Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 107

Well, I dunno. It seems like blaming Fitbit for Pebble's financial failure.

Let's take a consequentialist view of matters. If the rule is you have to buy the whole business and continue to operate it, even though it's losing money, Pebble goes out of business and it's customers and debt holders suffer. If you can sell of just the good bits without the obligation to continue running the failing as before, the customers suffer but the debt holders get some relief. Which approach is better?

Comment Re: This works for me (Score 1) 397

If we're talking about the parallels between Trump and Hitler, there's more than I care for. Both are minority-bashing, have no government experience, are used to doing what they want, and their supporters support them for fundamentally irrational and likely nihilistic reasons. Frankly, I'm more worried about the Trump supporters than about Trump, because they'll still be there when Trump's gone.

Comment Re: This works for me (Score 1) 397

Unless Republican electors think they can get a majority of the EC for Kasich, it doesn't matter. If Trump doesn't get a majority, the top three vote-getters go to the House. In this scenario, one will be Trump, one will be Clinton, and one will be another Republican (Kasich has the advantage of being reasonably honest) who will probably become President. What the Democrat electors do matters not at all, unless Clinton manages to get a majority somehow.

Comment Re:Warranty Support? (Score 1) 107

My understanding is that selling off all your assets right before entering bankruptcy is a reason to have those sales reversed by the courts.

No, a fraudulent sale is a reason to have sales unwound by the courts. If you have an arms-length transaction with a willing buyer at a reasonable price, you haven't done anything that a bankruptcy court wouldn't oversee and approve in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The company is done. Even in bankruptcy (which is likely coming), those assets would be sold, the obligations left with the defunct company and discharged, and the cash doled out first to the secured creditors, then (if any is left) to others. There's a rather complex hierarchy of priority, and who gets what amount of cents on the dollar is frequently negotiated, but customers are essentially unsecured creditors and very low in the priority scheme.

In short, you're not going to be able to force someone who only is interested in buying IP to also take on order, warranty, and support obligations for the product.

Comment Re:Greed by any other name... (Score 1) 514

My point is that GDP-per-capita says what was produced; median income says how much people have to spend. If you produce $57,000 of stuff per capita and you have $52,000 to spend, guess what? That's more than $38,000 of stuff--the amount of stuff produced per-capita in 2000.

What I'm saying is $52,000 worth of stuff is more than $38,000 worth of stuff. Median income of $52,000 means you can buy $52,000 worth of stuff.

My point is that the median income remaining flat while that amount of income buys more and more stuff means you are getting richer; and we don't have a good indicator that shows what people can actually buy.

Median income in constant dollars is probably the best single number to indicate average income. GDP does not enter into that. Given constant income in constant dollars, it doesn't matter how the GDP changes.

Except that the median income in constant dollars has fallen by like $5,000 in the past 15 years, yet the amount of stuff you can buy with the current median income far-exceeds what you could buy with the median income 15 years ago.

The same percentage of the median income buys a car that's got more-complex technology like complex suspensions, electronic stability control, fuel-injected engines, power locks, bluetooth radio; that's a lot of complex, expensive shit that you could get in a high-dollar luxury vehicle a decade or so ago, if you could afford to spend 2-5 times as much for a car.

Each family spends a smaller percentage of their income on food now; and they eat out about twice as much as they did a decade ago, meaning they buy food and pay servants to cook and wait on them while they eat with less money than they previously paid to cook their own food.

Services like internet have exploded. In 1998, you would pay $35/month for 128K ISDN service, demarcated by a $250 ISDN modem; today you pay $83/month for 200,000K cable internet demarcated by an $80 DOCSIS 3.0 modem. That's 1,562 $35 ISDN lines. What percentage of the median $52,000 income is $54,687?

