That said, if the cost for those great things are that I lose my choice to bargain for myself and HAVE to join an union, I'd rather not have those things.
Quit Dunning-Kruger'ing all over the place. You really think you can do a better job negotiating for yourself than a group that (a) has more leverage and (b) knows more about the company and what it can afford. Now, there is a bit of principle/agent problem (where your goals and the unions may not align), sure. But I'd be surprised if they outweighed the benefits. As you pointed out, there are a lot of benefits that only unions were able to provide.
Also, you can repeat all your statements about, say, the city/state/country you live in (accomplishes good things, but mandatory membership; members vote to change things).
When the unions make unreasonable demands, people leave the unions because they'd rather have a paying job.
This is not what is being discussed. That's the reason people cross the picket lines once the union strikes (which involves leaving the union). However, the situation being discussed is when you collect your union-negotiated benefits and wages, and then decline to pay the union dues. It's a free rider problem.
If the UAW really was beside this, then obviously the Tesla employees do need th UAW to help. Because they wren't getting it done on their own. But the real question for the workers should be if the wages, after dues, arfe higher than wages before joining.
It' unethical to go into a job with a pay rate you knew was low when you signed up, and then threaten unionization to increase the pay rate; that's you threatening trying to break an employment contract you signed.
That would be like telling him "if he thinks government is doing a bad job, he should get involved". No, it's easier just to say 'something bad is happening, therefore it has to go." After all, fixing things is hard, and he cannot remember/imagine what it would be like if the broken thing were gone.
I really have no problem with union shops. I don't follow the philosophical object of people to them. They agree that two entities can make deals. Part of the union's deal is that only its members are hired. From where does the objection come? I mean, maybe you disagree with the union, but you have to support things that you disagree with sometimes... choose your least favorite government program or your CEO's charity choices.
"Area around me being generalized to entire US" is weird. I mean, look at all the coal mining towns drying up. There are a lot of news articles chronicling the death of the small town.
Housing in small towns has a huge glut. A bigger concern for small town life is the fact that they are falling below the threshold for surviving. At least in the US, the population could distribute itself in small town density and still have every person east of the Mississippi. Plenty more land to expand into.
I get supply and demand. What you don't seem to get is that Market Cap and Cash a company has for reinvestment have no causal connection. Well, Cash raises market cap, but losing market cap doesn't change how much cash they have for investment. Like, how would it change day-to-day operations at Apple if their stock price was suddenly 1/2 of what it was (absent the immediate firing of Tim Cook and the fallout that resulted from it - but if those internally motivated forces weren't activated because it happened globally)?
I think the idea is that competition would keep prices down - but it will be a boon to landlords in very desirable areas... until price controls come into effect.
That's literally crazy talk. First, the selling of stock doesn't impact the wealth of the company whose stock is being sold, unless they are planning to dilute equity. Heck, that should be sufficient. Heck, you can even just increase the taxes on corporate profits.
Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?... but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Ironically, yes. It was technically legal to host a private email server when Hillary did it (maybe violating rules that Obama put in place, maybe violating laws regarding classified information). It was made illegal after her, so they did bother to change the laws...
Well, they are secrets, which are only valuable if not shared. I mean, if I publish the information to drain your bank account (usernames, passwords, etc.) you still have them. But they are now devoid of value to you.
it ousted its founding CEO, Parker Conrad, over revelations that it flouted state regulations for selling health insurance.
In today's world, you don't sack the CEO for flouting regulations. You do it brazenly, and then complain that regulations are hurting your business model (See, Uber, AirBnB).
Someone down below the AC response correctly pointed out that I was speaking only about room-scale VIVE experiences. Artificial motion is nausea inducing. Room scale tends to work fine.
Sure, but a MacBook can tri-boot into Windows, Linux and OSX (heck, it could also handle a BSD variant as well). If you want a laptop, the extra $20 of difference between a refurb and a license isn't that much.
Oh, it definitely is a room-scale vs. artificial motion issue. I've not played any artificial motion games on the VIVE (why would I? I know they make me sick) - so in my mind roomscale and VIVE were synonymous. But yes, your distinction is more correct.
Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological
The Oculus, yes. The VIVE on the other hand, is usable. Literally dozens of people I know (including me) get sick in the minutes on the Oculus, but can be in the VIVE for hours.
I do like that Zuckerberg wasted billions on the wrong tech, and 500M more on Carmack's code in progress. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Apocryphal. In fact, Lotus PC-clones that shipped with DOS were considered unpurchasable/unstockable if Lotus failed to run.
Now, by the early 90's Lotus was no longer the killer app. But, I would check out wikipedia's article on how vital Lotus was. Here's an article quoting the Lotus team refuting it.
It's not a morality question -- Lotus was more popular and not having Lotus would have doomed DOS more than not being available on DOS would have hurt Lotus.
That happened last year, the last time a new person moved in. Yes, I live in a major city. I suppose those of us who live in a nice community want to keep it. Maybe you should focus on making your personal community nicer instead of trying to drag everyone else down to your level.
My guess is that putting "illegal" in quotes serves the same purpose as saying "allegedly illegal"; separating the reporting of the accusation from the reporting of the crime. If you report someone is breaking the law when they are in fact not, and you have no reason to believe so, it's actionable. A good reason to believe so is a jury decides/a settlement is reached. Since we have a presumption of innocence, typically news stories wait until then to employ more definitive language.
enforcement of one laws and ignoring the second laws
You're building a false conflation. Illegal immigrants get health care because we don't let people die in the streets. Illegal sublets have fires put out because we don't let apartments burn down. Both are subsidized by the city.
But even more pertinently, the rules you are objecting to in NYC is that they are not queried about their immigration status when interacting with the city government. I would chalk any costs there up to not living in a country where the government can demand to see my papers at will.
Would Microsoft have ever permitted WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3 in the "DOS Program Store"?
Microsoft worked really hard to ensure Lotus 1-2-3 worked seamlessly with DOS. They also worked really hard to have Office beat Lotus on merits. Now, they didn't have a choice - Lotus 1-2-3 was practically mandatory for a business purpose, and an OS/2 only version of Lotus 1-2-3 would have ended MS's dream of a DOS/Windows world.
Slashdot Mirror
Quit Dunning-Kruger'ing all over the place. You really think you can do a better job negotiating for yourself than a group that (a) has more leverage and (b) knows more about the company and what it can afford. Now, there is a bit of principle/agent problem (where your goals and the unions may not align), sure. But I'd be surprised if they outweighed the benefits. As you pointed out, there are a lot of benefits that only unions were able to provide.
Also, you can repeat all your statements about, say, the city/state/country you live in (accomplishes good things, but mandatory membership; members vote to change things).
This is not what is being discussed. That's the reason people cross the picket lines once the union strikes (which involves leaving the union). However, the situation being discussed is when you collect your union-negotiated benefits and wages, and then decline to pay the union dues. It's a free rider problem.
Or unionize. Why would "keep the status quo or break everything" be the only two options.
If the UAW really was beside this, then obviously the Tesla employees do need th UAW to help. Because they wren't getting it done on their own. But the real question for the workers should be if the wages, after dues, arfe higher than wages before joining.
I take it you've never asked for a raise then?
That would be like telling him "if he thinks government is doing a bad job, he should get involved". No, it's easier just to say 'something bad is happening, therefore it has to go." After all, fixing things is hard, and he cannot remember/imagine what it would be like if the broken thing were gone.
I really have no problem with union shops. I don't follow the philosophical object of people to them. They agree that two entities can make deals. Part of the union's deal is that only its members are hired. From where does the objection come? I mean, maybe you disagree with the union, but you have to support things that you disagree with sometimes... choose your least favorite government program or your CEO's charity choices.
"Area around me being generalized to entire US" is weird. I mean, look at all the coal mining towns drying up. There are a lot of news articles chronicling the death of the small town.
Housing in small towns has a huge glut. A bigger concern for small town life is the fact that they are falling below the threshold for surviving. At least in the US, the population could distribute itself in small town density and still have every person east of the Mississippi. Plenty more land to expand into.
