The government just sends you a bill for what they didn't take out over the year.
Dont know about you, but I'd rather the government sends me a cheque for the amount they weren't meant to take (seeing as tax contributions by pay period in Australia are controlled by your employer's accounting system, not the govt, its the market doing it).
But seriously, in June would you rather get a cheque or a bill. If you opt for a bill, I suggest you seek mental help.
It is just flamebait. They know that these kinds of articles just end up being a blue vs red slugfest.
So you don't think spending $300,000,000 on a significant IT project to get a website used by 44 people matters.... even as an example of massive waste, fraud, or abuse? Wow.
You're not a taxpayer I take it?
I think only 44 people caring about not getting ripped by health care companies constitutes mass stupidity.
Did you just mention "Rush" that senile, racist, sexist?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, you know.
Tell that to my Casio, I'll let you know when it's 88:88.
As for people like Rush Limbaugh (however you spell it) we non-Americans that have working news sources which are actually reliable, factual on the odd occasions where they are wrong, will issue corrections laugh heartily at Americans who think anything he says is remotely factual.
If Fox news had to issue corrections for every time it published an inaccuracy, they'd have to set up an entirely new channel just for issuing corrections.
Streaming video over in-flight WiFi? So this means I shouldn't check my notebook?
Airlines tell you to never check anything valuable or fragile.
If you need any more convincing, just talk to a baggage handler:).
But seriously, I've used WiFi on two airlines, on QANTAS it was barely usable but the number of page timeouts were so frustrating I ended up watching videos. On Southwest it was utterly useless, not even a single page loaded. JetBlue will be the same or worse.
Most people don't realize how far we've come until you go back and play those games. If I recall correctly, in Doom, there was no jumping, and you couldn't aim up and down. The only way to move vertically was going up small steps, which your character automatically walked up. The levels were all 2 dimensional. It didn't support rooms above other rooms.
Other games like Descent, were more 3D, but as someone who designed levels in his spare time for the game, there's some weird stuff you can do in that game because the 3D engine was flawed, most likely to make it run fast enough. You could build a room with a floating cube in the middle. Put a door on one side of that cube. When you go through the door, you could enter a room bigger than the encompassing cube.
Decent played more like a flight sim than first person shooter. If you want proper 3D FPS's in the early 90's then look at System Shock (94) which had allowed the user to aim up and down (and you'll have fun with it as the interface was so primitive it was barbaric, especially by the time Half Life rolled around but in 1994, it was ground breaking).
Many of these smart systems - such as entering a destination into the navigation system should be made to only work while the vehicle is stationary so as not to distract the driver. It makes sense to input the destination before starting the journey rather than 'on the go'.
Great,
Now Dopey Doris will come to a screaming halt in 80 KPH traffic to play with the air con or radio.
It's better to fix the actual UI, physical buttons worked for decades and touch screens are not practical replacements.
My current car (2005 Pontiac Bonneville GXP) and prior car (1999 Bonneville SSE) both have/had HUDs - Love 'em. My mom's 2011 Camaro also has a HUD. Speed (and engine RPM in the Camaro) are shown constantly. High beam and turn indicators illuminated when active. A "Check gauges" Warning when idiot light on or gauge amiss. The two newer cars also show limited radio/song information but only when user is changing settings.
These aren't the kinds of things people are complaining about. There is no difference (IMHO) between a speedo on the dash and a speedo projected on the windscreen. I drove a 2013 Camaro (rental car, so no fancy projectors for me) and I liked the digital speedo readout between the dials (especially since the steering wheel blocked half the dial, but that's GM's design team for ya). But in the end, its the same device with the same function, just different ways of displaying it (I do agree with you BTW, HUDs are awesome).
