On the other hand, the right to life is a fundamental, human right - and that implies that everybody has a right to live somewhere, which contradicts your statement, I think.
The right to live is not the same as the right to live in a specific place. The former exists; the latter does not. The realities of the marketplace dictate that you have a right to live someplace as long as you can afford it.
I can't help but wonder how much better the ROI would be if this money was put towards California's urban transportation problems rather than fighting congestion on rural patches of the I-5. Even the infamous MUNI could accomplish wonders with it.
Over 80% of Greece's debt is owned by public institutions. The private sector banks started running for the exit doors in 2011 when it started to become obvious that Greece's situation wasn't getting any better. Also, keep in mind that most governments have far greater financial resources at their disposal than even the largest banks and also have the ability to raise more revenue should they need to simply by raising taxes. Private sector institutions don't have that luxury- they gotta actually go earn their money.
Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps? How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees (we're not talking about lazy drug addicts, we're talking about hardworking fulltime employees) when the company makes such huge profits? How does it help the economy when those employees can't afford to buy products that other companies manufacture and sell?
Or does it just benefit the 6 Waltons that are on Forbe's list of billionaires?
Why do you place the blame with the employer? They are merely offering a job at a market-competitive wage. Why are people willing to work for a salary that doesn't meet their needs? That they still have a hardship is not the concern nor the problem of the employer. If there wasn't a reliable source of labor at the wage they are offering then they would be forced to offer more, which is the real reason Walmart is officially raising their entry-level wage. (Which is also the reason so many companies with large low-wage headcounts are perfectly content with illegal aliens flocking over the border.)
That Walmart is profitable is a non-issue. Employees earn wages, shareholders earn profits. There is no direct connection between the two. If the employee wants a taste of the profits then they can become a shareholder. Some companies choose to share profits with employees in the form of a bonus, but that is purely at their discretion- it is in absolutely not an obligation.
How do you figure 60% of the workforce is impacted? Even groups that are advocating for a higher minimum wage put the percentage of impacted workers at around only 20%.
But even if that were true, they as a group don't generate enough economic activity to move the needle. They will be spending that money on basic necessities, such as food and housing, which means the cost for such things will climb to balance out supply versus demand. Additionally, industries that depend on low-wage labor will pass their increased costs on to the customers. All of this means the middle class, especially the lower-middle, is going to take it on the chin because their spending power will be diminished.
Telsa is fringe. Companies like GM, Toyota, and Volkswagen will all sell more cars in 18 hours than Tesla will sell in an entire year. That's not to say they aren't doing a great job (though their durability and long-term quality are both still questionable), but they are still a niche manufacturer in the marketplace.
Arrangements like Apple's and Samsung's may sound strange at first but it happens a lot more than one might think. I work for a very large French company that has its own in-house IT services group, yet my subsidiary handles the majority of its IT operations on its own, including using external hosting companies and service providers that directly compete with them. We can get away with it because we execute faster, with better flexibility, higher quality, and for less money.
BTW, controlling the manufacturing isn't the advantage some make it out to be. It's a very low-margin industry, which is why so much of it is done in low-wage places like China. If bringing manufacturing in-house had strategic value then you can be assured that Apple and any other company with a decent mountain of cash would work on acquiring such capabilities. Take a look at Sony- nobody is citing their in-house manufacturing as a key differentiator or advantage.
The freight companies typically own the tracks that Metra uses. In the case of the BNSF lines the freight company even runs the trains themselves, with Metra only providing customer-facing support.
I'm not sure what the benefit of this is? The benefits for making a stand-alone device such as a telephone PoE-capable are obvious. But if a device is not stand-alone and requires other powered devices to function, then what are you really accomplishing? A thin client requires a display to be usable, and a display requires a local power source.
If HP really wants to solve a problem for thin client users (I have hundreds of the little buggars) then they'll drop the price. There's zero reason these things should cost as much as they do. I'm curious to see how well a Raspberry Pi can function as one.
Rather than worry about the company, worry about yourself: do you really want the company to see your data? The computer assigned to you is their property and they have the right to reclaim that property at any time and for any reason, and they are not required to give you time to "get your affairs in order" ahead of time.
This will not please the Human Resources Dept. I'm guessing none of the execs or board members will serve as a reference for him when he applies for his next job.
There have been numerous proposals to link Metra to the CTA, the latest of which is the "Clinton Street Subway" plan. I agree with you that this is a concept that is long overdue, and I'm sure we could find millions more who agree with us. The problem, as usual, is money. When was the last time local government did *anything* on time or on budget? The CTA spent $250 million on the Block 37 super-station and all they have to show for it is a concrete shell that's been mothballed because there's no money to cover the overage. Metra can't even keep track of its executives' vacation time, as Phil Pagano painfully demonstrated.
