gentaro
I addressed this quite clearly:
If you're not generally at risk of experiencing racism (ie. you are of the majority ethnic group), of course it is easy to rule out. It's hardly a glass half empty/half full type of problem.
A glass half empty/half full metaphor implies that the perception is simply down to personal optimism, which as I said, is clearly a gross oversimplification.
If you're not generally at risk of experiencing racism (ie. you are of the majority ethnic group), of course it is easy to rule out. It's hardly a glass half empty/half full type of problem.
And yet, you have no counterargument.
Ok, now we're getting to the root of the problem. This is argument is based off of your misunderstanding of economics. What you're missing here is this:
- Jobs are a function of demand.
- Demand is driven by consumers.
- Consumers need capital to drive demand
- The poor spend proportionately to their income much more than the wealthy.
That's the circle you need to be thinking about when you're asking yourself what the impact will be on jobs. The more you drive down living standards of the poor and middle class, the fewer jobs you will have, not the other way around.
Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.
What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.
You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.
They determine what exchange volume is legit and what isn't, also what coins are worthy of being listed. At the least, this gives Binance additional stability, at the most, they can really consolidate trading volume at their exchange and for Binance approved coins.
I'm not trying to offend you, but the notion that your compensation is necessarily proportional to your contribution to public good is terribly naive.
Surely you can agree that there are an endless number of unscrupulous ways to acquire money that don't contribute to public good, in fact, the opposite is often true. Take a corrupt public official, for instance, their contribution towards society is usually many times inversely proportional to their compensation.
> No problem! Just move in together!
The point is to find a way to resolve the shortfall before it happens, not just accept it as an inevitability.
But for any two finite numbers, A and B, the chance that C will fall between them if selected from an infinite range is 1/infinity (or 0).
The paper attached describes a scenario where the player A chooses a number between -infinite to infinite. The simulation uses ranges -1000000 to 1000000, it's not a surprise that the strategy works in this case.
I think if the ranges were truly -infinite to infinite, this strategy would fall apart. No matter where you set C, there are infinite values above and below it.
Even if this guy objected to it, unless he quit his job straight after implementing this, you can be sure it came back down on him.
This is the kind of situation where you have to clearly argue your case and stand your ground.
I have to assume that your perspective is being coloured by personal experience. At this point, your argument is simply: "Building pokie machines is bad because I think it's bad". Sorry, but I disagree with that, as stated before, they should be available to those who can use them responsibly.