Slashdot Mirror


Another Round of HP Layoffs

geekroot's dad writes "AP News is reporting that Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard is 'fighting to stay competitive with formidable rivals like IBM and Dell' and is announcing 5,900 European job cuts "to safeguard the future" of the company. From the article: 'Michel Destot, the Socialist deputy mayor of the southern France city of Grenoble - where HP has one of its French plants - said the layoffs were "unacceptable" and demanded that HP managers also meet local politicians to discuss scaling back the job cuts.'" This round following the first cut back in July.

515 comments

  1. Business and Government by fembots · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since local body is so interested in a company's staffing decision, couldn't HP threaten to lay off more employees unless it gets more tax relief?

    1. Re:Business and Government by elbenito69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when has local goverment had authority over whether HP keeps jobs there? The only 'unacceptable' thing is the stink that's being raised.

    2. Re:Business and Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new Socialist Deputy Mayor overlords....

    3. Re:Business and Government by frgough · · Score: 1, Troll

      Um, this is France. The government over there has their fingers in every aspect of business. Why do you think they're unemployment is Chronically close to 20%?

      --
      You can tell the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    4. Re:Business and Government by matu4251 · · Score: 3, Informative

      unemployment in France is around 10%... get your facts straight.

    5. Re:Business and Government by Pxtl · · Score: 1, Troll

      Holy Right Wing Moderation Batman! Correcting the "interesting" post that French unemployment is at 10% instead of 20% is a "troll".

    6. Re:Business and Government by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      How can an information that the unemployment in France is 10% and not 20% be modded "troll"??
      Are the moderators on crack?

    7. Re:Business and Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe is time to OVERTAXING those crap industry.
      They are earning money and still they lay off, just for make shareholder happy.

    8. Re:Business and Government by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      They are earning money and still they lay off, just for make shareholder happy.

      Shareholders are who they are earning money for ...

    9. Re:Business and Government by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Surely it can't be that high. 10%? Even in the wasteland that is Britain, we don't have unemployment that high.

    10. Re:Business and Government by nomad63 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is time to face the hard facts the US counterparts have to live thru for those working for HP in Europe. It must have been nice to commandeer 8 weeks of vacation time every year, whereas an average US worker has less than 4, and salaries comparable if not better than US employees of the same companies. But when it comes to lay-offs, why do they or their elected officials think that they must be protected ? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander as well.

      --

      __________
      The more I know people, the more I love animals
    11. Re:Business and Government by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of people around here wrongly moderating posts trying to make sure they are the only one's with mod points in an effort to disrupt the moderation process, further assisting these efforts they are also meta-moderating correctly moderated posts as unfair thus doubling their efforts.

      All they need is a couple hundred or so accounts and the dedication, and soon no-one legit will have mod points (seems to working in relation to me as I haven't had a mod point in about 8 months now...)

  2. Clearly unacceptable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect this type of stuff under Carly's reign, but now that she's gone, shouldn't HP be more productive?

    1. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I expect this type of stuff under Carly's reign, but now that she's gone, shouldn't HP be more productive?

      Carly has only been gone all of maybe five or six months and you are complaining already? Please, give the new CEO a bit more time to undo the mess...

    2. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
      Carly has only been gone all of maybe five or six months and you are complaining already? Please, give the new CEO a bit more time to undo the mess...

      check back in 2010... by then, with some luck, the new guy might have un-borkd HP

    3. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To "be more productive", one must trim the fat.

    4. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pah... I think it's already much too late. HP will never regain the status it had before Carly screwed it up. To talk of this is like talking about rebuilding a car that's been run into a brick wall at 50 mph. It's easier to just salvage some parts and scrap everything else.

      HP still has a halfway-decent business printer division, and maybe some salvageable business units dealing with enterprise computing. Everything else needs to go.

    5. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      carly trimmed lots of fat.

      they gotta be cutting muscle by now, just to survive.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    6. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, that renowned "French muscle" ROFL!!!

    7. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by rico6 · · Score: 1

      Denis Potvin STILL sucks

      Dude, you basically have to be Bobby Orr to have that as your sig.

      Denis Potvin

      1972-1988 N.Y. Islanders 1,060 GP, 310 Goals, 742 Assists, 1,052 Points

      Stanley Cup: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983

    8. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      Denis Potvin STILL sucks. Dude, you basically have to be Bobby Orr to have that as your sig.

      One day, you must attend a NY Rangers game at the Garden. Then you'll understand my sig.

    9. Re:Clearly unacceptable... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      To "be more productive", one must trim the fat.

      Well, Carly certainly trimmed the fat profit margins by buying Compaq and getting into the no-margin commodity PC business. HP is in disarray. They have ticked off a lot of formerly loyal business users. They apparently have no control over their inventory any longer. I've been told three times in two weeks that a part has shipped, and it still hasn't. Even at the supervisor level, there isn't anyone who can call up the warehouse and ask what the heck is going on. After the third time and a flamed supervisor, my "ticket" got "escalated". Woohoo, I'm a happy HP customer now. Not.

  3. Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by EugeneK · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll spare folks a lot of work.

    "Oh, those evil French socialists! First they won't help us invade Iraq and now they are interfering with our right to lay off their lazy asses! I'm going to run down to McDonald's right now and loudly order some FREEDOM FRIES so if there's any French people eating there they will know how ANGRY I am!"

    1. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by RentonSentinel · · Score: 0, Troll

      Since they only work 35 hours a week, they are easy targets. LOL...

    2. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      but we're capitolists... aren't socialists the bad guys? certainly not in the let's get some rope sence, but in the hey that's a bad economic idea sence? while the mayor's responce is no different than that of an American mayor with a similiar bit of bad news, but the labor laws in France aren't all that conducive to business. For the record, I'm the son of a 40 year union man, but realistically, laying I've heard many folks more educated than myself on economic matters say that the economic conditions in france; unemployment more than double that of the US; has a lot to do with the socalist regualations that are great for employees, but seem to be having a hugely negative effect on their economy. Sure they're not evil, but just as certainly, they are wrong. Besides, can't you see that a lot of the silly Freedom Fries stuff is really just people venting some fustration about a group of people who feel themselves wronged. It's not like they're pouring French wine into Boston harbor, although it is a shame that the French resturants here in NYC have suffered from it.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    3. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2, Funny

      You empty-headed animal food-trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
      Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

      Signed,

      Le Marteau

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    4. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by FST777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With the risk of sounding too anti-American (even for /.), this sounds truly cold-war-anti-socialist-pseudo-intellectual-econom ic-bullshit to me. After WW-II, the whole lot of western democratic Europe profited greatly from several forms of socialistic government. The fact that the economy had gone down-hill in the last few years says nothing about that.

      The European economies have grown fast and heavy in the last 30 years, and are taking a break right now on the heels of the world economy, led by the US economy. Unemployment might be a bit of a problem these days, but in the west of Europe, poverty rates are MUCH lower than in the US.

      Socialist regulations did that. And it worked for almost half a century. Look at the charts when you have the chance. We're now back at the same level as we were in 1999. That is not a big downfall. (btw, since 1999, all over Europe governments have reformed the socialistic regulations. Might just have been the wrong decision)

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    5. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, and one more thing. You can suck my French balls, for my civilzation has given the world mayonnaise. What have YOU given the world, filthy American? Cheese in an aerosol can? Scrapple?

      I also forgot one taunt: I wave my naughty bits at your auntie.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    6. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Le+Marteau · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh my, it seems one of you filthy American moderators has singled me, Le Marteau, out of this thread as 'off topic'. Whatever will I do. How long will my maxed-out karma last me at this rate?

      That was not 'off topic'. This, however, is: You are a pickup driving, tobacco chewing, Hee Haw watching, cousin fucking, banjo playing, rebel flag waving, 'yee haw!' yelling slack-jawed drooling meatslapper. A NASCAR watching, malformed spawn of trailer trash, fit only for work in the lower, less challenging forms of food service such as McDonald's.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    7. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by johnek · · Score: 1

      Actually French Fries were first made in Belgium. So you are not affecting the french by calling them "Freedom Fries"

    8. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. They can do whatever they want. They can annex the HP plant and try to put out the product themselves. He can call it unacceptable and he can call it a cab. What exactly is your point? Are we supposed to be impressed by some politican whining just because he's a leftist? Would you be defending him this vigorously if this was a capitalist politician doing the whining? Could you please explain what you think is the difference and why, regardless of his political affiliation, that he just isn't being arrogant?

    9. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually French Fries were first made in Belgium.



      (for the humorless: I know how to spell Greece)

    10. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long before you surrender and the US has to bail you out - again?

    11. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      With the risk of sounding too anti-American (even for /.), this sounds truly cold-war-anti-socialist-pseudo-intellectual-econom ic-bullshit to me.

      Which means: You are correct.

      After WW-II, the whole lot of western democratic Europe profited greatly from several forms of socialistic government.

      Until they realised that they would have to pay for this.

      The fact that the economy had gone down-hill in the last few years says nothing about that.

      It says a whole lot about that.

      The European economies have grown fast and heavy in the last 30 years, and are taking a break right now on the heels of the world economy, led by the US economy.

      I presume you mean "fat and heavy". Yep. That's socialism.

      Unemployment might be a bit of a problem these days

      A bit? Try a huge problem.

      but in the west of Europe, poverty rates are MUCH lower than in the US.

      Because they take money from people with jobs and give it to people without jobs.

      Yes.

      Socialist regulations did that.

      They did indeed.

      Look at the charts when you have the chance. We're now back at the same level as we were in 1999.

      I've looked at the charts. Europe is not, for the most part, going backwards in absolute terms, just in relative terms.

      That's not something to cheer about.

      That is not a big downfall. (btw, since 1999, all over Europe governments have reformed the socialistic regulations. Might just have been the wrong decision)

      So far, except for Britain, they've mostly been pissing into the wind.

    12. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      You can suck my French balls, for my civilzation has given the world mayonnaise.

      You can keep it. Mayo is nasty sh*t.

      "Now, if you will not show us the Grail, we shall take your castle by force!"

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    13. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by hador_nyc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not bullshit, but it is an opinion. Socialism in and of itself is a bad idea. The concept of a planned economy does not work either in it's more true forms or in the bastardized forms as exhibited in the communist countries. The fact is that it's better to allow the market to adjust on it's own to both the needs and desires of the market and the resources available to it. These opions, and I am admittedly not an economist, are derivitaves of those ideas put forth by Adam Smith and economists like him. Ask anyone whose lived in a communist country verses living here, and you'll have support for my opinion. I happen to work with a lot of guys who grew up in Russia and places like that before the wall came down.

      That being said, I mentioned that I am the son of a 40+ year union man. Socialist reforms of true Lasie-Faire capitolism are necessary. We need the EPA and it's regulations as much as OSHA and unions themselves. Each of these orginizations are a limitation of capitolism and socialist in effect. I'm not saying that some reforms aren't necessary, but I am saying that in places like France, and to a lesser degree Germany, they've gone too far. The very rollback that you talked about in your email only supports my argument, and the current backlash against the ruling German party is more evidence.

      European poverty rates being below that of the US, well, I'll take your word for it. I've not looked into it, but I do know that our unemployment rates have beaten them through most of that time. You can make an argument for which is more important, but clearly poverty is less important to the average American than the average European.

      Now you talk about the Cold War as if it wasn't real. It happened, and it was the American tax payers, and economy, that bore the brunt of the burden of it istead of Western Europe. The fact is that our mostly Democratic presidents and congress during the Cold War directed our spending to be much higher than theirs. Quite frankly, we couldn't afford it, but they could. You can argue why they spent as they did, but it is a fact.

      As for being back at the same level as 1999, well so is France's unemployment. In the 90s it was as high as 12.1, and they got it down as low as 8.7. When they were at that low, we were below 4. The economy under Clinton was great. For the last several years, the wonderful European economy has had almost no growth where as we have continued to have between 2-4 growth in spite of some very tragic events that have happened; and I'm not talking about what happended downtown. The Enron garbage, oil prices, tech bubble burst, and countless other major economic events besides the terrorism troubles have all not stopped the US from having moderate growth.

      It's funny but unlike what you suggest many of the former Communist states now free in Eastern Europe, I'm thinking about the Czech and Slovak republics in particular, have adoped laws that make us seem Socialist, and their economies have excelled. They chose not to err towards socialism, but away from it. Interesing isn't it?

      My final point is about one of your first ones. The fact that their economy has gone down recently when ours hasn't, does mean that their form of socialism isn't working. If their way was better, then they'd have more growth.

      There is no doubt that the poverty issue does need to be worked on here. That I do agree with you about.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    14. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Cheeeeeeeeeeese.......

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    15. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's less of a joke than you think, at least if you're in Paris. I couldn't find the numbers but I was there last year and it seemed like they had a McDonald's every few blocks. Especially as you moved to the suburbs like Clamart where I was working. There's even one a couple of blocks down from the Arch de Triumph.

      Too many for just the tourists. Fortunately, they're employees do speak English for those who can't remember to order their Royale with Cheese "avec pommes frites".

    16. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by blitz487 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the mayor is successful and forcibly prevents HP from laying off people, he'll be sending a strong message to other foreign corporations to avoid setting up an office in France.

    17. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by nametaken · · Score: 1


      "Oh, those evil French socialists! First they won't help us invade Iraq and now they are interfering with our right to lay off their lazy asses! I'm going to run down to McDonald's right now and loudly order some FREEDOM FRIES so if there's any French people eating there they will know how ANGRY I am!"


      w00t! I would have left out evil and stressed lazy though. I'm sorry, ten months of holiday and 4 hour work days gets your ass laid off! :)

    18. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by EugeneK · · Score: 0

      Yeah, France is a small market anyway. It's only the size of California's.

    19. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by EugeneK · · Score: 0

      "You ask 'em for the Quarter Pounder and they wouldn't know what the fuck you're talking about!"

    20. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by emidln · · Score: 1
      Capitolists? So that's what you call bums that live outside legislative centers.

      Oh, wait. You meant capitalists. My bad.

      /ex-disgruntled tour guide at a capitol building
      //still slightly disgruntled

    21. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      You got me, I don't spell well. Ug is an engineer, and not good at spellin dem werds.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    22. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a newsflash for you -- if any major corporation wants to do any serious business in EU, they already have an office in France.

    23. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I often noticed durring the '74-'77 years that the closer I got to a communist boarder, the less anti-american the local people were. In some small towns up close to the boarders it was impossible for us to buy a beer, they just wouldn't take our money, the beer just sort of appeered. After a while we discovered if we acted insulted by not being allow to pay for a beer of a meal, they'd break down and take our money

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by vistic · · Score: 1

      You're my new hero. I salute you.

    25. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people so down on spray can cheese? That stuff tastes great! Spray can cheese and ritz crackers make all your problems go away.

    26. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by johansalk · · Score: 1



      Being unemployed in France is a lot, a lot better than being an employed worker in the US who can't afford health insurance. In france you get universal high quality healthcare, education, and social help with many, many more things. My ex-wife was French and I was very, very impressed with how excellent and egalitarian their social services are. Not that we used them, but she was the product of their fine education, and I once had a look at her health records she took when she changed country to be with me, which impressed me with how very thorough and comprehensive the medical care their kids get.

    27. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by FST777 · · Score: 1

      It's not bullshit, but it is an opinion. Socialism in and of itself is a bad idea. The concept of a planned economy does not work either in it's more true forms or in the bastardized forms as exhibited in the communist countries. The fact is that it's better to allow the market to adjust on it's own to both the needs and desires of the market and the resources available to it. These opions, and I am admittedly not an economist, are derivitaves of those ideas put forth by Adam Smith and economists like him. Ask anyone whose lived in a communist country verses living here, and you'll have support for my opinion. I happen to work with a lot of guys who grew up in Russia and places like that before the wall came down.
      Aren't you severely mixing up socialism and communism right now? In fact, we haven't even spoken of true socialism as in the bunch of the European countries it is the social-democrats who ruled them all. Now that is not comparable with communism at all.

      Now you talk about the Cold War as if it wasn't real. It happened, and it was the American tax payers, and economy, that bore the brunt of the burden of it istead of Western Europe. The fact is that our mostly Democratic presidents and congress during the Cold War directed our spending to be much higher than theirs. Quite frankly, we couldn't afford it, but they could. You can argue why they spent as they did, but it is a fact.
      The Cold War happened, but there was a lot of bullshit mingled with it. It spawned the idea in America that anything left-winged is as bad as Stalin. In Europe, people had a huge fear of the threads of war, not because Russia was that close, but because we were right in between two super-nations.

      As for being back at the same level as 1999, well so is France's unemployment. In the 90s it was as high as 12.1, and they got it down as low as 8.7. When they were at that low, we were below 4. The economy under Clinton was great. For the last several years, the wonderful European economy has had almost no growth where as we have continued to have between 2-4 growth in spite of some very tragic events that have happened; and I'm not talking about what happended downtown. The Enron garbage, oil prices, tech bubble burst, and countless other major economic events besides the terrorism troubles have all not stopped the US from having moderate growth.
      That is not consistent with the numbers I know. The economic growth here in the Netherlands as never went towards or below zero. The growth just hasn't grown and even lessened somewhat (and is now about 2.5 in the Netherlands, and we are dragging behind the other European economies). That is economic downfall, because growth - and growth of growth - is necessary. The world-economy, including the US, have gone down (as in: lesser growth) since 9-11. The US economy has come over that just a good year sooner than the European. My problem is that the Dutch economy is following a year after the European. And we have now one of the most right-winged government since ages.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    28. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      The old east is where the action is now. Countries like the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania.

      People there remember what it was like, and are working hard, minimising the state and in 20 years now, people in the west will be scratching their heads at how they got so successful.

    29. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Actually, what has made the European economies so strong is that, instead of paying billions every year to keep their elderly population on life support, they simply kill them off every summer by making the entire population too poor to afford air conditioning...

    30. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      True, but if working in France is so expensive then they will decide to rethink how serious business they want to do in EU. While it is a big market it is not the only market, and most companies can do without it if needed.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by my_haz · · Score: 1

      The "French" in "french fries" comes from the cut of the potato. That is, french fries, are potatoes french cut and then deep fried.

    32. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      As well, the same data will flow to other mayors and perhaps they'll obtain the same results by acting on it. The "strong message" has other audiences.

      Or are populists just invisible to you?

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    33. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, RIIIIGHT, bunky. A market with over 330 million people, and companies will just skip over it. You may as well ignore America (295M).

      Even if this DOES become ideological as you imply, skipping over Europe will make many public shareholders draw-and-quarter their BODs for playing politics over pursuing profits. Securing market share is a fiscal duty, ace. DUH.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    34. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      The concept of a planned economy does not work either in it's more true forms or in the bastardized forms as exhibited in the communist countries.

      So, somehow in the vast hypocrisy mechanism of the American mind, it becomes perfectly sensible and acceptable to use grants, abatements and subsidies to centrally plan the economics of corporations?

      If you ever want to really see a Republican asshole squirm like an eel in boiling water, mention that little viewpoint to him. Great fun!

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    35. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      So, somehow in the vast hypocrisy mechanism of the American mind, it becomes perfectly sensible and acceptable to use grants, abatements and subsidies to centrally plan the economics of corporations?

      since when does two wrongs make a right? I'm talking about economic theory, and you're talking about bastardizations of capitolist theory.

      for the record, I'm a registered democrat.

      Answer me this, why is that when someone wants discuss an opinion different than yours, you have to get personal instead of attacking the idea? You'd have a better chance of changing a mind if you did that, than resorting to name calling.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    36. Re:Put all right wing anti French stuff under here by FST777 · · Score: 1

      Easy there, no one attacked you as a person. No one said you were the republican who would squirm like an eel in boiling water.

      I still think you have seriously mixed up socialism and communism. I see that with every American I speak about these things. Maybe that is the price for a two-party system where both parties would be considered right-winged here in Europe.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
  4. French labor laws... by huckda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are STUPID.
    HP will likely save as much in trimming those ~6k jobs as they did in getting rid of the 15k previous.

    --
    "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    1. Re:French labor laws... by winkydink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are incredibly stupid if you are an employer with more than (I think) 50 employees.

      As an employee on the other hand...

      While they may not admit it, France is very much a socialist country.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:French labor laws... by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wait...the French WANT to work now? I wish they would make up their minds. Also, since when did HP start adding white flags, cheese and wine to their product line?

    3. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I used to work for HP (wasn't layed off, just finished my contract term!) and we did quite a lot of work with people in Grenoble and they seemed pretty good at what they did. But they do get something like 50 days off per year vs the measly 23 I used to get and HP let them drink wine at lunch, we couldn't even bring a bottle of wine on site to give to someone as a leaving gift! I wonder who was more productive?

    4. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As an employee on the other hand...


      As an employee what? It's great until they get tired of carrying your unproductive ass and lay you off?

      -Peter
    5. Re:French labor laws... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1, Informative

      employees do well in france. even if their laid off, companies pay a large penalty to their UE insurance, plus corporations dont get to threaten health and survival, as the social safety net is much stronger than the US's, as they have socialized medicine, and good UE benefits.

      As a worker, I would love to have France's labor laws working for me.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    6. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they do get something like 50 days off per year vs the measly 23 I used to get and HP let them drink wine at lunch, we couldn't even bring a bottle of wine on site to give to someone as a leaving gift! I wonder who was more productive?

      That's the thing -- they're not trying to be more productive. They're trying to be more happy.

      U.S. culture is that the people work every second that their owners, um, excuse me, their bosses, can legally or illegally force them to work, for as little pay as possible. Only the company is important, and the government exists for the companies; the people are told they should be lucky to be permitted to work to enrich their betters.

      French culture is that the government is there for the people, and that companies are less important than people are. Yes, this leads to less productivity. And yes, America's GDP will always be far larger than France's GDP. But ask yourself this: do you really care what the damn GDP is?

      Then ask yourself which country has more people who enjoy their lives before they topple into their graves.

      Which is right? Which is wrong? I don't think that's the question. It's not about right or wrong, it's about choices and priorities.

    7. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      If my employer threatens my health or survival I'll never have to work again.

      Of course, I have the grit to be laid off without it threating my health or survival.

      -Peter

    8. Re:French labor laws... by dominion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While they may not admit it, France is very much a socialist country.

      You mean the workers own the means of production and distribution!?? That's amazing! I've been waiting to find a country like that.

      Or do you mean they just have strong labor laws?

    9. Re:French labor laws... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They were.

      Having worked both in Europe, not France, and the US for many years I know I was more productive under a system that allowed me time to re-charge.

      The US may have me in the office longer but I feel I actually do less work. I cannot even take time unpaid time off, which I would gladly do.

      In Europe I felt everybody was on the same page. We go to work to provide ourselves with quality leisure time and a nice life style.

      In the US it would seem you go to work because nothing else matters. Marriage, health, sanity etc etc are all less important than having a job.

      Of course, if you look at the widening gap between the rich and everybody else in the US it would seem that no matter how hard you work you're financial status in life was set when you were born.

    10. Re:French labor laws... by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Don't be a pedant. Strong labor laws only scratches the surface. Look at retirement, health care, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc...

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    11. Re:French labor laws... by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, well, we just got the report from your doctor via the insurance company that you look like you've got MS, so we're going to have to let you go, otherwise the health insurance rates for the company will double. Good luck with whatever is left of your life, and don't let your thousand-dollar-a-month COBRA rates hit you on the ass on the way out the door.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    12. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialist? For protecting employees? That makes a country socialist about as much as minimum wage laws do.

    13. Re:French labor laws... by mfrank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't have to live in France to have France's labor laws work for you. I had a good job in Dallas working for Alcatel (French telecom company). They'd much rather hire people in the US than in France.

      Rumor has it that a few years ago Alcatel management in France was talking with the unions trying to avoid a strike. They ended up getting fined by the government because they spent more than 35 hours in a week negotiating.

    14. Re:French labor laws... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      While they may not admit it, France is very much a socialist country.

      So is the US, but in different areas.

      I'm not saying "Free Market Economy" is a myth, but the American economy has quite a bit of government control. Just ask Greenspan and the Federal Reserve... Or the IRS, Federal Trade Commision, or the hundreds of other government bodies devoted to regulating the US Economy.

      A welfare state it is not... Although it tends to lean more towards business supporting through grants, corporation charters, tax breaks, federal loans, and bankruptcy protection than one that support free education, free healthcare, and various other things associated with welfare states.

      Still... It's socialism by definition.

      Now if you want to look at a Socialist Welfare State, then Norway is the best example. Of course they have free college education and healthcare and some of the highest standard of livings in the world, but being a wealthy oil producing nation with a small population helps with those kind of things.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    15. Re:French labor laws... by lgw · · Score: 1

      How did we ever get into this mess, where your company provides your health insurance? Why am I not just buying my own, at about what my company pays on my behalf? Are we so insistant that someone, anyone, else provides health insurance for us? I suspect too many people would simply not buy health insurance, even though they could afford it, then whine that the system had failed them, if it weren't mandatory in some fashion, but the current system just puts employers in a place they shouldn't be.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Socialism" (and thus "socialist country") have quite a few interpretations depending on who you talk to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism is fairly illustrative. Workers owning the means of production and distribution of every enterprise is generally more specifically denoted "Communism".

    17. Re:French labor laws... by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA. "The local consultation processes are still ongoing," Nachbar said. She confirmed that the 5,900 European layoffs are part of a plan announced in July to cut 14,500

      These cuts are are part of the 14.5k announced earlier.

    18. Re:French labor laws... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      While this isn't precisely on topic, I'd like to see this modded up. The current system really does just feed into our growing dependence on some sort of 'higher authority,' be it corporate or governmental, to take care of us because we're too stupid to do it on our own.

      And look where it's gotten us. By making companies pay for health insurance, it's nearly impossible for an individual to buy it on the open market at a reasonable rate. We've tried to make the companies serve us with all these cushy benefits so we wouldn't have to think about them ourselves, and instead we get into situations where we're afraid to leave a job because we'll be unable to get insurance otherwise.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    19. Re:French labor laws... by mildgift · · Score: 1

      It's the US model for companies to offer health insurance as part of the compensation package. They're partly in competition with unions, who also offer healh insurance packages.

      If you look at it as a class conflict, the battle is between the workers and the owners, with regard to who will have the power to control who coordinates health insurance. In the US, the owners are winning, and that's why companies offer health insurance: it's cheaper, overall, than having a single payer system that would insure not only the better paid workers, but the poorly paid ones who have no insurance at all.

    20. Re:French labor laws... by bnenning · · Score: 1

      How did we ever get into this mess, where your company provides your health insurance?

      Because of (surprise) government interference. During WW2, wage controls were imposed limiting how much companies could pay employees. Of course markets route around those kind of regulations, and employers started offering "free" health insurance as a means of competing for employees.

