It's artificially lowered because the Federal Reserve is manipulating interest rates, rather than allowing them to fluctuate based on the conditions in the market.
Interest is basically the adjustment made to value having money now vs having money in the future (how much would I have to pay you next year in order for you to not ask me to pay you now). An interest rate of 0% means $100 now vs some arbitrary point in the future are of equal use to you, which is irrational. Obviously getting $100 now is better than getting $100 in 5 years.
In fairness, interest rates aren't that low. I'm not sure if interest rates equal to inflation would be the same thing as interest of 0% in a 0 inflation world. I'm not an economist.
By restricting the supply of talent, thus artificially driving up wages, but at the same time keeping a lot of people from being able to pursue their dream.
Only if union membership is both required and restricted. In each of my workplaces, union membership has been optional and open to anyone who works there. It's weaker bargaining-wise than a closed shop with entry requirements, but we've still been able to collectively negotiate to better outcomes (the current round is UCU's dispute with the universities and their pension fund over proposed changes to the pension scheme, which we look to be fighting off).
Fair enough. I'm used to union arrangements where membership is required for the given profession, which is pretty common in the US.
There's been a movement to right to work, but even then, the non-union employees are forced to abide by the union negotiated contract, which is bullshit.
|By which you mean, there's been a movement by employers towards the right to work for less.
Unions can keep people out of professions in a lot of places in the US. Right to work makes it so union membership isn't mandatory. Surely if the union is so awesome, voluntary membership would work just fine.
|What's bullshit is that non-union employees get the same benefits that a union fought for, without having to do any work to get them.
Take it up with the union leadership, not me pal. They're the ones agitating for this stuff.
Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor, not by putting a stranglehold on new hiring.
> Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor, not by putting a stranglehold on new hiring.
How do you think they magically achieve this?
Surprise - it's by threatening to restrict supply (not working for the company if they don't agree to the union's terms.)
|Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor
Revenue pie, not profits pie. A union will negotiate better terms for itself if the leadership thinks it's appropriate, regardless of the health of the company.
A lot of people from pursuing their dream who would be willing to do it for less. That's always the crux of unions, is the people left at zero wages who were willing to do the exact same work for less wages than the current person with the job.
In my defense, the one person I accused of being a communist on this board, turned out to actually be one :)
Less flippantly, you're spot on. I'd go further, and say overuse of these words erodes their meaning, and makes it possible for actual facists or bigots (or commies!) to hide among groups of people who have been tarred with the same brush but don't hold the same views.
The productivity gains from SO awesome. That site has provided me with more value than maybe anything else on the web. To me it represents some of the best of what the internet has to offer: Not only are you not alone with your problems, but there's help available.
At my last employer, I sat in on an interview for a co-op with my boss. After asking the interviewee some questions the conversation went basically like this:
Boss: Do you have any questions for me?
Co-op: No
Boss: Would you like to know about the company? What we do?
Co-op: No
I couldn't help myself from laughing. I know he's just a student, but he's still a 20 something adult. No interest at all, just looking to check another box on his list of credentials. At least fake it!
One of my last tech interviews was for a startup. The tech team were all kids and seemed embarrassed to be interviewing me because I had much more experience than them. That all went well.
I asked to have a brief meeting with senior leadership to talk about
their business model/plan -- how did they intend to make money?
CEO, COO, CFO, CTO, or the like, would do (it was a small co.). So I got an appointment for 30 minutes with the CTO or CFO (can't remember). Day of the meeting I show up and checkin with reception. 20 minutes later, I reminded them I was still here and someone came out and told me the guy I was supposed meet was out of the office on travel.
I just don't really get this attitude. What exactly you want me to ask assuming I know salary and position? General information about company is usually right there on the website. I am really not sure what exactly the hiring manager is supposed to be asked at that moment, especially by someone young who does not have enough experience to distinguish between lying hiring manager and the one that tells the truth.
I could see meaningful questions about vacation policy and overtimes and such, but that comes with experience and a.) youngsters wants pretend how they don't care bout weekends in work b.) companies lie about that sort of thing.
I know that this attitude exist so I will ask something, it is not about that. But, the exercise is mostly empty for someone who is inexperienced and does not fully know yet what are situations where he fit vs where he does not fit.
None of them is useful for anything. They are just questions that you ask to fulfill the "must ask question" requirement. Generally, product is on company main page. Asking that one likely shows you did not seen it.
Moreover, they are unlikely to tell you monthly recurring revenue. That is just odd question. Our company would not definitely.
Hiring manager will not tell you what he does not like about working there - for the same reason why you are not truthful about why you left previous place. Seriously. I would not ask the like dislike question for similar reason - it strikes me as odd and possibly would mark me as someone with low social skills. But the risk there is not too high.
If you read the company's web site, and are a curious and interested person, then you should pretty quickly stumble upon things you would like to know which aren't written there. So if you come up empty, either you are not interested in that company at all, or your curiosity is so easily satisfied that a plain web site can answer all your questions. Both is not a great sign for a prospective employee.
Even suppose you apply to a straightforward company with an extremely detailed web site, so that all your questions have been answered already, then this is still a test if you can meet social expectations. You are indeed expected to have questions, and if you don't even follow this simple convention because you think you know everything already, then your social skills are probably underdeveloped.
Finally, even you already know much about the company (e.g., about the most important product), asking about things you know already and comparing this with what you are told in the application talk will give you additional valuable information. Are they excited about their product? Are they exaggerating? Are they bored when answering? Do they know the basic information on their own web site? If you don't use the opportunity to extract as much information as you can, it's simply not smart.
