You make the company sound so evil. No scratch that. You make any large national chain of companies sound evil. What should we do? Should all communities ban nationwide chains? Should the federal government outlaw them lest "money leave the community"? What do you suggest other than personal citizens choosing more carefully where to spend.
Selfish I'll give you. I'm selfish and proud. Wasteful? Well only while supplies last. Hybrid cars are on the way. You won't have the wasteful argument for much longer.
Seriously however, I make good money. Why the fuck should I ride the bus/train with the smelly unwashed masses like so many others HAVE to instead of wanting to?
So now we should hate all big large companies because the dollars we spend at their stores leaves the communities? I was under the impression that all businesses large and small were taxed for the amount of money that each community feels it needs to run. Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
What about those who simply hate public transit? I grew up poor in Boston, and it has one of the best public transit systems in the entire US but still at the end of the day public transit is still public transit. I don't see why you think cars are not good for going from point A to B in an urban area. They work just fine for that here. The only congestion is like 45 minutes in the morning and in the evening during rush hours. Perhaps if you had better civic engineers who understood people's desire for cars instead of trying to get everyone to stop driving you'd have a better road system up there now?
Ugh. I really hate folks who are anti-driving. Its like what part of "public transportation is not for everyone" do you not understand? Not everyone likes to wait for busses and trains to arrive just to get on a packed vehicle next to a smelly passenger on a ride that will take 10 stops to get to where they wish to go.
I live in Boston, which has the oldest underground system in the US, and somehow the civic engineers were able to adapt to this brand new invention called the AUTOMOBILE and design roads, streets and highways appropriately to handle the amount of traffic we have today. I don't see why this was not done or could not be done to London. Its not like London is a city of immense size carrying 100 million citizens.
I think the main problem is certain European elites simply do not want to admit that not everyone is as enamored with public transit as they are. With Asian and European car sales on the rise for the past decade you'd think they'd get the message. Apparently not.....
Thats great info then actually. I'll have no qualms now of upgrading to the new Kyocera Smartphone 7135 when it comes out. It will only run OS 4. My current 6035 has 3.5.1 and works very well.
So we have to wait for OS 6? I thought OS 5 was supposed to have the Be stuff in it. We've been waiting for 5 too long to have to wait even longer until 6.
So is that what you think of all current apartment complexes? I grew up in one and I don't consider it an unatrual way of life. I'm also not proposing it for the entire populace. I was speaking mainly of the massive complexes as way to house livestock and crops not people. I also left out that orbital platforms would make a nice option for more space for livestock/crops. This gives us the entire room of space itself for production.
Common sense is not so common. I don't think you're going to get many people to agree that the world of today is significantly worse than the days of 100's or 1000's of years ago when cities and towns were smaller and there was less engineering and technology to serve the populace. If the world needs to accomdate tens of billions of humans in the future, cities will get larger, buildings will get taller and life will go on with nary a blip.
Uh no? You think I want to bike everywhere? What about weather? What about when I'm out on a date? Are we supposed to BIKE there together? WTF kind of a person are you? Not to mention the high rate of bike theft in the US. I've had a bike stolen 2 times when I was a teenage. I used locks. People get tired of that crap eventually you know.
That all depends on if their having more children actually ends up making the world go to hell as you claim. But thats just your assumption. You have no concrete evidence to support that claim. So you're hating these people based on a belief. Thats not very intelligent. You'd also have to assume that technology would not advance to keep up with human population growth, something its never failed to do. Agricultural science and production, medical science, social science, materials science......all of them have risen to match what humanity required of them.
I think you're just looking for a reason to kill someone's children.
I really wish people would comprehend that as the number of people increases in any area or even on the planet as a whole, we will simply build more and higher structures to hold and accomodate them. New York City has millions of people today. 200 years ago it didn't. If you tried to put millions of people in the NYC of 200 years ago it would be a disaster. What makes the difference between the two time periods? BIGGER AND MORE BUILDINGS!
Its not a failed economy just because your precious degreed friends can't currently get the jobs that they want. No economy can employ every single able bodied individual at the same time. Its just not going to happen. Those companies are laying off not just to boost the stock price, but also to reduce costs. You want them to go out of business just so they can keep those surplus workers employed? Geez. You make it sound like there's starvation in the streets with people going jobless for 5 or 6 years. Following Japan's example of making sure everyone has "employment for life" is disasterous. It causes the companies to constantly lose money necessitating constant government bailouts, loans and subsidies. Healthy economies have companies that are allowed to die if the market dictates so. This creative destruction then presents opportunities for other or new companies to come along and profit where the previous one could not.
