Is "Occupy Wall Street" movement a fraud?

Amazing news item in today's local San Jose Mercury News about definition of poverty in US and comparing it to rest of the world. Here are some striking facts about it:

 - As per US definition of "Poverty" family of four which makes less than $22K per year is poor
 - Fifteen percent of US population falls under this so called poverty line
 - This is all time high
 - Average income in Thailand is half of the poverty line definition of US
 - Poland's average income is almost same as US poverty line
 - India's average income is almost two third of US poverty line

Bottom line, Eighty (80) percent of world population lives below US poverty line standards. In US, anyone who can be qualified as "poor" as per US definition is eligible for safety net (Social Security, Medi-Care, food stamps etc..).

Doesn't this makes joke of this so called "Occupy Wall Street" movement.. These people better should spend their energy and resources to help rest of the world's eighty percent population. But why should they? that is not their problem.. and exactly that attitude makes them US a common target of hatred and animosity. Though this is general perception, I still feel it is more of jealousy. I know I am writing something which lot of people won't like.. but in my view that is the fact. US standard of living are higher than rest of the world and they have worked hard in past to build infrastructure and system for which they are reaping rewards. US has full right to define own standards of poverty.

Ultimately it is all relative.. Isn't it? I take India's example of poverty. Every time I visit standards of living are going up and so is definition of poverty. Which is exactly relative to progress made by the nation.. Though, I must admit that there must be many part or section of people who are still in same condition and progress hasn't reached them for a while. But it will percolate to all parts of society and population.

Having seen poverty standards of India .. Coming back to US. I feel all the charity work here is a joke. Personally I feel that there shouldn't be any need of charitable organizations in US. The level of progress and development makes it a joke out of charity here. In US focus should be to create jobs for these unemployed people. That will have much bigger impact than distributing wealth as charity. Jobs growth will enable government and other organizations to take care of so called poor and some really disadvantaged people.

But then, same is true for rest of the world.. Isn't it.. I am listening to slogan like "Gareebi hatao" (remove poverty) since my childhood in India.. Did it removed or made any progress. Instead it just created more corrupt society and enabled richer get even more richer by this social net. What if spending billions of dollars for this, we would have spent it on infrastructure to enable ease of business and creation of production facility.. that would have definitely made difference. Which is still true..

Well this discussion is endless.. but give it a thought and let me know your views..

====================

THE GLOBALIST QUIZ

Where do poor Americans rank globally?

The weekly quiz is provided by the Globalist, a daily online feature service that covers issues and trends in globalization. The nonpartisan organization provides commercial services and nonprofit educational features.

QUESTION


The Occupy Wall Street movement brought a fresh focus to poverty and income distribution in the United States. According to recent Census Bureau numbers, about 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty line, the highest percentage in 18 years. But how does U.S. poverty compare in a global context? We wonder: The Americans whose income is just low enough to be classified as poor, according to U.S. standards, are still better-off than …

ANSWER

A. About 22 percent of the world population

B. About half of the world population

C. About 65 percent of the world population

D. About 80 percent of the world population

A. About 22 percent of the world population is not correct.

Those among the poorest 22 percent of the world’s population are incredibly poor by U.S. standards.

They are the 1.3 billion people who, according to new World Bank data, have incomes below what the World Bank designates as the absolute poverty line: $1.25 per day — or roughly $450 per year. There are just no such poor people in the United States. Although U.S.

poverty thresholds are differentiated by gender, age, place of residence, and other criteria, the average poverty line for a “typical” household of four is $22,400 annually. This works out as a little over $15 per day per person — or 12 times higher than the World Bank absolute poverty line.

B. About half of the world population is

not correct.

People exactly in the middle of the global income distribution have incomes of less than $1,500 a year per person (adjusted for purchasing power), or just a bit over $4 per day. This is close to the average level of income in countries such as Cambodia and the Philippines.

Again, there are no such poor people in the United States or in the rest of the rich world.

C. About 65 percent of the world population is not correct.

People who are near the 65th percentile by income in the world make about $2,800 a year per person (also adjusted for purchasing power). This is the average income level of people in Thailand. There are indeed some among the very poor in the United States whose incomes are about that level.

They are considered “extra poor” by U.S.

standards.

D. About 80 percent of the world population is correct.

The income of those who are just sufficiently “bad off” to be considered poor in the United States is about $5,600 a year per person (or $22,400 for a fourperson household).

This is slightly less than the average income in Poland, and it makes these Americans better- off than about 80 percent of the world population, according to economist Branko Milanovic, author of a recent book on global income distribution, “The Haves and the Have-Nots.” The poorest Americans benefit from a social safety net that the vast majority of the world’s poor must do without.

Karzai, don't forget Najibulah

After recent killing of civillians by American soldier in Afganistan, there is lot of fuss about US pull out from Afganistan. Which in my view is good news. It really doesn't matter whether US pulls out now or one year later. Things are going to be same in both cases within few months in Afganistan. It will be back in control to Taliban which clearly has support from neighboring countries.

