I agree that the question isn't borders. If you are in Texas, northern Mexico is more "local" than NYC. But in either case, China is not local.
But you're arguing for placing pre-emptive barriers on what you think are "the right level of local". I'm saying, if you have open trade borders and price in the cost of externalities (like a carbon tax), then the market will work itself out in terms of where the "right level of local source" is.
The part that's never zero is called "structural unemployment", and was mentioned in the part that you cut. People between jobs, people who are moving, etc. But unemployment-because-you-cant-find-a-job is not god-given, and in fact in various countries around the world there have been periods when this unemploymend was zero.
"the upcoming onslaught of automation" - the 60s called. They want their argument back.
I don't know if I buy that. Employment participation rates vary from decade to decade. They vary because people give up on finding a job, not because they don't want one. You may be right that those *with no choice but to have a job* (breadwinner for the family) parts of the population who are systemically unemployed can reach 0, but that's not full employment. Moreover, it's not consistent. You're always going to have periods lasting as long as a decade where some giant shift (such as globalization, or automation) will wipe out entire job sectors. So even if your argument is "those jobs will eventually be replaced", you need *some* solution to the decade-long vacuum those things created. And I don't think impeding progress Luddite-style is the answer. Nor do I think impeding progress "anti-trade" style is the answer either. It's more economically efficient during those times to do something like UBI.
How we are all caught in the Silicon Valley mantra and the Venture Capitalist religion. Most of the really large and powerful companies in the world are not called Google and Facebook. They are energy companies, food companies, and a dozen others. Trade and technology matter, but you buy an iPhone every year while you buy food every day.
This isn't a Silicon Valley idea. Notice I didn't just say tech, I said tech and trade. This is well established amongst economist. All those energy, food, etc. companies are the "trade" part; they find ways to distribute resources more efficiently. Do this simple mental experiment: what if every city was to produce their own crops of every type instead of importing/exporting from other areas? Would that be more or less efficient? Expand that idea to a global scale and you have your answer to why shipping from China or Brazil for certain things can be better.
Everything you describe is a natural result of a growing population (and thus, more competition for finite resources like land, which naturally causes people to work more to obtain money to buy land). The results would be way worse without people in China making stuff, as in addition to higher land costs, you'd also have higher cost of those gadgets as well.
Just take a look at the numbers. Wages haven't gone down; they've gone up (though for the average man, not by much). In comparison, cost of most daily goods have gone down or stayed flat even though more people are demanding them. Clothes are 1/3 cheaper. Electricity price has barely moved. Food has barely moved.
The only things that are causing people to feel poorer than they were before are housing, medical care and gas. Those are, unfortunately, things globalization and technology have *not* been able to improve for a variety of reasons.
Thinking that somehow, low-cost jobs not moving to China would mean someone in the U.S. would have it is logically incorrect. Without expansion in overall consumption, the population would just grow without any new jobs and every new person born will be out of work until someone dies.
So in the end, you will make everything abroad, only companies earn money, and everyone lives from the taxes?
I don't think I advocated for *everything* abroad. Simply things that *can* be done abroad more efficiently (generally equates to lower cost). You can think of it as a nationless scenario, where things are produced in the places they're most efficient and best at being produced. Just like within the U.S. you want your almonds to be grown in CA, your silicon design in various hubs and your auto manufacturing in SC and (more so again) Detroit, you'd want to take that model globally. The equivalent of "stop outsourcing" would be like Wyoming blocking imports of almonds from CA just because it wants its own local almond farmers to have business.
What you want is a balance between a strong local economy and beneficial trade.
I'm arguing that free trade finds that balance. The U.S. will invariably be able to do certain things better than anywhere else in the world. The world will naturally import that from the U.S. China will invariably do other things better, so the rest of the world buys that from China. Same with Germany. The point is, let free trade and supply/demand make the decisions of which nation produces what, not tariffs or governments.
