Super Bowl 4K fail

[RolloTheGreat]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2...15b3639298

Four years into 4K and the biggest reason to have it (broadcast tv) still AWOL.

They even have a little in Canada!

[dmcowen674]

They commented that the 4K camera gear is too expensive. This coming from an organization getting $5,000 per ticket.

No reason to get a 4K TV for probably at least 2 years or more.

[RolloTheGreat]

They commented that the 4K camera gear is too expensive. This coming from an organization getting $5,000 per ticket.

No reason to get a 4K TV for probably at least 2 years or more.

Slowest.tech.adoption.EVER

[RolloTheGreat]

Which is why 1080p is still more than adequate for most.  It has 99.9% of all video content available and GPU's aren't fast enough at affordable pricepoints to make 4K mainstream.  Not to mention 1080p manufacturing is a mastered tech, verging on being a commodity where 4K is still evolving and being both improved and cost-reduced.

Live on the bleeding edge and die from a thousand cuts....

I'm starting to wonder if 4k tvs are the next "3d" fad.

I don't want to watch "House of Cards", "Breaking Bad", or home movies on YouTube.

[dmcowen674]

I pride myself on not jumping on the TV bandwagon when plasma TVs came out when I knew LCD was coming.

I also knew LED was going to follow but I don't see a huge difference between LCD and LED TV's.

Also don't see a big difference between LED and OLED. In fact OLED costs much more to produce without that much gain.

[SickBeast]

The 4k camera gear can't be that expensive. My LG G3 can shoot video in 4k and it's nothing special. The real reason why the cable companies aren't adopting it is because they will not be able to carry a bazillion channels on their networks the way they do it now. They could probably only fit 20-30 4k channels with their existing bandwidth. They could care less about video quality. They just want to have as many channels as possible (even with nothing on) so they can make more money.

[RolloTheGreat]

I pride myself on not jumping on the TV bandwagon when plasma TVs came out when I knew LCD was coming.

I also knew LED was going to follow but I don't see a huge difference between LCD and LED TV's.

Also don't see a big difference between LED and OLED. In fact OLED costs much more to produce without that much gain.

I wouldn't take pride in that. Plasma was far superior to every LCD.

The LED guys are just starting to say they're catching up to plasma now.

One of my buddies has a 50" Samsung plasma I sold him that would be a better tv to watch the Super Bowl on then any tv I've read about on this forum. (maybe Ben has an OLED that would best it?)

If you would have bought a nice plasma back then you'd STILL have arguably the best picture quality on the planet.

[SickBeast]

Plasma is better but only under the right conditions plus you have to worry about things like burn in and far higher power consumption. Dave is right. LED technology is "good enough". It's why so many people are buying them. If plasma were really significantly better with no downsides it would have stuck around. The fact is that it is a finicky technology with way too many issues to be the de facto standard that LED TVs have become. I would have bought a plasma myself but my living room is very bright. I agree that they are better but in my case it just wouldn't work. Also, I have lost count of how many times my son has left the Wii on "pause" for hours and hours. I can only imagine the burn in a plasma TV would have by now for me.

[RolloTheGreat]

Plasma is better but only under the right conditions plus you have to worry about things like burn in and far higher power consumption.  Dave is right.  LED technology is "good enough".  It's why so many people are buying them.  If plasma were really significantly better with no downsides it would have stuck around.  The fact is that it is a finicky technology with way too many issues to be the de facto standard that LED TVs have become.  I would have bought a plasma myself but my living room is very bright.  I agree that they are better but in my case it just wouldn't work.  Also, I have lost count of how many times my son has left the Wii on "pause" for hours and hours.  I can only imagine the burn in a plasma TV would have by now for me.

You basically have to be a homeless guy to care about the energy difference in plasma and LED. It's not even tip money.

I have a bright living room too, but that is what shades are for, and as working people most of our tv watching is done at night.

[SickBeast]

It's not just that. There are many other downsides to plasma technology. However I have learned that it's a waste of time talking about the downsides with plasma proponents because you guys somehow think it's the holy grail and LED is vastly inferior. I don't doubt that in terms of picture quality it is better, particularly when it comes to dark scenes and fast motion. The problem is that most people don't care about that and they worry more about things like power consumption and longevity.

[SickBeast]

Actually the Super Bowl fail this year was Beyonce at the half time. I don't know what song that was that she did at the beginning but it was awful! Coldplay was awesome though and Bruno Mars was good. Overall it was a great show though, better than most of the ones I have seen. It really was a visual spectacle this year.

