Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 213

The US had a similar situation in the decades leading up to the First World War. Human nature was the same. Monetary facts of life were the same. The greed was the same. Somehow the facts of life turned out differently than you suggest with the US experiencing a century of prosperity.

It was a different time, we simply don't have teh horizons to enjoy a century of prosperity any more. You better have increased profits the next quarter. Back then, it took a long time to set up new worksites, and shipping was hardly what it is today.

The only impediment is training the new rock bottom workers. That's why the least skilled jobs are outsourced first. Today? IT workers are skilled. Bye bye. A CEO's job can be computerized just like daytrading software. We'll be filthy rich when none of us is working, I guess.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 213

You may not be a "1%-er", but to the rest of the world, you are probably a "10%-er". Cry more about having to give up some of your stuff so they can raise their standard of living. It's only fair.

That's a false dichotomy, at least for what I'm pulling in. I'm doing well, mainly by living below my means for a long time - taking the gamble that I owuld live long enough to enjoy it.

But if I gave up most of my money, and it was distributed among all of the poor - it wouldn't make one bit of difference, other than making me very poor as well.

That's hardly any kind of goal. Even if I were to distribute my money between say 20 poo people everyone would be poor. I could give everything away, and add maybe one more person, but I'd be broke.

And that's the issue about the wealth gap. Many of the folks have income higher than many countries GDP. Talk ot them about giving up 10 percent of their income.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 213

I look at it from a longer term perspective than you. There are 3 billion people out there without electricity, clean water or sanitation.

I look at it from a even longer term perspective. The earth is straining at it's bindings. Ther are too many people on earth. Because of this situation, our choice might be to have all of us without electricity, clean water or sanitation.

Because in a world where p;eople bloviate how Malthus was wrong, it does not follow that he will always be wrong, unless you ascribe to the idea that the earth's carrying capacity is infinite.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 213

The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels.

Fortunately the Chinese and Indian workers whose incomes are increasing are stepping up to replace the American worker. So all is well, right?

The Chinese are going to find out what happens when your wages get to a certain point. Soon we'll be hearning about the overpass Chinese workers costing too much. Pretty simple, a combination of human nature, monetary facts of life, and pathological pecuniary shakers and movers.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 2) 213

from a country with a much lower standard of living

Does this raise or lower the standard of living in those places?`

What happens is that the standard of living tends upward in the power country, and lover in the country with a higher standard of living.

But all is not well. As SOL's creep up, people tend to want more. More pay, more time off. Stuff like that.

Since the company has to make more profit this quarter, they will try to source work to another, lower paid country.

The end result will be somewhat leveling of the playing field, but countries like America will be tending closer to the third world countries .

Comment Re:The rising tide of Balassa-Samuelson (Score 2) 213

How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

Probably not WDW Florida and not immediately. But after companies have started to hire skilled workers in the export sector of a particular country's economy, workers in the export sector will be earning more than the workers in non-export sectors.

Respectfully, at the pace that corporate moves these days, as soon as the wages go up, the shareholders cannot have a reduction in profits, so the company has to find more people to pay as little as possible.

Ak Mexico. As wages went up, those people had to lose their jobs.

A sort of positive outcome of the ADHD jobjumping done by Corporate world is that eventually there won't be any more people to pull that stunt with. It is going to be interesting when the whole world is at one pay level. But will that happen before robots take over.

One of the most amusing things in the world of business is billionaires telling people making minimum wage that they are being paid too much.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 213

Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

I look at it from a longer term perspective, not as some anti-corporate thing.

If maximization of profit is a good thing (and who would argue against that - I certainly have a lot of investments) then it's pretty obvious, a company can enjoy lower expenses by employing the people who will work for the least. Many would call that a no-brainer.

But outsourcing labor, and employing illegal labor has a longer term problem. The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels. Especially in the Disney case, they are getting most of their income not from the wealthiest, but from younger people, and lower middle class. They and many of the "American employee as the enemy" groups are sacrificing their future for this quarter's profits.

I'm not putting my investment money in a corporation that is actively destroying it's customer base.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 5, Insightful) 213

Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...

What do you think of the long-term implications of this however?