But you want to grow your food locally because shipping it halway around the world doesn't improve its quality
If there's truly no loss of quality or cost of growing overseas vs locally then the local farmer will always win. The truth is that for many foods, other nations *can* do produce it more efficiently. Economically, it's better to let them do it and ship it. If your concerns are environmental (and I share those concerns) then impose carbon (and other pollutant) taxes such that the price of externalities like environmental damage are included in the calculation of cost. Once you setup the right framework, you let the market decide. Instead of a web of trade rules that don't get updated often setting "who should produce what".
You do not want people permanently on unemployment benefits.
People *are* permanently unemployed. Not a large percentage of the population but unemployment has never been 0. Ever. I'd say what well-intentioned tariffs we've passed to try to keep unemployment down aren't working very well. And with the upcoming onslaught of automation...I don't see how you *can* keep people from being unemployed for long periods of time.
Rather than cling onto the idea that everyone needs to be employed (when reality obviously isn't letting that happen), perhaps it's time to revisit how we make sure every citizen is taken care of in a post-industrial society and this idea that "everyone needs to work".
There is more to the system then just who makes profits.
Of course there is. I'm talking about wealth, not corporate profit. Not money -- that's only supposed to loosely represent wealth. Trade and technology are the 2 pillars that create wealth: it invents new things (that either generates new resources for people to consume or stretches current resources to further utility) and efficiently allocates resources to where they have the most impact.
Globalization generates wealth. It doesn't address how that's distributed. That's where government *should* step in, the part about distribution. But you don't wanna kill the golden goose in order to divide the eggs up more evenly....
You should look to Germany to see how a whole population (with an average of 100 IQ) can still be incredibly skilled workers that's irreplaceable by cheap labor. They have wide-open trade policies that allow outsourcing.
When people talk about education it isn't always some 4-year university degree that results in them being a scientist. Better skilled workforce can just mean people who have better vocational training through apprenticeships and/or trade schools. We don't even have that today.
It can also mean a more mobile workforce so that if you setup a factory somewhere and know you can get 100k workers in a very short amount of time without having to pay their relocation packages.
No, according to his "logic" jobs that *can* be outsourced while keeping the same quality should be. And he's right. If it can be made cheaper elsewhere with no loss in quality then it should be, because it means the cost of living decreases as the cost of goods decreases.
The key here is "for the same quality". If you want higher pay compared to other countries, you have to provide higher quality. Germany knew this and was able to keep its population employed while having wide-open borders for trade. Their population is, on average, irreplaceable by cheap labor because cheap labor isn't capable of doing what its population does -- produce pristine, high-quality machines.
Nobody *deserves* a job. You gotta earn it by being either lower-cost or better skilled. It's true of everything in the free market, why should it be an exception for American workers?
There's no need to blackmail because with automation, the U.S. will be the most cost-effective place to manufacture. So there's no reason to move anywhere. The wrinkle there is that while the manufacturing is in the U.S. (and it's been growing in the US for a few years now), *jobs* aren't going to increase.
Whatever number you use for unemployment (whether it be the 9% that includes everyone, or 4% that only includes those seeking work), the net results is that it's going down and has been. Whichever number you use is better than the 2008 number. That includes wages as well (though moving slower than I'd like).
Trump just has to not fuck up. He's being handed the easiest job compared to his predecessors. So far he seems to be doing ok, to my surprise.
In this case, it's Saudi Arabia taking on the debt. This has little to do with Trump and more to do with the Saudi's being desperate and needing to diversify from their single source of income (oil, which is bringing them less and less money). They see this as a 100B$ investment in the US that they can reap returns from. It's a good thing but again, less to do with Trump (though he's taking credit for it).
The U.S. economy has been on an upward tick for a few years now and Trump is going to have the easiest job of any President before him. He just has to not fuck it up.
I agree with a systemic look. Which is why I'm against state-aided companies just to keep people employed. It's economically inefficient.
Despite what people think, moving production to a cheaper location (like China) isn't just beneficial to the Chinese. If you follow economic theory, free-trade isn't just good for exports, it's good on the import side as well. Because you get cheaper goods for the same quality.
