commentopia What the World Is Saying A SERVICE BRINGING YOU THE BEST READERS' COMMENTS FROM TOP NEWS SOURCES ON THE WEB
BUSINESS ARCHIVES — JANUARY 2010 [RETURN TO commentopia HOME PAGE]
JANUARY 25, 2010 -- JANUARY 31, 2010 "I OWE MY VOTE TO THE COMPANY STORE" -- CORPORATE POLITICAL SPENDING FREE FOR ALL
This is a travesty, corporations can now legally dictate the tone of our electoral fate.
<> Clearly corporations act to influence political decisions, Thomas. Heck, the very first corporation allowed under English law (Bank of England, 1691) got its charter from William of Orange by promising to help finance his wars against France, which the taxpayers weren't willing to pay for. (Before that, corporations were illegal in England, because they were deemed to be against public policy; partnerships were OK, because the proprietors retained personal liability.) <> Everyone keeps of just mentioning McCain-Feingold. You are myopic, this ruling overturns a 100 year precedent dating back to 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt persuaded Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from putting money into federal races. After World War II, Congress extended this ban to labor unions. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Court rolls back campaign spending limits <> This is a dark day for the republic. Somewhere, the spirit of Jay Gould is dancing on streets paved with gold. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/The court's blow to democracy
FOR READERS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE ONLINE METER WILL SOON BE TICKING
My aunt used to be in the newspaper biz, she's retired now. She is heartbroken by what's happening to the newspaper biz. Sure much of the bad is from corporate influence but that's happening everywhere unfortunately. Just part of life these days. One just has to bone up and be able to recognize the difference. But the tragedies of newspapers are all the good reporters and editors who have been forced out or quit out of disgust. That's why the quality has gone down. And why have these great people been leaving? Cause the corporate interests that took over are bleeding money and panicking. Why the blood-letting? So many people are stealing their news every morning. If those corporate interests were still making money, better reporters/editors would be hired, thus the quality would improve. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/New York Times "Metered Model;" Paywall announcement confirms report <> I don't understand the mindset of the people here. If you aren't a heavy user of the site, you most likely won't be affected. If you are a heavy user, you will have to pay more depending on how much you use it, unless you are a print subscriber. What is so wrong about this? The paper is betting that there are enough people who will pay up. Depending on the system and how it's set up, I think the higher ups are right. As I say every time this topic comes up, it depends on how this extra revenue is used and what content is offered. If you don't like any of this, you probably don't care enough about reading the paper to read it a lot right now and thus won't be affected by this decision. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/New York Times "Metered Model;" Paywall announcement confirms report <> Big Mistake. Newspapers for decades have wanted to give the "paper" away for free (and indeed many small newspapers with directed advertising are given for free on front lawns and at places of business). They make their money on ad revenue, not the "paper" sales. Look at how cheap home delivery is. I pay less than $0.50 a day for a major city paper to be delivered first thing in the morning to my driveway. Heck, the cost of the printing and the paper/ink itself along with the delivery people has to be more than that. Read the article NEW YORK MAGAZINE/New York Times ready to charge online readers <> As a blogger myself, I get it. People have to get paid for all the work it takes to deliver the content "magically" on your screen. That being said, institutions whether financial or media or healthcare or any large footprint enterprise have to tread carefully today and seek reasonable rewards or, risk the wrath of the user. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/The Times to charge for online access
JANUARY 18, 2010 -- JANUARY 24, 2010 CRAFTING A NEW DEAL FOR CADBURY
The Quaker founders of Cadbury must be turning in their graves. They instituted excellent working conditions, education, housing and health care for their workers. Everything now is about profit and greed, and look where it has got us. Read the article BBC/HAVE YOUR SAY/ Is the Cadbury deal sweet enough? <> "What would be nice, just for once is to read a headline that a British company had taken over a foreign one." Read the article BBC/HAVE YOUR SAY/ Is the Cadbury deal sweet enough? <> What's the point reading this? Kraft are American therefore evil. Its the same lunacy of people complaining that the US military are doing most of the work in Haiti. Read the article BBC/HAVE YOUR SAY/ Is the Cadbury deal sweet enough?
WHAT WILL COME OF GOOGLE'S CHALLENGE TO CHINA?
