Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 2) 402

Verizon has ZERO obligation to do anything for you if you're off plan, not thing one.

Verizon has lots of obligations, including some to society in general (i.e., people who aren't even Verizon customers at all). Operating with good faith and fair dealing is one of those obligations.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 4, Insightful) 402

And they also are under no obligation to allow out-of-contract users from continuing to use the old plan - which is exactly what they are doing here, telling the heaviest out-of-contract users to let up, move plan or Verizon will no longer do business with you.

So? That doesn't change the fact that other users are still on the plan, and Verizon is still describing it as "unlimited" to them, which is false advertising.

Comment Re:Not so fast, there... (Score 1) 606

Who is producing that wealth?

Here's the list.

Why don't those who aren't working, work, so that they can get some wealth of their own?

Because people don't get to work just because they want to; they work because a company was willing to hire them. Companies don't hire unless they need to -- and they don't need to, because we still have a shortage of aggregate demand

"But what about entrepreneurs" you're about to ask. That requires having a profitable idea and the capital to implement it, and frankly, most people are too stupid and/or poor for that.

Furthermore, your question is ill-posed: wealth is not produced through work. Wealth is produced through owning productive assets. Even if you're earning a six-figure income, if you are spending it instead of acquiring productive assets (e.g. stock in the companies listed above) you're still a pauper.

Why would those who you claim are hoarding money keep it, instead of investing it in some productive enterprise?

Ask Apple; they're the ones hoarding the biggest chunk of it ($203 billion, according to the most recent source I could find).

Comment Re:Dumb extrapolation (Score 1) 606

But the article states that their earnings will be less "over the course of their working lives" than the previous generation.

In other words, this new study has not only corroborated the other study I cited, but has found that the effect is even worse than they thought before. So no, "the next upturn in the economy" will not "go a long ways towards evening that out" because both the TFA and the study I cited directly contradicts that -- even before considering my previous point that "evening out" the salary does not even out the wealth.

I really don't understand what you think your point is. Are you trying to say "this must not be true because I don't want it to be?" Because nothing in either study supports your fact-free, wishful assertion that it somehow evens out.

Comment Re:Dumb extrapolation (Score 4, Informative) 606

It sucks to reach adulthood during a deep recession. Not sure it makes sense to use that as a predictor of the future though.

It does, though. College students who graduate into a recession earn 10% less starting out and their salaries don't recover to "normal" salary levels for a decade or more, at which point they're at a huge standard of living disadvantage because of the time value of money.

Think about it: that 10% is at the margin. It's the difference between being able to save for a down payment on a house (which in turn would lead to building wealth by accumulating equity) versus being condemned to being a long-term renter. Or the difference between starting to save for retirement in your 20s versus starting in your 30s. Or the difference between having an emergency fund versus having an unexpected emergency cause a spiral of debt leading to bankruptcy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Multics is security spelled sideways.