celtain

There are quite a few ex-Facebook people who have come out with scathing criticisms of the company, and plenty of Google's internal political fights have spilled out into the media.

I'm fairly certain that if this has been happening for years, somebody would have leaked confirmation or publicly admitted to it by now.

This kind of content came with the internet, not social networks. Traditional forum moderators have had to deal with really vile content for a long time now, along with the operators of almost any other media sharing website.

Unless you want to make it illegal for individuals to widely share content without going through an editor, this kind of problem isn't going away any time soon.

In general, it's assumed that it's better for society if you consume later rather than now. Risk-free investment returns are how we incentivize that.

Mathematically there's no reason the pocket money system wouldn't work with an arbitrarily high income disparity. Is there an interpersonal issue that you see arising?

>If your prices are already beating the competition, and you already have a solid reputation for low prices, there is no incentive to continue lowering prices, even as you cut costs.

If they could reach many more customers by lowering prices, even a monopoly could potentially find it profitable to continue lowering prices as they cut costs.

A monopoly could also continue to cut costs to head off the threat of antitrust litigation.

Even including stocks owned through retirement and pension funds, 84% of stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans, and roughly half of all households have exactly $0 invested in the market.

Saying that Uncle Scrooge and his buddies own all the stocks is not much worse than implying that normal people own a significant share of the market through their retirement accounts.

You're probably right in general, but in this case the policy shifted risk from the contractor to the company, not the other way around. The $10 minimum meant that contractors were shielded from low payouts caused by a small tip, but also meant a lower payout for high tips.

He literally says that those hiring practices can effectively lower the bar.

Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.

I think you missed the caveat about the actual damage caused. Wasting people's time is nowhere close to murder.