5/9     Here's someone who found a creative use for a math degree:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/06/students.scheme.ap/index.html
        \_ What a lamer.
        \_ It crazy to do this for someone whose parents can donate $21m to a
        \_ It's crazy to do this for someone whose parents can donate $21m to a
           school.
        \_ This is like Catch Me If You Can. I half heartedly applaud this guy.
           I'd be much happier if he used those money to donate to charity.
           I want to see a modern Robinhood who takes money from big
           faceless corporations and land-owning aristocrats and redistribute
           wealth to people who need them.
           \_ You mean the big faceless corporations that employ the
              people who need the money?  And what "land-owning
              aristocrats?"  If you said, "Steal the money from ugly
              CEOs," it would at least sort of make sense.
              \_ Jrleek, small corporations in the past employed, trained, &
                 treated their employees as family members. Things have
                 changed a lot since the early 20th century. Today, big
                 corporations are owned and operated by shareholders,
                 who want many things, and among them, PROFIT as their #1
                 goal. They increase profit via training/nurturing employees,
                 attracting highly capable workers, giving out incentives,
                 bonuses, etc. However, they also increase profit via other
                 means, such as outsourcing, cutting employee benefits,
                 merger, hostile take-over, increasing work responsibility
                 (legalized increase of work hours), and other methods. And
                 in today's highly competitive world, corporations will do
                 all of the above. We already witnessed the monopoly of AT&T
                 (until 1983), the dominance of Microsoft, the abuse of F1
                 VISAs, the displacement of auto-workers, the use of child
                 labour in South East Asia, etc etc. These are not isolated
                 incidents, but rather, strong tendencies by corporations
                 for the sake of increasing profit. Right now ethical laws
                 exist to protect workers in extraordinary events such as
                 accidents, child bearing, etc. But if corporations had
                 a choice, you bet they'd get rid of these laws. In short,
                 big corporations have no allegiance to anyone, any ideology
                 nor have any compassion for its employees. Its primary
                 interest is PROFIT, period. I guess this is all difficult
                 to grasp but will be a lot clearer when you're force to
                 rethink about your career in the future.
                 \_ I totally forgot that jrleek works in the government so
                    most of what I said becomes totally irrelevant. -pp
                 \_ Do big corporations have allegiance to their shareholders?
                    \_ You asked a very good question. The point is,
                       unlike mom/pop stores, corporations don't have a soul.
                       Let me give you in layman's analogy. The corporation
                       Let me explain in layman's analogy. The corporation
                       (board membors) are like assassins, they take money
                       to do their job, which is to use money to earn more
                       money. If they fail to meet their objectives
                       (not getting their quarterly earning expectations),
                       they risk getting pounded by shareholders (stock
                       price going down, board members fired, take-over).
                       All corporations try to optimize, slime-line, and
                       do creative things to meet earning expectations.  In
                       some cases however, they become so desperate that
                       they take short-cuts or do things without ethical
                       considerations, such as polluting, cutting health
                       benefits, etc. If Ford and GM can double their
                       assembly line productivity by moving to Malaysia or
                       Phillipines (where they can hire cheaper, younger,
                       workers without having to pay them health benefits)
                       do you think board members would object due to ethical
                       considerations? Heck, they already did it in the 80s.
                       What makes you think corporations today are any
                       different?
                       \_ Interesting that you seem to have something of
                          an understanding of economics, and yet can't add
                          2+2.