I love seeing this crap in American articles. "Oh Noes! If we pay people more, it will cost businesses more!"
Lets look at this for a second.... Who are a businesses customers? Hint: It's the people who get paid a wage. These people get more money, more businesses get more customers. More customers mean more sales. More sales means more profits.
Well, they can't produce the same product at the same price when they are paying higher minimum wages. So they will have to raise prices, which would actually lower sales. The minimum wage earners still won't be able to buy the products because the cost of the product will have to go up by the amount their wage went up.
That's like saying that if the minimum wage is too high, and it hurts employers, we should just not pay anyone anything at all. and we'd all be wealthy
No, the amount that should be paid is the amount that an employer and an employee agree upon. Which is better, that an employer willing to pay $6 an hour not hire anybody while jobless people willing to work for $6 an hour continue to not find jobs, or that the employer actually hire those people for $6 an hour even though it is less than minimum wage?
Don't worry, Bob will actually be unemployed because his work does not bring in an additional $15 per hour worth of profit.
What minimum wage forgets to take into account is those that have no job. Sort of like average salaries for IT people doesn't take into account the unemployed. If you factor in unemployed people the average wage goes down quite a bit.
what about those who are making 15 an hour now??? or those making 15.50??? will they get a raise??? or has their job that they worked hard for to get the pay they are getting now be considered a minimum wage job?
you do realize that the only actual harm done here is to their poor little egos? Their wages have not been reduced at all. Do you want to get reimbursed every time someone makes you feel bad?
That's not true. In order to pay the McDonald's worker $15.00 an hour, they will have to basically double all of their prices. Now the guy making $15.50 will have to pay twice as much for stuff that is made or prepared by minimum wage workers and so therefore, his $15.50 won't stretch as far as it used to.
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity.
Ridesharing has always been a legal activity. But running a taxi service and calling it ridesharing does not make it ride sharing. Otherwise, the other taxi companies could do the same thing.
Laws are the opinions of the people in power - in this case the taxi cartel - so yes, you can morally and ethically justify ignoring laws if the people making them are neither moral nor ethical.
The Evil Taxi Cartel had to buy a medallion, buy insurance, go through background checks and audits, allow inspectors and regulators to observe their operation, paid fines for any infractions and so forth. If the system is wrong and Uber should be able to operate without all of the regulations, then so should the taxi companies. So go ahead and reimburse them for all the money they have spent obeying the law these past 100 years and I'm sure everyone will be happy.
The answer is--indeed, must be, as you'll see for yourself if you think about it for a moment--that you're not correctly calculating your return on advertising expenses. If your company gets no revenue if it doesn't spend on advertising, it must follow that the return on advertising in substantial.
Well, then it could be that the original assertion was false, which says that if you don't spend any money on advertising then your business will grind to a halt.
For my real estate rentals, if I put up a low cost, reusable sign on my property, I get calls. Technically, that is still marketing, but it is practically free. I can also advertise for free on Craigslist. That also results in calls. In the past, we have spent $60 or so on a newspaper ad. We got an ROI of negative infinity. I suspect that the same would be true for radio or TV, except that infinity would be much larger.
And you've never seen the requirement for a #2 pencil? Did you know that the manufacturers who created the #1 pencil were put out of business by the systematic collusion to allow only #2 pencils? #3 pencils, when they were invented, couldn't get a foothold the monopoly was so strong. It's a goddamned racket.;-)
For the humor impaired, the number of a pencil is based on hardness and the same manufacturers that make #2 pencils also make #1, #3, #4 and sometimes 1/2 increments as well.
My kids don't have a smartphone either. They do have a phone that they could use in emergencies. it is an old phone from one of our previous upgrades. But they don't even end up charging it or ever taking it anywhere, so we are just going to cancel it. The good news is that if everybody else's parents buy their kid's smartphones, then you don't have to because they could always use someone else's phone to call you in an emergency.
