No, they really do mean, work 30, get paid for 30, and get a bonus for an additional 10 hours for free each week. Take a look here: http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale. Social Dividends: A "second paycheck" for workers enabling them to receive 40 hours pay for 30 hours work. Paid by the government out of progressive taxes so that social productivity gains are shared equitably.
In fairness, the 10 hours is not paid by the employer.. but by the richer people in the country.. I don't think this would work very well IMO: avg wage (more than $16/hr.. we'll just say $16 to make it easy) * 25% bonus * 140 million currently employed people = 1.120 trillion dollars
Current government revenues (currently.. who knows what it will be after they destroy the economy): $2.119 trillion
WTF??? Someone removed the 'Karma-Bonus Modifier' from my post.. what's the point of having it if an admin can just come by and remove it if they disagree. Fucking Bullshit.
I disagree slightly.. I think people are afraid of what others will do with absolute freedom, and agree to restrict their own freedom (as well as others) in exchange for safety (ie: laws the criminalize behavior they disagree with).
by a few percent.. and if you live in Denver, I'm sure you are also aware that the rest of the state is Republican, would likely not vote for it. And that was for marijuana, not harder drugs.. I know several people who are for legalizing marijuana, but are vehemently against ending the war on drugs (marijuana is seen as no more harmful than alcohol.. whereas the harder drugs are seen as extremely harmful by virtually everyone).
And do you really think it is necessary for those elitist schools to exist? These are some of the best schools in our country. If anything, we should be trying to duplicate the models they have created for higher education.
Yeah, abuse happens now too. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley, it's a unnecessary expensive mess And you don't think having the government review millions of businesses will be an unnecessary expensive mess? And what about fraud.. why should someone be able to say: although you haven't broken any laws, I don't think you have done enough for the community, so I'm shutting you down.. that's completely subjective.
30 hour work week paid as 40 hours (ie: give everyone an extra 125/min per week) Has been working in Europe for a long time, I don't have a problem with it, the workaholics can keep working longer. People in Europe do work 30 hours.. but they don't get paid as if that is 40.
Guaranteed jobs, 12.50 min wage There are a bunch of people working at Wal-Mart for $6. Try paying $500 rent, $100 taxes and food from that not to mention transportation to get to work And you think they need 25,000/yr to do that? Oh wait.. that 12.50/hr, isn't really 12.50/hr.. you have to include the 25% tax (remember 30 hours is now 40).. so 12.50 now equals $15.63.. so the new minimum wage is $32,000/yr, 3x the current minimum
Break up every company with more than 10% market share Break up Microsoft would be a good thing. We don't like monopolies local (Wal-Mart) or global. You want to talk about Walmart or MS, I'm all ears.. but 10% market share??? come on.. that is unreasonable low.. You would have to destroy not only Walmart (but in their market) also Target, KMart, etc, etc... and not just MS, but Apple, IBM, HP, Red Hat, SUSE/Novell, etc, etc... many many companies would meet that limit.. you're talking about destroying potentially millions of companies, and every company that will replace those. Think about it: a company has a good quarter.. whoops.. you've gone over the limit.
If you agree with the Green party, then go ahead and vote for them.. I'm not trying to discourage you.. but at the same time, their agenda is way to far to the left for them to have popular support.
Right.. because it couldn't be that they disagree with you and the alternative parties.. it's that their stupid and don't know how to think for themselves. [/end sarcasm]
you can play semantics all you want.. but the result is legalized prostitution, end of the war on drugs, and same-sex marriages. It's all right there on lp.org in their own page about their platform.
To me, they do not sound pretty good. It sounds like they took all the nutjob theories they could find, and decided to base a party on it. Until they learn to be more moderate, the vast majority of people are not going to vote for them. It doesn't matter if 50-100 libertarians and greens would make the system better, they are not going to get a seat when they advocate disbanding the 500 largest companies in America (for example).