[SickBeast]

It's a waste of time, Greg. He's just going to come back at you now with some nonsense. He doesn't care.

[RolloTheGreat]

It's a waste of time, Greg.  He's just going to come back at you now with some nonsense.  He doesn't care.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/power-con...?uxtv=48fd

Size: 55"

Time watched: 5 hours per day

Electricity cost: $0.11 / kWh


LED TV

Power Consumption: 67W

Yearly Electricity Cost: $13.39



Plasma TV

Power Consumption: 136W

Yearly Electricity Cost: $27.25

The only "nonsense" going on is the assertion that ~$1.00/mo is an energy consumption difference anyone but a homeless guy would care about.

Gosh, you'd only need 4 years of LED savings to buy a whole video game!

[RolloTheGreat]

Makes a massive difference on my bill.  I had a 32" WS CRT prior to the Hisense LED LCD.

Even switching from compact flouro to LED light globes produced a $15 saving on the bill.

I don't trust that sites power figure for plasma either, it is way too low sitting where and LCD with cold cathode backlight (what preceded LED LCD) would be.

The power for the 55" LED LCD is wrong too.  My Hisense 55" pulls 100W.  That is running flat out with no energy saving measures switched on (= dim horrible viewing).

The plasma can only pull pull the quoted figure if you turn on every possible energy saving trick they have, certainly the older plasma's most people would have at home won't get within bulls roar of Rollo's bullshit figure.

Or you could just be wrong, as usual.


http://www.cnet.com/news/what-you-need-t...nsumption/

Since 2011 the FTC has required that every TV display a yellow and black Energy Guide label estimating how much it costs to run for a year. The label assumes a price for electricity (11 cents/kWh) and a baseline usage (5 hours per day).

The cost is tiny. A typical label can read anywhere from $6 for 32-inch LEDs to $38 for 65-inch plasmas (PDF). Per year. That's from 50 cents to $3.18 per month. If that's the definition of chump change to you, you're probably not alone.

They're required by law to do standardized energy cost disclosure.

But even if you double the figures on the Energy Guide label, even the largest, least efficient TVs still cost less per month than a decent lunch. The most power-hungry TV I've recently tested, Panasonic's 65-inch TC-P65VT50, costs about $81 per year, or $6.77 per month. And that's after calibrating the picture so it's suitable for viewing in moderate lighting.

If I had to worry about investing $6.77/month GStan, my TV's power consumption would be the least of my worries.

So if you're saving $5/mo watching the inferior LED TV GStan what are you spending the savings on? A gallon of gas? A magazine? Cup of coffee at Starbucks?

[RolloTheGreat]

No you're just wrong as usual.

The CNET guy said the most inefficient tv would cost $80/year even calibrated for viewing in a moderately lighted room.

Second, you pay the energy delivery charges (at least in America) whether you use power or not and it's a flat fee. So the consumption is the only charge in America. (and it was $.09/KWh here last I looked- can't help it power is such a rip off there)

If my financial planner told me to do things like save $5/mo on electricity, I'd fire him. My wife and I invest real money, not tip money. Wasn't kidding when I said we should have over $1m when we retire, even if the market severely underperforms.

[RolloTheGreat]

and the LCD would be under $40 a year running full tilt.  That is $40 extra to invest, to purchase whatever with.  Same with smaller amounts, they all add up.  Do it often enough across all your expenses (use petrol with ethanol added instead of standard or premium, buy store brand groceries, shop around for insurance, buy plane tickets ahead of time, buy a yaris instead of a camry, buy plain clothes instead of branded clothes and shoes, etc etc) and suddenly you are saving thousands of dollars a year, not tens of dollars and your life has not noticeably changed (except for more money in your pocket)

GStan, I agree with your logic and use it all the time. Every day.

I just do it on a different scale than you because our income levels are different.

[BoFox]

So, nobody remembers when plasma TV's normally ate 600W of electricity?  This lasted well into the end of the last decade, with bigger plasma TV's, which kept at the ~600W figure. 

Problem is, plasma TV's are hardly anywhere to be found.  I agree, it sucks that plasma is pretty much dead. 

