This is essentially what happened in post-prohibition America, which is the best model we have for what would happen should drugs be legalized.
Except that this situation is much much worse than prohibition in America. People were probably killed by alcohol cartels in the U.S. when alcohol was prohibited, but there don't seem to be any estimates. It is certainly not anywhere near the 38,000 that have been killed in Mexico in recent years. If they had made a surgical strike when the drug cartel was small, they could have avoided all this. Now there is no easy solution. It will be nothing short of a war to get rid of it. Even legalizing it won't help because the cartels won't allow it it be legalized and if it were, they would not allow anyone else to sell it but them.
Also, prohibition was something that most people in the U.S. were against. As opposed to the prohibition of drugs, which most people in the U.S. still favor.
And just like that, the Zeta's will be out of business.
And that's why it won't happen. Any politician that tried to legalize drugs would have his head removed by the Zetas.
This is nothing new. The only difference is that the jobs themselves are in India. I get spam job offers every week from Indian companies advertising for consulting positions here in the United States, unfortunately, I am not qualified for them because I don't have an H1-B and I am not Indian. I am a natural born citizen of the United States and that is just not the sort of person these consulting firms are looking for.
A higher salary? Employment?
Those are facets of the employment contract and can not be considered to be compensation for the purposes of a non-compete clause after you are no longer employed.
When I looked into enforcability of non-compete agreements, they have to meet three criteria:
The employer must prove that it has a legitimate business interest to protect by restricting its employees' right to compete against it;
The restriction on the employee's right to compete must be no greater than that necessary to protect the employer's business interest; and
The covenant not to compete must be supported by consideration, meaning that the employee received something in exchange for it.
Most of the non-competes that I have seen meet zero of these three requirements.
The constitution doesn't say anything about employment that I remember, and it certainly does allow private parties to enter into contracts with each other, so non-competes are just a part of regular contract law. They're unfair because employers have much more power than individual employees, but that doesn't make them illegal (except in states like California where they've been made illegal or unenforceable either by statute or by court precedent). It'd be nice if our sociopathic leaders made them illegal in all states, but that simply isn't the case, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
What does the non-compete agreement offer in terms of compensation or other renumeration for the employee? How can a contract benefit only one party? I will happily no work in my chosen profession for another party as long as my ex-employer continues to pay me not to do so. They will have to pay me more than they were paying when I was working for them because if I don't practice my trade for a year, I will have a hard time getting another job in that trade.
I worked for a company that had promised that our hard work would pay off. Employees worked nights and weekends to make the company a success. It sold for $300 million. The founders walked away with close to $100 million each. The employees got nothing, except the right to reinterview for the job they already had, and since that time, most of the employees who put in all that time have been laid off by the new company.
Given that they're in California, which is a very employee-friendly state (one of the few I believe where non-competes are unenforceable)
Non-competes are not enforceable anywhere. An employer is not allowed to tell someone that they can't work in their desired profession. That is completely unconstitutional.
Once your employment contract ends, the non-compete ends with it. If they prefer the non-compete to remain in full force and effect then they need to compensate you for the full term of the non-compete agreement.
Not when they can get you to pay it instead. There are rules that allow you to drop the mortgage insurance, but you have to get the loan principal below 80% of the original purchase price.
My loan principal is between 52% and 68% depending on which one you believe out of a couple of appraisals, the county assessor and Zillow. I am still paying PMI. Oh, but if you go by original purchase price, I am still at 84%. I bought the house 10 years ago.
Apparently new FHA requirements force you to pay PMI on anything less than 22% down.
A lot of minimum wage earners get tips. This is essentially the same as a bonus. If you do an excellent job, you get a big tip. if you do a fair job, you get an average tip. If you do a horrible job, you for some reason still get a tip. Just like the bonus structure.
I was actually surprised to learn that there is now no such thing as a private mortgage loan.
Oh? Does that mean I no longer have to pay "Private Mortgage Insurance"?
I always wondered why I had to pay that anyway. if they were so worried about me not paying the loan back, shouldn't THEY pay for the insurance?