To most people the Republicans and Democrats are not the same... When you say they are, all you are saying is that you are so far out of mainstream politics that you can't see the differences. They look the same to you because you want something radically different.
I'm with you on that (except maybe on the platform:)... but if the choices are: 1) vote democrat/republican and compromise on a few issues, or 2) start a whole new party, find millions of dollars to run, and find a famous person to be the candidate, I think most people are going to pick 1.
This may seem like a radical idea to you, but perhaps people vote for Rupublicans or Democrats because they are the most toward the center in American politics, and most people find they agree with them more than many third party candidates. Who would you suggest I vote for?
Libertarian party -- the largest 3rd party currently? Wants to legalize prostitution, end restrictions on illegal drugs (including cocaine, heroin, etc), and is for same-sex marriage. The prostitution thing will prevent (the majority) of one-half of the population from voting for them.. and most parents would never vote for relaxing restrictions on meth, cocaine, etc. Not to mention the religious vote (remember you do live in a country where 97% of the population associates with one of the major religions)... And whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage is, you have to agree that right now at least, the majority is not for it. Without women or parents, I don't think they are going to be winning any national elections soon (at least not for president).
Green party? The war on drugs issue again... Cocaine, meth, heroin... what person would vote for relaxing the laws on those? Not most people. Same-sex marriage again... They do have some big ideas though.. lets see how many people are for: Abolishing the U.S. senate; getting rid of all U.S. intelligence agencies: NSA, CIA, etc; and abolishing the death penalty (we tried that already.. didn't work so well).. Not to mention their plans to destroy the U.S. economy, and their other ridiculous plans (even if you agree with these, you have to admit that their opponents will label these this way in a race):
Guaranteed jobs 12.50 min wage 30 hour work week paid as 40 hours (ie: give everyone an extra 125/min per week) Life long public education -- there goes Americas private colleges: Harvard, Yale, etc. Shut down all nuclear plants Break up corporate agribusiness -- there goes several billion-dollar businesses Every 20 years a company's charter must be reviewed to see if the government agrees with it -- no abuse could happen there Break up every company with more than 10% market share Every worker should be able to elect their managers -- I always wanted to slack off at work.. this is sure to help the American economy Break up the 500 largest businesses in America 6 weeks vacation time for everyone + the 10 federal holidays 1 year paid educational leave every 7 years -- we'll just fire everyone every 6 years.. how does that sound? 1 year parental leave for each child End all free trade treaties, and withdrawl from WTO
Military: Cut spending by 75%, and eventually by 99% withdraw all international forces and close all bases outside the U.S. disarm all chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons get rid of all offensive forces -- because apparently we can defend ourselves with just the national guard, and the coast guard Disband NATO
Are you fucking serious? There is a reason virtually no one votes for these people...
when linux gains a notable market share, then AMD/ATI can/will develop their drivers.. The cards (and the drivers) that will run on Linux when it is popular haven't even been produced yet. Why develop drivers for an unpopular desktop OS for cards that will be obsolete by the time it really matters.
Besides.. I've been hearing people like you for many many years.. every year is the year of Linux on the desktop. and when it isn't this year, it's predicted to happen next year. Do you expect a company to spend their money based on that alone?
right.. because as we all know.. Linux support == market leader.
They may become a market leader for Linux desktops (GPU's aren't needed in servers where Linux is popular).. but Linux desktops are only 1-2 percent of the desktop market...
so even if they gain all of it.. they still won't be a market leader in GPUs.
and BTW..., if I hired a consultant and he came in and started suggesting we switch to Firefox or OO.org just because it's open source.. I would start looking to switch to a different consultant..
Businesses hire people to help them resolve an issue.. not look for changes that don't need to be made.
Companies aren't interested in open source, just because it's open source... it has to not only have all of the features of MS office, but it has to give them a reason to switch.. it has to save them money, or make them more productive.