It's time for me to find the best-of-the-best plasma TV's on Craigslist (that of course have low mileage on them) and just start collecting them, lol.  Like I did with my Sony GDM-FW900 CRT's that I still have on 2 of my desks that are between 13 and 15 years old (still much-appreciated 16:10, 2560x1600 @ 69Hz or a much better balance of 2304x1440 at a decent 80Hz).

It's amazing how technology can really stagnate for well over a decade.  LCD's were stuck at 60Hz for like, forever, with sub-par color quality, black level, response time, input lag and lack of 3D support.  Pity there cannot be a large HDTV (say, 60-80") with 120+Hz and a choice of Gsync/ULMB 3DVision Lightboost support for PC.

Nvidia should partner up with LG to produce such screens.  LG seems to be the most viable company that could collaborate with NV on this.

[BenSkywalker]

One of my buddies has a 50" Samsung plasma I sold him that would be a better tv to watch the Super Bowl on then any tv I've read about on this forum. (maybe Ben has an OLED that would best it?)

Meh, stream was 30Hz- if I would have thought of it in advance I would have worked something up to test the OLED using the same video feed, but alas, was watching the game. Colors were stupidly better of course, but the low framerate was working against it for sports- not a screen limitation- damn feed was junk.

I also knew LED was going to follow but I don't see a huge difference between LCD and LED TV's.

Gawd I hate marketing departments sometimes. Most people won't see a huge difference between LCD and LCD TVs. The main reason why they won't see much of a difference is because LCD doesn't have any advantages over LCD. 

CCFL vs LED- those are the two technologies we are actually comparing- and their sole job is just providing light. I hated it when I saw them start to market 'LED' as I knew it would just confuse the masses. Every LED TV is LCD- they just use a different type of backlight. 

Also don't see a big difference between LED and OLED.

Really.......? You saw them side by side and couldn't see much of a difference.....? In all seriousness, on a 50" display I can tell them apart at 50'- not an exaggeration or a joke, local Best Buy from when you walk in the door to where they have them set up I can spot the OLEDs easily(I could probably do 75', not sure if I could 100').

[SickBeast]

and the LCD would be under $40 a year running full tilt.  That is $40 extra to invest, to purchase whatever with.  Same with smaller amounts, they all add up.  Do it often enough across all your expenses (use petrol with ethanol added instead of standard or premium, buy store brand groceries, shop around for insurance, buy plane tickets ahead of time, buy a yaris instead of a camry, buy plain clothes instead of branded clothes and shoes, etc etc) and suddenly you are saving thousands of dollars a year, not tens of dollars and your life has not noticeably changed (except for more money in your pocket)

GStan, I agree with your logic and use it all the time. Every day.

I just do it on a different scale than you because our income levels are different.

Pointing out your income levels is nonsense. Here's the thing: An LED TV will generally save you around $100 per year on your electricity bill if you use the TV a lot. That adds up over time. Over 5 years that means that my $550 TV will basically pay for itself based on the energy savings alone. It basically makes the TV effectively "free" compared to a plasma which would have cost the purchase price plus the $100 difference per year in cost. The longer you own the TV for, the more this adds up over time.

[RolloTheGreat]

Pointing out your income levels is nonsense.

No, it makes perfect sense when speaking to someone talking about dealing with lower image quality to save $40 a year. You get to a point where you don't care about $40 a year. Just like you get to a point where saving the $6000 buying the mid trim package I get on my trucks becomes trivial and you just buy the high trim package.

 Here's the thing: An LED TV will generally save you around $100 per year on your electricity bill if you use the TV a lot.

What corner of your ass did you pull that info without source from?

 That adds up over time.  Over 5 years that means that my $550 TV will basically pay for itself based on the energy savings alone.  It basically makes the TV effectively "free" compared to a plasma which would have cost the purchase price plus the $100 difference per year in cost.  The longer you own the TV for, the more this adds up over time.

I thought you were a teacher? The figures I linked to were for 5 hours a day viewing time, how are you almost doubling the cost? You ever have to be at school? Do any work at home? Ever surf the net instead of watching tv?

I think your $100 a year difference is high, but even if it wasn't to have no motion blur, deep blacks/high contrast on reasonably priced tvs is worth $8/month.

[SteelCrysis]

Now the Olympics fail: http://4k.com/news/it-looks-like-the-oly...sts-12548/

[SickBeast]

Typical Rollo, bringing up people's professions and income levels when he can't win an argument.

[RolloTheGreat]

Did you seriously expect anything else out of him?

