Where are you at, though? I would imagine your cost of living is far higher than his is. And as you said, that number doesn't cover your healthcare, nor your retirement.
Adjust cost of living from Silicon Valley to where he is. The main reason why salaries are so high in Silicon Valley is because it costs so much to live there. Either you pay completely out the ass for housing, or you're commuting for 2+ hours a day.
As for overtime here in the U.S. it might suck for employers but it works GREAT for my paycheck. I love the extra money overtime gives me (although it's actually straight time it still is nice to have the extra cash).
The problem is, the vast majority of people here, those on salary, do NOT get paid for their overtime. Meaning that they're working for free.
Tell me, though: If you can work those 70+ hour weeks, or really, anything over 40, why shouldn't you be getting paid for it? Why should we have to work those overtime hours for free?
No, Tort Reform is not to stop accountability for mistakes
Yes, it is.
It is to stop people from suing when an operation goes wrong even though the doctor did everything correctly and the patient was made well aware of the risk.
And how do you know this happened unless there is a fact finding operation, like in a court of law? Are we supposed to take the doctor's word for it?
But if you were made aware of the risks, and you accepted the risk, and your body just didn't respond well to the procedure, then that is not something you get a big payday for, it just sucks to be you.
Again, how do you know it was the operation, and not something the doctor did?
And that "sucks to be you" attitude is why no one takes libertarians seriously.
Sounds like that company is managed by completely incompetent buffoons, and anyone with any sense would get the fuck out of there before your brother gets hit by a bus or something and the company goes to shit.
Apparently saying that one shouldn't live to work, and sacrifice themselves on the altar of capitalism for their company, er, excuse me, Job Creating Overlord, is "lazy" and "entitled".
I would also posit that those who were actually working 60-80 hours a week were either getting paid for it, or had a significant stake in the business. Most people who are simply "at work" for 60-80 hours are not being paid for it, and really have no stake in the business.
He gave the exact same number of citations you did.
The US is one of the few countries, unlike Europe, where social mobility is very possible.
"Possible" it is, but likely it is not. Especially past a certain point.
If anything, being born wealthy makes kids lazy and entitled and lacking in the drive and ambition that drove their parents. Last time I checked, Paris Hilton wasn't on the Forbes 400.
And yet, she's still got far, far more money than most of us that actually have to work. That was a shitty example.
I'm sorry, but the "people choose this kind of work!" bullshit just doesn't fly. I don't care if people are "willing" (false choice, they're not really wanting to do it), that doesn't make it right, nor mean that it should happen.
The June/July period came and went, with no iPhone release, it didn't seem too big a deal but when the iPhone4S eventually came, it came late and was a major dissapointment
A "major disappointment" that happened to sell more units that month than any other smartphone did all year, and became the highest selling smartphone in the world.
The other thing is, Wall Street has been bitching and moaning about offering dividends with that war chest for a long time now. Maybe they just got tired of dealing with it.
Given their massive cash reserves, I don't think this hurts their R&D spending a bit. And sure, they could buy some company, but who?
I like how you simply gloss over the whole, "Did it better than others" as not being innovation. Making things consumer friendly, easy to use like they did is very hard to do. Look at the MP3 players before the iPod came out. They largely all sucked. They had capacities which were measured in MBs, they sounded horrible, and they were difficult to load up and use.
They're also issuing a dividend to shareholders at the same time. Both actions, issuing the dividend and buying back the stock, mean that they will have less cash on hand, making them that much less valuable as a company.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's the most retarded thing I've ever read. And not a bit of it pertains to why people should be worked to death.
Where are you at, though? I would imagine your cost of living is far higher than his is. And as you said, that number doesn't cover your healthcare, nor your retirement.
Adjust cost of living from Silicon Valley to where he is. The main reason why salaries are so high in Silicon Valley is because it costs so much to live there. Either you pay completely out the ass for housing, or you're commuting for 2+ hours a day.
As for overtime here in the U.S. it might suck for employers but it works GREAT for my paycheck. I love the extra money overtime gives me (although it's actually straight time it still is nice to have the extra cash).
The problem is, the vast majority of people here, those on salary, do NOT get paid for their overtime. Meaning that they're working for free.
And that doesn't happen here in the US? How many of us are posting here during work hours?
Ok, but why shouldn't you be getting paid for those extra couple of hours a day?
Tell me, though: If you can work those 70+ hour weeks, or really, anything over 40, why shouldn't you be getting paid for it? Why should we have to work those overtime hours for free?
For how long, though? Eventually you WILL burn out.
No, Tort Reform is not to stop accountability for mistakes
Yes, it is.
It is to stop people from suing when an operation goes wrong even though the doctor did everything correctly and the patient was made well aware of the risk.
And how do you know this happened unless there is a fact finding operation, like in a court of law? Are we supposed to take the doctor's word for it?
But if you were made aware of the risks, and you accepted the risk, and your body just didn't respond well to the procedure, then that is not something you get a big payday for, it just sucks to be you.
Again, how do you know it was the operation, and not something the doctor did?
And that "sucks to be you" attitude is why no one takes libertarians seriously.
Sounds like that company is managed by completely incompetent buffoons, and anyone with any sense would get the fuck out of there before your brother gets hit by a bus or something and the company goes to shit.
Apparently saying that one shouldn't live to work, and sacrifice themselves on the altar of capitalism for their company, er, excuse me, Job Creating Overlord, is "lazy" and "entitled".
Because everyone has that kind of money, right?
I would also posit that those who were actually working 60-80 hours a week were either getting paid for it, or had a significant stake in the business. Most people who are simply "at work" for 60-80 hours are not being paid for it, and really have no stake in the business.
So, your one anecdote is worth more than all of the actual data available on the subject?
You post is utter, citeless bullshit.
He gave the exact same number of citations you did.
The US is one of the few countries, unlike Europe, where social mobility is very possible.
"Possible" it is, but likely it is not. Especially past a certain point.
If anything, being born wealthy makes kids lazy and entitled and lacking in the drive and ambition that drove their parents. Last time I checked, Paris Hilton wasn't on the Forbes 400.
And yet, she's still got far, far more money than most of us that actually have to work. That was a shitty example.
You're assuming that there's any kind of consequences for these CEOs.
I'm sorry, but the "people choose this kind of work!" bullshit just doesn't fly. I don't care if people are "willing" (false choice, they're not really wanting to do it), that doesn't make it right, nor mean that it should happen.
"Our employees are working the weekends; why aren't your employees?"
Because we actually see our employees as people, not as mindless machines.
The June/July period came and went, with no iPhone release, it didn't seem too big a deal but when the iPhone4S eventually came, it came late and was a major dissapointment
A "major disappointment" that happened to sell more units that month than any other smartphone did all year, and became the highest selling smartphone in the world.
No, not in the least. That would be completely orthogonal to why they outsource the manufacture of their products in the first place.
The other thing is, Wall Street has been bitching and moaning about offering dividends with that war chest for a long time now. Maybe they just got tired of dealing with it.
Given their massive cash reserves, I don't think this hurts their R&D spending a bit. And sure, they could buy some company, but who?
I like how you simply gloss over the whole, "Did it better than others" as not being innovation. Making things consumer friendly, easy to use like they did is very hard to do. Look at the MP3 players before the iPod came out. They largely all sucked. They had capacities which were measured in MBs, they sounded horrible, and they were difficult to load up and use.
Or he simply got tired of all the bitching from the Wall Street people about not offering dividends.
They're also issuing a dividend to shareholders at the same time. Both actions, issuing the dividend and buying back the stock, mean that they will have less cash on hand, making them that much less valuable as a company.
Has that ever really been an issue, though? Under Jobs, were they really constrained by shareholders?