      You're absolutely right; there's no reason your employer should provide your health insurance, any more than they should provide you with a car. Unfortunately there's not an easy way to get there from here, now that so many people believe "somebody else" should pay for their health care.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    21. Re:French labor laws... by boule75 · · Score: 1

      Just for your information.

      The 35-hours-a-day-law in France applies only to a limited part of the workforce. It does not apply in many corporations (from lorry drivers to restaurant and hostels staff and so on) nor to the managers down to a low level ("les cadres"). Most shopkeepers frequently work 50 hours a week or more, as well as all "artisants". Next is the hourly productivity which is much higher than in the US, for instance. Finaly, the minimum wage is... not a minimum wage since many kind of businesses are allowed to bypass it.

      So, this 10% unemployment rate, is certainly linked to the labor laws: recruiters are rather cautious and conservative, that's right. But relatively "generous" unemployement compensations are another factor, because some employees play with them.

      So, the situation here has also much to deal with high healthcare costs (and universal benefits), with the high number of retirees (which live older than in the US) and with conservative individual policies (the saving rate is higher than 15% where it is... under 0% in the latest US surveys. Enjoy). One could also point out that the US massively borows foreign money, and that looks very much like an hoorific keynesian-socialist policy.

      Many of us fear the financial elites are leading us right to the bottom of the pit, and by "us" I mean all citizens of the "developped" world, US included. The root cause of HP layouts are felt in the US alike: masive offshoring of value-added services, nothing else. Chinese or Indian or Tunisian quasi-slaves are much more profitable to big companies in the short term, they have few or no political rights, and will not really complain about very low wages for years.

      The cruelest system may be the most effective. I am not all sure to love it.

      Disclaimer: I am French and working much more than 35 hrs a week...

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    22. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... under 0% in the latest US surveys. Enjoy).
      ...

      Disclaimer: I am French...


      Yeah, we all noticed that...your little flamboyant comment was the telltale

    23. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Blockquoth the AC:

      That's the thing -- they're not trying to be more productive. They're trying to be more happy.

      Although since well-treated workers tend to be more productive anyway, that happiness has a convenient side effect.

      (Before any pro-business fanatics start telling me how the US is the most productive nation in the world, please note that I measure productivity by how much useful stuff gets done/made. The only people who think a higher GDP is equivalent to a more productive society are bad economists.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    24. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While they may not admit it, France is very much a socialist country.

      Welcome to Western Europe (excluding the UK)! Corporate interests, American politics, the internationalization of finance and numerous other factors have somewhat corroded the social advances made in the old EU zone, but most of us in this ole neck of the woods still prefer social well-being over corporate profit. Socialist Democracies as those you find in Europe tend to give you good public infrastructure, state-sponsored television providing an extremely wide range of political, social, scientific and religious viewpoints and special interest programming. Because the emphasis is placed on the individuals right to privacy and self-determination, matters such as prostitution, gay marriage, drug use and euthanasia are legal and regulated by the state (not everywhere, but just give it some time - social acceptance is near universal). And even though most citizens of the USA believe this would lead to social collapse (or divine retribution, take your pick) - we're all doing fine and we're actually much better off in all these areas than the world's richest nation (hint: the USA). Oh, and our literacy rate is higher. Our infant mortality rates are lower. Average life expectancy is also higher.

      Yeah, socialism sucks big time!

    25. Re:French labor laws... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      how is the United States healthcare system, ?cheaper? than a single payer system? We spend by far the most per capita, almost double the next closest, and we dont cover almost 20% of the citizens.

      Exactly how is more per capita, and less coverage, "cheaper"?

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    26. Re:French labor laws... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      If the company stopped buying it for you, do you believe for one instant they'd increase your salary by the amount they were spending on you so that you could go buy it yourself?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    27. Re:French labor laws... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      The 35-hours-a-day-law in France applies only to a limited part of the workforce.

      Ye gods, let's hope so. Or are those metric hours?

    28. Re:French labor laws... by liloldme · · Score: 1
      Look at retirement, health care, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, etc...

      These are socialist things?

      Wow.. socialism sure sounds nice. We should have more of that.

    29. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for a US division of a fairly large French company. Generally, my experience has been that while the french guys didn't work as long, they were doing about as much in 35 hours as we did in 50.

    30. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I don't think you included social security or charitable hospitals in your calculations.

      You also personalized the issue to me, which was a mistake given I have VA coverage for life unless the VA goes tits up first.

      -Peter

    31. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have VA coverage for life unless the VA goes tits up first.

      Don't count your chickens...

      Odd that when the government foots the bill, the most efficient systems like the VA get cut, while bloat gets more bloated.

    32. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe you don't know what "tits up" means?

      -Peter

    33. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...no matter how hard you work you're financial status in life was set when you were born.

      Maybe it was determined by how much attention you paid in English class.

    34. Re:French labor laws... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "Exactly how is more per capita, and less coverage, "cheaper"?"

      Easy. We provide better care (no queue for most surgeries) for the more productive of our citizens (the people making enough money to afford coverage). If you're not productive enough, then you probably can't afford medical coverage, so you better become more productive (earn more $$$) or the problem will sort itself out the next time you have a medical issue.

      For those of us who can't afford healthcare, or don't 'like' paying for it (lower class - lower middle class typically), the idea of universal coverage seems like a fabulous idea (yay! free healthcare for all! and other people will pay for it!). For those of us actually providing more than a headcount to society, the idea of having to compete Joe Loser for a spot on the cardiovascular surgery list for a heart-valve defect is less than endearing.

      But back to the original point, how is it cheaper? By keeping the more productive members of society in tip-top shape (and by eliminating the less desirable elements through attrition), the productive growth gained is far greater than the impact (even at double per capita). Hence, our system is 'cheaper'.

      +10 Mental Gymnastics
      +10 Evil

      Muhahahahaha!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    35. Re:French labor laws... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      hell, why dont we just take the non-productive members of society, and stick them in gas chambers and them burn them in gigantic ovens.

      all for the betterment of the human race.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    36. Re:French labor laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, we use floodwaters, not ovens. Try to pay a little fucking attention to world events! (Anyway, you don't want to burn them in ovens, medium-rare is quite nice). -; -; -;

    37. Re:French labor laws... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Actually yes. Not all of it, of course, but I expect most, and only a minor effective pay cut. My salary plus my cost of benefits is the price where supply and demand meet for my job. Buying my own health care doesn't change that. My company competes for my labor, and would continue to have to do so. Of course, they'd screw me a little bit, just enough where it wouldn't be worth the effort for a job hunt, but that's OK, I'd get it back when I next changed jobs for whatever reason.

      If my company had all the power in negotiating wages, they'd pay me minimum wage. Clearly I have some negotiating power as well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:French labor laws... by anpe · · Score: 1

      Wow. You didn't just spend 14 weeks with your company's french subsidiary and think you know everything about the country and its way of life.
      It looks like you've setup your own definition of socialism too.

    39. Re:French labor laws... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "In the US it would seem you go to work because nothing else matters. Marriage, health, sanity etc etc are all less important than having a job."

      This is a falsehood. I would challenge you to find one single American who would give up their family or health for their job. You watch too much TV... Family is much more important to Americans than the press would have you believe. Why do you think they reacted with such astonishment that family values and morals were the most important issues in the 2004 US election?

    40. Re:French labor laws... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      If an individual is buying health insurance, their rates are based on their medical history. If you join a 'group plan' (almost always via your employer), every employee pays the same amount*, and cannot be denied coverage because of their condition.

      * except that many employers offer multiple plans, where all employees in a given plan pay the same rate.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    41. Re:French labor laws... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Yeah, well, we just got the report from your doctor via the insurance company that you look like you've got MS, so we're going to have to let you go, otherwise the health insurance rates for the company will double.

      I don't have MS you insensitive clod. I only use Linux.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    42. Re:French labor laws... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      "The Gross National Product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulance to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles and nuclear warheads... And if GNP includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, or the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials... GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile; and it can tell us everything about America - except whether we are proud to be Americans"

      --Bobby Kennedy

    43. Re:French labor laws... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      I'm working in the US and have seen all of the listed items sacraficed for work. I'm not sure the individuals/teams involved were aware of the consequences at the time but afterwards it was all to apparent.

      I do not own a TV!

      The 2004 election was strange in a number of ways but I don't believe it demonstrated anything about family values.

    44. Re:French labor laws... by boule75 · · Score: 1

      I always feared we were not leaving on the same planet. Sorry for that. What is the length of Venus days ? That may be it...

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    45. Re:French labor laws... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      I believe company-sponsored insurance began in WWII when labor shortages combined with wage controls forced companies to seek other incentives to attract or retain employees. In short, and as ever, regulation created unregulated adaptive behavior.

      The Conservative part of me knows that Americans existed well enough without company involvement in their insurance. That part of me accepts we can do away with such schemes and people will adapt.

      The Liberal in me is hesitant to invoke such measures. If America could also afford health insurance before, then why not try to fix what ails it so it can be affordable again?

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    46. Re:French labor laws... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      So you complain that others don't have the "grit" to sustain themselves after a layoff but yet your "grit" consists of you sucking off the VA's heathcare program?

      what an ass...

    47. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      So you complain that others don't have the "grit" to sustain themselves after a layoff but yet your "grit" consists of you sucking off the VA's heathcare program?


      Way to shamelessly shift context. I was specifically replying the way the previous poster personalized his argument.

      In any case, VA medical coverage is due to me on contract. And believe me when I tell you that I paid dearly for the privilege.

      If I did not have that coverage I still wouldn't consider the threat of a layoff to be a threat to my health or survival. An astute reader may have concluded that I don't count on the continued availability of those benefits by the "tits up" remark.

      what an ass...


      Thanks! You don't think it's too big?

      -Peter
    48. Re:French labor laws... by dominion · · Score: 1

      No, I'm referring to socialism. Communism (big "c") is an outgrowth of socialism where the state as a protective force of the workers councils dissolves because the external threat no longer exists. Conversely, communism (small "c" or anarcho-communism) is a full economic theory delineated by the platform put forth by Errico Malatesta. This communism (which rejects the state from the beginning) puts the ownership of the means of production and distribution in the hands of a federative structure which coordinates using syndicates, community councils, and fully recallable delegates.

      What you're referring to are Social Democratic reforms, which I'm not particularly opposed to, but Socialism it is not.

    49. Re:French labor laws... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "In any case, VA medical coverage is due to me on contract. And believe me when I tell you that I paid dearly for the privilege."

      I believe it is my country's duty to provide for my welfare since without my (and yours and "ours" as a collective) support the country wouldn't exist.

      "An astute reader may have concluded that I don't count on the continued availability of those benefits by the "tits up" remark."

      Actually the way you spoke it left up a lot to the imagination, I took it to mean that unless the government went "tits up" you would be taken care of, since the highly unlikely proposition of the government going "tits up", I took it to be condescending to the parent poster.

      " what an ass...
      Thanks! You don't think it's too big?"

      No it's surprising small for the amount of head you have up there...

    50. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      I believe it is my country's duty to provide for my welfare since without my (and yours and "ours" as a collective) support the country wouldn't exist.


      That sounds lovely. How is the government meant to pay for that if everyone decides to goldbrick?

      Actually the way you spoke it left up a lot to the imagination, I took it to mean that unless the government went "tits up" you would be taken care of, since the highly unlikely proposition of the government going "tits up", I took it to be condescending to the parent poster.


      I meant what I literally said. I'm not sure what I can do about you choosing to read it with an inflection of sarcasm or condescension.

      To be clear, all I was saying is that I am aware of the fact that the VA may cut off my benefits some day.

      No it's surprising small for the amount of head you have up there...


      It is clear you have never seen me. Or at least haven't seen me since my svelte teenage days.

      -Peter
    51. Re:French labor laws... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "That sounds lovely. How is the government meant to pay for that if everyone decides to goldbrick?"

      It wouldn't and the country wouldn't exist, but the same goes for a country whose inhabitants cant afford housing, cost of living or healthcare, which might explain the downward slope the US is taking...

      "To be clear, all I was saying is that I am aware of the fact that the VA may cut off my benefits some day."

      Which is the opposite of how i read it, my apologies :)

      "It is clear you have never seen me. Or at least haven't seen me since my svelte teenage days.

      -Peter"

      HAHAHA nice, quite the witty retort in the face of harsh criticism, I applaud you sir!

    52. Re:French labor laws... by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "That sounds lovely. How is the government meant to pay for that if everyone decides to goldbrick?"

      It wouldn't and the country wouldn't exist, but the same goes for a country whose inhabitants cant afford housing, cost of living or healthcare, which might explain the downward slope the US is taking...


      Hey, no fair getting all reasonable on me all of a sudden!

      But do you see how this could, depending on the population*, set up a race to the bottom?

      I generally would rather see laziness subdued and greed harnessed in my society than see them operate unchecked.

      -Peter

      * I mean a country's population as a whole. Maybe the French, as compared to Americans, are fair-minded and willing to labor for abstract rewards.
  5. I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by winkydink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article: 'Michel Destot, the Socialist deputy mayor of the southern France city of Grenoble - where HP has one of its French plants - said the layoffs were "unacceptable" and demanded that HP managers also meet local politicians to discuss scaling back the job cuts.'"

    Good luck pal. HP is a big multinational and doing business in France with French employees is a royal pain in the butt (yes, I speak from experience, having spent 14 weeks at my company's French subsidiary last year).

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Would you do business in France if you knew that you would never be able to lay off an employee without Michel Destot's permission? I sure wouldn't! I would be stupid to hostage my company like that.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by winkydink · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't need his permission, but based on the tenure of your employees, it can cost you as much as 18 months salary per person in severance to simply cut your losses and leave without negotiating.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by rholliday · · Score: 1

      Any country where the students have planned walk-out protests every year (les manifestations, if I recall) can't have a strong basis in anti-corporate labor, can it? :)

      --
      Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
    4. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Funny
      doing business in France with French employees is a royal pain in the butt
      That's an egalitarian paint in the butt, you bourgeois capitalist pig.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    5. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by Cyryathorn · · Score: 1

      So the socialist mayor's only leverage is in changing the cost of what HP wants to do? Sounds rather ... capitalist, to me.

      Go invisible hand!

    6. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      We have a thread winner!
      stevesliva, stick around for your prize.
      Everyone else, thanks for playing, and better luck next time!

    7. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by Nonoche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well you seem to ignore one important point : the city of Grenoble has given subsidies to HP, so that should give them a right to say something.

    8. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by Arandir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is a very good point. I'm an equal opportunity capitalist. Subsidies are just as harmful to business as taxes. As a businesses owner I would be very hard pressed not to accept the subsidy, especially if all my competitors were. But I would still think about it, because the price of "free" government money is very steep.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    9. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's an egalitarian paint in the butt, you bourgeois capitalist pig."

      And how those egalitarian's get paint in their butts is something I really DON'T want to know!

    10. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1


      Yeah, those damn french and their 35-hour work week and employee rights. How DARE they not work like slaves and how DARE they make it hard for you to arbitrarily fire them.

      Do there people actually think they have the right to spend time with their families and enjoy job security? Heresy I say! Heresy! No wonder those nice hard-working germans keep invading!

    11. Re:I wish the mayor of Grenoble all the best. by bladernr · · Score: 1
      Do there people actually think they have the right to spend time with their families and enjoy job security?

      No one stops anyone from spending time with their families (unless they are in prison, then the state stops them). France does not allow indentured servitude, so quitting is always an option for employees.

      Need the money? Life is about tradeoffs. I wish I could get paid while never showing up to work and drinking margaritas all day, but, alas, life is about tradeoffs.

      How is job security a right? If an employee has the right to quit, than an employer should have the right to fire them. If you want a model of indentured servitude, where I can deny your right to quit, then a balance would be preventing me from firing you.

      In all of my employement contracts, I have insisted that the "right to termination" be equal in both directions. If I expect 6 months of notice or pay if the company wants to fire me, then I must give a 6 month notice to resign.

      Why shouldn't responsibilities be a two-way street?

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
  6. Ten percent unemployment? by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jeepers... that seems high.

    On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much reliable data available for most of the globe if this image is any guide.

    1. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not too high for a European country. Germany has hit much higher without breaking a sweat. The thing about the US's 6 percent unemployment being considered HUGE is that we have a much more fluid economy with much fewer social safety nets than they do. Whether you think it's a positive or a negative thing, it is generally harder to become destitute or unemployed once you have a job in a European economy, or at least that was my impression. On the other hand doing business is more cumbersome in a more highly regulated economy. It's always a trade.

      I spoke to a Brit living in Germany for a while once, and he said, "Yeah, I pay taxes that are pretty high, but I don't have to pay for health care at all. What do you get for YOUR taxes in the states?" I had to agree- I don't get much other than frustration that I'm paying for a useless political circus and its associated pork barrel projects.

    2. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

      No, no... for France? This is *normal*...

    3. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      You think a ten percent rate is bad? Take a look at the unemployment rate in France for people under 25. It has been as high as 25% but seems to be somewhere around 20% currently (can't find 2004 numbers).

    4. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Redrover5545 · · Score: 1

      The lower level of un-employment in the United States compared to France is explained by the lower minimum wage and lower taxes. However, if there are less jobs per capita in France, those jobs are higher paying (at least in the lower levels of the pay scale) and come with more social advantages.

    5. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I spoke to a Brit living in Germany for a while once, and he said, "Yeah, I pay taxes that are pretty high, but I don't have to pay for health care at all. What do you get for YOUR taxes in the states?" I had to agree- I don't get much other than frustration that I'm paying for a useless political circus and its associated pork barrel projects.

      But it's apples and oranges. The tax rates in Germany (and Britain, for that matter) are much, much higher than in the US. There also tend to very high professional licensing fees, business taxes, and other factors that make a dollar-for-dollar comparison in the benefits purchased with tax dollars difficult at best.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the unemployment rate in France for people under 25. It has been as high as 25% but seems to be somewhere around 20% currently (can't find 2004 numbers).

      So what? That can be explained by taking a year off after college to bum around Europe/Asia. Wish I'd done it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the gray means both "no data" AND "less than 5% unemployment".

      According to the original website, the data comes from the IMF, which only has information for 29 countries available.

      So, for example, they have data on the UK (4.8%) and Japan (4.7%), but not China (except for Tiawan, if you count that as part of China, at 4.6%). But all of those are colored the same - both ones with no data and ones below 5%.

      So, yeah, there isn't a lot of data available, but there's more available than the map shows.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    8. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

      France jobs are higher paying than US jobs? That's a good one! I'm sure Cubans will start swimming there immediately upon reading your post.

    9. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The other bit about EU unemployment rates, is thta they measure UE differently than the US. We generally report the U3 numbers, while they report the equivalent of our U6 numbers.

      Currently, the US U6 numbers are 8.9%

      Suddenly, we look a lot more like Europe.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    10. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US "unemployment" numbers we're used to seeing are fiction. They've been cooked so many ways for so long that they now are a measure only of how many people the government wants to admit are willing to ask it for help this week. Which is why it's around 5-7% when it's reported. The real number that you're looking for is "employment market participation rate", or the percentage of people who can work (minus retired, disabled, children and a few prohibited others). That's currently around 65%, or 35% not participating. Realize that the people in addition to the 100% are the "prohibited" people I mentioned, all of whom still have to eat, who need someone's income to support them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I expect other countries cook their numbers, too. France might cook their "unemployment %" upwards, to justify a larger socialist government, just as the US cooks them down, to justify a "smaller" capitalist government (though we have grown our government larger, and faster, than anyone, especially under "capitalist" Republican governments).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      a) assumes everyone under the age of 25 is a college graduate (not true)

      b) assumes that between one and four and one in five students bum around for a year (which is unbelieveably large) that would explain up to their 23rd year.

      So, to explain it away you have to assume that a) every French(wo)man between the age of 18-22 is in college and b) every last one of them loaf off for a year afterwards. Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

    13. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if true, you are basically conceding what others say is so bad about socialist systems (among other things): What good is it for me to be in a country with higher paying jobs if I'm unemployed? I would gladly accept $6.00 an hour in exchange for doing a little work, rather than $0.00 an hour in exchange for doing nothing. It's certainly better for everyone else if I'm doing something productive, even if I'm not doing it for a "living wage" ($0.00 isn't a living wage either).

    14. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      according to the US State Department... about 10% "Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. The Government of France successfully reduced an unemployment rate of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s but has seen unemployment increase to above 10.1% in early 2005." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    15. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

      Nope... EUROSTAT, the statistics arm of the EU publishes comparisons of its own economies unemployment rates to the US. Why would EUROSTAT intentionally make Europe look inferior?

      See for yourself at EUROSTAT:

      http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAG E/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2005/PGE_ CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2005_MONTH_06/3-01062005-EN-AP.PDF

    16. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Thanks, this is very interesting information.

      Best.

    17. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. those people don't count in the unemployment rate. The BLS only counts people as unemployed if they've actively sought employment in the past four weeks. There are other exclusions too. Wikipedia article here.

    18. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason I suspect that 35% includes my wife who is not employed but is not unemployed; she has chosen to stay home with our kids. Also it'd be nice to have a reference for your stats.

    19. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More unemployment, but less poverty.
      Strange, isn't it?
      As a French guy, I don't mind paying taxes because my country give me a lot back.
      Free healthcare, free schools, etc.

      The question of strong labor law could be summed up as follows:
      shall men work for economy, or shall economy work for men?

      Oh, by the way, HP made layoffs, but unemployement rate has been decreasing for a few month.

    20. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Google for "employment participation rate". Your wife is not counted in "unemployment rate", either, since she's not reporting to the government that she's "actively seeking employment".

      FWIW, your wife does not, by raising the kids, participate in the economy's production, except as a consumer. Of course she and other child raisers are essential to the nation, to the economy. But that's not employment. People who garden are not as important as child raisers, but they're also not "employed".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spoke to a Brit living in Germany for a while once, and he said, "Yeah, I pay taxes that are pretty high, but I don't have to pay for health care at all. What do you get for YOUR taxes in the states?" I had to agree- I don't get much other than frustration that I'm paying for a useless political circus and its associated pork barrel projects.

      The US can have globalized heath care any time they want it, but some things to consider before you jump:

      • Tack on a couple of bucks at the fuel pump, say $1.30 to $2.30 per litre (about a quart, not a gallon).
      • Raise your marginal tax rate to at least 47%
      • Increase your hidden taxes, say a VAT or GST of at least 7 to 25% on everything you purchase - right down to your shorts.
      • Triple your liquer prices
      • And you don't get an armed forces for all of above. (At least not a world power quality)
      • You get one provider, don't like it? Then move to another country. In the US, just get a job that has a good one.
      • Your wages will be lower because the companies too are taxed more, thus pay less to compensate and be competative
      • Get used to 10% unemployment.
      • Every time politicians want more money they threaten health care and spend the proceeds on something else.

      The biggest falicy of government health care is the cost. It cost plenty. Partially due to abuse, have a cold or are board, see the doc.

      The US would be good to consider globalized health care, but with a twist. Slap a household tax of say $7000 per resident or $12000 per household. The rates are to be 20-80% more than private averages. If a person can show continious coverage for the year for all residents then wave the taxes.

      Another pitfall of socialized medicine is limited liability. People can't go out of life costing $2m unless they pay $2m in -- doesn't mater how you slice it. With enough money you could keep almost anyone alive for an extra 6 months to 6 years, but it worth it? At what cost? Governments generally do pretty poor here as to avoid loosing votes.

      Otherwise the medial profession will pilfer the US treasury.

      Mind you, I will admit the paper work in the US system needs a radical change. Providers pricing is somewhat stupid, 4-5 bills for one visit and often priced at what they think they can get away with.

    22. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      The real number that you're looking for is "employment market participation rate", or the percentage of people who can work (minus retired, disabled, children and a few prohibited others).

      No, you are wrong. All that statistic will measure is the # of people who could work but are not working which doesn't do us much good in determining the # of truly available workers, or workers who are unable to find jobs in the market. The number would be skewed by people who have retired early, have simply elected not to work (stay at home moms/dads for example), lazy people, or people for whatever reason have simply decided not to work. The number is useful in determing how much of the population is not participating in the labor market, and can be used to better understand fluctuations in true unemployment measures (e.g. people deciding they want to work again and start seeking employment). What we care about is the # of people who want jobs and can't find them, if that # goes up we know we have a loose labor market and we should probably try to keep our jobs increase savings and generally prepare for rough times if we lose our jobs, if it goes up, maybe there are better opportunities around.

    23. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to find "the number of people who want jobs but can't find them"? If we could filter each of the 35% not participating by whether they eat every day, or have a place to live, and are not masochists, or otherwise insane, we could get that number. Do you have a way to do that? If not, the "number of people who could have a job, but don't" is what most people mean by "unemployment". Then those people argue about whether people are unemployed "by choice".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by horza · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the USA, but in France when you get laid off you get 80% of your salary for at least a year and a half from the state. With around a quarter of the population under 25 being unemployed here, the cost of living is pretty cheap too.

      Phillip.

    25. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Kahnspiracy · · Score: 1

      Precisely my point, since she is of working age but not actively seeking employment, she is not participating and thus boosting the 35% figure.

      I'm not making the case that she's unemployed; I'm making the case that her situation is included to make a number like 35% sound worse than it really is.

      Also it appears your numbers came from the Daily Kos http://stevo.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/2/21018/295 20 (which, as most blogs do, has an agenda). He defines the Employment Participation Rate as "the number people either employed or looking for work divided by the number of potential workers". By most definitions my wife would be considered a "potential worker"; but she would tell you she is not.

    26. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by crush · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps the US is not reporting their unemployment statistics accurately in order to look better? ;)

      One interesting thing in the tables at the end of the link is that in the EU women are reported as 10% unemployment rate and the USA it's circa 5%. Whereas for men it's 7.5% and 5.5% respectively. I wonder are women in the USA that are homemakers less likely to report themselves as "unemployed"?

      Most importantly of all it should be noted that neither set of figures contains information about the huge number of "illegals" in the USA or the "sin papieres" in the EU.

      So anyone trying to compare the two would do well to be skeptical of both accounts.

    27. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We could probably do it the the way it's actually done, by asking people who aren't working if they're looking for jobs. If they say they are, then hey, they're unemployed.

      Simple, huh? And Googling that fact would take less time than composing your post.

    28. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      FWIW, your wife does not, by raising the kids, participate in the economy's production, except as a consumer.

      My girlfriend is currently a nanny (yes, paying taxes and everything) - does she count as "employed" because she's raising someone else's children instead of her own? If not, then how about her sister, who worked in day care and raised children en masse? If not, then what about my father, whose job is ostensibly to teach high school math but whose public school position makes him a babysitter for those students who don't want to learn?