Once a troll, always a troll.

Or could it be you two just like to troll me?

Why do you spend all the money on the Yaris GStan? Some people get along fine riding the bus, bikes, or walking. There are cheaper cars than Yaris's if you must have a car?

What's up with the 55" HiSense? Isn't the 40" HiSense less expensive?

Two GTX970s? WTH? You could have saved $300 right there and still gamed at 1080P!

Gosh GStan, your life is full of waste and extravagance, and you claim to be saving for your retirement.

It's called the "economic problem- unlimited wants, limited resources". We all adjust to it in accord with our means, one person's adjustment may be right for them, but not others.

[RolloTheGreat]

There is such a thing as a sweet spot in any market.  Below it lies the cheap and nasty, above it lies extravagant waste.  I think you will find my choices align very closely with the sweet spot in each case.  Your choices most align with the "extravagant and flagrant waste of money/conspicious consumption" spot.

GStan- a man on the threshold of a realization that will shatter the world as he knows it.....


Here you go GStan, going to guide you to that truth.

YOUR "sweet spot" is my "cheap and nasty". MY "sweet spot" is Ben's "cheap and nasty". BEN'S "sweet spot" is a guy richer than Bens "cheap and nasty".

It's all a matter of perspective, with no right or wrong, just everyone adjusting there purchases to their needs and desires in line with their income or assets.

You can leave the temple if you understand this grasshopper, you will have learned.

[RolloTheGreat]

So, you would deny that the GTX 970 I have is the sweet spot of current graphics cards would you?!

The vast majority of this gen's graphics card purchasers would disagree with you.

and that is just one example....

You think that websites and magazines would waste their time informing people about where products sit in the spectrum and if they occupy the sweet spot or not if it varied the way you (bullshit) claim it does?

No leaving the temple for you Grasshopper, you have not learned.

No GStan, it's not about the 970s.

It's about the "saving $40 on electricity". The Yaris cars. The HiSense TVs. One console instead of both. Waiting for the price drop on the PS4s. Not having the latest and greatest cell phone. Etc.

All this stuff is perfectly reasonable, sensible, and desirable for you to do.

For me, it doesn't make any sense because I have more cash flow.

That doesn't make me right, or you right, or either of us "extravagant" or "nasty".

[RolloTheGreat]

Doesn't change the fact that sweet spots exist Rollo.  The fact that you are too stuck up for them is irrelevant.  They are relevant to the vast majority of consumers.

They are relevant for everyone which I have been saying over and over.

You just can't understand that what constitutes a sweet spot for you is not a sweet spot for others.

Let's try an example:

Lets say you and Mrs. GStan make $75K a year, Mrs. Rollo and I make $200K a year, and Mrs Skywalker and Ben make $350K a year.

Do you honestly think we're all going to consider a Yaris the "sweet spot" of cars?

Or that we'd all consider a HiSense the "sweet spot" of TVs?

Or that saving $40 a year on power would matter to all three of us?

Of course not.

We would all have different price points that would be what we would consider the "best value" or an "amount worth saving".

Doesn't have anything to do with being "stuck up", doesn't have anything to do with "wiping your arse with $100 bills".

Only means we all have a different income, and have adjusted our value curve to match it.

Do you honestly think many people around the globe with over $10K month income are driving Yaris's or consider them the best value for cars? Seriously?

They might think a Toyota Avalon is the best value though, and the people living on over $20K a month might consider a Lexus 300 the "best value".

Has nothing whatsoever to do with "what most people think" and has everything to do with what they earned at their jobs.

I can guarantee you that if your household income doubled this year, by next year you would have a different "sweet spot" for about everything. Would not mean you had become "stuck up" would only mean your were living as well as you could within your means.

[BoFox]

There is such a thing as a sweet spot in any market.  Below it lies the cheap and nasty, above it lies extravagant waste.  I think you will find my choices align very closely with the sweet spot in each case.  Your choices most align with the "extravagant and flagrant waste of money/conspicious consumption" spot.

GStan- a man on the threshold of a realization that will shatter the world as he knows it.....


Here you go GStan, going to guide you to that truth.

YOUR "sweet spot" is my "cheap and nasty". MY "sweet spot" is Ben's "cheap and nasty". BEN'S "sweet spot" is a guy richer than Bens "cheap and nasty".

It's all a matter of perspective, with no right or wrong, just everyone adjusting there purchases to their needs and desires in line with their income or assets.

