Well, if you like cutting off your nose to spite your face, I suppose you could see it that way. Because your viewpoint relies on the "Jackpot Justice" myth, which is just that - a myth. Actual frivolous lawsuits are actually dismissed at trial. Don't be a chump for corporate immunization from accountability.
As opposed to community-owned businesses like Wal-Mart, of course.
OK, that's not quite right; OPEC doesn't have the government to coerce people on their behalf
As opposed to, say, health insurance companies and the consumer mandate, of course.
Both keep the price of their product artificially high
Businesses charge whatever the market will bear. If unionized companies could charge more for their products....they'd go right ahead and charge more for their products.
Unions also do their best to prevent competition
As opposed to businesses like Wal-Mart, of course.
I recall when the bus drivers struck here in Des Moines, and the newspaper reported rocks being tossed off overpasses where buses passed.
Do you also "recall" who got dozens of mine workers killed in the Apalacaians, got a dozen workers killed on the Deep Horizon rig, and blew up more money than exists in the world?
I like the idea, but unions are like every other organization: they refuse to disband or become inactive when their goals are accomplished.
I suppose that would make sense in a world where business is static, and Fiorina didn't drive HP into the ground and BP's greedy incompetence didn't get a dozen people killed on the Deep Horizon rig.
Unions will have a purpose as long as humans are subject to greed.
Why should the CEO of Wal-Mart make more in one paycheck than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her lifetime? Does the average CEO really do 500 times the work of his average employee? Do high level banking executives really deserve millions in bonuses after crashing the world economy?
Your claptrap might make some sense where the VP of your division was fired from his $2 million a year salary and replaced with a couple of cheap MBA's from India who are payed $80k a piece.
But of course, we all know this dog-eat-dog-fight-for-scraps bullshit only applies in one direction.
Nevermind that union workers make more than non-union workers - unless non-unionized companies are forced to compete with unions for employees and have to offer competitive benefits. Eliminate the union, and your brothers wages would go down on the spot - because there's five other people outside waiting to take his job if he doesn't like it.
Today, supposedly around 47% of the people in the US are not paying federal taxes, generally because their income is either exempt from taxation or their income is too low to meet the base taxation threshold.
Funny how you left out the part where the top 400 Americans rake in more every year than the bottom 160 million.
There's five applicants for every open job. It takes money to make money. For every American Idol winner, there's thousands that never even made it on TV.
So could you explain your brilliant economic strategy to us again?
A conservative idea with no basis in reality whatsoever. I apologize for the redundancy in that statement.
End the wars and the Bush tax cuts, and the vast majority of the deficit disappears. Raise marginal tax rates to old Republican levels (91% under Eisenhower) and engage in direct hire, and we'll have a huge surplus again while creating millions of new jobs.
Except what you're saying is leaving just a few details out of the storyline.
If that were true union membership would be on the rise, instead of in a decades-long slump.
Because there are no consequences for union-busting, as Wal-Mart continually proves. Spend a year fighting a union drive, firing everyone involved, then another 7 years dragging it out in court. At the end you get slapped on the wrist with a $30,000 fine, long after the union drive has died in whatever town it was being fought in.
If that were true people would welcome them, instead of fighting them.
Riiiight. Because American workers would just hate:
Making 15% or more money per hour
Having more vacation and benefits
Having due process in the termination of employment
Actually having a say when the CEO wants to stiff the workforce on wages while giving himself his annual double didgit increase in salary
Which would be awesome, except that fight-for-scraps doesn't apply to the executive level. You don't hear about top executives being shitcanned and replaced with cheap MBA's from India at a fraction of the salary. American workers are expected to compete with Chinese workers while not having the benefit of paying Chinese prices for goods and commodities, while the rich sit on mountains of cash.
Mountains and mountains and mountains of cash. For which they thank conservative crab mentality.
Well, sure. That's because you're either in the top 1% of fascists, or are gleefully grabbing your ankles so said fascists can fuck you just so they can make more in a paycheck than you do in your lifetime.
Because having enough money to by a Ferrari and a McMansion each and every year just isn't enough for some people.
Uh, no. The problem isn't that there aren't enough resources in this country to support jobs and a decent standard of living, it's that top corporations are sitting on mountains and mountains of cash while paying little to nothing in taxes - like GE.
So why are you focusing your ire on workers again?
So the machine you built for Windows 7....works well with Windows 7? One would hope so.
And I'd rather have 14 years of reasonable support - thank you, XP - than 2-3 years of slightly better.
