If people getting UBI took one-shot gig jobs (an explicitly stated goal of this UBI project) that happened to pay only for completed work, that's still working, but because it's not reliable and steady income, they might still be classified as unemployed.
We're getting OT here, but I can't resist relating the funniest one that happened in a theatre I was in. We were seeing Return of the Jedi when it came out, and the scene near the end where the Emperor is trying to convince Luke that his situation is hopeless and to surrender, he proclaims "Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle-station!", and then to his communicator he says, "Fire at will commander", there is brief shot of the fleet in space just before the cannon is fired and someone in the audience shouts out "Which one is Will?", raising audible laughter in the crowd just as the first rebellion's ship is destroyed.
I cannot watch the movie today without that line being inserted in my brain as the cannon is firing.
Actually, the article didn't say it increased joblessness.
It only said that it didn't *reduce* unemployment.
Considering the stated goal was to "see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work", this is unsurprising. Perhaps many of them did take such work, but with something like a gig job where you are just paid once as soon as you finish the job, it doesn't technically qualify as lifting them out of unemployment.
That's something I miss about modern movie going... there is less audience participation. I don't mean the rehearsed participation like what you get with Rocky Horror... I mean the real world, improvised stuff that is so perfect at the moment that it forever alters your experience of the film, even when you watch it at home years or decades later.
Today, they kick people out of the theatre for that kind of stuff.
Driving drunk isn't a right, but what law prohibits anyone from telling others about police checkpoints that they happen to know about?
If this is seen as enabling drunk drivers, it's one thing to politely ask somebody who is publishing this information to stop, and perhaps they might in the interests of preserving the public peace, but it's quite another to suggest that they are actually breaking a real law by doing so.
If the employer has to bring the server's wage to a minimum of $7.25 anyways, then what is the point of specifying $2.13 as their minimum hourly wage? Their wage is always going to be the greater of either $7.25 per hour or their tips. The $2.13 minimum doesn't factor into it at all.
It's identical to being paid on pure commission, with an hourly wage minimum bump on days when you don't make enough sales.
Well, I'm imagining that the guy only hid his assets *after* he realized he was getting a divorce, whereas what I'm talking about is when people might utilize such technology even if they haven't done anything wrong, but simply wish to ensure that the information remain secret.
Can you be arrested for wanting to comply with law enforcement but not being able to because of a decision that you made long before to use a securing technology that would lock you out in the event you are compromised just because you didn't necessarily anticipate that you would get arrested?
But they don't unlock the phone. Which apparently is their *stated* goal.
And in fact, if or when the tech exists to implement and advanced intelligent lock system that behaves as I described above, locking people up for not unlocking their devices wouldn't accomplish anything, so they might as well not do it when they don't have any other evidence that a crime which merits imprisonment was actually committed.
And if they have other evidence, then why can't they can convict on that? Compelling you to unlock a phone under threat of arrest is a fishing expedition, nothing more and nothing less.
And if their goal is to just lock up anyone who doesn't just do everything that they say, even if they haven't actually done anything wrong, well then.... we know what kind of state that is.
It's the same general idea, yeah... in theory, if the would-be coercer is aware that the lock exists, they will have to reconsider trying at all, because they know it will not achieve the desired result.
They can put you behind bars, but that doesn't guarantee unlocking the phone... While not everyone might be resistant to the point of even going to jail, if they cannot get what they want by threatening punishment, what good does the punishment even do?
Further, I can imagine a futuristic type of lock existing someday that would not unlock under any circumstances when its designated owner is compromised, perhaps to keep trade secrets secure... Being arrested and compelled to unlock your phone could be interpteted by such a system as such a comprise, and there would be absolutely no way to force the person to unlock it, even if they wanted to at that point.
The world's population growth must inherently be a logistic curve, not an exponential one, since the world has finite resources to supply a population.
I expect that the world population will stabilise at about 10 billion people or so perhaps going slightly above that figure but tending to oscillate near it indefinitely.
It is considerably more expensive going by mass, but because it is so much less dense, the same volume going to be that much less massive as well. Per unit volume, titanium costs only about 1.5 times what stainless steel costs.
Titanium has a *WAY* higher melting point than stainless steel, is less than 60% as dense, and more than twice as strong. It's only about one and a half times more expensive than stainless steel per unit volume, however, but because of its increased strength, I'd imagine you may also be able to use correspondingly less, and therefore get a more performant material for the same or lower cost.
How, may I ask you, do you think that Canadians can just randomly "sign up" for US billing addresses?
It's easy enough to get a US shipping address here in Canada, and I am free to change the shipping address of any card I have to whatever address I like, but any foreign credit card that I might get from my bank will still list the actual billing address as my own Canadian address.
If I were to try and set up some US drop-ship address as my billing address, this can evidently be quite easily be detected*, and could easily subject my account to further investigation - without too much difficulty, one could discover that I was attempting to fraudulently declare myself as a resident of the USA while living permanently in Canada, and could find myself liable for criminal charges of attempted fraud in both countries.
*I'm not sure of the particulars on this point, but it happened to me one time that I wanted to use a US-based shipping address for something when dealing with a US merchant that offered shipment to Canada but it was unjustifiably more expensive to do so... I had worked it out, in fact.... because I live quite close to the Canada-USA border, it was cheaper for me to sign up for a US shipping address in a border town in the USA, physically drive across the border when the item was shipped, pick the item up and pay all of the applicable duty fees when I came back than the prices they were charging for shipping into Canada. However, they recognized the address that I gave them as a known drop ship address, however, and would not ship there because I was actually in Canada. Even though I wasn't trying to commit fraud or get out of paying any applicable duty charges, the company's policy remained in place... possibly because they simply did not want to appear to enable people to do this despite the fact that I had no intent to do so.
Anyways, I can't imagine that credit card companies could not also easily detect this, especially given that there is a credit check performed so they are probably going to know something about what country a person actually lives in.
If the minimum wage were set that high, teenagers wouldn't be able to get jobs.
Why should it be okay to treat teenagers as any less valuable than adult workers?
Even if the employer is paying above minimum wage, when they aren't actually paying someone enough money to live on it forces a person who might depend on that job to need a second or sometimes even a third job, and this is quite simply unfair. Minimum wage should be set high enough that *nobody* should need to have a second or third job just to be able to survive if they are putting in full time hours. That amount should reasonably be based on what it costs for a single adult to live within reasonable transit or cycling commuting distance for a given place of employment.
There can certainly be jobs that aren't meant to be lived on, but they should still not pay any less than a fair living wage... the amount of gross pay one gets from such jobs would only be low because they are part time positions, not because the hourly pay was any less than a fair living wage. If they *had* been getting paid just as much to do that work full time, then they *would* be making enough to live on.
I maintain my position - if one wants to dehumanize their workers by not paying them enough to live as a human being normally would in society, then by all means, they should use robots to do the job.
Massive automation-driven unemployment will not ever happen... at least not in the apocalypse manner that self-proclaimed prognosticators of such a future attempt to convince people of. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple. What will happen as automation gets more advanced and less expensive is that demand for human workers in other areas will also go up, and demand for human workers will be created in entirely new areas that hadn't even been imagined previously. I can't tell you what those jobs will be because I'm not from the future, but we shouldn't be trying to delay a future just because we don't know what it's going to be and are afraid of something that is, in the end, only in our own imagination.
Increased demand for human workers in other or new areas has repeatedly happened in every technological advancement since the industrial revolution. As disruptive technology enters practical use, there is perhaps an initial period of disruption, but in the long run it invariably ends up working out, and society carries on. At the very least, with a minimum wage that is high enough that people who might need to depend on it full time can actually live on it, people who might be pushed aside in one industry would not be put in a position of working somewhere else that doesn't even pay them enough to live.
If they need multiple jobs because they can't get full time hours at any one place, that's okay too.... but they still wouldn't have to work any harder than anyone else who was working full time at a single job just in order to stay alive.
The fact that minimum wage jobs aren't "meant to be lived on" is irrelevant. The fact is that many people *do* have to live on wages that are still far less than a minimum living wage, often by taking second or third jobs, and often working *FAR* more than someone who is making a living wage would, all the while not even getting as much money.
That is unfair, and IMO needs to change. We live in the 21st century, and life should *NOT* be a struggle to simply survive in a so-called first world country. Nobody is *entitled* to a job, but if one has earned a job, then they deserve to be paid respectably for it, and that amount should never be less than what a person might otherwise need to be able to continue to live.
Of course I care that kids don't starve... but what I was talking about is simply a minimal living wage, which should not factor in whether someone has dependants or not.
If a person has dependants, then they may reasonably qualify for additional social assistance over and above their income... depending on the jurisdiction. Also, they could likely further be able to claim deductions on their taxes so that they have more take-home pay than they otherwise would.
And if a minimal full-time wage ends up being $50 per hour just because the cost of living in the area is so high, then so be it. Employers might not want to pay that much, so it may drive employers out of the area, forcing people out of the area, thereby creating a surplus in available housing and driving down rental prices. An equilibrium would eventually be reached.
No... paying them less than what they should fairly be paid is not treating them with respect, and the minimal amount that is fair is what a person needs to live if they were doing that job full time. Anything less is treating them as if they don't deserve to be alive.
As I have said, how many dependants a person has is irrelevant. A minimal living wage would be based only on what a single adult needs to live in the municipality. If they have dependants, and there are no other earners in the household, then additional social assistance might still be required.
That being the case, humans shouldn't be doing such jobs, because guess what? Humans are living creatures, and there are only so many hours in a day or week. Paying someone less than a minimal living wage is, as I said, dehumanizing... it treats people as expendable cogs that one is only using to further their own efforts to succeed. If one cannot afford to pay someone a minimal living wage, they should just do the job themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said they didn't bother?
It said it had no effect on unemployment.
If people getting UBI took one-shot gig jobs (an explicitly stated goal of this UBI project) that happened to pay only for completed work, that's still working, but because it's not reliable and steady income, they might still be classified as unemployed.
I cannot watch the movie today without that line being inserted in my brain as the cannon is firing.
Actually, the article didn't say it increased joblessness.
It only said that it didn't *reduce* unemployment.
Considering the stated goal was to "see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work", this is unsurprising. Perhaps many of them did take such work, but with something like a gig job where you are just paid once as soon as you finish the job, it doesn't technically qualify as lifting them out of unemployment.
Can it tell the difference between a raised voice because of excitement or strong feelings about a matter and a voice raised in actual anger?
That's something I miss about modern movie going... there is less audience participation. I don't mean the rehearsed participation like what you get with Rocky Horror... I mean the real world, improvised stuff that is so perfect at the moment that it forever alters your experience of the film, even when you watch it at home years or decades later.
Today, they kick people out of the theatre for that kind of stuff.
Driving drunk isn't a right, but what law prohibits anyone from telling others about police checkpoints that they happen to know about?
If this is seen as enabling drunk drivers, it's one thing to politely ask somebody who is publishing this information to stop, and perhaps they might in the interests of preserving the public peace, but it's quite another to suggest that they are actually breaking a real law by doing so.
Since when is saying something that's true when you haven't signed any kind of gag agreement against the law?
I can appreciate that the police don't like it, but calling it criminal is WAAAY out of line.
If the employer has to bring the server's wage to a minimum of $7.25 anyways, then what is the point of specifying $2.13 as their minimum hourly wage? Their wage is always going to be the greater of either $7.25 per hour or their tips. The $2.13 minimum doesn't factor into it at all.
It's identical to being paid on pure commission, with an hourly wage minimum bump on days when you don't make enough sales.
Can you be arrested for wanting to comply with law enforcement but not being able to because of a decision that you made long before to use a securing technology that would lock you out in the event you are compromised just because you didn't necessarily anticipate that you would get arrested?
