Actually we kind of do. In fact there is a whole bonus fun round.
Repeatedly exposing viruses or bacteria to vaccinated people can act just like half treating a disease with antibiotics.
It is very unlike a disease might mutate to overcome a particular vaccine in a non vaccinated population. In fact it may well be impossible, as a gross rule of thumb defenses against an attack an organism won't ever be exposed to is often a genuine evolutionary detriment.
However repeatedly exposing vaccinated people is an open invitation to some mutations getting around the vaccine. Don't some diseases today have different strains requiring different vaccines? So in fact separating vaccinated and unvaccinated populations will help prevent spread of disease and limit mutations.
The health community has focused, because it helps compliance, on personal benefits of vaccinations. But to an extent I think we may have failed to properly communicate the social importance of vaccinations above and beyond the personal, and I hate to say some of the evidence is here in the forum where the assumption is vaccinations are a perfect personal defense. They most assuredly are not, even if they are very good in most cases.
How so? Actually if vaccinations did confer lifelong and perfect immunity I wouldn't care as much, it is precisely because they don't that I am so worried.
Look at it this way, there are several diseases we have effectively eradicated because of public vaccination policies. But in some cases these have become political footballs in a nation, for various reasons, and eradication has stalled. I know we all like to have personal choice and hate it when we are made to do something, but this IS one of those things people really need to be made to do. (of course you catch more flies with honey, but have no doubt about the end goal!)
And yes, as policy I don't mind telling people if they must insist on not vaccinating their kid, maybe those kids ought go to a school of likeminded parents.
...so long as you keep the little plague bearers quarantined away from me and mine.
Vaccines are science, if you think they are causing health issues use real science, not a personal feeling. This issue is MUCH bigger than a simple personal choice.
For real, so much of this brain research stuff it scary as heck to me. Even the so called ethical uses seem pretty creepy.
There was another research piece where they could associate negative or positive emotions with memories artificially. Some genius though it might be a way to fight PTSD, except I think he kind of overlooked the possible side effect associating positive emotions with death and carnage.
I am more worried about Apple than Microsoft
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 1
Really, break up Microsoft so they can be more like who exactly?
Microsoft has so many products and services it can easily survive for a long time, a-la IBM. Remember IBM, funny how no one is talking about them, yet they are second in value to Apple, and probably have the most employees.
Microsoft does have a choice to make, do they want to focus on service like IBM or focus on innovation like Google. But they can do either they choose. A generic "good" CEO can certainly take them down the IBM path.
Apple however has a very narrow focus. It well suited Job's hands on style, but without another Steve Job's they need to undergo a massive restructure or failure. Buy hey, keep thinking MS is doomed and sell all your shares now, I am always looking for a bargain.
That would not explain the rise in upper management salaries, are the CEOs getting smarter and everyone else getting dumber? Also why are there so many unemployed or underemployed, all dumb also?
Or to put it another way, why are so many people underutilized? Sounds like a failure in the free market system to me. Justifications like yours are common, but there is every reason to believe empowered individuals are just manipulating the system to increase economic rent.
Forgive my rhetoric, I am understating the obvious on purpose.
But in a way, yes I am waiting on proof. On the one hand I do not really expect every job to perfectly reflect social demographics, but on the other hand when you start getting above 90% without an obvious reason why, you can not help but wonder. I mean, sure, I can figure out why NFL players are all male, but lots of other careers probably should not be stacked quite as heavily as they are. There could be a perfectly valid reason why, but it is worth asking, after all you actually want to get the best candidates and you do not want to unintentionally discourage people with potential.
Or to put is another way, if you get a really heavy skew you can not help but wonder if you are missing out on some people who really could have been very good.
Once you have examined your process and verified that you are not creating a bias, again to make sure you are really pulling from the whole potential pools, then fine accept the disparity. However, that does not mean you should not look at your process at all.
But attempting to get more women in job A will not work unless you also attempt to attract more men to job B. I do think that once you try to do this in an honest way you will learn that you will never get all jobs to perfectly reflect demographics, but at the same time you can still maximize the potential good candidates for each field.
That is the insidious part, if we really did value all work, it wouldn't matter. The whole way the framework is set up justifies some jobs being relegated as second class.
I don't mean for everyone to make the same, but I DO have a hard time believing one job at a company really contributes 10 -100 times the value another job does. Or to put it another way, why do be so underutilize workers as to need to pay some so little? I suspect is has less to do with how much upper management adds vs. the reality that they get to set the pay scales, aka institutional power.