I've never considered the sales and marketing people to be the smartest part of any organisation. They have a limited scope of action and limited deliverables.
Yet without sales and marketing you have no revenue and your whole business grinds to a halt.
This is always a conundrum to me. If you spend no money at all on marketing, you get no customers and your business grinds to a halt. Yet, for every dollar you spend on marketing, the return is only pennies on the dollar.
i too can invent untestable metrics on which to base my investment returns.
No really, it is true, for every dollar of your company's money that marketing spends on convincing you that they are doing a good job, they get about 5 or 10 dollars of your company's money. That's much better than other departments.
I've never considered the sales and marketing people to be the smartest part of any organisation.
Then you haven't actually tried to do what they do and certainly don't understand it. My guess is that you'd fail rather badly if you tried. Companies like Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble and the like didn't get to the size they are because they had idiots in the sales and marketing departments. I've worked directly with some of the marketing folks at Proctor and Gamble and they are exceptionally bright and very good at their job. Sure there are plenty of idiots out there too but saying all sales and marketing people are dumb is just as idiotic as saying all engineers are brilliant. Both statements are demonstrably false.
Marketing folks don't have to be good at the job they are supposed to do. They just have to be good at the job of convincing you that they are good at the job they are supposed to do. And at that they are quite good.
Yes. I live in a low income school district and volunteer at the school and almost all of the students have mobile phones. In fact, as far as I can see, there appears to be an inverse relationship between income and cell phone proliferation. It might be that the latter contributes to the perpetuation of the former.
I would be willing to bet that less than 50% of the people voted for the current administration in any given town. So why should the majority have to pay for the bad judgement of the minority?
But the eventual replacement of truck drivers with autonomous driving systems will have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers, and millions more are employed to support and coordinate them.
Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.
Your brother is correct. Professional drivers can drive hundreds of thousands of miles per year, while Joe Blow in his Honda may do 15,000. Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car. So automating trucking won't help.
Why, they have 7 already, one fewer than Norway and and the same number as Denmark. They have the 15th largest GDP in the world, roughly the same as Australia's. The US has 10X the GDP and 200X the number of satellites so we spend a much higher percentage of GDP on satellites. The US has a sense of Mexico being a god awful poor 3rd world country mostly due to it's proximity. We unfavorably compare it directly to our own economy where as other countries further away have more of a 'must be better' mysterious sense.
Sure it's 66th in per capita GDP but that doesn't mean they as a nation they can't afford more modern technologies, particularly now that the cost is so low.
Ah, well that explains the flood of U.S. citizens illegally streaming into Mexico in search of a better life.
The company won a $1.6 billion contract for 12 NASA resupply flights to the space station.
I assume those went of without a hitch later that day and he was somehow able to get the invoice submitted and paid on the same day, a true miracle for a government agency.
I have had a company that paid me several weeks late because they just had no money. Unfortunately, I had some automatic payments that went ahead and happened anyway and I ended up eating a couple of hundred dollars in NSF fees, which the company would not compensate me for. I tried to charge them a late fee, but they wouldn't go for that either.
Women studies are sexist because there are no men studies and both produce crazy sexist feminazis.
For the rest, act cool.
In my opinion, women studies is school sanctioned hate speech.
Why is it acceptable to teach women to hate men...
You don't build by dividing, you only destroy.
Yes. Take Lifetime TV for example. It seems to exist solely to teach women that all men are rapists, wife beaters, cheaters and murderers. I am not sure if this to try to teach them all to hate men and become lesbians, or whether it is to teach them that since all men are evil, they should settle for the first guy who beats them, or somewhere in between. But whatever they are doing, it is extremely irresponsible and promotes division among genders.
Slashdot Mirror
I love seeing this crap in American articles. "Oh Noes! If we pay people more, it will cost businesses more!"
Lets look at this for a second.... Who are a businesses customers? Hint: It's the people who get paid a wage. These people get more money, more businesses get more customers. More customers mean more sales. More sales means more profits.
