The amount you are paid for applying your knowledge has less to do with the quality of your knowledge than how long you have been with the company
So, seniority counts more than skill in the companies(?) you worked for. Not being from the UK, I have to ask: are all companies required to reward employees on seniority? Was is something peculiar to the companies(?) you worked for?
With the decline of unions in the US, it seems there's less emphasis on seniority over here but that's a perception.
There seem to be some in the business community who think democracy would dilute their control over the government and, perhaps, thereby their profits.
This story from the International Herald Tribune, while specifically about Hong Kong, seems to illustrate the concept:
Equally, many business leaders -primarily members of the tycoon class, as they are known - show little interest in any political arrangement that would dilute their long-established ability to influence government, regardless of how swiftly Hong Kong is changing.
Don't let facts get in the way of leftist groupthink. The US == Teh Ebil Empire! Communism works as a model for government! People are all naturally good and always get along until an old white male shows up!... and yes, for the humor impaired this is supposed to be funny.
So yes, coal/oil/nuclear are cheaper in dollars and cents, but not cheaper when you factor in the hidden costs to society as a whole.
Other than a good feeling for reducing hidden costs to society, how do you get people to pay more for power from solar or other renewables?
I've heard the idea about taxing coal/oil ( not so much on nuclear ) but that seems prey to the will of the voter. Reducing subsidies for non-renewables has the same problem if it results in higher prices.
I'd prefer more research into reducing the cost of solar so that it's cheaper than non-renewables. The tipping point for solar ( or other renewables ) seems to be when it makes more sense economically than other forms of energy.
Some was for sale at my local supermarket. As sashimi it wasn't very good, but boiled it tasted rather like very tender beef ( with an odd rainbow hue from the fats ). Delicious. My neighbors liked it as well.
While it may not be a staple food, and perhaps the reason for the continued whale hunting is mostly cultural, people in Japan do ( or at least did ) eat whale meat.
there is no need for such throwbacks to cowboy era justice
You may have a point. Until then, sometimes reasonable people will need tools to deal with the criminal actions of unreasonable people. Look at police response time to 911 calls, and what can happen before police show up. Or even notice that societies still need police.
After all, it takes every member of a group to decide to get along, but only one person to decide they want conflict.
* You can give away your dog/cat if it doesn't work out.
* Pets acting weird? Take them to the vet where they're held down on a table and a thermometer is shoved up their back side. I don't think this is legal with teenage hairless beach-apes.
* Muzzle dog: yes. Muzzle teenage female to prevent 6 hour blabfest with her BFF Jill: no.
What gets lost is the scientific method, the idea that novel proposals need to be thoroughly vetted and tested, no matter how intuitively attractive they are.
Perhaps the bias in reporting is due to the "intuitive attractiveness" of the conclusion?
The opposite might be true as well. For instance, I didn't hear much about this study:
In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community has a correlation [expressed as a beta equal to 0.04 in a multiple regression analysis (see Putnam, 2007)], to less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although only a single study, limited to American data, and the Census tract Herfindahl Index of Ethnic Homogeneity only explaining 0.16 % of the variance in trust in neighbours in the regression model presented (Putnam, 2007) it claims to put into question both contact theory and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. According to contact theory, distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex and ages as "hunkering down" and going into their shells like a turtle. For example, he did not find any significant difference between 90 year olds and 30 year olds.
You'd think a Harvard professor saying in effect that diversity has a down side might be news worthy, unless that idea isn't attractive to the majority of the news media.
The proposed laws would allow police to search computers networked to those listed on a search warrant.
So, if there's a cable modem / DSL in use when the computer is searched the entire subnet could be searched? How about the web servers of sites displayed in a browser?
Everything else, of course, the individual can pay for, but providing basic care - an annual physical, immunizations, emergency care when necessary, etc - ought to be a no-brainer.
Does this mean then that a national health care system in the US should not pay for geriatric care, cancer treatment, et. al., since those seem to go beyond basic care as you defined it?
It seems that any national health care plan would have to limit coverage in order to keep costs down. That seems to be what the NHS in the UK just did, although in their case they may have cut patient services a bit too deeply.
From an economic perspective for an individual there seems to be a benefit to legal immigration. A legal immigrant / guest worker / what have you would seem to get greater benefits from their legal status.
So, would that mean then that politically / legally it would make more sense to eliminate citizenship/residency requirements?
