I've been laid off. So has my wife. There's a big difference between the purpose of minimum wage and the concept of wages necessary for running a household.
Minimum wage is just that -- the minimum.
There are also a lot of small stores that cannot afford more than that. I know that first hand when my wife opened up a clothing store. There were many times that we were not paid but our (a little above) minimum wage employees were. All in all many small store owners make very little money. Anybody working in these stores cannot raise a family on their wages - and the store owners do not have the funds to pay more.
In today's world one person's income is rarely sufficient to carry a household. Unless you're willing to go back to 1950s living. Wife (or husband) shops, bakes and cooks meals from scratch at home; you brown-bag lunch; bring your coffee; never (or rarely) go out to eat; no cell phone; no cable TV, etc...
Automation is not an all-or-none scenario. As work load is reduced less people are needed. Dishwashers reduced load. Using an app (or kiosk) to enter an order reduces load.
With a full-functioning kiosk you will still need people - but less than before. I can see floors and walls being cleaned by machines. That reduces load. Supplies can be counted, checked and reordered automatically. That reduces load.
Each advancement will reduce the need for human labor.
No bluff involved. And no, it's not something that could have been done years ago. Soon a lot of delivery trucks will not have human drivers. That couldn't have been done "years ago" but can and will be done in near future. (Unless politics prevents it).
Really? How about dishwashing? Has that been automated? (We're still washing dishes by hand? - think diners here and not McDonalds)
You really think that a good portion of fast food work cannot be automated in very near future? It's no bluff. It's here. And the idiots trying to change the nature of minimum wage from a "minimum" to one that can support a family deserve this slap upside the head. If you are on minimum wage you should not be breeding. Wait until you have the financial stability to be able to devote time and resources to raising a child..
It would be a poor UX designer who only used color to indicate something like this. Maybe the phrase: "See a Doctor" if it's bad or "Everything's OK" if you passed.
Yes. It's called freedom. Freedom also allows you to do what other people consider to be stupid or immoral. Like, oh, for instance:
drink
eat pork
eat beef
eat any animal
eat anything produced by an animal
have sex before marriage
have sex with someone of the same gender
marry someone outside of your religion
renounce your religion
have an abortion
take contraceptives
and many other things
If you have the right to abort a fetus you have the right to decide whether or not to consume tobacco, wear seat belts and every other aspect that ownership of ones body implies.
While I'm pro-choice (and many social conservatives are definitely not free market, small-government) there is something unique about terminating an embryo. A better example will be legalizing drugs - which both social conservatives and progressives fail on.
We have the ludicrous scenario where people claim a right to terminate a fetus (on the grounds that they own their own bodies) and yet these same people say a woman cannot decide whether or not to smoke weed, or wear a seat belt or whatever.
On this issue progressives are truly more f-ed up than social conservatives.
Which Republican was that? The same one that wanted to tax large bottles of soda, funds anti-gun legislation? That one? Yeah. Bloomberg is really popular among Republican circles.
No. They need to pick cities like New York where just about everything is already there.
Large Stadiums 40,000+ specatators - Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, Meadowlands, Aqueduct
Smaller stadiums like the Belmont Raceway, minor league ballparks in LI, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Red Bull Arena, Arthur Ashe Stadium
Larger indoor arenas like MSG, the Barclay Center, Nassau Collesium, Prudential Center
tons of smaller ones.
Many of these venues regularly host major events - World Series, US Open (Tennis), Super Bowl, Boxing Championships - hence have the expertise to handle the crowds and security.
The only things that would need to be built would be swimming, diving and kayaking venues. With major money by the Hudson River it should be rather straightforward to partner with a sporting / gym complex to build this.
That makes sense. And I'm certain there are other cities for which the same holds true. Let's not just pick cities to "give them a chance." The Olympics is not necessarily a money maker - and in most cases is a massive money loser.
The problem with your comments is that de-regulation simply means getting rid of laws.
A law might be put in place with good intentions: place at least one electrical outlet per wall greater than 2' long. Is changing this law an example of deregulation? Yes and No. Depending on who you're speaking with.
Technically getting rid of sodomy laws is an example of deregulation. Although usually it is used to describe the simplification or elimination of overly complex, Rube Goldberg type of situations.
There are a lot of overly detailed laws out there, many of which are foolish, some of which are there to protect constituencies, some may or may not have had relevance at one. The term deregulation is almost never used except to gain political points.
You do realize that deregulation doesn't mean do whatever you want don't you. Nor does deregulation mean anarchy.
It refers to getting rid of laws that may have had validity at one point but no longer.
