Um.... if you're going to accuse someone of liking Comcast, then you probably need to have them having said something in favor of Comcast, which I haven't. Ever.
So for the record, I've never had service from Comcast, nor worked for them, but I don't like them on general principles because 1. I don't like cable companies in general (and) 2. People I know who have had Comcast didn't like them.
I'll even go ahead and stipulate that I don't like the vast majority of cable internet and DSL providers in the U.S. I prefer services which don't rely on government-granted monopoly access to infrastructure.
Now that that's out of the way, the FCC repeal of Net Neutrality rules is still good, limiting the FCC's ability to manipulate and control Internet access in the U.S., it's not going to cause any major issues for Internet users (because they aren't stupid and companies make more money giving people what they want), it will result in more flexibility and lower costs (a little) between users and their ISPs (because the FCC won't be telling them how to organize their business based on outdated and lobbyist views of the ISP industry and they won't be requiring as much regulatory compliance paperwork), and if your ISP decides to defraud you, you can still enforce your contract against them or else leave them for another one, or even start your own.
So just to clarify, the FCC rules for the Internet going back to what they were a few years ago isn't going to be the end of the Internet and won't cause the economy to tank and won't make it so that no one can communicate ever again?
And in return, billions of people (including many of these) benefited from paying lower prices for what they bought, meaning they could buy more for less. There is competition in the job market for these workers. What you don't seem to like is that Amazon is winning that competition.
If you want to change that, all you have to do is start your own business to compete with them. That's what Bezos did. What's wrong, don't think you can? Guess this will stay the best deal for these people, then.
I started work as a construction laborer. I learned how to frame houses and remodel commercial buildings, but mostly how to work hard all day. I moved on to work as a security guard and delivering pizzas (tips!). Eventually I got a job fixing computers, then creating applications, then managing people who used computers, then as a unix engineer, then managing major ecommerce sites, along the way working for myself on the side building and selling computers and running an ISP I started with my friend (back in the days of dial-up). When I was first married, I had three "jobs", a regular W2 job, a contract job doing security (and hiring others) for the same company and my own separate computer business.
Now, 25 years or so later, I manage one of the largest company in the world's network. That all started with a job where I hauled rough cement blocks out of 120 degree steaming rooms to a dumpster while someone used a concrete saw on the floor, because that was the best job I could get at the time (Think Palm Springs in the summer and a water-cooled concrete saw in an enclosed space). There is a place for that kind of job, where people can be paid little enough that they can work and learn the value of hard effort, of showing up on time even when you don't want to, of the value of what you earn and saving it so you aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Or where people who can't contribute in other ways can still contribute in this way.
Basic laboring jobs which don't pay much aren't glamorous, but they are a useful and good part of society.
All it takes is one person to open a warehouse and offer to pay Amazon's warehouse workers more to do jobs requiring similar skills/experience/personalities.
You personally can solve this entire problem right away by just doing that one thing!
Of course, if there are some obstacles to you doing that, then maybe you can appreciate that Amazon has improved these people's lives by offering them a better job than they could otherwise get and until you plan to offer them an even better one, it's pretty spiteful to complain about the one Amazon has hired them for.
Agreed. So poor people on food stamps are able to find a job, do something productive and make a little money to improve their lives. Why would it be better to take away their job??? Do the people complaining imagine that these people were working for $50K/year before they took the temporary warehouse job?
Amazon didn't put them on welfare and food stamps. If anything, Amazon has started the process of helping them move away from that by getting work experience and skills which can translate into a better job later on.
Some people seem to think that other people owe them a living at their desired level of comfort. They don't, we got rid of slavery in the U.S. a long time ago.
Basically, the complaint is that the new NASA Administrator disagrees with the left on some issues. Did they miss that time back in 2016 when we had an election and the candidates promoting their issues lost? What do they expect? Do they really think continuing the over-the-top whining is going go convince anyone to vote for them instead next time?
"One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering,"
Try telling that to the people who are no longer in extreme poverty. With the people who now live lives beyond basic subsistence. Giving it some actual thought, they might all disagree with your analysis.
If you were getting paid a max of 700 RUR a month, you'd obviously prefer the U.S. system, because even as a first-year employee at the lowest level, you'd be paid more than the most senior and experienced employee would for that job in the USSR.
