This is entirely accurate. Full time jobs have in many cases given way to contracts. Then there are layoffs. It is a pretty cynical thing for a company to then turn around and judge people for being at a job for less than 5 years when a year or less is becoming far more common.

Same applies to blood transfusions and vaccines. Hell, private business pays for it by even paying you! So really, fuck you for giving a private corporation that much power over the lives of it's employees.

You need to shift your perspective. Nothing but contempt? Colleges are turning into trade factories, and that's a problem. There are HUGE societal benefits to the intellectual exploration that comes with college. We need to expand who has access to that! Universal college is a laudable goal.

In saying "6-figure debt makes it the point", you've made a mistake. Debt is a problem, and we need to address it. But the fact that college is too expensive doesn't mean you need to turn college into merely a stepping stone to a job. That's misguided.

Clarity please. Does the submitter mean competition? Legal challenges to the product? Logistical challenges with the products?

While there are a few reasons for not hiring Americans in general, and black Americans in particular -- is racism among them, considering they scour South Asia for candidates?

Sure. Someone could be racist towards a very specific group of people, vs racist in general.

That's a fascinating answer. I wonder if that data from the IRS is shared so that action could be taken? I imagine it isn't made public (imagine the uproar if it was) - so any sort of social pressure on companies for hiring practices wouldn't have data to go on.

No company is so big that it's a significant portion of the economy... at least in America.

- A big company hiring specialists in a field could constitute a significant portion of the market in a given city.

It's not as if it's a good-ole boy's club over at the googleplex.

Source for that statement? What if it turns out it is? Is that "none of the government's business"? Is it up to brave consumers to decide if we care or not, and apply market pressure on google by not buying their products?

If google and facebook could find qualified black (or American employees in general) employees, wouldn't they do that rather than importing people from India/Pakistan/$wherever?

No. That's part of the problem. There are plenty of qualified employees here. When you import people, you get two very nice things from a corporate perspective: 1. Lower cost. 2. More control.

Fear of getting their visa revoked makes these workers easier to bully and manipulate. And they will work for less. That is the reason big tech wants to look overseas, not a lack of talent stateside.

Which brings us back to the original point - if a company is systematically passing over people because they are (black, female, the wrong kind of christian, etc) - it's hard to do anything about it if they never release those stats. For a company as big as google or facebook, that kind of thing could really put a damper in a qualified person's ability to find a job and feed their family. So we need to decide as a society - does that bother us? If not, then business as usual. But if it does, then we need larger companies (at the very least) to report who they hire, so we can try our best to identify potential trouble.

How much did it cost to setup their infrastructure to produce these cars? It seems like it would be a loss if they don't sell any at all. Why wouldn't they raise the price? This sounds like it's more about politics than sound business decisions. That makes me question Sergio Marchionne's ability to run the company effectively.

I live here. $300 won't even get you a shared room unless you are very far from the city. Rent is crazy expensive, even in previously less expensive areas in Brooklyn and Queens. Plus there is little connection between what we pay in rent and the "social safety net", unless you want to stretch the impact of low rent housing on surrounding rents. No wonder the original post was as AC.

What amazes me is that anyone considers it ethical to impose restrictions upon the poor the wealthy do not have to deal with. Want society's support? You better be willing to uproot yourself and move or you are out of luck. Surely we can do better.

"Most humans will be lazy if you let them be." Citation Needed.

"In NYC the average person pays $300 plus a month in rent just to cover the social safety net" - I don't believe you. Source?

We DO have an idea what happened. Read rabtech's insightful comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Harassment claims are not always he said/she said things - that is a pretty gross generalization. In this case there were plenty of witnesses, as well as admissions (direct and tacit) from the company itself!

If you are letting your religious views drive your politics, you have more in common with the religious right than with liberals. It's very hard to be "further left than the democrats" and not support a woman's right to choose because your personal religion believes it is wrong.

This is *before* those limits were lifted. As a citizen, I'm looking forward to seeing the power of the wealthy further cemented in this country, and so exquisitely draped in the pretense of democracy that my fellow citizens believe themselves empowered. It's gonna get better! (For the wealthy). How exciting for those of us who imagine ourselves upwardly mobile within the American caste system.

Why it's no secret where these traders and shops operate. The place where anything and everything you want is sold! I'm speaking of course about Portobello Road!