Derek McGowan

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Derek McGowan

  • Birthday 08/26/1979

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Derek McGowan
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Avatar, The Matrix Series, The Avengers
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Cycling, reading (non- fiction, comic books) Art, debate, used to play lots of Chess, used to play lots of Spades

Recent Profile Visitors

8,307 profile views

Derek McGowan's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. I always liked the line- " The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is the capitalists"
  2. Norah is one of the very few whose albums I buy as soon as they release sight unseen. She is also the only person who I would care to pay 100+ for a concert ticket
  3. Regina Spektor- Ballad of a Politician Norah Jones- My dear country
  4. 43 pages since july??! Is this the most popular thread ever?
  5. I used to worry about the SkyNet problem, but then I thought it through logically and I agree with you. If there is anything to fear it is the people behind the machines, not the machines themselves--even sentient machines.
  6. this is what I was going to say. It would seem that humans are/were better evaluators then computers who had speed and depth on their side, but that speed and depth gives a good proxy for evaluation. In fact it was/is good enough to win
  7. So both programs will run on the same computer? Sorry I'm new to this. Alsohelp me to understand the difference between "evaluator" vs "calculator"
  8. I dont belive in utopias Also I don't presume to tell others what they should place value in
  9. hmm... interesting.... Call me crazy but you sound to me like you've changed your tune 170 degrees (not 100 percent) in the last two posts. It could very well be that I havent been clear so you've misunderstood me or maybe I misunderstood you but it sounds suspiciously that you are now using mostly same reasoning that I've been stating over and again from the beginning of this post. Example It is a voluntary decision. Earlier you would have implied that for the hirer offer anything above average (my word "norm" your word "mean") he would have to be socialist or be putting the company at risk. But again maybe I misunderstood. So I'll ask anyone else still reading this thread- does WhyNot's post above sound different than his previous ones? Capitalism is the most moral (not my ideal) system that we have created thus far because it allows for the most freedom of the myriad of different minds to express themselves. Myriad of minds.... not everyone is out for profits alone
  10. what? What does this have to do with anything? Of course there is no free lunch. Who said there was. Your statement above is the same thing from my statement. Its called running a business. Have to agree with you here but I get the distinct feeling that you are throwing this in as a stretch, as a desparate attempt to be correct. Why don't you just admit that your opening posts were too broad and moralizing especially when those posts were based on your assumption that Dan Price's decision was to average out salaries. Now you are trying to say that anything that falls outside of your ideal is wrong? I thought we wanted a free market. A free market has people of different wants, needs, desires and abilities making many different decisions. Not following your book of life Base salaries are the RESULT of the free market. Outside of minium wage none of the other bases are enforced by anything other than the market. Businsses say what they will pay, workers either accept it or not. The amount that is accepted becomes precendent and the norm. That number is constantly negotiated down the line which causes the base/norm to rise or fall.... like magic ....evil magic
  11. Who pays?! Of course it comes out of profits. WTF?!! Thats the way businesses operate WhyNot. Businesses hire people and they pay salaries, not out of some magically pot of gold but out of the money they make. Surely you must be joking cause if not, your business crediblity is quickly heading for laugh out loud land. If the business cannot pay for salaries/ raises/ inventory/ lights then that is one thing (and it happens to poorly run businesses all the time) but to say that base pay come at the expense of someone else's raise ..... Guess what, according to your logic, anyone's raise comes at the expense of someone else's. The CEO's pay comes at the expense of the employees, the executive staff's pay comes at the expense of the CEO's pay. The stock buy backs come at the expense of shipping costs. The cost of licensing of a famous name comes at the expense of the art department. Rent at one location comes at the expense of expanding the business. Thats called the cost of business But again, are you really trying to say that the concept of base pay is socialistic and immoral? Have you ever hired anyone? Did you start them off at voluntary status until they proved themselves? Did you start off as a volunteer until you proved yourself on your job or when you went in was there the expectation of a minimum salary though the businesses didn't know you from Adam? Why do you think you deserved a base salary when you started? And if you are really trying to say that base pay is fine unless it reaches 70,000 the next question is why do you think that that particular number is too high? What do you think of Goldman Sachs decision last year to raise the base pay of their first year analysts from 70,000 to 85,000? Evil is everywhere.....
  12. I agree with your ability to choose what to do with your money and I would argue against anyone who decided your above statement was immoral, evil or corrupting
  13. If it works, it works, and no harm done if it doesn't. Is that your drift? Nobody can detach morality from this since, for starters, the CEO instigated his scheme with his particular moral view in mind. Then look down the road a little, and you'll see copy-catting by many more "moral" companies like his, all averaging-out income in an effort to make all people equal - and you have the start of "for the greater good" utilitarianism. The State happily enforcing the policy on a national scale, usually will arrive next - laissez-faire capitalism is its enemy, after all. If this is all too moralistic, remember what would be immoral, a large scale manipulation of people's incomes, out of context of their individual ability and drive: anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-individual and freedom limiting. Yes, the CEO has the right to do as he pleases, and we have the right to judge his actions and consider the consequences.. Why not, please please please listen to me YOU ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS there is no mention of averaging out incomes, read the article. The decision in question is the raising of the base pay. Do you understand what base pay is? What was the last job you applied for, was there a minimum amount that those in that field get paid? That is a base pay. The decision was to raise that base pay. That does not mean that everyone will get paid the same. Initailly maybe, because at that point in the article the long term employee who left was only getting 41000 so he gets a raise along with everyone else BUT that doesnt mean that raises based on merit will not take place. AND that doesn't mean that those who already get paid more than 70 grand take a paycut. They get a raise too!
  14. I feel the same way but in reverse. Only those who are worried about what others make are failures who need to spend more time worrying about themselves than others