And they also have to do other things, like save for their retirement (not very likely on one $24kpa income, is it? between the time their kids leave home and the time they stop working) And eat. And medical bills - which go up, not down, as you get older. The economy has changed - in many ways for the worse - in the last generation - so try to get real, hmmm?
If you think that's what I wrote, perhaps you need to take Basic Reading Skills for $100.00?
The CRTC is supposed to protect culture? Nonsense. How its mandate got extended to that is a classic example of "mission creep". It was supposed to be about licensing radio and tv broadcasters. The "Canadian Content" requirements are a joke. Example: Bryan Adams (a Canadian) is not considered "Canadian content" for purposes of air play.
It should go back to its original purpose - making sure that the public spectrum is allocated in such a way that broadcasters don't step on each others signals. The other function of the original CRBC (which was the antecedent to the CRTC), you can figure out from their own web site
When Parliament formed the first Royal Commission on Broadcasting, it recommended that Canada have a national broadcasting network, supervised by an independent federal agency. In 1932, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC) was established.
The CRBC both provided a national broadcasting service and regulated all broadcasting in Canada. With its regulatory responsibilities, the CRBC was the earliest version of the CRTC.
Quebec is the pimple on Canada's butt. If the money that has been wasted appeasing Quebec had been applied to the deficit, Canada (without Quebec) even today, after the global melt-down, would have zero debt.
Say what you will about Harper, but at least he's the first politician in a generation to get that you don't let the tail wag the dog.
Except for Quebec - where it's just whining about how terrible Canada is, while accepting $15 billion a year ($9 billion in transfer payments to make up for Quebec shooting itself in the foot economically for the last 45 years because of their separatist whining chasing businesses away, $8 billion a year in federal program spending)
If the rest of Canada REALLY wants to preserve its culture, it should nuke Quebec from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.
Or at least hold their own referendum and kick them out, while taking back the northern part of the province, which was only given to Quebec long after Confederation.
Quebec is distinct - the highest taxes anywhere in the world, and now #4 in terms of debt to production. Like any cancer, you either remove it while you can, or it kills you.
Let's do the math on your proposal to "let the grandparents raise the kids."
That works fine when one of the parents is also a stay-at-home, but not so well when both parents work, or a single-parent scenario.
So - the math. Assume that the grandparents both have to work until they're 65, because after all, on $24k a year, they're not going to be able to raise a family on one paycheck, right?
So, that mean that they're only available to "watch the kids" starting when they turn 65. With me so far?
Now that means that their children need to plan things so that they don't start producing kids until the day their own parents retire. Someone who was born when their parents were 25 would have to wait until 39 for her first pregnancy - and that would be high risk. So, let's assume that they picked better parents (so to speak), and their parents split it right down the middle, they had their first kid at 33, a second one a couple of years later, and maybe a 3rd a couple of years after that. 33, 35, and 37.
So, our current mom does the same - 3 kids - at 33, 35 and 37.
The grandparents will be watching those kids - from the time they're 65 to the time the mother retires, at 65, when they will be 83. Do you really believe that someone at, say, 79, can handle 3 teenagers day in, day out?
Of course, this assumes that the grand-parents are still alive at that point. My parents died before they hit 60, which just goes to show you can't assume that everyone is average, any more than you can say that, with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one in a bucket of ice, you should be, on average, comfortable.
Now, stuff happens. Having wasted the last few decades writing code (not every dot-com was a success, and for every person who made money, you'll find several who ended up getting burned doing long hours for, in the end, nothing), in the end I would have been better off doing almost anything else, since the long hours and stress would probably have not caused the high blood pressure that cause the blood vessels in my retina to burst. The end result is that nobody wants to hire a programmer, no matter how good in the past, if they can't see what they're doing 8 hours a day, every day.
Sometimes, it boils down to doing the best you can with what you have, and either you get the breaks, or you get broken. It's the way things are. Studies have shown that we have been lied to about hard work being the path to success - the ONE factor that contributes most is having the right connections. Not hard work, not education - connections. In other words, "picking the right parents."
There will be exceptions, but they are few and far between.
The current melt-down of Blackberry is one great example. They caved into the Saudi and the Indian governments and in so doing, they may have kept customers in those countries for a while longer, but they absolutely trashed peoples trust in their main feature - that messages would remain secure. Now we also know that the US, UK and Canadian governments have had access for a while as well - we just don't know how long its been going on...
