What is Atheism?

PART ONE: DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF 'ATHEISM'

1. First Myth: That 'atheism' refers to the absence of a belief that God exists is just the correct definition of the word, as anyone who studies the issue would know.

This myth appeals to expert use in defining the term. But the claim here is false. The best online resources for this kind of material are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which are peer-reviewed, academic resources on issues of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, philosophy of religion, and related topics.Here is how the SEP defines the term: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." And the IEP: "Atheism is the view that there is no God... It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist... Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist."

Note not only that both sources define 'atheism' as the beilef that there isn't a God, the IEP moreover explicitly notes the distinction between this so-called "positive atheism" and the broader "negative atheism" so as to clearly note that the sense which is widely accepted and which they will use is the narrower "positive atheism". Likewise, it explicitly distinguishes atheism, as the belief that there is no God, from agnosticism, as a state where there is neither the belief that there is a God nor a belief that there isn't.

The same treatment of the issue has been defended by editors of the SEP in response to various emails about the article cited above. Here is part of a response from one of their editors:

Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism' means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the philosophical literature. Some now refer to this standard meaning as "positive atheism" and contrast it with the broader notion of "negative atheism" which has the meaning you suggest--that 'atheism' simply means not-theist.

In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was using an etymological argument to try to convince people not to follow the standard meaning of the term. His goal was to reframe the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a default position.

Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they rejected.

2. Second Myth: That 'atheism' refers to the absence of a belief that God exists is just the correct definition of the word, as anyone who can read a dictionary knows.

This myth appeals to colloquial use in defining the term, as recorded in dictionaries. But the claim here is false. In fact, the vast majority of dictionaries use the "positive atheism" definition defended by the SEP and IEP. Here are examples: Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, MacMillan Dictionary...

The "lack of belief" formulation can be found in a dictionary, but seems to be an idiosyncrasy of Oxford Dictionaries. Note that this is not the canonical "Oxford English Dictionary", which, like the dictionaries listed above, gives the narrower, "positive atheism" definition.

3. Third Myth: That 'atheism' refers to the absence of a belief that God exists is just the correct definition of the word, as it's used by atheists to describe themselves.

This myth appeals to a particular usage of the term proper to the recent literature on atheism. But the claim is false. Probably the most canonical text in the recent popular publications on atheism is Dawkins' The God Delusion, and in this text it's also clear that 'atheism' is being used in the narrower, "positive atheism", sense.

The clearest presentation of these issues is in the section called "The Poverty of Agnosticism" (69-77). In this section, Dawkins offers a 7-point scale of religious belief, to describe his understanding of the issue. I'll quote it:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.J. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leaning toward theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable".

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning toward atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical".

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not here".

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction Jung 'knows' there is one". (73)

Note that Dawkins uses three terms here: 'theist' (positions 1-2), 'agnostic' (3-5), and 'atheist' (6-7). The atheist for Dawkins, whether "de facto" (6) or "strong" (7), is someone who takes it that "God is not there" (6) or that "there is no God" (7). Plainly, this is the same "strong atheism" sense of the term used in the SEP, IEP, and the vast majority of dictionaries. Likewise, Dawkins recognizes positions which lack belief in the existence of God but which are not atheist (3-6), and he distinguishes these positions from atheism by calling them "agnostic".

Moreover, the entire thesis of this section of the book is a polemic against people who think that we're in a position of merely lacking belief, an error which Dawkins attributes to people not understanding how to reason about probabilities, and which he associates with Huxley's agnosticism--which he critiques on this basis (see especially 72-73). Dawkins counts himself as a "6, but leaning towards 7" (pg. 74), i.e. as an atheist in the narrow, positive sense.

This analysis, distinguishing atheism as the position there there isn't a God from agnosticism as merely lacking a belief either way, and criticizing agnostics (i.e. people who merely lack belief) for not understanding how to reason with probabilities, would become a mainstay of popular atheism following the publication of Dawkins book. Hitchens, for instance, repeatedly gives the exact same account. Here's an example--note Hitchens' conclusion that, in distancing the atheist view from the agnostic one he's criticizing, adopts the "positive atheism" sense of the term (as indeed it must for his criticism of the agnostic to make sense): "The atheist view is there's absolutely no reason ever been advanced by another primate to believe that there is [a God], and when you've got that far, you really ought to say there isn't [a God], not that, for that reason, I'm not sure." (1m52s)

4. Fourth Myth: That 'atheism' refers to the absence of a belief that God exists is just the correct definition of the word, as anyone who studies etymology would know.

