Or they could do what all the other "free" pages do and demand to know everything about you including your shoe size and dick length. That could really become a gold mine, considering their market demographics is dead centered in the very interesting 14-30 years age bracket, it's near impossible that they go out of fashion with the regrowing kids (like Facebook does, it's considered the social media for old people among kids today) and that market demographics doesn't have anything to offer anyway in large quantity but their marketable details and lots of time, and the willingness to jump through any hoops you present to be the first to hear the new song from pop star idol du jour.
Get a better government. In my town it works like a dream. Buses and subways are clean, on time, reliable and pretty fast, you have stops every 3 minutes of walking and you can get across town in less time than it would take with a car.
Of course it helped that they created extra tracks and made some roads public-transport (and cabs) only.
Have you ever considered that some people actually don't actually want to achieve anything? I couldn't imagine it myself until I met such people. They are happy with sitting on the couch all day and watching soap after soap. It's a meaningless, wasted life and at first I felt kinda angry, but then... it's not my life they're wasting away. It's theirs. And I don't feel like I have any say how they should live it. If that's what makes them happy, if that's what they want to do with their life, I guess that's how it is.
And yes, I'm still convinced that it beats spending 9 hours getting yelled at by customers for their own, the customer's, stupidity. It is a meaningless life. But at least it's not a totally miserable one.
Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'
This is staggeringly a lot like it was in the former Soviet Union. Find a job, or we find one for you. Somewhere in some godforsaken backwater town in the middle of Sibiria, there is always a shortage of... everything. So no matter what you can do, they need you there.
I not only think this could work out, I'm positive that it would actually be more interesting for businesses too. Because now you have to pay someone a wage that's enough to at least compensate the person for his time so he can live. With universal income, any minimum wage is off the table. We would move into a gig economy more than we do today already, at least for zero/low skill jobs. You need 300 bucks extra? Go work for a few weeks at the supermarket. Yes, they will mot pay more than maybe those 300 for full time for a month, because there's people who wouldn't mind working that, because it's EXTRA money, not money they need already to fulfill their basic needs. As an employer, you could probably get people for less than 300 a month if it's really just some zero skill job with no responsibilities like restocking. You wages would probably go down (at least for no/low skill jobs), and still people would not complain because the money they now earn is on top of what they need, it's not what they need to get food and shelter covered.
High paying jobs would probably change little to not at all, because whether you pay your employee 400 less per month is kinda moot if you already pay about 10 grand a month. Here, very little would change, neither in fluctuation (which would most likely increase a lot for low skill jobs) nor cost.
You left the portion out where you explain why this is bad.
Is it REALLY better for someone to be subjected to a meaningless, dead-end, demeaning and utterly dissatisfying back breaking job than to die from drug abuse? I fail to see that. If those were my only choices, I'd prefer the quick and relatively comfortable death.
And also less cruel to the people. I can really see a lot of jobs that violate the eighth amendment, and the people subjected to it didn't even break a law to deserve it.
That's as true as the marxist boogieman of the capitalims that exploits many people for the benefit of a money-aristocracy elite few.
Let's start at the basics: Show that the underlying principle is marxism. Because so far, all I can see is that the die hard anti-marxist are as stupid as the die hard christians. Both never read the book they allegedly draw their conclusions from.
Slavery. Slavery is a guaranteed job. As long as I don't have to pay for it, any work you do is making me richer, so I will employ you. And that's also the only way you can guarantee a job, because as soon as I have to pay you for it, it has to be something I can sell for more than I pay you.
Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.
How does eliminating a demeaning "you want fries with that" job and leaving the person to pursue something they consider worthwhile "destroy the ability to achieve"?
Let's be honest here. How many people would willingly stay with Comcast if they had any (and I mean any, IP over carrier pigeon if necessary) choice? You can name and shame them as you want, as long as they have the monopoly you have no choice anyway.
So I wasn't the only one wondering. If you already break into a home, why not search for the fucking router. 9 out of 10 times you break into a home where the router is from the ISP and the WiFi Password is noted right on it. And that odd time when you actually manage to break into a geek's home, well, try it next door.
If you only look at the function of getting people moving, then yes. But towns have goals beyond a simple focus on a single service, they factor in the entailing costs and benefits. More people going by bus/subway means that you have to build and maintain fewer roads. It also means fewer accidents and fewer places necessary for parking space. It also means lower pollution and a higher quality of life. Not to mention that the town can, by extending subways to so far unattractive corners of the town, make those places much more interesting for investors, and for people more willing to move there, taking pressure from the rent in inner city areas.
Towns have vastly different interests than simple private businesses. They have to factor in a lot more effects their services have, and they can use those services to benefit the town in more ways than just getting people from A to B while making a profit.
Then watch how suburbs that implemented those lovely 4-way-stops to deter through traffic will suddenly become ersatz-highways. Yes, you stop every 50 feet ("sqeeeak - wrooooooom" for the whole neighborhood every other second), but at least it's cheaper.
I have seen a couple of large cities. Oddly, it seems the only places that ever get it right were in Europe. Especially Germany and Austria, they know how to run public transport. It's fast, efficient, clean, on time (ok, the local public transport inside the towns are, forget trains between towns, they come and go whenever, like everywhere else) and most of all they're fairly inexpensive.
Maybe that's a reason Uber can't gain traction in those areas.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to steal anything than bandwidth. I'm not an ordinary criminal, I'm white collar!
