1) If partial de-Batthification were only half answers, then Germany and Japan must still be ruled by closet nazis and militarists, respectively.
2) The main goal is to gain the freedom for the U.S. to exert leverage against the main source of terror in the Mideast: A corrupt house of Saud, that pays for terrorism to appease it's people so long as it happens elsewhere. This is not exactly the sort of policy that can be expressed before it is inacted, unless you want to walk to work, until your company folds because it can't get its products to market.
3) This is a question of oil to be sure: France opposes regime change because it gets a large chunk of its oil cheap (illegal, black market items are always cheaper than retail) This cheap oil comes at the expense of the Iraqi people. Plenty of blood for oil there. Oil is worth fighting for. Maybe one day we'll get the "opportunity" to fight for food or water, (like if we don't fight for oil when the issue comes up). I guess we'll just have to make due with a "lesser" reason until more "moral" reasons are available.
"peace at all cost" thinking costs more lives than just going to war when you are up against a madman. Think Europe, 1938 or Ethopia, 1933.
Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region. He won't be any easier to deal with once he has nuclear weapons.
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for, much like people who in the 1930's insisted that we should stay out of the war. Just as then, it is lead by anti-capitalists (pro-fascists and stalinist freaks), who hide their very unpopular political backgrounds from the useful idiots who suck it up because they have the philosophical sophistication of a six year old, (or in this case, missed out on the sixties) and can't seem to draw moral distinctions between the fire and the fire brigade.
Just as then, the anti-war movement is totally irresponsible because it offers no practical solutions except the immediate and total surrender of our ridiculously successful way of life. Suggesting we should kick the oil habit without a viable replacement is the mark of an idiot or someone who wants die of starvation. Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser. Suggesting that we are a haven for facsim when people who live in *real* fascist countries risk their lives to get here and not the other way around is just deluded.
The Iraqi's *want* us to invade. You'd have to be a moron not to see why.
"Appeasement is the practice of feeding a steak to a tiger in the hopes he will become a vegetarian". - Winston Churchhill
A worker gets paid $100 dollars and hour. He's replaced by two workers in India who make $3 per hour. He then gets a job at Starbucks for $7 per hour, or he doesn't because fifty of his peers got their first.
How many stereo's will the First worker buy for Christmas? How many stereos (made in the USA) will the two workers in India be buying at the local black market for Diswali?
And the U.S. Stereo worker gets:
a) a bonus because sales are so good.
b) laid off
c) doesn't exist, because he became your first worker ten years ago when the factory moved to Mexico.
Starbucks closes because noone spends $4.00 on a cup of hot flavored water in the middle of a depression.
Where did you go wrong: First off, you seem to think that software coding is manufacturing, when in fact it is a skill which requires constant retraining. (i.e., a knowledge worker.)
Secondly, lawyers don't produce, they feed off of a successful economy, or an unsuccessful one if they practice bankruptcy law.
Thirdly, the things you mention can all be moved easily. The incentive to do so only grows when the rest of the "manufacturing" process is already overseas, and the developers do better with an native management team.
Fourth, I am sure you will claim that "somebody's got to sell the goods to the Americans. Who are out of work because every a critical mass of their knowledge jobs was exportable.
So, architecture is a high level skill? Maybe you ought to actually RTFA.
Software is easy? Haahahaha. Spoken like a true bodyshop jockey. That must be why geniuses like you who profess the benefits of "software engineering" (i.e: methodology to make idiots look good at following methodology) produces soooo many successful projects. 1/3rd of mid to large size software projects never complete, of the remaining 2/3rds, 2/3rds of them are badly overbudget, out of schedule, and fail to meet the agreed upon criteria. Wow, that some track record. Maybe you should concentrate on world peace next.
It is illegal to fire a worker for discussing unionizing activities. It's called "union-busting" and has been keeping companies hostage to inferior unionized labor for 70 years. This state of affairs is administered under the National Labor Relations Board, which has been in place since the woefully bad "New Deal".
Secondly, consumer pricing can only remain low so long as there is sufficient demand fueled by a healthy supply of disposable income, which itself is derived from higher, as opposed to falling, wages among the *local* consumer population.