By the way, my note about those killing is still under construction. I will cover it later with more detailed and fundamental thoughts.

Most surprising thing yesterday was Karzai's demand of faster NATO pull-out from Afganistan. He should be last person to ask for it unless, he is tired of living in Afganistan as well. May be he wants to go back to west/US and starts living his life normally. I think he knows very clearly, that once NATO/US is out of Afganistan and if he decides to stay there he will get same treatment as Najibullah (I hope my memory is serving me right as far as his name is concerned) got after Russians pulled out. What I remember is that he was hanged in public after stone pelting or something like that.

Nothing will change in few years of occupation. I doubt even fifty years of occupation can make any difference in there.. may be, fifty years may make difference if they spend huge amount on education and infrastructure and can put some stable democratic government in there. But fifty years will be really expensive especially there is no oil in Afganistan. Instead of spending fifty years in Afganistan, US can send these type of small missions two to three times and also test their latest gears.. that was too much.. but bottom line is that US needs to think long term if they want to fix anything et all.

US missed opportunity to bring Afganistan after Russian withdrawal which costed them dearly. At that time US had goodwill and support of Afganistan population and even slight spend of money could have made big difference. Right now, I don't know if they have any goodwill there.. I think it is more of opposite.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20184939/taliban-talks-off-karzai-tells-nato-pull-back

Karzai demands faster NATO pullout

Taliban halts talks with the U.S. after village massacre

Deb Riechmann and Amir Shah

Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan — The American campaign in Afghanistan suffered a double blow Thursday: The Taliban broke off talks with the U.S., and President Hamid Karzai said NATO should pull out of rural areas and speed up the transfer of security responsibilities to Afghan forces nationwide in the wake of the killing of 16 civilians. The moves represent new setbacks to America’s strategy for ending the 10year-old war at a time when support for the conflict is plummeting. Part of the U.S. exit strategy is to transfer authority gradually to Afghan forces. Another tack is to pull the Taliban into political discussions with the Afghan government, though it’s unclear that there has been any progress since January. Although Karzai has previously said that he wanted international troops to transition out of rural areas, the apparent call for an immediate exit is new. Karzai also said he now wants Afghan forces take the lead for countrywide security in 2013, in what appeared to be a move to push the U.S. toward an earlier drawdown.

A statement released by Karzai’s office said that during his meeting with visiting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president “requested that the international forces come out of Afghan villages and stay in their bases.”

Karzai also said that the “Afghan security forces have the ability to provide security in the villages of our country,” the statement said.

But a senior U.S. official said Karzai did not make any demands to have U.S. troops leave villages immediately. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose details of a private meeting, said it’s unclear that the U.S. would be able to pull all of its troops out of the villages even by 2013. He noted that the U.S. plans to continue counterterrorism operations and advising the Afghan forces.

A rapid pullout from rural areas would have a devastating effect on U.S. ability to challenge the Taliban on the battlefield.

Unlike the Iraq War, where most combat was in towns and cities, the Afghan conflict is a struggle to secure rural hamlets and remote mountain valleys used by the militants to move in and out of sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan.

It would essentially mean the end of the strategy of trying to win hearts and minds by working with and protecting the local populations.

Karzai is known for making dramatic demands and then backing off under U.S. pressure. The call for a pullback will likely become another issue of contention between the Afghans and their international allies at a time of growing war weariness in the United States and other coalition countries.

Karzai spoke as Afghan lawmakers were expressing outrage that the U.S. flew the soldier suspected of gunning down 16 civilians early Sunday in two Afghan villages to Kuwait on Wednesday night. They were demanding that the suspect be tried in the country.

---

SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday.

Is FTC out of job? or out of mind?

That is only explanation of their inquiries into Google and Apple.. Come on guys.. It is free world. You are free to use Microsoft's Ding or Bing whatever it is.. or there are tens of other copies of iPad or tablets in the market to chose from. It is customer's choice, whatever they want to buy or not to buy. Nobody is forcing them to buy Apple products or use only Google Search engines. People buy or use them because they feel that it is best value for their money.

FTC is funded by tax payer's money and their job is to save money for taxpayers. These type of acts are simply adding cost to these products and hence increasing prices for the things for customers. Somethings should be left to customers to decide. There are enough alternatives available and users have full freedom to choose from them.

Even if Google messes with search results to increase value of their own pages or Google+, let them do.. it is their search engine and they have full right to tweak logic of it in whichever way they want. If they are stupid enough to tweak results for minor momentary gains, they will loose user's confidence and loose users for good. There are already enough search engines available in market and if market needs more, silicon valley will create more Googles in matter of days or months at them most. Let users and customers decide what is more important for them.

Apple uses Google as their default search engine as it is best in market. Despite Google being competitor of Apple in same category or market segment. This is open/shut case. I think both Google and Apple should sue FTC and not only recover their legal costs to them but more importantly request court to fire the FTC official responsible for these cases or inquiries.