You can leave the temple if you understand this grasshopper, you will have learned.

LOL, funny. 

For somebody who can afford 2x GTX 970's (or spending like $800 on video cards every node shrink), plasma is (was) the sweet spot in between a LCD and a 4K OLED that costs nearly as much as a Harley Davidson. 

$100/yr in extra electricity costs still pales in comparison to $800 every 2 years on GPUs that lose much more than 50% value at the end of the upgrade cycle.  The display is as important as the GPU, at the very least!

One of my friends bought a 42" plasma to go with his original Xbox console.  He was so proud of it, leaving it on all day everyday just to show off to all of his friends and mainly to make himself feel good with something on ESPN every time he walked by.  He didn't realize how much power it ate, until some months later on when the electricity bills really started to not make sense at all.  Back then, it wasn't uncommon for bigger tv's to consume 300W or so, but nope, it was much more than that.  As soon as he figured it out, he quickly sold the TV off on Craigslist at a much more than 50% loss and bought an LCD TV that just came out.  This, I didn't get.  Sometimes money is treated in weird ways.. 

While that early-gen plasma sucked with power consumption, black level, and had this refresh rate "flicker" that was annoying at times, his new LCD just looked worse in nearly every aspect.  Nothing beat the quality of CRT tech for years until plasma tech finally got to the level of Pioneer Kuro 60" with excellent black levels while sporting respectable power consumption levels for its size (~400W).  High-end 1080p plasma tech suffered largely in part to the post-2008 recession, and although plasma tech continued to outdistance LCD tech in terms of IQ while cutting down on power consumption (however with reduced max brightness that only further tainted its notoriety as a dark screen unsuitable for viewing in daylight), plasma was pretty much killed off by the time OLED and 4K LCD tech emerged. 

R.I.P. Plasma 2014

[BoFox]

You could however argue that the 30" 2560x1600 monitor I bought was extravagant given the amount of GPU power required to drive it well.  This is something I have since corrected.

If the worst criticism/accusation of extravagance people can level at me is possession of SLI'd sweet spot cards I will rest very easily indeed.

But it was nice, wasn't it?  Come on, don't be such a pessimist!  Like my friend who sold off his plasma because of the electricity costs (yep, I still can't get over it)!

My 4K gsync monitor is nice, but I hate the TN panel quality!  In some ways, it looks worse than my 13-to-15-year old CRT GDM-FW900's that consume up to 180W (one is hacked with boosted brightness, and probably eats more than 200W).  It's been a year since and I'm still waiting for a decent 4K 120Hz gsync monitor with at least IPS color quality to replace it...  that's no more expensive than the original, but I guess by then the resale value will be abysmal.

[RolloTheGreat]

BoFox, everyone has their own way of spoiling themselves.  Mine is to get two sweet spot video cards every two years or so.  I don't care about their eventual resale value - I don't resell them.  They lose 100% of their value the day I buy them.

This is hardly extravagance in the grand scheme of things, and is absolutely nothing compared to Rollo's extravagances.  Not even the two times I purchased high-end graphics cards (8800 GTX & GTX 280's) counts as extravagant.

You could however argue that the 30" 2560x1600 monitor I bought was extravagant given the amount of GPU power required to drive it well.  This is something I have since corrected.

If the worst criticism/accusation of extravagance people can level at me is possession of SLI'd sweet spot cards I will rest very easily indeed.

You will never get it, never be able to understand that one man's extravagance is another man's every day purchase.

I can envision you driving through the neighborhood with the big houses in your town thinking, "Yep, I bet there's a Yaris in the garage, but probably the one with satellite radio and leather seats! Probably some HiSense TVs as well! Those rich folks know the value sweet spots, and would never waste money on bigger cars or more upscale tvs."



Hey GStan, if I'm so "crazy" or "extravagant", or "in a small minority", how do you explain:

http://autocontentexp.com/20-best-sellin...e-edition/

Three best selling vehicles in America are full size pickup trucks that cost $30K-$50K?

Don't they know about the sweet spot?!

[RolloTheGreat]

Oh there are plenty of rich snobs in the world, you have plenty of company.  There are even more ordinary folk though and I'm quite happy to be counted among the ordinary.

Nice prejudice.

There are plenty of not "rich" people in the world who dislike or hate the "rich".

Smart people judge people on their own merits, don't try to apply their own measures of sensible/extravagant to others who may be in different circumstance.

