I think the kinds of bulk shipping businesses that need a platoon of trucks are much more likely to be situated on a railroad line than average.
The trucks do not have to all have the same origin or the same destination. A truck can join or leave a platoon much easier than a railroad car in a train.
If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.
Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.
The "break even" in TFA is only based on tax revenue. Governments don't exist to collect taxes, they exist to serve the people. If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.
None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors. We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.
Just remember folks, you are paying the Chinese to give you a few measly jobs back
At least on the road, we can't. Pea sized high-res cameras cost $3 in bulk. Soon there will be a dozen built into every car, facing forward, rearward, sideways, and oblique, as well as internal cameras to monitor the gaze and alertness of the driver. Every intersection will have a camera watching every lane. If you want privacy, go home, lock the door and pull down the blinds.
According to TFA they have already been outed. Googlers were allowed to pre-submit questions, and told they could do so anonymously, yet their questions along with their names have been leaked and published on several websites.
In terms of ineptness and incompetence, Google is handling this about as well as the British handled Gallipoli.
Remember this is the country which had the Cultural Revolution.
There are many parallels between what happened in 1966 and today. Mao had built up a personality cult, and Xi is doing the same. That is very dangerous, and something Deng Xiaoping warned against. But Xi has already purged his opponents, so there is no one left to object. The big test will come in 2022, when his term ends. Will it be extended for "the good of the country"?
the Cultural Revolution in China preceded the Sino-Vietnamese War.
The Cultural Revolution started in 1966. The Sino-Vietnamese War started in 1979. That is a big gap. By 1979 China was run by the people that had opposed the Cultural Revolution.
Someone in China has far more rights than someone in the US.
It would be more accurate to say they have different rights.
They have a fairer justice system
They have a different justice system, with a different objective. American courts emphasize (at least in theory) individual rights. Chinese courts emphasize public order. China is mostly successful at that, and is a very safe country. Meanwhile, in America, the plea bargain system has eroded our right to a trial, trials are anything but "speedy", and the rich are far more likely to be acquitted.
To see what is wrong with American justice, look at the trial of O.J. Simpson.
To see what is wrong with Chinese justice, look at the trial of Bo Xilai.
This is possibly the most ignorant and narrow-minded comment I've ever read on Slashdot.
How so? I lived in China for several years, travel to China regularly on business, and am currently working in Shanghai. You do not have much protection against search and seizure here. The police have much more power to collect evidence and compel compliance.
But that doesn't mean more oppression. A Chinese citizen is much less likely to actually be arrested and incarcerated. Americans are more than four times as likely to be locked up.
Less than 1% of businesses are located on a railroad line. For long haul it might be worth using multi-modal, but for less than 1000 km the delays and queueing on both ends may be too much.
So you support consequences that deprive someone of their livelihood.
Nonsense. He's not being deprived of his livelihood. Anyone that passed the Google interview process can easily find another job in SV, where the unemployment rate for techs is below 3%. There are plenty of companies that would be a better cultural fit for him, such as Uber.
Google does indeed have a contract with the state of California
Doesn't matter. Prop 209 doesn't apply to their internal policies. It only applies to the state's issuing of the contracts. The State of California cannot give preference to women or minority owned businesses.
It isn't. Google's employment practices were already public knowledge. But the whistleblowing law is broadly written and may still apply.
Personal opinion: Employment should be a mutually voluntary relationship, and in the absence of a contract saying otherwise, either party should be able to terminate it at will for almost any reason, or for no reason. This is not only morally correct, but it leads better economics, since easy to fire means easy to hire. Jurisdictions that overly protect employees from dismissal tend to have much more structural unemployment.
More personal opinion: Google was foolish to fire him. This is terrible PR, and sets a very bad precedent for stifling dissent. They should have just told him to shutup and get back to work.
So while I disagree with what Google did, I defend their right to do it... although not to the death.
Many of these lists are simply paid advertising in disguise.
Sure, but these lists can still be useful. Obviously #1 paid to be there. But #2 and #3 may not have, and may be pretty good if they were placed high to give the list legitimacy. And #9 and #10 are the products that #1 sees as their biggest threats so you should look into those as well.
