I think you basically validated what I said; you just worded it differently. You don't want to spend more than you have, so you want a debit card. You don't want to track your credit balance compared to your cash balance, so you have a debit card. These things do not suggest to me that the credit card is the problem.
I've never been the one to find the fraud. The company calls me within hours of the event. This appears to be believed to be an issue only by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Again, I'm sorry, but I just don't follow the logic here. It's not my problem if a thief charges fraudulent charges on my card. It's the issuer's problem. So why is it acting in their interest and against mine that they decided not to add a PIN for my convenience's sake?
Sounds exactly backwards. It's in my interest to have no PIN, because it will annoy the shit out of me. It's in their interest to have a PIN, because they are on the hook for charges of stolen cards.
The only way no PIN is in their interest is because I will be annoyed as shit and might switch cards
Meanwhile, the same issuers have debit cards with a PIN. It's annoying as shit, but because the customer is on the hook for fraudulent charges, they insist on a PIN anyway. So, I don't follow how you end up with your viewpoint on this.
Cash or credit pays the same. This is just not a problem any cardholder needs to worry about.
While you call me dumb, you appear unable to differentiation between me saying this is not MY problem and me saying this is not A problem. It's a problem. And the issuers are the ones with skin in the game. They handle it pretty well and will continue to get better.
I will never understand the purpose of debit cards. I have asked debit card users to explain why they use them over credit cards. The only reason I have ever heard is a comfort level from the money physically leaving their bank account immediately after their purchase, so they don't accidentally double spend it. Yikes.
Even if you can't get a credit card due to bad credit, you should be using s secured credit card to fix your credit. Not a debit card.
Credit card companies like all kinds of customers. They like deadbeats too. Otherwise they wouldn't issue them cards. Like any business, different products are targeted to different market segments. Deadbeats make the company money on transaction fees and generally get large credit limits because they represent little credit risk and the company wants to encourage you to buy your next car on your credit card, enjoying the 45 day float until you pay it off in full in cash. This is easy money for the credit card company.
Walk me through this logic, Bernie Bro. Visa is intentionally not securing its system so that criminals will steal my credit card number and run up charges I don't ever have to pay, which hopefully eventually gets caught by their massively expensive fraud detection system and teams, after which they immediately call me asking me to verify the suspicious transactions, and once I tell them they are fraudulent, they cancel my card, reverse the transactions, and then overnight me a new card where ever the hell in the country I am at the time so they don't lose out on a couple days of transaction fees... in some massive conspiracy to profit?
Oh, and I forgot recently paying to replace everyone's cards with chip cards, in an act of pure show to throw us off on their cash cow conspiracy. Those banksters!
No I don't. Not in any meaningful way that should affect how I view this situation.
I don't pay fees or interest; never have and never will. The only way I am paying for these things is via the transaction fees that the merchants pay, much of which gets passed on to the customer in the price. You pay for them in the same way I pay for them, even when you pay cash.
I'm not saying we should be reckless with exposing ourselves to fraud. I'm saying that the issue is the one incentivized to figure out this problem. I take the customer copy of the receipt at restaurants, and I don't leave my card out with numbers exposed to passers by. But I'm not wearing tin foil hats. It's irrational for me to care that much.
I don't find this potential product interesting. I don't think that's the point. The 30,000ft view here is an argument over whether we should rely on technological advancement and wealth creation to solve environmental concerns or rely on conservation and lower economic output. People like to say "do both", but there is some component of each that retards the other, so doing both is probably worse than doing one or the other, at least on a slightly over simplistic macro scale.
Yes, that is correct. Humans have an insatiable desire for evidence and proof and prediction, but science and statistics are limited in their ability to deliver on that demand. My generation in particular "fucking loves science" but doesn't actually understand the first think about the philosophy behind science, leading to a much more religious view of it, relying mostly on the opinions of authority figures. Unfortunately most of those authority figures are in the media or in politics and have a terrible understanding of science and statistics themselves.
Yes I saw both of your comments and that's why I replied. On its face this article is bullshit and confuses no evidence for an effect for evidence of no effect.
You're right that it isn't ride sharing, but not for the reason you say. It's ride sharing if you charge the person no more than the IRS mileage reimbursement rate.
Why do you come here just to make shit up? Is it a game to see who believes you?
Uber drivers are heavily influenced by surge pricing, which would cause people to decide to deal with drinks to get 3x normal fare if what you say were true. But the worst surge ratio I have seen here in Austin as the bars are closing is 1.8x, and it's usually 1.2x. That means there is enough supply to service almost everyone who wants in uber in whatever timeframe uber sets as its service level goal.
