"You are not required to pay "sales tax" on items bought out of state but you are required to pay "use tax". And you are not required to pay "use tax" on items you bought in state and hence already paid "sales tax"..."
Essentially, sales tax is the use tax collected by another party and sent to the government on your behalf.
"...but of course almost everyone just doesn't report it and hence doesn't pay it."
Of course, if your state has an income tax form and a place to report a nominal amount, you might want to consider reporting said nominal amount. That category seems to be a pretty good money maker for auditors. It's hard to argue with a paper trail like credit card transactions....
"Online retailers in Washington only charge the minimum Washington tax rate (6.5%) instead of calculating the actual rate based on your address. (For example, I'd normally pay 8.2% tax if I bought the same item at a brick-and-mortar store, but online I pay 6.5%.)"
That is not correct. I routinely order online with some vendors and am charged my local tax rate (above 8%).
Why do some charge the State tax rate and others charge the entire rate? I am unsure, although it probably has to do with their software and any agreements they have made with the State of Washington.
"You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax."
If so, then the best way to force a change to the system is to require the system be used by EVERYONE. It was my understanding that the taxes went to the State in question and it was THEIR job to redistribute them. Of course, I imagine that varies by State.
I realize that Slashdot is a diverse group of people. But the goal posts seem to keep getting moved on this topic. First it was too hard to collect the taxes. Then it's too hard to distribute them. Sorry, if collecting taxes is too difficult and time consuming, don't go into business. It's certainly one of the reasons that I don't want to start a business. If you feel that sales taxes are a bad idea and want to abolish them, that's okay too. But I wish people wouldn't whine about the difficulty of doing something when it is the thing that they don't like.
"As far as the pograms in Russia and the "Cultural Revolution" in China, both were done explicitly to persecute and eliminate through genocide specific groups of people who had a religious viewpoint."
WRONG. It was done to get rid of people who were perceived to be a threat to the leadership. Religious views (or lack thereof) were irrelevant-that there was a correlation between religion and persecuted groups was incidental. In other words, they would have been just as dead if they were atheists.
"There isn't necessarily anything evil or heinous about being an atheist."
Well, DUH! To see how absurd that sentence is, try replacing the term "atheist" with one of the following: black, female, homosexual, Jew. I doubt most people would write those out. Except of course for some religious groups.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. Religious people tend not to grok this; they think everybody is like them so atheists have to believe in SOMETHING.
Being an atheist does not predict or imply any particular moral or ethical behavior any more than does being religious (in the real world). But unlike the religious, atheists take responsibility for and have to justify their actions, good or bad.
"...the government of the States has done exactly what the terrorists wanted and it's still continuing to do so."
Actually, we have not. As near as I can tell, the terrorists want us to leave the middle east. We haven't. We have become more involved.
"The terrorists have already won and they keep wining because at the moment they and the government are working in the same direction: Away form the citizens towards ever greater surveillance and power concentration at the top."
No they haven't. They don't give a damn about our form of government. They care about our actions. This is a projection of YOUR beliefs, not the "terrorists".
"They're essentially using each other as PR agencies."
Very accurate. People in government are using the threat (as well as some useful idiots and well meaning people) to impose their goals and rules on society. This is why you feel that the terrorists are winning. It would be more accurate for you to say that the people in charge of the government are acting like terrorists...
"...the majority of people were conscripted (ie. kidnapped and forced to shoot people)."
I believe that would be called FORCED conscription which is different from a draft (conscription) which is assumed to have support of the people at some level. If it is forced then they are essentially civilians and not there by choice (fight or die). If they are drafted, they are there by consent (they can refuse). Essentially, it is the price you pay (choice) by choosing to live in a certain society.
Hell, in 1945 a B-25 Bomber hit the Empire State building. Fourteen people were killed. Significant damage. One of the engines went through the building. And this was an ACCIDENT.
The timing and location of the actual event was a surprise, not the actual event. People also need to understand that it can happen again.
"There's hard work, then there's doing this. But when you're talking about 10 hour days, with ludicrous packing quotas, limited breaks, low pay, and grueling intensive labor, we're talking about abuse."
I've read the article. And I have worked in busy distribution warehouses in peak seasons.
This is: long days, high quotas, limited breaks, intensive labor, good pay for the work and area.
This is not: ludicrous quotas, low pay, grueling labor, abuse.
