faithful_servant
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,533
- Reaction score
- 5,660
- Location
- Beautiful Central Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Which is why as I mentioned the information should be aggregated.
given it was a pure party line vote its most likely designed to create money or advantages for DNC allies and designed to hurt GOP allies
When I learned about asymmetric information, it pertained to the details of a transaction between two parties. For instance, hiding the terms of employment from the employee or a potential insurance recipient forgoing information on their more dangerous hobbies when signing up for coverage. Non-relevant information is (or at least was) not considered an aspect of asymmetrical information.
Sure...in order to raise money for WWII. It's not like he was a lifelong supporter of it. I guess he's guilty as charged of living in reality rather than some made up Libertarian world.
Actually he said that inflation should equal the real-growth of the economy. That's not flooding the market that's currency meeting the demand of the economy. Despite what goldbugs think you can't have a currency that constantly grows in value as economic activity increases. It leads to deflation and hoarding.
Milton Friedman said:My choice at the moment would be a legislated rule instructing the monetary authority to achieve a specified rate of growth in the stock of money. I would specify that the Reserve System shall see to it that the total stock of money so defined rises month by month, and indeed, so far as possible, day by day, at an annual rate of X%, where X is some number between 3 and 5.
No it doesn't.....Standard Oil grew because of innovation and doing better than their competitors. Once they got big enough they used their market power to keep competitors out of the market. When it comes to things like restaurants or business that have low barriers to entry you'll never see a monopoly.
When it comes to a business that is costly to start then the company with a large market share can use it's size to dump and undercut competitors and put them out of the business. Then then have long periods of time of monopoly power because it's both timely and costly to enter the market. Then of course they dump and use predatory pricing to put then new challenger out of business. Eventually no one else will want to raise the high amount of money required to try and challenge the monopoly.
Well gee.....anyone that has more information has every incentive to hold back information that results in them having an economic gain. That's a great idea.
It still leaves people with flawed impressions. I make $75K a year and my dept. average is $90K that tells me nothing since there's one guy who makes $175K because he can write any program you throw at him in less than a day. I'm actually the #2 on the pay scale, but because I'm looking at an average, suddenly I'm pissed that I'm making less than average. Go to median and I can show similar cases where a false impression can be created.
At the end of the day, it's the employee and the employer who need to know what the employee is making and no one else. If you think that you're being discriminated against, take them to court and prove it using Title VII to back yourself up.
The bill is just creating transparency. It doesn't matter if it's illegal if no one is aware it's taking place.
Honestly all salaries should be public information for all individuals. If anything it would lead to a truly fair and competitive labor market.
Compensation does not equate salary.
Yes, in order to use a more effective means of taking peoples income than doing it all on April 15. What better way than to force employers into labor and take peoples income all year long. Not only is it more effective, but it also allows you to take more than you otherwise could.
Hoarding occurs during periods of deflation. Of course people still need to eat, cloth themselves, and have shelter. When it comes to other goods people put off purchases in order to maximize what they can spend. It's pretty much proven empirically and fits with theory.Nonsense. Even if the prices of consumer goods are expected to fall, people will still consume goods, and in order to do so, business will need to spend in the present on investment to ensure the flow of consumer goods into the future.
The drop in price of computer gear is generally due to both an early adopter premium and the cost savings from mass production. I also want to point out...the deflation that occurs in the technology field is generally different products. A new better one comes out and the older one decreases in value.If we consider that many market such as the computer markets live in a deflationary environment and yet are still able to sell their goods to consumers for profit it becomes clear there is no concerns of depressions or hoarding of any sort from deflation. All that occurs is goods are cheaper and people are richer for it.
.My choice at the moment would be a legislated rule instructing the monetary authority to achieve a specified rate of growth in the stock of money. I would specify that the Reserve System shall see to it that the total stock of money so defined rises month by month, and indeed, so far as possible, day by day, at an annual rate of X%, where X is some number between 3 and 5
How so? They pretty much used a lot of practices that now are illegal...predatory pricing to undercut competitors, buying up all the supplies needed to operate in order to great scarcity for competitors, negotiating with other industries that supported the manufacturing of oil to get special deals, buying up all their competitors etc.Standard Oil grew because of government assistance. On the point of oil however, the only reason oil is still marketable is because of government subsidy. Otherwise, the price would be too high for the market to handle and the oil companies would run out of business.
Not sure why you say this. There is always efficiency in scale and there will always be companies that are better than their competitors. Wal-Mart grew to their size in a free market did they not? How about Apple?They would need to grow to a certain size to be able to use predatory pricing, which in a free market would not be possible.
Yeah...and those individuals will always hold back information that benefits themselves in a transaction. That's reality.It is up to individuals in question what information they will share. I'm sorry that I don't support forced labor like you, but yeah, I don't.
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.
Honestly salaries and total compensation shouldn't. Other than myself and my employer, it is nobodies business what we have negotiated as compensation.
Add in being on the job the same amount of time and doing the job as well.
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.
How does this bill give more opportunity to sue, if pay practices are fair? It's a genuine question.
If you are confident of your position on this issue, I'd like to ask that you give me your best source for it, as my personal research has failed to turn up anything useful.
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.
Read more @: Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time
The GOP stopped supporting equality in the 50's. The party of pitty. The party that represents inequality. [/FONT][/COLOR]
a woman should not suffer lower pay just because she had to go through pregnancy.
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.
Once again you're talking about just a few data points. What if you found your 75k a year was equal to the bottom 5% out of 700k programmers? What happens if you found you were in the top 5%? Either way that information is useful to you in making employment decisions. Ultimately you would have to decide how to react to the information. This bill just provides transparency.
for every dollar a male employee earns, a female in the same job should earn the same salary for doing the same amount of work.
:lamo
BS! Title VII is about discrimination, not pay.
Add in being on the job the same amount of time and doing the job as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?