Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Decent (Score 1) 479

Slightly over twice the minimum wage is a far cry from the almost 10 times the minimum wage. If you honestly don't think that prices at stores / restaurants will increase to reflect that higher minimum wage, you know nothing about economics. So in reality, their $70k will become worth far less than it is now.

Comment: Re:Decent (Score 1) 479

This also only works because it's a very small company (roughly 70 employees). The more employees the company has, the smaller of an impact a move like this has for each employee. A large company like Walmart or Microsoft doing this would result in an insignificant difference to each employee's paycheck.

Comment: Re:This sh*t again? (Score 1) 245

by Totenglocke (#49479269) Attached to: EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges
This is the EU's method of paying for their massive social spending. Every few years they pick a successful American company and file bogus "anti-trust" charges, then extort billions from them. They all need to just tell the EU to go fuck themselves and pull out - and make a very public announcement as to WHY they're leaving. After the people actually living there find out that they'll no longer have Amazon / eBay / Windows / Xbox / Android / etc, they'll be pretty pissed at the greedy politicians who drove those companies out.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 2) 892

Except they're not the same thing. They may be the same general concept with the same objective, but being pushy lacks any tact or politeness. There's a huge difference between person A saying something like "Your competitor is offering me $5k more a year, but I feel this company is a better there any way you can match that?" or person B saying "I refuse to work for anything less than $X!".

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 892

So if they're willing to sell themselves short and work for less (when they have just as much access to information about average salary for the field / region), how is that men's fault? Maybe when they got the offer, the economy wasn't good and they were desperate and didn't negotiate - that's just basic labor economics, not sexism. I've worked jobs where I knew that I was being paid less than average for my qualifications, but I also knew that the economy at the time was shit and I had no other offers. However, when conditions are better (such as when I obtained my current job) and I have a decent paying job already, then yes - I will push it further because worst case scenario is that I keep working at the existing job and keep searching, best case scenario I get a much bigger raise than I was expecting. Sometimes you take that gamble and lose, other times it pays out in a 25% pay increase. Just because women in general are less willing to take that sort of risk doesn't mean that men are "evil" or should be punished.

Comment: Re:Way to piss off customers, Apple. (Score 1) 193

Especially since Apple keeps the number of stores per state extremely low, thus it increases the number of customers in store and creates an illusion that there's more demand than there really is. Again, brilliant marketing - if only they had the hardware / software to justify buying it.

Comment: Here's the thing (Score 0, Troll) 1168

Everyone discriminates. You choose physical / personality traits that you require in someone to date / marry / have sex with. You choose your hobbies, bands, etc. You say "I love McDonald's" or "I hate White Castle". EVERYONE DISCRIMINATES.

Business owners are supposed to (and used to) have the right to refuse service to anyone that they didn't want to work with. Then with the Civil Rights movement, they decided that for blacks to have equal rights, business owners had to lose their rights (yeah, I don't get the logic either). This issue came up recently with the cases of both a photographer and a baker being forced, under threat of fine and jail, to work for gay couples getting married when the business owners were against gay marriage for religious reasons. This law was written because of the fact that other governments in the country have been forcing people to work for others against their will. If people didn't have to be afraid of being forced to do something they find immoral, then there wouldn't have been demand for a law to protect them from it.

Instead of just allowing businesses to operate how they want and customers deciding who succeeds and who doesn't (can you imagine how fast Walmart or McDonald's would go out of business if they put up "No blacks allowed" signs?), people want to decide that by opening a business, you lose any right to decide how you live your life and who you associate with. It's idiotic, to say the least. The only reason that people currently are opposed to the "religious freedom" law is because they don't like THAT religious view. However, when this law is used to allow a black business owner to tell KKK members to go to hell and he won't serve them, maybe you'll realize that it's a two-way street.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling