Yeah, this H1-B visa thing needs to go in its entirety.
I’m so sick of people implying that H1B visas are somehow bad, and taking jobs from hardworking Americans. I was granted an H1B visa in April 2001. My salary was not $5 an hour or something like that but $120k. I currently have the Russian equivalent of the H1B (3yrs, tied to one employer, extendable once for 3 more years). Trust me, it’s for a bit more than the average Moscow salary.
The problem with the H-1B is that the recipient thereof has little to no freedom of movement in the labor market while in the country on the visa, which eliminates the free market in labor and encourages abuses that hurt all potential job seekers.
Well, they do take jobs from Americans.
NB from uscis.gov: “U.S. businesses use the H-1B visa program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require the theoretical or practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, including but not limited to scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.”
I’ll also note that there is a cap of 65000 H1B visas a year, a *tiny* number in a country with 4 million births a year.
New Zealand, with population 70 times smaller than the USA has a target of attracting 26000 skilled migrants a year.
Rather more than 60K. I am not a US citizen. But I can certainly understand the concerns that US citizens have with the program especially with companies like Infosys and Wipro operating in the market as middle men. We have similar issues here in Europe as well.
I am sure it is not the case for everyone and sometimes you do need to bring talent from outside. But it does depress wages especially if you allow middle men to operate (especially if said middle men provide kickbacks to the original employer which happens more often than not).
Yes bruce, but if you want to live in a country with a stultifying bureacracy, Australia has better weather.
Probably. When you look at what the XIXth century robber barons left behind you see a legacy that I doubt you will see with the current crop. They built infrastructure which sometimes is still in use today.
Of the current crop Elon is the most interesting of the lot. Similarly to what others did in the 1980s he’s making leading edge technology more available to the masses in an attempt to transform the market. Even then there are some weird shenanigans in there. Like Tesla buying SolarCity. That was a weird business deal to say the least.
Amazon used to be basically a glorified electronic version of a mail order catalog and now they aren’t even that. They seem to be competing more and more with Alibaba and eBay as a kind of middleman which provides goods storage, long haul transport, and escrow services. Their whole business model depends on tax evasion. In the EU Amazon used to not pay any VAT at all and in the USA they did not pay any sales tax. Then, at least here in Europe, they started charging VAT to customers at local rates (could be up to 25%) while they themselves pay VAT at the rates of their fiscal domicile at 5% or even 0%. Rather unsurprisingly all the bookstores went bankrupt. I suppose they did pass back some of the tax savings in the form of price cuts to customers at one point. But this was not a business model based on enhanced productivity or delivering a new product.
We had book mail order catalogs before. They did not make bookstores obsolete. They still had to pay taxes. If companies like Amazon were being taxed on the level with other companies operating in the same field they wouldn’t have the same scale they have now. The business would still make sense. It provides a convenience (buying without leaving your house) but it also has inconveniences (you can’t physically inspect the product prior to purchasing and returns are awkward) which is why we still had bookstores.
The Apple business model has been obsolete for nearly a decade. They do not offer anything you can’t buy cheaper and better elsewhere. It is little better than a rebranding operation. But I guess people with bad working knowledge of the tech sector don’t want to bother looking at product specs and just focus on the brand that they know has a working product.
AFAIK Twitter never made a profit in their life. As for Facebook… It could be obsoleted in two years if anyone else showed up. Remember MySpace?
The Apple business model has been obsolete for nearly a decade. They do not offer anything you can’t buy cheaper and better elsewhere.
Their market share says otherwise. People are willing to pay for something that just works and looks nice.
It is little better than a rebranding operation.
Then you don’t understand Apple or the value of brands. Who is Apple rebranding again? Why doesn’t that other brand just take over if Apple is just not adding much of anything in value?
As to the relative value of the current robber barons versus those of the industrial age, I really don’t see much difference in value. They all massively employ people and create a huge amount of value. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, there is a great deal spent on these services and whatnot by those who want it.
Your take on Apple is laughable. My tech and computing background is impeccable: aerospace engineer, cut my teeth on a DEC PDP-11 running Berkeley UNIX, graduated to a VAX 11/780 running VMS 3.1, eventually wound up running my own Slackware 2.0 PC at work. I’ve written hundreds of thousands of lines of code in Fortran, C, C++, Ada, Python, Perl, Tcl, various UNIX shells, etc. I’ve written graphics code using Xlib, IRIS GL, and various versions of OpenGL. I’ve taught classes for other engineers on how to get the most out of their X11 environment. I most definitely qualify as someone who has a very good working knowledge of the tech sector, who looks at product specs but is experienced enough to understand that specs don’t tell you anywhere near everything you need to know.
And, since 2007, my home computing environment has been exclusively Apple: originally a 24-inch white iMac running OS X 10.4, and now up to a menagerie of various iMacs, MacBooks, iPhones, and iPads. The reason? In my extensive experience and judgement, my family and I get the best combination of features, reliability, stability, user experience, and cost-effectiveness out of these products than we would out of the competition. There are some capabilities important to us that are unique to Apple products too: for example, I can easily use my iPhone or iPad as a digital audio workstation – with an $80 adapters that fits in my pocket, I can plug in my Strat and perform or record with 24-bit fidelity, hundreds of high quality amp/cabinet/pedal models, virtual backing instruments, multitrack recording, etc. Android has nothing like this because the OS has no built-in support for low-latency audio processing; the online forums of the companies that make these products for iOS usually have some requests for an Android version, and the reply is always the same – not possible until Android totally revamps their audio model. Please explain how this is a rebranding operation.
Also, if you actually kept up with the product specs, you would know that Apple’s custom ARM CPUs for mobile are head and shoulders above anything that either Qualcomm or Samsung is putting out. Apple’s internal chip design group is designing the most advanced ARM SoC’s in the world. But don’t take my word for it – go read, say, Anandtech.
Look, nobody is saying you have to like Apple or their products; plenty of people don’t. IIRC, our host has had bad experiences with Apple stuff and doesn’t use them. I know others in the same boat. People should use what they like and what works for them; just like I do. But when you spout such utter BS about Apple and the people who choose their products – stuff that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that you are completely clueless about why a lot of people like and use Apple products – then a public correction is in order. You’re welcome :-/
Apple’s custom ARM CPUs for mobile are head and shoulders above anything that either Qualcomm or Samsung is putting out.
Not true anymore. For a time the only 64-bit ARM core design around other than Apple’s was the sample AArch64 implementation from ARM. Now Qualcomm has their own 64-bit Kryo core and ARM has later generation core designs. The last Apple processor was a process shrink without major processor architecture improvements and in the meantime the competition caught up.
I can easily use my iPhone or iPad as a digital audio workstation
The audio latency advantage that iOS presently has over Android might be an interesting niche advantage for some but personally I could care less. OS sound latency in recent Android versions has improved a lot for those who do care about it though: https://source.android.com/devices/audio/latency_measurements.html
Plus *you can get a DAW for Android* like FL Studio (AKA FruityLoops) if you want to. So its not like there aren’t any. There is no technical reason why Android couldn’t have even lower audio latency if Google wanted to. It uses the Linux kernel so the only thing they needed would be to support JACK.
