If I am doing a job, at a rate of $50. Then I am fired and others around me keep making $50. Then someone shows up that has potential to produce similar value (potentially greater potentially less) for $25. How should I feel about those that work for $50 and how should I feel about those that work for $25.
The Bible says treat others the way you wish to be treated. Thus likely one should care about and think about how change impacts all of the parties, not just some of the parties. Comprehension, sentiment and loyalty has potentially for amplifying less than sufficiently. Claim one has potential to ideally deliver on the Golden Rule with all those conditions? All things possible with God’s help does not equate to the combination is easy or inconsequential.
The numbers are just numbers, I could have said $100 and $50, or $200 and $100, $200 and $100 might amplify better because 50 is associated with five-0 (Police). Context given around Numbers amplifies less than ideally is likely not fully appreciated by most of society and has potential for amplify in terrible ways at times.
Full implications of rate changes including a potentially more enabled employer and potentially less enabled customer (which might equal less enabled apartment owners and people that sell products)? The one delivering the rate might be able to higher twice as many people, the person being payed less might not have the same capacity to pay rent.
The guy that got fired tempted to think those making more that fired them got justice is far less than ideal temptation delivered. Requirement to wish better for people is more difficult when feelings of being mistreated, getting less than a fair deal. Perception of mistreatment or unfair amplifies less than ideally when being fired, or losing employment. Hard to think about all the ways self is less than perfect, how someone else might be more ideal when you have the potential for being put out on the street (specially if you have already been on the street). People that are doing hiring and firing likely do not always like or invest in thinking about all possible consequences because it makes decision making too difficult and reduces throughput. Add in possibility for bugs, others listening in on conversations both higher and lower in the chain of command, potential for public sentiment or privately held concerns and potential biases it becomes much more complicated.
Hiring and Firing amplifies Throughput. It is easy to say if God wanted it another way He would have made it happen another way. An easy out to consideration of complexities and potential biases, requirement to deliver in ideal ways for a bar that might be set incorrectly too high (that can also reduced Throughput in insufficient ways). Thus in my opinion Negate Hiring and Firing amplifies Throughput ideally. Desire to deliver ideal gains for a company might conflict with Desire to deliver ideal gains for God – what if another company winning and your company going bankrupt equals the most people helped? Golden rule seen as amplifies ideally, with ideal throughput seems unlikely in many cases in my personal perception, experience, and opinion. Society would amplify more ideally without the Golden Rule? No, in my opinion.
Throw the Superbowl so the other team has more food on the table? God couldn’t provide better funding any other way? God is likely to provide funding another way? Winning set to too consequential might lead to more losses. More losses not always all value added either.
Desire to deliver on the Golden Rule does not equate to ideal delivery on the Golden Rule in my opinion. More capacity to deliver on the Golden Rule might equate to deferred judgment and assessment of what closer to ideal delivery is to other parties. Acknowledgement personal capacity to deliver ideal bias out is less than sufficient at times is not always easy to acknowledge and allowing others comprehension of that and capacity to assess has not always delivered ideally or sufficiently in my personal experience. Just because I might not deliver ideally on the Golden Rule does not equate to others will always Assess, Deliver, and use knowledge in ideal ways either.
People deliver less than ideal personally does not equate to people always deliver better in mass, or under oversight. Different might equate to better, far from guaranteed to equate to better. People might be in Jail because they are viewed as less capable of being responsible in society, yet Jails are sometimes a reminder of how society is irresponsible, and less than ideal corruption and oppression reduced. A society that better protects people, looks out for keeping each other gainfully employed might deliver less people on the streets and thus filtered into the Jail system, yet society does not always look out for protecting each other.
Just because someone is let go from where you work does not equate to it is a good idea to keep them or promote keeping them from getting gainful employment in the future. Less unemployed equates to greater value for society in not always fully appreciated ways. People might not be trying to prevent future employment, yet it is easy to perceive and comprehend incorrectly in a competitive work environment. Behind the scenes feels likes amplifies less than ideally has potential to increase distrust and accusations in less than sufficient directions. Warnings might lead to perception of insight that is less than ideal. People have to operate on variables they think exist alongside variables they know exists, and it is hard to ideally divest from biases created by unknowns and maybes.
