what phone model outsells the iPhone? I don't think the galaxy s3 does. It's the best single selling cell Phone I think, though not the biggest company or biggest operating system in europe.
I'm in finance (about as regulated for email as you get) and we use iphone, ipad, and android for work email now (as well as bb). So when I'm in country, I don't carry my bb anymore, just my personal as I can check the email via the Good app. I'd ditch the bb but I'm on international business often enough and if I do, my company won't pick up the tab for my calls and roaming data while on business.
you've given 0 evidence that the majority of the top 1% are there by inheritance, though saying capitalism is a bit odd. That would imply anyone who started a business could be excluded from having "worked" for their money. Saying that, for wealth, I can't do much but agree. Very few people continue to work for someone else and build up 20 million dollars in wealth (this was the rough 1% cutoff in 2007 and wtih the stock market back at the highs, I'd bet it's pretty damn accurate for now, maybe a touch low).
But the top 1% in income, you are about as wrong as possible. That only requires about 370k in adjusted gross income. Let's say for arguments sake this roughly comes in at 500k per household (as this is tax return data, so I'm not talking about individuals where it comes in much lower). A doctor can easily top this , especially surgeons who generally start at this level. Finance, Medicine, Law are three fields in which that number is easily attained. I can speak directly towards finance where 500k in income is still readily possible 7 years out of college.
you realize your video says absolutely nothing about income, and only about where wealth is, but by the nature of... well..... every economic system to date, the high earners will control a huge portion of the wealth because the amount of their income available for savings will outclass the total income of a poor person. But you have acutally drawn a very clear line in the sand. Doctors, outside of a small few, are still in the land of the not wealthy. This implies that you don't find 10-20 mio dollars of net worth at retirement wealthy (easy, by the standards of most american doctors to reach at retirement, and trivial for highly specialized surgeons).
You seem to be drawing the line at wealthy somewhere in the 9 figure range, an astronomical figure that puts your interest in simple investments in the top tenth, and almost top hundredth of a percent. There are not that many people at that level. Fair enough, but I don't think that is what most people mean when they say wealthy people work for their money. Most people are probably talking about those with a net worth of 5-20 million dollars.
what is yoru definition of wealthy? is it an income level or a net worth level?
I don't understand what you are implying as most people who in communities are thought of as wealthy could afford to do anything but the first option you put forward. Most doctors are wealthy (by any reasonable measure), but they generally do not have the ability to do anything but fund the education of their kids. A doctor's office neither has huge money to pay someone as an executive, or can afford to pay for a top class lifestyle for their children forever.
do you have any sources that say the majority of wealth in this country was inherited? A skimming the forbes richest list show quite a few people who didn't get there via just cashing an inheritance and others who did (walton's family, as the obvious top examples).
I've generally found in 3rd world countries the amount that inheritance matters and who you know matters far more than in the US. In fact, I think the US is the most democratic on this (I've traveled quite a bit and lived abroad, but I've never done hard research, so I'm not saying this is research). But that is relative across countries, to speak towards working towards your wealth and inheriting in an absolute manner is a hard research question. here is what I mean:
Most upper income people I know got there by hard work, but that is not saying parents didn't help them a lot and that those advantages can be passed down. I know doctors and lawyers (as two high income profession classes), all worked hard to get there, some had lots of family money getting them through, others didn't. What I have found is that having family money helps make up for lower qualifications, making upper income a sticky level to be at (though this doesn't speak to super rich families where children never need to work). A great example is poor performance in college. Upper income people can afford to have their children stay in college longer, pay more for tuition, or send them abroad for medical school to get them to being a doctor. Lower income people just have to fight it out onshore.
you sound like you are equating loving your child with giving a gift. They are most certainly not the same thing, and in fact one has nothing to do with the other. And unfortunately, as the GP was referring to, too often the former is used as a substitute for the latter.
more important: being CEO of a successful company. The number of CEOs that have engineered proper turn arounds of a failing company are very few. You could make me CEO of apple tomorrow and even if I did nothing for several years, things would be great. Look at how Even easier: make me CEO of a company whose success has more to do with the macro economy (think Exxon and oil prices, or banks and increased loan demand) and you will look very smart.
Ken Lewis worked his way up from loan officer to CEO of Bank of America, and during the bull market years was known as a great deal maker and an incredible CEO who could turn around failed businesses (he made a name for himself turning around a few major bankrupt banks in Texas), but when the rising tide stopped raising every ship, his incredible lack of knowledge on several areas of the business that had been built came to the forefront.
