Except that the shear bulk of the information might make it so he is not entirely familiar with everything released. If he only glanced at the documents before collecting them or collected them because they were with other documents he found interesting, it could be a situation where he literally doesn't know much outside of a reporter he gave the information to divulging it to the world.
But that is just a guess on my part. Perhaps he has already mentioned that he knows more which is why the meeting is taking place at all. If this is the case, I guess you would be right.
Not exactly from my own pocket; it comes out of the profits of the company. This operating cost comes out before the $5 per yard.
operating costs like maintenance and repairs only come out of profits before they count as income if they happen before they are taken as income. An llc or S-corp counts all the profits as income to the owners. A single owner will not have an account with thousands of dollars in it that is not considered income.
Maybe the company would have some savings if I had planned a little better, or if I hadn't been so greedy taking $700 an hour for... doing what exactly? Owning 140 lawnmowers?
I don't think you understand how small businesses work. All income is profit and passed to the owners of most small businesses. Even if there is a maintenance fund, the entire contents would count as income and they would have to show a loss on their next years reporting if any of it got used. You may call that greedy, and I would argue that the government is greedy when it comes to declaring taxable income, but it is the law in most situations.
In a S-corp or a llc, the profits are the CEO's pay.
But we can change the line up to the person hired to oversee the mowers making a base pay plus commission that puts us in the same boat. It doesn't really matter if the skill or effort is not 20 times as much as the others, in a free society, I can employ people for any amount I want as long as it is above the minimum wage and they are willing to work and anyone can negotiate their salary to the highest level they can get. Effort and skill is meaningless there outside of reasonable expectations. It is no different then you negotiating a discounted rate or me getting you to pay a higher rate because I'm better or you like my guys because they are polite or speak English or wear uniforms, or I sponsor your kids softball team or whatever.
The only people who need to justify it are the ones paying and the ones getting paid. If the salaried employees feel they are not getting enough, they can ask for more or move on to some place that will pay more. It isn't difficult.
Well, the two are actually separate. The protests only happened after the revelation which wouldn't have happened if the secrets were actually secret.
Its like telling a kid he was adopted. As long as he doesn't know and is a part of a loving family, he is happy or as happy as he was until he found out that his parents aren't really his parents. So it might not be the secret but the revelation of the secret that is the problem that causes the protests.
That is not to say the problem wasn't real until then, it is to say the problem wasn't as big of a problem until then.
I wonder if Snowden will get worked over if he doesn't answer questions. I'm sure Indonesia has some pretty stout techniques of their own having to deal with terrorist and separatist movements most of their modern life but they are in Russia who are rumored to have some unique abilities of their own.
Or they could be completely legit question and answers with no threat of torture just to show the rest of the world how civilized people behave. I'm curious if we would ever know though. I doubt Putin would put the brakes on something like that if it was something his country needed to know and he did approve of the questioning in person in Russia which could have just as easily happened in a skype session.
Think about that again. It isn't just the owner, it is the employees too. If the employee wages are tied to the CEO's, then when the CEO makes more, the employees do. When competition stops that, the employees have to take a drastic pay cut or the company might fold and they will be out of a job. Historically, employees have rejected pay cuts and recently we had the GM bailouts where they had to go through bankruptcy and needed a large infusion of cash from the US and Canadian governments which we will not get back. Hostess had the same problems going through bankruptcy and closed it's doors.
Do you think it is wise to encode into law a system that will encourage that to happen? Sure the owner is not guaranteed a set profit, the employees are not guaranteed a job either. But it would be better to pay a going rate for wages than to set a company up so that as soon as it becomes successful, competition can come about and cause it to fold. Worse yet, the competition will end up succeeding because of the same and it will be a cycle repeated often. You are almost guaranteed a constant unemployment as soon as the employees get used to the extra money unless you limit competition to stop that from happening. And that opens an entire different can of worms.
Give the system we have now, and the potential the system can have if this is in place, your safe bet is to remain as we are now.
Lol.. It can see my simple examples are a bit to complex.
