When a $5k subsidy in Georgia ended, electric car sales dropped from as many as 1400/month to less than 100/month. That's a pretty clear demonstration they aren't nearly as wanted without the government stepping in to pay people to buy them.
Prior to the new law, South Koreans worked some 300 more hours yearly compared to workers in countries such as the US or Italy, and some 700 more hours yearly to those in countries such as Germany and Norway.
Studies have shown that the country's long working hours do not necessarily result in higher labour productivity. In 2014, South Koreans' labour productivity was US$31.90 per hour, significantly lower than the OECD average, which was US$49.
Of course, then there's the other side of the coin:
Not every South Korean is pleased with the change. A survey by a local employment portal site showed that 55.2 per cent of the 905 South Korean workers who responded saying that they are concerned about having to work overtime anyway after the law revision - meaning more than 12 hours weekly - but won't be eligible to receive overtime pay.
Before the change, South Koreans worked 52 normal hours and 16 hours of overtime, and were entitled to overtime pay for at least 16 hours a week.
"What if you prefer money or work over life?" said a 33-year-old office worker living in Seongnam. "I think those who want to work more and thereby make more money should have the right to do so. What if you can't make your ends meet unless you work overtime? I feel like for some people in this country, this law revision is rather irresponsible."
Since I'm posting this from an inexpensive symmetrical Gigabit connection at my house in the USA, pretty sure you meant to say Comcast mobile video, not USA as a whole.
According to Carbon Brief, which is tracking all the Paris pledges, the U.S., made a pledge, but unlike most countries, never legally ratified their pledge. Also, unlike the U.S., the vast majority of those countries haven't decreased their carbon output as much as the U.S. in the years since.
So the Paris Accords are useless for anything but virtue signaling and political posturing. Of course, that was predicted at the time they were negotiated, so not a surprise.
... feel free to pull out a definition of the word "shortage" from an econ textbook or paper which contradicts the dictionary definition of no more of something being available for purchase and link it here. We'll wait.
Yeah, these IoT devices are so very difficult for anyone in the home to deal with.
I mean, if you have physical access, it's just waaaaaay to difficult too just unplug/disconnect something without understanding exactly how it works. Probably need a contractor for that...
The dictionary captures the commonly understood usage and meaning of words. You can't just pull out of thin air your own definition and then use that to argue that everyone else is wrong about what a word means. You're literally reduced to arguing with the dictionary, here.
So sure, since I happen to be an economist, feel free to pull out a definition of the word "shortage" from an econ textbook or paper which contradicts the dictionary definition of no more of something being available for purchase and link it here. We'll wait.
The definition I gave was the one which comes up in the Google search I linked. It's not "my" definition, it's such a common definition that Google used it in it's infobox. To claim "no one in the world" agrees with a definition based on most dictionaries is an obvious falsehood, so I'm going to go with trolling.
You could use a running commentary, but then you also need to QA the commentary at random brief intervals to ensure they aren't just talking. That takes additional resources. I still think having the driver actually periodically do what they are supposed to be there for would be ideal, but a running commentary would at least ensure they are paying attention, even if it wouldn't get them used to taking over control on short notice.
Obviously in either case, you'd want to start the driver on a closed track (an abandoned neighborhood like Mythbusters used several times would be perfect) in order to get them used to the requirements and only let them out in public once they've established they can actually do the job with minimal risk of harm to others.
No, you don't seem to comprehend the English language.
If you can't obtain more of something, it's a shortage. Hence the words "cannot be obtained" in the definition of the word.
If you can obtain more of something, but it just costs more, then you are looking at the situation where more is supplied at a higher price along the supply and demand graph. When demand increases or supply decreases, it's normal for the price to increase in order to return to an equilibrium. That's all that has happened here.
When there is an actual shortage, that means you can't get more of something even if you pay way more than usual because no one can supply it to you. That's not the situation here. Typically, you only get an actual shortage if some other factor intervenes to prevent more being supplied, such as a government price ceiling or a natural cycle of planting/harvesting/producing where the supply lags the demand and the correct demand isn't forecast by the suppliers.
In this case, you can just go buy from a different supplier with higher shipping costs, so no shortage exists.
Companies using a safety driver to test automated driving need to program their system to drop into manual mode at random intervals no more than an hour apart.
If the safety driver has to regularly be alert and take over, they'll pay attention. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to convince a normal human to focus for day after day of sitting there and not having to do anything just in case there is a failure which by then they won't be expecting. If their "normal" is that they expect to have to take over with no notice at least once an hour, they'll be ready to take over in the event of a real issue.
The psychology of this is already well researched for patrolling security guards, metal detector monitoring, etc...
I get what you're saying, but we could also go with an actual definition of the word shortage: "a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts."
The amounts are available, the price may be a little higher to get them, but no actual shortage.
