Well, you could whine and ask the government to help you, or you could just stop using so much fucking oil. Those of us who don't drive an SUV and live in an exurb in the middle of nowhere aren't crying about oil prices.
If you're in a bad spot, an extra $5K per year isn't going to change jack, it's still a bad spot, and bad spots aren't likely to give you the perks or the cash, anyway.
What if your profit margin is $10k per year per employee? Then that $5k is going to half your profits.
From what I heard, they had $33 million in capital, strawberries, checkups and BBQs don't use that kind of cash.
Well, let's assume a punnet of strawberries for $5, dinner for $20, that's $25 a day or $125 a week. Then add in a checkup for $20, BBQ maybe $30 per person (I doubt they're just putting on cheap frozen sausages), drinks $10 per person. Then $10 gym membership, $15 for a massage. That's $200 per employee per week, or $10k per year. With say 500 employees that's $5 million a year on bubble perks.
Lunch ordered in costs maybe $7 to $15 a head, and unless your employees would be bringing brown bags and eating them at their desk, saves at least 30 minutes of travel and waiting time to and from getting lunch. So, call cost of lunch $11, in return for 30 minutes of productivity
You're assuming that employees would be going out for lunch. In most companies people eat in the works canteen or bring their own food, paid for themselves. So you're spending $15 for no time gain at all. Multiply that over a thousand employees and that's $15k a day extra expense, or $3.5 million a year. I'd bet it would be more motivating to give each employee a $3.5k payrise, especially during these hard economic conditions.
Even if people were spending 30 minutes a day going out for lunch, you're assuming that the employees will accept having their lunch break cut by those 30 minutes if their lunch is delivered to them.
how many of your employees earn less than $22 an hour?
That's around the median wage, so probably half of them.
And, those that do earn less than $22 an hour probably really appreciate the free lunch, possibly enough that they won't be jumping ship to a company down the street that might pay them $2 an hour more.
People would turn down a $16 a day payrise for a $7 dinner every day, that they might not even want? People on low incomes don't give a shit about perk benefits, they'd rather have the cash. But then you've probably never had a final rent demand so you wouldn't understand this.
Maybe, but those other things don't pay the bills. There's no point in having a rewarding job (if those even exist) if your house is reposessed.
Unless there's a sense of accomplishment in living paycheque to paycheque, having debt collectors coming round, only being able to eat cheap nasty food, living in a tiny one-room apartment, and not being able to afford any forms of entertainment. I think I'd rather have the money.
in fact, early internet engineers were pretty smart guys and designed something in which you would go to one place to concentrate your searches.
Usenet is searchable now? When I used it, years ago, you had to subscribe to a group, then download thousands of posts, before you could search them. With all the billions of posts on Usenet, if you wanted to search for something it would take months. With forums you just put something into Google and it comes up instantly.
Face it, Usenet is archaic technology, from an era when there were maybe a few hundred posts a day across the entire world. Most of it consists of angry flame threads that go on for years and years.
So you cycle to the gym (after paying hundreds for membership), use the shower, then cycle to work and you're sweaty again. And in all this time your suit is creased to fuck in your bag.
I used to cycle to work and didn't lose any weight, but in fact gained it. It doesn't burn that many calories if you're only doing say 10 miles a day. It isn't worth getting soaking wet every day and dodging traffic.
No, it's because the graphics are shit. I played Lemmings 2 on the Mega Drive with a controller fine. However in that version I could actually see what I was doing. The modern version has so much crap everywhere you don't know what's scenery and what isn't, and the Lemmings are half the size of the screen.
Have you ever considered that home-schooling puts up better numbers because the only people who do it are rich, well-educated families who can afford to have someone sat at home all day earning nothing educating the kids?
It's called a selective sample. A kid from a single-parent working-class background would do much worse being home-schooled than going to school.
Not to mention, a 1:1 teacher/student ratio is very labour inefficient, and would take millions out of employment. Imagine what would happen to the economy when every single family has a parent quit their job.
Second, roads. There are many private roads that work much better than public roads. Read some case studies. In addition, on the news today I heard that due to demand for gas going down due to high prices, the government is "running out of money" for road repairs, since it collects taxes from gas to pay for them.
If people can't afford gas, how can they afford tolls? If private roads work well, it's only because hardly anyone can afford to drive on them.
I'm not sure how privatisation works without competition. Unless I have six or so roads directly outside my house, how can the road network be privatised?
France and especially Italy do markedly worse by this measure than their unemployment figures would indicate (approx 8% and 11% lower than the U.S.).
There are many things which could affect that figure, such as early retirement (common in the European public sector), housewives (more common in Italy than in the US where both man and wife work to pay the sub-prime mortgage), and disability (a bigger safety net means that crippled Europeans don't have to work whilst sick just to pay the bills).
Believe it or not, doctors in socialised health systems actually get paid. Britain has one of the world's most socialist health systems, and has an excess of doctors, so much so that new graduates can't get places on training courses.
Which is easier to control... Big Bad Government or Small Bad Government?
Incorrect question, you should have asked: which is easier to control... Big Bad Government, who you can replace every 4-5 years at the ballot box, or Big Bad Corporate Monopoly, who own everything and are going nowhere.
Maybe then the answer to low energy requirements is to live somewhere where it isn't 100 degrees and thus requiring constant air conditioning. Although you'll be pleased to know, millions of people around the world have babies in 100 degree climates who can't afford air conditioning, yet the babies are not bothered by the heat.
