Semantics fail. The data payload moved from a source to a destination. Regardless of the initiator of the session, the destination, or recipient, is the downloader. The uploader is the source of the data payload. You don't need to be a network engineer or even particularly nerdy to understand this. Because you are posting on Slashdot, we can safely assume you are at the very least the latter of the two. Seriously, do you even believe what you just posted?
The people serving the data are uploading it. That they are also serving the content does not change that fact.
You are crazy if you think Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the financial meltdown. I challenge you to name just one bank that failed because an otherwise sound deposit and lending structure was undercut by anything other than the housing meltdown ruining their otherwise sound lending structure.
The truth is that the meltdown in credit was caused by the meltdown in housing; taking banks and the counter-parties in credit default swaps down further than the market expected they could reasonably go. This caused a panic in inter-bank lending, as no one could be sure whether any institution, even those well-rated risks, could be trusted. The meltdown had many fathers, but the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was not one them.
Blaming Clinton's lack of a veto on a piece of legislation that actually firmed up the banks that took advantage of the removal of the pointless regulations, allowing, for instance JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns. The major impact of the act was to allow you to buy a mutual fund at the same place you had your savings and checking accounts. The bill was not controversial, and was long past its time. It passed the house by...(looking it up) 362-57 and the senate by 90-8. It was no cause of the meltdown.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
I have a feeling it would actually work pretty well unless they are armed or until they are able to get their friends. The 13's don't really engage in 1 on 1 hand to hand combat too often. The again, what are the chances he wouldn't have a knife on him.
I'm just sick of people referring to any type of authoritarianism as Nazism. The display of a swastika is the German equivalent of a burning cross on a black man's front lawn. It is a clear incitement and threat of violence that has no place in a free society. I put my freedom to not have my life threatened, or the extermination of my race called for, FAR ahead of your right to advocate for it.
These symbols should not be banned because they are seen as insulting or disrespectful. No one has a right to be respected, or to be kept unoffended. But certain expressions are not offensive because of their ideology, but because they are so irrevocably intertwined with a call to a despicable act.
Flag burning is a denunciation of a culture. Wildly unpopular, but an expression of an ideology. This is an example of free speech protecting an unpopular idea. Flag burning while calling on your fellow protestors to kill the pigs is an example of incitement/threatening speech. This is an example of speech that should not be condoned by society. If flag burning alone ever makes the jump to an implicit call to murder, I'd support banning flag burning, too.
Free speech is not unlimited. Nor should it be. Burning crosses, wearing swastikas with brown shirts and steel-toed boots, listing the home addresses of abortion providers, these are implicit calls to violence of threats of violence. There are some things that should not be tolerated in a civil society. Germany has this one right.
Obama's plans would, however raise the cost to employers who don't currently provide health insurance by about 7% for every dollar paid in salary. They would also mandate that all but the smallest employers provide coverage for their employees that is the equivalent of the "New York" standard. This is to say that they must accept, at the same cost, any employee regardless of pre-existing conditions. These risk pools are great for those of us with a history of cancer or diabetes, because they force those of use without expensive diseases to subsidize those with such diseases after the fact. This has lead to a median health plan cost in New York of fully double what it is nationwide.
These costs would be fully borne by employers, which is how Obama can claim he is reducing taxes on 95% of Americans. He will force your employer to spend on average twice as much on the health insurance he currently provides, or 7% of every dollar he pays you. Just like the 6% employer social security tax, these costs are borne by the employees. Because it's indirect, no one is complaining that Obama would double the cost of the average health care plan in order to socialize the costs for the most expensive users of scarce resources.
Insurance cannot function unless the average input is equal to or greater than the expected value of that input. Obama's plan is a greater transfer of wealth, in the form of limited social services, to those who are currently the least insurable. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on whether you think this country has too much socialism or too much personal responsibility.
