However it's not central to religious faith.

Why do more religious communities have more retaliation against things like gays?

People want to marry and love who they want but religious people have decided they can just others be happy if it doesn't follow their world view. Same with dressing in drag. Nothing that impacts them but they feel the need to aggressively pursue ending the happiness of others by trying to create laws to make it illegal. They also don't care about other religions.

If highly religious people were really forgiving and wanted to cooperate they would never try to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Hell they push ideas like conversion therapy which goes fully against the idea of letting people be.

False

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history

> The 2007 amendments increased the minimum wage to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. A separate provision of the bill brings about phased increases to the minimum wages in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and in American Samoa, with the goal of bringing the minimum wages in those locations up to the general federal minimum wage over a number of years.

States are free to increase minimum wage as well and many do regularly.

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/minimum-wage-by-state/

The problem is that minimum wage usually doesn't mean livable wage and livable wage is very different based on the local cost of living for the area. NYC and DC need higher living wages than say some rural town in Alabama. It's why the federal minimum doesn't change as often.

So let's not pretend that minimum wage hasn't increased in 30 years when it's not even true federally let alone for many states. Especially when a significant portion have much higher minimum wage (some twice as much or more).

You disagreed with my statement that most low wage workers wouldn't want most of their compensation as illiquid stocks because they don't have enough capital. You don't understand this because you are actually agreed with my assertion. You seem focused on ceos instead of the needs of the worker.

The only way to impact CEO compensation in a positive way would be to come up with better tax schemes for the ultra wealthy so that money can be used to help those who need it. Increasing minimum wage is better than trying to limit CEO compensation. It's more direct in trying to help those employees not making a livable wage.

You don't seem to get it.

People are willing to work low paying jobs because there will always be someone willing to work for less. Low skill jobs have a lower floor. Look at Uber drivers. Many barely make profit after you include wear and tear on their vehicle along with fuel costs. In fact, Uber eats to great then as independent contractors so they aren't even employees and dont have the same protection.

You seen to simply not understand the world. Do you really think it would be easier to pass a law limiting CEO pay by the lowest wages employee than a minimum wage increase?

You are being optimistic about how companies would get around such a law. Low waged workers will likely become contractors or the law will become average pay because no one would accept restricting one person's compensation based on someone else's compensation. It doesn't necessarily increase pay for low wage workers like you think.

It's better to actually directly help those that need to have their wage increased.

Plus what happens if you have part time employees? They get paid a lower compensation due to no health care and less vacation. Now you can't have that either which means seasonal help also becomes tough to hire depending on how the your proposed law determines "minimum compensation".

Would you rather be paid 40k a year cash or 20k a year cash and 30k in stocks which can't be sold for 5 years and you must give 3 months notice before selling.

The stocks are not liquid and mass selling harms the value further diminishing the benefit. You think the employee will be happy getting only 20k in cash for their bills? Furthermore you will be diluting the stock on each dispersal which decreases value further.

CEOs already have lots of capital and prefer stocks to cash because it's taxed less. Plus already being rich means they can borrow against their assets to avoid most taxes.

Think about this. You have 100k in assets and just it as collateral to borrow 50k. Eventually you need to repay the loan when the term is over right? Sure but you can pay that loan by borrowing against the assets appreciation and the additional assets you acquired (stocks/property/etc). You can continue you this as you accumulate more wealth. Now 100k on assets likely won't take work, but when you are talking 100s of thousands then you can start to see why our tax system can be worked over so well.

Capital gains taxes only come into play when you sell an asset that has appreciated. Borrowing against that asset to make money does not invoke capital gains.

The other thing you need to keep in mind is that profit sharing can be great at company that is doing well but it's horrible when it's not. My company used to compensate everyone partially based on hitting numbers with a effective profit sharing. The problem was that company wasn't able to hit numbers for a few years which meant everyone were being underpaid vs the general market. Eventually they switched the system to have the expected bonus compensation added directly to lower level employees pay checks and only upper level people had their compensation split because lower level employees have no power in the company hitting numbers. This made all the lower level employees happy because it gave them a substantial pay increase vs having a roller coaster pay based on how the company did.

As an FYI, the company still gives performance bonuses for lower level employees. The difference is that higher level employees have their bonus more based on company performance instead of individual (it's a ratio that moves based on level of pay).