This myth appeals to a literal or etymological reading of the Greek terms making up the word 'atheism'. The idea is apparently that 'a-' is to be understood as meaning without and '-theism' is to be understood just like our English word 'theism', i.e. as meaning a belief that God exists, so that the word 'atheism' develops by adding 'a-' to '-theism' in order to mean without a belief that God exists.

There are two problems with this theory. First, our sources for etymology give us a different theory, explaining the original Greek as meaning not without a belief that God exists, but rather "without god" or "ungodliness". Thus the atheist was not everyone but a theist, but rather someone who was profane. And ironically, even a theist could be profane and thus called an atheist--as the early Christians were by the dominant religious tradition of their time.

A second problem with this theory is that the word 'atheism' is the earlier of the two words, appearing in French by the 16th century, following the ancient Greek--whereas 'theist' did not appear until the 17th century, and did not have its current meaning until the 18th.

PART TWO: TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEFINITION WE MIGHT HAVE IN MIND HERE

Stipulative versus Reportive Definitions

At this point it is worthwhile to clarify the distinction between a stipulative and a reportive definition. A stipulativedefinition is where we freely assign a meaning to some variable, in this case a word. This is like in math or programming, if we define, for instance "X=7". Likewise, for ease of communication, we might define "PNC" as "the principle of non-contradiction" or "T2" as "the second thesis defended in Rose's speech". Stipulative definitions can of course involve common words too, as we often see in legal documents: for purposes of this document, "primary manager" shall be defined as "the person who during the shift in question exercises the highest immediate authority of operations in the shipping/receiving department", or what have you. Reportive definitions, conversely, are making a claim about how a word is actually used in some context. For instance, in the previous section I provided some evidence for a reportive definition of 'atheism' in technical writing, popular writing, and popular writing on atheism.

This is an important distinction, because reportive definitions can be disputed--that is, we can argue whether they're true or false--but stipulative definitions can't. In a stipulative definition, there is no question about it's being true or false, since it's simply a freely assigned definition: it can be whatever the definer pleases. It might be misleading orimpractical, but it can't be false.

So there are two different issues here. When people insist that 'atheism' should mean merely the absence of a belief that God exists, do they mean this as a reportive definition, or a stipulative one?

'Atheism' as the absence of a belief that God exists -- a Reportive Definition?

Typically, they mean it as a reportive one. For we are often told that we are wrong to use the term any other way. One of the first cases I saw of this was someone organizing a letter writing campaign to the editors of Salon for, in their view, misusing the word 'atheism' in a pernicious way by relating it to the view that there is no God. Likewise, as we have seen, people write the editors of the SEP complaining that they have the definition wrong. None of this makes any sense unless the people making these kinds of objections understand their point as concerning a reportivedefinition of the term.

But, as we have seen, they're mistaken if they think the correct reportive definition of the term is the absence of a belief that God exists--this is neither the typical sense in technical writing, nor in popular writing, nor in popular writing specifically about atheism.

'Atheism' as the absence of a belief that God exists -- a Stipulative Definition?

But what if someone means the absence of a belief that God exists as merely a stipulative definition of the word 'atheism'? In this case, it wouldn't make any sense for them to insist that we have to use the word this way, or that we're wrong to use the word any other way. But they could mean to say that, however anyone else uses the word, this is the way they use it, and in telling us this, they mean merely to clarify their own way of speaking so that we can understand them.

So long as such people are willing to give up on the idea that we, Salon, the SEP, etc. are wrong to use the word another way, and they're willing to be clear and consistent in their use of the term, it's of course perfectly correct for them to stipulate this definition of the term in their own use--for, as we've seen, stipulative definitions are never wrong.

Often, when we present people who want to speak this way with the kind of evidence I'm offering in these comments, they object that no one can tell them how to speak. If what they mean is that they're merely stipulating this definition, then they're right, and I hope it's clear that nowhere in these comments am I suggesting anything to the contrary.