Yes.. OO is free. so it would save them money WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING TO UPGRADE from what they already have.. but if they have Office and it's working, switching to a new office suite for no reason is only going to cost them money.
federal laws have always overridden state laws.. for the same reason state laws override local laws. This isn't something that's being applied to just marijuana.. it has happened again and again in history.. so not only should those trying to pass marijuana initiatives be unsurprised when the federal (or state, in Denver's case) law is enforced, they should also expect it to happen.
Enforcement of federal law does not seem to be a discouraging factor.. after all, people are willing to come out and vote for marijuana initiatives.
If you really think people support legalizing the harder drugs.. I want you to go out and ask a few people.. "If the federal government ended the War on Drugs tomorrow, would you support legalizing Crack, Meth, and Heroin?".. I will guarantee you that virtually everyone will say no.
Marijuana only enjoys support because it is seen as a non-addictive drug that is no more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Cocaine, meth, heroin enjoy no support from people other than drug addicts.
People don't care about how much money the Feds can same by ending the war on drugs, when one of their friends, family, or children get addicted to cocaine after (in some cases) trying it only once... They don't want to hear that there will be more Meth labs in the neighborhoods.. or more identify-theft because of the increase in Meth addicts...
For drugs like that, people do not want to hear about initiatives that result in more access. (and if you don't believe me.. try asking a few people.. watch as they look at you like a weirdo.. then ask them why when they tell you 'absolutely no'.)
Read this article (on a pro-marijuana site.. it was the first result on google.. but there are other polls that show the same): http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/410/gallup.sht ml Notice that no where do they claim that a majority of people support marijuana legalization... No imagine how many people would support Meth....
What makes you think everyone agrees with your drug policies? Here's an idea: the politicians don't hear a lot of criticism about the War on Drugs, because people actually agree with it.
In California, the marijuana initiative passed with 56% of the vote.
Where I live (Colorado), we had a marijuana initiative in Denver last year (IIRC).. Denver is by far the largest city in Colorado, and usually votes democrat.. the rest of the state votes republican.. so Colorado is R.
In Denver, the initiative passed 53%-46%... in a Democratic city, for a drug that is no where near as harmful as the other illegal drugs..
If Marijuana can only get 53% of the vote in Denver, what makes you think harder drugs have any chance of legalization?
How many people do you think will vote for legalizing meth, cocaine, heroin?
People may not agree with the laws on marijuana, but that doesn't mean they are for ending the war on drugs.
Half the directors could be fired, but it's doubtful either CEO is going to consider their choice of senior management to be the inferior choice. Which means that one board would win and the other board will lose. On the whole, that is. The CEO of the winning board might cherry-pick a few who are really exceptional or who have given him lots of money.
What makes you think the CEO gets to choose the board? You clearly don't know shit about corporations.
The shareholders elect the board. The board chooses the CEO, not the other way around.
employees? So MySpace is paying these people for doing their job of visiting the MySpace website????? That doesn't make any sense.. so I would say they are definitely NOT employees.
You're right, the business should not be held liable for what their clients do
So why do you then say MySpace should be held responsible?
Look.. the visitors are not MySpace's clients.. the visitors are the product (and if they aren't the product, then at best they are leaches.. they would never be considered a client, since they don't give MySpace a dime).
MySpaces clients are those who give it money.. ie: the advertisers.
they are NOT trying to take food off of Microsoft's plate????
If I'm competing with you, that is exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get customers that would have spent their money on you, to spend it on me instead. Fewer sales == less money == less food.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they really do mean, work 30, get paid for 30, and get a bonus for an additional 10 hours for free each week. Take a look here: http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale.
Social Dividends: A "second paycheck" for workers enabling them to receive 40 hours pay for 30 hours work. Paid by the government out of progressive taxes so that social productivity gains are shared equitably.
