So if someone has to turn the machine on, will you still deny that there are machines to do the work?
We also have changed chimney design significantly since the 19th century such that more elaborate machines and/or climbing boys are no longer necessary.BTW, sending boys up chimneys to clean them was actually a thing until banned in 1875 (just 8 years before Marx died).
Perhaps Dick Van Dyke has overly affected your idea about what chimneys and their sweeping were like when Marx was actively writing.
That does tend to create a moral hazard though where we are subsidizing some of the wealthiest corporations in the world by covering a fair portion of their payroll for them.
But I will grant that it would be better than the current mess at least.
So where's your solution. If we don't do basic income and we don't do minimum wage either, that leaves a huge army of people with no legal means to support themselves. Since they are unlikely to all choose suicide, that leaves illegal means of support.
Perhaps it would be cheaper (and certainly save some lives) to hire them to not burn the society that cast them out.
I doubt there's anyone who doesn't see it. It's just that it's not the end of the story. For example, the figures from TFA demonstrate that 1% of minimum wage earners lost a job and the remaining 99% got a 15% raise. That's a massive economic win being reframed as a loss by cheap labor conservatives.
Now we just need a functional safety net.
Meanwhile, since automation is getting a little cheaper and a little better year after year, even leaving the minimum wage unlivably low won't save some of those jobs. Surely YOU can see that eventually some jobs would have to be done for ten cents an hour to make not replacing them with automation worth while.
Even the link you posted points out they have no government set minimum wage primarily because strong unions already took care of that and with nearly 100% membership, they have practically the force of law anyway.
And the real lesson is that if you're going to do firmware updates like that, you need to ALSO have a backup in ROM that is at least good enough to get connected and re-flash the primary firmware, and a mechanism to boot into it.
Other useful precautions include only doing upgrades when explicitly permitted (so, not just before the owner takes his dream vacation when a screw up would ruin his week). Perhaps best of all, get it right the first time or at least try hard enough that you feel comfortable making updates a very rare manually initiated end-user procedure.
Does anyone even know what the update was supposed to actually fix? It seems the users weren't complaining before the update went out.
Not really. What is crystal clear is that you are using a common tactic favored by the right wing of shifting the debate. C is nonsense. We learn little by looking at two dysfunctional aspects of the same system, neither of which actually do what is proposed.
Claim b suggests we'd better go single payer ourselves now and quit being the chumps that pay for everyone else's discounts. If it will raise their expenses, it should lower ours. If it worsen's their outcomes, it should improve ours. You don't like being a chump, do you?
He's not even being asked to share. He does not now nor has he ever owned the land he is trying to claim for his own. He is only being asked not to be a dirty thief.
Unless and until he ceases his anti-social behavior, he should be accorded all of the respect and admiration you would normally have for someone last seen picking school children's pockets for their lunch money.
AHH, so you are simply trying to butt in to an existing conversation and change it to your own whipping post. After all, you chose my message pointing out that non-American public healthcare was cheaper and better. You clearly understood that since you recognized the OECD's metrics were in play.
Were that an honest mistake, you surely would have recognized it after the Forbes article and narrowed your implied claims to American public health (Which, as I have said is the victim of years of GOP sabotage and inordinate concern for not stepping on the concerns of for-pay healthcare).
Since you have not done so, I can only assume any intellectual dishonesty in your postings is quite intentional, so SHOO
Annnnnnd that confirms they're not even slightly relevant when the discussion is EU vs. US. You see, I did read the abstracts as well. BTW, it's generally valid to use title as a first cut metric of applicability. For example, "Chiltons shop guide to the 1987 Chevy Malibu" is probably not relevant to preventative arterial stenting.
Very convenient that the one paper that might have relevance is behind a pay wall.
Excerpts? I don't have the relevant subscriptions. However, if their titles have any relevance to their content, only item 1 appears relevant to anything. The rest are just comparisons from within the U.S. of insured or not (as well as race) where the question is U.S. vs other 1st world countries. That is, surprise, a country too chintzy to implement single payer healthcare also begrudges adequate care to the poor.
