I think it would be a mistake to move this thread into an overtly (parties, candidates) direction. Of course it is political, but it's such a good discussion I'd hate for it to get locked. Maybe people could edit a bit? From the site's Terms of Use:

They wouldn't. I'm not arguing that CEOs are much more valuable now, I'm arguing that we must include value as a measure. Tsuga was using a very linear example which only included IQ and the number of hours worked. If a movie studio pays Leonardo DiCaprio $20 million to be in a movie, of course he's not doing $20 million worth of acting. He's bringing $20 million of value, meaning the movie studio will make $100 million because he is in it. It's not a function of how many hours he has worked or his IQ. I think it is impossible, outside of a living wage and some benefits, to tell people what someone's work is worth, because of the added value factor. It's the elephant in the room, and that's why I mentioned it. Making this discussion all about CEOs is very limiting; many wealthy people are not CEOs of anything. Beyond a certain baseline of (hopefully) a living wage, the government can tax earnings, it can control what is tax-exempt or what is not, it can close loopholes and work with foreign nations used as tax dodges, but it cannot dictate that a movie studio should only find DiCaprio worth $100,000 based on hours worked instead of $20 million. CEOs might be a bit different, as they are actually in charge of a company, unlike DiCaprio, and I suppose it would be possible to say they can only earn a multiple of their lowest-paid employee, but that doesn't really address all of the people in the video who are in the .1% who are not CEOs. And many of them are not. Most are probably investors and people who inherited money but are not the CEOs of their company.

I think it's possible for what you are saying to be true (a rising tide lifts all boats, people's standards of living are generally higher than 100 years ago) and it can also be true that all boats have not been lifted equally, and some have been lifted so high it becomes literally incomprehensible (and probably unsustainable).

That's correct, payments are not based only upon skill, talent, or effort, but value, real or perceived. I'm not saying things are not terribly lopsided right now, and shouldn't be fixed. I'm just saying we often pay based on value to us, and we should include that in our calculations.

I think there is a point of diminishing returns once things are more equal. But when there's this much inequality on the table, I do think it's worth taking the time and effort to bring things back into balance. Perfect equality is impossible and I haven't heard of anyone calling for it.

I don't have a problem with this if it's simply individuals who are investing with an individual hedge fund manager. I know an excellent and very upright hedge fund manager who takes money from individuals and invests for them. He did a great and straightforward job until his retirement. If he had performed badly, individuals will remove their money and go elsewhere, so it is more like heads, we win, tails, you leave and people no longer want to place money with me. It's when the investors are removed from the process, and institutions are investing, it gets much more opaque.

Well, I was kind of saying that, but what I meant was that he's (or she's) worth that because wealthy people who mingle with that CEO, went to college with that CEO, are waiting for their place to be that CEO, need other quid pro quo type things, etc are willing to give him or her that money. And investors who would not be willing to pay that much find the process very opaque, if they try to figure out the process at all. Most don't even try because they are so far removed from the situation: Employee --> HR --> 401k fund options --> each fund has many holdings --> holdings change on a regular basis --> CEOs of each holding --> CEOs change on a regular basis --> CEO's salary changes. Do this for each retirement vehicle, 529, etc. Mutual funds and such are not all upside, and the downside is not just management fees, it's an opacity that I honestly feel was more transparent when people bought single company stocks themselves. Yes, that also had a downside, so neither is perfect, but I think modern investment vehicles have contributed to the rise in CEO pay.

I agree with everything you wrote, and as I said I agree with almost everything in the video, but from the paragraph I quoted above it sounds like we're saying the same thing.

I'm also hoping for the best and an update.

I've seen this video before and I agree with almost everything in it. That said, the place where he loses me is when he asks if someone is making a multiple of a salary, are they working that much harder? I understand the point he is trying to make about the disparity and that the disparities are very large, but I can't get over such an illogical argument. Is a house that costs twice as much supposed to be twice as large? What if has a better location, or higher end finishes, is closer to a large area employer, or has a new roof? There are houses in this country that are $50,000, and there are houses that are worth 380 times that ($19 million). Do we argue whether a house is really worth a certain dollar amount? You may assert it is not, but as soon as someone buys it for that amount, it is. Apparently it's the same for CEO pay. Most CEOs belong to companies with investors, and those investors approve these salaries and packages either explicitly by voting, or implicitly by continuing to keep their money invested. I think a large part of the problem is the removal of citizens from what they're investing in via 401ks, IRAs, mutual funds, pension plans, insurance, etc. This removal allows executives to reach ridiculous pay levels with the approval of shareholders who probably cannot even name all the companies in which they have investments, much less the names and salaries of those CEOs. And the shareholders who are paying attention (rich investors, hedge fund managers, etc) probably happen to also be quite wealthy themselves.