What people are complaining about are things that detract from common sense. Blindspot sensors coddle incompetent drivers into not checking their blind sport (and subsequently crashing into you because the warning buzzer was ignored), lane assist, brake assist all make drivers lazier and more complacent. These kinds of warning buzzers are what they are talking about, it becomes more important for an incompetent driver to find out why their car is beeping than actually watching the road and there are buzzers for a lot of things, seatbelt warnings, lane warnings, distance warnings, cup holder open warnings, perceived fatigue warnings... each one has a buzzer that drives the driver to distraction.
Its the same with reversing cameras, there was a camera on that Camaro I hired. It was nice but didn't stop me from doing a head check because people and cars come from the side as well as directly behind me. However I'm the exception here, I see more and more drivers with their eyes glued to the screen in the console as they back out completely ignoring the objects not directly behind them... The last one who did this to me as I was walking through a car park received my boot to rear quarter panel (and looked at me as if to say "what was that for") and that was last Thursday.
I dream of a truly smart car that prevents the drivers from doing stupid shit while driving, like making that left turn in front of me while I'm riding my motorcycle.
I dream of a motorcyclist who doesn't ride in my blindspot.
I check my mirrors and blindspots religiously, but even a Harley can disappear behind my B pillar (I drive a coupe, which has a much smaller blind spot than most cars).
Certainly, Atheism has no formal organization, but neither do many religions (see also "Wicca" as an example), so that cannot be a usable guideline. But there is even more damning evidence here: Atheism does have "saints" and "preachers" (e.g. Mr. Dawkins), it does have a dogma (centered around a fairly particular definition of "reason" as its central coda, I believe, yes?), and it certainly have its zealots (oftentimes more irritating than Mormon/JV missionaries, truth be told.) Also, they seem to have the same smug self-assurance that many religious folks carry.
Only religious people think Dawkins is a preacher or a saint. You'll find Atheists that disagree with him and you'll find he'll happily debate with them.
You cant do that to a Christian preacher.
Further more, there is no code nor dogma. A lot of theists who dont understand what atheism is try to ascribe these things to atheism but only demonstrate their own ignorance. You cant really blame atheists from getting upset here, they're a diverse group of people with no common beliefs and you're trying to shoehorn them into a box that doesn't fit because someone who is atheist does not fit your world views. It's like if I were to say that all theists were kitten eating Hitler worshippers because I know this one guy who believes in god and who may or may not have eaten a kitten and has a picture that looks a bit like Hitler if I squinted at it.
But I wouldn't say that because I know how ridiculous it sounds and oddly enough, it's more sensible than your argument. That is the kind of wisdom that reason gives me, not a blind belief in a greater power but the ability to figure things out for myself.
I daresay that there are times when Atheism is just as much of a religion as
No, Religion is a belief, atheism is the lack of belief. To use the old example, to say atheism is a religion is to say that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism describes a lack or absence of theism. this is a very large area that covers everyone from non-religious to Buddhists and leVeyan Satanists. The only thing in common is that they dont believe in god but have radically different philosophies.
That may be technically true, but do keep this in mind: The Soviet Union under Stalin -- officially atheistic (and he would gleefully kill you to DEATH if you even suggested otherwise) (yes, my tongue is in cheek -- partially) -- persecuted gays and lesbians FAR worse than the United States ever has. Stalin and Co. considered it a "bourgeois affectation" and killed them by the trainload.
Right, you've just demonstrated your ignorance about the Soviet Union.
Aside from the fact Christianity flourished under the Soviets (opium of the masses is quite useful when the masses are starving) whilst other religious groups were forced out (the odd pogrom), the kind of "atheism" they tried to install was only atheism in name. They replaced blind obedience to god with blind obedience to Marx which was essentially embodied by the state, it was atheism as in "there is no god" it was not atheism as in "no religion".
Lots of people like to create a false equivalency between the Soviets and Atheism, without actually understanding either of them.
Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?
You've got two US sources for a British social issue.
Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP.
The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.
My company used to have 4 offices in India. Now we have only one.
Why ?
It's not that we don't like to do business with the Indians, it's the government that we can't deal with.
They are worse than the Mafioso.