Before this whole dot.com boom it WAS customary for recent grads to have difficultly landing their first job, often taking up such jobs as Wal-Mart cashiers or some other low wage job just to survive. Only recently in the 90's did everyone start to think that you're just "SUPPOSED" to get a job immediately after graduation and never want for a job until you wish to retire.
The huge drop in demand took us from around 4% unemployment to the current 5.9%. Thats a large difference if you study economics, especially here in America. Considering how almost no other industrialized nation has an unemployment rate as LOW as ours still is, perhaps you simply do not realize how good we still, and will continue to have it here.
As for those not counted because they aren't receiving UI, well they must not be that bad off if they don't even apply for it.
During the boom time 90's there were simply TOO MANY PEOPLE WORKING. Add seriously retarded business plans and shaddy accounting practices, IPO's influenced by consulting firms that also managed those same IPO's and you have a recipe for a significant correction in the economy. Thats what we're seeing right now. The fundamentals of our economy are still sound however and the economy is still growing. You can have a jobless recovery you know. It doesn't stay that way for long as the increased production absoultely eventually necessitates an uptick in hiring.
If you are expecting 0% unemployment in an economy well don't hold your breath. No one even thought our previous levels of sub 5% unemployment were possible.
As for the people not "BEING HIRED BACK" well you are wrong. [url]http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=T op%20Financial%20News&s1=blk,&s2=ad_right1_topfin& tp=ad_topright_topfin&refer=topfin&T=markets_bfgcg i_content99.ht&bt=ad_position1_topfin&middle=ad_fr ame2_topfin&s=APSXcahUaVS5TLiBF[/url]
This link will tell you that "Unemployment rose from 5.8 percent in May, and payrolls increased by 36,000, compared with the 75,000 expected in a Bloomberg News survey of economists." While job growth was lower than expected, it was still growth.
Also, do you think that just because someone went to college and is "highly-qualified" whatever that means, that they are entitled to employment? During the boom a lot of people studied fields that they thought would lead them to VERY lucrative careers. Well thats the thing about booms. The economy never needs as many people in any specific field as everyone says it does. So those who graduate at the end of the boom get screwed.
The recovery, while slow to start, is very real. "The U.S. economy grew at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest in more than two years, after falling into recession in March 2001. Growth is expected to have slowed to a 2.7 percent pace in the second quarter, which ended last month. It may pick up to a 3.5 percent pace by year's end, economists surveyed by Bloomberg News said. "
So you know a half-dozen people who are unemployable. Big deal. Here in Boston our unemployment rate is actually below the national average. Does that make me think everyone in the nation has a job currently? No. So why does your own admittedly anecdotal experience lead you to believe things are so dire for our nation as a whole?
"So all of the people out of work now *should* be out of work, right? There have been a half million layoffs (and those are only the reported ones) in the last 18 months, with about 40,000 of those happening in the last two."
Well to put it succinctly, yes silly. We had a huge run up in the supply of workers and a huge drop in demand for them. Supply and demand. Economics 101.
Uh no. The rest of the world does not have to become fluent in technology in order to avoid pissing you off. Thats not how it works. Should we require everyone to become a mechanic as well in order to drive or a biologist in order to reproduce?
Despite Japan's prolonged recession it remains the world's second largest economy. Its also the first in the world in the field of robotics. I don't see how their businesses are falling behind technologically.
6% isn't fiction, (it recently creeped up to 5.9% actually). What we had was a bubble. The fact that it was able to burst and have such tepid effects on the greater economy as a whole is what's amazing and a true testement to the resilliency of the American economy.
When are you going to just come to grips with the fact that previous levels of tech employment were artificially high and are now at the levels they were meant to be at?
No problem man. I understand completely. You're just doing what comes natural to any geek, and that is to spout useless technical trivia in a never ending contest of "who knows the most obscure facts about technology that no one else gives a flying rats ass about" in order to establish your place in the geek pecking order.
Ok. You know you're a geek when you expect knowledge of "faraday cages" to be common enough for regular folks to just "know" not only what they are, but what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
You make the company sound so evil. No scratch that. You make any large national chain of companies sound evil. What should we do? Should all communities ban nationwide chains? Should the federal government outlaw them lest "money leave the community"? What do you suggest other than personal citizens choosing more carefully where to spend.
Selfish I'll give you. I'm selfish and proud. Wasteful? Well only while supplies last. Hybrid cars are on the way. You won't have the wasteful argument for much longer.
