On a side note: classes originally meant what you did for a living, so if you were a priest, that was your class, if you were a warrior, that was your class, ir didn't matter if you were poor or Rich.
What you do for a living and what your income level is are pretty close to the same thing. Both are rough estimates, since some construction workers make $20/hr, some are specialists making $100k/yr and some own the company. But usually if you know someone's profession you can make a good guess as to what social class they are in even in modern times.
Now economists simplified it by income amount divides in percentiles... But that's just a gross oversimplifcation.
Economists only use income percentiles because it is the best data we have to study the classes. Upper middle class is not really defined by income, it is defined by how they live their life. Examples are that they can take nice vacations each year, don't worry about how to send their kids to college, shop at Brooks Brothers instead of Kohl's, have the ability to easy save enough to quit their job and become an entrepreneur (even when they already have a family), etc.
Economists don't have the time/money to survey a million people to ask about how they live their life, so they are forced to use income as a close approximation.
Even within the top 10%, the gap between the bottom and the top is growing wider. The real incomes of those at the bottom of that group (i.e the 10th centile) have already stagnated, just like everyone else below them.
That simply is not true. While in the last 30 years the size of the middle class has shrunk from 61% to 51% of the population (source), the upper class has seen its size grow from 14% of the population to 20%. Far more people fell to the lower class than those who rose to the upper class, but the upper class is growing. Not only is the upper class's median income increasing, but its size is growing. Even if the upper class's income was stagnant when you remove the 1% (which the data does not support), it would still be a good thing that its size is increasing.
As part of the past not being an indication of future results, I think people need to stop looking at the mid-20th century as the only model for an economy.
The 20th century saw the creation of the middle class as we think of it today. The wealthy needed a more skilled workforce to produce the products new technologies had made possible. The middle class was simply a byproduct of this need. Industrious people found a way to benefit from this more affluent working class and an entire new class of consumer was born.
The late 20th century saw the creation of the upper middle class. Additional advances in technology now meant the wealthy needed an even more skilled workforce. The upper middle class was simply a byproduct of this need. This upper middle class has much more disposable income than the middle class, so you start to see a shift in the type of products that exist in the economy. Instead of bargain food and bargain products, you see more fancy restaurants, Whole Foods, iPads, etc. It appears that an entire new class of consumer has been born again.
I see no reason why the economy cannot keep humming along selling its products to the upper middle class. The most profitable company in the world (Apple) sells almost exclusively to the upper middle class. The buzz created by selling to this market also makes the middle class stretch their dollars more to buy these expensive goods and services to "keep up with the Jones-es" (households with $60k income probably shouldn't spend money on iPhones, but they still do). The shrinking of the middle class hasn't seemed to hurt companies at all because they have this new more affluent market to sell to.
Over the next 20 years I expect the top 10% of households to have even more wealth than they do today, and the range of luxury products sold to them will be remarkable even by today's standards. The rest of the population will likely take on service related jobs for very low pay relative to the upper middle class, and will probably be very dependent on society for covering basic living expenses. I don't see this as a utopian world by any means, but it is what I expect to happen.
And we are talking about water, so there is a relatively inelastic demand here.
Water demand can be very elastic when there are actual economic incentives. For anyone to say demand is inelastic shows just how wasteful we are with water in modern society.
Even if you don't think it will affect the poor that much, it is a concern that needs to be addressed or the market pricing route is a political dead end.
Just use subsidies for now, and wait for the next crisis for an excuse to end those subsidies.
That is not what he suggested. He suggested "setting" a price for water. Letting the price of water float is a different idea that requires that private people be allowed to own and trade water.
He said setting a market rate. Using a market rate clearly implies letting the market set the rate. It does not imply setting an arbitrary rate.
The truth is that water rights are a very complicated issue. Water falls on a combination of private and public land. You obviously can't go full-libertarian and have downstream users at the full mercy of upstream landowners, and things get even dicier when multiple governments (or even nations) are involved.
These complications are already being dealth with by the California government. California has a wide range of short term, long term, and permanent contracts to ensure public use of water in the state. Here are some details on the California water market if you are interested. The problem of obtaining the water and paying whoever owns the water is already a solved problem.
We are only discussing how to divvy the water out. That is a much simpler problem. There would probably be complications as the state's current contracts expire and the land owners want a cut of the extra money, but I'm sure eminent domain could be used to prevent any excessive profiteering.