You don't want to get rid of that. You don't want to slow down the economy by making goods more expensive. What you *want* is to allow companies to make tons of profit, *tax* that profit and use that money to pay people who were unemployed due to jobs moving away.
In that scenario, you grow the overall net amount of wealth and use tax and UBI policy to distribute the wealth.
In the scenario of using tax money to incentivize where manufacturing goes, you shrink the overall net wealth (because manufacturers are being less efficient in terms of money spent per goods produced) just to distribute wealth to those who would've been unemployed.
Systemically, it's less efficient to go the later route than the former. Economically speaking.
I imagine it'll be the same sales pitch for people buying ceramic roofs: it costs less, weighs less, lasts longer and generates electricity.
The fact that it generates electricity is not the selling point at that point. I imagine the primary market would be CA. But that's fine since CA is the 6th largest economy in the world....
For the edges, valleys and ridges, he said that only some of the roof tiles will end up being solar. So the edge tiles and most of the corner ones probably won't be made from solar tiles. Just the surface that can be easily connected together.
I'm hoping that there's some kind of magnetic connector for each tile so that no wires are needed. Otherwise repair/maintenance is going to be a nightmare.
We're talking *from* Apple's perspective. It makes 0 sense for them to go and manufacturer in the U.S. even if labor costs were exactly the same.
As for abandoning current client designs in favor of a bigger player's demand on turnaround time...that would happen in the U.S. as well. Only it'd be 2 months vs 2 weeks instead of 2 weeks vs 2 days.
You should try a simple PCB for a widget and try to contract a manufacturer in China. I think you'll be surprised at how much you can get in how little time. We're not talking auto-grade, flex-cabled parts with 7-layers here. If I have an idea for a doo-dad on the scale of a Rasberry pie, it's getting done in 2 weeks and ready to sell in the hundreds of thousands.
The thing about moving it to the US isn't about labor cost. It's about the loss of the giant manufacturing supply chain that only exists in China.
If you want to make *anything* here in the U.S. you either wait months for some mom-and-pop shop to custom-make a mold or glass panel for you. Or you call up a Chinese manufacturer, send them a drawing and have 100k parts ready in about 2 days.
Just getting a printed-circuit board made in the U.S. costs ~20k for some PCB contractor and around 2 weeks for a prototype. There are shops in China you can send a schematic to that can send you 100k boards ready for production in 2 weeks for ~5-10k. Hell, if you want they can even take it the rest of the way and assemble the entire product for you.
You won't find *any* place in the U.S. to do that for you. Even if you're willing to pay money for it.
Most of the cost increase will probably come from having to ship parts back and forth. A great deal of China's appeal for manufacturing is that you can get almost any custom screw, panel, molding, etc. in a day vs months in any other place. There's just so many companies there setup to be someone's supply chain and they've had multiple decades to perfect the process of turning concept into tens of millions of parts in a very very short amount of time.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. If it made economic sense to manufacturer in the U.S. then it's not a loss for China overall as other sectors would benefit from the increased productivity.
The problem is if you move to the U.S. for reasons that aren't economical. For instance, government mandate. In which case, productivity actually declines as you're using more resources to accomplish the same thing. More Chinese jobs would be lost while not being even matched by the same number of jobs gained in the U.S. Not to mention it'd siphon people away from existing jobs that make other goods and services cheaper for consumers.
All of this has some elasticity built in though. So it can tolerate *some* meddling by mercantile governments.
10 hours is under "normal" workloads. My 2015 MBP lasts anywhere from 4 to 10 depending on what I'm doing. I'd much rather have it be double that so I don't need to plug it in as often.
The Surface Book looks very intriguing right now as it has an advertised 16 hours of battery life. The first gen Surface Book managed to get 13 in tests so that's actually believable.
Chrome on mobile has a neat feature that takes certain web pages with a lot of text (articles) and allows you to choose a "mobile optimized" version. It is so much faster than the normal bloatware site.
The carriers that need CDMA (MetroPCS and Cricket both piggyback on Sprint/Verizon) get the Qualcomm modem. The ones that only need GSM get the Intel modem.
