"All the wealthy economies were built on the majority of people having well-paying secure jobs"
They most certainly are not, they are built on free enterprise. It is true that you can assuage short term suffering, but you can only do it at the expense of future well being. It's simply a question of how much value you put on the present, and how much on the future. Kinda like deciding how much corn to eat and how much to save for seed. Resources, at any given moment, are limited.
What do their parents have to do with this? For job lost due to "lower priced competition", whether outsourcing or superior technology, there is a corresponding gain to the general public and to related industries. Let's use your steam shovel example.
If steam shovels make the 100 guys obsolete, that means they are doing the same work for lower cost. The entire difference is distributed between the employer and the customer. This means both the employer and customer are now better off and have that money to spend in different areas, or they can build even more buildings. That money doesn't just dissappear, it simply ends up chasing some other demand in the economy. Which means more jobs somewhere else. It's simply a matter of where.
Who decides what a "fair wage" is? Even you have to admit that it's not the same in every country, and that it will be constantly changing. This would make it hard to regulate, since it is always a highly subjective and mobile target. The restrictions you cite would have the exact same effect on those foreign workers as a tariff. The result would be the same, you would raise the cost of whatever they are producing, taking away their cost advantage.
Simple, some accountants got greedy and cooked the books.
Sigh, you really didn't understand parent's point, do you? Your whitty reply doesn't negate parent's point at all. What parent is trying to say, is not that companies don't do bad things, but that companies aren't actors independant of human control. Companies are simply individuals acting as a group. When companies do "bad things" you can trace responsibility back to an individual or group of individuals, not just a faceless
"company".
The Henry Ford legend, is just that, a legend. At least economically speaking. A raise in the wage of Ford employees will never increase consumption of cars by more than it costs the company (since 100% of the wage increase will not go toward bying a Ford car). There are good reasons to pay an "above average" wage for an industry, such as reducing turnover and training costs, and to get a better caliber (read more productive) of employee. But the myth that Ford raised wages to increase the number of people buying his cars just doesn't add up.
You're "exploitation" is usually much better than the prevailing wages and circumstances found in most of that country's jobs though. Unless you set a minimum wage above the county's average wage (which would be disasterous for that country) you would have little effect on what the so called "exploited" are being paid.
Why should an individual's income be at the expense of everyone else's welfare (everyone owns a share in the company)?
Why to you feel entitled to the money of those financing the whole operation? Is it simply out of habit?
I'm not arguing that certain groups of people aren't hurt by outsourcing. But to act like we (the public) can dictate to people how to spend their own money is just plain socialism/communism in raw form. And we know how great that was for the common person.
If Green Berets were captured by a signatory to the Geneva Convention then they WOULD have to identify themselves (name, rank, serial number...). But since Al-Queda and rebel insurgents aren't part of any group that recognized the convention, it is argued that they fall outside of it's protections (notice that terrorist organization have affirmatively acted in ways that suggest that even if they were given the opportunity to "legitimize" themselves by signing such a convention, they would refuse.)
NCLB doesn't disprove parent's point, in fact it sorta makes it for him. If he isn't in favor of the department of education, what makes you think he supports NCLB?
Puhleese is right! You accuse the parent of ignoring facts that don't square with his world view. But then you go and do the exact same thing. Ignoring other evidence that doesn't square with YOUR world view, and then after ignoring evidence that doesn't support your point, you make wild statements such as" the prison guards were told to violate the geneva convention up and down the chain of command" and try and lay the blame at Bush's feet. Why? Because it's what you WANT to believe. You are engaged in the same act as parent, or worse with the rediculous claims.
Sure you can make an intelligent and convincing case that Iraq wasn't as pressing or dangerous as Bush claimed, or that it should have been handled with X number of troops, or Y strategy. But you don't do that, at least not in this post.
Well for starters it makes cleaning that region of the body much easier. Of course with modern hygene it's not as important as it used to be. I'm sorry, but removing skin is not the same as hacking off someone's genitals.
While I generally agree with you, what if you have two different groups of people, you want one to have write and read access, and one to have write only.