While I agree that this is probably the right thing to do, who gets this money?
Its not like California couldn't use the money. Its government is doing better than it was five years ago but it isn't exactly the most solvent state in the union.
And how is the government setting some arbitrary price for a commodity to achieve some objective not a "top down" solution?
What is top down about letting the price of water settle at whatever level is necessary to reduce consumption to a manageable level? That is what would happen naturally if the government wasn't involved at all. The government's only role should be (IMHO) to stop abuse such as private companies from profiteering at the state's expense. Perhaps also spending money on water reclamation and desalination programs to lessen the burden of paying for water as well.
but when you have to dress it up with celebrity and T&A, it seem to be missing the point that these things are interesting and worth knowing about in their own right, and not because it has some celebrity endorsement.
It was the possibility of creating computer games that got me interested in programming initially. If you would have started telling me in 4th grade about how programming can be used to integrate CRM and ERP systems I probably would have just kept playing Nintendo instead of learning QBASIC.
Sometimes you need to get people hooked on how a topic can be cool before you start showing them how it can be practical.
and both groups are happy with what they're doing, then we don't have a problem that needs fixing.
Whose to say they are happy with it? There are plenty of women who are not happy with the status quo. They are among the ones leading changes such as the one in this article.
No, I think we should let each person be free to pursue whatever education and career they like, and remove as many barriers as possible.
That is exactly what these groups are doing. One barrier for women is that society makes it pretty clear what they should like at a very early age. This means that by the age of 10 they have already been led towards playing with dolls instead of tools. Correcting these kinds of barriers takes effort; it won't just correct itself.
Funny how you went from "not all" to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" to "slightly genetic differences".
I started with "not all" because that was one statement that cannot be disputed. I moved to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" because that is my impression from the research I have done. I moved to "slight genetic differences" because that is my impression of what most feminists believe.
Pay attention to the context of each of my statements. I use terms such as "From what I have read" and "Most educated feminists would agree" to provide this context. It isn't that hard to follow if you aren't intentionally trying to take my statements out of context.
Of course there are also sociological factors, but these are a reaction to genetic differences. It makes sense to reinforce the natural differences for optimal performance as a group.
Just because the average man and average woman have differences doesn't mean certain men and certain women don't have the exact same motivations, interests, etc. It is not optimal to treat all women the same just because on average they are different than men. Black men have shown they probably have a genetic advantage in sports such as basketball, but you shouldn't accept a society that discourages white men from playing basketball just because of these slight genetic differences.
Just like we shouldn't accept a society that condones the societal factors that make women less likely to pursue certain fields.
I know there's a difference in men and women, and that this difference is genetic. This means that men and women have different interests, different ways of solving problems, different ways to communicate with others.
Of course, plenty of people try to deny that, and try to fix a problem that doesn't need to be fixed.
I am not aware of any research which backs up that all perceived differences between genders in their interests, problem solving, and communication are purely genetic. I don't even know of any research which backs up it is mostly genetic. There is research which shows genetics plays a role, but the magnitude of this difference is very much in question.
There is plenty of research which shows sociological factors shape the differences in interests, problem solving, and communication between the genders. Once again, we don't know the magnitude, but we know with almost certainty that it is not 100% genetic. From what I have read, it is much more likely to be less than 50% genetic, and perhaps much much lower than that. That is why we push for societal changes and not just blame all of these differences on genetics.
Most educated feminists would agree the balance in STEM will never reach 50/50 because of slight genetic differences and the fact women are the only gender that can give birth. But just because we won't reach 50/50 doesn't mean we cannot try to improve the gross imbalance we have today.
The company was making $2.2 million in profits, and 75-80% of that is also going into this wage increase. So he is significantly lowering his total compensation by a drastic amount (probably around 20% of his previous compensation).
Meh, like most CEOs out there Im sure he makes most of his income in bonuses and stock, I doubt that he'll really notice the drop in income from his annual salary. This is a publicity stunt and nothing more./cynicism.
The company was projected to make $2.2 million in profit and he was going to make $1 million in salary. He is also cutting into 75-80% of his profits to pay for this wage increase, so the total amount of money being spent is an extra $2.6 million. He has one partner and I couldn't find the equity split, but the owner is likely going from around $2.5 million in total compensation down to about $400k. That is a pretty large difference.
