I'm fine with sending some of their executives to prison. But do you give a shit about all of the people who will lose their jobs if you put the company down? What about their families, and the suppliers and their families and the decreased competition due to one less manufacturer. It's not trivial. You're talking about impacting tens of thousands of people for the failure of a few jackasses.
I'd typically agree with you, but then I just got a check in the mail for the class action suit on DRAM. It was only about $90, but I doubt that I'd lost that much originally.
I've had this argument with my wife (a double MBA) several times, regarding businesses skirting the laws. Her stance is that a practice is either legal or it's not. And, if it's legal, then business has an obligation to take advantage of any legal way to maximize profits. I don't personally agree with it, but understand it. There shouldn't be grey area, but there typically is, and business will take advantage of it, just like all these companies moving their financial assets outside of the US to avoid paying higher taxes. We can bitch and whine all we want, but we need rock solid laws/regulations (and I'm saying this as a fiscal conservative) if we want to avoid that crap.
This is why there's a difference between negligence and criminal negligence. Intentions matter. And criminal negligence needs to be punished by prison terms.
My mom was a cashier (Farmer Jack's in MI) when I was growing up. When the tills were balanced at the end of the day, shortages came out of the cashier's pay. Interestingly, overages didn't go in the employees favor.
The fact that it happened didn't make it legal. Just another form of thief, actually.
Well, if it was illegal, then several chain markets were getting away with it, but this was back in the 70s.
My mom was a cashier (Farmer Jack's in MI) when I was growing up. When the tills were balanced at the end of the day, shortages came out of the cashier's pay. Interestingly, overages didn't go in the employees favor.
As a fiscal conservative, I looked at it with high suspicion. But, the basic idea presented seems plausible enough to suggest serious study, if for no more reason than that jobs will disappear as robotics take over. I'd like to suggest that those of you who doubt or dislike the idea, set those feelings aside for a moment, and read the article. Then, come back and give a good reason why it shouldn't at least be experimented with on a small scale somewhere. Honestly, my own kneejerk reaction to the idea is...WTF, pay people for doing nothing???, are you fucking crazy??? Well, unless you have a better solution going forward, you might want to reconsider.
Wish I had mod points for you. If you've never rented out property, you are likely clueless how much work actually is required.
I purchased my first townhome in '85, and a week after closing, my company sent me on an overseas assignment. My home was rented out for the next seven years. Sure, I could have sold it right away, and taken a bath on the closing costs. Or, I could have refused the assignment, and risked losing my job in what was a very shitty economy. Over those years, I had new tenants roughly every year. I specified no pets...good luck with preventing that, and have fun with the resulting cleanup, er, carpet replacement. I had to pay a property management company to collect rent, and find new tenants. The rent barely covered the mortgage. And, during the next few years, home prices tanked, finally recovering in the early 90s. In the end, I was able to move back in and spend the next six months cleaning up the place in preparation to sell it. Overall including taxes, commissions, expenses, I might have made maybe $10-20k on a $100k home that resold for $125k. But if you think I was able to... "do nothing but collect rent ", then you're a fucking idiot.
You obviously feel high rise development is a good thing. I on the other hand would never live in an area blighted by such monstrosities. IMO, it's just another sign of over development, and over population. So sure...people have different tastes, and both can be accommodated.
Well, then you'd need to get everyone in an area to agree to sell them...not that simple. And, I'm sure a lot of the owners of those "shitbox" homes would fight not to have to live next to a highrise. I know I would.
Is there really space for much new development? Here in Northern VA, (Fairfax) it's mostly built out....if you wanted to do new development, you'd need to take down old.
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
Depends what level of poverty we're talking about, My own mom lives off of less than $12k/yr social security, and still finds ways to waste cash on gifts, and junk she doesn't need. I'll admit to being a bit of an enabler, as I pay some of her bills. But, ShanghiBill has a point. If you've got disposable income, you should be investing it in yourself before buying cigarettes, booze, etc., etc. Many would hit the lottery, and end up broke again in under a year...it happens all the time (70% from a quick google). We do a poor job of educating people early in life on basic economics.
If you're running a business out of your house, it's still your responsibility to pay all applicable taxes. Has there been any implication that people haven't been doing that? To me, that's mostly a distraction from the main topic. If someone is collecting/paying...why should the city give a damn?
HOA power varies from state to state. Here in VA, we've been told that it costs, on average, over $60k for an HOA to take legal action. Had the original developer left yet in your case? Typically, they control the HOA until the development is completed. As for the dues, is that really different than a tax?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying it'll work for everyone reading this?
Haven't seen one of those since I slept on one as a kid in the 60s.
Yeah, because we didn't have light or fire before Pokeman GO.
While this is a novel concept, it's hardly innovative. And it raises a whole host of potential pitfalls...hacking, pets/kids getting caught, etc.
That's what my dog is for, and I don't have to be on the couch.
