Daily Entry: October 31st, 2017

Tue Oct 31 20:56:51 UTC 2017

Time block

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 SLEEP
0800 SLEEP
0830 SLEEP
0900 SLEEP
0930 SLEEP
1000 Waking up
1030 Chores
1100 Computer
1130 Walk to work
1200 Lunch
1230 Lunch
1300 Distracted meandering
1330 PLANNING
1400 SST Changes Discussion
1430 SST Planning Weekly
1500 Walk to library Peer interaction
1530 Reading Ping pong
1600 Reading Expensify
1630 Reading Talking
1700 Walk home Walk to Starbucks
1730 Halloween Fun Woo Walk to Veggie Grill
1800 Halloween Fun Woo Veggie Grill
1830 Halloween Fun Woo Veggie Grill
1900 Halloween Fun Woo Walk home
1930 Halloween Fun Woo Walk home
2000 Halloween Fun Woo Gaming: Overwatch
2030 Halloween Fun Woo Gaming: Overwatch
2100 Halloween Fun Woo Gaming: Overwatch
2130 Halloween Fun Woo Gaming: Overwatch
2200 SLEEP Gaming: Overwatch
2230 SLEEP Gaming: Overwatch
2300 SLEEP Gaming: Overwatch
2330 SLEEP TV

Today's the 10-year anniversary of my first kiss with my wife. Our plan? To hang out at home and probably play a bunch of Overwatch.

Daily Entry: October 30th, 2017

Mon Oct 30 12:40:15 PDT 2017

Timeblock on a plane!

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 SLEEP
0800 SLEEP
0830 SLEEP
0900 Hangin with fam
0930 Ride to airport
1000 TSA
1030 Work from airport
1100 Boarding flight
1130 Reading
1200 Setting up laptop
1230 PLANNING
1300 CA-3304
1330 Exploratory work CA-3304
1400 Exploratory work Unplanned landing
1430 Landing and Reading Waiting in Boise, ID
1500 Light rail and Reading Flying to SEA
1530 Exploratory work Landing Landing in SEA
1600 Exploratory work Meet wife at gate
1630 Walk to library Travel home
1700 Walk to library Travel home
1730 Reading Travel home
1800 Reading Hanging at home
1830 Walk home Hanging at home
1900 Buffer Hanging at home
1930 Buffer Overwatch
2000 Buffer Overwatch
2030 Buffer Overwatch
2100 Buffer Overwatch
2130 Buffer Overwatch
2200 SLEEP TV
2230 SLEEP SLEEP
2300 SLEEP SLEEP
2330 SLEEP SLEEP

Daily Entry: October 29th, 2017

Mon Oct 30 12:37:14 PDT 2017

Back fill.

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 Game Jam
0030 Game Jam
0100 Game Jam
0130 Game Jam
0200 Game Jam
0230 Game Jam
0300 Game Jam
0330 Game Jam
0400 Game Jam
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 SLEEP
0800 SLEEP
0830 Game Jam
0900 Game Jam
0930 Game Jam
1000 Game Jam
1030 Game Jam
1100 Game Jam
1130 Game Jam
1200 Presentations
1230 Walking to family
1300 Happy birthday sis
1330 Hanging with fam
1400 Hanging with fam
1430 SLEEP
1500 SLEEP
1530 SLEEP
1600 SLEEP
1630 SLEEP
1700 SLEEP
1730 Hanging with fam
1800 Hanging with fam
1830 Hanging with fam
1900 Hanging with fam
1930 SLEEP
2000 SLEEP
2030 Walking to Whole Foods
2100 Hanging with fam
2130 Hanging with fam
2200 SLEEP
2230 SLEEP
2300 SLEEP
2330 SLEEP

Daily Entry: October 28th, 2017

Mon Oct 30 19:32:27 UTC 2017

Back-filling.

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 Waking up
0800 Breakfast with friends
0830 Breakfast with friends
0900 Drive to himmel park
0930 Walk to U of A
1000 Game Jam
1030 Game Jam
1100 Game Jam
1130 Game Jam
1200 Game Jam
1230 Game Jam
1300 Game Jam
1330 Game Jam
1400 Game Jam
1430 Game Jam
1500 Game Jam
1530 Game Jam
1600 Game Jam
1630 Game Jam
1700 Game Jam
1730 Game Jam
1800 Game Jam
1830 Game Jam
1900 Game Jam
1930 Game Jam
2000 Game Jam
2030 Game Jam
2100 Game Jam
2130 Game Jam
2200 Game Jam
2230 Game Jam
2300 Game Jam
2330 Game Jam