It makes perfect sense to give bonuses to bankers. It doesn't make any sense not to take money away from their pay check if they screw up.
You are in fact saying the opposite of what the article says. I agree with you. The problem is not the bonuses. The problem is the salaries. If we eliminate bonuses, then their performance is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how bad or good they do, they get the same money. Sure, they could get fired if they do badly enough, but to paraphrase Office Space , that will only make them perform just well enough not to get fired.
If they were completely dependent on bonuses, then they have to make good loans to get paid at all.
When your loanee fails to repay the loan (because, maybe you lent against an asset that no longer appreciates in price) then you interest repayments are dwarfed by the subsequent write-off.
This is why bonuses should be paid on the performance of the sale, not on the number of sales. Just like the salespeople at a software company should not be paid based on a percentage of the overall contract, but on a percentage of the profitability of the contract. They don't pay salespeople at the car dealership a percentage of the purchase price. They pay a percentage of the profit. Bankers were getting bonuses on the gross price. Kind of like paying a bonus to a car salesman for selling a million Mercedes at $1 apiece.
I'm not dumb, but can you provide an example using pancakes?
No, it just wouldn't work. However we can use cows. Assume spherical cows of uniform density...
Has anyone here ever met someone who bought something off a spam email?
Once, out of sheer morbid curiosity about a product that was spammed to me, I decided to respond to the spam. I did not get any kind of response to my attempt to inquire about the product.
Apparently, spam is just like every other advertising technique. The only people who benefit are the spammers themselves. The people who utilize spam to sell their products don't even get notified of the leads their spam generates.
Send them back a certified letter to the mailing address of the company containing a contract offering to read their e-mails for $50 per e-mail. In your letter indicate that in order to agree to the services, they need do nothing more than send you an e-mail to be read. once you receive the e-mail, start sending invoices. if they don't pay, take them to court and file a bad debt report with the credit agencies.
Someone sent me a survey they were doing as part of a school project recently, on social networks. I couldn't fill it out because I don't use any social networks at all.
Slashdot has enemies, friends, and whatnot, journalling, update notices,etc. To quote John Bender,"So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?"
In my experience, the smart kids didn't cheat at all. It was the ones who got middle of the roads or worse grades that cheated, and it usually did them no good because there was usually a whole group of middle of the roaders cheating off each other.
In some of our 100 level courses it was quite easy to tell the cheaters. I'm convinced that if you started hauling on one of the cheaters, the whole group would get hauled out of the row.
Cramming and pulling an all nighter is no substitute for paying attention and studying during the semester. Although I certainly appreciated the classes that graded on a curve, because all the bleary eyed people that had been up all night made my scores really stand out.
*Cough* Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, Southeast Asian, South Asian, and Middle-eastern students *cough* are the worst offenders.
I'm sure it varies by school. In my school, it was the Arabs. And don't think I single them out because of our recent exploits, this was back before most people in the U.S. even had any idea that the Arabs hated us.
I'm so glad that the real world is open book.
I'm glad too. The fact that everything is available online means that I can remember the large concepts and consider the best way to do something, but then go look online for exactly which parameters are in which order for function foo.
Such capabilities are well outside anything we have technologically or will have for some time.
You are far too modest. Those capabilities are in fact well outside anything that can exist in the physics of our universe.
here in Oklahoma this is maybe once in a hundred years event.
Not in the most recent hundred years. I'm not a Californian. Maybe you guys deal with this kind of thing weekly,
No, they are just talking out their ass. California experiences only on average 2 a year of 5.0 or higher. In the last 48 hours, we nearly hit their average.
Also, note that a 5.6 in Oklahoma is certainly not going to cause as much damage as one in California. There are just so many structures and people that in California, a 5.6 would cause millions of dollars in property damage, probably a lot of injury and possible loss of life. Believe me, as much as they are blowing it off, a 5.6 would definitely make news in California.
Slashdot Mirror
This is essentially what happened in post-prohibition America, which is the best model we have for what would happen should drugs be legalized.