The U.S. government doesn't have a monopoly on mail delivery specifically because it is not given taxpayer funding. It is wholly self sufficient, and already competes with the UPS's and FedEx's of the world. It isn't a monopoly, but it is a competitor. If it were subsidized, say in the name of affordable communication for the less well off, FedEx and UPS would not be able to compete on price, only reliability. As it is, we have government competing where it must provide value to the end-users above and beyond what FedEx or UPS provides, or go under.
This is analogous to the state schools vs. private schools competition we would see if we extended similar levels or per-pupil funding to private schools, or abolished public funding for public schools. The USPS would actually not be a bad model for school reform if you really wanted to breed "public"/private competition.
Maybe you've never lived on food stamps, as I have, but when you are poor enough to qualify for government food aid, you get plenty of food. You'd probably also qualify for Medicaid. If you make enough not to qualify for medicaid/food aid, there's a very good chance you could restrict your spending to such a level that you could afford a high deductible health plan on your own, paying for routine expenses up to say $4,000 a year completely on your own.
This is especially true if you are currently healthy. If you are not healthy your expected costs rise, and those costs MUST be borne by someone. Which means getting insurance when you are already sick costs more. The alternative is charging everyone who is healthy more for their insurance.
I wouldn't call discrimination on the basis of something that has an actual impact unfair. Maybe it's unfortunate, but I surely wouldn't think it fair for me (healthy 24-year old) to pay approximately 3 times the cost for insurance, because everyone paying the same regardless of risk/preexisting conditions is mandated. Or my boss (small business with approximately 50 employees) having to expand health care coverage to cover things that we were all willing to work without (e.g. optional dental/vision, long-term care) at a cost of twice the current national average.
The fairest system is one where the costs are borne by those who receive the benefits. You might make the argument that in a socialized healthcare system we all receive the benefits. I agree. That would not be fundamentally unfair. But it would shift the burden of choice and responsibility away from me personally and onto society as a whole. I'd prefer freedom and responsibility to regulation and socialized costs.
Well that means you can afford insurance, a system in which you pay another party more than the expected value of whatever you want to protect yourself against, in order to protect yourself from personally bearing the responsibility for something with an even worse expected value from happening. I guess that means we already have socialism, right? I guess the difference is now it's voluntary.
And, as an actual question, is there such a thing as insurance coverage you can get wherein your rate is constant/market adjusted for all participants for any medical problems that are diagnosed while you are covered? Perhaps some sort of "group plan" for individuals. I know there are high risk pools that do this, but are there larger ones that price on the basis of your individual level of health as you join? If not, what keeps these types of plans from being unprofitable?
If my doctor made me wait for over an hour for every appointment, I'd fire him and get a new one. Capitalism works right when people exercise their own choices. Doctors in America already rarely have to compete on price, as must of their patients never know how much they're paying before they seek treatment, so you can effectively force them to compete on service.
Hey he did much worse than imprisoning people for who their ancestors were, he also imprisoned people below the poverty line for growing their own food. Forced starvation: socialism style. When doing work on your own to feed yourself and your family is a crime, your country is run by totalitarian fascists.
If that were instituted, I guess we'd have a one time confiscation of assets, then all the people who are able to produce more than 250k a year moving to Canada, eh? I know I I could make 140$ an hour before taxes, I wouldn't work somewhere I could only make 7$ an hour after taxes for the last 3 years of the month... Maybe an annual 3 month vacation, but no way I'd contribute 95% of my earnings to that kind of society.
It sounds to me like you want to thank the Repubs for making what you think is the right choice for the right reasons, and thank the Dems for making the right choice because what they wanted didn't contain enough socialism (e.g. housing subsidy, cram-downs, ACORN money, distressed homebuyer assistance).
Consumption doesn't build wealth. That's why wars are bad for economies and roads are good. Wealth is not in the amount of money spent, but in the amount of goods produced. We can disagree on what aligns the incentives correctly for production, but I'd argue that having a large middle class (e.g. America) naturally comes about from a predominantly free market society.
