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: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:31AM
1. That's part of why we do fund public research, since it allows even better things to come of those individual research goals. Considering the founders of Apple have paid their taxes, and their employees pay taxes, it sounds like the system is working just fine.
2. That's because of our royally fubar tax code, and the legal requirement for a company to maximize its return to shareholders. Try pointing out a publicly traded company that doesn't, and you'll find a shareholder revolt and new board members.
3. It's Apple's right to sell their products at a price they choose. It's your right to not buy them.
4. Retail work is simple and requires minimal education and training. The wage conspiracy I cannot excuse, but where's the Gewg submission attacking Google for that?
5. Oh no, Apple is using its money to make money. This whole article is simply the philosophy of envy masquerading as righteous indignation.
TL;DR, Apple is evil for making money.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:08AM
3. It's Apple's right to sell their products at a price they choose. It's your right to not buy them.
Just for fun I decided to search for Samsung's cost per phone. I found this article.
The 32-Gigabyte Galaxy S5, which is water resistant and features a heart-rate monitor and fingerprint scanner, costs an "astronomical" $256.52 to build, according to teardown analysis by IHS. The model, which was launched on Friday, is selling for around $650 off-contract in the U.S. This is well above $236 required to build its predecessor and $207 for the iPhone 5S. It contrasts even more starkly with smartphones at the lower end of the cost spectrum, such as the ZTE U793, which has a materials bill of less than $35, according to the market research firm.
So, yeah, apparently the threshold for gouging somebody for a $650 product is somewhere around $256.52. I'm not even going to bother checking on the rest of the points, and I'm certainly not feeding ad-revenue to the mindless blogger who's obviously angling for home page on Slashdot by clicking on his link.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:18AM
So, yeah, apparently the threshold for gouging somebody for a $650 product is somewhere around $256.52.
Or Samsung is also gouging and the comparison means nothing.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:53PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:26PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:45PM
Who said anything about free development or R&D? So how many hundred million do you suppose that cost?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:15PM
Samsung and Apple are a bunch of beginners.
I've spent ten years in an industry where the sales price is typically 5x BOM cost. Really. Our low-volume high-tech projects didn't pop out of thin air, and we weren't exactly rolling in millions.
Margin over BOM is arbitrary. Don't like Apple's? I've never bought any of their products, but I'm not blaming them for charging as much as the market will bear.
The whole international tax evasion book is common to every major corp out there, and someone should put a stop to it. The one reason most people could agree on, even if they don't agree on tax levels, is that it distorts competition with the smaller domestic players.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:48PM
There are plenty of places where 5x BOM may be justifiable. It depends a lot on volume. However, the volume of consumer electronics gives a lot more units to amortize the development cost over.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:13PM
Isn't a very large markup for retail distribution fairly common though? The phones are actually moved by retail infrastructure for the most part.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:09AM
There is often a significant retail markup. Sometimes a truly crazy one (and perhaps it's time for people to realize just how much).
Of course, with Apple having it's own stores, it should be able to do better than that and still make a killing.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:30AM
That's called 100% profit. And it makes sense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:06AM
The purchase, sale, and owning of human beings was also a right people once had. Having a right does not make it any less evil.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:40AM
This just in, breathing is evil. Back to you Lewis.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Wednesday May 20 2015, @04:41PM
That's an entirely different situation though, since that infringes on another person's rights.
Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to buy Apple products.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:59PM
Salves don't have rights to themselves. That is what makes them slaves.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:46AM
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Rights are qualities inherent to a being, and not something within the authority of an agency to grant or revoke. At best, humans owning other humans was a state-enabled privilege. The evil in question was manifested by the slaveholders and the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:32AM
So the color of a banana is a right?
Wetness is a right of water?
No. That is absurd. If this was the case, then no right could ever be infringed upon by any means whatsoever, given that, by your definition, rights are merely descriptors of reality.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:59AM
Do you claim that bananas exhibit an ability to choose between actions? You can point to dihydrogenmonoxide which shows signs of being alive?
Living beings that possess what appears to be free will have a right to life [earlyamerica.com]; that this has long been considered self-evident to Americans is a matter of verifiable historical fact.
If you wish to engage in discussion beyond simple verifiable facts from history and into the realm of morality, well, I'll be your Huckleberry.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Leebert on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:15AM
[citation needed]
If you're referring to the fiduciary duties of the board members and officers of a company, that's not what "fiduciary duty" means. It means that your duty is to act in the interests of the shareholders or investors. That doesn't mean "profit over everything else". For example, consider the fiduciary duty of a manager of an "ethical" mutual fund: the fund manager's responsibility is to invest wisely within the confines of the fund's code of ethics (e.g., "don't own stock in companies that use underpaid labor").
All "fiduciary duty" really means is that your job is to act faithfully on behalf of the party you represent. You're not in it to enrich yourself, you're not in it to pass inflated contracts to your cousin Clyde, etc. It's a *good* thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:50PM
To take it a step further lets say you run a company that has coal plants.