But they don't unlock the phone. Which apparently is their *stated* goal.
And in fact, if or when the tech exists to implement and advanced intelligent lock system that behaves as I described above, locking people up for not unlocking their devices wouldn't accomplish anything, so they might as well not do it when they don't have any other evidence that a crime which merits imprisonment was actually committed.
And if they have other evidence, then why can't they can convict on that? Compelling you to unlock a phone under threat of arrest is a fishing expedition, nothing more and nothing less.
And if their goal is to just lock up anyone who doesn't just do everything that they say, even if they haven't actually done anything wrong, well then.... we know what kind of state that is.
That's assuming that is the goal... why would they have that goal without evidence?
And if they don't care about evidence, then they can lock you up anyways by simply manufacturing a crime that you never committed at all.
It's the same general idea, yeah... in theory, if the would-be coercer is aware that the lock exists, they will have to reconsider trying at all, because they know it will not achieve the desired result.
They can put you behind bars, but that doesn't guarantee unlocking the phone... While not everyone might be resistant to the point of even going to jail, if they cannot get what they want by threatening punishment, what good does the punishment even do?
Further, I can imagine a futuristic type of lock existing someday that would not unlock under any circumstances when its designated owner is compromised, perhaps to keep trade secrets secure... Being arrested and compelled to unlock your phone could be interpteted by such a system as such a comprise, and there would be absolutely no way to force the person to unlock it, even if they wanted to at that point.
The world's population growth must inherently be a logistic curve, not an exponential one, since the world has finite resources to supply a population.
I expect that the world population will stabilise at about 10 billion people or so perhaps going slightly above that figure but tending to oscillate near it indefinitely.
Only if you consider less than a hundredth of one percent of the Internet to be "much" of it.
Watson's storage is substantial, but is dwarfed by the size of the entire Internet.
Your understanding is incorrect. Watson had no live internet hookup during the match.
What's the difference, really? And if the tether makes a difference, then if one is flying only on their own property, is that still prohibited?
It is considerably more expensive going by mass, but because it is so much less dense, the same volume going to be that much less massive as well. Per unit volume, titanium costs only about 1.5 times what stainless steel costs.
Titanium has a *WAY* higher melting point than stainless steel, is less than 60% as dense, and more than twice as strong. It's only about one and a half times more expensive than stainless steel per unit volume, however, but because of its increased strength, I'd imagine you may also be able to use correspondingly less, and therefore get a more performant material for the same or lower cost.
How, may I ask you, do you think that Canadians can just randomly "sign up" for US billing addresses?
It's easy enough to get a US shipping address here in Canada, and I am free to change the shipping address of any card I have to whatever address I like, but any foreign credit card that I might get from my bank will still list the actual billing address as my own Canadian address.
If I were to try and set up some US drop-ship address as my billing address, this can evidently be quite easily be detected*, and could easily subject my account to further investigation - without too much difficulty, one could discover that I was attempting to fraudulently declare myself as a resident of the USA while living permanently in Canada, and could find myself liable for criminal charges of attempted fraud in both countries.
*I'm not sure of the particulars on this point, but it happened to me one time that I wanted to use a US-based shipping address for something when dealing with a US merchant that offered shipment to Canada but it was unjustifiably more expensive to do so... I had worked it out, in fact.... because I live quite close to the Canada-USA border, it was cheaper for me to sign up for a US shipping address in a border town in the USA, physically drive across the border when the item was shipped, pick the item up and pay all of the applicable duty fees when I came back than the prices they were charging for shipping into Canada. However, they recognized the address that I gave them as a known drop ship address, however, and would not ship there because I was actually in Canada. Even though I wasn't trying to commit fraud or get out of paying any applicable duty charges, the company's policy remained in place... possibly because they simply did not want to appear to enable people to do this despite the fact that I had no intent to do so.