Some details you're leaving out of the storyline:
1. The reason XP has been supported so long is that Microsoft dropped the ball so badly with Longhorn, then followed it up with the shit sandwich that was Vista. They have an enormous install base that is in no rush to move to Windows 7, but can still spread viruses and give Microsoft a bad name. If Longhorn had been released on schedule and Vista wasn't ME 2.0, XP would have been dropped a loooooong time ago
2. Leopard is still supported, and still runs on 10 year old hardware. Uprading any Intel Mac to Snow Leopard is $30.
You're an authoritarian fool, and a tool. Manning also swore an oath to defend the Constitution, something both Democrats and Republicans have been using for a snot rag since 911. Manning unveiled government lawbreaking, corruption and deception.
Not really. Legacy style peripherals were still quite commonplace after this mythical event by Apple allegedly banished them all.
Except you're reinforcing my point even as you try a straw man - who ever claimed that Apple "banished" older interfaces, exactly? Serial and PS2 were "good enough" for input peripherals, and parallel was "good enough" for printers in 1997. And for device manufacturers, it made little sense to move to a new standard when the older ones could be used by anyone with a PC. USB would have taken over eventually as external storage increased in size - eventually. In 1997 the only common consumer product that would take advantage of USB was the Iomega Zip drive - but not for mice and keyboards and printers.
Apple jumpstarted the mass marketing of USB devices by creating a captive market, and that's just a fact people are going to have deal with. Just as they jumpstarted the mp3 player market with the first micro hard drive player.
USB peripherals were released around the same time as the iMac.
And you could buy an HDTV set in 1998. Did that the fact that they were available mean that they were common, or that there was much of a market for them?
No, before Apple came along, there was no reason for manufacturers in the cut-throat peripherals industry to move to USB when "everyone" had serial, parallel, or PS2. But with the release of the iMac and the creation of a captive market for USB devices - that would work with newer PC's - that's when the USB market really took off.
You have to understand what they meant when they were written.
You have to understand you can't have it both ways. If you're going to go all restrictionist on General Welfare, you have to do the same thing for Common Defense, as the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy.
Which of course means that the US Air Force is unconstitutional, since it's neither Army nor Navy. Ditto that for the CIA, the NSA, NORAD, the FBI, and the DHS. But it's funny how you never ever - ever - hear teabaggers ranting about the unconstitutionality of the Air Force. It's almost like you're a bunch of...partisan hacks, or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you like cutting off your nose to spite your face, I suppose you could see it that way. Because your viewpoint relies on the "Jackpot Justice" myth, which is just that - a myth. Actual frivolous lawsuits are actually dismissed at trial. Don't be a chump for corporate immunization from accountability.
"No-ho on the rojo"
One word: Netflix. I wonder if Nintendo would have added at least DVD playback if Netflix wasn't pushing optical media towards obsolescence.
As opposed to community-owned businesses like Wal-Mart, of course.
As opposed to, say, health insurance companies and the consumer mandate, of course.
Businesses charge whatever the market will bear. If unionized companies could charge more for their products....they'd go right ahead and charge more for their products.
As opposed to businesses like Wal-Mart, of course.
Do you also "recall" who got dozens of mine workers killed in the Apalacaians, got a dozen workers killed on the Deep Horizon rig, and blew up more money than exists in the world?
I suppose that would make sense in a world where business is static, and Fiorina didn't drive HP into the ground and BP's greedy incompetence didn't get a dozen people killed on the Deep Horizon rig.
Unions will have a purpose as long as humans are subject to greed.
Why should the CEO of Wal-Mart make more in one paycheck than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her lifetime? Does the average CEO really do 500 times the work of his average employee? Do high level banking executives really deserve millions in bonuses after crashing the world economy?
Your claptrap might make some sense where the VP of your division was fired from his $2 million a year salary and replaced with a couple of cheap MBA's from India who are payed $80k a piece.
But of course, we all know this dog-eat-dog-fight-for-scraps bullshit only applies in one direction.
Nevermind that union workers make more than non-union workers - unless non-unionized companies are forced to compete with unions for employees and have to offer competitive benefits. Eliminate the union, and your brothers wages would go down on the spot - because there's five other people outside waiting to take his job if he doesn't like it.
Funny how you left out the part where the top 400 Americans rake in more every year than the bottom 160 million.
Yes, funny.....
There's five applicants for every open job. It takes money to make money. For every American Idol winner, there's thousands that never even made it on TV.
So could you explain your brilliant economic strategy to us again?
A conservative idea with no basis in reality whatsoever. I apologize for the redundancy in that statement.