The owner is still making a lot of money, but I don't think this gesture should be written off as a publicity stunt.
Car analogy time: your car for some reason veers left. The logical response isn't for you to just compensate by steering to the right. That's not going to get your car fixed.
But wouldn't you steer the car to the right until you fixed the car? Perhaps I missed your point, but your analogy seems to agree with using a stopgap solution until the gender imbalances are fixed in the schools.
Well I can say these announcements have brought me back to developing in.Net. C# has been my favorite language by far ever since v3.5 (and was my favorite by a little since v2.0) but its vendor lock was becoming too much of a liability.
The moment I can go back to C# and easily have my code run on *nix servers I will drop Java in a heartbeat. Just being able to use LINQ again in my professional life will be a blessing. And going back to Visual Studio over Eclipse / Netbeans / and even IntelliJ is also something I have been longing for.
Stop wasting our time with this crap and give us a goddamn 4k 17" laptop! Or anything better than standard HD. Just 1 extra vertical pixel would at least show progress.
Great! So, whomever you are, just post your contact information so we can have the government submit all FOIA and other inquiries through you since you apparently think that you are the arbiter for whether something used in the conduct of government is pertinent.
When did I ever claim that? Claiming a third party should be involved is not the same as saying I am qualified.
And I don't even think a third party should have been involved. I think the email controversy was stupid... until she deleted the files.
I do think shredding sessions, digital or physical, are wrong. And as far as I know, destroying documents you could reasonably expect may be subpoenaed in the future is illegal. And not traffic ticket kind of illegal, prison kind of illegal. At least for average people without enough political clout it seems.
You mean after actually giving the State Department the emails that were work pertinent? People seem to think that no one has seen 'any' of her emails, but that actually isn't the case.
Hillary and her people were the ones who went through the emails to determine which were work related. That is no different than a suspect telling the police he searched his home for the murder weapon and found nothing, so move along.
The Republicans would love to access to every email she had at that point. They would find *something* so that they could splash more mud on her. Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton as president canidate.
I completely agree the Republicans only wanted the emails to drum up more scandal. They would have scanned through them to find emails that sounded hostile towards working mothers, poor people, etc. so they can take them out of context and create mud to sling at her.
But I don't think "I thought the evidence would hinder my political ambitions" is a reasonable defense.
I am pretty liberal and I can hardly imagine voting Republican again for a while, but even I cannot understand why the email thing isn't a bigger deal. I guess that is because I am not a lawyer. From what I can tell, deleting potential evidence that you even think might be subpoenaed later is a crime. A pretty serious one. And the Republicans have been threatening to subpoena for those records since the scandal started.
This doesn't seem like some little transgression to me. I think the Benghazi nonsense is just that, nonsense. But the email deletions literally seem like a jail-able offense to me. And honestly I think they should be. As far as I can tell the only reason she isn't in more trouble is because Eric Holder is a very political attorney general.
I would love for someone to convince me this isn't a big deal, and considering the media doesn't cover this more I am probably just wrong about how bad it is. I thought the email scandal was ridiculous when it was just about using her private server, but the second she admitted to deleting the emails things just became far less trivial.
The problem isn't the schools but the population and the parents. Schools can't fix that. Schools can teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, but they can't teach sense, and they can't make the proverbial horse drink.
I wish when I was faced with a difficult problem at work I could just say "my users can barely use their computer so its their fault they can't understand my UI". Or some other such nonsense.
Teachers do not have an easy job, but it is their job. The teaching profession needs to come up with real solutions to this, or outside organizations will. It is a very difficult problem so far more organizations will fail than succeed, but we will absolutely need to keep trying. And considering many countries have found ways to mitigate these problems it appears to be a very fixable problem. The funny thing is many of these countries just used good ideas they found from the US and simply instituted them on a national scale.
At the very least he didn't bother to proof read what he wrote.
He is not writing a dissertation, he is posting on an Internet forum. Even professional editors let errors into articles and books, so holding up people writing responses in their spare time to a higher standard than professional writers is a bit daft.
I will put this out for you: A patent clerk developing leading physics theories?
Einstein was very well educated and did well in school. He was in the patent office while searching for a teaching position, not because he was some kind of college dropout. Albert Einstein was an academic through and through.
If they're banned from certain US technology and for purpose, then any route around that through any 3rd party would be illegal.