I've worked harder, longer and for less pay in worse conditions and didn't consider it abuse. This is an example of people expecting an easy job and then finding out that they were going to have to work their ass off. And they weren't happy about it. If you think this job was abuse, try construction, especially laborer and roofing positions.
"Any competitive advantage which relies on the silence of thousands of employees earning nearly-minimum wage with no benefits, isn't."
Those amazon employees make more than most retail and warehouse employees in the US. Certainly more than the small retailers. They do not have benefits because they are TEMPORARY employees. And if they could get benefits, they would actually be able to afford them, unlike the others.
Amazon's treatment of its employees is a step up in the US.
"Personally I think it's disgusting and thought we had laws against that sort of thing (the 12+ hour days, getting fired for sick leave, overtime at normal rate, excessive quotas, etc) after the Walmart case, but don't know enough to comment fully."
But that doesn't seem to stop you from commenting anyway....
On the positive side at least you express your ignorance.
In general employers have to legally do the following:
Pay overtime for hours worked over 40 hours (non-exempt). Pay minimum wage. Provide a lunch period (probably at least 20 minutes) if you work over a set number of hours (probably 5 or so hours). Provide a break of at least 10 minutes per so many hours (generally per four hours). If you have breaks in your work time that add up to this time, you do NOT have to be provided any specific break time. A safe work place free from known hazards. No discrimination due to sex, race, etc. See basic work posters.
Various states have greater requirements. The best place to look for those requirements is on the state web page of the appropriate enforcement agency.
The following is not required: Sick leave Vacation Holiday Time off of any kind (outside of legally mandated FMLA, worker compensation, etc.) Yes, this means they can work you seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Insurance Pleasant work environment Reasonable quotas Etc.
Except where required by law, as noted above.
All of those nice things that people THINK they are entitled to are just that, ENTITLEMENTS. They were negotiated via (union) contract and became standard in the industry or are used to attract superior talent or are done because employers WANT to.
In any case, the working conditions described at Amazon are not bad. Pay is roughly twice minimum wage. Twelve hour shifts, six days a week at peak times would not be unusual-the positions exist to ship the product for Christmas. The attendance/break policy is somewhat petty but considering the typical warehouse/temp employee, not surprising. In any case, having worked in environments like these, these policies are often rather flexible (or ignored). And people whining about heaving lifting in a warehouse, well, DUH!
Basically people are whining that they have to work their asses off for $11 an hour. Most of the crappy stuff that employers do to employees is perfectly legal (and vice versa). Welcome to the real world.
"It's given to addicts to ease them off the real stuff."
Or more correctly, it gets them addicted? to legal drugs. You may not get the same high from methadone as you would heroin but it does have addictive potential and you do develop a tolerance.
It's a useful drug for things like chronic pain but its side effects are not always pleasant. And withdrawing from methadone isn't inherently any more pleasant than heroin. It just happens to be legal.
"You don't have the concept of routine annual medical checkups?"
Routine annual checkups are, generally speaking, a waste of money. Widespread screening for uncommon disease leads to overtreatment. Overtreatment not only wastes money but it can harm (and kill) you. This should not be confused with a diagnostic test.
The really difficult part is finding a proper balance. Breast cancer is a good example. For people with no risk factors, routine screening over 50 is a good idea (Costs and harms of screening are outweighed by benefits of cancers found). Under 40 is a bad idea (Costs and harms of screening are greater than cancers found). Between 40 and 50 it is debatable (Costs and harms are probably greater than cancers found). But if you had a lump at any age, you would get tested (a diagnostic test).
In any case, if you have the flu or a cold and can go to the doctor, you don't need treatment (generally the people most likely to seek medical treatment are the least likely to need it). In most cases, most issues resolve on their own quickly. General non specific issues are almost never treated until they become serious because they are so general. Going to a doctor generally won't help for those, especially if you have other issues that could explain it. For instance, chronic fatigue in a fit 20 year old may be significant. Fatigue in a obese, smoking, workaholic, 50 year old, not so much...
"The OLPC needs to be coupled with software that gives children a basic education with little or no teacher assistance."
Why? And if you could, is it workable?
Even in Afghanistan there are plenty of sufficiently educated people capable of teaching. Or learning to teach. Or assisting in the process. You don't need a low student to teacher ratio for effective teaching. If that were the case then US primary and secondary schools would be awesome and US colleges and other countries primary and secondary schools would suck.
If you don't have educated adults who support the education of children, how do you expect these computers to get into the hands of the children in the first place? Put simply, education is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. It is a social/political/economic one.