Look at Ron Johnson for a great recent example of a rising tide that wasn't the macroeconomy. He was heralded as the great retail genius of our time because he was in charge of apple retail stores when Apple went from nothing to the leading tech company in the world (sales, product penetration, profits, value, I'm not going to argue about innovation or technical points on products). In 1 year he has taken JC Penneys which was kind of in a rough patch and was looking for a way to revitalize itself and turned it into a company with sales dropping 30%, the board having to consider selling off the 100+ year old company. This is a company that made it through everything the 20th century threw at it and was torn down in less than a year because Ron believed the hype that he was more than a bit player at the table of Apple.
A CEO is almost never tested when things are going well in the industry and economy. All they really do is give happy speeches and cash a paycheck. Whether male or female, it's most likely the case. On the other hand, I incredibly respect CEOs who have turned companies around. the IBM shift from big iron to services was not easy, but it is one of the great success stories of our time. Apple basically coming back from the dead is another one.
what is more innovative about a sIII than an iphone 5? Sitting down comparing a 4s to the sIII I didn't get blown away by anything on the sIII (or 4s). Both offer such incredibly similar abilities I can't find a single thing samsung has added (mind you, samsung, not google with android) that I would call innovative.
*Better* is a choice, and most likely based on android vs iOS though could come down to the screen size and NFC (granted, outside of Japan, I can't think of anywhere NFC is very useful).
Fair enough. Though if I was told (giving benefit of the doubt) my gas gauge was broken and that there was actually ample fuel, I'd have done the same as well probably. If for no other reason than the irritation of slow charging a second time.
As to not charging overnight being unrealistic, there are lots of cases away from home where you may find yourself without an outlet. It's happened to me when I wanted to charge my phone and wish I had a portable charger (the only outlets in the hotel were hidden away in a locked cupboard where all the room's wiring was). I'd be interested in that case, as long as he said it up front.
I live in Tokyo where for myself and my colleagues, our standard commutes are on public transport and our use cases are cars to drive well out of the way. Just depends where you live.
1000 km in >10 hours? Never in my time on European highways did people drive that slow. I averaged 130km..... But then I have minimal experience (highways in Croatia and from Geneva to Mont Blanc). But I've heard other highways are even faster? Not true?
You're ignoring the cost of a new battery every X miles and electricity. 10k every 125k miles, translates to (at 25 mpg), 5000 gallons. The energy charge is roughly 125k * 85/300 kwh, 36000. So gas costs about 20k vs 10k plus 36k *.15 or 15.5k. Cheaper not considering spark plugs, oil, or other engine needs.
Electric wins but the math is more complex. Problem is the interior of the tesla will most likely require very pricey work, as does any car whose controls are managed via touch screen. Don't believe me? Check out the poor responsiveness of an old Lexus touch screen and note how most cars (Lexus, Nissan, and BMW at least) are stopping with the heavy use of touch screens and going back to tactile buttons.
When did either the FAA or Boeing say the design is doomed? At best the FAA has said "we have no idea" and Boeing is running test flights to try and recreate the problem.
Lets assume the service rep said no such thing. Then I have a car that is brand new and leaks gas overnight. Wow, this sounds like just the car I want. One that can't ever go to a motel which doesn't have an outlet available for use.
Te problem is that some people want to support tesla regardless. My problem is there has been no evidence put forward that doesn't imply the car did have a fault of some kind.
In what way was his driving unrealistic? The speeds were eminently realistic and without a solid acceleration graph it's hard to know if the speeding up and slowing down were unrealistic compared to traffic I've experienced along that corridor (if you've never driven, it can be horrid).
By the way why does everyone find a detour through the city an unreasonable strain on a car? For me if a car can't handle a tiny detour then obviously it's not a very useful car as there are often times interesting detours that I find en route.
By the way I can't wait for autonomous, electric vehicles. I frankly would love them especially for getting around town, but right now I couldn't take them in most use cases so I can't imagine burning the money yet.
But when I see this stuff going on along with googles car, and several other amazing projects, I am really looking forward to what will be. But I think when I'm off in the mountains ill always prefer a gas car at least until huge range and power become possible
I know 100k gets me 300 mile range when I haven't ridden in a sedan with less than 450 in a long while. And I know I regularly go for trips that involve 1000 miles, which on a standard outlet and a full charge you definitely cannot charge for (max 30 mi/hour for 700 miles is 23.5 hours of charging at best). And that assumes when you are off in nature you can find an outlet (and I don't need a gas station as gas canisters are simple, portable, and easy to prep before hand)
I prefer not to plan my trips around finding outlet power, and I can see from your comment that if you don't, you limit yourself to a microcosm of the world where outlets are easy to come by.