Or in the open-source world, Canonical dumping one scheme after another - the latest being their ill-advised "Ubuntu TV", which can't compete
Lenovo raised the barrier to entry into the TV market with a 55" Android Ice Cream Sandwich TV. Comes with a built-in webcam, remote with microphone (for voice recognition) touch pad (for swiping, etc) and motion sensors (so you can use it like a Wiimote)... and an extra game controller.
Canonical abandoning their "Android Execution Environment" for "The Search For More Bling" was a serious mistake. If you're going to offer the next generation of linux-based TVs or tablets, you need more than a pretty (inter)face. If you don't have Android support, you're simply not in the game.
We see this all the time - marketing types thinking they can take any old crap, fling it against the wall, and with enough marketing people will grow to like the stink. "Oh, but we're adding value..." No, they're not.
Can it (the world market) even be fixed? Let's take a look at the latest example - the whole "they woke up thousands of workers, gave them a biscuit and a cup of tea, and got them working 12-hour shifts".
With proper trade barriers (of the "if you want to sell in our market, you either create jobs in our market or you pay duties"), the work would have been done here in N.A., at a machine that can pump them out by the thousands, tended by workers making more than the minimum wage. No suicide nets. No rotating workers to different dorms every few weeks so they don't develop relationships that could give them hope for something better.
The argument that "the web of manufacturers is all located overseas" as the basis for arguing this is now impossible is bogus, simply because the product STILL has to be shipped, and the finished, boxed retail product is a LOT bulkier than its parts. There is simply no reason why they couldn't be assembled here, and then slowly actually migrate other work, such as display manufacturing, the same way.
Brains are supposed to be better than brawn. "Think!" and all that. But as you point out, that takes foresight, and the ability to think beyond 90 days, or what their stock options are worth.
Or the alternative, same as Henry Ford did - make a better product, pay better wages, so your work force takes pride in what they're doing, does higher-quality work, and gives feedback on how to improve both the product and production methods rather than just punching the clock. Net result, market share and profit increase. Virtuous cycles work.
So what you're now claiming is that both parents need to work to maintain any hope in h*** of having any sort of life. Ever cost out how much daycare costs?
Funny how previous generations were able to do it on one income.
As for the whole "top 25% pay over 85% of taxes", again, what sort of problem do you have with people earning enough to get them out of poverty so they can, you know, live better and pay more taxes?
And BTW - the rich aren't paying those taxes - they're paying it out of money they got by NOT paying the underclass a living wage.
The good thing about cash is that it is liquid. Go to any used car lot - pay cash and you can bet that the salesman will get that commission in cash as well.
We're not talking ~ $50k a year - we're talking $24k a year (after the 50% wage cut). Do you really want to argue that you can raise a family decently on $24k a year? That's not middle class. That's not even "upper lower class". That's pretty much right on the poverty line. That's trailer park. Is that what you think people should aspire to - being fodder for Jerry Springer?
One major problem and you're wiped out, because at those wages, it's "paycheck to paycheck". "Going back to school" becomes something to fear, because of the cost of new clothes, school supplies, school bus, lunches, etc.
It also means poorer health, and poorer health outcomes.
Higher incomes also mean a better tax base. Do you have something against people being able to make enough to help pay off a bit of the deficit? Or save a bit for a rainy day? Do you really believe the 1% are going to pay it? Warren Buffett was the single biggest shareholder in both AIG and Moody's - he got HIS bail-out, paid for by the increased public debt which the 99% assumed, with no corresponding benefit (forced bankruptcies and jail terms would have been a more effective way of removing the bad debt from the system - instead, it's still floating around).
And, BTW. you could save yourself some embarrassment from your first question if you enabled signatures (or looked at my profile).
Here's an opportunity to make some (tax-free) money (because only an idiot would report it, unless you set it up as a "business", and take enough deductions to more than offset the income). Tell them that, next time they have a big purchase, you want to go with them and negotiate the price. They pay you 75% of what they save, as the cost of their "education" - they still come out ahead by 25% on this first purchase, and way ahead in the future since they can now do it themselves in the future.