Daily Entry: October 27th, 2017

Fri Oct 27 20:55:09 UTC 2017
Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 Waking up
0800 Breakfast
0830 Procrastinating
0900 Walking to bus stop
0930 Walking to bus stop
1000 Walking to bus stop
1030 Bus to compound
1100 SST Weekly Standup
1130 Hang out with fam
1200 Hang out with fam
1230 PLANNING
1300 SST Changes Reading
1330 JIRA Task Attack
1400 JIRA Task Attack
1430 1:1 Meeting with Alex
1500 Walk to U of A
1530 Walk to U of A
1600 Weekly review
1630 Hanging out
1700 Game Jam Team Time
1730 Game Jam Team Time
1800 Game Jam
1830 Game Jam
1900 Dinner with friends Game Jam
1930 Dinner with friends Game Jam
2000 Dinner with friends Game Jam
2030 Game Jam
2100 Game Jam
2130 Game Jam Car ride to friend
2200 Game Jam Talking with friend
2230 Game Jam Talking with friend
2300 SLEEP Talking with friend
2330 SLEEP Talking with friend

Daily Entry: October 26th, 2017

Thu Oct 26 18:18:18 UTC 2017

Time block

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 SLEEP
0800 Packing up
0830 Walk to work
0900 "Breakfast"
0930 Tired
1000 Email organization
1030 Tired and YouTube
1100 OpsLead Meeting and PLANNING
1130 OpsLead Meeting
1200 Lunch
1230 Lunch
1300 Buffer
1330 Buffer
1400 Buffer
1430 Travel to airport
1500 Get to flight
1530 Airport and Reading
1600 Airport and Reading
1630 Airport and Reading
1700 Flight and Reading
1730 Flight and Reading
1800 Flight and Reading
1830 Layover and Reading
1900 Flight and Reading
1930 Flight and Reading
2000 Flight and Reading
2030 Travel to friend's and Reading
2100 Hanging out? and Laundry
2130 Hanging out?
2200 SLEEP Hanging out
2230 SLEEP Hanging out
2300 SLEEP Hanging out
2330 SLEEP Hanging out
Thu Oct 26 22:59:51 UTC 2017

At SFO. On flight, I plan to only read so that I don't have to deal with laptop in cramped space. However, I want to finish all my notes so that I don't have a backlog, so, before boarding let's do that.

Thu Oct 26 23:00:36 UTC 2017

Basic Economics reading.

The book makes an important point that I thought of earlier. Maybe I even mentioned it. "Although economists often proceed by first explaining how a free competitive market operates and then move on to show how various infringements on that kind of market affect economic outcomes, what happened in history is that controlled markets preceded free markets by centuries".

Exactly. Free-markets, in the grand scheme of things, are a relatively-new beast. How to best raise a healthy market and what illnesses to look out for and what cures to administer are young, and being explored. It is far from a solved problem. This also goes back to what I wrote a couple days ago, "if some group of people are being oppressed under a system and that system doesn't correct that error quick enough, those people will turn to some other system willing to try to help them. Even if the adopted system is less efficient, and hurts everyone overall over the long run."

I should add, also, that often when a new thing is being implemented, even if that new thing is about equal with the old thing, or even slightly better, people using the thing will be more critical and will back-slip to the old thing at the slightest provacation. It's similar to something that a mentor described to me as the "10x better rule", Stephan. For people to properly adopt a new thing, it has to be 10x better, because the person selling it thinks its 3x better than it is, and the people forced to adopt it will think the old thing is 3x better than it is. Hence, needing the new thing to be 10x better before adoption occurs.

But I've gone off on a tangent. My main point is that capitalism is new, is still heavily flawed, and fighting to improve it can and should happen at any possible angle, including but not limited to political action.

Anyways, the book uses this point as a transition to talk about the over-regulation of industries via requiring licenses when they aren't really necessary. The book's prime example is taxis. Driving does not require a highly specialized skill, the book argues, and so artificially limiting taxis with limited licenses is bad.

This sounds like a good argument. But I, like many people, have watched the Simpsons. Specifically, I have watched the episode where the family goes to Brazil, mention the danger of taking unlicensed taxis, and then Homer gets kidnapped and ransomed (hilarity apparently ensues).

Could a license be for something beyond proof of capability of a skill? Could it be for safetly purposes relating to the nature of the work? Could it be that a flooded marketplace could attract bad actors whom could do criminal activity under the guise of legitimate business?

