It is widely known that France doesn't have a single nuclear power plant due to the tree hugging hippies, government regulations and unions, that is why their electricity needs are satisfied in 70% from the nuclear source.
The only way to save our economy is to somehow break through people's thick heads. Unfortunately, we are living a generation that thinks in a herd mentality, usually delivered by rich morons like Oprah.
In other words, everyone has to be forced to think like you to make it all work.
The government and economy is a contract among the citizens. It doesn't matter what system is used, as long as most people agree on how it is run.
man your grasp of the motivations of outsourcing is staggeringly bad...
Business does not move jobs to an area to save labor..... just to spend that saved money on 'sales and marketing'. And, they already had that before they outsource. They had people design them, they had people market them. They aren't going to specialize 'at a different part of the supply chain'. They are going to put that extra cash into shareholders/owners pockets.
Protectionism isn't the answer. But when capitol and business has the rules skewed toward their benefit then 'the free market' isn't at work is it?
Besides, you're the incredibly stupid person who thinks outsourcing bad == communism.
Perhaps newspapers are getting more and more biased, but the trend is certainly more conservative.
With the Murdoch's and the Singletons snapping up newspapers across the country, they ain't goin' liberal. Maybe you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much.
Plus one very high-end magazine aimed at folks with $100K+ annual incomes. And this is not unusual across the U.S., where small community publications are still going strong.
There are plenty of people who want their news spoon fed to them to meet their own opinions - how else can we explain the success of Rush Limbaugh?
But, there are still people who just want information, just facts.
What _is_ changing is how news/information is accessed. People now expect to get their information 24/7. On PC's, on cell phones, PDA's etc... What ultimately is bending the newspapers over is the huge costs of producing the printed product. The presses/paper/ink, and labor involved leave them very uncompetitive in this changing business climate. Also, there will be some newspapers that get squeezed out of the game since internet delivery means unlimited range, whereas for alot of newspapers in large metro areas the cost of delivery to some areas are just too much.
Right now, Google and the porn industry notwithstanding, nobody has really figured out how to make money off the Internet in the more localized news market, where the majority of advertisers (small business) and consumers are. We've got several itty-bitty print publications in my county that can draw enough revenue to pay for professional writers, designers, photographers, etc.
Almost every decent size newspaper makes money on web advertising. Of course, this model will not support the huge costs for newspapers in terms of paper/ink, delivery etc... But, this is what they need to come to grips with. They will _have_ to change their expectations and business model.
I'm not sure where you live, but in my home town SLC, utah, the two major newspaper have very familiar web sites the locals know of. Not to mention the local tv stations. Plenty of local businesses advertise on these sites.
I think what you fail to understand, is not that there is a need for some local news medium. But, that you explicitly tie this entity to the printed product they are used to. Who cares if you have to use the internet, rather than get your paper off your doorstep (of course papers are cutting that too, now they will only toss it on your driveway). There still is a need for local news, but there is also a need and expectation among increasingly more people to access this news/information in more and more convenient ways.
Radio and TV are still good ways to deliver news/info. First, because you can listen to the radio anyway with multiple devices, hell even cell phones, mp3 players, and on the PC. Second, people watch a metric f*k ton of tv, and when they are spoon fed news while they are stoned on the couch all night and not put any effort out.
Also, practically every newspaper in the country is making a decent profit still. The scary thing for them is to change their ways before the declining advertising revenue and operating costs converge. But, what are doing to meet these changes is to cut staff - which surprise surprise! affects the content they produce which keeps chipping at the already declining readership.
I also do not think the printed product will go away. Perhaps it will become a weekly printed product with the constantly updated web sites.
And those sites normally only have "teaser" versions of the story. You have to subscribe to the Dead Tree Edition to get the full story. Very clever, no?
No, not very clever at all. When you aren't the only source of information, you will lose this game very quickly. Besides, if newspapers knew that they can produce their product for the web, and not have the costs of paper/presses/ink, and all the labor involved getting the printed product, they will change. They will be forced to change, because the value a newspaper delivers will shrink to that of internet advertising.
Plus one very high-end magazine aimed at folks with $100K+ annual incomes. And this is not unusual across the U.S., where small community publications are still going strong.
If you don't think magazine adversising is having the same problems, you're smoking crack. And what small community is going to support a "100k plus" income type publication long? When the 'prestige' of advertising/getting a "100k plus" income publication wears off, it will fold too.
The ratio of advertising to editorial content is normally fixed. Over the years, as the business men took over the papers from newspaper men, the ratio has tilted toward more advertising. Newspaper men was more cautious to avoid the appearance of influence from the advertisers. Business don't give a damn, and want to rake in more cash per page.
IMO, this is the reason papers are going down the tube. The did not want to spent any money developing new products, or new ways to deliver the news they produce. Then they got caught behind the curve, and now are hurting because advertising is chasing the more effective medium - internet.
When papers were trying to cut paper/ink costs, they should have been investing in producing web sites. When papers were trying to cut costs by reducing news room staffs, they should have been diverting effort to making the 'go to' site for local news. When papers were trying to jam a 10% price increase every 9 months on classified advertising, they should have developed a real craigs-list competitor. This isn't to say they shouldn't make the current print product more efficient.