Lot of consequences you may not be considering. For example, every Indie/small press writer is a small business. They all tend to have email lists for their readers to subscribe to. For the last few months there has been a huge uproar amongst them while everyone scrambles to figure out what GDPR compliance means they do or don't have to do, just because they send emails to people who want to hear about them and/or their new releases as they come out.
In any case, the real reason for the decrease in new businesses is likely technology combined with the gig economy. People who would have started a traditional small business are instead becoming contractors. Small businesses still, but structured as a 1099-style relationship rather than a corp/LLC one. Traditionally most new small businesses are still single-person startups, after all.
Don't forget the City and County taxes for every potential shipping destination in each State, and also what types of items they tax differently (clothes, food, etc... tend to have different sales tax rates in many places) and which specific items fall into which category in each individual locale.
Having done this since the beginning of e-commerce, it's way more complicated than people think, which is why anyone with half a brain outsources it all to a specialist company/software. As a result, it actually costs the online business more to collect and comply than it does the local brick and mortar business.
There isn't a real issue. Even the article states plenty of CO2 is available for purchase, it's just from a little farther away than they usually buy it (southern instead of norther Europe) and the beer companies are whining about having to pay a little more than usual on shipping for it if they want it. It's a "crisis" in the same way not having enough $10/hour employees who can develop in five different programming languages available to hire immediately is an "employee crisis".
So, there isn't actually shortage at all (they can buy as much as they may need from other suppliers), there are just some beer producers who don't want to pay a little more than usual for their CO2 because they figure their customers won't value their beer enough to pay the increase either.
I fail to see the issue here, nor what could possibly make it a "crisis" except news story hype.
You obviously don't know anything about In-N-Out Burger, not their food ingredients nor their pay scale. You might consider not commenting on things you're completely clueless about.
My distinction wasn't that some (many?) areas have a single reasonable provider and hence a local monopoly, it was that Internet access isn't a "natural monopoly".
Typically, at some point the government gave someone an exclusive and set them up to not have to compete. That's changed somewhat since they forced many local communities to loosen the rules, but we're still seeing the results of that head start in many places.
Eventually, if someone doesn't get in the way, we'll see technological innovation over time overcome that previous initial advantage.
A monopoly literally means one single option, hence "mono" in the word.
Every business has barriers to entry. Typically, regulatory capture by industry incumbents (which is what happens when a regulator like the FCC micro-manages what's allowed) increases barriers to entry in that industry. Comcast or whatever can afford to comply with whatever paperwork/weird rules the FCC comes up with. A single-guy sharing bandwidth with his neighbors can't hope to.
Slashdot Mirror
When a $5k subsidy in Georgia ended, electric car sales dropped from as many as 1400/month to less than 100/month. That's a pretty clear demonstration they aren't nearly as wanted without the government stepping in to pay people to buy them.
Without government distortions of the market for something, what makes more money and what people want are the same thing.
See, that's the demand side of the whole supply and demand thing. It's a huge part of the information contained in prices.
This article is about changes for Netflix in Italy.
All the rest is speculation about how that might also be changed elsewhere in the world.
Yeah, that's how low /. has sunk, it's re-posting guesses about a company's possible future American pricing from a foreign blog post.
It's for "businesses with more than 300 employees, state-run agencies and government offices".
From the same article:
Of course, then there's the other side of the coin:
Since I'm posting this from an inexpensive symmetrical Gigabit connection at my house in the USA, pretty sure you meant to say Comcast mobile video, not USA as a whole.
How very U.S. centric of this article.
According to Carbon Brief, which is tracking all the Paris pledges, the U.S., made a pledge, but unlike most countries, never legally ratified their pledge. Also, unlike the U.S., the vast majority of those countries haven't decreased their carbon output as much as the U.S. in the years since.
So the Paris Accords are useless for anything but virtue signaling and political posturing. Of course, that was predicted at the time they were negotiated, so not a surprise.
Oh the horrors, giving people a third option in addition to the "normal" two most people get when they aren't seen as performing in their job.
Still waiting.
Yeah, these IoT devices are so very difficult for anyone in the home to deal with.
I mean, if you have physical access, it's just waaaaaay to difficult too just unplug/disconnect something without understanding exactly how it works. Probably need a contractor for that...
The dictionary captures the commonly understood usage and meaning of words. You can't just pull out of thin air your own definition and then use that to argue that everyone else is wrong about what a word means. You're literally reduced to arguing with the dictionary, here.
So sure, since I happen to be an economist, feel free to pull out a definition of the word "shortage" from an econ textbook or paper which contradicts the dictionary definition of no more of something being available for purchase and link it here. We'll wait.
Now you're either illiterate or trolling.
The definition I gave was the one which comes up in the Google search I linked. It's not "my" definition, it's such a common definition that Google used it in it's infobox. To claim "no one in the world" agrees with a definition based on most dictionaries is an obvious falsehood, so I'm going to go with trolling.
