poke111

Not exactly. If the market-clearing price for low-skill labor is already above the minimum wage, it will have no effect. If the market price is far below the minimum wage, it will have a large effect - positive for the workers with jobs, negative for the ones who are priced out or have their hours cut.

I hate when people use this metaphor. Not because it's inaccurate to say that speech can cause imminent harm in some circumstances. But because its origin was a Supreme Court opinion that argued against the right to speak out against the draft in WW1, which I don't think too many people using this analogy today would agree with. Also, this legal argument has been rejected since then.

Point is, this exact argument could be (and has been) used to justify some pretty bad ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

uch... what a headache when a user needs to change their email. The mania for "schema-less" KV stores is so puzzling to me. It just takes all the stuff that used to be handled natively and seamlessly by the DB engine and forces you to reimplement it in code, only with more bugs, less efficiency, and less flexibility. I fought this battle on my current team and lost, and we have been paying a steep price ever since.

If you're looking for something on the right - Ricochet has a number of excellent podcasts. They are trying to be like the NPR of the center right.

LGBT being a protected class or not was not at issue in the cake shop decision, since they were not denied service in general (they had been regular customers of that shop, and were always served). The issue was whether designing a custom cake for their wedding was considered artistic expression, and as such he had a right to refuse under the 1st amendment since you cannot compel speech.

The problem is that getting the right regulations in place is really difficult. The dynamics that make this so are explained nicely in this piece:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/01/welcome-machine-kevin...

source?

Or just abolish the corporate tax altogether. The profit is already taxed once the gains hit individuals in the form of dividends or capital gains.

[edit] here is a nice article outlining the argument: https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/09/abolish-corporate-tax...

I propose a new law that people with my SSN don't have to pay taxes. It would help me out a lot.

Every policy helps some people at the expense of others. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. You need to weigh both sides, not just the benefits. (edited)

No. The gambler's fallacy is when we ascribe dependency to independent events. Stock performance tomorrow is very much NOT independent of stock performance today, e.g. "market correction"

It's a big deal because it confirms that the Democrats were using the FBI and FISA for political purposes.

The central idea of capitalism is that voluntary exchange enriches both parties. So the answer to your first question is yes.

I think this is often a dumb complaint and it shows itself in other contexts sometimes. There's a natural floor to income, it's $0. But there is no ceiling. So naturally if you want to give a sampling of scenarios covering most people, most examples will be high earners (even if there are fewer of those) because how many meaningfully different scenarios are there between $0 and $50k of income?

EDIT: Another corollary of this explains part of why income inequality increases over time. As markets become more global, the upside for successful enterprises goes up - there are a lot more potential customers. So today someone at the top of their field can have a much higher income than he could in the past, whereas the income floor at $0 is unchanging.

For example, the remake of Red Dawn a few years ago was supposed to feature China invading the US. They changed in to North Korea under pressure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237717/Red-Dawn-rem...

Don't forget National Review, which IMO has the best and brightest conservative writers

It's true that Eich resigned, under extreme pressure. Is that a good thing? It just underscores my point - that even with legal protections, there still needs to be a cultural shift towards acceptance (or at least tolerance) of people with heterodox views.

All I'm saying is that a position, which until the day before yesterday was so mainstream that even a fairly liberal politician in a liberal party agreed with it, is today considered so out of bounds that you may face consequences for publicly stating it.

Kind of like Brendan Eich?

"If you say gays shouldn't marry"

i.e. If you agree with Barack Obama's stated position on this issue from 4 years ago.

See here for one perspective https://fee.org/articles/the-great-depression-according-to-m...

It's because of the way the issue has been politicized. In people's mind it's a binary issue: either you agree that warming is happening, we are causing it, it is likely to be catastrophic, we can substantially improve the outcome by acting now, and the cost/benefit of this intervention makes sense, or you don't. In reality the basic science is but one small piece, and reasonable people can disagree about the economics or politics of it. But the tribalism of politics make most people boil it down to only two possibilities.

I didn't mean to imply that I knew the answer to your question. I meant that the IQ disparity is a statistical fact, but the cause is a hotly debated area of research without clear answers, and the Wikipedia page is a good primer on the various sides of the debate. The point is that in a study like this you may have to adjust for oversampling by race.

Here is a good start

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

This is not a controversial opinion. It is a statistical fact of psychometrics.

This a bizarre view of virtue. Instead of displaying and modeling virtuous behavior yourself, it's sufficient to tell other people that they should be more virtuous.

I don't get why he kept hammering on them for the fact that it was delivered to the wrong address. The bigger problem here, and a better basis for a refund, is the fact that they sent the wrong item. If they sent the wrong item to the correct address it should be eligible, right?

I found Black Hat to be unusually realistic https://www.wired.com/2015/01/blackhat-the-best-cyber-movie/

Because you create wealth by producing goods and services. Jobs are a cost, not the end goal. Sacrificing production for jobs gets it exactly backwards and makes us, in the aggregate, poorer, even though it makes a few people richer.

By putting the "more guns, less crime" argument front and center, gun rights advocates imply that if more evidence comes out that contradicts that, the case for more guns disappears. I'm saying that the argument should always have been that guns are part and parcel of the fundamental right to self defense. Maybe they result in less crime, but even if they increase it, that is an acceptable cost for liberty, within reason.

I have no quibble with the paper or its conclusion. We should be clear-eyed about what costs we are willing to bear for liberty.