But we can ask whether their definition also works as a good reportive definition. It doesn't, as we've seen, and this means at very least (i) that they have to give up on the complaint that everyone else is wrong to use the word any other way, and (ii) that they're speaking in a somewhat misleading way--in general, it's misleading to take common words and then change their meaning, especially when the new meaning is being used in the very same context as the old meaning (which is the case here). In general, we want our language to be clear and accurate, and haphazard changing of definitions is contrary to this goal. Of course, sometimes we have a good reason to change a definition--whether that's the case here will be explored in the next section.

And we can ask how well their definition works on pragmatic terms: does it help clarify the relevant issues, or does it instead obfuscate them? We've already seen one reason to suspect it's a misleading definition, but this is the issue that will be explored next...

PART THREE: SPEAKING CLEARLY AND THINKING REASONABLY ABOUT ATHEISM

How well does the definition of 'atheism' as the absence of a belief that God exists work on pragmatic terms? Does it help clarify the relevant issues, or does it instead obfuscate them? One issue that we've already seen is that it's a badreportive definition, and this means it might be a somewhat misleading way to speak. But is there nonetheless a good reason to speak this way?

'Atheism' as the absence of a belief that God exists -- a vague or imprecise way of speaking

Well, how can we judge these issues? The main consideration is conveyed in the maxim that our words should, like a good butcher, cut nature at the joints. This is a colorful way of saying that our words should line up in a clear way with concepts, or with things in the world: if there is a significant difference between two concepts, we should have the words to convey this difference; if there is a significant difference between two kinds of thing, we should have the words to convey this difference. Conversely, when our language blurs together different concepts or things, it's not doing its job well: it's vague or imprecise.

One important thing to note when we're defining 'atheism' is that there's a significant difference between someone who believes there is no God, and someone who believes neither this nor that there IS a God. Indeed, this difference turns out to be very important: it's the difference at stake in the Dawkins/Hitchens criticism of Huxley, and of the key error they maintain confuses people into being (on Dawkins'/Hitchens' understanding of the terms) agnostics rather than atheists. Likewise, in the philosophical literature on the existence of God, the most important developments leading us from the theocentric perspective of the medieval period to the non-theistic perspective of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is in the epistemology of Hume and Kant--and what they're saying hinges on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Huxley himself appeals to Hume and Kant as the key developments leading to agnosticism (see his Agnosticism). Whether it's Hume and Kant, Huxley, or Dawkins and Hitchens, understanding these issues hinges on noting the distinction between atheism, in the "positive atheism" sense, and agnosticism, in the sense of someone who is neither a theist nor an atheist.

Understandably, then, the usual way of using these terms--as we've seen, the way we find in the SEP, IEP, the vast majority of dictionaries, Dawkins' God Delusion, etc.--does a good job here, giving us the language to clearly note this distinction ('atheism' vs. 'agnosticism'). Conversely, if we define 'atheism' as the absence of a belief that God exists, our language does a terrible job here: we've lost the accuracy of our language, and now have only a single word ("atheism") to refer to both of these concepts. This definition fails the test, and that's the first problem, from the pragmatic point of view--it's vague and ambiguous, when we want our language to be clear and precise.

Why would we resist saying that there is no God?

But one of the things that is motivating this vague language is the feeling that, even if it's vague in this sense, it's more precise in another sense. Its advocates tend to think of it as important to identify not as believing that there is no God, but rather as merely not having a belief that God exists, yet they also want to identify as "atheists", so they naturally resist the idea that an atheist is someone who believes there's no God. But why do they resist claiming that there is no God?

To investigate this, the first thing to do is ask such people (or ask ourselves, if we are such a person): do you think the evidence favors the view that God exists or rather the view that God doesn't exist? We might have varying degrees of certainty about this, so let's use Dawkins' 7-point scale to organize our answer on this question (which is, after all, what it's for). So, someone who thinks there's no more reason to think there is no God than to think there is would be a 4; someone who thinks there's maybe a bit more reason to think there's no God, but it's not enough to be very compelling would be a 5; someone who thinks a rational appraisal of the evidence is going to clearly favor the view that there is no God, though it's not absolutely conclusive would be a 6; and someone who thinks that on the evidence there's just no question at all, it plainly and unqualifiedly shows there is no God would be a 7.

