It takes a LOT of work to "earn a living off your looks"
Ignoring the time spent setting up shoots, editing, engagement, etc, and focusing just on "looks", you have to spend a lot of time on working out, make up, shaving, putting together outfits, etc.
If you think that looking good is something that doesn't take any hard work, it's because you've never tried to put in that work yourself.
Anything you do to make yourself look good has only incremental effect; you must already have a "good" foundation (genetics, race, etc.)
An African American woman, for example, has almost zero chance of making it to the top 10 p$rnstars list, no matter how much she put effort and time to prepare herself.
Some things are just the realities of the world. Thinking otherwise makes you delusional.
What are you responding to? (I feel like I'm asking this a lot here.) The comment to which you're apparently responding was only saying that it takes a lot of work to make a living off of your looks; they were silent on whether you need to have good genetics, the correct skin color, or anything else.
actively trading is a great way to lose money. You're gambling against the house, and you will lose. Put money in mutual funds and leave it there if you want to invest, go put your money on black or red if you wanna gamble
I'd say the blue checkmarks are a better example. They're a stamp of approval from the global corporate hegemony. You can even have yours taken away for expressing unapproved thought.
If they were just proof that someone verified identity, and anyone could get one, they'd be a good feature. But Twitter wanted them to be culturally significant or famous people, and that's where it fell apart.
As for expressing unapproved thought, I all BS on your statement. There are blue-checked people who continued to express heterodox thought who kept their checks right up until they were permanently banned for TOS reasons.
You can't not participate in capitalism at all because it's required in some capacity if you would like to use any of the benefits of living in a society. You have to live somewhere and eat something, and you either pay money for that, or do everything yourself, using most of your waking time just to survive, like a caveman.
But you're free to act like NFTs don't exist without that having any impact on your day-to-day life.
Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the decision:
is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller;
is authorised by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject and which also lays down suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests; or
is based on the data subject’s explicit consent.
If you send abusive texts through Twilio, Twilio could lose it's contracts with carriers. I haven't read through the paperwork Twilio makes you sign, but I'm gonna guess the fact that this could happen is in there.
Also it sounds like the account wasn't banned, it's ability to send messages was suspended. Because it was being used to send spam text messages. I'm pretty thankful Twilio has automated systems for that
Yeah this doesn't make sense to me either. If you assume the gas rights for all the land on the earth is priced that low (it isn't) you could buy all it for $1mm.
Also, I can't imagine the seller would be like "hmm, this guy wants to buy gas rights on 87,000 hectares of land for $1. Sounds like a good deal!" without thinking maybe there was something special and investigated for themselves first.
Land is cheap in that part of South Africa, but certainly not that cheap. For reference, [1] is 231ha of almost undeveloped land listed for about $100000.
> They own the land but not actually the minerals or gas - they still have to get a permit from the government to to extract.
Other way around.
They bought gas rights - specifically they were interested in natural gas, but evidently the rights extend to any gas (I suppose there's an 'at room temperature' caveat in there, or this kind of right may set up some unexpected and highly unpleasant incentives).
It sounds like this was a highly speculative purchase, on land not considered hugely viable for extracting natural gas. There is, after all, the non-trivial problems & expenses around actually extracting, processing, shipping, and selling the gas(es).
> Nobody should have the power that having a billion dollars gives you
Let's pretend for a moment that I agreed with you on this. Your proposal to address the situation is to take all that money, which is currently at least somewhat distributed, and concentrate it in a single organization which already claims a license to steal, kidnap, and murder. I really don't think you've thought this through…
You don't get the same withdrawal, and your anecdotes do not indicate that it causes any kind of withdrawal, just that some people find nature/amusement parks more enjoyable stoned.
Do you think that companies pay based on productivity, or based on the minimum amount they need to pay in order to attract workers?
If the former, do you believe that if a remote worker moves from NYC to Idaho, and their employer cuts their pay by 25%, it is because their productivity has dropped by 25%? Or because their employer knows they can get away with paying them less in an area with lower cost of living / less high paying jobs?
> Do you think that companies pay based on productivity, or based on the minimum amount they need to pay in order to attract workers?
It's both. Productivity has a very direct effect on the minimum amount they need to attract workers. If a low skilled worker can produce 100$ an hour of value, and you're paying them 10$ and hour, someone else will very quickly be willing to pay them 11$, or 12$, etc. Suddenly, you have to pay several times what you did before in order to keep your employees or attract new ones.