[RolloTheGreat]

I don't flaunt anything online. I do use negative examples when speaking about Obamacare, because it's never been the case in this country where the able bodied were expected to support other able bodied.

I know it's all the rage in places like Australia and Canada, but it used to be that around here everyone paid their own way and that worked pretty well.

It used to mean something to be self sufficient here. A man would rather cut off his hand than hold it out to another man whining, "Please sir, can you just spare a little? I didn't want to invest the time or money in myself you did, so I don't make any money."

[RolloTheGreat]

There is such a thing as a sweet spot in any market.  Below it lies the cheap and nasty, above it lies extravagant waste.  I think you will find my choices align very closely with the sweet spot in each case.  Your choices most align with the "extravagant and flagrant waste of money/conspicious consumption" spot.

GStan- a man on the threshold of a realization that will shatter the world as he knows it.....


Here you go GStan, going to guide you to that truth.

YOUR "sweet spot" is my "cheap and nasty". MY "sweet spot" is Ben's "cheap and nasty". BEN'S "sweet spot" is a guy richer than Bens "cheap and nasty".

It's all a matter of perspective, with no right or wrong, just everyone adjusting there purchases to their needs and desires in line with their income or assets.

You can leave the temple if you understand this grasshopper, you will have learned.

LOL, funny. 

For somebody who can afford 2x GTX 970's (or spending like $800 on video cards every node shrink), plasma is (was) the sweet spot in between a LCD and a 4K OLED that costs nearly as much as a Harley Davidson. 

$100/yr in extra electricity costs still pales in comparison to $800 every 2 years on GPUs that lose much more than 50% value at the end of the upgrade cycle.  The display is as important as the GPU, at the very least!

One of my friends bought a 42" plasma to go with his original Xbox console.  He was so proud of it, leaving it on all day everyday just to show off to all of his friends and mainly to make himself feel good with something on ESPN every time he walked by.  He didn't realize how much power it ate, until some months later on when the electricity bills really started to not make sense at all.  Back then, it wasn't uncommon for bigger tv's to consume 300W or so, but nope, it was much more than that.  As soon as he figured it out, he quickly sold the TV off on Craigslist at a much more than 50% loss and bought an LCD TV that just came out.  This, I didn't get.  Sometimes money is treated in weird ways.. 

While that early-gen plasma sucked with power consumption, black level, and had this refresh rate "flicker" that was annoying at times, his new LCD just looked worse in nearly every aspect.  Nothing beat the quality of CRT tech for years until plasma tech finally got to the level of Pioneer Kuro 60" with excellent black levels while sporting respectable power consumption levels for its size (~400W).  High-end 1080p plasma tech suffered largely in part to the post-2008 recession, and although plasma tech continued to outdistance LCD tech in terms of IQ while cutting down on power consumption (however with reduced max brightness that only further tainted its notoriety as a dark screen unsuitable for viewing in daylight), plasma was pretty much killed off by the time OLED and 4K LCD tech emerged. 

R.I.P. Plasma 2014

OLED hasn't emerged yet. One vendor, super high prices.

OLED is not the sweeeet spot!!! Unless of course you have the money and choose to spend it there, in which case I say- "Good for you!". (rather than hiss, "Extravagance!")

[dmcowen674]

I don't flaunt anything online. I do use negative examples when speaking about Obamacare, because it's never been the case in this country where the able bodied were expected to support other able bodied.

I know it's all the rage in places like Australia and Canada, but it used to be that around here everyone paid their own way and that worked pretty well.

It used to mean something to be self sufficient here. A man would rather cut off his hand than hold it out to another man whining, "Please sir, can you just spare a little? I didn't want to invest the time or money in myself you did, so I don't make any money."

You know what happened?  The rich outsourced all the manufacturing and call centre work off-shore, meaning that those who used to be able to pay their way were left without a way of doing so.

In other words - the rich stole from the poor.  It is only fair that the rich now reach into their wallets and redress the situation a little given that they caused it with their greed and ideology.

Dave just posted yet another example of the rich bastards screwing ordinary workers over in the name of profits.

http://alienbabeltech.com/forum/showthre...20#pid7120

http://fox59.com/2016/02/10/carrier-to-r...to-mexico/

This is happening practically in my backyard, the ripple effect of the west side of Indy becoming a ghost town here is going to be like Detroit Michigan.

