Now there are PLENTY of CEO jobs that pay 3 – 700K. And those CEO’s are worth it. But you know, there are starting to be an uncomfortable number of CTO jobs in the 500-600K range.
That’s just …. odd.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 15:37:00 UTC
Now there are PLENTY of CEO jobs that pay 3 – 700K. And those CEO’s are worth it. But you know, there are starting to be an uncomfortable number of CTO jobs in the 500-600K range.
That’s just …. odd.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 15:37:00 UTC
The politicians do not want us to tell the truth about Economics, politics, morality, and ethics.
Because if we do they will be hung.
There is no value in scale any longer.
If polities are in conflict then separation is desirable.
Different people need different norms and laws, and institutions to suit their levels of genetic distribution (development).
This would decrease their power.
We must always seek to decrease political power.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 06:16:00 UTC
RT @MartianHoplite: Bloog post: Why do #democracies get weaker and more #parasitic? #rentseeking #publicchoice
https://hyperborial.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/why-do-democracies-get-weaker-more-parasitic/ http…
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-21 20:15:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767455002730397696
https://twitter.com/MartianHoplite/status/767314408984895488/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=767455002730397696Retweeted Eli Harman (@MartianHoplite):
Bloog post: Why do #democracies get weaker and more #parasitic? #rentseeking #publicchoice
https://t.co/bIIiJAtoWg https://t.co/ySjnAJpL7o
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-21 16:15:00 UTC
[P]orque nosotros somos compatibles, y necesitamos el uno del otro. Alguno de nosotros trabajamos, otros trabajamos en gerencia, algunos calculamos y diseñamos, algunos de nosotros organizamos, y algunos otros decidimos qué organizar, calcular, diseñar, administrar y sobre que cosas trabajar. Es cuando nosotros determinamos de forma exitosa un método por el cual cada uno de nosotros se beneficia al cooperar con el resto, en vez de cooperar con otros al competir por oportunidades para hacer trabajos, administración, cálculos, organización y decisión que no somos sólo compatibles sino necesarios el uno para el otro. La aristocracia opera de forma empírica: Por medio de la compatibilidad. La compatibilidad en la reproducción (la unidad familiar como una unidad reproductiva), en materia de defensa (la jerarquía del mando), en producción (la jerarquía de la organización de la producción), y en política (la jerarquía de las clases) mientras preservamos y mantenemos la participación voluntaria en la selección de parejas, al unir ejércitos, al participar en la fuerza laboral, y entre las distintas divisiones de los poderes del estado. La compatibilidad voluntaria es un método que sirve para poder “calcular” el resultado óptimo de Nash sobre la marcha. El modelo de la aristocracia occidental fue científico. Hasta el siglo XX. A mi me importa la clase trabajadora porque ELLOS SON LOS QUE PELEAN. ¿Por que? Porque las élites crean la diferencia competitiva para las clases trabajadoras, y si ellas pelean por sus élites, y eligen las élites correctas, entonces tendrán que vivir bajo mejores condiciones que otras clases que eligen ser gobernados por élites peores. El problema con la forma de vida americana es que los socialistas creen que han hecho una franquicia exitosa a partir de la apropiación del movimiento de los trabajadores y han convertido compatibilidad en incompatibilidad. Los socialistas eligieron dividirnos y conquistarnos, obligando a nuestras élites a abandonar a sus clases trabajadoras. Si queremos una revolución, debemos actuar de forma compatible. Debemos tener élites que decidan y organicen, clases medias que calculen y teoricen, y clases trabajadoras que administren y actúen. Mi nombre es Legión. Y somos muchos Curt Doolittle. La Filosofía de la Aristocracia El Instituto Propietarista. Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U.
[P]orque nosotros somos compatibles, y necesitamos el uno del otro. Alguno de nosotros trabajamos, otros trabajamos en gerencia, algunos calculamos y diseñamos, algunos de nosotros organizamos, y algunos otros decidimos qué organizar, calcular, diseñar, administrar y sobre que cosas trabajar. Es cuando nosotros determinamos de forma exitosa un método por el cual cada uno de nosotros se beneficia al cooperar con el resto, en vez de cooperar con otros al competir por oportunidades para hacer trabajos, administración, cálculos, organización y decisión que no somos sólo compatibles sino necesarios el uno para el otro. La aristocracia opera de forma empírica: Por medio de la compatibilidad. La compatibilidad en la reproducción (la unidad familiar como una unidad reproductiva), en materia de defensa (la jerarquía del mando), en producción (la jerarquía de la organización de la producción), y en política (la jerarquía de las clases) mientras preservamos y mantenemos la participación voluntaria en la selección de parejas, al unir ejércitos, al participar en la fuerza laboral, y entre las distintas divisiones de los poderes del estado. La compatibilidad voluntaria es un método que sirve para poder “calcular” el resultado óptimo de Nash sobre la marcha. El modelo de la aristocracia occidental fue científico. Hasta el siglo XX. A mi me importa la clase trabajadora porque ELLOS SON LOS QUE PELEAN. ¿Por que? Porque las élites crean la diferencia competitiva para las clases trabajadoras, y si ellas pelean por sus élites, y eligen las élites correctas, entonces tendrán que vivir bajo mejores condiciones que otras clases que eligen ser gobernados por élites peores. El problema con la forma de vida americana es que los socialistas creen que han hecho una franquicia exitosa a partir de la apropiación del movimiento de los trabajadores y han convertido compatibilidad en incompatibilidad. Los socialistas eligieron dividirnos y conquistarnos, obligando a nuestras élites a abandonar a sus clases trabajadoras. Si queremos una revolución, debemos actuar de forma compatible. Debemos tener élites que decidan y organicen, clases medias que calculen y teoricen, y clases trabajadoras que administren y actúen. Mi nombre es Legión. Y somos muchos Curt Doolittle. La Filosofía de la Aristocracia El Instituto Propietarista. Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U.
Q&A: “CURT: WHAT DEFINES MIDDLE CLASS?”
—“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella
The common definition is:
—“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”—
I would use:
***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”***
Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it.
THE BRITISH SYSTEM
The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive.
We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified.
The British Class Model
British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states)
British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money)
For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhpas the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation.
British Elite – American Upper Middle Class
(in america, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.)
Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class.
British Established middle class – American Middle Class
Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26]
British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class
The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27]
British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class
New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27]
British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class
The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27]
British Emergent service sector – American lower working class
The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27]
British Precariat – American upper proletarian class
The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers.
British ???? – American Lower proletarian class
British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class.
PROPERTARIANISM
However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion:
1) The Priesthood: talk/gosip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics.
2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war
3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury.
The Four Middle Classes Criteria
1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable)
2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions)
3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business)
4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner)
To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations).
So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all geneetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class oyu’re in.
American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, econmically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically.
SUMMARY
the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-21 06:48:00 UTC
Simple: Mother-sister(Consumption)….Brother(Trading)….Father (Saving) –> Progressive, Libertarian, Conservative.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 13:42:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766993932039270400
http://www.amren.com/features/2015/10/welfare-whos-on-it-whos-not/(Note that I am not an amren fan. Criticism is not a solution. )
This goes to show why asymmetric tribal groups produce problems.
—“A source for those interested : “A majority of native black and Hispanic households are on some form of means-tested welfare, compared to just 23 percent of native white households. A disproportionate share of welfare is directed to households with children. For this group, the corresponding numbers for 2012 are even higher:”—-
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 12:58:00 UTC
I love the middle and lower middle class, much more so than my peers in the upper middle class.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 12:31:00 UTC