Smart phones. We have high-speed computers in our pocket that can get e-mail, stream music, play games, and do voice chat. Do you remember paying $600 for a Compaq iPaq with 32MB of RAM that used RAM as storage (yes, if you removed the battery, it wiped the phone!) in 2001? Do you remember it not having a cell phone radio? Instead you got that Motorola V3 RAZR for $350; and today you can throw $350 and get a cell phone with 64GB of storage, 2,048MB of RAM, and a 1080p AMOLED screen--and it's got four friggin' radios so you can do Wifi, Bluetooth, GSM voice, and LTE data simultaneously.

What the hell happened that our real income went down yet we became fucking rich as the Sultan of some backwater oil capital? How does that work? How do you sit on coal, turn it into diamonds, and get poorer?

Comment Re: Americans? (Score 1) 246

Actually, outsourcing and importing for cheaper is part of what gives the poor a better quality-of-life. The unemployment argument is a red herring: bringing any trade jobs back incurs an added cost, which raises prices and thus eliminates other jobs. If those prices raise enough to diminish the newly-created jobs beyond the number of jobs lost, then you have a net-loss of employment; this means American workers producing trade-import goods would need to be paid little to net-create jobs.

Even then, the change is disturbing.

Right now, Men and Boys's Cotton Trousers and Shorts retail for an average of $14.97 per pair (this is a rough Google number, and is probably inaccurate; it's also the only factor that can be variable and still correctly-demonstrate the principle). The Chinese import cost is 6 cents per pair (40,000 pairs shipped in a 40-foot shipping container, at an import cost less than $1,300 from China to US), with the Chinese labor cost at $6.14 per pair (via the published total number of imports of MBCT from China PRC and the total cost of those imports at import time). The difference in import and price includes the domestic shipping (truck drivers), retailing (inventory associates, cashiers, managers), logistics, and infrastructure (power, maintenance, rent) involved in local sale, as well as the profits.

If we paid American factory workers above $18/hr to make MBCT, with a retail average of $14.97, we would lose total American jobs; if we paid under $18/hr, we would gain jobs. This is because the cost of MBCT would increase, and the total purchaseable goods would thus decrease, impacting the entire logistics chain of shipping and selling them, as well as reducing the number of factory jobs to make them; and the factory jobs recovered from China are added to the job market, offsetting this. If more jobs are lost than gained, you lose jobs in total.

That's not the issue.

Say you pay your factory workers $21/hr, the same salary as a GM line worker. The price of MBCT goes up from $14.97 to $50.57 (remember: $8.83 of that goes to American wages for cashiers, truck drivers, shelf stockers, and the like, with some carved out for taxes and profits; I'm assuming profit margins and taxes fall instead of increasing as well, instead of adjusting that $8.83 larger). Today, a $21/hr income lets you buy MBCT at 0.71 hours's work per pair. With $21/hr factory workers, they'd work for 2.4 hours to afford a pair.

If you pay them an $8.25 minimum wage, the price rises to only $25. Today, an $8.25/hr wage lets you work for 1.8 hours and buy pants; at $25, an $8.25/hr wage requires you to work for 3.0 hours to afford the same pants you're making.

If you think that sounds ludicrous, consider: before globalization, the median American household spent 12% of its income on clothing; once we started outsourcing to China, this rapidly fell to 4%. It's now under 3.5%--it's only slowly continued to fall since the great globalization revolution. That means globalization in fact decreased costs to 1/3 what they were.

Outsourcing your jobs to another country that does the work a hell of a lot more cheaply creates an enormous capacity to buy, but somebody has to transport all that shit you're buying once it comes off the docks. You can't sail a ginormous shipping friggate up the mid-western basin to Colorado. That creates local jobs. Even then, unemployment dips nice and friendly-like, but it gets buffed out as population expands to fill the abundance of jobs, until some factor of scarcity (job scarcity, food scarcity, etc.) creates an expanding population in poverty and slows growth. Likewise, a small loss of jobs slows population growth until it adjusts to fit its economy's capacity, and can have a profound effect on the size of the labor force.

Comment Re:Americans? (Score 1) 246

Actually, there's something to that, but you're missing a factor.

