Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People (arstechnica.com)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced today that the FCC will be "dropping its legal defense of a new system for expanding broadband subsidies for poor people, and will not approve applications from companies that want to offer the low-income broadband service," reports Ars Technica. The Lifeline program, which has been around for 32 years and "gives poor people $9.25 a month toward communications services," was voted to be expanded last year under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. That expansion will now be halted. Ars Technica reports: Pai's decision won't prevent Lifeline subsidies from being used toward broadband, but it will make it harder for ISPs to gain approval to sell the subsidized plans. Last year's decision enabled the FCC to approve new Lifeline Broadband Providers nationwide so that ISPs would not have to seek approval from each state's government. Nine providers were approved under the new system late in former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's term, but Pai rescinded those approvals in February. There are 36 pending applications from ISPs before the commission's Wireline Competition Bureau. However, Pai wrote today, "I do not believe that the Bureau should approve these applications." He argues that only state governments have authority from Congress to approve such applications. When defending his decision to revoke Lifeline approvals for the nine companies, Pai said last month that more than 900 Lifeline providers were not affected. But most of those were apparently offering subsidized telephone service only and not subsidized broadband. Currently, more than 3.5 million Americans are receiving subsidized broadband through Lifeline from 259 eligible providers, Pai said in today's statement. About 99.6 percent of Americans who get subsidized broadband through Lifeline buy it from one of the companies that received certification "through a lawful process," Pai wrote. The remaining 0.4 percent apparently need to switch providers or lose service because of Pai's February decision. Only one ISP had already started providing the subsidized service under the new approval, and it was ordered to notify its customers that they can no longer receive Lifeline discounts. Pai's latest action would prevent new providers from gaining certification in multiple states at once, forcing them to go through each state's approval process separately. Existing providers that want to expand to multiple states would have to complete the same state-by-state process.
Come on. If YOU care about this issue, then YOU put resources into a solution.
Right before your eyes ;)
Keep 'em dumb as shit, stuck in the sticks, and votin' for Trump. Buttery males, right?
...some people might recognize: you know, no matter how much we try to change it, the fact is that poor people get less stuff. Shrug.
If a poor person needs to use high speed broadband (they have computers, right?) then they can go straight to the public library and use it. For free. But generally not for whacking off. Unless you're at the Minneapolis Public Library. Then it's nearly protected 'free speech'.
-Styopa
Where do poor people spend their money?
What money?
See this very article for an example of government's transienceâ"or see Obamacare, which the new administration is trying to pull down.
The only way to get a robust solution is to build one that is self-reinforcing; that is, the only way is to build a solution that is *profitable*, so that there is an incentive to maintain and improve it.
If your solution depends on ideology or is just a way to buy votes for a particular election, then your solution is a house of cards built on a foundation of blowing sand.
This is unconstitutional. Allow me to remind you of the federal government's enumerated powers per Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
To establish vehicles by which all Persons obtain at least 5Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream to observe a reasonable number of cat videos regardless of income or personal wealth, and to provide for the general welfare of MMORPG environments, which require low latency connections to avoid death by a fucking orc shaman you didn't even was there because it aggro'd after your connection hiccuped because your damn sister is skyping her "boyfriend" in Italy, and isn't like 3am over there right now
Why should I pay for some lazy welfare queen or urban thug's internet porn addiction? If they want internet, they can pay for it. If they can't afford it, tough shit, get a better job you lazy fat fucks.
New President of Broke Federal Government Looking To Reduce Federal Subsidies, News At 11.
Make America Dumb & Poor Again.
I wonder how many Trump voters are going to get aced out of broadband based on this ruling. Seriously, there are no words to describe the pathological in-sensitivity of Trump and his goons.
pay for products and services for those that aren't that lucky. This sucks.
The more stupid shit they do to try and take from the poor while giving to the rich, the more likely it is that they'll get their stupid asses thrown to the curb in the next election cycle. It's like politicians don't understand that poor people vote too.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The lifeline subsidy does not come from your income taxes, but from a fee charged to telephone subscribers. This is used to make sure that poor people can call 911 and can participate in our society sufficiently so that they can get a job, go to school, and make use of government services that were formerly only available by phone or personal visit.
These days, getting a job requires use of the internet and you can't really hang around the library for the entire time you're trying to get work. So, it makes sense to give poor people some basic connectivity.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
Bruce Perens.