      I'm not sure how you're defining "the economy's production", but the US hasn't had much of a production-based economy in decades. Service jobs like child rearing don't leave you with a chunk of shaped metal to call your own at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean they aren't employment. In particular, if you're going to bemoan a low "employment participation rate", you should make sure that statistic means "people who want to find paying jobs can't", not "families don't need two incomes to survive".

    29. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, those people who transact childcare for money, for other people, are participating in the economy. Their jobs aren't as productive as a steelmaker, or a (successful) spreadsheet programmer, or a farmer, because they don't help other people produce things that other people can use, not directly. They do help produce people who can be productive, after many years, though many are not. But until we quantify their actual contribution to that future productivity, it's pretty clear it's not that high. Teachers/childcarers (?) usually have about 30 charges a year, and most people spend about 15 years in their care before producing anything significant. So each of those teachers is about twice as productive as a fulltime mother. There are qualitative increases in amortized overhead; maybe a focused teacher is 4-5x the productivity of a mother. So overall, a mother is not as economically productive as a teacher. That's one reason why part-time, untrained sitters for adolescents are so cheap, affordable even by many poor mothers who need a break.

      Note that this is all economic productivity. Motherhood is still, of course, the most valuable "job" we have. But not in the terms of our economy, which is what we're discussing. I'd like to see the traditional "social contract" between parent and child more integrated into the economy. As old people need more caretakers, we might actually see that econometric. We might see the "replacement value" for geriatric caretakers replaced by their customers' children. Then we might have a basis for measuring the compensation between childraising and the complementary geriatric care of parents by children. There's a lot that's valuable, essential, in society that isn't measured in money, or at least abstration in economics. Some of it should be. But until it is, it's useless to include them in considerations of "the economy". We do need a better definition of all kinds of labor in the economy. I'm waiting for a better econometrician than I to propose one that I can accept.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    30. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Syphilis · · Score: 0, Troll
      I spoke to a Brit living in Germany for a while once, and he said, "Yeah, I pay taxes that are pretty high, but I don't have to pay for health care at all. What do you get for YOUR taxes in the states?"
      a military capable of saving Brits from Germany's repeated attempts to enslave the world?
    31. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      We could probably do it the the way it's actually done, by asking people who aren't working if they're looking for jobs. If they say they are, then hey, they're unemployed.

      The official number the government provides completely ignores the *underemployed*, which is exactly what the government wishes to do. People who have taken a subsistence-level job while continuing to look for work are counted as fully employed even if working part-time for minimum wage. The unemployment numbers you see quoted on the news also ignore anyone who has run out of benefits even if they are still looking for work. That is hardly a true representation of the number of people who are trying to find work.

    32. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The unemployment rate continues to count people who have run out of benefits, so long as they continue to look for work.

      You're right, though, that it doesn't count the underemployed. The BLS does also track underemployment statistics, but they're not represented in the unemployment rate. I suspect that underemployment rates would track unemployment rates fairly closely though, so that comparing unemployment rates over time would also compare underemployment rates over time (which is what unemployment rates are really useful for).

    33. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by RTMFD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The interesting thing is that Americans have been subsidizing Western Europe's cradle-to-grave welfare systems for the last 50 years by footing the defense bill of the member states. Just imagine if the U.S. had pulled out of Europe completely during the cold war? I doubt the money for "free healthcare", et. al. would have been quite as easy to find when the European states would have had to begin allocating up to 15% of their budgets for defense instead of relying upon America.

      It is comments like this that make me hope Rumsfeld follows through on his threat of pulling all American troops out of Europe.

    34. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by deaddrunk · · Score: 0

      Oh yes the Europeans paid zero for their soldiers, their conventional and nuclear weapons and their espionage services in all that time. Did you know there were European soldiers stationed all over western Europe. Did good ole Uncle Sam pay their wages?
      You've also forgotten that helping defend your major trading partners from being invaded was protecting your interests haven't you? You think that the US economy would have done so well in the situation of the complete collapse of western Europe and the likely subsequent occupation by Soviet forces.
      Don't get me wrong I am very grateful to the people of the US for helping reconstruct Europe after a devastating war and helping defend us against the Soviet Union. But:

      (a) you didn't beat either Germany or Russia alone and it is a shocking insult to the memories of those who died in WW2 or at the hands of the KGB to suggest otherwise.

      (b) helping us doesn't mean that we always have to do what you say. That's not ingratitude that's common sense. NATO is a partnership not a dictatorship.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    35. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Just because some website, with whatever agenda, agrees with the facts about employment participation, doesn't mean anything about the facts. The facts are not biased. Unless you agree with the Daily Show's parody line, which I paraphrase as "the facts are clearly biased against George Bush". You can't shoot the Daily Kos messenger when it's not the messenger. Even if you do, the facts are still the facts.

      Like the fact that your girlfriend isn't contributing to the economy with the labor you describe. You might not like that, but that's economics. A consistent description of the facts, when the terms and context are chosen accurately. Which is the reason that the participation rate is much more accurate a reflection of the economy than is the unemployment rate, which is precisely my point.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    36. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Not all Brits are like that. I have to pay into the National Heath Service (NHS), an organisation that exists far more for it's own good than to serve people. The whole tone is about the doctors and nurses, not the patients.

      For my money, I get long waiting lists (someone I saw recently was waiting a year for a hearing test), arrogant doctors in hospitals with little or no manners who attempt to bully you into doing things their way, and some dreadful systems inefficiencies (hand written forms written into other hand written forms), people with no manners who when an appointment cannot be made, fail to notify people that this is the case.

      Of course, if someone agreed to meet me at my company and didn't then turn up, I have an option - I can tell them to kiss goodbye any further work, and I can find another supplier. The NHS means that I have no choice, that if they fail, I'm still stuck with them. This does not improve customer service.

      Millions of people in the UK opt for private health cover, even though they are in effect paying twice. Personally, I'd rather have my taxes back and choose my health provider, not have it chosen for me (look how good state run industry was in the USSR).

    37. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's not done that way - the numbers are cooked. And lots of people say they're looking for work, to get their unemployment check, when they're not looking (for whatever reason, like they know there's no jobs, or they're scammers). Plus lots of people are looking, but their unemployment has expired, or they're looking for jobs they can't report (off the books, to avoid taxes, or to get those unemployment checks). And dozens of other complexities. Googling doesn't cut it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    38. Re:Ten percent unemployment? by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      What do you get for YOUR taxes in the states?" I had to agree

      From what I recall about the federal budget, very little of it anymore is "discretionary spending". Large chunks go towards entitlement spending and interest on the national debt (look for that component to rise significantly RSN). The "discretionary" part is eaten mostly by defence spending. Pork barrel projects are like foreign aid spending - they get a lot more bad press than the true size of the expenditure justifies.

      The US health care system is the world's most expensive. And while it's true that, if you're insured or independently wealthy, and you take the time to get inside knowledge about the best doctors, you can get the world's best care without waiting in line in the USA. And, in the US, you get to sue your provider if their god-like status, supposedly guaranteed by strict input quotas at board accredited medical schools, can be persuasively challenged by a more god-like lawyer who perceptively notices that your provider didn't order up an expensive CYA diagnostic test for you. But enough of the benefits.

      Look at the wait times in an emergency room in a poor urban area sometime. Or how many of the people in the ER will require medical care costing two or three orders of magnitude than if they were offered regular checkups.

      Or how many hours it takes to drive to a clinic in a rural area that collects doctors that either are saints (for passing up a lucrative urban position) or sinners (for egregious behavior another state won't tolerate).

      Or, consider the people working that are ineligible for Medicaid because they're "too rich", but whose employers don't want to provide health insurance cause it costs too much (cf, GM and its retirees). Such insurance does really cost too much. Try buying it retail sometime.

      Those people in the middle, when they go get medical care, get bills at full retail markup prices that would take your breath away. To top it off, bankruptcy will become a more difficult option for avoiding such catastrophic medical expenses, starting in October.

      The US health care system, like European systems, is broken. It's just broken in different ways.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  7. To safeguard de company? by AnonymousYellowBelly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or to safeguard the top management body bonuses? =D To the guys complaining of the 'red' french... well, you should study their economic and political model. It is different, it has drawbacks, it has advantages. It is not perfect, just as the US' system is not perfect either.

    --
    Disclosure: I'm stupid
    1. Re:To safeguard de company? by Namronorman · · Score: 1

      Possibly to safe guard the company and not the bonus checks. HP doesn't seem as strong as it did a few years ago, atleast not to me. I hardly ever see any commercials for them anymore. They still have enough money to sponsor a F1 team though!

      --
      $fortune
      Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
    2. Re:To safeguard de company? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What do you mean the US system of business is not perfect, its damn perfect!

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go work for 12 more hours today, to pay for the trip to the dentist, since my current employer cut back health insurance. I had good insurance at my last company, but the company laid us off, and bought some new lear jets, gave a bonus to the CEO that only makes $25Million a year, and bumped their stock price 25 cents! LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:To safeguard de company? by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1
      They have those really spiffy HP Photo printer commercials. The ones with the frames changing to images and back again.

      HP:F1::Lego:Barry White

    4. Re:To safeguard de company? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      Interesting logic. Everything is imperfect so there is no sense rationally comparing anything. I have studied the French economic and political model and it's directly responsible for the unusually high unemployment("drawback") in France.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    5. Re:To safeguard de company? by AnonymousYellowBelly · · Score: 1

      This is not what I meant. You can analyse the different tradeoffs that the french model has concerning their economy. So 'stiff' labor laws may 'create' high unemployment rates, on that the US may have an advantage under some circumstances. On the other hand France has an advantage on 'free' time for their workers. You can compare them item by item, on different scenarios. I was saying that you can not categorically say that such a big economy is totally flawed or that the US system is 'just better'. Not even concerning labor laws, it's not clear cut which is the way to go when looking for your population's well being. For me I would rather work or own a business in Europe than in the US. YMMV.

      --
      Disclosure: I'm stupid
    6. Re:To safeguard de company? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right, I'd much prefer the 10% unemployment in France and freakishly high taxes. Two months of vacation time a year with no money to spend while you're on it sounds nice too.

      Capitalism 101: If a company fires its best employees and buys Leer jets it will eventually go out of business.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    7. Re:To safeguard de company? by jalet · · Score: 1

      > Two months of vacation time a year with no money
      > to spend while you're on it sounds nice too.

      Get your facts straight !

      We ARE paid during this period :-)

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    8. Re:To safeguard de company? by sunwukong · · Score: 1

      Capitalism 101: If a company fires its best employees and buys Leer jets it will eventually go out of business.

      And the company managers who made these decisions are suffering in proportion to their responsibility, right?

    9. Re:To safeguard de company? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      Even if you are paid well over half of that pay goes directly back to the government. I'm an American and I get paid vacations too. I don't use all of it because I can choose to get well compensated instead. If I want to work hard so I can retire some day on my own terms without being heavily taxed does that make me a bad person?

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    10. Re:To safeguard de company? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Maybe one day you'll get paid enough to afford air conditioning :(

    11. Re:To safeguard de company? by jalet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > does that make me a bad person?

      No !

      I've not written anything like that in my post.

      The problem is do you enjoy your life more because you've got more money to spend and no free time to spend it, or do you enjoy it because you've got a lot of free time, less money (not only because of taxes, wages are lower here anyway), cheap healthcare and so on ?

      You're 100% Free to choose the former one.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    12. Re:To safeguard de company? by KrackHouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No government in the world can protect you from all of the mean people out there. There is not, nor should there be a hurt feelings police squad to chastize jerks.

      It's your responsibility to save up enough money so that when someone does screw you over you're able to recover and move on. If you can't there's unemployment, welfare, charity, etc. etc. If an employer has truly breached a contract then you can sue them and win. It's called the justice system. If they haven't broken any contracts and have simply been inconsiderate, then, well pay the government its alcohol tax and cry in your beer.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    13. Re:To safeguard de company? by jalet · · Score: 1

      Buy ! Buy ! Buy !

      Would you also enjoy your life without having to buy something ?

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    14. Re:To safeguard de company? by Nonoche · · Score: 2, Funny

      troll for troll : maybe one day you'll pay enough taxes to afford maintaining your dikes...

    15. Re:To safeguard de company? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      "You're 100% Free to choose the former one."

      I'd say you're less free to choose my route in France because the government takes so much of your money away. What's the use of ambition there if the government is just going to give the money to the unambitious?

      We have a saying in America "Work hard, play hard". It takes money to play hard. As for healthcare, why do so many Canadians drive to America, and pay, to have operations?

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    16. Re:To safeguard de company? by Valleye · · Score: 1
      "As for healthcare, why do so many Canadians drive to America, and pay, to have operations? "

      Waiting lists, yeah we know. At least even if they cannot afford it, they will still eventually get it.

      Why do so many American's buy their prescriptions from Canada? Socialized medicine reduces the price of medications. The govt pays a maximum for a prescription and if the drug company does not want to sell for that price they don't. Yet they still do because they still sell at a profit even at the artificially lower price.

    17. Re:To safeguard de company? by phuturephunk · · Score: 1

      Capitalism 102: It doesn't matter if the company goes under or not because someone, invariably in the process, got paid in a big way. THAT is how it is done in the real world.

    18. Re:To safeguard de company? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah -- we'll just build one fewer bridge to nowhere in Alaska, and that'll free up the money to fix the levees.

      Of course, leave it to the French to settle in a swamp below sea level, anyway. So it's all your fault, no matter what.

    19. Re:To safeguard de company? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go work for 12 more hours today, to pay for the trip to the dentist, since my current employer cut back health insurance.

      Sorry, we caught you reading Slashdot while monitoring your communications. Please note that on page 347 of the employee handbook, it is clearly stated that privacy is a privilege that you do not have at any point in the day, because you're on salary so anything you do belongs to us. The bill for your use of company electrons in establishing the Internet connection will be arriving shortly. You no longer have any health insurance at all, because we're firing your ass without notice, any sort of severance package, or any guarantee of a reference. Armed security will be along in a moment to escort you from the building. Good luck finding new work to maintain your healthcare, but don't forget that you may not work for anyone else who can actually use your skills for the next year because of the anti-compete clauses in your contract, which will remain in force despite the termination of your employment. God bless America.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    20. Re:To safeguard de company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      fuck, I'll take two months with no money in southern france anytime over your pathetic two week vacation -- you can't even travel anywhere in two weeks; you'll be so fucking jet lagged that you'll just waste 50% of your "vacation" being out of it

      what good is money, when you lack life?

    21. Re:To safeguard de company? by pen · · Score: 1
      Why do so many American's buy their prescriptions from Canada?
      Partially because the FDA-created barriers make it a lot more expensive to certify, market, and sell drugs in the U.S.
    22. Re:To safeguard de company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We have a saying in America "Work hard, play hard". It takes money to play hard.

      And yet there are other Americans such as myself who think you're missing the beauty in life. It doesn't take much money to play hard, unless you think playing hard means having to buy some idiotic cigarette boat and a jet ski.

    23. Re:To safeguard de company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While settling in a swamp wasn't the best idea, it was above sea level at the time. It was Yankee engineers who decided on building levees to control Mississipi flooding, thus causing the city substrate to dry out and let the city sink below sea level. They also drained the swamps and bayous, leading to the destruction of the protective barriers between the gulf and city, causing more damage during big storms. But go ahead and show your ignorance by blaming the French.

    24. Re:To safeguard de company? by Valleye · · Score: 1
      While an interesting op-ed piece you link to, it does not support at all why medicine is higher priced in the US.

      It does explain why you cannot get some drugs as soon as some other countries. But all countries have that problem. One authorizes something yet the another country waits on the results. Happens in Canada too. Lots of drugs approved by the FDA are not available in Canuckland.

      BTW, why did congress pass that new medicaid for seniors. It give free drugs to seniors yet the govt has to pay the full sticker price on them. Uhhh, seems like they had some serious leverage and could have forced lower prices because they are bulk buying. They blew it cuz the the drug company lobbyists got their way by blowing the politicians.

      Anyway we are way off topic here.

    25. Re:To safeguard de company? by Nonoche · · Score: 1
      Nah -- we'll just build one fewer bridge to nowhere in Alaska, and that'll free up the money to fix the levees.

      Too bad it's too late... But congrats, you're great at finding solutions once they're not needed anymore.

      Of course, leave it to the French to settle in a swamp below sea level, anyway.


      you're right, leave it to the french, they have shown spectacular skills at making a swamp livable, like they did in the Poitou in the XIIth century. As for the sea level, see the other answer to your post.

      So it's all your fault, no matter what.

      Way to deal with your own responsibilities. I don't think you can blame the french for the decreased budget of the maintenance of the dikes. But if that's how you want to see things, you can always feel free to cover your eyes from the truth...
    26. Re:To safeguard de company? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      The French Quarter hasn't been flooded. You lose!

    27. Re:To safeguard de company? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Not so many do. Besides I'm not aware of any waiting list in France (except for transplants but then that's another issue), or most EU countries for that matter.

    28. Re:To safeguard de company? by orasio · · Score: 1

      I am not a native english speaker, and I had to lookup that last word. My first reaction was: do they pay them to do that to eachother?

    29. Re:To safeguard de company? by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Well, I see that the slashbots irony filters are still Windows-based. I think you might want to go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com and get patch M$05-MORON (sorry about the name, but their indices are base64 encoded these days.)

      For what it's worth, though, the French Quarter was the area where the wealthy Acadians settled. The poorer ones always settled in the swamps, where they decreased the poverty level by dying in every Mississippi flood. But don't let history get in your way.

    30. Re:To safeguard de company? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      It's your responsibility to save up enough money so that when someone does screw you over you're able to recover and move on
      Who's responsibility is it to pay me fairly so that I can do this? I tried to give myself a raise but the HR dept. didn't fall for it.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    31. Re:To safeguard de company? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      You'd have to sacrifice luxuries that you're used to. If you're typing on a computer my guess is that you're not living in abject poverty. The problem is that we're so used to our comfortable lifestyles that we can't imagine sacrificing cable TV or brand name groceries or facing the shame of buying a used car.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
  8. Unfortunately... by tabkey12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really see what companies like HP can do apart from streamline their business as much as possible, if they want to go down the same 'box-pushing' route as Dell. Even their printer business is being pushed hard by manufacturers such as Epson, who are willing to give up Linux and Mac compatibility just to lower prices even further.

    1. Re:Unfortunately... by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 0

      who are willing to give up Linux and Mac compatibility just to lower prices even further

      I've never had any problems with Epson printers on Linux, am I missing out on something?

  9. Death Spiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad Earnings for Quarter ->
    CEO Saves Money by Cutting Sales & Engineering ->
    Better Earnings ->
    Bonus for CEO ->
    No New Products in Queue + Reduced Sales ->
    Bad Earnings for Quarter ->
    CEO Saves Money by Cutting Sales & Engineering -> ...

    rinse, lather, repeat

    1. Re:Death Spiral by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't lay the blame at the feet of the current CEO. He simply inhereted the problems from the dearly-departed Fiorina. He got a huge mess, and he's doing what he needs to fix it. Cut him a little slack, won't you? Results take time to measure. Besides, dealing with labor laws in France is a royal pain. I met a family there for whom it was more profitable to be voluntarily unemployed and live off welfare than it was to get a real job. Guess who pays for it? Yep, the poor folks who actually work for a living.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    2. Re:Death Spiral by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Here's another perspective.

      No Bonus for CEO ->
      No CEO ->
      No Company ->
      No Jobs Available

      Now replace CEO with "small business owner."

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:Death Spiral by mildgift · · Score: 1

      You forgot the key to it all: exploit the brand.

      Look at who's making Sylvania and RCA products. I don't know, but it's some company that's using the brand. Who makes the computers for IBM, Dell, etc.? ASUS, Biostar, MSI, and other mobo companies. A lot of little yellow people are toiling, so the fat white people can talk it up like they actually did the work.

      That's the new business model -- milk the past reputation for a decade, while you drive the entire company into the crapper. Keep lying to the consumers with the money, because, they are your meal ticket.

    4. Re:Death Spiral by giantsfan89 · · Score: 3, Funny

      rinse, lather, repeat

      do you go around with shampoo in your hair often? ;)

      --
      Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!
    5. Re:Death Spiral by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Besides, dealing with labor laws in France is a royal pain. I met a family there for whom it was more profitable to be voluntarily unemployed and live off welfare than it was to get a real job. Guess who pays for it? Yep, the poor folks who actually work for a living.

      I'm afraid it's the same in the UK, too. We currently have something like two million people claiming disability allowance from the government, despite the fact that the vast majority of them are clearly perfectly capable of working for a living like the rest of us instead.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:Death Spiral by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      And here's another one, wonderfully demonstrated by a group VP recently in a presentation to the software development teams:

      1. Company spending less per developer than ever
      2. Developers unimpressed
      3. Developers leave
      4. Hire cheaper devs
      5. Goto 1

      That side was great, but he forgot to look at the quality of the work being produced by the dev teams compared to the price being paid for it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:Death Spiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those little yellow people should go back where they belong, crouching in rice paddies and making far less money per day! Damn the Man!

    8. Re:Death Spiral by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      I would lay the blame at the feet of the new CEO. He may have inherited a mess from Carly, but if his policy of dealing with this mess is exactly the same as Fiorina's, he is to blame, fair and square. And it does seem like he is using the same old recipe of a CEO who wants to keep his bonus: just downsize the lot. No obvious strategy, just blind cost-cutting.

      The company will fail in the end with nitwits running it like this. However, in the meantime, it is the workers that are suffering, and if the company fails, the failed CEOs won't suffer. Just look at the cushy jobs that were offered to Fiorina barely months after she was fired (and yes, she was fired, no matter what she or the HP Board wants to call it).

      Honestly, why do the sheep on Slashdot keep apologising for the wolves?

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    9. Re:Death Spiral by greenrd · · Score: 1
      I met a family there for whom it was more profitable to be voluntarily unemployed and live off welfare than it was to get a real job.

      And the solution to that is... Citizen's Income. Pay every citizen (or resident), unconditionally, a basic income, enough to buy food, pay rent, etc. That solves the problem you described, but it's not a popular idea (outside of developing countries like Brazil) because a lot of people instinctively don't like the idea of giving poor people free money (although the idea of giving well-off people and companies free money, in the form of "tax allowances", "corporate welfare", "pork barrel contracts", and "performance bonuses for incompetent executives" is strangely not viewed as very problematic. This is a very odd phenomenon because the latter set of issues is more morally problematic and is probably a larger problem).

  10. See...? by DataSquid · · Score: 0, Troll

    what happens when you stick to that 35 hour work week and insane holiday time? Other, more productive countries take your jobs. Enjoy your fake beach on the Seine...

    --

    DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    1. Re:See...? by winkydink · · Score: 1

      The also have a real one along the southern border of the country that's the rival of many in the world. It's named after a Buick or something...

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:See...? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      It's named after a Buick or something...

      They have a beach named "Park Avenue"?

    3. Re:See...? by kfg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Other, more productive countries take your jobs.

      Which is why we're sending your job to China. Enjoy your Epcot Center. What goes around, comes around.

      Mors ante servitum.

      KFG

    4. Re:See...? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes not much sense. For example: the region Bavaria in Germany has longest holiday time of whole germany, but still is the most thriving part. Maybe just increasing working time for employees is does not directly lead to economic success?
      You can count on your fingers that stressful working environments, and the absense of being able to take rest from work, will do a lot worse on total productivity, than you would get by giving a few days more off.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    5. Re:See...? by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      a) I work in Canada. b) I'm doing my work on a 3-pint buzz. c) We're getting more, better work than you can shake a stick at. w00t.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    6. Re:See...? by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      Maybe just increasing working time for employees is does not directly lead to economic success?

      No it doesn't directly corrilate... But when you mobilize a significant portion of your working population to protest "doing more with less", you're not exactly casting yourself in a favourable light. It's not the problem solving, responsds well to a challenge attitude most employers are looking for nowdays. At the personal level or the national level.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    7. Re:See...? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well, enjoy your Snow Palace then. :)

      KFG

    8. Re:See...? by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      Oh man, it's so nice out today... And as soon as I can drive myself home safely, I'm going to go out and enjoy it :)

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    9. Re:See...? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      French unions will strike over anything, really, don't mind that too much, it's part of the local folklore ;)

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    10. Re:See...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Jobs are not resources that are "taken" or "sent" to other countries. Rather, jobs are created (and destroyed) by entrepreneurs--people who have acquired capital--capitalists, if you well. There is an infinite amount of work to be done, and thus an infinite number of potential jobs that could be created. One does not need to fear the loss of a job, because another one can easily be created...so long as entrepreneurs have the freedom to acquire capital and to use it.

      The problem that socialist countries have is not that their jobs are being "taken away"...the problem is that all of their laws and regulations have restricted the freedom of entrepreneurs and business, so fewer jobs are being created. How can business restructure itself when it can't even fire or lay off its employees? How can new businesses be started when people are so heavily taxed that they have trouble building up a pool of capital? Socialists must learn that employers and employees have a common goal: to make the most productive use out of the scarce resources. Stealing the employer's capital and taking away his freedoms will never help anyone.

    11. Re:See...? by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      Believe me... I work in a multinational Fortune-100 company. Jobs are resources. Which is exactly why resource managers decide which countries get the jobs.

      You are correct up to a point, but once you go big/mutinational, it's a different game.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    12. Re:See...? by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly why HP goes running :) Strikes are costly; not for businesses, but for French workers instead.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    13. Re:See...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, workers are the resources, not jobs. Countries devalue workers when they tell the worker what he can and can not do. Countries say, "No, you can't accept less than $8.50 an hour, because that's exploitation and you can't live off that. So, just sit on your ass and do nothing. What, you need money to live off of? Don't worry, we'll just steal some money from rich corporations and give it to you. Of course, that means they have less money to create jobs, so now you will stay unemployed and be unproductive."

      Fundamentally, government does not have the power to create prosperity. All government can do is place restrictions on people. Look, if a country wants to get serious about creating wealth for everyone, it's easy: Just get rid of all the regulations and laws on business. Foreign businesses will rush into the now free region and bid up the wages of employees. It's supply and demand: when the supply of jobs increases, but the supply of workers stays the same, wages go up. The employees, by they saving their capital up, can create more businesses, and thus more jobs, and pull up more people from poverty.

    14. Re:See...? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Jobs are not resources that are "taken" or "sent" to other countries. Rather, jobs are created (and destroyed) by entrepreneurs--people who have acquired capital--capitalists, if you [will]. There is an infinite amount of work to be done, and thus an infinite number of potential jobs that could be created. One does not need to fear the loss of a job, because another one can easily be created...so long as entrepreneurs have the freedom to acquire capital and to use it.

      I fully agree here.

      How can business restructure itself when it can't even fire or lay off its employees?

      How does the ability to lay off employees lead to less unemployment? I can't say I understand that one.

