The US Navy and its protection of trade routes globally. The US negotiation of trade treaties that permit the sales of their goods globally. Usage of US Customs and US IP law, without which they would be undercut by clones globally.
The employer sees an immediate cost reduction from hiring a cheaper person. The loss of productivity of the turnover won't be felt for months. Existing employees are still gaining skills/knowledge, so they will mask the issues for a little while. Takes about a 6 months to a year for the negative impact to be felt, and even then, it is difficult to quantify (project that is already late runs a bit later, bugs that would have been fixed within a day with former employee take a week with lesser experienced one, etc.)
1) Kill them? Unethical, but probably cost effective
2) Do nothing? So wait until either they kill someone out of desperation, or do other actions that can drag everyone around them down. Respects them, but not cost effective, and relatively preventable.
3) Help them? Best option, but a fair number of people can't help (too poor themselves), or won't (for the same reason you would not). Which ends up being option 2.
Basically, unless you are willing to let people die in the streets (which by the way, who cleans up the corpses?), you will have to do SOMETHING, even if it killing them and tossing their corpse into a trash compactor.
You willing to pay for such a thing? Most people who would benefit from it out in the sticks don't want to pay the cost (either in taxes or to a private company directly), and often private ISP's have no interested because the ROI timeframe for such people would be on the order of decades, possibly longer.
Silicon Valley learned from older companies what happens when you let shareholders run the show entirely. Corporate Raiders, leveraged buyouts, asset stripping, golden parachutes (used to counter raiders, now abused by management).
Shareholder driven mean short term only, long term profitability be dammed.
Now, has tech taken it too far in the other direction? Probably. As for the warchests, no, those do NOT exclusively belong to shareholders. Shareholders are only one of many stakeholders in a company, along with management, employees, and customers. Investor money is a necessary but NOT sufficient ingredient for a company. If shareholders direct the company in a way that you lose all the productive employees, thereby killing the company, what was the point?
The existing company has already recouped their capital costs and often can draw upon other successful (as in they can stand alone) parts of their business to finance during step 1.
The new player has to establish and pay all the same capital costs as the incumbent, but must now survive long enough to recoup those costs. If they can't, their loans come due and they go bankrupt.
The only way out of this is for another major economic player to finance the new player and by proxy compete with the incumbent, which is venture capital today.
In general, the monopolist will come into being because they possess a unique leverage, either in terms of government backing (crony capitalism), innovation that leads to vastly reduced capital costs, or vastly reduced marginal costs.
The problem with Amazon is they, as a tech firm, possess massively reduced marginal costs (software has almost none).
What happens when you invest in financial advisers? They use models and financial data to predict what the markets will be, and an investment in them would suggest you are confident in their data modeling, which should allow them to get high returns (for those that use their services) and thus high fees and thus high returns to the original investor.
Please define "theft". If you include taxes in that definition, then such societies do not exist, since no large society survives long without taxes. From everything I've read, voluntary association scales very badly, at most a few thousand.
Funny, I could make an entire population violent, regardless of their morals or poverty, not hard. Also, those "barriers' were created after some fool took advantage of the lack of them and usually got people killed, and in the extreme cases, many people killed.
"When it comes to policy decisions, it will do the right thing, and lobbying won't have any real impact."
Yeah, this is the part people seriously doubt.
When lobbying is no longer effective, you have moved into far darker territory, where now, there is only 3 manners of decision making: Nepotism, whims, and ideological bent of the person in charge.
Dictatorships are also relatively immune to lobbying. Do we really want to end up there? Lobbying is bad, limiting access to your government is worse, since now it is completely clear the government will do whatever it wants, consequences be dammed.
In which case, the first private party that believes that have a large enough private force will subjugate you. As has been the case for almost the entirety of human history. If you want a productive economy you must delegate legal force to a singular party, otherwise it becomes might makes right. The biggest source of conflict is people picking fights they THINK they can win. If you dissuade them from using force at all, then everyone wins.
I'm fine with that, as long as those same Americans are denied health care at all times until they can pay, even at the ER. Until you do that, when they DO get sick (not if), I don't want to pay the astronomical price they can't afford (because they don't have insurance), when they have to take the far more expensive option at the ER (because they never thought they would need the insurance or didn't have it to go do basic preventative care).
Excellent, we can finally write off the 3rd world conservative states who can't fund such things. We liberals can sit back and enjoy the show. A pity we are forced to subsidize them for now, but at last, we have our future free labor from desperate states.
In terms of practical use, the information density means it is excellent for archival purposes. Consider how much space is used to store backups offline (tape or otherwise). I'm thinking things like Amazon S3 Glacier. Now, I didn't read the article, but I'm going to assume it is a bit easier to store these vials then racks upon racks worth of hard drives or tapes. Also consider the cost of moving this stuff, its smaller, simpler, and lighter, which means cheaper in many ways.
