wordsarewind's comments

You're argument is absolutely sound: where possible, producers should be able to differentiate products to better suit the consumer demand. However, you overlook the unfortunate fact that there are signicant barriers to entry for ISPs, which means that it is effectively impossible for new producers with the current ones such as AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. What results is an oligopoly which has significant anti-trust issues and largely causes suboptimal results for the consumer (consider the absurdly high prices Americans pay for shitty Internet service). Open the doors to a new marketplace of service for these ISPs and all hell will break loose. Add to this the political leanings of these companies and it's hard to imagine a worse outcome.

No human being, regardless of age, has been exposed to all the facts of life. Unfortunately, it takes more than direct personal experience to understand the human condition. Those rich in personal experience are nonetheless poor in extra personal experience. Universalizing personal experience, which is widely and unashamedly practiced, is both narcissistic and pointless, as it holds no certain relevance beyond its originator. Honestly, I think the advice of this 20-year-old, although diffuse, is perhaps more meaningful than much offered by the "wise".

In addition to the lack of a control and the sole focus on the federal minimum wage which in many cases is simply irrelevant, the basic failure in this study is the use of nominal instead of real wages. The inflation-adjusted federal minimum wage has not changed significantly in decades, falling below, only to be corrected up to, the 1990 level.[1] Honestly, any empirical evidence that challenges the classic economic models by including the potential effects of increased purchasing power on job growth, among other things, must use inflation-adjusted wages. Furthermore, littering a report with quotes from conservatives, as if to show their inexplicable obsessions with an obviously absurd position is pathetic. This is not some crackpot theory bandied around to keep the boot on the poor beggar's neck, it follows from a logically sound, although perhaps overly simplistic, model which is the basis of our understanding of price controls, including minimum wage.

[1] https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/07/the-real-minimum-wag...

(Edited wage level analysis and cited source.)

As opined here the justification for the exhaustion of the patent after sale is that the patent holder has in the sale been granted the price desired, fair compensation, for the patented item, and thus cannot demand further use of the patent with respect to the item. However, this desired price can only be set by the patent holder in the monopoly granted through the patent in the US. Therefore, this price cannot be set outside of the US where the patent holder has no patent monopoly, and thus competition. Consequently, the patent holder will not receive the desired price and remain uncompensated by the patent, and thus may still require further use of it.

Surely the Supreme Court shouldn't disqualify the patent holder's right to fair compensation for the invention in sales outside of the US?

Although I'd have to poke around for the specific sources, I've read papers that showed that, in fact, subjective well-being increases continuously with wealth (per capita GDP). However, the increase is not linear, but rather logistic--which makes intuitive sense, since a $5,000 pay raise for an employee making $25,000 a year isn't the same as for one making $100,000. On the other hand, I've also read that the increase in wealth past the much-referenced $75,000 level doesn't significantly increase emotional well-being (unconscious positive/negative feelings).