Right after they prosecute the bankers for control fraud in the global financial crisis. Case law and all has been established. See William K. Black for a detailed explanation.
If I buy two life insurance policies for myself, and I die, they both have to pay.
But if you take out two insurance policies on your car, each covering the full value, and you try to collect both after your car gets "stolen", it's called fraud. That's been a principle of insurance for centuries.
Really? You could pay everyone involved in the entire production chain (raw materials to sub-assemblies to final assemblers/packers) a non-slave (AKA 'living Wage'?) by increasing the retail price of an iPhone $4? I find it hard to believe - please explain.
Please explain why you find that hard to believe. Is it because you've unquestionably accepted the "everything is so much cheaper to make in China" line? If cheap labor was always the key to less expensive products, the Industrial Revolution never would have happened. See, for example, GE's experience with their hybrid hot water heaters, where moving the manufacturing back to the US and properly designing it for manufacturability (using information and design suggestions from the assemblers themselves) actually reduced manufacturing costs and improved quality.
Cell or smart phone manufacturing is heavily automated. Only a tiny amount of assembly is done manually. Moreover the amount that is done manually is largely the result of sloppy design practice that's tolerable only because Chinese labor is so cheap. The price difference is explained here. That's the manufacturing cost. Obviously there is markup along the chain, but for a small amount of increased cost like that, it's mostly a matter of bargaining power and how much the designer/manufacturer/distributor feels they can get away with.
As for your "entire production chain (raw materials to sub-assemblies to final assemblers/packers)", you don't seem to understand how the supply chain for cell phones works. Raw materials and their processing is done all over the world - most is not done in China. The same is true for component manufacturing, and the components account for many times the cost of the labor.
Many of these device companies have network access/business agreements with healthcare providers around the nation.
Hence the real reason that the federal government is concerned. They're afraid that the intruders will use that network access to reduce outstanding medical bills to reasonable levels.
Yes it is. Even Tricky Dick the Commie Hunter accepted 40+ years ago that the nationalists had lost the revolution. Saying that Taiwan is China is as absurd as when the CCP says that Taiwan is a renegade province. In other news, the British government has accepted that the renegade American colonies aren't coming back.
Maybe McCarthy was a commie too. It's a great tactic to distract attention from the big fish by going after the small fry. Damn those commies are clever.
Would you be willing to pay an extra $4 for a product not made with slave labor? That's the estimate of how much more it costs to make the Moto X because it's done in the US.
Solution for the US? 1950s income tax rates and strengthen the unions: try to bring back the institutions and policies we had during our boom times.
In today's political climate, suggesting such things without mentioning their lineage would get you called a "socialist" (by people who say that's bad even though they have no idea what it means), with a possible implication of being a communist.
By that logic, McCarthy missed the big fish. He talked about communists in the state department, but missed that the White House itself was occupied by a communist - Comrade Eisenhower. Talk about us being a bunch of communist dupes! The fellow who we considered an icon of moderation and middle class values was himself a commie.
How so? The real enemy of any bureaucracy is those who would dismantle, or at least limit it, in terms of power and growth. No foreign power is going to do that to the NSA. If (and I'm afraid it's a big if) anything limits the power and growth of the NSA it will be the outrage of the American people. Therefore the American people are the true enemy of the bureaucracy.
I believe this is talking about the company *matching* your contributions.
Obviously. Did anybody say otherwise?
In IBM's case, when I worked there, they matched up to 6% which is pretty damn generous.
6%. God bless their generosity. Wanna compare that to what it used to cost them for a defined benefit pension plan? Keep squeezing the peasants and they start to accept it as the new normal.
BTW, did you get laid off, or did you choose to leave? If you chose to, was it because you saw the handwriting on the wall?h
They probably taste lousy. I'd settle for the oppressive treatment they received in the radical days of the Eisenhower administration.
I wish people had a better understanding of history. Calling for a return to the tax structure (up to 90% on the wealthy's incomes), the percentage going to employee compensation, etc., that we had in the 1950's probably would get me branded a "socialist" (by people who don't even understand what the word means). Yet that's what we had in those idyllic Ozzie and Harriet days that so many, including the right wing, see as a lost golden era.
The compensation of AOL Inc. AOL +0.28% 's chief executive, Tim Armstrong, nearly quadrupled in 2012 to $12.1 million, from $3.2 million in 2011
So by cutting his own pay by $10M, he could more than compensate for the $9.1M in extra expenses he claims. It would also bring his compensation into line with global standards. US CEO pay is somewhere around 400x the average employee's. The UK is a very distant second with around 45x. In almost every other developed country, it's between 10x and 20x. Very generously assuming that average employee compensation at AOL is $100k, $2.1M would put him at the generous end of global standards.