So, which of these views characterizes our individual here--the one who wants to resist saying there's no God, and for this reason resists the definition of 'atheism' found in the SEP, IEP, dictionaries, Dawkins' TGD, etc.? In my experience, they have always been, like Dawkins himself, 6's, perhaps leaning one way or the other. These are not "Teach the Controversy!" people who think the case for God made by the design argument is just as compelling as the case against God, or anything like this. Rather, they think on any rational appraisal, the evidence does favor the view that there is no God.

If that's really our result, than this is helpful. But there's one more question we need to ask to get to bottom of this:do you proportion your beliefs according to the evidence? (That is, if the evidence clearly favors X, do you endeavor for this reason to believe X? Or, would you reject X even though the evidence clearly favors it, out of faith or some other kind of non-rational process?) I expect that our hypothetical person is going to answer yes to this question. If they answer no, then perhaps there's not much point trying to reason with them--since they apparently don't regard reasonas their basis for forming beliefs! But these are not typically faith-based thinkers; they're driven by the evidence, and they're not shy about saying so.

But if this is so, what difficulty could remain? If the evidence favors the view that there is no God, and we believe in proportion with the evidence, then... we should believe there is no God! Why resist this conclusion and insist instead that we merely have no beliefs about God existing?

It is unreasonable to demand unimpeachable certainty as a condition of believing something

The difficulty turns out to be that some people have somehow got it into their heads that before they believe something they ought to be infallible about it--for otherwise they could be wrong, and that's no basis for believing something. So, at this point they'll say that they resist asserting that there is no God because they could be wrong.

But this is a monstrously strange idea--we don't need infallibility in order to believe something! We don't have infallibility about any scientific claim--neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, for instance--and indeed, the fallibility and corrigibility of scientific claims is one of their impressive features. Or must we resist having any belief one way or another on scientific matters? Must we "Teach the Controversy!"? Surely not: that the evidence is clear enough in supporting (e.g.) the neo-Darwinian synthesis is good enough for us, and if the scientific findings change in the future, we will be happy to correct our views. Surely we recognize it as merely a dirty trick, not a sound maxim of reason, to claim that if science is fallible we must withhold belief in it and give equal recognition to non-scientific alternatives.

But why, then, do we treat the issue of God any differently? If the evidence is clear enough that there is no God, we're just acting confused if we nonetheless resist believing the fact. The matter seems just as Dawkins has said: what seems to be going on here is that people are getting confused about how to reason with probabilities.

So if we're reasoning soundly about evidence clearly favoring the view that there is no God, and speaking clearly about our conclusions, we should not shy from saying that there is no God. And if instead we do shy from this, and limit ourselves to only saying that we have no beliefs about God existing, evidently either we think the evidence fails to favor the view that there is no God, or we're reasoning poorly about the evidence, or we're speaking unclearly about what the evidence says.

SOURCE

What is Noir?

There's always a lot of debate on what noir is. So much so that it comes up on every noir panel at every mystery con. It's reached the point where it's kind of a joke and people roll their eyes and say things like, "French for black."

I've had my view of it challenged and changed and that's affected my writing and what I focus on. So I think it's an important question.

Chris Holm, an excellent thriller and noir author (also did a noir UF series called The Collector through Angry Robot - you should check it out, it's excellent) put it the most succinctly of anyone I've heard. "Poor options, bad decisions, dire consequences."

There's a difference between noir and hard-boiled that I think gets overlooked a lot. Chandler is hard-boiled, Hammett is hard-boiled (though maybe not his RED HARVEST, but I'm on the fence with that one). Thompson and Goodis are noir. Macbeth is so goddamn noir it should have its own tropes page (ambition, murder, a femme fatale, blackmail, backstabbing, guilt, everything falls apart, a violent end).

Hardboiled characters are, as another author, Megan Abbott put very well, tarnished knights. They are good people in bad situations who walk through the muck and come out the other side intact. Philip Marlowe might be more cynical and jaded at the end of The Big Sleep, but he's still largely the same good person he was at the beginning. Sam Spade is rougher around the edges, darker and more morally ambiguous, but he's the same way. Hard-boiled characters operate within the seediness but remain largely untouched by it.