Thirdly, one could make a strong argument that less taxation, regulation, and open immigration (i.e., an imported labor pool which would amount to more than a lighter form of indentured servitude) would be better and more effective ways to grow the local economy and local properity than growing foreign markets. Along this point, our laws are far more conducive to the growth of widespread prosperity then these foreign markets have been, and the development of these markets is the basis for any argument that the "pie will grow", so what guarantee will there be that these countries will actually develop such a market for all the American workers that gave up their old jobs for this new economy? [Want to keep your people fully employed? Keep them desperate enough to work for scraps.] Why are we so quick to reward labor markets made possible by disasterous economic policies at the expense of our markets which is now supposedly less lucrative due to years of far better policies? These overseas consumer markets will eventually arise anyways, so why is it so important now to help them along when we have other untapped avenues of prosperity to explore?
Your slap at tariffs is also too quick. A strong argument can be made that the relatively recent ability to effectively relocate work, if not the workforce, is *the* truly new and unprecedented capability, and that tariffs might actually help our economy by staunching the outsourcing of skilled labor and projects to third world countries. Free trade could be seen as not so much preparing us for competition as artifically breeding it in every backwards corner in the world. Yes, prices might be artificially higher in the meantime, and outsourcing everything will *eventually* bring new markets into being, but I can't wait fifty years for better than third world wage employment, can you? I suppose I could go the Ayn Rand route and start my own factory in Bangladesh, but can everyone due that? Wouldn't I have to be able to move to Bangladesh first, or do their border guards automatically waive such considerations for us Ayn Rand types?
I am a strong believer in capitalism, but I also believe in reason, and no proposition, such as the purported benefits of globalization, should be accepted as an article of faith without further examination and proofs. I think globalization is good in the long run, but I'm not blind to the possibility that it brings a new set of problems with its blessings.
Interesting post, but innaccurate on one point: 6% unemployment is very low by historical standards. 5% used to be considered "full-employment" in the eighties. Our low of 4% unemployment during the nineties (when tremendous wealth was generated for a wide swath of Americans) was considered unprecidented.
Still, you might be right, the current cure might prove far harder to take than was preached, especially when it is so-called "knowledge workers", who were supposed to be the heart of globalized workforce, who are now seeing their jobs shipped to the cheapest "adequate" third world country, or even "near-shored" to Canada.
But the question is, can we wait long enough for a critical mass of employers to get "smart" when it comes to hiring technical staff, or will there be enough smaller, astute and rapidly growing entreprenureal activity to keep the work coming until the larger markets catch up, if they ever catch up?
I worry quite a bit about it lately. I live in an expensive city, and I don't see how moving to India will stop America from sliding into the median between us and the third world if this b.s. continues.
Another one who doesn't seem to understand that fascism is a form of economic and political collectivism, which is why the word "Nazi" is a german acronymn for the "National Socialist Workers Party"
Conservatives advocate economic and political freedom for individuals, if not social freedom. That is completely at odds with a statist regime.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for busy-body do-gooders on the left who believe that enlightened interests should be advanced by government fiat regardless of popular sentiment.
1) write a bunch of whiny tripe attacking the most popular president in the last hundred years.
2) ask for people to pay to read it.
3) watch the money roll in!
Gee, do you think this might be why Donahue's ratings are bested by the weather channel? How come conservative shows like Rush Limbaugh and Fox make money like gangbusters, but shows which reflect the elitist views are always market failures?
When you reduced sugar, you reduced carbs, which would be directly in line with Atkin's theory. Congratulations, BTW.
I conceded that there was steady growth in the quantity digested (this trend exists everywhere, even in the third world) but steady growth should yield a steady increase in obesity, not the dramatic acceleration that has actually occurred in the population.
Atkins diet has remained relatively consistent since the early 70's when it was introduced.
That makes it as old as the vaunted food pyramid which came out of the McGovern committee in the mid 70's, which itself was based on the dubious proposition that reducing cholestoral in the bloodstream (via drugs) reduced heart disease, so reducing cholestoral in the food supply would achieve the same end. Of course no one could ever prove it, despite 5 government studies which attempted to do so, but having 80% of your recommended food intake grown by farmers had to be popular in the heartland, and it's not like the massive "healthfood" industry which developed because of the recommendations was bad for the economy, so who cares?
Point 2: Since the adoption of the food pyramind in the early eighties the United States has seen an major explosion of obesity, which corresponded with an explosion with exercise and genereal "health consciousness". Since it is doubtful that exercise is the underlying cause of obesity, and there was no correspondent "explosion" in fast food or junk food consumption, (just steady growth) I would be curious as to how you could explain this?