If we are going to rehash old arguments… the limited advantage the Atari ST had in the audio niche when it came out in the 1980s was not enough to save that platform either. Cubase originally was exclusive to the ST. Can you get an ST today? No. It’s a feeble argument to think that it’s going to save Apple.
I might not be as old as you but I am old enough to have programmed in C/C++ over SunOS on SPARC and Digital UNIX on Alpha as an undergrad. I did not start using Linux much later. I started using Slackware around version 3.0, when ELF binary support came out, because it allowed me to do my course work at home. Near the time I graduated I saw the IRIX SGI workstations in our graphics research lab get thrown into the trash.
I am not a die hard masochist though. I have not compiled a Linux kernel for over a decade and switched to Ubuntu several years back. I prefer the extra freedom and cost effectiveness of Linux over x86. Have had my share of niche closed hardware platforms in the past. In the long run the market solution always wins out.
The Apple Mac hardware lineup is utterly obsolete. Don’t take my word for it. Go to an Apple fanatic website like MacRumours and read what they have to say about it. I would rather buy an ASUS if I had to get a laptop. I built my own PC desktop from parts (not particularly hard to do. LEGO is much harder). When I saw the Apple Mac Pro dustbin design some years back I was dismayed to say the least. Completely impractical and clearly done by someone clueless about what you need in a workstation.
You never bothered to explain how any of what Apple is doing is a rebranding operation. And your take on the ARM SoC state is ludicrous; read informed sites like Anandtech, not Qualcomm or Samsung marketing sheets. Your dismissal of the enormous audio processing advantages of iOS is typical – why does MY use case make me clueless in your eyes, but YOUR use case is meaningful? Pathetic.
You appear to be beyond help on this point, but I’ll say it anyway: just because somebody makes something you don’t like and charges more than you would pay doesn’t mean that the people who do like and find value in the product are wrong. Your use cases are not universal, and neither are your opinions. Grow the fuck up.
*plonk*
Godzilla vs. Cthulhu. It finally happened.
Re: Godzilla vs cthulhu
It was inevitable, like all bad movies/TV….
Personally I prefer keeping my mythologies separate… 😉
I’m afraid I disagree. I agree that in general, these robber barons are not giving us the infrastructure that the last ones did; but the article goes too far.
Why does the “sharing economy” work? Simple – it bypasses government graft. It gives the jobs out based on need (otherwise know as willingness to do the work) rather than government connections. In the old days, taxi drivers were chosen based on who payed off the mayor and got in the medallion pool. Now, taxi drivers are chosen by who is willing to work the best for the lowest price.
This is a huge improvement. It doesn’t show up in the GDP. But if it wasn’t an improvement, no one would use Uber.
An quite frankly I’d rather pay Amazon to fight my tax war for me.
Not every place is New York. Not every place has a medallion system. In a lot of places you just need a license and there are no limits to the amount of licenses. Obtaining the license can be as easy as filling a form and granting proof that you have a clean criminal record. Some places have specific laws for the taxi vehicles themselves (visible taximeter, etc). Uber’s ‘surge’ pricing scheme is crap. I am sure libertarians love it, and that it makes Uber a lot of money, but it’s no way to run a viable transportation system. The platform is fine but the business model and their leadership sucks. They have already been kicked out of China and I expect them to lose to local competitors everywhere bigtime.
I hate Amazon because they treat their employees like shit, treat their clients like shit, don’t pay taxes and are shit overall.
It’s very interesting to say that it’s other people’s problem to pay taxes but the less taxes they pay the more taxes we all pay. For some reason quite a lot of US companies have large off-shore cash reserves which aren’t being invested, being distributed as dividends or as salaries, and then they are surprised that GDP doesn’t grow.
Not every place is New York.
So we should let NYC (and the many places that are just like NYC) have its heavily restricted market because there are places that aren’t like NYC?
Uber’s ‘surge’ pricing scheme is crap. I am sure libertarians love it, and that it makes Uber a lot of money, but it’s no way to run a viable transportation system.
Because it’s better to not have rides available when a lot of people need it? The point behind surge pricing is standard supply and demand. When there’s more demand, you need to raise prices in order to encourage supply. Else you won’t get the demand filled.
They have already been kicked out of China and I expect them to lose to local competitors everywhere bigtime.
Then we don’t need to worry about Uber’s business model or the cities that don’t have heavily restricted taxi markets, right?
I hate Amazon because they treat their employees like shit, treat their clients like shit, don’t pay taxes and are shit overall.
Having known someone who actually worked for Amazon, your opinion is in error with respect to employees. I’ve never had trouble with Amazon while purchasing my things. So I’m a “client” who hasn’t been treated like shit. And “don’t pay taxes” merely means they pay a huge amount of property taxes, corporate taxes, and of course, income taxes through their employees, but it’s not the right kind of tax, state sales tax.
It’s very interesting to say that it’s other people’s problem to pay taxes but the less taxes they pay the more taxes we all pay.
Unless, of course, we all choose to pay less taxes. I don’t see most US spending being justified, whether it be entitlements, military, or the various clueless regulatory and rent seeking entities out there.
For some reason quite a lot of US companies have large off-shore cash reserves which aren’t being invested, being distributed as dividends or as salaries, and then they are surprised that GDP doesn’t grow.
I swear I recall seeing ideas on how to handle this sort of situation in this blog.
So we should let NYC (and the many places that are just like NYC) have its heavily restricted market
No but Uber doesn’t exactly treat its drivers well. They seek to take advantage of people willing to work extra as a tertiary endeavor. This might be good overall but it hurts people who want to drive as their primary work. Obviously, it varies from market to market but there is no shortage of articles about Uber drivers who don’t feel they are compensated enough.
Traditional Taxi companies can probably compete on convenience and access but it becomes harder if they have a stable of employees that competes against a meat grinder of fly by night drivers who might not last more than a month.
Market conditions could change this but since the barriers to entry are so low and the appeal of some extra money is so high, the market might be extra flexible. Even in a good economy, where labor is engaged in other endeavors, there will be a lot of pressure on Uber drivers.
Because it’s better to not have rides available when a lot of people need it?
Rides are still not available. The thinking behind surge pricing isn’t that more people get rides but that the limited number of rides goes for the highest price. How much of that higher price trickles down to the drivers?
The interesting thing about Uber is that the drivers can control their hours but not their prices and the driver’s costs are not the same as Uber’s costs.
No but Uber doesn’t exactly treat its drivers well.
Compared to regular taxi companies? Sorry, I just don’t see the concern here. Why are the jobs of taxi drivers more important than the needs of people who have to travel in the city?
Rides are still not available. The thinking behind surge pricing isn’t that more people get rides but that the limited number of rides goes for the highest price. How much of that higher price trickles down to the drivers?
Apparently, enough that Uber can pull in a lot of part time drivers during surge pricing.