The OLPC is a waste of time and money. If you insist on technology, we have these things called ereaders made by many different companies. They can hold many books (texts and works of literature), have a long battery life, are inexpensive and are a known quantity. Humans managed to create our present state of technology with a centuries old learning system. We shouldn't be so arrogant to assume that we can do better.
"Now, when he proved several techniques that took Inner City kids from drug addicts to straight A students... who do you think shut him down? Kids? No. Parents? No. School Board? You betcha. (And that isn't knocking all School Board people...) Read the book."
Sorry, I'm not going to read the book. If it works so well there should be plenty of peer reviewed articles that you could link to. This whole thing sounds similar to alt-med conspiracy theories. A whole lot of woo.
"Both were great athletes, but DiMaggio made the job look routine. Even though he was equally capable of making the fantastic plays, his approach was more safe because he didn't have to make them so often."
Based on this criteria, DiMaggio was a superior fielder. It would be better to have a DiMaggio running your infrastructure than a Mays. Other departments may have different criteria (say sales).
Excellent people make hard tasks look easy. Mediocre people make easy tasks look hard.
"The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind."
Yet another person that doesn't understand the concept of bias. Lack of opinion does not mean lack of bias. Facts themselves are biased. What is reported, how it is reported and what is not reported will result in bias.
In simple terms, ALL REPORTING IS BIASED. The best you can hope for is accuracy in what they report and to be able to determine any systemic bias.
"You need to keep in mind diesel is basically a byproduct of making petrol."
Not really true. In general the two primary outputs from refining a barrel of crude oil are gasoline and diesel. Refiners will however optimize for one or the other (probably based on the type of crude they use, their setup, market, etc.)
"This means diesel is actually pretty cheap compared to petrol."
This is a function of demand. Diesel prices did not increase significantly due to the transition from high to low sulfur. They went up well BEFORE the transition in the US.
Diesel has a pretty constant demand in the US (used in industry and large scale transportation of goods). It doesn't get the wild swings in price like gas but it often gets priced higher than gas (people can choose to drive less, businesses, not so much). The only way it falls to a low price is if the economy tanks.
Diesel in Europe is cheaper (versus gas) due to the tax structure.
"Diesel is always a bit of a difficult thing because it requires the infrastructure available to fuel it and the US has never been really big on Diesel."
I am going to assume that you do not live in the United States and have never visited. Because I assure you that diesel is readily available at gas stations (though not quite as available as gasoline). I also assure you that there are plenty of small cars. I can also assure you that there is plenty of demand for diesels.
Possible/probably reasons for lack of diesels?
1. It was hard for diesels to meet emission standards with high sulfur fuel. So they couldn't be sold (especially in California). That is changing.
2. The US manufactures made some of the crappiest diesels possible when they first introduced them. I doubt they could have done a worse job if they tried. Americans tend not to buy US cars because of perceived quality. Now imagine if they introduced diesels.... The popular Asian brands don't use diesels. And the European brands that have diesels available don't sell well (expensive for Mercedes, reliability issues for VW). Sort of a chicken and egg problem.
3. Fuel cost. Diesel costs about the same as gasoline (often more, rarely less) in the US. Diesels also cost more up front to purchase.
"Unlike what people seem to want to believe, these are NOT the same engines we had 50 years ago."
Precisely. But their reputation is based primarily on what they were 50 years ago (compared to their competitors of the day).
"Dollar for dollar a simple push-rod V8 will outperform an I6 turbo, last longer, and get comparable fuel efficiency to boot."
But if the goal is anything other than low production cost then the old pushrod V8 starts to lose. Which is why its glory days are in the past (see above).
Slashdot Mirror
"There is a very simple reason why this won't happen, and it is described by a single word: eInk."
And you can't use this technology or a similar one for a notebook display why?
The only current reason is cost.
"Countless generations of sports writers and the enthusiasts who read their work would disagree with you."
Yeah, they will probably be confused by the extensive use of facts and stats in an orderly manner.
"You are not required to pay "sales tax" on items bought out of state but you are required to pay "use tax". And you are not required to pay "use tax" on items you bought in state and hence already paid "sales tax"..."
Essentially, sales tax is the use tax collected by another party and sent to the government on your behalf.
"...but of course almost everyone just doesn't report it and hence doesn't pay it."
