My immune system detects pretty much all diseases caused by intrusive bacteria and viruses, etc. This includes bacteria that it hasn't been exposed to yet. Its reaction to such is slower than I'd like, and in some cases that can be fatal, but it has a much better recognition rate than anti-virus software.
Unless we provide the necessities for people who do not work, almost all labor is coerced to some extent. We have no facilities for large numbers of people deciding to leave the system and support themselves.
Inequality of negotiating leverage eases into coercion. There's no sharp bright moral line. This particularly applies with a society set up to favor large businesses, which this one is. The rules of the economy are neither natural nor divinely inspired.
You seem awfully sure that the Supreme Court didn't apply the law as written. It's not a matter of strict constitutional law (which I do have strong unqualified opinions on), and I didn't read anything the Supreme Court wrote about the case, so I'm not nearly so sure. The Constitution specifies that border regulation is Congress's job, and I'm not familiar with all the statutes. The Court, however, seems convinced that this is a Constitutional end-run to discriminate against Muslims because they're Muslims. Since Trump's tweets have been announced to be official Presidential documents, and he keeps tweeting about a Muslim ban, the Court had to interpret his executive order in that light.
Muggers don't have to take it by force, if they've got a good enough threat. In this case, the hosting company was in really deep doo-doo if they couldn't get their files back, so that looks a lot like duress to me.
It's always possible to find good American workers. Just pay 10% more than the competition. The market solution for shortages of workers in particular fields is to pay the people in those fields more, so they'll be more attractive.
The people whose ancestors were here when the Mayflower arrived generally get really crappy treatment. It's the recent immigrants (as in their ancestors came here in the last few centuries) that do well.
There are people who'd like to see this illegal immigration business applied retroactively.
Net operating profit doesn't quite work like that. Supermarkets get away with very little markup because they have very high turnover. Suppose they pay $1 for a head of lettuce and sell it for $1.01, and on the average a head sells in a couple of days. Then the supermarket makes $1.80 on that shelf spot for a head of lettuce a year. If a book sits on bookstore shelves for an average of two months before selling, the bookstore's going to need a lot more than a 1% operating profit.
An intelligent person will have a good idea what the courts will think of most proposals. Said person won't be right all the time, and won't be able to make a good guess on a few things, but will do a pretty good job of prediction.
That's what I liked about something I read about being a Trump proposal, that H-1B applications be awarded based on pay rather than randomly. We could get the ones for whom money is no object without allowing companies to underpay H-1Bs to lower the pay in the field.
If dumb Irish didn't like their arduous, dangerous, low-paying factory jobs, they could go to other companies for arduous, dangerous, low-paying factory jobs. If a company had jobs that were a little less arduous and dangerous and had slightly higher pay, they could get all the good workers they could handle. Since any number of people could play that game, factory jobs eventually became reasonably safe and paid reasonably well.
This works if the worker is legally able to work in the country and free to job-hop. It doesn't work with illegal aliens and H-1B holders.
The prices of goods are set by supply-demand curves, and the demand curves depend heavily on how much money potential purchasers have. If wages go up, demand curves go up, and prices go up.
I believe fluffernutter was referring do currency units, not real wealth, in his comment.
I wonder about all such claims. How does one determine what wages "should be"? Why were they "crazy money" if employers thought it was worth paying those wages?
At which point I've gotten into an extra layer of complexity for my clothes. Currently, I pick them up in the store, maybe try on a few, and pay for them and leave. I don't have to find a fitter and go through measurements and then pick them up next week. OK, OK, I'll get off your lawn.
Slashdot Mirror
A nine-year-old iPhone bought new and shiny as the latest model would be a 3G, which doesn't care if the 2G networks go away.
My immune system detects pretty much all diseases caused by intrusive bacteria and viruses, etc. This includes bacteria that it hasn't been exposed to yet. Its reaction to such is slower than I'd like, and in some cases that can be fatal, but it has a much better recognition rate than anti-virus software.
Unless we provide the necessities for people who do not work, almost all labor is coerced to some extent. We have no facilities for large numbers of people deciding to leave the system and support themselves.