It is in your fiduciary duty to make sure your company is not sued. That means giving funding for things like clean up and not polluting. If your company is sued because of lack of funding for programs in your company you failed at your fiduciary duty. Now being that 'fiduciary duty' is typically a contract with no real strings attached (other than being fired) many principals of a company do not act in the best interests of the company. They act in the best interests of their pocket book...
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:36PM
How are you not contradicting yourself from point 1 to point 2?
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:01PM
Both are playing by the rules.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:38AM
5. Apple Has Figured Out How to Spend Most of its Untaxed Money on Itself
CITATION NEEDED!
If you have about $200 BILLION in **CASH**, you are really really bad at spending that money on anything. Companies have no business having that much cash on hand. Even banks don't have that much cash on hand. They are not enriching anyone with that cash anyway, it's wasted because it just sits there.
Apple bring the money in, pay the taxes and distribute it to **shareholders**. Companies have no business having cash beyond what they need for R&D and to weather a downturn.
While I agree with most of what is said in this point-form-summary, the last point is completely wrong. The rest are mostly true, though who cares if Apple overcharges customers! There is no such thing. Perhaps then lamentations that Rolex overcharges customers should come next, but then most people don't care about Rolex.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:20AM
For a guy that leads off demanding a citation, how is it your next paragraph blurts out
Companies have no business having that much cash on hand.
Says who? Do you know what Apple has up their sleeves? What new developments are they funding? Or are they just hunkering down and planning to survive another 20 year drop in business now that Jobs is gone and Android is eating their lunch.
They don't have a vault somewhere stacked with gold like Scrooge McDuck. The money is in the bank, Lots, and lots of banks. And probably thousands of people got home loans at pretty good rates because Apple has no immediate need for the cash. Money never sits idle.
For pete sake that statement was so absurdly off the wall you've got me backing Apple! I dislike them quite strongly, but its their money, WILLINGLY handed to them by their fanboys.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:54PM
Says who? Do you know what Apple has up their sleeves? What new developments are they funding? Or are they just hunkering down and planning to survive another 20 year drop in business now that Jobs is gone and Android is eating their lunch.
I haven't checked Apple's cash reserves, but you seem to accept the $200 Billion. In that case, theoretically what *could* Apple have up its sleeves to justify having that much cash reserves? What effort would require that much money prior to execution?
I guess building lots of factories or something, but keep in mind all of Intel has a market capitalization of $157 Billion. It's hard to imagine one (or even several) manufacturing projects which would rival all of Intel.
Or let's say they are paying lots of really smart people to develop something really good. Let's further imagine the average pay of that group is $250k (which is obscenely high for an average, but for the sake of argument). That's paying a team of 4000 people for 200 years.
They could be doing something really out-there, like planning to make a Martian colony, but that's so far outside their core business that it should be up to the investors (read: company owners) to decide that and not the management of the company. That would be like buying a house and finding out that it is really a rocket-ship. It may be good, but it wasn't what you had been told you were buying.
If it is that Apple is "just hunkering down and planning to survive another 20 year drop in business" then this is a perfect example of a bad use of cash and the company not acting correctly. Weathering a short-term downfall is fine (and keep in mind that the company can always issue new shares if a downturn if they need a quick influx of cash), but the company managers acting in their own interest by hoarding investor cash because they don't want to lose their jobs is not acting with fiduciary responsibility. Investors should be returned the extra profits (that is the point of the company) where they can do with it what they will.
So I'll turn around and ask you frojack... theoretically speaking what *could* Apple be doing to justify having that much cash reserves? If you can think of any good example, then as you said the burden falls on gnuman to say why he/she thinks Apple is not being responsible. However, I at least can't think of a collection of business ventures for Apple which would warrant having that much cash on hand rather than providing a (one-off, if needed) dividend.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:06PM
"what *could* Apple have up its sleeves to justify having that much cash reserves?"
They are going to put 500 iEmployees aboard an iRocket, and send them to Mars to erect the first iDome to get the iColony started. Once all the iFans see how wonderful things are on iMars, they'll be fighting each other to enter indentured servitude to Apple in exchange for the privilege of living in the iColony. One million dollars, sign the indenture, and you're on your way. For five million dollars, you also get an autographed Steve Jobs artifact.
Looks like everybody wins!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Thursday May 21 2015, @08:06PM
I wonder why they haven't bought Sony yet. 20% of their reserves would get them Sony.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by http on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:55PM
"Money never sits idle."
Worst. Troll. Ever. You've got to make it sound at least plausible.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:22PM
I'm not responsible for your lack of education son.
Go read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/17/why_do_we_bail_banks_out/ [theregister.co.uk]
It gives a workable description of how banks actually work.
You were expected to know this stuff in order to graduate from the 7th grade.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:23PM
And you, son, should know the difference between a bank and Apple. Also,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101354173 [cnbc.com]
Global companies sitting on $7 trillion cash, double 2003
which means this cash hoarding is not unique to Apple. By sitting on *excess* cash, companies do a disservice to themselves and society in general.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:31PM
And WHERE does apple keep its cash?
Why, its in BANKS. Imagine that. In Banks, earning interest. And being loaned out to other patrons.