According to a blog post that went up on Uber’s website Tuesday, average UberX (non-taxi) gross fares per hour increased by 6.3% from September 2014 to September 2015. Last month, UberX drivers earned $39.30 per hour in fares on average, up from $36.96 last year. That figure is inflated by part-time Uber drivers who make themselves available when the company’s surge pricing is in effect.
According to this study, Uber drivers in NYC were pulling in an average of $26 per hour or better (see Table 2. They grouped drivers by number of hours worked per week). There was a surprisingly high retention rate among drivers who had at least five rides under their belt (figure 6). More than half were still active in a weak sense (meaning that they had accepted rides during the course of that year without more than a 6 month gap in between).
And note in table 6, that Uber drivers consistently pull in more than taxi drivers and chauffeurs. In NYC, it is almost exactly double with $30.35 per hour versus $15.17 per hour.
Compared to regular taxi companies?
That isn’t what I said.
Why are the jobs of taxi drivers more important than the needs of people who have to travel in the city?
I also didn’t say that. But why isn’t the welfare of Uber drivers important to you since you favor the company? You have affiliation without affinity?
Do you recognize that what is good for an Uber driver isn’t the same as what is good for Uber and the problems that relationship can create?
Apparently, enough that Uber can pull in a lot of part time drivers during surge pricing.
Congratulations on finally making a valid point. I like that one. Is this something you learned in this thread or were you aware of this before the conversation started?
According to this study, Uber drivers in NYC
The rest of the country isn’t NYC. Picking the most densely populated city doesn’t even come close to portraying what things are like for Uber drivers in the rest of the country.
The study linked only looks at some of the biggest cities but experiences for drivers in other places wont be the same. This is why I said that it was important for potential Uber drivers to look at the market conditions where they live and the average compensation in that area.
Something else the study leaves out is the cost of being a driver. An hourly rate is merely revenue, it isn’t profit. Sure a taxi driver might get paid less per hour but what are the costs for that driver?
Anyway, I made some good points about the nature of the market. You can continue to ignore them or assimilate them. Knowing more about the relationship between an Uber driver and Uber doesn’t mean you have to like or dislike Uber.
Despite what you keep accusing me of, I don’t dislike Uber. I don’t want them outlawed. I also don’t love them or think that a having a positive view of the company means that everything is rainbows gum drop farts requiring no examination.
Compared to regular taxi companies?
That isn’t what I said.
No, that’s what I asked. My point behind that question is that taxi companies aren’t particularly nice employers to begin with. Why hold Uber to a lofty standard while the many competitors don’t come close?
Congratulations on finally making a valid point. I like that one. Is this something you learned in this thread or were you aware of this before the conversation started?
I’m trying to dial down the swarm here, but I was aware of basic supply and demand well before this conversation. I didn’t know the details, but I did know that there would be more drivers on the road with surge pricing.
The study linked only looks at some of the biggest cities but experiences for drivers in other places wont be the same. This is why I said that it was important for potential Uber drivers to look at the market conditions where they live and the average compensation in that area.
Something else the study leaves out is the cost of being a driver. An hourly rate is merely revenue, it isn’t profit. Sure a taxi driver might get paid less per hour but what are the costs for that driver?
The key here is that it’s just not that hard to try out Uber. And if it turns out that circumstances don’t work for you, then you’re under no obligation to continue with Uber nor are you out any massive costs (main cost being a few months of commercial auto insurance and the operating costs of your vehicle). There’s a low barrier to entry that just doesn’t exist with traditional taxis.
The key here is that it’s just not that hard to try out Uber.
That depends entirely on whether or not you plan to use Uber as a job and whether or not you correctly assess the costs of doing so. Cars are not free and they should not be excluded from the analysis for anyone who wants to drive for Uber. Not just maintenance but the actual cost of the car.
Uber is an interesting company where the main cost of running the company is born by the employees and that many potential employees and customers don’t even recognize it as a cost.
There’s a low barrier to entry that just doesn’t exist with traditional taxis.
From whose perspective? A taxi driver might only need a clean record. A taxis company would need to buy or lease equipment and compensate and tax their employees as other businesses do. An Uber driver has to have a car that meets a set of standards, which may or may not be an easy hurdle to jump. The real barrier to entry is local governments that impose systems that restrict the market.
Why hold Uber to a lofty standard while the many competitors don’t come close?
As I said, I was just looking at the market and the company. Noting the reality of something shouldn’t be taken as holding Uber to a higher standard. I don’t have a horse in this race.
Lots of assertions, lets see some hard data.
Most (not all) large cities (even medium sized ones) have either medallion systems or regulatory regimes that are indistinguishable from them. Uber has done more to open up the market than anything else, and they deserve great praise for that. You don’t like their pricing scheme? Tell me why, don’t expect me to defer to you because you don’t care for it. Arguing that they suck because they have been kicked out of China (one of the most corrupt societies on the face of the planet) might simply suggest that they haven’t paid off the right people….if you think otherwise…SHOW YOUR WORK….
Regarding Amazon, I can only speak for myself and those I know personally, but the tax issue is pretty much a non-issue. Amazon is convenient (particularly Prime, which ranks right up there with Penicillin and Slice Bread), they give you access to everything in one place at reasonable prices, and you don’t have to fight through ill-trained and poorly behaved retail clerks to get what you want. My experiences with Amazon might be atypical, but they have been almost universally positive, so the argument that they “treat their clients like shit” doesn’t resonate with me. Even if it did…that is what competition and open markets are all about.
Finally on the subject of taxes. Amazon pays the taxes that they owe (that the tax system hasn’t adjusted to online commerce is hardly their fault), and even if we assumed that they paid local sales taxes (almost never more than 10%), there is little evidence to suggest that their customer base is driven by that price margin, rather than convenience, selection, etc. American companies are keeping their money off-shore because of the ridiculous American tax laws, and I don’t blame them a bit. The Feds don’t want to reform their policies, then they act surprised when the money stays away….
I recently bought through Amazon Prime a cheap European-made household item that is the best I’ve ever used but isn’t exported to the country I live in. It came in about a week, with no additional shipping fees or customs duties. And then Jeff Bezos egged my house or something.
It always amazes me when I buy some cheap something or other and get free shipping from China. You can get something for $1-5 and still pay no shipping but if you were to buy a similar product from the USA, it would cost $5 in shipping. OK, sometimes also free and you would only have to wait a week or two instead of a month but usually not.
Uber has done more to open up the market than anything else, and they deserve great praise for that.
This is good but that doesn’t mean an individual Uber driver benefits. It should be easy for Taxi companies to enter the industry. But their main appeal to the consumer is convenience.
The problem here is that driving has a low barrier to entry but being a good driver isn’t exactly easy. How are drivers to differentiate themselves and how can a “professional” driver charge a premium over some dude using his mom’s car during holidays?
Maybe this is the simplest example of the complexity of economics. It is one thing to be super, or even uber, free market but you also can’t ignore the effects on the workers.
How do you balance the corruption of a medallion system with the predatory nature of Uber that can abuse drivers?
*** I haven’t used Uber nore driven for them so I am just going on what I read about them in the popular press and some minor research into driver experiences.