Here's a clue. Atkins is like Copernicus, and nutritionists and people like you are the unimaginative sheep who think he's crazy. All the priesthood say he's a heretic because he's called them what they are: Snake oil salesman of a fraudulent "science" which resorts to scarying the public so they can keep their undeserved reputations intact and the grant money flowing. Meanwhile, even these same nutritionists admit that the diet is effective for losing weight, and that it warrants more research, which is more than one can say of the twenty five years of the "eat like a rabbit and run like a gerbil" diet. The CR (calorie reduction) folks are just the last hurray of this idiocy. Tell me, have you ever seen a CR practictioner that didn't look twenty years older than their age? Wow, so you got a mouse to live longer, and all you had to do was keep them on the brink of starvation? That sounds like a fad to me.
"This just in - Microsoft (MSFT) today promised it will inflate marketing claims by 18%-86% in Q2 of 2003, thereby shattering all hope for its competitors. After hearing the news, Sun Microsystems (SUNW) CEO Scott McNealy states that he's ready to pack it in."
Since you don't seem to get what he is talking about, I will surmise it for you:
He wants to reign in the "pure unfettered information" by enforcing hate-speech laws and other impose European restrictions on political and economic speech. He wants to protect tax prisons like Europe from tax-free online competition.
He is complaining about all those pesky freedoms that can't be touched because of those troublesome "bill of rights". He thinks that the peoples of the U.S. would "run to the hills" to escape a "civil society" where the government can control its people according to its own desires. (Think EU Falong Gong sites being taken down at the request of China). Of course, what would really happen is that no one would be joining him in his virtual worker's paradise, because who wants to be regulated?
He also seems very ignorant as to the critical role which Europe plays in both viruses and spam, but that's not surprising considering the obviously limited grasp he has of technology. Considering your statement about having to pay to learn how to program, I gather you don't either.
If you think that price is high, check out their LoadRunner products (75K-275k, depending on what architecture you want to test).
But I agree, WinRunner blows. So do many of the competing products, (ahem, QARun) which all seem to lack serious QA prior to release. This is what you get when you've have to fight over a few thousand customers who are used to paying ridiculous amounts of money for broken enterprise software.
...aren't really necessary for functional testing, which is why most of these functional testing tools don't [more like can't] run in real time. IMO, these relatively pricey functional tools from the big venders could hardly be called reliable. I suspect that the tiny niche marketplace for such tools ensures that things will probably stay that way.
OTOH, Real life timing is really important for scalability testing, i.e. the domain of load testing tools, which mimic front end client behaviour in real time via back-end automation. These are definitely far more reliable, but also exceedingly more expensive.
Put down the crack pipe. Show me a single picture or story of an individual who starved to death in America which didn't result in some parent or caretaker being charged with manslaughter.
It doesn't happen here, despite what your government (or is it government school) tells you.
Look at who cosponsored the bill. Many of them are hardcore democrats. Shiela Jackson was the only congressperson to oppose supporting the administration's plans for Afghanistan, but I guess throwing the curious into prison for life is ok by her.
"A bunch of people in the US find themselves starving as well. Poverty knows no specific culture."
No one is "starving" in the United States. All poor people in the USA have access to potable water, decent waste disposal and clothing. If they live on the streets it is not for a lack of shelters. As one [perhaps extreme] example, in NYC a homeless person has a right to a bed, such that the city will put them up in a luxery hotel if there is no more room in the shelters.
Most poor in subsidized housing have a color television, cable, a microwave oven, and refrigeration --if not a game console, a car, and a host of household appliances.
"cyberbuffs are afflicted with insufficient perspective"
Whereas law professors, on the other hand, are veritable renaissance men of both thought and action, always ready to escape the bounds of their cluttered, paper-stacked offices just so they may exhibit their awesome command of contemporary events in the dim hope that insular smucks like us will see their example and perhaps strive, as they, to suck the marrow out of life.
Slashdot Mirror
1) If partial de-Batthification were only half answers, then Germany and Japan must still be ruled by closet nazis and militarists, respectively.