Of course, too many people regard haggling as "degrading" - whereas the merchants do it all the time with their suppliers, so they actually respect you more if you bargain. And the next time they see you, they'll most likely offer a better price up front. Besides, in the end, the money saved in your purse or wallet counts for more than their respect anyway.
Wanting to make enough money to raise a family does not mean people are "greedy slimeballs". Your parents obviously wanted the same thing (or was that a rock you just crawled out from under because you were hatched, not born)?
It also doesn't explain how, before this current bout of Reaganonics, "Free Trade", and the 30-year stagnation of personal incomes, companies could afford to pay a living wage.
Or how Henry Ford was able and willing to pay more than his competitors, so that his employees could buy the fruits of their labour.
Labour doesn't have the same mobility as capital. That's why we need to restore trade and tarriff barriers ASAP - to prevent multi-nationals from engaging in the type of destructive arbitrage that is going on now. You want to sell in our market - either create some local jobs or face import tariffs. Give and take involves giving, not just taking.
Example: I got $40 off my plasma tv at Worst Buy. Similar amount on a camcorder at Future Sh*t. You have to not only ask, but be ready to walk.
One of my daughters did the same thing when she was buying a TV, living room set, etc - drove the guy nuts - "How much more will you knock off if I also buy this?" He had to work for his sale, and she saved hundreds of dollars.
If you don't ask, you don't get. They've already sunk $x of time into the deal - they'll work the numbers with their boss to come up with enough savings to salvage it. Anyone who pays the sticker price for a large purchase is paying the "Stupidity Tax".
Or you tell the boat dealer you're paying cash. They no longer have to pay 3% to the credit card company off the top for their cut. They also like having cash because they can use it immediately (no waiting for a check to clear, etc).
So you get the boat for $9,700, an immediate savings of $300 (plus whatever retail sales taxes would have been on that $300), as opposed to getting "cash back" of $125 3 months later.
Cash is king for a reason. Even Best Buy will knock off a few percent on a big-ticket item if you're paying cash as opposed to a credit card.
So you're okay with using "free trade" to do union-busting (the jobs in question are unionized, and in Canada. Without NAFTA they would have stayed there to keep enough Canadian content to prevent import duties being imposed).
Time to ditch NAFTA and impose a $1-a-gallon export tax on all Canadian and Mexican crude. It wouldn't bring US oil prices near the world price, but it would start, as well help pay for some of the damage being done in both countries.
Indirectly subsidizing US jobs through low consumer oil prices in the US market (while paying high prices in the Canadian and European consumer markets) is just as bad a market distortion, and with just as many bad knock-on effects, as the "everyone gets a mortgage even if they can't fog a mirror" shell game that caused the mortgage crisis.
The net effect of the "below-world-oil-price" is to enable employers to pay less, since employees aren't paying world-level prices for fuel.
Since the US won't raise domestic gas and diesel prices to world levels through fuel taxes (despite having the largest deficit in the known universe, and one that we all know will never be paid back), but rather, depends on printing more money and more debt to keep them artificially lower, countries that don't do the same crazy "print the money and pile on the debt" are still being forced to pay the price for that policy in terms of lost jobs, as well as US consumers not being forced to pay the true cost of continuing to buy gas guzzlers and "hybrids" that have real-world gas consumption that sucks.
Another straw-man argument. The jobs were paying $50k a year. Does making workers take a 50% pay cut make them suddenly lose half their skills? No - it's the end result of 30 years of lies about trickle-down and Reaganomics, where the middle class is an inconvenience that must be killed off.
No - your original comment completely missed the point - fructuose is metabolized in such a way as to decrease the ability of the body to sense that is full and stop eating, and as such such, makes people hungrier. People who drank a bottle of soda pop before meals ate more than people who didn't for that very reason.
You are the one who ignores both the biological studies (link provided elsewhere) and the epidemiological studies because YOU want to ignore or deny the facts to further your ignorant attitudes.
Science says you're wrong. Get over it, and over yourself.
Henry Ford had the right idea - he paid more than his competitors (using the money generated from being more innovative, rather than pocketing it as extra profit) and so his employees were able to buy the cars they made.
Don't expect people to buy your products if the 99% are making poverty-level wages - and that's where we're heading.
And before people say "oh, but everyone pays minimum wage, and outsourcing is a race to the bottom," sure, some companies do operate like that. But they can rarely boast a true modicum of success.