Interesting. I admit I didn't even think about this episode once it was over, although I should have because a fair amount of space was devoted to it. This could change the angle with which I am approaching the story.

Welcome Abigail Therese! :grouphug: Yes, maybe. That's what I'm struggling with. How much is a deliberate exaggeration, how much is misunderstanding, how much is that Aziz would be like this regardless of what his culture and country was? What if A British author simply wants to write about an emotionally unstable person, who happens to be Indian? Will people find that character to be simply overwrought, or will it reflect badly on the author as a ham-fisted attempt? What if the same character were dropped into a known as a much more reserved place, such as Scandinavia? Would people assume he was off kilter, rather than typical? How does an outsider write an emotional character who lives in an emotional culture? I have to admit I am not inclined to be generous because it's not just Aziz, it's entire groups of people on emotional roller coasters together. But then I am inclined to be generous because I love the writing and there's not enough good writing about this particular place and time.

I think I'm just tired and punchy but your avatar makes it feel as if these zoo questions are being asked by an actual panda! :laugh:

That's...weird.

I just realized I asked about scanned recipes instead of scanned receipts! Thanks for the answer. I agree these heat-printed recipes fade rather quickly.

I would check about whether or not he needs to have a particular score and go from there. The required score may be lower than you think, meanwhile you might be aiming for 100%. (Not that it's bad to aim high in general, but in this particular situation you could be making it worse with the anxiety, etc.)

I think it's a good sign! Hopefully they're just chatting or talking shop.

Does the IRS accepts scanned recipes as proof if you're audited? Confirming this has been one of the things keeping me from getting a scanner.

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

I remember this job. Good luck, and let us know what happens.

I understand.

I'm quoting myself to clarify that 'm not being critical of parents who didn't research all the options, particularly because all the ones I met had both parents with careers outside the home so they were in the mindset of finding something quickly, under pressure, while maintaining their jobs. My point really was that there are indeed people who don't know about the affidavit option, and in my experience, they worked out of the home in good careers, and pulled their kids out of school under pressure, and were not given guidance from the school about the affidavit option, unsurprisingly.

I agree that the West has been much better about leaving things like fear of witchcraft behind, which I attribute to both education and a focus on scientific, provable ideas. Not that those don't exist in the Islamic world, but I think the thinking of science is more about discovering God's creation through the language of math and science, not using them to disprove the existence of God. As I've read more of this book, I have realized that I have a complex relationship with it. Last year, when I read Ulysses, I had extensive discussions with friends about whether Joyce does a good job writing women. Many modern women feel he does not, while men seem to think he does. Likewise, I think Forster, whose writing is so beautiful, has missed the mark on the Indian mind. I can see where he is trying to get inside, but he cannot, although I am unable to decide whether it is due to his own lack of perception, or a desire to appeal to the non-Indian reader. Part of that failed attempt is to make Indians seem much more emotional than he should. Aziz would be considered a bit crazy by Indian standards, I think! It is a more emotive culture, but if its people were to be as subject to mood swings as portrayed in the novel, I think it would be terrible. Forster has overplayed his hand on this several times, and I flagged a couple of sections that particularly stood out, although there are numerous instances: Yes there is, if I am to be a data point also. There is also a direct correlation to impacts on the family budget, number of bookshelves in the home, and the consumption of hot beverages, as far as I can tell. I also did not get that impression at all. It's too hot to work in the afternoon. What else are you going to talk about after all other topics have been expended? Joking aside, I think it's more of a collective midst that an individual one. If some part of the collective is doing something different, it must be investigated, post haste, to satisfaction, preferable over food and drinks. ;)

Just to clarify, I didn't start the thread to urge people to switch our of public schools, charter or otherwise. My intent was to inform people of the court case and the opt-out for sharing data, that is all. That said, I have met a fair number of people who are not aware of the affidavit option, and all of them had children who were previously attending public school. They pulled the kids out due to bullying or other problems and by asking other people affiliated with the school, they enrolled in online charters or such. In other words, they didn't research all the options as homeschoolers, they took the easily found and offered option. And not everyone who had kids in public school took this option, but everyone I've met who didn't know about the affidavit option had kids in public school previously.

Yes, we do puzzles. So do my in-laws, so when they come visit I buy a new one. I really enjoy them, although there's a point in every 500+ piece puzzle when I wonder what the heck I'm doing with my life. ("Wait, take a picture, cut it up, and re-assemble it? Why?!") But I love it anyway.