Actually it gets even better. The purging debacle was well known at least one month BEFORE the election, and an appeals process was setup to allow those incorrectly purged to appeal their removal. Approximately 5% or those purged were put back on the registration list through this process. However some counties decided instead simply not to purge any of the names from their voting rolls and allow the fealons to vote rather than risk disenfranchising some legitimate voters who they feared might not appeal their removal from the eligible voter list.
So florida had multiple problems.
1. Incorrectly purged voters had only a month or maybe two to appeal their removal, thus some people elegible to vote were not able to.
2. Some counties simply allowed everyone on the "purged fealon list" to vote, allowing some people to vote that were not allowed to under florida law.
3. The calling of the election before the closing of polls in the panhandle region of florida.
4. And the argument over the absentee military ballots.
I think they have been threatening to pull out for quite a while. While I don't doubt that the situation in Afghanistan is dangerous, it certainly hasn't changed all that much from, say, a year ago. Maybe they just decided in hindsight that it was too risky to begin with. Or, knowing that their members tend to be very left/anti-Bush, they could be doing it to spite Bush. But all of that is just specualtion, since we can't know what they are really thinking. Personally, having Doctors without Borders leave doesn't really change my opinion one way or the other about how truly dangerous it is in Afghanistan (or any other place).
No, it scales extremely poorly compared to computerized tallying. It's much more expensive to handcount votes, and there is much more room for "creative interpretation." Yeah there are problems with computerized voting, but mechanical counting is likely more honest and less corrupt.
But it's not just the leisure class that would be hurt if we all became suddenly unproductive and a bunch of slackers. In fact it's the "working man" that would be hurt the most, since they rely on their back-breaking labor just to survive.
Advertising should never RAISE the cost of a drug. The point of advertising is to increase usage (either through convincing people to switch from something else or by getting their doctor to put them on it.)
Drug manufacturers biggest expense is the fixed upfront costs of R&D and the government trial and approval process. Actual volume production of the drug is USUALLY not terribly expensive. The point is to defray the R&D costs. If advertising increases consumption enough, it more than pays for itself. Plus the average production cost of making the pills tends to go down as the total volume increases. So it's in the drug companies best interest to drive as many sales as they can, so long as they can sell the pills for more than the cost of producing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Eliminate the corporate income tax. Then companies have no incentive to hide their income to avoid paying taxes.
They most certainly are not, they are built on free enterprise. It is true that you can assuage short term suffering, but you can only do it at the expense of future well being. It's simply a question of how much value you put on the present, and how much on the future. Kinda like deciding how much corn to eat and how much to save for seed. Resources, at any given moment, are limited.
Well some would argue that communism IS inherently evil, both morally and practically. Not to flame, I just don't concede the premise.
What do their parents have to do with this? For job lost due to "lower priced competition", whether outsourcing or superior technology, there is a corresponding gain to the general public and to related industries. Let's use your steam shovel example. If steam shovels make the 100 guys obsolete, that means they are doing the same work for lower cost. The entire difference is distributed between the employer and the customer. This means both the employer and customer are now better off and have that money to spend in different areas, or they can build even more buildings. That money doesn't just dissappear, it simply ends up chasing some other demand in the economy. Which means more jobs somewhere else. It's simply a matter of where.
Who decides what a "fair wage" is? Even you have to admit that it's not the same in every country, and that it will be constantly changing. This would make it hard to regulate, since it is always a highly subjective and mobile target. The restrictions you cite would have the exact same effect on those foreign workers as a tariff. The result would be the same, you would raise the cost of whatever they are producing, taking away their cost advantage.
Sigh, you really didn't understand parent's point, do you? Your whitty reply doesn't negate parent's point at all. What parent is trying to say, is not that companies don't do bad things, but that companies aren't actors independant of human control. Companies are simply individuals acting as a group. When companies do "bad things" you can trace responsibility back to an individual or group of individuals, not just a faceless "company".
