SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paul Buchheit reports via Common Dreams
An emotional response to any criticism of the Apple Corporation might be anticipated from the users of the company's powerful, practical, popular, and entertaining devices. Accolades to the company and a healthy profit are certainly well-deserved. But much-despised should be the theft from taxpayers and the exploitation of workers and customers, all cloaked within the image of an organization that seems to work magic on our behalf.
1. Apple Took Years of Public Research, Integrated the Results, and Packaged it as Their Own
2. Even After Taking Our Research, Apple Does Everything in its Power to Avoid Taxes
3. Overcharging Customers
The manufacturing cost of a 16 GB iPhone 6 is about $200, and with marketing it comes to about $288. But without an expensive phone contract with Verizon, AT&T, or one of the other wireless carriers, the cost to the customer is at least $650.
4. Underpaying and Mistreating Employees
5. Apple Has Figured Out How to Spend Most of its Untaxed Money on Itself
Apple's View:
The tax-avoiding, research-appropriating, cost-escalating, wage-minimizing, self-enriching Apple Corporation has, according to CEO Tim Cook,[1] a very strong moral compass.
[1] Link in article redirects.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:47AM
cash [...] repatriated
Now, how did that get to cross a national border so easily in the first place?
Labor can't do that easily.
Capital? No problem!
When I was a kid and the teacher drew a 3-legged stool on the cave wall, it was explained that it represented Capitalism|the workplace.
The legs were capital, labor, and management.
It was further explained that if one of the legs was a different length from the others, it made for a really sucky stool|workplace.
the minimum wage should be raised [...] singling out Apple [...] makes little sense
I don't accept the continued foot-dragging|race to the bottom.
Change for the better has to start somewhere
The most prosperous corp seems like a good starting point to me.
the middle-class
You claim to have read some previous posts by me but have missed my rejection of that concept.
(Lamestrem Media's invention.)
There are only TWO classes:
1) People who need to do labor to make money
2) People who can make money with money--and no labor.
Call them the Working Class and the Idle Rich; call them the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie; whatever.
highly-skilled jobs [...] we'd likely be forced to increase their pay[...]
Raising their wages would have the effect of depressing the spending power of the poor
If there is still poverty after you made changes, you didn't do it right.
{Lyrics to a 10 Years After song go here}
the spending power of the ultra-rich
Except that THEY DON'T ACTUALLY SPEND all that much.
How many cars or boats or houses or suits of clothes can 1 person use?
USA is constantly called "the richest country on Earth" yet 1 in 5 children here lives in poverty.
Clearly, there is plenty of wealth; the problem is how it is concentrated (already mentioned by you).
FDR (once again) proposed a 100 percent tax on income over $30,000 (about $240,000 today).
He "settled" for 94 percent.
USA stabilized, there were jobs aplenty, and the whole place was prosperous for decades.
...then came Reaganomics and "trickle down".
(Nothing good has ever "tricked down".)
The problem was and is extreme wealth and inappropriate tax rates.
...and activist Reactionary SCOTUS judges.
years [...] to reach a new state of equilibrium
In 1789 in France, the oppressors were gone more quickly than that.
The 1 Percenters (Neo-Feudalists) have forgotten they are made of edible stuff.
You can only push folks so far and currently over 23 percent of USAians don't have a fulltime job or any prospect of one.
The word "desperation" occurs to me--as well as the word "soon".
I didn't answer your points directly, but then again, I reject your acceptance that things can be tweaked a tiny bit and everything will be hunky-dory.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:35PM
Stop conflating FDR's confiscatory economic policies with the fact that Europe, the USSR, and east Asia were wastelands. America had the only factories left, and boomed because there was no competition.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:28PM
You would have a point *if* by 1937 USA wasn't back on its feet and climbing out of the hole that (Free-Market Republicans) Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover dug.
In fact, FDR was goaded by Wall Street into dialing back his programs in 1937 and the economy started to tank again (due a reduced Multiplier Effect).
WWII was NOT what got USA out of the Depression.
It was smart financial thinking (relying on the Multiplier Effect) and full employment building|rebuilding USA's infrastructure using the taxes paid by the rich who had benefited so much from The Commons.
What WWII got USA was a reliance on building weapons and the Orwellian condition of permanent warfare (wars of aggression).
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:19PM
It's becoming abundantly clear that this whole anti-"Apphole" thing you have going on has less to do with Apple and more to do with using Apple as a proxy for everything you find wrong in the economy and the way that wealth is distributed in the US. It's fine to have those concerns and issues, of course, but be forthright and genuine about what your real concerns are, rather than trying to hide them behind a particular company.