The summary skipped over the major piece of information
âoeTwelve states, from Vermont to Wisconsin, are currently challenging the legality of the FCCâ(TM)s order in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit," Pai wrote. "In my view, it would be a waste of judicial and administrative resources to defend the FCCâ(TM)s unlawful action in court. I am therefore instructing the Office of General Counsel to ask the DC Circuit to send this case back to the Commission for further consideration. And the FCC will soon begin a proceeding to eliminate the new federal designation process."
So the previous FCC took rights from the states, states sued and Pai decided to make sure the rights of the states were returned and he did not have to fight a bunch of lawsuits.
News at 11.
FFS, how did we ever get to this point? How fucked up as a society are we to decide we can prevent the poors from having internet access, and the !poors get every mouse click and website visit get sold to who knows who?
Seriously, dafuq?
The game plan so far has consisted of: 1) Legalize spying and sale of data by ISPs and 2) Squelching attempts to help the poor get access to basic services necessary to working. I wonder what 3) will be? A SOPA, PIPA or ACTA revival? Expanded powers to prosecute people who infringe on intellectual property? New restrictions on the 4th amendment?
PSA to all those who don't seem to understand this: In today's society access to affordable broadband is required for both education and work. You can't do homework or apply for a job without it anymore. Subsidies like this are an investment in the future of this country, my own experience taught me that. I grew up in a very poor household and if not for similar programs I wouldn't have been able to go to college. Instead of flipping burgers for minimum wage I managed to build a solid career for myself and become a productive member of society.
Why is this about the current administration and no previous administration? Demonize much based on opportunity? Why does every tax-paying citizen continually have to spend more of their hard earned income subsidizing those that have a lesser income approaching zero? This isn't income redistribution.. this is a tax - they are synonymous irregardless of the loose interpretation. The rest of you broadband-owning elitists can point your fingers at the sun, the moon, your neighbor or your boss but the end result is there are far too many federal laws that continually extract money from the employed to un-burden the unemployed.
If what I've seen here (yes.. you Gravis Zero) if the election was about poor people.. you are misinformed. Most elections messages threaten social security and they threaten Medicare. These are issues that are of concern for the elderly legal citizens because they know where their paychecks come from and have the time to do so.
When was the last time you saw any electoral message threatening welfare/unemployment/food stamps? I challenge you to research the interwebs and the youtubes.. you won't find it.
It seems that there are arse-tons of you that missed the point in high-school economics about the rules of supply and demand.
Why am I continually watching my post-tax income declining with no requisite replacement of services? My post ACA healthcare replacement plan I had to finally commit to this year.. I'm already almost 2k out in co-pays and it was for a planned, preventative procedure. Eight years ago the same procedure.. pre-ACA (and a cheaper insurance plan) my out-of-pocket was $300.
Paraphrasing it... You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it
March 23, 2009 by charliecopeland
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005), was an American pastor, conservative, author, and a three-term president of the Southern Baptist Convention (1979-1980 and 1986-1988).
Try actually reading the article summary. This affects a tiny number of people and it only affects them until their ISP goes through the process almost every ISP has already gone through. This is a nothing story about who approves some paperwork.
What does it say about your worldview when that worldview leads you to make up phony conspiracy "connections"? Do you want to be a conspiracy nut? Why?
While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.
For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.
People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.
That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The founders wrote the Constitution at a time when words actually meantg something (i.e. before the idiot hippies of the '60s arrived at college and started pretending words had no fixed meaning)
"Regulate" back then meant "to make regular" and when applied to the commerce clause simply meant what our founders made quite clear in their other writings: the federal government has the job of making sure trade between the states is regular (i.e. New York does not trade with New Jersey on more favorable terms than with Delaware). The founders did NOT mean thousands of unelected, unaccountable, essentially anonymous career bureaucrats dictating the details of light bulbs, showers, toilets, cabbage, apples, etc.
"General welfare" meant things that applied to the whole nation but not to any specific individuals. National defense, for example, protects the whole nation but might not protect a specific person. The National parks are there for everybody. The roads are there for everybody. These things can be seen as part of the "general welfare". Free cell phones, internet accounts, health insurance policies, retirement programs, etc are provided to specific individual people, not EVERYBODY generally - these thins are indeed "welfare" but not "the general welfare".
Our founders used the words they used for a reason and no amount of pretending that their writings are some sort of undecipherable mystery makes them so, no matter how eager various interest groups, lawyers, and yes even judges, are to pretend in service of twisted and dishonest agendas.
