felgatec
Mar 29, 11:10 AM
no one uses windows phones....and for a good reason too...it sucks, it sucks, oh and it sucks....
Silentwave
Jul 17, 07:36 PM
All at WWDC?
With the bumped up date for Merom, it is all possible. Since core duo is going to see a price drop the mac mini may get speed bumped, the MB may see a price drop or speed bump, merom MBPs *may* be released, iMac may get updated, and the MPs will come uot.
With the bumped up date for Merom, it is all possible. Since core duo is going to see a price drop the mac mini may get speed bumped, the MB may see a price drop or speed bump, merom MBPs *may* be released, iMac may get updated, and the MPs will come uot.
bassfingers
Apr 19, 11:43 PM
Face it...your ideas are crap.
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-Thomas effing Jefferson
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-Thomas effing Jefferson
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 12:32 PM
What? You said the word Merom but didn't include a link to the guide? :p
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.
If you notice. Nowhere on the Apple store does it say "Yonah". It says Core Duo.
So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation.
Besides I would rather have a Merom. It requires less power, which makes it run cooler, which makes it more effecient. Heat kills performance.
It is very likely that in the same box (iMac), that the the Merom will beat out the Conroe. Why? Because of heat.
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.
If you notice. Nowhere on the Apple store does it say "Yonah". It says Core Duo.
So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation.
Besides I would rather have a Merom. It requires less power, which makes it run cooler, which makes it more effecient. Heat kills performance.
It is very likely that in the same box (iMac), that the the Merom will beat out the Conroe. Why? Because of heat.
rotobadger
Mar 30, 11:34 AM
Microsoft is suing homebuilders for offering "Windows" in their homes. Instead, they need to refer to them as "transparent viewing portals".
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:23 AM
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
And I don't think "vaguely" means what you think it means.
And I don't think "vaguely" means what you think it means.
product26
Apr 25, 12:58 PM
BlackBook Pro? *fingers crossed*
ezekielrage_99
Sep 13, 09:25 AM
I was expecting more....but I'm a 'glass half empty' sort of fella
I was hoping for a colour choice from the new iPods, but so of the new features are cool.
I was hoping for a colour choice from the new iPods, but so of the new features are cool.
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 01:48 AM
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Very true.
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Very true.
miniConvert
Sep 9, 04:49 AM
I think we all knew that Merom would only bring modest performance gains. I'm surprised they're as high as they are. I'm still not sure why they're using the laptop line of processors in their mid range desktop but it's certainly a testament to the power of Intel's new chips. If it keeps the iMac's cool and efficient then it's all good.
Alvi
May 3, 11:01 AM
That's nice from Apple, I personally find the Magic Mouse useless for what I do, it's just a nice toy. And a Trackpad would be more useful just for the Multitouch Gestures in combination with a Real Mouse
toddybody
Mar 23, 04:25 PM
Oh god no I hope apple doesn't cave to this kind of Orwellian garbage. I feel for all of the victims of DUIs and know that I have personally called the police on a car that was very obviously had an impaired person behind the wheel but as a non drunk driver if I want to avoid being hassled I should be able to.
First of all, DUI checkpoints aren't so frequent that they provide every day hassle to drivers...secondly, they take a very short amount of time to go through (if you havnt been drinking, Cops know). Besides, how is this Orwellian at all? Apple isn't being asked to report users of the application or anything. Sorry man, but if it saves 1 life from drunk driving...it's the right thing to do.
First of all, DUI checkpoints aren't so frequent that they provide every day hassle to drivers...secondly, they take a very short amount of time to go through (if you havnt been drinking, Cops know). Besides, how is this Orwellian at all? Apple isn't being asked to report users of the application or anything. Sorry man, but if it saves 1 life from drunk driving...it's the right thing to do.
bloodycape
Sep 12, 06:44 PM
Too bad they didn't keep the 60gig and set its price at $300 and upgrade it also. They could have made a real killing there.
MrFirework
Oct 27, 01:56 PM
I think that's pretty accurate (well observed) whichever side of this particular fence people are sitting.
Yeah, but what is currently out there that's better?
