notch656c

Yeah it's kind of depressing because at least a few key points the vast majority seem to agree on but it's just totally untenable to implement. There are a lot of choices nations can make that serve as a sort of one way valve with no going back and I fear this could be one of them. Another example of a bad mistake we made was our voting system which assures two parties, and that can never be undone because the parties will never vote to alter the representation system in a way to suicide their own parties.

I've pretty much resigned myself my game plan is to suck all the capital I can out of the united states and then play the same game somewhere else where I can be the big bad foreign investor buying housing.

I would add a third which is allow more dangerous housing. You heard it. We all agree to risk, just a little more, we all die in a horrible fire so that the least among us have a better chance of owning a home through something other than charity.

Simple, you pay through the nose the first 10 years to someone who already waited 10 years to snatch up something to sub-let out to you. Then you do the same thing to somebody else to get the money back.

That way you can pay the absolute highest rents when you're young and making the least amount of money.

I hope those countries would adapt by competing and fixing the things that fuck up their business climate. Also worth noting if their labor flees the price of labor in their country would rise and hopefully make things better for the remainder.

>"Regulations often draw arbitrary lines because that's a relatively easy way to improve a situation..."

--wpietri

I gotta frame that on my office, it's so bad. I would tap out too to save face after that one. And I absolutely fucking love the example was the literal think of the children meme. Have a good day and thanks for the great laughs.

I would do a negative income tax basically at the lowest earnings (that is they basically get graduated credits). I'd simplify the tax code so we'd only need half the IRS or less and then repurpose some of them to making sure the negative income tax is refunded. Unemancipated children would not be included in the refund.

My prediction is especially neglect but also abuse are often symptoms of poverty and insufficient economic security. I do not believe economically starving the parents is somehow going to help the neglect of overburdened parents, but I can respect some possible hints that may be drawn from your question. My belief is the number of kids saved through such a measure would outdo the number the social workers would have saved. But that is just a theory.

Presuming drawing arbitrary lines must improve a situation is probably the worst argument I've heard on HN and that's saying something. Also astonishing to call the difference between ~$1B in total wealth and ~$1M in wealth a "nit." I went out of my way to make sure the difference was far from a nit to show the absurdity so hey instead somebody just lied to make it sound practically the same, I love it.

>You can do the same thing with literally any...

I could marry any unwed woman or man who agrees, I could take any job who would have me. I could walk to any forest. I could.... Yes the fact that I could do it with any does not mean I shouldn't question the one I'm examining.

> you have missed or are ignoring that one can now pass a test to become an accredited investor, no capital requirements at all

If I want to be as cheeky as you I could characterize the cost of the licensure and/or exam as a capital requirement. Of course the $150 or whatever for the test, well in your mind the difference between ~$1B and ~$1M of wealth is jus a nit so hey they difference between $150 and $1M is just a nit and practically the same. I really dislike this kind of logic but hey it's the one you're playing so fair is fair.

>your point is also out of date.

.... we were talking about the accredited investors who were originally created in the Securities Act of you guessed it: 1933. Pardon me for doing exactly what they asked and looking at the "metaphorical blood" they insisted regulations were written in, you know the whole reason why "necessitated" was in the past tense because we were looking at history. You know this and this is a simple low effort tiresome deflection.

>can now pass a test

As an aside, not too keen in living in a society where if you have X amount of wealth defined in some way that you get to bypass following the law the same way as the poors who instead take a test to make sure they're worthy.

What are the conditions that "necessitated" that someone with a $1B value mansion as their primary residence and $999,000 in the bank isn't qualified to invest in these securities while someone with $1,000,001 in the bank is?

Why is society better off when I'm allowed to drop bands on the truck stop stripper instead of buying toys for my kid?

The individual should not be forced at all steps to selflessly act in the benefit of society. There are a non-zero number of scenarios where unregistered securities have paid off to investors. Individuals should not be forced at every step to prove their acts benefit collectively society.

If your position is they're literally getting the highest amount possible they could, even more than they could in private cold capitalist industries they're qualified for, then it's kind of crazy to characterize them as being the victims of sub-market pay. They're the market makers in that case at the top of their skill pyramid!

Which leads me to my response:

>What are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs?

Well if what rcme says is true, they're being paid the top dollar of anybody with their skills... that kind of answers the question. They're at the biggest buck profession they can get (remember rcme thesis is they don't have the resources to retrain or whatever) therefore the profession will still exist.

It would be an interesting experiment if we fired all the social workers and gave the money of the salary and all the overhead of those programs directly to the poor, and compare the outcomes.

I would use "scam" in the sense of offering unregistered securities. Not in the sense of willful fraud. In that sense yes I think the poors should have as much right to buy into a scam as the accredited investor.

You don't have the opinion social workers have the skills to obtain higher paid work? How do you have such low opinion of social workers that you find their skills non-transferable and even compare their skill level to that of fast food workers? This is a pretty uncharitable view of the skilled people helping our more vulnerable elements of society.

