PatentTroll

This. The problem is that the costs of transportation are externalized to a shipper, and the environmental costs the shipper incurs are externalized to ... future generations? And the cost of the eventual replacement is externalized to the consumer ten years from now. It may be wise for us as a society to find ways to fully account for all costs of products to use market forces to make better decisions for society as a whole, rather than enriching a segment at the expense of another.

Why didn't he make it himself?

It is factually true that capital gains is taxed lower than income in the US.

And being "capable" in the first place is largely due to luck also. What is being "capable?" Intelligence, education, discipline, motivation? Intelligence is largely genetics and your socioeconomic status as a child. Education? Intelligence plus socioeconomic status as a child and young adult. And a fair bit of luck too (i.e., admissions, etc.). Discipline? Parent's socioeconomic status and probably some genetic/psych/environmental influences. Point being, just being capable of being "capable" has much to do with things outside of your control. Most are unaware or dismissive of this. Goes back to the old adage of being born on third base and congratulating yourself for hitting a home run.

I think you just invented the dirigible?

I remember when we used to call them model airplanes.

And what is the value created by labor? Let's split the discussion into service jobs and non-service jobs, as we all know most of these minimum wage positions are service jobs. So, what is the value of one hour of service labor? Whatever someone will pay for it. Which is set by a market of service providers all decreasing their prices to the lowest they can tolerate. Because if you can undercut a competitor, the free market says you will win the business. Which, for the people who make minimum wage, is how little a wage they will accept. Ok, what sets the floor for what people will tolerate to be paid? When looking at the minimum wage sector of the population, what is their bargaining power? What is the bargaining power of the employers? Is it a free market? What other options do the workers have? Is it a voluntary transaction if the alternative is starvation and homelessness?

Or will the prices just increase to account for the higher wage? Isn't that easier?

Your conclusion lies on the assumption that rational economists must oppose any measure which decreases demand.

Or, if no company is willing to pay a living wage to accomplish a task, does it need to be done?

And to the free marketers who point out that companies could voluntarily pay a living wage, you're not wrong! But it exposes the fault in the free market religion. The market, on a whole, will gladly enslave and abuse a small minority for the benefit of the majority.

No, you're telling the customers that their food is subsidized by ultra cheap labor. Of course, higher prices will decrease the number of goods sold, which the free marketers regard as a deadly sin. Rather, when costs are fully internalized, the free market works better! Externalizing costs onto labor by perpetuating a below-living wage is a market distortion held up by government! They should hate it!

Also, as an Amazon shopper, their fulfillment is a known quantity to me. If I buy from your shop with your shipping, I am taking on the risk of potentially longer shipping. And I also have an increased suspicion of fake or knock off goods. So, even if I saw both listings side by side, I'd pay 10% to Amazon for their fulfillment and a perceived lower risk of knock off (despite reading much about Amazon sold knock offs). In fact, I've often bypassed the buy box to buy the same item from amazon at a higher price for these reasons

Dude, that's exactly what taxi commissions are! They certify that taxis conform to some basic standards. I'm not trying to be nice to you because the ideas you are espousing are corrosive and dangerous. I oppose your false ideology completely.

Well I guess that's my point, let's have a conversation about inequality and discuss how much is too much. It's a reasonable thing to debate. Your post seemed to imply that railing against the 1% was inappropriate in some way

Yeah, that's fucking terrible

Ok, so taxis. If it is going to be a voluntary transaction, I need to know 1) the drivers background check to make sure he isn't a murderer or rapist, 2) has a clean driving record, 3) has a license, 4) carries insurance that covers me while I'm in his car, 5) is driving a safe vehicle, 6) and what the ride costs. Do you really expect each taxi passenger to sort out all of that info for each and every ride!? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get together to set some standards and put some folks in charge of enforcing those standards so that you can just hop in a cab and reasonably expect not to die? Doesn't that sound reasonable? Well that's all the regulation is. If you want to argue about NYC medallions and regulatory capture, you're not wrong. That shit should be figured out. By involvement in government, voting, and citizen action. What you're really mad about is the perceived inflexibility and ineffective nature of that process. But you're also the same kind of free market numbskull who supports unfettered capitalism and campaign donations, which is how a special interest strangles a government body like a taxi cab commission.