When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.
Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'm tired of working my butt off to earn the money to buy the things I want (like a phone, a high speed internet connection, health insurance, food, transportation, college, etc) only to see Uncle Sam hijack a big part of my paycheck and then buy a bunch of that very same stuff and give it to lazy people and in some cases even illegal aliens. I saw this crap on full display a few days ago when I was behind a little non-English speaking immigrant lady from south of the border who had a small child (probably and anchor baby or a future "dreamer") at a grocery store. She bought a bunch of stuff with her taxpayer-provided EBT (food stamps) card and then IMMEDIATELY returned the stuff for cash, thereby converting some of MY tax dollars into cash she could use for anything and that EBT card into an ATM card. This was not the first time. Another member of my family recently observed a non-english speaking immigrant woman, again with an EBT card, buying gift cards for Toys R Us and Amazon in the grocery store checkout line.
If you cannot afford a high speed connection, then perhaps you should spend less time watching videos and playing games online and spend a little more time working at a job or studying to get a good job. What you do not need is fast access to gigs of porn paid for by cash stolen at gunpoint from your hard-working neighbor.
I despise "progressives" who are always calling for higher taxes and more freebies, but somehow always mysteriously find ways to avoid bearing ANY burden for the "charity" and "generosity" they display with the resources of other people. If guys like Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook TRULY want to be generous and make the world a batter place, they can start with spending a few billion of their own dollars (NOT their investors' or contributors' money) and they can fire all their lawyers and tax accountants who shelter all their assets from the taxman.
The best separation of powers is competition in the market.
The best way to find solutions (that is, the best cooperation) is competition in the market.
At least your parent post didn't rely on logical fallacies.
Nigga, ain't nobody got time for this shit.
None. Trump voters are the working class rebelling against you and your theft. The trump voters aren't the professional poor. They aren't the whining progressives who want to steal everything. They're not the rich big city bitches crying about their $2000 rent and $10 coffees. They're e people who are actually earning a living and sick of your bullshit.
You don't have to be lucky to have a job, just willing.
There are about 6M job openings primarily in transportation, food and professional services, a number that has grown for a few years now and roughly the same number as people currently unemployed, a number greatly exceeding the number of people unemployed for over 6 months. Additionally the rate of people quitting their jobs across the US has increased.
You think with the availability of unemployment income, placement help, free schooling and tax funded on-the-job training, those numbers would have equalized by now. The problem I find, as I know many owners in these businesses starving for workers, is that they are competing with government benefits or their applicants can't even be bothered to show up to work not high or drunk.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
In The Law :
Read the whole pamphlet; it's stunning.
Are you ?
BO HD, we need racist moderation Immediately. I do not like the content of thie story like I do not like the content of judging a man based on his or her skin colour.
Somebody needs a dictionary instead of "Atlas Shrugged".
Judging from the fact that AC has posted as AC, he knows that he is a piece of shit. People like you really grind my gears. You are so fucking stupid as to think that the poor people are the cause of all your trouble.
God for bid that you help anyone who needs help because there is a chance that someone else will take advantage of it.
Sure, fuckballs like you are fine on spending trillions killing brown people for no fucking reason at all, but spending a couple billion on the poor...oh the horror!!
Sir... Fuck you. Do us all a favor "an hero".
With a large percentage of the 6M jobs, does not supply sufficient salary to live within a commutable distance.
So while there's jobs available, they're unavailable to those who needs them the most.
You keep citing the 1934 law. It's been changed a few times in the last 80 years. Most recently in 1996. Here's a key part of the text of the statute currently governing these funds for the last twenty years:
--
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State.
--
That's the law and has been for 20 years - states direct the program based on their particular needs. New Jersey wants cheap high speed service in the hood, Montana wants usable service in the boonies.
Chairman Wheeler didn't really give a shit what the law said, he was pretty open about that. It's pretty silly to be citing what the law was in the 1930s as if it controls how funds are authorized to be spent today, though. Things have changed since 1934 and Wheeler's attempt to ignore the Congressional appropriation was and is unlawful.
It's about time someone finally stood up to the poor people. Thank God for Pai and his ISP cronies, once again making America safe from anything left of Ayn Rand.
Imagine the trouble the poor people could cause if they actually broke out of the debt-swamp?