I am confused because you literally mentioned that companies should limit CEOs compensation based on the lowest paying wage. I am mentioning that would not have the intended effect of reducing compensation and potentially create incentive to reduce low wage employees by outsource when possible making what your are suggesting pointless.

You can't increase pay for low wage employees unless you increase the minimum wage. That is what increases pay to ensure a livable wage not trying some round about way to limit ceo compensation.

You would be surprised to know that not all companies have enough money to keep all their employees and us why we are seeing layoffs. The problem you don't seem to understand is liquidity.

You can just look at the s&p 500 growth and see the bullshit. Stocks grow in value, CEOs get paid mostly in stock ergo compensation has increased dramatically. Most workers don't get paid mostly in stock and likely don't want to so the compensation gap increases.

So you agree the entertainment industry should not pay them so much right?

R&D is expensive. Plenty of failed drugs happen. You think mRNA vaccines just happened overnight? No, it's been decades of research, much of which resulted in failure. They were being researched back in 1980s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021

https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52424.html

The reason most pharmaceuticals cost so much early on is to recover that r&d cost so they can continue doing research.

Now I am not trying to argue that pharmaceutical companies are never greedy or that they are somehow being fair with the pricing. It's just a bit more complicated than you are making it.

It's like saying instead of paying millions to these actors, why don't they pay less and give the money to pharmaceutical companies to fund the research so medicine can be cheaper for all.

You are basically arguing you feel internships should be abolished because no company would commit to hiring them.

You are also ironically pushing the idea of everyone working from home so they don't need facilities staff which tend to be unskilled labor that is low paying. This would reduce unskilled labor opportunities and place a burden on the labor market.

So software companies would be allowed to have better compensated CEOs than say a 10 person mom and pop store that needs to hire part time college students as cashiers. Assuming of course the mom and pop store can pull in enough money based on the ratio.

Furthermore you are pushing forth the idea that a newly hired person at the lowest level should be paid the same as the person with multiple years of experience otherwise reducing the CEO compensation. This would ironically lead to infighting among the workers when new hires are getting paid the same as experienced workers but not being productive.

The ratio idea basically pushes companies to not want to hire inexperienced workers and want to outsource all unskilled labor. Those consultating companies will drastically increase the cost of everything and the production costs increases.

However it misses the biggest issue. You think it will give better pay to lower paid workers but in reality they're isn't any cash for that pay in most companies without increasing the cost of goods and services. Instead you are basically telling companies they can't give as much stock to their CEO and that's about it. Lower paid workers don't want company stock and they certainly don't want the value of their compensation to be based on company performance.

So in other words ceos that get paid mostly in company stock which has vesting periods and other restrictions.

A form of compensation that most workers would not want because they rather have cash to pay their bills.

It's not surprising the change.

It seems to roughly correlate with the s&p 500 because that's how stocks and company value has grown.

Easily compensated?

https://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/physics/weight.html

Check section 8.

> So if a 85 kg oarsman pulls a 5 km erg in 19 minutes (=1140s), and a 70 kg oarsman takes 19.5 minutes (=1170s), their equivalent 'boat speeds', normalised for a 75 kg oarsman, would be:

> (8.8) (85kg): TB = 1140 / ( (90/100)0.167 ) = 1160s = 19m 20s > (8.9) (70kg): TB = 1170 / ( (90/85)0.167 ) = 1159s = 19m 19s

> i.e. a bit of a nightmare for the person who has to select between the two. (Using the 0.222 power would give times 1167s and 1155s respectively, so the lighter rower would win).

Now this is using accepted formulas for estimating rower performance on water based on an erg (indoor rower). So it's not perfect, but it's a great example of why not being bigger didn't mean faster. Remember drag is constant for all movement including coasting.

So in this example the 15kg heavier person would be about the same speed as the 70kg person. You can't assume that the extra weight will always be just muscle. Fat, bones, etc count as well. You are unlikely to increase just muscle (at best you will have a body fat percentage of around 5-8% for an elite athlete). So any increase in weight will carry dead weight as well.

Physics dictates that you need to increase displacement in order to float a heavier weight on water. The more water you displace the more water will be in your way when you try to move. Drag is drag and it affects you. People can only gain so much strength improvements with weight.

I would argue it sends the message that our tax codes for toys are stupid. Why are action figures taxed differently?

