This is a bit of a fallacy.
Most technologies I can become proficient with in under 3 months.
Learning how the company works, however, can take an entire year. Who does what, who needs what, how this or that is done and why, and so forth.
What's the fallacy? Taking three months to become PROFICIENT is way too long for a lot of companies. And doing that PLUS learning how the company works? (and I agree - it can take a year or more) It's too much. So, you can't come into a new company knowing the company (though you can be good at learning new environments), but you can come in as an EXPERT with the specific technology. So, in many cases, it makes sense to look for those experts.
This is an extremely simplistic view. And while the individual facts are right (expensive contractors for areas that the government "isn't allowed to hire"), the conclusion is wrong - because of all the information you leave out. Have you ever worked in a government office? Do you understand all of the crazy stuff that goes on to "protect the department's budget"? One of the people I know working at a government office told me that the government works like this (you'll like the car analogy):
The government has a car which has a flat tire. They bring it in to get another tire, and are told that all three other tires are about to go - would they like to replace them? If so, they can get four tires for the price of two. But the government employee says, "No, just replace the one tire." Why, you might ask? Well, they have a single flat tire, and are authorized to only replace that single tire - no other option is available. Regardless of saving money, protecting the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, or even avoiding downtime.
This stuff happens in bad corporations too, but it is endemic in government - which is one of many reasons people consider government wasteful. There are a LOT of other reasons, and it creates a complicated, somewhat hard to understand situation which is difficult to resolve and systemic. Unlike your picture of the situation, which is easy - throw money at the government, allow them to hire whoever they want, and screw private industry. After all, the problem is only due to the costs of government needed to pay corporations, right?
Overall, the reviews have been positive for the phone, with Consumer Reports calling it the "best iPhone yet". But the issues with the glare and the map app are getting a lot of press."
Link to Original Source
It's not going to change your life, get you laid
You don't know my wife...
It sounds like maybe a lot of people know your wife...
What are the biggest PACs in terms of how much money they have? Don't you think that matter more? If we want to talk money spent, we probably won't be able to compare fairly until the campaigns are done, correct?
Whether Apple is actually guilty of anything or not, Amazon's tactics weren't exactly nice either. In exchange for US paying less, someone else was EARNING less. That's the only way it could possibly work. I'm pretty sure Amazon isn't dumb enough to screw themselves out of money, so the publishers and authors were the ones that took the hit.
Actually, Amazon WAS selling below costs on certain books. See, they were willing to eat the loss in order to own the market - probably setting themselves up as a monopoly - who knows? But yeah, the publishers still got the amount they wanted - it wasn't hurting the authors (at that point). http://www.portfolio.com/companies-executives/2012/04/12/amazon-lowers-ebook-prices-in-wake-of-price-fixing-lawsuit-against-rivals