SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Twitter is reportedly in conversation with a number of tech companies for a potential sale. According to CNBC, the social company is in talks with the likes of Google and cloud computing company...
The suiters [sic] courting Twitter are said to be interested in the data the company generates from its 313 million active users. However, sources say that, while conversations are ongoing and picking up steam, there's no assurance that a deal will be inked. As a result, Twitter's stocks have soared as high as 23 percent based on the news. Meanwhile, TechCrunch reports that the company has just lost two key staffers, including head of TV Andrew Adashek.
Source: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13028616/twitter-sale-talks-google-salesforce
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:51AM
Basic income will eliminate the need for mergers and businesses and money. Basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income basic income. But don't take away Twitter because I need my Twitter for followers.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:59AM
You exceeded the 140 character limit. Basic income.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:37AM
Off-topic, but I'm responding anyways.
Basic income is only required when there are no jobs. The only reason why there are no jobs in America is because c-suits destined for Hell, have outsourced it all. Automation is set to start taking away some service jobs, but the industry and reasearch jobs can all come right back to us over a few years.
The answer is a LIVING WAGE, which also implies, that you still work for a living. You just work for what you need, instead of dramatically less than what you need. What you want is then negotiable with your employer ABOVE what you NEED.
Furthermore, basic income can be said to be a form of Socialism which many don't like, while Living Wage is simply Capitalism and Progressive at the same time.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @02:11AM
So brilliant you are, you burn my eyes!
There's no motivation to pay a living wage to workers or a basic income to the jobless because both groups have no bargaining power whatsoever. If a worker drone gets uppity or grows old, you fire the fucker, worker becomes the jobless, and jobless starves to death as an example to the worker drones not to get fucking uppity or grow old. There's no shortage of young naive idiots who want to become worker drones for a tiny pittance.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:56AM
By implementing a living wage, you essentially destroy the only redeeming parts of capitalism: markets and price signals. You have distorted the market by introducing a floor below which no labor will take place, and you have destroyed price signals by not allowing products (in this case labor) to be sold at a loss.
One of the arguments for basic income is that it has the least amount of distortions to markets (the effects are too diffuse across the range of the economy) and price signals (labor is sold at what the market will bear while minimizing the exploitive aspects).
In fact, basic income can reduce overhead as different parts of the economy transitions from outdated industries to hopefully newer ones.
You don't even need a crystal to predict where the changes will occur (much like the Fed does now with interest rates)- it's baked into the system from the start.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday September 26 2016, @08:25PM
Then destroyed they must be.
At no time is it acceptable, wise, or ethical to allow somebody to work for less than a living wage. It is so unacceptable because as a society we are simply incapable of allowing people to die horribly in the street. It bothers us deeply to see homeless people around us, and those deeply suffering and greatly struggling to survive. The consequences of allowing these populations of people around us are numerous and problematic to say the least. Costs of security go up, because we have extremely cunning animals attempting to find food, shelter, and necessities outside of our normal economic processes.
It's purely this: When a person doesn't work for a living wage, they MUST be subsidized, or they MUST suffer horribly. All the "teenager" jobs that adults are trying to feed families on now pay subsidized wages. It is so because teenagers are by and large still supported by their parents, or school loans. Employers take advantage of that, and then complain when we ask them to pay the "teenagers" more stating that we're interfering with their rights to do business. That's all fine and well when it is what they say it is; Teenagers looking to make some extra cash, save for college, whatever. However, it's not what they say it is. More and more, these service worker jobs are now expected to feed families, and that is wholly impossible on a "subsidized" wage without them "sucking on the government teat". Worse, we demean these people and speak badly about their character.
So which is it? One way or the other right now, the poor and the middle class predominately subsidize people making less than a living wage. When the elites don't pay their fair share of the taxes, they've stolen from the workers of America by gaining that production while suffering no losses from the subsequent subsidies that are demanded from the rest of us.
To not pay a Living Wage is to allow c-suites (destined for hell) and psychotically avaricious shareholders to steal from us. Plain and simple. They make their riches off exploiting the rest of us, as if it were moral and correct, and we're left holding the bill.
Moreover, I think you're wrong about the signaling and distortion. The Living Wage is set from receipts, or provable transactions, on a discrete basis (county or city level). That floor you think will cause problems actually creates economic equality instead. Skillset differentiation and compensation create wages above Living Wage. The workers have what they need again to the extent that government subsidies are almost eliminated. Only those left that are truly struggling to the extent that they may qualify as mentally challenged, physically challenged, will still need help from the rest of us in the form of subsidies. Those are good subsidies because we don't want to engage in Eugenics and make life hell for the disabled. See the documentary "The Power Of The Weak" and learn the story of Jorgito.
Markets and price signaling still work as normal. The difference is that a floor was introduced where everything must occur above it. I'm not seeing the problem, and once everything is above the floor, the strain on our social programs will largely disappear. People want to work and the ridiculous ad hominem attacks against workers are simply false. Americans are very hard workers.
I also think you're vastly underestimating the benefits of economic equality when the average American can now afford their lives. At this point it is either subsidized by the government directly, or it is subsidized by credit lines which are already tapped (it may well be the next huge bubble about to pop). We can move to a world where it isn't subsidized at all, but provided as a correct consequence of performing daily labor.
The very idea of working for less than what you need, so that another person may make more than their entitled, is abhorrent and we can't have a functioning society survive under those conditions.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.