I don't understand how this could work. Would Intel have to access all CRM data for every 3rd party vendor they sell Xeon chips to? I mean if Intel sells a Xeon chip to Sweden's version of Best Buy, and China buys them from that store, how would the US government or even Intel themselves know about it?
Is Intel really expected to track every chip they sell all the way to the computer it is finally installed on, and then track every time that computer is shipped to a new location?
"Unless your products have 100% profit, you will always lose money by giving someone money to buy your product."
If that were true you wouldn't see the vending machines that fill break rooms that used to have free refreshments for workers.
The vending machines are there as a perk, similar to raising wages. They are not there to bolster Skittles sales. If you are saying Ford raised its wages for the same reason companies give health insurance and free coffee, then I agree with you. If you are saying they did it to create a market for its cars, that is where history, and simple common sense, don't back up your claims.
"his car prices were set at a rate that his target audience could afford. They were not linked in any way."
Ford's target market was the typical american worker, it was no coincidence. You have to pay your workers regardless, if you can get them to turn around and spend that pay back into your pockets suddenly your labor costs just went down by your profit margin. See Walmart. Walmart's pricing is also targeted at what it's staff can afford.
Almost any luxury brand will have most of its workers making wages too low to buy its products. Most companies obviously produce products their employees can buy only since most companies target the middle/working class because most people are in the middle/working class. It isn't a cause / effect relationship.
That is a false dichotomy and you know it. Firstly jetliner’s aren't a consumer item cars are. Secondly his auto workers were not the sole consumers of the Model T but it was set at a price point his workers could afford.
Not exactly sure why its a false dichotomy. Perhaps its a strawman. It was merely used to both show how silly the Ford myth is and inject some humor. A more apt comparison would be to an Avon lady who buys her own products to make more money. Unless your products have 100% profit, you will always lose money by giving someone money to buy your product. And even then you will only break even. It doesn't really take an analogy to realize how ridiculous the myth is, but sadly many people still believe it.
The fact that the Model T was at a price point his workers could afford was merely a coincidence. His wages were set at a rate which reduced attrition, and his car prices were set at a rate that his target audience could afford. They were not linked in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
On a side note: classes originally meant what you did for a living, so if you were a priest, that was your class, if you were a warrior, that was your class, ir didn't matter if you were poor or Rich.
What you do for a living and what your income level is are pretty close to the same thing. Both are rough estimates, since some construction workers make $20/hr, some are specialists making $100k/yr and some own the company. But usually if you know someone's profession you can make a good guess as to what social class they are in even in modern times.
Now economists simplified it by income amount divides in percentiles... But that's just a gross oversimplifcation.
Economists only use income percentiles because it is the best data we have to study the classes. Upper middle class is not really defined by income, it is defined by how they live their life. Examples are that they can take nice vacations each year, don't worry about how to send their kids to college, shop at Brooks Brothers instead of Kohl's, have the ability to easy save enough to quit their job and become an entrepreneur (even when they already have a family), etc.
Economists don't have the time/money to survey a million people to ask about how they live their life, so they are forced to use income as a close approximation.
Even within the top 10%, the gap between the bottom and the top is growing wider. The real incomes of those at the bottom of that group (i.e the 10th centile) have already stagnated, just like everyone else below them.
That simply is not true. While in the last 30 years the size of the middle class has shrunk from 61% to 51% of the population (source), the upper class has seen its size grow from 14% of the population to 20%. Far more people fell to the lower class than those who rose to the upper class, but the upper class is growing. Not only is the upper class's median income increasing, but its size is growing. Even if the upper class's income was stagnant when you remove the 1% (which the data does not support), it would still be a good thing that its size is increasing.
As part of the past not being an indication of future results, I think people need to stop looking at the mid-20th century as the only model for an economy.
The 20th century saw the creation of the middle class as we think of it today. The wealthy needed a more skilled workforce to produce the products new technologies had made possible. The middle class was simply a byproduct of this need. Industrious people found a way to benefit from this more affluent working class and an entire new class of consumer was born.
The late 20th century saw the creation of the upper middle class. Additional advances in technology now meant the wealthy needed an even more skilled workforce. The upper middle class was simply a byproduct of this need. This upper middle class has much more disposable income than the middle class, so you start to see a shift in the type of products that exist in the economy. Instead of bargain food and bargain products, you see more fancy restaurants, Whole Foods, iPads, etc. It appears that an entire new class of consumer has been born again.