It's impossible to explain to an electric car owner the beauty that exists in the world outside of their commute to work and urban/suburban living. Or the freedom granted when you can recharge in the middle of a 500 mile trip into the mountains or carry an extra 250 miles of range in the trunk for the cost of three gas cans. I suggest a trip around lake Geneva with a stop at Mont Blanc.
It's something I suggest trying, you can't really describe with words how little those 10 minutes it takes to refill matter when you realize how nice it is to be able to just do it.
Me? I don't think the BMW interior is nearly as nice and I've never much liked the drive. That goes for a lot of cars, tesla has done well making sure everything is both unique and high quality. I just wouldn't get it yet as the range and charging access isn't there.
well, first those are per year expenditures you are considering, and this project is 7 bio life to date. So you are obviously comparing apples and oranges
but in reality, no one brings up the fact we have spent nearly 70 billion dollars on the f22 raptor and isn't even in service. sure, they delivered us a plane, but that just means we now have to pay for upkeep for a fighter we can't even use.
It's not true at all a 50 pct tax rate is required. If we broadened the tax basis maximally, you could easily get away with a super low rate to pay for everything. In the realm of 20-25%. A two tier system to keep taxes on the poor similar (say just 10 pct) and for 80 percent of the country a flat 25 could easily cover our country. Remember long term spending by the federal government is expected to be less than 25% of the GDP, most of which can be sourced between personal and corporate income (I think 85% can be sourced through just personal income)
But this means getting rid of every deduction and making your taxes simple to file again. I'm all for just paying 25 percent of my income in taxes and needing a simple calculator to work out the number (or deduct at source?) rather than paying an accountant several thousand bucks a year to get my effective rate down to around...... 26 pct last year. But then politicians can't buy your vote with the earned income tax credit or mortgage interest deductibility or pretax healthcare spending and all that stuff that makes life more complicated and creates a system ripe for abuse.
If you want to see good examples of simple systems we could learn from see HK or Singapore. Even Japan is quite simple for the vast majority of people but to buy favors of the rich the code is incredibly unfair allowing ridiculous loopholes.
Slashdot Mirror
what phone model outsells the iPhone? I don't think the galaxy s3 does. It's the best single selling cell Phone I think, though not the biggest company or biggest operating system in europe.
what are you talking about? In Europe Apple has about 20% of the market, usually less except around a release of a new iPhone. It's nowhere near 50%.
remember the screen has a much higher number of pixels, demanding a lot more computation (granted, in graphics, but still relevant for SoC)
I'm in finance (about as regulated for email as you get) and we use iphone, ipad, and android for work email now (as well as bb). So when I'm in country, I don't carry my bb anymore, just my personal as I can check the email via the Good app. I'd ditch the bb but I'm on international business often enough and if I do, my company won't pick up the tab for my calls and roaming data while on business.
you've given 0 evidence that the majority of the top 1% are there by inheritance, though saying capitalism is a bit odd. That would imply anyone who started a business could be excluded from having "worked" for their money. Saying that, for wealth, I can't do much but agree. Very few people continue to work for someone else and build up 20 million dollars in wealth (this was the rough 1% cutoff in 2007 and wtih the stock market back at the highs, I'd bet it's pretty damn accurate for now, maybe a touch low).
But the top 1% in income, you are about as wrong as possible. That only requires about 370k in adjusted gross income. Let's say for arguments sake this roughly comes in at 500k per household (as this is tax return data, so I'm not talking about individuals where it comes in much lower). A doctor can easily top this , especially surgeons who generally start at this level. Finance, Medicine, Law are three fields in which that number is easily attained. I can speak directly towards finance where 500k in income is still readily possible 7 years out of college.
you realize your video says absolutely nothing about income, and only about where wealth is, but by the nature of... well..... every economic system to date, the high earners will control a huge portion of the wealth because the amount of their income available for savings will outclass the total income of a poor person.
But you have acutally drawn a very clear line in the sand. Doctors, outside of a small few, are still in the land of the not wealthy. This implies that you don't find 10-20 mio dollars of net worth at retirement wealthy (easy, by the standards of most american doctors to reach at retirement, and trivial for highly specialized surgeons).
You seem to be drawing the line at wealthy somewhere in the 9 figure range, an astronomical figure that puts your interest in simple investments in the top tenth, and almost top hundredth of a percent. There are not that many people at that level. Fair enough, but I don't think that is what most people mean when they say wealthy people work for their money. Most people are probably talking about those with a net worth of 5-20 million dollars.
what is yoru definition of wealthy? is it an income level or a net worth level?
I don't understand what you are implying as most people who in communities are thought of as wealthy could afford to do anything but the first option you put forward. Most doctors are wealthy (by any reasonable measure), but they generally do not have the ability to do anything but fund the education of their kids. A doctor's office neither has huge money to pay someone as an executive, or can afford to pay for a top class lifestyle for their children forever.
do you have any sources that say the majority of wealth in this country was inherited? A skimming the forbes richest list show quite a few people who didn't get there via just cashing an inheritance and others who did (walton's family, as the obvious top examples).
I've generally found in 3rd world countries the amount that inheritance matters and who you know matters far more than in the US. In fact, I think the US is the most democratic on this (I've traveled quite a bit and lived abroad, but I've never done hard research, so I'm not saying this is research). But that is relative across countries, to speak towards working towards your wealth and inheriting in an absolute manner is a hard research question. here is what I mean:
Most upper income people I know got there by hard work, but that is not saying parents didn't help them a lot and that those advantages can be passed down. I know doctors and lawyers (as two high income profession classes), all worked hard to get there, some had lots of family money getting them through, others didn't. What I have found is that having family money helps make up for lower qualifications, making upper income a sticky level to be at (though this doesn't speak to super rich families where children never need to work). A great example is poor performance in college. Upper income people can afford to have their children stay in college longer, pay more for tuition, or send them abroad for medical school to get them to being a doctor. Lower income people just have to fight it out onshore.
you sound like you are equating loving your child with giving a gift. They are most certainly not the same thing, and in fact one has nothing to do with the other. And unfortunately, as the GP was referring to, too often the former is used as a substitute for the latter.
more important:
being CEO of a successful company. The number of CEOs that have engineered proper turn arounds of a failing company are very few. You could make me CEO of apple tomorrow and even if I did nothing for several years, things would be great. Look at how Even easier: make me CEO of a company whose success has more to do with the macro economy (think Exxon and oil prices, or banks and increased loan demand) and you will look very smart.
Ken Lewis worked his way up from loan officer to CEO of Bank of America, and during the bull market years was known as a great deal maker and an incredible CEO who could turn around failed businesses (he made a name for himself turning around a few major bankrupt banks in Texas), but when the rising tide stopped raising every ship, his incredible lack of knowledge on several areas of the business that had been built came to the forefront.
Look at Ron Johnson for a great recent example of a rising tide that wasn't the macroeconomy. He was heralded as the great retail genius of our time because he was in charge of apple retail stores when Apple went from nothing to the leading tech company in the world (sales, product penetration, profits, value, I'm not going to argue about innovation or technical points on products). In 1 year he has taken JC Penneys which was kind of in a rough patch and was looking for a way to revitalize itself and turned it into a company with sales dropping 30%, the board having to consider selling off the 100+ year old company. This is a company that made it through everything the 20th century threw at it and was torn down in less than a year because Ron believed the hype that he was more than a bit player at the table of Apple.
A CEO is almost never tested when things are going well in the industry and economy. All they really do is give happy speeches and cash a paycheck. Whether male or female, it's most likely the case. On the other hand, I incredibly respect CEOs who have turned companies around. the IBM shift from big iron to services was not easy, but it is one of the great success stories of our time. Apple basically coming back from the dead is another one.
what is more innovative about a sIII than an iphone 5? Sitting down comparing a 4s to the sIII I didn't get blown away by anything on the sIII (or 4s). Both offer such incredibly similar abilities I can't find a single thing samsung has added (mind you, samsung, not google with android) that I would call innovative.
*Better* is a choice, and most likely based on android vs iOS though could come down to the screen size and NFC (granted, outside of Japan, I can't think of anywhere NFC is very useful).
Fair enough. Though if I was told (giving benefit of the doubt) my gas gauge was broken and that there was actually ample fuel, I'd have done the same as well probably. If for no other reason than the irritation of slow charging a second time.
As to not charging overnight being unrealistic, there are lots of cases away from home where you may find yourself without an outlet. It's happened to me when I wanted to charge my phone and wish I had a portable charger (the only outlets in the hotel were hidden away in a locked cupboard where all the room's wiring was). I'd be interested in that case, as long as he said it up front.
I live in Tokyo where for myself and my colleagues, our standard commutes are on public transport and our use cases are cars to drive well out of the way. Just depends where you live.
1000 km in >10 hours? Never in my time on European highways did people drive that slow. I averaged 130km..... But then I have minimal experience (highways in Croatia and from Geneva to Mont Blanc). But I've heard other highways are even faster? Not true?