End the wars and the Bush tax cuts, and the vast majority of the deficit disappears. Raise marginal tax rates to old Republican levels (91% under Eisenhower) and engage in direct hire, and we'll have a huge surplus again while creating millions of new jobs.
Next up in unbiased coverage, Hugo Chavez's comments on Exxon and Chevron.....
Except what you're saying is leaving just a few details out of the storyline.
Because there are no consequences for union-busting, as Wal-Mart continually proves. Spend a year fighting a union drive, firing everyone involved, then another 7 years dragging it out in court. At the end you get slapped on the wrist with a $30,000 fine, long after the union drive has died in whatever town it was being fought in.
Riiiight. Because American workers would just hate:
Which would be awesome, except that fight-for-scraps doesn't apply to the executive level. You don't hear about top executives being shitcanned and replaced with cheap MBA's from India at a fraction of the salary. American workers are expected to compete with Chinese workers while not having the benefit of paying Chinese prices for goods and commodities, while the rich sit on mountains of cash.
Mountains and mountains and mountains of cash. For which they thank conservative crab mentality.
Well, sure. That's because you're either in the top 1% of fascists, or are gleefully grabbing your ankles so said fascists can fuck you just so they can make more in a paycheck than you do in your lifetime.
Because having enough money to by a Ferrari and a McMansion each and every year just isn't enough for some people.
Uh, no. The problem isn't that there aren't enough resources in this country to support jobs and a decent standard of living, it's that top corporations are sitting on mountains and mountains of cash while paying little to nothing in taxes - like GE.
So why are you focusing your ire on workers again?
So the machine you built for Windows 7....works well with Windows 7? One would hope so.
Some details you're leaving out of the storyline:
1. The reason XP has been supported so long is that Microsoft dropped the ball so badly with Longhorn, then followed it up with the shit sandwich that was Vista. They have an enormous install base that is in no rush to move to Windows 7, but can still spread viruses and give Microsoft a bad name. If Longhorn had been released on schedule and Vista wasn't ME 2.0, XP would have been dropped a loooooong time ago
2. Leopard is still supported, and still runs on 10 year old hardware. Uprading any Intel Mac to Snow Leopard is $30.
Everyone likes well-made laptops that don't weigh 7 pounds yet are underpowered.
Hmmm no. You don't have to have 100% marketshare to be a monopolist, but enough to negatively effect both customers and competitors.
Which Microsoft obviously had in spades.
Riiiight. Just like Nintendo has a "monopoly" on Wii's and Ford has a "monopoly" on Mustangs.
You're using that word, "monopoly", it it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
You're an authoritarian fool, and a tool. Manning also swore an oath to defend the Constitution, something both Democrats and Republicans have been using for a snot rag since 911. Manning unveiled government lawbreaking, corruption and deception.
Even when the information leaked unveils government lawbreaking, corruption and deception? Some priorities you have there....
If you're polling fascists and authoritarians, sure....
Here is a prank, and there is your sense of proportion that you left on the side of the road about 20 miles ago....
Except you're reinforcing my point even as you try a straw man - who ever claimed that Apple "banished" older interfaces, exactly? Serial and PS2 were "good enough" for input peripherals, and parallel was "good enough" for printers in 1997. And for device manufacturers, it made little sense to move to a new standard when the older ones could be used by anyone with a PC. USB would have taken over eventually as external storage increased in size - eventually. In 1997 the only common consumer product that would take advantage of USB was the Iomega Zip drive - but not for mice and keyboards and printers.
Apple jumpstarted the mass marketing of USB devices by creating a captive market, and that's just a fact people are going to have deal with. Just as they jumpstarted the mp3 player market with the first micro hard drive player.
USB peripherals were released around the same time as the iMac.
And you could buy an HDTV set in 1998. Did that the fact that they were available mean that they were common, or that there was much of a market for them?
No, before Apple came along, there was no reason for manufacturers in the cut-throat peripherals industry to move to USB when "everyone" had serial, parallel, or PS2. But with the release of the iMac and the creation of a captive market for USB devices - that would work with newer PC's - that's when the USB market really took off.
You have to understand you can't have it both ways. If you're going to go all restrictionist on General Welfare, you have to do the same thing for Common Defense, as the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy.
Which of course means that the US Air Force is unconstitutional, since it's neither Army nor Navy. Ditto that for the CIA, the NSA, NORAD, the FBI, and the DHS. But it's funny how you never ever - ever - hear teabaggers ranting about the unconstitutionality of the Air Force. It's almost like you're a bunch of...partisan hacks, or something.