They can turn the rules around overnight and demand the ransom, and they can do it in a totally legal manner.
The longer the Indian government behaving like this the worse their reputation gonna be - and the less the multinationals will be willing to invest in India.
All third world nations are like this, same in the Philippines, Thailand, China or Dominican Republic.
It's not an Indian specific trait. However companies are still willing to do business with them because whilst they might ask for $3 million, they'll settle for $300,000.
As someone who's also had to deal with local politicians in places like this, it is a complete pain in the arse.
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.
Oh, they only "own" the tower of London.
So clearly they have nothing to do with it what so ever. Glad you cleared that one up.
I guess I wont drive my car any more now I've found out I only "own" it.
We bailed out the automakers for the same reason we subsidize food production - there is a strategic value in being self-sufficient. If there was another world war or a global catastrophe, we'd be fucked if all our cars and trucks and armored vehicles and tanks were manufactured elsewhere. And what's $10 billion compared to the trillions we already throw away to make sure the oil keeps flowing.
Actually no.
As it was with both world wars, there was not enough manufacturing capacity as it was, even in the US (but doubly so in England and commonwealth countries, lets not even think of Russia). What happened was a massive mobilisation that not only massively enlarged existing industry but created entirely new ones. Soviet Russia went from no car industry to the largest producer of armoured vehicles in the world.
So a future war does not depend on what we have now (that kind of foolishness lead to the folly of the trenches in WWI) but what we can create. The biggest benefit from a war would be the scrapping of the ridiculous patent system that prevents new players from opening in the car market.
Subsidising unprofitable companies is the ideal way to send yourself into economic ruin. GM does not want money to make new designs, develop new technologies or expand their business, these are all great uses of public money. No, GM needs public money just to keep the doors open, this means there is something fundamentally wrong with the way GM is managed.
Why the hell would Nissan, Toyota, Kia, or SAIC want old and busted facilities with only wealthy union workers to hire in a state with strong union laws, in a country with a working EPA?
Yeah, why would these businesses want to do business in Japan or Germany or the UK or Australia?
Unions are not your problem. Environmental protection is not your problem.
The thing is, Nissan has 3 factories in the US, Toyota has 6 and Kia has 1 (does SAIC even sell cars outside of China). They sell cars to make a profit, GM didn't. The thing is, you dont manufacture cheap cars in first world countries, you build the expensive ones because they need highly skilled and motivated labour. This is the reason Porsche hasn't moved to China or Thailand.
Unions did, and still do provide higher wages for a lot of people. You need only look at science and technology professions who never had unions.
Unions also do a lot more than work on wages, they improved safety and rights, if not for unions we would get sacked if a crate fell on us or we contracted pneumonia and were unable to come to work and we'd be expecting several workplace deaths per month. Unions were key in reducing the exploitation of workers.
Try doing business in a thrid world country, they actually have a monthly budget set aside to compensate the families of dead workers... meaning they expect a number of people to die on a monthly basis.
Now the problem you have with unions is that some have become corrupt, this does not make the idea of labour unionism bad, it just means it needs more control. This can be done, just look at Germany. A union should be primarily for and by the workers, to provide a unified front against an employer that is significantly more powerful than any individual employee. If you think corrupt unions are bad, wait until you see a world without them.
If you really want to help labor, forget about the unions. Instead, establish fair wages for various job classifications via regulation.
And how do you propose to enforce this?
Especially considering businesses are in cahoots with governments.
Having an award wage is all good and well, but it will never be adhered to (or set stupidly low by industry lobbyists) the minute you strip the power from workers to unionise.
GM's problems aren't with the US unions, GM is a global business with factories in Europe, Asia, South American and even Australia. The problem is with GM management who's business model seems to be "ask for government money until it runs out" because they're doing the exact same thing in Australia with the same kind of "too big to fail" guff. It's the general manager of Holden (GM's brand in Australia) who's threatening to close down the factories unless he gets 100's of millions from the federal government, unions have no part in this.