Are you intentionally being dense? Did you seriously think the phrase "sitting on cash" meant they hire people to sit on stacks of 100 dollar bills?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:46PM
For a guy that leads off demanding a citation, how is it your next paragraph blurts out
Reading comprehention 101? The point said,
"Apple Has Figured Out How to Spend Most of its Untaxed Money on Itself"
I said, CITATION NEEDED, implying they DO NOT. Then I write that having $200B in cash and more coming in faster than they can and are spending seems to reinforce that idea. No? Apple is NOT spending money. They are hoarding it.
Says who? Do you know what Apple has up their sleeves? What new developments are they funding?
They are not funding anything. All they are hoping for is that someone will come up with a "foreign tax holiday" after next election and they will not have to pay taxes on that money. That is extend of "stuff up their sleeves". If Apple doesn't know what to do with the money, they really need to return it to shareholders as a one-time dividend and be done with it.
PS. Yes, I'm an Apple shareholders thanks to S&P 500 index fund. Thus by definition, it's not *THEIR* money, it's *MY* money (at least a tiny slice of it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @11:57AM
ftfy
(Score: 5, Insightful) by calzone on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:57AM
If this isn't textbook clickbait I don't know what is.
There may be some valid points here and there, but the over-dramatized, breathless, shrieking nature of it, as it wags a finger at the clcikbaitiest of all modern corporations, is absurd.
(best case scenario, someone forgot their xanax... but odds are massively in favor of clickbait)
Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:03AM
Does the name Paul Buchheit ring a bell?
I provided a link for those not familiar with his pedigree.
I like his writing and, as you note, this one was bound to get a wide range of reactions.
Sitting on over $100B in cash and not using it to create jobs is my big gripe with Apphole.
A system that permits that is thoroughly broken.
We need[1] another FDR.
[1] Actually, needed--in 2008.
We got Caspar Milquetoast.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:46AM
How exactly do you propose to take money and "create" jobs without affecting the profitability of Apple?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:29PM
Profitable new ventures?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @11:59AM
you really have nfi what capitalism is do you
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:24PM
Clickbait? Though some of the specifics and details of this story are undoubtedly wrong, the overarching accusation that corporations have too much power and too little moral sense rings quite true.
The powerful are always trying to grab even more power and wealth, and must be constantly watched and restrained. Prominent members of the powerful are of course large corporations. Naturally, many large corporations are guilty of all kinds of stupid, destructive, anti-social, and downright murderous decisions. Apple is certainly far from the evilest of these organizations. British Petroleum, Exxon Mobile, and the rest of Big Oil are guilty of far worse, such as the Deepwater Horizon accident.
Clearly Apple, and Microsoft, don't know what to do with all their wealth. It's a common problem among the superrich. They cannot use their wealth efficiently. If they spent an hour thinking over each $10,000 of expense, they would pile up money faster than they spent it. They have to make hasty decisions. Haste makes waste.
The poor can't make efficient use of what little they have either. We wait for sales, send in rebates, clip coupons, and otherwise scrounge for pennies. Don't get much return on the time it takes to seek out bargains. The poorest and weakest among us are preyed upon by loan sharks and profiteers of various stripes. What is especially egregious is when special interests and the rich co-opt local governments to help prey upon the people. Things like red light cameras, speed traps, property seizures, and parking meters. When I see that, I can understand the hate for government. Recall the case of Sylvia Stayton, the nice little old lady who got into trouble for kindly putting money in parking meters. Then what do these governments do with all this revenue they unfairly extracted from the people? Give it to the rich, keeping a little for themselves of course. Big corporations play the game of "give us big tax break, or we build our factory elsewhere", and local governments race to the bottom to lure these parasites.
The playing field favors the rich right now. Our checks and balances are weak. The people are taking too much of this lying down, too preoccupied with petty bourgeois problems to appreciate how we're all being cheated and do more about it. The rich think they're the doers, and that the rest of us are lazy moochers. Could it be they're sort of right? If we don't step up and take more responsibility, we could lose it all. We've got a big problem: Climate Change. Solve that, and at the same time show the arrogant rich that they're not superior, put them in their place. Civilization really could be hanging in the balance.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday May 20 2015, @05:58AM
So gewg_ are you just going to channel Common Dreams from now on?
Yeah, we get it Corporations Evil, gewg_ sees right through their veil.
Ever six months you go on some progressive hate rage, then you get back on your meds for a while.
Branch out Dude! Why not some tech article, or science, maybe medicine? There are enough corp haters than seething quietly in every corner around this site, without you charging in and poking them with a stick every two minutes.
Everybody knows Apple. They know they over charge, but its not like people don't have choices, The vast majority of smart [idc.com] phones sold these days are Android, because most people see through Apple. But some people like their products. Free country.
I've sworn off any apple products, because I see what they do. I know Google does the same things to some extent. But I get more freedom with to do what I want, so I hold my nose and buy from the least objectionable manufacturer in my opinion).
But who needs a rehash of vague charges from the past from yet another SJW web site?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:46AM
Y'mean like the one on Cuban meds that is still sitting in the queue?
Like the one on coal-fired power plants and AGW submitted a few hours ago?