Caterpillar has been doing exactly that for 21 years. Their latest move - buying a locomotive assembly plant and then locking out the workers and telling them to either take a 50% paycut or they'll move to Muncie, where they can pay people $480 a week for the same job.
Want to raise a family on $24,000 a year?
You're a shill or part of the problem. Please DIAF - we need the extra heat to stay warm.
When companies can move production anywhere, they'll always use workers in one location as bargaining chips to get an even better deal for their next plant, so it becomes a race to the bottom for wages.
The old deal was "you want to sell to our people, either open a plant here or be prepared to pay duties."
Real wages haven't risen in 30 years. NAFTA was a mistake, not because the US and Canada and Mexico are "enemies", but because a healthy trade relationship involves give and take between all participants - and companies are no longer required to "give" in order to take.
Look at Caterpillar's latest move - record profits, they buy a locomotive engine manufacturer, get government grants, then tell the employees - take a 50% wage cut and also roll back all those benefits, or we're closing shop - we've got another place that is giving us money right now to train workers to do your jobs for $12 an hour in Muncie.
The NAFTA legislation only requires a 6-month notice to pull out. If multi-nationals won't play fair under the new rules, let them live with the old rules.
Aw lookie lookie, wanna-be troll can't cut it. News at 11.
You;re going to have to do WAY better. All your attempts to draw attention away from the fact that you're wrong by swapping the actual situation for one that doesn't exist (we call that "lying" up here) are lame.
As for the law, if you want to win, you need an actual case with actual facts. Not the hypothetical case that she is presenting with bogus "facts" that not only haven't been proven, but don't exist.
The "what if the company goes bankrupt scenario" is one such example that only someone with no case hoping to get some publicity would pull, and if I were the manufacturer, since she's made those statements outside a courtroom, I'd sue for slander.
Besides, you have yet to prove that opening the code will make it more secure, when history shows the opposite. Take Windows, for example - most of the malware today came after Microsoft source was stolen from a server. BTW - when are you going to "improve your security" by "open-sourcing" your passwords?
You don't get to go fishing in other people's junk just because you have a fear of "something that might" happen, with nothing to back it up.
I thought this was the model that has proven wireless vulnerabilities.
Try to get a court to agree with that logic - that you have a right to break into or otherwise snoop in OTHER PEOPLE'S stuff. You don't, and they won't. Or you could ask Google how all that wireless password password sniffing went SO well for them... I'm sure that they'd like to hear your legal theories defending it.
There's not "just a fear of a might" but a proven fault and she wants to know *how* faulty, not whether it is.
Until it actually causes a problem, it's not, as you allege, a "proven fault". That someone has to wave a wand 3 inches from her chest to change the settings is a far cry from "ZOMG I BE H4XOR3D". I think she'd notice. Transmitting data (as opposed to changing settings) over wifi is preferable because it is more convenient for the patient - and I'm sure in an emergency, she'd not be knocking it so quickly.
As for the rest - your argument was a straw man - it wasn't the actual situation at all, but an entirely manufactured one that you attempted to have stand in its place with as little real substance as a Potemkin Village.
So quick - go call Google and tell them it's okay to sniff passwords and stuff. Better yet, why not submit it as an article for slashdot. Educate us unwashed masses.
Slashdot Mirror
And they also have to do other things, like save for their retirement (not very likely on one $24kpa income, is it? between the time their kids leave home and the time they stop working) And eat. And medical bills - which go up, not down, as you get older. The economy has changed - in many ways for the worse - in the last generation - so try to get real, hmmm?
If you think that's what I wrote, perhaps you need to take Basic Reading Skills for $100.00?
The CRTC is supposed to protect culture? Nonsense. How its mandate got extended to that is a classic example of "mission creep". It was supposed to be about licensing radio and tv broadcasters. The "Canadian Content" requirements are a joke. Example: Bryan Adams (a Canadian) is not considered "Canadian content" for purposes of air play.
It should go back to its original purpose - making sure that the public spectrum is allocated in such a way that broadcasters don't step on each others signals. The other function of the original CRBC (which was the antecedent to the CRTC), you can figure out from their own web site
Quebec is the pimple on Canada's butt. If the money that has been wasted appeasing Quebec had been applied to the deficit, Canada (without Quebec) even today, after the global melt-down, would have zero debt.