It just sounds like complete rationalization. That is not how humans work nor how companies work. That is not how interest in things work especially not in work or position.
Yes, it is test of whether you know that social thing. So, if the company is treating it as the test of that, then it is fine. Instead, the parent was almost offended over that "No interest at all, just looking to check another box on his list of credentials. At least fake it!".
> Are they excited about their product? Are they exaggerating? Are they bored when answering? Do they know the basic information on their own web site?
Christ, you are talking with hiring manager at that point. I would not mind him not knowing company web site. Most employees don't actually go there all that often. That person might not even work on that product. Unless we are talking about very small company, people do their small parts of the larger whole.
You are hiring tech person and while cooperation, ability to express oneself clearly and without pointless insults, ability to listen and such are important, ability to guess excitement from someone they don't know much less so. It is not sales position.
I generally agree with your view, an experienced candidate will be able to figure out a lot of the work environment during the interviews before meeting with the hiring manager. Although I generally have a few softball questions that I ask as either filler or to see how much thought they have given to how their development teams work.
They don't ask anything because the answer changes nothing. If they get an offer, they'll 99% take it. If they get two competing offers (I'd say this is uncommon unless you're interviewing in a very large job market like SV) they'd most likely know which one they prefer based on their individual criteria (unlikely this would come down to a question asked in an interview).
Second, most people aren't lucky enough to interview for their dream job, they usually have to settle for something else. Consequently, they really have no significant interest in their future industry. Do you blame them?
You want them to fake interest? Sure, they can do that, but does it really help anyone? They applied because they might want to work there, for whatever reason. Why not let them be concerned with how interested they are?
He didn't even want to know what we make. He had no idea. And no interest. Hopefully he was just showing up for practice or something and not actually expecting a good outcome.
Being inexperienced can excuse a lot, but not a total lack of basic curiosity. And I'd say it's useful to know what a company is producing so you can know if you have any interest in helping produce it.
|I just don't really get this attitude.
Hopefully you just weren't understanding just how bad this was. If not, then try harder I guess?
The Pareto Principle is a bitch. There's no way to remove inequality without trampling on the rights of the few lucky people.
|If money flows to those who own things more easily/readily than those who do things
The vast majority of people with a lot of money are doing things. They are not idle, and it is not through idleness they wound up in their position. At least in the US.
This is doubly true for their money. It's not in a big swimming pool for them to paddle around in Scrooge McDuck style. Well, at least, most of it isn't.
|other factors = intelligence, hard work, lack of bad luck like disasters, unexpected medical bills, etc
How many of those can you attribute to luck? Winning the genetic lottery is one of the best things you can hope for. You have no control over it, and it greatly influences your outcomes. Born stupid and ugly? Tough luck, maybe in another life.
If you want to be the best cyclist in the world, training for it isn't enough, you need that extra 1% advantage genetics.
But for most everything else in life, you can be plenty good at what you want to do if you're willing to train for it. You don't have to be the best programmer in the world to make quite a good living by programming. It's hardly necessary to be the best businessman ever to run a good business. Etc.
Oh, and on the internet, you can be ugly as a mud brick and it won't have one iota of influence over your success or failure.
Maybe take inventory and look at what you can do, rather than obsessing about not looking like Keanu Reeves. Even so, Peter Dinklage, Danny DeVito, Kathy Bates, Bette Davis, are not the beautiful people. I've met a few movie actors in person, and without the makeup, lighting, and director, they look like ordinary schmucks.
I think you missed the point my post. I'm not one of the people on this board that like to decry success as just being a principle of luck, like it's some kind of lottery.
We're specifically talking about the wealthiest people in the world. The people who got that 1% advantage. I apparently made a mistake in describing those people as lucky (just meaning that there are only a handful of people that will sit at the top, so being one of those people is lucky; it's against the odds).
My whole argument is you can't just take their shit because you want it, and them having a lot of shit isn't a sign that they've done something wrong that allows you to trample on their rights. I think people concerned about inequality have lost the plot. Instead of helping people pull themselves up, they focus on taking from those at the top. Granted, we'll all be more equal financially, but it's hardly a utopian outcome, and no one's lot will be improved, only worsened.
It’s not about rich folks Scrooge McDucking it — it’s that if a rich person does a unit of work and a non-rich person does a unit of work, the rich person accumulates more wealth than the non-rich person as a result of the work. “Rich person work” is “decide how to allocate my capital”, which isn’t an option to many, but for those who have it as an option, it’s vastly more rewarding than actively making things.
Right. The Pareto principle is the observation that large amounts of resources tend to consolidate in a few 'hands'. It's observed in natural systems as well as human created ones.
So, back to your original point. You seemed to be saying that in order to reduce inequality (a good thing), you must trample of the rights of people, specifically the wealthy (a bad thing). But then you admit that it's largely luck which determines whether or not a person is wealthy.
I don't think it would be a big problem to redistribute a small portion of their wealth. Or, similar to what you said in a nearby comment, if society as a whole decides to redistribute a portion of your wealth then "tough luck" (although remember that you are still better off than most when considering how "tough" your luck is). So the original problem with reducing inequality seems to have been solved. It is not a great trespass on the rights of the wealthy to redistribute some of their wealth.
It has to do with how wide your screen is. The responsiveness of this piss-poor design was clearly not thought out.
But neither was anything else in this design, apparently. There's a 300px square in the middle of the screen that the _entire_ article is contained in. Everything else is just bullshit "interactive" chrome that's totally useless.
Sorry NYT, you're not worth the money you're constantly begging for. I love ad blocking.