The problem is the ever revolving unemployment from failing companies. The end of the lawnmower story ended up with the company closing and the 170 employees being out of a job. Now compound this by any other company that expands and you can see the problem.
Of course you may simply not care about the problem and thing a short term gain is worth the risk of unemployment and having to take a job at a lower rate of pay. I find that cycle to be more disruptive then a CEO making 2000 times more then the lowest paid employees.
You point 1 is moot. As I said, the work of three with the same amount of effort. The employees were paid.
point 2 is also moot. You have no basis to believe the workers are not paid enough to live. Making 35k to 60K a year is more than enough to live on and is about par for factory work.
In my example, I placed all the failings of the company on the management. Well, the management and what the management controls like the production techniques. I don't know how you think I forgot to blame the grunts or anything. You must be listening to what you want to hear instead of what was said. I'm sorry about your current state of mind but your thought process is likely the reasons why companies off shore or go out of business like hostess did.
You should get a job at a different construction company then. All the ones I worked with gave us a bonus for coming in ahead of schedule. And taking over a project behind schedule seems to be one of those situations where a bonus would be built into the contracts.
Now I don't really care if you live in a trailer park or lost your car because you should have been paid a wage for the work you did so all that is beyond anything else you mentioned. If the pay wasn't enough, then you could work somewhere else. If there was no other work, then it is a problem of circumstance more then anything else. When I lived in a trailer park, it was one of the most expensive places I have lived. The loan payment on the trailer was separate from the lot rent and you had to purchase utilities and cable from the park at a higher rate then anywhere I lived before. Perhaps you should move from the trailer park and live somewhere else. Hell, even buying your own land to place the trailer on (I know some places will not allow that any more) could be cheaper then living in a trailer park. I have pissed away so much money in my life that if I saved just a fraction of it, I would be 10 times better off right now. There were times I was making 250k a year and times I barely made 20k. But I spent it all on booze and women, flashy cars, and other things and I am in the same boat with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck just like many other people are. But I know it was a spending problem with me, not a problem getting something I was never intended to get.
Contract law is not the be-all, end all of right and wrong.
Contract law has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with expectations. What you expect and what the employer expects. When you are in agreement, you make a contract and you get the terms of the contract as long as you do not violate the terms of the contract. It is a way to prove that you were hired in at $15 an hour and deserve compensation for that amount. It is a way to prove that your management of civil project 1509 is not connected to civil project 1622 and their over runs are not your problem. It is a way to prove that at the end of the contract, if you were under budget and on time, any bonuses and benefits in the contract are to be paid. If any of that is in the contract and doesn't happen, then it is a way to make it happen.
Re:I think I will stop reading slashdot.......
on
195K Bitcoin Transaction
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you create an account, go to options under your username after logging in, you can set terms to ignore and those stories should not appear on your front page. Setting a term Bitcoin should stop stories about bitcoin from entering your front page.
If you insist on posting anonymously, then simply log out after seeing what stories interest you and opening them in another tab.
I'm personally at a loss to why people think so highly of bitcoin. There are about 80 or so other virtual currency exchanges out there and it seems that none of them are stable in the sense of real currencies. I understand the concept of it being like a credit card with the limitations of a wallet (Ie if you lose your wallet, you lose only the funds in it where if you lose your credit card, it can be charged until it is shut off), but beyond that, I just don't get it.
And yet he still doesn't disclose what was weird or concerning to them even in an anonymous posting talking about finding something weird or concerning. It's like those whisper campaigns that don't really say anything bad but say something in a way that people interpret it badly then as momentum builds, things are simply added by people who think they heard more then what was said. Before you know it, an attorney general running for governor wants to take birth control away from women when the courts have said long ago that the state couldn't do that and nothing he done as the lead attorney for the state indicates that he ever wanted to do or try to do such things.
I mean even if he was scared/worried that something could come back on him, all he would need to do is find someone who doesn't care like at a defcon and tell them where to look anonymously.