Say what you will about Harper, but at least he's the first politician in a generation to get that you don't let the tail wag the dog.
Time to cut them loose.
Except for Quebec - where it's just whining about how terrible Canada is, while accepting $15 billion a year ($9 billion in transfer payments to make up for Quebec shooting itself in the foot economically for the last 45 years because of their separatist whining chasing businesses away, $8 billion a year in federal program spending)
If the rest of Canada REALLY wants to preserve its culture, it should nuke Quebec from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.
Or at least hold their own referendum and kick them out, while taking back the northern part of the province, which was only given to Quebec long after Confederation.
Quebec is distinct - the highest taxes anywhere in the world, and now #4 in terms of debt to production. Like any cancer, you either remove it while you can, or it kills you.
Nowhere did I say anything about parents raising 33-year-old "children".
There's no point discussing this with someone who fails basic math and literacy.
That works fine when one of the parents is also a stay-at-home, but not so well when both parents work, or a single-parent scenario.
So - the math. Assume that the grandparents both have to work until they're 65, because after all, on $24k a year, they're not going to be able to raise a family on one paycheck, right?
So, that mean that they're only available to "watch the kids" starting when they turn 65. With me so far?
Now that means that their children need to plan things so that they don't start producing kids until the day their own parents retire. Someone who was born when their parents were 25 would have to wait until 39 for her first pregnancy - and that would be high risk. So, let's assume that they picked better parents (so to speak), and their parents split it right down the middle, they had their first kid at 33, a second one a couple of years later, and maybe a 3rd a couple of years after that. 33, 35, and 37.
So, our current mom does the same - 3 kids - at 33, 35 and 37.
The grandparents will be watching those kids - from the time they're 65 to the time the mother retires, at 65, when they will be 83. Do you really believe that someone at, say, 79, can handle 3 teenagers day in, day out?
Of course, this assumes that the grand-parents are still alive at that point. My parents died before they hit 60, which just goes to show you can't assume that everyone is average, any more than you can say that, with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one in a bucket of ice, you should be, on average, comfortable.
Now, stuff happens. Having wasted the last few decades writing code (not every dot-com was a success, and for every person who made money, you'll find several who ended up getting burned doing long hours for, in the end, nothing), in the end I would have been better off doing almost anything else, since the long hours and stress would probably have not caused the high blood pressure that cause the blood vessels in my retina to burst. The end result is that nobody wants to hire a programmer, no matter how good in the past, if they can't see what they're doing 8 hours a day, every day.
Sometimes, it boils down to doing the best you can with what you have, and either you get the breaks, or you get broken. It's the way things are. Studies have shown that we have been lied to about hard work being the path to success - the ONE factor that contributes most is having the right connections. Not hard work, not education - connections. In other words, "picking the right parents."
There will be exceptions, but they are few and far between.
^^THIS^^
The current melt-down of Blackberry is one great example. They caved into the Saudi and the Indian governments and in so doing, they may have kept customers in those countries for a while longer, but they absolutely trashed peoples trust in their main feature - that messages would remain secure. Now we also know that the US, UK and Canadian governments have had access for a while as well - we just don't know how long its been going on ...
Or in the open-source world, Canonical dumping one scheme after another - the latest being their ill-advised "Ubuntu TV", which can't compete
We see this all the time - marketing types thinking they can take any old crap, fling it against the wall, and with enough marketing people will grow to like the stink. "Oh, but we're adding value ..." No, they're not.
Can it (the world market) even be fixed? Let's take a look at the latest example - the whole "they woke up thousands of workers, gave them a biscuit and a cup of tea, and got them working 12-hour shifts".
With proper trade barriers (of the "if you want to sell in our market, you either create jobs in our market or you pay duties"), the work would have been done here in N.A., at a machine that can pump them out by the thousands, tended by workers making more than the minimum wage. No suicide nets. No rotating workers to different dorms every few weeks so they don't develop relationships that could give them hope for something better.
The argument that "the web of manufacturers is all located overseas" as the basis for arguing this is now impossible is bogus, simply because the product STILL has to be shipped, and the finished, boxed retail product is a LOT bulkier than its parts. There is simply no reason why they couldn't be assembled here, and then slowly actually migrate other work, such as display manufacturing, the same way.
