custodial staff no, but there are plenty of jobs in this space that get outsourced you wouldn't thin are outsourceable. anything from reviewing security footage to internal support helpdesk, sorting through mail (its scanned and then read overseas) etc etc. its pretty crazy how many jobs have been creatively "digitized" this way and outsources.
i like apple as much as the next fanboy but this is not charity or benevolence of these companies, it is free market adjusting to a better cost/value of local workforce compared against consistently rising labor costs in china and india.
we're pretty much at or past the point when a little bit of cost benefit is simply not worth the loss of quality of support.
so.. yes, good development, thank you free market system.
this isn't a solution against advertising, its a solution to forced flash which is a common attack vector for malware.
..floats your boat, go for it. people spend stupider money on "fun".
absent that type of reason, don't bother rationalizing, there's no rational point in buying lottery what-so-ever.
> Being a free market doesn't mean things work optimally
it is, vs the alternatives.
> spectacular success like Steve Jobs
actually Steve Jobs was fired from apple when the board perceived him to be a poor CEO
the point of that LAT article is that because IBM is too big to fail we should care. okay. lets care.
what do you propose we do about hiring the next IBM CEO? what if the CEO you want to hire won't agree to come work for you without the parachute?
that happens. also people die on surgeon's table. shit indeed does happen.
but you're missing the point. you can't _get_ a rock star CEO in today's market if you do not offer the parachute..
you and i can get all pissy about that but unless you want to put shackles on the candidate he/she simply won't work for you under different conditions.
same as Jolie or Pitt or Hanks won't work on a movie unless you cut them a sizable check regardless of how the movie does.
you have a problem with that? move to North Korea. pretty much everywhere else people figured out that worrying about CEO's paycheck is barking at the wrong tree.
would you have ovechkin only get paid if his team wins the stanley cup?
i get your frustration but it simply not how this world works.
if a company wants a competent CEO they have to negotiate compensation on an open market. if the board agrees to a golden parachute well.. that means it was the only way to get this particular CEO.
not happy with the deal? pass. see how your company does with someone who agrees to work on contingency.
in any event, the outrage about "fat CEOs" is completely misplaced. CEO compensation is by far not the problem with today's businesses. corporatism is. which, btw, largely about lobbying and other government level corruption.
luckily in this (usa) country its "baby-corruption" compared to what happens in some other countries including the one discussed in TFA.
> If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life
if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.
ultimately you have to look at it from a different perspective.
a CEO job isn't an entitlement. much like a surgeon. someone would have to walk a long hard and at times perilous career path. relatively few make it to the top of the piramid.
which makes for a limited pool of quality CEOs. supply-demand. simple as that.
market won't shell out money for no good reason. market does its job as long as its free. and,
btw, the opposite is very much true as well, the only way to check/balance prices (including labor) is free market.
thats not what this ted talk is about at all, actually. watch it, you might be surprised
...not just problem avoidance" — David Deutsch
Legendary scientist David Deutsch puts theoretical physics on the back burner to discuss a more urgent matter: the survival of our species. The first step toward solving global warming, he says, is to admit that we have a problem.
you could _attempt_ to sue me. you'd have to find a judge who'd agree to take the case. possible? sure. likely? don't think so. not only that, there are laws against frivolous litigation.
that said, the problem is, suit at question isn't considered frivolous.
and thats the thing they're getting sued over..