Well, they can't produce the same product at the same price when they are paying higher minimum wages. So they will have to raise prices, which would actually lower sales. The minimum wage earners still won't be able to buy the products because the cost of the product will have to go up by the amount their wage went up.
That's like saying that if the minimum wage is too high, and it hurts employers, we should just not pay anyone anything at all. and we'd all be wealthy
No, the amount that should be paid is the amount that an employer and an employee agree upon. Which is better, that an employer willing to pay $6 an hour not hire anybody while jobless people willing to work for $6 an hour continue to not find jobs, or that the employer actually hire those people for $6 an hour even though it is less than minimum wage?
Don't worry, Bob will actually be unemployed because his work does not bring in an additional $15 per hour worth of profit.
What minimum wage forgets to take into account is those that have no job. Sort of like average salaries for IT people doesn't take into account the unemployed. If you factor in unemployed people the average wage goes down quite a bit.
what about those who are making 15 an hour now??? or those making 15.50??? will they get a raise??? or has their job that they worked hard for to get the pay they are getting now be considered a minimum wage job?
you do realize that the only actual harm done here is to their poor little egos? Their wages have not been reduced at all. Do you want to get reimbursed every time someone makes you feel bad?
That's not true. In order to pay the McDonald's worker $15.00 an hour, they will have to basically double all of their prices. Now the guy making $15.50 will have to pay twice as much for stuff that is made or prepared by minimum wage workers and so therefore, his $15.50 won't stretch as far as it used to.
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity.
Ridesharing has always been a legal activity. But running a taxi service and calling it ridesharing does not make it ride sharing. Otherwise, the other taxi companies could do the same thing.
Or like hiring a high school dropout to operate on you is "Medical Sharing".
The Associated Press' Style Book has requested that all media outlets begin using the term "Ride-hailing" instead of Ridesharing to prevent confusion.
How about to avoid confusion, they just call it Livery Service?
Laws are the opinions of the people in power - in this case the taxi cartel - so yes, you can morally and ethically justify ignoring laws if the people making them are neither moral nor ethical.
The Evil Taxi Cartel had to buy a medallion, buy insurance, go through background checks and audits, allow inspectors and regulators to observe their operation, paid fines for any infractions and so forth. If the system is wrong and Uber should be able to operate without all of the regulations, then so should the taxi companies. So go ahead and reimburse them for all the money they have spent obeying the law these past 100 years and I'm sure everyone will be happy.
The answer is--indeed, must be, as you'll see for yourself if you think about it for a moment--that you're not correctly calculating your return on advertising expenses. If your company gets no revenue if it doesn't spend on advertising, it must follow that the return on advertising in substantial.
Well, then it could be that the original assertion was false, which says that if you don't spend any money on advertising then your business will grind to a halt.
For my real estate rentals, if I put up a low cost, reusable sign on my property, I get calls. Technically, that is still marketing, but it is practically free. I can also advertise for free on Craigslist. That also results in calls. In the past, we have spent $60 or so on a newspaper ad. We got an ROI of negative infinity. I suspect that the same would be true for radio or TV, except that infinity would be much larger.
I would say my kids' pen paper and crayon to texting ratio is about 10,000:1. Perhaps higher.
And you've never seen the requirement for a #2 pencil? Did you know that the manufacturers who created the #1 pencil were put out of business by the systematic collusion to allow only #2 pencils? #3 pencils, when they were invented, couldn't get a foothold the monopoly was so strong. It's a goddamned racket. ;-)
For the humor impaired, the number of a pencil is based on hardness and the same manufacturers that make #2 pencils also make #1, #3, #4 and sometimes 1/2 increments as well.
My kids don't have a smartphone either. They do have a phone that they could use in emergencies. it is an old phone from one of our previous upgrades. But they don't even end up charging it or ever taking it anywhere, so we are just going to cancel it. The good news is that if everybody else's parents buy their kid's smartphones, then you don't have to because they could always use someone else's phone to call you in an emergency.
