The rules are a bit complicated, but in some circumstances it's legal to hire permanent replacement workers. There's a summary of some of the relevant law here.
She told me i would have to ask an in-store rep for the answer.
The call center monkeys aren't going to have access to all the state and local taxes that may apply. Not that they couldn't, I suppose, but they don't.
Start by not wasting money on things that don't work.
On a broader scale, there's really not much we can do - immigrants have been arriving in this country, penniless and not speaking the language, for centuries. The vast majority of them have nonetheless been wildly successful. The efforts to inculcate middle-class values in the underclass have been incredibly numerous, but all eventually have to face the reality that there are some people who are just not intelligent enough to put it all together in the modern world. In an older era, they were sent to workhouses, or they died in the streets, or they lived off the alms of the community (in return for which they would be expected to do some public works). Today we cordon off sections of the city and the countryside and give them a bit of money and food, which has the benefit of seeming more humane, but actually does nothing to resolve the underlying issue. I would never say that the poor are stupid - there are many diamonds in the rough, who end up being the ones harmed most by our policy of corralling the poor - but the stupid are almost universally poor, and there are always going to be stupid people.
So now you want them to balance the danger posed to themselves (and everyone) by driving too fast around a corner (i.e., too fast for physical conditions) against the danger posed to everyone else (and possibly themselves) by driving too slow around a corner (i.e., too slow for traffic conditions)? Is SUV ownership something like original sin to you?
People who demonstrate such a lack of judgment by purchasing an SUV in the first place certainly can't be expected to demonstrate good judgment behind the wheel, now can they?
Unless you mean "aircraft" when you say "public transport", I'm not sure how you think Americans get around, and even then it's a bit of a stretch - I don't think about flying until it's at least 400-500 miles, and then only if I'm going to be there for a day or less. If I'm going to be there for a week, I'll drive ~900 miles (one full day driving) each way. I've done drives roughly equivalent to going from Penzance to John O'Groats in a single day many times.
Alas, the phase change to liquid does render it less suitable for buildings. Perhaps you meant that ice (or even better, packed snow) has long been used in cold climates for its high insulation value?
IIRC the networks used to alternate blue and red for the parties. Somewhere in the late 90s or early 2000s this became fixed, quite likely as a sort of in-joke (having the Republicans be red).
Wind and solar, alas, don't work 24 hours a day in most places. And while wind is pretty cost-effective, I'm not sure I'd say the same about solar unless you're privy to some very special information.
"Environmental racism" is a strong contender for "dumbest application of the word 'racism' to something that isn't". People put industrial properties on cheap land, because they take up a lot of space. Neighborhoods spring up around the plant, because the land is cheap (and you can walk to work, FWIW). Poor people move there to take advantage of the jobs. Voila! a ghetto surrounded by industrial parks.
You have faced some awful situations, no doubt. But how much worse would have your situation been if you had known that defending yourself against a lawsuit automatically meant that you would have to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fees if you lost?
"Loser pays for frivolous suit" and "loser pays, period" are two very different propositions. Don't forget that most European countries have laws based on French law of the Napoleonic era and (ultimately) Roman law. Law in the English-speaking countries is based on common law, and in the US is further modified by the fact that any common-law decisions made after 1776 have no formal weight in our courts.
The US has more than enough money to pay all of its debt service. It doesn't have enough money to pay all its debt service and all of its other obligations, but actually paying the debt is not in question.
You're going to starve me and blow my head off, but you're not an authoritarian? You've just praised utter inaction in the face of any difficult choice. If the terrorists aboard United 93 had locked the cockpit door and refused to land, would you have shot it down knowing it was headed for a populated area? Why, or why not? What's your solution to the old runaway-train-approaches-preschool-class-but-if-you-divert-it-you-kill-one-old-guy philosophy problem?
At some point, choices must be made, and your choices always include some bad with the good. I'm not in favor of trying to decrease gasoline consumption artificially, but if people want that to happen then I want it to happen in the least-distorting way.
If the goal is to reduce gasoline consumption, a tax is the most economically efficient way to do it. CAFE is miles away from being an efficient way to do it. CAFE drives up the cost of cars rather than the consumable they use. None of that is meant to imply that decreasing gasoline consumption is the goal we ought to be pursuing with the limited resources we have.
You probably should read some of my other comments (not just in this thread) before you get too excited about my "social engineering".
I don't. But if you want to reduce emissions of CO2, the most economically efficient way to do that is to tax it.
Pretend you're the president of the US. Your party controls a 3/4 majority of both houses and you have pictures of every member of the leadership screwing goats, so getting it through Congress is going to be easy. What is your proposal to decrease gasoline consumption in the US?
Oddly enough, when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House from 2009-2011, they didn't pass any either. Raising gas taxes isn't ever going to be popular.
Slashdot Mirror
The rules are a bit complicated, but in some circumstances it's legal to hire permanent replacement workers. There's a summary of some of the relevant law here.
She told me i would have to ask an in-store rep for the answer.
The call center monkeys aren't going to have access to all the state and local taxes that may apply. Not that they couldn't, I suppose, but they don't.
Start by not wasting money on things that don't work.