Brains are supposed to be better than brawn. "Think!" and all that. But as you point out, that takes foresight, and the ability to think beyond 90 days, or what their stock options are worth.
Or the alternative, same as Henry Ford did - make a better product, pay better wages, so your work force takes pride in what they're doing, does higher-quality work, and gives feedback on how to improve both the product and production methods rather than just punching the clock. Net result, market share and profit increase. Virtuous cycles work.
So what you're now claiming is that both parents need to work to maintain any hope in h*** of having any sort of life. Ever cost out how much daycare costs?
Funny how previous generations were able to do it on one income.
As for the whole "top 25% pay over 85% of taxes", again, what sort of problem do you have with people earning enough to get them out of poverty so they can, you know, live better and pay more taxes?
And BTW - the rich aren't paying those taxes - they're paying it out of money they got by NOT paying the underclass a living wage.
The good thing about cash is that it is liquid. Go to any used car lot - pay cash and you can bet that the salesman will get that commission in cash as well.
Can you even read?
We're not talking ~ $50k a year - we're talking $24k a year (after the 50% wage cut). Do you really want to argue that you can raise a family decently on $24k a year? That's not middle class. That's not even "upper lower class". That's pretty much right on the poverty line. That's trailer park. Is that what you think people should aspire to - being fodder for Jerry Springer?
One major problem and you're wiped out, because at those wages, it's "paycheck to paycheck". "Going back to school" becomes something to fear, because of the cost of new clothes, school supplies, school bus, lunches, etc.
It also means poorer health, and poorer health outcomes.
Higher incomes also mean a better tax base. Do you have something against people being able to make enough to help pay off a bit of the deficit? Or save a bit for a rainy day? Do you really believe the 1% are going to pay it? Warren Buffett was the single biggest shareholder in both AIG and Moody's - he got HIS bail-out, paid for by the increased public debt which the 99% assumed, with no corresponding benefit (forced bankruptcies and jail terms would have been a more effective way of removing the bad debt from the system - instead, it's still floating around).
And, BTW. you could save yourself some embarrassment from your first question if you enabled signatures (or looked at my profile).
Of course, too many people regard haggling as "degrading" - whereas the merchants do it all the time with their suppliers, so they actually respect you more if you bargain. And the next time they see you, they'll most likely offer a better price up front. Besides, in the end, the money saved in your purse or wallet counts for more than their respect anyway.
Wanting to make enough money to raise a family does not mean people are "greedy slimeballs". Your parents obviously wanted the same thing (or was that a rock you just crawled out from under because you were hatched, not born)?
It also doesn't explain how, before this current bout of Reaganonics, "Free Trade", and the 30-year stagnation of personal incomes, companies could afford to pay a living wage.
Or how Henry Ford was able and willing to pay more than his competitors, so that his employees could buy the fruits of their labour.
Labour doesn't have the same mobility as capital. That's why we need to restore trade and tarriff barriers ASAP - to prevent multi-nationals from engaging in the type of destructive arbitrage that is going on now. You want to sell in our market - either create some local jobs or face import tariffs. Give and take involves giving, not just taking.
One of my daughters did the same thing when she was buying a TV, living room set, etc - drove the guy nuts - "How much more will you knock off if I also buy this?" He had to work for his sale, and she saved hundreds of dollars.
If you don't ask, you don't get. They've already sunk $x of time into the deal - they'll work the numbers with their boss to come up with enough savings to salvage it. Anyone who pays the sticker price for a large purchase is paying the "Stupidity Tax".
So you get the boat for $9,700, an immediate savings of $300 (plus whatever retail sales taxes would have been on that $300), as opposed to getting "cash back" of $125 3 months later.
Cash is king for a reason. Even Best Buy will knock off a few percent on a big-ticket item if you're paying cash as opposed to a credit card.
Time to ditch NAFTA and impose a $1-a-gallon export tax on all Canadian and Mexican crude. It wouldn't bring US oil prices near the world price, but it would start, as well help pay for some of the damage being done in both countries.
Indirectly subsidizing US jobs through low consumer oil prices in the US market (while paying high prices in the Canadian and European consumer markets) is just as bad a market distortion, and with just as many bad knock-on effects, as the "everyone gets a mortgage even if they can't fog a mirror" shell game that caused the mortgage crisis.