How would you get the water, without electricity to pump it? It's OK if you're out in the sticks and can just dip a bucket in the river, not much use when you're in a built-up area, and have nowhere to actually grow any food.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you could whine and ask the government to help you, or you could just stop using so much fucking oil. Those of us who don't drive an SUV and live in an exurb in the middle of nowhere aren't crying about oil prices.
Maybe, but such a thing is incredibly rare. Most jobs are unrewarding and barely pay the bills as it is.
What if your profit margin is $10k per year per employee? Then that $5k is going to half your profits.
Well, let's assume a punnet of strawberries for $5, dinner for $20, that's $25 a day or $125 a week. Then add in a checkup for $20, BBQ maybe $30 per person (I doubt they're just putting on cheap frozen sausages), drinks $10 per person. Then $10 gym membership, $15 for a massage. That's $200 per employee per week, or $10k per year. With say 500 employees that's $5 million a year on bubble perks.
You're assuming that employees would be going out for lunch. In most companies people eat in the works canteen or bring their own food, paid for themselves. So you're spending $15 for no time gain at all. Multiply that over a thousand employees and that's $15k a day extra expense, or $3.5 million a year. I'd bet it would be more motivating to give each employee a $3.5k payrise, especially during these hard economic conditions.
Even if people were spending 30 minutes a day going out for lunch, you're assuming that the employees will accept having their lunch break cut by those 30 minutes if their lunch is delivered to them.
That's around the median wage, so probably half of them.
People would turn down a $16 a day payrise for a $7 dinner every day, that they might not even want? People on low incomes don't give a shit about perk benefits, they'd rather have the cash. But then you've probably never had a final rent demand so you wouldn't understand this.
Maybe, but those other things don't pay the bills. There's no point in having a rewarding job (if those even exist) if your house is reposessed.
Unless there's a sense of accomplishment in living paycheque to paycheque, having debt collectors coming round, only being able to eat cheap nasty food, living in a tiny one-room apartment, and not being able to afford any forms of entertainment. I think I'd rather have the money.
Usenet is searchable now? When I used it, years ago, you had to subscribe to a group, then download thousands of posts, before you could search them. With all the billions of posts on Usenet, if you wanted to search for something it would take months. With forums you just put something into Google and it comes up instantly.
Face it, Usenet is archaic technology, from an era when there were maybe a few hundred posts a day across the entire world. Most of it consists of angry flame threads that go on for years and years.
So you cycle to the gym (after paying hundreds for membership), use the shower, then cycle to work and you're sweaty again. And in all this time your suit is creased to fuck in your bag.
I used to cycle to work and didn't lose any weight, but in fact gained it. It doesn't burn that many calories if you're only doing say 10 miles a day. It isn't worth getting soaking wet every day and dodging traffic.
The problem with not weight-training, is that when you lose weight there's nothing there other than loose skin and bone.
No, it's because the graphics are shit. I played Lemmings 2 on the Mega Drive with a controller fine. However in that version I could actually see what I was doing. The modern version has so much crap everywhere you don't know what's scenery and what isn't, and the Lemmings are half the size of the screen.
Have you ever considered that home-schooling puts up better numbers because the only people who do it are rich, well-educated families who can afford to have someone sat at home all day earning nothing educating the kids?
It's called a selective sample. A kid from a single-parent working-class background would do much worse being home-schooled than going to school.
Not to mention, a 1:1 teacher/student ratio is very labour inefficient, and would take millions out of employment. Imagine what would happen to the economy when every single family has a parent quit their job.
I'm pretty sure that you can't allow piracy if you want to be in the EU.
Then I hope you don't obscure your password when people ask for it.
So you're telling me that Spain is ignoring EU copyright legislation?
If people can't afford gas, how can they afford tolls? If private roads work well, it's only because hardly anyone can afford to drive on them.
I'm not sure how privatisation works without competition. Unless I have six or so roads directly outside my house, how can the road network be privatised?
There are many things which could affect that figure, such as early retirement (common in the European public sector), housewives (more common in Italy than in the US where both man and wife work to pay the sub-prime mortgage), and disability (a bigger safety net means that crippled Europeans don't have to work whilst sick just to pay the bills).
Vote Ron Paul.
Believe it or not, doctors in socialised health systems actually get paid. Britain has one of the world's most socialist health systems, and has an excess of doctors, so much so that new graduates can't get places on training courses.
But yeah, there's no incentive here...
What it meant is that the Swedes who were sparing with their electricity were subsidising the people using loads of it.
Incorrect question, you should have asked: which is easier to control... Big Bad Government, who you can replace every 4-5 years at the ballot box, or Big Bad Corporate Monopoly, who own everything and are going nowhere.
Maybe then the answer to low energy requirements is to live somewhere where it isn't 100 degrees and thus requiring constant air conditioning. Although you'll be pleased to know, millions of people around the world have babies in 100 degree climates who can't afford air conditioning, yet the babies are not bothered by the heat.
You can't just decide to use another codec though, as people's TV tuners won't understand them.
How would you get the water, without electricity to pump it? It's OK if you're out in the sticks and can just dip a bucket in the river, not much use when you're in a built-up area, and have nowhere to actually grow any food.
And how would dialysis machines be powered?
Yes, the oil producers who provide the resources needed to move all that food around.
I don't see the problem with adds. It pisses me off watching the BBC and having no breaks to go for a piss or make a brew.