Except that this situation is much much worse than prohibition in America. People were probably killed by alcohol cartels in the U.S. when alcohol was prohibited, but there don't seem to be any estimates. It is certainly not anywhere near the 38,000 that have been killed in Mexico in recent years. If they had made a surgical strike when the drug cartel was small, they could have avoided all this. Now there is no easy solution. It will be nothing short of a war to get rid of it. Even legalizing it won't help because the cartels won't allow it it be legalized and if it were, they would not allow anyone else to sell it but them.
Also, prohibition was something that most people in the U.S. were against. As opposed to the prohibition of drugs, which most people in the U.S. still favor.
And just like that, the Zeta's will be out of business.
And that's why it won't happen. Any politician that tried to legalize drugs would have his head removed by the Zetas.
This is nothing new. The only difference is that the jobs themselves are in India. I get spam job offers every week from Indian companies advertising for consulting positions here in the United States, unfortunately, I am not qualified for them because I don't have an H1-B and I am not Indian. I am a natural born citizen of the United States and that is just not the sort of person these consulting firms are looking for.
A higher salary? Employment?
Those are facets of the employment contract and can not be considered to be compensation for the purposes of a non-compete clause after you are no longer employed.
When I looked into enforcability of non-compete agreements, they have to meet three criteria:
The employer must prove that it has a legitimate business interest to protect by restricting its employees' right to compete against it;
The restriction on the employee's right to compete must be no greater than that necessary to protect the employer's business interest; and
The covenant not to compete must be supported by consideration, meaning that the employee received something in exchange for it.
Most of the non-competes that I have seen meet zero of these three requirements.
The constitution doesn't say anything about employment that I remember, and it certainly does allow private parties to enter into contracts with each other, so non-competes are just a part of regular contract law. They're unfair because employers have much more power than individual employees, but that doesn't make them illegal (except in states like California where they've been made illegal or unenforceable either by statute or by court precedent). It'd be nice if our sociopathic leaders made them illegal in all states, but that simply isn't the case, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
What does the non-compete agreement offer in terms of compensation or other renumeration for the employee? How can a contract benefit only one party? I will happily no work in my chosen profession for another party as long as my ex-employer continues to pay me not to do so. They will have to pay me more than they were paying when I was working for them because if I don't practice my trade for a year, I will have a hard time getting another job in that trade.
I worked for a company that had promised that our hard work would pay off. Employees worked nights and weekends to make the company a success. It sold for $300 million. The founders walked away with close to $100 million each. The employees got nothing, except the right to reinterview for the job they already had, and since that time, most of the employees who put in all that time have been laid off by the new company.
Given that they're in California, which is a very employee-friendly state (one of the few I believe where non-competes are unenforceable)
Non-competes are not enforceable anywhere. An employer is not allowed to tell someone that they can't work in their desired profession. That is completely unconstitutional.
Once your employment contract ends, the non-compete ends with it. If they prefer the non-compete to remain in full force and effect then they need to compensate you for the full term of the non-compete agreement.
If I was a judge, I would order the company broken up and sold off and all the profits shared amongst the employees with unvested shares.
Not when they can get you to pay it instead. There are rules that allow you to drop the mortgage insurance, but you have to get the loan principal below 80% of the original purchase price.
My loan principal is between 52% and 68% depending on which one you believe out of a couple of appraisals, the county assessor and Zillow. I am still paying PMI. Oh, but if you go by original purchase price, I am still at 84%. I bought the house 10 years ago.
Apparently new FHA requirements force you to pay PMI on anything less than 22% down.
A lot of minimum wage earners get tips. This is essentially the same as a bonus. If you do an excellent job, you get a big tip. if you do a fair job, you get an average tip. If you do a horrible job, you for some reason still get a tip. Just like the bonus structure.
I was actually surprised to learn that there is now no such thing as a private mortgage loan.
Oh? Does that mean I no longer have to pay "Private Mortgage Insurance"?
I always wondered why I had to pay that anyway. if they were so worried about me not paying the loan back, shouldn't THEY pay for the insurance?
