Can we get someone to send/. a takedown notice to remove one set of "This year alone, at least 15 separate takedown notices ask Google to remove ThePirateBay.org from its index. Most of these are sent by the reporting agency Digimarc, on behalf of book publishers such as Penguin Random House, Kensington Publishing, and Recorded Books." from the summary?
So, let's say in some alternate universe the Republicans had already approved spending $380 million a few months ago on these exact same State election security block grants. That'd completely change your view right?
Well, if you read the article instead of just the/. summary, that's the universe we're living in....
I'm pretty sure every State which requires ID already has either a free ID or an alternate method for having your vote counted (usually a provisional ballot or an affidavit).
So, if the Republicans had already approved $380 million three months ago for States to spend on election security, that'd prove your point completely wrong, yeah?
For example, adjusted for inflation, the average Pell grant was $2,420 in 1996 and $3,740 in 2016. The max was $3,790 in 1996 and $5,820 in 2016. So Pell grants per student have significantly increased over the last 20 years, hardly "hacked and slashed".
Also, teachers don't "have" to spend their money for school supplies, although some do anyway. Most teachers send home a list to parents of what they want them to donate, which is also ridiculous, but what do you expect when you have a Democratic Party run government institution? Lots of wasteful spending on non-essentials, like diversity administrators.
As for Kansas, well, here's total direct revenue for the last 10 years for Kansas. The only portion with a big decline after the Kansas tax cuts in 2011-12 were capital gains-related revenue, a result of the change in the federal capital gains rate, caused by President Obama’s forced expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts. The Kansas tax cuts themselves are estimated to have only affected at most 1.5% of Kansas total revenue, hardly a drop in the bucket and certainly nothing to panic about.
You know the NY City Council is 92% Democratic and 8% Republican, right?
Pretty sure the anti-Uber/Lyft crowd are the Democratic members, not the 4 Republicans on the council. That would be indicated by this effort being led by the Democratic Speaker of the City Council, Corey Johnson and the Democratic Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
It doesn't seem much of a contradiction for the Republicans to be the pro-free market Party on both the issues you mentioned and the Democratic Party to be the anti-free market Party on both of them.
Yeah, there isn't much actual point in driving someone to the store so they can watch their groceries be loaded into the trunk and then be driven home again. Seems like an odd combination. "Whee, let's go for a pointless car ride instead of replacing an actually needed ride!"
The car should just be picking up the groceries for them and notifying them when it's time to walk to the curb outside their house and pull them out of the car.
Ah, so your perspective is that all facts which conflict with your worldview can be explained by a conspiracy of evil people in business who pay off all the economists to create the studies which you don't agree with.
Sorry, you're going to need more in the way of facts and less in the way of ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories to contradict basic economics.
The Tax Foundation article just did a good job of explaining the economics of it and came up at the top of a Google search for payroll tax incidence. What you'd need to attempt to refute are the multiple academic studies cited (and there are plenty more), preferably with some actual evidence, not an ad hominem attack on the people doing the explaining.
Please don't try to patronize me by telling me I've been manipulated or are a troll. I've spent 20+ years studying economics, you're going to need actual empirical and theoretical evidence to try and convince me I'm wrong, because that's what my opinions in the field are based on.
For example, you're discussion of productivity increase actually argues against your position, because the primary reason economists have found for the worker share not going up recently in the U.S. are health insurance regulatory cost increases. Workers are getting paid more in total compensation over time, but they end up not getting it as cash because it goes to their health insurance costs instead. (See previously cited related paper above).
So please, feel free to try again, but this time with evidence.
1. If you're in retail and you think two is all the regulations you're subject to, you're either not in management/ownership, or you're an idiot who is going to be jailed/fined soon. 2. They did a study. U.S. GDP would be 25% greater if government regulations were capped at the 1980 level. 3. Agreed, the U.S. has relatively few anti-business regulations compared to some countries, especially in Europe. That's also one reason the U.S. historically has a much better growth rate. lower unemployment rate and as a result is much wealthier. 4. All of the above knowledge predates Fox News, which I don't watch anyway, so you've missed the mark there as well, but I suppose you're used to that. It is "old" knowledge, in the sense that economists have known it for at least 40 years, after the last experiment in massive government regulation for a decade or so killed the economy that time also.