      How can new businesses be started when people are so heavily taxed that they have trouble building up a pool of capital?

      Charge more? Make less of a profit?

      Socialists must learn that employers and employees have a common goal: to make the most productive use out of the scarce resources.

      If you're truly a socialist, then this statement doesn't even make sense, because it presumes that employers and employees exist in the first place. Of course, you're probably referring to liberal capitalists here, not socialists. In that case, there's agreement that common goals exist. Then again, making *the most* productive use out of scarce resources isn't necessarily one of those goals. Most people don't care in 100% efficiency, if that means not having the safety of a stable income.

      Stealing the employer's capital and taking away his freedoms will never help anyone.

      Depends what you do with that "stolen" capital.

    15. Re:See...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the ability to lay off employees lead to less unemployment? I can't say I understand that one.

      Entrepreneurs are in the business of predicting what will be profitable; that is, how they can efficiently serve as much consumer demand as possible. Sometimes, however, consumer demand changes in ways the entrepreneur either could not, or failed to, predict. This is especially true in a world where our central banks create huge business cycles. During the boom phase of the cycle, way too much purchasing power is invested in the capital goods sector, and it must be slowly transferred back to the consumer goods sector.

      What happens when government interferes with this adjustment process? That is, what happens when the government keeps businessmen from correcting their mistakes by laying off people? Efficient service of consumer demand can not be obtained, because funds are tied up in a suboptimal structure of production. Profits decrease, so it takes longer for businesses to acquire the capital they need to build an efficient structure of production. During this lengthened capital build-up process, entrepreneurs are less likely to replace businesses that go bankrupt with new businesses. Basically, there is always some temporary unemployment when business reorganizes itself. When you hamper the reorganization process, you lengthen the unemployment period. People who are already employed might be fine, but those who are unemployed (either because they have just graduated from school or because they were displaced after a business went bankrupt) will stay unemployed for a longer period of time.

      Charge more? Make less of a profit?

      When a business is taxed, money is being transferred from an efficient allocator (the private sector) to an inefficient allocator (the public sector). Charging more, or making less of a profit, does nothing to fix this.

      Then again, making *the most* productive use out of scarce resources isn't necessarily one of those goals. Most people don't care in 100% efficiency, if that means not having the safety of a stable income.

      Efficiency is what creates safety. Let me give an isolated "Robinson Crusoe" situation: Suppose, on an island, people are picking berries, and this produces a certain level of consumption. In that case, berries are people's security; if they don't have berries, they will starve to death. Now, one person realizes that they can increase their level of consumption by building a rod to knock berries from bushes and a net to collect them as they fall to the ground. The trade off, however, is that while they switch from one method of production to another, they can not pick and consume berries with the old method.

      So long as society has enough savings, they will be fine. That is, if everyone has enough berries saved up to sustain their old level of consumption while they swith production methods, there are no problems. However, what if there has been a misjudgement? What if they begin building the rod-and-net system, and realize they don't have enough savings to finish it? In that case, reorganization is needed; some people must be moved back to the old method of production. What if this reorganization is not allowed to happen? Well, that is the inefficiency I am talking about. A certain level of consumption is desired, but there will not be enough berries to fulfill it. The only thing that can fix this is to allow the market to form itself into a structure of production that efficiently meets consumer demands.

    16. Re:See...? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, however, consumer demand changes in ways the entrepreneur either could not, or failed to, predict. This is especially true in a world where our central banks create huge business cycles.

      And the ability to lay off workers just makes matters worse, as it turns a problem in one industry into a downward spiral which affects all industries.

      During the boom phase of the cycle, way too much purchasing power is invested in the capital goods sector, and it must be slowly transferred back to the consumer goods sector.

      Don't you think maybe the boom phase of the cycle would be evened out if a company was forced to look at the long run rather than just hire and fire for a quick profit?

      What happens when government interferes with this adjustment process?

      Let's start with what happens when the government doesn't interfere with the "adjustment process": a long, sustained depression.

      Efficient service of consumer demand can not be obtained, because funds are tied up in a suboptimal structure of production.

      You're assuming employers and employees can't come to an agreement on things, but I never meant to imply that. If an employee can find a new job and the employer wants to let go of her anyway, then everyone is happy and there isn't a problem.

      Profits decrease, so it takes longer for businesses to acquire the capital they need to build an efficient structure of production. During this lengthened capital build-up process, entrepreneurs are less likely to replace businesses that go bankrupt with new businesses.

      I would think new businesses would have an advantage over old ones, as they can hire the number of new workers that they need, rather than have to worry about paying for the current ones.

      So long as society has enough savings, they will be fine. That is, if everyone has enough berries saved up to sustain their old level of consumption while they swith production methods, there are no problems.

      Society today is so efficient that there would be plenty of food, shelter, etc. even if everyone in the world only worked 4 or 5 hours a week. We, as a society, do have enough savings, far far beyond what we need to keep everyone living at a quite comfortable level. There shouldn't be any unemployment. If there is, then our economic system has failed us.

      In that case, reorganization is needed; some people must be moved back to the old method of production. What if this reorganization is not allowed to happen?

      I'm not saying reorganization is not allowed to happen. But "you're fired, go reorganize" isn't the way it should happen.

      Well, that is the inefficiency I am talking about. A certain level of consumption is desired, but there will not be enough berries to fulfill it. The only thing that can fix this is to allow the market to form itself into a structure of production that efficiently meets consumer demands.

      I'm not saying we should abandon capitalism. The market is still there, and it'll still be able to reorganize. But instead of firing people first and then having them figure out the reorganization themselves, this would force companies to assist in the reorganization process.

      Anyway, you act like it's a grossly foreign concept, but it's really not that different from what we have now, with unemployment compensation. If someone gets laid off, for no fault of his/her own, then the company has to pay the person (usually around 50%) while looking for a new job. In France they take what is arguably a more reasonable approach, and instead of applying a formula based on previous compensation they allow negotiation and ultimately adjudication by a judge if it comes to that, to determine what amount of severance pay is fair.

  11. Good... by Mullen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a person who was a contractor at HP, I am glad to see these HP employee's get laid off. Never in my life have I dealt with such a group of arrogant and hostile to contractors group of people in my whole life. It was a company of "we're better than you, you God Damn contractors". We ran just about every support division, but those fuckers never said thank you or even acted nice toward us. It was a company of Us vs Those Contractors. They were always busting our balls and threating to have us fired or laid off. I never had a vacation because we did not have the same benefits as them but did the same work.

    I would like to say to all you HP employees, karma is a bitch.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
    1. Re:Good... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Never in my life have I dealt with such a group of arrogant and hostile to contractors group of people in my whole life.

      I think you need to learn how to express yourself. If you keep holding all of your anger inside, it will simply result in increased stress and maybe a potential heart attack. In the future, maybe you should just say how you really feel about a situation....

    2. Re:Good... by Mullen · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      Proof reading is highly overrated...

      Welcome to Slashdot!

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    3. Re:Good... by cplusplus · · Score: 2
      I never had a vacation because we did not have the same benefits as them but did the same work.
      How is that HP's fault? That sounds like the sweatshop contractor company screwing you over. Adecco, Manpower, etc... all have horrible policies like that to squeeze as many pennies as they can out of your contract. You just become a conduit to fill their pockets.
      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Good... by ndg123 · · Score: 1

      why did you keep working there if it was too bad ? were you chained to a desk or something ? if you don't like it leave - mobility is one of the perks of being a contractor. that, and being a millionaire. **some parts of this post may be a wind-up.

    5. Re:Good... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      To quote Captain Kirk: "Don't mince words, Bones. Tell me how you really feel."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Good... by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and socialism sounds really, really bad.

    7. Re:Good... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is obvious but maybe they were this hostile to you guys because contractors usually take the place of fulltime jobs. It's also the case that fulltime jobs are REPLACED with contractors.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    8. Re:Good... by Nonoche · · Score: 1

      I'm french and my personal record is 43 hours straight at work, as an employee. Can you top the lazy guy I am?...

    9. Re:Good... by mildgift · · Score: 1

      By "contractor" the guy really means "a temp." You're describing someone who might call him or herself a "consultant."

    10. Re:Good... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      As a person who was a contractor at HP, I am glad to see these HP employee's get laid off. Never in my life have I dealt with such a group of arrogant and hostile to contractors group of people in my whole life.

      As a former HP employee, I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever thought that maybe these employees weren't being hostile because you were a contractor, but because you were an ass?

      It was a company of "we're better than you, you God Damn contractors". We ran just about every support division, but those fuckers never said thank you or even acted nice toward us.

      Ah. I see. You worked in support. I was never particularly pleased with our support team. Most of us were better than most of you, and yeah, when you responded to my request days after you should have and bitched the whole time, sometimes I didn't say "thank you". After all, you were just doing your job (and usually poorly at that).

      It was a company of Us vs Those Contractors.

      That said, we had a contractor on our R&D team, and we treated him just like everyone else. Actually HP was just sued recently precisely because they treated their contractors so similarly to their employees. Basically the only difference was whether or not you got benefits, and who was the first to get laid off. Of course, that was pre-Carly, when HP still had the track record of having never laid off a single employee. Nowadays you might as well be a contractor, the contractors got paid a lot better and it more than made up for the lack of benefits, especially if they made some creative tax deductions. I suppose at least the employees get unemployment if they get canned, but the days of never laying anyone off are long gone.

      I never had a vacation because we did not have the same benefits as them but did the same work.

      And got paid more for that same work. If you wanted to be an employee, why didn't you just apply for a company that would hire you as an employee?

    11. Re:Good... by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      It was improper of me to sterotype all of the french together, for that I apologize. I am friends with quite a few french people and joke about it all the time with them. It just seems that as part of their culture they feel like they are entitled to certain things which they aren't necessarily entitled to. Judging a nation by a few citizens is just as bad as claiming all americans are war hungry like Bush. My point remains however that the standard work week in France is 35 hours and that in my eyes is not acceptable. Employers should be motivating their employees to work more.
      Regards,
      Steve

    12. Re:Good... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I don't think that was ever true at HP. It certainly wasn't true when I worked there in the late 90s. But then again, in the late 90s HP still hadn't ever laid an employee off. Contractors were hired to take care of the ebb and flow in the need for workers. When things turned down, the contractors were let go, and the employees were kept.

      Then Carly came in, I quit for another job, and a few months later everyone in my NJ office were told they could move to Texas or take a severance package.

    13. Re:Good... by pc2005 · · Score: 1

      It's same everywhere. I work as a contractor in a telecom company. In my project there are bunch of guys who are permanent employees. But at the end of the day the contractors (only three) do all the work for them. The permanent employees simply sit idle or play, the contractors slog day and night, and in weekends. Return is zero. The contractors' compensations are low enough compared to the permanent employees. Did I mention that there is absolutely zero benefit for us.

    14. Re:Good... by Nonoche · · Score: 1

      It's much more complicated than that. The standard work week is definitely not 35 hours in France : most of the people who could get that are functionnaries (but then again, not all of them). The next government disabled the 35 hours work week, letting each company argument about it with the syndicates, resulting in the cancellation of the whole thing in most companies. (as the employers ARE "motivating" their employees to work more)

      And that's just for employees anyway, as there is of course no time limit for executives or artisans. And while the legal time limit in France is 39 hours of work per week, there are countless employees that still work much more than that.

      So it's kind of messy, but at any rate, the standard work week in France definitely isn't 35 hours.

    15. Re:Good... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Anyone reading this, there are contractors with other experiences.

      I worked for HP for a few months as a contractor and was made to feel like part of the team from an early stage. I felt no us vs them at all, unlike some other places.

    16. Re:Good... by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      Isn't this true of every company that hires contractors? Oh, sorry, the only one *I* ever worked for got absorbed INTO this behemoth HP. DEC was one of the best companies I ever had the pleasure of contracting for.... oh well, MCI was until Bernie Ebbers came along. DEC even moved me from one project to the next along with my contract! It's so sad to see that they ended up a part of the HP crap. All those great boxes and OS's *gone*. *sigh*

      Jho - currently working on phasing out AlphaServers for IBM p590s. :\

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  12. What a laugh riot by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...Michel Destot, the Socialist deputy mayor of the southern France city of Grenoble - where HP has one of its French plants - said the layoffs were "unacceptable"...

    Wow, even Jerry Lewis never said anything that funny...

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:What a laugh riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but Marcel Marceau did.

  13. Politicians by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    I doubt they care much about the job loss and more about winning their next term.

    I know, I know, flamebait/offtopic/troll

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  14. Who's turn is it now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In every company in trouble, everytime a change in the management happens, it seems to be customary for the new CEO/Chairman to layoff bunch of people.

    Ofcourse, you need to lay off a bunch of hardworking people who had nothing do with mismanagement which led to the company's present status.

    Why is it done? They have to come up with cash to pay the previous moron who drowned the company & also the overpriced present CEO & other management minions.

    Idiotic, you say? You've much to learn about business, silly!

    1. Re:Who's turn is it now? by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      What I've always found stunning is that companies account for layoffs as massive one time charges against earnings. Gosh! All these severance packages sure cost a lot! But I guess when you're paying a big lump sum for zero work, maybe it sort of acts that way.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  15. wake up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome to the world of high tech. not sure why french politicians are surprised at this, time to clean those socialist glasses they look through.

  16. to safeguard the future? by Aminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it's the employees who make a company great, how can you safeguard the company's future by firing them? How do you then achieve greatness?

    I think this is more about anorectic corporate theory (i.e. keep firing people to become leaner because you never no how grim the future might be! And shareholders like it, too!) than HP having too many employees. How sad.

    1. Re:to safeguard the future? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The fact that good employees make a company great had nothing to do with how many there are. If simply having a higher headcount of "great employees" made the difference, then they could just sell all their other assets, borrow money, and hire a million new bodies. Except... if you don't have a big enough market for what you produce, or the industry landscape is changing, or the place where you do business is taxing and regulating you out of being competitive, then even if every employee is a rock star, you can still have too many of them.

      "How sad" you say. But what's sad is that the company isn't coming up with enough new products (or enough viable lower prices) to sustain the number of people they have. Having too many employees is the symptom of the problem, but since they don't have a magic bullet for the marketplace, they can run the whole thing into the ground and let all of the HP employees in the world lose their jobs or just trim early, as they just did. And if I had employees in facilities all around the world, there's no question that one of the first places I'd cut would be in Europe, specifically in France. The load those countries put on the employer per employee is simply enormous.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  17. Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by jht · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh no! The Socialist Deputy Mayor of a French city is making demands! What will we do now???

    Seriously, HP sucks, we all know HP sucks, and this is yet another round of cuts in the death spiral. That said, if it were, say, Chirac ranting about HP that would be one thing. The folks at the top in a country can make things pretty difficult for you if they want - it's generally good to keep them appeased at least to some degree. But who on earth cares what some obscure Deputy Mayor thinks about anything other than the Mayor's lunch order? Why does every minor insignificant politician have to weigh in on this crap? Do they really think that their constituents believe they have influence over giant multinational corporations?

    Even if this Destot fellow had some clout, HP's response would likely be "fine - how about we take all the jobs away, then... And move them to another country!"

    I actually mean this - I hate pointless layoffs (and was the victim of one at a previous company), but I hate grandstanding local political hacks even more.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    1. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who on earth cares what some obscure Deputy Mayor thinks

      The actual mayor would have commented himself, but he was on vacation that day.

    2. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Why does every minor insignificant politician have to weigh in on this crap? Do they really think that their constituents believe they have influence over giant multinational corporations?

      Because they think it might get them more votes? Being seen as "for the people" seems to be one of those ways, even if the post in question has no real power.

    3. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Necron69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Death spiral, eh? Apparently you haven't looked at the price of HP stock or earnings lately. HP is doing better than it has in years. If you want to see a death spiral, go look at SGI or Sun.

      - Necron69

    4. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deputy mayor is not the proper translation of the french "député maire". The proper translation is "congressman + mayor".
      So he is definitely not the assistant of the mayor, he IS the mayor and he is the congressman of the area too. (replace congressman with MP if you leave in England)

    5. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to this guy, the layed off employees care. French law gives him the ability to demand giant severance packages if HP doesn't negotiate.

      You're wrong.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    6. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure in what type of regime you live, but in a democracy, a local politician acts in the favour of the local people. This seems like what these "political hack"s are doing...

    7. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know what the consequences would be if HP just packed up its bags and left? Just completely closed up shop, or liquidated the French corporation under whatever equivalent they have of Chapter 11, until there was nothing left to pay out these giant severance packages? I doubt the workers would suffer, undoubtedly the French govt would end up holding the bag -- as they should, since it's their regs that are so onerous.

      Frankly if the government over there is as much of a pain in the ass to deal with as it seems, I'd be thinking hard about just pulling the plug on them as a market. Go elsewhere -- Asia is where your big market for the future is, who cares about France. It's too expensive to develop or manufacture anything there, and they give preference to domestic products anyway when purchasing, so why bother?

      Maybe the management should demonstrate that at the end of the day, you can only jerk a company around so hard before they just take their ball and find somewhere else to play.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    8. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      The consequence is that they could no longer do business with the 60 million people in France. Dunno if the EU has rules giving further teeth to that kind of regulation if they do business in Europe at large.

      If they can't make money selling computers to those 60 million people (and employing some of them), then they should leave. Is that your whole point?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    9. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Frankly if the government over there is as much of a pain in the ass to deal with as it seems, I'd be thinking hard about just pulling the plug on them as a market.

      Most of the rest of Europe is the same, since we're generally much more protective of our workforce than the US is. And the combined European market is vastly bigger than that of the US.

      Maybe the management should demonstrate that at the end of the day, you can only jerk a company around so hard before they just take their ball and find somewhere else to play.

      Please tell them to mind the door on their way out. I'm betting we could live without US megacorps and their associated mess a lot more than they could live without us.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I doubt the workers would suffer, undoubtedly the French govt would end up holding the bag -- as they should, since it's their regs that are so onerous.

      I think it's pretty twisted that we consider these regulations onerous. Why should workers be subject to the ups and downs of the company they work for? It wasn't that long ago even here in the US that lifetime employment was standard. In fact, even at HP this was pretty much the standard until the late 90s.

      What is gained by shifting the risks of the business from the employers to the employees? Once this risk has been shifted, what's left to justify the profits being made by the shareholders?

      I don't think it's onerous. It's different, sure, but it's arguably even more fair.

    11. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know what the consequences would be if HP just packed up its bags and left?

      They would lose an enormous market, turnover would plummet, stocks of HP and some related companies would go down the trash, investors panic, stocks go down even more. Then they either go back and face massive claims, or let the entire company die (or be destroyed by some evil takeover, many companies would be quite willing to kill HP).

    12. Re:Newsflash: HP execs quaking in boots with fear by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I'll tell you why - because it acts as a disincentive to people wanting to set up in business.

      That is bad for everyone - consumers have less choice of suppliers, and employees have less choice of employers.

      You should check out some of the French regulations.

      Mandatory 35 hour weeks. That is, even if you want the overtime to get that iPod Nano quicker and your boss is happy to give you the extra hours, you can't do it.

      Unemployment regulations that mean that if you are made redundant, your employer has to find you put you in an available job in the company, even if it means training you, and regardless of your suitability.

      You want to be a baker? You have to bake bread in a certain way, and pass tests. You can't just bake bread the way you feel like.

      The biggest problem with the French regs is that we exist in a global market. Young entreprenuers who operate internationally are moving to London because they can get moving without the red tape of France.

  18. LOL FRENCH SOCIALIST by LOL+FRENCH+SOCIALIST · · Score: 1

    LOL FRENCH SOCIALIST

    1. Re:LOL FRENCH SOCIALIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the title, user name, and text all the same, I'd say that post is doubly redundant.

  19. A few errors in the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "to safeguard the future" of the company
    They misspelled executives, offshoring operations(aka jobstealing), and stockholders.

    1. Re:A few errors in the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HP doesn't have any future. They are the laughing stock of the entire industry. Anyone purchasing their computer equipment is considered by almost everyone I know to be an ignorant fool.
      They make good printers and scanners, however everything else they make is pure, unadulterated junk.

  20. Number 8 by moseman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe HP can sponsor Lance next year if he goes for #8. I think the good Mayor would appreciate it.

    --
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
    1. Re:Number 8 by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      Yep. A fan without shit is like cookies without milk.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  21. Viva HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > 5,900 European job cuts ...
    > [ snip ]
    > From the article: 'Michel Destot, the Socialist
    > deputy mayor of the southern France city of
    > Grenoble - where HP has one of its French
    > plants - said the layoffs were "unacceptable"
    > and demanded that HP managers also meet local
    > politicians to discuss scaling back the job
    > cuts.'" This round following the first cut back
    > in July.

    My guess is that in the interest of international
    brotherhood and future relations with the French
    that HP will mostly cede to the demands of Destot
    and instead cut the jobs in the U.S.; After all,
    there won't be any future repercussions to such
    an act. Certainly not from the helpless U.S.
    engineers who have been getting dumped on for
    years now. U.S. companies know they can dump
    all over U.S. workers. The workers even think
    its a good thing, free trade and all you know.
    Of course I'm being a sarcastic but I wouldn't
    be surprised to see HP turn this on their U.S.
    workers in some way.

  22. In other news.... by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HP executives will not be taking any paycuts or reductions (despite poor company performance) even though many of them make many times the annual salary of any of the people being laid off.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    1. Re:In other news.... by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Except that HP has been performing better now than it has in years, if not a decade.

    2. Re:In other news.... by twelveinchbrain · · Score: 1

      HP executives will not be taking any paycuts or reductions (despite poor company performance)

      Hello? At least *one* executive, particularly the one named Carly, took a 100% pay cut due to poor company performance.

      --
      Not Found
      The requested URL /signature.html was not found on this server.
    3. Re:In other news.... by Dominic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but she got a rather nice leaving bonus didn't she? In fact I think it was more than $21 million in severance.. not too shabby.

      How much will the French employees get I wonder, even if the French mayor gets *all* his demands?

      It always amazes me that US workers actually defend companies that can fire employees for no particular reason. In the UK I know that they have to jump through hoops to get rid of me (for anything but gross misconduct), and that's exactly how it should be.

    4. Re:In other news.... by twelveinchbrain · · Score: 1

      It always amazes me that US workers actually defend companies that can fire employees for no particular reason. In the UK I know that they have to jump through hoops to get rid of me (for anything but gross misconduct), and that's exactly how it should be.

      Imagine the reverse for a moment: a hard-working but visionless CEO presides over year after year of financial losses, dragging a company to the brink of bankruptcy. None of this is due to misconduct, but simply due to decisions that turn out not to be in the best interests of the company. Should this CEO be allowed to keep plugging away at her job, because she needs her pay, regardless of the harm to the other employees, the investors, and the customer?

      If your answer is "no," then why should it be any different for any other employee? If the company will perform better without them than with them, that is sufficient reason to let them go. However, employees should be smart enough and organized enough to arrange for adequate severance, whether through individual negotiations (as is typical with corporate officers), collective negotiations, or through legislation. Once the agreement is made, though, then any dismissal not motivated by sheer malice becomes perfectly fair.

      --
      Not Found
      The requested URL /signature.html was not found on this server.
  23. HP: The downward spiral by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The HP of old days is gone.

    Gone is a quality product from a company which cares about making quality products. Gone is the HP that cared more about hiring good engineering people than about quarterly projections.

    Everone welcome in the HP that cares about shipping commodity product (read: crap) to customers whose success only matters in so much as they buy next season's overpriced plastic crap.

    Welcome in the HP which lies to long term corporate customer about product lines (not online: pick up Sept. 5th ComputerWorld and read Don Tennant's column and the reader reaction).

    Since the merger it's like HP sucked all the Suck out of Compaq's sucky products and injected it into HP products. Everyone thought the merger was a question of customer bases but clearly HP bought Compaq for the Suck alone.

    HP: now with extra suckiness!

    Me, what, rant? never,
    -- RLJ

    1. Re:HP: The downward spiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have it backwards: HP made great technical gear, test instruments and all, and decent printers at one time. COMPAQ (COMPatibility And Quality) made decent PC's. Both had quality engineering departments. Both companies fell into the CEO blackhole. It is the responsibility of those people who brought TWO great companied to their knees. Beancounters all of them.

    2. Re:HP: The downward spiral by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Interesting
      When we were small and insignificant and had to hire the best people we could find, we had to train them and then hope they would work out. We wanted our people to share our goals of making a profit and a contribution. We in turn felt a responsibility to provide them with opportunity and job security to the best of our ability. Thus, we made an early and important decision: We did not want to be a "hire and fire"--a company that would seek large, short-term contracts, employ a great many people for the duration of the contract, and at its completion let those people go. This type of operation is often the quickest and most efficient way to get a big job accomplished. But Bill and I didn't want to operate that way. We wanted to be in business for the long haul, to have a company built around a stable and dedicated workforce.

      That's a quote from The HP Way by David Packard, a book given to every single employee of Hewlett-Packard, at least it was when I joined in '98. I wonder if the current CEO even read it.

      Since the merger it's like HP sucked all the Suck out of Compaq's sucky products and injected it into HP products.

      And it's not like it wasn't foreseeable. It's the reason that the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the William R. Hewlett Revocable Trust voted against the merger. It's the reason I voted against the merger.

    3. Re:HP: The downward spiral by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      The book wasn't given to me or anyone I knew from HP. Of course, we were pre-merger Compaq/DEC. I'm sure the legacy had died well before the time Capellas moved on.

      Also, I don't think that the downward spiral can be attributed to the merger, but vice versa. It failed to buoy the companies and their bad decisions/market position.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    4. Re:HP: The downward spiral by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      If you trace back the histories, youll find a handful of "vilespawn" that follow the calamities, each time moving on as if launched forward by the catalysmic explosion of the last nightmare they caused.

      There is one of thse on the board of HP, she was flung there by Compaq as it disintegrated and merged with HP, and before that she began at a company called Digital Equipment Corporation, and was one of the architects of its demise, capitulating themselves at Compaq's feet when DEC needed strong managment, throwing away a company in exchange for personal profit and sustained success.

      I loath these vilespawn, i loath them with a passion, they creep their way into everything, turning proud monuments to success into crumbling distasters, slowly, little by little their work unfolds, each descision made slowly eroding the foundation.

      R.I.P. DEC, May AMD keep your blinkenlights Forever Burning.

      And may the vilespawn one day be discovered and rooted out as part of good buissness for the sake of true progress.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    5. Re:HP: The downward spiral by birge · · Score: 1
      The HP of old days is gone.

      Amen, brother. It all started when they switched to rubber buttons...

      Now their scopes run linux and have a goddam scroll ball on the front. And generally look like they were designed by the people who made the Lady Schick Razor.