I've never considered the sales and marketing people to be the smartest part of any organisation. They have a limited scope of action and limited deliverables.
Yet without sales and marketing you have no revenue and your whole business grinds to a halt.
This is always a conundrum to me. If you spend no money at all on marketing, you get no customers and your business grinds to a halt. Yet, for every dollar you spend on marketing, the return is only pennies on the dollar.
i too can invent untestable metrics on which to base my investment returns.
No really, it is true, for every dollar of your company's money that marketing spends on convincing you that they are doing a good job, they get about 5 or 10 dollars of your company's money. That's much better than other departments.
I've never considered the sales and marketing people to be the smartest part of any organisation.
Then you haven't actually tried to do what they do and certainly don't understand it. My guess is that you'd fail rather badly if you tried. Companies like Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble and the like didn't get to the size they are because they had idiots in the sales and marketing departments. I've worked directly with some of the marketing folks at Proctor and Gamble and they are exceptionally bright and very good at their job. Sure there are plenty of idiots out there too but saying all sales and marketing people are dumb is just as idiotic as saying all engineers are brilliant. Both statements are demonstrably false.
Marketing folks don't have to be good at the job they are supposed to do. They just have to be good at the job of convincing you that they are good at the job they are supposed to do. And at that they are quite good.
no text.
Yes. I live in a low income school district and volunteer at the school and almost all of the students have mobile phones. In fact, as far as I can see, there appears to be an inverse relationship between income and cell phone proliferation. It might be that the latter contributes to the perpetuation of the former.
Kids need to have phones in school,
I agree. Like at the front desk or something.
Does he also have to move so that somebody doesn't find him shot dead under mysterious circumstances?
I would be willing to bet that less than 50% of the people voted for the current administration in any given town. So why should the majority have to pay for the bad judgement of the minority?
But the eventual replacement of truck drivers with autonomous driving systems will have a huge impact on the U.S. economy: there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers, and millions more are employed to support and coordinate them.
Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.
Your brother is correct. Professional drivers can drive hundreds of thousands of miles per year, while Joe Blow in his Honda may do 15,000. Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car. So automating trucking won't help.
Why, they have 7 already, one fewer than Norway and and the same number as Denmark. They have the 15th largest GDP in the world, roughly the same as Australia's. The US has 10X the GDP and 200X the number of satellites so we spend a much higher percentage of GDP on satellites. The US has a sense of Mexico being a god awful poor 3rd world country mostly due to it's proximity. We unfavorably compare it directly to our own economy where as other countries further away have more of a 'must be better' mysterious sense.
Sure it's 66th in per capita GDP but that doesn't mean they as a nation they can't afford more modern technologies, particularly now that the cost is so low.
Ah, well that explains the flood of U.S. citizens illegally streaming into Mexico in search of a better life.
The company won a $1.6 billion contract for 12 NASA resupply flights to the space station.
I assume those went of without a hitch later that day and he was somehow able to get the invoice submitted and paid on the same day, a true miracle for a government agency.
I have had a company that paid me several weeks late because they just had no money. Unfortunately, I had some automatic payments that went ahead and happened anyway and I ended up eating a couple of hundred dollars in NSF fees, which the company would not compensate me for. I tried to charge them a late fee, but they wouldn't go for that either.
Abolish women studies/gender studies
Women studies are sexist because there are no men studies and both produce crazy sexist feminazis.
For the rest, act cool.
In my opinion, women studies is school sanctioned hate speech.
Why is it acceptable to teach women to hate men...
You don't build by dividing, you only destroy.
Yes. Take Lifetime TV for example. It seems to exist solely to teach women that all men are rapists, wife beaters, cheaters and murderers. I am not sure if this to try to teach them all to hate men and become lesbians, or whether it is to teach them that since all men are evil, they should settle for the first guy who beats them, or somewhere in between. But whatever they are doing, it is extremely irresponsible and promotes division among genders.