Of course, if your state has an income tax form and a place to report a nominal amount, you might want to consider reporting said nominal amount. That category seems to be a pretty good money maker for auditors. It's hard to argue with a paper trail like credit card transactions....
"If a store started charging all of its customers the highest rate, I'm pretty sure that store would find itself in some sort of legal trouble."
Why? Or they could just call it a cost recovery tax or something like you would find on your cable or phone bill...
"That 1%, even if the company gave it to the government, is no longer a tax. It is an added cost of the item."
Precisely. Do you think those places that advertise "pay no tax" on your purchases really pay no tax?
"Online retailers in Washington only charge the minimum Washington tax rate (6.5%) instead of calculating the actual rate based on your address. (For example, I'd normally pay 8.2% tax if I bought the same item at a brick-and-mortar store, but online I pay 6.5%.)"
That is not correct. I routinely order online with some vendors and am charged my local tax rate (above 8%).
Why do some charge the State tax rate and others charge the entire rate? I am unsure, although it probably has to do with their software and any agreements they have made with the State of Washington.
"You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax."
If so, then the best way to force a change to the system is to require the system be used by EVERYONE. It was my understanding that the taxes went to the State in question and it was THEIR job to redistribute them. Of course, I imagine that varies by State.
I realize that Slashdot is a diverse group of people. But the goal posts seem to keep getting moved on this topic. First it was too hard to collect the taxes. Then it's too hard to distribute them. Sorry, if collecting taxes is too difficult and time consuming, don't go into business. It's certainly one of the reasons that I don't want to start a business. If you feel that sales taxes are a bad idea and want to abolish them, that's okay too. But I wish people wouldn't whine about the difficulty of doing something when it is the thing that they don't like.
"As far as the pograms in Russia and the "Cultural Revolution" in China, both were done explicitly to persecute and eliminate through genocide specific groups of people who had a religious viewpoint."
WRONG. It was done to get rid of people who were perceived to be a threat to the leadership. Religious views (or lack thereof) were irrelevant-that there was a correlation between religion and persecuted groups was incidental. In other words, they would have been just as dead if they were atheists.
"There isn't necessarily anything evil or heinous about being an atheist."
Well, DUH! To see how absurd that sentence is, try replacing the term "atheist" with one of the following: black, female, homosexual, Jew. I doubt most people would write those out. Except of course for some religious groups.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. Religious people tend not to grok this; they think everybody is like them so atheists have to believe in SOMETHING.
Being an atheist does not predict or imply any particular moral or ethical behavior any more than does being religious (in the real world). But unlike the religious, atheists take responsibility for and have to justify their actions, good or bad.
"...the government of the States has done exactly what the terrorists wanted and it's still continuing to do so."
Actually, we have not. As near as I can tell, the terrorists want us to leave the middle east. We haven't. We have become more involved.
"The terrorists have already won and they keep wining because at the moment they and the government are working in the same direction: Away form the citizens towards ever greater surveillance and power concentration at the top."
No they haven't. They don't give a damn about our form of government. They care about our actions. This is a projection of YOUR beliefs, not the "terrorists".
"They're essentially using each other as PR agencies."
Very accurate. People in government are using the threat (as well as some useful idiots and well meaning people) to impose their goals and rules on society. This is why you feel that the terrorists are winning. It would be more accurate for you to say that the people in charge of the government are acting like terrorists...
"...the majority of people were conscripted (ie. kidnapped and forced to shoot people)."
I believe that would be called FORCED conscription which is different from a draft (conscription) which is assumed to have support of the people at some level. If it is forced then they are essentially civilians and not there by choice (fight or die). If they are drafted, they are there by consent (they can refuse). Essentially, it is the price you pay (choice) by choosing to live in a certain society.
Hell, in 1945 a B-25 Bomber hit the Empire State building. Fourteen people were killed. Significant damage. One of the engines went through the building. And this was an ACCIDENT.
The timing and location of the actual event was a surprise, not the actual event. People also need to understand that it can happen again.
"There's hard work, then there's doing this. But when you're talking about 10 hour days, with ludicrous packing quotas, limited breaks, low pay, and grueling intensive labor, we're talking about abuse."
I've read the article. And I have worked in busy distribution warehouses in peak seasons.
This is: long days, high quotas, limited breaks, intensive labor, good pay for the work and area.
This is not: ludicrous quotas, low pay, grueling labor, abuse.
