow said:
I pay pretty close attention to this stuff and I’ve gotta say, he was decidedly NOT on my radar.
Pete Buttigieg was on Colbert . It it is the first I have seen of him and I was actually impressed. I specifically thought his answer about his age (37yrs old) was very compelling. He also did a good job contrasting his experience against that of Trump and Pence .
It is a short interview and lacked policy details. Colbert was rather cold towards him for some reason. Buttigieg does have a book out which I might check out.
0 -
5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
Why can you simply not accept that he is one of those favoured? Is it such a big deal to take a balanced position?
I just conceded he was the most favored ever.
Why can't you accept that he was answering a question and not advocating a policy position?
0 -
Just now, iNow said:
Because he hasn’t crossed the threshold of actually running. That’s a gating factor. If he doesn’t run, his odds are actually zero.
Right, plus O'Rourke wasn't advocating anything. He was answering a question.
0 -
1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
He is one of those favoured to win the Democrat ticket.
Fine, he is the single most favored candidate to win the Nomination. No candidate has ever been more favored in all of history. Rumor is Harris, Warren, Booker, and etc intend to drop out of the race later on today and endorse O'Rouke because everyone knows he is the Man.
O'Rouke wasn't advocating anything in the link you provided. O'Rouke was answering a hypothetical question.
0 -
27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:
I agree; but, on this,he's plain wrong, so he's lying or deluded.
There is no question he is a Liar. The breadth of his lies are so enormous they dumbfound me. Anyone who attempt to argue otherwise is either deluded themselves or holds great disrespect to common intelligence.
That said Trump isn't wrong per se. Trump is a narcissistic. Anything that is useful to him personally is by default is the right thing to do.
0 -
2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
O'Rourke is not just a Democrat, he is one of those favoured to win the Democrat ticket...as of course you know.
He is favored to be a top VP choice. He is not favored to get the nomination nor has he announced he is even running for it. Also the link you provided was not of O'Rouke advocating a specific policy. O'Rouke was responding to a hypothetical question.
0 -
17 hours ago, nymnpseudo said:
You've lost me. However .. western fertility rates in decline is the topic anyway.
The topic is the economic impact of the decline.
You are correct that more people are consolidating into major Metro areas. The result of that is partly responsible for the declining economic conditions in the mid west here in the States. The loss of manufacturing is most often blamed but the lack of growth is just as big a problem. For example the population of North Dakota was 690k in 1930. Today it is only 760k. Only about a 10% increase in 100 years. California went from 5 million in 1930 to 39 million today.near an 800% increase. As a result California is economically the strongest State in the union.
Capitalism demands growth. It is increasing demand that drive up home values for example. One if the Reasons the average cost of a home California bis double the national average is it's growth. Also more brains are more powerful than less brains. It is harder for companies to find enough skilled people in declining locations. So as the while country begins to decline there will be economic challenges associated.
0 -
2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
Your link clearly states that O'Rourke was responding to a hypothetical question. It wasn't a position statement about policy. Also O'Rourke doesn't currently hold a political office nor is has he announced that he's running for anything.
From your link:
QuoteO’Rourke, a Democratic former Texas congressman and candidate for Senate, responded in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Thursday to a question tweetedby Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who asked whether O’Rourke would make the city’s border wall disappear if he could.
2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:To be fair, w can't rule out deluded, rather than dishonest.
This Emergency declaration is a smart move for Trump. It is a massive distraction which will both motivate his base and waste his oppositions time and energy. It is terrible for the nation but good for him personally.
0 -
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:
Can't the apparent reduction in fertility rate actually just be because the odds of offspring survival are so much better in affluent communities that having lots of offspring to offset infant/juvenile mortality is unnecessary?
I think people are simply waiting longer to have kids and are having less kids once they choose to have them. In my opinion it is a good thing. However capitalism and to an extent various forms of socialized program requires an increase to function optimally. This thread is more about the economic implication than it is about the reason for the shift.
0
Media Bias
in Politics
Posted
Reality is filtered through ones brain. Similar to the way some those who believe they have seen ghosts or UFOs are persuaded by emotional weight of those experience so too are many people persuaded by their emotional connection to various types of media. A crime statistic is cold comfort to a frightened person alone at home who has the itching suspicion thugs are coming to get them. It is the adult version of there being a monster under the bed. Knowing the truth doesn't change the emotional state.
I myself do not have cable TV. I do not watch cable. When I visit my grandmother in-law she has cable going all day. It always amazes me how dread inducing it is. Every commercial is for some type of home invasion deterrent. Commercial after commercial shows fictional home invasions. The advertisers know their demo and get after them with all the fear inducing zeal possible. It isn't all home invasion either. There are also numerous political ads claiming Soc Sec will be gone in a few years, medicare in bankrupt, Taxes on companies is causing business to leave the country, and etc.
Facts don't have hype men. Facts aren't purchasing air time. If most people spend the whole day hearing that monsters are on the loose and under every bed they are going to have a quick peak before they go to sleep even if they intellectually know better.