That being said, I strongly believe that investments in urban transit will provide far better bang for the tax buck than inter-city high-speed service. Illinois is spending $1.1 billion of federal money to construct semi-high-speed service between Alton and Dwight. We're spending that kind of coin to connect a city of 30,000 with a city of 4,400 (in other words, $32,000 per citizen) and yet we have the audacity to criticize Alaska for their so-called "Bridge to Nowhere". That money would go a long way towards... the Clinton Street Subway, perhaps?
Speaking as a life-long Chicagoan I don't really care what the reason was. I'm just glad the games won't be held here. The benefits of holding the games are questionable at best. What is certain is that it would be the biggest source of graft and corruption for friends of Mayor Daley and the Chicago Democratic Machine since the opening of O'Hare. The city hasn't completed a single public works project on time and on budget in decades, and this would surely be a financial disaster that would run into the billions. And it would be up to folks like me to bankroll it, since, unlike the other candidate cities, Chicago did not have federal assistance or sponsorship. If you think the IOC cares one whit about passport control or swamping the locals with debt then I have a bridge to sell you...
It's an old monitoring app, developed by a female friend of mine. To criticize this service of hers would jeopardize my receiving other "services" from her. And we can't have that now, can we.:-)
Great: Windows Mobile can handle screen resolutions my Commodore could handle 20-something years ago. Ah, progress.
Seriously, has anyone tried using Windows Mobile for anything serious without wanting to send their device to an untimely death? I tried a VX6700, replaced it with a Treo 700w, and replaced that with a Motorola Q, all within the past year. I eventually paid (or, in all honesty, my employer paid) Verizon's termination fee just so I could get out of the contract so I could get something else. If you want to experience Windows Mobile, take a ten-penny nail and drive it into your crotch... it's about the same feeling.
I now have a BlackBerry Pearl, and - I can't believe I'm saying this - I quite like it. It's responsive, doesn't crash if you look at it, actually knows that it's supposed to charge when the power cord is attached, syncs with my mail, and just plain works. All the things a WM5 device does not.
Try having a monitoring program run amok, such as when a T1 starts flapping, and blitzkrieg your cell with thousands of messages over the course of a single evening! Unlimited is the only way to fly. (well, that, and fixing your monitoring app.)
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we know where all those returned Galaxy Note 7's are going.
On the other hand, the right to life is a fundamental, human right - and that implies that everybody has a right to live somewhere, which contradicts your statement, I think.
The right to live is not the same as the right to live in a specific place. The former exists; the latter does not. The realities of the marketplace dictate that you have a right to live someplace as long as you can afford it.
I can't help but wonder how much better the ROI would be if this money was put towards California's urban transportation problems rather than fighting congestion on rural patches of the I-5. Even the infamous MUNI could accomplish wonders with it.
Over 80% of Greece's debt is owned by public institutions. The private sector banks started running for the exit doors in 2011 when it started to become obvious that Greece's situation wasn't getting any better. Also, keep in mind that most governments have far greater financial resources at their disposal than even the largest banks and also have the ability to raise more revenue should they need to simply by raising taxes. Private sector institutions don't have that luxury- they gotta actually go earn their money.
Ok, since you have such a great understanding of economics, please explain to me how it's a good thing that the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans (that's 129 Million Americans) combined, yet pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps? How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees (we're not talking about lazy drug addicts, we're talking about hardworking fulltime employees) when the company makes such huge profits? How does it help the economy when those employees can't afford to buy products that other companies manufacture and sell?
Or does it just benefit the 6 Waltons that are on Forbe's list of billionaires?
Why do you place the blame with the employer? They are merely offering a job at a market-competitive wage. Why are people willing to work for a salary that doesn't meet their needs? That they still have a hardship is not the concern nor the problem of the employer. If there wasn't a reliable source of labor at the wage they are offering then they would be forced to offer more, which is the real reason Walmart is officially raising their entry-level wage. (Which is also the reason so many companies with large low-wage headcounts are perfectly content with illegal aliens flocking over the border.)
That Walmart is profitable is a non-issue. Employees earn wages, shareholders earn profits. There is no direct connection between the two. If the employee wants a taste of the profits then they can become a shareholder. Some companies choose to share profits with employees in the form of a bonus, but that is purely at their discretion- it is in absolutely not an obligation.
How do you figure 60% of the workforce is impacted? Even groups that are advocating for a higher minimum wage put the percentage of impacted workers at around only 20%.
But even if that were true, they as a group don't generate enough economic activity to move the needle. They will be spending that money on basic necessities, such as food and housing, which means the cost for such things will climb to balance out supply versus demand. Additionally, industries that depend on low-wage labor will pass their increased costs on to the customers. All of this means the middle class, especially the lower-middle, is going to take it on the chin because their spending power will be diminished.
Telsa is fringe. Companies like GM, Toyota, and Volkswagen will all sell more cars in 18 hours than Tesla will sell in an entire year. That's not to say they aren't doing a great job (though their durability and long-term quality are both still questionable), but they are still a niche manufacturer in the marketplace.