Having wealth redistribution, while necessary to a small degree for a functioning society, as in no one starving on the streets so the rich get to keep their rightfully earned golden toilets, is by definition a tax on the most productive, to the less. As such it is an incentive in the wrong direction, and should be kept to the minimum that our society agrees is necessary for the humane treatment of those who do not or cannot provide for themselves.
I have no clue what it actually means to have nothing? I was raised in the public housing projects. I was fed on WIC. I didn't set foot in an Old Navy until I was 18, because stores like that were too high end. I was happy when I got to go to the K-mart instead of the Goodwill.
So to say I don't know what it means to have nothing: as far as this society goes, I do know what it means. As far as what people in many 3rd world dictatorships with a fraction of the freedom and trade we have, I guess you're right. Which was my entire point. Nothing here is a whole lot better than nothing just about everywhere else in the world.
If inequality is the price to pay for universal abundance, I'm for it.
But opposing something on principle not because it violates a principle, but because a more extreme version of it would violate a principle doesn't make much sense. I'd support until the point it makes sense to oppose it. I'd argue that employers should be required to meet very basic standards as society deems necessary, but that as much latitude as is practical should be provided.
For instance, society has agreed that children 14 and under generally cannot work. Society has also generally agreed that certain types of work should not be allowed (e.g. hitman, prostitute, drug dealer). Society has further agreed that a minimum wage be established for workers, one that is intended to ensure that anyone employed full time will be able to meet their own basic needs.
I don't believe society should restrict the ability of anyone operating above this minimum wage from earning what the market will bear. I understand that the minimum wage, like laws against drug dealing and prostitution results in some people not being able to legally find work. I support these laws because they protect what we have agreed to make tenets of our social contract. I do not believe that the 40 hour work week needs to be part of our social contract. I do believe that individuals and corporations should be generally free to pursue their own best interests.
I see your point, but think we should only fight the fights worth fighting, not the ones that could lead to them.
It's your choice. One of the great things about the U.S. is that we have a federalist democracy. If you prefer the greater community feeling that comes with more social programs, you can live in CA, Vermont, or Massachusetts. If you prefer to live and let live, you can live in Texas, Alaska, or Montana.
You realize that in "standard of living" the UN only considered GDP per capita, in which the U.S. is second to Luxembourg. The U.S., by the "standard of living" measure was #2. In the Human Development Index, we are 12th. This index takes into account average life expectancy at birth, literacy rate, school enrollment rate, and GDP. See page 356 for an explanation of how the U.N. calculates this.
Our life expectancy is about 4 years less. Our school enrollment/literacy rate is lower than ideal. But our standard of living comes in second place out of every nation in the world, and that's not bad.
I happen to prefer the "you're on your own" model, where only a very minimal safety net is provided (e.g. food, shelter, possibly unskilled labor opportunity) to meet the basic humane treatment of others. Where mandatory health care and socialized/mandatory secondary schooling, might extend our life expectancy and enrollment rates by enough to pull us to #1 in the UN's HDI ratings, I would not support such changes on the grounds that a free society in and of itself holds value. I say I'll keep advocating to make our nation more like Montana, and you keep advocating to make our nation more like Vermont.
The rank and file of the financial firms that this bailout is saving give to Democrats over Republicans by a wide margin. This bailout, however is not for the good of the financial firms. It is not (or at least shouldn't be) about saving the homes of people who cannot afford their mortgages. It is to restore liquidity to the credit markets that are, as of now, grinding painfully slowly.
The current bailout plan is a bipartisan effort, proposed by Republican President Bush, amended and supported by the Democratic house majority, and opposed by the Republican house minority.
The Democrats want to pass a bipartisan bill, but they are unwilling to make the types of concessions House Republicans are demanding. The Republicans want to pass a bailout, but not one with such a heavy degree of taxpayer commitment, or socialization/nationalization. The hangup is about whether it is more important to pass a bipartisan bill (Dems+McCain) or to limit government involvement (Boehner+House Repubs).