OTOH if there's just one government program (like Social Security or Medicare), then everyone knows exactly what Congress is doing about it, and you can't screw beneficiaries without everyone knowing it.
You're either a communist or a Canadian. Both start with a 'C', and America's right wing doesn't distinguish between them.
2004? I was working on vehicle location systems that had DR at least 10 years before that (especially useful since IIRC there wasn't a full GPS satellite constellation then). DR isn't exactly new - Columbus used it.
I can agree that business can cause some problems, but I still believe that laws should be passed through representatives and not some faceless bureaucrat who thinks he/she knows best for everyone.
Then talk to congress. They pass the laws, and can give the EPA as much or as little leeway as they want. For example, congress specifically exempted fracking from most EPA oversight (which makes me think the regulatory approach isn't so bad).
Since you did it the less expensive way, has the EPA been knocking on your door? What does "EPA approved" mean anyway, EPA recommended? That's a long way from a regulation.
Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.
In other words, here's hoping the dupes fall for it.
What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose? Yeah, I can't think of any either. Nor have I ever heard of opponents of an EPA policy criticize it on the grounds that the EPA hasn't disclosed relevant scientific information.
This is a "think of the children" type of bill. Tout something that everybody agrees is desirable, and slip your agenda into the fine print. What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?
Let's start with trade negotiations. No secretive negotiations whose results are only foisted on congress and the people after they've been finalized. "Take it or leave it." Screw that. All drafts, preliminary agreements, and the results of negotiations to be made public as they're ongoing.
You don't really believe things like the "FDA" is what is driving up the price to you?
Have a little respect. Here in the US such beliefs are a religion to some people. Must be Satan (a/k/a the FDA) driving the prices up, let the Holy Market prevail! Ok, it actually is the gubmint, but the part that's responsible for enforcing monopolies for ever greater profit, not the FDA.
US Solution? Ban cheap canadian drugs from canada as they were "not tested" or such.
Yeah, same drugs from the same factory, but they're magically tainted by passing through Canada. OTOH you have some online pharmacies (legitimate outfits) that will drop ship the stuff to people in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod up if you remember being pissed at how smug they were about it, the British bastards...
As opposed to the American oil companies, which are always contrite and quick to admit fault?
If it is for damages to property or for cost to remedy a problem, then the policy usually is not stackable.
Which is the case we're talking about here.
Go after the executives.
Right after they prosecute the bankers for control fraud in the global financial crisis. Case law and all has been established. See William K. Black for a detailed explanation.
If I buy two life insurance policies for myself, and I die, they both have to pay.
But if you take out two insurance policies on your car, each covering the full value, and you try to collect both after your car gets "stolen", it's called fraud. That's been a principle of insurance for centuries.
Really? You could pay everyone involved in the entire production chain (raw materials to sub-assemblies to final assemblers/packers) a non-slave (AKA 'living Wage'?) by increasing the retail price of an iPhone $4? I find it hard to believe - please explain.
Please explain why you find that hard to believe. Is it because you've unquestionably accepted the "everything is so much cheaper to make in China" line? If cheap labor was always the key to less expensive products, the Industrial Revolution never would have happened. See, for example, GE's experience with their hybrid hot water heaters, where moving the manufacturing back to the US and properly designing it for manufacturability (using information and design suggestions from the assemblers themselves) actually reduced manufacturing costs and improved quality.
Cell or smart phone manufacturing is heavily automated. Only a tiny amount of assembly is done manually. Moreover the amount that is done manually is largely the result of sloppy design practice that's tolerable only because Chinese labor is so cheap. The price difference is explained here. That's the manufacturing cost. Obviously there is markup along the chain, but for a small amount of increased cost like that, it's mostly a matter of bargaining power and how much the designer/manufacturer/distributor feels they can get away with.
As for your "entire production chain (raw materials to sub-assemblies to final assemblers/packers)", you don't seem to understand how the supply chain for cell phones works. Raw materials and their processing is done all over the world - most is not done in China. The same is true for component manufacturing, and the components account for many times the cost of the labor.
Oops, need more coffee. Thought GP said "correct" instead of "incorrect".
Many of these device companies have network access/business agreements with healthcare providers around the nation.
Hence the real reason that the federal government is concerned. They're afraid that the intruders will use that network access to reduce outstanding medical bills to reasonable levels.
Yes it is. Even Tricky Dick the Commie Hunter accepted 40+ years ago that the nationalists had lost the revolution. Saying that Taiwan is China is as absurd as when the CCP says that Taiwan is a renegade province. In other news, the British government has accepted that the renegade American colonies aren't coming back.
Maybe McCarthy was a commie too. It's a great tactic to distract attention from the big fish by going after the small fry. Damn those commies are clever.
China, India, Indonesia, Brazil: Fair enough a rule.
No, they don't just want to make it locally for local consumption. If they did I'd think it reasonable.