In fairness, the 10 hours is not paid by the employer.. but by the richer people in the country.. I don't think this would work very well IMO:
avg wage (more than $16/hr.. we'll just say $16 to make it easy) * 25% bonus * 140 million currently employed people = 1.120 trillion dollars
Current government revenues (currently.. who knows what it will be after they destroy the economy): $2.119 trillion
So it would cost 50% of the current budget.
Guess one of the admins was offended by me pointing out the flaws in the Green Party... It's not my fault your party is shit.
WTF??? Someone removed the 'Karma-Bonus Modifier' from my post.. what's the point of having it if an admin can just come by and remove it if they disagree. Fucking Bullshit.
I disagree slightly.. I think people are afraid of what others will do with absolute freedom, and agree to restrict their own freedom (as well as others) in exchange for safety (ie: laws the criminalize behavior they disagree with).
by a few percent.. and if you live in Denver, I'm sure you are also aware that the rest of the state is Republican, would likely not vote for it. And that was for marijuana, not harder drugs.. I know several people who are for legalizing marijuana, but are vehemently against ending the war on drugs (marijuana is seen as no more harmful than alcohol.. whereas the harder drugs are seen as extremely harmful by virtually everyone).
Can't believe I have to explain this further:
And do you really think it is necessary for those elitist schools to exist?
These are some of the best schools in our country. If anything, we should be trying to duplicate the models they have created for higher education.
Yeah, abuse happens now too. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley, it's a unnecessary expensive mess
And you don't think having the government review millions of businesses will be an unnecessary expensive mess? And what about fraud.. why should someone be able to say: although you haven't broken any laws, I don't think you have done enough for the community, so I'm shutting you down.. that's completely subjective.
30 hour work week paid as 40 hours (ie: give everyone an extra 125/min per week) Has been working in Europe for a long time, I don't have a problem with it, the workaholics can keep working longer.
People in Europe do work 30 hours.. but they don't get paid as if that is 40.
Guaranteed jobs, 12.50 min wage There are a bunch of people working at Wal-Mart for $6. Try paying $500 rent, $100 taxes and food from that not to mention transportation to get to work
And you think they need 25,000/yr to do that? Oh wait.. that 12.50/hr, isn't really 12.50/hr.. you have to include the 25% tax (remember 30 hours is now 40).. so 12.50 now equals $15.63.. so the new minimum wage is $32,000/yr, 3x the current minimum
Break up every company with more than 10% market share Break up Microsoft would be a good thing. We don't like monopolies local (Wal-Mart) or global.
You want to talk about Walmart or MS, I'm all ears.. but 10% market share??? come on.. that is unreasonable low.. You would have to destroy not only Walmart (but in their market) also Target, KMart, etc, etc... and not just MS, but Apple, IBM, HP, Red Hat, SUSE/Novell, etc, etc... many many companies would meet that limit.. you're talking about destroying potentially millions of companies, and every company that will replace those. Think about it: a company has a good quarter.. whoops.. you've gone over the limit.
If you agree with the Green party, then go ahead and vote for them.. I'm not trying to discourage you.. but at the same time, their agenda is way to far to the left for them to have popular support.
Right.. because it couldn't be that they disagree with you and the alternative parties.. it's that their stupid and don't know how to think for themselves. [/end sarcasm]
you can play semantics all you want.. but the result is legalized prostitution, end of the war on drugs, and same-sex marriages. It's all right there on lp.org in their own page about their platform.
thanks for the information.. I was going off of memory from what I learned a good 10 years ago.. so I'm not surprised it's out of date..
s /us.html#People
I'll add another source of information here: the cia factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo
Religions: Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
To me, they do not sound pretty good. It sounds like they took all the nutjob theories they could find, and decided to base a party on it. Until they learn to be more moderate, the vast majority of people are not going to vote for them. It doesn't matter if 50-100 libertarians and greens would make the system better, they are not going to get a seat when they advocate disbanding the 500 largest companies in America (for example).
To most people the Republicans and Democrats are not the same... When you say they are, all you are saying is that you are so far out of mainstream politics that you can't see the differences. They look the same to you because you want something radically different.