Even if you mistrust the list entirely, you still have a list of ten products that you can use for further research.
The right uses the transgender issue far more deftly than the left. The Republicans are trying to deprive 15M people of health insurance, yet they have everyone talking about soldiers in skirts instead, which the military itself has said is a total non-issue.
According to the CDC, obesity related healthcare costs America $147 billion per year. There are 300 million Americans, and roughly half are fatties, so let's figure $1000 per fat person in extra healthcare expense. If they are fat for 50 years of their life, that would cost an extra $50k per fatty.
Obesity reduces male life expectancy by 8 years, and female life expectancy by 6 years, on average. Each year an average retiree costs $9990 in medicare and $16092 in social security, so roughly $26k total. So by dying sooner, a male fatty would save taxpayers 8*26k = $208k. A female fatty would save us 6*26k = $156k.
Even accounting for the additional healthcare cost over their life, by dying early they are a BIG win over skinny people. Maybe we should offer tax breaks and other inducements to encourage people to gain weight.
All the figures used in this post were obtained by quick Google searches. Specific citations will be provided on request.
If anything, it is less of a problem in America because very few corporations have defined benefit pensions anymore. If your 401k runs out before you die, that is your problem, not your employer's.
Slashdot Mirror
Fir those who wonder, 30 cm/s is roughly 10km/h, so about the speed of a jogger.
You are off by a factor of 10. It is about 1 km/h, so about the speed of a fast tortoise.
I think the kinds of bulk shipping businesses that need a platoon of trucks are much more likely to be situated on a railroad line than average.
The trucks do not have to all have the same origin or the same destination. A truck can join or leave a platoon much easier than a railroad car in a train.
If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.
Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.
The "break even" in TFA is only based on tax revenue. Governments don't exist to collect taxes, they exist to serve the people. If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.
None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors. We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.
Just remember folks, you are paying the Chinese to give you a few measly jobs back
Foxconn is not a Chinese company.
How much violent crime occurs in China?
The murder rate in China is about one quarter the American rate.
Violent robberies are about one sixth the American rate, although I would trust this figure less than the murder rate.
I lived in China for several years, and never felt unsafe.
Property crimes are a bigger problem, and unattended belongings may go missing.
How can we find a balance?
At least on the road, we can't. Pea sized high-res cameras cost $3 in bulk. Soon there will be a dozen built into every car, facing forward, rearward, sideways, and oblique, as well as internal cameras to monitor the gaze and alertness of the driver. Every intersection will have a camera watching every lane. If you want privacy, go home, lock the door and pull down the blinds.
If the network is ran in US, it is a "freedom" network.
Yet an American is four times more likely to be arrested and incarcerated by their government than a Chinese citizen.
how do they plan on outing the wrong thinkers?
According to TFA they have already been outed. Googlers were allowed to pre-submit questions, and told they could do so anonymously, yet their questions along with their names have been leaked and published on several websites.
In terms of ineptness and incompetence, Google is handling this about as well as the British handled Gallipoli.
The purpose of a "townhall meeting" is dialog. Google had already made it clear that they want a monologue. Cancelling it was very sensible.
Remember this is the country which had the Cultural Revolution.
There are many parallels between what happened in 1966 and today. Mao had built up a personality cult, and Xi is doing the same. That is very dangerous, and something Deng Xiaoping warned against. But Xi has already purged his opponents, so there is no one left to object. The big test will come in 2022, when his term ends. Will it be extended for "the good of the country"?
the Cultural Revolution in China preceded the Sino-Vietnamese War.
The Cultural Revolution started in 1966. The Sino-Vietnamese War started in 1979. That is a big gap. By 1979 China was run by the people that had opposed the Cultural Revolution.
what'll happen is they'll criminalise Tor.
More likely they will set up plenty of state run honeypot exit nodes.
In America, it is well known that the NSA is already doing this.
Someone in China has far more rights than someone in the US.
It would be more accurate to say they have different rights.
They have a fairer justice system
They have a different justice system, with a different objective. American courts emphasize (at least in theory) individual rights. Chinese courts emphasize public order. China is mostly successful at that, and is a very safe country. Meanwhile, in America, the plea bargain system has eroded our right to a trial, trials are anything but "speedy", and the rich are far more likely to be acquitted.