And as an aside, very few people deliberately take a reduced fast food wage in the goal of helping others whereas a large number of our skilled and caring social workers knowingly entered social work knowing their college education could be used for higher paying endeavors.

Yes I believe the poors ought to be able to drop bands on a well meaning idiot just as easily as the truck stop stripper.

If nobody does at the current wage, then wages will have to rise to meet supply/demand.

As it stands individuals see the good feels as part of their wages. Otherwise they would do something higher paying. IF nobody does the job because the good feels does nothing for them then they'll have to start paying as much as the cold capitalist job.

Someone with the skills to be a social worker, on average, can use those skills for higher paid work.

They are knowingly trading the good feeling they get when helping people for the cash they could get by being a cold capitalist. You can make the argument social workers should be paid more but probably not the argument the person is employed in the highest saving ability profession they could reasonably hope to work in.

The government made this thing called "accredited investor" which is just code for not one of the poors.

I wish it wasn't necessary for the poors to use crypto to moonshot on various grifts.

Economically viable but not economically competitive. The populace of North Korea are basically slaves yet their economy is in the shitters. Workers competing for most productive use of their labor leads to better outcome for the rich capital owners.

Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly but not able to assume just maybe it is extremely unlikely they have credible evidence of guilt.

You play the "oh I don't know anything game" while simultaneously saying we should assume your viewpoint. Clearly you do think you know something and the know-nothing defense is some kind of Schrodinger's cat scenario where you know something when it's time to make assumptions and don't know when someone else does.

I'm surprised there isn't a speculative crypto market on stuff like this with an oracle to courtlistener or something.

Let's say there is a freckled girl in front of me.

I could do all the following

1) See freckles

2) Find it attractive

3) Fire them

4) Convince others freckles are evil and all freckled people need executed

5) Not watch their show because I don't like freckles

Yeah the reasoning the same; I did it because the freckles. Therefore basically I did the same thing.

Brilliant jjulius. And this is all ignoring I'm not even making any criminal presumptions against Rick and Morty or my reputation in connection with associating with someone criminally charged. So really neither my reasoning nor the act is the same.

>making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?

Lol publicly firing someone in what is obviously tied to criminal accusations is the same as not watching a show? That's like saying preferring to date latina women is the same thing as being racist in your hiring process.

Yes it ensures I will never watch the show again because I find their presumptuous morals repulsive. The aggregate effect I suppose will definitely have an effect on the brand. IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.

God bless the right to bankrupt yourself to mete out preliminary justice, though.

The accuser is unknown and the accused is a smart guy with counsel. Which means from the employer viewpoint they know some <redacted> person accused him and they get a generic response from the lawyer about not being able to comment about an ongoing case.

The chance the employer has credible knowledge of guilt is extremely slim.

What on earth "best knowledge" could an employer know about domestic disputes? America has a deep deep well of benefits offered to people who claim domestic violence. They can get a TRO and have the children and gun rights taken from the person, they can get assistance from a battered women's shelter, they can get the upper hand in family court, they can get the house/custody because after the TRO the person is kicked out of the house and can be argued as having left the family. If the person is foreign, they get massive massive incentive to claim domestic abuse as that's the magic words they need to invoke VAWA and get that golden residency visa. Not saying any of this is the case here, but a mere charge or allegation of domestic violence is difficult for an employer to investigate in any meaningful way.

And even more dystopian : "The woman was not identified in court documents." Yeah lets fire someone when we can't even find out who made the accusation, and don't know whether they're guilty or not. How do you even investigate the accuser's claims as an employer if you have no idea who they even are. It's dystopian to have court cases where you can't even find out who an adult accuser is.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. IMO employers should stay the fuck out of domestic disputes until the person is actually found guilty.

These guys are amazing. My favorite is when they revealed Lordstown motors was operating on fake sales and a few one-off self immolating swap-em-up gutted oem trucks. They rekt their CEO Steve Burns who went on the news with a shiny clean and poorly fitting hard hat and vest that obviously had never been on a shop floor and he was promptly sacked.

"Nobody thought the sales were real" LMAO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Y81M8oWn4 (make sure you watch the ending)

today?

Kelseyfrog is trolling and enjoys using straw-man arguments to poke fun at other ideologies. I've debated with them before. Have you ever seen an ancap with pronouns in their profile lol? It's sarcasm.

I think the edit timer hasn't timed out. May want to go back and at least make it look like that's what your "post one" said.

I was flagged on suspicion of being a criminal and now customs invents absurd shit every time I cross the border. Last time they got a federal search warrant out of thin air based on lies and dragged me to a hospital to internally search me for drugs. Every single time I go through it's something else with hours long detainment. They explicitly told me one one occasion if I was a felon they would fuck with me even more than they have.