If “an individual Uber driver” doesn’t “benefit” then they don’t work for Uber. It’s that simple.
What you are really saying is that allowing others to work when they are willing to work for less than I am should be illegal – because I was here first.
Not a convincing argument.
What you are really saying is that allowing others to work when they are willing to work for less than I am should be illegal
No, I was just examining the market.
The interests of Uber is vastly different than the interests of the drivers. This can create some problems for their business model.
Anyone thinking of driving for Uber should do a lot of research into their individual market, what kind of compensation they can expect, and thorough analysis of maintenance and depreciation costs. The onus is on the potential driver, Uber doesn’t care.
The interests of Uber is vastly different than the interests of the drivers.
Does that make Uber unique in some way? In general, the interests of a company are different than the interests of its employees.
Does that make Uber unique in some way?
Yes. Most companies have the responsibility of equipment costs. Uber places these costs on the worker. There are some other similar situations but surely you can recognize how this disassociation can cause problems for drivers.
I don’t know what rock you are living under, but where I’m at, Amazon most definitely collects sales tax, and has for a few years now. In fact, there are times when I’ll go to another online source to avoid the sales tax :-/
I’ve seen some articles written by undercover journalists about how horrible the Amazon warehouse work experience is, and…they seem like overprivileged whining to me. You mean a warehouse job isn’t intellectually stimulating and you have to work hard with limited breaks? Wow, when I worked construction, I worked really hard, got limited breaks, was tired at the end of the day and often didn’t feel like taking my girlfriend out dancing…but I got paid more than I could saying “do you want fries with that?” And danced on the weekends 🙂 Some jobs are hard and not too pleasant; in other news, water is wet. At least these warehouse workers have jobs; I think it quite likely that in the next 30 years, most warehouse work will transition to the “one man^H^H^H human, one dog” scenario except when the automated equipment needs fixing.
There was also the NYT series on how bad the white collar jobs were at Amazon, and again I found it unconvincing. Given the competition in the tech sector, if it were really that bad, people could go elsewhere. And it was a bit suspicious coming from the Carlos Slim-controlled NYT about the business practices of the owner of the NYT’s biggest national competitor.
Maybe Amazon is a terrible place to work; my point is that none of these hit pieces should be taken at face value. After seeing a supposedly reputable nationally beloved science show do an episode about something that I was intimately involved with and get it crazily, scarily wrong – so wrong that in literally 5 seconds with Google I was able to find publically available sources that completely invalidated what this program said and instead said what I knew with my inside knowledge to be true – I stopped taking anything the news media says at face value. You should try it sometime.
but where I’m at, Amazon most definitely collects sales tax
I think it depends on state laws where you live and state laws where the item is coming from or where the business has physical locations.
The most concerning thing to me is the control over information. It’s not theoretical, it’s actual. If we had a working media Hillary’s history would not have even allowed her to start a run for the whitehouse.
The only way you could know how bad Hillary is is if you’ve been following her since Arkansas. For younger voters, they hardly ever get the chance to be exposed to it.
There’s a reason campaign finance laws include limits. Without them there is no limit to corruption.
The most concerning thing to me is the control over information.
Yup! Hillary wanted SCOTUS to shut down a documentary and the Democrats want to prevent people other than Democrats from spending money to influence politics but they aren’t concerned at all about the antitrust issues surrounding FB, Twitter, and Google from controlling the flow of information.
Obama has said that the world is the most peaceful ever and that people only get outraged about sex slavery and genocide because it is easier to know about it now than in the past. This is true to some extent, people only get upset about something if they have the knowledge of its existence.
The world is the safest ever because of the previous American policies, that Obama thinks are the root of all evil, and the sex slavery and genocide that break the norm of the Pax Americana are due mostly to his “smart” diplomacy. No wonder Obama thinks Americans shouldn’t have access to the truth of world events.
>The most concerning thing to me is the control over information. It’s not theoretical, it’s actual.
This. Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, all of those are able to filter what you see, or are not allowed to see. Then, they accumulate information about you, and use and sell it. They are transparently political and a metastatic cancer to a republic.
I hate to have to take the role of a seeming Apple apologist…but lumping Apple in with the others in your list is misleading at best and flat-out wrong at worst. So here goes:
Apple makes money by selling hardware; they don’t sell user information to third parties. You, the user, is Apple’s customer. Now, you may not like the restrictions that Apple puts on its mobile devices – only one source of apps, “jailbreaking” against the user agreement, for example – but this is not “accumulat[ing] information about you, and…selling it.”
Apple’s News app does indeed present curated sources, but nothing forces you to use it, and their range of sources is quite wide – in many ways, News is much more of an aggregator than a top-down filter. E.g., Fox News and the WSJ are Apple News channels, and IIRC Apple has no control over what these channels present.
Remember – if it’s free, then you are almost certainly the product.
Manipulating searches (Siri not finding certain things), changing emoji, not assisting the GOP convention, and going full SJW (GBLT is only part of it) definitely place Apple on the list. Apple is obviously transparently political. They don’t (yet) sell our info, to my knowledge.
Is this all because of Tim Cook?
Let’s see… We have laws that insist on licenses for nearly everything, minimum-wage laws that effectively ban unskilled labor, environmental regulations apparently based on the idea that poverty is a good thing, and zoning laws that ensure that jobs and labor do not go together … but it’s all the fault of the “oligarchs”?
The oligarchs support all of those things, and provide campaign funding to politicians who vote for them.
Yes.
I was going to reply to f1b0nacc1 above but
(that the tax system hasn’t adjusted to online commerce is hardly their fault)
Its not like these companies do not lobby politicians.
The bigger a business is, the more they have to engage in corruption by dealing with politicians.
Wodun, you just pointed out a key issue that often gets muddied. Business people are motivated to do things that are not in everybody’s best interest but that is moderated by competition. They provide value like a nuclear reactor where competition are the control rods. The bigger the business with the better political access the more they can squelch competition. Business to some idiots is evil, when really it’s human tendencies unchecked that produce evil.
The irony is whenever politics gets involved in the name of fairness they reduce competition. As when they decided rural areas were not getting phone service so they made laws that destroyed the small rural phone companies (some were even using fence barbed wire for transmissions.)
I’d like to see a comparison between the “oligarchs” and their non-oligarchical neighbors. Maybe the only problem is that they’re too normal and should “think different.”
We see a similar pattern in online debates about H1B visas and nuclear energy. A laissez-faire (open borders or allowing fossil fuels) policy is rejected for reasons that many people find plausible. An alternative policy (H1B visas or subsidies for nuclear energy) is proposed that includes a small amount of government involvement. This policy is backed by many people who usually support laissez-faire policies. The opponents of the alternative policy then criticize the supporters for being hypocrites and complain that we cannot trust the government. That may sound reasonable except they continue to reject the laissez-faire policy and advocate a policy (closed borders or subsidies for renewable energy) with far more government involvement.
I think you’re all missing the fact that the article was cited under “Humor.”
Good catch but if you have to explain the joke, is it funny?
