Robert Baratheon

I'm not sure I agree based on personal experience. Most of the people I know from divorced parents did not adapt well and it continued to disadvantage and haunt them into adulthood. My wife's life has been very difficult primarily due to her parents' divorce, although, as mentioned, they shouldn't have wed in the first place. Usually it leads to strained and awkward family relationships and a much lower standard of living. I think it also sets a bad example.

People are free to organize now. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Minimum wage (or below) is what the market indicates the labor is worth.

He said it was because the suggestion was helpful, although he isn't yet sure Randi is the specific example he is looking for. I retract my earlier assumption that he was trying to renege. It seemed that way based on his initial comment, but I now understand he was only trying to get more information to save time, which I sent him by email just now. I hope it is helpful to him.

JASKN - I believe the information I provided met the stated terms and was adequate to identify the activist. In unilateral offers of this nature, performance does automatically fulfill the contract and bind the offeror.

The blog author has agreed to pay me the $100 finders fee. I sent him a private e-mail with the information he requested.

Neither here nor there. He didn't require any further explanation, just identification of the activist. All the information about Randi and his long history advocating for reason over mysticism is readily available online, including through the link I provided.

JASKN - I just noticed your use of the words "nomination and "recommendation." This was neither. The individual initiated a legally binding unilateral contract offer, which I accepted with my performance according to its terms.

He asked for someone to identify an activist for reason, which Randi clearly is by any reasonable interpretation of the terms. All of the information is easily and publicly available, and he claims to have reviewed Randi already and found him lacking. I'm not going to now play the "Randi is primarily an activist for skepticism, scientific method, etc., not reason" game with him serving as judge - I know exactly where that path leads. Actually, I'm happy with the way this turned out. It serves as a great example for the "contracts solve everything" crowd and the "who needs lawyers" crowd. People make vague offers and renege on them for contrived reasons.

Randi is one of the leading activists and advocates of skepticism and evidence-based inquiry over mysticism. I found hundreds of articles and videos created by and aboug Randi on the topic - including the philosophical basis for his advocacy - within minutes of searching. The individual has already stated that Randi is not an activist for reason in his opinion, so I see no reason to waste any more of my time. I recommend shutting down this thread as I don't believe anything would meet the terms of the offer.

As the individual seems to be gypping me out of the promised $100, I request that this false promotion be taken down.

In some cases, yes, but in the vast majority of cases it would be better for the parents to stick it out, at least until the children are grown. Of course if the parents are divorcing with a young child, they should have been more responsible and not had a child in the first place. Contracts often extend in perpetuity or terminate upon death of one of the parties. That's not unusual at all.

The only reason to get married is to have children. But it's a very good reason. Getting divorced with young children is incredibly destructive.

I submitted a comment on his blog but it requires "approval."

James Randi.

Some unions try to make the ridiculous argument that union shops are more efficient and competitive, but the more seasoned and savvy propagandists would say non-union retailers are competing unfairly bh exploiting workers, so all stores need unions to level the playing field.

http://wp.me/p4yevN-5L

I like the concept as a brute-force method of limiting the state, but as such I can see it breaking down very quickly due to its arbitrariness (e.g., because of special circumstance X, we need a 6% allowance this year instead of 5%). Or maybe it fails to the Washington Monument Syndrome strategy - agencies loading up on nonessentials first and then claiming a need for additional funding for the essential popular stuff afterward. I was toying with the idea of removing the power incentive from the hiring process somehow, like giving hiring authority to some disinterested party. But the hiring manager would still have an informational advantage they could use to game the system, so I'm not sure how to totally remove them from the equation.

Is Parkinson's Law immutable? http://wp.me/p4yevN-5C If not, how can we stop the natural growth of bureaucracies? Is there a policy solution?

True. No, I'm not. I didn't say there was.

What if the employer knows A is extremely happy - wouldn't this make the employer less like to give A a retention raise? Threatening to leave can often result in a raise or a promotion because it's leverage for the employee. I don't agree a rational employee is always better. What if an employee irrationally doesn't ask for a raise he deserves out of a misguided belief it will get him fired? His irrationality will provide the employer with extra productivity that the employer did not have to pay for.

Nicky - True, but as I pointed out to Kacy when he made the same argument, this only considers the demand side of the equation. Supply forces interact with demand to set prices. So it's not just the value you provide - it is also the price at which you are willing to provide the value.

I'm talking about normal salaried full-time positions in a competitive market. I negotiated a salary for my job that is high enough so I'm not out looking for other jobs. But I don't love my job. I was thinking if I advertised how much I loved the job, my employer might feel stupid for agreeing to pay me what they did.

A thought on the way to work this morning. Discussion welcome. http://wp.me/p4yevN-5g

Yes, the quoted material was just an introductory selection so people could tell if it interested them and read the rest, or just comment on the broader topic generally. That's usually how I see it done on forums.

Agreed, which is why I started a blog dedicated to promoting liberty and resisting progressive encroachment: thenewversailles.wordpress.com