So is this article. I don't understand how you can see problems with the Austin stat (not a study) and yet somehow not see the problem with interpreting this study to mean there is evidence of no effect.
Your comment is quite silly to me. The affordability and the convenience / higher level of service are the reasons uber would lower DUI. Your viewpoint is like saying there is nothing special about a car vs walking when it comes to being able to get from point A to point B except that it's faster and easier to carry things with you.
Taxis will not take you everywhere. Especially as the bars are closing, they will ask you where you're going and keep driving if it's not going to maximize their profit. That is part of the reason Uber does not allow drivers to know the destination until after accepting the ride.
This is another misinterpreted result. Probably intentionally to get clicks. Not finding an effect is different from finding no effect.
Logically, it's quite silly to claim that everyone who calling an uber would have called a taxi. Taxis have a cost and ubers have a lower cost. This is like saying the opening of a McDonald's doesn't increase burger consumption because everyone patronizing would have previously patronized the 100% hippie-bullshit-fed $20 burger shop next door. Of course MOST people calling an uber would have called a taxi before; uber is a cheaper and higher service alternative. But that also means that on the margin people who would not have used a taxi service will use uber.
But that is a different question than asking whether people are choosing DUI-risk or Uber, because there is a third option of staying home. I find that much more likely: people more frequently drink or drink more because uber is available.
In Austin, people who will never use Uber voted to outlaw unlicensed ride sharing, which broke Uber's business model and they left. Since then, downtown bars report a drop in sales. To me the jury is still out because school at UT has been out and I don't know if these bar owners are comparing YoY or just before/after uber left. But if it's YoY, that would suggest support for the above.
Why do we only look at supply and demand for the price of labor? I have no idea how to answer that question..,
You seem to wish pricing worked on some personal value system or profit sharing. Profit sharing is an option for tech people, but it involves risking your own limited capital or risking your base salary. Most employees are the opposite of risk takers. People don't like to think of themselves as gutless, but 90% of people are. It's actually quite strange, because humans underestimate almost every type of risk, but drastically overestimate risks involving career choices.
The Libertarian Party is obsessed with legalizing pot and pardoning criminals that divulge national security secrets. These might be valid things to do, but are about 9,743rd on the list of barriers to living in a country that fully embraces freedom. What is a small-L libertarian supposed to do these days? Do I really have to bet all my chips on seasteading?!
I can't speak for everywhere, but in Austin the tech market has experienced serious wage inflation, and it is entirely due to restricted supply. My girlfriend is a technical recruiter here and would agree with me. Educating more Americans in STEM could solve that, but I'm a bit skeptical about that. If super high wages doesn't attract more entrants into that job market segment, how is having an extra CS course or two available make a difference? Is unavailability of STEM courses really the problem? Maybe not.
But two counter forces are keeping the insanely high wages slightly less insanely high. First is visa programs like H1-B. The second is corp-to-corp outsourcing. If your goal is to prevent wage normalization in places like Austin (again, I can't speak for how things are nationally), then you need to attach both outlets of downward wage pressure. If you only attack one (H1-B), the market will just settle on the other.
You glossed over parent's solution pretty quickly and did not explain why it would not make a "meaningful difference". There are two things going on here. First, there is the problem with H1-Bs and similar visas being strongly attached to an employer and requiring a somewhat painful process to transfer to another employer if he employee wants to change employers. This encumberment probably does depress H1-B wages.
But second, there is what most people here are actually bitching about but won't admit it: "dey tuk er jerbs". Removing thr encumbrance does not solve that problem, and in fact could make it worse, as the current limited number of employers who will bother with H1-B sponsorship might grow to include small business if it's less of a pain either initially to sponsor or afterwards to transfer.
If your beef truly is that H1-B wages are depressed due to inability to change employers, then of course the solution is to make it easy to change employers. Yet you said that wouldn't make much difference. Perhaps you are in the second group.
If you believe HRC, the emails are all about yoga, Chelsea's wedding centerpieces, and probably a bunch of questions from HRC about how she can get minesweeper to work. The only risk to Russia having those emails is if HRC is full of shit and deleted pertinent email whole under subpoena. Which of course she is.
Limited social safety net is okay with most libertarians. The problem is that self-serving politicians always promise to grow the safety net to buy votes (game theory means this is a good idea because cost is amortized across many more people than its benefits). Every Western country has allowed their safety net to grow beyond the purpose you describe. It's counterproductive as it creates more poverty (though that poverty is more comfortable).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you basically validated what I said; you just worded it differently. You don't want to spend more than you have, so you want a debit card. You don't want to track your credit balance compared to your cash balance, so you have a debit card. These things do not suggest to me that the credit card is the problem.