But noir characters. They're fucked from the word go. They might survive, but they'll survive changed, probably broken. Even if they win they lose.

Noir characters are doomed and they're often doomed by their own hand. Walter Neff in Double Indemnity is a perfect example. "Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman." He's backed the wrong horse. And Phyllis Dietrichson, the femme fatale, who's using him, and he KNOWS he's being used and he goes along with it anyway, is just playing him. And in the end, they gun each other down.

More tragic is when it's bad decisions for the right reasons and it all goes to shit, anyway. Take John Rector's THE COLD KISS about a young couple trying to escape a bad situation and run into a hitchhiker who pays them $500.00 for a ride, only to die in their backseat with a fuckton of money. They could report it, let it go, give the cops the money and walk away. But they've got a baby on the way. They're trying to make a new life. They're stuck in a motel in Nebraska in a blizzard and that money could really com in handy. But they should really do something about this corpse.

You can probably guess how that turns out.

The weird thing about noir, though, is how hopeful it is. It's surprisingly optimistic. Noir characters are driven by hope and optimism. I know that sounds weird, but think about it. These characters are doomed. They can't be anything BUT doomed. It's who they are. It's in their DNA. So why don't they just roll over and give up? Because they have hope. They might be screwed, they might even know they're screwed, but they can't let it go. That hope's too tenacious.

So... this probably went on longer than you were expecting. Sorry. I get carried away sometimes. Anyway, short answer: "Poor options, bad decisions, dire consequences."

SOURCE

The Case for Raising Minimum Wage

"If you raise minimum wage, prices go up" or "If you raise minimum wage, you get inflation." Empirically speaking, this inflation cycle being suggested has already been shown not to happen. The result of raising minimum wage is, firstly, not directly inflation, and, secondly, decreased unemployment, which more than offsets any indirect inflation.

Speaking of direct consequences, very rarely do companies drastically raise prices to accommodate minimum wage increases. Most companies can accommodate a $0.12 raise in minimum wage by increasing their prices $0.01. If that increase is $2.40, then the price increase is, roughly, $0.20. And, as we'll get to in a second, the impact of that $2.40 offsets the $0.20.

But first, since we are speaking empirically, it must be pointed out that a lot of companies choose to eat some or all of this cost out of their profit margin instead of raising prices. The reason for this is that if one competitor decides not to increase prices, the remainder cannot increase theirs without losing consumers. And this is especially the case if the target consumers are not minimum-wage earners, whose wages, consequently, did not increase: the fact that minimum wage has increased does not affect non-minimum-wage earners decision to seek the best bang for their buck. In sum, the increase in income is noticeable for minimum-wage earners, but the costs are rather unnoticeable to middle-income earners.

Now back to that $2.40 or, more precisely, what exactly does happen to the inflation cycle following minimum wage increases such that the costs are offset. The cycle works as follows:

• Minimum wage is increased.
• Minimum-wage earners spend more.
• Demand increases for various products.
• Employment increases via new and/or expanded business operations to cover producing for this demand.
• This new employment puts more disposable income into middle-income families.
• More disposable income means even more demand. (Go back to #4 above).
• Eventually, this demand increase starts to level off. Along the way, certain industries reach a point where this levelling-off of the demand makes the barrier for entry into the industry too high for new competitors to get in, yet still does not cover all the new demand from the new disposable income.
• At this point, companies optimize their pricing to match the supply deficit, which is to say they increase prices because they can without losing adequate demand for their supply.

That's when real inflation has historically actually occured--after a bunch of new jobs have opened up and a bunch of disposable income has entered the consumer market and companies, consequently, price optimize for supply deficits. Significant and noticeable inflation, however, rarely occurs as a direct result of companies' trying to cover higher minimum wages.

But the thing is, the aforementioned job growth more compensates for this inflation. Because more people are buying more things, jobs are not only more secure, they are better paid.

Side note: Eating the cost of minimum wage increases out of the profit margin makes publicly traded companies that rely on minimum-wage employees less attractive on the stock market. That said, because eating the cost out of the profit margin is the norm, the effect is closer to universal for all companies relying on minimum-wage labor. And provided shareholders still want the safety that comes in portfolio diversification--and most do--they will still maintain a large portion of their investment in these companies (as opposed to shifting their money to sectors not employing as many minimum-wage employees).

