HN user
I'm interested to know where you think the debate should lie. Do you believe that it should be debated empirically among economic journals or in the court of public opinion? Because the book is a compilation of the former and we are only seeing doubt in the latter.
We have the same system in Canada and the wholesaler ISP (Bell) famously imposed unpopular usage based billing on the re-seller (TekSavvy) to kill the only advantage it had over the ISP.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/crtc-approves-usage-based-...
Can I blame both?
Honda has been saying the same thing for years and has yet to produce a product. It's cool tech but right now it's just vapourware.
$100M is roughly 10% of Newark's annual budget and was offered as one time funding. Education is a service industry so that 10% is effectively spread thinly across all the schools in the district. This is in stark contrast to Zuck's product development background where 100M can be concentrated into developing a single product that can produce amazing ROI. Perhaps this is why our IT billionaires flounder in education?
This policy is specifically designed to weed out all but the most desperate employees. When you're living paycheque-to-paycheque you can't afford to strike. The reason I pay union dues is to top up that strike fund.
Yes, I can see how your experience can be a valuable lesson to warehouse workers.
Have you seen the improvements to garbage collection? A giant mechanical arm grabs a specially designed trash bin and tips it into the open top. The garbage man doesn't even need to get close to the bin. Hell, he barely has to get out of the heated truck (in northern Canada). The abundance of cheap labour just delays the implementation of "leisure-efficient" technology.
Here's a video of the truck in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GprMe6A5DR8