The one on Pfizer's most popular pill and malaria didn't make it through the spam filter. [soylentnews.org]
A little honesty from you would be welcome.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Touché) by jimshatt on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:59AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by moondrake on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:15AM
I agree that the article is a bit silly, besides Apple can only "plunder" because people are stupid.
But are too many people here inferring that because SN post the story the editor and submitter agree with it. To me, the story just indicates that the author, and perhaps the original website, want to make a certain point.
The point of SN is to discuss the news, not to all chime in that we agree with it. And perhaps we can all decide the story is stupid, wrong or incorrect, but that does not necessarily make the submitter stupid.
Please go ahead and criticize the article but stop shooting the messenger with irrelevant ad-hominem attacks in every post you make!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:01AM
Agreed, I've taken steps back from SN because the discussions often seem to lack reflective discussion; a quality that this site was built to protect. Obviously humans being humans will always acquire some amount of friction, but I have found a large degree of polarized opinions and emotion thrown about that is a bit of a turnoff.
To comment on this submission, I like the points that it is just an article, personal attacks on the submitter are silly without proven ~shifty~ motives... Even if you are not surprised or enthralled with the article's content (I didn't read it, doesn't sound like any new info) at least it is another drop in the bucket to expose more people to the realities of how corps act. Dismissing something because it is not "new to you", or because people "should" already know it, is arrogant.
I for one welcome any noise pushing against the flood.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:01PM
And, plus, if the rest of SN that wants to see more articles of a different sort don't submit them to SN, then they gets what they gets. It's an every day sort of task. If you see an interesting article on some other site you frequent that you think would lead to interesting discussion on SN, then submit it to SN! 1 or 2 per day, per SN reader, would be enough.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by forkazoo on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:24AM
Apple took years of public research, and used it to create a product, and packaged the product as their own. Exactly like every other company that creates a product in the history of the world. Apple didn't bother inventing a novel Alphabet for their manuals, or a brand new set of numbers to use in brand new electromagnetic field equations for their electronics. Other companies have the same access to public research, and also make products out of it. If people want Apple products, it strongly implies that the process of creating a product out of existing knowledge adds significant value which consumers find worth their money. If it weren't significant, other companies would do just as well at it.
As for overcharging customers... WTF? Does the author have any concept of how a market works? They should look at things like designer fashion. Nothing for sale has any guaranteed relationship between cost and price. If you don't like the price something is being sold for, don't buy it. Or advocate some sort of general communist revolution. But don't pick out one random company you dislike and get upset that they price things the same way as literally everything else you have ever purchased.
Was this all written by a six year old or something?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:25AM
I may not be the most pro-capitalist person on the planet, but I'm all for this kind of a free market (as long as there's no threat of a monopoly).
Alas there is an (micro)economic error in my (use of the) equation above, such that the conclusion is false. I leave that as an exercise to the reader to divine. (Think broken windows...) However, my comments about letting a price rise to what the market is willing to pay remains.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @12:08PM
the only risk of monopoly comes from restraint of trade enforced by government from their issue of patents
things like licenses, subsidies, etc also help make monopolies
the "ebil corporations" are really just the best at taking advantage of corruption within the only organization with the ability to directly force citizens; government
it's baffling why socialists, who claim to care about poor and working folk, continue to defend the very mechanism of their enslavement
(Score: 2, Informative) by unzombied on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:35AM
This article reinforces a common delusion more than a Common Dream. Since 1919, a fundamental and frequent mistake in the US is presuming corporations are anything like human [wikipedia.org]. Believing a corporation will 1) not steal ideas, 2) be unselfish, 3) not take advantage, 4) care, or 5) share, is to be fooled. Again.
Corporations exist to make money, for as few people as possible (i.e. owners and shareholders). Morality, concern for people, doesn't enter the balance sheet and plays no role in decisions. Unless a law is broken, then the likelihood of getting caught and subsequent fine is balanced against the profit.
What to do about it? I don't know exactly, but surely it will have something to do with changing laws so stakeholders and consequences of corporate actions are at least as important as shareholders and owners. Preventing international agreements, new laws, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:18AM
*SOME* corporations exist to make money.
Let me remind you that S/N tried to become a B-corporation.
Your focus could use a little broadening.
(I have more than enough cynicism for the both of us.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:56PM
Corporations exist to make money
Which is why I put my money into them.
My other choice is to leave my money in a bank and 0% interest. Then let inflation eat the value. Or buy yet another bobble I dont care about.
That money is going to help me live 'ok' during my retirement when I cant move very well anymore and my brain is addled because of old age.
I would rather eat steak every day than cat food...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:28PM
Ramen is cheaper and I would say probably tastier.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:00AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:14AM
I'm tempted to submit this to Slashdot so I can be popular for a day.
Don't do it, Tork! We love you too much! If only we could quit you! !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:23AM
You're welcome. 8-)
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NoMaster on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:05AM
... it was a nice try, but I'm over it.
I realise gewg_ is supposed to be the resident demi-troll contrarian who adds a bit of colour to the site, but if I wanted rants from semi-educated fuckwits I'd be sitting in the park outside my office - the one with the earnest first-year undergrads congregating on one side, and the mentally-ill homeless guy with a grudge against the government standing yelling at everybody on the other.