Now papers are expecting the same huge profit margins it enjoyed in the last 50 years, they just cannot admit that times have changed and will not accept what they are worth. After they've gutted every newsroom, they have no ability to produce content younger people are interested in.
"Journalism" will survive, and I'm sure the printed paper will be around forever - perhaps not daily. But, when everyone can views news on cellphones/work pc's/home pc's/ etc... they will not waist their time on getting a printed product.
Oh, and you're very wrong about the advertising going down during the good times. When the mom & pop store is making less money, they arent' going to pay the huge cost to use newspaper advertising.
1) This is the problem with printing biz these days (I work at a newspaper publisher). Young people don't learn what they need to do to print something well, they learn "Photoshop", or whatever the new cool program is. If someone knows how to have color reproduce correctly on a press, they will know how to do it with Photoshop/gimp/corel etc... I work with a guy that is an old hat at color printing, no computer training at all. And he can take his knowledge and apply that with photoshop or any other raster image manipulating software.
2). You are right about larger companies not caring about the initial cost. But, having to work around bugs, having ads/art print like shit far out weighs that. And, Adobe being Adobe, we always have some shitty bug to deal with on EACH upgrade. This has gone on since we starting using a mac based ad layout/art design based system. So, the initial cost isn't the barrier, its knowing Adobe produces shitty software.This is where gimp, or anyother alternative will come in.
3)who cares
Slashdot Mirror
man your grasp of the motivations of outsourcing is staggeringly bad...
Business does not move jobs to an area to save labor..... just to spend that saved money on 'sales and marketing'. And, they already had that before they outsource. They had people design them, they had people market them. They aren't going to specialize 'at a different part of the supply chain'. They are going to put that extra cash into shareholders/owners pockets.
Protectionism isn't the answer. But when capitol and business has the rules skewed toward their benefit then 'the free market' isn't at work is it?
Besides, you're the incredibly stupid person who thinks outsourcing bad == communism.
Perhaps newspapers are getting more and more biased, but the trend is certainly more conservative. With the Murdoch's and the Singletons snapping up newspapers across the country, they ain't goin' liberal. Maybe you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much.
There are plenty of people who want their news spoon fed to them to meet their own opinions - how else can we explain the success of Rush Limbaugh? But, there are still people who just want information, just facts. What _is_ changing is how news/information is accessed. People now expect to get their information 24/7. On PC's, on cell phones, PDA's etc... What ultimately is bending the newspapers over is the huge costs of producing the printed product. The presses/paper/ink, and labor involved leave them very uncompetitive in this changing business climate. Also, there will be some newspapers that get squeezed out of the game since internet delivery means unlimited range, whereas for alot of newspapers in large metro areas the cost of delivery to some areas are just too much.
The ratio of advertising to editorial content is normally fixed. Over the years, as the business men took over the papers from newspaper men, the ratio has tilted toward more advertising. Newspaper men was more cautious to avoid the appearance of influence from the advertisers. Business don't give a damn, and want to rake in more cash per page.
IMO, this is the reason papers are going down the tube. The did not want to spent any money developing new products, or new ways to deliver the news they produce. Then they got caught behind the curve, and now are hurting because advertising is chasing the more effective medium - internet.
When papers were trying to cut paper/ink costs, they should have been investing in producing web sites. When papers were trying to cut costs by reducing news room staffs, they should have been diverting effort to making the 'go to' site for local news. When papers were trying to jam a 10% price increase every 9 months on classified advertising, they should have developed a real craigs-list competitor. This isn't to say they shouldn't make the current print product more efficient.
Now papers are expecting the same huge profit margins it enjoyed in the last 50 years, they just cannot admit that times have changed and will not accept what they are worth. After they've gutted every newsroom, they have no ability to produce content younger people are interested in.
"Journalism" will survive, and I'm sure the printed paper will be around forever - perhaps not daily. But, when everyone can views news on cellphones/work pc's/home pc's/ etc... they will not waist their time on getting a printed product.
Oh, and you're very wrong about the advertising going down during the good times. When the mom & pop store is making less money, they arent' going to pay the huge cost to use newspaper advertising.
1) This is the problem with printing biz these days (I work at a newspaper publisher). Young people don't learn what they need to do to print something well, they learn "Photoshop", or whatever the new cool program is. If someone knows how to have color reproduce correctly on a press, they will know how to do it with Photoshop/gimp/corel etc... I work with a guy that is an old hat at color printing, no computer training at all. And he can take his knowledge and apply that with photoshop or any other raster image manipulating software. 2). You are right about larger companies not caring about the initial cost. But, having to work around bugs, having ads/art print like shit far out weighs that. And, Adobe being Adobe, we always have some shitty bug to deal with on EACH upgrade. This has gone on since we starting using a mac based ad layout/art design based system. So, the initial cost isn't the barrier, its knowing Adobe produces shitty software.This is where gimp, or anyother alternative will come in. 3)who cares