In the U.S., there is a set of legal holidays pretty much all companies recognize and pay for their employees to take off. It can vary slightly from State to State or company to company (for example, some companies will treat the Friday after Thanksgiving as a holiday, while others might consider it a work day, but then everyone ends up only working a half-day 'cause the managers aren't stupid and don't want to work either). For example, in the major corporation I work for, everyone gets 12 paid holidays, separate from PTO days. If you have to work on a paid holiday, then you either get 1.5x pay (on top of the holiday pay), or else you take it some other day as a "floating" holiday, basically bonus PTO. For PTO, your first year with our company is 15 days, then you get more based on position or seniority, with the biggest bump of 5 more days coming after 3 years (when they decide you're sticking around, basically). I've been with the company for 6 years as an FTE and am up to 25 days PTO. So I get a total of 37 paid days off a year. You must take them each year (and your manager must allow you to take them), or else you lose anything more than 5 days PTO (which can be "banked"). That's mostly to prevent people from saving up PTO for decades by never taking a vacation, then getting it all paid in a lump sum at their highest salary before they quit/retire.
If your manager is letting them charge you for PTO in a week you've worked at least 40 hours in, then it's time you either say down and had a talk with him about expectations, or started shopping for a new manager.
If you are unable to shop for a new manager, then you're either under-qualified for your job or you're getting something from your job more valuable to you than the extra PTO time would be. You're not a slave.
Total compensation isn't a mystery. It's how much the company spends in exchange for your services as an employee.
Your employer doesn't get an advantage if they spend that money paid into your bank account, or to the government or to a hospital. If you don't like where your compensation is paid to, either negotiate a different arrangement if legally allowed, or else convince the politicians to repeal laws designed to have them pay it to somewhere other than directly into your bank account.
The employer doesn't care, nor benefit. To them it's just an expense associated with having an employee.
You have part of the effects (i.e. who pays for it), but you're missing that if you force a company to make a job "better", via pay or working conditions, or health benefits, or whatever means, then it's not the same people who end up in that job over time. Once the job gets better, then people who are "worth more" in the job are more willing to take that job instead of a different one, displacing the people who would previously have been the best candidate for the job.
As an extreme example for illustration purposes (not knowing your actual job), if your employer decided to be crazy and pay 100 million a year for your job, you would be very unlikely to be the one getting that salary. You'd get the absolute best qualified people in the world wanting the job and the employer would pick one of them to do it, not you. So the "job" gets better, but the person currently doing it as the best job they can find doesn't end up in it, they go somewhere else which now matches their qualifications better.
Wages don't equal Total Compensation. Wages are only one component of how people are compensated for their work. Total Compensation is up compared to productivity.
Inflation doesn't account for qualitative improvements in products, i.e. a $500 computer now vs. one 30 years ago.
It's amazing how you get better results when you use the correct stats (per economic theory) instead of cherry-picking just part of them in the form of wages.
Also, even your own link doesn't pretend that there are "30-40 years of declining wages". That's just a flat out lie you made up. They're talking about not increasing as fast as they thought they should, not declining. Nice try on the propaganda front, though.
"capital would flow to where ever labor was cheapest"
That's a feature, not a bug. It creates the most wealth overall and helps the poorest people first. It's how the global extreme poverty rate has been cut in half over the last 30 years.
Once the Chinese have improvements in their life from investments competing to pay them more for their labor, then the Indians got some, then after that the Philippines, etc...
If a person's best available job for your skill and experience level is to work in an Amazon warehouse, how does it make their life better off to have someone like you come along and decide that person isn't allowed to have that job anymore because it will no longer legally exist. Do you think their next best job, that they decided not to do instead, is going to be better?
Banning people's best available job is generally counter-productive toward improving their lives. You want to improve it, find something that person can do which is better (i.e. which will compete for their time), rather than removing their current best option.
Don't use AT&T. Don't use Verizon. Or use encryption. If you're actually concerned, use encryption. If you can't be bothered to even use encryption, then you obviously aren't actually that concerned.
Anyone who tells you that cutting "carbon emissions by about 30 percent" will "protect consumer's pocketbooks" is flat out lying to you.
And in fact, the Obama White House page those words link to in the summary doesn't even contain the work pocketbook, so even the citation itself is something of a lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Um.... if you're going to accuse someone of liking Comcast, then you probably need to have them having said something in favor of Comcast, which I haven't. Ever.
So for the record, I've never had service from Comcast, nor worked for them, but I don't like them on general principles because 1. I don't like cable companies in general (and) 2. People I know who have had Comcast didn't like them.
I'll even go ahead and stipulate that I don't like the vast majority of cable internet and DSL providers in the U.S. I prefer services which don't rely on government-granted monopoly access to infrastructure.