At least I'd be outside enjoying the sun...
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:24AM
I realise gewg_ is supposed to be the resident demi-troll contrarian who adds a bit of colour to the site, but if I wanted rants from semi-educated fuckwits I'd be sitting in the park outside my office -
And what makes you think you are not, at this very moment, sitting in said park, only :: virtually! With Unicorns! And squidies. I have often wondered by virtual reality is so much suckier than what appears to be real reality, . . . unless . .. . OMG! This is the Matrix! But then that means . . . OMG!! gewg_ is either Agent Smith, or Morpheus!!!! I could use a good Trinity about now, because the whole thing is starting to get creepy. I mean, could a corporation like Apple actually exist in real world? So what are the possible explanations?
Oh, one more thing, if you are leaving, to where are you going? Any door leads back to the park, or, . . . sandworms.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:43AM
What we ever do without all your invaluable submissions? [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aichon on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:29AM
You're treating this as an e-peen contest, with the result being that you're missing the point entirely. Besides, even if it were a contest, this is a community-driven site for which there are numerous ways to contribute, such as by providing highly-rated comments as he did on a semi-regular basis [soylentnews.org]. Submission count is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of metrics, but kudos to you for discovering that it's an effective tool in the shallow person's arsenal for convincing people that they're better than others.
As for what this is all about, trading blows in fanboy wars is all well and good, but that article was complete drivel, and the summary was nothing more than a highlights reel of headings from the article. If your first response to criticism is to attack the messenger, rather than to recognize that the article you linked was littered with logical self-contradictions, conspicuous omissions and convenient cherry-pickings of the facts to mislead the reader, deliberate appeals to emotion, and a one-sentence lip service to the only patently illegal issue they raised, then I'd suggest that the guy you just said "good riddance" to was entirely justified in rethinking his stay here.
Hell, I'm inclined to rethink mine too.
Do you get bonus points for driving folks away with your submissions?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:42AM
you're missing the point entirely
No, I was being silly. GMAFB.
Do you get bonus points for driving folks away with your submissions?
Absolutely! Right now, my karma is...
Oh, wait...
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Troll) by BasilBrush on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:35AM
Presumably you have a positive Karma because you don't log in when you write trolling shit like this. And can't get modded down for the braindead submissions you post either.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:35AM
you [...] can't get modded down
You can't possibly be that stupid.
(Watch that get mod'd down, moron.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:11PM
gewg articles make it to the front page not because there's some grand editorial conspiracy to "spice it up," but because he submits articles. If people want more of different sorts of articles, they should submit them. I check the queue every morning and if there are fewer than 20 in it I make the rounds to other sites I frequent to see if there are any interesting ones to submit to SN. I wish more Soylentils did so, because honestly I get a little sick of checking my same old sources all the time and would like to learn about new, interesting sources that other Soylentils have pre-vetted.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khchung on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:15PM
Articles should not be posted just because someone submitted it.
Yeah, it sucks to have nothing new on the site for some time, and yeah, of course it would be good if more people submit quality articles. But when the only choice is between having fewer new articles, vs having more crap articles, I personally vote for having fewer.
"More" doesn't always mean "better", and "more crap" definitely means "worse". Not having the ability to filter articles by submitter, then "more crap" just means more effort for me to skip articles from certain submitters.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:55PM
Or you personally could commit to submitting 1 non-crap article per day.
I personally use this template:
Article Source [arstechnica.com]:
Conversation starter sentence in the form of a statement, quip, or question.
It takes about 5-10 minutes per submission. If you, like many people, start your day scanning headlines while having your morning coffee, it's very easy to wrap up something interesting you see and throw it into the SN submission hopper.
It seems a better path than the false dichotomy of "Many crap articles" vs. "Few non-crap articles." And it's infinitely better than the regrettably common response of, "Somebody better do the work of submitting more articles I like, or else!!!"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Thursday May 21 2015, @12:21AM
Or you personally could commit to submitting 1 non-crap article per day.
So, rather than discuss the relative merits of the *actual choices* currently faced by the editors, you choose to, instead, basically just say "put up or shut up". Is it any wonder that some would choose to just leave? As NoMaster did?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 22 2015, @02:57PM
Take a look at the submissions using the link at the upper-right corner of the page. Those are what the editors have to choose from. If we, the SN community, make that list long and full of "better" submissions then the editors have a lot more to work with.
If NoMaster pans the submissions of others and does nothing himself to submit better articles, even going so far as spending 5 minutes to send one in on a regular basis, then speaking for myself, yes, it's "put up or shut up." I have spent a lifetime organizing, building communities, etc, and pandering to tantrums is quite counterproductive. First, it's demoralizing to the good people who volunteer their time to get no thanks, only barbs like NoMaster's hurled their way; they say to themselves, "Why should I bother?" and drop out. Result: the community dies. Second, it rewards free-riders. Third, it enables willful sabotage (I could drop a link to the NSA & GCHQ's leaked playbook on how that's done, but you can google it yourself). The person who criticizes an endeavor like Soylent from a positive place, and who wishes it to improve and thrive, will put skin in the game. Those who do not will behave as we have seen NoMaster do.
