Assuming they are working full time, they need to be able to afford an average amount of rent being approximately one third of their gross income. How many dependants they have is irrelevant.
How many children someone has is irrelevant... What I am suggesting as a minimal living wage should be based entirely on what a single adult needs to live in that municipality. If they have dependants, then they might still require additional social assistance at that level of income.
And yes, it is good... because nobody should be forced to do an automatable task just to continue to live. Humans are not robots, and should not be treated as such.
And I am actually very skeptical that the economic apocalypse you describe would happen... if society needs the job, then it will be created.
The only jobs that would disappear are those that are not important enough to society to justify paying them a living wage would disappear. How is paying somebody less than what they need to live for a job that society doesn't even need getting done treating that person with any respect?
The obvious result of your policy is that millions of full-time jobs would be converted into part-time jobs.
Where did I suggest that the part-timer could be paid any less, per hour, than the minimal living wage for a full time worker?
I am suggesting that a part time worker only might make less than what they need to live because they are working less hours in the day to actually earn that income, not because their hourly wage was any lower than what it otherwise would have needed to be to live on *IF* the job had been full time.
I agree completely that we need to decide what constitutes necessity. But if McDonald's deems it essential that they have a restaurant in SF, then it follows that they should be paying the workers in SF enough to actually live there. Anything less is, as I said, treating workers as less than human, and not worthy of being able to live.
No, I'm saying that if flipping burgers is somehow an essential task that society needs workers for, and they cannot otherwise use machines to do it, then any human that does it should not ever be paid less per hour than whatever a minimal living wage happens to be in that municipality.
What is wrong with treating human beings like actual people instead of just replaceable cogs that are only being used to make other people rich?
I would want to eliminate people being paid less, per hour, than what a human being fairly needs to live on if they were doing that job full time.
To pay anything less is, as I said, dehumanizing. If a business depends on doing this to make a profit, then its business model is broken.
And, yes.... in fact, I *am* quite in favor of automation - because I do not think that a human being should ever be put in situation where they must perform an automatable task just to survive. Human beings should be treated as being worth more than that, and paid accordingly.
And in fact, I am skeptical it would eliminate as many jobs as what you suggest... if society actually has a need for the job, then it will be created. All I am suggesting is that no human being should be treated as less than that by not paying them enough to live on, if they were, as I said, doing the job full time. If they are not doing the job full time, they could reasonably make less than a person needs to live on doing that job, but their effective hourly wage should still never be less than the minimal living wage that I am advocating.
Only if by minimum wage you mean the exact legislated amount that is the minimum you can pay a worker, where I was meaning it more to mean any wage that is less than what a person can fairly live on. Perhaps "minimal" wage could be more accurate term.
If a job isn't worth paying a human being a living wage to do, then you shouldn't be paying human beings to do it in the first place. Do it yourself if you can't afford to pay anyone else that amount.
That's fair, but an argument can also be fairly made that minimum wage should never be less than the amount that a person needs to live, without requiring further aid from social assistance programs, and assuming that they work full time hours. Anything less is dehumanizing, and if you want to dehumanize your workers, then use robots. This also means that minimum wage would vary, depending on the cost of living in the municipality where the wage applies.
If the technology doesn't exist to use robots for your business, then too effing bad. Treat human beings like human beings and pay them enough to actually live on.
More attractive, certainly.... but not not necessarily practical on account of limitations on technology and potentially very high up-front costs, at least for the time being.
I live in Canada, and can very easily get a US funds credit card from my bank for buying stuff from small online US merchants that don't accept Canadian credit cards. I can even easily get a US shipping address associated with any card, but the billing address for the card still shows up as my own, right here in Canada.
Really? So what do you call the 'bar.com' part of an email address "foo@bar.com", for example, it not a domain name?
Such a name might be associated with email addresses, for instance, but still might not resolve to any IP address. What do you call it, if not a domain name?
... tie what shows a person can watch to the subscriber's billing address. No geo-ip lookup required.
Yes, I realize that this can still be gotten around by arranging to get a foreign billing address for a foreign card, but the logistics involved in doing this, at least for most people, would generally be considerably more complicated than just using a VPN.
That's a fair criticism... I realized only after I had hit submit that I had a pretty bad run-on sentence. I had hoped people might look past that and address the argument I was making, but I guess for some it was too much to hope for
Which is why I said it would be good if a person who wrongfully submitted a copyright infringement claim was responsible not only for all legal fees connected with defending from the claim, but also carried a minimum jail sentence as well.
The existence of the halting problem affirms that even in an entirely deterministic system, one can fabricate an outcome that no amount of cognition within that system can predict with accuracy, effectively making it non-deterministic.
So, no... it will not. At best, it may end up being statistically better at it than humans are, but in the end, it will still just be guesswork.