For the empirical evidence I'm sure you want, take ten states, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, that have implemented policies that make minimum wage automatically increase to match the cost of living, otherwise known as a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). This is to say after a period of so many years, their minimum wage is automatically increased an amount determined by the preceding period's increase in the cost of living. If minimum wage increases led to inflation increases, then what you would see in these states is a death spiral of inflation; minimum wage would increase, then inflation would increase, then minimum wage would increase more drastically, then inflation would increase more drastically, and so on and so on. Yet, these states' inflation rates according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Price Index for Urban Consumers have remained on par with the national average.

And so, the question I have to ask is why do so many people believe this thing that is not true--that minimum wage increases cause inflation? Let's look at what has been going on:

Over the past 20 years, according to the same Bureau of Labor Statistics' Price Index for Urban Consumers, prices have increased 3.3% per year on average while minimum wage has increased 2.7% on average. The same trend has been happening with middle incomes. (And this does not include the the offshoring of low and middle income labor to countries that require far lower wages and have far fewer effective environmental, safety, and compensation regulations.) This means that there is a huge and still growing gulf between prices and costs of labor. The question is, "Where is the money in this growing gulf going?"

To be sure, some of it is going to more expensive production. However, most companies have their own barrier of implementation for new technology and expansion, which is to say that the cost of implementing technologically advanced equipment or to expanding must pay for itself in a certain number of years; otherwise, it is too much of a downer on profits and will drive away shareholders. This means that the proportion of the budget for equipment and expansion really doesn't change that much, and companies simply wait for the technology to cheapen to the point of becoming accessible.

So, if we know that on average in the US (A) the proportion of companies' budgets allocated to payroll is increasing far slower compared to prices, and (B) the proportion of the budget allocated to equipment is not increasing, then we also know that (C) profits are taking the lion's share of this gap in payroll

Profits go to shareholders, and the most-wealthy people in America and the world tend to make their wealth from holding stock. So for further evidence of where this gap between price growth and pay growth is going, we can take a look at the increase in their income compared to the rest of incomes. I think that most of us, no matter where we sit on how to deal with this issue or even if we should, already know this figure. We know that the income of the top 1% has been more than doubling every decade while middle and low incomes fail to match price inflation and that between 2009 and 2014, according to Bloomberg, 93% of income growth has gone to the top 1%.

And that brings us to the answer for why so many people believe this untrue thing about minimum wage increases causing inflation: the number of people who own a good portion of the means of spreading information, the media, happen to be in that top 1%.

If they posed the issues as "Don't raise minimum wage because it will put a dent in the profits from which we derive our insane wealth growth", not many people would jump on that bandwagon, so they peddle some falsehoods about it increasing inflation. Why? These same media-owners know that the average citizen doesn't engage in empirical studies of the economy and are, consequently, likely to fall prey to theoretical exercises like "if wages go up, prices have to go up", which sound right and play on our fears because we don't want our grocery bills, car payments, or utilities to increase, but which have been proven false.

In other words, media conglomerates representing the interests of people who make their wealth from a growing gap between payroll and prices are engaged in spreading a theory proven false because this fear mongering not only gets the average person on their side, but also arms them with false information to spread.

The fact, remains, though:

1. No, prices don't directly go up in any noticeable way;
2. Job growth compensates for the price increases because more demand for goods translates into more demand for employees, and more demand for employees means a more competitive job market.

Everything I've said so far has been fact of how things are and have been. Here, though, is a forecast: the current system is not sustainable even for the wealthy. The wealthy are all competing against each other in the market, in politics, and in public support. This leads them to operate in the short to mid term and with an isolated view of how X, Y, or Z will effect their pockets and the pockets of their shareholders.

The result in the last 40-50 years has been the pushing through of a lot of policies, non-enforcement strategies, and, now, alternative arbitration bodies that have been beneficial to individual companies, but harmful to the average employee/consumer and, consequently, the economy as a whole. And it can't last, not even for the wealthy.