In short, don't complain about the cooking unless you're prepared to do the cooking, yourself.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @07:17AM
blockquote>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.
Is there any indication that they don't have one? A compass is there just to allow you to see whether the direction you go in is the direction you want to go in. It doesn't tell you in which direction you should go.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Aichon on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:28AM
An emotional response to any criticism of the Apple Corporation
Starting off with an ad hominem attack against the rationality of your expected detractors is not a good sign for what follows. Mixing up The Beatles' record company, Apple Corps., for Apple Inc. (née Apple Computer) is just sloppy. But let's see where this goes...
But much-despised should be the theft from taxpayers and the exploitation of workers and customers
Hear hear! Let's see what gross criminal activities you've caught The Beatl...err...Steve Jobs' hangers-on engaging in!
1. Apple Took Years of Public Research, Integrated the Results, and Packaged it as Their Own
So, their crime is that they built on what came before, maybe added one novel thing, packaged it up nicely, and sold it to people for profit? That's not a crime; that's called "making something". Every artist does the same thing. Every manufacturer does the same thing. Every engineer does the same thing. Every designer does the same thing. If they're not building on the public knowledge that's available and learning from the the lessons taught by those who came before, they're not very good at their job.
Apple didn't "take" research any more than you're "taking" a book when you read it. They used it, just as anyone else is welcome to.
2. Even After Taking Our Research, Apple Does Everything in its Power to Avoid Taxes
...as they should and as you should! There's nothing evil about avoiding taxes. I itemize thousands of dollars in deductions each year so that I can reduce my taxable income to a fraction of my gross income. The laws are structured such that it is legal for me to do so. No one with an awareness of the relevant tax codes seems to be suggesting that Apple, Google, or the other big companies engaged in schemes like the so-called "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich" are breaking any laws, though most people do seem to agree that the laws should be changed to make such arrangements impermissible. Until they do, however, those arrangements remain legal.
And the article's smoking gun—that they have an "Apple executive" denying knowledge of Apple engaging in those tactics—is misleading. What actually happened was that Apple's regional chief for Australia was brought before a government panel, placed under oath, and refused to either confirm or deny that Apple was engaged in tax avoidance practices, but did deny understanding what the politician was talking about when she mangled her words and asked him to define what a "Double Irish sandwich with Dutch associations" was. His statement was misreported in the media as being a denial that he had any awareness of Apple engaging in tax avoidance, but you can watch the immensely boring video [youtube.com] yourself, if you'd like to see what was actually said. Be prepared for exactly what you'd expect at these sorts of hearings: a lot of repetition of a prepared lines that neither confirm nor deny anything of interest.
3. Overcharging Customers
Things are worth what people are willing to pay. Price gouging for necessities during a crisis is something that most folks would consider wrong. Charging a premium price for a luxury item that's marketed as such? Not wrong. See also: Veblen goods [wikipedia.org], since it's clear the author of the article has never given much consideration to the nature of luxury goods and is just now coming to terms with the fact that prices don't always match up with the bill of sales for material goods. His world must be shaking.
4. Underpaying and Mistreating Employees
The article actually has some valid points here. They mention the anti-poaching thing as a throwaway sentence, which is a shame, since it's probably the one they could have most successfully nailed Apple to the wall on, given that it's a patently illegal activity that's well documented.
It touches on labor issues in China, which is definitely an important area. That said, the article plays fast and loose with the facts and logic. They hammer Apple (as they should) over the condition of non-Apple employees who work for companies in Apple's supply chain, suggesting that Apple bears a responsibility for the non-Apple employees it indirectly supports. But right before that paragraph, they painted Apple's assertion to have "created or supported" over 1M jobs in America as false...by only taking Apple's own employees into account while conveniently ignoring all of the non-Apple employees Apple indirectly supports. They can't have it both ways: either Apple gets credit for creating and supporting those 1M jobs, or Apple bears no responsibility for its supply chain and the labor violations occurring in it. I definitely prefer the former.
Moreover, the Chinese situation is discussed in a vacuum, rather than providing context for understanding the nature and extent of change that has occurred already, as well as how the suppliers working with Apple compare to those being used by Apple's competitors but not by Apple. Despite the fact that labor violations continue, it's my understanding that the overall picture continues to get better with time. The workers are being paid higher wages than at comparable companies, suicide rates are well below the national average despite the massive publicity suggesting otherwise, and violations are becoming increasingly isolated. They're not gone, and some places have relapses when they think no one is checking, but the situation is definitely getting better. More improvement is still needed, and we should continue to monitor Apple in this area.
The article then spends a paragraph talking about how Apple makes a lot of cash, but only pays its retail employees a salary commensurate with their position. Let that sink in for a sec. The article spices it up as something much more dramatic and much more evil, of course, portraying it as unfair that retail employees get paid at slightly higher than the industry average rather than getting a share of Apple's profits. Never mind, of course, that there's nothing about that "problem" that is specific to Apple. What the article is really doing is railing against the rate of pay for retail workers across the industry, but they're referring to Apple by name while letting the rest of the industry off the hook...kinda like they did on the China issue too, now that I think of it...