The goal, such as it is is to continually maximize profit in all areas. This means a large portion of expenses are the labor costs.

So it only stands to reason that you want expenses as low as possible - American workers tend to be paid more than someone from a country with a much lower standard of living, therefore - American workers are an expense to be eliminated.

This makes perfect sense for a extremely short term outlook.

But from a long term outlook, it is deadly counter-productive to your interests.

How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

Oh, that's right - he's not.

Then again, since the incidental end goal for Corporate America is to force most of it's citizens to be either unemployed, or to work for the wages that they can pay someone in a third world country - eventually, the Americans who used to go to DisneyWorld, or DisneyLand or Epcot, or stay at the multiple resorts or cruises, are not going to have the money.

And of all of the businesses that should know that their continued profitability comes from a healthy middle class, Disney should have that on the first sentence of their mission statement.

They rely on a lot of people, spending a fair amount of discretionary money to visit their venues. How much do you figure a third world America that saves the shareholders a lot of money on labor is going to spend on 100 percent discretionary things like a trip to Disneysomething, when we're all making the same wages as that guy in IndiaStan?

It's like saving money on skydiving by not spending money on that expensive parachute.

Comment Re:Is Windows10 a thing? (Score 1) 185

One thing I do know for certain is Windows users seldom take those long trips and wasted hours into account when they brag about how much money they save over those "expensive Macs".

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard against using Windows. This has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with your willingness to support someone's computer remotely. Don't want to drive? Remote in or ship the damn thing, or otherwise tell them to figure it out themselves. Don't knock a product just because you choose to be a martyr.

Bullshit - if you can't understand the simple argument I'm making, is that with an Apple, or even my wife's Linux happy, these things don't happen. I haven't had one update hosing on either OS.

I don't have to travel to fix a computer that shouldn't have been fucked up by an update in the first place. Of course it's a stupid argument for you Coward - You can't see beyond your nose.

Comment Re: Is Windows10 a thing? (Score 1) 185

id rather buy a MacBook every 5 years for $1500 than buy a Windooz machine for $500 every two years.

Every Mac I've ever owned has lasted atleAst 6 years.

Pretty much this. Having owned and used both PC's and Macs since just about forever ago, My Macs have always lasted longer. It's difficult to argue with upfront prices, because most people can't see beyond their nose. But I not only prefer Macs, but they are less expensive in the long run.

I guy I used to sign off on his purches for was really big on how inexpensive PC's were compared to Macs. He was in yapping one day about why we didn't save money by going all Windows PC's. I showed him by brining out the receipts. He was spending alomst twice as much for roughly the same capability.

Comment Re:Is Windows10 a thing? (Score 1) 185

I think it must be a management decision. Get the adoption rate up by heavily "promoting" the update, not realizing or caring that it will screw up a lot of users who don't fully understand the consequences, or for whom the upgrade will simply fail.

To your point, cost is a big selling point for most Windows users, and with the larger installed user base, I'm surprised that W10 is only around the OSX level. Not that I care, it's like smoking famous cigarettes to me.

As well, I've already seen a lot of soundcard issues, where the users machines simply won't produce sound, and won't recognize any devices - well it sort of does - it sees the sound card, but refuses to utilize it in the programs.

The interesting part is when you try to help the users, a few of them get weirdly belligerant about it, claiming Windows says everything is good, so it must be good. I had one guy so pissed off about the fix, which is Windows thinking some outdated drivers are good, but actually aren't, that he refused to do the fix because I was a stupid bastard. Even lied about going to the soundcard support site to update the driver. Some people would rather be "right" than have their machine work.

A few weeks later, he very sheepishly sent email that he finally went to the site, did as told, and it magickly worked.

Another issue is whne a machine refuses to boot. Safe booting in Windows ten is an unholy mess if you've taken the online upgrade path. I had a machine get bitched up by a power surge/outagfe when a remote site lost it's neutral line. It survived, but won't boot to the Desktop. Standard Safeboot methods don't work, so I go online.

Step 1 of the safe boot process - Insert the Windows 10 disk........ oops!

I did have another machine I could make a USB recovery drive with, but we'll see how that works. Probably as good as my W10 disk.

A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.