It seems like Iceland *IS* following the rules. They are mounting a proper legal challenge in the courts. When speaking English, Icelanders refer to their country as Iceland. That is the English name for their country.
The problem is that they're suing companies actually based in iceland or selling products of Iceland simply for using Iceland in their name. Made up examples would be Iceland imports (selling stuff from Iceland), Iceland tours (providing tours of Iceland), etc.
Imagine if Canada Computers was based in the U.S. and was suing any business using the word 'Canada' in their name.
Ya think? WalMart is known for leaning on all their suppliers, hard, to cut costs.
You have a point. They'll insist on a detectable trace of something that could be aloe and paperwork that makes it look like actual corrective action has happened.
But yes, if the suppliers actually claimed they were using aloe, they are also guilty of fraud.
Yes, they didn't know and didn't care. AKA a wanton disregard. So let them sue their supplier to cover their fines. They put their name on it, it's their responsibility to make sure they know what they're selling.
Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.
First, no you weren't representing the undistorted market, but rather a false dilemma argument with deliberate unpleasant choices.
Your inability to even hint at a reality based alternative choice says otherwise. Your choices are now: Admit it or take your marbles and stomp off in a huff.
They wouldn't hire the person in the first place, if they were paying the maximum amount possible.
And thus, the fact that there are people currently employed in the U.S. supports my point. I'm betting that if Obama decrees tomorrow that everybody gets a 10% raise, employers will not be rage quitting on Thursday. (there would be plenty of rage, but no quitting).
As for tariffs, we already discussed that on the red site. As a result of tariffs, Japanese automakers opened factories in the U.S. and so jobs came onshore. But that must have been before you wiped your memory and restored from the last backup.
So which way will you choose to amuse me now: Take your marbles and stomp off, chow down on a big ol' bowl of moondust, or wipe your memory and pretend this thread never happened?
Wow, calling an argument a fallacy as a fallacy! It is NOT a straw man argument just because you don't like the natural conclusions from reality. If it was actually a straw man, you could easily present that additional possibility I spoke of.
Look, your argument is shit because you're not doing a thing to enable employers to pay a living wage. Cart before the horse. We're going to force employers to pay much high salaries and they'll do it because they were holding back somehow. The economy is what creates the jobs not vice versa. Demand driven model is convenient fantasy.
This is 100% irrelevant to the question of the minimum wage. However, OF COURSE they are holding back! Can you name ANY employer that, as a matter of policy, pays the maximum amount they are capable of paying as opposed to the smallest amount they can get away with and still have employees? For that matter, can you name any actor anywhere within a capitalist system that prefers to pay the maximum amount they possibly can for anything? "I'm sorry, this is simply unacceptable. We can afford to pay you twice this! Double your prices immediately or no deal!".
Sounds like you're about to start chowing down on that yummy moon dust again.
Job loss in the U.S. is being driven by our failure to use tariffs to prevent corporations from paying 3rd world wages while charging 1st world prices and collecting a windfall from the arbitrage. Even Trump can see that. That's why Wall Street is doing better than ever while Main street is still suffering.
That's the most horrible part about the election. As bad as things look, I can't honestly say the other choice would have been any better (or worse). It's kind of like the world's worst buffet where you can have any kind of exotic animal excrement you want in your soup (none is not an option).
You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.
As I said, they're going to choose door number two because they like making money. By correcting the distortion, we end up with less people needing the safety net at all even if those who do need it may depend on it more.
Another objective reality is that where the minimum wage has been increased, the economy has done better and jobs did NOT go away. The people with those jobs did become less dependent on the safety net and generally better off. Just google for any place you made gloom and doom predictions about last year for the data.
How does Walmart and McDonalds employing people on top of those programs make things worse rather than better?
Because it allows them to get away with leeching off of public money to pay less than they would otherwise. Consider, there exists no safety net at all (no market distortion). Walmart and McDonalds either deal with literally unwashed and homeless employees that keep dying on them (possibly in the store, how embarrassing!), pay a living wage, or fold up their tents. Given that nobody would go there if it was full of dying and dirty employees and they don't make any money if they fold their tents, they would take door number two. Unfortunately, that would involve a lot of people dying of poverty, so it's not a viable solution. The best we can do is have a safety net and undo the market distortion as much as we can through a minimum wage.
Ideally, we would take desperation out of the equation entirely through the basic income. Then we can let the market set wages without people dying in the streets.
There is nothing two faced about it. In your second reference to my posts, Walmart is NOT paying a living wage, they're leeching off of the public to make up the difference. Same for the third case.
We want businesses to employ people at a living wage.
If we re-arrange our economy to provide the basic income sufficient to actually cover the cost of living so that potential employees aren't under the gun, then we can eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide.
Consider this, do you think manufacturers should be forced to provide goods below the marginal cost of production?
Well, that 39.5 hours/week costs the employee real money to produce.
I assure you that if maintenance employs as many people as not having the automation, it wouldn't get automated. Employers will for natural economic reasons make sure that the cost of building and maintaining the machines is always less than the cost of the people replaced. That means less money is going to be paid, one way or another.
