cab21

the article points to several factors, but does not calculate how much of a factor britians price controls make, either in cost to consumer or in costs to plan providers. the service providers in the usa have to spend a lot more money building a network than the uk service providers do. the article does not show that the entire difference is the UK's price controls and force. even if by price controls and force against companies, the government makes the price a little cheaper for awhile, that does not give incentive for companies to pay money to make improvements to the network. the American companies have a better service in a larger area, while the uk companies have worse service in a smaller area. 20/30% more than necessary would mean the costumer would go to a competitor who is not charging 20/30% more than necessary business expand, but there has yet to be a unstopable force, or even close to one individual owning the whole planet. there are no big business where 100% of the stock is owned by 1 person.

can you show me these plans? the ones that i looked at were just as expensive if not more expensive than American ones. the plans in america that were 80$ were usually over 50 pounds in England, which is at least a 100% ratio. so for a 50% ratio a 50$ plan in the usa would have to be a 16 pound plan in he UK. im not finding this when i look so then they would have no customers because noone would be able to afford being a customer, the business would then lose money and go out of business. if one company charges too much, they won't be able to make any money and will lose the property and their business, the people that make enough money to pay HUGE rent are not wallmart shoppers anyway, walmarts shoppers are usally poorer, so charging Huge rents will mean those people have to go to another company to purchase from.

that does not make sense they would pay 20 thousands in rent so someone could buy say 3000 dollars of merchandise? the cost of buying the land, or giving free rent to customers would put Walmart out of business. the biggest land owner in the USA is the government, the biggest spender is the government, and the biggest confiscator of wealth is the government. the government is trillions of dollars in debt.

Ok, let's see. if a family is successful enough to increase wealth from generation to generation, other people only benefit from that. other people can compete buy making something that others want more. there is no point in competing if you can't make something better and there is no need to feel like you have to directly compete with something you don't think you can make better that happens a lot, there are many rags to riches to rags stories. one way to gain wealth would be to become a wealth manager, if you are making a great commission on how well you grow peoples money, these wealth managers grow a lot of wealth for themselves. these families don't dictate the rules and don't have the monetary power to ruin any small competition. the consumers in the market have the power to choose what they consume. if someone though Netscape was better than Microsoft, they would pay for it. there are all sorts of cases where people pay more for what they perceive as higher quality. it's Netscape fault if they were not able to persuade customers to buy their product. the exponential increases wealth of a minority will exponential increase the wealth of the majority. the poor used to not even have computers to be able to choose between Microsoft and Netscape. if they can have Microsoft for free, isn't that better than having to use their scarcer resources on Netscape, unless they think Netscape is worth the cost, in which they will pay. it's not a zero sum game, everyone is getting more wealth here. if consumers like a new product better than what the rich offer, that will be made profitable. that scenario is nonsense. there is no way a person could buy all the land and refuse to sell it for one, it just is not going to happen. as more land gets bought, the price of remaining land will go up, it would mean significant loses to buy the remaining land, and then the people would no longer have any wealth to buy more land.

inheritance is not feudalism in capitalism, people get to decide how to use the fruits of their labor, so if they decide to give a inheritance, that was the choice of people that earned the wealth. the prospect of being able to give out a inheritance was likely one of the reasons the people worked to create the wealth in the first place. the way to find out if someone does well with the wealth they inherit is whether the person loses the wealth, or increases the wealth. if they lose the wealth, then the wealth goes to others who will try and increase the wealth.

if someone decides to not take the 5 million in personal profits (compensation), that does not mean that the person will give 5 million more in salary or wages. the 5 million would stay in the business for anything the business needs. the overall average could go down because the company choose to invest in equipment or real estate or keep cash on hand pay off debt or other things that will help the business out in the future. there is no set amount of money that a company pays people to the point of a zero sum game where if one person gets less another person gets more. the 5 million in compensation does not change the amount of capital the person has invested in the business, and the person can just take the 5 million in compensation and put it back into the company as a capital investment if they contribute money, they contribute. spending money also contributes. so without their money, the managers would not be hired, the loans would not be given, the debts would not be paid, people that have a job because of the spending of these people would not have a job. like if they did not buy a house, many people that worked on building that house would not have a job. if they did not buy food, people that worked to provide that food would not have a job. all the money that these people spends or invests contributes to the economy.

it's a false way to look at work to only look at wages or salary return on capital investments has to be calculated as well if a person has 1 billion in capital investments, and gets a return of 1.05 billion, the person has still produced 50 million in return ( not even counting how much the 1 billion actually had to produce for the 50 million return on capital, whether or not the person actually gets a salary or wage from the investments. even if the person lost money, the persons capital enabled a company to create jobs or buy equipments or otherwise do business in the first place. the person who invests a million and gets a 5% return on investment, or 50k, has contributed at least as much person with a 50k salary because the investment made it even possible for the 50k salary to have the job in the first place. the super rich only take the biggest piece of the cake because they contribute the biggest piece of the cake, and take on the biggest risk. someone making a 50k salary does not risk losing 50k but someone contributing 5000k in capital does risk losing 5000k in capital. wealth is created, so there is no cake, people can work together to create more wealth, rather than try and fight each other over some made up pie

i assume that when one search engine changes algorithm, the search results would still be the same in engines that did not change their algorithms? looks like people are building their business to benefit from the algorithm of one specific search engine, one with a big market, then blaming the search engine if the search engine changes it's algorithm? it's almost like the business are benefiting from the proprietor work of the search engine, without the search engine getting the same return or any return for the benefit the business is getting?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/21/technology/google-mobilegeddon/ http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/08/technology/google_algorithm_change/?iid=EL looking at some articles about Google changing it's search engine algorithms, it looks like some are calling the changes immoral. is there a moral right to a certain search engine spot on google, or does Google have the right to change it's algorithms at Google's discretion without violating the rights of others?

i'm in snohomish county, lynnwood

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/peylQMjmaL?play=true so here is a interview with Adam Swift. apparently the big news headline was about "reading to your kids creates a unfair advantage". i thought it would be interesting to hear thoughts of people that heard the whole interview, and not just the sensational headline of reading to children creating a unfair advantage.

expecting one human to be so in charge of another human's actions is a bit much. teaching is one thing, then people choose how to act, and that choice can be of rebellion to nonviolent teachings.

the child was throwing rocks at the police, if the mom could nonviolently get him to stop, then great.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/04/20/price-70k-minimum-wage-for-employees-is-not-a-slam-dunk/ here is a interview with the ceo.

so how is market rate defined? is it the minimum wage a person will start to or continue to work for a employer, combined with the maximum wage a employer is willing to pay to hire or continue to employ a employee? now with that definition, a company could never overpay on it's own end, but could pay more than the minimum that a employee requires to stay with the company or sign with the company. so paying more than this minimum might be seen as a cushion and also a trade for higher expectations than a employee giving say the minimum effort to stay hired. if a company says "we won't pay more than X for a position", is the company looking for get the best value overall in the long term, or looking for the best the company can hire for under X? it might be more efficient for the company in the long run to raise how much the company is willing to pay for a position, providing the company find the person worth paying more than x. now if another company consistently has more effective, and lower paid employees, that's going to be a problem. so what a company might look for is effectiveness per dollar paid over a period of time. i think ford motor company is a company said to have paid wages higher than other companies at the time and had higher productivity and lower turnover for it. sure that can happen, but he would also have strategies to get new or the clients of the competitor. he would also have to consider what the cost of keeping the client, vs the cost of getting a new client. if he is not using a portion of those profits now to retain customers from competitors undercutting his prices, then i'm not sure he would need to if later someone makes a extra big effort to undercut his prices. if operating at a loss to try and convert customers is a better strategy than paying employees more, will see how long that last as well. I'd have to look into it, but in the insurance industry, the companies will themselves tell you that a competitor has a lower cost. what basic economic principles is it going against? so a natural wage increase would be? i mean this is a employer choosing what to pay his employees. would it only be natural if he was forced to by losing his current employees and not being able to find any replacements if he did not raise wages? so we will see in years to come if the company can sustain its wages, the company won't even have these wages until another 3 years. federal reserve printing more money of course won't end poverty. supply and demand wise, we will see if the employees make themselves more in demand enough for the increase to be worth it, or if he attracts different employees that are worth it. would have to look at his employees and their job descriptions i'm not sure what kind of nonskilled jobs the company has, or if the company will even retain people that decide not to make further investments in skill sets. if the lowest it currently pays is 40k, it's a 30k jump to 70 k over 3 years. if the ceo choose to raise his salary 1.5 million to 2.5 million over these three years, would there be the same discussion of if he was paying himself significantly over market value?

