They are already fixing this. Pensions are a thing of the past for almost all private sector workers. Originally, public sector workers gained these benefits as a way to keep up with private sector (largely unionized) employees - to keep public sector benefits even.
Now that the private sector has eliminated pensions (and unions for the most part), the same will hold true for the public sector.
Take away a benefit from one group, pit them against another group that still has the benefit, and you lower your labor costs across the board. Getting workers to fight each others greatly benefits the wealthy who need a cheap compliant workforce.
Health benefits have been slowly eroding over the years. This will be next.
I mean, are you living on a deficit every fucking month? How long would you last if that was so?
Most households do in fact borrow a tremendous amount and in fact liabilities vastly outweigh net worth. How much is your outstanding mortgage? Student loans?
So "Big Oil has almost no control over the price of oil these days. That power squarely rests with oil-rich nations that hold most of the world's oil reserves" is NOT the government (actually many foreign governments) controlling the price of oil?
So the power of governments of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia becomes a triumph of libertarian free market ideology?
Yes, in the same world where the high economic growth of the communist-run, government controlled economy of the People's Republic of China demonstrates the triumph of "economic freedom"
While exercising his "free speech rights", King Henry was rightly seen as instigating the political assassination of a powerful opponent. Henry fled to Ireland, and Thomas Becket became an instant martyr.
12th century England just didn't understand free speech
I do similar work and I'd like to add that sometimes projects are, by nature of the customer itself, impossible to accomplish successfully. Requirements may be impossible to pin down or shift randomly. Resources necessary to finish the project are unavailable. Key users may be hostile to the project and unwilling to use a system that they feel (right or wrong) is a political hammer against them.
What I have NEVER seen is a consultant or system integrator willing to tell the client blunty that they have created a management environment that guarantees project failure.
I have also NEVER seen a consultant or system integrator willing to back up this assessment by walking out of a multi-year contract, knowing the project will fail and that the client will be unhappy at the end (resulting in litigation and widespread bad publicity for both parties).
The business economics of these projects create very strong incentives for consultants to white-wash client failures, to not risk the wrath of the emporer by telling him that he is in fact naked, and to turn down what looks like a large multi-year income stream for the consultant's firm simply because everyone working on the project knows it is a disaster waiting to happen
Pray, do tell, how people that are able to sign up and live off of the public dole, then become too stupid (or otherwise unable) to get a FREE photo ID.
You obviously haven't dealt with people on public assistance much.
There is a reason some people do not have jobs, and it's not because they are intelligent enough to scam the welfare system.
The founding fathers clearly never intended a program such as civilian space flight to be a function of the Federal government. Under the 10th amendment, this is clearly the state's responsibility. Given its existing space infrastructure along with business-friendly tax and regulatory environment, I would expect a privately organized for-profit Texas space authority to assume a leadership role.
The economic miracle that is Texas deserves no less.
Because liberals realize without small things like state-financed universities, companies like Amazon would never exist in the first place.
When people call for government cutbacks, do they realizing they are cutting back future sources of research and highly skilled employees that have made Silicon Valley possible in the first place?
For decades there were low-interest postal savings accounts offered in the USA, meant for rural areas not served by banks:
The United States Postal Savings System was a postal savings system operated by the United States Postal Service from January 1, 1911 until July 1, 1967. The system paid depositors 2 percent annual interest. Depositors in the system were initially limited to hold a balance of $500, but this was raised to $1,000 in 1916 and to $2,500 in 1918. At its peak in 1947, the system held almost $3.4 billion in deposits. The system originally had a natural advantage over deposit-taking private banks because the deposits were always backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States Government." However, because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation gave the same guarantee to depositors in private banks, the Postal Savings System lost its natural advantage in trust.
It's no big secret that any private concern in the US that is involved with electronic communications has a "hidden partner" in the form of various US 3-letter agencies.
The continued cooperation with these agencies by ensuring they can covertly monitor communications is almost a condition of doing business
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies can obtain this information for the asking. Of course it cannot be used in a court of law without proper legal preconditions (warrant or subpoena). These agencies can still make good use of this data even though it is inadmissable.