But on subject, I do in fact suspect different people have different interests and abilities.
One great irony is the issue itself is framed in a paradoxically sexist manner. In a real way, the issue is not just why are women underrepresented in various technical/scientific fields, but also why are they over represented in others. More women are going to college after all.
Really, one way to get more women into technical fields is to get more men to go into non-technical ones, the story really should be why do men and women keep taking the degrees in different areas. If a girl needs to be able to dream of being a scientist I suppose a boy needs to be able to dream of being any number of female dominated educated professions. This is two sides of the same coin and each directly affect the other. Plus it may have the benefit of getting more men into college, something we need to do, by opening up more and different opportunities for them.
I know technical jobs often pay very well, but to an extent focusing on traditional male jobs as being the "good" jobs if anything justifies them having the better salary. So in a way the argument is framed undermines itself!
After all, you can not really argue that, women are just a good at everything as men, but at the same time believe, but they are better at the following things.
Here is what I think is going on. Food and exercise do matter, but because of secondary effects, not primary thermodynamics.
It is way too obvious it isn't as simple as eating less, the amount of extra food you need to consume or not consume each day is FAR too small. It is basically one mouthful of food, or less maybe? If it was that simple, you could lose insane amounts of weight by not eating for a day or too.
However your hormones and body systems control your appetite and how the energy is stored, used and consumed. What I believe is exercise and nutrition have more to do with keeping your body systems in balance as opposed to a simple calorie count. Say for example your body needs so much of each vitamin, you have to keep processing food until the amount needed has been reached, at the point you can safely poop away the rest. I know that is oversimplified but I believe, admittedly without a through scientific study, that is closer to what is going on.
That is why chemicals, which mess with your body chemistry, can cause dramatic weight gain or loss. But of intentionally messing with your body chemistry is dangerous.
Personal experience, when I had a Japanese girl friend who cooked for me, I lost a lot of weight. But I was eating very different kinds of things, I didn't even have to think about controlling my appetite, it just happened.
Well, there IS more than one branch of government. Morsi also started dismissing and overriding the Judiciary unilaterally. He may have felt he has the power to do so under the new powers he granted himself, but that doesnâ(TM)t mean he legally did.
Basic lesson, 51% of the vote should not mean you get 100% of what you want. All well-functioning democracies have protections for the minority.
The brilliance of Steve Jobs, was this. He always brought only fully working and desirable products to market and did so first, in his later years anyway. It was not about the coolest new tech, or the shiniest design. His products had those elements, but before the consumer got the product, it was functional and desirable in all ways, well given the technology of the time. So yes another product might be faster, another might be shinier or another have a cooler feature, but Apples products were always winners in all categories (except price of course).
He also got why the product really was desirable in the first place, how people would want and need to use it. This helped him immensely in making good products.
That is why Apple controlled itsproducts so tightly, they did not want you to look behind the curtain see what all it could not do, they only wanted you see what it did do. So if you had the money, you always knew you could buy an Apple product and walk away happy with the latest gadget.
Also that is why he focused on so few products. Building one great product is costly, another leader might not be able to have the same discipline and vision. If they can't find the right person, Apple will have to chance.
FYI, I am not a fanboy and have not bought Apple products after my fist Mac years ago. But I always understood why they were desirable to people, I just never wanted to pay first adopter premiums.
Well, I was about to go there myself. If you set the bar high enough, there are very few classics. So if you are going to say the Hobbit and LoTRs are not classics, then fine, bur a rose by any other name... well they are still great books.
Still I have to take issue with Gilgamesh, it is more interesting for historical reasons than quality. There is a reason the Odyssey keeps getting remade and adapted WAY more often than Gilgamesh! (and that reason is not everyone is stupid)
So, Harry Potter is not the Odyssey or Romeo and Juliet, but what is? I guess it makes me respect Shakespeare all the more. Who else has written so much still widely read today! Now I get why people keep thinking he could not really have done all that by himself.
But Luck makes you a superstar. J.K.R. is certainly talented, no doubt (no book I wrote would get even 1,500 people to buy it!), but there are lots of talented people. Too many for the average person to keep track of, in fact too many for experts in most cases. There are thousands, maybe millions of great works of art I will never have time to appreciate.
Also, there is a certain amount of luck in creating a classic. The number of artists who can create more than one true classic is extraordinarily rare! Even the best have many mediocre works besides their great ones, if you want to produce more than once classic it requires an insane amount of dedication and time devoted to it along with accepting that most of your work will not really be great.