> If the former, do you believe that if a remote worker moves from NYC to Idaho, and their employer cuts their pay by 25%, it is because their productivity has dropped by 25%? Or because their employer knows they can get away with paying them less in an area with lower cost of living / less high paying jobs?
Same as the other answer. In NYC there are more companies competing for your employee, so you have to pay more to keep them. Competition in the middle of nowhere is restricted more so than in the middle of NYC.
>It's both. Productivity has a very direct effect on the minimum amount they need to attract workers.
Productivity only puts a ceiling on the amount they'd be prepared to pay for a worker.
It doesn't affect the minimum amount required to attract them. That's determined by competition (i.e. who else is out there) and leverage (how much they need the job).
This is why business leaders lobby hard to reduce public sector wages/pensions (so private sector doesn't have to pay as much to compete for workers) and public benefits (like universal health care), which reduces worker leverage => reducing wages => increasing profits irrespective of worker productivity.
Your second paragraph refutes your first. Productivity is an input to the supply of competition, so it does more than create a ceiling, it also serves as an upward force on the floor.
Do business leaders lobby to reduce public sector wages and benefits? That's not something I've heard before. In any case, whether or not there is competition from the government, if there is a gap between productivity and wages, then there are profits to be had by private companies willing to do the arbitrage. In the case of such a gap, the government doesn't really matter unless they are paying above the productivity rate.
> Productivity is an input to the supply of competition, so it does more than create a ceiling, it also serves as an upward force on the floor.
This is trivially disprovable. Did grocery stores increase the wages of their clerks once self checkout was a thing, or did they keep wages the same and lay off some of them?
Productivity only affects wages when there’s competition for labor, not when there’s competition for jobs. When there’s competition for jobs productivity gains are captured by the company, not the laborer.
> Do business leaders lobby to reduce public sector wages and benefits?
They absolutely do, yes. I’m genuinely baffled how you’ve never heard this. The Chamber of Commerce crowd is always trying to shrink governments (and their tax bills), and attacking public unions is a big part of this.
> This is trivially disprovable. Did grocery stores increase the wages of their clerks once self checkout was a thing, or did they keep wages the same and lay off some of them?
That doesn't disprove anything. Productivity is an input to and has an effect on demand, but it's not the only factor. It doesn't need to be the only factor to matter. Lots of things matter. Economics is a complex field.
> If a low skilled worker can produce 100$ an hour of value, and you're paying them 10$ and hour, someone else will very quickly be willing to pay them 11$, or 12$, etc.
You’re ignoring worker supply. If there are more workers than jobs available, wages will remain low regardless how productive they are. If there are few workers available the price of their labor will rise as employers try to outbid each other for the labor. Supply & demand for labor controls which side of the equation ends up in a bidding war for the other side.
The productivity of labor doesn’t set the price of labor, if that were true then labor saving devices would drive wages up, which they clearly do not. Rather it’s supply and demand that sets wages, with productivity setting the ceiling since few employers want to hire people at a loss.
Yep, their OVERALL productivity, as part of the system, has dropped by 25%. Isn't that obvious? They are not spherical workers in vacuum, they are part of economic system. If you open a store in the middle of a desert, your overall productivity will be zero, regardless of your productivity in the store, because no buyers, no roads, no police, no electricity, no water, etc.
The productivity of a remote worker does not depend on their location, obviously.
If you WFH in NYC then move to Idaho while still working the same job then your productivity has not moved at all. If the employer tries to lower the salary it is simply because they think they can.
This one stuck out to me, because I moved to Idaho.
It’s also not clear if a employer could cut such wages by 25%; that has less to do with CoL and more to do with the labor market. Or to use your formulation; do workers charge for their services according to the local cost of living, or do they charge for their labor what the market will bear?
Companies do pay the minimum amount they can get away with.
That said, lower paid jobs are also lower productivity jobs. There is obviously an upper limit to what a company is willing to pay that is based on productivity, and higher productivity also requires specialised skills.
No-one is going to be paid $100k to flip burgers at McDonald's both because that job does not produce anywhere near that and because it's easy to find people. If it became too difficult to find people salaries would not go very high because of the productivity cap and they'd find a way to do without people or shut down (because no-one is going to pay $100 for a Big Mac, either).
Now, they could pay a medical lawyer minimum wage if they could get away with. But the supply is quite small because it is highly skilled and productivity is very high, and so pay can be high and can remain high.
Ignoring the time spent setting up shoots, editing, engagement, etc, and focusing just on "looks", you have to spend a lot of time on working out, make up, shaving, putting together outfits, etc.
If you think that looking good is something that doesn't take any hard work, it's because you've never tried to put in that work yourself.