700 watt Microwave ovens cost $300 twenty years ago.

You can get one for $70 now. you can get a 1200 watt Microwave oven.

Somethings do seem to be going up (like cable TV for now- it's insane).

But where you have competition between different companies, they do sell on price.

Customers have price options all the time.

But you could see how a group of 7 people might share three cars for a total cost of $77,000 dollars or $11,000 each.
Meanwhile, you would be paying $25,000 for the car.

Now you were not specifying a manual car but to extend it further- in 20 years manual cars might be double the annual insurance cost (especially for the very young and the very old). So $1400 for insurance for three cars but $1400 for insurance for your one car. Or $200 each for the 7 vs $1400 for you.

Finally, paying for parking is becoming much more common. A self driving car would incur much lower parking fees. It could go be used by another timeshare owner or it could park it self in a the cheap lots further away and probably formatted for autocars.

There are people who pay a premium for all kinds of things. And that's cool. But a lot of people act differently when the cost differential becomes high enough.

And yet, you can see rampant examples in this thread that excuse a "youth" culture and it's becoming an issue for google because they've been so blatant about it.

The thing that kills me is that T-Mobile service is TERRIBLE at the University of Houston. Especially in the student center. Zero bars in large areas of the building.

It's great in many other parts of town. Service absolutely sucks at the DFW Convention Center (zero bars).

I can sort of understand DFW. Basically 2,000 business travellers for a big convention- who probably are not mostly T-Mobile users anyway.

  But why on earth would you allow 45,000 young people who are deciding what phone to use, pretty much for life, have such a terrible experience on campus?

I should have put /sarcasm shouldn't I?

"we just have a youth culture" was being compared with "we just have a white male religious culture".

One is clearly illegal .. as is the other one too.

You are off by 1 year. They don't apply if you are 39.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types...

Age discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) less favorably because of his or her age.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.

What the hell do you think young people who only hire less qualified young people over more qualified older people are doing?

We had a 63 year old java programmer at our company who crushed the younger programmers in terms of delivery, elegance of solutions, maintainability, creativity, and even hours worked (regularly put in 60 hours a week). He would be turned away from Google over a less qualified candidate.

Wouldn't it be nice if companies hired the most qualified candidate for the job?

Age discrimination in IT has been rampant since the 1990s.

Thanks man,
As we move further from the implementation, it's getting harder to find those pages.

Also, as I recall, part of the difference was young people were able to take catastrophic care while the elderly had to have insurance that would cover medication. on similar plans the premium difference was more like 6:1. This is complicated by cafeteria plans at businesses where the older and sick employees had to opt in for the extra $1200 to $1400 a year in premiums while young healthy people did not.

We have a culture of white 50 year old christian guys.

We don't feel comfortable hiring anyone who isn't a white male 40+ years old who wants to go to our church weekly.

it's AGE DISCRIMINATION.

The root cause doesn't matter. If you ONLY hire 20 to 28 year olds- you are practicing age discrimination.

Your candor is admirable, but we didn't fight this crap for 40 years (and countless deaths even) against old white religious males to give it all up to a bunch of young males.

I don't see where they are coming from and I hope this crap gets torn out by the roots- they get massive fines AND they get a rolling fine based on their age demographics going forward.

20 year olds have no more right to discriminate against 50 year olds than men do against women, whites do against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc, or religious people do against non-religious people, or non-religious people do against religious people.

If you meet the requirements of the job, your age doesn't matter. Google wouldn't be calling you if you didn't meet the requirements for the job.

What's so terribly funny is that with 2 to 4 year job duration these days (if that), age doesn't matter like it used to when companies were hiring people for 20 years.

While older people feel comfortable working with younger people- the reverse is not true.

I've had younger people specifically tell me they hired a team like them that they could hang out with after work.

It feeds on itself once you have a younger team in place. Back in 2009, Scotus gutted age discrimination protection and it's exploded since then.

PRE- ACA, increasing insurance premiums were a cause for not hiring- and for laying off large groups of older employees as they reached 50 to 55.

Back then- an older person's insurance could be 12x the cost of a younger person's insurance (now it's 3x).

Infosys cuts the chase. When I forwarded the resume of a friend of mine to them, they kicked it back saying they *required* the high school graduation year. Not proof of graduation (tho why high school graduation should matter to someone with a degree plus experience anyway...).

You see, college degrees might be obtained at any age. But highschool degrees are mostly earned at 18. So they are asking for the applicants age.

And yet, many corporations have just such laws in place for consumers.

You can't legally buy products sold cheaper in other countries and resell them here for a slight markup.

Which means they want to use cheap labor- but force consumers here to pay top dollar.

When I can buy movies for $2.49 instead of $15 and when I can legally buy meds for 10 cents instead of $4.35 (blood pressure meds), etc. etc. etc. then I'll be a bit more open to this crap.

Armed police *still* patrol the ground three years later.

Oh, so you don't want your $18,000 severance? I mean we know you have no real savings outside of your 401k so this would be nice to help keep you afloat while you look for a new job.

By the way, you also have to sign this non-disclosure agreement if you want your severance too.

It's been a pleasure.

They are supposed to be highly skilled and possess talents which can't be located in the local market after a reasonable search.

Now, you can write lots of words but lawyers just sharpen their teeth on that kind of thing.

Simply set a dollar amount equal to the current top 10% income in the country. Right now, that's about $100,000.

So you can't bring an H1B in for less than $100,000. Minimum salary in their pocket- not the contracting house.

Right now almost 40,000 of the 65,000 slots are taken up by large indian contracting houses which have been directly replacing existing american workers (which is illegal per the text of the law which is why some companies are walking this back when caught). This means that companies like Microsoft and Google that need genuinely rare talent have less than a 50/50 chance of getting some brilliant mathematician or cutting edge software engineer.

Tellingly, Cognizant (over 9000 H1B's) has no offices in Silicon valley but have offices in most major american cities. Their target is not rare and special but people who simply have a 4 year degree and a few years experience.