I'd say it's more along the lines of Republicans believe we live in a meritocracy, Democrats believe we live in an inherited oligarchy, or at least a class stratified society. If you don't believe personal effort is all that's keeping you from being insanely, filthy rich, why would you waste your time in entrepreneurship? Conversely, If you don't believe you have any responsibility to help feed a larger machine than your Randian self-interest, why would you join a corporation?
And, believe it or not, he should get your job if he can do it better than you. Even if he's Mexican/Indian. *GASP* An employer should have the same rights to act in their own best interests as an employee. And I say this as an employee.
This isn't a safety or human dignity issue. This is a contract issue. And it is a sorely needed clarification in who is eligible for overtime. The law change says that any computer professional earning over 75k a year is not required to be paid overtime. If you think that this means working for free, you're mistaken.
What it means is that computer professionals who want overtime must negotiate that themselves. If you do not negotiate it, you are not required to be granted it. Does a lawyer, doctor, accountant, or architect work for free? No, and whatever hours they work are considered to be part of the job. Everyone will pursue their own interests here, and for many that will mean the end of overtime. If labor is already properly valued, the end of overtime will mean an increase in base pay.
To say that support of the legislature's action means that someone believes "that if I work for you and you don't pay me I shouldn't be able to sue you" is dishonest. Support means that we should be able to agree what your pay will be based on, provided I pay you at least 75k a year.
It could be billable hours, instead of hours worked. It could be a merit bonus schedule. It could be primarily stock options. It could be the joy of not getting fired. As long as the base pay is 75k, the government of CA has decided to stay out of it, and let you and I decide for ourselves. This is a change that will increase efficiency overall, and I support it.
Slashdot Mirror
Semantics fail. The data payload moved from a source to a destination. Regardless of the initiator of the session, the destination, or recipient, is the downloader. The uploader is the source of the data payload. You don't need to be a network engineer or even particularly nerdy to understand this. Because you are posting on Slashdot, we can safely assume you are at the very least the latter of the two. Seriously, do you even believe what you just posted?
The people serving the data are uploading it. That they are also serving the content does not change that fact.
You are crazy if you think Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the financial meltdown. I challenge you to name just one bank that failed because an otherwise sound deposit and lending structure was undercut by anything other than the housing meltdown ruining their otherwise sound lending structure.
The truth is that the meltdown in credit was caused by the meltdown in housing; taking banks and the counter-parties in credit default swaps down further than the market expected they could reasonably go. This caused a panic in inter-bank lending, as no one could be sure whether any institution, even those well-rated risks, could be trusted. The meltdown had many fathers, but the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was not one them.
Blaming Clinton's lack of a veto on a piece of legislation that actually firmed up the banks that took advantage of the removal of the pointless regulations, allowing, for instance JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns. The major impact of the act was to allow you to buy a mutual fund at the same place you had your savings and checking accounts. The bill was not controversial, and was long past its time. It passed the house by...(looking it up) 362-57 and the senate by 90-8. It was no cause of the meltdown. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
I have a feeling it would actually work pretty well unless they are armed or until they are able to get their friends. The 13's don't really engage in 1 on 1 hand to hand combat too often. The again, what are the chances he wouldn't have a knife on him.
I'm just sick of people referring to any type of authoritarianism as Nazism. The display of a swastika is the German equivalent of a burning cross on a black man's front lawn. It is a clear incitement and threat of violence that has no place in a free society. I put my freedom to not have my life threatened, or the extermination of my race called for, FAR ahead of your right to advocate for it.
These symbols should not be banned because they are seen as insulting or disrespectful. No one has a right to be respected, or to be kept unoffended. But certain expressions are not offensive because of their ideology, but because they are so irrevocably intertwined with a call to a despicable act.
