This is exactly the problem with our present system of government. From the local council to the US Senate we have laws for this and that, exclusions, grandfathering, retro-active, exceptions, rebates, subsidies, credits, fines, penalties, and loopholes, loopholes, loopholes. There is no consistent guiding principal for how our laws are written. We neither have a socialist nor a free-market government. Some areas of life are virtually unregulated to the detriment of average citizens while others are incredibly over-regulated to the detriment of average citizens. But for almost any law or regulation it is possible to work around the intent of the law by some maneuver such as you describe. The only barriers are cost, risk, and complexity. The end result is that those with modest means and modest ambitions (ie typical American family) suffer under the law, whereas those who are hiring lawyers to plot their way through the loopholes and game the system benefit substantially. In a just and fair society there would be no need for the Estate Law industry. Google "Medicaid Planning" and "Asset Protection" to learn more about taking advantage of loopholes that the wealthy use to avoid the burden levied by the government onto middle-class families or families with an sick, elderly, or disabled member.

I could live happily with a democratic socialist government. I could take my chances in a free-market based libertarian society. I'd rather not have anything in between. 200+ years of singing songs about being free, and yet we have to keep working towards actually being free, breaking one chain at a time, all while another link is being forged on the other limb.

Or rent from an apartment owner that forbids subletting and enforces their own contracts. This is why we have civil law instead of totalitarian "do what you're told" law. This whole deal reeks of industry protectionism. Give me a TRUE free market, or give me TRUE socialism. Everything else is just a shade of fascism that favors people with "special" status over the rights of the common man.

When did these apartment sub-letters ever refuse to pay taxes? Why would they need permits for a single unit or single room short term sublease? Permission from the owner I would understand, but that would be a civil matter between landlord and tenant. It's these kinds of intrusions of government into private matters that fuels small government extemists, putting social progress at risk, like programs such as Obamacare and Medicaid.

My baby sitter doesn't have a licensed daycare facility. She watches my two kids in her private home. Should she be hauled off to the gulag as well?

Then why not ask for the taxes to paid rather than criminalizing short-term subletting? It's this kind of BS that Tea Baggers point to when they advocate for free market reforms and then go about defunding government programs like Obamacare and Medicaid.

Sorry, forget to end with a smiley :-). I was just parroting something I heard at a TEA Party rally.

Punishing the businesses now will just make it harder for these companies to pay proper wages going forward, and it will cause greater economic harm to the rest of the country. The best thing workers can do now is to just put this whole mess behind them, show up to work, and do their jobs. Our nation depends on the success of these businesses to create jobs that would not exist otherwise. We should be thankful that Apple and Google made the difficult decisions that were necessary to keep good paying jobs and technical innovation here in America instead of India or Korea.

Welcome to Corporatocracy. Which doesn't exist. Because conspiracy theories are always false. And this wage-fixing business is a conspiracy, right?

But Americans want to be paid too much. We need more H1B Visa professionals who are willing to work for reasonable wages. The future of innovation is at stake, and we cannot let it be shackled to spoiled code monkeys who aren't willing to accept the same prevailing wages that are offered in China and India. If they want more money than that then they should climb further up the corporate ladder where compensation is more closely matched to the manager's contribution to the company.

Yes, but engineers are expensive, and these companies rely on thousands of them to design their products. If they don't collude to suppress engineering salaries then the only option left is to cut back on executive compensation, which is absolutely unacceptable.

The problem is that the powers that be know how to milk the cow from both ends. If you reduce the power of government then they just exercise more power and control via global corporatocracies. While on paper existing as separate organizations, what we have today in the US and many other parts of the world is a government-industrial oligarchy, with executives exerting influence on political leaders in ways that the average citizen cannot endeavor or even understand. Our anti-trust laws discourage companies from secretly colluding on price, but all the major competitors in any industry tend to be members of the same industry trade organizations that represent their interests to our legislators and to the general public with PR campaigns, which can be overt or subliminal. Even across non-competing entities, the boards of directors of public companies are occupied by CEOs of other Fortune 500 companies. When you look at who the bureaucrats are at our nation's most powerful offices, you often see a revolving door from industry to political office and back to industry again. The regulators have a vested interest in looking out for the top players in the industries they are supposed to regulate, as they will earn for themselves top executive roles as long as they don't ruffle any feathers during their political tenure. Our system of government is growing more toward feudalism or the guilds of Florence, where wealth and power is not obtained from individual effort (ie meritocracy) but through cronyism or gaming our legal/political system.

For the global corporatocracy to succeed they do not need totalitarian authority, just a "controlling interest", a skill they mastered in the manner of which they control and profit the most from publicly listed companies while owning less than 50% of outstanding shares. In fact, by promoting the appearance of freedom and "unfettered" competition they exercise more control than an authoritarian regime, since totalitarianism comes with very high operating costs.

Totalitarian regimes often face a united opposition. The cooperation of Western democracies with the Soviet Union against the Fascists of Europe is one example. The cooperation of Communists and Nationalists against French colonial rule in Indochina is another. After victory the alliance typically splinters, and the previously united parties usually return to their natural opposition to each other. Global corporatocracy makes use of totalitarianism where it exists, such as in Fascist China (along the trade coast, not to be confused with the communist agricultural peasant interior of China), but thrives where it can exert influence over seemingly oppositional political movements, such as with the Republican and Democrat parties of the United States. The majority of corporations that contribute to political campaigns tend to donate almost equally to candidates from both parties.

For the most part there is no conspiracy. It is the natural product of the consolidation of mature industries where there is little or no government action to prevent companies from growing "too big to fail." Those who are successful at climbing the corporate ladder eventually discover how the game works, which is a system of reciprocity - quid pro quo, and spin doctoring.

I consider corporatocracy to be a significant threat to democracy and freedom for individuals, especially harmful to those who have humble ambitions such as to raise a family, enjoy their privacy, reap the fruit of their own labor, and live healthy. What is needed is a balanced approach to limiting the power of "Big Government" while also limiting the power of global conglomerates. But if I had to live in a nation with a "Big Government" I would prefer a benevolent, people-friendly society like what is found in Scandinavia, not an equal-opportunity plantation where I might have a shot at retirement so long as I never get sick or if I'm promoted high enough up the scrotumpole to afford my in-network deductible.

But now Obama is overhauling how the NSA collects data. The public will believe that privacy rights have been restored, and the NSA can start remotely monitoring the mics in our cellphones. I'm not going to wear a tinfoil hat, but am I really paranoid or schizo if I wrap my phone in tinfoil?

Exactly! Nobody gives a carp, which is why I am not even going to post a comment.

That just depends on how much the hospital can bill the family, and if the family will pay. If the family says they can have the money in about a week, then "surprise" the patient comes out of suspended animation in about a week, somewhat like how mentally ill patients are released as "successfully treated" as soon as insurance runs out. If the family doesn't have enough income, assets or insurance to even settle for 10% of the bill, then "sorry for your loss, little Johnny is clinically dead."

And when obtaining the urgent permission from the family member they probably won't bother to mention that insurance will leave them high and dry and the hospital will go after every red penny they've got.