5. Apple Has Figured Out How to Spend Most of its Untaxed Money on Itself
There's a name for untaxed money in your possession: your money. How you spend your money is your choice. A less sensationalized rephrasing for that headline would simply be "Apple invests its own money on itself". And just as it's fine for you to spend your money how you want, the same is true for businesses after they have paid out the taxes that they are legally obligated to pay. And while we all would likely agree that Apple should be legally obligated to pay more than it is now, we'd all be hard-pressed to find even a single additional cent that Apple was legally obligated to pay in taxes. As such, that money is their money, and they can spend it how they wish.
would be a slightly less sensationalized phrasing. I spend my net income on myself after the government takes taxes out of my gross. I spend my tax refund on myself every year that I get one.
So has everyone. I spend my tax refund on myself every year. Apple is engaging in stock buybacks. So what? Again, there's nothing wrong with that. They're doing what's best for their shareholders in this case. If they decided to line their mattresses with it, that'd be fine too. It's their money, legally, free and clear. They get to decide how to spend it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @09:26AM
3. [...] Veblen goods
It's such a common concept, it has multiple names. Giffen goods [wikipedia.org]
4. [...] the anti-poaching thing
Now, -this- is the kind of stuff I was hoping to see.
Apple's assertion to have "created or supported" over 1M jobs in America
Now, how many MORE jobs could have been created if Apphole had been paying their people better, so those folks could go out and buy MORE stuff?
70 percent of the economy is ordinary folks buying ordinary stuff.
More stuff sold (or a higher grade of stuff)==a more vibrant economy. (Duh.)
...and don't forget The Multiplier Effect.
Henry Ford knew about the concept over a century ago.
It was central to The New Deal and stopping the USA's hemorrhaging of jobs when the number had reached over 25 percent.
Apple invests its own money on itself
"Invests" isn't a very good word to describe what Apphole does.
A $90B stock buyback in 1 year is unproductive greed.
Over a century ago, there was a guy name Henry George who said that -only- IDLE assets should be taxed. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
Folks from all over the spectrum agree with him.
Apphole not using their cash to create lots and lots of jobs is evil.
This is exactly why FDR asked for high taxes on the uber-rich the previous time the economy imploded.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Aichon on Wednesday May 20 2015, @10:15AM
I find your idea—that there is something inherently wrong about Apple sitting on such a larger cash horde—to be significantly more interesting than anything the article had to offer on the subject. The article took a lot of arguments that apply across industries as a whole and then singled Apple out in such a way that it made it seem like Apple was the only one doing that thing, but you've actually singled out something that is rather unique to Apple.
Even so, in reading this and some of your other posts, I think you're missing an important fact: the majority of Apple's cash is located outside of the US and is unable to be repatriated without incurring significant expense, meaning that it isn't even capable of being employed towards the ends you suggest. Apple (and Google and Microsoft and...) has been actively campaigning Washington for a tax holiday that would allow them to repatriate the funds to the US, presumably because they have some ideas for how they'd like to use those funds if they could get them back into the US. In fact, the stock buybacks that you specifically called out as a problem are being done using borrowed funds, rather than their cash reserves.
I do agree that the minimum wage should be raised such that it can serve as a living wage, but singling out Apple over this issue makes little sense when companies like Wal-Mart are still around. Moreover, raising the minimum wage by that much (while necessary) will likely cause all sorts of issues that a number of folks in the current debate simply aren't taking into account. For instance, many of those economic theories were created before the predominance of the middle-class. Were we to raise the minimum wage substantially today, it would have the effect of decreasing the relative spending power of the middle-class by a significant amount (i.e. the ultra-rich would still be ultra-rich, but the middle-class would become much less distinguishable from the poor). Given that a number of highly-skilled jobs fall into middle-class levels of pay, we'd likely be forced to increase their pay to keep it commensurate with the relative value of their position, lest they use their financial freedom to move themselves and their wealth to a country that values them appropriately. Raising their wages would have the effect of depressing the spending power of the poor yet again, though not to point at which they had started. Given enough time, this sort of trend would bubble its way up until it couldn't go any further up, leading to a reduction in wealth inequality between the ultra-rich and everyone else as the spending power of the ultra-rich gets reduced, but it would come with some massive economic upheaval in the years that it took the economy to reach a new state of equilibrium (i.e. think: demise of the robber barons).
Exciting times. Should be fun, and I'm looking forward to it, but I don't think most folks know what they're in for. And maybe my sleep-addled brain is misinterpreting things at this time of the morning.
(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).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:12PM
I find it ironic that the article points out the out-of-contract cost of an iPhone when you pay considerably over the odds over the length of the contract, effectively adding a pretty hefty hire-purchase premium. And that monthly fee doesn't drop on it's own when the contract as run it's course, so all that hardware supply premium turns into pure profit for the phone company. I worked out an iPhone 5 from a provider in the UK a few years ago would have cost £900 - £300 more than buying an unlocked phone. Yet somehow, buying an iPhone out of contract is considered too expensive... my brain is leaking out of my ears just thinking about this.