Now, I'm not properly versed in this arena (my go-to annecdote above was a fictional plotline in the Simpsons). Perhaps the litigation was explicitly bad for taxi licensing, but I think it's important to consider how different technology was when those rules were created. Nowadays, I would agree that licensing makes less sense for taxis, because there's an automatic digital tracking system keeping proper track of which car is registered with which company, and the company is telling you what car/person to expect, and there's plenty of means by which to add safety measures to the system without considerably hindering its growth.

Anyways, this is a small thing that I had a lot to say about. It wouldn't hurt to do some due diligence here, but I already have a lot of sources to find, this is just an aside.

So, there's a quote about Thomas Edison that... well, actually, the whole paragraph, read it: "The industrial revolution was not created by highly educated people but by people with practical industrial experience. The airplane was invented by a couple of bicycle mechanics who had neer gone to college. Electricity and many inventions run by electricity became central parts of the modern world because of a man with only three months of formal schooling, Thomas Edison. Yet all these people had enormously valuable knowledge and insights--human capital--acquired from experience rather than in classrooms."

So, this whole paragraph is extremely misleading, and stinks of painting history as the story of singular great men moving society forward as most just sat by and watched. Thomas Edison is an example I'm somewhat familiar with, he worked with, had rivalries with, and debatably stole from highly educated people in pursuit of control over the industry he "created". In reality, industries are created by a lot of people with a lot of different know-how (some of it from higher academia), and probably would fail to spring forth without most of them.

This is a dissonance I've noticed in the book before. Sometimes, it'll note the many moving parts and complexities behind progress, and other times it'll imply progress is this magical thing that'll just instantly happen if you let markets run amuck without political interference.

Anyways, Thomas Edison and the rise of the industrial revolution would probably be a good thing to find my sources on.

"Many unthinking people in many countries and many periods of history have regard financial activities as not 'really' contributing anything to the economy, and have regarded the people who engage in such financial activities as mere parasites." This is a fair point. Though, at the same time, these people often find themselves in positions of significant power, and the only famous powerful fiancial people are the corrupt ones. So, perhaps the people with the power should do a better job of self-policing and take proper responsibility for when they hurt the economy for their own gain.

Events like the 2008 finacial crisis largely caused by fiancial people who knowingly conned the entire world doesn't really help the banking reputation. Especially considering that no banker got any real punishment out of it. Trust is hard to build and easily broken.

And I am caught up on my notes. This book is due back in the library in 8 days (counting today), and I have about 350 pages to read. So, I need to read about 50 pages a day. I got a lot of travel time ahead of me, let's try to read 200 pages today.

Thu Oct 26 23:49:41 UTC 2017

Basic Economics. (Notes while reading.)

The book is trying to justify the high interest rates of payday loans. The explicit goals of these places is to trap already-poor people in an inescapable cycle of debt. Also, using higher processing costs as an excuse doesn't work when the industry itself is making much more money than traditional lending establishments.

Just ugh. I'm going to let John Oliver take it from here:

Daily Entry: October 25th, 2017

Wed Oct 25 18:40:45 UTC 2017

Time block

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 SLEEP
0800 SLEEP
0830 SLEEP
0900 SLEEP
0930 SLEEP
1000 SLEEP
1030 Wake up
1100 Walk to work
1130 PLANNING
1200 Lunch
1230 Lunch
1300 Zendesk Connector
1330 Zendesk Connector
1400 Zendesk Connector
1430 Zendesk Connector
1500 Social buffer
1530 Zendesk Connector
1600 Zendesk Connector
1630 Zendesk Connector
1700 Zendesk Connector
1730 End of day review
1800 Dinner with friend
1830 Dinner with friend
1900 Buffer Dinner with friend
1930 Buffer Dinner with friend
2000 Buffer Dinner with friend
2030 Buffer Board games
2100 Buffer Board games
2130 Buffer Board games
2200 Buffer Board games
2230 SLEEP TV: YouTube
2300 SLEEP TV: YouTube
2330 SLEEP SLEEP

Daily Entry: October 24th, 2017

Tue Oct 24 20:03:01 UTC 2017

Starting the timeblock a bit later than I should.

