tasmlab

Huffpo is indeed abominable. The discussion boards are the worst, it's like a giant contest to see who can be meaner to each other while trying to shut conversations down. Over at Pat Buchanan's TheAmericanConservative, anarachists are taking over. Both Tom Woods and Robert Murphy are now on staff as Republicans. Although they typically just complain about the military and talk austro ecomics instead of bragging about how they don't like to care for each other.

My wife and I are really enjoying House of Cards, we're on epidsode five. I'm hoping they introduce a Paul/Kuccinich type character they can crap on. There's a British version released about 15 years ago, same name, that is also very good and highly recommended. Instead of Underhill the congressman it Urqhart in the English legislature.

My best facebook friends (the ones I have interesting conversations with) are just about all people I've never met but we were referred online to having consistent ideas. This said, I like to see the lifetime of accrued contacts (high school friends, college friends, old work collegues, some family) chat about what they had for breakfast, what their kids are doing and such. I stopped, mostly posting or responding to worldview (politics) type stuff as few people, especially my very liberal friends, are humble or curious. They mostly want to insult and shut conversations down. Actually, all of the humble and curious people got bullied out a couple years ago it seems.

From Arius "Who lobbies for the increases? How do they benefit from changes in the law? Who pays most of the costs of the minimum wage? " More speculation from me: The administrators of welfare who like to see their empire growing would certainly be good advocates of a higher minimum wage. It makes their offering look more attractive to the indigent, would build their ranks as people move from marginal labor to wellfare, all while touting the same social justice-y bent. The gap between the dole and minimum wage isn't just the dollars, but it also 40 hours a week of free time at stake.

In my experience, the lefty-ish arguement for higher minimum wages is that the worker is the breadwinner for a family, perhaps even with a stay-at-home mom. When I earned and lived on minimum wage, I didn't have children to support, I lived in a house with roomates/housemates, I didn't do very much, didn't lease a car, etc. And before that I was a teenager living with my parents. Should the 15 year old who tears tickets at the movie theatre make $18,000/year? Seems kind of silly. In fact, it seems silly to have somebody whose job it is to tear tickets anyways. Does the president have to chime in on this? My wife and I hire a 12-year-old girl in the neighborhood as a mother's helper. She plays with our kids, does projects with them, and sometimes does very selective housework like picking up the toyroom or organizing our kids' art pantry. We give her $2/hour. We love it, she loves it and gets great pocket money for a kid, and her parents love that she's learning to work and building a resume. And it is wholesale ILLEGAL on multiple fronts. How stupid. Peter Schiff does a nice bit in last book where he talks about "Back to the Future" how we all delight when we see all of those people working at the gas station. There's a scene where a car pulls up and four men dash out to fill er up, wash the windows, etc. He goes on with a list of other jobs that don't exist anymore. Anyways, I've found a little success with the minimum wage discussion bringing up some of the sillier aspects of menial labor.

From Arius "Who lobbies for the increases? How do they benefit from changes in the law? Who pays most of the costs of the minimum wage? " Companies who are the most affected are those that have large populations of low cost labor and are very sensitive to margin. I don't have any facts to back me up, but I could imagine that companies with slightly less fragile margins would lobby for small increases to disrupt and screw with competitors. For example, if Lowes knows that it can afford a 15 cent increase on a huge population of workers and Home Depot can't, then Lowes might lobby for the increase to put the screws into its biggest competitor. Walmart can wipe whole categories of competitors with moves like this. I interviewed an exec at a major shipping company (like UPS) who was overhauling their fleet of a specific truck and so lobbied to the US Govt to have stricter environmental laws for this class of truck, thereby forcing the other shipping companies to overhaul their fleet too (an expense they weren't planning on). And this guy was proud, too, because it was 'environmental'.

That dirty commie probably sent those legal documents via the US post office!