I see no reason why the economy cannot keep humming along selling its products to the upper middle class. The most profitable company in the world (Apple) sells almost exclusively to the upper middle class. The buzz created by selling to this market also makes the middle class stretch their dollars more to buy these expensive goods and services to "keep up with the Jones-es" (households with $60k income probably shouldn't spend money on iPhones, but they still do). The shrinking of the middle class hasn't seemed to hurt companies at all because they have this new more affluent market to sell to.
Over the next 20 years I expect the top 10% of households to have even more wealth than they do today, and the range of luxury products sold to them will be remarkable even by today's standards. The rest of the population will likely take on service related jobs for very low pay relative to the upper middle class, and will probably be very dependent on society for covering basic living expenses. I don't see this as a utopian world by any means, but it is what I expect to happen.
And we are talking about water, so there is a relatively inelastic demand here.
Water demand can be very elastic when there are actual economic incentives. For anyone to say demand is inelastic shows just how wasteful we are with water in modern society.
Even if you don't think it will affect the poor that much, it is a concern that needs to be addressed or the market pricing route is a political dead end.
Just use subsidies for now, and wait for the next crisis for an excuse to end those subsidies.
That is not what he suggested. He suggested "setting" a price for water. Letting the price of water float is a different idea that requires that private people be allowed to own and trade water.
He said setting a market rate. Using a market rate clearly implies letting the market set the rate. It does not imply setting an arbitrary rate.
The truth is that water rights are a very complicated issue. Water falls on a combination of private and public land. You obviously can't go full-libertarian and have downstream users at the full mercy of upstream landowners, and things get even dicier when multiple governments (or even nations) are involved.
These complications are already being dealth with by the California government. California has a wide range of short term, long term, and permanent contracts to ensure public use of water in the state. Here are some details on the California water market if you are interested. The problem of obtaining the water and paying whoever owns the water is already a solved problem.
We are only discussing how to divvy the water out. That is a much simpler problem. There would probably be complications as the state's current contracts expire and the land owners want a cut of the extra money, but I'm sure eminent domain could be used to prevent any excessive profiteering.
While I agree that this is probably the right thing to do, who gets this money?
Its not like California couldn't use the money. Its government is doing better than it was five years ago but it isn't exactly the most solvent state in the union.
And how is the government setting some arbitrary price for a commodity to achieve some objective not a "top down" solution?
What is top down about letting the price of water settle at whatever level is necessary to reduce consumption to a manageable level? That is what would happen naturally if the government wasn't involved at all. The government's only role should be (IMHO) to stop abuse such as private companies from profiteering at the state's expense. Perhaps also spending money on water reclamation and desalination programs to lessen the burden of paying for water as well.
but when you have to dress it up with celebrity and T&A, it seem to be missing the point that these things are interesting and worth knowing about in their own right, and not because it has some celebrity endorsement.
It was the possibility of creating computer games that got me interested in programming initially. If you would have started telling me in 4th grade about how programming can be used to integrate CRM and ERP systems I probably would have just kept playing Nintendo instead of learning QBASIC.
Sometimes you need to get people hooked on how a topic can be cool before you start showing them how it can be practical.
and both groups are happy with what they're doing, then we don't have a problem that needs fixing.
Whose to say they are happy with it? There are plenty of women who are not happy with the status quo. They are among the ones leading changes such as the one in this article.
No, I think we should let each person be free to pursue whatever education and career they like, and remove as many barriers as possible.
That is exactly what these groups are doing. One barrier for women is that society makes it pretty clear what they should like at a very early age. This means that by the age of 10 they have already been led towards playing with dolls instead of tools. Correcting these kinds of barriers takes effort; it won't just correct itself.
Funny how you went from "not all" to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" to "slightly genetic differences".
I started with "not all" because that was one statement that cannot be disputed. I moved to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" because that is my impression from the research I have done. I moved to "slight genetic differences" because that is my impression of what most feminists believe.
Pay attention to the context of each of my statements. I use terms such as "From what I have read" and "Most educated feminists would agree" to provide this context. It isn't that hard to follow if you aren't intentionally trying to take my statements out of context.
Of course there are also sociological factors, but these are a reaction to genetic differences. It makes sense to reinforce the natural differences for optimal performance as a group.