To see what is wrong with American justice, look at the trial of O.J. Simpson.
To see what is wrong with Chinese justice, look at the trial of Bo Xilai.
This is possibly the most ignorant and narrow-minded comment I've ever read on Slashdot.
How so? I lived in China for several years, travel to China regularly on business, and am currently working in Shanghai. You do not have much protection against search and seizure here. The police have much more power to collect evidence and compel compliance.
But that doesn't mean more oppression. A Chinese citizen is much less likely to actually be arrested and incarcerated. Americans are more than four times as likely to be locked up.
i.e. trains???
Less than 1% of businesses are located on a railroad line. For long haul it might be worth using multi-modal, but for less than 1000 km the delays and queueing on both ends may be too much.
So you support consequences that deprive someone of their livelihood.
Nonsense. He's not being deprived of his livelihood. Anyone that passed the Google interview process can easily find another job in SV, where the unemployment rate for techs is below 3%. There are plenty of companies that would be a better cultural fit for him, such as Uber.
Google does indeed have a contract with the state of California
Doesn't matter. Prop 209 doesn't apply to their internal policies. It only applies to the state's issuing of the contracts. The State of California cannot give preference to women or minority owned businesses.
How is this whistleblowing?
It isn't. Google's employment practices were already public knowledge. But the whistleblowing law is broadly written and may still apply.
Personal opinion: Employment should be a mutually voluntary relationship, and in the absence of a contract saying otherwise, either party should be able to terminate it at will for almost any reason, or for no reason. This is not only morally correct, but it leads better economics, since easy to fire means easy to hire. Jurisdictions that overly protect employees from dismissal tend to have much more structural unemployment.
More personal opinion: Google was foolish to fire him. This is terrible PR, and sets a very bad precedent for stifling dissent. They should have just told him to shutup and get back to work.
So while I disagree with what Google did, I defend their right to do it ... although not to the death.
In the State of California, affirmative action is illegal.
It is only illegal for the government. It is not illegal for private companies such as Google.
Many of these lists are simply paid advertising in disguise.
Sure, but these lists can still be useful. Obviously #1 paid to be there. But #2 and #3 may not have, and may be pretty good if they were placed high to give the list legitimacy. And #9 and #10 are the products that #1 sees as their biggest threats so you should look into those as well.
Even if you mistrust the list entirely, you still have a list of ten products that you can use for further research.
It's an EU thing, which means, politically, it's either left or far-left.
Left: We need to track you because "safety".
Right: We need to track you because "terrorists".
Since this is about "safety", it is no surprise that leftists are pushing for it.
This will give them a means to track you, hunt you down, and beat you up.
... or even worse, text you daily marketing spam.
The right uses the transgender issue far more deftly than the left. The Republicans are trying to deprive 15M people of health insurance, yet they have everyone talking about soldiers in skirts instead, which the military itself has said is a total non-issue.
This is actually very common.
Yes it is, but he asked for a citation, not a repetition of the assertion.
Here is a citation: Employees Only Think They Control Thermostat.
I don't think so. Let's do the math:
According to the CDC, obesity related healthcare costs America $147 billion per year.
There are 300 million Americans, and roughly half are fatties, so let's figure $1000 per fat person in extra healthcare expense.
If they are fat for 50 years of their life, that would cost an extra $50k per fatty.
Obesity reduces male life expectancy by 8 years, and female life expectancy by 6 years, on average.
Each year an average retiree costs $9990 in medicare and $16092 in social security, so roughly $26k total.
So by dying sooner, a male fatty would save taxpayers 8*26k = $208k.
A female fatty would save us 6*26k = $156k.
Even accounting for the additional healthcare cost over their life, by dying early they are a BIG win over skinny people.
Maybe we should offer tax breaks and other inducements to encourage people to gain weight.
All the figures used in this post were obtained by quick Google searches. Specific citations will be provided on request.
If anything, it is less of a problem in America because very few corporations have defined benefit pensions anymore. If your 401k runs out before you die, that is your problem, not your employer's.