>and it's anonymous.
no it's not.
23 karma · joined January 22, 2016
no it's not.
You went with an immoral strategy to grow your business and that now it has finally hit you in the face on a very visible website you are here to be all apologetics. It's the "easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission" strategy and it is deliberate thus I must conclude that your apology is insincere and is only an attempt at limiting the backlash against you.
Otherwise people would just use credit cards, who have been here since forever.
and here's the gist of the scam. It's a pyramid scheme where the new entrants i.e. the young people pay for the old people's costs.
The young people would be far better off investing the money they are paying for old people's healthcare and then using that money for themselves when they are old.
And how much have the old people paid into ACA? They couldn't have possibly paid any because the ACA didnt exist when they were working. So where does the money to pay for their healthcare come from if not from the young people.
So yes they are being ripped off. Young people are having their hard earned money taken to keep old people on life support so they live longer to take more money from young people.
And my point is that young people disproportionately pay in a larger value and disproportionately take out a smaller value.
> You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers.
So would a person who would be expected to live forever pay all his income? If you are expected to live longer then you should be expected to pay for longer and not more per year.
This doesn't make any logical sense.
for old people, who are not earning those wages.
blame socialism
also the APM is not unlimited, it is only very high.
But secretly he wonders: "why does he get more than me, im smarter than him!!".
This is then bottled up under 10 psi of pressure until the perfect moment when the slightest thing sets it off and creates a scene in the office.
Starting with 'if' would imply that the result only requires you 'knowing' the size of the obsv. unv. but does not depend on its actual size.
It's less of a corporate conspiracy but more "this is why you can't have nice things". People just can not handle it in a mature and responsible way, which is why the 'don't talk about money' "common sense" developed.
Clearly if the diameter of the universe is smaller than a proton then you don't need 43 digits of pi to calculate its circumference to smaller than the diameter of a proton. So if the diameter of the universe is 10^1000000^100000000 proton wide the precision you need for pi would be way higher than 43?
they didn't even have wheelbarrows.
You pay for the machine that turns radio signal into video/audio and you pay the opportunity cost of the radio bandwidth which is public property that is used for transmission of TV signal.
Im going to buy some spare paren keys, they might become scarce in the immediate future.
US founders would be appalled by the fact that you can't own slaves anymore too. nobody can farm 20 acres of land by himself.
They are just tools. They can be used or abused.
You are not as rational as you think you are.
The internet made information easier to get, nobody wants to look at your shitty information (ads) that's baited by your only slightly more useful information (the article).
this is already happening without basic income. Every subsidy, every tax, every public school, every public hospital, welfare, universal healthcare, pensions etc. they are all parts of a massive redistribution scheme.
It's different from welfare in that everybody gets an equitable amount, instead of who 'needs' it getting the most.
And by needs you mean a woman who has 10 children 'needs' welfare or somebody with an obsolete skill who can not find a job 'needs' welfare.
The questions of why didn't the woman limit her breeding to a level she can afford or why the unemployed person doesn't learn a new and more in-demand skill remain unanswered.
My guess would be it's because people like to blame somebody else. If it's a plane then there are large organisations to blame i.e. the airline and the manufacturer. While with cars almost always the blame is with the driver i.e. the people. When it's a manufacturer's fault however nobody bats an eye if they have to recall 500,000 cars to install something that would decrease the risk by 1/10th the amount if everybody uses seatbelts.
Well the security they engender is mostly physical security i.e. not getting blown up by terrorists while the security they want to breach is information security. I could see why some people would not mind trading privacy for reducing the chance of getting blown up, all else being unconsidered.
Is everybody else but you so stupid as to be consuming these obviously 'bad' products?
Just because you think something is bad, doesn't mean it is bad. I would have no trouble selling something you think is the 'worst shit in the known universe' as long as everybody else thinks it's pretty good.
In reality when you have a country of 300M, a single voice is so tiny as to be not worth speaking up. If you are in a town hall meeting it's completely different.
Which is why democracy doesn't work when you get too big. The top governmental level is too removed from the individuals as to be entirely oblivious to it. Citizens feel powerless and the corporations bypass the elective system by going straight for whoever is in power right now. The special interest power in concentrated and the benefit to them from legislation are obvious while the power of the people is disperse and the disbenefits dilute so nobody 'feels' the pain of a tariff or a corporate tax.
Governments should be kept small and local.