Without having to support CDMA, the cost of the modem likely is lower. Qualcomm themselves own the patents to CDMA but others would have to pay a licensing fee to make a CDMA chip, which would increase the cost of their modem solution.
That's not what's being implied, but you had to made this a partisan thing as well. People who vote on single-issues are pretty looney in general. That's all that was said. But again, you had to come in, Anonymously (cowardly), with the tried-and-true predictable partisan talking point "well the other side!!!".
That being said, some issues are more worthy of being a wedge issue than others. I don't care how good a political candidate's policies are towards economic growth if they advocated, say, genocide.
There are definitely wedge issue voters. But I'd be hesitant to claim that they're even the majority of Trump supporters. From statistics I've seen, the biggest demographic is white males with lower levels of education and fall in pretty bad economic situations.
There was an interview with a guy who feared Hillary to death because he's convinced she will raise his taxes and cut his disability checks. I don't think he ever connected that disability checks comes from taxes nor that if you're on disability, you're probably not making enough for progressive taxation to affect you negatively.
There's a few things in 5G that make it more friendly towards massive numbers of small, low-bandwidth devices.
1. Unlicensed spectrum usage. So anyone can make a device that does short-range communication amongst sensors or with a hub. 2. Low-bandwidth, single-mode LTE. Arguably already existent in 4G but no real unified standard so far.
It's possible to do sea-of-sensors type devices today with chips from various vendors, but they're all geared towards closed and proprietary networks of machines deployed all from the same vendor/ISP that uses that ISP's licensed spectrum.
5G lets small, low-power cellular devices hop on unlicensed spectrum, which lets any vendor deploy it.
The widening gap in wealth has been about the top 0.5% vs everyone for a while now. Like I said, about ~5 million in net worth (liquid) seems to be where the cut-off is. After that, your effective tax rate takes a steep dive and it's a lot easier to make way more money than if you were simply someone who earns a high salary.
Slashdot Mirror
[citation needed]
I don't think Uber ever meant its drivers to be full time employees. Maybe it should consider limiting driver hours to emphasize this...
I agree that the question isn't borders. If you are in Texas, northern Mexico is more "local" than NYC. But in either case, China is not local.
But you're arguing for placing pre-emptive barriers on what you think are "the right level of local". I'm saying, if you have open trade borders and price in the cost of externalities (like a carbon tax), then the market will work itself out in terms of where the "right level of local source" is.
The part that's never zero is called "structural unemployment", and was mentioned in the part that you cut. People between jobs, people who are moving, etc.
But unemployment-because-you-cant-find-a-job is not god-given, and in fact in various countries around the world there have been periods when this unemploymend was zero.
"the upcoming onslaught of automation" - the 60s called. They want their argument back.
I don't know if I buy that. Employment participation rates vary from decade to decade. They vary because people give up on finding a job, not because they don't want one. You may be right that those *with no choice but to have a job* (breadwinner for the family) parts of the population who are systemically unemployed can reach 0, but that's not full employment. Moreover, it's not consistent. You're always going to have periods lasting as long as a decade where some giant shift (such as globalization, or automation) will wipe out entire job sectors. So even if your argument is "those jobs will eventually be replaced", you need *some* solution to the decade-long vacuum those things created. And I don't think impeding progress Luddite-style is the answer. Nor do I think impeding progress "anti-trade" style is the answer either. It's more economically efficient during those times to do something like UBI.
How we are all caught in the Silicon Valley mantra and the Venture Capitalist religion. Most of the really large and powerful companies in the world are not called Google and Facebook. They are energy companies, food companies, and a dozen others. Trade and technology matter, but you buy an iPhone every year while you buy food every day.
This isn't a Silicon Valley idea. Notice I didn't just say tech, I said tech and trade. This is well established amongst economist. All those energy, food, etc. companies are the "trade" part; they find ways to distribute resources more efficiently. Do this simple mental experiment: what if every city was to produce their own crops of every type instead of importing/exporting from other areas? Would that be more or less efficient? Expand that idea to a global scale and you have your answer to why shipping from China or Brazil for certain things can be better.