Sounds like you've got legal and illegal immigration confused.
You and I seem to agree on this:
Immigration is a win-win situation. We benefit from low-priced labor, freeing our better educated workforce to hold better paying, more productive jobs, and the immigrants get jobs better than the ones they left behind, allowing them a better chance to escape from the poverty of their homeland.
However, illegal immigrants don't benefit as much from our society as legal immigrants. If they're subject to illegal working conditions ( violation of OSHA rules, for instance ) they have a disincentive to report that since they're here illegally. If they're using a false identity to work, they can't collect SSI ( for instance ) for the payroll taxes they pay via withholding... the list goes on.
It's not the "immigrant", but the "illegal" part that's the problem. This may mean something like a guest worker program, relaxed immigration rules, what have you.
The reason illegal immigrants are treated so poorly is because people like you have made it a crime to allow people to come here and work.
People like me? Wow. I'd no idea I've such power.
To be clear, I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm also in favor of making that easier to reduce wait times and backlogs.
I don't want to see anyone exploited because they're afraid to go to the authorities if their working conditions are unsafe, their wages are substandard, et. al. .
And I'd suggest that manufacturing in the US can be profitable, if the management of US companies were not complete idiots. Contrast and compare Ford and Honda, for instance.
Remittances, or contributions sent by Mexicans living abroad, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico, are a substantial and growing part of the Mexican economy; they comprised $18 billion in 2005.[52] In 2004, they became the second largest source of foreign income after crude oil exports, roughly equivalent to foreign direct investment (FDI) and larger than tourism expenditures; and represented 2.5 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product.[53] The growth of remittances has been remarkable: they have more than doubled since 1997. Recorded remittance transactions exceeded 41 million in 2003, of which 86 percent were made by electronic transfer.[40]
[ tinfoil ] Why, it's almost as if illegal immigration from Mexico is overlooked by the US Government as a method of foreign aid to Mexico. US corporations get cheap disposable labor ( if the workers complain they get deported ), Mexico gets an infusion of cash to prop up their government. [/tinfoil ]
It always annoys me when people like you think that, if only we paid the fruit pickers more and threw out all the migrant workers, then our economy would somehow boom. The only thing that would boom is the cost of the fruit, and that makes everyone who buys it poorer, it makes fruit from other countries more competitive in the marketplace, and that drives domestic fruit producers out of business. What a great plan.
Ahh... so the best option for everyone is to ensure illegal aliens arrive en mass. If they complain about low wages, hazardous working conditions or exploitive management ( see: Company Store ) then we deport them.
Right. Nice way to maintain a permanent underclass.
After all, it's not like if we required proof of citizenship and forced the agricultural industry to pay decent wages those workers would spend any money here in the US, right?
Or if we permitted those workers to come to the US on visas and bring their families with them the practice of sending remittances to their home country might dry up or significantly decrease thus keeping more money in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
So, seniority counts more than skill in the companies(?) you worked for. Not being from the UK, I have to ask: are all companies required to reward employees on seniority? Was is something peculiar to the companies(?) you worked for?
With the decline of unions in the US, it seems there's less emphasis on seniority over here but that's a perception.
What's old is new again eh?
This story from the International Herald Tribune, while specifically about Hong Kong, seems to illustrate the concept:
SHHHHHH!!!!!
/. .
... and yes, for the humor impaired this is supposed to be funny.
Come on man, this is
Don't let facts get in the way of leftist groupthink. The US == Teh Ebil Empire! Communism works as a model for government! People are all naturally good and always get along until an old white male shows up!
Other than a good feeling for reducing hidden costs to society, how do you get people to pay more for power from solar or other renewables?
I've heard the idea about taxing coal/oil ( not so much on nuclear ) but that seems prey to the will of the voter. Reducing subsidies for non-renewables has the same problem if it results in higher prices.
I'd prefer more research into reducing the cost of solar so that it's cheaper than non-renewables. The tipping point for solar ( or other renewables ) seems to be when it makes more sense economically than other forms of energy.
I did when I lived in Japan.
Some was for sale at my local supermarket. As sashimi it wasn't very good, but boiled it tasted rather like very tender beef ( with an odd rainbow hue from the fats ). Delicious. My neighbors liked it as well.
While it may not be a staple food, and perhaps the reason for the continued whale hunting is mostly cultural, people in Japan do ( or at least did ) eat whale meat.