The net effect of the "below-world-oil-price" is to enable employers to pay less, since employees aren't paying world-level prices for fuel.
Since the US won't raise domestic gas and diesel prices to world levels through fuel taxes (despite having the largest deficit in the known universe, and one that we all know will never be paid back), but rather, depends on printing more money and more debt to keep them artificially lower, countries that don't do the same crazy "print the money and pile on the debt" are still being forced to pay the price for that policy in terms of lost jobs, as well as US consumers not being forced to pay the true cost of continuing to buy gas guzzlers and "hybrids" that have real-world gas consumption that sucks.
"The devil made me do it!"
Two options - you're either a shill or incredibly stupid, even by /. standards.
Another straw-man argument. The jobs were paying $50k a year. Does making workers take a 50% pay cut make them suddenly lose half their skills? No - it's the end result of 30 years of lies about trickle-down and Reaganomics, where the middle class is an inconvenience that must be killed off.
You are the one who ignores both the biological studies (link provided elsewhere) and the epidemiological studies because YOU want to ignore or deny the facts to further your ignorant attitudes.
Science says you're wrong. Get over it, and over yourself.
Don't expect people to buy your products if the 99% are making poverty-level wages - and that's where we're heading.
Caterpillar has been doing exactly that for 21 years. Their latest move - buying a locomotive assembly plant and then locking out the workers and telling them to either take a 50% paycut or they'll move to Muncie, where they can pay people $480 a week for the same job.
Want to raise a family on $24,000 a year?
You're a shill or part of the problem. Please DIAF - we need the extra heat to stay warm.
When companies can move production anywhere, they'll always use workers in one location as bargaining chips to get an even better deal for their next plant, so it becomes a race to the bottom for wages.
The old deal was "you want to sell to our people, either open a plant here or be prepared to pay duties."
Real wages haven't risen in 30 years. NAFTA was a mistake, not because the US and Canada and Mexico are "enemies", but because a healthy trade relationship involves give and take between all participants - and companies are no longer required to "give" in order to take.
Look at Caterpillar's latest move - record profits, they buy a locomotive engine manufacturer, get government grants, then tell the employees - take a 50% wage cut and also roll back all those benefits, or we're closing shop - we've got another place that is giving us money right now to train workers to do your jobs for $12 an hour in Muncie.
The NAFTA legislation only requires a 6-month notice to pull out. If multi-nationals won't play fair under the new rules, let them live with the old rules.
Aw lookie lookie, wanna-be troll can't cut it. News at 11.
You;re going to have to do WAY better. All your attempts to draw attention away from the fact that you're wrong by swapping the actual situation for one that doesn't exist (we call that "lying" up here) are lame.
As for the law, if you want to win, you need an actual case with actual facts. Not the hypothetical case that she is presenting with bogus "facts" that not only haven't been proven, but don't exist.
The "what if the company goes bankrupt scenario" is one such example that only someone with no case hoping to get some publicity would pull, and if I were the manufacturer, since she's made those statements outside a courtroom, I'd sue for slander.
Besides, you have yet to prove that opening the code will make it more secure, when history shows the opposite. Take Windows, for example - most of the malware today came after Microsoft source was stolen from a server. BTW - when are you going to "improve your security" by "open-sourcing" your passwords?
Try to get a court to agree with that logic - that you have a right to break into or otherwise snoop in OTHER PEOPLE'S stuff. You don't, and they won't. Or you could ask Google how all that wireless password password sniffing went SO well for them ... I'm sure that they'd like to hear your legal theories defending it.
Until it actually causes a problem, it's not, as you allege, a "proven fault". That someone has to wave a wand 3 inches from her chest to change the settings is a far cry from "ZOMG I BE H4XOR3D". I think she'd notice. Transmitting data (as opposed to changing settings) over wifi is preferable because it is more convenient for the patient - and I'm sure in an emergency, she'd not be knocking it so quickly.
As for the rest - your argument was a straw man - it wasn't the actual situation at all, but an entirely manufactured one that you attempted to have stand in its place with as little real substance as a Potemkin Village.
So quick - go call Google and tell them it's okay to sniff passwords and stuff. Better yet, why not submit it as an article for slashdot. Educate us unwashed masses.