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 Diary
0030 Diary
0100 Diary
0130 Diary
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 SLEEP
0800 SLEEP
0830 SLEEP
0900 Waking up
0930 Walk to work
1000 TV: YouTube
1030 Zendesk Connector
1100 Distracted
1130 Distracted
1200 Lunch
1230 Lunch
1300 PLANNING
1330 Zendesk Connector
1400 Zendesk Connector
1430 SST Planning Weekly
1500 Social bufffer
1530 Zendesk Connector
1600 Zendesk Connector
1630 Walk to library Resting on bean bag
1700 Basic Economics Hanging at office
1730 Basic Economics Hanging at office
1800 Walk to airbnb Hanging at office
1830 Panda3D Dinner at office
1900 Panda3D Ping pong practice
1930 Panda3D Walk to airbnb
2000 Panda3D TV: Twitch Overwatch
2030 Buffer TV: Twitch Overwatch
2100 Buffer TV: Twitch Overwatch
2130 Buffer TV: Twitch Overwatch
2200 Buffer TV: Twitch Overwatch
2230 SLEEP
2300 SLEEP
2330 SLEEP

Daily Entry: October 23rd, 2017

Mon Oct 23 17:08:42 UTC 2017

Time block

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 SLEEP
0700 SLEEP
0730 Waking up
0800 Getting ready
0830 Walk to work
0900 Wandering about
0930 Aimless meandering
1000 PLANNING
1030 Zendesk Connector
1100 Zendesk Connector
1130 Lunch?
1200 Lunch?
1230 Monthly all-hands
1300 Monthly all-hands
1330 Zendesk Connector
1400 Zendesk Connector
1430 Weekly review
1500 Zendesk Connector
1530 Zendesk Connector
1600 Zendesk Connector
1630 Zendesk Connector
1700 End of day review
1730 Social buffer
1800 Dinner/drinks
1830 Dinner/drinks
1900 Walk to lodging
1930 Panda3d
2000 Panda3d
2030 Panda3d
2100 Panda3d
2130 SLEEP
2200 SLEEP
2230 SLEEP
2300 SLEEP
2330 SLEEP
Mon Oct 23 18:08:18 UTC 2017

Back to a normal sleep schedule?

Tue Oct 24 07:26:30 UTC 2017

Basic Economics reading.

I have a slowly building bit of one-off notes in my tiny notebook of things to mention in Basic Economics. I didn't mention them while reading before, because I was reading on a plane and found it quite awkward to handle my back pack in any way.

I continued the habit today, and I think instead I should just write when I get the feeling to say something, else what I want to say will be lost in the moment. Or, rather, my motivation to want to say it will be lost in the moment.

In Chapter 10, "Productivity and Pay", there's a section called "Pay Differences" and a subsection called "Income 'Distribution'". In it, the book states that the shifting statistics on income are misleading. The bottom 20% own less of the wealth than the bottom 20% of 40 years ago, yes, and wages are flat (or negative considering inflation) for the same job.

But....

The 20% poorest now are not the same people as the 20% poorest 20 years ago. "Three quarters of those initially in the bottom 20 percent in income were in the top 40 percent atsome point over the next 16 years." Wealth is a non-zero sum game, and the majority of people don't work the same job their whole lives (though, notably, a significant percentage does, as far as I know). Are wages up overall if not measuring "apples-to-apples"? According to the book, the incomes of people followed throughout the decade are up, on average.

"The University of Michigan study found that, among working Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975, approximately 95 percent had risen out of that bracket by 1991--including 29 percent who had reached the top quintile by 1991, compared to only 5 percent who still remained in the bottom quintile in 1975."

I should check its sources.

This is important and valuable information, and I'm glad to have been given it. My understanding before was in fact that the poor get pooer and the rich get richer. I understood that wealth is not zero-sum, but took flat wages as evidence that the rich are literally taking all the gains.

Further, the book makes an important distinction between wealth and income. You aren't wealthy if you spend all your income. This is advice I've already taken to heart, Stephan. Though, this makes me wonder if his same point properly applies to the weatlhy. Something to find sources on.

The book mentions businessmen working many hours more per week as evidence of their working more for their money. This conflicts with my understanding that past a certain point, more work has diminishing returns (and in the long run hurts productivity). Their obession or compulsion may have them work more, but they may in fact be doing far less (and perhaps it's related to how so many businesses fail).

There's a good point in the chapter about how "household income" is a misleading term. A single person living alone has their income counted towards "household income". There are smaller families and a greater percentage of single workers today than in decades past. "Houshold income" now vs decades ago may not be showing flat growth so much as more income per person and less people per household. Another thing to find sources on (this one should be provided by the books sources listed online somewhere).

