3 ms·

The article you cite is not a peer-reviewed journal paper. Apple's head lawyer alone made $68 million last year, not to mention other executives. No outrage?

Amadou 13y ago
I don't think peer review is necessary to confirm the relative levels of compensation as stated by the article. If you think those numbers are not accurate you are welcome to cite other sources for the wage levels. As for bringing up Apple, are you trying to make me defend Apple? I'm no fan for a whole host of reasons, red herrings though they may be.
nknighthb 13y ago
How many Apple employees are on foodstamps and/or medicaid?
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  Including the Chinese workers who assemble Apple's products?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Last time I looked up the numbers, those workers were earning at least an integer multiple of the average wage for China, and were right about where you'd expect for someone in Shanghai (a highly privileged part of China). If you really think they're equivalent to Wal-Mart's minimum-wage employees, you are either extremely ignorant or just delusional.
    - forrestthewoods 13y ago
      Holy shit. I can't believe I just read that. I shall forever this moment as the one where HN jumped the shark. God damn.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Last time I looked up the numbers, those workers were earning at least an integer multiple of the average wage for China Underneath the pompous attempt at technical-sounding language, what are you trying to say? If you really meant "...at least an integer multiple of the average wage...", this is a really pompous way of saying "some amount, which could be infinitely negative", since integers include negative numbers of unlimited magnitude. If you really meant "...at least a positive integer multiple of the average wage...", that's a really pompous way of saying "...at least the average wage..." If you really meant "...at least an integer > 1 multiple of the average wage...", that's a really pompous way of saying "...at least twice the average wage..."
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        "Integer" is neither pompous nor technical-sounding. Your entire comment is just a really arrogant way of saying "I'm a pedantic jackass".
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > "Integer" is neither pompous nor technical-sounding. I didn't say that "integer", standing on its own, is either pompous or technical sounding. My criticism was that, as written, the sentence is actually completely meaningless ("X is at least an integer multiple of Y", where X and Y are from context real-valued measures, means, after all, doesn't actually provide any bound, lower or upper, on X), and that for any conceivable meaning that could have been intended, and that, given the word choice and the way the general structure was overly convoluted for any of the conceivable meanings intended, appeared to be a pompous attempt to use technical-sounding terminology rather than simple direct statements that would clearly communicate the intended meaning. I notice that you still don't say what it is you actually meant by the completely meaningless phrase you used.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        I meant your final interpretation, but you already knew that, as would anyone else reading my comment. Absolutely no one who genuinely wants to address a linguistic ambiguity opens with calling it "pompous". There is simply no way you were acting in good faith. You just wanted an excuse to be a jerk.
  - geogra4 13y ago
    What about the chinese workers that assemble products sold at walmart?

Amadou 13y ago

I don't think peer review is necessary to confirm the relative levels of compensation as stated by the article. If you think those numbers are not accurate you are welcome to cite other sources for the wage levels. As for bringing up Apple, are you trying to make me defend Apple? I'm no fan for a whole host of reasons, red herrings though they may be.

nknighthb 13y ago

How many Apple employees are on foodstamps and/or medicaid?

forrestthewoods 13y ago
Including the Chinese workers who assemble Apple's products?
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Last time I looked up the numbers, those workers were earning at least an integer multiple of the average wage for China, and were right about where you'd expect for someone in Shanghai (a highly privileged part of China). If you really think they're equivalent to Wal-Mart's minimum-wage employees, you are either extremely ignorant or just delusional.
  - forrestthewoods 13y ago
    Holy shit. I can't believe I just read that. I shall forever this moment as the one where HN jumped the shark. God damn.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Last time I looked up the numbers, those workers were earning at least an integer multiple of the average wage for China Underneath the pompous attempt at technical-sounding language, what are you trying to say? If you really meant "...at least an integer multiple of the average wage...", this is a really pompous way of saying "some amount, which could be infinitely negative", since integers include negative numbers of unlimited magnitude. If you really meant "...at least a positive integer multiple of the average wage...", that's a really pompous way of saying "...at least the average wage..." If you really meant "...at least an integer > 1 multiple of the average wage...", that's a really pompous way of saying "...at least twice the average wage..."
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      "Integer" is neither pompous nor technical-sounding. Your entire comment is just a really arrogant way of saying "I'm a pedantic jackass".
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > "Integer" is neither pompous nor technical-sounding. I didn't say that "integer", standing on its own, is either pompous or technical sounding. My criticism was that, as written, the sentence is actually completely meaningless ("X is at least an integer multiple of Y", where X and Y are from context real-valued measures, means, after all, doesn't actually provide any bound, lower or upper, on X), and that for any conceivable meaning that could have been intended, and that, given the word choice and the way the general structure was overly convoluted for any of the conceivable meanings intended, appeared to be a pompous attempt to use technical-sounding terminology rather than simple direct statements that would clearly communicate the intended meaning. I notice that you still don't say what it is you actually meant by the completely meaningless phrase you used.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        I meant your final interpretation, but you already knew that, as would anyone else reading my comment. Absolutely no one who genuinely wants to address a linguistic ambiguity opens with calling it "pompous". There is simply no way you were acting in good faith. You just wanted an excuse to be a jerk.
- geogra4 13y ago
  What about the chinese workers that assemble products sold at walmart?