SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (276878)2/27/2006 7:16:49 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1578544
 
Graduates Versus Oligarchs
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Ben Bernanke's maiden Congressional testimony as chairman of the Federal Reserve was, everyone agrees, superb. He didn't put a foot wrong on monetary or fiscal policy.

But Mr. Bernanke did stumble at one point. Responding to a question from Representative Barney Frank about income inequality, he declared that "the most important factor" in rising inequality "is the rising skill premium, the increased return to education."

That's a fundamental misreading of what's happening to American society. What we're seeing isn't the rise of a fairly broad class of knowledge workers. Instead, we're seeing the rise of a narrow oligarchy: income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite.

I think of Mr. Bernanke's position, which one hears all the time, as the 80-20 fallacy. It's the notion that the winners in our increasingly unequal society are a fairly large group — that the 20 percent or so of American workers who have the skills to take advantage of new technology and globalization are pulling away from the 80 percent who don't have these skills.

The truth is quite different. Highly educated workers have done better than those with less education, but a college degree has hardly been a ticket to big income gains. The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Over the longer stretch from 1975 to 2004 the average earnings of college graduates rose, but by less than 1 percent per year.

So who are the winners from rising inequality? It's not the top 20 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The big gains have gone to a much smaller, much richer group than that.

A new research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, "Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?," gives the details. Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains.

But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.

Just to give you a sense of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year the 99th percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of $1,672,726. The center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well over $6 million a year.

Why would someone as smart and well informed as Mr. Bernanke get the nature of growing inequality wrong? Because the fallacy he fell into tends to dominate polite discussion about income trends, not because it's true, but because it's comforting. The notion that it's all about returns to education suggests that nobody is to blame for rising inequality, that it's just a case of supply and demand at work. And it also suggests that the way to mitigate inequality is to improve our educational system — and better education is a value to which just about every politician in America pays at least lip service.

The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that's the real story.

Should we be worried about the increasingly oligarchic nature of American society? Yes, and not just because a rising economic tide has failed to lift most boats. Both history and modern experience tell us that highly unequal societies also tend to be highly corrupt. There's an arrow of causation that runs from diverging income trends to Jack Abramoff and the K Street project.

And I'm with Alan Greenspan, who — surprisingly, given his libertarian roots — has repeatedly warned that growing inequality poses a threat to "democratic society."

It may take some time before we muster the political will to counter that threat. But the first step toward doing something about inequality is to abandon the 80-20 fallacy. It's time to face up to the fact that rising inequality is driven by the giant income gains of a tiny elite, not the modest gains of college graduates.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (276878)2/27/2006 4:56:48 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1578544
 
One of these days, Emile is going to have a heart attack, and the only one who saves him will be a Jewish doctor ...

Good one.....

I saw this story on tv.....I don't remember where on tv....about ten years ago, a boy was playing little league and a bat hit him in the throat, crushing his larnyx. A woman was there......a mother of another boy and a nurse......she did a tracheotomy on the boy who was in serious trouble.

Flash forward ten years........the same woman was in a restaurant eating dinner when food got stuck in her throat. Someone at her table stood up and yelled for a doctor. Instead, a waiter came running up, grabbed her from behind and did the Heimlich......he had just learned how to do it a few weeks before. It turns out the waiter was the same boy from ten years earlier. In the ten years since the first incident, they had not seen each other once.

I thought it was an amazing story........and yes, I bet its a Jewish doctor who saves Emile's life.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (276878)2/28/2006 3:53:37 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578544
 
Someone said tonite that CA has a new law....you pay for disposal of your tv when you buy it?

Dumped electrical goods: A giant problem

This year we will discard 100 million TVs, computers, stereos and mobile phones as we're seduced by ever newer models. They could all be recycled - so why aren't they? Martin Hickman investigates

Published: 27 February 2006
What do you do with your old telly - the black set that now looks so dull when compared to its silver digital and widescreen betters?

And what about your old computer, a hulking grey box superseded by the sleek, exciting new Apple? Or your old drill, mobile phone or any other electrical product broken or deemed surplus to requirements in our increasingly throwaway society?

Some people dump these once-treasured items of progress in the bin, the tip, from where they make their way to landfill sites. There, their heavy metals like mercury poison the ground and raw materials are lost to future generations. Some, who cannot bring themselves to jettison items once so coveted and useful, put them in the loft. Then throw them away when they move.

Nationally, Britain's electronic mountain is crashing into landfill at an extraordinary rate. No one knows exactly how much is thrown away because it is dumped along with the kitchen scraps and broken furniture. But industry sources estimate that 100 million fridges, TVs, computers, mobile phones and other items of electronic equipment are discarded every year. They weigh 936,000 tons - the same as 2,400 jumbo jets.

The startling fact is that all of these products can be recycled using new technology; the country's first Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recycling plant has just opened in the North-east. And none should even be entering the dumps at all. By August 2005, Britain was supposed to have introduced new European rules stipulating that all electronic waste be recycled. Under the directive, retailers of electronic goods pay for the collection and producers pay for the recycling. This has been introduced in all almost EU countries - but not in Britain. The Government's response has been slow. We are now, along with France and Malta, incurring the wrath of the EU and probably heavy fines.