      HP died a long time ago; the products they put on the market place these days are just nerves twitching.

    6. Re:HP: The downward spiral by JhohannaVH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you for posting this. I was one of the very few people who got the pleasuer of being trained by HP *way* back in the day.

      I was one of the people hired in '91 to run a COBA lab full of brand new HP 386-33 machines. They hired me cuz I knew MSDos 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 (I had taught both as a student teacher my sr. year of high school). We got to go to the HP plant for 2 weeks of training in customer support, technical support, and consulting best practices. IN 1991!!!!

      Those tools and tasks and everything that I learned 14 years ago, still apply to everything I do today and more. They were standard basic tricks that they taught to their own employees, and fancied teaching us that would represent them. HP then made some of the best products in the world, though I wouldn't count the Vectra's among them. I sure did love those laser printers and huge plotters. The best was the printing conference room whiteboard... not seen in the board room for another 10 years. I loved that thing. Oh, and the underdesk mounted monitors!!!

      I was spoiled to get this training, only because HP DONATED all of this equipment to a local University. They hoped to cull the university of it's CS students, when it didn't even HAVE A CS PROGRAM YET! That was pretty amazing foresight. After a semester, I took that training and knowledge and went to a real CS School for 2 years... long enough to find out it was a WASTE OF MONEY! Not to mention time. :) I may not have a degree, but I sure do have a lot of learning.

      Later, my ex worked for a company that split off from HP back in the day to go their own way. Heard tell they got bought by AMD not too many years ago. *sigh*

      I want the old days back so bad!!!!!!!!!!

      Jho

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  24. Oh. Well if they're unacceptable ... by AppHack · · Score: 1

    Then we'll forgo the whole deal. What were we thinking?

  25. Not so much unreliable.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    as wrongly captioned.

    Should be "Countries with unemployment lying between 5 and 10%" The UK for example would be around the 4% mark, I feel that Norway *might* be in a similar position. Hence their anomalous colouration.

    As for the rest, the former Soviet states are probably running under the old pretence of 100% employment and for the semi-industrialised Third World, the definition of employment is probably meaningless.

    Full employment is a conceit of the G8 and their wannabee hangers on.

    As for the article, French labour laws mean that Local Government DOES have a say in how a company (even HP) treats its employees. Seeing as HP probably took "Development Grants" to set up there, they're probably pulling out because the grants ran out. If HP management have the same blinkered attitude and limited knowledge of Europe as most Slashdotters do, they probably failed to notify the right organisations enough in advance before making their announcement. This would explain why the Frogs are huffing and puffing.

    1. Re:Not so much unreliable.... by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      This is correct - if you look at the original data you'll see several instances where the unemployment rate is below 5% and so simply doesn't show up on that map.

      Both your examples of the UK and Norway do in fact come in under 5%; UK has 4.8%, and Norway has 4.4%.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:Not so much unreliable.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As for the rest, the former Soviet states are probably running under the old pretence of 100% employment
      It's been almost 15 years since that artificial construct broke down, but some ignorant people still don't get that they countries where very different.
  26. Hosting a pity party by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

    The mayor will likely have 1,000 plus angry anti-American puppets ready to channel into whatever political endeavor he desires. Its rather brilliant, if not classic, socialist move. Class warfare is apparently still viable in France!

  27. Oblig Monty Python by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1, Funny

    Deputy Mayor: "Could we at least come in and have a look at the jobs?"
    HP exec: "No. Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries. Now go away or I shall downsize you a second time."

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  28. WARNING: it is because the US economy is tanking! by argoff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm serious. The US has too much debt, and has put too much new money in circulation over the last few years. We were teetering on the edge of the cliff even before Katrina with a suverely over leveraged housing market. If I were you I would dump stocks, bonds, and dollars like it's doomsday (because it is) and start buying gold and silver (or maybe select gold, silver, and oil stocks) Don't buy futures though, there is a real risk of default. The US is heading full spead towards a hyperinflationary great depression worse than the 1930's and the 1980's combined. Watch out, all hell is about to break loose.

  29. AFAIAC... by NoelWeb · · Score: 0

    They can lay-off that entire country...

  30. NCR isnt the white night you knew in the 50's by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    You probably dont know of the recent history of the company from which he left. Search for "NCR Corp" "Healthcare" "cuts". That should give you a starting point on what they've recently become, and what you might see from Hurd.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  31. what about laying off in the usa? by matu4251 · · Score: 0

    Most of the comments are retarded... i'm sorry to say that. But what if HP was cutting directly in Palo Alto? Would most of you guys still have fun? I mean, we are still talking about 6,000 people losing there job. I don't see anything funny in that picture. It's easy to make fun at people when everything is going fine for you. I think it's normal that the mayor is trying to protect some of the jobs. Someone said in one post that karma is a bitch... careful it could bite you in the ass too. Just my 2 cents.

    1. Re:what about laying off in the usa? by tabbser · · Score: 1

      Yes, I tend to agree with you, however, France has been the thorn in the side of the U.S. for quiet some time now. It does seem (whether true or not) that they are going out of their way to annoy/block/hinder the U.S. on a number of issues. When you poke someone in the eye you cannot expect that person to be sympathetic when someone else kicks you in the butt. I feel sorry for the folks at HP, but then again I do have a small voice at the back of my mind that says "yeah ! stick it to them !"

    2. Re:what about laying off in the usa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is more like France is not accepting the US' bastardy foreign policy. And they're right.

  32. Decline of French Industrial Capability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>Michel Destot, the Socialist deputy mayor of the southern France city of Grenoble - where HP has one of its French plants - said the layoffs were "unacceptable" and demanded that HP managers also meet local politicians to discuss scaling back the job cuts.

    Good grief. It's no wonder France's unemployment rate is running at nearly 10% when the politicos of that country believe they can dictate thus to an international company. With such an anti-competitive attitude, why would I invest in any company with a significant presence in France?

    1. Re:Decline of French Industrial Capability? by loungagna · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself why they still do invest in France? Productivity is NOT a comparison between number of days worked here or there. Productivity is a mix of working hours/days/period AND organization AND qualification AND adaptation AND some other things. NO COUNTRY in the world is a dream land for a worker nowadays. But France is not that bad and we are (regarding productivity as defined and compared by the IBW) over England, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, China and some more. Only US is ahead but living in the US is a nightmare for a more important part of the population than it's for the people having a nightmare living in Europe.

  33. Not Quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an hp employee I can tell you that these are not layoffs in addition too the 14,500 from July. The 14,500 layoffs are to occur over 6 quarters. In the US those layoffs were near instentaneous (much easier labor laws). In France and Germany those layoffs take time to get throught the labor boards of the respective countries. This is why the original announcement stated the over "6 Quarter" caveat.

  34. What an ignoramus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, that was a brilliant diatribe. And all this time I thought that there were two major wars sometime in the distant past where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died to keep France and the rest of Europe free. I guess my history was wrong on that. All of those documentaries must have been fiction. Imagine that.

    Yeah, yeah, go ahead and mod me "off topic". It will be worth it just to respond to the anti-American parent who clearly likes his selective memory.

  35. I can believe it by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1

    We may gripe about having less job security in the US, but at least we don't have the unemployment rate that France does. Just imagine how lazy many Americans would be if they had the job security that their European counterparts have. Part of the problem with security is that it breeds complacency which keeps a country from taking the risks it needs to grow its economy.

    1. Re:I can believe it by HuguesT · · Score: 2

      A bit less stress is good for your health too, you know.

      Why is it that after we've invented all these wonderful robots and computers and whatnot to supposedly make one's life easier we have to work and work and work harder and harder.

      Where does it end? What for?

  36. comment by hyperstation · · Score: 1

    as long as they're not cutting american jobs...we don't care

  37. Re:For all you french bashers .... by mackil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Also, don't forget the thousands of Americans who died liberating France in both world wars. It goes both ways buddy.

    As to the actual subject of this discussion, HP is bloated and needs to scale down. France is one of the more expensive countries in which to do business, thus it gets a large portion of the axe. No politics are involved, its all strictly business.

  38. Which is Better? USA or France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here are your choices.

    1. European system: Firing or laying off people is difficult. Company managers must justify their actions, and even then, the government can veto the idea.

    2. Japanese system: It is similar to the European system. Firing or laying off people is difficult. The difficulty is due to Japanese custom, not formal laws. During the decade-long recession that began in 1991, Japanese banks continued to lend money to bankrupt businesses just to keep them afloat -- out of concern for the employees.

    3. American system: Firing or laying off people is easy. Terminating an employee is easier then clipping your nails. On the same day that a manager fires an employee, the company announces record profits, and moreover, that same manager can then hire another person for a very similar job.

    The American system has higher "performance", but which system has the greater compassion? You make the call.

  39. No more HP, Compaq only now! by MooseTick · · Score: 2, Funny

    That does it!! I'm boycotting HP from now on! My future PC purchases will be from Compaq! That will show them!

    I will also be boycotting Mercury in favor of Ford, Tru-Green in favor of Chemlawn, and finally I will only drink Budweizer! Busch will no longer get my business.

    If everyone would follow, corporate America would see who they are dealing with!

  40. About France... by Touisteur · · Score: 0

    In France, you have :

    - less 1% of population who prevents the country from ANY evolution, changement, political/economical decision since it will cut their huge amount of avantages (you don't talk about better wages in France... ooooh no it's not the way there to quantify privileges and avantages).
    - people who think (maybe right) that you don't need to work more than 39 hours to earn a honest wage.
    - an illusion of welfare... and illusion of good education (at least EVERYONE there can go to college, even more if you're poor... aaah free - as in free beer - school/housing)

    And about the topic : some people there feel some anger when they see streamlining and job cuts, no pay rise for 10 years in one hand, and WonderFul Golden Parachutes for fsking CEOs (PDG) unable to earn one EuroCent on the other hand...

    An other cause of anger in this little *socialist* country is this control of fat-greedy-old-american's pension funds over our economy that force companies to cut jobs even when they make HUGE profits...

    Could you Etats-Uniens and Anglais make YOUR people pay for YOUR retirement pension instead of making the wordl pay for YOU ?

    And one last thing : Tax in cities are rediculous ion front of State Tax... Don't forget France is still a huge tentacular-centralized country...

    1. Re:About France... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      An other cause of anger in this little *socialist* country is this control of fat-greedy-old-american's pension funds over our economy that force companies to cut jobs even when they make HUGE profits... Could you Etats-Uniens and Anglais make YOUR people pay for YOUR retirement pension instead of making the wordl pay for YOU ?

      I see ... so you don't like having to pay interest on the investments those retirement plans made in your economy? Okay, fine. So how about you Europeans repay some of the war debt we forgave you after the Big One. In properly-adjusted U.S. dollars, of course. And while we're at it, how about you send a few billion of the trillions in foreign aid we've spent on you, back back our way. We could use it right about now.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:About France... by Edunikki · · Score: 1

      And how about America makes good on its promise to give land and a mule to the blacks who were slaves?

    3. Re:About France... by ytm · · Score: 1

      So how about you Europeans repay some of the war debt we forgave you after the Big One.

      In my part of Europe Stalin told us that we don't need your dirty capitalist money.

    4. Re:About France... by PickyH3D · · Score: 1
      I could hardly understand your post, which I was going to give you on the basis that I figured you were French (English not being your first language), but then you misspelled the United States in French?

      Les Etats-Unis. It really is not difficult. I learned that in our "free" public education system in French I.

      Also, free beer is not paid for by your taxes. Free college is. Saying college is free is like saying public education in the U.S. is free, and we pay less taxes.

    5. Re:About France... by member57 · · Score: 0

      The US did, and your great great granpappy sold it all and bought crack.
      Get a life asswipe. America doesn't owe black Americans SHIT. Fucktard. Get a job like everybody else. I hate lazy fuckers that whine and whine about how unfairly they are treated, tryin' to earn sympathy and cash on the backs of their long dead ancestors. Get over it, not one single person alive today participated in slavery 150+ years ago. The more black Americans push this stupid assed agenda, the further the divide will get. Get over it and move on, 99.9% of white people DO NOT sit around and plot to keep black Americans poor, in jail, etc. Most of are too busy with our own lives to give a shit what happened 10 minutes ago muchless 150+ years.

      --
      If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
      The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
    6. Re:About France... by CaptainPinko · · Score: 1

      Or why don't americans repay damages they caused by selling weapons to the enemy... oh wait, but ya didn't think about that one did you? It always cuts both ways.

      --
      Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
    7. Re:About France... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't be stupid. poster said etats-uniens correctly to mean americans. not the united states, which is les etats-unis.

    8. Re:About France... by Touisteur · · Score: 0

      You're right about only one thing : my English is very bad.
      You say you learned to spell Etats-Unis ? Very well, good for you. The problem is, I wrote Etats-Uniens. One thing maybe didn't learn in your French I : in english you say French for people who live in France. Same rules applies in French : Les Etats-Uniens are the people who live in Les Etats-Unis.

      I'm still saying I'm having free college AND beer thanks to the "French" educational/social system. I get more than 400/mo to live, paid by taxes. I don't pay for studying and my 9 square meter room only costs me 130/mo. Add the transportation : 30/mo. What remains IS for food and beer.

      College here IS free for those who don't have money. We don't have horrible tuition cost, and we can "all" go study at college.

      How many college in USA are free (as in beer as long as I'm poor) and would allow me to graduate M.S. ?

      Sorry for my english.

    9. Re:About France... by Touisteur · · Score: 0

      Yes. Sure. Talking about the Marshall Plan ? We repaid US cent for cent. Our president V. Giscard d'Estaing even came - as proud as a stupid prowd French to repay his debt and to tell he's some descendant of some Lafayette... - to give you the last symbolic check.

      Talking about the gold "Europeans" gave you (in a way or another) you so you HELP us... You came because you did need it. You did need someone to sell your productivist crap to...

      What about we talk about Lafayette ? Oh my... Interests on more than 2 centuries...

      About your retirement plans made in our economy : why has the ENTIRE WORLD to pay for US retirement pension when the same people have to pay for their own retired citizens ?

    10. Re:About France... by PickyH3D · · Score: 1
      How many college in USA are free (as in beer as long as I'm poor) and would allow me to graduate M.S. ?
      Move to California and go to a California school for this effect.
  41. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by qbzzt · · Score: 1

    If the US economy is tanking, why are they laying off their employees in France? Maybe the French economy has something to do with it?

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
  42. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    If I were you I would dump stocks, bonds, and dollars like it's doomsday (because it is) and start buying gold and silver (or maybe select gold, silver, and oil stocks)

    Huh. I keep looking at your comment, and I can't find the affiliate marketing link to the as-seen-on-TV gold coin selling web site.

    Watch out, all hell is about to break loose.

    And you're recommending purchasing "select" gold, silver, and oil stocks?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  43. OK: George Bush fought in 'Nam to save freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French didn't do anything for America. Little Georgie Bush fought in 'Nam along with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh and won and saved freedom.

    You are right, the parent post is unfactual.

  44. HEY MODERATORS!! by argoff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why was this was this ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41221 ) just marked off topic? HP didn't just magically decide to bite the bullet one day. They are catching hell because the US economy is byting the bullet too. Sure some of their internal managment didn't help, but it's the fundamentals that are killing them (and GM and Ford, and Kodack who have also had layoffs) Don't tell me that's a cooncidence! Bottom line is that if people half to start choosing between their house payments and their PC payments, the PC will loose out every time. Bottom line, the US savings rate is the lowest since the great depression which means people have less money to buy PC's. And also, how come the notational bets on derivative outcomes are 270 trillion dollars while the US GDP is only 13 Trillion dollars? Sounds like a credit disaster to me.

  45. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by SparafucileMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the Americans who complain of the french 35 hour work week, and use it to explain the demise of the french economy and a host of associated profanities, I'd like to point out that Americans only do about 35 hours of work a week anyway.

    Job surveys are pretty consistent: Americans waste at least an hour a day at work consciously fucking around on the internet, paying bills, etc.

    So. Really, 5 hours is not that much time. The bigger problem is that all of Europe has high unemployment. It's a trade-off: less employment, lower inflation, higher benefits for their old, their sick, their poor. You're telling me you wouldn't pass up a bit of job security for full and free health care? It's not like us americans have job security anyway.

    Besides, the ECB is committed to a wicked-low inflation target and that only means 1 thing: higher unemployment.

  46. You forgot... by modi123 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    frogs, snooty, snotty, arrogant, stuffy, cheese eating surrender monkey, slimy, back stabbing, yellow bellied, and baguette mongers.

    Oh, I forgot, thank you France for the Statue of Liberty!

  47. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

    Wrong... the 35 hour work week is derided because it represents government meddling in business affairs.

    Its not that 35 hours is so unreasonable, its that it is symbolic of the rigid nature of the French people and their unwillingness to confront change and evolutionary forces.

  48. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by wrf3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A system that has 5% unemployment vs. 10% or higher is more compassionate, is it not? How can you be compassionate if you can't compete? You end up with less ability to help the poor.

  49. Slashdot users by herve661 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    These hatred comments about an evil leftist (furthermore French) just show how dumb many slashdoters are. For geek-guys technology and free market is so cool. It makes them happy. They look at economic news and a new USB driver and they are enthusiastic and they like it so much. They don't need anything else in their lives.

    1. Re:Slashdot users by kmmatthews · · Score: 2
      What on earth are you trying to say? That's not even close to coherent. Summed up, you're saying:

      evil leftist just show how dumb slashdoters are. Geeks like technology.

      See what I mean? :)

      --
      feh. stuff.
    2. Re:Slashdot users by witte · · Score: 1

      ...grab yer torches and pitchforks !

  50. "Free" Healthcare by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I pay taxes that are pretty high, but I don't have to pay for health care at all

    I've found that nothing in this life is truly free. A friend of mine has a mother that lives in Norway. She's on a 6-month waiting list for a necessary operation.

    Sure, she doesn't have to pay for it. She just has to suffer with traumatic pain while she waits her turn.

    "What do you get for YOUR taxes in the states?" I had to agree

    Do you not use roads? Do you not use public transportation (which is subsidized by taxes)? Do you not use public water, public sewer, etc? Have you never called the police? I could go on forever. Your taxes are lower than the Europeans' taxes, and just because you don't get "free" healthcare doesn't mean you don't use governmental services. You use them every day.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:"Free" Healthcare by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wrote a long rant. I've deleted it. Generally, it said something like this, "Our government is wasteful and incompetent, and since we've elected it we've made our own bed. This causes me dissatisfaction for I feel disenfranchised."

    2. Re:"Free" Healthcare by Castar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The thing about these operations is that there's probably about as much demand for them in every developed country. Why don't we have to wait in line in the US? Because many people who need that surgery can't afford it.

      If everyone in the US had medical insurance, then our waiting lines would be as long as in a country with government-provided healthcare.

      Basically, you get your quick operations at the cost of all those who can't afford them.

      Also, I call bullshit on the 6-month waiting period - I have relatives in Norway and they're all very happy with the health care system.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    3. Re:"Free" Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for deleting your rant and summarizing.

    4. Re:"Free" Healthcare by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Hey, if she doesn't want to wait she can pay for it - there is still private sector healthcare and private insurance in Europe, and if she can't pay for it in Europe then she won't be able to pay for it in the US and it'd much better an operation in 6 months than none.

  51. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering overall unemployment rates and economic performance as a whole, it sounds like the U.S. system wins out. Companies are very reluctant to hire people if it is overly difficult to fire them.

  52. Grow its economy? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem with security is that it breeds complacency which keeps a country from taking the risks it needs to grow its economy.

    Why do we need to grow our economy? Is our entire economy a giant Ponzi scheme that will collapse if it stops growing? Does it have something to do with Americans' need to breed like rabbits? Maybe the French are perfectly fine with a non-growing economy. Maybe that's a better lifestyle than one in which we're running like rats in a wheel all of the time.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Grow its economy? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      If it isn't growing, it's shrinking. That's the historical truth. As old industries become obsolete, new ones must replace them. How many people used to make their living on farms compared to the numbers that do now?

    2. Re:Grow its economy? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Does it have something to do with Americans' need to breed like rabbits

      What exactly does that mean? Granted, our neighbor to the south has been sending us a lot of excess personnel lately, but those aren't American citizens, regardless of how much they reproduce.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Grow its economy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because progress demands it? Increasing human saftey and security is the consequence of progress. The eradication of diesease, the distribution of clean water, the increasing amount of leisure time (yes it is increasing though it might not seem obvious, in the early 1900's between 30 and 50% of the workforce was occupied with agricultural production (Which is back breaking time consuming work, up at 6am working till 6pm every night blazing hot sun or freezing cold weather not withstanding) now this proportion is between 3-5% thanks to increasing automation made possible by the increase in capital stock. Now we have tremendous agricultural surpluses we can feed a good deal more people with far, far less effort.

      Think of another analogy, your leisure time at home has drastically increased, washing machines and dryers surely increase your free time every week by at least 10 hours (as well as increasing cleanlyness you can wash them more often etc). Other things will sureley increase our free time and already have consider online bill paying how much time is saved ballancing cheqbooks and writing cheques these and many other great things are the consequence of progress (or economic growth).

    4. Re:Grow its economy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we need to grow our economy? Is our entire economy a giant Ponzi scheme that will collapse if it stops growing?

      You have to ask?

    5. Re:Grow its economy? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "Is our entire economy a giant Ponzi scheme that will collapse if it stops growing? "

      Yes

      Other nations will come in and grow if we don't and still cause inflation for many goods.

        Populations also increase so if the economy becomes stagnant, which means a loss since more people compete for the same jobs.

      America is insanely wealthy due to our service oriented economy. If production goes down and we have trouble feeding people then we can never catch up with services. Services and production have an inverse relationship called a production possibilities curve that economists use.

      So in other words the reason why countries remain poor is that they can not leave a production based economy.

  53. lance has connections by hammeredpeon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    see what happens when you make harsh allegations against lance armstrong? hp cuts some of the jobs in your country. go on, le'equipe. KILL YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    --
    best college pickem site ever: pickem.terrbear.org
  54. Re:You can't fire me! I'll call the mayor! by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1


    You speak power to truth brother!

    We are battling a generation of people in our own country who feel they are entitled to everything. And even as we give more than we have ever given before in entitlements, it only increases the demand.

    You give some unemployed guy an extra 12 weeks of unemployment benefits and a $2000 debit card... it sounds very compassionate and progressive. But then, they end up being even less self-sufficient, and all their friends and the other people see the handouts and it attracts the wolves, like a limping gazelle.

  55. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by argoff · · Score: 1

    Huh. I keep looking at your comment, and I can't find the affiliate marketing link to the as-seen-on-TV gold coin selling web site.

    I'm not selling anything, or getting a commission. That's the whole point, there is a reason why I said that. Why in the hell did you say respond like that instead of countring like "you don't know what you're talking about .... the US economy is doing well because ....". WTF, are you over leveraged in housing? stocks? debt? Don't shoot me, I'm just the messanger.

  56. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

    And the French are models of industry when they're on the job?

    I got news for ya. I was sent to France to deal w their engineers.

    A typical day - 9:15 they swan in and kiss each other. Turn on the email and send porn back and forth. Off to the coffee machine for cigarettes coffee and talking about ze match ze yesterday. Back to work maybe by 10:15. Work til 11:30 - go to lunch til 1:30 followed by more coffee machine socialising. Back to work at 2. Break at 3:15, back at work at 3:45, leaving time 4:55.

    I had to PLEAD with them to start working as I was only gonna be there two weeks.

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  57. So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by plopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Face it, most US corporations treat employees and stockholders like serfs. Everything for upper management and to hell with everyone else. The sale of a couple of GulfStreams could keep thousands on the payroll.

    see
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11542

    And before people start yelling about Europe's high unemployment I would like to point out:

    1) US unemployment rates only count actively registered unemployed. Once the unemployment runs out most people don't bother showing up to register anymore. In Europe they have 'the dole' for which you get paid to show up and so they record larger numbers of unemployed. In the US the official numbers are skewed.

    2) Oh, and while on the dole you still get some minimum of health care.

    3) Oh, and there are 1.9 million US citizens in prison in the US who are not counted as unemployed. Contrast that to China with about 1.4 million in prison (see this pdf for an eye opener http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf a report developed by the UK government no less!). Did I mention China has about 3 times the US populations AND is a Communist regiem?

    What they need to do is get rid of some overpriced C*Os and sell a couple of airplanes.

    I hope the French stick it to them.

    (no, no rant here, move along, nothing to see... )

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by Rotten168 · · Score: 0

      You witless buffoon.

      1) US unemployment rates only count actively registered unemployed. Once the unemployment runs out most people don't bother showing up to register anymore. In Europe they have 'the dole' for which you get paid to show up and so they record larger numbers of unemployed. In the US the official numbers are skewed.

      I see this old canard on /. constantly. AHEM, YOU MUTTONHEADED, JACKASS, BUFFOON, PINHEAD: THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

      You absolute simian, subhuman nitwit!

    2. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know, I think there's a more persuasive way to make your point.

    3. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by Rotten168 · · Score: 0

      Why do Slashdotters consistently lie when they know they have no idea what they're talking about?

    4. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and there are 1.9 million US citizens in prison in the US who are not counted as unemployed.

      That's because they're not unemployed. They're what-you-call prison labour. Only many of the prisons are private facilities. So that makes them slave labour. And the laws that land people in prison in the US are heavily slanted towards lower-class low-income people (the poor).

      Hooray for capitalism.

    5. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I believe the psychological term is "confabulation". When a person has faulty knowledge of some subject, they often fill in the blanks with erroneous data (much as I may be doing here). This isn't the same as lying, which as I understand it, is deliberately making untrue statements with the pretense that these statements are true. Saying something that you erroneously think is true, isn't a lie. I believe that is what routinely happens on slashdot.

    6. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by twelveinchbrain · · Score: 1

      What they need to do is get rid of some overpriced C*Os and sell a couple of airplanes.

      Apart from the other well-debunked tripe which I've snipped, don't you think HP has already done the above? What was her name?

      --
      Not Found
      The requested URL /signature.html was not found on this server.
    7. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Work is voluntary. Don't like who you work for? Go work somewhere else, or get yourself skilled up so you can.

      Personally, when I see a company wasting money, it makes me glad, because I know that that makes my rates all the more competitive.

    8. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by Dominic · · Score: 1

      > 2) Oh, and while on the dole you still get some minimum of health care.

      Some minimum? The healthcare you get here in the UK is exactly the same as someone who is earning 100k a year, thanks to universal free health care.

      What sort of society abandons their weak and poor to look after themselves anwyay?

    9. Re:So why don't they sell a few GulfStreams? by blueturffan · · Score: 1
      What was her name?
      I believe it was Voldemort. Those still afraid to speak hre name still refer to her as "She who must not be named."
  58. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The American system has higher "performance", but which system has the greater compassion? You make the call.