Speaking of Elon Musk….
Kudos on JCSAT16 to GTO & another successful barge landing.
Lack of hanger space for boosters? What a problem to have!
Yeah, this H1-B visa thing needs to go in its entirety.
I’m so sick of people implying that H1B visas are somehow bad, and taking jobs from hardworking Americans. I was granted an H1B visa in April 2001. My salary was not $5 an hour or something like that but $120k. I currently have the Russian equivalent of the H1B (3yrs, tied to one employer, extendable once for 3 more years). Trust me, it’s for a bit more than the average Moscow salary.
The problem with the H-1B is that the recipient thereof has little to no freedom of movement in the labor market while in the country on the visa, which eliminates the free market in labor and encourages abuses that hurt all potential job seekers.
Well, they do take jobs from Americans.
NB from uscis.gov: “U.S. businesses use the H-1B visa program to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require the theoretical or practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, including but not limited to scientists, engineers, or computer programmers.”
I’ll also note that there is a cap of 65000 H1B visas a year, a *tiny* number in a country with 4 million births a year.
New Zealand, with population 70 times smaller than the USA has a target of attracting 26000 skilled migrants a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#H-1B_applications_approved
Rather more than 60K. I am not a US citizen. But I can certainly understand the concerns that US citizens have with the program especially with companies like Infosys and Wipro operating in the market as middle men. We have similar issues here in Europe as well.
I am sure it is not the case for everyone and sometimes you do need to bring talent from outside. But it does depress wages especially if you allow middle men to operate (especially if said middle men provide kickbacks to the original employer which happens more often than not).
Yes bruce, but if you want to live in a country with a stultifying bureacracy, Australia has better weather.
Probably. When you look at what the XIXth century robber barons left behind you see a legacy that I doubt you will see with the current crop. They built infrastructure which sometimes is still in use today.
Of the current crop Elon is the most interesting of the lot. Similarly to what others did in the 1980s he’s making leading edge technology more available to the masses in an attempt to transform the market. Even then there are some weird shenanigans in there. Like Tesla buying SolarCity. That was a weird business deal to say the least.
Amazon used to be basically a glorified electronic version of a mail order catalog and now they aren’t even that. They seem to be competing more and more with Alibaba and eBay as a kind of middleman which provides goods storage, long haul transport, and escrow services. Their whole business model depends on tax evasion. In the EU Amazon used to not pay any VAT at all and in the USA they did not pay any sales tax. Then, at least here in Europe, they started charging VAT to customers at local rates (could be up to 25%) while they themselves pay VAT at the rates of their fiscal domicile at 5% or even 0%. Rather unsurprisingly all the bookstores went bankrupt. I suppose they did pass back some of the tax savings in the form of price cuts to customers at one point. But this was not a business model based on enhanced productivity or delivering a new product.
We had book mail order catalogs before. They did not make bookstores obsolete. They still had to pay taxes. If companies like Amazon were being taxed on the level with other companies operating in the same field they wouldn’t have the same scale they have now. The business would still make sense. It provides a convenience (buying without leaving your house) but it also has inconveniences (you can’t physically inspect the product prior to purchasing and returns are awkward) which is why we still had bookstores.
The Apple business model has been obsolete for nearly a decade. They do not offer anything you can’t buy cheaper and better elsewhere. It is little better than a rebranding operation. But I guess people with bad working knowledge of the tech sector don’t want to bother looking at product specs and just focus on the brand that they know has a working product.
AFAIK Twitter never made a profit in their life. As for Facebook… It could be obsoleted in two years if anyone else showed up. Remember MySpace?
The Apple business model has been obsolete for nearly a decade. They do not offer anything you can’t buy cheaper and better elsewhere.
Their market share says otherwise. People are willing to pay for something that just works and looks nice.
It is little better than a rebranding operation.
Then you don’t understand Apple or the value of brands. Who is Apple rebranding again? Why doesn’t that other brand just take over if Apple is just not adding much of anything in value?
As to the relative value of the current robber barons versus those of the industrial age, I really don’t see much difference in value. They all massively employ people and create a huge amount of value. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, there is a great deal spent on these services and whatnot by those who want it.
Your take on Apple is laughable. My tech and computing background is impeccable: aerospace engineer, cut my teeth on a DEC PDP-11 running Berkeley UNIX, graduated to a VAX 11/780 running VMS 3.1, eventually wound up running my own Slackware 2.0 PC at work. I’ve written hundreds of thousands of lines of code in Fortran, C, C++, Ada, Python, Perl, Tcl, various UNIX shells, etc. I’ve written graphics code using Xlib, IRIS GL, and various versions of OpenGL. I’ve taught classes for other engineers on how to get the most out of their X11 environment. I most definitely qualify as someone who has a very good working knowledge of the tech sector, who looks at product specs but is experienced enough to understand that specs don’t tell you anywhere near everything you need to know.
And, since 2007, my home computing environment has been exclusively Apple: originally a 24-inch white iMac running OS X 10.4, and now up to a menagerie of various iMacs, MacBooks, iPhones, and iPads. The reason? In my extensive experience and judgement, my family and I get the best combination of features, reliability, stability, user experience, and cost-effectiveness out of these products than we would out of the competition. There are some capabilities important to us that are unique to Apple products too: for example, I can easily use my iPhone or iPad as a digital audio workstation – with an $80 adapters that fits in my pocket, I can plug in my Strat and perform or record with 24-bit fidelity, hundreds of high quality amp/cabinet/pedal models, virtual backing instruments, multitrack recording, etc. Android has nothing like this because the OS has no built-in support for low-latency audio processing; the online forums of the companies that make these products for iOS usually have some requests for an Android version, and the reply is always the same – not possible until Android totally revamps their audio model. Please explain how this is a rebranding operation.
Also, if you actually kept up with the product specs, you would know that Apple’s custom ARM CPUs for mobile are head and shoulders above anything that either Qualcomm or Samsung is putting out. Apple’s internal chip design group is designing the most advanced ARM SoC’s in the world. But don’t take my word for it – go read, say, Anandtech.
Look, nobody is saying you have to like Apple or their products; plenty of people don’t. IIRC, our host has had bad experiences with Apple stuff and doesn’t use them. I know others in the same boat. People should use what they like and what works for them; just like I do. But when you spout such utter BS about Apple and the people who choose their products – stuff that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that you are completely clueless about why a lot of people like and use Apple products – then a public correction is in order. You’re welcome :-/
Apple’s custom ARM CPUs for mobile are head and shoulders above anything that either Qualcomm or Samsung is putting out.
Not true anymore. For a time the only 64-bit ARM core design around other than Apple’s was the sample AArch64 implementation from ARM. Now Qualcomm has their own 64-bit Kryo core and ARM has later generation core designs. The last Apple processor was a process shrink without major processor architecture improvements and in the meantime the competition caught up.