Why did Google go China anyway? It's for the Chinese market, wasn't it? Email service being hacked? Come on, Google retreating to the US won't solve the issue. This is a business move using freedom of speech as a leverage. Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Google gets on the right side of history <> It will be very sad for ordinary Chinese people here. I actually am in China but using proxy server in U.S in order to add my comment in BBC English site. I respect Google's courage to say that and stand out. No matter what real intention of that, it is great opportunity to test China authority. But Google does take big gamble for that. Good luck for google. Read the article BBC/HAVE YOUR SAY/Should Google pull out of China? <> You say Google "errs". Lets analyze that. From a purely commercial point of view, if (like you claim) google.cn is losing money in its competition with Baidu, then leaving China is not an error. Its just business. From a moral point of view, the Internet is at its best when providing contentious information freely, and at its worst when supplying pornography and gambling. It seems Google was not allowed to offer neither the best nor the worst... So why do you think its an error? Makes sense on both principal and pragmatic grounds. Read the article ECONOMIST/Google and China: Flowers for a Funeral <> Google is outflanked by Baidu, Youku, Tudou, and Alibaba et al., and the Chinese government prefers to support, endorse, and cultivate its home teams -- and why shouldn't it? Google wasn't getting commercial traction, and if there were profits to be made by playing by Beijing's rules, Google would have.
Read the article NPR/After e-mail attacks Google May Pull Out of China
JANUARY 11, 2010 -- JANUARY 17, 2010 THE 200 BEST AND WORST JOBS IN AMERICA -- HOW DOES YOUR'S RANK?
I'm an actuary. I do really love my work, but the entry barriers are pretty high. The actuarial exam process takes 5 - 10 years to complete and you have to give up much of your life to study during that period. When I was in my 20s and my friends were hitting the bars on Saturday nights, I was hitting the books. I assume when they survey actuaries for these things they are not surveying many who are still taking exams. Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/The 200 Best and Worst Jobs in America <> I don't doubt a garbage collector's job is tough: filth handling, lifting heavy refuse cans, smelling the stench, driving around early in the mornings with lots of stops and gos, seeing thrown out stuff and taking it personally to resell on Ebay for money...but it is far from being a "worst job" by any means. Those guys get paid decently, and have the rest of their afternoons to spend as they please. (I know this 'cause i work near a garbage collecting facility and see the workers get off from work before noon, then drive away in their better than low class vehicles). Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/The 200 Best and Worst Jobs in America <>
Read the article THE REGISTER/Software engineer rated bet job of 2010 (almost) GM RE-INVENTED FORECASTS PROFIT IN 2010
If they can show a profit and pay back the immense government loans they received, then I say outstanding! All of the money they or the banks pay back is less we or our children will be responsable for in the future. Read the article DAILY BEAST/GM sees profit in 2010 <> There is a segment of the market that is giving GM a chance. I spoke with somebody who owns an Acura SUV and just purchased a Buick Enclave and said that the Enclave was the best car purchase they had made. GM's quality is underrated based on the last 30 years of putting out genuine GM junk as I used to call it. However its much much better and on par with the Japanese. The question is can they convince the buyer of that ... Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/GM's bold outlook: A profit this year <> GM actually has one of the better more compelling product portfolios out there thanks to Bob Lutz, and as others have mentioned the quality and visable appeal of the cars is also much better... but this was in the works over the past 5-8 years not after the government took it over. That yahoo that claims to be the CEO "Big Ed" with his brash stsatemetns of profitability in 2010...Well let's see, all the garbage is left in the government post bankruptcy... no closing costs or toxic assets of SAAB, Pontiac, Hummer or Saturn to impact earnings...post retiree healthcare sold to the UAW... so what would cause GM not to be profitable...even with the enemic economy. I love bold statements when the deck is stacked, and the U.S. tax payer is left with the garbage from pre-bankrupt GM. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/GM's bold outlook: A profit this year
JANUARY 4, 2010 -- JANUARY 10, 2010 H&M HAS A SERIOUS GOODWILL PROBLEM
I absolutely agree that this kind of behavior is disgusting and wasteful, but am surprised only that everybody else is so surprised; from my experience retailers have been doing this for years. I worked for a certain "high-end" retailer responsible for the Ed Hardy and Affliction fever that took over the country who did the same thing at the store level with all damaged returns as well as clothing that simply didn't sell. It's a waste of money and more importantly clothes that could be put to good use. All retailers who do this should be investigated for wasteful handling of clothes like this. Read the article NEW YORK MAGAZINE/H&M destroys and throws out perfectly good unworn clothing