Yes, no, maybe. First if you really think he is the worst president, you should study history more. Objectively he did leave the country is better shape than he found it (note growth early in Reagan first term), doing the right thing for its own sake does have some rewards.
But it is really a story about people and our inability to accept the right thing to simply because it is right. A leader has to understand this, but you have no consentience if you don't aspire for it to be otherwise.
No President is better described by those words than Jimmy Carter. He really has been a good person to a fault.
One of the criticism I most remember about him was his selling the Presidential Yacht. He did so to try to set an example of austerity, and of course save money. But he was criticized, perhaps justly, because that yacht had been one of the better tools for the President to influence congress. Apparently it was a big deal to get invited on a yachting day with the President and all that one on one time would allow the President to influence votes.
Carter however felt that Congress should just vote for things because they were right. He was always trying to appeal to the better part of human nature. In some ways Obama is similar, he doesn't really schmooze with congress well, certainly not in the way Ron, George, Bill and George did!
I have come to feel we get the leaders we deserve all too often.
Ha, China literally invented bureaucratic gridlock, they got it shortly after the invention of paper. China has a long an proud history of bureaucracy that the rest of the world is trying to emulate. Franks Kafka was a noob by comparison. But we are catching up.
I administer mail servers also and every time the subject comes up I warn everyone that the communications on the server can and likely will be searched by some disclosure request. I also warn them not to take laptops to other countries, I warn them about attaching security systems to the corporate network. Frankly I am a giant pill.
I too try to do my job in a trustworthy manner.
I guess I don't really trust any government, or company or independent hacker. Or maybe I trust them to do exactly what I think they are doing.
I want transparency in government, but as of right now I don't consider the Internet secure and am certain all nations are doing many of the same things.
Let me try it this way, do you have any issue with any government or organization developing intrusive hacking tools, or just that you lack oversight in what they are doing? (of course we both know there will be a limited number of organizations you will be allowed oversight into).
But I am not pushing it as the new normal but stating that it is in fact the old normal with new technology. Nations are doing to new data services exactly what they have been doing to old data services. And I am sure it has been my turn all along.
I imagine that in theory there would be a way to objectively measure which country is the biggest bully in espionage. But it is kind of hard to measure since so much of it is secret. Doesn't China load spyware on computers that come through customs? Doesn't Russia still bug rooms is major hotels? I don't think any of us really know for sure how obnoxious each country really is (gauge Putin's reaction to Snowden to understand how shocking he considers these revelations are!)
Still you didn't really answer the important question. How do you get any country to stop unilaterally? Why would they?
More importantly, what kind of spying is fair or OK, what is not? Are the actions of Anonymous fair or just? Large Corporations? Small businesses? Independent Hackers? Are you sure you have thought this through?
Don't kid yourself. Of course the richest and possibly most technically advanced nation also as the biggest and most technically advance tech spying program.
But don't doubt for once instant that every Nation of any aspirations is doing this kind of stuff. No intelligence agency on the planet, none, zero, has any qualms about spying on anyone through the Internet (outside some extremely close allies with information sharing agreements). Local laws may protect their own citizens a little bit, but that is all.
I truly wish it were not the case, but I see no way to stop it right now. So the real question people need to answer is this, âoewhy should we refrain from spying, information gathering, when no one else is?â. Until there is some agreements and oversight, there will be no change..
It isn't as strait forward as that however. It is true an employer can't afford to pay more for labor than the competition, however when everyone pays the same thing, the price of the service simply adjusts.
More importantly, jobs really have more to do with customers than employers. Employers do have an effect on job creation, but no good employer hires anyone not actually needed to fulfill customer demand. At the end of the day we are a consumption based economy, all that really means is if no one is buying chairs, no one will be making chairs.
There is every reason to believe that the downward pressure on employee (consumer) wages has been hurting our economy and causing asset investment bubbles. An economy can have too little investment capital, but typically you would not expect asset bubbles to form under those circumstances. Asset bubbles are too many investment dollars chasing too few good investments, aka real consumption.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually we kind of do. In fact there is a whole bonus fun round.
Repeatedly exposing viruses or bacteria to vaccinated people can act just like half treating a disease with antibiotics.
It is very unlike a disease might mutate to overcome a particular vaccine in a non vaccinated population. In fact it may well be impossible, as a gross rule of thumb defenses against an attack an organism won't ever be exposed to is often a genuine evolutionary detriment.