Now that that's out of the way, the FCC repeal of Net Neutrality rules is still good, limiting the FCC's ability to manipulate and control Internet access in the U.S., it's not going to cause any major issues for Internet users (because they aren't stupid and companies make more money giving people what they want), it will result in more flexibility and lower costs (a little) between users and their ISPs (because the FCC won't be telling them how to organize their business based on outdated and lobbyist views of the ISP industry and they won't be requiring as much regulatory compliance paperwork), and if your ISP decides to defraud you, you can still enforce your contract against them or else leave them for another one, or even start your own.
So just to clarify, the FCC rules for the Internet going back to what they were a few years ago isn't going to be the end of the Internet and won't cause the economy to tank and won't make it so that no one can communicate ever again?
Wow, who would have predicted that!
And in return, billions of people (including many of these) benefited from paying lower prices for what they bought, meaning they could buy more for less. There is competition in the job market for these workers. What you don't seem to like is that Amazon is winning that competition.
If you want to change that, all you have to do is start your own business to compete with them. That's what Bezos did. What's wrong, don't think you can? Guess this will stay the best deal for these people, then.
I started work as a construction laborer. I learned how to frame houses and remodel commercial buildings, but mostly how to work hard all day. I moved on to work as a security guard and delivering pizzas (tips!). Eventually I got a job fixing computers, then creating applications, then managing people who used computers, then as a unix engineer, then managing major ecommerce sites, along the way working for myself on the side building and selling computers and running an ISP I started with my friend (back in the days of dial-up). When I was first married, I had three "jobs", a regular W2 job, a contract job doing security (and hiring others) for the same company and my own separate computer business.
Now, 25 years or so later, I manage one of the largest company in the world's network. That all started with a job where I hauled rough cement blocks out of 120 degree steaming rooms to a dumpster while someone used a concrete saw on the floor, because that was the best job I could get at the time (Think Palm Springs in the summer and a water-cooled concrete saw in an enclosed space). There is a place for that kind of job, where people can be paid little enough that they can work and learn the value of hard effort, of showing up on time even when you don't want to, of the value of what you earn and saving it so you aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Or where people who can't contribute in other ways can still contribute in this way.
Basic laboring jobs which don't pay much aren't glamorous, but they are a useful and good part of society.
Using them to build rockets, yes. "... feeling good about their historic contribution" to them? No.
Have you considered that the foremost mission of NASA should be, oh, I don't know, space or at least aeronautics-related?
All it takes is one person to open a warehouse and offer to pay Amazon's warehouse workers more to do jobs requiring similar skills/experience/personalities.
You personally can solve this entire problem right away by just doing that one thing!
Of course, if there are some obstacles to you doing that, then maybe you can appreciate that Amazon has improved these people's lives by offering them a better job than they could otherwise get and until you plan to offer them an even better one, it's pretty spiteful to complain about the one Amazon has hired them for.
Agreed. So poor people on food stamps are able to find a job, do something productive and make a little money to improve their lives. Why would it be better to take away their job??? Do the people complaining imagine that these people were working for $50K/year before they took the temporary warehouse job?
Amazon didn't put them on welfare and food stamps. If anything, Amazon has started the process of helping them move away from that by getting work experience and skills which can translate into a better job later on.
Some people seem to think that other people owe them a living at their desired level of comfort. They don't, we got rid of slavery in the U.S. a long time ago.
You really have no idea at all about the history of rocketry, do you?
Try coming out of your bubble occasionally.
Basically, the complaint is that the new NASA Administrator disagrees with the left on some issues. Did they miss that time back in 2016 when we had an election and the candidates promoting their issues lost? What do they expect? Do they really think continuing the over-the-top whining is going go convince anyone to vote for them instead next time?
Meanwhile, let's remember Charlie Boldon's interview on Al-Jazeera, Obama's pick for the same job and what he "misspoke" about his instructions from the top:
Try telling that to the people who are no longer in extreme poverty. With the people who now live lives beyond basic subsistence. Giving it some actual thought, they might all disagree with your analysis.
If you were getting paid a max of 700 RUR a month, you'd obviously prefer the U.S. system, because even as a first-year employee at the lowest level, you'd be paid more than the most senior and experienced employee would for that job in the USSR.
Ignore the unserious replies.