Getting rid of blue laws (which prevented some stores from being open on Sunday) is an example of deregulation.
Getting rid of laws against sodomy is also deregulation. Now, for the most part it means pruning down the Rube Goldberg series of conflicting laws. This is good. Do some politicians write laws to help their friends and hurt their enemies? Yes. Which is one of the reasons to NOT put all power into the government.
Actually many, many people's sole source of news is Facebook. I know some. It's sad. Sadder is that in some countries the internet == facebook. Facebook has teamed with ISPs to give discount access to Facebook. Example: $5/mth and you get Facebook; $30/mth you get the access to the what we call the internet. (I'm making up the prices here).
Correct. As does the NYTs and the Huffington Post and Drudge and my wonderful tech blog seen by 10-20 people per week.
I'm not saying that Facebook did anything wrong - but when you start getting into FTC and FCC regs who knows. I personally do not want issues like this determined by Congress - but because we have billions upon billions of laws - I don't know.
Corruption in business happens all the time, and is prosecuted all the time. Does it apply to Facebook? I have no idea. But if it does then Congress has the authority to investigate. If it does not apply to Facebook then Congress does not have the authority to investigate.
I have not gone through the applicable laws (nor am I competent to) and I have not gone through Facebook's Terms and Conditions and its myriad obligations under FEC and FTC and other agencies.
This is a simple series of nested if/else clauses,
The primary question is: is there a role for Congress? how does one evaluate that? I don't know. But I don't think it's a clear cut case of Congress CANNOT, DOES NOT have a role here.
We have 1000s of laws (many if not most stupid) regarding commerce and information distribution. Which, if any apply here? I have no idea.
Slashdot Mirror
A socialist will put an end to government coercion and spying on individuals? Really? Socialism is pro-individual now?
Then why are so many French people leaving France? If it's so great why are they moving in droves to London and - gasp - NYC?
I've been laid off. So has my wife. There's a big difference between the purpose of minimum wage and the concept of wages necessary for running a household.
Minimum wage is just that -- the minimum.
There are also a lot of small stores that cannot afford more than that. I know that first hand when my wife opened up a clothing store. There were many times that we were not paid but our (a little above) minimum wage employees were. All in all many small store owners make very little money. Anybody working in these stores cannot raise a family on their wages - and the store owners do not have the funds to pay more.
In today's world one person's income is rarely sufficient to carry a household. Unless you're willing to go back to 1950s living. Wife (or husband) shops, bakes and cooks meals from scratch at home; you brown-bag lunch; bring your coffee; never (or rarely) go out to eat; no cell phone; no cable TV, etc...
Automation is not an all-or-none scenario. As work load is reduced less people are needed. Dishwashers reduced load. Using an app (or kiosk) to enter an order reduces load.
With a full-functioning kiosk you will still need people - but less than before. I can see floors and walls being cleaned by machines. That reduces load. Supplies can be counted, checked and reordered automatically. That reduces load.
Each advancement will reduce the need for human labor.
No bluff involved. And no, it's not something that could have been done years ago. Soon a lot of delivery trucks will not have human drivers. That couldn't have been done "years ago" but can and will be done in near future. (Unless politics prevents it).
Really? How about dishwashing? Has that been automated? (We're still washing dishes by hand? - think diners here and not McDonalds)
You really think that a good portion of fast food work cannot be automated in very near future? It's no bluff. It's here. And the idiots trying to change the nature of minimum wage from a "minimum" to one that can support a family deserve this slap upside the head. If you are on minimum wage you should not be breeding. Wait until you have the financial stability to be able to devote time and resources to raising a child..
End of story.
So you want living income and an unhindered stream of undocumented migrants? So sorry buddy. You can't have both.
If you believe the tripe that was written on your post then you're part of the problem.
It would be a poor UX designer who only used color to indicate something like this. Maybe the phrase: "See a Doctor" if it's bad or "Everything's OK" if you passed.
And this, in a nutshell, spells out the argument between pro-choice and pro-life. At what point does the fetus have a right to life?
Some say conception. Some say birth. Some say some point in between that. Roe v Wade said 3 months.
Yes. It's called freedom. Freedom also allows you to do what other people consider to be stupid or immoral. Like, oh, for instance:
drink
eat pork
eat beef
eat any animal
eat anything produced by an animal
have sex before marriage
have sex with someone of the same gender
marry someone outside of your religion
renounce your religion
have an abortion
take contraceptives
and many other things
If you have the right to abort a fetus you have the right to decide whether or not to consume tobacco, wear seat belts and every other aspect that ownership of ones body implies.
