Odd. We have a minimum wage around these areas here and yet goods and services are still affordable and by no means more expensive. I get an iPhone for the same amount of money here that I could order it from the US, same with pretty much everything...
That's probably due to cost having little to do with the price of a commodity. Cost determines whether a product will be produced and sold, for if the cost surpasses the possible revenue, there is no reason to offer it. Aside of that, it has no influence on the price. Do you think the price of that iPhone is determined by the production cost? Or that car? Not even the bread you buy in your local supermarket has its price being dictated by the cost of it being there.
Determining the "right" price for good or services is an artform in and by itself. The goal is profit maximizing. How much may I charge that I still get more people to buy it than when I lower the price and sell more units for a lower profit? Notice the absence of cost in that question. Because it doesn't matter. The only question is whether cost is higher than potential revenue. If so, it's not going to be offered. This is why you don't have bag boys or "greeters" in Europe, simply because their benefit is lower than what the required wage would cost the store. Then again, I can't say I really miss them...
Hmm... actually, he pretty much demanded it. How else should the perfect information level required on the demand side for his model to work be achieved?
No. I know that it does. I live in a country where paying a living wage is pretty much mandatory and even umemployed can get by. In return we have an economy that is doing pretty well considering the global situation.
What matters is the purchasing power of people who pretty much have to spend their money locally. Poor people tend to spend their money on local goods and services, they are more likely to spend their money in local malls and buying local services than buying online and flying to remote destinations to get services there. This in turn drives the economy.
Yes, we do have a pretty heavy distribution of money from top to bottom via taxes and social services. Guess what. It works.
That doesn't really work either. You can do that with a few multinational corporations, of course, but afterwards, the others leave the sinking ship faster than any ordinary rat. If you threaten me, I leave. And I don't even give a fuck whether you want to let me, I'm a multinational corporation, you can arrest the people I have in your country but you can't touch me.
This isn't the 1940s when corporations have their eggs in one basket mostly. This is the 2010s where a corporation and its money is finely distributed across the globe. Of course you can reign me in by getting every country on the globe to agree, to close all the tax loopholes that make me go to their pastures instead of yours when it comes to taxing my profits and to harmonize the laws so I cannot escape your grasp.
That's one very foolish government. Glad mine isn't falling for this.
Because one big employer has a government by the balls. Give me the laws I want or you deal with 10,000 unemployed tomorrow. And hope I don't want more just to not close shop here and move to Mexico. In turn, a government can easily squeeze small businesses. Don't like my laws? Tough luck, the 2 people you could fire don't matter to me and you can't move so easily, you invested pretty much all you have here!
IIRC BSD looks quite promising the more I look at it. Together with the features of ZFS... I still don't get everything about it (and if this was Slashdot a decade ago I'd add "but I'm sure there's someone around who does and can write a lengthy novel about it") but it looks like something I could move to in the foreseeable future.
and if I were a black hat that's where I'd start looking.
Say what you want, I call it job security. Now that MS gets its act together and their OS becomes nearly useable, now that even Adobe starts to catch on that buffer overflow doesn't mean that the toilet is backing up, we in security have to look for new stuff we can wank over, I mean, hold talks about at security conferences.
Funny enough, a lot. Though it's not a matter of left or right, liberal or conservative. No such petty things. This is about corporations and control of the OSS market.
Yes, that's the big issue here. We finally got rid of rebooting woes that would threaten our e-peen in the form of the numbers in/proc/uptime (because every halfway critical system only exists on a single machine and is not behind a load balancer or at the very least a hot standby, which makes rebooting a critical downtime matter that could threaten the 99.99999999999% availability the SLA promises).
What's a few bugs that allow remote code execution in return?
Only to people who don't understand them. But that's the case with pretty much anything, you can bullshit anyone using a "proof" he doesn't understand.
The currently real existing capitalist market economy is invariably lopsided against the demand side, to the point where it cannot fulfill its duty. In a working capitalist model, the demand side has to choose between the offered products, choosing the best and thus "rewarding" those that produce what the demand wants, which means that those that do not offer what demand wants have to perish due to a lack of customers.
This is basically what Ford did in his production plant back when the Model T was the craze. He paid an insanely high wage, which led to very few sick days and near perfect retention, because people would have rather killed themselves than losing a job that paid about twice of what they could otherwise earn. This in turn led to very high productivity because people knew what they were doing, which also led to much higher product quality and very low waste.
Higher wages will make people move to the area if possible, and they will also want to keep their jobs. And people with money spend it, and spend it locally which in turn drives the economy.
However you want to see it, this time there will not even be a silver lining at the end of the dickensian world. There isn't going to be an eventual solution as there were before.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why did you get pay raises in the first place if your employer could get away with not giving them to you?
Something doesn't add up here.
Odd. We have a minimum wage around these areas here and yet goods and services are still affordable and by no means more expensive. I get an iPhone for the same amount of money here that I could order it from the US, same with pretty much everything...
That's probably due to cost having little to do with the price of a commodity. Cost determines whether a product will be produced and sold, for if the cost surpasses the possible revenue, there is no reason to offer it. Aside of that, it has no influence on the price. Do you think the price of that iPhone is determined by the production cost? Or that car? Not even the bread you buy in your local supermarket has its price being dictated by the cost of it being there.