Well, I did say there is no *real* penalty... a penalty that might theoretically exist on paper but isn't enforced in practice doesn't really fit that.
No, that's not the fault of copyright, that's the fault of no real penalty for false claims that would be sufficient to dissuade people from making false claims that they don't want to retract, and the penalty for a false claim should be 100% of the legal fees for the defendant, and a jail sentence of 6 months, minimum.
I reaized I missed a stage in the case where X and Y are different.
When X is telling Y that it is going to make a call to Z on its behalf, it goes through the same protocol... it asks X (which must be on a list of trusted numbers for Y to be a substitute for) if it is really making a call to Z. This stops someone other than X from trying to pretend to be X and use Y as its intermediary when calling Z. If someone other than X tries to call Z using Y, Y will try and check to see if X is calling Z, and since it isn't, it will not cache Z as I described above.
Let the number I am really from be X, a number that I want to claim to be from be Y, calling number Z. Let us first assume that there can be a legitimate reason to spoof a number, and X and Y may be different (in normal cases, they will not be, but let's allow for the case where spoofing is permitted). You will see in a moment how this won't inherently be a problem.
If X and Y are different, X first tells Y that it is making a call to Z. If the number at Y recognizes X as authorized to make calls on its behalf, it adds a reference to Z in its cache and can be looked up later. Entries in the cache only stay active for about a minute or two, or until they are queried, and then they are purged. Single number residential lines have no such cache, the line must be awake and in use for a specific call for it to be queried.
When Z receives its call, showing up as coming from Y, it asks Y if it is currently making a call to Z. If the response is affirmative, then the number can be considered verified by a number reachable from Z. If the number Y is not reachable from Z, or Y otherwise does not answer (because it never got a request from an authorized X that it was calling Z) then the number will not ever be verified.
Until there is a response, the call display device can show the number claimed as unverified. Note that if a person answers the phone too quickly, the number may not be verified before they pick up, but should be shortly afterward.
If X conspires with some number Y which is reachable from Z, the recipient can still block calls from Y. It is not feasible for X to keep arranging for many different Y's which are all reachable from Z to be able to respond to these queries on its behalf.
This entire system allows call centres which may have direct lines to make outgoing calls and still use a main office number as the one to show on call display, and does not completely break compatibility with existing phone technology with unverified calls where the relevant exchanges have not yet upgraded to that technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming they are working full time, they need to be able to afford an average amount of rent being approximately one third of their gross income. How many dependants they have is irrelevant.
How many children someone has is irrelevant... What I am suggesting as a minimal living wage should be based entirely on what a single adult needs to live in that municipality. If they have dependants, then they might still require additional social assistance at that level of income.
And yes, it is good... because nobody should be forced to do an automatable task just to continue to live. Humans are not robots, and should not be treated as such.
And I am actually very skeptical that the economic apocalypse you describe would happen... if society needs the job, then it will be created.
The only jobs that would disappear are those that are not important enough to society to justify paying them a living wage would disappear. How is paying somebody less than what they need to live for a job that society doesn't even need getting done treating that person with any respect?
Where did I suggest that the part-timer could be paid any less, per hour, than the minimal living wage for a full time worker?
I am suggesting that a part time worker only might make less than what they need to live because they are working less hours in the day to actually earn that income, not because their hourly wage was any lower than what it otherwise would have needed to be to live on *IF* the job had been full time.
I agree completely that we need to decide what constitutes necessity. But if McDonald's deems it essential that they have a restaurant in SF, then it follows that they should be paying the workers in SF enough to actually live there. Anything less is, as I said, treating workers as less than human, and not worthy of being able to live.
No, I'm saying that if flipping burgers is somehow an essential task that society needs workers for, and they cannot otherwise use machines to do it, then any human that does it should not ever be paid less per hour than whatever a minimal living wage happens to be in that municipality.
What is wrong with treating human beings like actual people instead of just replaceable cogs that are only being used to make other people rich?
I would want to eliminate people being paid less, per hour, than what a human being fairly needs to live on if they were doing that job full time.
To pay anything less is, as I said, dehumanizing. If a business depends on doing this to make a profit, then its business model is broken.
And, yes.... in fact, I *am* quite in favor of automation - because I do not think that a human being should ever be put in situation where they must perform an automatable task just to survive. Human beings should be treated as being worth more than that, and paid accordingly.
And in fact, I am skeptical it would eliminate as many jobs as what you suggest... if society actually has a need for the job, then it will be created. All I am suggesting is that no human being should be treated as less than that by not paying them enough to live on, if they were, as I said, doing the job full time. If they are not doing the job full time, they could reasonably make less than a person needs to live on doing that job, but their effective hourly wage should still never be less than the minimal living wage that I am advocating.
Only if by minimum wage you mean the exact legislated amount that is the minimum you can pay a worker, where I was meaning it more to mean any wage that is less than what a person can fairly live on. Perhaps "minimal" wage could be more accurate term.