In the U.S., there is a set of legal holidays pretty much all companies recognize and pay for their employees to take off. It can vary slightly from State to State or company to company (for example, some companies will treat the Friday after Thanksgiving as a holiday, while others might consider it a work day, but then everyone ends up only working a half-day 'cause the managers aren't stupid and don't want to work either). For example, in the major corporation I work for, everyone gets 12 paid holidays, separate from PTO days. If you have to work on a paid holiday, then you either get 1.5x pay (on top of the holiday pay), or else you take it some other day as a "floating" holiday, basically bonus PTO. For PTO, your first year with our company is 15 days, then you get more based on position or seniority, with the biggest bump of 5 more days coming after 3 years (when they decide you're sticking around, basically). I've been with the company for 6 years as an FTE and am up to 25 days PTO. So I get a total of 37 paid days off a year. You must take them each year (and your manager must allow you to take them), or else you lose anything more than 5 days PTO (which can be "banked"). That's mostly to prevent people from saving up PTO for decades by never taking a vacation, then getting it all paid in a lump sum at their highest salary before they quit/retire.
If your manager is letting them charge you for PTO in a week you've worked at least 40 hours in, then it's time you either say down and had a talk with him about expectations, or started shopping for a new manager.
If you are unable to shop for a new manager, then you're either under-qualified for your job or you're getting something from your job more valuable to you than the extra PTO time would be. You're not a slave.
Total compensation isn't a mystery. It's how much the company spends in exchange for your services as an employee.
Your employer doesn't get an advantage if they spend that money paid into your bank account, or to the government or to a hospital. If you don't like where your compensation is paid to, either negotiate a different arrangement if legally allowed, or else convince the politicians to repeal laws designed to have them pay it to somewhere other than directly into your bank account.
The employer doesn't care, nor benefit. To them it's just an expense associated with having an employee.
You have part of the effects (i.e. who pays for it), but you're missing that if you force a company to make a job "better", via pay or working conditions, or health benefits, or whatever means, then it's not the same people who end up in that job over time. Once the job gets better, then people who are "worth more" in the job are more willing to take that job instead of a different one, displacing the people who would previously have been the best candidate for the job.
As an extreme example for illustration purposes (not knowing your actual job), if your employer decided to be crazy and pay 100 million a year for your job, you would be very unlikely to be the one getting that salary. You'd get the absolute best qualified people in the world wanting the job and the employer would pick one of them to do it, not you. So the "job" gets better, but the person currently doing it as the best job they can find doesn't end up in it, they go somewhere else which now matches their qualifications better.
It's funny how your own Google link contains an article which also refutes your contention.
Wages don't equal Total Compensation. Wages are only one component of how people are compensated for their work. Total Compensation is up compared to productivity.
Inflation doesn't account for qualitative improvements in products, i.e. a $500 computer now vs. one 30 years ago.
It's amazing how you get better results when you use the correct stats (per economic theory) instead of cherry-picking just part of them in the form of wages.
Also, even your own link doesn't pretend that there are "30-40 years of declining wages". That's just a flat out lie you made up. They're talking about not increasing as fast as they thought they should, not declining. Nice try on the propaganda front, though.
"capital would flow to where ever labor was cheapest"
That's a feature, not a bug. It creates the most wealth overall and helps the poorest people first. It's how the global extreme poverty rate has been cut in half over the last 30 years.
Once the Chinese have improvements in their life from investments competing to pay them more for their labor, then the Indians got some, then after that the Philippines, etc...
If a person's best available job for your skill and experience level is to work in an Amazon warehouse, how does it make their life better off to have someone like you come along and decide that person isn't allowed to have that job anymore because it will no longer legally exist. Do you think their next best job, that they decided not to do instead, is going to be better?
Banning people's best available job is generally counter-productive toward improving their lives. You want to improve it, find something that person can do which is better (i.e. which will compete for their time), rather than removing their current best option.
So, moral of the story is to never sign into Facebook outside of a single sandboxed browser instance which can't reach the rest of your system.
I know, some people are going to shorten that down just to "never sign into Facebook"...
You should really get something for that rage of yours before you break something.
Guess what? The "native population" also "stole" various lands from each other in the same manner. So you have no real point.
The United States is a country. It has laws. Violating them is literally the definition of illegal. You can't alter that basic fact.
They were so commercially unsuccessful that I've never even seen a Windows phone. Why would I miss them?
After all, I already deal with the frustration of MS products on a regular basis, why would I want more of that?
Your eff page says "could do". Basic alarmism.
Don't use AT&T. Don't use Verizon. Or use encryption. If you're actually concerned, use encryption. If you can't be bothered to even use encryption, then you obviously aren't actually that concerned.
Anyone who tells you that cutting "carbon emissions by about 30 percent" will "protect consumer's pocketbooks" is flat out lying to you.
And in fact, the Obama White House page those words link to in the summary doesn't even contain the work pocketbook, so even the citation itself is something of a lie.