Alternet in particular just loves to have Ayn Rand as their boogieman, constantly ignoring (as you identified) that all of the villians were rich people abusing the state. There was no bad guys who were poor in the book except for the town/group of factory workers who scared off all of their higher performing colleagues. This group has made up their own version of Ayn Rand's story. I'm not sure why they pick her in particular for their boogieman. They could twist Rothbard or Mises or Hayek or Milton Friedman, or even Ronald Reagan. Or beat up on Ron Paul since he is still alive. It's probably because of the romanticism she brought and that she claimed the free markets and mighty capitalist virtuous instead of political rich people who sort of excuse their riches as a shame. As an aside, Alternet is one of the nastiest places on the Internet. The commentors there all try to shut down any curious conversation, are often rude, their smug, and have terrible ideas. Oddly, most of the commentors at Reason.com are just the same.

Oh, but don't the beleivers delight when they see Jesus in the grilled cheese sandwich or the statue of Mary cries? They have no use for rational, sensual evidence until it supports their faith.

Why is it so accepted that we just get to vote for a few PEOPLE? Four federall offices total. Where do I go vote to stop the war? Where do I go vote for my tax rate? Why do I just get some candidates? Not that I'm advocating for direct democracy. I think democracy stinks. But what a queer idea that if we vote for a few individuals that we express any power or influence whatsoever!

You must clearly be a masochist. Who else would discuss such unpopular topics, invite public scorn, all while using a Windows machine? You could just punch yourself in the crotch and be done with it all. ;-)

I was fully intending on telling my three pups that Santa was 'game' we played and that he wasn't real. We did end up with the Santa hoax and in the end have had a lot of fun with it. It only lasts for about 4 years (age 3-4 it comes in and by 7-8 they are suspect), and then they delight in finding out that it isn't real. I think the big difference with Santa vs. God is that everybody has a great time with discovering the hoax and the parents and all of society cooberate that it was a trick in the name of fun. The god lie, though, is supported violently by just about everyone, it's condemned to be proven false, is based on threats, supported by parents, etc. In the end I guess I would lean to telling the truth if you can but not fret too much if Santa is real for a little bit. I'm hoping to make it up to my kids by dispelling the myths of religion, school and state.

Peter Schiff jokes that if anyone ever invented a machine that could produce whatever anyone wanted instantly, hence making everybody wealthy beyond their dreams, the government would make it illegal since it would destroy jobs.

I digress, but since we're talking about jobs, does Stef ever make it? I'm on podcast 370 or so and doing them in order with plans on listening to them all (provided they stay interesting) and as of summer 2006 he's hoping to get 1/3 of his current income so he can do philosophy full time. Does it happen? It's a wonderful career story if it does.

One vital point that I"ve struggled with greatly and have a big POV on: Be cautious to not conflate your personal identity with the method by which you pay bills. Your job != you. It is perfectly healthy to plan your job around relative free time, confort and income and not worry that it reflects your interests. In the same breath, if you pursue something you love as a job, don't be frustrated if it isn't very good at bill paying. Doing what you like and the task of paying bills are very different from each other and people try to do both at the same time to often with huge frustration. I recommend that you do some analysis on a spreadsheet or a piece of paper. Just begin writing down what's important to you: personal comfort, money, time off, activities you like, traveling, time with kids, and so forth and begin cataloging thoughts about what you want to do. It's helpful to get it down on paper instead of juggling it in your head. Then mull.

I've worked in just about every industry to some degree (I'm a business writer, so I get to hop around from biotech to IT to entertainment to governement to financial services to oil drilling to consumer products and so forth), and I've personally found the Insurance industry to be loaded with negative people. While I haven't worked with any actuarials, the insurance management always seems glum and disheartened. It's a very 'rule' oriented business. Perhaps the business of calculating when people are going to die... Life sciences or consumer technology, by comparison, are filled with happy people. Scientist in particular. The absolute boom industry for math-skilled people is analytics ie., querying databases and using software tools to discover consumer trends/sentiment, predict financial performance, predict maintenance history on equipment, customer segmentation, campaign performance, improve acturarial performance (!), etc. The industry is deparately bringing in math majors from overseas. There's not enough people to do the work which is driving up demand and wages. One VP I was talking to doesn't even care about degrees for people he hires, just wants to see the math/queries.