In 1789 in France, the oppressors were gone more quickly than that.
When I'm talking about my trepidation at the prospect of social upheaval while things work themselves out, your decision to point to the French Revolution--famous for its Reign of Terror and its widespread use of the guillotine to eliminate the opposition--seems like an odd choice. Or do you consider a violent coup to be a valid way for sorting this situation out? I suppose if you're espousing Marxist terminology, pointing out that the members of the proletariat are made of edible stuff, and suggesting that the bourgeoisie are becoming desperate because they can only be pushed so far, you may actually be suggesting that a bloody revolution is the appropriate response to this situation. In that, you and I will have to disagree, since while I do think that a revolution is the right and proper response of the citizenry in certain situations, I do not think that the current situation calls for a response of that sort.
I never said anything resembling "things could be tweaked a tiny bit and everything will be hunky-dory." Not sure how you read what I said to mean that at all. That's not something I believe in the least.
I never said the rich spend a lot. I talked about their spending power (I meant to refer to was their purchasing power [wikipedia.org]), but I never talked about their actual spending. And I never said there would still be poverty after raising the minimum wage. Quite the contrary, I suggested that eliminating poverty by lifting up the poor will result in those financially above them seeing a reduction in their purchasing power, which will lead to a time of upheaval as things settle back down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:53PM
Apple as a proxy
I concede the point.
be forthright and genuine
I did concede that I was coloring outside the lines that you drew in order to blow off some steam and to draw some of my own.
the guillotine
You must live in a gated community.
There are A LOT of people who wonder where their next meal is coming from.
Actual unemployment, as already mentioned, is 23 percent.
As mentioned, this was roughly the level that existed just before FDR took over after nearly 4 years of depression and failed Right-Wing fumbling/inaction.
There are currently A LOT of righteously angry people whom the system has failed--and the number continues to grow (USA.gov's numbers are a fraud--and the underclass knows that).
the proletariat are made of edible stuff, and suggesting that the bourgeoisie are becoming desperate
You got the classes backwards.
I do not think that the current situation calls for [revolution]
Gated communities do have that effect on their residents.
I never said anything resembling "things could be tweaked a tiny bit and...
You were talking about income levels and calling them "classes" when ALL of those folks were working stiffs--or -would- be working--in a system that hadn't failed.
You were worried about a particular strata and about not upsetting those folks (who are comfortable enough not to be thinking in terms of revolution).
Getting back to the "trickle down" thing, each day more of those comfortable folks lose their nice jobs.
The jobs that become available to replace those are POVERTY-WAGE jobs--assuming that ANY job becomes available.
What I see is growing desperation and growing anger at the growing inequality.
eliminating poverty by lifting up the poor will result in those financially above them seeing a reduction in their purchasing power
...the same way that 2 gay people getting married endangers the marriage of 2 straight people.
Not buying the premise.
This is a place where the "A rising tide lifts all boats" thing should actually apply.
Again, you seem to think that fiddling around the edges is going to correct decades of people's wealth evaporating in swaths.
I don't think you have any real idea how much anger exists in the people who are sliding toward the edge and especially those who have slipped OFF the edge and how -words- aren't going to mollify them.
They want ACTION and if they don't get that from the people with the power, I see them grabbing power for themselves in a very crude way.
Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:07PM
You must live in a gated community.
Gated communities do have that effect on their residents.
Hold up. Are you seriously trying to use your incorrect assumption that I live in a gated community* as a basis for saying I'm out of touch with the reality of the working class? Really? Come on.
And where is that 23% unemployment number coming from? I let it go earlier, but if you're going to bring it up a second time while also alleging that the government's numbers are fraudulent, you need to cite a source that provides its methodology. The numbers I'm seeing [tradingeconomics.com] all point towards it peaking back in 2010 at 10% before declining to a bit under 6% at this point. Without seeing your source, I have no basis for knowing how your numbers are being calculated. For all I know, you're including stay-at-home parents and other folks who aren't looking for employment. And if the government's numbers can't be trusted, then why are you trusting the government's numbers from FDR's era?
You got the classes backwards.
Mea culpa.
Again, you seem to think that fiddling around the edges is going to correct decades of people's wealth evaporating in swaths.
Getting back to the "trickle down" thing, each day more of those comfortable folks lose their nice jobs.
Again, where are you getting any of that from? I never said anything about fiddling around the edges. I never suggested we engage in trickle down economics. In fact, I never said anything about an alternative solution at all, despite your repeated assertions that I'm suggesting one solution or another.
