Because eventually the human race will need to expand beyond the borders of our atmosphere if it is to survive. Then Earth probably won't be destroyed tomorrow, but it is inevitable.
Put quite simply, unskilled labor is not worth nearly as much as skilled labor. Pretending it is amounts to nothing but utopian dreaming.
Then again, the people advocating living wages do frequently live in a fantasy land. What is considered a "living wage" in my city is roughly $18/hour per person to achieve what those in support of it deem an acceptable standard of living. Having spent the last 5 years supporting myself and one other on a fixed income amounting to roughly $6/hour net (or $3/hour per person relying on that income), Now that we have a full-time income in addition to that, it comes out to ~$7.50/hour net per person in the household, which is enough for us to live, pay off student loans, and still save money every month.
I get that those on the far right are out of touch with reality, but let's not pretend the same isn't true of the far left. It takes far less to live comfortably on than anyone I've ever talked to who was in support of a "living wage." What it comes down to is people wanting to subsidize their "wants" and their lack of financial discipline by calling them "needs." Yes' the Federal minimum is a joke, but so is every instance of a "living wage" I've ever heard someone support. Both sides of the argument are dominated by a minority of loud voices from the fringes when what is needed is rational discussion by those on both sides who can differentiate between what people actually need vs. what they want in order to keep up with the Jones'.
Except they never actually have taken their ball and gone home. There are plenty of examples out there where municipalities have rolled their own networks out, and the cable and telco companies still operate there. I'm not aware of a single location where the cable companies have left, and the telcos aren't legally allowed to leave because of Federal law (not that there's any evidence they would if they were able).
The best approach I've seen is for the municipality to own the physical network, and then lease access at fixed rates to anyone wanting to run an ISP on top of it. Best of both worlds.
Sure you should fault the politicians, but that in no way lets uninformed voters off the hook. As for lack of educational dollars, it's been conclusively shown that increased investment does not correlate to better results. School systems are given too much leeway in some areas, and not enough in others, regarding how they are able to spend money. Some of that is the fault of unions, while other fault lies with corrupt administrators or the Department of Education, while still other fault lies with local voters who don't actually hold school board officials to account.
And why do they have the power to change the system? Because all those pesky little taxpayers keep voting Democrat or Republican. Both parties present bills written by lobbyists wholesale, and that's the laws we get.
Under the "Know Your Customer" banking laws, this would trigger after a couple events. Regular deposits of several thousand dollars eventually trigger a report as well.
And the very next amendment protects the right of people not to be compelled to aid in the production of evidence used to prosecute them. The government cannot compel me to divulge what is in my head.
A progressive sales tax would be something like taxing common consumer goods at 5%, but luxuries like yachts and supercars at 50%. That's all it means.
Yup. Plenty of instances where it needs to be pointed out that a victim did something really stupid to enable their victimization. News flash: people are responsible for their actions in most cases. There are certainly cases where victims bear no reasonable responsibility for their predicament, but there are absolutely cases where they bear significant responsibility.
My total net household income is under 20k, supporting two people. If I had an additional 81k per year, I definitely could afford to pay 24k/year for a car.
I wish I still had mod points, because this is the beginning and end of the issue. Unfortunately, most people are not able to see these issues objectively, but instead react to the emotional shouts from the extreme with which they are more closely aligned (which is usually pretty far from their beliefs, but just a tad closer than the opposing extremist views).
Man, the attics only get to 120F in Arizona? I would've guessed quite a bit higher, given that those near the northern border will easily reach that in the summer as well.
His arguments should have been: 1) Government employees can shoot you with little consequence. 2) Government employees can lock you up with little consequence, and shoot you if you resist.
Penalizing violent or coercive actions is not within the scope of what constitutes a free market. "Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes" any more than "free speech" means you can slander someone or incite a panic.
It has nothing to do with "me deciding" anything. If my statement is true, it still does not, in any way, contradict the historical definition of what constitutes a free market.
You're using the definition of "free" as "anything goes." The actual definition of a free market pertains to government intervention regarding pricing and wages, not coercive or violent actions.
That's never been the definition of a "free market," though assuming that is the definition is probably why many people oppose the concept.
A free market is one where the government does not intervene by setting artificial prices or by creating legal barriers to entry. It has never included a principle preventing the State from policing coercive activities such as rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And every dozen generations or so that "magic" becomes commonplace.
Because eventually the human race will need to expand beyond the borders of our atmosphere if it is to survive. Then Earth probably won't be destroyed tomorrow, but it is inevitable.
Put quite simply, unskilled labor is not worth nearly as much as skilled labor. Pretending it is amounts to nothing but utopian dreaming.