It makes perfect sense to give bonuses to bankers. It doesn't make any sense not to take money away from their pay check if they screw up.
You are in fact saying the opposite of what the article says. I agree with you. The problem is not the bonuses. The problem is the salaries. If we eliminate bonuses, then their performance is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how bad or good they do, they get the same money. Sure, they could get fired if they do badly enough, but to paraphrase Office Space , that will only make them perform just well enough not to get fired.
If they were completely dependent on bonuses, then they have to make good loans to get paid at all.
When your loanee fails to repay the loan (because, maybe you lent against an asset that no longer appreciates in price) then you interest repayments are dwarfed by the subsequent write-off.
This is why bonuses should be paid on the performance of the sale, not on the number of sales. Just like the salespeople at a software company should not be paid based on a percentage of the overall contract, but on a percentage of the profitability of the contract. They don't pay salespeople at the car dealership a percentage of the purchase price. They pay a percentage of the profit. Bankers were getting bonuses on the gross price. Kind of like paying a bonus to a car salesman for selling a million Mercedes at $1 apiece.
I'm not dumb, but can you provide an example using pancakes?
No, it just wouldn't work. However we can use cows. Assume spherical cows of uniform density...
Has anyone here ever met someone who bought something off a spam email?
Once, out of sheer morbid curiosity about a product that was spammed to me, I decided to respond to the spam. I did not get any kind of response to my attempt to inquire about the product.
Apparently, spam is just like every other advertising technique. The only people who benefit are the spammers themselves. The people who utilize spam to sell their products don't even get notified of the leads their spam generates.
Send them back a certified letter to the mailing address of the company containing a contract offering to read their e-mails for $50 per e-mail. In your letter indicate that in order to agree to the services, they need do nothing more than send you an e-mail to be read. once you receive the e-mail, start sending invoices. if they don't pay, take them to court and file a bad debt report with the credit agencies.
Someone sent me a survey they were doing as part of a school project recently, on social networks. I couldn't fill it out because I don't use any social networks at all. ,"So it's sorta social, demented and sad, but social. Right?"
Slashdot has enemies, friends, and whatnot, journalling, update notices,etc. To quote John Bender
In my experience, the smart kids didn't cheat at all. It was the ones who got middle of the roads or worse grades that cheated, and it usually did them no good because there was usually a whole group of middle of the roaders cheating off each other.
In some of our 100 level courses it was quite easy to tell the cheaters. I'm convinced that if you started hauling on one of the cheaters, the whole group would get hauled out of the row.
Cramming and pulling an all nighter is no substitute for paying attention and studying during the semester. Although I certainly appreciated the classes that graded on a curve, because all the bleary eyed people that had been up all night made my scores really stand out.
*Cough* Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, Southeast Asian, South Asian, and Middle-eastern students *cough* are the worst offenders.
I'm sure it varies by school. In my school, it was the Arabs. And don't think I single them out because of our recent exploits, this was back before most people in the U.S. even had any idea that the Arabs hated us.
I'm so glad that the real world is open book.
I'm glad too. The fact that everything is available online means that I can remember the large concepts and consider the best way to do something, but then go look online for exactly which parameters are in which order for function foo.
Such capabilities are well outside anything we have technologically or will have for some time.
You are far too modest. Those capabilities are in fact well outside anything that can exist in the physics of our universe.
here in Oklahoma this is maybe once in a hundred years event.
Not in the most recent hundred years.
I'm not a Californian. Maybe you guys deal with this kind of thing weekly,
No, they are just talking out their ass. California experiences only on average 2 a year of 5.0 or higher. In the last 48 hours, we nearly hit their average.
Also, note that a 5.6 in Oklahoma is certainly not going to cause as much damage as one in California. There are just so many structures and people that in California, a 5.6 would cause millions of dollars in property damage, probably a lot of injury and possible loss of life. Believe me, as much as they are blowing it off, a 5.6 would definitely make news in California.
Correlation is not causation.
True. The earthquakes probably caused the fracking, not the other way around.