Flag burning is a denunciation of a culture. Wildly unpopular, but an expression of an ideology. This is an example of free speech protecting an unpopular idea. Flag burning while calling on your fellow protestors to kill the pigs is an example of incitement/threatening speech. This is an example of speech that should not be condoned by society. If flag burning alone ever makes the jump to an implicit call to murder, I'd support banning flag burning, too.
Free speech is not unlimited. Nor should it be. Burning crosses, wearing swastikas with brown shirts and steel-toed boots, listing the home addresses of abortion providers, these are implicit calls to violence of threats of violence. There are some things that should not be tolerated in a civil society. Germany has this one right.
Obama's plans would, however raise the cost to employers who don't currently provide health insurance by about 7% for every dollar paid in salary. They would also mandate that all but the smallest employers provide coverage for their employees that is the equivalent of the "New York" standard. This is to say that they must accept, at the same cost, any employee regardless of pre-existing conditions. These risk pools are great for those of us with a history of cancer or diabetes, because they force those of use without expensive diseases to subsidize those with such diseases after the fact. This has lead to a median health plan cost in New York of fully double what it is nationwide.
These costs would be fully borne by employers, which is how Obama can claim he is reducing taxes on 95% of Americans. He will force your employer to spend on average twice as much on the health insurance he currently provides, or 7% of every dollar he pays you. Just like the 6% employer social security tax, these costs are borne by the employees. Because it's indirect, no one is complaining that Obama would double the cost of the average health care plan in order to socialize the costs for the most expensive users of scarce resources.
Insurance cannot function unless the average input is equal to or greater than the expected value of that input. Obama's plan is a greater transfer of wealth, in the form of limited social services, to those who are currently the least insurable. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on whether you think this country has too much socialism or too much personal responsibility.
The U.S. government doesn't have a monopoly on mail delivery specifically because it is not given taxpayer funding. It is wholly self sufficient, and already competes with the UPS's and FedEx's of the world. It isn't a monopoly, but it is a competitor. If it were subsidized, say in the name of affordable communication for the less well off, FedEx and UPS would not be able to compete on price, only reliability. As it is, we have government competing where it must provide value to the end-users above and beyond what FedEx or UPS provides, or go under.
This is analogous to the state schools vs. private schools competition we would see if we extended similar levels or per-pupil funding to private schools, or abolished public funding for public schools. The USPS would actually not be a bad model for school reform if you really wanted to breed "public"/private competition.
Maybe you've never lived on food stamps, as I have, but when you are poor enough to qualify for government food aid, you get plenty of food. You'd probably also qualify for Medicaid. If you make enough not to qualify for medicaid/food aid, there's a very good chance you could restrict your spending to such a level that you could afford a high deductible health plan on your own, paying for routine expenses up to say $4,000 a year completely on your own.
This is especially true if you are currently healthy. If you are not healthy your expected costs rise, and those costs MUST be borne by someone. Which means getting insurance when you are already sick costs more. The alternative is charging everyone who is healthy more for their insurance.
I wouldn't call discrimination on the basis of something that has an actual impact unfair. Maybe it's unfortunate, but I surely wouldn't think it fair for me (healthy 24-year old) to pay approximately 3 times the cost for insurance, because everyone paying the same regardless of risk/preexisting conditions is mandated. Or my boss (small business with approximately 50 employees) having to expand health care coverage to cover things that we were all willing to work without (e.g. optional dental/vision, long-term care) at a cost of twice the current national average.
The fairest system is one where the costs are borne by those who receive the benefits. You might make the argument that in a socialized healthcare system we all receive the benefits. I agree. That would not be fundamentally unfair. But it would shift the burden of choice and responsibility away from me personally and onto society as a whole. I'd prefer freedom and responsibility to regulation and socialized costs.
Well that means you can afford insurance, a system in which you pay another party more than the expected value of whatever you want to protect yourself against, in order to protect yourself from personally bearing the responsibility for something with an even worse expected value from happening. I guess that means we already have socialism, right? I guess the difference is now it's voluntary.