Britain first announced that the directive would be in place by last March, then the date moved to August. Then December. Then, in mid-December, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks announced a review of the directive - with no end date. In its defence, the Department of Trade and Industry says it wants to get implementation right. "It doesn't seem right to rush it through just to meet a deadline," says a spokeswoman.

The delay has infuriated environmentalists. Michael Warhurst, senior waste and resources campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says: "WEEE is very important. It's a complete waste of resources to be taking these electronic items and dumping them in landfill sites. In Britain we have a pretty pathetic situation where the Government should have implemented WEEE and hasn't."

The Government says the delay is due to ongoing discussions about how to enact the directive. A study suggests it will cost between £229m and £500m - £2 to £5 for each product.

Arguments have raged about how best to collect all those old TV sets. Should there be neighbourhood collection sites for the smaller items like kettles, similar to bottle banks? Should everyone take their products to a point at the municipal dump? Should consumers return stuff to the retailers?

The electronics industry, which would have to foot the bill, is sanguine about the continuing discussion. "The cost implication is large, and poor implementation could have massive repercussions on UK businesses, consumers and the environment," says a spokesman for the Recycling Electrical Producers' Industry Consortium (Repic), which represents the makers of 80 per cent of electrical goods.

Friends of the Earth believes the mess surrounding the EU directive is symptomatic of a wider reluctance by Labour to introduce environmental measures that inconvenience business. "What we have seen here is that they keep consulting and trying to reach a consensus position, and that's not working. Governments that show a bit of leadership go to consultation and then say: 'Right, this is what we are going to do'."

Frustration is also being felt at Wincanton, the British company that has spent £4.5m installing the UK's first WEEE recycling unit near Middlesbrough. The machine takes whole computers, microwaves and so on, cracks them open and sorts the materials for re-use in new products. The breaking happens when the products fall into the machine and crash into one another as they are spun in a vortex. MeWa, the German maker of the machine, likens it to "cracking the nut".

Once broken, the components are sent into containers of ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals. The metals are shredded for re-use. The plastic is granulated for re-use. The gases inside the machines are siphoned off for re-use. On a conveyor belt at the centre of the machine workers pick off special items, like circuit boards, which contain gold.

The machine, one of about 20 in Europe, can recycle 75,000 tons of electronics a year - equivalent to 800,000 washing machines. Two hundred people armed with screwdrivers would be required to carry out the same job.

Yet local authorities are not sending truckloads of material to the plant. Until the directive comes into force, Wincanton is relying on retailers forwarding on faulty goods, and the appliances it remove swhen it delivers new products to homes.

The main business of the FTSE 250 company is delivering goods for major retailers. It hopes WEEE recycling will use up spare capacity on its empty lorries and has six depots waiting to collect products.

Gordon Scott, managing director of its industrial division and a self-confessed late convert to environmentalism, says: "The bottom line is we cannot go on as we have been going on. We cannot landfill as we have been landfilling. We have got to do something like this."

Having made a downpayment of some millions, he is hoping Britain begins to recycle its TVs and computers very soon.

Fashion beats functionality in a throwaway society

We buy more stuff and throw it away faster than at any point in our history. Electronic goods lose their lustre for consumers quicker now because of advances in technology and lower prices.

Buying a basic television has never been so cheap, relatively speaking. In the past, people would call a television repairman to fix the telly when it went on the blink. Nowadays they often pop down to the high street to buy a new set - which may not cost more than their old set did five years before.

Fashion is also playing an increasing role - functional but unfashionable products are now jettisoned for the latest model. Mobile phones are considered out of date by Dixons after just six to nine months. Mere function is not enough - flashiness is now essential.

"Our attitude to technology has changed from using something until it breaks beyond repair, to constantly replacing it because something cooler is in the market," says Tom Dunmore, editor-in-chief of the gadget magazine Stuff.

"I know of people with five or six iPods who change their mobile phone every few months. And they're not unusual."

Mark Strutt, senior campaigner at Greenpeace, says: "We consume vast amounts of electronic goods and throw them away. Mobile phones are a classic example, where they are more or less designed to be thrown away after a few years. Another prime example is the MP3 player, which does not have a battery that can be changed or recharged."

What do you do with your old telly - the black set that now looks so dull when compared to its silver digital and widescreen betters?

And what about your old computer, a hulking grey box superseded by the sleek, exciting new Apple? Or your old drill, mobile phone or any other electrical product broken or deemed surplus to requirements in our increasingly throwaway society?

Some people dump these once-treasured items of progress in the bin, the tip, from where they make their way to landfill sites. There, their heavy metals like mercury poison the ground and raw materials are lost to future generations. Some, who cannot bring themselves to jettison items once so coveted and useful, put them in the loft. Then throw them away when they move.