Wow, ironic. R&D and reinvestments are a cost. So if you think taxing corporate profits eats into R&D or reinvestment, you need an education.
I get supply and demand. What you don't seem to get is that Market Cap and Cash a company has for reinvestment have no causal connection. Well, Cash raises market cap, but losing market cap doesn't change how much cash they have for investment. Like, how would it change day-to-day operations at Apple if their stock price was suddenly 1/2 of what it was (absent the immediate firing of Tim Cook and the fallout that resulted from it - but if those internally motivated forces weren't activated because it happened globally)?
I think the idea is that competition would keep prices down - but it will be a boon to landlords in very desirable areas... until price controls come into effect.
That's literally crazy talk. First, the selling of stock doesn't impact the wealth of the company whose stock is being sold, unless they are planning to dilute equity. Heck, that should be sufficient. Heck, you can even just increase the taxes on corporate profits.
Ironically, yes. It was technically legal to host a private email server when Hillary did it (maybe violating rules that Obama put in place, maybe violating laws regarding classified information). It was made illegal after her, so they did bother to change the laws...
Well, they are secrets, which are only valuable if not shared. I mean, if I publish the information to drain your bank account (usernames, passwords, etc.) you still have them. But they are now devoid of value to you.
In today's world, you don't sack the CEO for flouting regulations. You do it brazenly, and then complain that regulations are hurting your business model (See, Uber, AirBnB).
Someone down below the AC response correctly pointed out that I was speaking only about room-scale VIVE experiences. Artificial motion is nausea inducing. Room scale tends to work fine.
Sure, but a MacBook can tri-boot into Windows, Linux and OSX (heck, it could also handle a BSD variant as well). If you want a laptop, the extra $20 of difference between a refurb and a license isn't that much.
Or, you can run WINE on a MacBook.
Oh, it definitely is a room-scale vs. artificial motion issue. I've not played any artificial motion games on the VIVE (why would I? I know they make me sick) - so in my mind roomscale and VIVE were synonymous. But yes, your distinction is more correct.
The Oculus, yes. The VIVE on the other hand, is usable. Literally dozens of people I know (including me) get sick in the minutes on the Oculus, but can be in the VIVE for hours.
I do like that Zuckerberg wasted billions on the wrong tech, and 500M more on Carmack's code in progress. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Apocryphal. In fact, Lotus PC-clones that shipped with DOS were considered unpurchasable/unstockable if Lotus failed to run.
Now, by the early 90's Lotus was no longer the killer app. But, I would check out wikipedia's article on how vital Lotus was. Here's an article quoting the Lotus team refuting it.
It's not a morality question -- Lotus was more popular and not having Lotus would have doomed DOS more than not being available on DOS would have hurt Lotus.
Close: I bought a second computer, because the license fee was more than a refurbished computer.
That happened last year, the last time a new person moved in. Yes, I live in a major city. I suppose those of us who live in a nice community want to keep it. Maybe you should focus on making your personal community nicer instead of trying to drag everyone else down to your level.
My guess is that putting "illegal" in quotes serves the same purpose as saying "allegedly illegal"; separating the reporting of the accusation from the reporting of the crime. If you report someone is breaking the law when they are in fact not, and you have no reason to believe so, it's actionable. A good reason to believe so is a jury decides/a settlement is reached. Since we have a presumption of innocence, typically news stories wait until then to employ more definitive language.
You're building a false conflation. Illegal immigrants get health care because we don't let people die in the streets. Illegal sublets have fires put out because we don't let apartments burn down. Both are subsidized by the city.
But even more pertinently, the rules you are objecting to in NYC is that they are not queried about their immigration status when interacting with the city government. I would chalk any costs there up to not living in a country where the government can demand to see my papers at will.
Microsoft worked really hard to ensure Lotus 1-2-3 worked seamlessly with DOS. They also worked really hard to have Office beat Lotus on merits. Now, they didn't have a choice - Lotus 1-2-3 was practically mandatory for a business purpose, and an OS/2 only version of Lotus 1-2-3 would have ended MS's dream of a DOS/Windows world.
The problem is the exclusive app storefronts.