Determining the "right" price for good or services is an artform in and by itself. The goal is profit maximizing. How much may I charge that I still get more people to buy it than when I lower the price and sell more units for a lower profit? Notice the absence of cost in that question. Because it doesn't matter. The only question is whether cost is higher than potential revenue. If so, it's not going to be offered. This is why you don't have bag boys or "greeters" in Europe, simply because their benefit is lower than what the required wage would cost the store. Then again, I can't say I really miss them...
Hmm... actually, he pretty much demanded it. How else should the perfect information level required on the demand side for his model to work be achieved?
No. I know that it does. I live in a country where paying a living wage is pretty much mandatory and even umemployed can get by. In return we have an economy that is doing pretty well considering the global situation.
What matters is the purchasing power of people who pretty much have to spend their money locally. Poor people tend to spend their money on local goods and services, they are more likely to spend their money in local malls and buying local services than buying online and flying to remote destinations to get services there. This in turn drives the economy.
Yes, we do have a pretty heavy distribution of money from top to bottom via taxes and social services. Guess what. It works.
That doesn't really work either. You can do that with a few multinational corporations, of course, but afterwards, the others leave the sinking ship faster than any ordinary rat. If you threaten me, I leave. And I don't even give a fuck whether you want to let me, I'm a multinational corporation, you can arrest the people I have in your country but you can't touch me.
This isn't the 1940s when corporations have their eggs in one basket mostly. This is the 2010s where a corporation and its money is finely distributed across the globe. Of course you can reign me in by getting every country on the globe to agree, to close all the tax loopholes that make me go to their pastures instead of yours when it comes to taxing my profits and to harmonize the laws so I cannot escape your grasp.
Good fucking luck, dear government!
Yes. Why, you though Garfield would ship Nermal to a made up place? The UPS would return the box, that cat ain't dumb!
That's one very foolish government. Glad mine isn't falling for this.
Because one big employer has a government by the balls. Give me the laws I want or you deal with 10,000 unemployed tomorrow. And hope I don't want more just to not close shop here and move to Mexico.
In turn, a government can easily squeeze small businesses. Don't like my laws? Tough luck, the 2 people you could fire don't matter to me and you can't move so easily, you invested pretty much all you have here!
IIRC BSD looks quite promising the more I look at it. Together with the features of ZFS... I still don't get everything about it (and if this was Slashdot a decade ago I'd add "but I'm sure there's someone around who does and can write a lengthy novel about it") but it looks like something I could move to in the foreseeable future.
and if I were a black hat that's where I'd start looking.
Say what you want, I call it job security. Now that MS gets its act together and their OS becomes nearly useable, now that even Adobe starts to catch on that buffer overflow doesn't mean that the toilet is backing up, we in security have to look for new stuff we can wank over, I mean, hold talks about at security conferences.
And this is a gold mine.
Funny enough, a lot. Though it's not a matter of left or right, liberal or conservative. No such petty things. This is about corporations and control of the OSS market.
Wrong question. The right one is "is there any software that could be used instead that has fewer critical bugs?"
Yes, that's the big issue here. We finally got rid of rebooting woes that would threaten our e-peen in the form of the numbers in /proc/uptime (because every halfway critical system only exists on a single machine and is not behind a load balancer or at the very least a hot standby, which makes rebooting a critical downtime matter that could threaten the 99.99999999999% availability the SLA promises).
What's a few bugs that allow remote code execution in return?
You're WAY too late for this.
I have this feeling he wrote a trigger for blame shifting.
The entries for the obfuscated C code contest are open source too. But nothing you should take as a foundation for any kind of sensible work.
The AC above said that a person cannot decide to not consume essential goods. He can. By proxy. No money means no consumption.
Go and demand it if you're worth it.
Only to people who don't understand them. But that's the case with pretty much anything, you can bullshit anyone using a "proof" he doesn't understand.
Who buys your shit? Simple: Everyone not working here. They could earn money, but NOT HERE!
Said person can have that decision taken from them: By not having money.
The currently real existing capitalist market economy is invariably lopsided against the demand side, to the point where it cannot fulfill its duty. In a working capitalist model, the demand side has to choose between the offered products, choosing the best and thus "rewarding" those that produce what the demand wants, which means that those that do not offer what demand wants have to perish due to a lack of customers.
Now explain Comcast.
The lie was too transparent, and too easy to shift the blame for failing on someone else. The capitalist lie is much more insidious and personal.
I need money. Not an occupation. I can find something to do with my time just fine.
If you job doesn't pay decent money, it's worthless and you can as well shut down for all I care because the world is no poorer without your "jobs".
This is basically what Ford did in his production plant back when the Model T was the craze. He paid an insanely high wage, which led to very few sick days and near perfect retention, because people would have rather killed themselves than losing a job that paid about twice of what they could otherwise earn. This in turn led to very high productivity because people knew what they were doing, which also led to much higher product quality and very low waste.
Higher wages will make people move to the area if possible, and they will also want to keep their jobs. And people with money spend it, and spend it locally which in turn drives the economy.
However you want to see it, this time there will not even be a silver lining at the end of the dickensian world. There isn't going to be an eventual solution as there were before.
Don't forget that we, too, get automated away.
And the last person you want as an enemy when you field drones is an experienced penetration tester.