The Henry Ford legend, is just that, a legend. At least economically speaking. A raise in the wage of Ford employees will never increase consumption of cars by more than it costs the company (since 100% of the wage increase will not go toward bying a Ford car). There are good reasons to pay an "above average" wage for an industry, such as reducing turnover and training costs, and to get a better caliber (read more productive) of employee. But the myth that Ford raised wages to increase the number of people buying his cars just doesn't add up.
You're "exploitation" is usually much better than the prevailing wages and circumstances found in most of that country's jobs though. Unless you set a minimum wage above the county's average wage (which would be disasterous for that country) you would have little effect on what the so called "exploited" are being paid.
Why should an individual's income be at the expense of everyone else's welfare (everyone owns a share in the company)? Why to you feel entitled to the money of those financing the whole operation? Is it simply out of habit? I'm not arguing that certain groups of people aren't hurt by outsourcing. But to act like we (the public) can dictate to people how to spend their own money is just plain socialism/communism in raw form. And we know how great that was for the common person.
If Green Berets were captured by a signatory to the Geneva Convention then they WOULD have to identify themselves (name, rank, serial number...). But since Al-Queda and rebel insurgents aren't part of any group that recognized the convention, it is argued that they fall outside of it's protections (notice that terrorist organization have affirmatively acted in ways that suggest that even if they were given the opportunity to "legitimize" themselves by signing such a convention, they would refuse.)
NCLB doesn't disprove parent's point, in fact it sorta makes it for him. If he isn't in favor of the department of education, what makes you think he supports NCLB?
Sure you can make an intelligent and convincing case that Iraq wasn't as pressing or dangerous as Bush claimed, or that it should have been handled with X number of troops, or Y strategy. But you don't do that, at least not in this post.
Well for starters it makes cleaning that region of the body much easier. Of course with modern hygene it's not as important as it used to be. I'm sorry, but removing skin is not the same as hacking off someone's genitals.
While I generally agree with you, what if you have two different groups of people, you want one to have write and read access, and one to have write only.
So florida had multiple problems. 1. Incorrectly purged voters had only a month or maybe two to appeal their removal, thus some people elegible to vote were not able to. 2. Some counties simply allowed everyone on the "purged fealon list" to vote, allowing some people to vote that were not allowed to under florida law. 3. The calling of the election before the closing of polls in the panhandle region of florida. 4. And the argument over the absentee military ballots.
I think they have been threatening to pull out for quite a while. While I don't doubt that the situation in Afghanistan is dangerous, it certainly hasn't changed all that much from, say, a year ago. Maybe they just decided in hindsight that it was too risky to begin with. Or, knowing that their members tend to be very left/anti-Bush, they could be doing it to spite Bush. But all of that is just specualtion, since we can't know what they are really thinking. Personally, having Doctors without Borders leave doesn't really change my opinion one way or the other about how truly dangerous it is in Afghanistan (or any other place).
No, it scales extremely poorly compared to computerized tallying. It's much more expensive to handcount votes, and there is much more room for "creative interpretation." Yeah there are problems with computerized voting, but mechanical counting is likely more honest and less corrupt.
Not entirely correct. Jails are used both for holding people before a trial/court appearance and for sentences less than 1 year.
If they start to run out of water, then just send them up to live in the frozen tundra, eh.
would be mighty fresh, wouldn't it. :D
A market of ONE.
Unix is to OSs as Democracy is to political systems. It is the worst kind, except compared to all the others.
AT&T COULDN'T sell unix at the time (read the article), thats why it was bascially given away to the universities to start with.
But it's not just the leisure class that would be hurt if we all became suddenly unproductive and a bunch of slackers. In fact it's the "working man" that would be hurt the most, since they rely on their back-breaking labor just to survive.
Drug manufacturers biggest expense is the fixed upfront costs of R&D and the government trial and approval process. Actual volume production of the drug is USUALLY not terribly expensive. The point is to defray the R&D costs. If advertising increases consumption enough, it more than pays for itself. Plus the average production cost of making the pills tends to go down as the total volume increases. So it's in the drug companies best interest to drive as many sales as they can, so long as they can sell the pills for more than the cost of producing them.