So, 4000 hours of labor (can work continuously) = about 6 months of 8-hour-day $15/hour labor.
This is not a zero sum game.
That $60,000 robot has costs of its own (electricity, maintenance, parts, replacement) that the worker does not. The robot has a much shorter shelf life than the employee, think about a car and the costs of keeping a 15 yr old car in the same condition it was in new under constant use. Even if you buy a highly reliable EK Civic 15 years later you'll be replacing a bunch of components (seals, hoses, engine mounts, anything with rubber in it degrades over time), now you can easily do this in under $1000 a year even with someone else doing the work (for the engine only, you'll be doing the interior and paintwork yourself and pray you dont every need a panel beater) but the EK Civic was a very uncomplex car. Imagine doing that with an Alfa or Merc (Selespeed transmissions weren't exactly reliable when new).
$15/hour for burger flipping is a good way to get a $10.00 burger.
No.
Until the day the official poverty line hovers somewhere around $50,000/yr, that won't happen.
Why? Basic economics, that's why: McDonald's wouldn't be able to sell $10 Big Macs, because no one in their right mind would pay that. McDonald's knows this; they also know that the most reasonable way to pay $15/hr while still turning a fat profit would be to cut executive pay proportionally.
Which means the guys who make these decisions would make slightly-less-obscene amounts of money. Which they can't even fathom. Which is why we're seeing the anti-paying-a-living-wage media blitz.
TL;DR version - Anyone who thinks McDonald's would ever charge $10 for a burger has absolutely zero understanding of Economics.
This.
I live in Australia where the minimum wage is around A$15 per hour and you can get a cheeseburger from Micky D's for a cool A$2.60. Now that $15 p/h is for an 18 yr old full time employee, seeing as all McWageSlaves are casuals, you need to add loading onto that to compensate for things casuals dont get (sick leave, annual leave, job security) so it'll end up being around A$18 p/h. Underage will cost less, probably around $14-16 p/h with loading but you cant run a 24 hour Macca's on 14 yr olds (their parents start to worry and ask uncomfortable questions) so you do end up hiring a lot of people at $18 p/h. The AUD is currently trading at US$0.91.
Now a Big Mac according to the Big Mac Index in the US is US$4.56 where as in Australia its US$5.04. This is less than a 10% difference which can easily be explained by differences in population (Aus = 20 million, US = 300 million). So a $15 minimum wage does not result in $10 burgers.
TL;DR
Well you're lazy.
A minimum wage does not affect how much basic goods go for. In two countries with similar socio-economic conditions where one has a minimum wage above the poverty line and the other does not, the base goods will have the same price because the same costs are involved in producing them.
Things like luxury goods are more affected by the upper end of the scale. Australia has a high median wage, this drives up prices of consumer goods simply because the customer has or is perceived to have more disposable income. People on minimum wage dont have much disposable income. The key to improving an economy is to ensure that the fewest number of people possible are on minimum wage, not the lack of a minimum wage (which if not set by the government will be set by the market below the poverty line).
Slashdot Mirror
The government just sends you a bill for what they didn't take out over the year.
Dont know about you, but I'd rather the government sends me a cheque for the amount they weren't meant to take (seeing as tax contributions by pay period in Australia are controlled by your employer's accounting system, not the govt, its the market doing it). But seriously, in June would you rather get a cheque or a bill. If you opt for a bill, I suggest you seek mental help.
It is just flamebait. They know that these kinds of articles just end up being a blue vs red slugfest.
So you don't think spending $300,000,000 on a significant IT project to get a website used by 44 people matters.... even as an example of massive waste, fraud, or abuse? Wow.
You're not a taxpayer I take it?
I think only 44 people caring about not getting ripped by health care companies constitutes mass stupidity.
Did you just mention "Rush" that senile, racist, sexist?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, you know.
Tell that to my Casio, I'll let you know when it's 88:88.