You could use a running commentary, but then you also need to QA the commentary at random brief intervals to ensure they aren't just talking. That takes additional resources. I still think having the driver actually periodically do what they are supposed to be there for would be ideal, but a running commentary would at least ensure they are paying attention, even if it wouldn't get them used to taking over control on short notice.
Obviously in either case, you'd want to start the driver on a closed track (an abandoned neighborhood like Mythbusters used several times would be perfect) in order to get them used to the requirements and only let them out in public once they've established they can actually do the job with minimal risk of harm to others.
No, you don't seem to comprehend the English language.
If you can't obtain more of something, it's a shortage. Hence the words "cannot be obtained" in the definition of the word.
If you can obtain more of something, but it just costs more, then you are looking at the situation where more is supplied at a higher price along the supply and demand graph. When demand increases or supply decreases, it's normal for the price to increase in order to return to an equilibrium. That's all that has happened here.
When there is an actual shortage, that means you can't get more of something even if you pay way more than usual because no one can supply it to you. That's not the situation here. Typically, you only get an actual shortage if some other factor intervenes to prevent more being supplied, such as a government price ceiling or a natural cycle of planting/harvesting/producing where the supply lags the demand and the correct demand isn't forecast by the suppliers.
In this case, you can just go buy from a different supplier with higher shipping costs, so no shortage exists.
Companies using a safety driver to test automated driving need to program their system to drop into manual mode at random intervals no more than an hour apart.
If the safety driver has to regularly be alert and take over, they'll pay attention. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to convince a normal human to focus for day after day of sitting there and not having to do anything just in case there is a failure which by then they won't be expecting. If their "normal" is that they expect to have to take over with no notice at least once an hour, they'll be ready to take over in the event of a real issue.
The psychology of this is already well researched for patrolling security guards, metal detector monitoring, etc...
So, basically, the bartenders there rip off the owners (comp you drinks) in order to take the money themselves in the form of "tips" from you?
Yeah, you might consider the honesty involved in that, unless the bartender happens to also own the bar.
I get what you're saying, but we could also go with an actual definition of the word shortage:
"a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts."
The amounts are available, the price may be a little higher to get them, but no actual shortage.
+1, Fair point...
Lot of consequences you may not be considering. For example, every Indie/small press writer is a small business. They all tend to have email lists for their readers to subscribe to. For the last few months there has been a huge uproar amongst them while everyone scrambles to figure out what GDPR compliance means they do or don't have to do, just because they send emails to people who want to hear about them and/or their new releases as they come out.
In any case, the real reason for the decrease in new businesses is likely technology combined with the gig economy. People who would have started a traditional small business are instead becoming contractors. Small businesses still, but structured as a 1099-style relationship rather than a corp/LLC one. Traditionally most new small businesses are still single-person startups, after all.
Don't forget the City and County taxes for every potential shipping destination in each State, and also what types of items they tax differently (clothes, food, etc... tend to have different sales tax rates in many places) and which specific items fall into which category in each individual locale.
Having done this since the beginning of e-commerce, it's way more complicated than people think, which is why anyone with half a brain outsources it all to a specialist company/software. As a result, it actually costs the online business more to collect and comply than it does the local brick and mortar business.
There isn't a real issue. Even the article states plenty of CO2 is available for purchase, it's just from a little farther away than they usually buy it (southern instead of norther Europe) and the beer companies are whining about having to pay a little more than usual on shipping for it if they want it. It's a "crisis" in the same way not having enough $10/hour employees who can develop in five different programming languages available to hire immediately is an "employee crisis".
So, there isn't actually shortage at all (they can buy as much as they may need from other suppliers), there are just some beer producers who don't want to pay a little more than usual for their CO2 because they figure their customers won't value their beer enough to pay the increase either.
I fail to see the issue here, nor what could possibly make it a "crisis" except news story hype.
You obviously don't know anything about In-N-Out Burger, not their food ingredients nor their pay scale. You might consider not commenting on things you're completely clueless about.
My distinction wasn't that some (many?) areas have a single reasonable provider and hence a local monopoly, it was that Internet access isn't a "natural monopoly".
Typically, at some point the government gave someone an exclusive and set them up to not have to compete. That's changed somewhat since they forced many local communities to loosen the rules, but we're still seeing the results of that head start in many places.
Eventually, if someone doesn't get in the way, we'll see technological innovation over time overcome that previous initial advantage.
A monopoly literally means one single option, hence "mono" in the word.
Every business has barriers to entry. Typically, regulatory capture by industry incumbents (which is what happens when a regulator like the FCC micro-manages what's allowed) increases barriers to entry in that industry. Comcast or whatever can afford to comply with whatever paperwork/weird rules the FCC comes up with. A single-guy sharing bandwidth with his neighbors can't hope to.
So, in other words, NN is gone and none of the bad things people were predicting have come to pass yet.
Wake me up when this isn't all much ado about nothing.