2) The main goal is to gain the freedom for the U.S. to exert leverage against the main source of terror in the Mideast: A corrupt house of Saud, that pays for terrorism to appease it's people so long as it happens elsewhere. This is not exactly the sort of policy that can be expressed before it is inacted, unless you want to walk to work, until your company folds because it can't get its products to market.
3) This is a question of oil to be sure: France opposes regime change because it gets a large chunk of its oil cheap (illegal, black market items are always cheaper than retail) This cheap oil comes at the expense of the Iraqi people. Plenty of blood for oil there. Oil is worth fighting for. Maybe one day we'll get the "opportunity" to fight for food or water, (like if we don't fight for oil when the issue comes up). I guess we'll just have to make due with a "lesser" reason until more "moral" reasons are available.
"peace at all cost" thinking costs more lives than just going to war when you are up against a madman. Think Europe, 1938 or Ethopia, 1933.
Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region. He won't be any easier to deal with once he has nuclear weapons.
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for, much like people who in the 1930's insisted that we should stay out of the war. Just as then, it is lead by anti-capitalists (pro-fascists and stalinist freaks), who hide their very unpopular political backgrounds from the useful idiots who suck it up because they have the philosophical sophistication of a six year old, (or in this case, missed out on the sixties) and can't seem to draw moral distinctions between the fire and the fire brigade.
Just as then, the anti-war movement is totally irresponsible because it offers no practical solutions except the immediate and total surrender of our ridiculously successful way of life. Suggesting we should kick the oil habit without a viable replacement is the mark of an idiot or someone who wants die of starvation. Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser. Suggesting that we are a haven for facsim when people who live in *real* fascist countries risk their lives to get here and not the other way around is just deluded.
The Iraqi's *want* us to invade. You'd have to be a moron not to see why.
"Appeasement is the practice of feeding a steak to a tiger in the hopes he will become a vegetarian". - Winston Churchhill
A worker gets paid $100 dollars and hour.
He's replaced by two workers in India who make $3 per hour. He then gets a job at Starbucks for $7 per hour, or he doesn't because fifty of his peers got their first.
How many stereo's will the First worker buy for Christmas? How many stereos (made in the USA) will the two workers in India be buying at the local black market for Diswali?
And the U.S. Stereo worker gets:
a) a bonus because sales are so good.
b) laid off
c) doesn't exist, because he became your first worker ten years ago when the factory moved to Mexico.
Starbucks closes because noone spends $4.00 on a cup of hot flavored water in the middle of a depression.
Where did you go wrong:
First off, you seem to think that software coding is manufacturing, when in fact it is a skill which requires constant retraining. (i.e., a knowledge worker.)
Secondly, lawyers don't produce, they feed off of a successful economy, or an unsuccessful one if they practice bankruptcy law.
Thirdly, the things you mention can all be moved easily. The incentive to do so only grows when the rest of the "manufacturing" process is already overseas, and the developers do better with an native management team.
Fourth, I am sure you will claim that "somebody's got to sell the goods to the Americans. Who are out of work because every a critical mass of their knowledge jobs was exportable.
So, architecture is a high level skill? Maybe you ought to actually RTFA.
Software is easy? Haahahaha. Spoken like a true bodyshop jockey. That must be why geniuses like you who profess the benefits of "software engineering" (i.e: methodology to make idiots look good at following methodology) produces soooo many successful projects. 1/3rd of mid to large size software projects never complete, of the remaining 2/3rds, 2/3rds of them are badly overbudget, out of schedule, and fail to meet the agreed upon criteria. Wow, that some track record. Maybe you should concentrate on world peace next.
Who are the managers going to manage when there jobs are just as portable/disposable?
The article makes it quite clear that Wipro intends to push this way. What would stop them, or anyone for that matter?
It is illegal to fire a worker for discussing unionizing activities. It's called "union-busting" and has been keeping companies hostage to inferior unionized labor for 70 years. This state of affairs is administered under the National Labor Relations Board, which has been in place since the woefully bad "New Deal".
Secondly, consumer pricing can only remain low so long as there is sufficient demand fueled by a healthy supply of disposable income, which itself is derived from higher, as opposed to falling, wages among the *local* consumer population.