I understand. I guess it would be easy to change computers and post from other IPs when your posting has too many down mods or posted too many stock replies to topics on your agenda lists.
It is definitely harder to post from an agenda with a logged in account.
There is no morality to it. The law says you have to pay the least you are obligated to pay and if companies or individuals can make that 0% without violating other laws, then it is the legal amount they own.
The answer is not throwing your hands up and demanding the companies go to prison, it is in changing the laws they are using as loop holes in order to get away with it. Trust me, the IRS has very vindictive tax enforcers who have no problem throwing little old ladies into the street in order to get a few thousand dollars owed to the government. They also have no problem taking a few million dollars from a company worth tons more- all they have to do is freeze one of their bank accounts, take the money out, and be done with it. It isn't like these people or companies have armed guards standing in front of vaults that will defend the funds from IRS agents or anything. That would likely cost more then paying taxes if they had to.
Dude, you focus on anti terrorism but it has been happening long before that.
Some people claim the constitution is an archaic piece of paper which has long outlived its usefulness and should be reinterpreted as much as possible to get around it's limitations. We call these people the "living document" people who think reinterpreting definitions allows portions of it to change meanings as the needs of society changes. This is despite the fact that there is an amendment process and if anything actually did need changed, it could be using the amendment process. But the outcome is the second amendment being nothing but the military having the right to have guns and you and I can hunt, free speech zones (which was originally instituted by the democrats) equaling first amendment rights, removal of all religious displays from public view as the first amendment free exercise of religion, cops dressed like military assault teams having the right to kick in the wrong door and kill the occupants as being the forth amendment's right to be secure in your person, papers and effects. There are a lot more that has happened when we get away from strict interpretations of the US constitution.
You may have only noticed this crap with the war on terror. But it has been around for a while before it. Your rights have been subject to interpretations for quite a while now and terrorism is only the latest if the move.
Wow.. spying on allies is like molesting children now. Some of you people have a seriously fucked view on life.
I don't know what else to say. This is definitely disturbing and I'm at a loss of the comparison other then to say it is seriously fucked up- not even close if you were using nukes to take out a mouse.
That would be impossible to happen. No other country has the military capabilities to forgo US aid in case of invasion from any number of outside threats. Russia could take most every European country should something like that happen and they were isolated from half of the western allies (Including European countries who didn't give in).
Besides, the economic problems that would arise would be enough to stop most countries from doing that. It really just isn't realistic for it to happen.
The minimum wage law is used largely to limit the amount of welfare the government has to dole out. While it is not perfect, welfare for working people do subsidies industry (someone working as $10 an hour for 10 years with two kids will get a substantial amount of welfare) and allows them to pay less than a living wage so a minimum wage is on a different level.
A maximum wage is telling a person, no matter how hard you work, now matter how smart you are, no matter what you bring to the table, you will by law, only make as much as the dumbass who is only on the board because their uncle owns 70% of the company and does nothing but plays video games and surf porn. You can put a bottom level on people saying they will always get this amount, but it is wrong to tell anyone they will never make more then a certain amount no matter how hard they work or apply themselves. It creates the wrong type of employee.
Economics limit what the grunts can be paid. You cannot pay someone $30 an hour one year because the CEO made his bonuses and then drop them to $15 the next because he didn't. If the market wage for the job is $15 and hour, that is all they should make until they prove they are work more.
As for the union, I didn't say you had to join one. I said if you insist on something like that, make it part of the employment contract and not law. This is probably only going to be done with a union but with a law mandating the pay of anyone above a minimum wage, it can mandate the pay of anyone regardless of wage.
They are limited. Suppose company X is losing money. They high a hot shot CEO who agrees to work for $1 million base plus a percentage of profits for the year as a bonus. Within 6 months, he turns the company around by opening up it's market to similar objectives and the company makes a profit. Now this CEO also finds efficiencies within the production environment and one worker is doing the work of 3 people while exerting the same effort as before. Now profits jump as production triples and the bonuses take his pay to 20 times that of the janitors. He now cannot take the excess because of some arbitrary 1/12 rules. Worse yet, what happens when he figures he will exceed the 1/12 rule and stops improving because he will not receive anything in addition?
