31–40 of 40 posts
While I accept that it might not be so bad once you get used to it, I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing. The government could also compulsorily publish photos of everybody's genitals every year. Again, you'd probably get used to it, and it probably wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, but I can't see any upside to it.
Does anyone know where I can download this dataset?
Do you know how to find out how much given person (in Sweden, Finland or Norway) earned last year?
Do you know how to find out how much given person (in Sweden, Finland or Norway) earned last year?
Of course, the problem is that the information was made available, not that parents don't teach their kids not to tease ...
Great point. In contrast look at what we generate in this country - http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matt-taibbi-asks-why-fed-ga...
I think you may have posted this comment on the wrong article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may have posted this comment on the wrong article?
Actually, the article is a "contrast and compare" statement. Norway is relatively open in its treatment of money and government, witness their handling of taxes. Alternatively, the US is relatively opaque, witness the article. I am not sure that I support either over the other. I had hoped to spur a conversation on the issue. I failed. It isn't the first time. Probably won't be the last. Perhaps because I am new to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the article is a "contrast and compare" statement. Norway is relatively open in its treatment of money and government, witness their handling of taxes. Alternatively, the US is relatively opaque, witness the article. I am not sure that I support either over the other. I had hoped to spur a conversation on the issue. I failed. It isn't the first time. Probably won't be the last. Perhaps because I am new to t…
It would help a lot if you had described in your original comment why you thought the other article was relevant, as you did to some extent here.
Thanks for your help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx had a labor theory of value, just like adam smith which is entirely wrong. The cost of a good is determined by the value it provides to the consumer. The consumer will not pay more than the value it provides the to them. In Marx's view the cost of a good is determined by how much it cost to produce.
I have the impression that the standard economic doctrine was that the cost of a good was determined by where the supply curve intersects the demand curve — which is to say, the point at which the amount it costs to produce it is equal to how much value it provides to the consumer. This in itself doesn't contradict Marx's point (and what Marx thought the real value of things was is irrelevant). The point where he got…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing. It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage. In general, it pushes the labor market toward being an ideal liberal market. Marx thought that would result…
> It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company > can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they > don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay > too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage. It also means you can see how much your co-workers are making. This can create resentment if two people doing the same job with the same experience make different amou…