I think you really need to know that subsides like this don't help people. I know people on all sorts of aid and what little money they make waste it on liquor, smokes, drugs and unhealthy food. They go out and buy the most expensive iPhone but can't feed or cloth their kids. Sure, support them in better ways targeted at what aid they get goes for more productive means. Having cheap internet is not a right. Schools offer internet, many business do, most public libraries do. I don't think provided crutches for people who otherwise could stand on their feet is helping them become productive citizens who could pay for their own internet.
The right wing hates the poor and anything that aids the poor they try to ruin. I suspect that the poor may have responses that nobody will like. There are numerous ways to create internal enemies. You see those nasty poor people simply refuse to crawl into a corner and suffer and die. The tend to act out. It may be one hell of a hot summer.
I know there will be a lot of back and forth as to denying access to the poor, etc. This is more about making it harder for ISPs to get the money than it is for poor people to get internet service. The system was being abused, severely. As an ISP myself, I have seen other ISPs abuse the lifeline system by putting wireless into nursing homes on the back of a single broadband connection (not even their broadband because they are an ISP in name only, they have no real gear) but collecting the $10/mo off every single patient in the nursing homes, including those not using the internet because they are in a coma. If that wasn't enough they also were profiting off lifeline by providing 'phone service' to every resident as well and collecting that money when they only pulled in a single T-1 to the facility and oversubscribed those ports 20:1. So $400/mo for the ATT voice T-1 with 24 DS0 channels, and $120/mo for a TWC broadband connection. ~300 residents for phone and internet.that they dont even maintain the equipment for. It is disgusting to know that all of our tax hikes are bankrolling his shit. His entire company is a fake company on paper with 4 employees and he's done this with over a dozen nursing homes. The nursing homes sign off on it because they share in the profits (by way of getting free internet/phone service for the business side of things as a byproduct).
Instead of subsidizing broadband to people's homes redirect that funding to libraries and schools. Give them as much broadband access as they want. That way it's available to everyone.
Why should we subsidize Netflix and pron for anyone?
Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
That statement is a load of crap put out by propagandists and ignores the Constitution. Article 5 was put in because the Founders understood that there were still adjustments that had to be made. As an easy example, which is also backed by the Federalist papers 3/5ths of a person was not the end goal. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Was the sought conclusion. The majority of the founders did not want slavery but saw that specific concession as the only way to finance the revolution and have support from all 13 colonies.
We do NOT have a Constitutional amendment claiming Welfare should come from the Federal side. Nor would that pass the Supreme Court (unless the court was stacked with progressives who claim the Constitution has no meaning except what the progressives claim it has).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you want "internet"...get up off your butts and GET A JOB. NOTHING in life is free. The faster this (USA) nation figures that out, the less free loaders will have. There is a REASON there are signs in parks, not to feed the birds, squirrels etc...because they will continue to come there for the FREE food! Time to kick most of the freeloaders, baby mama/daddy types to the curb, make them fend for themselves instead of mooching off those willing to get up every morning and go to work!
How many slashdot readers WANT to work in transportation or food service?
> I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules.
That's an interesting guess, I suppose, but no. For example here is information about California's implementation:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CASF/
Obviously you're capable of Googling the other 13 states yourself, but I think you'll find probably all of them, certainly most of them, have broadband programs - programs that make sense for their state. If you think for just a few moments about even one obvious difference between states, population density, I think you'll recognize that the needs in Montana and Wyoming are different than New Jersey and Maryland.
in the whitehouse would give a crap about anyone but himself and people he hopes to make money from? Do you think he became a billionaire by caring about other people, especially people of lower socioeconomic status than himself?
You have almost 4 years to mull it over. Hopefully, you'll learn from your mistake and do the right thing next time.
Unless your definition of the "the people" really means "Californian people" - the election results disagree with you:
http://www.investors.com/polit...
Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
Trump: +10
Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
Trump: + 68
Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
Trump: + 2.5 points
Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
Clinton: + 2.8 million
Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
Trump: + 1.4 million
Trump won more counties than any candidate since Ronald Reagan:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/tr...
The "the people" did vote for Trump. Our country is a Union of independent states. To win the presidency, you must not simply win the popular vote - you must win a preponderance of states. Disenfranchising low population states is how you start a civil war.
I know several people who employ "low-income" individuals and they don't even own a computer. They use their cellphones for everything. It's usually faster than whatever broadband they could get anyway. What's the big deal?