When it comes to solutions, I merely expressed concern that your approach would foment massive upheaval, which you seem to be perfectly content with, given that you seem to be advocating bloody revolution.
...the same way that 2 gay people getting married endangers the marriage of 2 straight people.
The one is nothing like the other. They're in no way comparable.
eliminating poverty by lifting up the poor will result in those financially above them seeing a reduction in their purchasing power
Not buying the premise.
Then let me use your own statements to make the point clearer:
1) You assert (and I agree) that the rich spend proportionally far less of their wealth than the poor, with much of their wealth sitting idle.
2) Your assert (and I agree) that increasing the minimum wage will result in the redistribution of wealth towards those currently living in poverty.
3) When you add 1+2 together, it means that more of the money will be getting spent, meaning that there's more cash in general circulation (i.e. not lying idle).
4) More cash in circulation means a devaluing of the cash already in circulation (because more goods don't magically appear to match the new cash), thus reducing the purchasing power of those holding it.
5) The ultra-rich can simply un-idle more of their cash, but your everyday worker won't be able to, meaning that they'll be worse off as an immediate short-term result.
6) Long-term, their wages will be pushed up too lest they leave the country and take their wealth with them, which is indeed a "rising tides" situation.
7) Medium-term, there will be a period of extended tension and unrest between the workers who weren't living in poverty (i.e. the majority of America) who are currently content.
That's all I was pointing out. It's not a solution to anything, just an assessment of increasing the minimum wage to bring the poor out of poverty. I welcome it, but I continue to express concern regarding it.
*Not that it's any of your business or in any way relevant, but you've completely misread me if you think I have a silver spoon in my mouth. I paid my own way through college by earning scholarships and working extra jobs. I did the same with grad school, up until I dropped out. I managed to avoid ever having to take out a student loan. When job offers were on the table after I dropped out of grad school, I turned down offers paying 50% more for an offer in a smaller town at a company with a culture that I really, really liked. I knew that the frugal spending habits I had developed over the years would let me stil save up for the things I wanted, and thanks to that, I was able to afford my first home about a year and a half ago. It's in a quiet neighborhood, but there are no gates. Just good people who work hard and make an honest living.
To say the least, I don't appreciate your cheap attempts at rationalizing away my statements by making false and baseless statements regarding who I am or how I live.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:19PM
Didn't mean to ignore you; was busy in meatspace much of yesterday.
saying I'm out of touch
I very much am saying that.
I saw a gal recently who was trying to manage a line of shopping carts full of her personal belongings.[1]
It was clear to me that she had just lost her apartment and was at the end of her tether.
If you aren't seeing that sort of thing, you are not encountering the reality of the Clinton[2]-Bush-Obama depression.
[1] ...and, of course, some cop with nothing better to do was rousting this woman who had just lost her world.
[2] Clinton is the dirtbag that actually kicked this thing into gear by killing Glass-Steagall.
that 23% unemployment number
A comment I made about a week ago has the links.
the government's numbers are fraudulent
Covered in "Purposely-queered numbers". [soylentnews.org]
(The current state of dishonest counting is another gift from Clinton.)
.
I like your short-term/long-term list.
There's a lot of truth in there.
The 1 element that is missing is that there are lots of folks who have -already- had plenty of long-term pain.
I don't think they are going to notice any -increase- in their pain.
ISTM the process of getting a living wage will afflict the moderately comfortable a bit and eventually comfort the currently afflicted.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:52PM
So, I just looked over the ShadowStats numbers and how they came up with their 23% number, and, at least in my opinion, referring to it as the "unemployment rate" is a bit of a misnomer, since it includes not just the unemployed, but also the underemployed and other non-participants in the workforce. It is a useful stat, since it does a good job of capturing the overall health of the workforce in a way that the official unemployment statistic does not. In particular, it's a statistic that's much more useful in measuring things like how many workers were impacted by large companies laying off full-timers to hire more part-timers so that they could get around providing medical insurance in the wake of the ACA. But an "unemployment rate", it is not.
That said, there's a valid argument to be made that some of the non-participants (e.g. the "long-term discouraged" people who have given up looking for work) should be included in unemployment rates, and you are quite correct that they modified the statistics during the Clinton administration to remove those people. That said, the non-participants category includes everyone who is of working age and not working, such as housewives who have intentionally and willingly departed the workforce. I think the ShadowStats number may only include the long-term discouraged, but they never specified how they were able to obtain those numbers since they ceased being reported in the '90s, so I'd be curious to hear what their methodology is, and I wasn't able to find it in a cursory look (I'm afraid I'm running out the door, so I had to cut my research short).