<> This post makes me feel sick to my stomach. I have a good friend who worked at Anthropologie for a time, and I know she was disgusted that she was required to smash unsold housewares in the alley behind the store. I had no idea that this type of thing was so widespread. It seems like there are so many ways that unsold merchandise could be used to to help those in need, and it makes me sad that anyone can justify such practices. I find it hard to believe that the pastries Starbucks donates to shelters in my town were devalued because homeless people got to eat them for free, while the day before I would have had to pay my hard-earned money for them in the store. Read the article NEW YORK MAGAZINE/H&M destroys and throws out perfectly good unworn clothing <> This is not a new practice or an "incident" to be looked into, it is a commonplace policy. It is typical how these companies report that they are "concerned" about this "isolated incident" when they know it is their policy. If it were not their policy, wouldn't they tell us as part of their PR that they donate unused clothes to various charities? I've never seen such a thing reported on their websites, have you? They do it to protect their BRAND. Which clothier wants a bunch of homeless people running around with their precious brands on? My friend worked for a shoe store that would cut up their leather shoes and toss them. The same thing happens with food. Waste is married to our lifestyle. Read the article U.K.GUARDIAN/Unsold H&M clothes found in rubbish bags as homeless face winter chill
TV WARS: FOR THE CONSUMER, THE PRICE IS NOT RIGHT
The crime here is that we can't choose channels a la carte. That would end this farce in one quick hurry. <> It hasn't been all that many years ago that my bill for cable was $19.95 a month. It is now almost $85.00. It isn't just the overall rate increases that hurt, it's the way they have broken down what should be the basic service into individual components to generate even more revenues. You pay separately for each box for each tv you have, if you have more than one. You pay if you want them to fix anything that might go wrong between the street and the house, and a separate fee if you also want them to repair what happens between the house and the tv. Then add a whole slew of other 'fees' and taxes that are the bearers of convoluted names that when you call to ask what they are even the ones answering the help line can't tell you! I have to also watch each month for all kinds of unauthorized 'extras' they accidentally add and that take months to get credited back. Phone calls to deal with this type of issue or even to just ask a question, land you in some other country more often than not, with someone who barely speaks English and hasn't got a clue. I don't mind paying for a service, but cable has moved so far away from good service that they ought to be paying us for the hours spent on the phone to correct even minor issues, not asking for 'more'.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Next up on cable TV: Higher bills for consumers <> It seems clear that the increasing technology-driven churn in media distribution will reach something of a critical mass in 2010. As with all paradigm shifts, the transition will be painful, but hopefully on the other end will come new distribution models that empower viewers -- namely, the a la carte process that seems increasingly possible (and ultimately democratizing, in much the same way that the music industry has been transformed by iTunes and file sharing). But what do I know? Just so long as I can still watch LOST... Read the article TIME MAGAZINE/Why TV network deals are driving the cost of cable TV up
DECEMBER 28, 2009 - JANUARY 3, 2010 PAUL KRUGMAN LOOKS BACK TO 1937 AND THE GHOSTS OF DEPRESSIONS PAST
One persistent reason for the fall in the aggregate demand is the decrease in inflation adjusted wages despite the skyrocketing productivity of our workers. Most of this surplus value has been going to the top one or two percent of the population. In addition, the top marginal tax rates have fallen from 90% to less than 40%. This shameful transfer of wealth in our "democracy" has resulted in American workers going into debt to maintain the economy. Barring a well deserved increase in wages and a very large standard deduction for most Americans, balanced with a return to realistic top tax rates to keep the tax revenue neutral, the aggregate demand that Dr. Krugman so desperately wants is not coming back anytime soon. <> With all due respect, Professor Krugman, let me suggest another year: 1932. So far, all the government has really accomplished is the equivalent of the first round (Hoover's) of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (similar to TARP and the stimulus projects) and a few ameliorating extensions of unemployment benefits. I fear not 1937 but that we have yet to realize the full impact of the initial downturn. If that is the case (and I do fear it is), then we have a long, long way to go before real recovery comes, with or without government intervention. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman on "That 1937 Feeling"
<> The economy will not come back because it can't! No amount of stimulus will get it back. We will have a continued 8% unemployment for the next decade. Until the folks at the top realize that we need to have manufacturing back in this country, we will have nothing here. Take a lesson from China and India! We can't continue to try to build an economy on intangible products (financial products). We must be a country that, literally, MAKES something. We've lived on false profits (and prophets) for too many years. Corporations reported profits that weren't due to increased sales, but rather to reduced expenses (staff). The CEO's (false prophets) made enormous salaries at our expense. Change all that and then the economy will come around! DAILY BEAST/Lousy economic outlook for 2010s TEMPING FORTUNE: RISING NUMBERS OF TEMPORARY WORKERS
It is possible that taking on more temporary workers is a harbinger of hiring more permanent workers. However, it is at least as possible that such indicates a transfer of hiring from permanent to temporary workers who, most often, are cheaper to hire. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Labor data shows surge in hiring of temp workers <> That's not the only trend - as a nonprofit grant writer who'd like to find a new job, I can tell you that the new thing is "interns" - development interns, marketing interns, special event/membership interns - a crass and transparent attempt to avoid paying seasoned professionals the salary and benefits that their experience and skills merit. The nonprofits figure they can get some sort of baseline work out of new graduates at a fraction of the salary they'd have to pay an experienced professional, and if the work isn't great, so what? Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Labor data shows surge in hiring of temp workers
|
ARCHIVES -- OCTOBER, 2009 -- DECEMBER, 2009
ARCHIVES -- JULY, 2009 — SEPTEMBER, 2009