    Today, or 100 years from today? America's system has allowed 4% growth in real purchasing power per year since WWII. Europe's has allowed 2% growth. This means the the part of "standard of living" that's determined by what stuff you can afford in America doubles relavite to Europe every 35 years or so. Let's say the extra job security in Europe doubles your standard of living. OK, your ahead for 35 years and behind forever after.

    Productivity and technology together make more difference in your standard of living than you might imagine, because it accumulates over the generations. It is more compassionate to be secure in your job, if it means you don't have the medical technology to save your child's life, as your system delayed the technology for most vaccines by 100 years?

    It's not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. Higher productivity really does drive useful technology faster.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  59. Re:Emmigrate! by RentonSentinel · · Score: 1

    You should consider emmigrating to France... I'm sure it would be an excellent career move.

    Also, you should warn all of these misguided immigrants to the USA that they are going to a worse country! Maybe some of them will wake up and realize that risking their life to come to America is pointless when France is available!

  60. Part of worldwide job cuts announced in July. by blueturffan · · Score: 4, Informative
    "Another Round of HP Layoffs"

    "This round following the first cut back in July."

    Let's have some perspective here. This is not a new round of layoffs.

    This article http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/050912/1163171.html?.v=1 clarifies that these 5900 European job cuts are part of the 14,500 worldwide job cuts announced in July.

  61. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by ThaFooz · · Score: 1

    WARNING: it is because the US economy is tanking!

    More than a bit of an overstatement. The IT industry is the strongest it's been since the dot-com bubble. Its really because HP isn't as good as Dell and IBM, and that European labor laws are outrageous. Its really an indication that the European economy is tanking - the continent is densley populated with few natural resources, the manufacturing is gone, and their high-tech output no better (and arguably worse) than the Americans/Japanese.

    While I share your concern about the American debt, it is largely a result of military spending. If the rest of the world spent the time, money and effort to clean up hotspots, it wouldn't be an issue (not that I approve of the handling of Iraq, but the rest of the world does NOTHING). I'm not just refering to the Mideast - the Europeans and Japanese can't even clean up their own back yards (Yougoslavia and North Korea, respectivley) - they wait for the Americans to do it. As long as so many nations are dependent on the US Military and the US Economy, they won't LET America tank and keep lending money.

  62. Unintended consequences by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Amen. It's called "the law of unintended consequences". By trying to force a result, you often achieve the opposite. Economists have found many such situations (can you say say "rent control"?).

    This is why prospective politicians should not be allowed to run until they have passed a basic course on economics.

    And science. Maybe a little history. Art appreciation doesn't hurt.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences by fandog · · Score: 1

      politicians should not be allowed to run until they have passed a basic course on economics

      I've been saying this for years, it's nice to hear it from someone else!

    2. Re:Unintended consequences by bladesjester · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Careful what you wish for. Dubya has a bachelors degree in history and an MBA and we all see how well he's been working....

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    3. Re:Unintended consequences by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      Dubya has a bachelors degree in history and an MBA and we all see how well he's been working....

      There are many smart people who believe he's been working far better than the alternative would have been.

    4. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i get the sense that there are many, many more "smart people" who think W is an idiot. there is more than a "the alternative" here. but then, voters deserve the goverment they get (in democracy, but i think that's the case in other forms of political rules, too...)

    5. Re:Unintended consequences by jcr · · Score: 1

      There are many smart people who believe he's been working far better than the alternative would have been.

      Not that I'm a fan of Al Gore, but...

      Personally, I'm in favor of having the executive and legislative branches deadlocked whenever possible. Clinton wasn't able to fuck up the economy too badly, since Gingrich was able to thwart him at nearly every turn. It's when the president and the congressional majority are from the same party that things get really dicey.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Unintended consequences by budgenator · · Score: 1

      you should read your post,
      economist says if your
      1. currency is deflataing,
      2. you've got rampant unemployment
      3. borrowing money and spending it should cause enough inflation to fix things in the short-term
      4. taxing the inflated money to pay-down the debt will keep things running smooth over the long-term

      politians hears
      borrowing insane amounts of money and spending it like a drunk sailor is good for the economy!
        It a law of unintended consequences thing

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Unintended consequences by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I think a certain intern keeping him distracted helped alot too, maybe somebody should give the bimbo a medal or something.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Unintended consequences by jcr · · Score: 1

      Sure, that helped, but Lewinsky wasn't why Hillary's plot to inflict socialized medicine on the country was stopped. I give the credit for that directly to the traditional president/congress gridlock.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:Unintended consequences by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      We're going to have to head to socialized medicine eventually if we want to be able to compete with nations who already have it. You see, companies don't want to pay for it so they'll just relocate to nations that don't force them to.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    10. Re:Unintended consequences by jcr · · Score: 1

      We're going to have to head to socialized medicine eventually if we want to be able to compete with nations who already have it.

      I'd have to say that we're already competing just fine with countries like Canada and Sweden.

      You see, companies don't want to pay for it so they'll just relocate to nations that don't force them to.

      Exactly. If medicine is socialized, everyone is forced to pay for it. Tax revenues don't fall like mana from heaven.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:Unintended consequences by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Your law of unintended consequences works both ways. Workers are severely underpaid in the US - our economy is now a low paying service economy, with better jobs going overseas. American students are shunning science degrees and more of those foreign born science brains - the foundation of our scientific achievements since at least World War II - are choosing to stay home now.

      Consumer spending in the US is now wavering and personal debt is ballooning just to make ends meet.

      Consumer spending is 2/3 of the economy.

      Consumer debt cannot expand forever; this bubble has to collapse by simple laws of economics.

      You need to make up for that with indefinite increases in credit, lower consumer spending, or higher wages. Simple facts of economics AND history there. Indefinite increases in credit lines is impossible; higher wages are not at all happening except for the wealthy few; which leaves lower consumer spending as a result of bankruptcies or higher oil prices.

      The unintended consequences of laissez-faire policy allowing corporations to practice unrestricted greed is they will feed so much on their own base that they'll eat up 66% of the economy as the US continues to descend into a restaurant, tourism, and errand-running service economy that is a mere shadow of the world that existed in 1999 when anyone could enter the high paying tech industry and make something of themselves.

      Now let's see you get any experience in **any industry** whatsoever without 10 years of experience. No experience, no job, no job, no experience.

      Consumer spending will collapse. This is inevitable unless higher jobs are, in fact, protected. Fail to protect them and all you will have are Wal Mart jobs and the consumer spending that fits that kind of salary.

      Behold the world of unintended consequences.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    12. Re:Unintended consequences by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Socialized medicine spreads out the cost of medicine. This is why socialized medicine costs less per capita than in the US. Note that we're also competing with Communist China.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    13. Re:Unintended consequences by jcr · · Score: 1

      Socialized medicine spreads out the cost of medicine.

      So does private insurance, and I know which I'd rather use.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Unintended consequences by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Then you're probably quite healthy and don't have any pre-existing conditions that make any insurance agent act like you just dropped a live tarantula in their lap when they read that field on the application form.

    15. Re:Unintended consequences by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Pray tell me, which option that is.

      Is it the option that will deny you coverage to get a heart transplant or rehabilitative care if, on a whim, they decide you don't need one, and leave you to beg like a bum at the capricious door of some Christian Conservative charity (assuming you can get up and do so)?

      Is it the option that is so repulsive to doctors because of all the paperwork (and the refusal of the payer to pay the doctors an honest amount for their work) that 10% of all doctors now require cash payments? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/05/health/ main610269.shtml)

      Is it the option that is completely avoided, shunned and despised by the entire civilized world outside the US and has absolutely no chance of ever being gaining a foothold elsewhere, no matter how bad socialized medicine supposedly gets?

      Tell me again which option that is that you'd rather use.

      Me, I'd rather not spend the rest of my life giving all of my income away (and the estate I plan to leave to my kids) to a hospital because one bout of cancer overran my insurance coverage and left me millions of dollars in debt. I'd just as soon leave this world and let my kids have the house instead of letting the hospital put a lien on it. Gee, I wonder which is the only country on Earth where this typically happens?

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    16. Re:Unintended consequences by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Generaly if you don't want something to happen you put governament in charge of it, sometimes they surprize you but not often. I remeber a while back the Hospital corporations were doing the controled MRI thing, set up so there were regonal mri centers, with patients lined up in the waiting rooms to keep the machine busy and costs down. I don't remember costs coming down untill the dr's who do a lot of mri installed some in their offices, no waiting, no appointments at 2AM.

      Want to find out how well socialized medicine works, just call your Dr's office and ask "Do you take medicade? Do you know who does?"
      If you were a Doctor which would you prefer a socialized plan that pays 60% on the dollar and reject 25% of the claims on first submission and prohibits you from getting the 40% from the patient or a comercial plan that cover 80/20 and the patient pay the 20%?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Unintended consequences by saider · · Score: 1

      We're going to have to head to socialized medicine eventually if we want to be able to compete with nations who already have it. You see, companies don't want to pay for it so they'll just relocate to nations that don't force them to.

      They'll pay for it in the form of higher corporate taxes instead of a market of insurance providers. It is much less expensive for a company to find an "El Cheapo" insurance plan than to relocate to a socialist state with higher taxes.

      The problem with the American healtcare system is that the healthcare provider's customer is _not_ the person that receives the service. The customer is the employer, not the employee. The needs of the customer are not the same as the needs of the patient.

      In order to fix the healthcare problem in this country, the choice in healthcare prioviders needs to come back to the patient/employee. Shopping for a healthcare plan needs to be like shopping for car insurance. You can do this now, but you often pay more than your company because they get a "volume discount". Healthcare companies cater to their biggest customers and the individual accounts are not as important to them. This is a natural consequence of this type of market that has been created. Once the choice in providers is given back to the patient, you will see an adjustment in healtcare quality as the providers realize that the patient _is_ the customer.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    18. Re:Unintended consequences by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Shopping for a healthcare plan needs to be like shopping for car insurance.

      The difference between the two is that usually you have to behave stupidly to become an "undesirable" for a car insurance company, and if anything you'll end up paying higher premiums.
      As far as health insurance goes, avoiding stupid behavior doesn't guarantee that you don't end up being undesirable and never even get an offer for health insurance.

    19. Re:Unintended consequences by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1
      Who said I approve of the spending habits of the American government and consumer? I never said everything about the American economy is rosy.

      The fact is, however, that both economic growth and employment are strong. Look at Germany, with their 10% unemployment. They have been battling the unions for a decade trying to get barriers to employment down, and are only now making progress.

      As for claiming that you need 10 years of experience to get a job, that's just plain bullshit. At 5% unemployment, someone in America is working.

    20. Re:Unintended consequences by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If you were a Doctor which would you prefer a socialized plan that pays 60% on the dollar and reject 25% of the claims on first submission and prohibits you from getting the 40% from the patient

      Not only that, but a number of hospitals would probably have to close too. Consider this: it's nigh on impossible to get Medicare/Medicaid to pay even close to the actual operating cost of procedures. If that is extended so that EVERYONE has their procedures paid-for by the government -- or under-/NOT paid, as the case would be -- there could be a serious healthcare crisis worse than the current state in West Virginia (which is due to the disproportianately high number of malpractice suits -- lawyers love WV, its laws were all created to make lawyers richer and the people dumber).

    21. Re:Unintended consequences by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      At 5% unemployment, someone in America is working.

      ... or just too many factually unemployed people have been dropped from the statistic. How long do you need to be unemployed before you're labeled "hopeless" instead of "unemployed" ? 6 months ?

    22. Re:Unintended consequences by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1
      Unemployment statistics are not perfect, but this has been so for as long as there have been such statistics.

      A search through Department of Labor statistics, however, show that worker productivity, total number of people working, and hourly wages have all been rising in recent years, even after inflation has been accounted for. And the unemployment rate has been dropping.

      Your claims of a poor employment situation are pure fantasy.

    23. Re:Unintended consequences by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. If the American consumer spends less, countless businesses will die. Do you realize what this will mean to the economy?

      American unemployment, when measured by European standards (and not US skewed standards) is barely a point lower than Europe.

      Also, in the US someone is working but where are they working? Increasingly in food service and retail, mainly, which is why the term "underemployment" is so big now.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    24. Re:Unintended consequences by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      I call BS. Show me those stats.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    25. Re:Unintended consequences by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      I'd have to say that we're already competing just fine [for socialized medicine] with countries like Canada and Sweden.

      Yes, I agree, if your definition of "compete" means that the auto capital of North America moved from Detriot to Toronto.

      Of course, Canada IS finding itself a bit squeezed as its corporations are now demanding the same level of non-responsibility as America's corporations have so rampantly enjoyed. So all that national revenue share from taxing corporations is probably going to collapse as severely as it has in the United States. Then socialized medicine will fail in Canada due to defunding.

      Health Care for Workers: Overall, it's being killed off in the First World. It will probably just die later in Canada than in the USA.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    26. Re:Unintended consequences by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1
      Go to the fucking U.S. Department Of Labor site (http://www.dol.gov/), and look it up yourself.

      Some of August's statistics are at the bottom. Hit "Search" near the top right hand corner for more complete, year-over-year, statistics.

      It takes some digging, but you'll better able to debate economics with something better than blind ideology.

    27. Re:Unintended consequences by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Funny, the BLS
      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

      says the majority of growth is in the service, hospitality and retail sector.

      Are you telling me that Wal Mart is paying people more money?

      Or maybe it's the Government jobs that factor highly in the job growth, that is providing the best pay? Can't go wrong on that when your bennies are automatically covered... unlike (nowadays) private industry.

      Or perhaps what you're really telling me is a handful of millionaires and billionaires are seriously skewing the numbers...?

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    28. Re:Unintended consequences by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      OP: "Socialized medicine spreads out the cost of medicine."

      You: "So does private insurance [...]"

      Me: NO ... private insurance (note: there really is no such thing in the USA by means of "legislative mandates" and "self insurance") removes all risk factors possible within and often exceeding the boundaries of law and morality. PI's purpose is to pay out as little as possible (ideally, nothing) while collecting from as many qualifying people as possible (ideally, every person who acts safely, is not in threat zones and risky populations, and has no existing conditions).

      Socialized medicine's goal is to pay out to all who need it and to collect from everyone. THAT is a spread. But PI is now all about avoiding payouts by continual machinations against the policy holders ... often invoking a routine dare against policy holders to enforce the terms of the policy by means of legal action. (If I had received a dollar for every time I heard somebody say "... and then I had to get a lawyer to get my insurance company to pay my claim", I'd be my own self-insurance company.)

      Even so, I'm much in favor of eliminating the legislative mandates placed upon insurance, and instead retain only the government power to ensure fairness and enforcement in contracts. The "mandate" mess created a great demand for self insurance ... which in itself is a great weakness for the workers who are subject to them, since the self-insurers are completely flip-flopping away from providing adequate coverage.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    29. Re:Unintended consequences by bluGill · · Score: 1

      That is because you looking in places where people who don't like George Bush hang out. Get out in the UN in general, and you will find many smart people who think George Bush is smart. You don't get into Yale if you are an idiot, no matter who your family is. Of course if you are smart enough that you could get in, family will get you in over someone else who could get in but doesn't have the family.

      George Bush looks like an idiot only because people want to see an idiot, so they pick on every mistake he makes. Republicans did the same to Bill Clinton, or have you forgotten already? Maybe you weren't paying attention Bush fans tend to be less well represented on the internet.

    30. Re:Unintended consequences by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Your claims of a poor employment situation are pure fantasy.

      In places like Boston, LA and NYC for yuppies only, these claims probably are. In many, many more places like where I live (Toledo OH), these claims are too optimistic. The employment situation within a 100 mile radius is less than dismal -- it's APPALLING.

      America is creating Third World areas within itself in a wholesale attempt to cash out the middle class to mint another financial-based millionaire an hour. This trend has well been noticed in those areas that the yuppies thought they'd be protected from it in. But there's no protection from insatiable greed. There's no safe harbor ... not even in the cities.

      People have grown used to both parents working to rent a home they can never actually own. This is EXACTLY what Jefferson warned us about when he said we'd "wake up slaves on the continent our fathers conquered". The Third Worlding of America is going to hit the White Collars as universally and severely as it hit the Blue Collars.

      And that simply means they're coming to toss your stupid ass into slavery too. It may not be happening to you now, or within 5 years. But if you're in your 30s then you're going to get hit eventually. All of us working class are on the chopping block. And if they cannot trivialize our income, they will damned certain crush us with all the taxation that the wealthy and corporate escape as a matter of course.

      Read the books "Perfectly Legal" and "When Corporations Rule the World". Come back when you finally fucking understand ANYTHING real (instead of the childish Republican propaganda you're spouting).

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    31. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thougth bill clinton looked and acted smartly, i always thought george bush looked and acted like a complete imbecile... hmmm

    32. Re:Unintended consequences by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      whats also interesting to note is the number of total NET new jobs...

    33. Re:Unintended consequences by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

      You should be looking at the year-by-year comparisons, not the statistics for August. That's so short term as to be meaningless.

    34. Re:Unintended consequences by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      I was actually referring to Bush's total amount of time on the job compared to the total new NET jobs created... but yah whatever

    35. Re:Unintended consequences by COredneck · · Score: 1

      Colorado is becoming like that as well. I wouldn't say "for yuppies only" but should say "for executives only" since they make all the rules these days. A friend of mine from Indiana who I went to H.S. with is leaving Colorado next month to move to Albuquerque, NM. He lived in Colorado for 12 or 13 years. I moved here 10 years ago. I noticed a lot of things has changed. His wife and I agreed when we were talking a few nights ago that people here has changed as well. People are much more rude than they use to be. When I moved here 10 years ago, people were pretty easy going but anymore, I don't see that. Another example, where I live at, they implemented covenant rules after I lived there for 6 years there on things like the size of you dog (not greater than 25 pounds), parking such as trucks. I got a few letters from the HOA about it. Not only is it bad at home but at work as well. My truck got an "Abandonded Vehicle" sticker on the window at work which is ridiculous ! It is a 15 year old redneck looking truck. I know we have a few executive types that work there. I know one of them is kind of stuck up - an elitists attitude. That executive type will not hesitate to tell you that "you better know your place and stay there".

      I work in the corporate world and it has got so cut-throat. I am losing my job at the end of the year and the job market here is dismal for tech. I looked into job opportunities in California (better job market) but the thing there is it is the cost of living is extremely high. I am also afraid that the housing bubble is going to pop especially in the Bay Area of where I looked into. A piece of $h!t house cost +$450k !

      I am looking into possibly moving to New Zealand. They are big on the outdoors like here but their work culture is "work to live", not "live to work". Also what I know of there, people are more of thinking that people are equal and less class distinction. Where I work at, if you want to advance then you better damn well "live to work" and play the political games such as "kissing ass" or "participate in the fashion show - dress up, no jeans not even on Friday" for examples.

      In places like Boston, LA and NYC for yuppies only, these claims probably are. In many, many more places like where I live (Toledo OH), these claims are too optimistic. The employment situation within a 100 mile radius is less than dismal -- it's APPALLING.

      America is creating Third World areas within itself in a wholesale attempt to cash out the middle class to mint another financial-based millionaire an hour. This trend has well been noticed in those areas that the yuppies thought they'd be protected from it in. But there's no protection from insatiable greed. There's no safe harbor ... not even in the cities.

      People have grown used to both parents working to rent a home they can never actually own. This is EXACTLY what Jefferson warned us about when he said we'd "wake up slaves on the continent our fathers conquered". The Third Worlding of America is going to hit the White Collars as universally and severely as it hit the Blue Collars.

  63. Hey MODERATORS AGAIN!!! by argoff · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Really, I don't like france and their socialist attitude as much as the next guy. But I don't think it's offtopic to say that HP is going to hell because the US economy is tanking like I said here (
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41221
    ) and here (
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161969&cid=135 41377
      ). I'm sorry, these were not offtopic and the fact that they were marked so shows some people are very bitter, but it doesn't doesn't show they are offtopic at all.

    1. Re:Hey MODERATORS AGAIN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Really, I don't like france and their socialist attitude as much as the next guy. "

      And this guy is modded up +2?
      I'm French and I like adn respect the USA, an old allie and the first democracy in the world. You should be open minded like I am. I like the USA even if I think poor people aren't treated like they deserve in your country.
      BTW I work less, got free healthcare, and there are not 40% of obese girls in my country ( little bit offtopic, but it does matter), heck, I bet you wish you lived in France.

  64. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by MrMastadon · · Score: 1

    Whatever. I'm sure the French don't "fuck around on the internet, paying bills, etc.". Just Americans. Nice logic dude.

  65. I, for one.. by JoshDanziger · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new HP overlords.

  66. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

    America has held amazingly low inflation with relatively low unemployment for the past 4 years or so (of course much of this has to do with our federal budget which may be a time bomb in the making). Anyway, France just isn't a consumption society like America is.

    --


    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  67. I see the words 'Socialist deputy'... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. and my heart warms for HP. I can't help it, it's limbic.

  68. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by vertinox · · Score: 1

    And you're recommending purchasing "select" gold, silver, and oil stocks?

    No, I'd recommend canned foods, bottle water, and a shotgun...

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  69. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by argoff · · Score: 1


    I think you're right about Europe's economy, and about them not wanting to take military responsibility for protecting their own freedoms. The problem is that the US economy is proping up the rest of the world economy, and now the rest of the world is loaning to the US economy because when it goes they go. Well IMHO, the US now has more debt than it can absorb which means it's the beginning of the end.

  70. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

    And you think that corps in the US went to 40 out of the goodness of their hearts?

    --

    Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  71. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    I'm not selling anything, or getting a commission.

    But you can understand why someone reading your comment might think that. There was a certain tone to it that recalls the late-night-TV "in these unpredictable times, only gold will protect your assets" even as gold (for example) is turning out to be a lousy performer. Doesn't mean it will always be that way, only that it is now, and the people pushing are resorting to hokey looking 3:00AM advertising to get your attention.

    There will certainly be a lot of people who will lose their shirts when their interest-only mortgages come home to roost and they can't keep up. Those people will be forced to buy a house more in keeping with their income, and people who did not over extend themselves will reap the rewards of their prudence.

    Actually, the economy is doing well, considering the pressures that are weighing on it. You mentioned Katrina, but I really don't think that's going to be a big one for the economy as a whole. Something like 9/11, that impacts something huge like air travel across the entire world - that's more of an issue. Gas prices are something like that, but not in scope.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  72. and you 35 hour wimps will continue being such by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    for a long long time.

    Yeah I know, put in your 40 hours and go home with your check is how it is supposed to be. Guess what, that will work provided you want to forever be one who bitches about how life is so unfair.

    Most successful people aren't doing 40 hours a week, they are doing 55-70 hours per week. This way they can be the "lazy" rich when they reach their 50s while you continue to toil away at your "40" err 35 hour a week job. You'll continue to do so and wonder why John down the street now lives over there with his big house and car.

    Yes some executives make silly amounts of money but guess what, they are a small percentage of people who work in companies who employ less than the majority of people who do work. Big businesses grab the headlines simply because of their size but they do not drive the overall economy.

    So yeah HP is laying off X-thousand jobs. Some of those may actually end up getting the kick in the pants that they needed to realize their potential. A great many, conditioned by society, will bitch and move on to the next 40 hour job repeating the cycle.

    You don't have to bust your butt to be rich but your damn well going find out it is the faster way of getting there.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  73. American Peasant Laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Of course, if you look at the widening gap between the rich and everybody else in the US it would seem that no matter how hard you work you're financial status in life was set when you were born."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Karcher

    Whaaa! Doomed! Doomed, it tell you. Once a peasant, always a peasant.

  74. your figure is worse by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree the employment numbers are cooked. But your figure is worse. Your figure assumes everyone wants to work. In other words, it includes stay at home mothers as a "deficit" in working people, when they are not.

    Heck, it probably also includes the independently wealthy who definitely don't wish to work, don't need to, and are supported by their own income.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:your figure is worse by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That figure doesn't assume "everyone wants to work". It ignores whether or not people "want to work", an unmeasureable psychological statistic. It merely measures whether people who can work have a job. If you want to include mothers without jobs as "employed", you can find that stat, add it, and we can argue about that. They're at least more relevant to our economy than the labor of the "independently wealthy", a negligible fraction of the "labor-ready" force.

      It strikes me that you're looking at a foregone conclusion, then looking for numbers to back it up. It's that kind of process that makes the "unemployment" figures useless. The participation numbers are much more simple, so they can be used to actually debate matters of fact.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:your figure is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let me get this straight--you think that a statistic that counts teenagers, stay-at-home moms, and early retirees as the unemployed is more useful than a statistic that's based on talking to the people who are unemployed and asking them if they are trying to find a job?

      Are you insane? Stupid? Or, more likely; got an axe to grind?

      Consider this, the measure you are using may be a counter-indicator of the economy's strength--the better-off people are, the more likely they are to let their kids stay home rather than work. They're more likely to be able to afford to have a parent stay home and raise the kids. They're more likely to retire early.

      Or, it could mean that as the economy worsens people are less likely to be able to find jobs. There are two forces operating on your number and they're operating in different directions. The unemployment rate, on the other hand is unambiguous. The unemployment rate measures people who want work and can't find it, and it only has one relation to economic strength.

      You seriously need to think before you speak.

    3. Re:your figure is worse by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I think the "unemployment" numbers are useless, and the "participation" numbers are useful. Depending on what question you want to answer, and how you defined value-laden terms like "good economy". Whether you're a banker or high school graduated job seeker.

      I'm not insane, but I'm certainly not an Anonymous asshole Coward like you. I have only pointed out that there are better numbers than official "unemployment" numbers, which are useful only as a measure of whether the officials are trying to paint a rosy or dire picture - without much relationship in fact to reality. As usual, it is you, Anonymous jerk Coward, who is not only pursuing a foregone agenda, regardless of the facts, but is therefore screaming the loudest with personal attacks about the projected shadows of your own guilt. Which scare you more than I do, and scare me not at all. Now get back to work, and do something useful for a change

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:your figure is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They aren't useful because they tell you absolutely nothing.

      Your number goes up, say from 33% to 34%--what does it mean? Did extra income allow more people to leave the labor force? Did fewer jobs leave more people unemployed? Here's the answer: you don't know. Your number tells you nothing. There is not one question that your number answers other than "what is the participation rate?" That makes it useless.

      The unemployment rate tells you something useful--the number of people who want jobs who don't have them. If the unemployment rate goes up that means there are more people unemployed. If the unemployment rate goes down the opposite is true. The reason that economists use the employment rate is because it's a useful number, not because they're all part of some shadowy cartel trying to hide the truth.

      Try this--give one useful question that the participation rate gives you the answer to? Bet you can't do it.

