The first part of your comment is worth expanding on a little:

You are correct, but define "cheaper". Is the extra time required to complete a project due to language barrier cheaper? Is the $150/hr per head you're paying to hire H1-B contractors making $20/hr "cheaper"? Is the extra liability insurance... well, you get the idea.

It only seems cheaper at first... until the invoices roll in, deadlines slip, and things start getting ugly once the contract agency does... because what are you going to do about it if the contracting firm decides to pull all their guys out at the end of the week? ;)

But anyway... as you were.

Stop it... now you're just teasing. ;)

"We were running low on our 'being an asshole' quota this month. Now be sure to continue to watch as your wives and kids demand and purchase our products, chumps."

Mind you, that was just frustration talking... because seriously, what is anyone going to do about this?

That.... that would be awesome.

There is one sure, fair, and solid way to put a stop to "outrageous executive compensation"... stop buying stock in companies that grant such pay/bonus levels.

While it seems like a stupid move to lavish cash on a CxO who is running a company that is bleeding cash left right, and sideways, it's the perfect right of stock investors to make their own judgements as to how stupid/not-stupid they believe such a thing to be.

The reason why is because there are two ways to buy/sell stock.

The original intent was to own a piece of the company via buying stock, investing in its long-term growth, and reaping the benefits by selling it at some indeterminate point in the future.

The modern method (via shorting and similar tricks) is gambling.

Problem is, in order to eliminate the gambling aspect, the SEC would have to require a minimum 1-2 year holding period between sales of a given share of stock... that is, you buy the stock, but you cannot sell it to anyone else until it has been in your possession for at least 12-24 months or so. Good luck having that happen. :/

...now what percentage of tax revenue is it?

GDP != Tax Revenue.

But, you know... many ideologues (and even folks in government) think that they have access to private citizens' money, so... ;)

*sigh* - go learn the difference between individuals spending money on healthcare, and the US government spending taxpayer money on same. While you're at it, also look up the bureaucratic overhead that a government-run healthcare system would bring (see also the VA Medical System).

Now go back to the kids' table and stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.

Dunno who modded you up, because this bit:

...is crap. We can afford our *current* system, but not a complete socialist-style healthcare system applied to the general population. It will either destroy the federal budget, or the resulting healthcare for individuals will be far worse than what we see now.

Would you like evidence? No problem: Google for "Veterans Administration" if you want an example of what US-government run healthcare looks like.

As someone whose spouse has had to ensure that travesty of an organization, I can tell you first-hand that you most emphatically do not want to go to a government-run hospital or doctor.

If it's the case that latency or QoS is applied to intentionally push lower-tier users to a higher tier, then Verizon is even sleazier than TFA indicates.

Thinking the same thing here, methinks.

If what the guy says is true? A competent prof would have taken the most egregious examples and kicked them out of his class - right after informing them in front of one and all that they in particular will fail the semester, why they will fail, that they are to leave immediately, and that anyone else in class who exhibits similar behavior will get similar treatment. Do it early and as soon as trouble arises, so that you can solve the problem while it is still small and contained, much like you would control a small brush fire. It's a tried-and true tactic: make an expensive and career-harming example out of the ones who deserve it, and the rest will fall in line very quickly.

...did they not teach this guy how to control a classroom, or at least leadership skills, when he was getting his (bare required minimum to be a full-blown management professor) MS in management?

No, they cannot. The reason healthcare costs are so high now is precisely because the government has done just that (viz. Medicare/Medicaid). When you have a guaranteed payout, you can pack and pad the patient bill so as to maximize the amount of money that Uncle Sugar pays out per patient. This is usually done through such tactics as unnecessary tests, extreme itemization, and even collusion among providers to raise the overall costs (even if indirect). Top that with a government that regulates every last tidbit of healthcare (see also the FDA, among dozens if not hundreds of other acronyms), and even in some ways artificially restricts the supply of new doctors (at the educational level)? That's an overly-simplified but fairly accurate reason why we have the overpriced mess we have today.

Thing is, they can afford it whereas the US cannot. This is largely due to the demographics of these nations, the fact that their defense budgets are largely carried by NATO/Treaty/aid/etc (read: the US is paying for and/or providing a very significant percentage of it, even if indirectly), immigration laws are uber-strict (which cuts down on the flood of low/no-income users of the system), and because each has a relatively low population that is densely packed when compared to the US (which means you don't need so many clinics, doctors, specialties, etc). In spite of this, many of the nations you list are already under moderate to severe economic crisis in spite of that...

Meanwhile, if the US were to adopt such a system, or if the US DoD stopped providing direct/indirect military defense for these nations in order to afford such a system, a whole lot of economies would collapse within 10-15 years, maximum - the economies of both sides would be radically hamstrung under either condition.