Seriously however, I make good money. Why the fuck should I ride the bus/train with the smelly unwashed masses like so many others HAVE to instead of wanting to?
So now we should hate all big large companies because the dollars we spend at their stores leaves the communities? I was under the impression that all businesses large and small were taxed for the amount of money that each community feels it needs to run. Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
When Margaret Thatcher sold off the Commanding Heights of your economy back during the 80's she pretty much saved the UK economy.
What about those who simply hate public transit? I grew up poor in Boston, and it has one of the best public transit systems in the entire US but still at the end of the day public transit is still public transit. I don't see why you think cars are not good for going from point A to B in an urban area. They work just fine for that here. The only congestion is like 45 minutes in the morning and in the evening during rush hours. Perhaps if you had better civic engineers who understood people's desire for cars instead of trying to get everyone to stop driving you'd have a better road system up there now?
Ugh. I really hate folks who are anti-driving. Its like what part of "public transportation is not for everyone" do you not understand? Not everyone likes to wait for busses and trains to arrive just to get on a packed vehicle next to a smelly passenger on a ride that will take 10 stops to get to where they wish to go.
I live in Boston, which has the oldest underground system in the US, and somehow the civic engineers were able to adapt to this brand new invention called the AUTOMOBILE and design roads, streets and highways appropriately to handle the amount of traffic we have today. I don't see why this was not done or could not be done to London. Its not like London is a city of immense size carrying 100 million citizens.
I think the main problem is certain European elites simply do not want to admit that not everyone is as enamored with public transit as they are. With Asian and European car sales on the rise for the past decade you'd think they'd get the message. Apparently not.....
Duh, the United States. You know, the nation the Senate is supposed to care about the most?
When the Senate unanimously votes down ANYTHING its because it was a bad idea to begin with. Now SHUP.
We'll see about that you commie lover. We'll see.....
Thats great info then actually. I'll have no qualms now of upgrading to the new Kyocera Smartphone 7135 when it comes out. It will only run OS 4. My current 6035 has 3.5.1 and works very well.
So we have to wait for OS 6? I thought OS 5 was supposed to have the Be stuff in it. We've been waiting for 5 too long to have to wait even longer until 6.
So is that what you think of all current apartment complexes? I grew up in one and I don't consider it an unatrual way of life. I'm also not proposing it for the entire populace. I was speaking mainly of the massive complexes as way to house livestock and crops not people. I also left out that orbital platforms would make a nice option for more space for livestock/crops. This gives us the entire room of space itself for production.
Common sense is not so common. I don't think you're going to get many people to agree that the world of today is significantly worse than the days of 100's or 1000's of years ago when cities and towns were smaller and there was less engineering and technology to serve the populace. If the world needs to accomdate tens of billions of humans in the future, cities will get larger, buildings will get taller and life will go on with nary a blip.
Uh no? You think I want to bike everywhere? What about weather? What about when I'm out on a date? Are we supposed to BIKE there together? WTF kind of a person are you? Not to mention the high rate of bike theft in the US. I've had a bike stolen 2 times when I was a teenage. I used locks. People get tired of that crap eventually you know.
That all depends on if their having more children actually ends up making the world go to hell as you claim. But thats just your assumption. You have no concrete evidence to support that claim. So you're hating these people based on a belief. Thats not very intelligent. You'd also have to assume that technology would not advance to keep up with human population growth, something its never failed to do. Agricultural science and production, medical science, social science, materials science......all of them have risen to match what humanity required of them.
I think you're just looking for a reason to kill someone's children.
So you're suggesting that we all subscribe to some new age spirtual bullshit instead of buying the things that we want in order to find happiness?
I'll pass. Give me the big ol SUV instead.
I really wish people would comprehend that as the number of people increases in any area or even on the planet as a whole, we will simply build more and higher structures to hold and accomodate them. New York City has millions of people today. 200 years ago it didn't. If you tried to put millions of people in the NYC of 200 years ago it would be a disaster. What makes the difference between the two time periods? BIGGER AND MORE BUILDINGS!
Its not a failed economy just because your precious degreed friends can't currently get the jobs that they want. No economy can employ every single able bodied individual at the same time. Its just not going to happen. Those companies are laying off not just to boost the stock price, but also to reduce costs. You want them to go out of business just so they can keep those surplus workers employed? Geez. You make it sound like there's starvation in the streets with people going jobless for 5 or 6 years. Following Japan's example of making sure everyone has "employment for life" is disasterous. It causes the companies to constantly lose money necessitating constant government bailouts, loans and subsidies. Healthy economies have companies that are allowed to die if the market dictates so. This creative destruction then presents opportunities for other or new companies to come along and profit where the previous one could not.