Everything you describe is a natural result of a growing population (and thus, more competition for finite resources like land, which naturally causes people to work more to obtain money to buy land). The results would be way worse without people in China making stuff, as in addition to higher land costs, you'd also have higher cost of those gadgets as well.
Just take a look at the numbers. Wages haven't gone down; they've gone up (though for the average man, not by much). In comparison, cost of most daily goods have gone down or stayed flat even though more people are demanding them. Clothes are 1/3 cheaper. Electricity price has barely moved. Food has barely moved.
The only things that are causing people to feel poorer than they were before are housing, medical care and gas. Those are, unfortunately, things globalization and technology have *not* been able to improve for a variety of reasons.
Thinking that somehow, low-cost jobs not moving to China would mean someone in the U.S. would have it is logically incorrect. Without expansion in overall consumption, the population would just grow without any new jobs and every new person born will be out of work until someone dies.
So in the end, you will make everything abroad, only companies earn money, and everyone lives from the taxes?
I don't think I advocated for *everything* abroad. Simply things that *can* be done abroad more efficiently (generally equates to lower cost). You can think of it as a nationless scenario, where things are produced in the places they're most efficient and best at being produced. Just like within the U.S. you want your almonds to be grown in CA, your silicon design in various hubs and your auto manufacturing in SC and (more so again) Detroit, you'd want to take that model globally. The equivalent of "stop outsourcing" would be like Wyoming blocking imports of almonds from CA just because it wants its own local almond farmers to have business.
What you want is a balance between a strong local economy and beneficial trade.
I'm arguing that free trade finds that balance. The U.S. will invariably be able to do certain things better than anywhere else in the world. The world will naturally import that from the U.S. China will invariably do other things better, so the rest of the world buys that from China. Same with Germany. The point is, let free trade and supply/demand make the decisions of which nation produces what, not tariffs or governments.
But you want to grow your food locally because shipping it halway around the world doesn't improve its quality
If there's truly no loss of quality or cost of growing overseas vs locally then the local farmer will always win. The truth is that for many foods, other nations *can* do produce it more efficiently. Economically, it's better to let them do it and ship it. If your concerns are environmental (and I share those concerns) then impose carbon (and other pollutant) taxes such that the price of externalities like environmental damage are included in the calculation of cost. Once you setup the right framework, you let the market decide. Instead of a web of trade rules that don't get updated often setting "who should produce what".
You do not want people permanently on unemployment benefits.
People *are* permanently unemployed. Not a large percentage of the population but unemployment has never been 0. Ever. I'd say what well-intentioned tariffs we've passed to try to keep unemployment down aren't working very well. And with the upcoming onslaught of automation...I don't see how you *can* keep people from being unemployed for long periods of time.
Rather than cling onto the idea that everyone needs to be employed (when reality obviously isn't letting that happen), perhaps it's time to revisit how we make sure every citizen is taken care of in a post-industrial society and this idea that "everyone needs to work".
There is more to the system then just who makes profits.
Of course there is. I'm talking about wealth, not corporate profit. Not money -- that's only supposed to loosely represent wealth. Trade and technology are the 2 pillars that create wealth: it invents new things (that either generates new resources for people to consume or stretches current resources to further utility) and efficiently allocates resources to where they have the most impact.
Globalization generates wealth. It doesn't address how that's distributed. That's where government *should* step in, the part about distribution. But you don't wanna kill the golden goose in order to divide the eggs up more evenly....
You should look to Germany to see how a whole population (with an average of 100 IQ) can still be incredibly skilled workers that's irreplaceable by cheap labor. They have wide-open trade policies that allow outsourcing.
When people talk about education it isn't always some 4-year university degree that results in them being a scientist. Better skilled workforce can just mean people who have better vocational training through apprenticeships and/or trade schools. We don't even have that today.
It can also mean a more mobile workforce so that if you setup a factory somewhere and know you can get 100k workers in a very short amount of time without having to pay their relocation packages.
China does this to a level you can't imagine.