Yeah.. when I reread it, I did get a little carried away there.. I know there are people who would vote for it.. they just aren't the majority.
I'm with you on that (except maybe on the platform :)... but if the choices are: 1) vote democrat/republican and compromise on a few issues, or 2) start a whole new party, find millions of dollars to run, and find a famous person to be the candidate, I think most people are going to pick 1.
This may seem like a radical idea to you, but perhaps people vote for Rupublicans or Democrats because they are the most toward the center in American politics, and most people find they agree with them more than many third party candidates. Who would you suggest I vote for?
Libertarian party -- the largest 3rd party currently?
Wants to legalize prostitution, end restrictions on illegal drugs (including cocaine, heroin, etc), and is for same-sex marriage. The prostitution thing will prevent (the majority) of one-half of the population from voting for them.. and most parents would never vote for relaxing restrictions on meth, cocaine, etc. Not to mention the religious vote (remember you do live in a country where 97% of the population associates with one of the major religions)... And whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage is, you have to agree that right now at least, the majority is not for it. Without women or parents, I don't think they are going to be winning any national elections soon (at least not for president).
Green party?
The war on drugs issue again... Cocaine, meth, heroin... what person would vote for relaxing the laws on those? Not most people. Same-sex marriage again... They do have some big ideas though.. lets see how many people are for: Abolishing the U.S. senate; getting rid of all U.S. intelligence agencies: NSA, CIA, etc; and abolishing the death penalty (we tried that already.. didn't work so well).. Not to mention their plans to destroy the U.S. economy, and their other ridiculous plans (even if you agree with these, you have to admit that their opponents will label these this way in a race):
Guaranteed jobs
12.50 min wage
30 hour work week paid as 40 hours (ie: give everyone an extra 125/min per week)
Life long public education -- there goes Americas private colleges: Harvard, Yale, etc.
Shut down all nuclear plants
Break up corporate agribusiness -- there goes several billion-dollar businesses
Every 20 years a company's charter must be reviewed to see if the government agrees with it -- no abuse could happen there
Break up every company with more than 10% market share
Every worker should be able to elect their managers -- I always wanted to slack off at work.. this is sure to help the American economy
Break up the 500 largest businesses in America
6 weeks vacation time for everyone + the 10 federal holidays
1 year paid educational leave every 7 years -- we'll just fire everyone every 6 years.. how does that sound?
1 year parental leave for each child
End all free trade treaties, and withdrawl from WTO
Military:
Cut spending by 75%, and eventually by 99%
withdraw all international forces and close all bases outside the U.S.
disarm all chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons
get rid of all offensive forces -- because apparently we can defend ourselves with just the national guard, and the coast guard
Disband NATO
Are you fucking serious? There is a reason virtually no one votes for these people...
the 'geek cred' is very important.. this is why Dell was never able to sell its computers to anyone.
when linux gains a notable market share, then AMD/ATI can/will develop their drivers.. The cards (and the drivers) that will run on Linux when it is popular haven't even been produced yet. Why develop drivers for an unpopular desktop OS for cards that will be obsolete by the time it really matters.
Besides.. I've been hearing people like you for many many years.. every year is the year of Linux on the desktop. and when it isn't this year, it's predicted to happen next year. Do you expect a company to spend their money based on that alone?
right.. because as we all know.. Linux support == market leader.
They may become a market leader for Linux desktops (GPU's aren't needed in servers where Linux is popular).. but Linux desktops are only 1-2 percent of the desktop market...
so even if they gain all of it.. they still won't be a market leader in GPUs.
and BTW..., if I hired a consultant and he came in and started suggesting we switch to Firefox or OO.org just because it's open source.. I would start looking to switch to a different consultant..
Businesses hire people to help them resolve an issue.. not look for changes that don't need to be made.
Couldn't agree more..
Companies aren't interested in open source, just because it's open source... it has to not only have all of the features of MS office, but it has to give them a reason to switch.. it has to save them money, or make them more productive.
