Derek McGowan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Derek McGowan

  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 ris
  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 id
  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
  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 moralist
  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
  15. I think my biggest problem with the 20th century comparisons and the claims of separating pay from performance is the lack of allowing freedom of different businesses or individuals to choose and experiment on how they run their lives/businesses. I wasn't attempting to discuss nuts and bolts as far as the business success or failure is concerned. I make no analysis or prediction on whether this decision was supported by the companies financials or by how canny or profession the CEO is. I simply feel that the article is written in a clearly biased fashion, trumping up the fact that two empl
  16. By trial and error I discovered that I can become immune to the effects of the economic reality created by the unproductive sloth and fiscal irresponsibility of others by creating my own free market Capitalist economic micro climate. Most people don't realize just how much power they can actually wield as a sovereign individual to make their own "weather". Greg well if I were you, as more success comes your way make sure you don't pass even the slightest increase onto any of your partners or employees because you'll be compared to the 20th Century Motor company
  17. Why does there seem to be this assumption that moochers were even hired at the job? I mean couldn't there be the case that the company has a rigorous interview and training process? I'm not saying that they do but several of the comments here make it seem like the workers voted for this base salary hike. Like they formed a union or all got together and screamed for what they deserved. Lets be clear that this was the decision of one free mind. It was a surprise to the employees from what I've read about the case. Do you assume that Google will be brought down by the "moochers" software eng
  18. If the employee produces more value for the company than he is payed it does not matter if he salary is above the average makret salary for his position. If the company is willing to pay his salary than by definition he is receiving the free market wage for his labor. Unfortunately Baal, JTS is immune to the actual effects of reality (like the way free market prices and wages are determined) and would prefer to continue his standard drive-by-spewings of theoretical models and well trodden philosophical truths. I'd be willing to bet that not only hasn't read the article but he also hasn't
  19. Maisey McMaster is quoted in the article: But she's just "the financial lady who did the math," so perhaps her five years with the company and her position as financial manager doesn't count for much? Again, making salary adjustments like this isn't a huge deal... unless you do it in a way that your business can't support. Actually she said that the decision did work mathematically and she was only apprehensive about the social repercussions of the public announcement But that's the point, this isn't the market. It's one guy who made a very public and unpopular display that the author of t
  20. Employee A who is very productive sees Employee B who is barely adequate getting the same wage. It is not hard to understand why A could become annoyed. A says "I have done much more for this company than B, why am I not getting more than B?" and so it goes.... In this instance I can agree with Moralist since I care nothing about what someone else makes. But I can also appreciate (just not relate) to the fact that some people do care to measure their monetary dicks up against others and in that instance they are free to leave the company. Using that logic I could say that I (symbolic
  21. ....but before I go I just have to say one thing because it appears to me that some people may need to be reminded what socialism is. Its not a set of business practices, nor is it a political doctrine, those are mere symptoms of the true nature of socialism which is the idea that every is the same. They all think the same, they all like and dislike the same, want the same, and reason the same. This is why socialism will never work, it spits in the face of reality but with that being said, calling any business decision that you don't agree with socialism, in effect IS SOCIALISM. Just the ide
  22. Hey! I agreed with you.... tangentially. :-) I'll get back to your point by point argument (which I appreciate) after I eat DL
  23. I found those to be very tangential "comparables." The 20th Century was structurally different and metaphorical, whereas these are real companies and in Price's case it was a leveling of salaries because his analysis, undisclosed, found that that was what a person needed to survive well. However, I am willing to listen. I find them to be tangential, as well. However, to your points.... You say Price leveled salaries as if that's a good thing. It isn't. The proper thing to do is an overall market adjustment IF the market calls for it and the business can support it. I believe I've address
  24. . If you have read Atlas Shrugged then we can clear the decks and rationally go at each other--or come to agree with each other-- read it twice. My question is how is this, based on the facts of the case presented to us in the article, comparable to the 20th century motor company, based on the facts presented to us in the novel?