Did Ray DeGiorgio skip his ethics classes while earning his certified engineering degree? Did he further to wear his iron ring on the day he approved this part?
I'm trying to understand how all these safeguards failed.
Getting grant money and government contracts is the real reason.
Edit: actually it seems like they plan to rent it out to people funded by grants money and government contracts: Pegasus plans to rent the facility out to parties interested in conducting large-scale tests, and they’re anticipating demand.
Netflix engineers are better than the average engineer (even in a given job title), so the prevailing wage calculations don't represent the true economics.
But in any case, H1-B visas can lower the wages of engineers without H1-B holders earning less than Americans. It's just like any import. The import itself doesn't have to be sold for cheaper, it's just that the presence of the import lowers the price via competition, so that both the import and the local good are cheaper than the price before importing started.
The blame also lies with the study authors and the peer reviewers for allowing the article to make these claims based on their results. E.g. from the abstract
As a consequence [of our hypothesis], people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).
All imports are "cheap" whether labor, steel or iphones. Cheap is good, because if you can get something cheap it means you can get it with minimal resources.
The only reason to limit immigration is externalities. For example, Israel has very open immigration for Jews. It does not allow open immigration for African refugees because they believe it would have a negative impact on their society. For some strange reason, other nations are fearful of stating the same thing, but they clearly have something like this in mind when they limit immigration.
Cheap labor is a net positive. The only valid reason to oppose immigration (and I think it is very valid) is the negative social externalities that immigration causes.
If you make money "squarely" as described in I-IV, then you have created some value. Cashing out in section V is simply consuming that value.
All we can say (given the assumptions in I-IV) is that the person was a net positive (or zero) for the Congolese economy.
The technical mistake that the author makes is not realizing that adding value to the Congolese economy means increasing the total amount of physical wealth in the economy. When the person cashes out their yacht, they are simply exchanging cash for the physical wealth they helped create.
I don't think you can logically say that I-IV are "libertarian twaddle" and that V "brings it home", because V is predicated on I-IV being true. If you're interested in the theoretical basis behind "econ 101" I suggest you look into general equilibrium theory.
I really liked the compassion and care that MMM shows for his kid. In too many articles like this, it's clear that the author cares more that the child adopts the parent's ideology than that the child is actually happy. The goals and methods were moderate: earning one's own money (at an appropriate age), learning to control one's own life (I would add "to the extent possible") and not over or undervaluing wealth.
My only reservation was the artificial 10% interest rate. The current interest rate is 0%. Over the last 100 years interest rates averaged 5%. This is a concern to me because people on the Right tend to fetishize compound interest rates, while MMM seems to focus on true fundamentals.
There is an inversion in politics, where the left are more anti-Asian than the right. Letting people express anti-Asian sentiment (even though equivalent sentiment against other groups would be verboten) is both a convenient escape valve for the populace (see the LA riots) and also makes the left seem less extreme.
See also the #cancelcolbert controversy[0]. Imagine if this had been any "oppressed" group instead.
In case you thought the United States lacks this kind of prosecution, an American student was charged with "one count of conspiring to violate civil rights and another count of using a threat of force to intimidate African American students due to their race."[0] after allegedly putting a noose around the statue of a famous Black civil rights figure at the University of Mississippi.
I'm not sure what you mean by "clinical" in this context, but I don't think the prescription thing was a charade to add some extra placebo effect. Rather, it was probably because once you start claiming to treat depression, you are regulated like a prescription drug.
I'm trying to understand how all these safeguards failed.