I have no doubt that Google's search history is routinely handed over without anyone blinking an eye. I'm sure Apple and the various telcos supporting Apple phones do the same.
First, there is no push by the Democrats to re-institute a fairness doctrine.
Second, regulations requiring balance in the presentation and analysis of public opinion do not silence or intimidate any point of view. They simply require those using scare public airwaves to allow those presenting these view to be open to allowing opposing view some small amount of time in rebuttal. This was in recognition that owners of media have a vast power to shape public opinion and public agenda, and that if unrestricted these owners would succumb to the temptation to only presenting views favoring their position.
I grew up under the fairness doctrine. Nobody was "censored" owing to the fairness doctrine. Nobody was prevented from airing their point of view. There were plenty of opinionated blowhards on radio and TV in the 60's and 70's despite the fairness doctrine. Censorship is the forceful suppression of speech. Nobody was suppressed during the regime of the fairness doctrine.
If you political position is so weak that allowing your opposition a small amount of time to rebut it is censorship, then I would contend your political position is entirely illegitimate in the first place. If granting a political opponent 5 minutes of opposition would silence your position, your position is based on fluff anyway.
It is a very strange definition of censorship that includes presentation of opposing views. This definition implies that the only legitimate views are those endorsed by media owners, and that only media owners have the right to present political opinions on publicly owned airwaves
Slashdot Mirror
They are already fixing this. Pensions are a thing of the past for almost all private sector workers. Originally, public sector workers gained these benefits as a way to keep up with private sector (largely unionized) employees - to keep public sector benefits even.
Now that the private sector has eliminated pensions (and unions for the most part), the same will hold true for the public sector.
Take away a benefit from one group, pit them against another group that still has the benefit, and you lower your labor costs across the board. Getting workers to fight each others greatly benefits the wealthy who need a cheap compliant workforce.
Health benefits have been slowly eroding over the years. This will be next.
I mean, are you living on a deficit every fucking month? How long would you last if that was so?
Most households do in fact borrow a tremendous amount and in fact liabilities vastly outweigh net worth. How much is your outstanding mortgage? Student loans?
So "Big Oil has almost no control over the price of oil these days. That power squarely rests with oil-rich nations that hold most of the world's oil reserves" is NOT the government (actually many foreign governments) controlling the price of oil?
So the power of governments of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia becomes a triumph of libertarian free market ideology?
Yes, in the same world where the high economic growth of the communist-run, government controlled economy of the People's Republic of China demonstrates the triumph of "economic freedom"
Worked very well for Henry II
While exercising his "free speech rights", King Henry was rightly seen as instigating the political assassination of a powerful opponent. Henry fled to Ireland, and Thomas Becket became an instant martyr.
12th century England just didn't understand free speech
This is a law firm
If they can't bill it to a client, they spend as little as possible on it.
The ultimate judge of "as little as possible" is a managing partner completely clueless about IT
You can choose to stop working longer hours
And your company can choose to eliminate your position the next time they are thinking about layoffs.
Refusing to work insane hours gets you tagged as "not a team player". People so tagged get on the short list for reduction in force.
In most cases, employment protections do not exist in the USA, especially if a termination can be made to look like a layoff.
I do similar work and I'd like to add that sometimes projects are, by nature of the customer itself, impossible to accomplish successfully. Requirements may be impossible to pin down or shift randomly. Resources necessary to finish the project are unavailable. Key users may be hostile to the project and unwilling to use a system that they feel (right or wrong) is a political hammer against them.
What I have NEVER seen is a consultant or system integrator willing to tell the client blunty that they have created a management environment that guarantees project failure.
I have also NEVER seen a consultant or system integrator willing to back up this assessment by walking out of a multi-year contract, knowing the project will fail and that the client will be unhappy at the end (resulting in litigation and widespread bad publicity for both parties).
The business economics of these projects create very strong incentives for consultants to white-wash client failures, to not risk the wrath of the emporer by telling him that he is in fact naked, and to turn down what looks like a large multi-year income stream for the consultant's firm simply because everyone working on the project knows it is a disaster waiting to happen
You obviously haven't dealt with people on public assistance much.