Before this whole dot.com boom it WAS customary for recent grads to have difficultly landing their first job, often taking up such jobs as Wal-Mart cashiers or some other low wage job just to survive. Only recently in the 90's did everyone start to think that you're just "SUPPOSED" to get a job immediately after graduation and never want for a job until you wish to retire.
The huge drop in demand took us from around 4% unemployment to the current 5.9%. Thats a large difference if you study economics, especially here in America. Considering how almost no other industrialized nation has an unemployment rate as LOW as ours still is, perhaps you simply do not realize how good we still, and will continue to have it here.
As for those not counted because they aren't receiving UI, well they must not be that bad off if they don't even apply for it.
During the boom time 90's there were simply TOO MANY PEOPLE WORKING. Add seriously retarded business plans and shaddy accounting practices, IPO's influenced by consulting firms that also managed those same IPO's and you have a recipe for a significant correction in the economy. Thats what we're seeing right now. The fundamentals of our economy are still sound however and the economy is still growing. You can have a jobless recovery you know. It doesn't stay that way for long as the increased production absoultely eventually necessitates an uptick in hiring.
It most likely had something to do with all of that high quality lead piping they used for their water systems.
If you are expecting 0% unemployment in an economy well don't hold your breath. No one even thought our previous levels of sub 5% unemployment were possible.
T op%20Financial%20News&s1=blk,&s2=ad_right1_topfin& tp=ad_topright_topfin&refer=topfin&T=markets_bfgcg i_content99.ht&bt=ad_position1_topfin&middle=ad_fr ame2_topfin&s=APSXcahUaVS5TLiBF[/url]
As for the people not "BEING HIRED BACK" well you are wrong. [url]http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=
This link will tell you that "Unemployment rose from 5.8 percent in May, and payrolls increased by 36,000, compared with the 75,000 expected in a Bloomberg News survey of economists." While job growth was lower than expected, it was still growth.
Also, do you think that just because someone went to college and is "highly-qualified" whatever that means, that they are entitled to employment? During the boom a lot of people studied fields that they thought would lead them to VERY lucrative careers. Well thats the thing about booms. The economy never needs as many people in any specific field as everyone says it does. So those who graduate at the end of the boom get screwed.
The recovery, while slow to start, is very real. "The U.S. economy grew at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest in more than two years, after falling into recession in March 2001. Growth is expected to have slowed to a 2.7 percent pace in the second quarter, which ended last month. It may pick up to a 3.5 percent pace by year's end, economists surveyed by Bloomberg News said. "
So you know a half-dozen people who are unemployable. Big deal. Here in Boston our unemployment rate is actually below the national average. Does that make me think everyone in the nation has a job currently? No. So why does your own admittedly anecdotal experience lead you to believe things are so dire for our nation as a whole?
"So all of the people out of work now *should* be out of work, right? There have been a half million layoffs (and those are only the reported ones) in the last 18 months, with about 40,000 of those happening in the last two."
Well to put it succinctly, yes silly. We had a huge run up in the supply of workers and a huge drop in demand for them. Supply and demand. Economics 101.
Uh no. The rest of the world does not have to become fluent in technology in order to avoid pissing you off. Thats not how it works. Should we require everyone to become a mechanic as well in order to drive or a biologist in order to reproduce?
Despite Japan's prolonged recession it remains the world's second largest economy. Its also the first in the world in the field of robotics. I don't see how their businesses are falling behind technologically.
6% isn't fiction, (it recently creeped up to 5.9% actually). What we had was a bubble. The fact that it was able to burst and have such tepid effects on the greater economy as a whole is what's amazing and a true testement to the resilliency of the American economy.
When are you going to just come to grips with the fact that previous levels of tech employment were artificially high and are now at the levels they were meant to be at?
No problem man. I understand completely. You're just doing what comes natural to any geek, and that is to spout useless technical trivia in a never ending contest of "who knows the most obscure facts about technology that no one else gives a flying rats ass about" in order to establish your place in the geek pecking order.
Ok. You know you're a geek when you expect knowledge of "faraday cages" to be common enough for regular folks to just "know" not only what they are, but what they do.
So you leave your phone in the car because you're too stupid to figure out how to set it to vibrate?