I'm fine with sending some of their executives to prison. But do you give a shit about all of the people who will lose their jobs if you put the company down? What about their families, and the suppliers and their families and the decreased competition due to one less manufacturer. It's not trivial. You're talking about impacting tens of thousands of people for the failure of a few jackasses.
I'd typically agree with you, but then I just got a check in the mail for the class action suit on DRAM. It was only about $90, but I doubt that I'd lost that much originally.
I've had this argument with my wife (a double MBA) several times, regarding businesses skirting the laws. Her stance is that a practice is either legal or it's not. And, if it's legal, then business has an obligation to take advantage of any legal way to maximize profits. I don't personally agree with it, but understand it. There shouldn't be grey area, but there typically is, and business will take advantage of it, just like all these companies moving their financial assets outside of the US to avoid paying higher taxes. We can bitch and whine all we want, but we need rock solid laws/regulations (and I'm saying this as a fiscal conservative) if we want to avoid that crap.
This is why there's a difference between negligence and criminal negligence. Intentions matter. And criminal negligence needs to be punished by prison terms.
No, suit was filed in Albany, NY. You don't need to file where the company is owned.
You do realize that the shareholders can sue VW as well. They lost value in their investment due to fraudulent actions of the company.
It may have changed over the years...
My mom was a cashier (Farmer Jack's in MI) when I was growing up. When the tills were balanced at the end of the day, shortages came out of the cashier's pay. Interestingly, overages didn't go in the employees favor.
The fact that it happened didn't make it legal. Just another form of thief, actually.
Well, if it was illegal, then several chain markets were getting away with it, but this was back in the 70s.
It may have changed over the years...
My mom was a cashier (Farmer Jack's in MI) when I was growing up. When the tills were balanced at the end of the day, shortages came out of the cashier's pay. Interestingly, overages didn't go in the employees favor.
No, their selection is most definitely not "really terrible
Seriously? Don't know what you're watching, but from my POV, it sucks. I only get it because of my Prime membership
I read my first article on UBI on fivethirtyeight. http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
As a fiscal conservative, I looked at it with high suspicion. But, the basic idea presented seems plausible enough to suggest serious study, if for no more reason than that jobs will disappear as robotics take over. I'd like to suggest that those of you who doubt or dislike the idea, set those feelings aside for a moment, and read the article. Then, come back and give a good reason why it shouldn't at least be experimented with on a small scale somewhere. Honestly, my own kneejerk reaction to the idea is...WTF, pay people for doing nothing???, are you fucking crazy??? Well, unless you have a better solution going forward, you might want to reconsider.
Wish I had mod points for you. If you've never rented out property, you are likely clueless how much work actually is required.
I purchased my first townhome in '85, and a week after closing, my company sent me on an overseas assignment. My home was rented out for the next seven years. Sure, I could have sold it right away, and taken a bath on the closing costs. Or, I could have refused the assignment, and risked losing my job in what was a very shitty economy. Over those years, I had new tenants roughly every year. I specified no pets...good luck with preventing that, and have fun with the resulting cleanup, er, carpet replacement. I had to pay a property management company to collect rent, and find new tenants. The rent barely covered the mortgage. And, during the next few years, home prices tanked, finally recovering in the early 90s. In the end, I was able to move back in and spend the next six months cleaning up the place in preparation to sell it. Overall including taxes, commissions, expenses, I might have made maybe $10-20k on a $100k home that resold for $125k. But if you think I was able to... "do nothing but collect rent ", then you're a fucking idiot.
You obviously feel high rise development is a good thing. I on the other hand would never live in an area blighted by such monstrosities. IMO, it's just another sign of over development, and over population. So sure...people have different tastes, and both can be accommodated.
Well, then you'd need to get everyone in an area to agree to sell them...not that simple. And, I'm sure a lot of the owners of those "shitbox" homes would fight not to have to live next to a highrise. I know I would.
Is there really space for much new development? Here in Northern VA, (Fairfax) it's mostly built out....if you wanted to do new development, you'd need to take down old.
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
Depends what level of poverty we're talking about, My own mom lives off of less than $12k/yr social security, and still finds ways to waste cash on gifts, and junk she doesn't need. I'll admit to being a bit of an enabler, as I pay some of her bills. But, ShanghiBill has a point. If you've got disposable income, you should be investing it in yourself before buying cigarettes, booze, etc., etc. Many would hit the lottery, and end up broke again in under a year...it happens all the time (70% from a quick google). We do a poor job of educating people early in life on basic economics.
If you're running a business out of your house, it's still your responsibility to pay all applicable taxes. Has there been any implication that people haven't been doing that? To me, that's mostly a distraction from the main topic. If someone is collecting/paying...why should the city give a damn?
HOA power varies from state to state. Here in VA, we've been told that it costs, on average, over $60k for an HOA to take legal action. Had the original developer left yet in your case? Typically, they control the HOA until the development is completed. As for the dues, is that really different than a tax?
Okay, but how's the handling and 0-60 time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why yes, I do!
Is it just me
Yes
Government is failing the people ...
It would seem that they already did by not properly planning for contingencies.