So you're saying that the only reason companies are not training anyone is because they can get workers for 1/10 the price in other countries? Even the small businesses that really can't afford to offshore in the first place?
This is a Prisoner's Dilemma problem, in that advantages of training someone up are spread over all of society (more qualified people to choose from), but the disadvantages are personalized (the company would have a definite dollar cost to pay). So not paying for training is personally beneficial and logical, but generally destructive and short-sighted.
I've heard lots of different things about the new bankrupcy law. Some say that it will just be a bit harder to file, others say you can't wipe out your debts at all anymore.
So you'll only know for sure what the case is when they bring back debtors prisons.
IANAL
The strongest argument against EULAs being contracts is the fact that there is no consideration on both sides. Basically, you are agreeing to give up a bunch more rights in exchange for... nothing. You already own the copy of the software (otherwise the contract you made with the store in which you bought the software would be similarly invalid).
Basically, you have to get something in exchange, or it's not a contract. It's why you sometimes hear about a deal going down where somebody buys some property for $1.
I seriously have a problem with allowing some non-related act count as signing or accepting a contract. I think we need to go back to contracts not being accepted or signed unless done so on paper with a pen
Contracts have never needed to be written down to be enforcable. It just makes it easier to determine and prove what the actual terms are. And you don't have to sign your name either. Hell, shaving an X onto a cow has been found to be a legally binding signature.
And no, the US isn't a pure capitalist system. For that you'd have to look at Britain, Germany and France at the beginning of the industrial revolution. You know, where they used children to mine coal because they were smaller and could fit through the tunnels more easily. Not to mention being in plentiful supply, and therefore cheap.
Congress can't change the two party system. The states could make some changes but there are some restrictions in the US Constitution that they can't work around.
Congress has a large role in changing the Constitution.
Damn, I swear I had read that post before.
Ok, so the same amount part is stupid, though there may have been instances where this has happened.
Even so, why should the upper management be rewarded for failure? They drove the company to bankrupcy and they get BONUSES?
If anybody thinks that makes sense, then they need to take a course in psychology.
If you've been led to believe that getting health insurance is difficult, you were lied to.
Really? The company trying to sell me health insurance, who took over a month to give me an offer (the quotes they give initially are totally meaningless), who finally offered me a policy for five times the rate you quoted, were lying to me?
The two other companies who rejected me entirely, after charging me a non-refundable application fee, were lying to me?
Wow, that's great! I didn't know I had great health coverage for less than $100 a month! Thanks for letting me know!
Don't forget the phenomenon where companies will purposely advertise positions they have no intention of filling, so that they can go to Congress with fake evidence that there aren't enough qualified people, so that they have to raise H1-B visa quotas.
When the boss isn't spending any time interviewing, I suspect it's because no one qualified is applying.
More likely, the applications from qualified employees are buried in a pile of applications from tons of other people who have been told that job listings are basically wish lists, and to just apply to everything hoping one of them will get a response.
For one, they cannot pay someone to kill someone else. They cannot flat out bribe a government official (legally). They cannot buy out every company in a particular industry.
There are all kinds of restrictions on what they can do with their money in the stock market. And in campaign financing.
Hell, the Constitution even gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce.
There was never a time in the history of this country where everyone could "do whatever they want with their money".
I do advocate for personal health insurance, where you are personally responsible for each dollar spent for fees and it has no ties to your employer or any other group that would use it to coerce you into acting against your own best interests.
And what's your solution for companies that, when you get sick and actually start to use that insurance you've been paying for, either cancel your policy or jack up your premiums so high that you have no choice but to cancel it yourself?
Not only this, but it used be that the top executive at Fortune 500 companies 20 years age got something like 20X what a "normal" lay person gets paid (though I'm sure stock options were there aplenty to). These days it's ballooned to ballooned to 50x and up.
It's more like 400 times more. So CEOs "earn" more in a day than most employees will in a year.
The constitution's guarantee of free speech refers to your freedom from interference by the government.
And regarding broadcast media, the government is already explicitly disallowing everyone but the networks from broadcasting a signal over the public spectrum. This is why it is possible to make it illegal to use profanity or show a nipple on television, and why the equal time law was legal.
So if there is ever going to be any sort of effective campaign financing law, it will affect only television and radio.
Really all that "liberal" means in the US nowadays is "all that is wrong with the world". It has been established by years of campaigning and propaganda, and very few people will label themselves as "liberal", even if their particular views would fall into that category (and a great many have so-called liberal views).
Remember, the topic of whether or not the citizenry should collectively bear the costs of caring for someone with this catastrophic illness is a different debate.
Except that the insurance companies have linked them, by opposing any sort of single-payer health care at every term.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that the only reason companies are not training anyone is because they can get workers for 1/10 the price in other countries? Even the small businesses that really can't afford to offshore in the first place?
This is a Prisoner's Dilemma problem, in that advantages of training someone up are spread over all of society (more qualified people to choose from), but the disadvantages are personalized (the company would have a definite dollar cost to pay). So not paying for training is personally beneficial and logical, but generally destructive and short-sighted.
If you know how to fix that problem, let me know.
I've heard lots of different things about the new bankrupcy law. Some say that it will just be a bit harder to file, others say you can't wipe out your debts at all anymore.
So you'll only know for sure what the case is when they bring back debtors prisons.
IANAL The strongest argument against EULAs being contracts is the fact that there is no consideration on both sides. Basically, you are agreeing to give up a bunch more rights in exchange for... nothing. You already own the copy of the software (otherwise the contract you made with the store in which you bought the software would be similarly invalid). Basically, you have to get something in exchange, or it's not a contract. It's why you sometimes hear about a deal going down where somebody buys some property for $1.
Something about not wanting the "wrong element" (read: poor people) from coming into town.
So you're saying Bush is liberal? And Clinton is conservative?
You seem to think that what we have is a free market. Curious.
So what you're saying is that you believe that life really IS fair.
And there's so much evidence to contradict that theory...
Depends on what kind of average you're talking about.
Damn, I swear I had read that post before. Ok, so the same amount part is stupid, though there may have been instances where this has happened. Even so, why should the upper management be rewarded for failure? They drove the company to bankrupcy and they get BONUSES? If anybody thinks that makes sense, then they need to take a course in psychology.
The two other companies who rejected me entirely, after charging me a non-refundable application fee, were lying to me?
Wow, that's great! I didn't know I had great health coverage for less than $100 a month! Thanks for letting me know!
Don't forget the phenomenon where companies will purposely advertise positions they have no intention of filling, so that they can go to Congress with fake evidence that there aren't enough qualified people, so that they have to raise H1-B visa quotas.
The purpose of inheritance taxes are to fight the rise of an elite nobility.
Ah, another subscriber to the "Life really IS fair" theory!
For one, they cannot pay someone to kill someone else. They cannot flat out bribe a government official (legally). They cannot buy out every company in a particular industry.
There are all kinds of restrictions on what they can do with their money in the stock market. And in campaign financing.
Hell, the Constitution even gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce.
There was never a time in the history of this country where everyone could "do whatever they want with their money".
So if there is ever going to be any sort of effective campaign financing law, it will affect only television and radio.
Really all that "liberal" means in the US nowadays is "all that is wrong with the world". It has been established by years of campaigning and propaganda, and very few people will label themselves as "liberal", even if their particular views would fall into that category (and a great many have so-called liberal views).