Slashdot Mirror

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.korean/browse_thread/thread/63a135baa9ae8b87

> Average annual income: Taiwan US$16563, Korea US$19921
> PPP: Taiwan US$32041, Korea US$23331
PPP is the purchasing power.

I.e., Because many items are much cheaper in Taiwan than in the US (partially because of laws the corporations have had passed to prevent importation of substantially cheaper medicine and items-- i.e. killing what should happen in a true capitalist economy), the $16,563 annual income allows a citizen of Taiwan to live as well as a person making $32041 dollars in the US. So they live about 3/4 as well as the average income $46,000 american citizen.

http://www.worldsalaries.org/taiwan.shtml
Personal Average Income (2005)
17,138 $US.
297,862 NT$

For example:
http://www.footprintsrecruiting.com/cost-of-living-in-taiwan/cost-of-food-in-taiwan
Monthly expenses (for an expatriate english teacher)...

* Rent: NT$10,000
* Utilities: NT$1,750
* Food: NT$7,500
* Transportation: NT$700
* Entertainment: NT$2,500
* Internet: NT $500
* Cell Phone: NT $1,000
* TOTAL: NT$23,950 (NT$256,000 annually)
---

China and India have the lower wage structure, not Taiwan.

---

India has some advantages over the US for costs. Medical is about 20% of our cost (for nearly identical care for many procedures) and a college degree is about 10% of the cost. The college degree is going to be very intense (so like advanced placement classes here) but perhaps less creative and definitely less networking with other US people in your field.

Medical and University costs have grossly outpaced inflation for the last two decades in the US. Since I got my degree in 93, the cost of an in state degree has gone up 500%.

---

These lower prices are an artifact and they will shed away quickly. I think within 8 years. Wages here will stagnate and wages their will rise.
For exmample:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977049.htm
"Last year salaries surged 40%, to an average of $160 a month."

"Wait a minute. Doesn't China have an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor? Not any longer. From the textile and toy factories of the south to the corporate headquarters and research labs in Beijing and Shanghai, the No. 1 challenge today is finding and keeping good workers. "

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/what-chinas-changing-labour-market-means-for-the-west.aspx
Incomes are rising at double-digit rates - even rural incomes.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/02/china-wage-growth-markets-econ-cx_jc_0702markets1.html
On a per-capita basis, the average Chinese worker earned an annual wage of 12,422 yuan ($1,630) in 2002, or 1,035 yuan ($136) per month. As of 2006, they were making 21,001 yuan ($2,756) a year, or 1,750 yuan ($230) a month.

Chinese workers experienced 400% wage inflation at the lowest tiers from 1995 to 2006 alone. Wages for US workers went up about 50% in the same time period (wages for executives went from 85x us workers annual pay to 531x us workers annual pay) http://www.svsu.edu/emplibrary/Whelton%20article.pdf

I

Nathan Garrelts, a professor at my college, is trying to work video games into the curriculum by discussing their cultural dynamics and examining them as literary works. He wrote an excellent article called "Will Master Chief Ever Frag Moby Dick?" for the International Game Developers Association. He has also edited a collection of essays on how digital media influences our perceptions, and how our perceptions influence how we interact with digital media. I wrote an article about him for our newspaper back in December of last year. He's a blast to talk to, and he is really passionate about bringing games and other digital media into a more positive light.

We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.

And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?

first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed
gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.

Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against
the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.

I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel.
isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?

But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.

Nope I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying you reap what you sow.
The freaking CIA helped create Osama.

Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back

Yeah, after this guy went to see him while he was gassing people with our knowledge, and after the reagan administration gave iraq the bio weapon starter kits and after our ambassador told saddam we had no interest defending kuwait

So yeah, there is no rhyme or reason to terrorism. There is no cause and effect relationship between our foreign policy and terrorism. Our government is lilly white, and bears no blame for its actions. Am I excusing the terrorists? No. I am saying there is only ONE way to win, leave them alone to govern their own affairs. We taught the british that in 1776, the french learned it in algeria and indochina, (we got the same lesson in indochina but it didn't stick)

http://www.svsu.edu/~agsharro/web_trailer_II_large r.mov

Let the /.ing begin!

If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil?