Furthermore, unless I'm hugely mistaken, this will survive an EMP with no ill effect, so that's an added bonus in terms of resiliency.
He uses the extra income to bribe the government. Regardless of how many regulations or how few, if the local judge is bought off, I'm screwed. Also my rich neighbor will pay far market rates for hitmen or lawyers to make me disappear if I oppose them, either physically or financially.
"If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?"
There is a reason agriculture is at the bottom of the economic food chain. I can choose to buy my food elsewhere, it will be just more expensive. Iowa being unable to sell its food, will have basically nothing.
This is a common argument against urban america "You urbanites need our food!". The reality is, no they don't, but the rural areas surely need the technology, transportation, trade and manufacturing. The real world examples of this in action is Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which can produce food on any scale, yet have no issues with feeding their populaces.
There is a reason the US and most of the developed world has steadily urbanized. In more recent history, see the mass migrations from eastern China to the coasts.
I would note that is also a product of demographics. If all the Democrats moved to the primary urban/metro areas in the US, then by default they forfeit control over 30 states, since the aformentioned metro areas are in a grand total of 10, maybe 15 states.
Consider how many states have less then 5 representatives. Nearly all of them that are not near another states metro area, went for the Republican Party (so in general they are large area, with minimal population).
Also consider the reality that the House of Representatives is now a tyranny of the minority (ironically).
First past the post also punishes Democrats moving to urban areas, since they increase an advantage that counts for nothing. The more wealth urban areas get (urbanization tends to do that), the less their political power they have, relatively.
In the end, the Republican party will probably end up having a strong lock on government, but the Democrat urban areas will dictate via economics to everyone else anyhow (California, New York and Texas routinely set standards that business follow and apply uniformly since it would cost too much to make different versions for the minority part of the economy, main one I'm familiar with is textbooks, but California environmental rules often come into play too).
Slashdot Mirror
The US Navy and its protection of trade routes globally. The US negotiation of trade treaties that permit the sales of their goods globally. Usage of US Customs and US IP law, without which they would be undercut by clones globally.
The employer sees an immediate cost reduction from hiring a cheaper person. The loss of productivity of the turnover won't be felt for months. Existing employees are still gaining skills/knowledge, so they will mask the issues for a little while. Takes about a 6 months to a year for the negative impact to be felt, and even then, it is difficult to quantify (project that is already late runs a bit later, bugs that would have been fixed within a day with former employee take a week with lesser experienced one, etc.)
Can't speak to the parent, but for me, I bank with a credit union, so having a second account for free is no big deal.
Ladies and gentlemen, our resident Libertarian/AnCap lunatic! (Note: some people like stability over growth).
Except in California, they can't get the Americans to work more then a day, even while offering WAY above minimum wage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/immigrant-worker-unharvested-crops_us_59508a72e4b05c37bb774d89
So what shall we do with said fuckups?
1) Kill them? Unethical, but probably cost effective
2) Do nothing? So wait until either they kill someone out of desperation, or do other actions that can drag everyone around them down. Respects them, but not cost effective, and relatively preventable.
3) Help them? Best option, but a fair number of people can't help (too poor themselves), or won't (for the same reason you would not). Which ends up being option 2.
Basically, unless you are willing to let people die in the streets (which by the way, who cleans up the corpses?), you will have to do SOMETHING, even if it killing them and tossing their corpse into a trash compactor.
You willing to pay for such a thing? Most people who would benefit from it out in the sticks don't want to pay the cost (either in taxes or to a private company directly), and often private ISP's have no interested because the ROI timeframe for such people would be on the order of decades, possibly longer.
Correct, non competes are void in California with some tiny exceptions, part of the original state civil code.
Silicon Valley learned from older companies what happens when you let shareholders run the show entirely. Corporate Raiders, leveraged buyouts, asset stripping, golden parachutes (used to counter raiders, now abused by management).
Shareholder driven mean short term only, long term profitability be dammed.
Now, has tech taken it too far in the other direction? Probably. As for the warchests, no, those do NOT exclusively belong to shareholders. Shareholders are only one of many stakeholders in a company, along with management, employees, and customers. Investor money is a necessary but NOT sufficient ingredient for a company. If shareholders direct the company in a way that you lose all the productive employees, thereby killing the company, what was the point?
Except that in many urban areas, you need 6 figures to do so. Most people are not making that, period. Let alone by age 35.
The existing company has already recouped their capital costs and often can draw upon other successful (as in they can stand alone) parts of their business to finance during step 1.
The new player has to establish and pay all the same capital costs as the incumbent, but must now survive long enough to recoup those costs. If they can't, their loans come due and they go bankrupt.
The only way out of this is for another major economic player to finance the new player and by proxy compete with the incumbent, which is venture capital today.