And coupled with it has been a takeover and expansion of that fourth branch of the government, turning it into a massive force for popular disinformation to get people to go along down this self-destructive path.

When it comes down to it, they wealthy have their roots in regular consumers, and just looking at it as a numbers game, you can only prune down so many roots before you kill the tree. And none of this is even considering the growing social costs and the diminishing quality of life this brings due to the increases in poverty, crime, disease, and upheaval that unemployment brings.

SOURCE

How to Make Great Tasting Stir Fry Sauce

• Use peanut or mustard oil (they have higher smoke points - useful for the high heats used in stir frying, and also impart a nice flavor)
• Always be Asian trinity-ing (garlic, ginger, green/red onions - if you use green onions, finely chop the white part and use that with the other two, and add the green leafy part as a garnish, or right at the very end to add flavor)
• Shaoxing rice wine can be added next
• A bit of chicken stock (or whatever meat your using in the stir fry, or vegetable stock if that's your bliss)
• Add 1 tbsp cornstarch + 1.5 cups hot water (or whatever amt u deem appropriate for your dish) and add the resulting mixture into the stir fry for a nice thick sauce (this works really well if u mix in the stock here)
• Stick some dried/re-hydrated mushrooms in that sucker (chopped into strips or diced)
• use the black bean sauce (as a guy whose grown up a Honky (aka a HKer), Lee Kum Kee is my go too brand here)
• I'm also from a boarder province of Tibet where we like to add a touch of black rice vinegar (aka Jinjiang Tsu), this stuff can add dimensions of flavor previously unthought of to a stir fry. I do a simple cabbage+pork stir fry, and this stuff is my secret ingredient
• Use five spice, or the harder to find 10 spice or 13 spice
• Add a touch of dark soy sauce (its v thick, and slightly bitter) to give the stir fry a nice brown glaze/gleam
• Add sesame oil right at the end (never at the beginning, the flavor can actually die on you if you cook for too long in high heat)

Now, lets talk about Oyster sauce: I'm not one of those guys who hates the stuff, and I like to put it over some par-boiled-then-stir-fried kailan w/ a touch of garlic, but if you use some of the stuff above, you can get some really incredible flavors that, dare I say it, are better than what any oyster sauce can do for your dish. But if you're someone who (like me) does enjoy the taste itself on occasion, stick some in, but try doing it in balance with the other stuff above.

• Last thing: Meat - it seems you don't use any, and if that's because you're a vegetarian, than disregard the next three points:
• Use flank steak if ur going for a cut of beef
• I always use strips of boneless chicken thigh if i'm going for chicken
• Pork tenderloin if you wanna add oink

I hope none of this came off as too Asian-purist... that being said, you'll have to go to an Asian market to get a few of the things on this list. Also, I might add that I don't do all these things in one go in any one dish, because I think it might catalyze the formation of a wormhole in my wok, but you can feel free to try. :)

If the black rice vinegar sounds good, try keep an eye out for the stuff from Zhe Jiang, that stuffs the bomb

SOURCE

Why Ron is the Best Character in the Harry Potter Series

Ron gets more shit than nearly any other character in the series but I think he's wonderful.

First Year: Generally people complain that he made Hermione cry and said she had no friends and other mean things. He was right though. Hermione was being a stuck up bitch and what he said was mean and rude but at the end of the day she humiliated him and he reacted like an 11 year old. But he made it up to her, he fought a troll to save her and then became her friend. At the end of the year he sacrificed himself, frankly risking death, in order that Harry and Hermione can go on with no thought to his own safety.

Second Year: Now Ron has spent his whole life being told Slytherins are evil and parseltoungue=dark magic. Yet when his best friend is caught speaking the language and is widely believed to be Slytherins heir, being bullied in the corridors, does he abandon him? No of course not, he's too loyal. Then at the end of the year he goes to fight Slytherins monster because his friend and sister were hurt, facing death for the ones he loves.

Third Year: Hermione was a bitch and went behind their backs about the broom, didn't even think to mention that she went to speak to McGonagall. She was also wrong about it being cursed as much as she was right about it being from Sirius. She also was heartless about Scabbers (idgaf that he was Wormtail, she was still heartless about her cat having "killed" his pet). Ron again reacts normally,hurt by his friend but he can't stay mad for long and ultimately forgives her. End of the year Ron stands up to what he believes is a mass murderer "if you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill me too". He's also there for Harry all year when a murderer is trying to kill him, not even when Sirius "almost kills" him with a knife in the dorms does he try and distance himself from Harry. He stands by his friend.