Here is detailed news coverage from our local Mercury News:

Apple drawn into FTC inquiry

Computer maker that uses Google as default mobile search engine subpoenaed in antitrust probe

By Sara Forden and Jeff Bliss

Bloomberg News

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission subpoenaed Apple as part of its antitrust probe of Google, seeking information on how the computer maker incorporates the search engine on the iPhone and iPad, two people familiar with the matter said.

The agency’s request for documents includes the agreements that made Google the preferred search engine on Apple’s mobile devices, said the people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly and declined to be identified. Google rivals such as Microsoft have criticized these agreements as anticompetitive.

The subpoena indicates the FTC is intensifying its scrutiny of Google’s business practices.

Details of the Apple-Google relationship may show whether Google is abusing its dominance of Internet search to boost revenue in the mobile phone advertising market, said Allen Grunes, an antitrust lawyer at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP in Washington. “As mobile search gets more widespread, the default setting becomes more significant,” said Grunes, who doesn’t represent Google or its rivals. 

The FTC has sent subpoenas to other handset makers and wireless carriers, said one of the people, who declined to name the companies. 

In its broader antitrust investigation of Mountain View-based Google that began about a year ago, the FTC is examining whether the company unfairly increases advertising rates for competitors and ranks search results to favor its own businesses, such as its social-networking site Google+, two people familiar with the situation said in January. 

Google has been the default search engine for the iPhone since Apple introduced the device in 2007 and on the iPad since its 2010 debut, as well as for the iPod Touch. Apple also uses Google Maps as a favored service on the iPhone and iPad. 

The FTC’s probe of Google is also looking at whether the company is using its control of the Android mobile operating system to harm competition, two people familiar with the probe said last year. Apple and Google have been vying for leadership in the smartphone market since the first Android-based handset came out in 2008. 

“It’s very likely in the next few years, we’ll see mobile search outstripping desktop search,” said Ben Schachter, a New York-based analyst with Macquarie Capital who has a buy rating on Google stock. Schachter estimated that by the end of the year, 25 percent to 30 percent of searches would take place on mobile devices, up from about 15 percent currently. 

Schachter said consumers usually leave the default settings on smart phones or other mobile devices. 

“Most people don’t even know what default search means — they just know there’s a box they can use to look for information,” Schacter said. 

Google’s Android became the dominant mobile phone operating system last year and led the market with a 50.9 percent share in the fourth quarter of 2011, compared with the iPhone’s iOS mobile operating system’s 23.8 percent share, according to a February report by Gartner, a Stamford, Conn. researcher. 

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, Cecelia Prewett of the FTC and Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman, declined to comment on the subpoenas. 

Google last year earned $1.3 billion in search-related revenue on Apple products, according to a March 8 report from Macquarie Capital. Google paid Apple $1 billion to be the default search engine, keeping only $335 million of the total amount, the report said. 

In January, eMarketer, a New York-based research firm, estimated Google’s share of U.S. mobile-ad revenue was 52 percent in 2011, driven by searches. Google earns about 95 percent of all U.S. mobile-search ad revenue, the firm said. 

Google was the leader in U.S. Internet search in February with 66.4 percent of the market, according to ComScore, an Internet market research firm. 

Microsoft made a failed attempt to wrest away the default search engine position on the iPhone from Google in 2010, according to two people familiar with the matter, and Apple is starting to use the U.K.-based OpenStreetMap Foundation’s service, which may signal it’s seeking to ease its reliance on Google Maps, according to the Macquarie report. 

“Our sense is that Apple wants to help Google less and less, but they still provide the best search experience for Apple users,” Schacter said. 

Great year for Solar Energy!!

Again, market economy at its best. Solar capacity installed is doubled while solar panel prices are halved. New installations reached close to 2000 MW in US in 2011. Even though they don't produce electricity 24X7 still energy produced by solar panels is most precious as it comes and supports peak hour load in US which is typically afternoon hours of Summer. Theoretically, this should lead to direct cut in reserve capacity requirements of utilities thus making electricity cheaper for everyone.

Great news and I hope that this trend will continue globally. At the same time, I think very soon it will result in another headache for utilities. Utility's main job will be just to transmit and re-distribute electricity. They will be tasked only to provide emergency and base load. This issue has already started surfacing in requests from utility to charge for solar connectivity charges for homes and businesses who have almost zero electricity bill due to offset from electricity pumped back to grid. As of now, it is simply helping utilities by limiting load growth on their existing setup. However, sooner or later it does need to come into force so that they can start charging connectivity charges if net consumption by customers is less than certain threshold.

On other hand, there is another monster electricity consumer is there at the corner. "All Electric Cars"!! It is already picking up and sooner or later on it will become big enough requiring special attention to its requirements. Assuming people will use electric cars for daily office commute, they will need to charge their cars hopefully during pre-noon to noon time period. Then, they will be needing it late evening/night time to charge back once they are back home. Both the places will need this infrastructure and additional capacities. I hope that it will use off-peak load capacity and will help utilities further smoothen their demand curve thereby making better capacity utilization and provide cheaper electricity.

Here are the details from Mercury News:

2011 record year for solar installations

Industry execs say market share will hit 15% by 2016

By Dana Hull

dhull@mercurynews.com 

The amount of photovoltaic solar panels installed in the United States more than doubled from 2010 to 2011, representing a historic year for the American solar industry. A year-in-review report jointly released Wednesday by the Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research found that 1,855 megawatts were installed nationwide in 2011, up from 887 megawatts in 2010 — for a growth of 109 percent. “After a record-breaking 2011, the U.S. has proved itself as a viable market for solar on a global scale,” says the executive summary of the report. “In 2011, the U.S. market’s share of global (photovoltaic) installations rose from 5 percent to 7 percent and should continue to grow. We forecast U.S. market share to increase steadily over the next five years, ultimately reaching nearly 15 percent in 2016.” Installation figures for photovoltaic, or PV, solar panels, which convert sunlight directly into electricity, include those on homes and businesses as well as much larger, utility-scale power plants.One megawatt is enough to power about 750 to 1,000 homes. But because the sun doesn’t shine all the time, solar industry experts typically say that 1 megawatt of solar power capacity is sufficient to power about 200 households. California continued to lead the nation, installing 542 megawatts, accounting for 29 percent of all installations in the country. Next came New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico. More than 61,000 individual solar projects were completed in 2011, including many large installations serving commercial or utility scale clients.

There were 28 projects larger than 10 megawatts each, up from just two in 2009. “We’re seeing an incredible increase in the number of utility-scale projects,” said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA. “There’s technology acceptance of solar by utilities and companies that traditionally built natural gas power plants. Solar is the next great opportunity.”

The record number of installations was fueled, in part, by a free-fall in solar panel prices, which dropped more than 50 percent in 2011.

But lower prices put enormous pressure on solar manufacturers like Fremont-based Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy in September.

Solar still counts for less than 1 percent of California’s electricity, most of which comes from natural gas, two nuclear power plants and hydropower.

But advocates, including Gov. Jerry Brown, want solar to play a key role in the state’s energy future, in part because solar projects generate local installation jobs. Brown hopes to add 12,000 megawatts of rooftop solar generation by 2020.

California utilities are also under pressure to meet the state’s aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard, which calls for 33 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. In 2011, San Franciscobased PG&E began receiving power from five solar photovoltaic projects built by independent developers, bring 135 megawatts of new capacity online.
Contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. Follow her at Twitter.com/danahull.

Assembly Elections in India - Great sign of maturing of democracy

All the results are amazing from any angle you look at them. Most important is the decline of Nehru/Gandhi dynasty effect. I only hope it is permanent and will wake up Congress party and will force them to look for better and dynamic leaders instead of just looking at the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty to lead them forever. It is time now to get rid of them. I guess, one more similar election results and they should be out forever. 

Second biggest surprise was the results this time were more or less independent of Religion/Cast System. Electorate focussed on broader issues of economic development rather than these petty issues like religion and cast.  Imagine BJP getting support of Christians in Goa and Mayawati NOT getting support of Dalits!! and many more cases like this.. I hope young Mr. Yadav will do some magic and try to fix UP. There are lot of hopes and hypes around him. I hope he will deliver them and bring UP from bottom best list of the states in the country.

I hope this progress continues and democracy keeps evolving. I hope this will result in the way big parties work and are controlled by few old dynastic leaders. I hope that there will be real democracy instilled in the parties as well. In my view, this is most important aspect of democracy. Once big and regional parties are forced to be democratic internally it will result in much better performance and pipeline of leaders. Hence resulting better choice of leaders in final assembly/parliament elections. 

Good to see great news like this!! I hope to hear more of them. 

Go Silicon Valley.. Go!!

Keep on pumping up Silicon Valley's job machine!! Everyone who is not in Silicon Valley, this is perfect time to move back in.. Hurry up :-)

Cheers!!

‘TURNING THE CORNER’

Bay Area tallies strong job gain

Region adds nearly 14,000 workers in January as East Bay, in turnabout, accounts for lion’s share of growth

By George Avalos

gavalos@bayareanewsgroup.com 

The Bay Area economy zoomed out of the starting blocks in January by adding nearly 14,000 jobs, according to a new state government report issued Friday.

Meanwhile, employers nationwide added 227,000 payroll jobs in February, although the U.S. jobless rate remained unchanged at 8.3 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. Last month’s upswing follows a gain of 284,000 jobs in January. The two months of steady hiring nationwide are a strong indication that robust job growth in the Bay Area will continue.

“The economy is gaining momentum,” said Brad Kemp, director of regional research with Beacon Economics. “I do think things are turning the corner.”

In contrast to the Bay Area and national trends, California struggled in January, a report released Friday by the Employment Development Department showed.

Statewide, employers cut 5,200 jobs, although the jobless rate improved to 10.9 percent in January, down from 11.2 percent in December and the lowest rate since April 2009. 