I've never been the one to find the fraud. The company calls me within hours of the event. This appears to be believed to be an issue only by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Again, I'm sorry, but I just don't follow the logic here. It's not my problem if a thief charges fraudulent charges on my card. It's the issuer's problem. So why is it acting in their interest and against mine that they decided not to add a PIN for my convenience's sake?
Sounds exactly backwards. It's in my interest to have no PIN, because it will annoy the shit out of me. It's in their interest to have a PIN, because they are on the hook for charges of stolen cards.
The only way no PIN is in their interest is because I will be annoyed as shit and might switch cards
Meanwhile, the same issuers have debit cards with a PIN. It's annoying as shit, but because the customer is on the hook for fraudulent charges, they insist on a PIN anyway. So, I don't follow how you end up with your viewpoint on this.
Cash or credit pays the same. This is just not a problem any cardholder needs to worry about.
While you call me dumb, you appear unable to differentiation between me saying this is not MY problem and me saying this is not A problem. It's a problem. And the issuers are the ones with skin in the game. They handle it pretty well and will continue to get better.
I will never understand the purpose of debit cards. I have asked debit card users to explain why they use them over credit cards. The only reason I have ever heard is a comfort level from the money physically leaving their bank account immediately after their purchase, so they don't accidentally double spend it. Yikes.
Even if you can't get a credit card due to bad credit, you should be using s secured credit card to fix your credit. Not a debit card.
Credit card companies like all kinds of customers. They like deadbeats too. Otherwise they wouldn't issue them cards. Like any business, different products are targeted to different market segments. Deadbeats make the company money on transaction fees and generally get large credit limits because they represent little credit risk and the company wants to encourage you to buy your next car on your credit card, enjoying the 45 day float until you pay it off in full in cash. This is easy money for the credit card company.
Walk me through this logic, Bernie Bro. Visa is intentionally not securing its system so that criminals will steal my credit card number and run up charges I don't ever have to pay, which hopefully eventually gets caught by their massively expensive fraud detection system and teams, after which they immediately call me asking me to verify the suspicious transactions, and once I tell them they are fraudulent, they cancel my card, reverse the transactions, and then overnight me a new card where ever the hell in the country I am at the time so they don't lose out on a couple days of transaction fees... in some massive conspiracy to profit?
Oh, and I forgot recently paying to replace everyone's cards with chip cards, in an act of pure show to throw us off on their cash cow conspiracy. Those banksters!
No I don't. Not in any meaningful way that should affect how I view this situation.
I don't pay fees or interest; never have and never will. The only way I am paying for these things is via the transaction fees that the merchants pay, much of which gets passed on to the customer in the price. You pay for them in the same way I pay for them, even when you pay cash.
I'm not saying we should be reckless with exposing ourselves to fraud. I'm saying that the issue is the one incentivized to figure out this problem. I take the customer copy of the receipt at restaurants, and I don't leave my card out with numbers exposed to passers by. But I'm not wearing tin foil hats. It's irrational for me to care that much.
Exactly. Why is this my problem? I am not liable for fraudulent charges.
I don't find this potential product interesting. I don't think that's the point. The 30,000ft view here is an argument over whether we should rely on technological advancement and wealth creation to solve environmental concerns or rely on conservation and lower economic output. People like to say "do both", but there is some component of each that retards the other, so doing both is probably worse than doing one or the other, at least on a slightly over simplistic macro scale.
Yes, that is correct. Humans have an insatiable desire for evidence and proof and prediction, but science and statistics are limited in their ability to deliver on that demand. My generation in particular "fucking loves science" but doesn't actually understand the first think about the philosophy behind science, leading to a much more religious view of it, relying mostly on the opinions of authority figures. Unfortunately most of those authority figures are in the media or in politics and have a terrible understanding of science and statistics themselves.
Yes I saw both of your comments and that's why I replied. On its face this article is bullshit and confuses no evidence for an effect for evidence of no effect.
You're right that it isn't ride sharing, but not for the reason you say. It's ride sharing if you charge the person no more than the IRS mileage reimbursement rate.
Why do you come here just to make shit up? Is it a game to see who believes you?
Uber drivers are heavily influenced by surge pricing, which would cause people to decide to deal with drinks to get 3x normal fare if what you say were true. But the worst surge ratio I have seen here in Austin as the bars are closing is 1.8x, and it's usually 1.2x. That means there is enough supply to service almost everyone who wants in uber in whatever timeframe uber sets as its service level goal.