It would be wise for the Executive Management of Carrier to move to Mexico. People will be coming for them here.

Why does it take so long (at least 5 or 10 mins) for you to read a thread then decide to reply, then disappear and finally post your response?   Need your wife to type it or proof read it for you?  It's quite entertaining to watch in "who's online" - http://alienbabeltech.com/forum/online.php

[BenSkywalker]

The rich outsourced all the manufacturing and call centre work off-shore, meaning that those who used to be able to pay their way were left without a way of doing so.

You think Bill Gates sent his grounds crew to China? You think Oprah sent her chef to India? Rich people didn't move the jobs. Corporations did.

In other words - the rich stole from the poor.

$500 a week per capita makes you a global 1%- so why did you steal from the poor? Your are claiming you did, so I want to know why.

[RolloTheGreat]

This is happening practically in my backyard, the ripple effect of the west side of Indy becoming a ghost town here is going to be like Detroit Michigan.

It would be wise for the Executive Management of Carrier to move to Mexico. People will be coming for them here.

Ah.

So people who used to put together air conditioners are now going to become cold blooded murderers and spend their lives in prison?

Who will provide for their families while they are sitting in jail for their crimes against the management of Carrier?

Will the attacks on Carrier executives prompt the executives of other companies to create jobs here, with the knowledge American labor turns into blood thirsty killers if things don't go their way?

What if the executives don't like being physically attacked and own guns? Who will care for the worker's families if the workers are shot in self defense?

Will the workers be able to get jobs in the future with violent crimes on their criminal records?

I don't know Dave, it seems to me attacking the "executive management" of Carrier might be a short sighted, emotional response to the problem. Personally I'd look for a new job and try to keep food on the table and a roof over my family's head, but that is just me.

Note: I do not "like" or endorse outsourcing. I think the only way we'll see it end is if government partners with industry to distribute assistance benefits through industry to subsidize labor and make it more feasible here.

[RolloTheGreat]

[

   

There is your answer, troll!

Use your words GStan! Just because Ben is executive management, there is no cause to attack him with angry emoticons.

[RolloTheGreat]

Simple answer for Ben.  Corporations are not people and do not make their own decisions.  People who own, invest in and manage the corporations do that.  Therefore they have to shoulder responsibility for what their corporations do.  Hiding behind the corporation and saying "not my fault" is an outright lie and anybody who does so should be jailed for at least 25 years in solitary confinement.

LOL!

People should be jailed 25 years for outsourcing jobs, or lying? Either way, you're on crack.

You can't (and shouldn't) force people to give you jobs. The solutions have to come working with employers to help make employing worth them risking their assets.

Telling a restaurant or store owner making $100K a year to pay the help $30K won't happen if that lowers his own wage to $30 or $40K.

Telling a corp that has to compete with cheaper foreign labor to keep paying for higher cost US labor and stop paying stockholders won't work either.

[SteelCrysis]

That sure isn't the case for Apple. I posted a link a while ago proving that they could transfer iPhone production back here and still have the most profitable smartphone in the world.

[RolloTheGreat]

That sure isn't the case for Apple. I posted a link a while ago proving that they could transfer iPhone production back here and still have the most profitable smartphone in the world.

Exactly.  Most businesses screwing ordinary people over are not "mom & pop" restaurants, they are large corporations raking in huge profits with CEO's who have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes let alone 1.

Have a lot of experience running multi billion dollar corps GStan?

Why do you think people invest in Apple instead of other companies? Think it might be they're hoping for some cut of those huge profits? Or is because they want to help the company provide for the little guy?

What about the company? They have hot products now, but that comes and goes. (ask Sony) Think they have any interest in amassing maximum wealth to ride out periods where their competitors have the hot product? Think Sony and AMD wish they had more in the bank?

How about the American empoloyees of Apple? Think they want the company less profitable and less prepared for downturns? My guess is they have mortgages.

Per usual, only looking at the lowest link in the chain and saying "Damn them. They should do more for the lowest links in the chain!".

You don't understand:
A. Business only cares about you to the extent they can profit from your efforts, "your" job is a mechanism to make them money.
B. Business only exists to create profit for owners. Not make video cards you like, not to help out guys that can't start business.

Business/labor is adversarial, your only "power" is the cost and/or difficulty to replace you.

[SteelCrysis]

Less prepared for downturns!? Apple has scores of billions stockpiled.