The *MUSH code base was better. If anyone remembers the original Shadowrun MUSH (my brother and I have an interesting history there), or AtlantisMUSH (the underwater post-apocalyptic one with Caps and Totes and submarine combat we started), let me know.
And if a driver is working for multiple ride share companies (which most do), they can collect the taxes from more than one for the same "employee". I'm sure they haven't missed that angle, either.
It's a tax on workers, just like SS/Medicare, health insurance requirements, HR paperwork regulations, etc... Almost the entire burden of the taxes, including the supposed "employer's share" are passed on the employees in the form of lower wages.
"It turns out that the supply of labor – that is, workers’ willingness to work – is much less sensitive to taxes than the demand for labor – or employers’ willingness to hire. This is because workers who need a job are not as responsive to changes in wages, but businesses are able to “shop around” for the best workers or shift production to different locations."
This view is backed up by the academic papers on the subject. See The Incidence of Payroll Taxation: Evidence from Chile ("I find strong evidence that the incidence of payroll taxation was fully on wages, with no effect on employment") and The Incidence of Mandated Employer-Provided Insurance: Lessons from Workers' Compensation Insurance ("Empirical analysis of two data sets suggests that changes in employers' costs of workers' compensation insurance are largely shifted to employees in the form of lower wages.") and The Labor Market Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums ("Thus, rising health insurance premiums may both increase the ranks of the unemployed and place an increasing burden on workers through decreased wages for workers with employer health insurance and decreased hours for workers moved from full time jobs with benefits to part time jobs without. ")
The amazing part of unemployment is how quickly people whose unemployment ends find a job, when they couldn't possibly find one the whole time they were getting paid...
Except of course, this law doesn't actually protect anyone against anything bad. The vast majority of the Internet isn't bound by CA law, so the only real result would be that anyone who is in business to create "bad" automated online postings will avoid having their business based in CA. Even if this silly idea spreads, there will always be some jurisdictions where someone can run a bot online without being in one, so all the serious fraudsters/crooks/criminals will just run their operations elsewhere.
No, the people who are most likely to be actually affected by this are small time folks who use a bot for convenience and not for any nefarious purpose. For example, almost every author or minor celebrity who has a reasonable social media presences uses a bot to pre-schedule tweets/posts/etc... so they (or their assistant if they're big enough) can do their social media work in a couple of hours each week, then let it get posted at a reasonable timing. Those are the kinds of people who will have to choose between posting "as a bot" because they use some convenient automation, or else giving up their social media marketing because they just don't have time to make it worthwhile anymore, or start paying cash to someone who lives outside CA to post stuff for them.
It's all these sorts of little frictions imposed by clowns like Hertzberg who think "There ought to be a law!" to solve every little problem which cause people to not be able to start a small business, or try to survive as an artist, or whatever freedom they want to exercise this week, but can't because the regulatory burden for stupid stuff is just piled on and on in places like CA.
Individual preference tells you at least one person (that individual) finds that option better than another one. That's what a preference is.
So they've used their specific knowledge of themselves to determine that. As a result, in a society which values individual rights and self-determination, honoring that preference is the default position. If you're going to claim it's instead bad, then the burden at that point is on you to show why it's bad. Until then, I'll go ahead and continue to assume people are right about what's better for them by default, rather than saying it's bad by assertion.
Individual preference tells you a lot about if something is desirable. It's a rebuttable presumption. The part you haven't bothered to do with the original discussion (flying) is make any attempt at rebutting that presumption by providing evidence or arguments why people getting their preferred outcomes would be bad. Instead, you've gone off on some tangent about how by default, what people want for themselves doesn't matter. I suspect that's not actually what you believe, if only about yourself and what you personally want.