Yeah, but what is currently out there that's better?
striker33
May 3, 03:33 PM
But hooking it up to 2 apple cinemas (24") is ok, right?
Yes. As they both function as MDP ports as well as Thunderbolt ports.
Yes. As they both function as MDP ports as well as Thunderbolt ports.
kresh
Sep 9, 02:12 AM
I guess I've got mind whip lash from the transition to Intel. It's still kinda hard to wrap the mind around these speed improvments. I'm still used to the very modest speed bumps from the PPC days.
How wonderfully refreshing it is to see these leaps in speed with each product update. I hope this pace keeps up. Some may disagree, but I think it's spectacular compared to what we used to get from Moto/Freescale/IBM.
I find myself thinking about what the Adobe CEO, Bruce Chizen, said to Steve when it was announced Apple was switching to Intel.
"What took you so long"!
edit: had to change my signature.
How wonderfully refreshing it is to see these leaps in speed with each product update. I hope this pace keeps up. Some may disagree, but I think it's spectacular compared to what we used to get from Moto/Freescale/IBM.
I find myself thinking about what the Adobe CEO, Bruce Chizen, said to Steve when it was announced Apple was switching to Intel.
"What took you so long"!
edit: had to change my signature.
sigamy
Apr 19, 08:53 AM
Apple needs to eat it's own dog food...anyone rememeber Confabulator and Watson?
Quartz Extreme
Sep 1, 07:55 AM
With you so far, but I don't think Core 2 Duo is realy all that much of a big deal for Apple in the grand scheme of things. It's a small speed bump, with 64 bit as a bonus extra.
Well, for the Merom, you get about 20% performance for the same clock speed as well as slightly improved power usage. With the Conroe, the change is much more noticable, providing 40% more performance, while using 40% less power than the Pentium D.
The Core 2 Duo models also sport these cheesy Intel-named features. (Translation in parenthesis)
- Intel® Wide Dynamic Execution (Widens the execution core by 33% and adds Macro-fusion to combine x86 instructions)
- Intel® Intelligent Power Capability (better SpeedStep technology)
- Intel® Advanced Smart Cache (refined, faster cache design)
- Intel® Smart Memory Access (lower latency memory access)
- Intel® Advanced Digital Media Boost (do SSE instructions in one cycle)
The Core 2 is basically a refinement of everything in Yonah. For Merom, it's a modest increase, but for the Conroe, there will be a bigger difference.
I don't believe any of this. The intel MacBook Pros just came out,
Announced in January, released in February, speed bumped in May. I'm in the market for a MBP, so I hope they update it soon.
Why screw aroud with a proven design, when there's absolutely no need.
I'm thinking they'll make minor changes, like make the top bezel thinner, as it's a little wider right now for the camera, and change the case slightly if necessary to accomodate a dual-layer burner. And please, give back the FW800 and add another USB port!
As far as features go, It'd be neat to offer 802.11N (probably not because the spec isn't final yet, though I don't think G was final when they made Airport Extreme) and maybe a bumped GPU also.
The same goes for the iMac, it's a great design. They had a chance to rev the designs when they moved to intel and chose not to.
I think what Apple has been doing by keeping most of their models with virtually the same look with the switch to Intel is to create a sense of continuity with the PPC Macs.
They might change the case to be more accessable (I think that was lost somewhere in the G5 era) and to loose some of the blank white space below the screen (It doesn't bother me, but I've heard people say it does a bit).
Just minor refinements because, yes I agree, it is a great design. It kinda reminds me of a futuristic original Macintosh.
Oh, and maybe they'll have it in black.
As for movie download, it's possible but I think it would be a premature move. Further expansion of their TV show range is much more likely as it fits the casual listening/watching pattern of iPod owners.
Well, when Apple does it (I do say when because there is a ton of evidence pointing that way), they will change the iPod to make it more feasable for people to watch full-length movies on it...with a widescreen touch display, and maybe crank up the output resolution so it's decent for watching on TV. Then throw in Bluetooth for remote control and wireless audio streaming.