As for people like Rush Limbaugh (however you spell it) we non-Americans that have working news sources which are actually reliable, factual on the odd occasions where they are wrong, will issue corrections laugh heartily at Americans who think anything he says is remotely factual.
If Fox news had to issue corrections for every time it published an inaccuracy, they'd have to set up an entirely new channel just for issuing corrections.
Streaming video over in-flight WiFi? So this means I shouldn't check my notebook?
Airlines tell you to never check anything valuable or fragile.
:).
If you need any more convincing, just talk to a baggage handler
But seriously, I've used WiFi on two airlines, on QANTAS it was barely usable but the number of page timeouts were so frustrating I ended up watching videos. On Southwest it was utterly useless, not even a single page loaded. JetBlue will be the same or worse.
... and I've got my immigration application signed and ready to send out*, just in case the independence movement actually succeeds :)
*Emigrating to Scotland, not from.
I can see the immigration applications.
Question 8:
How many bairns have ye got:
Lads(_) Lasses(_)
Question 35:
Are ye a big jessie: Aye(_) go to question 35b Noo (_)
Question 35b
Can ye no play fooootbul very well: Aye(_) go to question 35c Noo (_)
Question 36c
Ach, what the fook is wrong with ye, ye big fookin jessie: _____________________
Why is the government delivering our mail anyway. That kind of work is much more efficient in the private sector.
Because you want to pay $3 to deliver a letter, just wait until they figure out they can charge you a $0.50 receiving fee at the same time.
Most people don't realize how far we've come until you go back and play those games. If I recall correctly, in Doom, there was no jumping, and you couldn't aim up and down. The only way to move vertically was going up small steps, which your character automatically walked up. The levels were all 2 dimensional. It didn't support rooms above other rooms.
Other games like Descent, were more 3D, but as someone who designed levels in his spare time for the game, there's some weird stuff you can do in that game because the 3D engine was flawed, most likely to make it run fast enough. You could build a room with a floating cube in the middle. Put a door on one side of that cube. When you go through the door, you could enter a room bigger than the encompassing cube.
Decent played more like a flight sim than first person shooter. If you want proper 3D FPS's in the early 90's then look at System Shock (94) which had allowed the user to aim up and down (and you'll have fun with it as the interface was so primitive it was barbaric, especially by the time Half Life rolled around but in 1994, it was ground breaking).
Many of these smart systems - such as entering a destination into the navigation system should be made to only work while the vehicle is stationary so as not to distract the driver. It makes sense to input the destination before starting the journey rather than 'on the go'.
Great,
Now Dopey Doris will come to a screaming halt in 80 KPH traffic to play with the air con or radio.
It's better to fix the actual UI, physical buttons worked for decades and touch screens are not practical replacements.
My current car (2005 Pontiac Bonneville GXP) and prior car (1999 Bonneville SSE) both have/had HUDs - Love 'em. My mom's 2011 Camaro also has a HUD. Speed (and engine RPM in the Camaro) are shown constantly. High beam and turn indicators illuminated when active. A "Check gauges" Warning when idiot light on or gauge amiss. The two newer cars also show limited radio/song information but only when user is changing settings.
These aren't the kinds of things people are complaining about. There is no difference (IMHO) between a speedo on the dash and a speedo projected on the windscreen. I drove a 2013 Camaro (rental car, so no fancy projectors for me) and I liked the digital speedo readout between the dials (especially since the steering wheel blocked half the dial, but that's GM's design team for ya). But in the end, its the same device with the same function, just different ways of displaying it (I do agree with you BTW, HUDs are awesome).
What people are complaining about are things that detract from common sense. Blindspot sensors coddle incompetent drivers into not checking their blind sport (and subsequently crashing into you because the warning buzzer was ignored), lane assist, brake assist all make drivers lazier and more complacent. These kinds of warning buzzers are what they are talking about, it becomes more important for an incompetent driver to find out why their car is beeping than actually watching the road and there are buzzers for a lot of things, seatbelt warnings, lane warnings, distance warnings, cup holder open warnings, perceived fatigue warnings... each one has a buzzer that drives the driver to distraction.