Revealed Preference is a specific economics tool for helping determine which of several consumer choices result in the most utility for a consumer.
So yeah, it tells you what people want. We should let people have what they want because it generally makes them happier than forcing them to do what someone else wants instead. That's the default position. If there is some other negative effect of what they want, then that needs to have evidence and be demonstrated before moving from that default position.
If you don't agree with that, then I want you to agree anyway, in which case not agreeing with the former, I guess you have to agree with the latter, by your logic...
The pilots had more than 1500 hours already and they didn't change the requirements to address the specific issue they faced. So what's the point of the 1500 hour requirement for the FO in terms of addressing that specific crash?
1. Revealed preference. Without someone stopping them, people fly more. 2. Safety, comparing similar length trips using alternative modes of transportation.
Trust CNN to run a "conversation" article about supply and demand devoid of actual economics.
First, the author starts by blaming deregulation and the related advent of lower cost airlines. Then the author continues by blaming regulation for artificially limiting supply, i.e. the 1500 hour rule. Finally, they author proposes his preferred solution of Airlines creating their own flight academies (trying to increase supply of pilots again), for which the author conveniently is a teaching assistant for the academy he proposes as the solution to the problem. Is he trying to get a better job with the school, but they need more students?
If you've been following along, you might notice government regulations made air travel more expensive until it was finally loosened and airlines could compete on route and price instead of other "benefits" most customers didn't actually want to pay for. As a result, lots more people are able to fly to travel. (P.S. This is a good thing)
Not content with that, the government then comes back later and severely restricts the supply of airline first officers, taking the existing requirement of 250 hours (commercial pilot) and multiplying it by 6 to 1500 hours (ATP pilot). Overreaction to one incident, anyone? The first fatal crash in 3 years and they multiply the requirements to be an airline pilot by 6x?
The best part of the Wikipedia article on the crash is the description of the regulatory solution, "Although it did nothing to address the specific causes of the crash..." Basically the pilots weren't paying attention to the instruments, according to the flight recorders, then the reacted "not according to their training" to the resulting stall.
So the 1500 hours ATP requirement didn't even do anything to solve the problem of the crash which prompted it (both Colgan flight pilots had more than 1500 flight hours). That's pretty typical of this sort of regulation.
The demand side is fine (we want people to fly!), so how about we take the dramatic step of just fixing the regulations causing the supply problem? Something like, oh, only requiring 250 hours to be a first officer (commercial pilot's license) and keep the 1500 ATP hours for the Captain? That way someone can get experience as an airline pilot while getting paid? Simple supply fix, undo the overreaction in regulations which is causing the supply problem?
Don't worry, I'm sure the local Democratic politicians have thought ahead to the inevitable storms in the area and ensured the government controlled utilities and roads and such are all prepared properly for anything likely to hit Puerto Rico.
If not, it's not like they're going to blame other people who aren't in charge of their local emergency preparedness for their problems, instead, they'll be properly humble and grateful if they ever need to ask others for additional help.
Heck, the local population even has a guaranteed minimum wage much closer to where the local median wage is at then the rest of the country. Their economy is of course super-charged with tons of extra jobs as a result.
It's a link to a press release, which doesn't even link itself to the "study". There's no real information, nor details on the assumptions behind the supposed catastrophe. The closest they have is a computer generated image of speculative flooding in the future. It's pretty much as close to global warming bait as you're going to get, released only to say "Worry about this, too!" without any actual information content.
I guess it's more difficult to have your alarmism debunked if you leave it all hand wavey and vague. I'm sure there's probably an back of the envelope calculation somewhere behind this "study", but this doesn't even contain that much actual information.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we get someone to send /. a takedown notice to remove one set of "This year alone, at least 15 separate takedown notices ask Google to remove ThePirateBay.org from its index. Most of these are sent by the reporting agency Digimarc, on behalf of book publishers such as Penguin Random House, Kensington Publishing, and Recorded Books." from the summary?