Inequality of negotiating leverage eases into coercion. There's no sharp bright moral line. This particularly applies with a society set up to favor large businesses, which this one is. The rules of the economy are neither natural nor divinely inspired.
You seem awfully sure that the Supreme Court didn't apply the law as written. It's not a matter of strict constitutional law (which I do have strong unqualified opinions on), and I didn't read anything the Supreme Court wrote about the case, so I'm not nearly so sure. The Constitution specifies that border regulation is Congress's job, and I'm not familiar with all the statutes. The Court, however, seems convinced that this is a Constitutional end-run to discriminate against Muslims because they're Muslims. Since Trump's tweets have been announced to be official Presidential documents, and he keeps tweeting about a Muslim ban, the Court had to interpret his executive order in that light.
Muggers don't have to take it by force, if they've got a good enough threat. In this case, the hosting company was in really deep doo-doo if they couldn't get their files back, so that looks a lot like duress to me.
You can trace bitcoins from wallet to wallet. Figuring out who the wallets belong to is more of a problem, particularly if they're in another country.
In other words, they're afraid Trump will make people do what he says, not what he does.
Countries that are a threat to us? Like Saudi Arabia?
It's always possible to find good American workers. Just pay 10% more than the competition. The market solution for shortages of workers in particular fields is to pay the people in those fields more, so they'll be more attractive.
The people whose ancestors were here when the Mayflower arrived generally get really crappy treatment. It's the recent immigrants (as in their ancestors came here in the last few centuries) that do well.
There are people who'd like to see this illegal immigration business applied retroactively.
Net operating profit doesn't quite work like that. Supermarkets get away with very little markup because they have very high turnover. Suppose they pay $1 for a head of lettuce and sell it for $1.01, and on the average a head sells in a couple of days. Then the supermarket makes $1.80 on that shelf spot for a head of lettuce a year. If a book sits on bookstore shelves for an average of two months before selling, the bookstore's going to need a lot more than a 1% operating profit.
An intelligent person will have a good idea what the courts will think of most proposals. Said person won't be right all the time, and won't be able to make a good guess on a few things, but will do a pretty good job of prediction.
In other words, the courts are issuing rulings you don't like. That's what your statement actually means.
That's what I liked about something I read about being a Trump proposal, that H-1B applications be awarded based on pay rather than randomly. We could get the ones for whom money is no object without allowing companies to underpay H-1Bs to lower the pay in the field.
The shortage may be on the supply side. Make IT work sufficiently unattractive and there will be a shortage of workers.
Should we hire legal or illegal immigrants to grind down that poem on the Statue of Liberty?
If dumb Irish didn't like their arduous, dangerous, low-paying factory jobs, they could go to other companies for arduous, dangerous, low-paying factory jobs. If a company had jobs that were a little less arduous and dangerous and had slightly higher pay, they could get all the good workers they could handle. Since any number of people could play that game, factory jobs eventually became reasonably safe and paid reasonably well.
This works if the worker is legally able to work in the country and free to job-hop. It doesn't work with illegal aliens and H-1B holders.
Is that the thing that should be titled something like Barbie as a software management consultant?
The prices of goods are set by supply-demand curves, and the demand curves depend heavily on how much money potential purchasers have. If wages go up, demand curves go up, and prices go up.
I believe fluffernutter was referring do currency units, not real wealth, in his comment.
Profit sure can be the result of exploitation of labor. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game, but there are parts of the economy that are.
I wonder about all such claims. How does one determine what wages "should be"? Why were they "crazy money" if employers thought it was worth paying those wages?
Ones born in certain Middle Eastern countries are often in doubt about whether they dare leave the country.
It'd be a whole lot sillier if everyone just wore fashions from Fritz Lang's Metropolis.
In the pants I've tried, it appears to mean that the waistband is about an inch larger around.
At which point I've gotten into an extra layer of complexity for my clothes. Currently, I pick them up in the store, maybe try on a few, and pay for them and leave. I don't have to find a fitter and go through measurements and then pick them up next week. OK, OK, I'll get off your lawn.