Or they could do what all the other "free" pages do and demand to know everything about you including your shoe size and dick length. That could really become a gold mine, considering their market demographics is dead centered in the very interesting 14-30 years age bracket, it's near impossible that they go out of fashion with the regrowing kids (like Facebook does, it's considered the social media for old people among kids today) and that market demographics doesn't have anything to offer anyway in large quantity but their marketable details and lots of time, and the willingness to jump through any hoops you present to be the first to hear the new song from pop star idol du jour.
Get a better government. In my town it works like a dream. Buses and subways are clean, on time, reliable and pretty fast, you have stops every 3 minutes of walking and you can get across town in less time than it would take with a car.
Of course it helped that they created extra tracks and made some roads public-transport (and cabs) only.
Have you ever considered that some people actually don't actually want to achieve anything? I couldn't imagine it myself until I met such people. They are happy with sitting on the couch all day and watching soap after soap. It's a meaningless, wasted life and at first I felt kinda angry, but then ... it's not my life they're wasting away. It's theirs. And I don't feel like I have any say how they should live it. If that's what makes them happy, if that's what they want to do with their life, I guess that's how it is.
And yes, I'm still convinced that it beats spending 9 hours getting yelled at by customers for their own, the customer's, stupidity. It is a meaningless life. But at least it's not a totally miserable one.
Ok, if you pay for your dirt, no problem. Pollution tax, this way please.
Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'
This is staggeringly a lot like it was in the former Soviet Union. Find a job, or we find one for you. Somewhere in some godforsaken backwater town in the middle of Sibiria, there is always a shortage of ... everything. So no matter what you can do, they need you there.
I not only think this could work out, I'm positive that it would actually be more interesting for businesses too. Because now you have to pay someone a wage that's enough to at least compensate the person for his time so he can live. With universal income, any minimum wage is off the table. We would move into a gig economy more than we do today already, at least for zero/low skill jobs. You need 300 bucks extra? Go work for a few weeks at the supermarket. Yes, they will mot pay more than maybe those 300 for full time for a month, because there's people who wouldn't mind working that, because it's EXTRA money, not money they need already to fulfill their basic needs. As an employer, you could probably get people for less than 300 a month if it's really just some zero skill job with no responsibilities like restocking. You wages would probably go down (at least for no/low skill jobs), and still people would not complain because the money they now earn is on top of what they need, it's not what they need to get food and shelter covered.
High paying jobs would probably change little to not at all, because whether you pay your employee 400 less per month is kinda moot if you already pay about 10 grand a month. Here, very little would change, neither in fluctuation (which would most likely increase a lot for low skill jobs) nor cost.
You left the portion out where you explain why this is bad.
Is it REALLY better for someone to be subjected to a meaningless, dead-end, demeaning and utterly dissatisfying back breaking job than to die from drug abuse? I fail to see that. If those were my only choices, I'd prefer the quick and relatively comfortable death.
And also less cruel to the people. I can really see a lot of jobs that violate the eighth amendment, and the people subjected to it didn't even break a law to deserve it.
That's as true as the marxist boogieman of the capitalims that exploits many people for the benefit of a money-aristocracy elite few.
Let's start at the basics: Show that the underlying principle is marxism. Because so far, all I can see is that the die hard anti-marxist are as stupid as the die hard christians. Both never read the book they allegedly draw their conclusions from.
Slavery. Slavery is a guaranteed job. As long as I don't have to pay for it, any work you do is making me richer, so I will employ you. And that's also the only way you can guarantee a job, because as soon as I have to pay you for it, it has to be something I can sell for more than I pay you.
Paying people not to work destroys the ability to achieve.
How does eliminating a demeaning "you want fries with that" job and leaving the person to pursue something they consider worthwhile "destroy the ability to achieve"?
To quote a German comedian, I need money, not an occupation. I can keep busy all right myself, no need for that.
Let's be honest here. How many people would willingly stay with Comcast if they had any (and I mean any, IP over carrier pigeon if necessary) choice? You can name and shame them as you want, as long as they have the monopoly you have no choice anyway.
Not at all, very obviously.
So I wasn't the only one wondering. If you already break into a home, why not search for the fucking router. 9 out of 10 times you break into a home where the router is from the ISP and the WiFi Password is noted right on it. And that odd time when you actually manage to break into a geek's home, well, try it next door.
Wow. 10 bucks is more than a 24-hour ticket costs in most places I know.
If you only look at the function of getting people moving, then yes. But towns have goals beyond a simple focus on a single service, they factor in the entailing costs and benefits. More people going by bus/subway means that you have to build and maintain fewer roads. It also means fewer accidents and fewer places necessary for parking space. It also means lower pollution and a higher quality of life. Not to mention that the town can, by extending subways to so far unattractive corners of the town, make those places much more interesting for investors, and for people more willing to move there, taking pressure from the rent in inner city areas.
Towns have vastly different interests than simple private businesses. They have to factor in a lot more effects their services have, and they can use those services to benefit the town in more ways than just getting people from A to B while making a profit.
Since when does a government ask criminals how they'd like their laws?
Right, they do care about congested roads, but in the wrong direction.
block all voice messages
Or, in short "Don't tax me, just gimme".
Then be prepared to spend more time on congested roads.
Then watch how suburbs that implemented those lovely 4-way-stops to deter through traffic will suddenly become ersatz-highways. Yes, you stop every 50 feet ("sqeeeak - wrooooooom" for the whole neighborhood every other second), but at least it's cheaper.
I have seen a couple of large cities. Oddly, it seems the only places that ever get it right were in Europe. Especially Germany and Austria, they know how to run public transport. It's fast, efficient, clean, on time (ok, the local public transport inside the towns are, forget trains between towns, they come and go whenever, like everywhere else) and most of all they're fairly inexpensive.
Maybe that's a reason Uber can't gain traction in those areas.