If a job isn't worth paying a human being a living wage to do, then you shouldn't be paying human beings to do it in the first place. Do it yourself if you can't afford to pay anyone else that amount.
That's fair, but an argument can also be fairly made that minimum wage should never be less than the amount that a person needs to live, without requiring further aid from social assistance programs, and assuming that they work full time hours. Anything less is dehumanizing, and if you want to dehumanize your workers, then use robots. This also means that minimum wage would vary, depending on the cost of living in the municipality where the wage applies.
If the technology doesn't exist to use robots for your business, then too effing bad. Treat human beings like human beings and pay them enough to actually live on.
More attractive, certainly.... but not not necessarily practical on account of limitations on technology and potentially very high up-front costs, at least for the time being.
If you ping a domain with no A record, you will get a "name or service not known", that's what I meant by "no IP address".
I live in Canada, and can very easily get a US funds credit card from my bank for buying stuff from small online US merchants that don't accept Canadian credit cards. I can even easily get a US shipping address associated with any card, but the billing address for the card still shows up as my own, right here in Canada.
Such a name might be associated with email addresses, for instance, but still might not resolve to any IP address. What do you call it, if not a domain name?
Yes, I realize that this can still be gotten around by arranging to get a foreign billing address for a foreign card, but the logistics involved in doing this, at least for most people, would generally be considerably more complicated than just using a VPN.
No, it does not. Some domains are exclusively email domains, for instance, and doing an name lookup will not resolve to any IP address.
If such domains are not in use, how is email sent and received through them?
How do you portscan a domain if you don't have an IP address for it?
Just because a domain doesn't have a website doesn't mean that it isn't used for something.
That's a fair criticism... I realized only after I had hit submit that I had a pretty bad run-on sentence. I had hoped people might look past that and address the argument I was making, but I guess for some it was too much to hope for
Which is why I said it would be good if a person who wrongfully submitted a copyright infringement claim was responsible not only for all legal fees connected with defending from the claim, but also carried a minimum jail sentence as well.
The existence of the halting problem affirms that even in an entirely deterministic system, one can fabricate an outcome that no amount of cognition within that system can predict with accuracy, effectively making it non-deterministic.
So, no... it will not. At best, it may end up being statistically better at it than humans are, but in the end, it will still just be guesswork.
Well, I did say there is no *real* penalty... a penalty that might theoretically exist on paper but isn't enforced in practice doesn't really fit that.
How is suggesting that there be *REAL* penalties, both civil and criminal, in place for false copyright claims, a circular argument?
No, that's not the fault of copyright, that's the fault of no real penalty for false claims that would be sufficient to dissuade people from making false claims that they don't want to retract, and the penalty for a false claim should be 100% of the legal fees for the defendant, and a jail sentence of 6 months, minimum.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy... An oldie but a goody.
When X is telling Y that it is going to make a call to Z on its behalf, it goes through the same protocol... it asks X (which must be on a list of trusted numbers for Y to be a substitute for) if it is really making a call to Z. This stops someone other than X from trying to pretend to be X and use Y as its intermediary when calling Z. If someone other than X tries to call Z using Y, Y will try and check to see if X is calling Z, and since it isn't, it will not cache Z as I described above.
Let the number I am really from be X, a number that I want to claim to be from be Y, calling number Z. Let us first assume that there can be a legitimate reason to spoof a number, and X and Y may be different (in normal cases, they will not be, but let's allow for the case where spoofing is permitted). You will see in a moment how this won't inherently be a problem.
If X and Y are different, X first tells Y that it is making a call to Z. If the number at Y recognizes X as authorized to make calls on its behalf, it adds a reference to Z in its cache and can be looked up later. Entries in the cache only stay active for about a minute or two, or until they are queried, and then they are purged. Single number residential lines have no such cache, the line must be awake and in use for a specific call for it to be queried.
When Z receives its call, showing up as coming from Y, it asks Y if it is currently making a call to Z. If the response is affirmative, then the number can be considered verified by a number reachable from Z. If the number Y is not reachable from Z, or Y otherwise does not answer (because it never got a request from an authorized X that it was calling Z) then the number will not ever be verified.
Until there is a response, the call display device can show the number claimed as unverified. Note that if a person answers the phone too quickly, the number may not be verified before they pick up, but should be shortly afterward.
If X conspires with some number Y which is reachable from Z, the recipient can still block calls from Y. It is not feasible for X to keep arranging for many different Y's which are all reachable from Z to be able to respond to these queries on its behalf.
This entire system allows call centres which may have direct lines to make outgoing calls and still use a main office number as the one to show on call display, and does not completely break compatibility with existing phone technology with unverified calls where the relevant exchanges have not yet upgraded to that technology.
My 2c.