If I remember correctly, food can't be kosher if prepared by gentiles (non-jews).
Could someone with proper knowledge confirm this?
714 karma · joined April 5, 2012
Could someone with proper knowledge confirm this?
No, I'm asking how deflation in general causes wage deflation. Your post was in answer to deflation caused by hiding/destroying cash.
> Wage deflation relative to CPI. Wages remain stagnant or increase less than prices.
So it's not related to the increase of value in the currency caused by hiding away 1 billion under a mattress. You used the same term but for different context/meaning. The weird thing is how you phrased it as if it was a causal relationship.
> Deflation was a primary cause of the Great Depression. Deflation is very bad.
There's many factors for the US Great Depression (such as previous inflation). There's also the relative speed at which those things occur. Both can be destabilizing in high enough magnitude. But deflation is the natural result of a growing economy and better efficiency. If it was bad, civilisations would have self-destructed every time they came up with a better way to do things. Imagine a new technique that would reduce food prices by 50%. Would this be a good, or a bad thing?
> inflation doesn't eat the value of stuff. If you own a home or stocks then inflation causes their value to increase proportionally.
Sure, I never said to the contrary. What's your point? People should stop saving money and buy everything around them instead? There's a huge cost to that, especially in real estate.
You try to move away from "hiding money destroy wealth" and establish the ground to go to something like "printing money steals value". It is absolutely NOT the same thing.
I explained your logic was erroneous. Hiding money away does not destroy wealth.
By the way, printing money doesn't destroy wealth either, it transfers it. You can argue that it's evil all you want (and I would agree), but that's NOT the same thing as saying that destroying money destroys wealth.
How?
How is this specifically wage deflation?
That's a hell of a quantum leap.
If anything, wages are much more resistant to downward pressure than goods. (People really don't like getting a paycut.) So even if the value of dollars increase, most people keep the same wage. In extreme cases, in can even end up in layoff, because people are now paid too much in comparison of everything else in the market.
I would take deflation over inflation any day. Inflation eats away anything you try to keep for a rainy day, while at the same time reducing the value of your paycheck. This means that you must constantly negotiate (or beg, depending on your position) for a raise or you fall behind.
Completely wrong.
It is insane to see this kind of basic communist rhetoric on Hackernews.
If I hide a billion dollar under my mattress for decades, it means that there's that much less dollars chasing goods and services. The effect will be as if those dollars had been destroyed : the total wealth will remain constant, but the value of all the other dollars remaining in the circulation will increase.
Let me repeat : the wealth remains constant, it is not destroyed. Cars in driveways are not going to explode. Crops will not spontaneously catch in fire. People will not forget the skills they have.
I don't really see why you'd assume that women are more frowned upon in this situation. I mean, there's even a picture of SUPERWOMAN in this article! And yet, your initial position was to think that women were the 'victims' here. (For lack of a better word.) Interesting, isn't it?
If anything, single women are shown as courageous and going against the tides. If a man decides to lead a single live, he is not seen as a hero. At best it's inconsequential, at worse he's a loser.
And this tendency of inconsequential/loser for the men applies to many situations.
God I hate those moral high ground stances seeping everywhere in HN comments.
You think it's more civilized, I think it's barbaric to forcefully take something from someone. Just like that, you made it that much harder for me to take anything from what you've written.
> (...) second, most people are uneducated about diabetes, they think it concern only fat people or other countries, and other BS like that (...)
And the NYTimes article you linked immediately after starts by saying "The prevalence of diabetes has been rising in rich countries for several decades, largely driven by increases in the rate of obesity."
Are they totally clueless?
>finally, why it is disgusting and criminal for pharma corp to make ppl pay for insulin ? it as simple as that: if you don't take insulin you die, period.
Well, gee, it sure sounds like food, water, vitamins, or a bunch of other stuff that are sold for profit everywhere.
>It's not curable, there is no alternative diet, nothing, zilch, nada
Except that type 2 (the one that is the rise, by your linked article) is preventable. There is a high correlation between type 2 diabetes and sugar intake.
Sheldon: More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.
Stuart: Of course it is. It is a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it is very wrong to say it is a suspension bridge."