      Oh, and lol at a guy using a pseudonym on the internet getting angry at someone for being anonymous. Pot, meet kettle.

      My personal agenda is that I don't like stupid people.

    5. Re:your figure is worse by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're not that swift yourself, to ignore the distinction between the undifferentiated anonymity of all the different AC jerkoffs (and occasional worthwhile poster) I've replied to this week, and those posters about whom I know nothing, except their posting history. I don't care what you had for breakfast, AC, but I do care about learning from your posts exactly what kind of crooked logic I'm seeing when I read your posts.

      For example, the participation rate tells me that 65% of people are working. Which I can compare to other countries. For nuance, I can look at breakdowns of the nonparticipants according to reasons for nonparticipation. Which tells me lots about each country, comparable across countries. Or states/counties/cities. While the unemployment rate stats tell me nothing like what you're claiming. They don't claim people not looking for work, or no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, or people who claim they're not looking, but perhaps are working - they also include people who claim they're not working, but looking, who are actually working and collecting a check. Then there are the military people (maybe as many as 1M) who are skimmed from the numbers, though many contribute to the economy, and many do not (and some who merely destroy some of the economy). There are all kinds of hidden filters, some overlapping, that produce that unemployment number. Which change from year to year, so it's not even describing the same complex thing in two given years. It's useless, except to produce mediagenic fake stats to serve the prevailing government agenda.

      That's not "some shadowy cartel", that's the actual operation of the government. If you don't understand that, your personal agenda is sure to make you very unhappy with yourself.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:your figure is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I say: There is not one question that your number answers other than "what is the participation rate?" That makes it useless.

      So you say: For example, the participation rate tells me that 65% of people are working.

      So the big question the participation rate answers is...wait for it..."What is the participation rate?" Brilliant.

      You say: I can look at breakdowns of the nonparticipants according to reasons for nonparticipation.

      Well, you go right ahead. I think you'll find the only useful reason for nonparticipation is...wait for it...because they can't find work. Congratulations, you've reinvented the unemployment rate.

      the unemployment rate stats tell me nothing like what you're claiming

      Wrong. The unemployment rate telles me the unemployment rate, which is exactly what I'm claiming.

      They don't claim people not looking for work

      You think people who are not looking for work should count as unemployed? Good luck supporting that one.

      no longer eligible for unemployment insurance

      Eligibility for unemployment insurance has nothing to do with unemployment rates. I think I see the problem here; you have no idea how the unemployment rate is measured. Here's a hint: it's a survey. They ASK people if they're looking for work. Insurance doesn't enter into it.

      or people who claim they're not looking, but perhaps are working

      You think these people would throw the unemployment rate off but wouldn't throw the participation rate off? Are you serious?

      they also include people who claim they're not working, but looking, who are actually working and collecting a check

      You think these people wouldn't also throw off the participation rates? Are you serious?

      Then there are the military people (maybe as many as 1M) who are skimmed from the numbers, though many contribute to the economy, and many do not (and some who merely destroy some of the economy)

      Gosh, do you think the participation rates treat military personnel differently than unemployment statistics? Seriously? Do you think military personnel are counted in participation rates? Here's a hint: you're just as wrong about this as you are about everything else.

      all kinds of hidden filters, some overlapping, that produce that unemployment number. Which change from year to year, so it's not even describing the same complex thing in two given years.

      Wrong again. There has only been one change in the way unemployment rates were measured in my lifetime (I would factcheck that, but I really can't be bothered to do your work for you). That change was completely transparent. If you want to know how unemployment rates were measured in any year go to the bls.gov website and they'll tell you. Unless you're too busy springing crackpot theories to, you know, actually do any work.

      Seriously, how tf do you think unemployment rates are measured? Are you aware that all of your real complaints with the way the data is measured would apply equally to measurement of participation rates? Are you really that clueless? Do you think you understand economics? I read some of your posts above and you have no clue. You need to go take an economics class, or pass an economics class, or something.

    7. Re:your figure is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, you go right ahead. I think you'll find the only useful reason for nonparticipation is...wait for it...because they can't find work.

      Damn it, I got so happy making fun of you that I made an obvious blunder here. If you actually knew what participation rates measured you'd catch it, but since you don't, you won't, so I could probably have gotten away with not saying anything.

      What the hell, I'll tell you; participation rates include the unemployed as part of the participating labor force (So you have to be a real dunce to think unemployment rates are awful but participation rates are great--and you really are a dunce).

      And I can't even post this damn comment because of the time limit. Damn.

  75. Re:And what is wrong with that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was good flamebait, but don't try so hard next time... It would've been better with only the middle paragraph... The third made it too obvious.

  76. Karma? by asscroft · · Score: 1

    That beatch really screwed things up, eh? That's what happens when you sell your soul. Or maybe this is just part of the binging. It's hard to tell.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  77. Sleep well Fiiorina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your incompetence, lack of vision and ineptitude led to this, what do you have to say over glorified bitch?, hope the $40 mil + serve you to sleep well at night.

    Hope the rest of HP goes to hell as Dave and Bill.

  78. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Mmmm.... listen, a good troll is never that silly. It's got to be remotely believable.

    If you can't manage yourself, there are sites dedicated to coming up with trolls that people like you can insert your own text into. I think you'd be better doing that until you gain some experience.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  79. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by bnenning · · Score: 1

    Well IMHO, the US now has more debt than it can absorb

    Not really. The debt to GDP ratio, isn't that bad, and it's well under the European average. Still, that doesn't excuse the irresponsible spending spree that we've gotten from alleged "fiscal conservatives" in Congress and the White House.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  80. Low inflation... by DrCode · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's low... unless you happen to buy food, or a house, or you get sick, or you go to college, or you heat/cool your house, or you drive a car, or take the bus, or...

    Or did you mean 'wage inflation'. True, there isn't much of that, unless you happen to be a CEO or one of his friends.

    1. Re:Low inflation... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually food, electricity, transportation have been quite cheap.

  81. HP? HP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HP? Oh, yeah. They're the company that makes different colored inks in little bitty cartridges.

  82. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

    Shut it, that really did happen. It was AMAZING to see these people. It was like life revolved around coffee in the morning, lunch and the mid morning and mid afternoon lunches. No wonder we never got products finished when we asked for em.

    I did forget to mention this was NOT at HP

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  83. Why are they so worked up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Esker Software, a French software company has been buying U.S. companies (Persoft, VSI,Teubner & Associates)and flying them into the cliff for several years now.

    When the dive starts, it's been U.S. employees that have been sent packing, ignoring the fact that 50% of their market is in the U.S. and that their most successful products were developed in the U.S.

    It seems to me that it's far more simple to layoff U.S. workers. I don't remember a single news story regarding the layoffs. Granted, it's on a smaller scale, but I didn't even see it covered locally or in the trades.

    The company refuses to hear that the U.S. markets are different than the European markets in that U.S. customers are willing to change brands in a heartbeat if they are unhappy.

    They also refuse to acknowledge that U.S. customers have a different idea of what it means to be timely - especially when it comes to fixing blantant errors.

    The company has a far more hierachical and paternal system than you are likely to see in the U.S.

    For a good book on understanding the French, see "Friend or Foe" by Polly Platt

  84. It's not a new round of layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A note from someone on the inside:

    These jobs aren't going in addition to the 15,000 announced a while back - this is the allocation of those cuts to Europe.

  85. Gee! by Master+Bait · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once HP's layoff are finally finished, then only the very best forard-looking, productive, gung-ho employees will remain.

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman
  86. Unacceptable by superspaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It will be even more unacceptable when HP tells that mayor where he can stick it and pulls the rest of the jobs from the city (which given hp's current state of affairs was bound to happen anyway).

  87. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Actually I have job security because there are always plenty of jobs, and I work hard, so I can take care of myself. That includes my healthcare. I'm not rich, I just work hard and use my head, and I've always been fine.

    I really don't want the government providing me with a "trade-off".

  88. Old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was announced a while back as part of the 14,000+ that HP is shedding over the next 6 quarters. The news, if there is any, is that the country by country numbers apparently got given out recently. Germany's HP "loss of employees" number was in a clipping service I get. Where is the German union outrage?

    Is the reaction in France the only one printed to get some adverse American reaction?

  89. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well IMHO, the US now has more debt than it can absorb which means it's the beginning of the end.

    About half of that debt is owed to the goverment itself. Kinda like me saying I can't afford a new car because I need to pay back money into my "computer fund"

  90. You may be right by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Your position may have been set when YOU were born. If you were unlucky enough to be born to parents who were pessimistic, it may have rubbed off on you.

    My neighbor, on the other hand, came here from Mexico 15 years ago on a green card. Didn't have anything except the willingness to bust his butt and a good head on his shoulders. Worked scut work for 5 years in a bakery saving every cent he earned all the while learning how to be a baker. After 5 years, he started out on his own and opened a bakery. He's got seven of them now, and he works one day at each one each day of the week. Public schools around here aren't worth much so he's sent his two kids to a Catholic private high school. Each of them has their own car.

    About once a month, I eat at a Chinese hole in the wall. Food is outstanding and there's always a line for takeout as there are barely any seats in the restaurant as most of the floorspace is kitchen. There are 6 people working in a space the size of two cubicles exchanging instructions in Chinese. Haute cuisine it ain't but the food is damn good. They open at 10 am and are there until 10 pm. They're making a go of what you would take to be slim prospects.

    My gardener wasn't quite as successful. He still rents, but he's provided for his family which he said there was no way he could of done in Guatamala.

    My best friend is a plumber. No college but is a partner in a plumbing business. He's smart, worked his tail off, and got to the point that he is billing quarter million dollar jobs in Pebble Beach. He plumbed Clint Eastwood's house and used a tie down he invented to keep floor heating pipes in place. The tie-down saved him 7 cents/tiedown over a commercial product, and is faster to install to boot. It may not sound like much of a savings but it's enabled him to shave his cost on each floor heating job he's bid. He never knew his dad and is mother was an alcholic who didn't provide much for him and yet he's thrived. All that on a high school education.

    One of my top student's father was pulled out of middle school during the cultural revolution. Wasted years of his life on a farm just staying alive. When he got the chance, he left China and came here. His wife works in a local hospital and he's holding down a day job while taking care of some pre-reqs before going to med school. He gets about 5 hours of sleep each night even though he's in his mid 40's. Even still, he's happy to be here.

    I don't think any of these folk would agree with your assessment of economic prospects in this country.

    1. Re:You may be right by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      So :-

      The baker still works seven days a week.
      The chinese place is 12 hour days.
      The plumber still works.
      The guy in his mid 40's only gets 5 hours sleep.

      I think all of these folks subscribe to the american work ethic. They also illustrate how it's very hard to earn enough money to be financially independent.

      PS. I avoided all the snide comments in your post , given your post it is obvious you missed the point of my post.

    2. Re:You may be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS. I avoided all the snide comments in your post , given your post it is obvious you missed the point of my post.

      What's that??? That you are lazy and enjoy the spoils of redistribution of wealth?

    3. Re:You may be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps so. But in your world all of these people would be without jobs and money and would be waiting on the government to redistribute the taxes they collected from the few unfortunate ones to bust their butts so politicians can decide what to do with their money. The 20th century has seen enough socialist failures yet people like you continue to subscribe to that mentality. Live in France then and be happy.

  91. It unfortunately makes economic sense... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    The problem is one of adverse selection.

    If an individual is buying insurance, then he falls into two categories, "risk adverse" or "expecting a positive return." In other words, as most people don't use anywhere NEAR the $3000 (young single individual) to $15,000 (older family) in medical costs that insurance costs, people that are sicker are more likely to purchase insurance.

    By having insurance available for the entire group (with some minimum enrollment percentage), people are not more likely to choose the insurance because they EXPECT high medical costs.

    That's the economic theory.

    The problem is, our health insurance market is COMPLETELY messed up.

    For example, I have insurance on my car, it covers unexpected events (accidents), not expected events (routine oil changes). However, our health insurance covers expected events (normal doctor's visits), which makes the market REALLY screwy.

    But it gets worse, if I am paying to insure my life, then if I die, my insurance company pays out. If I pay to insure my health, it makes ZERO sense that if I get some serious disease, I can be dropped from the insurance and screwed. I don't understand why pre-existing conditions are paid for by your insurance, it SHOULD be paid for by your previous insurance.

    I mean, if I develop some permanent blood disease, and I paid Blue Cross to insure me, then shouldn't they take their lumps and pay for that situation permanently? If I later contract with Aetna to take on my health risk, why are they pricing in my preexisting condition, or forced to take it with a group program, or able to exclude me.

    Ideally, insurance should go forward, not backward.

    The problem is routine maintenance. It is cheaper, in general, to have an annual check-up and catch things early then wait for problems. However, routine health maintenance isn't really an insurable event (I mean, if it costs $100/yr for an annual physical, and everyone has one, it is really silly to make that part of insurance, it just means that the costs go up by $100). The problem is, if you don't do it through insurance, people won't get them, because it is cheaper to pay the co-pay then to get the physical to avoid getting sick.

    I believe in a market based solution, but current health care isn't one. Small co-pays for somewhat elective procedures (most therapy, some minor operations) is insane. Sure it makes peoples lives better, but then it is an individual choice.

    I really like the new Consumer-Driven Healthcare Programs (I think that acronym is CDHP). The idea is a HIGH deductible, and possibly high co-pay, but a lower premium. It makes health insurance into insurance, which makes MUCH more sense. The HSA option that was added to the Medicare fiasco bill is a nice incentive. Since employer contributions to health care AND the employee side with a Section 125 plan is tax deductible, you can pay for your deductible with pre-tax money, in an HSA. It makes the CDHP option tax-neutral with traditional insurance.

    The idea is to get people to pay for routine options, so they make decisions with the cost in mind, while still being insured if something major happens. It is an attempt to bring market forces to bare.

    This still doesn't deal with the absurdity that you come down with a permanent condition, and your employer has an economic incentive to fire you to bring down the group rates. That requires a fundamental realignment of the insurance market.

    Alex

    1. Re:It unfortunately makes economic sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The HSA option that was added to the Medicare fiasco bill is a nice incentive.

      Companies are really loving it. I had a friend who was laid off in August who was making $50 monthy payments pre-tax into his health account. The last regular paycheck he got before his severance package came in had $250 deducted (for August-December) and the day after that regular paycheck, he was officially terminated, removed from the group insurance and no longer had access to that account.

      Somebody got $600+interest for free, he got billed for a dental checkup the week he was laid off because the dentist didn't file the claim until afterwards (we're contesting this one, he was covered at the time of service), and his son got to postpone his wisdom teeth removal.

      Fortunately, he's got a new job he's starting this week, at a better pay. He's thinking about taking the company to a small claims court for the $200 he was ripped off of (if he paid for September-December, he damn well better receive the service for September-December), but he hates throwing around lawyers, and this case would need one, since he was required to sign a contract stating he wouldn't sue the company before they gave his severance (which he signed two days before he found out that they ripped him off).

      He did tell me that he was told by a hustler of a salesperson that if he signed up for COBRA insurance, he could have access to his account again for the duration of the insurance. He laughed at them on the phone, since he had already done his research... their plan was about $1000/mo for medical and dental for husband, wife, and two kids. Not worth it to get back the $600.

    2. Re:It unfortunately makes economic sense... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      When you put it this way, it seems to me that the only logical way out without pissing everyone off is to separate "health insurance" into health and major-medical(-ish... some health issues can become major problems but should still be covered under "Health" in this case, otherwise Health would always wait until it got bad and then pass the buck... maybe "Medical Catastrophe") insurance. You get sick? Health insurance pays to make it better. You break your leg? Catastrophe pays to make it better. You think you can get through life without being maimed? Fine, don't buy the insurance.

      Then catastrophe insurance becomes just like "real" insurance, since unlike the health insurance, some people won't need any payout while some people will need a huge payout. Companies will need to be straightforward over what they will and will not pay on, if you've got health insurance that won't pay for a heart attack, maybe you should look for medical catastrophe insurance that will.

      It won't fix the whole issue, since the regular health part will still be a guaranteed-payout thing, but it's the beginning of a divide-and-conquer plan that takes out some of the most expensive parts of the problem.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:It unfortunately makes economic sense... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I don't see a great way around the free-rider problem you describe, but I see an OK way. Decide what the minimum level of healthcare we want for the poorest members of society. There's a clear benefit for society not letting this sink too low, with diseases being contagious and all, and most major cities do in fact have a plan so there are a lot of tested models to examine. Pick something and make that minimum level of service the national plan subsidized with taxes, then let people buy a good plan if they like. This *replaces* medicare and medicaid too, BTW, so if you want a better plan in your old age, save your pennies.

      The problem with this approach, of course, is mission creep. It's only a matter of time before this is seen as an entitlement to *good* health care, not just bare minimum health care.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  92. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by Edunikki · · Score: 2, Interesting

    America's level of borrowing is running at a higher level than of some countries it has forced to restructure their own economies (Argentina), the economy overall is seeing a reduction in employment, people have less disposable income and the jobs being created within the economy are of a lower standard than those being lost.

    Japan can't sort out problems in its backyard: they had the size of their military capped for 50 years. Terms of their surrender after the second world war.

    The American economies strength is largely dependent on exporting items, and I do remember an article in which American economists blamed Europe for their economic woes as we were unwilling to get ourselves into enough personal debt buying American goods.

    You are aware that the occupation of Iraq and the preceeding war were in violation of international law, aren't you?
    And, despite this, you still had a coalition of allies helping you there and still do.

    American interests are not the world's best interests and, increasingly, tend to run contrary to them.

  93. Reality check by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you need a more realistic perspective before you rant like that.

    For a start, I challenge your assumption about "most successful people". It's well-documented that working long hours for extended periods provides rapidly diminishing returns, and ultimately becomes counter-productive as the damage caused by mistakes made while tired takes longer to undo later on.

    About 35-40 hours is the most productive sustained hourly rate, and it's remarkably consistent across different industries and workers. You can get additional returns up to about 60 hours in short bursts, though they become less the higher the hours get. By about 80 hours, you're back to being only as productive as you were in the first 40 again as they additional 40 have cancelled out.

    Go ahead and Google for this, or just try this article for a fairly representative comment. There are plenty of scientifically conducted studies, right back to Ford's observations about the guys building cars in his factory. The five-day working week came about in much the same way, BTW.

    Next up, perhaps Mr Seventy Hours will be lazy rich in his 50s and living over there with a big house and car. The difference between us is that I will have lived for 50 years already when I get to my 50th birthday, and I won't die young from burn out.

    You don't have to bust your butt to be rich but your damn well going find out it is the faster way of getting there.

    Perhaps, but I'll take working smarter over working harder any day, and I bet I get there as fast as the butt-buster.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Reality check by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      An article by The Guardian talking about how we should have some more big government? Well, what a surprise.

      OK, the article mentions someone working 100+ hours in a week as a doctor (ironically, in the state run NHS). That's ludicrous and unsustainable. No-one should be working high-risk, safety conscious jobs for so long.

      Your 35-40 hours thing is simplistic, though. It's completely down to the nature of the work. Coding is quite mentally exhausting, but attending client meetings is a breeze for me. When I was a PM, I could do much longer days, as the work was about supporting staff, dealing with clients. Much less intense, but my presence and availability helped my job. The cap on my time wasn't about how tired I was, but what else I wanted and needed to do.

  94. Re:And what is wrong with that ? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    Man, imagine that, a world with only CEOs and nobody to lay off, what would they EVER do with themselves?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  95. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, yes, and the moon is made out of cheese, we've all heard that before

  96. true rate of unemployment by zogger · · Score: 1

    The government does not count people if they are past the time for receiving unemployment checks. they become non persons and are not counted

    The government counts as employed anyone who has even a minimal few hours per week job

    The real numbers are probably close to equitable between the US and France right now, once you filter out the econo numbers juggling BS

    1. Re:true rate of unemployment by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Informative

      The government does not count people if they are past the time for receiving unemployment checks. they become non persons and are not counted


      Won't this myth die once and for all?

      The government does not calculate the unemployment rate on how many people are collecting unemployment checks. Get that straight. Collecting unemployment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CALCULATING THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.

      The unemployment rate is determined by a survey of about 60,000 people.

  97. Shaudenfreude (German for HP sucks) by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    About ten years ago I got a contract 'temp' position at HP (Vancouver, WA, USA) to disassemble printers. My job was to open brand-new printers in packages and take them apart down to the metal chassis. The chassis was used to make prototypes for new models.

        There was no chance of my being hired, but I had to go to three interviews and take a drug test. And the 'job' was at the factory where the printers were assembled from the metal chassis in the first place. But there was no way that they could get the metal chassis from the assembly line before it was assembled, so the printers had to be completely disassembled after being completely assembled and packaged for sale.

        I'm assigned to a storage room with a million dollars worth of printers and truck loading port. I'm getting $9 an hour and was given the key to the warehouse with a lot of resellable product. But I passed the marijuana piss test, so according to H-P I'm 100% reliable and trustworthy.

        There's another temp working there also, way in the back. He'd been a temp for three years already as noone ever gets hired at H-P. No one who actually works there, at least. I saw the 'boss' once for 10 minutes on the first day. He welcomed me to the 'team', gave me the key to warehouse, pointed to the stack of brand-new printers to be torn apart, and showed me where the dumpster was. All of the brand-new parts except the metal chassis were to be just tossed into the garbage.

        Two months later, the day before Christmas, I get fired for:

      (1) 'stealing the brand-new floppy disks.' I took them home and reused them instead of throwing them away.

      (2) 'allowing the disemination of confidential H-P information.' This referred to the text files of the printer manual found on the floppy disks. The files that went with every printer sold. Any floppy in an H-P dumpster was assumed by H-P to be holding confidential information. Then why is in the dumpster, guys?

      (3) 'contributing to the creation of an environment conductive to sexual harassment.' I was lonely spending all day all alone in the warehouse tearing apart printers. I put a GIF file of Claudia Schiffer (a head shot of Ms. Schiffer in a evening dress, no porn) on the PC as Windows wallpaper. It was ten years ago and at that time having photos acting as Windows wallpaper was considered very unusual and special.

        Now I'm sure your corporate lawyer would give you what passes for good reasons as to why I had to be fired. But in the real world, it was all bullshit. I've never trusted H-P since then. I've never again believed any press release or 'independent' article in the press about how advanced of a company that they are.

        And I was certainly not surprised when Hurricane Carly came through and wiped out the place and then left with many millions of dollars in go-away money. Hewlett-Packard was FUBAR long before Carly.

  98. Re:Screw the French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, they did that 6 months ago when they fired Carly...

  99. How to get the best rates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so we wouldn't have to think about them ourselves

    Ever heard of "buy in bulk"? I can think about my health insurance just fine, in fact, working in a small company I have to, since every year the boss comes to us and tells us "these are how much they're raising the rates for next year, and here are our options. Everyone has to agree, or there'll be no changes and the increase will come entirely out of your salary."

    Even with only 5 of us, we can easily get better (if only slightly) rates (including the company-paid portion) than we could shopping alone. Just think about the negotiation power of a company with thousands of employees, some percentage of which will likely never make a serious claim on the insurance they're paying for?

  100. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

    ... 35 hours is not imposed by the government, its demanded by the people. you're seriously telling me that we should hate the french cause they have more control over their government then others?

  101. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

    i guess you didn't read the trade-off between job security and real life security?

    or inflation and employment?

    nice logical completeness, dude.

  102. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by argoff · · Score: 2, Interesting


    That's just the federal debt, which is a real issue, but when you count all debt like credit cards, housing, other bonds, etc ... it comes to about 44 trillion. That also doesn't include unfunded obligations like medicare, public education, for those add in another 40 trillion. That is too much to ever pay off, and this time we can't inflate our way out without causing the world to dump the dollar as the worlds default currency. There are also other obligations, like derivative contracts which have a notational value of 270 trillion. This is supposed to be a zero sum debt, but considering that the US GDP is 13 trillion .... I think that is very doubtfull. If you have just a fre defaults in the chain of obligations - the whole thing goes to hell.

  103. + 1, Funny by zbuffered · · Score: 1

    leave it to the French to settle in a swamp below sea level, anyway.

    I save my mod points for situations just like this one. They expired 8 hours ago. I am sad.

    --
    Synergy is your friend
  104. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

    4 years is too small a sample.

    what's been going on with inflation is that the dollar has devalued by a large margin in the middle of world-wide recession. europe and japan aren't in good shape either, so they devalued their currencies as well. to do this, they bought U.S. Treasury Bills/Bonds/etc from the Fed.

    you can get a good idea of inflation by how much money the Fed has to print. when foreigners buy so many Treasury Bonds, the Fed doesn't have to print much money, so inflation is contained.

    it is a temporary phenomenon that has been on the decline since February.

    there is also a few more things: the books are cooked. inflation measure (the 'main' CPI) doesn't include energy or food. also, it's not a level of inflation (prices). the Fed takes the prices and 'normalizes' the prices by converting them to some mystical representation of what those prices are 'worth' compared so some arbitrary point in the past. this means that you should not trust the CPI. what this means is very significant:

    say you want a Ford, Circia 1960. A good car, right? as good gas miles as a current car. dependable. and you don't have to bring it to the dealer and pay $1k everytime it hiccups.

    the car cost say $2k back in the day. can you buy it now for $2k? no. maybe $5k or $10k or $20k. furthermore, everything you do with it costs more---there just aren't that many people around who could maintain and sell you a Ford '60 because you can't buy a "new" '60 Ford. you have to buy a brand new 2005 Nissan. which, as you know, doesn't decline in price. when was the last time you bought a new car for $5k? you can't.

    but the Fed says "ok, well whatever the Nissan is better, so really you've saved money" even though you haven't. you can find this on Wikipedia. i forget the term though. so CPI is ALWAYS higher than it is posted. there are reasons to back this up: think how many things in law are tied to the CPI. what if the CPI goes up? then social security payments go up. labour unions get more benefits. etc. etc. we're talking billions of dollars here for a minor uptick in the CPI.

    anyway, if you look at the charts of prices since the gold standard was finally completely demolished, you'll see an exponential increase. an exponential increase in a few decades? yeah.

    do NOT trust the inflation numbers. the costs of inflation are absorded in many ways that are not accounted for in the mythical, abstract, CPI.

    need more proof? look at who's rich? it ain't your union boy. it's Wall Street, who makes tons of money not on trading smartly and better, but by duping your average person out of their money. it was true in the 1700s, and its true today.

    and i'm being honest here. i know, because i'm completely drunk, and i make my living in finance and that's just the way it is. the books are cooked my friend.

  105. Aid? to the USA?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you missed, countries lined up to offer aid to the US post-Katrina.

    GW said no.