How about providers have to offer a 1 or 2 mb solution to anyone who wants it for 10$ a month
love is just extroverted narcissism
Could we have the FCC stop all subsidies? If politicians can't take money from one group of people and give them to another group of people, I think much of the trouble in the country would go away. Much of a politician's power and usefulness goes away if they can't redistribute (by force). Sadly we've given them that power and then we get upset when they don't redistribute in the ways we want.
probably because your chums want to pay $6/hour rather than a livable wage. Fuck you and your "employer" friends. Pay well, give good benefits, treat employees well and you will not have a problem finding good employees. Can't afford that? Get out of business and make room for someone that can start a viable business. Capitalism! Bitch.
Only I can judge you.
Did you really think that Killary? She cared no more than Trump.
Democratic party disenfranchised us by selecting a candidate that was republican lite. We fought back by electing Trump.
Democratic party can reassess and put a real progressive in the race, or keep losing.
This is not an issue of politics.
If I give you $5 for a sandwich, then I must think that I've gotten the better deal, and you must think that you've gotten the better deal; I need a sandwich more than I need that $5, and you need that $5 more than you need a sandwich. Each of us has profited; we have BOTH profited.
Now, how is a sandwich best made? You think it is made one way, but Karl thinks it is made another way; you disagree about how your time and resources should be put into making sandwiches, so each of you decides to bet his own resources on his own way of doing it—that's competition. Then, I come along, and choose to exchange my $5 for one of your sandwiches—the market decides what is the best way to make a sandwich, meaning that our little society as a whole has engaged in cooperation to find the best way to make a sandwich.
Capitalism allows society to organize itself through Evolution by Variation and Selection, and thus to be robust in the face of changing conditions. Under capitalism, it is possible for everyone to profit, and they do so in a way that allows each individual to manage his own destiny and risk aversion.
then you are participating in a "private" endeavor. Linus chose to spend his time and energy working on Linux; that is CAPITALISM; that is a PRIVATE endeavor.
Competition within the market yields variation, and consumer choice yields selection. Evolution by Variation and Selection. You're welcome.
Let's see how well you work without pay.
Your mistake is that you refuse to acknowledge all of the incentives simultaneously. You're not wrong, but you're also not right. Get it?
No, it doesn't. Get it, yet, Einstein?
So half of your life you were mooching off other people's taxes in the military and then probably used a GI bill to mooch off your education. And now I'm pretty sure you're spending my taxes that go towards your SS. I think we should revoke your Medicare and SS.
Yeah. Military should be replaced by private contractors on min. wage. No more pensions and GI bill crap to subsidize!
Show me a human who isn't greedy for something. What a joke.
AT&T developed Unix and early network protocols for phone services (along with IBM, Xerox, and numerous other companies). The Government piggy backed on that work and used tax dollars to create ARPAnet. Much of that work (meaning both projects) was done by Universities, but the heavy lifting especially for networking and Unix was private research. (Xerox, AT&T, Texas Instruments, IBM, etc...)
The Internet would have come about regardless of tax payer dollars. You may be able to argue that the process was expedited because of tax dollars, but there is no reason to conclude that the Internet would not exist. In fact, given the amount of proprietary (closed) network protocols of the 80s and 90s, we can say with relative certainty that the Internet would have happened anyway.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I actually did the math on this at one point. Working a 30 hour job at minimum wage is livable for 99% of the country and you can live within walking distance of where you work. Even in NYC/LA/DC this is possible. I went out and found decent places to live in each of those locations and had about $100 in "extra" money left each month. The problem is that most poor people are terrible with their money and spend it on non-necessities and then can't afford the necessities.
They wrote TONS of stuff other than the US Constitution and you can easily get copies and read the stuff. When you read the rest of what they wrote, you are not left with a lot of HONEST doubt about what they meant in the Constitution.
Have you read The Federalist Papers? How about The Anti-Federalist Papers?
Have you read the writings of Ben Franklin? John Adams? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?
Only a complete moron would think the founders meant "regula" and/or "to rule" in the commerce clause... they were just getting rid of a ruling monarchy who was taxing and regulating everything in plain sight and they were working to assure trade flowed regularly and without tariffs between the states.
Honestly, when lefties read the Constitution and come up with all sorts of lefty whackiness it's like they are reading a copy of some Dawkins book and claiming it's all about how true creationism is.
MANY things apply to the larger population, but not to individuals within that population.