So lets say the employees had their pay increased. A competitor saw that they moved into parallel markets and figures they can too. Now all the sudden the company isn't making new as much as it had and if the employees don't take a pay cut to the amount before, they will go bankrupt. So will the employees take a pay cut? History shows us they will not. Hostess went bankrupt and shut it's doors, GM needed a serious bailout and bankruptcy because of it. We no longer have a thriving steel industry because of it. Most manufacturing jobs are over seas because of it. So someone who might have actually deserved extra pay cannot get it now because the results could mean the end of the company. Those are the economic realities. No one will get a raise because of this, all it will do it stop people from doing more at the top.
Those are good questions. As you noted, I did not say anything about that other then we have a problem with access to health care not the healthcare itself.
That being said, I stand by the fact that healthcare in the US is second to none, we just need to get people to be able to access it. Of course the ACA has removed the pre existing condition problems and mandated every insurance company allow them.
Apples and Oranges. The population in the US lives life differently then anywhere else in the world and takes more risks causing these numbers to be different. Furthermore, the accounting of the numbers are vastly different that they often are not comparable. For instance, live births in the US has a different meaning then in Cuba and more pregnancies will go to term in the US then in Cuba but infant mortality is registered as better in Cuba only because of the difference in accounting and the propensity of infants to live long enough to count as live births in the US.
As for spending, that is a completely erroneous measurement to the quality of health care. The costs of health care leads to problems with access to it, but not the quality of care if access is had. I already said there was a problem with access to healthcare. It is like you do not know the difference between insurance and healthcare. It would seem that you are repeating a lie for the sake of a point that isn't made with your so called links.
Wrong.. It is saying person X cannot make more then Y amount. There is the possibility of making more if they raise the salaries of others but economics would/could forbid that. No amount of wrangling the terms can get around that.
Lets walk through this a bit. Suppose you have a lawnmower and mow yards for $10 an hour profit. You buy another and hire someone to do the same and pay them $10 an hour. You continue until all the sudden, you don't do the work yourself and have employees doing it for you. Lets say you make on average $5 per yard profit to yourself and still pay the employees $10 an hour for their work. So now you have 140 employees making $10 an hour and you make $5 multiplied by 140 or $700 an hour. All the sudden, you cannot make this amount because it is over the 12:1 ratio. This is despite the fact that you will have to pay the maintenance and replacement costs of the lawnmowers from your own pocket. So lets say you raise your employees salary, now all the sudden, I decide it is a lucrative market and enter in competition to you when I see you paying these employees so much. I high in at $8 an hour and take all your accounts. You are hamstrung paying the excessive wages and have no savings to boot from because of the 12:1 rules and end up closing down. I end up getting big and someone else comes in doing the same. And very few employees will ever take a cut in pay in order to save the company. We have seen companies completely shut down in the past due to this refusal to give back. And I can understand why they don't want to give back, they lives have become adjusted to the extra pay and they may have loans and other obligations that rely on it.
You cann dress it up and call it a ratio all you want but in the end, it is telling companies they cannot pay someone over a certain amount. It is telling executives, you cannot make more then a certain amount. Once that is in place, there is absolutely nothing preventing it from being done on any job period.
If you think it is a moral imparitive, then do it through a union where you have some control. I do not see how that exist but as long as you do not impact me, i don't care. When you use government to stop someone from enjoying the fruits of their labor, i have a problem with it.
That is not due to a free market. In a free market, other businesses would pop up and compete when it became profitable. Where you see companies so large the amount of people depending on the becomes a matter of national interest, you will see were markets are not free.
If you are talking about the wall street bailouts, it us especially rrue that it isn't a free market. The regulation involved alone keeps competition at bay but the selective enforcement of regulation actually becomes an advantage.
The healthcare in the US is second to none. The problem the US has is access to it. This problem is not entirely unique to the US but waiting lists and pannels refusing coverage as what happens in socialised medical countries seem to get ignored in the tallies.