Thirdly, one could make a strong argument that less taxation, regulation, and open immigration (i.e., an imported labor pool which would amount to more than a lighter form of indentured servitude) would be better and more effective ways to grow the local economy and local properity than growing foreign markets. Along this point, our laws are far more conducive to the growth of widespread prosperity then these foreign markets have been, and the development of these markets is the basis for any argument that the "pie will grow", so what guarantee will there be that these countries will actually develop such a market for all the American workers that gave up their old jobs for this new economy? [Want to keep your people fully employed? Keep them desperate enough to work for scraps.] Why are we so quick to reward labor markets made possible by disasterous economic policies at the expense of our markets which is now supposedly less lucrative due to years of far better policies? These overseas consumer markets will eventually arise anyways, so why is it so important now to help them along when we have other untapped avenues of prosperity to explore?
Your slap at tariffs is also too quick. A strong argument can be made that the relatively recent ability to effectively relocate work, if not the workforce, is *the* truly new and unprecedented capability, and that tariffs might actually help our economy by staunching the outsourcing of skilled labor and projects to third world countries. Free trade could be seen as not so much preparing us for competition as artifically breeding it in every backwards corner in the world. Yes, prices might be artificially higher in the meantime, and outsourcing everything will *eventually* bring new markets into being, but I can't wait fifty years for better than third world wage employment, can you? I suppose I could go the Ayn Rand route and start my own factory in Bangladesh, but can everyone due that? Wouldn't I have to be able to move to Bangladesh first, or do their border guards automatically waive such considerations for us Ayn Rand types?
I am a strong believer in capitalism, but I also believe in reason, and no proposition, such as the purported benefits of globalization, should be accepted as an article of faith without further examination and proofs. I think globalization is good in the long run, but I'm not blind to the possibility that it brings a new set of problems with its blessings.
Interesting post, but innaccurate on one point: 6% unemployment is very low by historical standards. 5% used to be considered "full-employment" in the eighties. Our low of 4% unemployment during the nineties (when tremendous wealth was generated for a wide swath of Americans) was considered unprecidented.
Still, you might be right, the current cure might prove far harder to take than was preached, especially when it is so-called "knowledge workers", who were supposed to be the heart of globalized workforce, who are now seeing their jobs shipped to the cheapest "adequate" third world country, or even "near-shored" to Canada.
Amen.
But the question is, can we wait long enough for a critical mass of employers to get "smart" when it comes to hiring technical staff, or will there be enough smaller, astute and rapidly growing entreprenureal activity to keep the work coming until the larger markets catch up, if they ever catch up?
I worry quite a bit about it lately. I live in an expensive city, and I don't see how moving to India will stop America from sliding into the median between us and the third world if this b.s. continues.
It's such high quality that they are sailing into bankruptcy. Those poor, misunderstood geniuses!!!
Maybe we need a state fund to help us poor slobs appreciate them more.
Conservatives advocate economic and political freedom for individuals, if not social freedom. That is completely at odds with a statist regime.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for busy-body do-gooders on the left who believe that enlightened interests should be advanced by government fiat regardless of popular sentiment.
Look at that outstanding business model:
1) write a bunch of whiny tripe attacking the most popular president in the last hundred years.
2) ask for people to pay to read it.
3) watch the money roll in!
Gee, do you think this might be why Donahue's ratings are bested by the weather channel? How come conservative shows like Rush Limbaugh and Fox make money like gangbusters, but shows which reflect the elitist views are always market failures?
It's an obvious example and is prominently mentioned in the article.
Did (selective) bias prompt the poster to mention Microsoft competitors and ignore MS?
When you reduced sugar, you reduced carbs, which would be directly in line with Atkin's theory. Congratulations, BTW.
I conceded that there was steady growth in the quantity digested (this trend exists everywhere, even in the third world) but steady growth should yield a steady increase in obesity, not the dramatic acceleration that has actually occurred in the population.
Atkins diet has remained relatively consistent since the early 70's when it was introduced.
That makes it as old as the vaunted food pyramid which came out of the McGovern committee in the mid 70's, which itself was based on the dubious proposition that reducing cholestoral in the bloodstream (via drugs) reduced heart disease, so reducing cholestoral in the food supply would achieve the same end. Of course no one could ever prove it, despite 5 government studies which attempted to do so, but having 80% of your recommended food intake grown by farmers had to be popular in the heartland, and it's not like the massive "healthfood" industry which developed because of the recommendations was bad for the economy, so who cares?