Re: odds... That depends entirely on enforcement priorities of police.
And unless you're s total moron, you take the uber TO the bar/party.
So is this article. I don't understand how you can see problems with the Austin stat (not a study) and yet somehow not see the problem with interpreting this study to mean there is evidence of no effect.
Your comment is quite silly to me. The affordability and the convenience / higher level of service are the reasons uber would lower DUI. Your viewpoint is like saying there is nothing special about a car vs walking when it comes to being able to get from point A to point B except that it's faster and easier to carry things with you.
Taxis will not take you everywhere. Especially as the bars are closing, they will ask you where you're going and keep driving if it's not going to maximize their profit. That is part of the reason Uber does not allow drivers to know the destination until after accepting the ride.
This is another misinterpreted result. Probably intentionally to get clicks. Not finding an effect is different from finding no effect.
Logically, it's quite silly to claim that everyone who calling an uber would have called a taxi. Taxis have a cost and ubers have a lower cost. This is like saying the opening of a McDonald's doesn't increase burger consumption because everyone patronizing would have previously patronized the 100% hippie-bullshit-fed $20 burger shop next door. Of course MOST people calling an uber would have called a taxi before; uber is a cheaper and higher service alternative. But that also means that on the margin people who would not have used a taxi service will use uber.
But that is a different question than asking whether people are choosing DUI-risk or Uber, because there is a third option of staying home. I find that much more likely: people more frequently drink or drink more because uber is available.
In Austin, people who will never use Uber voted to outlaw unlicensed ride sharing, which broke Uber's business model and they left. Since then, downtown bars report a drop in sales. To me the jury is still out because school at UT has been out and I don't know if these bar owners are comparing YoY or just before/after uber left. But if it's YoY, that would suggest support for the above.
Why do we only look at supply and demand for the price of labor? I have no idea how to answer that question..,
You seem to wish pricing worked on some personal value system or profit sharing. Profit sharing is an option for tech people, but it involves risking your own limited capital or risking your base salary. Most employees are the opposite of risk takers. People don't like to think of themselves as gutless, but 90% of people are. It's actually quite strange, because humans underestimate almost every type of risk, but drastically overestimate risks involving career choices.
The Libertarian Party is obsessed with legalizing pot and pardoning criminals that divulge national security secrets. These might be valid things to do, but are about 9,743rd on the list of barriers to living in a country that fully embraces freedom. What is a small-L libertarian supposed to do these days? Do I really have to bet all my chips on seasteading?!
I can't speak for everywhere, but in Austin the tech market has experienced serious wage inflation, and it is entirely due to restricted supply. My girlfriend is a technical recruiter here and would agree with me. Educating more Americans in STEM could solve that, but I'm a bit skeptical about that. If super high wages doesn't attract more entrants into that job market segment, how is having an extra CS course or two available make a difference? Is unavailability of STEM courses really the problem? Maybe not.
But two counter forces are keeping the insanely high wages slightly less insanely high. First is visa programs like H1-B. The second is corp-to-corp outsourcing. If your goal is to prevent wage normalization in places like Austin (again, I can't speak for how things are nationally), then you need to attach both outlets of downward wage pressure. If you only attack one (H1-B), the market will just settle on the other.
You glossed over parent's solution pretty quickly and did not explain why it would not make a "meaningful difference". There are two things going on here. First, there is the problem with H1-Bs and similar visas being strongly attached to an employer and requiring a somewhat painful process to transfer to another employer if he employee wants to change employers. This encumberment probably does depress H1-B wages.
But second, there is what most people here are actually bitching about but won't admit it: "dey tuk er jerbs". Removing thr encumbrance does not solve that problem, and in fact could make it worse, as the current limited number of employers who will bother with H1-B sponsorship might grow to include small business if it's less of a pain either initially to sponsor or afterwards to transfer.
If your beef truly is that H1-B wages are depressed due to inability to change employers, then of course the solution is to make it easy to change employers. Yet you said that wouldn't make much difference. Perhaps you are in the second group.
If you believe HRC, the emails are all about yoga, Chelsea's wedding centerpieces, and probably a bunch of questions from HRC about how she can get minesweeper to work. The only risk to Russia having those emails is if HRC is full of shit and deleted pertinent email whole under subpoena. Which of course she is.
But anyway, never Trump.
Limited social safety net is okay with most libertarians. The problem is that self-serving politicians always promise to grow the safety net to buy votes (game theory means this is a good idea because cost is amortized across many more people than its benefits). Every Western country has allowed their safety net to grow beyond the purpose you describe. It's counterproductive as it creates more poverty (though that poverty is more comfortable).