You may have a point. Until then, sometimes reasonable people will need tools to deal with the criminal actions of unreasonable people. Look at police response time to 911 calls, and what can happen before police show up. Or even notice that societies still need police.
After all, it takes every member of a group to decide to get along, but only one person to decide they want conflict.
The TSA screeners at my local airport appear to be unarmed. There are armed airport police, but they're not Federal employees.
Not to mention other benefits:
* You can give away your dog/cat if it doesn't work out.
* Pets acting weird? Take them to the vet where they're held down on a table and a thermometer is shoved up their back side. I don't think this is legal with teenage hairless beach-apes.
* Muzzle dog: yes. Muzzle teenage female to prevent 6 hour blabfest with her BFF Jill: no.
[badum-ching]
Perhaps the bias in reporting is due to the "intuitive attractiveness" of the conclusion?
The opposite might be true as well. For instance, I didn't hear much about this study:
You'd think a Harvard professor saying in effect that diversity has a down side might be news worthy, unless that idea isn't attractive to the majority of the news media.
Oh yeah. It's the media. Why I was just watching something on that...
erm... hang on... Britney just shaved something again...
So, if there's a cable modem / DSL in use when the computer is searched the entire subnet could be searched? How about the web servers of sites displayed in a browser?
How do these new regulations define "networked"?
Does this mean then that a national health care system in the US should not pay for geriatric care, cancer treatment, et. al., since those seem to go beyond basic care as you defined it?
It seems that any national health care plan would have to limit coverage in order to keep costs down. That seems to be what the NHS in the UK just did, although in their case they may have cut patient services a bit too deeply.
Did the same thing here in Ohio.
Just a matter of asking for one ballot or the other.
Whadya mean?
Deities and Demigods did at one point include Cthulhu
F'htagn.
Don't think math teachers will give up that role willingly...
http://xkcd.com/263/
Lot of that around lately, unfortunately. Seems "flamebait" is the new "overrated".
Why would government seek to build it either?
It's not as if governments don't seek to control their own populations...
You first.
Survivors will either forget you ever existed, or use you as an example of what not to do.
When faced with a genocidal enemy, genocide is an acceptable response since not resisting would tend toward extinction.
For the obligatory star trek reference, perhaps Section 31 would handle the messy bits for you so you can maintain your high ideals.
From an economic perspective for an individual there seems to be a benefit to legal immigration. A legal immigrant / guest worker / what have you would seem to get greater benefits from their legal status.
So, would that mean then that politically / legally it would make more sense to eliminate citizenship/residency requirements?
You and I seem to agree on this:
However, illegal immigrants don't benefit as much from our society as legal immigrants. If they're subject to illegal working conditions ( violation of OSHA rules, for instance ) they have a disincentive to report that since they're here illegally. If they're using a false identity to work, they can't collect SSI ( for instance ) for the payroll taxes they pay via withholding... the list goes on.
It's not the "immigrant", but the "illegal" part that's the problem. This may mean something like a guest worker program, relaxed immigration rules, what have you.
People like me? Wow. I'd no idea I've such power.
To be clear, I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm also in favor of making that easier to reduce wait times and backlogs.
I don't want to see anyone exploited because they're afraid to go to the authorities if their working conditions are unsafe, their wages are substandard, et. al. .
And I'd suggest that manufacturing in the US can be profitable, if the management of US companies were not complete idiots. Contrast and compare Ford and Honda, for instance.
From the all knowing wikipedia
[ tinfoil ]
Why, it's almost as if illegal immigration from Mexico is overlooked by the US Government as a method of foreign aid to Mexico. US corporations get cheap disposable labor ( if the workers complain they get deported ), Mexico gets an infusion of cash to prop up their government.
[
Ahh... so the best option for everyone is to ensure illegal aliens arrive en mass. If they complain about low wages, hazardous working conditions or exploitive management ( see: Company Store ) then we deport them.
Right. Nice way to maintain a permanent underclass.
After all, it's not like if we required proof of citizenship and forced the agricultural industry to pay decent wages those workers would spend any money here in the US, right?
Or if we permitted those workers to come to the US on visas and bring their families with them the practice of sending remittances to their home country might dry up or significantly decrease thus keeping more money in the US?
It's there to give english majors something to talk about.
;-)
Well, besides asking if we want fries with that.