I really don't the latest iCrap that bad.
Would you be willing to pay an extra $4 for a product not made with slave labor? That's the estimate of how much more it costs to make the Moto X because it's done in the US.
Solution for the US? 1950s income tax rates and strengthen the unions: try to bring back the institutions and policies we had during our boom times.
In today's political climate, suggesting such things without mentioning their lineage would get you called a "socialist" (by people who say that's bad even though they have no idea what it means), with a possible implication of being a communist.
By that logic, McCarthy missed the big fish. He talked about communists in the state department, but missed that the White House itself was occupied by a communist - Comrade Eisenhower. Talk about us being a bunch of communist dupes! The fellow who we considered an icon of moderation and middle class values was himself a commie.
That is such a load of crap.
How so? The real enemy of any bureaucracy is those who would dismantle, or at least limit it, in terms of power and growth. No foreign power is going to do that to the NSA. If (and I'm afraid it's a big if) anything limits the power and growth of the NSA it will be the outrage of the American people. Therefore the American people are the true enemy of the bureaucracy.
I believe this is talking about the company *matching* your contributions.
Obviously. Did anybody say otherwise?
In IBM's case, when I worked there, they matched up to 6% which is pretty damn generous.
6%. God bless their generosity. Wanna compare that to what it used to cost them for a defined benefit pension plan? Keep squeezing the peasants and they start to accept it as the new normal.
BTW, did you get laid off, or did you choose to leave? If you chose to, was it because you saw the handwriting on the wall?h
Eat the rich!
They probably taste lousy. I'd settle for the oppressive treatment they received in the radical days of the Eisenhower administration.
I wish people had a better understanding of history. Calling for a return to the tax structure (up to 90% on the wealthy's incomes), the percentage going to employee compensation, etc., that we had in the 1950's probably would get me branded a "socialist" (by people who don't even understand what the word means). Yet that's what we had in those idyllic Ozzie and Harriet days that so many, including the right wing, see as a lost golden era.
From the WSJ:
The compensation of AOL Inc. AOL +0.28% 's chief executive, Tim Armstrong, nearly quadrupled in 2012 to $12.1 million, from $3.2 million in 2011
So by cutting his own pay by $10M, he could more than compensate for the $9.1M in extra expenses he claims. It would also bring his compensation into line with global standards. US CEO pay is somewhere around 400x the average employee's. The UK is a very distant second with around 45x. In almost every other developed country, it's between 10x and 20x. Very generously assuming that average employee compensation at AOL is $100k, $2.1M would put him at the generous end of global standards.
OTOH if there's just one government program (like Social Security or Medicare), then everyone knows exactly what Congress is doing about it, and you can't screw beneficiaries without everyone knowing it.
You're either a communist or a Canadian. Both start with a 'C', and America's right wing doesn't distinguish between them.
What company directs 25% of its users to a partially-working, not-ready-for-production website?
Should the government have a monopoly on that?
2004? I was working on vehicle location systems that had DR at least 10 years before that (especially useful since IIRC there wasn't a full GPS satellite constellation then). DR isn't exactly new - Columbus used it.
I can agree that business can cause some problems, but I still believe that laws should be passed through representatives and not some faceless bureaucrat who thinks he/she knows best for everyone.
Then talk to congress. They pass the laws, and can give the EPA as much or as little leeway as they want. For example, congress specifically exempted fracking from most EPA oversight (which makes me think the regulatory approach isn't so bad).
Since you did it the less expensive way, has the EPA been knocking on your door? What does "EPA approved" mean anyway, EPA recommended? That's a long way from a regulation.
Science is very political these days in every area.
Nothing new - it was very political in Galileo's day too.
Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.
In other words, here's hoping the dupes fall for it.
What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose? Yeah, I can't think of any either. Nor have I ever heard of opponents of an EPA policy criticize it on the grounds that the EPA hasn't disclosed relevant scientific information.
This is a "think of the children" type of bill. Tout something that everybody agrees is desirable, and slip your agenda into the fine print. What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?
Let's start with trade negotiations. No secretive negotiations whose results are only foisted on congress and the people after they've been finalized. "Take it or leave it." Screw that. All drafts, preliminary agreements, and the results of negotiations to be made public as they're ongoing.
You don't really believe things like the "FDA" is what is driving up the price to you?
Have a little respect. Here in the US such beliefs are a religion to some people. Must be Satan (a/k/a the FDA) driving the prices up, let the Holy Market prevail! Ok, it actually is the gubmint, but the part that's responsible for enforcing monopolies for ever greater profit, not the FDA.
US Solution? Ban cheap canadian drugs from canada as they were "not tested" or such.
Yeah, same drugs from the same factory, but they're magically tainted by passing through Canada. OTOH you have some online pharmacies (legitimate outfits) that will drop ship the stuff to people in the US.