Then again, the people advocating living wages do frequently live in a fantasy land. What is considered a "living wage" in my city is roughly $18/hour per person to achieve what those in support of it deem an acceptable standard of living. Having spent the last 5 years supporting myself and one other on a fixed income amounting to roughly $6/hour net (or $3/hour per person relying on that income), Now that we have a full-time income in addition to that, it comes out to ~$7.50/hour net per person in the household, which is enough for us to live, pay off student loans, and still save money every month.
I get that those on the far right are out of touch with reality, but let's not pretend the same isn't true of the far left. It takes far less to live comfortably on than anyone I've ever talked to who was in support of a "living wage." What it comes down to is people wanting to subsidize their "wants" and their lack of financial discipline by calling them "needs." Yes' the Federal minimum is a joke, but so is every instance of a "living wage" I've ever heard someone support. Both sides of the argument are dominated by a minority of loud voices from the fringes when what is needed is rational discussion by those on both sides who can differentiate between what people actually need vs. what they want in order to keep up with the Jones'.
I can't remember the last retailer I've encountered in the US that charges restocking fees...
Except they never actually have taken their ball and gone home. There are plenty of examples out there where municipalities have rolled their own networks out, and the cable and telco companies still operate there. I'm not aware of a single location where the cable companies have left, and the telcos aren't legally allowed to leave because of Federal law (not that there's any evidence they would if they were able).
The best approach I've seen is for the municipality to own the physical network, and then lease access at fixed rates to anyone wanting to run an ISP on top of it. Best of both worlds.
Sure you should fault the politicians, but that in no way lets uninformed voters off the hook. As for lack of educational dollars, it's been conclusively shown that increased investment does not correlate to better results. School systems are given too much leeway in some areas, and not enough in others, regarding how they are able to spend money. Some of that is the fault of unions, while other fault lies with corrupt administrators or the Department of Education, while still other fault lies with local voters who don't actually hold school board officials to account.
And why do they have the power to change the system? Because all those pesky little taxpayers keep voting Democrat or Republican. Both parties present bills written by lobbyists wholesale, and that's the laws we get.
Actually, yes, they can. It sucks, but then voters are getting exactly what they deserve by electing those they elect.
Under the "Know Your Customer" banking laws, this would trigger after a couple events. Regular deposits of several thousand dollars eventually trigger a report as well.
All donated blood is antigen-typed, because it can be fatal for a recipient if it is not.
No "probably" about it, but blood donated for personal use also requires a waiver allowing its use by anyone else while it is stored.
And the very next amendment protects the right of people not to be compelled to aid in the production of evidence used to prosecute them. The government cannot compel me to divulge what is in my head.
A progressive sales tax would be something like taxing common consumer goods at 5%, but luxuries like yachts and supercars at 50%. That's all it means.
Yup. Plenty of instances where it needs to be pointed out that a victim did something really stupid to enable their victimization.
News flash: people are responsible for their actions in most cases. There are certainly cases where victims bear no reasonable responsibility for their predicament, but there are absolutely cases where they bear significant responsibility.
Technically speaking, "virii" is a fake word made up by computer nerds who didn't understand Latin.
Fixed that for you. There is not, nor has there ever been, a Latin plural of the word "virus."
My total net household income is under 20k, supporting two people. If I had an additional 81k per year, I definitely could afford to pay 24k/year for a car.
I wish I still had mod points, because this is the beginning and end of the issue. Unfortunately, most people are not able to see these issues objectively, but instead react to the emotional shouts from the extreme with which they are more closely aligned (which is usually pretty far from their beliefs, but just a tad closer than the opposing extremist views).
They're pretty common to see running BMCs as well.
Man, the attics only get to 120F in Arizona? I would've guessed quite a bit higher, given that those near the northern border will easily reach that in the summer as well.
"Right to work" is not the same as "at will employment." They have nothing to do with each other.
His arguments should have been:
1) Government employees can shoot you with little consequence.
2) Government employees can lock you up with little consequence, and shoot you if you resist.
Penalizing violent or coercive actions is not within the scope of what constitutes a free market. "Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes" any more than "free speech" means you can slander someone or incite a panic.
It has nothing to do with "me deciding" anything. If my statement is true, it still does not, in any way, contradict the historical definition of what constitutes a free market.
You're using the definition of "free" as "anything goes." The actual definition of a free market pertains to government intervention regarding pricing and wages, not coercive or violent actions.
That's never been the definition of a "free market," though assuming that is the definition is probably why many people oppose the concept.
A free market is one where the government does not intervene by setting artificial prices or by creating legal barriers to entry. It has never included a principle preventing the State from policing coercive activities such as rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, etc.