We usually would do that through progressive taxation and redistribution (esp. through services). That way, instead of hammering the person saving 30 pence of cat food (who may not be able to afford it), you get it from the profits of the people who aren't paying enough to their employees.
Bullshit. If you cut the incentive to move up the ranks vs. move to a different company, sure, the company will suffer. But I don't know anyone who would say "Well, for a $12M bonus I'd want to be CEO, but at $6M, no way" Or at least, I don't think any significant number of people would, and I sincerly doubt the one you'd want to be CEO would.
The abusive one in a relationship often blames the other for the lack of trust. The NYPD is assuming twitter will fix the problem. As you point out, what will really fix the problem is a tighter ROE. It's strange, since with only a couple of situations (normal/traffic stop/domestic disturbance/responding to armed incident) you could class all possibilities and have prewritten, tested and adhered to ROEs
Please outline how turning a cop into a cameraman who has to respond to FOIA requests doesn't become an invasion of my privacy whenever I interact with one.
Only if people cheat at reporting. And given 1099s, they cannot make much from Uber while cheating. Contractors are required to pay both the employee and the employer portions of SS & Medicare.
Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee". Heck, feel free to check with the government
Uber's been losing all the cases I've been following. Now, they immediately appeal, and the consequences are suspended while they appeal, but so far they've lost in, IIRC, California, New York Washington and Mass.
I'm confused about the logistics. There was a bin you just went up to and dropped an amount of money in, in cash? And everyone at the table noticed you didn't go up? Or they were calling people up table by table and a guy with a mike called you out?
Personally, I would mentally account for it as "price of 2 days dinner and hotel", but who knows in the heat of the moment.
It was also shitty of the company, even moreso. But there are ways to decline without drawing attention to it (normally). There are cases when both people are wrong.
It is certainly possible to live on a minimum wage income if you (a) get a roommate and (b) don't have children (you can't afford them). Tens of thousands of college students do it every year.
Living like that when you're young is fine. Telling people incapable of getting a good job they aren't allowed to have children isn't.
For one, they'll have them anyway. For another, it's tantamount to eugenics to say "those people are worthless, they shouldn't breed"
I wouldn't mind arguing with the hyper-libertarians, if they bothered actually defending a position as opposed to asserting it as self evident over and over. It's interesting sometimes to here different points of view.
Wage slavery is never cost effective except for the slave owner. That's what makes it an unstable system which can only be perpetuated by government collusion, or lack of willpower by the employees to break out of slavery. e.g. Detroit used to have slave-level wages. Henry Ford decided to set up shop there and paid his factory workers much more than the prevailing wage. He accidentally discovered that when he paid people a fair wage, not only did their productivity increase, but they used those wages to buy the very product they were helping build. The resulting feedback loop multiplied his company's revenue and turned the Ford Motor Company into the behemoth it is today
Customers weren't his limiting factor, driving down construction cost was. While I'd imagine his employees bought Fords, there were 300k+ Fords sold the year he raised wages. Even if every employee wanted one, they didn't contribute anywhere near that increase. And they grew in sales year over year, without increasing their workforce as the customer base. Heck, the feedback loop you described doesn't even make theoretical sense - even if labor got paid exclusively in Model Ts, it still wouldn't make sense as a growth strategy.
The fact that he was a pioneer of the assembly line is what enabled him to pump out tons of cars. Which is what made them the behemoth they are today. And what made the employees more productive was the assembly line. The increase in payroll was because no one cared if they got fired - the economy was good enough they could get the same wages at a new job the next day. It was to reduce turnover
A business which pays slave wages is just ripe to be squeezed out by a business which will pay better (fair) wages.
Citation needed. With the exception of the Ford story (which is subject to a lot of discussion, see above), there don't seem to be any. Fast Food pays minimum wage and isn't being taken over by "fair wage" alternatives. A lot of companies build plants/whathaveyou where the wages are min. wage, and then leave if they start rising.
Well, if you can't afford to pay the rent . . . maybe you shouldn't be renting anything?... Your mom's basement is probably looking like not such a bad living option now.
By and large, most people who cannot afford rent have the options of "sometimes afford rent" and "live in street", not "stay with relatives in their copious free space."
Folks who can't provide for their children . . . shouldn't be having children.... Providing for proper health care for child should be your absolutely highest priority.
A lot of those people want to provide healthcare for their kids by having the government take over payment of health services.
Cut your cable TV, downgrade your Internet link, no more Netflix, no expensive nail jobs for the women folk, switch to really awful tasting light beer . . . you'll drink less of it. But please take care of your children
The cost of Netflix is $10/mo. That's a significant amount of money to someone close to the poverty line, but it's not going to cover a broken arm. At least, not in less than 3 years.
Also, frankly, you totally misinterpreted the "broken arm" point. It's a huge unexpected expense. Vaccinations/checkups are expected.
Going on, with your move/improve your life spiel, well, those things cost money. How are you going to move to the city if you are, to use your idea of how to survive, unable to pay rent and living in your mom's basement? What money are you going to use if the factory you worked at just closed, causing your house to go underwater, and you've been living paycheck to paycheck? What if you have some savings, but also kids. Can you expose them to the risk of trying to revamp your life?
I'd really like to watch you try to pull yourself out of one of these situations - I doubt you could.
