I have a smartphone, and only 450 minutes. There are, in fact, people who don't talk on the phone enough to justify the cost of unlimited minutes, but still want the connectivity of a smartphone.

I don't doubt that, but the point is that the company doesn't have to (unlike if you cut their revenues so much they were actually taking a loss). If they choose to do that, the blame rests with them and not with whatever caused the loss in profits.

Fining 10% of profits does not in and of itself cost jobs, as those are profits - therefore, the jobs can still be kept without causing loss to the company. So if Apple decides to fire people just to reinflate profits, I wouldn't exactly blame a court judgement for that.

Yeah, but those statements have only happened in the last few months (6 months or so). Given the lead time on game development, you can't reasonably expect fruit from any efforts starting then for at least another year or two.

O.o

I'd love to know what kind of upgrades you have in mind that a $20,000 budget for tech is "modest". In my book, that kind of budget, devoted solely to tech upgrades, is enormous.

I think anyone with half a brain can figure that part out; the trickier question is what form of more money is the most effective. Just giving everyone a one-time, unconditional raise will make them happy for a while, but the slackers won't be any more motivated by it, and eventually the happiness will wear off to boot. So you need to structure the monetary rewards in some way that gives people the incentive to work to earn those rewards.

I think Steam was broken some last night. When I got the game installed, I couldn't connect to a friend nor could he connect to me. I was about to try putting my PC in the DMZ, when my friend tried restarting Steam and it suddenly worked.

Ah, so you're a sociopath. Got it. I'll stop trying to talk to you about treating people right, then.

Bullshit. It is the job of everyone in a civilized society (companies included) to act in an ethical fashion. This includes not abusing the imbalance of power in an employer-employee relationship to push down wages, as almost all companies do. In other words, it includes paying employees fairly even though they don't (strictly speaking) have to.

Also bullshit. Companies don't necessarily have the resources to give everyone a big fat raise, but they often have the resources to do more than they are. Real example: my sister works for a manufacturing company that does profit sharing. They spread 5% (an incredible pittance) of the profits out amongst the entire employee base. Each employee sees a ridiculously small sum from this, naturally. The company could easily increase the share of the profits - even at only 20% of the profit shared the amount is less like an insult and more like an incentive to do better, and lots of money is still left for the ownership. Not to mention that this is profit that's being divided - they could divide as much as 100% of the profit for the employees, and they would, by definition, have the resources to do it.

Nor is there a shred of truth to your statement that "fairness" is another kind of greed. People that ask for fair treatment aren't asking for a fucking $100,000/year salary plus exorbitant benefits to push a button on the factory line. They're asking for more than the lowest possible amount the company can get away with paying them. It's not a lot to ask, considering how much many companies abuse their employees.

Right, because companies totally can't afford to compensate their workers more fairly. Apple would certainly go out of business if they had to pay a reasonable wage for the labor they use!

Come on, man. One can go too far in the direction of protecting employees' interests, but that isn't what's going on here. These decisions are driven by pure greed, nothing more or less.

Already happened
No
Yes
No
Google, maybe? Not really sure, but probably no. Most companies are run by sociopaths who don't give a damn about any cost that doesn't go on the expense sheet.

You mean that manufactured controversy where a bunch of oversensitive idiots got worked up about something that was in no way offensive? Yeah man, let's all boycott PA because of that.

PA had exactly the right response to those idiots who complained about the comic with the dickwolves: made fun of them for being so ridiculous as to read into the thing some kind of endorsement of rape. If you're that stupid, you deserve to be made fun of by every person around who's not a halfwit.

I'll be the last to deny the health benefits of pasteurization. But, as I grew up on a dairy farm, we drank raw milk all the time (cause it would be kind of dumb to go buy milk at the store when you have a large supply at your home). Having grown up on that stuff, I cannot stand the taste of pasteurized milk. There is a very significant difference in flavor between the two, and the pasteurized stuff literally makes me gag. When I was a kid I almost made myself throw up trying to force myself to drink the stuff they gave us at school.

So yeah, pasteurization has some great benefits, but there's also a perfectly legitimate reason for people to want to have raw milk. Why shouldn't we permit those who prefer their milk that way to be able to obtain it?

I don't know that I could call this Obama's hobby, since the video embedded in TFA says that it's the chefs, not the man himself, brewing the beer. It's simply something he encourages.

Both mainstream parties are guilty of a great deal of mudslinging and general douchebaggery towards the other. While what you say is unacceptable, it's also not new or only a one-way street. Calling out only one side is hardly fair.