Sure, if they replace 200 workers with machines, they might need to hire 2 or 3 people to maintain the machines, but that still leaves 198 people wondering "what now?".
As for the machinists, take a group of say five. Now get in some CNC machines. Three machinists get the boot and two learn to use CNC. Neither gets a raise because there are three more guys who are looking for work.
You'll want to find a way for people to get that training and have an income while they do. Eating and paying the rent isn't something that will wait for eventually.
It's just faith based public policy in disguise. We don't need a safety net because we FEEL sure something will work out somehow because it did with the technology of 150 years ago. Yes, automation does create some new jobs. It also eliminates jobs. The thing is, it eliminates more jobs than it creates or it will never be implemented (unless the jobs created are minimum wage and the jobs removed were highly skilled labor). That works great when there is an actual labor shortage. It was a good thing when it was so hard to find qualified workers that companies were willing to send a new hire to school just to hopefully end up with someone who could and would do the job. Imagine if UPS faced a shortage of drivers and they were willing to pay you to go to driving instruction and get your license. That condition does not exist today.
Note, this doesn't make automation bad. It's a great thing so long as we make sure to put the necessary social policy in place so we can all benefit from it and enjoy a stable civilization.
It's easy if it's just one place. But how easy is it if it's literally everywhere you go to communicate with friends? When it starts to come in over texts and email as well. Should they become hermits (except that's not allowed, they have to go to school and these days that may include assignments online). Imagine if you try your reasonable adult approach on facebook, but tomorrow when you log back in, the slams are still coming from half a dozen people (who are neither reasonable nor adult). Next week too.
Are you prepared to change your name and move, severing all ties? They aren't either.
But beyond that, they cannot because they are not neurologically mature yet. Their amygdala is still more active than the frontal lobes. That maturation typically completes in the mid-20's.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like Iceland *IS* following the rules. They are mounting a proper legal challenge in the courts. When speaking English, Icelanders refer to their country as Iceland. That is the English name for their country.
The problem is that they're suing companies actually based in iceland or selling products of Iceland simply for using Iceland in their name. Made up examples would be Iceland imports (selling stuff from Iceland), Iceland tours (providing tours of Iceland), etc.
Imagine if Canada Computers was based in the U.S. and was suing any business using the word 'Canada' in their name.
Ya think? WalMart is known for leaning on all their suppliers, hard, to cut costs.
You have a point. They'll insist on a detectable trace of something that could be aloe and paperwork that makes it look like actual corrective action has happened.
But yes, if the suppliers actually claimed they were using aloe, they are also guilty of fraud.
Yes, they didn't know and didn't care. AKA a wanton disregard. So let them sue their supplier to cover their fines. They put their name on it, it's their responsibility to make sure they know what they're selling.
Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.
First, no you weren't representing the undistorted market, but rather a false dilemma argument with deliberate unpleasant choices.
Your inability to even hint at a reality based alternative choice says otherwise. Your choices are now: Admit it or take your marbles and stomp off in a huff.
They wouldn't hire the person in the first place, if they were paying the maximum amount possible.
And thus, the fact that there are people currently employed in the U.S. supports my point. I'm betting that if Obama decrees tomorrow that everybody gets a 10% raise, employers will not be rage quitting on Thursday. (there would be plenty of rage, but no quitting).
As for tariffs, we already discussed that on the red site. As a result of tariffs, Japanese automakers opened factories in the U.S. and so jobs came onshore. But that must have been before you wiped your memory and restored from the last backup.
So which way will you choose to amuse me now: Take your marbles and stomp off, chow down on a big ol' bowl of moondust, or wipe your memory and pretend this thread never happened?
Ah, straw man argument. I'm on the same page now.
Wow, calling an argument a fallacy as a fallacy! It is NOT a straw man argument just because you don't like the natural conclusions from reality. If it was actually a straw man, you could easily present that additional possibility I spoke of.
Look, your argument is shit because you're not doing a thing to enable employers to pay a living wage. Cart before the horse. We're going to force employers to pay much high salaries and they'll do it because they were holding back somehow. The economy is what creates the jobs not vice versa. Demand driven model is convenient fantasy.
This is 100% irrelevant to the question of the minimum wage. However, OF COURSE they are holding back! Can you name ANY employer that, as a matter of policy, pays the maximum amount they are capable of paying as opposed to the smallest amount they can get away with and still have employees? For that matter, can you name any actor anywhere within a capitalist system that prefers to pay the maximum amount they possibly can for anything? "I'm sorry, this is simply unacceptable. We can afford to pay you twice this! Double your prices immediately or no deal!".
Sounds like you're about to start chowing down on that yummy moon dust again.
Job loss in the U.S. is being driven by our failure to use tariffs to prevent corporations from paying 3rd world wages while charging 1st world prices and collecting a windfall from the arbitrage. Even Trump can see that. That's why Wall Street is doing better than ever while Main street is still suffering.
That's the most horrible part about the election. As bad as things look, I can't honestly say the other choice would have been any better (or worse). It's kind of like the world's worst buffet where you can have any kind of exotic animal excrement you want in your soup (none is not an option).
You missed that I was presenting the undistorted market. Those would indeed be their three choices under those conditions. That is the un-distorted un-interfered with market you seem to like so much. Smelly dying workers, pay living wages, or close. That's not an attitude, it's objective reality. To be fair, there is a fourth possibility, the smelly dying workers decide they have nothing to lose and start taking what they need. If you can come up with another possibility that doesn't involve fantasy, feel free to speak up.
As I said, they're going to choose door number two because they like making money. By correcting the distortion, we end up with less people needing the safety net at all even if those who do need it may depend on it more.
Another objective reality is that where the minimum wage has been increased, the economy has done better and jobs did NOT go away. The people with those jobs did become less dependent on the safety net and generally better off. Just google for any place you made gloom and doom predictions about last year for the data.
How does Walmart and McDonalds employing people on top of those programs make things worse rather than better?
Because it allows them to get away with leeching off of public money to pay less than they would otherwise. Consider, there exists no safety net at all (no market distortion). Walmart and McDonalds either deal with literally unwashed and homeless employees that keep dying on them (possibly in the store, how embarrassing!), pay a living wage, or fold up their tents. Given that nobody would go there if it was full of dying and dirty employees and they don't make any money if they fold their tents, they would take door number two. Unfortunately, that would involve a lot of people dying of poverty, so it's not a viable solution. The best we can do is have a safety net and undo the market distortion as much as we can through a minimum wage.
Ideally, we would take desperation out of the equation entirely through the basic income. Then we can let the market set wages without people dying in the streets.
And again, what's the problem with that? Don't we want Walmart to employ poor people rather than not?
Not if they are going to pay less than it costs to live.
I found an old hotdog under the back seat, do you want food or not?
There is nothing two faced about it. In your second reference to my posts, Walmart is NOT paying a living wage, they're leeching off of the public to make up the difference. Same for the third case.
We want businesses to employ people at a living wage.
If we re-arrange our economy to provide the basic income sufficient to actually cover the cost of living so that potential employees aren't under the gun, then we can eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide.
Consider this, do you think manufacturers should be forced to provide goods below the marginal cost of production?
Well, that 39.5 hours/week costs the employee real money to produce.
You pre-suppose a pent-up demand for labor. There was one in the Victorian times. There really isn't now.
But even when there was, there was a great deal of human suffering going on while things slowly worked out.
I assure you that if maintenance employs as many people as not having the automation, it wouldn't get automated. Employers will for natural economic reasons make sure that the cost of building and maintaining the machines is always less than the cost of the people replaced. That means less money is going to be paid, one way or another.
Sure, if they replace 200 workers with machines, they might need to hire 2 or 3 people to maintain the machines, but that still leaves 198 people wondering "what now?".
As for the machinists, take a group of say five. Now get in some CNC machines. Three machinists get the boot and two learn to use CNC. Neither gets a raise because there are three more guys who are looking for work.
You'll want to find a way for people to get that training and have an income while they do. Eating and paying the rent isn't something that will wait for eventually.
It's just faith based public policy in disguise. We don't need a safety net because we FEEL sure something will work out somehow because it did with the technology of 150 years ago. Yes, automation does create some new jobs. It also eliminates jobs. The thing is, it eliminates more jobs than it creates or it will never be implemented (unless the jobs created are minimum wage and the jobs removed were highly skilled labor). That works great when there is an actual labor shortage. It was a good thing when it was so hard to find qualified workers that companies were willing to send a new hire to school just to hopefully end up with someone who could and would do the job. Imagine if UPS faced a shortage of drivers and they were willing to pay you to go to driving instruction and get your license. That condition does not exist today.
Note, this doesn't make automation bad. It's a great thing so long as we make sure to put the necessary social policy in place so we can all benefit from it and enjoy a stable civilization.
Not a Hillary fan at all, but crushed?
He barely squeeked by and didn't even take the popular vote. Just being clear lest some loon claim he has some sort of mandate.
You do know that Airborne isn't homeopathic, don't you?
It said 'Sysyem Error'. Not that helpful, but somehow it sums it all up nicely.
You're not fooling me. You're one of those freaks that likes getting their butt beat. I'm not playing your game.
Even with all of that (good ideas all), if insurance is still involved in routine care, it's still only adding cost.
click here
Imagine if the bully from your day was free to walk into your bedroom and continue the bullying and your dad was powerless to beat his butt.
By your definition, bullying isn't a thing either. You could always just nail the doors shut and tell the pizza guy to slip it under the door.
It's easy if it's just one place. But how easy is it if it's literally everywhere you go to communicate with friends? When it starts to come in over texts and email as well. Should they become hermits (except that's not allowed, they have to go to school and these days that may include assignments online). Imagine if you try your reasonable adult approach on facebook, but tomorrow when you log back in, the slams are still coming from half a dozen people (who are neither reasonable nor adult). Next week too.
Are you prepared to change your name and move, severing all ties? They aren't either.
But beyond that, they cannot because they are not neurologically mature yet. Their amygdala is still more active than the frontal lobes. That maturation typically completes in the mid-20's.
Actually, at 20C, 1ml of water weighs 0.9982g.
Physics can be so inconvenient sometimes.