My research suggests that 42 states contain at least one Whole Foods. The eight states excluded are (west to east) Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Delaware, and Vermont. These are exactly the seven states with population less than one million in the last US Census ... and West Virginia. (Note, however, that the District of Columbia -- also with a population under one million -- has four stores.)
Although it's a strange thing to measure, approximately 7.5 million people (~2.3% of the US) live in a state without a Whole Foods.
You're welcome to look at https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/stores/list yourself. The store you're remembering might be at 475 Wilmington West Chester Pike in Glen Mills, PA, which is plenty close to Wilmington (as the street name suggests) but is in fact ~2 miles outside of Delaware.
That is a direct quote from the article. The article states $36B as well, not $360B.
"None of this helps the image of big business. Paying tax seems to be unavoidable for individuals but optional for firms. Rules are unbending for citizens, and up for negotiation when it comes to companies. Nor do profits translate into jobs as once they did. In 1990 the top three carmakers in Detroit had a market capitalisation of $36 billion and 1.2m employees. In 2014 the top three firms in Silicon Valley, with a market capitalisation of over $1 trillion, had only 137,000 employees."
"The United States (U.S.) airline industry is unique among industries in being governed by
federal statutes requiring air carriers seeking to be certified in the U.S. to be “owned or
controlled” by a “citizen” of the U.S.1 This requirement is enforced by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) performing “fitness reviews” on applicant airlines to ensure they meet the
“citizenship” definition.2 Historically, the U.S. has limited ownership and control to U.S. citizens
for four primary reasons: the protection of a fledgling U.S. airline industry, the regulation of
international air service through bilateral agreements, concern about allowing foreign aircraft
access to U.S. airspace, and military reliance on civilian airlines to supplement airlift capacity.3"
Of Particular interest to this Virgin America deal:
Voting equity up to 25 percent and nonvoting equity up to 49 percent by a foreign entity is allowed, and any equity
above these levels must be held in trust or converted to debt. Foreign holdings will be counted
cumulatively towards these totals. (page 24)
Thank for listing the rational of why foreign ownership is treated differently for airlines than most other industries. Two of these reasons are difficult to overcome.
First the way international flight agreements are negotiated between countries. Changing this would essentially require all nations with airlines to agree to these changes at the same time. A difficult task. Maybe this is occurring within European Union context?
Second, most nations see their airlines as a source of transportation in times of national emergency. The government can demand that the commercial air fleet be used for the military (or other agencies). I believe that this has only occurred once in the USA, during the first Gulf War. In the USA, the government officially "contracts" with the airlines to provide their fleet on demand. Some have argued that these contracts are a hidden form of subsidy. In any case it is hard to see how any government will allow foreign ownership of airlines due to this military use.
A significant part of the US heavy lift into Afghanistan was flown in Russian owned and operated An-124 cargo aircraft.
Participation in CRAF program has been voluntary (& fairly profitable) for the airlines. CRAF was activated twice, as part of Gulf War (1991) & Iraqi Freedom (2003). If the USAF was concerned about airlines "foreign control" during wartime, they'd go to the boneyard and grab extra C-5s and standard 747/767 passenger and freighter aircraft.
There are dozens of large aircraft in the boneyard that could be made serviceable in less 48-72 hours if rushed back to service. The aircraft may require heavy maintenance to stay in service long term, but still safe for short term operations. The downside is the USAF would have to pay for for the aircraft maintenance, whereas CRAF maintenance is paid by the operator.
Which two do you think are hard to overcome when considering a British national as a controlling owner? Looking at the list, the military reliance issue is the only one that seems concerning.
This image shows a comb with pollen in the bottom left, uncapped honey/nectar in the central area. This uncapped nectar has too much water in it still and will ferment, and capped honey in the top right section. This capped area is true honey that has been dehydrated enough to not ferment and spoil.
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/honeycomb-fresh-honey-pollen-...
From the Article:
"Verizon predecessor New Jersey Bell committed to a statewide broadband buildout in a 1993 agreement with state authorities in exchange for a price regulation overhaul that the telco requested."
I assume part of the takeover/merger that happened also merged the previous responsibilities.
One thing to consider is it is unlikely that a 1993 agreement included a provision for a fiber to residential home requirement.
It's probably a requirement for building fiber to commercial or government locations if a customer is willing to pay. Stuff that Telecom's do, it's just very expensive.
"In a spirited demonstration of the obsolescence of the microwave networks operated by AT&T and MCI, US Sprint blew up one of the last of its own microwave towers in February 1988."
I remember seeing a print add at the time with a picture of the controlled demolition in progress.
I would agree; however, Verizon has reneged on this agreement a few times. There are several "donut" towns in New Jersey where Verizon was explicitly mandated to serve FTTH but never bothered to (and seem to have been all but forgotten by local lawmakers).
Buying more and more bees is a very expensive solution.
Perhaps I'm just a poor beekeeper (maybe true?) but I would have to sell my honey at untenable prices if I was looking to make money on my beekeeping.
For example, I've spent $1600 on bees and equipment, I've harvested 3 gallons of honey. I would have to sell that honey at $44/Pound to break even. Now hopefully over the long term this goes down a lot as the upfront capital investments spread out over the years.
My bee losses have been huge though. The first year I had 3 hives, lost 2. The second year I had 5 hives and lost 3, last year I had 5 hives and lost 4. Buying bees at $130/hive isn't sustainable (except through my charity) if I wanted to actually make any money at this, especially on a small scale.
If reconstituting new hives from annually purchased queens was economically non-viable, pollination prices --- which is where the money in honey bee husbandry seems to come from --- would show that. But while prices have risen, it doesn't look like they've done so at a historically unprecedented rate.
Irrigation is a much bigger economic threat to pollinated crops than pollination.
Yes, this is true -- in large agriculture, pollination is where the money is in beekeeping. I know pollination contracts stipulate "frames of bees" to be considered a hive (for example you might need 20 "frames of bees" to get paid for that hive) but I also think you're getting weaker hives out there for pollination. So while the price isn't going up, the size of the product is going down.
Same concept as the cereal boxes. They look the same from the outside, but they put less cereal in it and charge you the same price instead of raising the price.
Honey sales aren't your only revenue source. You can also charge farms for transporting your bees there and pollinating their crops. And I believe the article said this price point is also increasing.
They are your only source on the small "hobby" scale (maybe wax and pollen too but that is more labor intensive) but pollination contracts aren't open to you until you're doing this full time.
Now, Hobby scale honey can usually be sold for more than wholesale honey that the pollination guys use to offload their crop so hopefully that makes up the difference.
For me, I'll never catch up if I keep having the massive losses I've been having -- even if I sell my honey for $7/lb ($8 total including the jar and label). The wholesale price is around $2-2.50/lb
Also more anecdotal evidence, but I was talking to a local beekeeper. For fields that they sprayed, the lost over 60% of their bees per year. They got sick and tired of it and decided to place their bees long term in fields that do not spray. Now, their bees are less stressed, don't get sprayed, and the bee deaths plummeted, and they do less work trying to build the ranks after than they were dying.
I know next to nothing about this, but I have a question. Couldn't you make more hives yourself? What prevents you to 'cultivate' (or whatever it's called) queens and let them mate?
Yes, bees create new hives by themselves. Every year there are couple of swarming that include young queen leaving the hive to build new colony. In traditional beekeeping, the owner will catch the swarm, put it to new home and you've got another hive, which you either sell or use for more produce.
The problem is that a lot of hives die during winter (because of various form of illness and conditions) and the population couldn't sustain themselves.
Hives are only swarming if in very good health, and even then both new colonies are more vulnerable than the former one... It's certainly not "every year a couple of swarming" (how would that be sustainable anyway).
If they have to split hives forcefully, it's because they are not healthy enough to do it naturally...
I suppose it depends on the show. The Superbowl is widely considered to be a family friendly event with lots of children watching. I can see a nip slip being more of an issue with that audience.