I can easily use my iPhone or iPad as a digital audio workstation
The audio latency advantage that iOS presently has over Android might be an interesting niche advantage for some but personally I could care less. OS sound latency in recent Android versions has improved a lot for those who do care about it though:
https://source.android.com/devices/audio/latency_measurements.html
Plus *you can get a DAW for Android* like FL Studio (AKA FruityLoops) if you want to. So its not like there aren’t any. There is no technical reason why Android couldn’t have even lower audio latency if Google wanted to. It uses the Linux kernel so the only thing they needed would be to support JACK.
If we are going to rehash old arguments… the limited advantage the Atari ST had in the audio niche when it came out in the 1980s was not enough to save that platform either. Cubase originally was exclusive to the ST. Can you get an ST today? No. It’s a feeble argument to think that it’s going to save Apple.
I might not be as old as you but I am old enough to have programmed in C/C++ over SunOS on SPARC and Digital UNIX on Alpha as an undergrad. I did not start using Linux much later. I started using Slackware around version 3.0, when ELF binary support came out, because it allowed me to do my course work at home. Near the time I graduated I saw the IRIX SGI workstations in our graphics research lab get thrown into the trash.
I am not a die hard masochist though. I have not compiled a Linux kernel for over a decade and switched to Ubuntu several years back. I prefer the extra freedom and cost effectiveness of Linux over x86. Have had my share of niche closed hardware platforms in the past. In the long run the market solution always wins out.
The Apple Mac hardware lineup is utterly obsolete. Don’t take my word for it. Go to an Apple fanatic website like MacRumours and read what they have to say about it. I would rather buy an ASUS if I had to get a laptop. I built my own PC desktop from parts (not particularly hard to do. LEGO is much harder). When I saw the Apple Mac Pro dustbin design some years back I was dismayed to say the least. Completely impractical and clearly done by someone clueless about what you need in a workstation.
You never bothered to explain how any of what Apple is doing is a rebranding operation. And your take on the ARM SoC state is ludicrous; read informed sites like Anandtech, not Qualcomm or Samsung marketing sheets. Your dismissal of the enormous audio processing advantages of iOS is typical – why does MY use case make me clueless in your eyes, but YOUR use case is meaningful? Pathetic.
You appear to be beyond help on this point, but I’ll say it anyway: just because somebody makes something you don’t like and charges more than you would pay doesn’t mean that the people who do like and find value in the product are wrong. Your use cases are not universal, and neither are your opinions. Grow the fuck up.
*plonk*
Godzilla vs. Cthulhu. It finally happened.
Re: Godzilla vs cthulhu
It was inevitable, like all bad movies/TV….
Personally I prefer keeping my mythologies separate… 😉
I’m afraid I disagree. I agree that in general, these robber barons are not giving us the infrastructure that the last ones did; but the article goes too far.
Why does the “sharing economy” work? Simple – it bypasses government graft. It gives the jobs out based on need (otherwise know as willingness to do the work) rather than government connections. In the old days, taxi drivers were chosen based on who payed off the mayor and got in the medallion pool. Now, taxi drivers are chosen by who is willing to work the best for the lowest price.
This is a huge improvement. It doesn’t show up in the GDP. But if it wasn’t an improvement, no one would use Uber.
An quite frankly I’d rather pay Amazon to fight my tax war for me.
Not every place is New York. Not every place has a medallion system. In a lot of places you just need a license and there are no limits to the amount of licenses. Obtaining the license can be as easy as filling a form and granting proof that you have a clean criminal record. Some places have specific laws for the taxi vehicles themselves (visible taximeter, etc). Uber’s ‘surge’ pricing scheme is crap. I am sure libertarians love it, and that it makes Uber a lot of money, but it’s no way to run a viable transportation system. The platform is fine but the business model and their leadership sucks. They have already been kicked out of China and I expect them to lose to local competitors everywhere bigtime.
I hate Amazon because they treat their employees like shit, treat their clients like shit, don’t pay taxes and are shit overall.
It’s very interesting to say that it’s other people’s problem to pay taxes but the less taxes they pay the more taxes we all pay. For some reason quite a lot of US companies have large off-shore cash reserves which aren’t being invested, being distributed as dividends or as salaries, and then they are surprised that GDP doesn’t grow.
Not every place is New York.
So we should let NYC (and the many places that are just like NYC) have its heavily restricted market because there are places that aren’t like NYC?
Uber’s ‘surge’ pricing scheme is crap. I am sure libertarians love it, and that it makes Uber a lot of money, but it’s no way to run a viable transportation system.
Because it’s better to not have rides available when a lot of people need it? The point behind surge pricing is standard supply and demand. When there’s more demand, you need to raise prices in order to encourage supply. Else you won’t get the demand filled.
They have already been kicked out of China and I expect them to lose to local competitors everywhere bigtime.
Then we don’t need to worry about Uber’s business model or the cities that don’t have heavily restricted taxi markets, right?
I hate Amazon because they treat their employees like shit, treat their clients like shit, don’t pay taxes and are shit overall.
Having known someone who actually worked for Amazon, your opinion is in error with respect to employees. I’ve never had trouble with Amazon while purchasing my things. So I’m a “client” who hasn’t been treated like shit. And “don’t pay taxes” merely means they pay a huge amount of property taxes, corporate taxes, and of course, income taxes through their employees, but it’s not the right kind of tax, state sales tax.
It’s very interesting to say that it’s other people’s problem to pay taxes but the less taxes they pay the more taxes we all pay.
Unless, of course, we all choose to pay less taxes. I don’t see most US spending being justified, whether it be entitlements, military, or the various clueless regulatory and rent seeking entities out there.
For some reason quite a lot of US companies have large off-shore cash reserves which aren’t being invested, being distributed as dividends or as salaries, and then they are surprised that GDP doesn’t grow.
I swear I recall seeing ideas on how to handle this sort of situation in this blog.
So we should let NYC (and the many places that are just like NYC) have its heavily restricted market
No but Uber doesn’t exactly treat its drivers well. They seek to take advantage of people willing to work extra as a tertiary endeavor. This might be good overall but it hurts people who want to drive as their primary work. Obviously, it varies from market to market but there is no shortage of articles about Uber drivers who don’t feel they are compensated enough.
Traditional Taxi companies can probably compete on convenience and access but it becomes harder if they have a stable of employees that competes against a meat grinder of fly by night drivers who might not last more than a month.
Market conditions could change this but since the barriers to entry are so low and the appeal of some extra money is so high, the market might be extra flexible. Even in a good economy, where labor is engaged in other endeavors, there will be a lot of pressure on Uber drivers.
Because it’s better to not have rides available when a lot of people need it?
Rides are still not available. The thinking behind surge pricing isn’t that more people get rides but that the limited number of rides goes for the highest price. How much of that higher price trickles down to the drivers?
The interesting thing about Uber is that the drivers can control their hours but not their prices and the driver’s costs are not the same as Uber’s costs.
No but Uber doesn’t exactly treat its drivers well.
Compared to regular taxi companies? Sorry, I just don’t see the concern here. Why are the jobs of taxi drivers more important than the needs of people who have to travel in the city?
Rides are still not available. The thinking behind surge pricing isn’t that more people get rides but that the limited number of rides goes for the highest price. How much of that higher price trickles down to the drivers?
