To be fair, it would be next to impossible to have a free market on cable TV. Distribution is the first big problem that is frequently discussed here. I don't want a ton of cable companies running their lines in front of my house. One I'd more than enough. Also, there is likely a very big cost of operation barrier since every new competitor needs to drop a huge investment in infrastructure to grab a fraction of the already saturated market. Sure there are cases where governments have explicitly stopped local governments from installing a competing service, but this is not common.
But the bigger problem now is the whole industry model. No ala cart pricing, and limited streaming. This spits in the face of market realities. I can't stomach paying for sports channels I will never watch and consider blocking in my household. Not to mention all the other trash channels I never watch. I am happy to pay a premium for only the channels I want, but this is not an option. On top of that, I want to watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it. This is why I ditched cable for a combination of roku, Amazon Prime, and Netflix. I am happy to pay for the shows I want to watch on Amazon Prime. I watch more TV than ever before and I pay a lot less for it.
For a service that I used only a handful of times a week, the straw the brolemthe camel's back for me was the automatic rate increase every year until you call to complain. That's just abusive and degrading. I don't want to haggle for my service. Offer me a price that is fair to both of us and make it the same for all customers with the same service. Allowing me to haggle just means you don't value my time.
Whether the consumer pays directly the entire cost of the panel, or pays indirectly through taxes, it still means we're paying more, a net loss to society.
How so? A net loss to the consumer sure. But to society? That's a stretch. You would need to assess the supplier chain to find out where all of that money ends up to make that determination. You can bet if you buy foreign made panels, almost all of that money is leaving society. If you're paying a premium for locally made panels, I would at least be willing to take the gamble that the majority of that money stays within our society.
At best it's a couple of dozen people working in the back office and some techs to walk around and monitor the automated plant.
Yeah, just look at all those technicians sitting around in a back room.
I think you're mistaking the unibody assemby as representing the assembly of the entire car. It's standard for that to be mostly automated because of all the welding. But after it's painted, assembly is still mostly a well choreographed manual exercise. It just doesn't look as sexy on TV because people don't appreciate the organizational precision involved.
More like we're just at the end of our rope. At some point, when your neighbor won't stop peaking in your house, you either completely wall yourself off from the world or you say screw it and walk around in your skivvies all day and say 'enjoy the show'. At least in the later you don't have to lose out.
I don't know if that is true or not. Since I moved to Southern California, it has occurred to me that if I had a kid, I don't know what kind of menial summer job they could get. The things I used to do are just not options for a kid here. Cut grass? That is already dominated by day laborers and professional get ups. Flip burgers? I do see some younger people doing that but it appears to be far more dominated by adults than where I grew up. Paper delivery routes are done by adults. Hell even picking up dog poop is a job for the career man out here. There does not seem to be much left for a young teenager.
I mean, the reason I buy such a company is because it works and because keeping up with our economic system essentially depends upon participating in the system. It's lower risk gambling. The few companies I have invested in that pay good dividends always give me bigger headaches come tax time than its worth.
Not true. My car has tangible value. My house has tangible value. My furniture has tangible value. My stocks do not have tangible value except for the dividends they pay me. Cash is the only value I receive from a stock, and if its not coming from the company, the company is not actually creating value for me. The value becomes more like a collectable.
In fact even if they are paying a dividend all the company is doing is transferring money to you that you already own as a shareholder.
Cash can buy me tangible value. I have to trade stocks for cash before they can be used to buy tangible value.
A dividend pay out implies that the company does not believe that it has investment opportunities available to it that would outperform those available to the shareholder.
That implies that stock value is directly related to the real value of a company. It is not. As a former 3D FX shareholder, I can guarantee you it is not.
When you sell a company, you're also selling the "good will" and other value inertia things like brand familiarity, the value that will come from having the company in the future, etc.
These days it is often far dumber than that. Unless a company is paying a dividend, the only value you have is what someone else is willing to pay for it. In the age of worshiping the Almighty Growth, dividend payouts are more scarce than they once were and you can't expect a fledgling company will ever pay out. Stocks like that are little more than trading cards. It's just a popularity contest slightly regulated by supply. Actual earnings reports in these cases are only meaningful in the sense that people make buying decisions based on them, but with them having no direct impact on actual value.
The example of theft of service is a stretch for this case. In all of the examples given on Wikipedia for theft of service, real resources were consumed in a manner that is not replacable. In the case of copying data, the most you suggest is that he was stealing his own time on the clock. But there is absolutely no precedent to allow for that.
If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
ISPs are already not classified as common carriers. That's why this whole debacle is even being discussed. The most obvious solution is for the FCC to classify them as the common carriers that they are.
I imagine that much of the water used to grow anything out here us lost through evaporation. This is why I stopped trying to go a patio garden. I just could not justify the level of wasted water that was going into it when we have such a short supply.
It could certainly change the dynamic to have more than two parties in office. But I can't imagine getting a third party in office would come without generational change. Even when there are third parties on the ballot, there is a perception that it is a wasted vote, so people don't bother. Campaign financing and access to the major privately funded public debates is a big part of the issue. When Perot had both, he demonstrated what was possible. But funding is a serious problem and since debates are privately sponsored, the government can't force candidate inclusion.
Maybe I am too dire on the situation. But forced run off elections and guaranteed ballot inclusion don't really go very far to promote change. Money is the problem. And now with corporations opening their pockets to candidates and parties more than ever, the problem seems to be worse than it ever has been.
The real reason moderates have been tossed aside is because it is a lot more expensive to campaign to them. All politicians have figured out that it is much more cost effective to divide people into an us vs them mentality and drive them to the polls through fear. You will no longer find many successful candidates who campaign to the middle because it just requires too much damn money. How can you compete when your opponent can spend orders of magnitude less per vote that you can trying to run a sensible campaign? The only long term solution is to raise children to think independently and to have enough emotional maturity to break away from the group when it goes insane. Hopefully over time the middle can be strengthened to the point of making FUD campaigns not cost effective any more. It doesn't look too though because even if the "independent" vote is growing, I see no evidence that they do not fall into a right or left camp.
He said should. I have to agree with his sentiment. When people go into prison, they spend years learning from the worst of society. When they get out, no one will hire them for a serious job with their record. So when you put people in prison who are not dangerous, you are consciously deciding to transform them into a dangerous person. This is about as counter productive of a justice system as you can get.
Sounds like you are at a company that probably values longevity of employment. Problem is there is a growing trend of companies that do not value long employment and drop their employees at a moments notice when the annual financials don't meet guidance. Consequently, us younger folk have no notion of company loyalty in us and will jump ship as soon as we get offered something better. Eventually you get to a point where you have moved up too high and are too old. You either find one of the rare senior positions, or you drop out once your employer spits you out.
Why isn't there a push to bring in the foreign doctors?
Bad example. There is a push, but we're looking at pure protectionism. Doctors have the AMA guild with enough money to make it near impossible for a doctor without an MD from a US institution to get a license to practice medicine in the US. You could be a naturalized citizen with a MD from a top British med school and have no hope of ever practicing medicine in theUS without going back to school.
I have never seen a company have a problem getting an H1B visa for a highly skilled worker. Sometimes it takes a year, but I have never seen a company acting in good faith (paying very well for a unique relevant background) have trouble with this.
I don't understand. You point out that if companies just wanted cheap labor, they would outsource. But then you go on to point out exactly why you frequently would not want to outsource. But you use both to explain why cost of labor is probably not the issue?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, it would be next to impossible to have a free market on cable TV. Distribution is the first big problem that is frequently discussed here. I don't want a ton of cable companies running their lines in front of my house. One I'd more than enough. Also, there is likely a very big cost of operation barrier since every new competitor needs to drop a huge investment in infrastructure to grab a fraction of the already saturated market. Sure there are cases where governments have explicitly stopped local governments from installing a competing service, but this is not common.
But the bigger problem now is the whole industry model. No ala cart pricing, and limited streaming. This spits in the face of market realities. I can't stomach paying for sports channels I will never watch and consider blocking in my household. Not to mention all the other trash channels I never watch. I am happy to pay a premium for only the channels I want, but this is not an option. On top of that, I want to watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it. This is why I ditched cable for a combination of roku, Amazon Prime, and Netflix. I am happy to pay for the shows I want to watch on Amazon Prime. I watch more TV than ever before and I pay a lot less for it.
For a service that I used only a handful of times a week, the straw the brolemthe camel's back for me was the automatic rate increase every year until you call to complain. That's just abusive and degrading. I don't want to haggle for my service. Offer me a price that is fair to both of us and make it the same for all customers with the same service. Allowing me to haggle just means you don't value my time.
Whether the consumer pays directly the entire cost of the panel, or pays indirectly through taxes, it still means we're paying more, a net loss to society.
How so? A net loss to the consumer sure. But to society? That's a stretch. You would need to assess the supplier chain to find out where all of that money ends up to make that determination. You can bet if you buy foreign made panels, almost all of that money is leaving society. If you're paying a premium for locally made panels, I would at least be willing to take the gamble that the majority of that money stays within our society.
At best it's a couple of dozen people working in the back office and some techs to walk around and monitor the automated plant.
Yeah, just look at all those technicians sitting around in a back room. I think you're mistaking the unibody assemby as representing the assembly of the entire car. It's standard for that to be mostly automated because of all the welding. But after it's painted, assembly is still mostly a well choreographed manual exercise. It just doesn't look as sexy on TV because people don't appreciate the organizational precision involved.
More like we're just at the end of our rope. At some point, when your neighbor won't stop peaking in your house, you either completely wall yourself off from the world or you say screw it and walk around in your skivvies all day and say 'enjoy the show'. At least in the later you don't have to lose out.
The most logical thing to do is, get the best education you can, and work your way up the food chain.
Really? My conclusion is that I should just leave this absurd place and go home where people are a touch more reasonable on the whole.
I don't know if that is true or not. Since I moved to Southern California, it has occurred to me that if I had a kid, I don't know what kind of menial summer job they could get. The things I used to do are just not options for a kid here. Cut grass? That is already dominated by day laborers and professional get ups. Flip burgers? I do see some younger people doing that but it appears to be far more dominated by adults than where I grew up. Paper delivery routes are done by adults. Hell even picking up dog poop is a job for the career man out here. There does not seem to be much left for a young teenager.
I mean, the reason I buy such a company is because it works and because keeping up with our economic system essentially depends upon participating in the system. It's lower risk gambling. The few companies I have invested in that pay good dividends always give me bigger headaches come tax time than its worth.
Why is that dumb? That's true of ANY asset.
Not true. My car has tangible value. My house has tangible value. My furniture has tangible value. My stocks do not have tangible value except for the dividends they pay me. Cash is the only value I receive from a stock, and if its not coming from the company, the company is not actually creating value for me. The value becomes more like a collectable.
In fact even if they are paying a dividend all the company is doing is transferring money to you that you already own as a shareholder.
Cash can buy me tangible value. I have to trade stocks for cash before they can be used to buy tangible value.
A dividend pay out implies that the company does not believe that it has investment opportunities available to it that would outperform those available to the shareholder.
That implies that stock value is directly related to the real value of a company. It is not. As a former 3D FX shareholder, I can guarantee you it is not.
When you sell a company, you're also selling the "good will" and other value inertia things like brand familiarity, the value that will come from having the company in the future, etc.
These days it is often far dumber than that. Unless a company is paying a dividend, the only value you have is what someone else is willing to pay for it. In the age of worshiping the Almighty Growth, dividend payouts are more scarce than they once were and you can't expect a fledgling company will ever pay out. Stocks like that are little more than trading cards. It's just a popularity contest slightly regulated by supply. Actual earnings reports in these cases are only meaningful in the sense that people make buying decisions based on them, but with them having no direct impact on actual value.
The example of theft of service is a stretch for this case. In all of the examples given on Wikipedia for theft of service, real resources were consumed in a manner that is not replacable. In the case of copying data, the most you suggest is that he was stealing his own time on the clock. But there is absolutely no precedent to allow for that.
If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
ISPs are already not classified as common carriers. That's why this whole debacle is even being discussed. The most obvious solution is for the FCC to classify them as the common carriers that they are.
Most amusing to me is that every time I hear about this so called "entitlement generation" it is usually from a privileged and entitled baby boomer.
Our politicians would certainly like you to think so.
I imagine that much of the water used to grow anything out here us lost through evaporation. This is why I stopped trying to go a patio garden. I just could not justify the level of wasted water that was going into it when we have such a short supply.
It could certainly change the dynamic to have more than two parties in office. But I can't imagine getting a third party in office would come without generational change. Even when there are third parties on the ballot, there is a perception that it is a wasted vote, so people don't bother. Campaign financing and access to the major privately funded public debates is a big part of the issue. When Perot had both, he demonstrated what was possible. But funding is a serious problem and since debates are privately sponsored, the government can't force candidate inclusion. Maybe I am too dire on the situation. But forced run off elections and guaranteed ballot inclusion don't really go very far to promote change. Money is the problem. And now with corporations opening their pockets to candidates and parties more than ever, the problem seems to be worse than it ever has been.
The real reason moderates have been tossed aside is because it is a lot more expensive to campaign to them. All politicians have figured out that it is much more cost effective to divide people into an us vs them mentality and drive them to the polls through fear. You will no longer find many successful candidates who campaign to the middle because it just requires too much damn money. How can you compete when your opponent can spend orders of magnitude less per vote that you can trying to run a sensible campaign? The only long term solution is to raise children to think independently and to have enough emotional maturity to break away from the group when it goes insane. Hopefully over time the middle can be strengthened to the point of making FUD campaigns not cost effective any more. It doesn't look too though because even if the "independent" vote is growing, I see no evidence that they do not fall into a right or left camp.
Prison is also supposed to be for punishment.
He said should. I have to agree with his sentiment. When people go into prison, they spend years learning from the worst of society. When they get out, no one will hire them for a serious job with their record. So when you put people in prison who are not dangerous, you are consciously deciding to transform them into a dangerous person. This is about as counter productive of a justice system as you can get.
I pay property taxes on my car, lawnmower, tractor, etc,
Where the hell do you live that you need to pay property taxes on a lawnmower?
You can't seriously think large corporations like that don't run such ideas through their legal advisors.
That's new? Where have you been?
Sounds like you are at a company that probably values longevity of employment. Problem is there is a growing trend of companies that do not value long employment and drop their employees at a moments notice when the annual financials don't meet guidance. Consequently, us younger folk have no notion of company loyalty in us and will jump ship as soon as we get offered something better. Eventually you get to a point where you have moved up too high and are too old. You either find one of the rare senior positions, or you drop out once your employer spits you out.
Why isn't there a push to bring in the foreign doctors?
Bad example. There is a push, but we're looking at pure protectionism. Doctors have the AMA guild with enough money to make it near impossible for a doctor without an MD from a US institution to get a license to practice medicine in the US. You could be a naturalized citizen with a MD from a top British med school and have no hope of ever practicing medicine in theUS without going back to school.
I have never seen a company have a problem getting an H1B visa for a highly skilled worker. Sometimes it takes a year, but I have never seen a company acting in good faith (paying very well for a unique relevant background) have trouble with this.
I don't understand. You point out that if companies just wanted cheap labor, they would outsource. But then you go on to point out exactly why you frequently would not want to outsource. But you use both to explain why cost of labor is probably not the issue?