Point 2:
Since the adoption of the food pyramind in the early eighties the United States has seen an major explosion of obesity, which corresponded with an explosion with exercise and genereal "health consciousness". Since it is doubtful that exercise is the underlying cause of obesity, and there was no correspondent "explosion" in fast food or junk food consumption, (just steady growth) I would be curious as to how you could explain this?
Here's a clue. Atkins is like Copernicus, and nutritionists and people like you are the unimaginative sheep who think he's crazy. All the priesthood say he's a heretic because he's called them what they are: Snake oil salesman of a fraudulent "science" which resorts to scarying the public so they can keep their undeserved reputations intact and the grant money flowing. Meanwhile, even these same nutritionists admit that the diet is effective for losing weight, and that it warrants more research, which is more than one can say of the twenty five years of the "eat like a rabbit and run like a gerbil" diet. The CR (calorie reduction) folks are just the last hurray of this idiocy. Tell me, have you ever seen a CR practictioner that didn't look twenty years older than their age? Wow, so you got a mouse to live longer, and all you had to do was keep them on the brink of starvation? That sounds like a fad to me.
"This just in - Microsoft (MSFT) today promised it will inflate marketing claims by 18%-86% in Q2 of 2003, thereby shattering all hope for its competitors. After hearing the news, Sun Microsystems (SUNW) CEO Scott McNealy states that he's ready to pack it in."
Does the glued in stereo-jack magically prevent you from splicing a jack onto the other end?
Since you don't seem to get what he is talking about, I will surmise it for you:
He wants to reign in the "pure unfettered information" by enforcing hate-speech laws and other impose European restrictions on political and economic speech. He wants to protect tax prisons like Europe from tax-free online competition.
He is complaining about all those pesky freedoms that can't be touched because of those troublesome "bill of rights". He thinks that the peoples of the U.S. would "run to the hills" to escape a "civil society" where the government can control its people according to its own desires. (Think EU Falong Gong sites being taken down at the request of China). Of course, what would really happen is that no one would be joining him in his virtual worker's paradise, because who wants to be regulated?
He also seems very ignorant as to the critical role which Europe plays in both viruses and spam, but that's not surprising considering the obviously limited grasp he has of technology. Considering your statement about having to pay to learn how to program, I gather you don't either.
Yeah, those wild eyed free-market capitalists had better watchout once the socialists get into the game. Forget economics, learn a little history.
Forget the competition. What does this say about the marketplace for stress/functional automation tools? I marvel that so much is paid for so little.
If you think that price is high, check out their LoadRunner products (75K-275k, depending on what architecture you want to test).
But I agree, WinRunner blows. So do many of the competing products, (ahem, QARun) which all seem to lack serious QA prior to release. This is what you get when you've have to fight over a few thousand customers who are used to paying ridiculous amounts of money for broken enterprise software.
...aren't really necessary for functional testing, which is why most of these functional testing tools don't [more like can't] run in real time. IMO, these relatively pricey functional tools from the big venders could hardly be called reliable. I suspect that the tiny niche marketplace for such tools ensures that things will probably stay that way.
OTOH, Real life timing is really important for scalability testing, i.e. the domain of load testing tools, which mimic front end client behaviour in real time via back-end automation. These are definitely far more reliable, but also exceedingly more expensive.
Put down the crack pipe. Show me a single picture or story of an individual who starved to death in America which didn't result in some parent or caretaker being charged with manslaughter.
It doesn't happen here, despite what your government (or is it government school) tells you.
Look at who cosponsored the bill. Many of them are hardcore democrats. Shiela Jackson was the only congressperson to oppose supporting the administration's plans for Afghanistan, but I guess throwing the curious into prison for life is ok by her.
No one is "starving" in the United States. All poor people in the USA have access to potable water, decent waste disposal and clothing. If they live on the streets it is not for a lack of shelters. As one [perhaps extreme] example, in NYC a homeless person has a right to a bed, such that the city will put them up in a luxery hotel if there is no more room in the shelters.
Most poor in subsidized housing have a color television, cable, a microwave oven, and refrigeration --if not a game console, a car, and a host of household appliances.
Whereas law professors, on the other hand, are veritable renaissance men of both thought and action, always ready to escape the bounds of their cluttered, paper-stacked offices just so they may exhibit their awesome command of contemporary events in the dim hope that insular smucks like us will see their example and perhaps strive, as they, to suck the marrow out of life.