However, that the insurance companies will profile my family and decide I am a high risk based on my cousins, that seems like a scary and very real possibility. At least to me. What can I do about that?
Vote for candidates that support universal single-payer healthcare.
Then they can look carefully at the records of the 10, to see which are the most promising and worth a real investigation.
Usually it is even easier than that. 8 of 10 live in another state. The 9th lives in a different city. The 10th is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a restraining order.
It's called snow days. You miss a day in winter, fine; you MAKE IT UP in summer.
Or they could download their assignments, complete them at home, and submit them through the school website. Which is exactly the same way they do many of their assignments on non-snow days.
If they are not doing the job full time, they could reasonably make less
The obvious result of your policy is that millions of full-time jobs would be converted into part-time jobs. Wages would likely decline, since part-time workers would have less time and incentive to develop skills. Poor people would spend more time, unpaid, commuting between jobs.
I was meaning it more to mean any wage that is less than what a person can fairly live on.
Some people have 10 kids. Should they be paid more than someone with none?
If a job isn't worth paying a human being a living wage to do, then you shouldn't be paying human beings to do it in the first place.
So if a high school student wants to flip burgers part time for some extra spending money, that should be banned, since they can't live on it?
By raising the bottom rung of the economic ladder, you are just making it harder for people to reach that bottom rung. Getting a job, any job, is the first step out of poverty. The actual wage doesn't matter so much, because anyone willing to work hard is going to quickly move up.
Key facts about the minimum wage: 1. The average household income of a minimum wage earner is $53,000 per year. 2. Only 2 percent of full-time workers earn the minimum wage. 3. Two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise within a year if they stick with the job. 4. Only 9 percent of adults living below the poverty line work full time.
Most of the benefits from a hike in minimum wages goes to people that are not poor. Efforts to help the poor should focus on getting more people into employment, and focus less on wages that jobless people don't earn.
That's fair, but an argument can also be fairly made that minimum wage should never be less than the amount that a person needs to live
Most minimum wage earners are 2nd or 3rd earners for their household. So the amount they "need" to live is $0.
Most minimum wage earners live in households above the median income level, while relatively fewer poor people earn the minimum wage. So raising the minimum wage actually helps the better off more than it helps the poor.
The problem with the poor is not LOW wages, but NO wages. 60% of households in the bottom income quintile have zero full time workers. Even fewer have more than one person earning income.
If you want to help the poor, minimum wage increases are a bad way to do that. Far better are policies like EITC that specifically target the working poor.
If we can tear down the borders with technology, all the better!
There are no border restrictions. Russians are free to travel. The Soviet Union ended 30 years ago.
Many countries require access to data. If American tech companies pull out of all those countries, they would be abandoning half the world to companies with even less scruples. No country is 100% pure, and in many ways America is more repressive than Russia. The FSB has a tenth of the NSA's budget, and we certainly arrest / incarcerate / execute far more people.
I just refuse to set up online relationships with financial organisations.
You think this makes you safer, but it makes you LESS safe.
If you have no online account, it is not so hard for someone to create one. I set up my mom's online account, and all I needed was her account number and SSN. I set it up to link to my email address, and used my cellphone to authenticate. Now I can log in and do anything with her account.
An obvious source of revenue would be to insert additional ads into the video stream. But you need to grab market share and get people hooked first. Never monetize too early.
I don't see any sign that demand for smartphones is in any way lacking or declining.
Then you aren't paying attention. We hit peak smartphone in 2017. Unit sales in 2018 were slightly lower.
There are 5.5B adults on the planet, and 4B of them already have smartphones. Nearly all sales are replacements and upgrades, not new users. Most phones are in service for 3 years or more, and that is increasing.
They are restricting facial recognition, but they are not restricting the collection of photos and videos. So they will still have all the data, they will just refrain from running it through an algorithm.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they ask the people of Ghana if they were even wanted there in the first place?
Why should "the people" make a decision that can be made by people individually?
However, that the insurance companies will profile my family and decide I am a high risk based on my cousins, that seems like a scary and very real possibility. At least to me. What can I do about that?
Vote for candidates that support universal single-payer healthcare.
Canadian version of Breaking Bad
Then they can look carefully at the records of the 10, to see which are the most promising and worth a real investigation.
Usually it is even easier than that. 8 of 10 live in another state. The 9th lives in a different city. The 10th is the murder victim's ex-boyfriend with a restraining order.
I'd love to see a law that requires electronics to have an easily replaced battery.
Instead of asking for a law, why don't you just buy a device with a replaceable battery? There are plenty of them available.
Do you really need your congressman to help you shop?
Phones with replaceable batteries
It's called snow days. You miss a day in winter, fine; you MAKE IT UP in summer.
Or they could download their assignments, complete them at home, and submit them through the school website. Which is exactly the same way they do many of their assignments on non-snow days.
Assuming they are working full time, they need to be able to afford an average amount of rent being approximately one third of their gross income.
That is more reasonable. In SJ, they should be able to get by on $120k if they are renting with no dependents. That is only $60 per hour.
This will be a nice windfall for the 98% of minimum wage earners who aren't single salary head-of-household.
How many dependants they have is irrelevant.
So you don't care if kids starve?
any human that does it should not ever be paid less per hour than whatever a minimal living wage happens to be in that municipality.
So every burger flipper needs to be able to afford a house, a car, and send their kids to college on a single income?