Every rapper in California is gonna want to make their next video there.
Arrangements like Apple's and Samsung's may sound strange at first but it happens a lot more than one might think. I work for a very large French company that has its own in-house IT services group, yet my subsidiary handles the majority of its IT operations on its own, including using external hosting companies and service providers that directly compete with them. We can get away with it because we execute faster, with better flexibility, higher quality, and for less money.
BTW, controlling the manufacturing isn't the advantage some make it out to be. It's a very low-margin industry, which is why so much of it is done in low-wage places like China. If bringing manufacturing in-house had strategic value then you can be assured that Apple and any other company with a decent mountain of cash would work on acquiring such capabilities. Take a look at Sony- nobody is citing their in-house manufacturing as a key differentiator or advantage.
The very study you cite stated that mass transit did not reduce the number of kilometers traveled by automobiles.
The freight companies typically own the tracks that Metra uses. In the case of the BNSF lines the freight company even runs the trains themselves, with Metra only providing customer-facing support.
Ouch... color me embarrassed for failing to RTFS.
I'm not sure what the benefit of this is? The benefits for making a stand-alone device such as a telephone PoE-capable are obvious. But if a device is not stand-alone and requires other powered devices to function, then what are you really accomplishing? A thin client requires a display to be usable, and a display requires a local power source. If HP really wants to solve a problem for thin client users (I have hundreds of the little buggars) then they'll drop the price. There's zero reason these things should cost as much as they do. I'm curious to see how well a Raspberry Pi can function as one.
Rather than worry about the company, worry about yourself: do you really want the company to see your data? The computer assigned to you is their property and they have the right to reclaim that property at any time and for any reason, and they are not required to give you time to "get your affairs in order" ahead of time.
This will not please the Human Resources Dept. I'm guessing none of the execs or board members will serve as a reference for him when he applies for his next job.
If BeOS had survived this wouldn't be an issue. Cores and threads everywhere! But noooooooo...
There have been numerous proposals to link Metra to the CTA, the latest of which is the "Clinton Street Subway" plan. I agree with you that this is a concept that is long overdue, and I'm sure we could find millions more who agree with us. The problem, as usual, is money. When was the last time local government did *anything* on time or on budget? The CTA spent $250 million on the Block 37 super-station and all they have to show for it is a concrete shell that's been mothballed because there's no money to cover the overage. Metra can't even keep track of its executives' vacation time, as Phil Pagano painfully demonstrated.
That being said, I strongly believe that investments in urban transit will provide far better bang for the tax buck than inter-city high-speed service. Illinois is spending $1.1 billion of federal money to construct semi-high-speed service between Alton and Dwight. We're spending that kind of coin to connect a city of 30,000 with a city of 4,400 (in other words, $32,000 per citizen) and yet we have the audacity to criticize Alaska for their so-called "Bridge to Nowhere". That money would go a long way towards... the Clinton Street Subway, perhaps?
Speaking as a life-long Chicagoan I don't really care what the reason was. I'm just glad the games won't be held here. The benefits of holding the games are questionable at best. What is certain is that it would be the biggest source of graft and corruption for friends of Mayor Daley and the Chicago Democratic Machine since the opening of O'Hare. The city hasn't completed a single public works project on time and on budget in decades, and this would surely be a financial disaster that would run into the billions. And it would be up to folks like me to bankroll it, since, unlike the other candidate cities, Chicago did not have federal assistance or sponsorship. If you think the IOC cares one whit about passport control or swamping the locals with debt then I have a bridge to sell you...
What is it with things named/called Caldera
He's still younger than my fourth grade teacher
If only they were this stringent about the code these machines are actually running. I guess it's just a case of see no evil...
If it passed the Swedish Elk Test then it probably won't roll over as easily as we think
It's an old monitoring app, developed by a female friend of mine. To criticize this service of hers would jeopardize my receiving other "services" from her. And we can't have that now, can we. :-)
Great: Windows Mobile can handle screen resolutions my Commodore could handle 20-something years ago. Ah, progress. Seriously, has anyone tried using Windows Mobile for anything serious without wanting to send their device to an untimely death? I tried a VX6700, replaced it with a Treo 700w, and replaced that with a Motorola Q, all within the past year. I eventually paid (or, in all honesty, my employer paid) Verizon's termination fee just so I could get out of the contract so I could get something else. If you want to experience Windows Mobile, take a ten-penny nail and drive it into your crotch... it's about the same feeling. I now have a BlackBerry Pearl, and - I can't believe I'm saying this - I quite like it. It's responsive, doesn't crash if you look at it, actually knows that it's supposed to charge when the power cord is attached, syncs with my mail, and just plain works. All the things a WM5 device does not.
Try having a monitoring program run amok, such as when a T1 starts flapping, and blitzkrieg your cell with thousands of messages over the course of a single evening! Unlimited is the only way to fly. (well, that, and fixing your monitoring app.)