Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Joe. G
Is this you? Claim Profile »
9 months ago
in What is Good for the Web on JG Etc.
The industrial era businesses you speak of would, could and should fall by the way side if our economy operated in a true free market society and let them fail. Since we don't, they won't and we will continue to begrudgingly impart government intervention that is not unlike socialism. The guise of a capitalist is exactly that. A disguise.
If/when Google shits the bed there would be no one to the rescue. Google recognizes that complacency equals death and their only sustainable resource aka safely net is innovation. A general lack of ego has allowed them to admit that they will never come up with all the solutions internally. They embrace their users/customers as their greatest assets.
Its easy to say "the customer is always right" but it's amazing how few companies do just that. Chrome, from the little I've read seems like another way to not only build a community but give individuals exactly what they want; empowerment.
Its hard to fail when you get everyone involved.
~ Joe. G
If/when Google shits the bed there would be no one to the rescue. Google recognizes that complacency equals death and their only sustainable resource aka safely net is innovation. A general lack of ego has allowed them to admit that they will never come up with all the solutions internally. They embrace their users/customers as their greatest assets.
Its easy to say "the customer is always right" but it's amazing how few companies do just that. Chrome, from the little I've read seems like another way to not only build a community but give individuals exactly what they want; empowerment.
Its hard to fail when you get everyone involved.
~ Joe. G
2 years ago
in Future of Web Apps Conference on JG Etc.
Boom Boom Boom. Nice counter. One to the body, one to the face. Stick and move, stick and move. Pop-ups are how I find all the hot stock tips and travel deals. I thought those were a bonus not a boobie trap. ¿ You're not into them ? WTF ???
2 years ago
in Future of Web Apps Conference on JG Etc.
Not so much whether Macbooks are sorry. But take a close look at the demographic that can afford them. Homo-genious.
2 years ago
in Fight the Power on JG Etc.
Paul Krugman (op-ed)
NY TIMES
Sept 15, 2006
Is the typical American family better off than it was a generation ago? That’s the subject of an intense debate these days, as commentators try to understand the sour mood of the American public.
But it’s the wrong debate. For one thing, there probably isn’t a right answer. Most Americans are better off in some ways, worse off in others, than they were in the early 1970’s. It’s a subjective judgment whether the good outweighs the bad. And as I’ll explain, that ambiguity is actually the real message.
Here’s what the numbers say. From the end of World War II until 1973, when the first oil crisis brought an end to the postwar boom, the U.S. economy delivered a huge, broad-based rise in living standards: family income adjusted for inflation roughly doubled for the poor, the middle class, and the elite alike. Nobody debated whether families were better off than they had been a generation ago; it was obvious that they were, by any measure.
Since 1973, however, the picture has been mixed. Real median household income — the income of the household in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation — rose a modest 16 percent between 1973 and 2005. But even this small rise didn’t reflect clear gains across the board. The typical full-time male worker saw his wages, adjusted for inflation, actually fall; the typical household’s real income was up only because women’s wages rose (although by far less than everyone’s wages rose during the postwar boom) and because more women were working.
The debate over the state of the middle class, for the most part, is about whether these numbers understate or overstate the true progress achieved by typical families. The optimists point to technological advances that, they argue, don’t get reflected in official estimates of the standard of living. In 1973, you couldn’t chat on a cellphone, watch a video or surf the Internet; many medical conditions that are now easily managed with drugs were untreatable; and so on.
The pessimists point to ways in which life has deteriorated, things that also aren’t counted by the official statistics. Traffic has gotten far worse, and commutes have gotten longer. The economic riskiness of life has increased: year-to-year fluctuations in family income have grown much larger. The rat race has intensified, as families, no longer confident in the quality of public education, stretch to buy houses in good school districts — and often go bankrupt when misfortune strikes in the form of a layoff for either spouse or high medical bills.
Does the good outweigh the bad? Never mind. As I said, the ambiguity is the message.
Consider this: The United States economy is far richer and more productive than it was a generation ago. Statistics on economic growth aside, think of all the technological advances that have made workers more productive over the past generation. In 1973, there were no personal computers, let alone the Internet. Even fax machines were rare, expensive items, and there were no bar-code scanners at checkout counters. Freight containerization was still uncommon. The list goes on and on.
Yet in spite of all this technological progress, which has allowed the average American worker to produce much more, we’re not sure whether there was any rise in the typical worker’s pay. Only those at the upper end of the income distribution saw clear gains — gains that were enormous for the lucky few at the very top.
That’s why the debate over whether the middle class is a bit better off or a bit worse off now than a generation ago misses the point. What we should be debating is why technological and economic progress has done so little for most Americans, and what changes in government policies would spread the benefits of progress more widely. An effort to shore up middle-class health insurance, paid for by a rollback of recent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — something like the plan proposed by John Kerry two years ago, but more ambitious — would be a good place to start.
Instead, the people running our government are fixated on cutting tax rates for the wealthy even further. And their solution to Americans’ justified economic anxiety is a public relations campaign, an effort to convince middle-class families that their problems are a figment of their imagination.
NY TIMES
Sept 15, 2006
Is the typical American family better off than it was a generation ago? That’s the subject of an intense debate these days, as commentators try to understand the sour mood of the American public.
But it’s the wrong debate. For one thing, there probably isn’t a right answer. Most Americans are better off in some ways, worse off in others, than they were in the early 1970’s. It’s a subjective judgment whether the good outweighs the bad. And as I’ll explain, that ambiguity is actually the real message.