I find it hard to take anything else you have an opinion on seriously when you misrepresent something so easily. It seemd like uou agenda is more important than facts.
Slashdot Mirror
You are probably right.
Except that the shear bulk of the information might make it so he is not entirely familiar with everything released. If he only glanced at the documents before collecting them or collected them because they were with other documents he found interesting, it could be a situation where he literally doesn't know much outside of a reporter he gave the information to divulging it to the world.
But that is just a guess on my part. Perhaps he has already mentioned that he knows more which is why the meeting is taking place at all. If this is the case, I guess you would be right.
operating costs like maintenance and repairs only come out of profits before they count as income if they happen before they are taken as income. An llc or S-corp counts all the profits as income to the owners. A single owner will not have an account with thousands of dollars in it that is not considered income.
I don't think you understand how small businesses work. All income is profit and passed to the owners of most small businesses. Even if there is a maintenance fund, the entire contents would count as income and they would have to show a loss on their next years reporting if any of it got used. You may call that greedy, and I would argue that the government is greedy when it comes to declaring taxable income, but it is the law in most situations.
In a S-corp or a llc, the profits are the CEO's pay.
But we can change the line up to the person hired to oversee the mowers making a base pay plus commission that puts us in the same boat. It doesn't really matter if the skill or effort is not 20 times as much as the others, in a free society, I can employ people for any amount I want as long as it is above the minimum wage and they are willing to work and anyone can negotiate their salary to the highest level they can get. Effort and skill is meaningless there outside of reasonable expectations. It is no different then you negotiating a discounted rate or me getting you to pay a higher rate because I'm better or you like my guys because they are polite or speak English or wear uniforms, or I sponsor your kids softball team or whatever.
The only people who need to justify it are the ones paying and the ones getting paid. If the salaried employees feel they are not getting enough, they can ask for more or move on to some place that will pay more. It isn't difficult.
Well, the two are actually separate. The protests only happened after the revelation which wouldn't have happened if the secrets were actually secret.
Its like telling a kid he was adopted. As long as he doesn't know and is a part of a loving family, he is happy or as happy as he was until he found out that his parents aren't really his parents. So it might not be the secret but the revelation of the secret that is the problem that causes the protests.
That is not to say the problem wasn't real until then, it is to say the problem wasn't as big of a problem until then.
I wonder if Snowden will get worked over if he doesn't answer questions. I'm sure Indonesia has some pretty stout techniques of their own having to deal with terrorist and separatist movements most of their modern life but they are in Russia who are rumored to have some unique abilities of their own.
Or they could be completely legit question and answers with no threat of torture just to show the rest of the world how civilized people behave. I'm curious if we would ever know though. I doubt Putin would put the brakes on something like that if it was something his country needed to know and he did approve of the questioning in person in Russia which could have just as easily happened in a skype session.
Think about that again. It isn't just the owner, it is the employees too. If the employee wages are tied to the CEO's, then when the CEO makes more, the employees do. When competition stops that, the employees have to take a drastic pay cut or the company might fold and they will be out of a job. Historically, employees have rejected pay cuts and recently we had the GM bailouts where they had to go through bankruptcy and needed a large infusion of cash from the US and Canadian governments which we will not get back. Hostess had the same problems going through bankruptcy and closed it's doors.
Do you think it is wise to encode into law a system that will encourage that to happen? Sure the owner is not guaranteed a set profit, the employees are not guaranteed a job either. But it would be better to pay a going rate for wages than to set a company up so that as soon as it becomes successful, competition can come about and cause it to fold. Worse yet, the competition will end up succeeding because of the same and it will be a cycle repeated often. You are almost guaranteed a constant unemployment as soon as the employees get used to the extra money unless you limit competition to stop that from happening. And that opens an entire different can of worms.
Give the system we have now, and the potential the system can have if this is in place, your safe bet is to remain as we are now.
Lol.. It can see my simple examples are a bit to complex.