“The Bay Area is leading the state, it has been running ahead of the state, and the gap has even widened,” said Jeffrey Michael, director of the Stockton-based Business Forecasting Center at University of the Pacific. 

Perhaps the most encouraging development in the Bay Area employment picture was the gain of 9,300 jobs in the East Bay, which accounted for two-thirds of the 13,800 jobs added in the Bay Area in January. 

“What is striking about the numbers is the job growth in the East Bay,” said Michael Bernick, a San Franciscobased research fellow with the Milken Institute, and a former EDD director. “The South Bay has had dramatic job growth, the San Francisco metro area has had high job growth, but the East Bay has been lagging.” 

The East Bay upswing means all three of the Bay Area’s major metro areas are poised to expand in tandem. 

“The good news is no longer limited to the South Bay, which is growing strongly,” Michael said. “The San Francisco area is showing solid growth. It’s been a tough four or five years for the East Bay, but this month was a big positive.” 

The East Bay’s jobs uptick follows a string of economic calamities over the past two years, including the shutdown of an auto plant and solar factor, and the continuing consequences of the housing meltdown. 

“This January number is encouraging for the East Bay, although you have to see how it plays out,” Michael said. “But it’s time for the East Bay to come around.” 

The East Bay’s job gains were led by a surge in an array of industries, according to a Beacon Economics analysis. Administrative support and temporary employment gained 2,200 jobs, retail added 2,100, construction was up 1,500, health care gained 1,400 and the techheavy professional scientific and technical services sector added 1,200 jobs. 

In the South Bay, admin-istrative support and temporary employment was up by 1,000 jobs, while professional, scientific and technical services gained 900. 

Unemployment rates in the Bay Area have improved steadily. The South Bay jobless rate of 9.1 percent in January was down from 10.8 percent a year earlier. The East Bay jobless rate was 9.6 percent, compared with 11.1 percent a year ago, and the San Francisco-San Mateo-Marin region’s rate was 7.5 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in January 2011. 

The state’s annual revision of previous estimates for job trends provided additional sparkle for the region’s economic picture. 

The Bay Area had 6,800 more jobs during 2011 than analysts thought initially, according to the EDD revision. 

The South Bay had 1,600 additional jobs and the San Francisco metro area had 4,200 more jobs compared with the original data. The East Bay job market was a bit weaker than thought, with 800 fewer jobs. 

“The strength in high-tech areas supports the finding that the state economy is continuing to recover with the largest gains in technology and foreign trade and in the urban coastal regions,” said Steve Levy, director of the Palo Alto-based Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. 

With the gains in January, the Bay Area has now added jobs for six straight months. 

“This is a trend and not a bend,” Kemp said. “The Bay Area is doing better than most regions.” 

Contact George Avalos at 925-977-8477. Follow him at Twitter.com/george_ avalos. 




DAMIAN DOVARGANES/ASSOCIATED PRESS 

Statewide, employers cut 5,200 jobs in January, as job hunters in Southern California fill out employment forms Friday to get an interview at a Goodwill job fair in Bell. 

Massive layoffs reportedly on track at Yahoo

Change is only constant!!!

Somebody is firing when most of the other silicon valley companies are hiring. Even in new economy of dot.com there are old folks who are creating space for newcomers!! That is the power of Change!!

Fortunately, Yahoo has one of the best talent and job market outside in Silicon valley is really hot, so it will definitely be good gain for valley and hopefully for employees as well.

Nevertheless, I don't think that Yahoo has any fat left which needs to be cut. These types of cuts will inherently put them in vicious circle of shrinkage.. In my view management should focus on strategy rather than working on these small cuts here and there in operations. If anything can save Yahoo, is cool mind of management and coming up decent strategy. Energy is focussed on wrong place.. sad but true. Yahoo was once icon of Valley..

Yahoo is still leader or one of the top market players in many areas. Email is one good example.. Slowly they are giving that lead to Google.. I haven't heard any major upgrade from Yahoo on their email system for long time. Instead of they tried hard to extract money for their service and failed. Right now their email is one of the slowest to boot up and takes most of the resources. Email is one simple example.

Same is true for Yahoo groups. Yahoo had such a great lead. They were de-facto leaders.. They simply forgot to innovate and make it easier to use. They simply lost it to Facebook.. Again, these are very small cases in terms of overall Yahoo but at the same time they represent very important face of Yahoo to most of the users.

Most important strategy change which Yahoo has to do is to think about users first instead of themselves. Once users are happy, users will rewards them any how and Yahoo can very easily monetize. Right now, if I go to Yahoo, it seems so busy and overly crowded with advertisements I feel like finishing my work and running away...

Market Economy at Work

This front page news in our local SJ Mercury News is one of the best example of how Market Economy works best under most of the circumstances. Which is one of the best thing about this country. We all agree, no single system is perfect. However, overall, there is no comparison of true market forces at work.

It is possible that these claims below might be exaggerated but it still shows that Public or Government mostly breeds in-efficiency which ultimately results in higher costs to the public which owns them. Whatever can be privatized should be..