You're ignoring the cost of a new battery every X miles and electricity. 10k every 125k miles, translates to (at 25 mpg), 5000 gallons. The energy charge is roughly 125k * 85/300 kwh, 36000. So gas costs about 20k vs 10k plus 36k * .15 or 15.5k. Cheaper not considering spark plugs, oil, or other engine needs.
Electric wins but the math is more complex. Problem is the interior of the tesla will most likely require very pricey work, as does any car whose controls are managed via touch screen. Don't believe me? Check out the poor responsiveness of an old Lexus touch screen and note how most cars (Lexus, Nissan, and BMW at least) are stopping with the heavy use of touch screens and going back to tactile buttons.
When did either the FAA or Boeing say the design is doomed? At best the FAA has said "we have no idea" and Boeing is running test flights to try and recreate the problem.
Lets assume the service rep said no such thing. Then I have a car that is brand new and leaks gas overnight. Wow, this sounds like just the car I want. One that can't ever go to a motel which doesn't have an outlet available for use.
Te problem is that some people want to support tesla regardless. My problem is there has been no evidence put forward that doesn't imply the car did have a fault of some kind.
In what way was his driving unrealistic? The speeds were eminently realistic and without a solid acceleration graph it's hard to know if the speeding up and slowing down were unrealistic compared to traffic I've experienced along that corridor (if you've never driven, it can be horrid).
By the way why does everyone find a detour through the city an unreasonable strain on a car? For me if a car can't handle a tiny detour then obviously it's not a very useful car as there are often times interesting detours that I find en route.
By the way I can't wait for autonomous, electric vehicles. I frankly would love them especially for getting around town, but right now I couldn't take them in most use cases so I can't imagine burning the money yet.
But when I see this stuff going on along with googles car, and several other amazing projects, I am really looking forward to what will be. But I think when I'm off in the mountains ill always prefer a gas car at least until huge range and power become possible
I know 100k gets me 300 mile range when I haven't ridden in a sedan with less than 450 in a long while. And I know I regularly go for trips that involve 1000 miles, which on a standard outlet and a full charge you definitely cannot charge for (max 30 mi/hour for 700 miles is 23.5 hours of charging at best). And that assumes when you are off in nature you can find an outlet (and I don't need a gas station as gas canisters are simple, portable, and easy to prep before hand)
I prefer not to plan my trips around finding outlet power, and I can see from your comment that if you don't, you limit yourself to a microcosm of the world where outlets are easy to come by.
It's impossible to explain to an electric car owner the beauty that exists in the world outside of their commute to work and urban/suburban living. Or the freedom granted when you can recharge in the middle of a 500 mile trip into the mountains or carry an extra 250 miles of range in the trunk for the cost of three gas cans. I suggest a trip around lake Geneva with a stop at Mont Blanc.
It's something I suggest trying, you can't really describe with words how little those 10 minutes it takes to refill matter when you realize how nice it is to be able to just do it.
Me? I don't think the BMW interior is nearly as nice and I've never much liked the drive. That goes for a lot of cars, tesla has done well making sure everything is both unique and high quality. I just wouldn't get it yet as the range and charging access isn't there.
1988 my friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._3
well, first those are per year expenditures you are considering, and this project is 7 bio life to date. So you are obviously comparing apples and oranges
but in reality, no one brings up the fact we have spent nearly 70 billion dollars on the f22 raptor and isn't even in service. sure, they delivered us a plane, but that just means we now have to pay for upkeep for a fighter we can't even use.
It's not true at all a 50 pct tax rate is required. If we broadened the tax basis maximally, you could easily get away with a super low rate to pay for everything. In the realm of 20-25%. A two tier system to keep taxes on the poor similar (say just 10 pct) and for 80 percent of the country a flat 25 could easily cover our country. Remember long term spending by the federal government is expected to be less than 25% of the GDP, most of which can be sourced between personal and corporate income (I think 85% can be sourced through just personal income)
But this means getting rid of every deduction and making your taxes simple to file again. I'm all for just paying 25 percent of my income in taxes and needing a simple calculator to work out the number (or deduct at source?) rather than paying an accountant several thousand bucks a year to get my effective rate down to around...... 26 pct last year. But then politicians can't buy your vote with the earned income tax credit or mortgage interest deductibility or pretax healthcare spending and all that stuff that makes life more complicated and creates a system ripe for abuse.
If you want to see good examples of simple systems we could learn from see HK or Singapore. Even Japan is quite simple for the vast majority of people but to buy favors of the rich the code is incredibly unfair allowing ridiculous loopholes.