The problem is the ever revolving unemployment from failing companies. The end of the lawnmower story ended up with the company closing and the 170 employees being out of a job. Now compound this by any other company that expands and you can see the problem.
Of course you may simply not care about the problem and thing a short term gain is worth the risk of unemployment and having to take a job at a lower rate of pay. I find that cycle to be more disruptive then a CEO making 2000 times more then the lowest paid employees.
You point 1 is moot. As I said, the work of three with the same amount of effort. The employees were paid.
point 2 is also moot. You have no basis to believe the workers are not paid enough to live. Making 35k to 60K a year is more than enough to live on and is about par for factory work.
In my example, I placed all the failings of the company on the management. Well, the management and what the management controls like the production techniques. I don't know how you think I forgot to blame the grunts or anything. You must be listening to what you want to hear instead of what was said. I'm sorry about your current state of mind but your thought process is likely the reasons why companies off shore or go out of business like hostess did.
You should get a job at a different construction company then. All the ones I worked with gave us a bonus for coming in ahead of schedule. And taking over a project behind schedule seems to be one of those situations where a bonus would be built into the contracts.
Now I don't really care if you live in a trailer park or lost your car because you should have been paid a wage for the work you did so all that is beyond anything else you mentioned. If the pay wasn't enough, then you could work somewhere else. If there was no other work, then it is a problem of circumstance more then anything else. When I lived in a trailer park, it was one of the most expensive places I have lived. The loan payment on the trailer was separate from the lot rent and you had to purchase utilities and cable from the park at a higher rate then anywhere I lived before. Perhaps you should move from the trailer park and live somewhere else. Hell, even buying your own land to place the trailer on (I know some places will not allow that any more) could be cheaper then living in a trailer park. I have pissed away so much money in my life that if I saved just a fraction of it, I would be 10 times better off right now. There were times I was making 250k a year and times I barely made 20k. But I spent it all on booze and women, flashy cars, and other things and I am in the same boat with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck just like many other people are. But I know it was a spending problem with me, not a problem getting something I was never intended to get.
Contract law has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with expectations. What you expect and what the employer expects. When you are in agreement, you make a contract and you get the terms of the contract as long as you do not violate the terms of the contract. It is a way to prove that you were hired in at $15 an hour and deserve compensation for that amount. It is a way to prove that your management of civil project 1509 is not connected to civil project 1622 and their over runs are not your problem. It is a way to prove that at the end of the contract, if you were under budget and on time, any bonuses and benefits in the contract are to be paid. If any of that is in the contract and doesn't happen, then it is a way to make it happen.
If you create an account, go to options under your username after logging in, you can set terms to ignore and those stories should not appear on your front page. Setting a term Bitcoin should stop stories about bitcoin from entering your front page.
If you insist on posting anonymously, then simply log out after seeing what stories interest you and opening them in another tab.
I'm personally at a loss to why people think so highly of bitcoin. There are about 80 or so other virtual currency exchanges out there and it seems that none of them are stable in the sense of real currencies. I understand the concept of it being like a credit card with the limitations of a wallet (Ie if you lose your wallet, you lose only the funds in it where if you lose your credit card, it can be charged until it is shut off), but beyond that, I just don't get it.
And yet he still doesn't disclose what was weird or concerning to them even in an anonymous posting talking about finding something weird or concerning. It's like those whisper campaigns that don't really say anything bad but say something in a way that people interpret it badly then as momentum builds, things are simply added by people who think they heard more then what was said. Before you know it, an attorney general running for governor wants to take birth control away from women when the courts have said long ago that the state couldn't do that and nothing he done as the lead attorney for the state indicates that he ever wanted to do or try to do such things.
I mean even if he was scared/worried that something could come back on him, all he would need to do is find someone who doesn't care like at a defcon and tell them where to look anonymously.
I understand. I guess it would be easy to change computers and post from other IPs when your posting has too many down mods or posted too many stock replies to topics on your agenda lists.
It is definitely harder to post from an agenda with a logged in account.