However repeatedly exposing vaccinated people is an open invitation to some mutations getting around the vaccine. Don't some diseases today have different strains requiring different vaccines? So in fact separating vaccinated and unvaccinated populations will help prevent spread of disease and limit mutations.
The health community has focused, because it helps compliance, on personal benefits of vaccinations. But to an extent I think we may have failed to properly communicate the social importance of vaccinations above and beyond the personal, and I hate to say some of the evidence is here in the forum where the assumption is vaccinations are a perfect personal defense. They most assuredly are not, even if they are very good in most cases.
Also I have to add, there are some people who really can not have the vaccine for legitimate reasons. Should these kids be quarantined instead?
The goal should not just be control, but eradication of these diseases. There is a greater public goal involved.
How so? Actually if vaccinations did confer lifelong and perfect immunity I wouldn't care as much, it is precisely because they don't that I am so worried.
Look at it this way, there are several diseases we have effectively eradicated because of public vaccination policies. But in some cases these have become political footballs in a nation, for various reasons, and eradication has stalled. I know we all like to have personal choice and hate it when we are made to do something, but this IS one of those things people really need to be made to do. (of course you catch more flies with honey, but have no doubt about the end goal!)
And yes, as policy I don't mind telling people if they must insist on not vaccinating their kid, maybe those kids ought go to a school of likeminded parents.
...so long as you keep the little plague bearers quarantined away from me and mine.
Vaccines are science, if you think they are causing health issues use real science, not a personal feeling. This issue is MUCH bigger than a simple personal choice.
For real, so much of this brain research stuff it scary as heck to me. Even the so called ethical uses seem pretty creepy.
There was another research piece where they could associate negative or positive emotions with memories artificially. Some genius though it might be a way to fight PTSD, except I think he kind of overlooked the possible side effect associating positive emotions with death and carnage.
Really, break up Microsoft so they can be more like who exactly?
Microsoft has so many products and services it can easily survive for a long time, a-la IBM. Remember IBM, funny how no one is talking about them, yet they are second in value to Apple, and probably have the most employees.
Microsoft does have a choice to make, do they want to focus on service like IBM or focus on innovation like Google. But they can do either they choose. A generic "good" CEO can certainly take them down the IBM path.
Apple however has a very narrow focus. It well suited Job's hands on style, but without another Steve Job's they need to undergo a massive restructure or failure. Buy hey, keep thinking MS is doomed and sell all your shares now, I am always looking for a bargain.
LOL, assuming you are not trolling. No.
That would not explain the rise in upper management salaries, are the CEOs getting smarter and everyone else getting dumber? Also why are there so many unemployed or underemployed, all dumb also?
Or to put it another way, why are so many people underutilized? Sounds like a failure in the free market system to me. Justifications like yours are common, but there is every reason to believe empowered individuals are just manipulating the system to increase economic rent.
Forgive my rhetoric, I am understating the obvious on purpose.
But in a way, yes I am waiting on proof. On the one hand I do not really expect every job to perfectly reflect social demographics, but on the other hand when you start getting above 90% without an obvious reason why, you can not help but wonder. I mean, sure, I can figure out why NFL players are all male, but lots of other careers probably should not be stacked quite as heavily as they are. There could be a perfectly valid reason why, but it is worth asking, after all you actually want to get the best candidates and you do not want to unintentionally discourage people with potential.
Or to put is another way, if you get a really heavy skew you can not help but wonder if you are missing out on some people who really could have been very good.
Once you have examined your process and verified that you are not creating a bias, again to make sure you are really pulling from the whole potential pools, then fine accept the disparity. However, that does not mean you should not look at your process at all.
But attempting to get more women in job A will not work unless you also attempt to attract more men to job B. I do think that once you try to do this in an honest way you will learn that you will never get all jobs to perfectly reflect demographics, but at the same time you can still maximize the potential good candidates for each field.
That is the insidious part, if we really did value all work, it wouldn't matter. The whole way the framework is set up justifies some jobs being relegated as second class.
I don't mean for everyone to make the same, but I DO have a hard time believing one job at a company really contributes 10 -100 times the value another job does. Or to put it another way, why do be so underutilize workers as to need to pay some so little? I suspect is has less to do with how much upper management adds vs. the reality that they get to set the pay scales, aka institutional power.
