They could. Maybe. It hasn't been proven, because to the best of my knowledge no one has every organized such a club in reality rather than in theory. But corporations do actually achieve bargain prices on these benefits. So to some extent, proof is in the pudding on this one.
It means google is competing in the most intense job market in the world (silicon valley), where benefits and pay are both on a steady upward spiral that has most of the people in the area earning 4 times the national average (~160K vs ~40k). They are boosting both to keep employees from defecting to startups or competitors. And so are the startups and competitors.
Argue theory all you like, the statistics say the outcomes are better in basically every country with a socialized healthcare system. When facts and theory diverge, I prefer to stick with facts.
That's tough because you have to figure out the inflation factor, as well as escalating treatments. If I charge you $500 / pack of cigarettes, that may not be enough to cover modern medical treatment 20 years from now when you develop the cancer. The treatments on which your fee was based may not even exist anymore, so we can't even necessarily just restrict you to the treatment you've prepaid.
I'd like everyone to have insurance too. Helps to encourage risk taking, which all the right wingers seem to think is a good thing if rich people can do it.
One could argue that their monopoly on that business exists only because of their software. But that would be crazy because their dominance of that industry clearly predates their software development phase.
Once. Consistently ranked in the top 5% on a lot of these coding competitions. He's really fast. Gets amazing things working in remarkably short time. Unfortunately they're an unmaintainable mess, and tend to be packed with bugs. They work for exactly the cases known at the start (well, sometimes only even most of those), and break as soon as they find a new edge case. We got a very low to possibly negative net productivity out of him.
I actually think they are quite clearly liable. The damages done by the false claims of their script are real and certainly pursuable. It just isn't perjury, specifically.
I guess that would be up to a lawyer to argue. I think it would probably be a tough case to bring though, as I'm sure the defense could/would claim that they don't intend for it to be flawed, and make every effort to correct it. Even if I were personally a member of the jury, I'd probably buy the claim that enforcing these copyrights requires an automated tool, and that the existence of the law implies the acceptability of these tools.
Slashdot Mirror
The food in the Google cafeterias is not healthy. It is very high in fat and cholesterol, among other risk factors.
They could. Maybe. It hasn't been proven, because to the best of my knowledge no one has every organized such a club in reality rather than in theory. But corporations do actually achieve bargain prices on these benefits. So to some extent, proof is in the pudding on this one.
Google has already chosen to hire younger people, and that is why this benefit looks affordable to them now.
And because Google employees have very low IQs, they won't figure it out, either. ;-)
It means google is competing in the most intense job market in the world (silicon valley), where benefits and pay are both on a steady upward spiral that has most of the people in the area earning 4 times the national average (~160K vs ~40k). They are boosting both to keep employees from defecting to startups or competitors. And so are the startups and competitors.
Applause. So few people get that this alone (as if there weren't many other reasons) is why we should tax the rich very heavily.
It rotates in a new set of good ol' boys. It's change, just not the change the revolutionaries were hoping for.
As you age, the risk that holding such a position for 5 hours will kill you shoots up rapidly into territory most people would find unacceptable.
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx
http://umaine.edu/ble/files/2011/01/US-healthcare-system.pdf
That covers three different dimensions for measurement, and we lose in every one.
Best post of this whole story. Thank you.
I think he requested under-appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_K._Le_Guin#Awards
Argue theory all you like, the statistics say the outcomes are better in basically every country with a socialized healthcare system. When facts and theory diverge, I prefer to stick with facts.
That's tough because you have to figure out the inflation factor, as well as escalating treatments. If I charge you $500 / pack of cigarettes, that may not be enough to cover modern medical treatment 20 years from now when you develop the cancer. The treatments on which your fee was based may not even exist anymore, so we can't even necessarily just restrict you to the treatment you've prepaid.
I'm happy with it.
I'd like everyone to have insurance too. Helps to encourage risk taking, which all the right wingers seem to think is a good thing if rich people can do it.
I'm pretty sure he meant what he said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jerry-rigged
Like a lot of the audience, I think it's really really good if products include the price of caring for the health of those who produce them.
http://jameskwak.net/about/
So he has some actual experience with seeing the kind of effort it takes to do software with high quality.
One could argue that their monopoly on that business exists only because of their software. But that would be crazy because their dominance of that industry clearly predates their software development phase.
And yet .... Google is the one with the 50 mil to do the buying.
Why isn't this +5 funny yet?
Sadly, drug abuse is actually quite prevalent in the sport.
Once. Consistently ranked in the top 5% on a lot of these coding competitions. He's really fast. Gets amazing things working in remarkably short time. Unfortunately they're an unmaintainable mess, and tend to be packed with bugs. They work for exactly the cases known at the start (well, sometimes only even most of those), and break as soon as they find a new edge case. We got a very low to possibly negative net productivity out of him.
I actually think they are quite clearly liable. The damages done by the false claims of their script are real and certainly pursuable. It just isn't perjury, specifically.
I guess that would be up to a lawyer to argue. I think it would probably be a tough case to bring though, as I'm sure the defense could/would claim that they don't intend for it to be flawed, and make every effort to correct it. Even if I were personally a member of the jury, I'd probably buy the claim that enforcing these copyrights requires an automated tool, and that the existence of the law implies the acceptability of these tools.