There is no morality to it. The law says you have to pay the least you are obligated to pay and if companies or individuals can make that 0% without violating other laws, then it is the legal amount they own.
The answer is not throwing your hands up and demanding the companies go to prison, it is in changing the laws they are using as loop holes in order to get away with it. Trust me, the IRS has very vindictive tax enforcers who have no problem throwing little old ladies into the street in order to get a few thousand dollars owed to the government. They also have no problem taking a few million dollars from a company worth tons more- all they have to do is freeze one of their bank accounts, take the money out, and be done with it. It isn't like these people or companies have armed guards standing in front of vaults that will defend the funds from IRS agents or anything. That would likely cost more then paying taxes if they had to.
Dude, you focus on anti terrorism but it has been happening long before that.
Some people claim the constitution is an archaic piece of paper which has long outlived its usefulness and should be reinterpreted as much as possible to get around it's limitations. We call these people the "living document" people who think reinterpreting definitions allows portions of it to change meanings as the needs of society changes. This is despite the fact that there is an amendment process and if anything actually did need changed, it could be using the amendment process. But the outcome is the second amendment being nothing but the military having the right to have guns and you and I can hunt, free speech zones (which was originally instituted by the democrats) equaling first amendment rights, removal of all religious displays from public view as the first amendment free exercise of religion, cops dressed like military assault teams having the right to kick in the wrong door and kill the occupants as being the forth amendment's right to be secure in your person, papers and effects. There are a lot more that has happened when we get away from strict interpretations of the US constitution.
You may have only noticed this crap with the war on terror. But it has been around for a while before it. Your rights have been subject to interpretations for quite a while now and terrorism is only the latest if the move.
Wow.. spying on allies is like molesting children now. Some of you people have a seriously fucked view on life.
I don't know what else to say. This is definitely disturbing and I'm at a loss of the comparison other then to say it is seriously fucked up- not even close if you were using nukes to take out a mouse.
That would be impossible to happen. No other country has the military capabilities to forgo US aid in case of invasion from any number of outside threats. Russia could take most every European country should something like that happen and they were isolated from half of the western allies (Including European countries who didn't give in).
Besides, the economic problems that would arise would be enough to stop most countries from doing that. It really just isn't realistic for it to happen.
The minimum wage law is used largely to limit the amount of welfare the government has to dole out. While it is not perfect, welfare for working people do subsidies industry (someone working as $10 an hour for 10 years with two kids will get a substantial amount of welfare) and allows them to pay less than a living wage so a minimum wage is on a different level.
A maximum wage is telling a person, no matter how hard you work, now matter how smart you are, no matter what you bring to the table, you will by law, only make as much as the dumbass who is only on the board because their uncle owns 70% of the company and does nothing but plays video games and surf porn. You can put a bottom level on people saying they will always get this amount, but it is wrong to tell anyone they will never make more then a certain amount no matter how hard they work or apply themselves. It creates the wrong type of employee.
Economics limit what the grunts can be paid. You cannot pay someone $30 an hour one year because the CEO made his bonuses and then drop them to $15 the next because he didn't. If the market wage for the job is $15 and hour, that is all they should make until they prove they are work more.
As for the union, I didn't say you had to join one. I said if you insist on something like that, make it part of the employment contract and not law. This is probably only going to be done with a union but with a law mandating the pay of anyone above a minimum wage, it can mandate the pay of anyone regardless of wage.
They are limited. Suppose company X is losing money. They high a hot shot CEO who agrees to work for $1 million base plus a percentage of profits for the year as a bonus. Within 6 months, he turns the company around by opening up it's market to similar objectives and the company makes a profit. Now this CEO also finds efficiencies within the production environment and one worker is doing the work of 3 people while exerting the same effort as before. Now profits jump as production triples and the bonuses take his pay to 20 times that of the janitors. He now cannot take the excess because of some arbitrary 1/12 rules. Worse yet, what happens when he figures he will exceed the 1/12 rule and stops improving because he will not receive anything in addition?