Here's the understatement of the year from the article:
Basically this "news" is that an environmental lobbying group wanted to declare that people use too many resources in their opinion.
So, let's say in some alternate universe the Republicans had already approved spending $380 million a few months ago on these exact same State election security block grants. That'd completely change your view right?
Well, if you read the article instead of just the /. summary, that's the universe we're living in....
I'm pretty sure every State which requires ID already has either a free ID or an alternate method for having your vote counted (usually a provisional ballot or an affidavit).
But feel free to verify that for yourself.
So, if the Republicans had already approved $380 million three months ago for States to spend on election security, that'd prove your point completely wrong, yeah?
'Cause they did....
The article summary would sound a little different if they also included this line from the article:
There are some similarities, in that the people are supposed to be the ultimate decision makers, but there are also some important differences.
A Republic is the form of government where each citizen rules via their representative and has rights that the majority can't take from them.
A Democracy is where majority vote on a matter wins no matter what.
The two do conflict with each other when the majority wants to trample on or take away rights. The point of a constitutional republic is to spell out the limits on what the government can do, even if the majority wants it to do more than that.
When Ben Franklin was asked which form of government the Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave us, the answer was "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Your "facts" are wrong and so is your opinion.
For example, adjusted for inflation, the average Pell grant was $2,420 in 1996 and $3,740 in 2016. The max was $3,790 in 1996 and $5,820 in 2016. So Pell grants per student have significantly increased over the last 20 years, hardly "hacked and slashed".
Also, teachers don't "have" to spend their money for school supplies, although some do anyway. Most teachers send home a list to parents of what they want them to donate, which is also ridiculous, but what do you expect when you have a Democratic Party run government institution? Lots of wasteful spending on non-essentials, like diversity administrators.
As for Kansas, well, here's total direct revenue for the last 10 years for Kansas. The only portion with a big decline after the Kansas tax cuts in 2011-12 were capital gains-related revenue, a result of the change in the federal capital gains rate, caused by President Obama’s forced expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts. The Kansas tax cuts themselves are estimated to have only affected at most 1.5% of Kansas total revenue, hardly a drop in the bucket and certainly nothing to panic about.
You know the NY City Council is 92% Democratic and 8% Republican, right?
Pretty sure the anti-Uber/Lyft crowd are the Democratic members, not the 4 Republicans on the council. That would be indicated by this effort being led by the Democratic Speaker of the City Council, Corey Johnson and the Democratic Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
It doesn't seem much of a contradiction for the Republicans to be the pro-free market Party on both the issues you mentioned and the Democratic Party to be the anti-free market Party on both of them.
Yeah, there isn't much actual point in driving someone to the store so they can watch their groceries be loaded into the trunk and then be driven home again. Seems like an odd combination. "Whee, let's go for a pointless car ride instead of replacing an actually needed ride!"
The car should just be picking up the groceries for them and notifying them when it's time to walk to the curb outside their house and pull them out of the car.
Ah, so your perspective is that all facts which conflict with your worldview can be explained by a conspiracy of evil people in business who pay off all the economists to create the studies which you don't agree with.
Sorry, you're going to need more in the way of facts and less in the way of ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories to contradict basic economics.
The Tax Foundation article just did a good job of explaining the economics of it and came up at the top of a Google search for payroll tax incidence. What you'd need to attempt to refute are the multiple academic studies cited (and there are plenty more), preferably with some actual evidence, not an ad hominem attack on the people doing the explaining.
Please don't try to patronize me by telling me I've been manipulated or are a troll. I've spent 20+ years studying economics, you're going to need actual empirical and theoretical evidence to try and convince me I'm wrong, because that's what my opinions in the field are based on.
For example, you're discussion of productivity increase actually argues against your position, because the primary reason economists have found for the worker share not going up recently in the U.S. are health insurance regulatory cost increases. Workers are getting paid more in total compensation over time, but they end up not getting it as cash because it goes to their health insurance costs instead. (See previously cited related paper above).
So please, feel free to try again, but this time with evidence.