Anyways, I can't imagine that credit card companies could not also easily detect this, especially given that there is a credit check performed so they are probably going to know something about what country a person actually lives in.
Why should it be okay to treat teenagers as any less valuable than adult workers?
Even if the employer is paying above minimum wage, when they aren't actually paying someone enough money to live on it forces a person who might depend on that job to need a second or sometimes even a third job, and this is quite simply unfair. Minimum wage should be set high enough that *nobody* should need to have a second or third job just to be able to survive if they are putting in full time hours. That amount should reasonably be based on what it costs for a single adult to live within reasonable transit or cycling commuting distance for a given place of employment.
There can certainly be jobs that aren't meant to be lived on, but they should still not pay any less than a fair living wage... the amount of gross pay one gets from such jobs would only be low because they are part time positions, not because the hourly pay was any less than a fair living wage. If they *had* been getting paid just as much to do that work full time, then they *would* be making enough to live on.
I maintain my position - if one wants to dehumanize their workers by not paying them enough to live as a human being normally would in society, then by all means, they should use robots to do the job.
Massive automation-driven unemployment will not ever happen... at least not in the apocalypse manner that self-proclaimed prognosticators of such a future attempt to convince people of. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple. What will happen as automation gets more advanced and less expensive is that demand for human workers in other areas will also go up, and demand for human workers will be created in entirely new areas that hadn't even been imagined previously. I can't tell you what those jobs will be because I'm not from the future, but we shouldn't be trying to delay a future just because we don't know what it's going to be and are afraid of something that is, in the end, only in our own imagination.
Increased demand for human workers in other or new areas has repeatedly happened in every technological advancement since the industrial revolution. As disruptive technology enters practical use, there is perhaps an initial period of disruption, but in the long run it invariably ends up working out, and society carries on. At the very least, with a minimum wage that is high enough that people who might need to depend on it full time can actually live on it, people who might be pushed aside in one industry would not be put in a position of working somewhere else that doesn't even pay them enough to live.
If they need multiple jobs because they can't get full time hours at any one place, that's okay too.... but they still wouldn't have to work any harder than anyone else who was working full time at a single job just in order to stay alive.
The fact that minimum wage jobs aren't "meant to be lived on" is irrelevant. The fact is that many people *do* have to live on wages that are still far less than a minimum living wage, often by taking second or third jobs, and often working *FAR* more than someone who is making a living wage would, all the while not even getting as much money.
That is unfair, and IMO needs to change. We live in the 21st century, and life should *NOT* be a struggle to simply survive in a so-called first world country. Nobody is *entitled* to a job, but if one has earned a job, then they deserve to be paid respectably for it, and that amount should never be less than what a person might otherwise need to be able to continue to live.
Of course I care that kids don't starve... but what I was talking about is simply a minimal living wage, which should not factor in whether someone has dependants or not.
If a person has dependants, then they may reasonably qualify for additional social assistance over and above their income... depending on the jurisdiction. Also, they could likely further be able to claim deductions on their taxes so that they have more take-home pay than they otherwise would.
And if a minimal full-time wage ends up being $50 per hour just because the cost of living in the area is so high, then so be it. Employers might not want to pay that much, so it may drive employers out of the area, forcing people out of the area, thereby creating a surplus in available housing and driving down rental prices. An equilibrium would eventually be reached.
No... paying them less than what they should fairly be paid is not treating them with respect, and the minimal amount that is fair is what a person needs to live if they were doing that job full time. Anything less is treating them as if they don't deserve to be alive.
As I have said, how many dependants a person has is irrelevant. A minimal living wage would be based only on what a single adult needs to live in the municipality. If they have dependants, and there are no other earners in the household, then additional social assistance might still be required.
That being the case, humans shouldn't be doing such jobs, because guess what? Humans are living creatures, and there are only so many hours in a day or week. Paying someone less than a minimal living wage is, as I said, dehumanizing... it treats people as expendable cogs that one is only using to further their own efforts to succeed. If one cannot afford to pay someone a minimal living wage, they should just do the job themselves.