The wonderful thing about shows like CSI is that it convinces criminals to implement absurd technical defences when their crimes will almost certainly be dealt with by old-fashioned police work.
The kind of intellect that uses a bomb threat to get out of an exam doesn't strike me as the kind that pleads the fifth to get out of a stretch in pokey.
Did it occur to you that the Apple "tax" is why their products don't have all that bad stuff? That it costs money to get a laptop CNCed out of an aluminium block and fitted with an IPS display, rather than a plastic slab with a TN one?
They could cut down the number of leads by a factor of six if they used some sort of heavy-duty twisted-pair conductor. Then you'd have a Cat-5 of Nine Tails.
My point - if there is one - that unions exist as a natural mirror to a corporation's own collective bargaining power. I've actually seen people (including honest-to-God well-paid politicians) really upset at how "unfair" collective bargaining is, arguing that it should be outlawed.
Mail order workers. Apparently if you're in a business that sells items by mail, you're on a different pay scale than one that simply shifts items for other people.
With Amazon's margins they can't afford to be either petty or merciful. They'll switch to robots as soon as it is quantitatively advantageous to do so, regardless of what the workers are doing.
In one corner you've got an organisational of thousands with huge financial resources and political clout using its sheer size to say how and when people should be employed, and in the other corner you've got a union.
I didn't say it was right, just that amoral decisions by human beings are the inevitable outcome of the survival instincts of the vast and terrible creature they compose.
Run? Whatever losses GM made during that period would seem to be the GM leadership's own responsibility. They nearly went bankrupt in the first place after all.
I don't think anyone has ever made a convincing case for that taxonomy. The best I can say for it is that if you bring it up or argue about it, you're probably under one of its categories.
Depends on the shares. I would be surprised if the shares the government was issued with did not explicitly include an entitlement to GM's assets in the case of bankrupcy.
It doesn't affect him personally, but it does affect GM's bottom line and it's his duty to the shareholders to protect that. Ultimately he's got to choose between two sets of investors: GM's shareholders, and the general public, and he's chosen the ones who still hold shares. As far as is economic function is concerned he has done exactly the right thing. Of course one would like to think that CEOs of all people weren't reduced to the role of an amoral intelligent agent serving the mother company, but at the end of the day even a brain cell doesn't get to argue with the body's need to survive and flourish.
Slashdot Mirror
I dare say the insurance firm Premium Credit might have some objections of their own.
The wonderful thing about shows like CSI is that it convinces criminals to implement absurd technical defences when their crimes will almost certainly be dealt with by old-fashioned police work.
The kind of intellect that uses a bomb threat to get out of an exam doesn't strike me as the kind that pleads the fifth to get out of a stretch in pokey.
Did it occur to you that the Apple "tax" is why their products don't have all that bad stuff? That it costs money to get a laptop CNCed out of an aluminium block and fitted with an IPS display, rather than a plastic slab with a TN one?
Half right, it's the laptop side of the connector that is yank-resistant; it doesn't go anywhere, regardless of how much the cable is pulled.
This seems pedantic, even for me...
They could cut down the number of leads by a factor of six if they used some sort of heavy-duty twisted-pair conductor. Then you'd have a Cat-5 of Nine Tails.
Indeed. Like I say, unions are a very good mirror of the approaches of the corporations they're standing against, good and malevolent.
Hopefully the source article won't be quietly edited after-the-fact so that I look like a raging moron, as happened with my last submission. :/
My point - if there is one - that unions exist as a natural mirror to a corporation's own collective bargaining power. I've actually seen people (including honest-to-God well-paid politicians) really upset at how "unfair" collective bargaining is, arguing that it should be outlawed.
Of course, this was meant as a dismissal of the AC OP's fatuous argument, not a stance on the issue.
Ouch. That certainly puts it in perspective.
That's the joke I was trying to make, yes. Apparently I did not do a good job of it.
Mail order workers. Apparently if you're in a business that sells items by mail, you're on a different pay scale than one that simply shifts items for other people.
And if Amazon doesn't want to pay them that sort of wage, they can get out of Germany. Nobody's forcing them to do business there.
With Amazon's margins they can't afford to be either petty or merciful. They'll switch to robots as soon as it is quantitatively advantageous to do so, regardless of what the workers are doing.
In one corner you've got an organisational of thousands with huge financial resources and political clout using its sheer size to say how and when people should be employed, and in the other corner you've got a union.
I didn't say it was right, just that amoral decisions by human beings are the inevitable outcome of the survival instincts of the vast and terrible creature they compose.
They're low on the totem pole, but that's not (as the post I was replying to asserted) exactly zero money back.
Run? Whatever losses GM made during that period would seem to be the GM leadership's own responsibility. They nearly went bankrupt in the first place after all.
I don't think anyone has ever made a convincing case for that taxonomy. The best I can say for it is that if you bring it up or argue about it, you're probably under one of its categories.
Yes, I would love to hear the economic rationale for selling when they did.
Depends on the shares. I would be surprised if the shares the government was issued with did not explicitly include an entitlement to GM's assets in the case of bankrupcy.
The government has sold its remaining shares, at a lower price than it bought them for in the first place. That's the loss alluded to in the summary.
As a loan creditor the government would be entitled to some portion of its liability in any bankrupcy sell-off.
It doesn't affect him personally, but it does affect GM's bottom line and it's his duty to the shareholders to protect that. Ultimately he's got to choose between two sets of investors: GM's shareholders, and the general public, and he's chosen the ones who still hold shares. As far as is economic function is concerned he has done exactly the right thing. Of course one would like to think that CEOs of all people weren't reduced to the role of an amoral intelligent agent serving the mother company, but at the end of the day even a brain cell doesn't get to argue with the body's need to survive and flourish.