Here’s what the numbers say. From the end of World War II until 1973, when the first oil crisis brought an end to the postwar boom, the U.S. economy delivered a huge, broad-based rise in living standards: family income adjusted for inflation roughly doubled for the poor, the middle class, and the elite alike. Nobody debated whether families were better off than they had been a generation ago; it was obvious that they were, by any measure.
Since 1973, however, the picture has been mixed. Real median household income — the income of the household in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation — rose a modest 16 percent between 1973 and 2005. But even this small rise didn’t reflect clear gains across the board. The typical full-time male worker saw his wages, adjusted for inflation, actually fall; the typical household’s real income was up only because women’s wages rose (although by far less than everyone’s wages rose during the postwar boom) and because more women were working.
The debate over the state of the middle class, for the most part, is about whether these numbers understate or overstate the true progress achieved by typical families. The optimists point to technological advances that, they argue, don’t get reflected in official estimates of the standard of living. In 1973, you couldn’t chat on a cellphone, watch a video or surf the Internet; many medical conditions that are now easily managed with drugs were untreatable; and so on.
The pessimists point to ways in which life has deteriorated, things that also aren’t counted by the official statistics. Traffic has gotten far worse, and commutes have gotten longer. The economic riskiness of life has increased: year-to-year fluctuations in family income have grown much larger. The rat race has intensified, as families, no longer confident in the quality of public education, stretch to buy houses in good school districts — and often go bankrupt when misfortune strikes in the form of a layoff for either spouse or high medical bills.
Does the good outweigh the bad? Never mind. As I said, the ambiguity is the message.
Consider this: The United States economy is far richer and more productive than it was a generation ago. Statistics on economic growth aside, think of all the technological advances that have made workers more productive over the past generation. In 1973, there were no personal computers, let alone the Internet. Even fax machines were rare, expensive items, and there were no bar-code scanners at checkout counters. Freight containerization was still uncommon. The list goes on and on.
Yet in spite of all this technological progress, which has allowed the average American worker to produce much more, we’re not sure whether there was any rise in the typical worker’s pay. Only those at the upper end of the income distribution saw clear gains — gains that were enormous for the lucky few at the very top.
That’s why the debate over whether the middle class is a bit better off or a bit worse off now than a generation ago misses the point. What we should be debating is why technological and economic progress has done so little for most Americans, and what changes in government policies would spread the benefits of progress more widely. An effort to shore up middle-class health insurance, paid for by a rollback of recent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — something like the plan proposed by John Kerry two years ago, but more ambitious — would be a good place to start.
Instead, the people running our government are fixated on cutting tax rates for the wealthy even further. And their solution to Americans’ justified economic anxiety is a public relations campaign, an effort to convince middle-class families that their problems are a figment of their imagination.
2 years ago
in Fight the Power on JG Etc.
Americans are too stupid to save money. Since we're currently experiecing a negative savings rate it wouldn't really matter if everyone made an extra $2 an hour since we'd just go spend it on McDonalds and $0 down 105 % financed mortgages.
2 years ago
in Seriously on JG Etc.
Thanks for the input James. We've been working on the universal binary problem for months now. Jobs and I have been thinking about opening up the Linux software open source style and let you fellas up north get crazy with our microschips. Until then enjoy OS X Jaguar. As a complimentary gift I'd love to send you an i-pod shuffle. Is pink Ok? we ran out of black/ white?
Your welcome
Your welcome
2 years ago
in Birds Over the Bridge on JG Etc.
Was that pic taken in December ?
Oh shit, I almost forgot, August in SF is like January in Iceland.
Typical SF complainer........Joe G
Oh shit, I almost forgot, August in SF is like January in Iceland.
Typical SF complainer........Joe G
2 years ago
in Why do we still get phone books? on JG Etc.
Unsubscribing, would be the mature option. Motivating the entire nation to send back every piece oj junk mail would be tight.
2 years ago
in BlackGold and Calories…. The American Way on JG Etc.
Mon cito,
Just give us lactose-intolerate folk some chedda and they'd have all the gas they wanted.
Holler back,
Right-Center
Just give us lactose-intolerate folk some chedda and they'd have all the gas they wanted.
Holler back,
Right-Center
3 years ago
in The New Face of GMail on JG Etc.
Go back to hotmail, prodigy or collect free 1000 minute America online cds then.
3 years ago
in Ritual is a Mac Haven on JG Etc.
I used to go there with James. We'd show up in pleated (ahhhhhhhhh !!!!!) work pants and tucked in shirts. It was like that typical scene in the movies when the outlaws would show up at the saloon. The piano player would stop playing, the bartender would yell "we're closed" and the patrons would slump in their chairs. The woman behind the counter had a special throw-up bucket to use when we arrived. She'd keel over while the rest of the staff would roe-sham-bow for who had to help the 2 funny looking non-tattoo fellas in ugly striped shirts.
Good coffee though. It's worth the bullshit.
Good coffee though. It's worth the bullshit.
3 years ago
in Lauren on 2 Point O on JG Etc.
That article revolucionized my life. I have been following drez's writing career for years. She is an muse for us all.
Go girl
Go girl
3 years ago
in Donate to Wikipedia on JG Etc.
Yo,
I have absolutly no idea what this blog is all about. Your advanced knowledge of language, computers and rubish has me so confused that I don't want to shave. Wait.. that doesn't make any sense either. I guess you're rubbing off on me.
Hook 'em Horns
I have absolutly no idea what this blog is all about. Your advanced knowledge of language, computers and rubish has me so confused that I don't want to shave. Wait.. that doesn't make any sense either. I guess you're rubbing off on me.
Hook 'em Horns
