Deflation and wage stagnation are not the same thing, indeed sometimes they are opposite. And I don't think their is a clear way to measure what potentially low percentage of the cost savings go to executives' pockets.
But certainly true that American workers are being squeezed, having to compete against more and poorer workers because of globalization and free trade policies.
<i> He and many others were able to state their critical opinions because they had the Web as an open platform, so they did not depend on anyone’s permission to publish their words. Crucially, the Web’s hyperlinking mechanism lets blogs point to each other, again without requiring any form of permission. This allows for a decentralized value network between equals, where readers remain in active and conscious control of their next move.</i>
For decentralization the root problem always existed, while pointing at another resource requires no permission, receiving and hosting that resource does. Your government has to let you receive it and your ISP has to let you host.
This is a much lower level problem compared to the three challenges Berners-Lee puts forward, which seem to have little to do with decentralization.
1. taking back control of our personal data;
2. preventing the spread of misinformation;
3. realizing transparency for political advertising.
I read this comment and think instantly of a creation vs evolution debate. Neither side can disprove the other and things just get more heated as we talk past one another.
There is a fundamental logic to thinking that the floor for wages should be 0. Otherwise one can generate a bunch of facts regarding different values and circumstance and controls.
Neither set of arguments proves the other is wrong, they just reference different basic truths. With minimum wage is there are two competing claims, that interfering in the price of exchange is bad and that thumbing the price in favor of the worker vs business has good results. While both can be true, the moral claim can be completely true while the data based claim is at best true to an unknown point.
Studies like this do nothing to convince me there should be a minimum wage, regardless of the claimed optimum point, because a more transparent mechanism to increase lower income worker pay would be a government redistribution that is proportional to all transactions, not acutely affecting specific transactions. I.e. Tax and spend or print and spend, don't price control.
Just like creation and evolution, you can have it both ways but you need to iron it out consistently.
>Neither side can disprove the other and things just get more heated as we talk past one another.
Woh woh woh. Back the truck up. One side has a hypothesis that can be subjected to falsification. The other says "A wizard did it. Trust me."
The debate on minimum wage is an emperical question that both models fail and succeed on various tests. It's a truly hard question to answer and likely has no stable model.
Completely 110% different types of logical incongruity.
Agreed? An empirical claim that $15 minimum wage is better than $10 could be proven false by some set of metrics and controls. That $1 is better than zero? That is a different type of argument, and one for which expounding upon the scientific method is irrelevant.
The belief in chasing a continuous optimum is as much a belief as choosing the endpoint, so I think there is disagreement about what the debate is.
> As we've reported, the FCC falsely claimed that an outage in its public comment system was caused by multiple DDoS attacks, when in fact the outage was caused by the FCC's inability to handle an influx of pro-net neutrality comments. The comment system was also overrun with bots and comments that were fraudulently submitted in people's names without their knowledge.
Many states have laws that force electricity distributors and producers to be legally separate entities. So for example an electric producer that is closer physically or offers the distributor more value by producing at the right time could be favored by the distributor.
In other words the private electric company being compared to that has a vertical monopoly on both facets production and distribution basically doesn't exist.
Here's a question for you then about the definition of net neutrality. Would it be net neutral to treat all data as the same net value but partition the cost differently? I.e. the cost of data from Wikipedia would fall on the consumer while the cost of Youtube data would fall more on Youtube?
I cannot think of any way this could be implemented 'neutrally'. Who decides whether consumers or company pays for accessing a given site? The ISP or (lol) FCC? Neither one have proven themselves competent enough to make such important decisions.
If Frontier decided to make a youtube alternative, they could decide that now consumers have to pay for the cost of youtube data while their own service cost is covered by them with no cost to the consumer. And now we've come full circle to a non-neutral net.
I agree with you but something different, called "net neutrality" could be implemented trivially; just make sure the net revenue ISP receives from all external entities, for X amount of data is equal.
I'm just trying to say that "net neutrality" already has a political definition that isn't the only way to interpret those words, so its probably fair for the opposition party to try and redefine it. However I also agree that trying to quibble about definitions is usually not a good way make an argument convincing.
This exactly. The number of parties involved in any information transaction can be reduced to three: the consumer, the immediate producer, and the canonical producer. Prohibiting one of the participants from paying is not good for economic distribution of resources.
Whether or not this is "bogus" is political economics.
But certainly true that American workers are being squeezed, having to compete against more and poorer workers because of globalization and free trade policies.