On a broader scale, there's really not much we can do - immigrants have been arriving in this country, penniless and not speaking the language, for centuries. The vast majority of them have nonetheless been wildly successful. The efforts to inculcate middle-class values in the underclass have been incredibly numerous, but all eventually have to face the reality that there are some people who are just not intelligent enough to put it all together in the modern world. In an older era, they were sent to workhouses, or they died in the streets, or they lived off the alms of the community (in return for which they would be expected to do some public works). Today we cordon off sections of the city and the countryside and give them a bit of money and food, which has the benefit of seeming more humane, but actually does nothing to resolve the underlying issue. I would never say that the poor are stupid - there are many diamonds in the rough, who end up being the ones harmed most by our policy of corralling the poor - but the stupid are almost universally poor, and there are always going to be stupid people.
some of it is positively inspiring
Too bad it didn't work.
Just buy a mulching blade and skip the whole discharge crap.
So now you want them to balance the danger posed to themselves (and everyone) by driving too fast around a corner (i.e., too fast for physical conditions) against the danger posed to everyone else (and possibly themselves) by driving too slow around a corner (i.e., too slow for traffic conditions)? Is SUV ownership something like original sin to you?
If their vehicles are less stable against lateral forces than yours, why is driving slow enough to prevent rollovers unsafe?
People who demonstrate such a lack of judgment by purchasing an SUV in the first place certainly can't be expected to demonstrate good judgment behind the wheel, now can they?
(from this)
So that explains the horde of SUV drivers ahead of me that consistently drive 15 mph under the speed limit at first sight of a hill or curve.
Well, which is it? Are they overly cautious, or maniacs?
Unless you mean "aircraft" when you say "public transport", I'm not sure how you think Americans get around, and even then it's a bit of a stretch - I don't think about flying until it's at least 400-500 miles, and then only if I'm going to be there for a day or less. If I'm going to be there for a week, I'll drive ~900 miles (one full day driving) each way. I've done drives roughly equivalent to going from Penzance to John O'Groats in a single day many times.
Alas, the phase change to liquid does render it less suitable for buildings. Perhaps you meant that ice (or even better, packed snow) has long been used in cold climates for its high insulation value?
Public sector unions, however, are of much more recent vintage than civil-service laws. Try again.
IIRC the networks used to alternate blue and red for the parties. Somewhere in the late 90s or early 2000s this became fixed, quite likely as a sort of in-joke (having the Republicans be red).
Wind and solar, alas, don't work 24 hours a day in most places. And while wind is pretty cost-effective, I'm not sure I'd say the same about solar unless you're privy to some very special information.
"Environmental racism" is a strong contender for "dumbest application of the word 'racism' to something that isn't". People put industrial properties on cheap land, because they take up a lot of space. Neighborhoods spring up around the plant, because the land is cheap (and you can walk to work, FWIW). Poor people move there to take advantage of the jobs. Voila! a ghetto surrounded by industrial parks.
You have faced some awful situations, no doubt. But how much worse would have your situation been if you had known that defending yourself against a lawsuit automatically meant that you would have to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fees if you lost?
I also hope to make $500,000 this year
That's all? Demand more, if your skills are what you say. You should be pulling in $2M/yr minimum.
"Loser pays for frivolous suit" and "loser pays, period" are two very different propositions. Don't forget that most European countries have laws based on French law of the Napoleonic era and (ultimately) Roman law. Law in the English-speaking countries is based on common law, and in the US is further modified by the fact that any common-law decisions made after 1776 have no formal weight in our courts.
How would you have the moderation system work?
On point, do you think that simply inflating the money supply would be better? It's an interesting question.
You should have to learned to play the guitar. You should have learned to play them drums.
The US has more than enough money to pay all of its debt service. It doesn't have enough money to pay all its debt service and all of its other obligations, but actually paying the debt is not in question.
Because they thought that the Fed would be an apolitical board that would do what was best for the economy - and, in general, they've been right.
You're going to starve me and blow my head off, but you're not an authoritarian? You've just praised utter inaction in the face of any difficult choice. If the terrorists aboard United 93 had locked the cockpit door and refused to land, would you have shot it down knowing it was headed for a populated area? Why, or why not? What's your solution to the old runaway-train-approaches-preschool-class-but-if-you-divert-it-you-kill-one-old-guy philosophy problem?
At some point, choices must be made, and your choices always include some bad with the good. I'm not in favor of trying to decrease gasoline consumption artificially, but if people want that to happen then I want it to happen in the least-distorting way.
If the goal is to reduce gasoline consumption, a tax is the most economically efficient way to do it. CAFE is miles away from being an efficient way to do it. CAFE drives up the cost of cars rather than the consumable they use. None of that is meant to imply that decreasing gasoline consumption is the goal we ought to be pursuing with the limited resources we have.
You probably should read some of my other comments (not just in this thread) before you get too excited about my "social engineering".
I don't. But if you want to reduce emissions of CO2, the most economically efficient way to do that is to tax it.
Pretend you're the president of the US. Your party controls a 3/4 majority of both houses and you have pictures of every member of the leadership screwing goats, so getting it through Congress is going to be easy. What is your proposal to decrease gasoline consumption in the US?
Oddly enough, when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House from 2009-2011, they didn't pass any either. Raising gas taxes isn't ever going to be popular.