I live in San Jose. You can't do that here on $200,000 salary.
Maybe the burger flippers shouldn't move out of Mom's basement until they learn a better skill.
If they are not doing the job full time, they could reasonably make less
The obvious result of your policy is that millions of full-time jobs would be converted into part-time jobs. Wages would likely decline, since part-time workers would have less time and incentive to develop skills. Poor people would spend more time, unpaid, commuting between jobs.
They should nix Foxconn and just give the money directly to those a factory would create jobs for...
If the facility is never built, and no one is ever hired, how do you know who the hypothetical workers would have been?
Maybe they could just run a lottery, and give away tax dollars to random people. That would have the same overall effect.
I was meaning it more to mean any wage that is less than what a person can fairly live on.
Some people have 10 kids. Should they be paid more than someone with none?
If a job isn't worth paying a human being a living wage to do, then you shouldn't be paying human beings to do it in the first place.
So if a high school student wants to flip burgers part time for some extra spending money, that should be banned, since they can't live on it?
By raising the bottom rung of the economic ladder, you are just making it harder for people to reach that bottom rung. Getting a job, any job, is the first step out of poverty. The actual wage doesn't matter so much, because anyone willing to work hard is going to quickly move up.
Key facts about the minimum wage:
1. The average household income of a minimum wage earner is $53,000 per year.
2. Only 2 percent of full-time workers earn the minimum wage.
3. Two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise within a year if they stick with the job.
4. Only 9 percent of adults living below the poverty line work full time.
Most of the benefits from a hike in minimum wages goes to people that are not poor. Efforts to help the poor should focus on getting more people into employment, and focus less on wages that jobless people don't earn.
Today, public schools closed because TEN DEGREES is considered too cold to allow kids to wait a bus stops.
10F is not too cold. But 10F with 40mph winds is too cold. School can wait till Monday.
That's fair, but an argument can also be fairly made that minimum wage should never be less than the amount that a person needs to live
Most minimum wage earners are 2nd or 3rd earners for their household. So the amount they "need" to live is $0.
Most minimum wage earners live in households above the median income level, while relatively fewer poor people earn the minimum wage. So raising the minimum wage actually helps the better off more than it helps the poor.
The problem with the poor is not LOW wages, but NO wages. 60% of households in the bottom income quintile have zero full time workers. Even fewer have more than one person earning income.
If you want to help the poor, minimum wage increases are a bad way to do that. Far better are policies like EITC that specifically target the working poor.
What was Snopes doing getting in bed with a "doing fact-checking for all of Facebook" assignment for that little money?
There were not fact-checking "all of Facebook". Despite your scary quotes, neither the summary nor TFA says that.
100k is a steal. That is the cost of one software engineer for one year. That's it.
When you add in benefits, office space, utilities, and management overhead, that is the cost of one software engineer for 6 months.
Boohoo, you don't want to fund teaching them
Americans receive 13 years of free K-12 education funded by taxpayers.
If they come away from that with zero useful skills, they are likely untrainable.
Things I learned in high school:
1. Woodworking
2. Metalworking
3. Basic electronics
4. Programming
5. Touch typing
6. Calculus
All but #6 are useful for getting a job. #5 turned out to be the most useful.
If we can tear down the borders with technology, all the better!
There are no border restrictions. Russians are free to travel. The Soviet Union ended 30 years ago.
Many countries require access to data. If American tech companies pull out of all those countries, they would be abandoning half the world to companies with even less scruples. No country is 100% pure, and in many ways America is more repressive than Russia. The FSB has a tenth of the NSA's budget, and we certainly arrest / incarcerate / execute far more people.
In other words: what are the effects when you scale this up massively?
When you scale 100 microwatts up a million-fold you get ... 100 watts. Enough to power a lightbulb.
Apple is obligated to obey the law in every country where they operate.
It is not the job of American corporations to "fix" Russia. That is up to the Russian people.
this is not 'free energy', it gets popular enough and some broadcasters would start demanding some sort of payment
For 100 microwatts? I pay 10 cents per kwhr. So that comes out to 1 cent for every 100,000 hours = 11 years.
Old ideas.
Sure, but the real innovation here is not that they built an ambient energy harvester, but that it is "bendy".
Is the use of the FBI as a private police force for Corporate America on civil matters.
Corporate espionage is a federal crime.
Economic Espionage Act of 1996
I just refuse to set up online relationships with financial organisations.
You think this makes you safer, but it makes you LESS safe.
If you have no online account, it is not so hard for someone to create one. I set up my mom's online account, and all I needed was her account number and SSN. I set it up to link to my email address, and used my cellphone to authenticate. Now I can log in and do anything with her account.
How is the operation paying for itself?
First you generate eyeballs.
Later you figure out how to monetize them.
An obvious source of revenue would be to insert additional ads into the video stream. But you need to grab market share and get people hooked first. Never monetize too early.
I don't see any sign that demand for smartphones is in any way lacking or declining.
Then you aren't paying attention. We hit peak smartphone in 2017. Unit sales in 2018 were slightly lower.
There are 5.5B adults on the planet, and 4B of them already have smartphones. Nearly all sales are replacements and upgrades, not new users. Most phones are in service for 3 years or more, and that is increasing.
They are restricting facial recognition, but they are not restricting the collection of photos and videos. So they will still have all the data, they will just refrain from running it through an algorithm.