Up to 50% is some major BS. Because, frankly, you're not close to dying of starvation at the 50% mark. People close to starving pay 15.3% in taxes (at least in the US), and then usually get government assistance for rent, food, etc..
They didn't donate money. They donated last year's hardware at full retail writeoff. So it's more of a business move to get rid of old inventory for more than they could get from a firesale than charity.
Totally offtopic, but presumably you allow the tablet to connect sometimes (e.g. to download other apps). How do you manage that? Are there apps that you allow to them to use over the internet, maybe with supervision? I'm curious because a lot of child-focused apps seem to assume that there is an internet connection for updates, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
We usually would do that through progressive taxation and redistribution (esp. through services). That way, instead of hammering the person saving 30 pence of cat food (who may not be able to afford it), you get it from the profits of the people who aren't paying enough to their employees.
Bullshit. If you cut the incentive to move up the ranks vs. move to a different company, sure, the company will suffer. But I don't know anyone who would say "Well, for a $12M bonus I'd want to be CEO, but at $6M, no way" Or at least, I don't think any significant number of people would, and I sincerly doubt the one you'd want to be CEO would.
The abusive one in a relationship often blames the other for the lack of trust. The NYPD is assuming twitter will fix the problem. As you point out, what will really fix the problem is a tighter ROE. It's strange, since with only a couple of situations (normal/traffic stop/domestic disturbance/responding to armed incident) you could class all possibilities and have prewritten, tested and adhered to ROEs
Please outline how turning a cop into a cameraman who has to respond to FOIA requests doesn't become an invasion of my privacy whenever I interact with one.
Only if people cheat at reporting. And given 1099s, they cannot make much from Uber while cheating. Contractors are required to pay both the employee and the employer portions of SS & Medicare.
Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee". Heck, feel free to check with the government
Uber's been losing all the cases I've been following. Now, they immediately appeal, and the consequences are suspended while they appeal, but so far they've lost in, IIRC, California, New York Washington and Mass.
It makes them an agent of law enforcement, hence having to abide by the 4th amendment. Therefore the searches become illegal..
This is unlike where if I violate your privacy and go to the cops. Cause if they never asked me to do it, I'm just a tipster.
I'm confused about the logistics. There was a bin you just went up to and dropped an amount of money in, in cash? And everyone at the table noticed you didn't go up? Or they were calling people up table by table and a guy with a mike called you out?
Personally, I would mentally account for it as "price of 2 days dinner and hotel", but who knows in the heat of the moment.
It was also shitty of the company, even moreso. But there are ways to decline without drawing attention to it (normally). There are cases when both people are wrong.
I thought that was true for cancer development. Of course, you need a lot of photons to get an unlucky one (normally)
Living like that when you're young is fine. Telling people incapable of getting a good job they aren't allowed to have children isn't.
For one, they'll have them anyway. For another, it's tantamount to eugenics to say "those people are worthless, they shouldn't breed"
Most of the drivers I've talked to were unemployed before they started driving for Uber.
Spoken by a politician who needed to justify switching parties for political gain.
But in modern America, old people definitely benefit far more from government handouts than young people.
I wouldn't mind arguing with the hyper-libertarians, if they bothered actually defending a position as opposed to asserting it as self evident over and over. It's interesting sometimes to here different points of view.
Customers weren't his limiting factor, driving down construction cost was. While I'd imagine his employees bought Fords, there were 300k+ Fords sold the year he raised wages. Even if every employee wanted one, they didn't contribute anywhere near that increase. And they grew in sales year over year, without increasing their workforce as the customer base. Heck, the feedback loop you described doesn't even make theoretical sense - even if labor got paid exclusively in Model Ts, it still wouldn't make sense as a growth strategy.
The fact that he was a pioneer of the assembly line is what enabled him to pump out tons of cars. Which is what made them the behemoth they are today. And what made the employees more productive was the assembly line. The increase in payroll was because no one cared if they got fired - the economy was good enough they could get the same wages at a new job the next day. It was to reduce turnover
Citation needed. With the exception of the Ford story (which is subject to a lot of discussion, see above), there don't seem to be any. Fast Food pays minimum wage and isn't being taken over by "fair wage" alternatives. A lot of companies build plants/whathaveyou where the wages are min. wage, and then leave if they start rising.
Up to 50% is some major BS. Because, frankly, you're not close to dying of starvation at the 50% mark. People close to starving pay 15.3% in taxes (at least in the US), and then usually get government assistance for rent, food, etc..
What about people whose labor is not worth more. Are they supposed to starve?
If you say yes, what happens when, like most people would, they decide to use violence to take the food they need.
Some people certainly think it is the government's job. Based on what laws exist, I;d say over 50%.
They didn't donate money. They donated last year's hardware at full retail writeoff. So it's more of a business move to get rid of old inventory for more than they could get from a firesale than charity.
Well, that sounds like a pretty shitty way to decline to give. I'm sure you could have done so without calling attention to it
Totally offtopic, but presumably you allow the tablet to connect sometimes (e.g. to download other apps). How do you manage that? Are there apps that you allow to them to use over the internet, maybe with supervision? I'm curious because a lot of child-focused apps seem to assume that there is an internet connection for updates, etc.
I've heard that line a lot, but Ive never heard anyone go beyond it as an axiom, and explain why. Would you mind?
Of course, if they gave the employees a bonus, it would also be tax deductible.
They decided the positive PR for $30M of donations was better than the positive employee relations of giving $30M to them.