And, as an actual question, is there such a thing as insurance coverage you can get wherein your rate is constant/market adjusted for all participants for any medical problems that are diagnosed while you are covered? Perhaps some sort of "group plan" for individuals. I know there are high risk pools that do this, but are there larger ones that price on the basis of your individual level of health as you join? If not, what keeps these types of plans from being unprofitable?
If my doctor made me wait for over an hour for every appointment, I'd fire him and get a new one. Capitalism works right when people exercise their own choices. Doctors in America already rarely have to compete on price, as must of their patients never know how much they're paying before they seek treatment, so you can effectively force them to compete on service.
Great book for the period is Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man. Make me really scared when I hear people call for a new "New Deal"
Hey he did much worse than imprisoning people for who their ancestors were, he also imprisoned people below the poverty line for growing their own food. Forced starvation: socialism style. When doing work on your own to feed yourself and your family is a crime, your country is run by totalitarian fascists.
If that were instituted, I guess we'd have a one time confiscation of assets, then all the people who are able to produce more than 250k a year moving to Canada, eh? I know I I could make 140$ an hour before taxes, I wouldn't work somewhere I could only make 7$ an hour after taxes for the last 3 years of the month... Maybe an annual 3 month vacation, but no way I'd contribute 95% of my earnings to that kind of society.
It sounds to me like you want to thank the Repubs for making what you think is the right choice for the right reasons, and thank the Dems for making the right choice because what they wanted didn't contain enough socialism (e.g. housing subsidy, cram-downs, ACORN money, distressed homebuyer assistance).
:/
I, myself, am deeply conflicted
WTF is a squeamish ossifrage?
Consumption doesn't build wealth. That's why wars are bad for economies and roads are good. Wealth is not in the amount of money spent, but in the amount of goods produced. We can disagree on what aligns the incentives correctly for production, but I'd argue that having a large middle class (e.g. America) naturally comes about from a predominantly free market society.
Having wealth redistribution, while necessary to a small degree for a functioning society, as in no one starving on the streets so the rich get to keep their rightfully earned golden toilets, is by definition a tax on the most productive, to the less. As such it is an incentive in the wrong direction, and should be kept to the minimum that our society agrees is necessary for the humane treatment of those who do not or cannot provide for themselves.
I have no clue what it actually means to have nothing? I was raised in the public housing projects. I was fed on WIC. I didn't set foot in an Old Navy until I was 18, because stores like that were too high end. I was happy when I got to go to the K-mart instead of the Goodwill.
So to say I don't know what it means to have nothing: as far as this society goes, I do know what it means. As far as what people in many 3rd world dictatorships with a fraction of the freedom and trade we have, I guess you're right. Which was my entire point. Nothing here is a whole lot better than nothing just about everywhere else in the world.
If inequality is the price to pay for universal abundance, I'm for it.
My bad. I had old numbers. Next time I will make sure not to claim #1 per capita. Thanks for the info.
But opposing something on principle not because it violates a principle, but because a more extreme version of it would violate a principle doesn't make much sense. I'd support until the point it makes sense to oppose it. I'd argue that employers should be required to meet very basic standards as society deems necessary, but that as much latitude as is practical should be provided.
For instance, society has agreed that children 14 and under generally cannot work. Society has also generally agreed that certain types of work should not be allowed (e.g. hitman, prostitute, drug dealer). Society has further agreed that a minimum wage be established for workers, one that is intended to ensure that anyone employed full time will be able to meet their own basic needs.
I don't believe society should restrict the ability of anyone operating above this minimum wage from earning what the market will bear. I understand that the minimum wage, like laws against drug dealing and prostitution results in some people not being able to legally find work. I support these laws because they protect what we have agreed to make tenets of our social contract. I do not believe that the 40 hour work week needs to be part of our social contract. I do believe that individuals and corporations should be generally free to pursue their own best interests.