There is a reason some people do not have jobs, and it's not because they are intelligent enough to scam the welfare system.
The founding fathers clearly never intended a program such as civilian space flight to be a function of the Federal government. Under the 10th amendment, this is clearly the state's responsibility. Given its existing space infrastructure along with business-friendly tax and regulatory environment, I would expect a privately organized for-profit Texas space authority to assume a leadership role.
The economic miracle that is Texas deserves no less.
Because liberals realize without small things like state-financed universities, companies like Amazon would never exist in the first place.
When people call for government cutbacks, do they realizing they are cutting back future sources of research and highly skilled employees that have made Silicon Valley possible in the first place?
Just ask the 100 biggest businesses in a state what they would like and give it to them.
No dog ever accepted company stock as a reward.
Dogs will only accept tangible rewards of immediate value (preferably something they can eat)
Humans should learn from the wisdom of their canine friends
So they've finally found a Black Hole Sun?
For decades there were low-interest postal savings accounts offered in the USA, meant for rural areas not served by banks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings_System
An agency that knows enough about you can impersonate you.
You can be falsely implicated in incriminating activities, as long as there is enough background information about you to make the charge credible.
Personal information is often used to intimidate. "Would you like to see your children alive again? We know exactly where they are"
Like this? http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367247,00.asp
I'd say something in PC Magazine is common knowledge
It's no big secret that any private concern in the US that is involved with electronic communications has a "hidden partner" in the form of various US 3-letter agencies.
The continued cooperation with these agencies by ensuring they can covertly monitor communications is almost a condition of doing business
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies can obtain this information for the asking. Of course it cannot be used in a court of law without proper legal preconditions (warrant or subpoena). These agencies can still make good use of this data even though it is inadmissable.
I have no doubt that Google's search history is routinely handed over without anyone blinking an eye. I'm sure Apple and the various telcos supporting Apple phones do the same.
And Sweden is higher ranked than the USA because they refuse to spend on welfare programs?
Publishing a map of the brain only makes it that much easier for GPS-equipped Zombies.
Some maps should be kept secret for national security reasons.
Certainly a Zombie invasion would be a national security disaster. Why give them a computerized map to make their job easier?
Please explain this "pension" to me. I've heard stories from my grandfather about those things, but nobody my age seems to know what they are.
And those who believe they are innocent of any wrongdoing will have the most to lose
No there is absolutely no equivalence here.
First, there is no push by the Democrats to re-institute a fairness doctrine.
Second, regulations requiring balance in the presentation and analysis of public opinion do not silence or intimidate any point of view. They simply require those using scare public airwaves to allow those presenting these view to be open to allowing opposing view some small amount of time in rebuttal. This was in recognition that owners of media have a vast power to shape public opinion and public agenda, and that if unrestricted these owners would succumb to the temptation to only presenting views favoring their position.
I grew up under the fairness doctrine. Nobody was "censored" owing to the fairness doctrine. Nobody was prevented from airing their point of view. There were plenty of opinionated blowhards on radio and TV in the 60's and 70's despite the fairness doctrine. Censorship is the forceful suppression of speech. Nobody was suppressed during the regime of the fairness doctrine.
If you political position is so weak that allowing your opposition a small amount of time to rebut it is censorship, then I would contend your political position is entirely illegitimate in the first place. If granting a political opponent 5 minutes of opposition would silence your position, your position is based on fluff anyway.
It is a very strange definition of censorship that includes presentation of opposing views. This definition implies that the only legitimate views are those endorsed by media owners, and that only media owners have the right to present political opinions on publicly owned airwaves
No phone company could ever be forced to divulge those sort of records simply because a customer demanded it.
We have very strong privacy protections in this country - for the telcos
I think the appropriate units are volkswagens per library of congress
He fully expected to spend decades in a Federal prison for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was fully prepared to do so.
That he did not was a result of gross misconduct by the Nixon administration resulting in his charges being thrown out