1. If you're in retail and you think two is all the regulations you're subject to, you're either not in management/ownership, or you're an idiot who is going to be jailed/fined soon.
2. They did a study. U.S. GDP would be 25% greater if government regulations were capped at the 1980 level.
3. Agreed, the U.S. has relatively few anti-business regulations compared to some countries, especially in Europe. That's also one reason the U.S. historically has a much better growth rate. lower unemployment rate and as a result is much wealthier.
4. All of the above knowledge predates Fox News, which I don't watch anyway, so you've missed the mark there as well, but I suppose you're used to that. It is "old" knowledge, in the sense that economists have known it for at least 40 years, after the last experiment in massive government regulation for a decade or so killed the economy that time also.
The *MUSH code base was better. If anyone remembers the original Shadowrun MUSH (my brother and I have an interesting history there), or AtlantisMUSH (the underwater post-apocalyptic one with Caps and Totes and submarine combat we started), let me know.
And if a driver is working for multiple ride share companies (which most do), they can collect the taxes from more than one for the same "employee". I'm sure they haven't missed that angle, either.
It's a tax on workers, just like SS/Medicare, health insurance requirements, HR paperwork regulations, etc... Almost the entire burden of the taxes, including the supposed "employer's share" are passed on the employees in the form of lower wages.
From the Tax Foundation:
This view is backed up by the academic papers on the subject. See The Incidence of Payroll Taxation: Evidence from Chile ("I find strong evidence that the incidence of payroll taxation was fully on wages, with no effect on employment") and The Incidence of Mandated Employer-Provided Insurance: Lessons from Workers' Compensation Insurance ("Empirical analysis of two data sets suggests that changes in employers' costs of workers' compensation insurance are largely shifted to employees in the form of lower wages.") and The Labor Market Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums ("Thus, rising health insurance premiums may both increase the ranks of the unemployed and place an increasing burden on workers through decreased wages for workers with employer health insurance and decreased hours for workers moved from full time jobs with benefits to part time jobs without. ")
The amazing part of unemployment is how quickly people whose unemployment ends find a job, when they couldn't possibly find one the whole time they were getting paid...
Except of course, this law doesn't actually protect anyone against anything bad. The vast majority of the Internet isn't bound by CA law, so the only real result would be that anyone who is in business to create "bad" automated online postings will avoid having their business based in CA. Even if this silly idea spreads, there will always be some jurisdictions where someone can run a bot online without being in one, so all the serious fraudsters/crooks/criminals will just run their operations elsewhere.
No, the people who are most likely to be actually affected by this are small time folks who use a bot for convenience and not for any nefarious purpose. For example, almost every author or minor celebrity who has a reasonable social media presences uses a bot to pre-schedule tweets/posts/etc... so they (or their assistant if they're big enough) can do their social media work in a couple of hours each week, then let it get posted at a reasonable timing. Those are the kinds of people who will have to choose between posting "as a bot" because they use some convenient automation, or else giving up their social media marketing because they just don't have time to make it worthwhile anymore, or start paying cash to someone who lives outside CA to post stuff for them.
It's all these sorts of little frictions imposed by clowns like Hertzberg who think "There ought to be a law!" to solve every little problem which cause people to not be able to start a small business, or try to survive as an artist, or whatever freedom they want to exercise this week, but can't because the regulatory burden for stupid stuff is just piled on and on in places like CA.
Again, you haven't addressed anything yourself.
Individual preference tells you at least one person (that individual) finds that option better than another one. That's what a preference is.
So they've used their specific knowledge of themselves to determine that. As a result, in a society which values individual rights and self-determination, honoring that preference is the default position. If you're going to claim it's instead bad, then the burden at that point is on you to show why it's bad. Until then, I'll go ahead and continue to assume people are right about what's better for them by default, rather than saying it's bad by assertion.