Its the same with reversing cameras, there was a camera on that Camaro I hired. It was nice but didn't stop me from doing a head check because people and cars come from the side as well as directly behind me. However I'm the exception here, I see more and more drivers with their eyes glued to the screen in the console as they back out completely ignoring the objects not directly behind them... The last one who did this to me as I was walking through a car park received my boot to rear quarter panel (and looked at me as if to say "what was that for") and that was last Thursday.
TL;DR version
We now have smart cars and dumb drivers.
I dream of a truly smart car that prevents the drivers from doing stupid shit while driving, like making that left turn in front of me while I'm riding my motorcycle.
I dream of a motorcyclist who doesn't ride in my blindspot.
I check my mirrors and blindspots religiously, but even a Harley can disappear behind my B pillar (I drive a coupe, which has a much smaller blind spot than most cars).
Self driving car like Google's?
No. See, when I was testing one, it kept taking me to places where it thought I would be interested in - places that paid Google for ads.
So, instead to my destination, the Google car took me to McDonald's, then to Penny's and lastly to HomeDepot for their big sale.
That sounds a lot like my experience of the tuk-tuks in Bangkok.
No, they only take you to the gold shop owned by their brother.
Warning:
This post is known to contain potentially unsafe levels of awesome by the State of California
"Computer: end program."
Tea: Earl Grey, Hot.
Didn't work, but there's still no way I'm wearing a red jumpsuit out of the house....
Primitive technology,
A sufficiently advanced system would recognize his voice and automatically choose his usual preference unless otherwise stated. In other words:
"Tea."
What if he likes more than one type of tea?
It would be counter intuitive if the program didn't allow for options.
Certainly, Atheism has no formal organization, but neither do many religions (see also "Wicca" as an example), so that cannot be a usable guideline. But there is even more damning evidence here: Atheism does have "saints" and "preachers" (e.g. Mr. Dawkins), it does have a dogma (centered around a fairly particular definition of "reason" as its central coda, I believe, yes?), and it certainly have its zealots (oftentimes more irritating than Mormon/JV missionaries, truth be told.) Also, they seem to have the same smug self-assurance that many religious folks carry.
Only religious people think Dawkins is a preacher or a saint. You'll find Atheists that disagree with him and you'll find he'll happily debate with them.
You cant do that to a Christian preacher.
Further more, there is no code nor dogma. A lot of theists who dont understand what atheism is try to ascribe these things to atheism but only demonstrate their own ignorance. You cant really blame atheists from getting upset here, they're a diverse group of people with no common beliefs and you're trying to shoehorn them into a box that doesn't fit because someone who is atheist does not fit your world views. It's like if I were to say that all theists were kitten eating Hitler worshippers because I know this one guy who believes in god and who may or may not have eaten a kitten and has a picture that looks a bit like Hitler if I squinted at it.
But I wouldn't say that because I know how ridiculous it sounds and oddly enough, it's more sensible than your argument. That is the kind of wisdom that reason gives me, not a blind belief in a greater power but the ability to figure things out for myself.
No, Religion is a belief, atheism is the lack of belief. To use the old example, to say atheism is a religion is to say that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism describes a lack or absence of theism. this is a very large area that covers everyone from non-religious to Buddhists and leVeyan Satanists. The only thing in common is that they dont believe in god but have radically different philosophies.
That may be technically true, but do keep this in mind: The Soviet Union under Stalin -- officially atheistic (and he would gleefully kill you to DEATH if you even suggested otherwise) (yes, my tongue is in cheek -- partially) -- persecuted gays and lesbians FAR worse than the United States ever has. Stalin and Co. considered it a "bourgeois affectation" and killed them by the trainload.
Right, you've just demonstrated your ignorance about the Soviet Union.
