I'm still happy with my HSA.

in=20

event...

Not much, eldest son can do it a little, in private; daughters, in front = of the=20 family, never; in front of others with family present(??) lese majeste at= least.

shared=20

that the=20

a lot=20

as a=20

"I've=20

suffering as=20

And I'm=20

=20

cooperate and=20

legislation=20

there's much=20

it's=20

minimalistic),=20

tumble,=20

with=20

believe that=20

in=20

=20

tasked=20

may be,=20

s/control/responsibility/

I meant the curve where a FICO zero and 800 are good and everything in between is *bad*. My score isn't zero. ;-)

that

Like all information, it doesn't tell a complete story, no. It is still information I'd use.

There is always two sides to every story, too.

Hmm... if you have, say, a company with 100 white male employees, would you use knowledge that the first woman or minority you hired was going to make that person -- as well as some of your other employees -- a little "anxious" and thereby a skosh less able to concentrate on their work throughout the day?

I'd suggest that being, e.g., the only black women in a company of 100 white guys can produce just as much anxiety as someone with lousy credit, going through a divorce, etc...

...Just curious...

---Joel

there's no=20

automotive=20

first=20

hevy-volt/ .=20

batteries=20

grid=20

won't=20

it=20

=20

Well crud. That tool (vehicle) is clearly not the right one for the = purpose=20 described (don't use a small screwdriver when a medium size wrench is = required).

Oh boy, personality tests...

When in doubt, you stop, and think to yourself:

"I am an American!"

"I love my mother, and my father, but my mother a little more..."

"I love Baseball and Apple Pie"

Then, you look at the question again, and answer it. You just need to be in the right frame of mine...

Charlie

You really do like red herrings, eh?

No, just an asshole.

If it's economically sound, someone will do it without subsidy.

as

tumble,

Not a lot of difference, but perhaps more clear.

That's certainly a good point -- employees who think there's "something more" than just business tend to make themselves more vulnerable than an employer who feels likewise.

I respect your position and think it's entirely reasonable, Keith, I'm just telling you that for many people it's more than that -- and it's useful to understand their motivations, since they end up as your co-workers, your employers, your underlings -- sometimes even your duly elected officials who'll be voting 'yea' or 'no' on business law reforms...

So is it OK for a company to close a division when it's underwater, even when the company overall is still financially viable? Most business people would say, "yes!"

---Joel

I once thought there was "something more" but was very fortunate. I made it across the line. Too many didn't.

Too many will get burned. Elected officials will be voting for themselves and no one else. Make sure your elected officials have the same interests as do you.

What contract are they violating in your scenario above?

I agree and am a believer that government should stay out of the way of businesses. But there are a few things that can only work with some initial push, things where the initial installations won't amortize in due course. Business won't be interested in anything that doesn't produce an almost immediate ROI or at least amortize in 4-5 years. However, stuff that will have to be subsidized forever, not a good thing.

Hi Keith,

I'm not talking about what's legal, just those "relevant aspects of behavior." Segregation was considered justified based on (among other things) the anxiety heterogeneous environments were predicted to produce (and this certainly did happen, initially), but that in no way make it a good thing -- any more than denying someone with lousy credit a job because you expect they'll be a bit pre-occupied with figuring out how they're going to pay their medical bills or whatever.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but sheesh... it doesn't seem to take much to make you consider an argument "that of an asshole!"

---Joel

I worded that poorly (incorrectly). What I should have said is something like, "Is it OK for a company to close a *wholly owned subsidiary* and

---Joel

You can decide just what "relevant aspects of behavior" are when you're hiring.

Cut the crap.

I state facts. Your moral relativism arguments *are* that of an asshole.

That's what the corporate veil was designed for; to protect the assets of the owners. Are you asking me, in some round-about manner, whether personal bankruptcy is moral? I'd say, yes. Let the judge figure out who gets the assets.

I agree, but the whole discussion has been about my trying to convince you that many aspects used today by employers are not, in fact, particularly relevant at all and that this hurts the country's competitiveness.

Many people said the same thing about abolitionists and those advocating desegregation...

---Joel