Raising concerns that something was wrong with your hiring or firing process might not be sufficiently appreciated by new employers. Thus true feedback is likely many times divested from in advance. Lack of Proof yet access to what appear to be clues has high potential for amplifying less than ideal solid ground to stand on. Obfuscation that is real or potentially not real factors into my perception and comprehension of past experiences in ways that influence this writing. Obfuscated data factors into lessons learned, feedback, value perceived or not perceived equates to potentially less support. People including myself limit relevance at times (potentially in ways that reduce support), topic that is chosen to speak about might not equate to ideal topic of discussion.
You are talking about Electrical Safety when you need to be talking about Peacebuilding? You are talking about Peacebuilding when you need to talk about Electrical Safety? Less than ideal direction chosen for discussion is not ideally agreed upon. Negate two topics, equals ideal relevance raised for all other topics.
People might have made decisions that have limited my and other’s support, decisions that include relevance limiting. Yet not limiting relevance might have created greater dangers that I can’t fully comprehend or appreciate. Relevance limiting might amplify more ideally yet still in ways that is not always sufficient support. Better gets set to ideally better, and factors into support and encouragement. People do not always consider all this before enabling proximity to people and situations.
Say you will meet two people today Party1, and Party2. Party1 and Party2 are both people that need friends, are in need of encouragement and support. God knows which one you will meet first, yet limits relevance on details about Party1 and Party2.
Imagine Scenario 1
Party1 is an undercover cop, and Party2 is a drug dealer
Imagine Scenario 2
Party2 is a drug dealer, and Party1 is an undercover cop
You are likely to know details about Party1 or Party2 that will factor into your personal safety? No. Party1 or Party2 are likely to divulge those details upfront on first meeting? No. Party1 or Party2 met first might factor into how Party2 or Party1 receive support, are valued and encouraged? Yes. Society might judge you the person that met Party1 and Party2 based upon proximity unfairly? True.
Not meeting Party1 or Party2, might change potential problems in the future for self. Not meeting Party1 or Party2, might change potential problems in the future for others. People claim they know how to amplify things better than God likely fails to deliver at times and people are also required to protect self by doing things such as wearing helmets because life amplifies protection less than ideally or sufficiently at times.
Association based upon look alone amplifies perception, comprehension, and delivery less than ideally. Wearing a blue shirt might be set to cop, does not equate to liking the color blue as sufficient reason to increase probabilities of harm. Wearing Red and Black plaid and liking Slot Machines does not equate to a member of a crime syndicate. Representation and Associations and thus protection amplifies less than ideally at times in our society. Desire to look similar for protection might amplify future protection less than sufficiently at times. Fear and unknowns have factored into personal fashion choices at times in my life, potentially in insufficient ways.
One likely should not be blamed for potentially incorrect perceptions based upon previous data from my life. I have lacked full capacity to understand potential dangers at times, dangers that might not have existed and that has factored into fashion choices potentially in ways that could increase misperception.
Something not all are aware of is that someone could be tested over and over repeatedly until the point they feel like they need to defend themselves in harsh ways, then those same people testing could bring in a child right when the person being tested goes off the rails. I wish I could say a competitive society would not do something like that. Showing someone is unsafe around a child could lead to ruined career inability to have gainful employment going forward.
Society might get someone to smoke pot, then bring a child into the party when people aren’t looking, and then take pictures and potentially use to leverage, blackmail, or defame is possible in our society. There are also similar smells to marijuana thus perception and comprehension might amplify less than sufficiently.
Potential for problems might lead to greater protectionism. Protectionism is not always greater value amplified. People too afraid to work together because of potential for problems, need for protection could be more damaging. Knowledge of potential problems and liabilities does not always amplify support ideally, desire to invest ideally. Legalism as a partially invested system by default in our society amplifies less than ideally for all parties.
I question whether I should divulge potential problems and scenarios as I do not wish to tempt people into bad directions. Knowledge is power, power has non-ideal historic track record for always being used in ideal ways. Knowledge gives capacity to factor things in, factoring things in like potential problems does not always lead to more ideal results – the hope is it will lead to more ideal results for more parties and more people protected yet to say that is guaranteed seems wrong.
It is possible to invest in wrongs without having comprehension of wrongs invested in and then have the investment highlighted at a future time in history. That has the potential to give feeling of less-than-ideal value delivered based upon Don’t worry. Yet also possible problems and scenarios are not always highlighted by society or God in advance as could tempt less than ideal paths. Desire to call something out in the future limited because of comprehension that was limited on purpose does not feel all ideal either. Current ability to call out wrongs based upon previous mistakes is likely to lead to less than sufficient support added in society.
Reasons and Truth limited does not equal zero desire to draw connections, connections that might be insufficient.
My Tech Blog 