National Defense: The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines defend the nation, but are not responsible if John Doe is killed or his property is destroyed. The military is charged with protecting the whole, but may be required to sacrifice some by not protecting them in order to protect others. John Doe is not suddenly declared a non-American before he is not defended, nor is the military deemed a failure for not defending him. It's a matter of scope.
All American have the right to enter Yellowstone National Park. The government is under no obligation to transport them to/from the park, and can and does refuse to allow certain individuals to enter in certain situations.
All Americans are free (as in freedom) to use the airlines to travel (at their own expense), except for the ones on the "no fly" list.
I'mnot going to type further, but any reader who spends more than three seconds thinking about it will think of a huge number of federal government related things that apply to all citizens generally, but from which some specific people are excepted.
nowhere in the Constitution did they empower the federal government to take money from one citizen and give it to another in order to balance the scales.
In fact, they had plenty of opportunities to do that very thing at their time and chose not to. They left that sort of thing (both local civil services and charities) to the states and to the people themselves. Ben Franklin, for example, founded both a fire department and a hospital, setting examples that spread to other states and cities. Most gave to charities (generally run by religious orders then) to help the unfortunate. Never did any of our founders use the federal government to transfer money from one group to another group, by income level.
Minimum wage around here is over $11 and going up to $15 next year. Even McD is offering $15 for an entry level employee already, $20-25/h for a full time manager with the only prerequisite to be able to pee in a cup once in a while. You can purchase houses here for $40-65k, "high" rent is ~$800/month.
If you can't survive on minimum wage in the US, where you will still be eligible for food, health and housing assistance until your family makes 150% of that, you've screwed up.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Maybe the poor can read books and learn instead of wasting countless hours reading fake news, social media, and turning their minds to mush. The poor will not be spied as easily by our intelligence community and therefore they will have better privacy rights than the rest of us. They can save the money they would have spent on Internet access and become less poor. They can be healthier and go outside and walk around instead of sitting slumped over in the dark in front of a glowing screen.
So, progress. And your friends and their businesses can't make competitive offers? Their problem, like I said: Capitalism!
Maybe we'll end up in a situation where only mom and pop shops which get free labor from their kids and family that can help can be viable. That wouldn't be so bad, less of an accumulation of wealth by the few exploiting the many.
Only I can judge you.
Are you tired of all the winning, yet?
The problem is that chains like McD or Wal-Mart have no problem fronting up huge amounts of labor cost, their profit margins are high enough to absorb those costs. Mom and pop stores are the hardest hits because their margins are already small, any fluctuation in energy, supply or labor cost hits them harder and faster. So they still have business, just have to have less employees where possible to do it with.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
McD is run and owned by franchisee's so they are mom and pop with corporate support, marketing, ordering, training (how to abuse workers and such).
Wal-Mart is a whole 'nother beast which externalizes things like health care costs onto local governments (per their infamous employee training videos on applying for food stamps).
About the rest of what you said: Capitalism! Once the minimum wage is set, all the players now compete for employees on things like fairness, flexibility, humaneness, kindness, etc. Not treating employees like disposable towelettes can go a long way when competing against soul-sucking companies like wal-mart and McDs. Can't do it? Get out of the business. Capitalism! It's funny how some avowed capitalists only like capitalism when it translates into easy abuse of employees and destruction of the environment and local economy.
Only I can judge you.
The entire McD burger cost less than a dollar to produce and are sold for $8-15. A quarter pound of real beef from a local butcher costs about $1.50, $2-4 for organic and is usually still sold for $8-15. If Wal-Mart and McD is allowed to externalize it's costs, why aren't local business owners? What's more, McD and Wal-Mart, even their franchises, operate from PO boxes in lower tax states. The complaint is not about competing with chains, they have the scale and low quality going for them, local businesses need and will do better to work against their competition.
It's the fact that business owners are competing against the government (unemployment and benefits) to attract workers, few people are willing to work if they get better benefits which is given to them through higher taxes to the business owners. And whenever business owners set the wages high enough, the government moves the level up further. Again, I have no problem with giving people unemployment for a period of time but to me, earning $35k/y in benefits is doing "pretty well".
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
As if it's a choice, or an option.
Who died to give these guys the right?
Having a job is no guarantee for not being poor, because who controls the pay for the jobs that the poor do?
This is just more of the worst of what humans can be, using their punishments as justification for keeping the poor ignorant and disadvantaged.
More evil human tricks.