But on subject, I do in fact suspect different people have different interests and abilities.
One great irony is the issue itself is framed in a paradoxically sexist manner. In a real way, the issue is not just why are women underrepresented in various technical/scientific fields, but also why are they over represented in others. More women are going to college after all.
Really, one way to get more women into technical fields is to get more men to go into non-technical ones, the story really should be why do men and women keep taking the degrees in different areas. If a girl needs to be able to dream of being a scientist I suppose a boy needs to be able to dream of being any number of female dominated educated professions. This is two sides of the same coin and each directly affect the other. Plus it may have the benefit of getting more men into college, something we need to do, by opening up more and different opportunities for them.
I know technical jobs often pay very well, but to an extent focusing on traditional male jobs as being the "good" jobs if anything justifies them having the better salary. So in a way the argument is framed undermines itself!
After all, you can not really argue that, women are just a good at everything as men, but at the same time believe, but they are better at the following things.
Here is what I think is going on. Food and exercise do matter, but because of secondary effects, not primary thermodynamics.
It is way too obvious it isn't as simple as eating less, the amount of extra food you need to consume or not consume each day is FAR too small. It is basically one mouthful of food, or less maybe? If it was that simple, you could lose insane amounts of weight by not eating for a day or too.
However your hormones and body systems control your appetite and how the energy is stored, used and consumed. What I believe is exercise and nutrition have more to do with keeping your body systems in balance as opposed to a simple calorie count. Say for example your body needs so much of each vitamin, you have to keep processing food until the amount needed has been reached, at the point you can safely poop away the rest. I know that is oversimplified but I believe, admittedly without a through scientific study, that is closer to what is going on.
That is why chemicals, which mess with your body chemistry, can cause dramatic weight gain or loss. But of intentionally messing with your body chemistry is dangerous.
Personal experience, when I had a Japanese girl friend who cooked for me, I lost a lot of weight. But I was eating very different kinds of things, I didn't even have to think about controlling my appetite, it just happened.
Well, there IS more than one branch of government. Morsi also started dismissing and overriding the Judiciary unilaterally. He may have felt he has the power to do so under the new powers he granted himself, but that doesnâ(TM)t mean he legally did.
Basic lesson, 51% of the vote should not mean you get 100% of what you want. All well-functioning democracies have protections for the minority.
The brilliance of Steve Jobs, was this. He always brought only fully working and desirable products to market and did so first, in his later years anyway. It was not about the coolest new tech, or the shiniest design. His products had those elements, but before the consumer got the product, it was functional and desirable in all ways, well given the technology of the time. So yes another product might be faster, another might be shinier or another have a cooler feature, but Apples products were always winners in all categories (except price of course).
He also got why the product really was desirable in the first place, how people would want and need to use it. This helped him immensely in making good products.
That is why Apple controlled itsproducts so tightly, they did not want you to look behind the curtain see what all it could not do, they only wanted you see what it did do. So if you had the money, you always knew you could buy an Apple product and walk away happy with the latest gadget.
Also that is why he focused on so few products. Building one great product is costly, another leader might not be able to have the same discipline and vision. If they can't find the right person, Apple will have to chance.
FYI, I am not a fanboy and have not bought Apple products after my fist Mac years ago. But I always understood why they were desirable to people, I just never wanted to pay first adopter premiums.
Well, I was about to go there myself. If you set the bar high enough, there are very few classics. So if you are going to say the Hobbit and LoTRs are not classics, then fine, bur a rose by any other name... well they are still great books.
Still I have to take issue with Gilgamesh, it is more interesting for historical reasons than quality. There is a reason the Odyssey keeps getting remade and adapted WAY more often than Gilgamesh! (and that reason is not everyone is stupid)
So, Harry Potter is not the Odyssey or Romeo and Juliet, but what is? I guess it makes me respect Shakespeare all the more. Who else has written so much still widely read today! Now I get why people keep thinking he could not really have done all that by himself.
That's a bit too harsh, but if you had said Hunger Games, Interview with a Vampire or The Borrowers you might have been in the right neighborhood.
As is your are just being cruel!
But Luck makes you a superstar. J.K.R. is certainly talented, no doubt (no book I wrote would get even 1,500 people to buy it!), but there are lots of talented people. Too many for the average person to keep track of, in fact too many for experts in most cases. There are thousands, maybe millions of great works of art I will never have time to appreciate.
Also, there is a certain amount of luck in creating a classic. The number of artists who can create more than one true classic is extraordinarily rare! Even the best have many mediocre works besides their great ones, if you want to produce more than once classic it requires an insane amount of dedication and time devoted to it along with accepting that most of your work will not really be great.
Yes, no, maybe. First if you really think he is the worst president, you should study history more. Objectively he did leave the country is better shape than he found it (note growth early in Reagan first term), doing the right thing for its own sake does have some rewards.
But it is really a story about people and our inability to accept the right thing to simply because it is right. A leader has to understand this, but you have no consentience if you don't aspire for it to be otherwise.
No President is better described by those words than Jimmy Carter. He really has been a good person to a fault.
One of the criticism I most remember about him was his selling the Presidential Yacht. He did so to try to set an example of austerity, and of course save money. But he was criticized, perhaps justly, because that yacht had been one of the better tools for the President to influence congress. Apparently it was a big deal to get invited on a yachting day with the President and all that one on one time would allow the President to influence votes.
Carter however felt that Congress should just vote for things because they were right. He was always trying to appeal to the better part of human nature. In some ways Obama is similar, he doesn't really schmooze with congress well, certainly not in the way Ron, George, Bill and George did!
I have come to feel we get the leaders we deserve all too often.
Ha, China literally invented bureaucratic gridlock, they got it shortly after the invention of paper. China has a long an proud history of bureaucracy that the rest of the world is trying to emulate. Franks Kafka was a noob by comparison. But we are catching up.
I administer mail servers also and every time the subject comes up I warn everyone that the communications on the server can and likely will be searched by some disclosure request. I also warn them not to take laptops to other countries, I warn them about attaching security systems to the corporate network. Frankly I am a giant pill.
I too try to do my job in a trustworthy manner.
I guess I don't really trust any government, or company or independent hacker. Or maybe I trust them to do exactly what I think they are doing.
I want transparency in government, but as of right now I don't consider the Internet secure and am certain all nations are doing many of the same things.
Let me try it this way, do you have any issue with any government or organization developing intrusive hacking tools, or just that you lack oversight in what they are doing? (of course we both know there will be a limited number of organizations you will be allowed oversight into).
But I am not pushing it as the new normal but stating that it is in fact the old normal with new technology. Nations are doing to new data services exactly what they have been doing to old data services. And I am sure it has been my turn all along.
I imagine that in theory there would be a way to objectively measure which country is the biggest bully in espionage. But it is kind of hard to measure since so much of it is secret. Doesn't China load spyware on computers that come through customs? Doesn't Russia still bug rooms is major hotels? I don't think any of us really know for sure how obnoxious each country really is (gauge Putin's reaction to Snowden to understand how shocking he considers these revelations are!)
Still you didn't really answer the important question. How do you get any country to stop unilaterally? Why would they?
More importantly, what kind of spying is fair or OK, what is not? Are the actions of Anonymous fair or just? Large Corporations? Small businesses? Independent Hackers? Are you sure you have thought this through?
Don't kid yourself. Of course the richest and possibly most technically advanced nation also as the biggest and most technically advance tech spying program.
But don't doubt for once instant that every Nation of any aspirations is doing this kind of stuff. No intelligence agency on the planet, none, zero, has any qualms about spying on anyone through the Internet (outside some extremely close allies with information sharing agreements). Local laws may protect their own citizens a little bit, but that is all.
I truly wish it were not the case, but I see no way to stop it right now. So the real question people need to answer is this, âoewhy should we refrain from spying, information gathering, when no one else is?â. Until there is some agreements and oversight, there will be no change..
It isn't as strait forward as that however. It is true an employer can't afford to pay more for labor than the competition, however when everyone pays the same thing, the price of the service simply adjusts.
More importantly, jobs really have more to do with customers than employers. Employers do have an effect on job creation, but no good employer hires anyone not actually needed to fulfill customer demand. At the end of the day we are a consumption based economy, all that really means is if no one is buying chairs, no one will be making chairs.
There is every reason to believe that the downward pressure on employee (consumer) wages has been hurting our economy and causing asset investment bubbles. An economy can have too little investment capital, but typically you would not expect asset bubbles to form under those circumstances. Asset bubbles are too many investment dollars chasing too few good investments, aka real consumption.
I just might have a few of these products at my workplace. Are there really backdoors or are the Chinese just paranoid?
Of course I was speaking internationally, but still your post is very interesting. I didn't know England had a domestic definition.
Do you know if the U.S. has one as well?