130 karma · joined August 5, 2011
This drives offshoring, as capital seeks production regimes where they can reduce the cost not just of wages, but of meeting environmental and safety standards. The naive capitalist then claims that the low ball cost of production in unsafe, toxic, politically repressive locations is the "true" cost of labor. Unions declined in power in the US as the economy moved away from manufacturing, and Reagan set the tone for service unions by firing striking air traffic controllers. By declaring open season on service workers unions, the capital backed Republican right made it clear they weren't going to allow them the same sort of power industrial unions had in the mid 20th c. This political struggle continues today in efforts to raise the minimum wage both nationally and for individual large employers like Walmart and macdonalds.
The GI Bill had little or nothing to do with Gates's success.
Spoiler alert - you're supposed to discover by direct experience that your real self is neither a homunculus looking out through your eyes, nor is it coterminous with your body, and this direct experience that your true self is everything that is, is intended to lead to compassion for other beings.
I was free to choose any of these, but I chose to use an iPad because it allows the immediacy of sketching and painting with natural media and the significantly faster turnaround of digital image making.
Like any tool it takes some adjustment, but once it clicks, there is nothing more immediate than using your finger(s) to directly paint an image. The fat touch region is a non-issue once you've learned to use it - after all, there's nothing terribly immediate about flexing one's fingers and having a mark appear 2-10 cm away at the tip of a pencil, pen, or brush - we've just become so accustomed to it that it seems "normal." A bit of time with an iPad and tablet finger painting seems equally immediate and natural.
see http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/white-papers/how-much... for details.
2. He says that government has a DUTY to fund defense research, so clearly his whole argument excludes innovations and contributions to GDP from defense research funded by the state.
In short, his argument is bollocks.