I've worked harder, longer and for less pay in worse conditions and didn't consider it abuse. This is an example of people expecting an easy job and then finding out that they were going to have to work their ass off. And they weren't happy about it. If you think this job was abuse, try construction, especially laborer and roofing positions.
"Any competitive advantage which relies on the silence of thousands of employees earning nearly-minimum wage with no benefits, isn't."
Those amazon employees make more than most retail and warehouse employees in the US. Certainly more than the small retailers. They do not have benefits because they are TEMPORARY employees. And if they could get benefits, they would actually be able to afford them, unlike the others.
Amazon's treatment of its employees is a step up in the US.
"Personally I think it's disgusting and thought we had laws against that sort of thing (the 12+ hour days, getting fired for sick leave, overtime at normal rate, excessive quotas, etc) after the Walmart case, but don't know enough to comment fully."
But that doesn't seem to stop you from commenting anyway....
On the positive side at least you express your ignorance.
In general employers have to legally do the following:
Pay overtime for hours worked over 40 hours (non-exempt).
Pay minimum wage.
Provide a lunch period (probably at least 20 minutes) if you work over a set number of hours (probably 5 or so hours).
Provide a break of at least 10 minutes per so many hours (generally per four hours). If you have breaks in your work time that add up to this time, you do NOT have to be provided any specific break time.
A safe work place free from known hazards. No discrimination due to sex, race, etc. See basic work posters.
Various states have greater requirements. The best place to look for those requirements is on the state web page of the appropriate enforcement agency.
The following is not required:
Sick leave
Vacation
Holiday
Time off of any kind (outside of legally mandated FMLA, worker compensation, etc.) Yes, this means they can work you seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
Insurance
Pleasant work environment
Reasonable quotas
Etc.
Except where required by law, as noted above.
All of those nice things that people THINK they are entitled to are just that, ENTITLEMENTS. They were negotiated via (union) contract and became standard in the industry or are used to attract superior talent or are done because employers WANT to.
In any case, the working conditions described at Amazon are not bad. Pay is roughly twice minimum wage. Twelve hour shifts, six days a week at peak times would not be unusual-the positions exist to ship the product for Christmas. The attendance/break policy is somewhat petty but considering the typical warehouse/temp employee, not surprising. In any case, having worked in environments like these, these policies are often rather flexible (or ignored). And people whining about heaving lifting in a warehouse, well, DUH!
Basically people are whining that they have to work their asses off for $11 an hour. Most of the crappy stuff that employers do to employees is perfectly legal (and vice versa). Welcome to the real world.
"It's given to addicts to ease them off the real stuff."
Or more correctly, it gets them addicted? to legal drugs. You may not get the same high from methadone as you would heroin but it does have addictive potential and you do develop a tolerance.
It's a useful drug for things like chronic pain but its side effects are not always pleasant. And withdrawing from methadone isn't inherently any more pleasant than heroin. It just happens to be legal.
"You don't have the concept of routine annual medical checkups?"
Routine annual checkups are, generally speaking, a waste of money. Widespread screening for uncommon disease leads to overtreatment. Overtreatment not only wastes money but it can harm (and kill) you. This should not be confused with a diagnostic test.
The really difficult part is finding a proper balance. Breast cancer is a good example. For people with no risk factors, routine screening over 50 is a good idea (Costs and harms of screening are outweighed by benefits of cancers found). Under 40 is a bad idea (Costs and harms of screening are greater than cancers found). Between 40 and 50 it is debatable (Costs and harms are probably greater than cancers found). But if you had a lump at any age, you would get tested (a diagnostic test).
In any case, if you have the flu or a cold and can go to the doctor, you don't need treatment (generally the people most likely to seek medical treatment are the least likely to need it). In most cases, most issues resolve on their own quickly. General non specific issues are almost never treated until they become serious because they are so general. Going to a doctor generally won't help for those, especially if you have other issues that could explain it. For instance, chronic fatigue in a fit 20 year old may be significant. Fatigue in a obese, smoking, workaholic, 50 year old, not so much...
"The OLPC needs to be coupled with software that gives children a basic education with little or no teacher assistance."
Why? And if you could, is it workable?
Even in Afghanistan there are plenty of sufficiently educated people capable of teaching. Or learning to teach. Or assisting in the process. You don't need a low student to teacher ratio for effective teaching. If that were the case then US primary and secondary schools would be awesome and US colleges and other countries primary and secondary schools would suck.