Apparently, enough that Uber can pull in a lot of part time drivers during surge pricing.
According to this study, Uber drivers in NYC were pulling in an average of $26 per hour or better (see Table 2. They grouped drivers by number of hours worked per week). There was a surprisingly high retention rate among drivers who had at least five rides under their belt (figure 6). More than half were still active in a weak sense (meaning that they had accepted rides during the course of that year without more than a 6 month gap in between).
And note in table 6, that Uber drivers consistently pull in more than taxi drivers and chauffeurs. In NYC, it is almost exactly double with $30.35 per hour versus $15.17 per hour.
Compared to regular taxi companies?
That isn’t what I said.
Why are the jobs of taxi drivers more important than the needs of people who have to travel in the city?
I also didn’t say that. But why isn’t the welfare of Uber drivers important to you since you favor the company? You have affiliation without affinity?
Do you recognize that what is good for an Uber driver isn’t the same as what is good for Uber and the problems that relationship can create?
Apparently, enough that Uber can pull in a lot of part time drivers during surge pricing.
Congratulations on finally making a valid point. I like that one. Is this something you learned in this thread or were you aware of this before the conversation started?
According to this study, Uber drivers in NYC
The rest of the country isn’t NYC. Picking the most densely populated city doesn’t even come close to portraying what things are like for Uber drivers in the rest of the country.
The study linked only looks at some of the biggest cities but experiences for drivers in other places wont be the same. This is why I said that it was important for potential Uber drivers to look at the market conditions where they live and the average compensation in that area.
Something else the study leaves out is the cost of being a driver. An hourly rate is merely revenue, it isn’t profit. Sure a taxi driver might get paid less per hour but what are the costs for that driver?
Anyway, I made some good points about the nature of the market. You can continue to ignore them or assimilate them. Knowing more about the relationship between an Uber driver and Uber doesn’t mean you have to like or dislike Uber.
Despite what you keep accusing me of, I don’t dislike Uber. I don’t want them outlawed. I also don’t love them or think that a having a positive view of the company means that everything is rainbows gum drop farts requiring no examination.
That isn’t what I said.
No, that’s what I asked. My point behind that question is that taxi companies aren’t particularly nice employers to begin with. Why hold Uber to a lofty standard while the many competitors don’t come close?
Congratulations on finally making a valid point. I like that one. Is this something you learned in this thread or were you aware of this before the conversation started?
I’m trying to dial down the swarm here, but I was aware of basic supply and demand well before this conversation. I didn’t know the details, but I did know that there would be more drivers on the road with surge pricing.
The study linked only looks at some of the biggest cities but experiences for drivers in other places wont be the same. This is why I said that it was important for potential Uber drivers to look at the market conditions where they live and the average compensation in that area.
Something else the study leaves out is the cost of being a driver. An hourly rate is merely revenue, it isn’t profit. Sure a taxi driver might get paid less per hour but what are the costs for that driver?
The key here is that it’s just not that hard to try out Uber. And if it turns out that circumstances don’t work for you, then you’re under no obligation to continue with Uber nor are you out any massive costs (main cost being a few months of commercial auto insurance and the operating costs of your vehicle). There’s a low barrier to entry that just doesn’t exist with traditional taxis.
The key here is that it’s just not that hard to try out Uber.
That depends entirely on whether or not you plan to use Uber as a job and whether or not you correctly assess the costs of doing so. Cars are not free and they should not be excluded from the analysis for anyone who wants to drive for Uber. Not just maintenance but the actual cost of the car.
Uber is an interesting company where the main cost of running the company is born by the employees and that many potential employees and customers don’t even recognize it as a cost.
There’s a low barrier to entry that just doesn’t exist with traditional taxis.
From whose perspective? A taxi driver might only need a clean record. A taxis company would need to buy or lease equipment and compensate and tax their employees as other businesses do. An Uber driver has to have a car that meets a set of standards, which may or may not be an easy hurdle to jump. The real barrier to entry is local governments that impose systems that restrict the market.
Why hold Uber to a lofty standard while the many competitors don’t come close?
As I said, I was just looking at the market and the company. Noting the reality of something shouldn’t be taken as holding Uber to a higher standard. I don’t have a horse in this race.
Lots of assertions, lets see some hard data.
Most (not all) large cities (even medium sized ones) have either medallion systems or regulatory regimes that are indistinguishable from them. Uber has done more to open up the market than anything else, and they deserve great praise for that. You don’t like their pricing scheme? Tell me why, don’t expect me to defer to you because you don’t care for it. Arguing that they suck because they have been kicked out of China (one of the most corrupt societies on the face of the planet) might simply suggest that they haven’t paid off the right people….if you think otherwise…SHOW YOUR WORK….
Regarding Amazon, I can only speak for myself and those I know personally, but the tax issue is pretty much a non-issue. Amazon is convenient (particularly Prime, which ranks right up there with Penicillin and Slice Bread), they give you access to everything in one place at reasonable prices, and you don’t have to fight through ill-trained and poorly behaved retail clerks to get what you want. My experiences with Amazon might be atypical, but they have been almost universally positive, so the argument that they “treat their clients like shit” doesn’t resonate with me. Even if it did…that is what competition and open markets are all about.
Finally on the subject of taxes. Amazon pays the taxes that they owe (that the tax system hasn’t adjusted to online commerce is hardly their fault), and even if we assumed that they paid local sales taxes (almost never more than 10%), there is little evidence to suggest that their customer base is driven by that price margin, rather than convenience, selection, etc. American companies are keeping their money off-shore because of the ridiculous American tax laws, and I don’t blame them a bit. The Feds don’t want to reform their policies, then they act surprised when the money stays away….
I recently bought through Amazon Prime a cheap European-made household item that is the best I’ve ever used but isn’t exported to the country I live in. It came in about a week, with no additional shipping fees or customs duties. And then Jeff Bezos egged my house or something.
It always amazes me when I buy some cheap something or other and get free shipping from China. You can get something for $1-5 and still pay no shipping but if you were to buy a similar product from the USA, it would cost $5 in shipping. OK, sometimes also free and you would only have to wait a week or two instead of a month but usually not.
Uber has done more to open up the market than anything else, and they deserve great praise for that.
This is good but that doesn’t mean an individual Uber driver benefits. It should be easy for Taxi companies to enter the industry. But their main appeal to the consumer is convenience.
The problem here is that driving has a low barrier to entry but being a good driver isn’t exactly easy. How are drivers to differentiate themselves and how can a “professional” driver charge a premium over some dude using his mom’s car during holidays?
Maybe this is the simplest example of the complexity of economics. It is one thing to be super, or even uber, free market but you also can’t ignore the effects on the workers.
How do you balance the corruption of a medallion system with the predatory nature of Uber that can abuse drivers?
*** I haven’t used Uber nore driven for them so I am just going on what I read about them in the popular press and some minor research into driver experiences.
If “an individual Uber driver” doesn’t “benefit” then they don’t work for Uber. It’s that simple.