Just because the average man and average woman have differences doesn't mean certain men and certain women don't have the exact same motivations, interests, etc. It is not optimal to treat all women the same just because on average they are different than men. Black men have shown they probably have a genetic advantage in sports such as basketball, but you shouldn't accept a society that discourages white men from playing basketball just because of these slight genetic differences.
Just like we shouldn't accept a society that condones the societal factors that make women less likely to pursue certain fields.
I know there's a difference in men and women, and that this difference is genetic. This means that men and women have different interests, different ways of solving problems, different ways to communicate with others.
Of course, plenty of people try to deny that, and try to fix a problem that doesn't need to be fixed.
I am not aware of any research which backs up that all perceived differences between genders in their interests, problem solving, and communication are purely genetic. I don't even know of any research which backs up it is mostly genetic. There is research which shows genetics plays a role, but the magnitude of this difference is very much in question.
There is plenty of research which shows sociological factors shape the differences in interests, problem solving, and communication between the genders. Once again, we don't know the magnitude, but we know with almost certainty that it is not 100% genetic. From what I have read, it is much more likely to be less than 50% genetic, and perhaps much much lower than that. That is why we push for societal changes and not just blame all of these differences on genetics.
Most educated feminists would agree the balance in STEM will never reach 50/50 because of slight genetic differences and the fact women are the only gender that can give birth. But just because we won't reach 50/50 doesn't mean we cannot try to improve the gross imbalance we have today.
The company was making $2.2 million in profits, and 75-80% of that is also going into this wage increase. So he is significantly lowering his total compensation by a drastic amount (probably around 20% of his previous compensation).
Meh, like most CEOs out there Im sure he makes most of his income in bonuses and stock, I doubt that he'll really notice the drop in income from his annual salary. This is a publicity stunt and nothing more. /cynicism.
The company was projected to make $2.2 million in profit and he was going to make $1 million in salary. He is also cutting into 75-80% of his profits to pay for this wage increase, so the total amount of money being spent is an extra $2.6 million. He has one partner and I couldn't find the equity split, but the owner is likely going from around $2.5 million in total compensation down to about $400k. That is a pretty large difference.
The owner is still making a lot of money, but I don't think this gesture should be written off as a publicity stunt.
Car analogy time: your car for some reason veers left. The logical response isn't for you to just compensate by steering to the right. That's not going to get your car fixed.
But wouldn't you steer the car to the right until you fixed the car? Perhaps I missed your point, but your analogy seems to agree with using a stopgap solution until the gender imbalances are fixed in the schools.
Well I can say these announcements have brought me back to developing in .Net. C# has been my favorite language by far ever since v3.5 (and was my favorite by a little since v2.0) but its vendor lock was becoming too much of a liability.
The moment I can go back to C# and easily have my code run on *nix servers I will drop Java in a heartbeat. Just being able to use LINQ again in my professional life will be a blessing. And going back to Visual Studio over Eclipse / Netbeans / and even IntelliJ is also something I have been longing for.
There are really obvious exceptions that rule. Need an actor to play a historical figure who was black?
Looks like someone has never seen Tropical Thunder.
Stop wasting our time with this crap and give us a goddamn 4k 17" laptop! Or anything better than standard HD. Just 1 extra vertical pixel would at least show progress.
Great! So, whomever you are, just post your contact information so we can have the government submit all FOIA and other inquiries through you since you apparently think that you are the arbiter for whether something used in the conduct of government is pertinent.
When did I ever claim that? Claiming a third party should be involved is not the same as saying I am qualified.
And I don't even think a third party should have been involved. I think the email controversy was stupid ... until she deleted the files.
I do think shredding sessions, digital or physical, are wrong. And as far as I know, destroying documents you could reasonably expect may be subpoenaed in the future is illegal. And not traffic ticket kind of illegal, prison kind of illegal. At least for average people without enough political clout it seems.
You mean after actually giving the State Department the emails that were work pertinent? People seem to think that no one has seen 'any' of her emails, but that actually isn't the case.
Hillary and her people were the ones who went through the emails to determine which were work related. That is no different than a suspect telling the police he searched his home for the murder weapon and found nothing, so move along.
The Republicans would love to access to every email she had at that point. They would find *something* so that they could splash more mud on her. Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton as president canidate.
I completely agree the Republicans only wanted the emails to drum up more scandal. They would have scanned through them to find emails that sounded hostile towards working mothers, poor people, etc. so they can take them out of context and create mud to sling at her.