No, according to his "logic" jobs that *can* be outsourced while keeping the same quality should be. And he's right. If it can be made cheaper elsewhere with no loss in quality then it should be, because it means the cost of living decreases as the cost of goods decreases.
The key here is "for the same quality". If you want higher pay compared to other countries, you have to provide higher quality. Germany knew this and was able to keep its population employed while having wide-open borders for trade. Their population is, on average, irreplaceable by cheap labor because cheap labor isn't capable of doing what its population does -- produce pristine, high-quality machines.
Nobody *deserves* a job. You gotta earn it by being either lower-cost or better skilled. It's true of everything in the free market, why should it be an exception for American workers?
There's no need to blackmail because with automation, the U.S. will be the most cost-effective place to manufacture. So there's no reason to move anywhere. The wrinkle there is that while the manufacturing is in the U.S. (and it's been growing in the US for a few years now), *jobs* aren't going to increase.
Whatever number you use for unemployment (whether it be the 9% that includes everyone, or 4% that only includes those seeking work), the net results is that it's going down and has been. Whichever number you use is better than the 2008 number. That includes wages as well (though moving slower than I'd like).
Trump just has to not fuck up. He's being handed the easiest job compared to his predecessors. So far he seems to be doing ok, to my surprise.
In this case, it's Saudi Arabia taking on the debt. This has little to do with Trump and more to do with the Saudi's being desperate and needing to diversify from their single source of income (oil, which is bringing them less and less money). They see this as a 100B$ investment in the US that they can reap returns from. It's a good thing but again, less to do with Trump (though he's taking credit for it).
The U.S. economy has been on an upward tick for a few years now and Trump is going to have the easiest job of any President before him. He just has to not fuck it up.
I agree with a systemic look. Which is why I'm against state-aided companies just to keep people employed. It's economically inefficient.
Despite what people think, moving production to a cheaper location (like China) isn't just beneficial to the Chinese. If you follow economic theory, free-trade isn't just good for exports, it's good on the import side as well. Because you get cheaper goods for the same quality.
You don't want to get rid of that. You don't want to slow down the economy by making goods more expensive. What you *want* is to allow companies to make tons of profit, *tax* that profit and use that money to pay people who were unemployed due to jobs moving away.
In that scenario, you grow the overall net amount of wealth and use tax and UBI policy to distribute the wealth.
In the scenario of using tax money to incentivize where manufacturing goes, you shrink the overall net wealth (because manufacturers are being less efficient in terms of money spent per goods produced) just to distribute wealth to those who would've been unemployed.
Systemically, it's less efficient to go the later route than the former. Economically speaking.
I imagine it'll be the same sales pitch for people buying ceramic roofs: it costs less, weighs less, lasts longer and generates electricity.
The fact that it generates electricity is not the selling point at that point. I imagine the primary market would be CA. But that's fine since CA is the 6th largest economy in the world....
For the edges, valleys and ridges, he said that only some of the roof tiles will end up being solar. So the edge tiles and most of the corner ones probably won't be made from solar tiles. Just the surface that can be easily connected together.
I'm hoping that there's some kind of magnetic connector for each tile so that no wires are needed. Otherwise repair/maintenance is going to be a nightmare.
We're talking *from* Apple's perspective. It makes 0 sense for them to go and manufacturer in the U.S. even if labor costs were exactly the same.
As for abandoning current client designs in favor of a bigger player's demand on turnaround time...that would happen in the U.S. as well. Only it'd be 2 months vs 2 weeks instead of 2 weeks vs 2 days.
You should try a simple PCB for a widget and try to contract a manufacturer in China. I think you'll be surprised at how much you can get in how little time. We're not talking auto-grade, flex-cabled parts with 7-layers here. If I have an idea for a doo-dad on the scale of a Rasberry pie, it's getting done in 2 weeks and ready to sell in the hundreds of thousands.
The thing about moving it to the US isn't about labor cost. It's about the loss of the giant manufacturing supply chain that only exists in China.
If you want to make *anything* here in the U.S. you either wait months for some mom-and-pop shop to custom-make a mold or glass panel for you. Or you call up a Chinese manufacturer, send them a drawing and have 100k parts ready in about 2 days.