Off-course, this is kind of skewed but reality is, that once huge gap in Public and Private universities cost is shrinking. This gap was earlier due to huge funding from State to and free capital to bootstrap these public universities. Due to budgetary constraints, this free money is going away and is resulting in reality hitting these universities. Instead of cleaning their mess, public universities are mostly resorting to fees increase.. thereby, decreasing gap between them and private universities.

In my view, these public universities should be forced to operate as "for profit" and whatever aid they are suppose to get should be given at the end to students directly. In that case, their fees wil shoot up further and they will be forced to weed out their inefficiencies..

Here is complete coverage..


Fees ‘pricing out’ middle class?

Rising public school costs putting the squeeze on many of state’s students

By Matt Krupnick

mkrupnick@bayareanewsgroup.com 

The impossible has happened: Harvard is now thousands of dollars cheaper than Cal State East Bay for middle-income California students.

So is Princeton. And Williams . And Yale.

Top private schools, with their generous aid, have been among the most affordable options for poor students for a few years, but rising tuition has only recently sent California State University and University of California prices shooting past the Harvards and Yales for middle-class students.

The revelation comes as thousands of college and university students on Monday march to protest budget cuts in Sacramento that have forced up tuition and shaken campuses.

It’s almost unthinkable in a state that once prac­tically gave away college educations. 

“We are coming close to pricing out many of our middle-class students,” said Rhonda Johnson, Cal State East Bay’s financial-aid director. “Now we’re seeing a disadvantaged middle class.” College-cost calculators illuminate the dramatic shifts. Consider a family of four — married parents, a highschool senior and a 14-yearold child — making $130,000 a year. 

With typical aid, the family should expect to pay nearly $24,000 for a Cal State freshman’s tuition, on-campus room and board, supplies and other expenses. At Harvard? Just $17,000, even though its stated annual tuition is $36,305. 

The same family would pay about $33,000 for a freshman year at UC Santa Cruz. UC Berkeley, which recently followed the lead of private colleges by boosting aid for middle-class families, would cost $19,500. 

“It does sort of put you in an awkward spot,” said Dean Kulju, financial-aid director of the 400,000-student Cal State system, which has more than doubled tuition since 2007. 

It is more than awkward, one student said. 

“That’s ridiculous,” said Fresno State senior Chucho Mendoza, who said he has spent seven years in college because he also works to support his parents and siblings. “Students think they’re getting a pretty good deal here,” he said. “I think they’re in denial.” 

Add to the equation that students at smaller private colleges often can graduate sooner, saving thousands of dollars over California’s public universities, where cuts have made it difficult to get all required classes in four years. 

Families and students considering Cal State “do have to think of it as a fiveyear proposition, at least,” said Vicki O’Day, a Menlo Park college admissions consultant. 

Public university leaders say they are frustrated that budget cuts have sent tuition soaring. And so are state and federal lawmakers. 

President Barack Obama announced in January a plan to force colleges to slow tuition increases or risk losing student aid. And California Assembly Speaker John Perez recently proposed scholarships for students whose families make up to $150,000. 

The 10-campus UC system has tried to help lowand middle-income students, covering tuition — but not room and board — for those whose families make less than $80,000. 

UC President Mark Yudof said the university is still a better deal than all but the wealthiest private colleges. 

“If you move away from the Harvards and Stanfords of the world, I’m not sure it’s as affordable at other private schools,” he said. “I hate to lose any students, but how many students can go to Stanford?” 

Aid at UC Berkeley 

UC Berkeley, where Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has repeatedly voiced worry about middle-class students, this year will offer scholarships for students whose families make up to $140,000. 

At UC, “we hear from students who say, ‘I was accepted at Cal, but such-andsuch private university offered this aid. Can Cal match that?’” said Anne De Luca, UC Berkeley’s acting admissions director. 

College applicants are often surprised to discover that the state’s public universities no longer are the most affordable options. 

“That’s what we’ve been told our entire lives, since we were kids.” said Greg Washington, a Cal State Fullerton student and president of the California State Student Association. 

Stanford is spending twice as much on financial aid this year as it did in 2009, due in part to a 2008 decision to defray tuition costs for families making up to $200,000. A family making $130,000 would pay $25,900 while wealthier families pay nearly $57,000 a year. 

Few schools have done more than Princeton to discount prices for middle-class students. In 2001, it boosted scholarships and removed parents’ home equity from the financial-aid equation. 

Fewer than a quarter of Princeton students graduate with debt, according to U.S. News & World Report, the lowest number in the country. That compares with 40 percent at Cal State East Bay, 45 percent at San Jose State and 41 percent at UC Berkeley, says the Oakland-based Project on Student Debt. 

“When you look at the state schools, they most likely do not have the private resources that we do,” said Robin Moscato, Princeton’s financial-aid director. Its $17.1billion endowment far outweighs UC Berkeley’s $3.1 billion. 

UC and Cal State campuses still compare favorably with less-selective private schools, where endowments are smaller and relatively meager aid usually is targeted for low-income students. 

