That assumes that they care about losing "the best". They would rather have a bunch of mediocre workers that get the job done and accept poor treatment than have good workers who want crazy shit like market wages and to be treated like human beings. At a certain point "good" is no longer profitable, you reach the point of diminishing returns. Cheap > good again. The Walmart effect in action.
Bottom line: They're cheap. They can hire 4 of them for the cost of one FTE here. That's all they care about. Dollars are easy to quantify; quality of work is more difficult, especially when you're a walking haircut in an empty suit with an MBA and remarkable myopia. Trying to get an MBA to understand the difference between "cheap" and "good" is like talking to a wall most of the time. In their mind, they are the same. They don't understand what their reports do, and refuse to listen to them when they raise a problem that might require 1) actual work on their part, or 2) (shock horror) SPENDING MONEY.
You might want to get your sarcasm detector checked
Because, frequently, they are better off financially on unemployment. Finding a minimum wage job that provides health coverage is pretty much impossible; if you're on assistance, you probably qualify for Medicaid. So, minimum wage + buy your own health insurance (although the ACA makes this much more feasible), or (probably) better than minimum wage and Medicaid coverage. Is it any shock what some people choose? If the minimum wage wasn't such a fucking joke, and we had a single-payer health system like all the grownup countries have, this would cease to be so big a problem.
I don't know why they bother; if those are exempt employees (which they are, if the employer has any brains). It's perfectly legal to require your exempt employees to work many many more hours than the 40 they're getting paid for on paper, and not compensate them for anything over 40. At least for now, if someone complains about long hours, as far as the employer is concerned, they can either 1) shut the fuck up and get back to work, or 2) be threatened with replacement by a cheaper worker. It's harder to do that in technical roles, but not impossible. The effort is probably worth it if you make an example out of someone; the others will be less likely to complain if they see someone frogmarched to the door for speaking up.
So, it's ok to treat them like slaves, because they have a lower COL? Sounds a bit like socialism, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
$40k a YEAR, you mean.
Just rare enough to be worth a premium, and to have the audacity to demand things like good benefits and a work-life balance.
Why do they hate America?
You ever want to really confuse them? Tell them your keyboard doesn't have a Windows key, like my old IBM model M. They'll spend all kinds of time walking you through trying to find it..
"Please to be looking at the left side of your keyboard, do you see the button C T R L?"
"Yes, I see it."
"The Windows key is being right next to that one"
"No, there's no key right next to it, there is one that says A L T a little further over"
"No, there has to be a key between that has the Windows logo"
"I'm telling you, there isn't. Why don't you tell me what you're trying to do and I'll find a different way"
"You are lying! You have a Windows key there, you have to"
"Nope, old keyboard. What are you trying to do?"
Then you listen to them flip through the script and again insist you must have a Windows key if it's a Windows computer.
It's great fun. I've wasted 90 minutes of their time this way. Another thing I like to do is, when they say there's a problem with my Windows computer, I ask them "Which one? I have several", which is true. I ask them for the machine name, the IP, everything they should know if they're getting a trouble report, right?
The goal is to get them to hang up on YOU.
If you are really good, you will be paid what you are worth. Whatever those "agent" skims from you will not eat into your worth
That seems to imply that if you're merely "good" or "competent" you won't be paid what you're worth (as in, less than the rock stars, but market rates). Not everyone is a rock star, and they need to eat too. They can still bring value to your organization greater than what you pay them.
Just as an aside I don't recruit in the IT space. I recruit for civil engineers. I did have a brief stint in the early 2000s in IT recruitment but I left that sector as fast as I could as it is extremely difficult to determine if someone can do what they say they can and the general attitude from "candidates" is extremely hostile to recruiters.
And, more frequently than you would expect, the recruiter will lie to you about the compensation package to get you to take the job (so they can get paid). I have first-hand knowledge of this one. Cost me the equivalent of $20,000 in total compensation (salary + 401k contributions) a year. (Granted, I bear some responsibility for that one, as I didn't insist on the job offer being put in writing before I showed up the first day. I didn't want to not go in on my first day because the recruiter couldn't get their shit together, and I was out of work at the time.)
I even saw where some recruiters will operate under a pseudonym for a time, until their sleazeball tactics catch up with them, and then they'll mysteriously "have left the company", to be replaced by someone who sounds just like them.
These are recruiters that give the whole industry a bad name. Many IT workers also resent the fact that you're an impediment between themselves and the hiring manager, and recruiters may or may not be able to accurately convey the details of your skill set, because they have no actual knowledge of what any of it means. They just shotgun out emails to everyone that matches a keyword search. This is why two or three times a day I get an email pimping out some awesome 3 month contract in a city 1500 miles away doing something that isn't actually in my skill set.
It's unfortunate, but most recruiters in the IT space are either liars or idiots, sometimes both.
I haven't done so on the 840 EVO I swapped into my MBP because I've judged that it's not worth the tradeoff for me, but it's an option.
That's where I am right now. I'm running Yosemite on my 2007 3,1 mbp with SSD. I have not, so far, used Trim Enabler to disable kext signing. We'll see if it ever comes to that.
I'd be hard pressed to come up with more of a manufactured controversy.
Well, I think there is a legitimate complaint in that there is no official Apple-approved mechanism for enabling trim on a non-Apple installed drive, but yes, this is a manufactured scandal.
That was my thinking. Maybe we have giant silos of cacao, and those are dwindling, although I lack the imagination to think this is literally true. The whole premise looks like a reason to raise prices and profits.
If the world is eating more chocolate, it means the world is getting richer. Not many in China would be eating chocolate regularly 20 years ago, Same could be said of other areas.
Regardless, the math doesn't add up, particularly the future estimations of us consuming a million tons more than we make. The only place you see that kind of math is typically in the Ministry of Truth.
Apple, for whatever dumb reason, has _never_ enabled Trim on non-Apple branded SSDs. I do not know of any HDD manufacturers that ever provided any kernel extensions that would enable Trim for their drives, so effectively, third-party SSDs have never had any official trim support on OS X.
Before Yosemite this has never been an issue. Any user who was able to install their own SSD could also download the handy TRIM Enabler software that forced Trim on for non-Apple SSDs. One toggle switch, one reboot, piece of cake. I've been running multiple Macs since OS 10.6 with multiple brands of SSDs (OCZ, Samsung, Intel, etc) with absolutely no issues and no signs of performance degradation.
The difference in Yosemite is, as the summary says, non-signed Kernel extensions cannot be loaded by default. Since non-signed kexts are blocked, software like Trim Enabler cannot load. You CAN override this behavior, but there are potential issues (see the Trim Enabler site for more information).
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the decision to make Yosemite require signed kexts has anything to do with the status of trim on non-Apple SSDs. I doubt trim even crossed anybody's minds during the decision-making process. Trim Enabler is just an unfortunate casualty of kext signing (which itself is probably not a bad thing!).
tl;dr -- a rather hysterical take on an issue that DOES display some Apple stupidity. Just let us enable trim on non-Apple drives natively and there's no problem!