how do you know that a lower price strategy would convert his clients?how many of his clients are clients because they could not find a lower price elsewhere? i mean, like looking at wallmart and whole foods, does the lower prices of wallmart have whole food customers switch to wallmart? i'm going to guess that wholefoods has a very different compensation philosophy from wallmart, as well as a whole different philosophy of what products it sells. the labor costs at a whole foods are going to be higher than the labor costs at a wallmart. both stores aren't doing so bad. he would not expect his profit to stay static, and if his investment in employees helps the company gain more clients and market share, than the profits can rise further than the drops. if he is correct about the higher compensation helping his employees perform better work, that might all add up to higher growth than before fore the company. i don't think the only way to have clients is to have lower labor costs, or that having lower labor costs is the reason why anyone should start a business. well if you said the pay is now way above "market rates", that sounds like market rates are supposed to pay the lowest amount possible. what about paying above market rates and expecting a above market performance? lets contrast this with the lower price strategy above to convert customers here, the company would offer the best employees the competing company better wages if the employees switched employment saying 70k is way over market, is like saying there are jobs in the company that could never give that much value back to the company.

so he still projects his company to be profitable, do you think people will stop being a customer of his business? do you think his employees will change in ways that the business will lose business? if one company has 2 million profits and another company has 400k profits, can't both companies be ok?

Paul Tudor Jones II: Why we need to rethink capitalism so i watched this video, sounds like he is making a group that is going to take a poll for public opinion on ethics in capitalism. now is it even capitalism if it's done by public opinion, and not socialism?

now the doctor could move. one argument is to change the whole system, and not just parts of the system, to a free market system.

in the country, there are plenty of management jobs, and self employed people, making less than 15 an hour

if there were only jobs that paid 15 or more, where is this money coming from? inflation? what about self employed people and entrepreneurs, do they need to make sure they are getting 15$ an hour or more from the start? is this a average? or is one slow hour or start up costs make it so they should close down. i mean, there are people that make 50 an hour of "work", but really work 4 hours to that 1 hour, or 5 hours, since they have just made 50, rather than 75. thats below 15 an hour.

i think loyalty to the new country sounds more reasonable than banning based on citizenship even in that statist framework. ayn rand would be banned from the usa and stuck in the ussr had that been the policy, amung many others.

que to go your merry way i would think it's not a zero sum game. it's called wealth creation for a reason.

the state gives welfare to people that are productive, from corporate welfare to welfare of people whose pay is below a level the state sets. a fast food workers job is to produce, but the state sets a poverty line and puts them below it and then say the state needs to give them more. if the min wage job was not productive, why would a person hire someone at min wage? the employer still has to think they are getting a profit from hiring the person at min wage. welfare for these people is just a state deciding that min wage people should get more. government is even giving welfare to people making well above the min wage, so it's really just a level the state is deciding. someone can be productive on the job, but end up not productive to the state simply because the state choose to spend more money on the person than the state took from the person.

thanks for all the replies.