Nationally, Britain's electronic mountain is crashing into landfill at an extraordinary rate. No one knows exactly how much is thrown away because it is dumped along with the kitchen scraps and broken furniture. But industry sources estimate that 100 million fridges, TVs, computers, mobile phones and other items of electronic equipment are discarded every year. They weigh 936,000 tons - the same as 2,400 jumbo jets.

The startling fact is that all of these products can be recycled using new technology; the country's first Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recycling plant has just opened in the North-east. And none should even be entering the dumps at all. By August 2005, Britain was supposed to have introduced new European rules stipulating that all electronic waste be recycled. Under the directive, retailers of electronic goods pay for the collection and producers pay for the recycling. This has been introduced in all almost EU countries - but not in Britain. The Government's response has been slow. We are now, along with France and Malta, incurring the wrath of the EU and probably heavy fines.

Britain first announced that the directive would be in place by last March, then the date moved to August. Then December. Then, in mid-December, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks announced a review of the directive - with no end date. In its defence, the Department of Trade and Industry says it wants to get implementation right. "It doesn't seem right to rush it through just to meet a deadline," says a spokeswoman.

The delay has infuriated environmentalists. Michael Warhurst, senior waste and resources campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says: "WEEE is very important. It's a complete waste of resources to be taking these electronic items and dumping them in landfill sites. In Britain we have a pretty pathetic situation where the Government should have implemented WEEE and hasn't."

The Government says the delay is due to ongoing discussions about how to enact the directive. A study suggests it will cost between £229m and £500m - £2 to £5 for each product.

Arguments have raged about how best to collect all those old TV sets. Should there be neighbourhood collection sites for the smaller items like kettles, similar to bottle banks? Should everyone take their products to a point at the municipal dump? Should consumers return stuff to the retailers?

The electronics industry, which would have to foot the bill, is sanguine about the continuing discussion. "The cost implication is large, and poor implementation could have massive repercussions on UK businesses, consumers and the environment," says a spokesman for the Recycling Electrical Producers' Industry Consortium (Repic), which represents the makers of 80 per cent of electrical goods.

Friends of the Earth believes the mess surrounding the EU directive is symptomatic of a wider reluctance by Labour to introduce environmental measures that inconvenience business. "What we have seen here is that they keep consulting and trying to reach a consensus position, and that's not working. Governments that show a bit of leadership go to consultation and then say: 'Right, this is what we are going to do'."
Frustration is also being felt at Wincanton, the British company that has spent £4.5m installing the UK's first WEEE recycling unit near Middlesbrough. The machine takes whole computers, microwaves and so on, cracks them open and sorts the materials for re-use in new products. The breaking happens when the products fall into the machine and crash into one another as they are spun in a vortex. MeWa, the German maker of the machine, likens it to "cracking the nut".

Once broken, the components are sent into containers of ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals. The metals are shredded for re-use. The plastic is granulated for re-use. The gases inside the machines are siphoned off for re-use. On a conveyor belt at the centre of the machine workers pick off special items, like circuit boards, which contain gold.

The machine, one of about 20 in Europe, can recycle 75,000 tons of electronics a year - equivalent to 800,000 washing machines. Two hundred people armed with screwdrivers would be required to carry out the same job.

Yet local authorities are not sending truckloads of material to the plant. Until the directive comes into force, Wincanton is relying on retailers forwarding on faulty goods, and the appliances it remove swhen it delivers new products to homes.

The main business of the FTSE 250 company is delivering goods for major retailers. It hopes WEEE recycling will use up spare capacity on its empty lorries and has six depots waiting to collect products.

Gordon Scott, managing director of its industrial division and a self-confessed late convert to environmentalism, says: "The bottom line is we cannot go on as we have been going on. We cannot landfill as we have been landfilling. We have got to do something like this."

Having made a downpayment of some millions, he is hoping Britain begins to recycle its TVs and computers very soon.

Fashion beats functionality in a throwaway society

We buy more stuff and throw it away faster than at any point in our history. Electronic goods lose their lustre for consumers quicker now because of advances in technology and lower prices.

Buying a basic television has never been so cheap, relatively speaking. In the past, people would call a television repairman to fix the telly when it went on the blink. Nowadays they often pop down to the high street to buy a new set - which may not cost more than their old set did five years before.

Fashion is also playing an increasing role - functional but unfashionable products are now jettisoned for the latest model. Mobile phones are considered out of date by Dixons after just six to nine months. Mere function is not enough - flashiness is now essential.

"Our attitude to technology has changed from using something until it breaks beyond repair, to constantly replacing it because something cooler is in the market," says Tom Dunmore, editor-in-chief of the gadget magazine Stuff.

"I know of people with five or six iPods who change their mobile phone every few months. And they're not unusual."

Mark Strutt, senior campaigner at Greenpeace, says: "We consume vast amounts of electronic goods and throw them away. Mobile phones are a classic example, where they are more or less designed to be thrown away after a few years. Another prime example is the MP3 player, which does not have a battery that can be changed or recharged."

news.independent.co.uk