Any ETAs for international? More particularly Canadaland?
Interesting... but like you said, it's just a correlation. Could as much be that people are less likely to work many hours when there's full employment, or when a country is richer.
> On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence of workers' rights protection causing unemployment. That narrative often gets repeated, but that doesn't make it true.
As a business owner, every additional regulation regarding employees is increasing my cost. (And it doesn't matter if I would have agreed anyway with what the law says; I still have to waste time learning it, more paperwork, less flexibility.) So I know that the more regulation there is in this field, the less I'm inclined to hire. It's not a narrative, that's my reality.
I did not say it was caused by EU regulations, just that Europeans (which include local governments) are in a vicious circle.
Or do you think it's a breeze seeking a job in France (unemployment ~10%), Italy (unemployment ~13%), Spain (unemployment ~20%), Greece (unemployment ~25%)...
There's many others if you want to take a look. http://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-...
Step 1: More job regulations.
Step 2: Employees cost more and are harder to get rid of; Businesses less inclined to hire.
Step 3: Jobs are hard to get, so employees ask for more security from the government.
Repeat.
How would that be useful?
Meanwhile, for everyone not seeing what the fuss is about, here's the correct link:
https://twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064?s=...
What if I want to do it via the website?
Ding ding ding. That's the nutrition part. I could easily eat that 700 extra calories by eating pizzas. Hell, I'd probably eat 900 extra calories after a big exercise. (But I would absolutely not run 30 km...)
The problem is that the people eating this stuff are continually being told that they need to exercise more. Then they get hungrier and eat the stuff that you can always eat more. They kill themselves on the treadmill and see absolutely no difference.
Women's suffrage in the USA was in 1920, wasn't it? :-p
Why is that obvious? Because you think there's a link between being overweight and exercise?
Exercise does not promote weight loss. (You can do a quick google search if you don't believe it.)
The most important thing to influence weight loss is the nutrition.
On a related note, I find it borderline sadistic that we make fat people believe they are fat because they are lazy and don't exercise enough.
Is that a prevalent opinion? I'm often in #clojure/#clojurescript and found the community quite helpful.
I expanded on my original analogy because Timr left me with the impression that he thought it wasn't an opportunity cost because it was a law (and that made it OK). Being a law isn't important. The predictability, when buying the property, is. My analogy also shows that even if the event is predictable, or as he would say, "the rules of the game", it doesn't mean it's just in any ways.
Here's a different analogy.
If you buy a farm land that gets flooded every single year on the last day of June (for the past 200 years, like clockwork), you can't really say you lost money when the next flood happens; you should already have factored this event in overall expenses... tho it still sucks that your land gets flooded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8supIUj6c&feature=youtu.be...
If you buy a property today, it's the same as if I warned you about my weekly visits with my gun waving prior to you moving in. You should have already calculated the stay-at-home-day in your weekly income. You can be pissed by my behavior and find it unjust, but you should still have factored it in.
This kind of mustache-twirling evil plan is insanely expensive. As in insta-bankruptcy expensive. Plus you'd have all kind of things backfiring, like business moving away because their rent, or their employees' rent are too expensive.
> Now, let's say I want to run a monopoly like that.
By all means, go ahead, I'll buy your properties at the foreclosure auctions.
The only way you'd be able to make your evil plan work would be with the support of a government. (With someone else paying the tab.)
Sure it is.
It even has a name: opportunity cost.
If I had the opportunity to sell my underwear for 1000$, but I chose not to, this decision cost me 1000$.
Say you make $300 a day. One morning, I wave my gun in front of your front lawn and strongly suggest you don't go to work today. Your daily expenditure will be somewhat the same as every other day (mortgage, food, electricy, etc) ... Will you say I didn't cost you anything?
This means I can prevent a school from being built near my house by peeing in a public place... :-)
This is a totally worthless question to ask about a law or rule.
The general form would be "why was the law created?"
And of course, there's never a law with the (disclosed) purpose of killing all kittens, giving money to friends or destroying an enemy. On the contrary, every law is always spun on some kind of "will you think of the children".
The only good question you can ask about a law:
"What are its consequences?"
Interestingly, your first question was more in this sense.