    On a HP related note: I think upper-mgmt should be held to paycuts - each % of their companies workforce they cut = an equal % cut to their salary. I think a lot of those "redundant" jobs would suddenly be needed.*

    * - allowances would need to be made for off-shoring shuffles. You just know they'd can a bunch of highly trained engineers, then hire $1/hr tech support in a 3rd world nation

  106. Was that DEC's old Valbonne facility by ltmdweaver · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that was DEC's old facile... I mean facility (sorry about that slip of the pen) which got transferred to Compaq and then HP.

    Anyhow, my recollection of the culture (and especially France, was that, they have an expectation of a job for life regardless of the product delivered (or not) for their efforts.

    Sorry to be snooty, but it was my observation.

    mdw ;-)

    1. Re:Was that DEC's old Valbonne facility by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

      Nope.
        Dec had a facility in Annecy (not that far from Grenoble). Valbonne was in the south of france not far from NICE/CANNES. It was referred by some of us as the Holiday Camp. HP had an R&D Facility in Grenoble (Great for Ski slopes in the winter).

      I took my redundancy cheque from Compaq in 1999 and i'm now my own boss and loving it. Many of my old dead wood managers are still there. Where I worked, if you played golf then you were pretty safe. If you told it as you saw it then you were on your way out of the door.
      IMHO, HP is indeed in a death spiral.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:Was that DEC's old Valbonne facility by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      Not all French are like that (none of the family I know are). However, they have often expressed a similar opinion to yours.

  107. Re:OK: George Bush fought in 'Nam to save freedom by PickyH3D · · Score: 1
    Are you trying to say that it was France that saved the day in Vietnam? No, no, they sure did not. In fact, they were the reason we went to Vietnam.

    Please try again.

  108. In other news...Double standards making a comeback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well as the other poster said. They're doing better. Anyway if you were in any leadership role? e.g. team lead, manager, etc. Would you take a pay cut every time you laid off, or fired someone? Why not?

  109. let me rephrase slightly... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Your number only has meaning if you assume everyone wants to work. Thus it is less useful than the other figure.

    Yes, you could make another figure that factors out all the stuff that doesn't seem intelligent about your figure. But that would be basically admitting your figure isn't terribly useful on its own to compare job markets, especially between countries. Which is how this conversation started.

    For example, if I wanted to use your figure to measure the job market in Saudi Arabia, how would it be? Relatively few women work at all, and many many people who could work get money from the government and so don't. So your figure would be very low. So how can I compare this figure to one from another country, like the US, to compare their job markets?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:let me rephrase slightly... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's easier to take the participation stats and subtract people you want to exclude, measured by other ways (census, surveys, payroll taxes, HR science, etc), than it is to derive anything meaningful from official "unemployment" figures. And participation stats are available from other countries, in the same terms. Then you measure the filters in each country to be compared, like "nonworking fulltime mothers", "mandatory retirees", etc. That's why participation stats are so useful: they're simple, they're universal (without cultural or psychological factors), they're available. They're not the end of the story, but at least they're a meaningful beginning.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:let me rephrase slightly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I told you above, participation rates = (Employed + Unemployed)/Total. If you think the unemployment rate is mismeasured, then you must also think the participation rate is mismeasured. But don't let that stop you from explaining to everyone who'll listen how they're really different.

  110. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

    The bigger problem is that all of Europe has high unemployment. ,br>
    It's not that high if you do an apples-to-apples comparison instead of using the obviously skewed data the US policticians like to use.

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  111. Socialism Has Failed... Get Over It! by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    Or can't they build a wall high enough to keep them in?

  112. dessert topping/floor wax by zogger · · Score: 1

    If you go way to the bottom, it says they are not counted for the official figures. So you are correct, but so am I, because they are not counted. They are (mostly) classed as long term "discouraged workers", and are thrown directly out of the calculations. You have to both have actively sought employment within the past 4 weeks, as per your link, and also be in the survey, as per your link, to be counted as unemployed. Skip either of those two things, not counted. Long term off the unemployment compensation folks are heavy into the "discouraged workers" class of non persons, so I guess this is where that "myth" got started.

    Of course, this is further skewed by gray and black market "employment" and by illegal alien employment, so I doubt anyone has any totally real numbers anyway.

  113. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by SparafucileMan · · Score: 1

    ;)

    skewed in what way?

    i mean i am sympaetheic to baked data. but examples? for my own sake.

  114. MOD PARENT UP by WaxParadigm · · Score: 1

    This announcement simply reveals the local (to Europe) details of the larger (global) layoffs announced earlier, not a new set/round of layoffs.

  115. Umm, HP Contractors DO suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HP used to have good quality contractors. At least in Engineering. Then they instituted mandatory drug tests.

    Screw that. Any truly decent contractor doesn't need one false positive to screw them on their permanent record (and no, I don't mean HP's record). Any place doing decent engineering that requires decent contractors knows you won't get them if you make them piss in a bottle.

    HP's technical abilities went noticably downhill after that. And this was before Carly. If I ever see anything of technical worthyness out of HP again, I'd be astounded.

  116. These layoffs are actually good for employees! by papaskunk · · Score: 1

    Believe me, most HP employees couldn't be happier about this. Take it from my Uncle Gary, an engineer:

    I am extremely happy to announce my departure from HP. My last day is September 15, next Thursday. It will be a day of celebration!!

    In their effort to get rid of employees, an "enhanced early retirement" package (EER) was offered to those who met age and length-of-employment criteria (age 50 or higher, employed 15 years or more). I squeaked in. I looked at the "enhancement" incentive, which for me amounted to 10 months salary, tax defered. Deal. I'm outta there, and not a minute too soon.

    About 100 people at the Vancouver site were eligible; all but a half dozen or so took the offer. We're all walking around with ear-to-ear grins. Everyone else is saying "you lucky dogs". In the business group I work in (Imaging and Printing) 449 people took EER. The company is saying they will boot another 800 real soon. Then there will be another round of booting next year.

    This is the best thing that could have happened and it came unexpectedly. I doubt this generosity will happen again, and the employees left behind
    are extremely bummed.

  117. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    A system that has 5% unemployment vs. 10% or higher is more compassionate, is it not?

    That depends entirely on what provisions the government makes for those 5 or 10%. Sorry to get all Rawlsian on you, but where would you rather be placed, among the 5% of unemployed Americans, or among the 10% of unemployed French?

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  118. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    Companies are very reluctant to hire people if it is overly difficult to fire them.

    Nonesense. Companies have to hire people. Any well managed company hires people based on the minimum staffing levels required to carry out its work.

    The problem for companies comes when that number declines. In a workers-are-material legislative scenario, the company disposes of the humans immediately. In a workers-are-people scenario, the company must wait for natural attrition to take its toll, meaning that it must suffer reduced profitablility.

    Hence the rational preference for companies (and hence shareholding people) is a workers-are-material set-up, while the rational preference for working humans is the opposite.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  119. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Wrong. The US has severe underemployment.

    The service industry - namely, restaurant workers - is the fastest growing pool of jobs in America.

    The higher paying, higher skilled jobs are going overseas.

    Also consider these unintented consequences - with severe underemployment in the US, or severe unemployment in France, consumer buying power is crippled. Your company depends on customers. Take away their money and who will buy your stuff?

    Workers are your foundation. Eat your foundation and what do you have left?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  120. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    Sometimes companies layoff just enough to cut expenses to meet their quarterly numbers. If they let go 800, it is very possible for them to rehire half of the same group couple months later.

    US companies don't publicize rehires because they don't want people to think their HR is indecisive. Most importantly they know it's bad ethics to be playing with people's jobs and lives to compensate for poor earnings.

  121. Re: 35 Hour Wimps by RentonSentinel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You are like kooksville levels of liberal here dude...

    You can work any amount of hours you want in America! No law can stop you from working 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, or 80. However much money you want to make... its a competition.

    We aren't such pussies that we need the government to regulate every facet of our lives, like a bunch of feeble peasants. In America, you count on yourself. And this produces inherently more powerful people.

    You piece of shit.

  122. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by argoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know I sound like a gold kook. But, truthfully I would really rather have my money in google or red hat stocks, but not with the way things are now ( and their P/E's). The truth is, gold doesn't do anything but sit there, but gold has one thing going for it that nothing else has, it can't be printed out of thin air, crash to nothing, or default.

    A housing bubble is a lot different than a stock bubble. With stocks you typically don't own debt, and stocks remain liquid even when they drop huge amounts. But when housing crashes, it will bring down everything else with it, even banks, unless the fed prints up money - that's what I mean about gold.

    In my opinion the economy is not doing well, but is being held up by loose money and easy home financing. Now the stock market has been betting on that loose money using derivatives, and consumers have been betting on that loose money by going outrageously into debt for housing. The notational value of derivatives is 270 trillion dollars while the GDP is only about 13 trillion. This is making the margin calls of 1929 look like tight wads, but at least money was backed by gold then. And it's making the inflation of the 80's look like a 50% off sale, but at least the US could absorb a lot more debt then. There is no easy way out this time.

  123. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    US companies ... know it's bad ethics to be playing with people's jobs and lives to compensate for poor earnings.

    Bad ethics?! Surely the only ethical consideration for a corporation (inasmuch as a non-natural person is bound by ethics) is to maximise shareholder returns. People's lives and jobs should matter to a company only insofar as the company's reputation for good working conditions attracts employees who are better able to guarantee that imperative. If you are just hiring unskilled and easily replacable labour, the worker's lives shouldn't matter in the least (from the perspective of a corporation).

    On the other hand, from the point of view of good governance, it is arguable that people's lives should be paramount. Don't forget that corporations are creatures of legislation. They were imbued with legal personality and limited liability in return for the good they could do for society (such as engaging in works requiring massive capital which the 'natural' joint-stock companies were unable to raise). In a democracy (or a republic founded on democratic principles), it is the duly elected legislature, reflecting the will of the people, who must determine the limits of corporate behaviour.

    Apparently the voters in France feel that people's lives have precedence of company profits, while the voters of the US feel the opposite to be the case. All irony aside, however, don't expect companies to self-govern in this regard, nor to adopt ethical considerations foreign to their imperative of maximising shareholder returns. That's not their job, it's yours as a citizen.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  124. What I wouldn't give for mod points by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    That was beautiful.

  125. mod up please by brazenmisfit · · Score: 1

    this is an excellent point

  126. Sales figure by enployeer is greater in France by dOM75 · · Score: 1

    According to "Le monde informatique", Sales figure by employeer in France for HP (1.7 million euro) is greater than in the rest of the world (arround 500 k euro). So can you explain the reason of this layoffs?

  127. HP - the ink company by weg · · Score: 1

    I thought that HP was selling ink nowadays, I wasn't aware that part of the staff was still working in the IT area...

    --
    Georg
    1. Re:HP - the ink company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company I work for have just received a new HP NonStop machine. HP still do very advanced and interesting technology.

  128. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    also note that there's significant variation between those who are "employed". flipping burgers is not the same thing as having a decent 9-5 job you can raise a family on. of the people in france who are employed, how many have decent jobs? of the people in the US who aren't in the "unemployed" group, how many are basically living day-to-day?

  129. Re:WARNING: it is because the US economy is tankin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFA, moron. These 5900 European job cuts are part of the 14,500 worldwide job cuts announced in July.

    If the US economy isn't tanking, why are large US corporations laying off their employees in the US and elsewhere?

  130. Lets think about what HP is doing by Superdad · · Score: 1
    ... [Hurd said]...H-P has a cost structure that is off benchmark in many areas (WSJ 7/15/05

    ....Employees around the globe will be affected by the move with most of the cuts hitting support staffers. Those working in HP's sales and research and development departments should retain their jobs (The register 19th July)

    ....Hurd declined to offer specifics on what regions would witness the most cuts. HP, however, did say that HR, finance and IT support operations would thin significantly. (The register 19th July)

    [Hurd]...warned in May that some of HP's underperforming units would have to lower their breakeven point, leaving layoffs as an obvious out for management. ...... Hurd gained a fearsome reputation for his efficient, cost-cutting moves at NCR, which included offshoring work, shrinking support staff and offering retirement packages to longtime employees. (The Register 9th June)

    So, there we have it. HP, in common with many other businesses in the IT sector, continually and obsessively compares itself with others. They are the benchmarks Hurd speaks of, and they are the positive or adverse comparisons that drive the numbers game WRT structural costs.

    When HP and Compaq merged, they aquired several things, including a PC division and a services arm. But to continue to be a big PC player and/or a big services player, is a hard game to win at. ./'ers dont need telling about the real margins in the PC business, or who HP's competition is, but we can guess that HP really struggles to find any way it can win there.

    But now, services is almost the same. No one will pay for support on PCs or Billyware, no one will pay anything for Linux support, a few will pay a little for big-systems support, for so-called business-critical systems, and some might pay for an outsourcing FM deal. But none of those can sustain the large and (by 'benchmarks') costly services arm inhertited from DEC/Compaq.

    In all these areas the 'benchmark', is a cost of 'peanuts'.... and that is the target structural cost HP is trying to reach. So dumping jobs in a high wage country makes sense, as does the general trend to 2nd and 3rd world outsourcing which usually accompanies it. And if its PCs and Services today, it'll be Storage and the Big-Systems tomorrow.

    --
    The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
  131. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by wrf3 · · Score: 1

    The 5% of unemployed Americans.

  132. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    This is the old government intervention vs free market arguments.

    Many interventions would like to argue that consistancy is needed and many people hired have bills to pay and its not fair for them to be hired at will.

    Its the same logic as the feds setting interest rates to make things consistant.

  133. It's about France or HP ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    France vs US
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Bouzid0909.ht m
    result : France is poorer than USA.

    HP vs (IBM | Dell | Whatever)
    http://www.nyse.com/
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IBM
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HP
    result : seems evertone is lossing ground nowadays...

  134. Not as job-related as you think by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
    Your 35-40 hours thing is simplistic, though. It's completely down to the nature of the work.

    Actually, according to the research, it usually isn't. For example, coders and manual workers both come in around that level. So do managers, incidentally, although overconfidence in their abilities while tired is widely noted.

    Of course it's not a case of 40 hours or nothing works. As I noted before, gains have been seen up to around the 60 hour mark in some studies, though the extra hours offer diminishing returns, and the extra hours are much more productive if only worked occasionally rather than week in, week out. If they start affecting employees' ability to get a proper night's sleep, that's an instant performance killer, though, even in the short term. Managers also have to be wary of morale damage from expecting staff to spend more time on work and therefore less time on life. A discontent workforce is also an instant performance killer.

    On the flip side, I remember reading a study about (IIRC) a software company, which was trying a 30 hour week and seeing surprising success. They found that their staff, working around 9-3 each day, had time outside working hours to do the shopping, visit the bank or pick up the kids from school. Consequently, they were much less distracted during the time they were at work, and their concentration and performance improved.

    Really, you should read the research. BTW, I didn't mention that article because of the usual Guardian stance, but simply because it was one of the first links I turned up that provided several sources supporting my claims. I prefer not to post that sort of thing for a critical audience without at least some immediately accessible information to back it up, but Google is your friend.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  135. Ob .sig comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod me up before you go go
    Don't leave me hangin' on CmdrTaco
    Mod me up before you go go
    I don't want to miss it when my karma's high
    Mod me up before you go go
    'Cos I'm not planning on trolling solo
    Mod me up before you go go
    Post my story tonight

  136. About this layoff by ZedroS · · Score: 1

    Hi I've recently spoken to a friend of mine who's currently working for HP in Grenoble. He told me the reason behind this layoff is quite simple : the CEOs in the States want the high paid jobs in the States and the others... in China, no matter the real cost of the people working in France. This strategy is simply better for the investissors (lay offs : good for short term ROI). Why did he say so ? Quite simply because they're cheaper in Grenoble for some stuff than in the States (according to internal stats) but... but... it doesn't matter, HP wants these jobs to be somewhere else. However, for him and his colleagues, it's really not a pleasure to be laid off... At the end of the day, it shows, at least, that people should refrain to draw general conclusion without deep knowledge, or at least good research... Cheers, ZedroS

  137. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > Workers are your foundation. Eat your foundation and what do you have left?

    No, no, workers are a resource. Our employees don't get paid enough to be our customers. It's the OTHER companies that are supposed to pay people enough to buy OUR stuff.

  138. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    That still means workers - paid by someone else or not - are your foundation. Where will you get your profits without workers? Where? What are you without a gainfully employed population? What are you then?

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that most of our nation's job growth is in restaurant services and retail jobs. How are you going to sell homes and cars to more and more people earning closer and closer to $6/hr (moving constantly down from, say, $8-10/hr)? How can that possibly happen?

    The math simply does not add up in the long term.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  139. Nukular by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    You left-out "nukular-saying."

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  140. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    The hidden part of "maximise shareholder returns" is that often companies create an instantaneous appearance of high returns by immoral, even illegal, and assuredly stupid and unsustainable acts. This is done to increase stock price primarily, and to create confidence secondarily. The elite and insiders can then cash out on the temporary condition.

    Later, reality must assert itself and bad things happen, up to even ferocious legal actions and bankruptcy.

    Hence, the assertion of the primacy of "maximise shareholder returns" contains a hidden bomb that is exploding far too often.

    I found the rest of your posting particularly cogent. Good analysis.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  141. HSA isn't an FSA by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    As an AC, I doubt that you'll see this...

    You're confusing the two accounts.

    An FSA lets you put money into a company account to use during the year pre-tax, and get reimbursements. The incentive to the company is that they keep leftover money.

    The idea is that things like co-pays, etc., should be tax-neutral. In other words, if I pay an extra $1000/year to avoid $1000 in co-pays, without FSAs, I pay takes on the co-pays, so I come out behind. That encourages over-insurance to lower copays. Itemized medical deductions would be easier, but instead you can only deduct the amount over 5% or 7.5% or something ridiculous of your AGI.

    The cynic in me says that the government knows that a straightforward "above the line" deduction for health care would be theoretically the same as their complicated system, but "cost the government money" because right now, they keep the errors in estimating. i.e. if I estimate $500 in FSA expenses, and spend $1000, I only get the deduction on $500. The fact that the money is lost provides an incentive to low-ball.

    The idealist in me thinks that the government knows how few people itemize and therefore keep receipts, and see this as an easy solution.

    The HSA is YOUR money. You can withdraw it at any time (and pay taxes + 10% penality), withdraw it at retirement / 59 1/2, (and pay taxes), or use it for ANY qualified medical expenses.

    It's a federal tax incentive to encourage people to adopt high deductible plans, which aims to include market forces into routine medical decisions...

    If a doctor charges $150 for a procedure (under negotiated rates) and my co-pay is $20, I make a decision on the procedure based upon the $20 co-pay. If it is worth $20 to me, I get the procedure. With a high deductible, I decide if it is worth $150. My insurance still covers any MAJOR costs, but leaves it to me to manage the low-end.

    Basically, it creates insurance. If my deductible is $2000/year, I can put $2000 away in above-the-line deductions (pre tax even without itemizing), so even in years that I use my deductible, it is all pre-tax money being spent. In all other plans, at least SOME of the money is either post-tax (co-pays, or co-pays in excess of FSAs, or the company's keeping of your excess FSA money is taxable income).

    Alex

  142. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    Travoltus, you should just point out to these guys that:

    You can't eat paper or electrons.

    They are lost in the worship of the uberwealth provided by Hypercapitalism. The dupes, rubes and morons will continue accumulating paper and electrons as if keeping score exclusively mattered in the long run. And then they will find that you can't eat stock certificates or a website.

    Sad, really.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  143. Economic problems = dead weight loss by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    Right. Basically, there are economic inefficiencies in certain markets, which is called a dead weight loss.

    If a monopolist grabs my share of the "surplus" that isn't really an overall loss, thought I'm pissed off. :) Basically, if a service is worth $50 to me, and the "market" price is $20, there is a $30 consumer surplus. If the monopolist can charge $40, then I keep $10 in surplus, and the monopolist transfers $20 in consumer surplus to producer surplus. That "sucks" for the consumer, but doesn't hurt the overall economy as the surplus is still captured anyway. The problem for the economy is the people that value the service at $35, that in a free market would buy and get $15 in surplus, but don't by from the monopolist, and that surplus is just gone.

    Now, we can debate the role of the government in preventing the transfer of surplus, but at least there you aren't losing productivity.

    These free-rider problems, adverse selection problems... if it costs $250 in a group, but $500 for an individual, that is because the individual is more likely to be an adverse case, that also means that the non-adverse person willing to pay between the $250 and $499 goes without insurance, which SHOULD be available at $250 but isn't because of signaling. The person for whom it is worth $500 or more is "screwed" because the insurer took his surplus, but the overall transaction is neutral... he still was better off for the trade (surplus > 0 by at least some very small epsilon, it's worth $500.0000001 to him, for example).

    Beyond the political problems, any solution should be aimed to minimize ALL dead weight loss in the market, because that is money that just goes away.

    NOTE TO OTHER ECONOMICS GEEKS: I am intentionally ignoring producer surplus, because it makes it too confusing to explain in a Slashdot post.

    Basically, we can debate programs, but any INCREASE in dead-weight-loss needs to be realized, as this is national wealth that evaporates... the TRUE "cost" of the program... the cost of the program to the nation is the DWL, not the sticker price of the program.

    BTW: I philosophically agree with you with some minimum line. I also like the consumption tax w/ rebate approach, where people can a pre-bate (basically a check from the government) to cover the poverty line level cost of the taxes, so their net tax position is effectively 0. I am comfortable with saying that our society is wealthy enough that we can suffer some losses to provide some guaranteed minimum level of lifestyle to our citizens, that includes the ability to get food, medicine, and some amount of discretion for lifestyle. I realize that this makes me a bad conservative, but I think that it is "the right thing to do" and would probably be relatively neutral compared to the absurdity of messy systems we have now.

    If everyone (based on SSN) got some automatic deposit of cash, food allowance, and medical allowance, and all our taxes were hidden in some VAT, I'd think it was great. You are in the "national health plan" unless you opt-out, and your insurer files with the government to get your "allowance" deposited with them, and theoretically private enterprises can offer "0 cost" insurance that absorbs your "allowance" and offers something better/different. Likewise, for the poor, they can get physical "food stamps," while the rest of us have our banking system pull reimbursements from via the Fed/ACH to cover approved expenditures via credit card/debit card at grocery stores. Likewise, your pre-bate money... essentially your first level tax-free income, gets DD for those that use a banking system, and the rest of the people get a "Federal Bank Note" mailed to them that can be endorsed and used "same-as-cash."

    I think that the tech is here that we could GREATLY simplify things and have it be non-cumbersome for all. Those that use the financial system can ignore the intricacies, and the burdens on those that don't can be minimized. On the plus side, "taking cash" instead of a check and under-reporting income becomes irrelevant, because the VAT is already collected along the way... meaning people in the black/grey markets become tax payers, instead of just hiding.

    1. Re:Economic problems = dead weight loss by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oooh, I like the addition of an "opt-out" option with proof of other coverage! It's always important to remeber when discussiong the economics of health care that a certain minimum level benefits everyone, because it reduces the risk of communicable diseases, and because it's far cheaper to subsidize preventative care than emergency care.

      While a VAT makes far more sense than a national sales tax (which folks would just avoid), I'd rather have income taxes than income taxes AND a VAT, and since a government never gives up a mewthod of taxation, all this talk about a national VAT makes me cringe.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  144. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

    Higher productivity really does drive useful technology faster.

    Yeah, I can suuuuure see that "useful" stuff flowing into the hands of the wealthy or the seriously-stupid indebted middle class.

    Get over yourself. What's happening now is not expanding the franchise of the middle class, which was the very engine of the modern First World nation. Productivity gains are being essentially stolen across the board just to mint a few more millionaires. The middle class is tolerating this economic rape purely due to the stupidity of believing that THAT franchise will be expanded to include them. That's why I call these indebted-to-the-eyeballs middle classed idiots "pre-rich". Why else would they be "buying" $500K homes?

    Once they come to understand that they aren't rich, and as well will never BE rich, then perhaps they'll return to taxing wealth and corporations again. It may be a long walk from under the bridge to the polls, but they'll eventually get there. (Stupid fucks.)

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  145. Re:Emmigrate! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    Why should someone have to move from a country they love when all they are trying to do is improve it?

    If you can't stand to listen to other people express their views freely, maybe it is you who should consider moving...

  146. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    The hidden part of "maximise shareholder returns" is that often companies create an instantaneous appearance of high returns by immoral, even illegal, and assuredly stupid and unsustainable acts. This is done to increase stock price primarily, and to create confidence secondarily. The elite and insiders can then cash out on the temporary condition.

    I was not careful enough in choosing my words. Instead of the "only ethical consideration", I ought to have written the primary ethical consideration. Clearly there is a raft of ancillary duties (such as those imposed by law via directors duties), which a company must also meet.

    Maintaining the mere "appearance" of profitability, as you point out, does not, in the long run, satisfy the primary duty. If you want to talk about "bad ethics" (as it pertains to a corporation and its servants), Enron would be the most obvious starting point. Please take that as being implied in my analysis, I did not mean to restrict the term 'shareholders' to "the elite and insiders," nor to day-traders for that matter.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  147. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    More fool you.

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  148. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by wrf3 · · Score: 1

    I don't think so. There is greater opportunity under capitalism than there is under socialism. I prefer the American system because I don't want to rely on government to be responsible for me.

  149. Polarization by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1
    No one said that good statistics means things are good everywhere. Things are never good everywhere - there are always local conditions. These are, after all, national statistics.

    It's astonishing how often I get accused of being Republican or Democrat or pro-Bush or anti-Bush on slashdot. Everyone sees every fact through the polarizing light of politics these days.

    In fact I am none of these things - indeed I'm not even American. I just call em the way I see em, and if that seems to support one side or the other, well that's not my problem.

    I apologize if the facts don't agree with your view of the world. I'll try to do better.

    1. Re:Polarization by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      How about something as simple as this.

      The middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the poor and the rich are increasing.

      Your statistics do not refute that; in fact, a closer look confirms it.

      http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=249

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  150. Re:Which is Better? USA or France by hesiod · · Score: 1

    Yes, sarcasm is a dangerous tool when used with neither facial expressions nor tone of voice...

  151. Why Companies Pay Health Insurance by cmholm · · Score: 1
    How did we ever get into this mess, where your company provides your health insurance?

    In the US, blame WWII economic mobilization. The job market was tight, and employers had strict wage and price controls to deal with. Generous medical benefits were a payment in kind for employers to attract bodies. Postwar management/labor court cases reinforced the employment-based system. Tax benefits accrued. [1]

    Individual insurance costs more, because the underwriter is pretty much stuck with assessing your individual risk. You may think you're a big, healthy buck, but they may not. With a group plan, the sort you often can't get your hands on without a big-ass employer, the underwriter can make the stats work such that he can charge less and still get a warm fuzzy.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.