Stephen Shaw

Put simply, how hard you work doesn't have a direct connection to wages or income. I recommend reading http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html

'Economics in One Lesson' refutes this logic in its chapter "The Curse of Machinery" (http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p1.html). Some highlights: -- If we assert automation removes the need for labour. Then it follows that to maximize labour, we must make our jobs as inefficient as possible. -- Not only should we regard all future improvements as calamitys, but we must also regard all past technology with equal horror. -- Why should freight be carried from Chicago to New York by railroad when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?

To quote Henry Hazlitt: "Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible." This is a major obstacle to "collaboratively and openly" deciding on the right policies (paternalistic or otherwise). If the process is open, it probably won't be collaborative: the discussion might end up dominated by those with special interests. I believe this is how the notion that tariffs might be a good idea (for economic purposes, anyway) has made it into public policy—this is one of the items Hazlitt's book goes…

Profit simply means that an activity is worth it: that the result will be worth more than the costs to reach the result. Profit is the aim not just of corporations, but also of government. For example, a government should not build a road unless the people using the road will collectively save more in transportation costs than the costs to build the road. The problem is that for many projects, the net benefit is unknown at the start. In the road example, before a road is built, it may not be clear how much it will cost to build a road nor how much people will save from using the road. The best we can do is try to estimate. But just because we have to estimate doesn't mean that we ignore profit. Before a project is undertaken, we should still try to figure out if its worth doing. We just can't be sure. When we say that government funds "risky" projects, this can mean that the projects have a high probability of failure but are still worth funding because the probabilistic expected payout is positive, or that the projects are really not worth funding because we really expect that there will be no net benefit. If we're talking about the first, then the private sector will fund it without government. For example, YCombinator routinely funds companies that have a high probability of failure. But overall it expects a positive payout. So startups get funded. But if we're talking talking about the second type of risky, as in no expected return, then really no one should be…

From his Minimum Wage chapter [1]: > It is unfortunate for clarity of economic thinking that > the price of labor’s services should have received an > entirely different name from other prices. This has > prevented most people from recognizing that the same > principles govern both. If a given theory treats wages as merely prices, and ascribe them no role in the theoretical model other than that of a price of labour, then it's perfectly reasonable to protest or at least question their getting a special name. But he gets everything wrong in his second sentence. There's a word for wages as opposed to prices because of how language evolved: put simply, we intuitively perceived wages as something different from prices and felt the need to give them a name of their own. This has nothing to do with science. So in fact, when we're confronted with a theory where two concepts turn out to be the same thing, that can mean one of two things: - IF the theory is sound, and grounded on enough evidence as to demonstrate that our intuitive perception was wrong all along, THEN indeed wages are no more and no less than prices. That would be an "aha" moment worth a prize or something. - ELSE, if the theory isn't sound enough, or doesn't have enough evidence as to defend the notion that wages are merely prices, THEN we're forced to conclude that the theory is merely construing that, and opt-into that belief at our own discretion. So far we see no theory, so his argument that…

What sort of compiler class were you looking for? You can work through a book that uses a more modern approach like Siek's Essentials of Compilation which comes in Racket [0] and Python flavors. Teach Yourself CS also has some more classic recommendations [1]. You may also be interested in using a language from the ML family [2] to implement a compiler [3]. Cornell also has a self-paced graduate level course [4]. This page also has a bunch of recs [5]. [0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047760/essentials-of-compilation/ [1] https://teachyourselfcs.com/#languages [2] https://matt.might.net/articles/best-programming-languages/ [3] https://a.co/d/2EhiUDM [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577878 [5] https://steshaw.org/plt/

The algorithm, the type system, and some of the logical background are explained in this tutorial, along with an implementation in standard ML. http://steshaw.org/hm/hindley-milner.pdf I found this 30 page PDF document very helpful in understanding the Algorithm.

There's A Path to Programming Language Theory, which is a list of resources for learning this material -- it seems pretty comprehensive, but as you can see it involves a lot of different resources. I'm not sure that any one book could give a decent overview of the field: https://steshaw.org/plt/

The curse of machinery! http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p1.html

A curated PLT (Programming language theory) list : http://steshaw.org/plt/ A Github hosted list of free programming books (merging SO and other sources): https://github.com/vhf/free-programming-books/blob/master/free-program…

>Unions commoditize workers. >http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap20p4.html That link is just terrible. It makes no intelligent argument and presents no evidence of anything. It's drivel. If you think there's an intelligent argument in there, please let me know. Meanwhile, here's a reason that corporations in corrupt states actively try to stop unions, and it's not because they think that worker wages are too low.

I agree with you, but I don't for a second think unions will change that. Unions won't eliminate the problem of non-technical people running engineering departments and deciding salaries-- they will simply put a non-technical union negotiator in there. This will make it worse because companies do actually compete not to lose engineering talent right now... but if your only option is another union shop where you'll make exactly the same wage, you become a commodity. Unions commoditize workers. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap20p4.html

I see what you mean now by "mindless hoarding". This requires a more detailed discussion; happily, Henry Hazlitt has provided it: http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap24p3.html See also Murray Rothbard's discussion: http://mises.org/money/2s9.asp You may not agree with their analyses, but at least they can serve as a counter-narrative to the mainstream views you evidently support. By the way, your comment can be improved by removing everything before "not all forms..." In that case, it would simply make a cogent point (though one with which I still take exception). As it stands, your comment comes across as petty and unrefined. Stay classy—it's nicer, and it's also more likely to persuade.

See the chapter in Economics in One Lesson about how rent control makes everything worse. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html