Just getting a printed-circuit board made in the U.S. costs ~20k for some PCB contractor and around 2 weeks for a prototype. There are shops in China you can send a schematic to that can send you 100k boards ready for production in 2 weeks for ~5-10k. Hell, if you want they can even take it the rest of the way and assemble the entire product for you.
You won't find *any* place in the U.S. to do that for you. Even if you're willing to pay money for it.
Most of the cost increase will probably come from having to ship parts back and forth. A great deal of China's appeal for manufacturing is that you can get almost any custom screw, panel, molding, etc. in a day vs months in any other place. There's just so many companies there setup to be someone's supply chain and they've had multiple decades to perfect the process of turning concept into tens of millions of parts in a very very short amount of time.
Compared to that, the labor costs are miniscule.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. If it made economic sense to manufacturer in the U.S. then it's not a loss for China overall as other sectors would benefit from the increased productivity.
The problem is if you move to the U.S. for reasons that aren't economical. For instance, government mandate. In which case, productivity actually declines as you're using more resources to accomplish the same thing. More Chinese jobs would be lost while not being even matched by the same number of jobs gained in the U.S. Not to mention it'd siphon people away from existing jobs that make other goods and services cheaper for consumers.
All of this has some elasticity built in though. So it can tolerate *some* meddling by mercantile governments.
10 hours is under "normal" workloads. My 2015 MBP lasts anywhere from 4 to 10 depending on what I'm doing. I'd much rather have it be double that so I don't need to plug it in as often.
The Surface Book looks very intriguing right now as it has an advertised 16 hours of battery life. The first gen Surface Book managed to get 13 in tests so that's actually believable.
Chrome on mobile has a neat feature that takes certain web pages with a lot of text (articles) and allows you to choose a "mobile optimized" version. It is so much faster than the normal bloatware site.
I wish there were a way to make it default.
The carriers that need CDMA (MetroPCS and Cricket both piggyback on Sprint/Verizon) get the Qualcomm modem. The ones that only need GSM get the Intel modem.
Without having to support CDMA, the cost of the modem likely is lower. Qualcomm themselves own the patents to CDMA but others would have to pay a licensing fee to make a CDMA chip, which would increase the cost of their modem solution.
That's not what's being implied, but you had to made this a partisan thing as well. People who vote on single-issues are pretty looney in general. That's all that was said. But again, you had to come in, Anonymously (cowardly), with the tried-and-true predictable partisan talking point "well the other side!!!".
That being said, some issues are more worthy of being a wedge issue than others. I don't care how good a political candidate's policies are towards economic growth if they advocated, say, genocide.
There are definitely wedge issue voters. But I'd be hesitant to claim that they're even the majority of Trump supporters. From statistics I've seen, the biggest demographic is white males with lower levels of education and fall in pretty bad economic situations.
There was an interview with a guy who feared Hillary to death because he's convinced she will raise his taxes and cut his disability checks. I don't think he ever connected that disability checks comes from taxes nor that if you're on disability, you're probably not making enough for progressive taxation to affect you negatively.
There's a few things in 5G that make it more friendly towards massive numbers of small, low-bandwidth devices.
1. Unlicensed spectrum usage. So anyone can make a device that does short-range communication amongst sensors or with a hub.
2. Low-bandwidth, single-mode LTE. Arguably already existent in 4G but no real unified standard so far.
It's possible to do sea-of-sensors type devices today with chips from various vendors, but they're all geared towards closed and proprietary networks of machines deployed all from the same vendor/ISP that uses that ISP's licensed spectrum.
5G lets small, low-power cellular devices hop on unlicensed spectrum, which lets any vendor deploy it.
According to the article, this was a gmail account.
The widening gap in wealth has been about the top 0.5% vs everyone for a while now. Like I said, about ~5 million in net worth (liquid) seems to be where the cut-off is. After that, your effective tax rate takes a steep dive and it's a lot easier to make way more money than if you were simply someone who earns a high salary.