"I am considering graphic arts, family photography, and perhaps web design; but my strengths are in photoshop, I am an expert." These are all perfect jobs for a freelancer. You can answer Craigslist ads and other creative sites and do little projects. Set up a paypal account to collect. You can promise big, charge little, and learn as you go for stuff like web design - although expect to struggle and have some late nights to start. I expected you to be younger (you said only three years in the work force) but you may also think about how much money you want to make (did I say the opposite before?) Keep it in your analysis - maybe for phase II after you see what is out there.

That Glenn Beck has picked up the title 'libertarian' is a good enough reason to start identifying yourself as an anarchist instead, if just to avoid people spitting on you at cocktail parties.

On a voluntaryist line of work: - Well, perhaps stay away from soldiering and police work - Any government job may draw your ire, although I don't personally fuss too much about his. With the government being half the economy, it is almost impossible to avoid and it's not your fault, etc. This said, there is quite a difference between having the client-of-a-client be the EPA and being a full time IRS agent or mail carrier. - There's nothing anti-voluntarist or anti-laissez faire about selling your time for a wage, but... - Starting your own business (can) give you the most freedom over your personal time, give you direct exposure to economic forces (setting prices, paying wages, buying goods, making a profit), and can free you from having one person (your boss, your employer) in charge of your entire financial well being. And you can earn more. These are all pretty freedom-loving aspects IMO.

What Stone said. I digress a little, but it seems many people need to feel that they have a 'monolithic' view of what career and work is, esp. as it relates to their identity. This is terribly reinforced by parents, schools and college where everyone beats on the child to figure out 'who they are going to be', characterized by a job title (accountant, teacher, fireman, etc.), then pushed into a college major and so forth. Worse, they establish that life is a 'struggle' and prepare people to plan for their struggle, work up the management chain, work to 'make a good living'. Worse, people in school have visibility to about 1% of career/work options. Fireman, policeman, store attendent, business man, plumber.. etc., and especially TEACHER! This is the job they get the overwhelming exposure to. You never hear about the other 99% of jobs. The logistics coordinator for a port-a-potty company. The AP expert for the insurance firm who builds panic rooms. The customer experience director for a mobile phone app company. The predictive maintance analysis for a propelyne miner. etc. Ask - nay force! - a high school senior to identify their future job and they'll have to pick something they know. Cowboy? Soldier? Um, teacher? Anyways, back to Sumpm1, I would follow Stone's advice and just explore a bit, don't feel like you have to lock on to a target right now, take some jobs to get exposed to what's out there, learn as you go. If you are young and childless, I wouldn't fuss too much about money. You can afford to be low income and it comes to smart people anyways.

I digress, but I would love to see the 43 threads combined into TWO, one where we discuss philosophy, economics, family, politics, etc., and a second that is about tech support, site announcements, administration, etc. I think it would let fewer threads be overlooked. Visiting this forum is actually like visiting 43 different sites. It's difficult to puruse. If FDR didn't want to make the technical change, the users could just pick one (the general feedback) and just ignore the others. I'm new here, and I know this isn't Burger King, so I apologize for the unsolicited opinion and sounding like a fussy customer. Peace!

I think if we need to be so nit-picky about the definition of 'pacifist' that it only means the non-existent, Jainist type being who will not even use violence to resist being hurt personally, than we need a new, useful term for what Marco described i.e., the war-is-bad beleif. Perhaps there is a term already?

Congrats! Wow. But you told us all "not to vote"! :-) In my nomination I said "I would include Molyneux since he has taught me more this year than anybody, but it's from listening to stuff from 2006" I'm only on podcast 350 in 2006. I won't be able to nominate you for the year until I catch up to the current timeframe. Glad I didn't cost you the award.