Yes.. OO is free. so it would save them money WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING TO UPGRADE from what they already have.. but if they have Office and it's working, switching to a new office suite for no reason is only going to cost them money.
federal laws have always overridden state laws.. for the same reason state laws override local laws. This isn't something that's being applied to just marijuana.. it has happened again and again in history.. so not only should those trying to pass marijuana initiatives be unsurprised when the federal (or state, in Denver's case) law is enforced, they should also expect it to happen.
t ml Notice that no where do they claim that a majority of people support marijuana legalization... No imagine how many people would support Meth....
Enforcement of federal law does not seem to be a discouraging factor.. after all, people are willing to come out and vote for marijuana initiatives.
If you really think people support legalizing the harder drugs.. I want you to go out and ask a few people.. "If the federal government ended the War on Drugs tomorrow, would you support legalizing Crack, Meth, and Heroin?".. I will guarantee you that virtually everyone will say no.
Marijuana only enjoys support because it is seen as a non-addictive drug that is no more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Cocaine, meth, heroin enjoy no support from people other than drug addicts.
People don't care about how much money the Feds can same by ending the war on drugs, when one of their friends, family, or children get addicted to cocaine after (in some cases) trying it only once... They don't want to hear that there will be more Meth labs in the neighborhoods.. or more identify-theft because of the increase in Meth addicts...
For drugs like that, people do not want to hear about initiatives that result in more access. (and if you don't believe me.. try asking a few people.. watch as they look at you like a weirdo.. then ask them why when they tell you 'absolutely no'.)
Read this article (on a pro-marijuana site.. it was the first result on google.. but there are other polls that show the same): http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/410/gallup.sh
What makes you think everyone agrees with your drug policies? Here's an idea: the politicians don't hear a lot of criticism about the War on Drugs, because people actually agree with it.
In California, the marijuana initiative passed with 56% of the vote.
Where I live (Colorado), we had a marijuana initiative in Denver last year (IIRC).. Denver is by far the largest city in Colorado, and usually votes democrat.. the rest of the state votes republican.. so Colorado is R.
In Denver, the initiative passed 53%-46%... in a Democratic city, for a drug that is no where near as harmful as the other illegal drugs..
If Marijuana can only get 53% of the vote in Denver, what makes you think harder drugs have any chance of legalization?
How many people do you think will vote for legalizing meth, cocaine, heroin?
People may not agree with the laws on marijuana, but that doesn't mean they are for ending the war on drugs.
Half the directors could be fired, but it's doubtful either CEO is going to consider their choice of senior management to be the inferior choice. Which means that one board would win and the other board will lose. On the whole, that is. The CEO of the winning board might cherry-pick a few who are really exceptional or who have given him lots of money.
What makes you think the CEO gets to choose the board? You clearly don't know shit about corporations.
The shareholders elect the board. The board chooses the CEO, not the other way around.
Yes, even the CEO has a boss
employees? So MySpace is paying these people for doing their job of visiting the MySpace website????? That doesn't make any sense.. so I would say they are definitely NOT employees.
You're right, the business should not be held liable for what their clients do
So why do you then say MySpace should be held responsible?
Look.. the visitors are not MySpace's clients.. the visitors are the product (and if they aren't the product, then at best they are leaches.. they would never be considered a client, since they don't give MySpace a dime).
MySpaces clients are those who give it money.. ie: the advertisers.
they are NOT trying to take food off of Microsoft's plate????
If I'm competing with you, that is exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get customers that would have spent their money on you, to spend it on me instead. Fewer sales == less money == less food.
What do you think competitors are? Friends?
the dictators were there before the iraq invasion. they weren't afraid of the UN then either.
What makes the UN a joke is that a country *cough*Iraq*cough* can repeatedly violate UN resolutions, and yet the UN still won't authorize force.
UN: STOP, or I'll ask you again!