It's not about consumption, it's about control. After the second world war, the State Department of our government designated in now declassified documents the Persian Gulf as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." The United States has an incredible dependence on oil, and it's only increasing.

It's also militarily useful to have a presence in Iraq if you are intent on continuing the war on Iran, or Syria, as Retired US General Wesley Clark (NATO's chief of staff during the war in Yugoslavia) said in an interview to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it?

I believe the powers behind Bush are ruthless enough in their drive to dominate and control the world's markets. Yes, I do believe this, and I think it's reflected in their actions if you look past the rhetoric.

As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.

I'll let Wolfowitz spell it out for you. His doctrine's stated intent is to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism," as summarized by the New York Times. Its main intent is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. ... America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it" as reported by the Washington Times on the same topic. Look it up yourself if you want.

They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world.

The US, the UK, and Spain are "the entire world"? The world agrees Iraq should not have certain weapons in its arsenal. I don't know about you, but I have seen zero evidence presented which has not been thoroughly dismantled or cast in serious doubt from Bush and his administration that he has these vast stockpiles of weapons, and even the UN Inspectors called the "tips" from US intelligence complete garbage.

Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.

No, the difference is that Bush's administration has no interest in disarmament. Every step towards disarmament is immediately dismissed as a ploy. If Iraq says they do not have weapons they are accused of lying; if they do have weapons, they are accused of not destroying them. When Bush says "disarmament" he means "colonization."

Our favorite ex-secretary of state-cum-fugitive for war crimes, Henry Kissinger (the guy Bush bizarrely tried to get involved in the investigation of 9/11), stated in an interview that "No government that talked to President Bush or his advisers since Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 could have any doubt that within a few months the Americans would announce a material breach of this resolution as well as retaliatory measures."

They don't want disarmament, they want a piece of paper that says it was the will of the United Nations so that now they can cloak themselves in the garb of multilateral, cooperative efforts.

I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.

Are you familiar at all with the international behavior of the United States over the past 50 years? The United States is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation. It's the only nation known to have produced weapons-grade anthrax in the last 25 years. Do you remember a little war in a nation called Vietnam, based on a now well-known fabrication about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin? Cambodia in 1969? Laos through 1973? Grenada in 1983? Panama in 1989? Iran in 1984? Libya in 1986? Sudan in 1998?

(This is the short list. Feel free to peruse a longer summary, here.)

Are you aware that in your little analogy we gave Iraq the gun and were glad he was using it against Iran? We had little to say at that time about their use of Chemical Weapons, when Rumsfeld himself was cozying up to Baghdad. Doesn't this set off any kind of alarm in your mind that we're not getting a straight story from these jokers?

I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.

Supporting more bloodthirsty politicians spouting bald-faced lies is not going to make the world a better place. Remember that being against war is not being in favor of Saddam Hussein.

Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that nothing changed between September of 2001 and September of 2002 in regards to Iraq's arsenal or attitude towards the United States, but suddenly they are considered an imminent threat? Even though they are on the other side of the planet? Even though his neighbors have no such revulsion and fear of Iraq?

Thanks for considering what I've had to say.

Relativistic speeds are usually measured in terms of gamma, not meters per second. Gamma is a value that represents the amount of time dilation and mass increase an object has; if you're moving at 86% of the speed of light (~206257211 m/s) then gamma is ~2.0, meaning that time would run twice as fast for you, and to a relatively stationary observer, your mass would be double what it is at rest. Gamma is calculated thusly:

y = 1 / sqrt(1 - (v^2 / c^2))

Gamma can rise unbounded; as your velocity approaches light, gamma rises exponentially, reaching infinity when your velocity is equal to that of light. I'm assuming that the original paper used values of gamma for measurement, rather than meters per second.

More about gamma here.

Are there any serious time effects at that speed? Five years for who? Do the astronauts come back and meet their great great great great grandchildren? At 0.5c, time would pass about 1.3 times slower for the people on the ship (from our point of view). So for a a 10-year trip, they'll effectively be travelling about three years into the future (from their point of view).

On a side note, this also means that, from our point of view, the space ship will appear to have contracted by a factor of about 1.3.

See here.

We don't need no steenkin' cases for just three boards. Check this out.

--oink