Or to put a finer point on it, right wing whackadoos have spent the last 40 years turning medicare and medicaid into a strawman argument against socialized medicine by sabotaging them at every turn. Now you expect me to be surprised how bad it is? It's either that or Americans are the only residents of the 1st world who are too incompetent to self-govern. Everyone else's government manages to get healthcare at least somewhat right.
At least I had the courtesy to not blast you with irrelevant papers in the same way a squid uses ink.
You need to do some reading. Phoenix is currently a ways away from Death Valley (which was called that before it was a park), at least for now. In spite of no residents and few visitors, it claims a few lives annually.
Have a look
Note in particular, the temperature difference between a growing community and a place nobody can live.
You try again. You are asking a bit much for a simple discussion on a website. The studies have been done and not one has ever found the U.S. anywhere near the top of the outcomes list and not one has ever found the U.S. to be less than the most expensive out there. Google and see. I will not devote a week of my valuable time to spoon feeding you facts you can find for yourself with a few honest attempts through google. I provided you a good start.
Sorry Forbes is too much of a den of communist thinking for your taste.
There wouldn't be a point. They either run at cost for the public good or they get what they get from a government that actually knows what everything really costs.
Don't forget about the side effects though. Some of this may not be a problem in the U.K. but increasing the retirement age means making sure older workers can get decent employment. It also means they will not be leaving vacancies as soon, so slower promotions and less entry level jobs opening up for the next generation.
Slashdot Mirror
So if someone has to turn the machine on, will you still deny that there are machines to do the work?
We also have changed chimney design significantly since the 19th century such that more elaborate machines and/or climbing boys are no longer necessary.BTW, sending boys up chimneys to clean them was actually a thing until banned in 1875 (just 8 years before Marx died).
Perhaps Dick Van Dyke has overly affected your idea about what chimneys and their sweeping were like when Marx was actively writing.
That does tend to create a moral hazard though where we are subsidizing some of the wealthiest corporations in the world by covering a fair portion of their payroll for them.
But I will grant that it would be better than the current mess at least.
I'll bet they didn't use ELECTRIC drills.
Chimney sweeps do use power tools (cleaning machines) these days rather than little boys.
So where's your solution. If we don't do basic income and we don't do minimum wage either, that leaves a huge army of people with no legal means to support themselves. Since they are unlikely to all choose suicide, that leaves illegal means of support.
Perhaps it would be cheaper (and certainly save some lives) to hire them to not burn the society that cast them out.
I doubt there's anyone who doesn't see it. It's just that it's not the end of the story. For example, the figures from TFA demonstrate that 1% of minimum wage earners lost a job and the remaining 99% got a 15% raise. That's a massive economic win being reframed as a loss by cheap labor conservatives.
Now we just need a functional safety net.
Meanwhile, since automation is getting a little cheaper and a little better year after year, even leaving the minimum wage unlivably low won't save some of those jobs. Surely YOU can see that eventually some jobs would have to be done for ten cents an hour to make not replacing them with automation worth while.
Even the link you posted points out they have no government set minimum wage primarily because strong unions already took care of that and with nearly 100% membership, they have practically the force of law anyway.
It's also proven very effective at drastically reducing the frequency of migraine and cluster headaches.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
You REALLY need to re-do your research. Neonics are synthetic and NOT used by organic farmers. You might be thinking of nicotine.
And with all that metal all around, that drone will need to be fully autonomous if it's going to do anything at all.
And the real lesson is that if you're going to do firmware updates like that, you need to ALSO have a backup in ROM that is at least good enough to get connected and re-flash the primary firmware, and a mechanism to boot into it.
Other useful precautions include only doing upgrades when explicitly permitted (so, not just before the owner takes his dream vacation when a screw up would ruin his week). Perhaps best of all, get it right the first time or at least try hard enough that you feel comfortable making updates a very rare manually initiated end-user procedure.