What you fail to grasp is that your rights end where others begin, and there's more people in the world who aren't you than who are you. Grow up.

Let's get rid of doctor licensing then? The free market will separate the good ones from the ones who will kill you! Pyramid schemes? You have the right to invest in one, so why outlaw it? Toxic waste dump? Go for it! Don't let the evil law stop you! Seriously, you're incredibly dull if you cannot grasp the consequences of your words. Each and every one of these hated laws came about as a result of something bad happening, and people were like "yeah, let's prevent that from happening again." Then everything is good, and idiots like you come by and scream about the big gubmint keepin you down! The horrors! Well go back in time then you moron, to the time when slavery existed (there's a law against that) or kids worked in coal mines (there's a law against that) without safety equipment (nor laws) or taxi drivers didn't carry insurance (dreaded regulations that Uner flaunted).

And what about AirBnb? Or any of the many 'gig economy' startups that flaunt labor laws? I agree with the article. Let's not punish innovation, but let's make sure we don't get a new normal of startups making money by breaking the law. And not just abstract policy wonk big gummint type of law, but like the things that make sure people don't get taken advantage of and are safe.

Disagree. There certainly are large genetic and huge environmental factors in raw intelligence, and then a whole raft of environmental and cultural factors in how a person with that intelligence is able to use it. I'm a privileged, intelligent, educated white guy but I have an intellectual appreciation for what it must be like to be born to a poor minority family in a poor area. You will point to some example of some guy who made it out of the third world or the ghetto, but the reason that dude is a story is because he's an extreme outlier. Empathy man.

This. There is no maxim that this is the only way to increase living standards, or a good way, or a just or moral way. It benefits large corporations in the US, though, and consumers through the availability of underpriced goods, all on the backs of some faceless brown people somewhere around the world, so its anointed as the best thing since sliced bread

OP sets up the straw man of "anybody against any inequality must be advocating perfect equality" - which is hogwash. By OP's logic, feudalism is perfectly fine because it accentuates the differences between serfs and kings. Or hell, even slavery is Ok. What reasonable people have to start to appreciate is that everything isn't black and white, there are shades of gray and we can have meaningful disagreements about where the lines are drawn.

Not to mention a new population of knowledge workers will produce their own demand, so it's not a zero sum game by any means.

The article says Amazon 'won' the patent or alternatively the patent was 'awarded' to Amazon. The USPTO only "grants" patents. It may seem like nit picking semantics but it presents an incorrect image of the USPTO to uninformed readers. And it also exposes the authors lack of knowledge on patents, discrediting the whole of the article.

Yes

As little as possible. Software is a cost center to law firms.

I don't think much legal cost is in research, industry-wide. Most lawyers specialize in one niche and already know all the relevant big cases in their field. More nuanced research isn't all that time consuming really. And a whole big swath of legal work has absolutely nothing to do with researching law, there's a lot more to it. And a huge part of society doesn't need super-experienced lawyers. The under served market needs warm bodies who are qualified to represent clients at some state bar who are willing to work for peanuts. Like, just someone to sit there in a suit and look menacing would help out most of the 'under served.' Large student loans require law school grads to seek the highest paying work possible, thought, so lawyers can't represent poor people.

Lowering prices on mid-top tier legal work won't attract more customers, demand is largely inelastic. And their customers, who are fortune X00 types, don't really care about the cost. Oh, sure, they bitch and moan about bills and write op eds about how law firms are terrible and the billable hour is bad. But, in the end, like OP says, companies routinely go back to the same crop of biglaw firms. There is no such thing as 'disruption' in this industry, it never has been disrupted.

I'm actually working on this! Would love to hear your thougts

And lawyers are still ethically expected (by many state bars) to measure and log hours worked, even under fixed fees. Same with contingency fees. So let's say that a client is paying a fixed fee for work, then discovers that it's now taking half the time to do the same work. They're going to demand a lowering of their fixed fee in proportion. So even under alternative fees, there's still an incentive to keep high "hours" on the bill