What you are really saying is that allowing others to work when they are willing to work for less than I am should be illegal – because I was here first.
Not a convincing argument.
What you are really saying is that allowing others to work when they are willing to work for less than I am should be illegal
No, I was just examining the market.
The interests of Uber is vastly different than the interests of the drivers. This can create some problems for their business model.
Anyone thinking of driving for Uber should do a lot of research into their individual market, what kind of compensation they can expect, and thorough analysis of maintenance and depreciation costs. The onus is on the potential driver, Uber doesn’t care.
The interests of Uber is vastly different than the interests of the drivers.
Does that make Uber unique in some way? In general, the interests of a company are different than the interests of its employees.
Does that make Uber unique in some way?
Yes. Most companies have the responsibility of equipment costs. Uber places these costs on the worker. There are some other similar situations but surely you can recognize how this disassociation can cause problems for drivers.
I don’t know what rock you are living under, but where I’m at, Amazon most definitely collects sales tax, and has for a few years now. In fact, there are times when I’ll go to another online source to avoid the sales tax :-/
I’ve seen some articles written by undercover journalists about how horrible the Amazon warehouse work experience is, and…they seem like overprivileged whining to me. You mean a warehouse job isn’t intellectually stimulating and you have to work hard with limited breaks? Wow, when I worked construction, I worked really hard, got limited breaks, was tired at the end of the day and often didn’t feel like taking my girlfriend out dancing…but I got paid more than I could saying “do you want fries with that?” And danced on the weekends 🙂 Some jobs are hard and not too pleasant; in other news, water is wet. At least these warehouse workers have jobs; I think it quite likely that in the next 30 years, most warehouse work will transition to the “one man^H^H^H human, one dog” scenario except when the automated equipment needs fixing.
There was also the NYT series on how bad the white collar jobs were at Amazon, and again I found it unconvincing. Given the competition in the tech sector, if it were really that bad, people could go elsewhere. And it was a bit suspicious coming from the Carlos Slim-controlled NYT about the business practices of the owner of the NYT’s biggest national competitor.
Maybe Amazon is a terrible place to work; my point is that none of these hit pieces should be taken at face value. After seeing a supposedly reputable nationally beloved science show do an episode about something that I was intimately involved with and get it crazily, scarily wrong – so wrong that in literally 5 seconds with Google I was able to find publically available sources that completely invalidated what this program said and instead said what I knew with my inside knowledge to be true – I stopped taking anything the news media says at face value. You should try it sometime.
but where I’m at, Amazon most definitely collects sales tax
I think it depends on state laws where you live and state laws where the item is coming from or where the business has physical locations.
The most concerning thing to me is the control over information. It’s not theoretical, it’s actual. If we had a working media Hillary’s history would not have even allowed her to start a run for the whitehouse.
The only way you could know how bad Hillary is is if you’ve been following her since Arkansas. For younger voters, they hardly ever get the chance to be exposed to it.
There’s a reason campaign finance laws include limits. Without them there is no limit to corruption.
The most concerning thing to me is the control over information.
Yup! Hillary wanted SCOTUS to shut down a documentary and the Democrats want to prevent people other than Democrats from spending money to influence politics but they aren’t concerned at all about the antitrust issues surrounding FB, Twitter, and Google from controlling the flow of information.
Obama has said that the world is the most peaceful ever and that people only get outraged about sex slavery and genocide because it is easier to know about it now than in the past. This is true to some extent, people only get upset about something if they have the knowledge of its existence.
The world is the safest ever because of the previous American policies, that Obama thinks are the root of all evil, and the sex slavery and genocide that break the norm of the Pax Americana are due mostly to his “smart” diplomacy. No wonder Obama thinks Americans shouldn’t have access to the truth of world events.
>The most concerning thing to me is the control over information. It’s not theoretical, it’s actual.
This. Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, all of those are able to filter what you see, or are not allowed to see. Then, they accumulate information about you, and use and sell it. They are transparently political and a metastatic cancer to a republic.
I hate to have to take the role of a seeming Apple apologist…but lumping Apple in with the others in your list is misleading at best and flat-out wrong at worst. So here goes:
Apple makes money by selling hardware; they don’t sell user information to third parties. You, the user, is Apple’s customer. Now, you may not like the restrictions that Apple puts on its mobile devices – only one source of apps, “jailbreaking” against the user agreement, for example – but this is not “accumulat[ing] information about you, and…selling it.”
Apple’s News app does indeed present curated sources, but nothing forces you to use it, and their range of sources is quite wide – in many ways, News is much more of an aggregator than a top-down filter. E.g., Fox News and the WSJ are Apple News channels, and IIRC Apple has no control over what these channels present.
Remember – if it’s free, then you are almost certainly the product.
Manipulating searches (Siri not finding certain things), changing emoji, not assisting the GOP convention, and going full SJW (GBLT is only part of it) definitely place Apple on the list. Apple is obviously transparently political. They don’t (yet) sell our info, to my knowledge.
Is this all because of Tim Cook?
Let’s see… We have laws that insist on licenses for nearly everything, minimum-wage laws that effectively ban unskilled labor, environmental regulations apparently based on the idea that poverty is a good thing, and zoning laws that ensure that jobs and labor do not go together … but it’s all the fault of the “oligarchs”?
The oligarchs support all of those things, and provide campaign funding to politicians who vote for them.
Yes.
I was going to reply to f1b0nacc1 above but
(that the tax system hasn’t adjusted to online commerce is hardly their fault)
Its not like these companies do not lobby politicians.
The bigger a business is, the more they have to engage in corruption by dealing with politicians.
Wodun, you just pointed out a key issue that often gets muddied. Business people are motivated to do things that are not in everybody’s best interest but that is moderated by competition. They provide value like a nuclear reactor where competition are the control rods. The bigger the business with the better political access the more they can squelch competition. Business to some idiots is evil, when really it’s human tendencies unchecked that produce evil.
The irony is whenever politics gets involved in the name of fairness they reduce competition. As when they decided rural areas were not getting phone service so they made laws that destroyed the small rural phone companies (some were even using fence barbed wire for transmissions.)
I’d like to see a comparison between the “oligarchs” and their non-oligarchical neighbors. Maybe the only problem is that they’re too normal and should “think different.”
We see a similar pattern in online debates about H1B visas and nuclear energy. A laissez-faire (open borders or allowing fossil fuels) policy is rejected for reasons that many people find plausible. An alternative policy (H1B visas or subsidies for nuclear energy) is proposed that includes a small amount of government involvement. This policy is backed by many people who usually support laissez-faire policies. The opponents of the alternative policy then criticize the supporters for being hypocrites and complain that we cannot trust the government. That may sound reasonable except they continue to reject the laissez-faire policy and advocate a policy (closed borders or subsidies for renewable energy) with far more government involvement.
I think you’re all missing the fact that the article was cited under “Humor.”
Good catch but if you have to explain the joke, is it funny?
Speaking of Elon Musk….
Kudos on JCSAT16 to GTO & another successful barge landing.
Lack of hanger space for boosters? What a problem to have!
Dave