It's actually more meta then you think. Plenty of groups want to be treated fairly but at the same time want to maintain advantages. Marvel was basically arguing that mutant toys need an advantage over human toys to be treated fairly. I know that was not the real reason but practically speaking it's not unlike people fighting for affirmative action policies to help based on race instead of other non race criteria. Pushing race based policies to help only some of the disenfranchised people instead of more general policies that would still help people belonging to races that are most disenfranchised. For instance, helping all poor people.

It's not unlike having programs to push girls into STEM jobs but not having similar programs for boys or even complimentary programs to help get them into careers predominantly filled by women (like teachers and nursing).

It's a very complex problem. Take the quota systems designed to help black and Hispanic students get into better colleges by reducing standards for them. Is it fair? No. Is it needed to help certain students? Debatable but certainly is effective in helping those students get access to better education.

To be fair they qualify the statement:

> “Rats displayed innate — that is, without any training or prior exposure to music — beat synchronization most distinctly within 120-140 bpm (beats per minute), to which humans also exhibit the clearest beat synchronization,”

I imagine they did research but didn't find much in the way of actual studies. I tried a search, and didn't really find anything. The one about birds was based on a single bird named "snowball" and the study was done after seeing videos of the bird on YouTube.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/07/study-of-snowball-the-cockatoo-suggests-humans-arent-the-only-ones-who-can-dance/

The thing is this is a bird that was "corrupted" in the sense of could have been trained and the studies used songs that the bird was already familiar with. So it's a bit different than this study where the rats were not previously exposed to music or trained.

I got you. While I am not sure what YouTube video you are using, deep diaphragmatic breathing to reduce stress is a very studied topic. This is a big thing for athletes because stress can also be due to arousal that occurs during hard training.

All you need is something to help you learn the breathing pace and then you are good to go. Some sports watches and smart watches can even use biofeedback to help guide you.

The basic concept is 6 breaths per minute with 5 second inhale and 5 second exhale. This should be continuous breathing with no pause holding your breath or pausing on exhale. You should be using your diaphragm. Some studies change up the number of breaths per minute, but overall it's pretty similar.

Some research to read: While this is a research white paper and designed to be related to sports performance, they have plenty of cited studies and information on how deep breathing exercises help reduce stress.

https://www.polar.com/en/img/static/whitepapers/pdf/polar-serene-white-paper.pdf

Below are a few more.

Article examining bunch of studies to show deep breathing can help insomnia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361823/

Study showing reduced anxiety and better sleep for nurses who were dealing with COVID outbreaks. This study had limitations with no control group and being somewhat self reported.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7724962/

Study about deep breathing helping reduce stress

https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/fulltext/2019/09000/effectiveness_of_diaphragmatic_breathing_for.6.aspx

Each of the linked articles and studies have even more cited studies to review about the effect of deep breathing on stress and the asymptomatic nervous system. So plenty to read and explore.

That's because it doesn't bring much to the table

Imagine this:

Rodgers: hi, I think people should get vaccinated, but I don't feel comfortable quite yet

Reporter: what would change your mind?

Rodgers: more testing and studies because I feel it went too fast and it might affect my athletic performance. Others are free to get the vaccine if they feel safe and everyone should have that choice. It shouldn't be mandated, but everyone should get it if they want to and feel safe. I don't feel the COVID is a large risk for my demographic based on the data. I don't bother people getting the vaccine or treat them differently. I am not sure why people are making a big deal about my choice and harassing me about it.

Reporter: Thanks back to in the studio.

The problem is the argument made by most were they were "afraid" of how it might impact them and felt COVID wasn't a large risk to them. Even though vaccines would help, people mentally did their gymnastics to say they didn't need them. You get it being mandated and it becomes an argument of choice. Naturally anyone given a choice but told you should do this need to do the opposite of authority to feel they are exerting choice and have some control in the matter. It's the reason why you kept hearing everyone including him telling people it's a choice and everyone who wants the vaccine should get it. They would also say things like "I think everyone should get the vaccine if they want to".

The whole problem is that reporters did ask questions like that and it results in it becoming about choice. It would turn into a harassment thing and why he played the victim because everyone bothered him to do something he didn't feel was necessary.

It's why it's impossible to really reason with such people because they can twist the narrative. We can see that the reasoning is obtuse but it don't matter because they feel satisfied with the reasoning and so do people that agree.