Well, for the Merom, you get about 20% performance for the same clock speed as well as slightly improved power usage. With the Conroe, the change is much more noticable, providing 40% more performance, while using 40% less power than the Pentium D.
The Core 2 Duo models also sport these cheesy Intel-named features. (Translation in parenthesis)
- Intel® Wide Dynamic Execution (Widens the execution core by 33% and adds Macro-fusion to combine x86 instructions)
- Intel® Intelligent Power Capability (better SpeedStep technology)
- Intel® Advanced Smart Cache (refined, faster cache design)
- Intel® Smart Memory Access (lower latency memory access)
- Intel® Advanced Digital Media Boost (do SSE instructions in one cycle)
The Core 2 is basically a refinement of everything in Yonah. For Merom, it's a modest increase, but for the Conroe, there will be a bigger difference.
I don't believe any of this. The intel MacBook Pros just came out,
Announced in January, released in February, speed bumped in May. I'm in the market for a MBP, so I hope they update it soon.
Why screw aroud with a proven design, when there's absolutely no need.
I'm thinking they'll make minor changes, like make the top bezel thinner, as it's a little wider right now for the camera, and change the case slightly if necessary to accomodate a dual-layer burner. And please, give back the FW800 and add another USB port!
As far as features go, It'd be neat to offer 802.11N (probably not because the spec isn't final yet, though I don't think G was final when they made Airport Extreme) and maybe a bumped GPU also.
The same goes for the iMac, it's a great design. They had a chance to rev the designs when they moved to intel and chose not to.
I think what Apple has been doing by keeping most of their models with virtually the same look with the switch to Intel is to create a sense of continuity with the PPC Macs.
They might change the case to be more accessable (I think that was lost somewhere in the G5 era) and to loose some of the blank white space below the screen (It doesn't bother me, but I've heard people say it does a bit).
Just minor refinements because, yes I agree, it is a great design. It kinda reminds me of a futuristic original Macintosh.
Oh, and maybe they'll have it in black.
As for movie download, it's possible but I think it would be a premature move. Further expansion of their TV show range is much more likely as it fits the casual listening/watching pattern of iPod owners.
Well, when Apple does it (I do say when because there is a ton of evidence pointing that way), they will change the iPod to make it more feasable for people to watch full-length movies on it...with a widescreen touch display, and maybe crank up the output resolution so it's decent for watching on TV. Then throw in Bluetooth for remote control and wireless audio streaming.
Jovian9
Aug 26, 11:41 PM
Because buying from the company you don't love will pay 10% to the company you love! ;)
Are we sure about that though? Maybe they have an exclusive deal that allows them to not have to pay that 10% for the "Made for iPod" program.
Are we sure about that though? Maybe they have an exclusive deal that allows them to not have to pay that 10% for the "Made for iPod" program.
GuyV
Oct 13, 03:08 AM
well here's the kicker for the fools who fall for these gimmicks.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
Dagless
Oct 12, 06:04 PM
It's a rumour don't believe its!
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
mainstreetmark
Apr 20, 10:36 AM
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
You gave it permission. Location Services is enabled on your phone, and apps that require the data ask your permission, and almost any system level service keep logs.
You gave it permission. Location Services is enabled on your phone, and apps that require the data ask your permission, and almost any system level service keep logs.
SeaFox
Sep 26, 09:58 PM
AllTel is IS95 ("CDMA") not GSM.
The only two national operators of GSM networks in the US are T-Mobile and Cingular, though there are a small handful of regional networks dotted around the country.
Not in all areas. In northern Wisconsin I got roaming signal on my GSM phone, and AllTel is the only carrier in the area.
Actually we're both right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alltel). Alltel does not offer GSM service to it's customers, but owns and maintains a large GSM network they aquired from another carrier.
The only two national operators of GSM networks in the US are T-Mobile and Cingular, though there are a small handful of regional networks dotted around the country.
Not in all areas. In northern Wisconsin I got roaming signal on my GSM phone, and AllTel is the only carrier in the area.
Actually we're both right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alltel). Alltel does not offer GSM service to it's customers, but owns and maintains a large GSM network they aquired from another carrier.
No comments:
Post a Comment