The book makes mention of female infants in China being murdered because they were net-negative for the most-common work at the time (farmwork). Having studied some Chinese history, and having knowledge of the abilities of women to do menial labor (they do a lot of it in India), this is blatantly false. Female infants were killed in China because families were allowed only one child per law for a while, and because women were less valuable politically and regliously than males. I'll find my sources.

The book then goes on a tangent for how women's pay is not in fact less for equal work. Lots of common (and debunked) refrains follow including but not limited to:

"If for example, women were paid only 75 percent of what men of the same level of experience and performance were paid, then any employer could hire four womeen instead of three men for the same money and gain a decisive advantage in production costs over competing firms."

One, this has happened. It has happened on such scales to permanently reduce the pay in a field even to men in that field. Two, hostile work environments exist. There's a lot of things wrong with this statement, I should refind some of the stuff I read on this and link it if/when I consolidate this into more solid writing.

"It is worth noting agin the distinction made in Chapter 4 between intentional and systemic causation. Even if not a single employer consciously or intentionally thought about the economic implications of discriminating against women, the systemi effects of competition would tend to weed out over time those employers who paid a sex differential not corresponding to a difference in productivity."

I actually agree.

Except "weed out over time" requires some evolving mechanism within the system to gain power. Could it be all the women speaking out in their experience of this lopsided system, and all the work going into correcting it (both politically and throughout the corporate world) may in fact be a visible manifestation of such weeding out? Maybe such weeding out could take decades of incremental, inconsistent progress?

Maybe instead of women getting paid less because they do less they do less because they get paid less? Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy? Consider this paper on the effect gender stereotypes have on the game of chess. Source found, because I wanted to remember where to look for it before I forgot (namely, I found it in this video wherein an incredibly smart anti-capitalist tears into a sexist youtuber saying women are inferior to men).

In any case, that paper found that when women played men without either players knowing the gender differential, they played relatively evenly. When women were informed they were playing against men, and reminded of the gender stereotype, they played worse. This happened even when their opponent was the same person (the information given to the woman was just different).

So, this is a problem that is not simply solved by hiring more women for any given role (though that's certainly a start). It's a cultural problem that must be overcome on purpose to unlock the full potential of oppressed groups. It's so obviously a problem that corporations like Microsoft and Google are now spending significant money towards fixing this problem without government intervention telling them to do so.

The same problems most-certainly apply to minorities as well, though how to solve that problem may well be different. And the book goes on to say a lot of things about discrimination as well. Some of it which may be true and something to consider. Specifically, "minimum wage hurts miniorities" because "less people are hired", and "when less people are hired, and there are more people to choose from, racism holds stronger sway".

Though, now we're in a new chapter. Chapter 11: "Minimum Wage Laws".

I'm not convinced by this argument, though, as minimum wage vs. jobs is a complicated thing that really isn't so simple as the book pretends it is.... As far as I know. And unfortunately the lenght of my knowledge is one FiveThirtyEight article I read a while back about the subject specifically applied to Washington state. So, I'll need to find my sources.

Further, I feel a false dichotomy is being presented: have a job and gain experience towards higher income later vs have no job and have no means of gaining higher income later. Missing are two other possibilities: have a job with too little pay that has no ladder upward, and have no job but get training or education towards a job with enough income. I've just started my reading on "Investment", which actually talks about education, so I think I'll come back to this. But the latter two are entirely possible, and make the minimum wage argument a lot more complicated, I think.

Which leads me to a chapter I have a lot of problems with. Chapter 12: "Special Problems in Labor Markets". This is the "unions are bad" chapter. It starts with some discussion about unemployment and how unemployment statistics are flawed that I mostly agree with. It also talks a bit about the nuances of worker safety and how first-world demands in greater safety for third-world business practices may force people into even less safe situations. Which, at least, paints the situation as complicated, and solutions as less-than-straightforward but worth strivig for.

But this chapter sort've implies that "collective bargaining" on the whole is bad, and I have to stop and talk about it, because it's just amazing to me. It comes across to me that the author thinks that prices just magically find their correct value, and to the extent that there's a human element to it, that human element is invisible.

What's particularly amazing is that the book has an example of unions having improved the accuracy of the price of their wages, but thinks that the example is anti-union:

"In private industryy, many companies have remained non-union by a policy of paying their workers at least as much as unionized workers received. Such a policy implies that the cost to an employer of having a union exceeds the wages and benefits paid to workers. [...]"

There's even more juicey goodness in the paragraph, but the point is that unions proved their validity and did their job: workers were being paid less than they should've been and the threat of workers organizing forced businesses by-and-large to improve working pay (amongst other things like working conditions).

