Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Our unsustainable power sources will surely wind down
Hah!
-
Hilary, I'm seriously on the verge of taking offence here. You've clearly made the judgement that I have made an unnecessary purchase. I think that's up to me to decide.
Are you being a little defensive on this thing? I think Hilary originally queried what she saw as an implicit plug of JB Hi-Fi, a company with a questionable industrial relations record. In the context of gadgetry - and I mean gadgetry as a whole, once again, not just Apple - it didn't seem incredibly out of place to me. And it provoked a discussion, of the kind that the iPad is due to provoke because it's not just another computing device, it's a new category of thing. And as such it is reasonably natural to ask, is it filling a need, or creating one? The jury must still be out on that one, surely. And at least some of these new gadgets can legitimately be construed as a big FU to the environment. I mean there is a special hell for people who buy digital photo frames, yes? Otherwise there should be. I don't give a toss if it's their money (a concept which is questionable in and of itself), seeing as it is everybody's planet.
You've argued that the iPad has actual uses, which is great. But I don't think the discussion was not meant to be had, and besides, surely, it was bound to happen on PAS of all places. You built this place, I can't quite fathom your surprise.
-
Oh, Danielle, if you want more help with your crisis of faith, consider this: the richest 400 families in the US have a combined wealth of USD1.27 trillion.
Yet some of them have arranged their affairs so they can still claim Working for Families. True story.
-
I've also never had quite such an experience of feeling I have to justify a purchase with my own money. Oh well.
I hope that wasn't coming from me: what I wrote in supporting the Greenpeace campaign notwithstanding (and I stand by that), I would reiterate that you don't need to justify your purchase of an iPad any more than I have to justify my purchase of an eee. Less so, if anything. However Hilary introduced the problem of ethics in relation to all of these devices and it's an interesting one; and it's brought up more often in relation to Apple and Microsoft products than others because they are polarising and much more sharply branded companies. And yes, some of their products have emotional as well as practical value. I'm sure they don't mind that.
Also, +1 on liking portrait aspect for reading. That's why I'm all in favour of PAS keeping its current layout, with plenty of space on the sides.
-
Granted I'd dropped it a few times, and electronic devices aren't really good with being dropped
Before my current stupid Nokia 3g crap-phone I had a Philips Savvy which lasted almost exactly ten years. I left it out on the deck in the rain one night. I dropped it many, many times. It was shat on by a bird. But it just wouldn't die. And it kept me always unfailingly informed about my biorhythms.
-
My bad. It must have been all the noise at our factory council meeting.
-
I got no problem with a minimum wage. Nor, of course, with any number of better worker compensation models. But margins are a whole different issue. The workers themselves could be shareholders and they'd be royally pissed if their profits were screwed over because the law said it wasn't allowed.
Nobody's talking about capping margins (I think, I'd have to confirm that with my fellow Bolshevik). We're just talking about increasing the cost of doing business by forcing companies to treat their workforce better, wherever it might live. And that will likely reduce unit margins, although not necessarily overall profits.
-
And I don't think you know me well enough to assume that I don't give a shit,
In the West, collectively, we don't. That's more of a statement of fact than anything else. And I'm well included.
Labour standards are pretty different from "our standards, and right now", which was what you suggested.
Our standards is pretty much what I mean. And they're not that fabulous, you know. But I think 40-something hour weeks with decent breaks and some sickness pay, some holiday pay, yeah, sure. Peg the minimum wage at the local standard of living, and I'm on board. And if some people in China will lose their jobs, maybe somebody will get their job back in Detroit or Timaru. I'm not against that either. At the moment we're pitting workers against workers and I'm not sure that's right.
-
I'm still struggling to see the connection between large profit margins and exploiting labor.
The only ways to pay workers more are to reduce margins and/or make the products more expensive. If the latter means nobody will buy 'em, then you have to reduce margins. But the prime directive of our stage of capitalism is "maximise shareholder value", which is to say, maximise profits. These profits go to shareholders, who are investors as opposed to workers. I'd personally like more of the money to go to the people who do the work, as opposed to the people who already have money.
-
It's an easy chair to sit and just say "we pass a law presto".
It's a wonderful recliner to lie down and keep not giving a shit, OTOH. Smiley face.
But what about essentials? Do we tell every asthmatic that there won't be any more medicine for a few months until Pharmac finds a supplier that has a certificate that indicates that they work within NZ's environment and labour laws? Insulin? A thousand other things?
Maybe. Plenty of people are going without those things in other countries, no? What makes us so special, other than the fact that we own the world?
Put it another way: the reason to have labour standards, is so that workers have basic welfare. Why should a Filipino die younger so that a New Zealander can afford cheap asthma medicine?
(Man, this has become needlessly emotional. Somebody light the Stephen Judd signal so we can restore some widsom to the proceedings.)