In general, the monopolist will come into being because they possess a unique leverage, either in terms of government backing (crony capitalism), innovation that leads to vastly reduced capital costs, or vastly reduced marginal costs.
The problem with Amazon is they, as a tech firm, possess massively reduced marginal costs (software has almost none).
Try seeing what Google maps says the time will be at 8AM on a Wednesday. It will be easily double to triple the time.
What happens when you invest in financial advisers? They use models and financial data to predict what the markets will be, and an investment in them would suggest you are confident in their data modeling, which should allow them to get high returns (for those that use their services) and thus high fees and thus high returns to the original investor.
Please define "theft". If you include taxes in that definition, then such societies do not exist, since no large society survives long without taxes. From everything I've read, voluntary association scales very badly, at most a few thousand.
Funny, I could make an entire population violent, regardless of their morals or poverty, not hard. Also, those "barriers' were created after some fool took advantage of the lack of them and usually got people killed, and in the extreme cases, many people killed.
"When it comes to policy decisions, it will do the right thing, and lobbying won't have any real impact."
Yeah, this is the part people seriously doubt.
When lobbying is no longer effective, you have moved into far darker territory, where now, there is only 3 manners of decision making: Nepotism, whims, and ideological bent of the person in charge.
Dictatorships are also relatively immune to lobbying. Do we really want to end up there? Lobbying is bad, limiting access to your government is worse, since now it is completely clear the government will do whatever it wants, consequences be dammed.
Seeing as C was backed by the poster boy of massive companies and one of the few convicted monopolists, ATT, I think it did fine.
In which case, the first private party that believes that have a large enough private force will subjugate you. As has been the case for almost the entirety of human history. If you want a productive economy you must delegate legal force to a singular party, otherwise it becomes might makes right. The biggest source of conflict is people picking fights they THINK they can win. If you dissuade them from using force at all, then everyone wins.
I'm fine with that, as long as those same Americans are denied health care at all times until they can pay, even at the ER. Until you do that, when they DO get sick (not if), I don't want to pay the astronomical price they can't afford (because they don't have insurance), when they have to take the far more expensive option at the ER (because they never thought they would need the insurance or didn't have it to go do basic preventative care).
Excellent, we can finally write off the 3rd world conservative states who can't fund such things. We liberals can sit back and enjoy the show. A pity we are forced to subsidize them for now, but at last, we have our future free labor from desperate states.
You also have no authority of expose any of us to your poor decision. So on the same principle, we sentence you to exile or isolation.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my (and my children's) nose.
In terms of practical use, the information density means it is excellent for archival purposes. Consider how much space is used to store backups offline (tape or otherwise). I'm thinking things like Amazon S3 Glacier. Now, I didn't read the article, but I'm going to assume it is a bit easier to store these vials then racks upon racks worth of hard drives or tapes. Also consider the cost of moving this stuff, its smaller, simpler, and lighter, which means cheaper in many ways.
Furthermore, unless I'm hugely mistaken, this will survive an EMP with no ill effect, so that's an added bonus in terms of resiliency.
He uses the extra income to bribe the government. Regardless of how many regulations or how few, if the local judge is bought off, I'm screwed. Also my rich neighbor will pay far market rates for hitmen or lawyers to make me disappear if I oppose them, either physically or financially.
"If Iowa wants to sell you food or if you want to eat?"
There is a reason agriculture is at the bottom of the economic food chain. I can choose to buy my food elsewhere, it will be just more expensive. Iowa being unable to sell its food, will have basically nothing.
This is a common argument against urban america "You urbanites need our food!". The reality is, no they don't, but the rural areas surely need the technology, transportation, trade and manufacturing. The real world examples of this in action is Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which can produce food on any scale, yet have no issues with feeding their populaces.
There is a reason the US and most of the developed world has steadily urbanized. In more recent history, see the mass migrations from eastern China to the coasts.
I would note that is also a product of demographics. If all the Democrats moved to the primary urban/metro areas in the US, then by default they forfeit control over 30 states, since the aformentioned metro areas are in a grand total of 10, maybe 15 states.
Consider how many states have less then 5 representatives. Nearly all of them that are not near another states metro area, went for the Republican Party (so in general they are large area, with minimal population).
Also consider the reality that the House of Representatives is now a tyranny of the minority (ironically).
First past the post also punishes Democrats moving to urban areas, since they increase an advantage that counts for nothing. The more wealth urban areas get (urbanization tends to do that), the less their political power they have, relatively.
In the end, the Republican party will probably end up having a strong lock on government, but the Democrat urban areas will dictate via economics to everyone else anyhow (California, New York and Texas routinely set standards that business follow and apply uniformly since it would cost too much to make different versions for the minority part of the economy, main one I'm familiar with is textbooks, but California environmental rules often come into play too).