While I'm pro-choice (and many social conservatives are definitely not free market, small-government) there is something unique about terminating an embryo. A better example will be legalizing drugs - which both social conservatives and progressives fail on.
We have the ludicrous scenario where people claim a right to terminate a fetus (on the grounds that they own their own bodies) and yet these same people say a woman cannot decide whether or not to smoke weed, or wear a seat belt or whatever.
On this issue progressives are truly more f-ed up than social conservatives.
They can ticket you for double parking on alternative side of the street cleaning - and you can't fight it. Happened to me.
Which Republican was that? The same one that wanted to tax large bottles of soda, funds anti-gun legislation? That one? Yeah. Bloomberg is really popular among Republican circles.
No. They need to pick cities like New York where just about everything is already there.
Large Stadiums 40,000+ specatators - Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, Meadowlands, Aqueduct
Smaller stadiums like the Belmont Raceway, minor league ballparks in LI, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Red Bull Arena, Arthur Ashe Stadium
Larger indoor arenas like MSG, the Barclay Center, Nassau Collesium, Prudential Center
tons of smaller ones.
Many of these venues regularly host major events - World Series, US Open (Tennis), Super Bowl, Boxing Championships - hence have the expertise to handle the crowds and security.
The only things that would need to be built would be swimming, diving and kayaking venues. With major money by the Hudson River it should be rather straightforward to partner with a sporting / gym complex to build this.
That makes sense. And I'm certain there are other cities for which the same holds true. Let's not just pick cities to "give them a chance." The Olympics is not necessarily a money maker - and in most cases is a massive money loser.
We are supposed to believe that if we follow the rules, and if we accept being controlled, monitored, then we will be SAFE from such things.
This sentence embodies the pathetic nature of the progressive left.
Yeah.
Kill off freedom of association. Have only the government tell you what you can buy. When you can buy it and who you can buy it from.
Yes. Let's kill capitalism.
The problem with your comments is that de-regulation simply means getting rid of laws.
A law might be put in place with good intentions: place at least one electrical outlet per wall greater than 2' long. Is changing this law an example of deregulation? Yes and No. Depending on who you're speaking with.
Technically getting rid of sodomy laws is an example of deregulation. Although usually it is used to describe the simplification or elimination of overly complex, Rube Goldberg type of situations.
There are a lot of overly detailed laws out there, many of which are foolish, some of which are there to protect constituencies, some may or may not have had relevance at one. The term deregulation is almost never used except to gain political points.
I hope equally disparage other religions as well. Otherwise you would be a cowardly bigot.
You do realize that deregulation doesn't mean do whatever you want don't you. Nor does deregulation mean anarchy.
It refers to getting rid of laws that may have had validity at one point but no longer.
Getting rid of blue laws (which prevented some stores from being open on Sunday) is an example of deregulation.
Getting rid of laws against sodomy is also deregulation. Now, for the most part it means pruning down the Rube Goldberg series of conflicting laws. This is good. Do some politicians write laws to help their friends and hurt their enemies? Yes. Which is one of the reasons to NOT put all power into the government.
Even if you were the aggressor? And what, pray tell, is the moral difference between Hiroshima and Dresden?
Actually many, many people's sole source of news is Facebook. I know some. It's sad. Sadder is that in some countries the internet == facebook. Facebook has teamed with ISPs to give discount access to Facebook. Example: $5/mth and you get Facebook; $30/mth you get the access to the what we call the internet. (I'm making up the prices here).
Correct. As does the NYTs and the Huffington Post and Drudge and my wonderful tech blog seen by 10-20 people per week.
I'm not saying that Facebook did anything wrong - but when you start getting into FTC and FCC regs who knows. I personally do not want issues like this determined by Congress - but because we have billions upon billions of laws - I don't know.
Corruption in business happens all the time, and is prosecuted all the time. Does it apply to Facebook? I have no idea. But if it does then Congress has the authority to investigate. If it does not apply to Facebook then Congress does not have the authority to investigate.
I have not gone through the applicable laws (nor am I competent to) and I have not gone through Facebook's Terms and Conditions and its myriad obligations under FEC and FTC and other agencies.
This is a simple series of nested if/else clauses,
That's correct. If there isn't corruption (or other wrong doing) then Congress hasn't the authority to investigate.
The primary question is: is there a role for Congress? how does one evaluate that? I don't know. But I don't think it's a clear cut case of Congress CANNOT, DOES NOT have a role here.
We have 1000s of laws (many if not most stupid) regarding commerce and information distribution. Which, if any apply here? I have no idea.