Remember that part where I said the break-over point wasn't zero? For men and boys's cotton trousers and shorts eliminating all import from China, if all American jobs created to make those average above $18/hr wage, you have a net-loss of American jobs; if they average below $18/hr, you have a net gain. In either case, the cost of MBCT increases in terms of labor-hours, especially to the line workers--where a minimum-wage line worker model would raise the price from $14.97 average per pair to $25 and 1.8 hours's wage to 3.0, and a $21/hr worker model (GM factory line worker wage) would raise the price to $50.57/pair and from 0.71 hours's wage to 2.4.

In both cases, the worker making the given salary (and every other American) spends more time working to buy the same good. That's called "being poorer", and the net result is fewer things shipped, fewer things sold, fewer retail workers, and so forth. The break-over point is non-zero because while you reduce the number of goods shipped and sold, the reduced number of formerly-Chinese jobs are added onto American jobs when the dust settles: if you lose 40,000 Chinese manufacture jobs, 57,000 American retail jobs, and you transfer the remaining 57,000 manufacture jobs form China to America, you get a net-zero change in American employment. Reduce the purchaseable goods further (by making them more-expensive) and you lose jobs; reduce it less (by paying lower wages and thus lowering the price) and you gain jobs.

As for eliminating all American jobs, that's actually a viable goal. The main factor is time: if you eliminate some American jobs today, we will experience some unemployment, and also an increase in wealth (purchaseable goods per person). Give it time and our spending and labor force adjust to fit, buffing out the unemployment. Obviously, this means eliminating 30% of jobs today would wreck the economy; while eliminating 30% of today's jobs over the next 30 years would end in no increase in unemployment while every American ended up that much richer and capable of buying that much more stuff.

Projecting this back, far more than 100% of all jobs which have ever existed have been eliminated (by technical progress), and we've outsourced a hell of a lot of jobs. There are things Americans simply don't do anymore, and the outsourced workforce is enormous. Furthermore, combining trade with technical progress, the sheer amount of stuff we import greatly exceeds what we were able to make before it was outsourced--which is only an amusing interpretation, because it's also true that technical progress has replaced pretty much all of our jobs several times over, and now we make here in America several times more than we could make a hundred years ago.

The technical progress thing should be obvious, too. Imagine the farm workers it took to irrigate a field before we proposed a better way. It takes far fewer people to build, maintain, and operate the factories, pumps, and irrigation equipment to pivot-irrigate a farm than it does to have folks carry buckets of water back and forth all damned day.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 185

He doesn't understand the benefits of Deflationary currency. The benefits include less (or no) need for Government support programs (welfare, SS etc). It would require less in taxes, allowing people to keep their earnings (and wealth). It would increase a whole slew of things we really haven't seen in a very long time. Working hard as a youth (when it is easier to "work hard") would pay huge dividends long term for society.

The assumption is that rich people wouldn't spend their Coin, and horde it. This is largely false, as really rich people would buy the comforts that they desire. Catering to the wealthy would be a way to acquire wealth. As opposed to today, working as wage slaves to the wealthy class, buying everything on credit and depending on debt for a lifestyle.

Comment Re: Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 185

You are correct. Real deflation is caused by money supply not increasing at an appropriate rate to counter increases in productivity and commerce (velocity). BTC is deflationary since most of the Inflation period has long since past. It was HIGHLY inflationary at the beginning, Long term, it was always designed to be deflationary.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 185

Fluctuation in BTC is due to perception, not reality. But since perception is reality, if you buy BTC whenever there is a huge problem with BTC and the exchange prices drop, you'll be correctly interpreting the value of BTC. Those people who buy High and Sell Low are those that have a desire to be popular, but never are.

Comment Re:iWatches are not the thing (Score 1) 106

The watches do seem to be selling to some extent, so people disagree with you on that. I have no intention of buying one, because I hate wearing a watch, and don't really care of somebody else does buy one. If I were trying for social status, I'd be someone else. I wore a Casio with the little keyboard for a few years and considered it a fashion statement.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.