Does anyone even know what the update was supposed to actually fix? It seems the users weren't complaining before the update went out.
Not really. What is crystal clear is that you are using a common tactic favored by the right wing of shifting the debate. C is nonsense. We learn little by looking at two dysfunctional aspects of the same system, neither of which actually do what is proposed.
Claim b suggests we'd better go single payer ourselves now and quit being the chumps that pay for everyone else's discounts. If it will raise their expenses, it should lower ours. If it worsen's their outcomes, it should improve ours. You don't like being a chump, do you?
He's not even being asked to share. He does not now nor has he ever owned the land he is trying to claim for his own. He is only being asked not to be a dirty thief.
Unless and until he ceases his anti-social behavior, he should be accorded all of the respect and admiration you would normally have for someone last seen picking school children's pockets for their lunch money.
AHH, so you are simply trying to butt in to an existing conversation and change it to your own whipping post. After all, you chose my message pointing out that non-American public healthcare was cheaper and better. You clearly understood that since you recognized the OECD's metrics were in play.
Were that an honest mistake, you surely would have recognized it after the Forbes article and narrowed your implied claims to American public health (Which, as I have said is the victim of years of GOP sabotage and inordinate concern for not stepping on the concerns of for-pay healthcare).
Since you have not done so, I can only assume any intellectual dishonesty in your postings is quite intentional, so SHOO
Annnnnnd that confirms they're not even slightly relevant when the discussion is EU vs. US. You see, I did read the abstracts as well. BTW, it's generally valid to use title as a first cut metric of applicability. For example, "Chiltons shop guide to the 1987 Chevy Malibu" is probably not relevant to preventative arterial stenting.
Very convenient that the one paper that might have relevance is behind a pay wall.
Excerpts? I don't have the relevant subscriptions. However, if their titles have any relevance to their content, only item 1 appears relevant to anything. The rest are just comparisons from within the U.S. of insured or not (as well as race) where the question is U.S. vs other 1st world countries. That is, surprise, a country too chintzy to implement single payer healthcare also begrudges adequate care to the poor.
Or to put a finer point on it, right wing whackadoos have spent the last 40 years turning medicare and medicaid into a strawman argument against socialized medicine by sabotaging them at every turn. Now you expect me to be surprised how bad it is? It's either that or Americans are the only residents of the 1st world who are too incompetent to self-govern. Everyone else's government manages to get healthcare at least somewhat right.
At least I had the courtesy to not blast you with irrelevant papers in the same way a squid uses ink.
You need to do some reading. Phoenix is currently a ways away from Death Valley (which was called that before it was a park), at least for now. In spite of no residents and few visitors, it claims a few lives annually.
Have a look
Note in particular, the temperature difference between a growing community and a place nobody can live.
You try again. You are asking a bit much for a simple discussion on a website. The studies have been done and not one has ever found the U.S. anywhere near the top of the outcomes list and not one has ever found the U.S. to be less than the most expensive out there. Google and see. I will not devote a week of my valuable time to spoon feeding you facts you can find for yourself with a few honest attempts through google. I provided you a good start.
Sorry Forbes is too much of a den of communist thinking for your taste.
There wouldn't be a point. They either run at cost for the public good or they get what they get from a government that actually knows what everything really costs.
Sorry, the second link went AWOL.
Since you sound absolutely desperate for me to come up empty, I'll give you a link to Forbes.
Dig deeper here.
Ahh, that explains the population explosion and housing boom in Death Valley!
OH, Wait, nobody can live there long.
If it's so inefficient, why is it that it costs half as much as American healthcare and achieves better results?
Don't forget about the side effects though. Some of this may not be a problem in the U.K. but increasing the retirement age means making sure older workers can get decent employment. It also means they will not be leaving vacancies as soon, so slower promotions and less entry level jobs opening up for the next generation.