I think this uncovers a very important point, if some group of people are being oppressed under a system and that system doesn't correct that error quick enough, those people will turn to some other system willing to try to help them. Even if the adopted system is less efficient, and hurts everyone overall over the long run.

Capitalism is not an exception to this point. Unions are the tax being paid for business consistently underpaying their workers. Businesses that exist without them do so by avoiding the circumstances that caused them. Some of their means to avoid unions may prove problematic and cause a similar anti-capitalism solution if the problems go uncorrected.

The chapter also makes implications of teachers being greedy and once again conflates working more hours with doing more work (but this time when comparing countries), but I'm not intersted in diving very deep into either of those things.

I mentioned in an earlier entry that a monopoly presented problems not just for consumers, but for employees. The book explicitly mentions this possibility, but mentions it being possible mostly only for highly specialized labor. I think it applies to menial labor as well, but that's something to find sources for.

The book mentions "the exit of businesses from California", and I'm curious about that. I should look at the books sources or find some of my own.

Tue Oct 24 09:00:18 UTC 2017

Wow. I've written a lot. And still have some notes to make before I continue reading, but it's late, I'm tired, and I have work tomorrow. I'll catch up tomorrow.

Daily Entry: October 22nd, 2017

Sun Oct 22 15:56:31 UTC 2017

At SEA airport. Going to SF for work purposes. After that I'm going to Tucson for game jame purposes. Woo.

Time-block

Time (PDT) Intention Revision 1 Revision 2
0430 SLEEP
0500 SLEEP
0530 SLEEP
0600 SLEEP
0630 Walk to Light Rail
0700 Light rail to airport and reading
0730 Airport
0800 Airport
0830 Airport and reading
0900 Airport
0930 Board
1000 Flying and reading
1030 Flying and reading
1100 Flying and reading
1130 Flying and reading
1200 Landing and reading
1230 Transit to airbnb and reading
1300 Transit to airbnb and reading
1330 Checking in
1400 Nap? Yes
1430 Nap? Yes
1500 Nap? Yes
1530 Nap? Yes
1600 Nap? Yes
1630 Panda3D Nap
1700 Panda3D Nap
1730 Panda3D Nap
1800 Panda3D Food
1830 Buffer Food
1900 Buffer Explore
1930 Buffer Explore
2000 IGDA SLEEP
2030 IGDA SLEEP
2100 IGDA SLEEP
2130 IGDA SLEEP
2200 SLEEP
2230 SLEEP
2300 SLEEP
2330 SLEEP
0000 SLEEP
0030 SLEEP
0100 SLEEP
0130 SLEEP
0200 SLEEP
0230 SLEEP
0300 SLEEP
0330 SLEEP
0400 SLEEP
Sun Oct 22 16:04:54 UTC 2017

Basic Economics reading.

The book has made a statement I find hard to believe, and in fact I believe I know of some contradictions. It states there are no real examples of "predatory pricing" wherein a business under priced a competitor to the point of losses to maintain a monopoly by which to avoid proper competition.

Now, let me be clear, the book's definition is slight different than what I just said, and perhaps the real definition is different than what I just said. The book states predatory pricing as taking losses to kill competition to then gouge customers via artificially high prices. This narrow view is one reason to kill competition via shaddy tactics, yes, but another reason is to kill competitive innovation before it becomes a real problem.

And I am once-again surprised that Rockerfeller is not brought up. Rockerfeller is an example often used when explaining predatory pricing. It is how I learned of the concept at the very least. I belive the author probably disagrees that he is such an example, but he should be aware of the argument and be dispelling it here. That he is not is very surprising to me.

Further, I feel that predatory businesses go far beyond the pricing variety, and amazingly the book mentions one such variety, but in a positive light. University of Phoenix is, as far as I'm aware (I'll need to find my sources) barely better than a diploma mill, enticing people to go into debt for an education worth way less than the cost of its classes. It is far from the only school that is doing this, either. The author lists it as a power of for-profit institutions, noting that it has far more students than the vast majority of public colleges.

He also paints the "Walmart is evil" meme as unfair or even ridiculous. His argument basically being that the company has plenty of competition, isn't a monopoly, and its lower prices have improved the standard of living for many. Now, this has led me to realize a new problem I have with this book, the ignoring of employees as members of the economy, and the effect that monopolies have on such people with limited skillsets.

However, the very next chapter (Chapter 10: Productivity and Pay), may well begin discussing the employee, so I will wait before writing on this thinking further.