porkins @ porkins @sh.itjust.works

Posts

3

Comments

240

Joined

2 yr. ago

A shill for my own opinions perhaps. I just don’t feel that it’s right that I had to suffer high government interest rates then moved to a low private interest rate during the pandemic when the loans were going to turn on again and now have the current administration tell me that I will not qualify for their relief schemes because I made smart fiscal decisions more recently. I say on the high interest rate government loan for many years and deferred many luxuries including having children. I should have privatized a long time ago, but interest rates were never as low as during the pandemic. Privatizing wasn’t the issue. The issue is the government picking and choosing who is eligible for relieve using arbitrary information. I should get a check that takes into account my payment history on my once public loan. Also, higher institutions need a crackdown on tuition. Many universities are spending money frivolously because they can get huge payouts from these government loans. If the university has to start assuming some of the risk of the student’s default, I think that they will change their tune.

Government predatory lone at almost 8% for many years. Refinanced when the government said they were starting up again at 2%. Damage already done. I want compensation too. Not just the people that can’t pay due to having children they shouldn’t have had.

I had an almost 8% predatory government loan for many years. I refinanced during COVID at a low percent. The damage was already done. People call my move to private my relief, but I already suffered by the hand of the government, so if they help everyone else for not listening when they said they were going to start them back up again two years ago, it would be bullshit. That is what they intend to do though because apparently people like me should go fuck off for removing myself from a predatory government lending system. I don’t believe just some people should get helped. Especially when many people were hurt over time and only now improving.

15B is a drop in the bucket. Throwing money at things doesn’t solve problems. Especially that small an amount. Only better policy decisions solve problems.

I don’t get ads. I don’t know why. I have YouTubeTV and get the splash when opening the app to buy Premium, but nonetheless don’t get any ads ever. I’m not looking a gift horse in the mouth and not questioning it.

I have no sympathy. I have to make payments on my private student loans and didn’t have children like a schmuck because I know that I cannot afford to have children. If you have children and a house and at the time of planning you couldn’t afford them, it should all be taken away.

The author didn’t talk about hour Brave is the most private and fastest browser. Those are glaring omissions.

This is a fair take.

What you said is not wrong. Each economic lever is a negotiation with sentiments. The government could impose more stringent regulations. I believe it has to with regard to monopoly-busting and possibly doing some salary-policing, but I don’t feel that the system should be thrown out. It has spawned countless innovations by providing the incentive that people can be rewarded handsomely for their creativity and entrepreneurship. If you don’t like corruption, vote it out.

He played the game correctly. The American dream is capitalism. We can improve the rules across industries, but the idea that we should remove the winners is no fun. If you spend years building a business and exposing yourself to calculated risk, you should reap your reward.

He is being defended indirectly. I am defending capitalism. Sure we can make some reforms to improve salaries across industries, but the ultra wealthy serve a purpose too. People are claiming that they sit on their money, but they clearly do reinvest in new entrepreneurial ventures. The more wealthy, the more groundbreaking. It is great that Bezos invested in civilian space tourism. That will only strengthen innovation in the space sector, which is needed. The US space program results in many innovations that we use across other industries today. Elon is revolutionizing tunnel digging and maybe rail transport. Bill Gates is either trying to stave the spread of disease or working on thinning the population depending upon the content you read.

You don’t give him enough credit. He worked extremely hard to make Amazon what it is today. Additionally, he took major risks to his credit where he convinced investors to fund a new form of supply chain. He is reaping the reward of taking entrepreneurial risks and creating something innovative. I don’t know how you can say that Amazon doesn’t help people. Their prices are in-line with the market and no one can touch their shipping costs. Their warehouse jobs are demanding, but they explain that to anyone getting into it. In time, the people will mostly be replaced by robots anyways. The employees want more money, but robots work for free. If anything, we should be very interested in potentially implementing UBI and a VAT on automation per Andrew Yang.

workers don’t have to be paid the minimum possible

Ideally, the market dictates salary in capitalism. This means that a worker can shop themselves around if you are not paying them enough. Where this has broken down a bit is in corporations intentionally and unintentionally colluding on appropriate pay for positions across an industry. The get consulting groups to indicate whether they are in line with industry practices. This can also result in employees getting pay bumps if a company has is having trouble retaining talent. If the government tries to break the organic model by imposing minimum pay rules, then it will hurt small businesses. If it creates a percentage system based upon company profits then you end up having your talent retire early. It is not really a tenable model to keep a business afloat. You would end up with these companies that exist and then go away because the employees have extracted all the wealth they need, so you wouldn’t have prolonged enterprises like Amazon that offer an extremely useful service because their wild success means that it becomes impossible to figure out how to hire people to new positions because the revenue share for one employee would far exceed what other companies could offer, so you have to somehow either find the best person ever for that position or some kind of hereditary system forms. The use-case doesn’t make much sense. If you simply cap the CEO’s salary and say that they are not allowed to make many multiples of standard employees and standard employees cannot make many multiples above the standards for their roles in the industry then maybe that would work, but it seems like an overreach of government.

If I need to pay my employees more because my company is more profitable, then the government is basically telling me that my cost of labor is far more expensive than my smaller competitors. It will result in only small new companies being able to invest in innovation at a large risk and big companies not having the capital to invest in the kind of research and development that only a large venture can do. Amazon spends ~$43B on R&D. If they had to pay tons more to employees, we wouldn’t have things like their streaming devices, content offerings, or warehouse and logistics improvements that allow for packages to arrive same or next day.

I simply find that when I am logged into YouTube with my same account that purchased YouTube TV I receive no ads. I am not using an add blocker or anything. I assumed that was because of my purchase of YouTube TV. It might be a bug with my account because I still get a splash occasionally to buy premium, however no ads ever.

Bezos invented a website

He modernized e-commerce logistics through taking a huge risk of setting up last-mile regional warehouses at significant cost then moved from books to everything. He created sophisticated business processes that accounted for demand and seasonality, then had the foresight to take his logistics software platform and even package its components as a service.

I am finding that the people that are starting to rise to the top of my company are backstabbers. It wasn’t always like this, but the company keeps absorbing other companies and some of their cultures are toxic in a passive aggressive way.

I’ll tell you that the teacher was an attorney who worked for a very reputable business consulting firm to help businesses make unsavory decisions. A key takeaway from the class is that you can do anything that you can get away with and if you don’t, your competitors will. They basically said that you need to get away with it in the eyes of the law, but also your customers. They may be the ones forcing you to do the right thing. You also have to do good in the eyes of your employee culture. If your employees don’t like the direction of the company’s values, then that can prove detrimental. So, in many respects, you can be forced by external factors to act an ethical manner.

lol. I’m sticking with the typo.

If I invent a means of production, why can’t I be rewarded for my creation?