At Saint Mary’s in Moraga, for example, a family making $130,000 will pay about $36,000 for a freshman year. 

Shocking turnaround 

At UC, for the first time ever, students are paying more for their education than California is, a shocking turnaround for the state that essentially invented the modern public university. 

Now students like Amir Salehzadeh, who applied to transfer from Las Positas in Livermore to one of several UC campuses, are struggling to make it work. 

For some, private colleges are more of a bargain

$19,500

Full price $32,634

UC Berkeley

For California’s middle class, tuition costs at the state’s once inexpensive public universities have soared past those at some of the country’s top private colleges. Here is a comparison of some universities’ approximate costs, after financial aid, of tuition, on-campus room and board, books and other expenses for a freshman whose parents’ gross income is $1-30,000. The estimates are from each school’s online price calculator.

Stanford

$25,900

Full price

$56,750

Harvard

$17,000

Full price

$56,750

WHAT A DEAL

Private colleges

Princeton

$19,830

Full price

$55,880

Cal State East Bay

$23,691

Full price $23,691

NO LONGER A BARGAIN

Public colleges

San Jose State

$23,557

Full price $23,557

DAVE JOHNSON/BAY AREA NEWS GROUP

---

Suicide note from AT&T

Here is suicide note from our beloved AT&T.. Instead of fixing their own problems and giving bold statements that they will take care of old commitments by upgrading and fixing their system they are not only running away from the problem but also telling customers that they are stupid and dumb to stick to them even now..

This stupid and dumb category customer includes your beloved "Shai" as well!!! I was hoping that sooner or later AT&T will fix their mess and come back to senses and fix network and call drop outs. Alas, these type of new statements only gives me shudders from the company whose network is deteriorating day by day and on top of it, instead of fixing it they are committing to suicide.

I think, going forward, I will stop buying these contract phones on subsidy and later on give them premium every month. I will buy unlocked world phones and and hopefully I can easily switch my carriers in response to such stupid and suicidal statements from them..

I hope I don't have to write RIP blog about AT&T soon..

EXPLOSION IN CONTENT

AT&T caps ‘unlimited’ data plans

Wireless carrier plans to markedly slow access once subscribers exceed 3 gigabytes on the 3Gnetwork

By Troy Wolverton

twolverton@mercurynews.com 

AT&T on Wednesday spelled out the limits on its so-called unlimited wireless data plans, which are legacies of the company’s effort to lure early iPhone customers.

The wireless carrier announced it would cap data usage by subscribers to these unlimited plans at 3 gigabytes on its 3G network or 5 gigabytes over its new LTE network. AT&T plans to markedly slow data access to customers who exceed the caps.

Already the company was slowing service to customers whose data consumption was in the top 5 percent of all users. But it had left vague where exactly it was drawing the line on data use, and some users complained that the caps for customers of the nominally unlimited plans were below those of AT&T’s more recent metered plans.

The official cap on 3G usage under the $30-a-month unlimited data plan is now in line with AT&T’s midrange metered plan, which also costs $30 a month.

AT&T said in a statement it was announcing the limits to give unlimited customers “clarity” about when they would hit the limits. It said it needed to impose the limits to better manage the traffic on its network, and noted that subscribers of the unlimited service can continue to consume an unlimited amount of data even after they hit the cap, albeit at a much reduced rate.

“Because spectrum is limited and data usage continues to soar, we manage our network this way to be as fair as possible and so we can provide the best possible mobile broadband experience to everyone,” the company said.
But some customers have complained that the throttling effort has made their service significantly worse. Once they’ve exceeded the caps, loading Web pages and even email becomes painfully slow, and data-intensive tasks such as watching streaming video become impossible.

Last week, a Ventura County Superior Court judge awarded $850 to an AT&T customer who sued the company in Small Claims Court, complaining that because of the data caps, he wasn’t getting the unlimited service the company promised. 

“If throttling back stops you from using the service, then you’re not really getting the unlimited data you contracted for,” said Jeff Blyskal, senior editor of Consumer Reports. 

AT&T introduced unlimited data plans when it joined with Apple to launch the original iPhone in 2007. The unlimited plans were a way to address one of the obstacles to consumer adoption of smartphones — the fear they might see sky-high charges if they didn’t closely monitor their data, said Charles Golvin, an analyst with technology research firm Forrester. 

But with the soaring popularity of the iPhone, AT&T soon found its network overwhelmed with data traffic and complaints from customers about dropped calls, slow data speeds or inaccessible service. Partly in response, AT&T in June 2010 introduced data plans that explicitly limited consumers’ usage, affecting the plans of all new smartphone and tablet customers. But the company allowed older subscribers on its unlimited plans to retain them even if they bought new phones. 

The company’s move to make the data caps explicit for unlimited subscribers is its “next step to try to contend with those recalcitrant customers,” Golvin said. The company appears to be trying to strike a balance, he said, attempting to “not let heavy users overrun their capacity and still (deliver) on the promise of unlimited data.” 