Aside from the fact Christianity flourished under the Soviets (opium of the masses is quite useful when the masses are starving) whilst other religious groups were forced out (the odd pogrom), the kind of "atheism" they tried to install was only atheism in name. They replaced blind obedience to god with blind obedience to Marx which was essentially embodied by the state, it was atheism as in "there is no god" it was not atheism as in "no religion".
Lots of people like to create a false equivalency between the Soviets and Atheism, without actually understanding either of them.
Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?
You've got two US sources for a British social issue.
Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP.
The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.
.. Rupee's or Dollars?
Euro.
My company used to have 4 offices in India. Now we have only one.
Why ?
It's not that we don't like to do business with the Indians, it's the government that we can't deal with.
They are worse than the Mafioso.
They can turn the rules around overnight and demand the ransom, and they can do it in a totally legal manner.
The longer the Indian government behaving like this the worse their reputation gonna be - and the less the multinationals will be willing to invest in India.
All third world nations are like this, same in the Philippines, Thailand, China or Dominican Republic.
It's not an Indian specific trait. However companies are still willing to do business with them because whilst they might ask for $3 million, they'll settle for $300,000.
As someone who's also had to deal with local politicians in places like this, it is a complete pain in the arse.
Our data centers on snow covered mountains are the hardest to keep cool. Snow is an excellent insulator.
Why do you have datacenters on snow covered mountains, do you work for a bond villain?
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
Citation
The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.
Oh, they only "own" the tower of London.
So clearly they have nothing to do with it what so ever. Glad you cleared that one up.
I guess I wont drive my car any more now I've found out I only "own" it.
We bailed out the automakers for the same reason we subsidize food production - there is a strategic value in being self-sufficient. If there was another world war or a global catastrophe, we'd be fucked if all our cars and trucks and armored vehicles and tanks were manufactured elsewhere. And what's $10 billion compared to the trillions we already throw away to make sure the oil keeps flowing.
Actually no.
As it was with both world wars, there was not enough manufacturing capacity as it was, even in the US (but doubly so in England and commonwealth countries, lets not even think of Russia). What happened was a massive mobilisation that not only massively enlarged existing industry but created entirely new ones. Soviet Russia went from no car industry to the largest producer of armoured vehicles in the world.
So a future war does not depend on what we have now (that kind of foolishness lead to the folly of the trenches in WWI) but what we can create. The biggest benefit from a war would be the scrapping of the ridiculous patent system that prevents new players from opening in the car market.
Subsidising unprofitable companies is the ideal way to send yourself into economic ruin. GM does not want money to make new designs, develop new technologies or expand their business, these are all great uses of public money. No, GM needs public money just to keep the doors open, this means there is something fundamentally wrong with the way GM is managed.
Yeah, why would these businesses want to do business in Japan or Germany or the UK or Australia?
Unions are not your problem. Environmental protection is not your problem.
The thing is, Nissan has 3 factories in the US, Toyota has 6 and Kia has 1 (does SAIC even sell cars outside of China). They sell cars to make a profit, GM didn't. The thing is, you dont manufacture cheap cars in first world countries, you build the expensive ones because they need highly skilled and motivated labour. This is the reason Porsche hasn't moved to China or Thailand.
Unions provided higher wages back then.
Unions provided higher wages
Unions did, and still do provide higher wages for a lot of people. You need only look at science and technology professions who never had unions.
Unions also do a lot more than work on wages, they improved safety and rights, if not for unions we would get sacked if a crate fell on us or we contracted pneumonia and were unable to come to work and we'd be expecting several workplace deaths per month. Unions were key in reducing the exploitation of workers.
Try doing business in a thrid world country, they actually have a monthly budget set aside to compensate the families of dead workers... meaning they expect a number of people to die on a monthly basis.
Now the problem you have with unions is that some have become corrupt, this does not make the idea of labour unionism bad, it just means it needs more control. This can be done, just look at Germany. A union should be primarily for and by the workers, to provide a unified front against an employer that is significantly more powerful than any individual employee. If you think corrupt unions are bad, wait until you see a world without them.
If you really want to help labor, forget about the unions. Instead, establish fair wages for various job classifications via regulation.
And how do you propose to enforce this?
Especially considering businesses are in cahoots with governments.
Having an award wage is all good and well, but it will never be adhered to (or set stupidly low by industry lobbyists) the minute you strip the power from workers to unionise.
GM's problems aren't with the US unions, GM is a global business with factories in Europe, Asia, South American and even Australia. The problem is with GM management who's business model seems to be "ask for government money until it runs out" because they're doing the exact same thing in Australia with the same kind of "too big to fail" guff. It's the general manager of Holden (GM's brand in Australia) who's threatening to close down the factories unless he gets 100's of millions from the federal government, unions have no part in this.
Light duty industrial robot: $60,000.
So, 4000 hours of labor (can work continuously) = about 6 months of 8-hour-day $15/hour labor.
This is not a zero sum game.
That $60,000 robot has costs of its own (electricity, maintenance, parts, replacement) that the worker does not. The robot has a much shorter shelf life than the employee, think about a car and the costs of keeping a 15 yr old car in the same condition it was in new under constant use. Even if you buy a highly reliable EK Civic 15 years later you'll be replacing a bunch of components (seals, hoses, engine mounts, anything with rubber in it degrades over time), now you can easily do this in under $1000 a year even with someone else doing the work (for the engine only, you'll be doing the interior and paintwork yourself and pray you dont every need a panel beater) but the EK Civic was a very uncomplex car. Imagine doing that with an Alfa or Merc (Selespeed transmissions weren't exactly reliable when new).
$15/hour for burger flipping is a good way to get a $10.00 burger.
No.
Until the day the official poverty line hovers somewhere around $50,000/yr, that won't happen.
Why? Basic economics, that's why: McDonald's wouldn't be able to sell $10 Big Macs, because no one in their right mind would pay that. McDonald's knows this; they also know that the most reasonable way to pay $15/hr while still turning a fat profit would be to cut executive pay proportionally.
Which means the guys who make these decisions would make slightly-less-obscene amounts of money. Which they can't even fathom. Which is why we're seeing the anti-paying-a-living-wage media blitz.
TL;DR version - Anyone who thinks McDonald's would ever charge $10 for a burger has absolutely zero understanding of Economics.
This.
I live in Australia where the minimum wage is around A$15 per hour and you can get a cheeseburger from Micky D's for a cool A$2.60. Now that $15 p/h is for an 18 yr old full time employee, seeing as all McWageSlaves are casuals, you need to add loading onto that to compensate for things casuals dont get (sick leave, annual leave, job security) so it'll end up being around A$18 p/h. Underage will cost less, probably around $14-16 p/h with loading but you cant run a 24 hour Macca's on 14 yr olds (their parents start to worry and ask uncomfortable questions) so you do end up hiring a lot of people at $18 p/h. The AUD is currently trading at US$0.91.
Now a Big Mac according to the Big Mac Index in the US is US$4.56 where as in Australia its US$5.04. This is less than a 10% difference which can easily be explained by differences in population (Aus = 20 million, US = 300 million). So a $15 minimum wage does not result in $10 burgers.
TL;DR Well you're lazy.
A minimum wage does not affect how much basic goods go for. In two countries with similar socio-economic conditions where one has a minimum wage above the poverty line and the other does not, the base goods will have the same price because the same costs are involved in producing them.
Things like luxury goods are more affected by the upper end of the scale. Australia has a high median wage, this drives up prices of consumer goods simply because the customer has or is perceived to have more disposable income. People on minimum wage dont have much disposable income. The key to improving an economy is to ensure that the fewest number of people possible are on minimum wage, not the lack of a minimum wage (which if not set by the government will be set by the market below the poverty line).