Individual preference tells you a lot about if something is desirable. It's a rebuttable presumption. The part you haven't bothered to do with the original discussion (flying) is make any attempt at rebutting that presumption by providing evidence or arguments why people getting their preferred outcomes would be bad. Instead, you've gone off on some tangent about how by default, what people want for themselves doesn't matter. I suspect that's not actually what you believe, if only about yourself and what you personally want.
Revealed Preference is a specific economics tool for helping determine which of several consumer choices result in the most utility for a consumer.
So yeah, it tells you what people want. We should let people have what they want because it generally makes them happier than forcing them to do what someone else wants instead. That's the default position. If there is some other negative effect of what they want, then that needs to have evidence and be demonstrated before moving from that default position.
If you don't agree with that, then I want you to agree anyway, in which case not agreeing with the former, I guess you have to agree with the latter, by your logic...
The pilots had more than 1500 hours already and they didn't change the requirements to address the specific issue they faced. So what's the point of the 1500 hour requirement for the FO in terms of addressing that specific crash?
1. Revealed preference. Without someone stopping them, people fly more.
2. Safety, comparing similar length trips using alternative modes of transportation.
What are your reasons why it would be bad?
Trust CNN to run a "conversation" article about supply and demand devoid of actual economics.
First, the author starts by blaming deregulation and the related advent of lower cost airlines. Then the author continues by blaming regulation for artificially limiting supply, i.e. the 1500 hour rule. Finally, they author proposes his preferred solution of Airlines creating their own flight academies (trying to increase supply of pilots again), for which the author conveniently is a teaching assistant for the academy he proposes as the solution to the problem. Is he trying to get a better job with the school, but they need more students?
If you've been following along, you might notice government regulations made air travel more expensive until it was finally loosened and airlines could compete on route and price instead of other "benefits" most customers didn't actually want to pay for. As a result, lots more people are able to fly to travel. (P.S. This is a good thing)
Not content with that, the government then comes back later and severely restricts the supply of airline first officers, taking the existing requirement of 250 hours (commercial pilot) and multiplying it by 6 to 1500 hours (ATP pilot). Overreaction to one incident, anyone? The first fatal crash in 3 years and they multiply the requirements to be an airline pilot by 6x?
The best part of the Wikipedia article on the crash is the description of the regulatory solution, "Although it did nothing to address the specific causes of the crash ..." Basically the pilots weren't paying attention to the instruments, according to the flight recorders, then the reacted "not according to their training" to the resulting stall.
So the 1500 hours ATP requirement didn't even do anything to solve the problem of the crash which prompted it (both Colgan flight pilots had more than 1500 flight hours). That's pretty typical of this sort of regulation.
The demand side is fine (we want people to fly!), so how about we take the dramatic step of just fixing the regulations causing the supply problem? Something like, oh, only requiring 250 hours to be a first officer (commercial pilot's license) and keep the 1500 ATP hours for the Captain? That way someone can get experience as an airline pilot while getting paid? Simple supply fix, undo the overreaction in regulations which is causing the supply problem?
What's amazing about that? Do you not have any other experiences with government regulated monopolies to compare it against?
Don't worry, I'm sure the local Democratic politicians have thought ahead to the inevitable storms in the area and ensured the government controlled utilities and roads and such are all prepared properly for anything likely to hit Puerto Rico.
If not, it's not like they're going to blame other people who aren't in charge of their local emergency preparedness for their problems, instead, they'll be properly humble and grateful if they ever need to ask others for additional help.
Heck, the local population even has a guaranteed minimum wage much closer to where the local median wage is at then the rest of the country. Their economy is of course super-charged with tons of extra jobs as a result.
It's a link to a press release, which doesn't even link itself to the "study". There's no real information, nor details on the assumptions behind the supposed catastrophe. The closest they have is a computer generated image of speculative flooding in the future. It's pretty much as close to global warming bait as you're going to get, released only to say "Worry about this, too!" without any actual information content.
I guess it's more difficult to have your alarmism debunked if you leave it all hand wavey and vague. I'm sure there's probably an back of the envelope calculation somewhere behind this "study", but this doesn't even contain that much actual information.