Fourth Year: This is the only thing I have against him, shitty thing to do but I can still understand it, he believes Harry put his name in the Goblet. Imagine you're Ron though. You spend weeks dreaming that maybe you'll be picked for the tournament, yeah you're underage but maybe just maybe you'll get to shine for once publicly and do something none of your brothers got to do, make your Mum proud and hey maybe Hermione will notice...she's been getting cute lately. But nah it's your famous bff. He reacts like a normal teenager. You know what though? End of the year there's not one doubt in his mind about Harry saying that Voldemorts back despite much less evidence.

Fifth Year: They were right not to write to him, one wrong word could have been a disaster for the Order. Harry was being a child, they were at war and couldn't risk any sensitive information being leaked. He spends the entire year supporting Harry being a little bitch, he defies the ministry and trains for the fight ahead mastering magic many adults cant do (on that note his Patronus? A dog. Loyal to a fault). End of the year he goes to fight Death Eaters at the ministry because his friend had a dream and he knew fighting Voldemort (who he thought would be there) was the right thing to do.

Sixth Year: He is nothing but a good friend. He even does the mature thing and hooks up with Lavender because he accepts nothings happening with Hermione. Also, at this point he knows his best friend is prophesied to kill or be killed by the most powerful dark wizard in history. Does he run away? Nope, he duels said dark wizards followers at the end of the year and pledges his loyalty to Harry on what seems like an impossible mission.

Seventh Year: So Harry has no family and Hermione hides hers in Australia with no one noticing cause their muggles, grand. Ron on the other hand by the time he leaves for the hunt has one earless brother and another mauled by a werewolf. He doesn't have to go, Hermione and Harry can't go back to Hogwarts cause mudblood and chosen one. Ron can. Ginny does, Neville does, Luna does. Ron goes on the hunt anyway, putting himself and his family at risk. He's also human and worries about them, then they get a Horcrux, great.

By this point his sister has been in a Death Eater ran school for 3 months and 2 of his brothers are being hunted for taking a stand and his whole family is under surveillance, (this is especially worrying as they are involved in a long term lie about him being sick). If they are caught they will be tortured into insanity and killed. He still goes because he knows it is the right thing to do. He also goes without a clear idea of what is going to happen but he goes because he knows his friend has a plan, except he has no fucking clue.

Then the Horcrux plays on all of this and he snaps and in a moment of weakness, after hearing his sister was punished at the school she is trapped in ran by Death Eaters and no one but him even pauses to think about it, Harry tells him to go and he does. He immediately regrets it and tried to go back but Harry and Hermione have already left, it's not his fault they didn't wait and he couldn't find them.

He eventually comes back, after being completely off the hook, saves Harry's life and destroys a Horcrux, overcoming his insecurities and completing the growth of the most compelling character arcs in the books. The scenes with the mirror in The Philosophers Stone, when Harry catches him sneaking out to practice Quidditch and the horcrux lays out every problem with Ron perfectly; his insecurities about his family, not being good enough for his mother, the girl he loves preferring his friend, being the weak member of the group. The Horcrux then throws all this and more back at him...so he stabs it in the face. Because he has finally realised he is good enough, that he does have value and that he should be happy with who he is.

We also see a notable change in him from this point on. He is much more confidant and calm, he gets Hermione and is able to be possibly the most valuable he has been in the entire series.

He then goes on to help destroy 2/3 remaining horcruxes, fights in the Battle of Hogwarts and is one of only three people to directly stare down Voldemort and defy him ("He beat you") and continues to fight for what is right, even knowing Harry is dead and being one of only two people who knew the prophecy he actually thought the fight was futile at that point but he kept going because it was the right thing to do.

Ron is the heart of the trio, he's the only one who shows true character growth in a realistic manner. Sure he makes mistakes but he overcomes them and ultimately becomes a better person for it. He can be insensitive at times but he more than makes up for it by being the most loyal and decent person in the series.

SOURCE