So lets say the employees had their pay increased. A competitor saw that they moved into parallel markets and figures they can too. Now all the sudden the company isn't making new as much as it had and if the employees don't take a pay cut to the amount before, they will go bankrupt. So will the employees take a pay cut? History shows us they will not. Hostess went bankrupt and shut it's doors, GM needed a serious bailout and bankruptcy because of it. We no longer have a thriving steel industry because of it. Most manufacturing jobs are over seas because of it. So someone who might have actually deserved extra pay cannot get it now because the results could mean the end of the company. Those are the economic realities. No one will get a raise because of this, all it will do it stop people from doing more at the top.
Those are good questions. As you noted, I did not say anything about that other then we have a problem with access to health care not the healthcare itself.
That being said, I stand by the fact that healthcare in the US is second to none, we just need to get people to be able to access it. Of course the ACA has removed the pre existing condition problems and mandated every insurance company allow them.
Apples and Oranges. The population in the US lives life differently then anywhere else in the world and takes more risks causing these numbers to be different. Furthermore, the accounting of the numbers are vastly different that they often are not comparable. For instance, live births in the US has a different meaning then in Cuba and more pregnancies will go to term in the US then in Cuba but infant mortality is registered as better in Cuba only because of the difference in accounting and the propensity of infants to live long enough to count as live births in the US.
As for spending, that is a completely erroneous measurement to the quality of health care. The costs of health care leads to problems with access to it, but not the quality of care if access is had. I already said there was a problem with access to healthcare. It is like you do not know the difference between insurance and healthcare. It would seem that you are repeating a lie for the sake of a point that isn't made with your so called links.
Wrong.. It is saying person X cannot make more then Y amount. There is the possibility of making more if they raise the salaries of others but economics would/could forbid that. No amount of wrangling the terms can get around that.
Lets walk through this a bit. Suppose you have a lawnmower and mow yards for $10 an hour profit. You buy another and hire someone to do the same and pay them $10 an hour. You continue until all the sudden, you don't do the work yourself and have employees doing it for you. Lets say you make on average $5 per yard profit to yourself and still pay the employees $10 an hour for their work. So now you have 140 employees making $10 an hour and you make $5 multiplied by 140 or $700 an hour. All the sudden, you cannot make this amount because it is over the 12:1 ratio. This is despite the fact that you will have to pay the maintenance and replacement costs of the lawnmowers from your own pocket. So lets say you raise your employees salary, now all the sudden, I decide it is a lucrative market and enter in competition to you when I see you paying these employees so much. I high in at $8 an hour and take all your accounts. You are hamstrung paying the excessive wages and have no savings to boot from because of the 12:1 rules and end up closing down. I end up getting big and someone else comes in doing the same. And very few employees will ever take a cut in pay in order to save the company. We have seen companies completely shut down in the past due to this refusal to give back. And I can understand why they don't want to give back, they lives have become adjusted to the extra pay and they may have loans and other obligations that rely on it.
You cann dress it up and call it a ratio all you want but in the end, it is telling companies they cannot pay someone over a certain amount. It is telling executives, you cannot make more then a certain amount. Once that is in place, there is absolutely nothing preventing it from being done on any job period.
If you think it is a moral imparitive, then do it through a union where you have some control. I do not see how that exist but as long as you do not impact me, i don't care. When you use government to stop someone from enjoying the fruits of their labor, i have a problem with it.
That is not due to a free market. In a free market, other businesses would pop up and compete when it became profitable. Where you see companies so large the amount of people depending on the becomes a matter of national interest, you will see were markets are not free.
If you are talking about the wall street bailouts, it us especially rrue that it isn't a free market. The regulation involved alone keeps competition at bay but the selective enforcement of regulation actually becomes an advantage.
The healthcare in the US is second to none. The problem the US has is access to it. This problem is not entirely unique to the US but waiting lists and pannels refusing coverage as what happens in socialised medical countries seem to get ignored in the tallies.
I find it hard to take anything else you have an opinion on seriously when you misrepresent something so easily. It seemd like uou agenda is more important than facts.