But AT&T should have known it couldn’t deliver on its promise of unlimited data without limiting such users, Blyskal said. And it could have solved the problem by limiting the number of smartphones it sold, he added. 

“Consumers were at a disadvantage,” he said. “They were promised one thing and it doesn’t appear that they’re going to get it.” 

One problem with data caps and throttling is that they don’t directly address the problem they seek to solve, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a senior vice president at Media Access Project, a public interest law firm specializing in telecommunications law. The capacity constraints that plague the wireless networks tend to affect them at particular times of the day or in particular places. But the data caps say nothing about when or where consumers use data, Schwartzman noted. Even when someone’s usage is throttled, they could still be taking up space on the network during key times. 

“There is strong evidence that slowing down data delivery does not significantly reduce spectrum usage,” he said. Worse, the data caps discourage wireless operators from directly addressing the problem by adding capacity, Schwartzman said. And by discouraging consumers from using their mobile gadgets, they discourage app innovation, he said. 

“This is creating a less useful wireless Internet,” Schwartzman said. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Is three years enough for Cop violating Law?

In my view Cops should get life in prison for these type of mistakes. They don't violate just the law like any other common citizen but they violate the sacred trust they are given by public who pays them and honors them for their good deeds. Cops need to understand that they will be convicted ten or hundred times the normal sentencing for similar crime.

This also shows that enforcement of enforcers should be even more stronger as we can't let these type of things happen.

Honestly, coming from India, even this three year term is also a very pleasant thing to hear. In my entire childhood life I never heard of any cop getting convicted or getting imprisoned. I am sure things are changing now. Still, one of the big reason I am here in US is that here I am not afraid of calling Cops for help or in other words I have blind trust on them. These types of actions from corrupt cops remind me of India and shake my confidence in system here as well. They should be punished ten or hundred times so that no other cop can think of doing anything illegal activity under any circumstances.

Humans are humans.. so there will be still these type of events in future. What we need to make sure that they happen rarely and if they happen, they should be detected quickly and resolved immediately.




Rojas

Convicted of giving documents to pay off loan.

SANTA CLARA POLICE

Former cop gets three years

Judge worries that defendant hasn’t fully accepted responsibility for giving documents to Hells Angel


By Howard Mintz

hmintz@mercurynews.com 

Former Santa Clara police Officer Clay Rojas, an ex-Marine once wounded in Iraq, will pay a steep price for getting too close to a felon and Hells Angel.

Rejecting Rojas’ plea for leniency, a federal judge Wednesday sentenced the disgraced ex-cop to three years in prison for his role in illegally supplying confi­dential law enforcement information to a Hells Angel to pay off a debt of a few thousand dollars.

In a packed San Jose courtroom, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh sentenced Rojas, expressing concern that the veteran police officer had not fully accepted responsibility for his crimes in statements to probation investigators. The sentence was just below the 41-month prison term federal prosecutors and the probation department had sought.

“It’s telling me he doesn’t understand still that what he did was illegal and was wrong,” the judge said. “This is a sad day for everyone.”

With his wife, father and other supporters behind him, Rojas stood stoically to hear his sentence moments after apologizing to his former police colleagues, his family and the “citizens of Santa Clara.”

Rojas told the judge he had “regretfully slipped” and “violated his ethical code.”

Koh ordered him to surrender to U.S. Marshals on March 30 to begin serving his prison time. Rojas declined to comment outside court.

A jury last year convicted him of 12 felony charges stemming from allegations that he gave the privileged law enforcement material, such as criminal histories and DMV records, to William “Billy” Bettencourt, a known felon and member of the Santa Cruz chapter of the biker gang. 

The U.S. attorney’s office urged Koh to imprison the 38-year-old Rojas, saying his conduct “undermined the public’s confidence in law enforcement” and tarnished the image of the Santa Clara Police Department. 

“There is frequently the perception cops get off easy,” assistant U.S. attorney Daniel Kaleba told Koh. “Let this case send a message.” 

Sitting in the front row of the gallery behind the prosecution table, Santa Clara police brass lined up to call for a harsh punishment. Police Chief Kevin Kyle asked the judge to impose the 41 month term for the ex-officer’s “morally reprehensible” conduct. 

“Truthfully,” Kyle said, “I think a term of 41 months is actually lenient and inadequate.” 

Thomas Ferrito, Rojas’ lawyer, argued for probation, saying Rojas had a clean record, and his “complete lapse in judgment” did not warrant spending time behind bars. 

Ferrito insisted that prosecutors and the media had overblown the link to the Hells Angels and that Rojas has atoned for his mistakes. 

Others came to Rojas’ defense, including his pastor, his current boss and a former San Jose police lieutenant who once supervised him. 

Rojas was arrested in 2010 after police learned he was giving the confidential data to Bettencourt, purportedly to pay off thousands of dollars in loans he owed the Hells Angel. 

The department fired the five-year veteran after the scheme was revealed. 

Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236. Follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz.