As an example: there are genuine cases of masochists that are subjectively happier because pain is being inflicted on them. In many of these cases no serious harm is done to their body. Your claim "you can't trust their reported state" is either 1) a claim that the outside observer knows better than the individual what their subjective state is or 2) that the health of the subject is more important than their subjective happiness.
If you are arguing for #1, I disagree. If you are arguing for #2, you should be more clear about why/how you keep using the word "objectively".
People can feel less happy when there is a lack of challenge in their life. Consider the example of the guy that spends his life wasting away in front of video games, going for impulsive pleasures instead of long term rewarding goals.
I would guess that each person has a different ideal level and variety of suffering (or responsibility, or challenge, or whatever you want to call it), for which their personality is best suited. We are so far removed from the challenges of the past that we don't know what the subjective experience would be like.
When interest rates for new bonds go up, the value of existing bonds go down. This only ever matters if you intend to resell the bond. If you hold it to maturity, you will get the same payout as you agreed to. However, if you try to sell your old bond with 3 percent yield, when bond buyers can go grab a bond with a 5 percent yield, they will pay you a lower price.
If they raised the minimum wage for all workers, it would have a greater destabilizing effect, so they limited it to a smaller group so they could get their message across while minimizing the change they cause.
If I do a lot of exercise on a hot day, I can come back to the house and eat a can of anchovies and still want more salt. I wish I could uh, know how healthy this is
Seems like the rich are able to save more for retirement than the poor, and will use the most effective means to do so.
Contribution limits to retirement plans mean that for a billionaire, their 401k or IRA balance is very unlikely to be a significant portion of their portfolio. The typical case I can imagine for this would be putting their roughly $20,000 worth of 401k contributions into company stock every year and then seeing their company go 100x.
In some industries low worker mobility is very desirable for the company. Offering long time horizon benefits is a good way to reduce turnover. I would prefer my local nuclear plant operator to have employees that stick around and get to know the equipment very well.
You haven't given any indication that you have considered any of my points in any meaningful way. I'm just gonna accept the fact that you want to continue your linguistic mission and disengage. Judging by your comment history you have a habit of winning wars of attrition.
Please at least consider the idea that being the censorious force in the world can worsen the quality of discussion.
I worked on a project where we tried to get the packing seal in the stem of a valve to pass a test certifying that it had a low leakage rate (fugitive emissions testing) for natural gas applications.
We used the highest grade seal and followed all design recommendations from the seal manufacturer. Still never passed.
I worked on a project where we tried to get the packing seal in the stem of a valve to pass a test certifying that it had a low leakage rate (fugitive emissions testing).
We used the highest grade seal and followed all design recommendations from the seal manufacturer. Still never passed.