But I don't think "I thought the evidence would hinder my political ambitions" is a reasonable defense.
How about all them deleted emails?
Yawn.
I am pretty liberal and I can hardly imagine voting Republican again for a while, but even I cannot understand why the email thing isn't a bigger deal. I guess that is because I am not a lawyer. From what I can tell, deleting potential evidence that you even think might be subpoenaed later is a crime. A pretty serious one. And the Republicans have been threatening to subpoena for those records since the scandal started.
This doesn't seem like some little transgression to me. I think the Benghazi nonsense is just that, nonsense. But the email deletions literally seem like a jail-able offense to me. And honestly I think they should be. As far as I can tell the only reason she isn't in more trouble is because Eric Holder is a very political attorney general.
I would love for someone to convince me this isn't a big deal, and considering the media doesn't cover this more I am probably just wrong about how bad it is. I thought the email scandal was ridiculous when it was just about using her private server, but the second she admitted to deleting the emails things just became far less trivial.
The problem isn't the schools but the population and the parents. Schools can't fix that. Schools can teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, but they can't teach sense, and they can't make the proverbial horse drink.
I wish when I was faced with a difficult problem at work I could just say "my users can barely use their computer so its their fault they can't understand my UI". Or some other such nonsense.
Teachers do not have an easy job, but it is their job. The teaching profession needs to come up with real solutions to this, or outside organizations will. It is a very difficult problem so far more organizations will fail than succeed, but we will absolutely need to keep trying. And considering many countries have found ways to mitigate these problems it appears to be a very fixable problem. The funny thing is many of these countries just used good ideas they found from the US and simply instituted them on a national scale.
At the very least he didn't bother to proof read what he wrote.
He is not writing a dissertation, he is posting on an Internet forum. Even professional editors let errors into articles and books, so holding up people writing responses in their spare time to a higher standard than professional writers is a bit daft.
I will put this out for you: A patent clerk developing leading physics theories?
Einstein was very well educated and did well in school. He was in the patent office while searching for a teaching position, not because he was some kind of college dropout. Albert Einstein was an academic through and through.
If they're banned from certain US technology and for purpose, then any route around that through any 3rd party would be illegal.
I don't understand how this could work. Would Intel have to access all CRM data for every 3rd party vendor they sell Xeon chips to? I mean if Intel sells a Xeon chip to Sweden's version of Best Buy, and China buys them from that store, how would the US government or even Intel themselves know about it?
Is Intel really expected to track every chip they sell all the way to the computer it is finally installed on, and then track every time that computer is shipped to a new location?
"Unless your products have 100% profit, you will always lose money by giving someone money to buy your product."
If that were true you wouldn't see the vending machines that fill break rooms that used to have free refreshments for workers.
The vending machines are there as a perk, similar to raising wages. They are not there to bolster Skittles sales. If you are saying Ford raised its wages for the same reason companies give health insurance and free coffee, then I agree with you. If you are saying they did it to create a market for its cars, that is where history, and simple common sense, don't back up your claims.
"his car prices were set at a rate that his target audience could afford. They were not linked in any way."
Ford's target market was the typical american worker, it was no coincidence. You have to pay your workers regardless, if you can get them to turn around and spend that pay back into your pockets suddenly your labor costs just went down by your profit margin. See Walmart. Walmart's pricing is also targeted at what it's staff can afford.
Almost any luxury brand will have most of its workers making wages too low to buy its products. Most companies obviously produce products their employees can buy only since most companies target the middle/working class because most people are in the middle/working class. It isn't a cause / effect relationship.
That is a false dichotomy and you know it. Firstly jetliner’s aren't a consumer item cars are. Secondly his auto workers were not the sole consumers of the Model T but it was set at a price point his workers could afford.
Not exactly sure why its a false dichotomy. Perhaps its a strawman. It was merely used to both show how silly the Ford myth is and inject some humor. A more apt comparison would be to an Avon lady who buys her own products to make more money. Unless your products have 100% profit, you will always lose money by giving someone money to buy your product. And even then you will only break even. It doesn't really take an analogy to realize how ridiculous the myth is, but sadly many people still believe it.
The fact that the Model T was at a price point his workers could afford was merely a coincidence. His wages were set at a rate which reduced attrition, and his car prices were set at a rate that his target audience could afford. They were not linked in any way.