Maybe listening to Bill Hicks while posting isn't the best plan for maintaining my coherence... cramming too much into lunch time here...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:59AM
In 2003, the documentary movie "The Corporation" was released. Well worth the watch, highly recommended. In one segment, the then-CEO of the world's largest commercial carpet manufacturer Ray Anderson talked about the ethics of using limited natural resources purely for short-term profit. I can't remember the book he'd read and was quoting from, but in that book it described that business model as "The Way of the Plunderer". That was 12 years ago. Must be about time for the moniker "plunderer" to come back into fashion, I guess.
Nice to see that the bleeding hearts are still holding Apple to some mystical set of double-standards while they give every other corporation that provides the products that enables them to live their lifestyles a free pass.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:01AM
I figured the angle of making billions by exploiting what is now called "open source" (since the term "free software" is too ideological for corporations) from Apple, Google, and others would be more important. These corporations make their billions while exploiting projects that don't get funded enough to fix important bugs. I don't think the free software movement in the 1980s and 1990s ever anticipated walled gardens being built on top of their software, or else the licenses would have been structured to stop something like this from happening. Walled gardens are the opposite of everything free software stands for, and almost all of them are built on top of free software. I feel sorry for the people who ideologically worked on free software all those years, because everything they've done has been used to destroy the freedoms they tried to create. And why would anyone work for free these days to create open source when they know that corporations will exploit their work to make billions? The funny thing is how no one cares about what's going on. I guess the new generations of developers either don't understand or don't care what has happened to the free software ideals.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:24PM
I figured the angle of making billions by exploiting what is now called "open source" (since the term "free software" is too ideological for corporations)
"Open source" and "free software" are not the same. Apart from the genuine difference in meaning (access to source code vs. a 'copyleft' obligation to share alike), "open source" is well-defined whereas the latter effectively means - whatever the FSF currently thinks that it means [gnu.org] (c.f. the new post-GPL3 version of that article which expands it to cover what you do with the binary). Whether non-copyleft licenses like BSD were ever "free software" is up for debate.
And why would anyone work for free these days to create open source when they know that corporations will exploit their work to make billions?
So release your work under a license that prohibits commercial exploitation. Failing that, GPLv3 is a good bet because the new anti-Tivo and patent licensing clauses pretty much rule it out for embedding in commercial products - hence the way Apple has been dumping GPLv3 software like Samba [appleinsider.com] and gcc [enthought.com] from MacOS.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday May 20 2015, @12:50PM
2. Even After Taking Our Research, Apple Does Everything in its Power to Avoid Taxes
You seem to be enjoying the government tax clampdown circus (and why not have some Kool-Aid in the interval?)
All multinational companies... optimize their tax affairs, because governments can't/won't fix tax laws (to be fair, that would need a lot of tricky international treaties to actually work without driving away trade). But the peasants are revolting. Answer? Lets pick on a handful big household names (Apple, Google, Amazon, Starbucks), make a big fuss about it, organise some public floggings [bbc.co.uk] for some of their executives, and maybe cause enough customer dissatisfaction to get them to make some concessions.
Funny, though - wouldn't you have expected to see some companies with names like "United Holdings (Holdings) Plc.", "Anonymous Universal Umbrella Company Corp.", "Financial Topiary Consortium" and "Faceless Professional Outsourcing Partners" and suchlike also at those hearings...? Is it really only companies that the public actually deal with (who - love them or hate them - are producing products and services that people actually want and choose to buy) who engage in "aggressive (but legal) tax avoidance". Surely our governments wouldn't stage a bit of "tax clampdown theatre" to please the crowds without actually changing things?
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:25AM
Sorry - the last meant to be a reply to the original post, not the grandparent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @01:58PM
I don't think the free software movement in the 1980s and 1990s ever anticipated walled gardens being built on top of their software, or else the licenses would have been structured to stop something like this from happening.
Ever hear of the GPL?
Have any important technical contributors to BSD complained that Apple took their code private?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:43AM
Gewg, do you pay taxes? And if so, when you figure out how much to pay, what morals and ideals do you use when you fill out the forms?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:30PM
1. I have taken years of public research, integrated the results, and packaged it as my own. It's called going to school, learning my trade, and then using it to make a living.
2. I have done everything in my power to avoid taxes. Not to evade taxes, but to avoid them. Yes.
3. I have "overcharged" customers. Back when I was consulting I regularly charged upwards of $125/hr for work, when I could easily have made a living charging only $45/hr. My customers would pay the rate because my services were in high demand. Heck, if I were making donuts, and everybody wanted one, I would charge a buck a piece for them, even if it only cost me a nickel a piece to make them. That's just basic economics.
4. I have always spent most of my untaxed money on myself. I give about 10% away to charity, but still, most of it I spend on myself.
Of the five points there is only one that may have some merit, i.e., that Apple underpays and mistreats their employees. If you want to bring this to light, please do. Otherwise, in 4 out of 5 points, Apple behaves exactly as I would do.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:16PM
If I take out the word "Apple" from the article, and insert a relevant example in point 3, it pretty much describes any successful large corporation.
The author must have an axe to grind.. maybe he's not to bemused with his bent iphone 6