If you don't have educated adults who support the education of children, how do you expect these computers to get into the hands of the children in the first place? Put simply, education is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. It is a social/political/economic one.
The OLPC is a waste of time and money. If you insist on technology, we have these things called ereaders made by many different companies. They can hold many books (texts and works of literature), have a long battery life, are inexpensive and are a known quantity. Humans managed to create our present state of technology with a centuries old learning system. We shouldn't be so arrogant to assume that we can do better.
"Now, when he proved several techniques that took Inner City kids from drug addicts to straight A students... who do you think shut him down? Kids? No. Parents? No. School Board? You betcha. (And that isn't knocking all School Board people...) Read the book."
Sorry, I'm not going to read the book. If it works so well there should be plenty of peer reviewed articles that you could link to. This whole thing sounds similar to alt-med conspiracy theories. A whole lot of woo.
"Both were great athletes, but DiMaggio made the job look routine. Even though he was equally capable of making the fantastic plays, his approach was more safe because he didn't have to make them so often."
Based on this criteria, DiMaggio was a superior fielder. It would be better to have a DiMaggio running your infrastructure than a Mays. Other departments may have different criteria (say sales).
Excellent people make hard tasks look easy. Mediocre people make easy tasks look hard.
"Then you should patronize only businesses that don't advertise."
Yep. I wish him luck. Because I know of no such businesses.
Businesses advertise because it works.
And frankly if advertising has destroyed every great thing in your life, your life is pathetic. The phrase "Get a life" comes to mind.
"The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind."
Yet another person that doesn't understand the concept of bias. Lack of opinion does not mean lack of bias. Facts themselves are biased. What is reported, how it is reported and what is not reported will result in bias.
In simple terms, ALL REPORTING IS BIASED. The best you can hope for is accuracy in what they report and to be able to determine any systemic bias.
"Why do you think all of the teenage kids buy them and put exhaust systems on them?"
Because they are morons?
Because fools and their money are soon parted?
Because they like their car to sound like a lawnmower?
Hmm, I never thought there might be an UPSIDE to a vehicle with no user maintainable parts.
"You need to keep in mind diesel is basically a byproduct of making petrol."
Not really true. In general the two primary outputs from refining a barrel of crude oil are gasoline and diesel. Refiners will however optimize for one or the other (probably based on the type of crude they use, their setup, market, etc.)
"This means diesel is actually pretty cheap compared to petrol."
This is a function of demand. Diesel prices did not increase significantly due to the transition from high to low sulfur. They went up well BEFORE the transition in the US.
Diesel has a pretty constant demand in the US (used in industry and large scale transportation of goods). It doesn't get the wild swings in price like gas but it often gets priced higher than gas (people can choose to drive less, businesses, not so much). The only way it falls to a low price is if the economy tanks.
Diesel in Europe is cheaper (versus gas) due to the tax structure.
"Diesel is always a bit of a difficult thing because it requires the infrastructure available to fuel it and the US has never been really big on Diesel."
I am going to assume that you do not live in the United States and have never visited. Because I assure you that diesel is readily available at gas stations (though not quite as available as gasoline). I also assure you that there are plenty of small cars. I can also assure you that there is plenty of demand for diesels.
Possible/probably reasons for lack of diesels?
1. It was hard for diesels to meet emission standards with high sulfur fuel. So they couldn't be sold (especially in California). That is changing.
2. The US manufactures made some of the crappiest diesels possible when they first introduced them. I doubt they could have done a worse job if they tried. Americans tend not to buy US cars because of perceived quality. Now imagine if they introduced diesels.... The popular Asian brands don't use diesels. And the European brands that have diesels available don't sell well (expensive for Mercedes, reliability issues for VW). Sort of a chicken and egg problem.
3. Fuel cost. Diesel costs about the same as gasoline (often more, rarely less) in the US. Diesels also cost more up front to purchase.
"Unlike what people seem to want to believe, these are NOT the same engines we had 50 years ago."
Precisely. But their reputation is based primarily on what they were 50 years ago (compared to their competitors of the day).
"Dollar for dollar a simple push-rod V8 will outperform an I6 turbo, last longer, and get comparable fuel efficiency to boot."
But if the goal is anything other than low production cost then the old pushrod V8 starts to lose. Which is why its glory days are in the past (see above).
"...technology became too complex for the shade tree mechanic."
The technology didn't become too advanced.
The technology advanced to the point that you didn't HAVE to be a shade tree mechanic to own a car...