I see your point, but think we should only fight the fights worth fighting, not the ones that could lead to them.
It's your choice. One of the great things about the U.S. is that we have a federalist democracy. If you prefer the greater community feeling that comes with more social programs, you can live in CA, Vermont, or Massachusetts. If you prefer to live and let live, you can live in Texas, Alaska, or Montana.
You realize that in "standard of living" the UN only considered GDP per capita, in which the U.S. is second to Luxembourg. The U.S., by the "standard of living" measure was #2. In the Human Development Index, we are 12th. This index takes into account average life expectancy at birth, literacy rate, school enrollment rate, and GDP. See page 356 for an explanation of how the U.N. calculates this.
Our life expectancy is about 4 years less. Our school enrollment/literacy rate is lower than ideal. But our standard of living comes in second place out of every nation in the world, and that's not bad.
I happen to prefer the "you're on your own" model, where only a very minimal safety net is provided (e.g. food, shelter, possibly unskilled labor opportunity) to meet the basic humane treatment of others. Where mandatory health care and socialized/mandatory secondary schooling, might extend our life expectancy and enrollment rates by enough to pull us to #1 in the UN's HDI ratings, I would not support such changes on the grounds that a free society in and of itself holds value. I say I'll keep advocating to make our nation more like Montana, and you keep advocating to make our nation more like Vermont.
The rank and file of the financial firms that this bailout is saving give to Democrats over Republicans by a wide margin. This bailout, however is not for the good of the financial firms. It is not (or at least shouldn't be) about saving the homes of people who cannot afford their mortgages. It is to restore liquidity to the credit markets that are, as of now, grinding painfully slowly.
The current bailout plan is a bipartisan effort, proposed by Republican President Bush, amended and supported by the Democratic house majority, and opposed by the Republican house minority.
The Democrats want to pass a bipartisan bill, but they are unwilling to make the types of concessions House Republicans are demanding. The Republicans want to pass a bailout, but not one with such a heavy degree of taxpayer commitment, or socialization/nationalization. The hangup is about whether it is more important to pass a bipartisan bill (Dems+McCain) or to limit government involvement (Boehner+House Repubs).
I'd say it's more along the lines of Republicans believe we live in a meritocracy, Democrats believe we live in an inherited oligarchy, or at least a class stratified society. If you don't believe personal effort is all that's keeping you from being insanely, filthy rich, why would you waste your time in entrepreneurship? Conversely, If you don't believe you have any responsibility to help feed a larger machine than your Randian self-interest, why would you join a corporation?
Actually, the change in the CA law only applies to individuals making at least 75k a year.
And, believe it or not, he should get your job if he can do it better than you. Even if he's Mexican/Indian. *GASP* An employer should have the same rights to act in their own best interests as an employee. And I say this as an employee.
This isn't a safety or human dignity issue. This is a contract issue. And it is a sorely needed clarification in who is eligible for overtime. The law change says that any computer professional earning over 75k a year is not required to be paid overtime. If you think that this means working for free, you're mistaken.
What it means is that computer professionals who want overtime must negotiate that themselves. If you do not negotiate it, you are not required to be granted it. Does a lawyer, doctor, accountant, or architect work for free? No, and whatever hours they work are considered to be part of the job. Everyone will pursue their own interests here, and for many that will mean the end of overtime. If labor is already properly valued, the end of overtime will mean an increase in base pay.
To say that support of the legislature's action means that someone believes "that if I work for you and you don't pay me I shouldn't be able to sue you" is dishonest. Support means that we should be able to agree what your pay will be based on, provided I pay you at least 75k a year.
It could be billable hours, instead of hours worked. It could be a merit bonus schedule. It could be primarily stock options. It could be the joy of not getting fired. As long as the base pay is 75k, the government of CA has decided to stay out of it, and let you and I decide for ourselves. This is a change that will increase efficiency overall, and I support it.