Peter Schiff wrote a very eloquent piece explaining why minimim wage hurts the economy, job growth, and especially the young, unskilled and minorities. Here is part of it:
Low-skilled workers must compete for employers’ dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earn the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.
Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.
There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.
As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won’t be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.
The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.
So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become – had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping – and learning from – the mechanics.
"Speed Cameras In Chicago confiscate $50M Less Than Expected"
The cameras don't earn anything, as they don't produce anything of value. They are simply taxing devices, yet another way to confiscate money from drivers, and justified with an unproven "keep your children safe" blanket
The problem is "security researchers" want to gain notoriety so they can make more money as consultants and doing paid appearances. The way you do that is irresponsible disclosure that causes a big stir. If you tell someone I discovered heartbleed they have heard of that and will take it as a credibility indicator. If you tell them I discovered XSA-128 everyone says never heard of it. It's all about marketing and PR and making bucks. That's how these things end up with catchy names. The people doing this are acting rationally but with questionable motives and their dedication to actual security should be under great scrutiny.
The fact that heartbleed made more noise, also means more people know they need to apply a patch. What you call "irresponsible disclosure" is to some of us the only responsible way to disclose it.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
I suppose it is impossible for you to ever take a train or long bus trip. Should we ban cell phones from them too?
How has it not been enforced? That quote is about limitations on individual state governments, as it comes from Article I, section 10. It says absolutely nothing about the Federal government, which is perfectly entitled to make paper dollars into legal tender.
It does not matter what the federal government does. The constitution clearly says that states cannot use anything other than gold and silver for payment of debts. Meaning, regardless what the federal government does, the states cannot charge state taxes or collect payment for any other debt in anything but gold and silver.
The federal government is not above the constitution, or so it was supposed to work.
If you have to pay $4500 because you are making $100K/year , it is a very nice problem to have:).
That's great except that's not how it works. You pay $4500 and then maybe you'll make $100k or maybe you'll make $500. In the latter case, you're probably going to wish you had that extra $4000 to help pay the bills. (I write this an an independent app developer, albeit not in games. Money-wise, I've had several times where I realized I bought something for development that I didn't really need. I've never bought anything where I wished I'd bought it earlier, or otherwise regretted not buying something.)
No. you do not have to pay _until_ you start making $100K/year. It is not required to pay the cost up front, you can use the free version until you reach that threshold.
You can go ahead, make your app, and if it fails and you only make $500/year, you never have to pay a dime to unity.
PayPal only enforces the two-factor requirement on the client
Many rookie developers just take the easy way and think that they can simply validate data client side. Never trust the client (even if you wrote it), the minute it is out there, someone can tamper with it.
I see this kind of mistakes coming from startups, or the little indie guy making his web site, or the new hire with little experience. For a seasoned tech company like PayPal this is an epic fail. Even if they had a rookie do this app, they need a senior programmer to do a code review, and if they did, then they need to replace him.
I use unity. Like you say, if you make more than $100K per year, then you need to buy pro.
But really, who cares? $1500 - $4500 (depending on what you need) is a very reasonable price for the tool, and an insignificant cost at that point. The cost of writing games is orders of magnitude higher than that, and Unity will end up saving you more in time than $4500 worth of programmer's time. They don't even charge royalty.
Also, why a trap? The terms are clear and you know them up front. Nobody is deceiving you into paying for something you did not want. From my point of view, the terms are quite generous and reasonable, and if you don't think so, then you simply use other tool and this does not affect you
If you have to pay $4500 because you are making $100K/year , it is a very nice problem to have:).
If we're going to do executions, then the whole "pain-free" premise should go right out the door. We're killing the criminal in retaliation for a crime. Why does it need to be so painless? I mean, don't torture the criminal by starvation or dehydration or anything like that. But hanging, guillotine, firing squad, etc. are all effective means. You could even give some local to ease the pain on some of these methods.
Otherwise, all you're really doing is admitting that execution isn't right, but trying to get away with it anyway.
The problem with the US justice system is that it focuses on punishing the criminal instead of compensating the victim. "Your family member got murdered? don't worry, we will execute the killer", what kind of consolation is that?, instead an effort should be made to force the criminal give something back to the victim's family. He can't make them whole, but it would be a little more just.
The goal should not be to make him suffer, that is truly pointless. The focus should be on either eliminate the treat to society, or compensate the victim.
Why does it need to be painless? because it is trivial to do so (nitrogen asphixiation?) and it accomplishes the goal of eliminating the threat to society.
[quote]should be backed by something with intrinsic value, like stocks[/quote]
According to the Austrian school of economics, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. This starting from Carl Menger, on his book "The origins of Money"
https://mises.org/books/origin...
Naming Hayec (another Austrian economist) and intrinsic value in the same breath is an oxymoron, and actually if you look at Rand Paul's quote, he does not mention intrinsic value either.
Value is subjective, it exists _only_ in the mind of the valuator, and is equal to the marginal utility of the good (how much better off would you be if you got more of the good). For example, the same piece of broccoli would be valued differently by a kid that hates vegetables than a vegetarian who loves them.
They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.
Like how socialized medicine provides better care at a third of the cost of a system based on profits and insurance?
When comparing what to what? The American medical system is as far as it can be from free market without being socialized. Between RX, now mandated insurance, tax distortions, billion dollar FDA approval process, AMA certification (enforced by government), etc. it is all a big clusterfuck of inefficiencies and monopolies imposed by government. They just assume people are to stupid for their own good and then need a daddy government to treat the smallest infection.
Heck the cost of approving a new medicine is so high that government essentially ensured nobody can enter the market. This is why in my original post I said "Except when government is involved".
Compare that to healthcare that is not government controlled such as lasik and plastic surgery. Both the cost goes down every year and quality goes up.
Socialized medicine is a disaster everywhere. You often need to wait months for an appointment, lack of medical equipment is very common, people often end up going to emergency for small things only to wait hours because medics are treating true emergencies. This is something I speak from experience being from a country with socialized medicine. But please note I am not advocating the american system either.
But this went already far enough from the original topic, so I am out.
and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue
They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.
I absolutely despise the phrase "giving back" when referring to charity, because it implies they took something.
Apple has already given back, every dollar they got was in exchange for either an app, iphone, ipad, laptop or something else that the customer got. They have already given something back for every penny they made. This goes for every single company selling products or services (Except when governments are involved)
I donate quite a bit every year for worthy causes without asking for anything in return, and I hate it when my efforts are diminished by calling them "giving back".
Charity is not "giving back", charity is charity, it is a company or individual willingly giving up profit in order to help someone. Ideally, the company benefits from the charity by getting good PR, so it becomes a win-win; it becomes an investment instead of charity, which makes it more sustainable and will hopefully cause it to repeat in the future.
As far as open source code goes, Apple does invest significantly in projects like llvm and webkit and the world is a better place because of it.
The idea that apple somehow owes me and you or the apache foundation is just entitlement mentality.
If you bought apple's products, it is because you think their product is worth more than the money you paid for it, otherwise you would not have gotten it. In that case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you did not buy apple's product, then what they do does not affect you. In this case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you want to encourage Apple to donate code or money, then highlight, applaud and buy products from companies that behave the way you want them to. If enough people vote with their money and show that charity pays off, then either apple will do it, or the companies you support will do it more thanks to your support.
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.
Perhaps they should get rid of the ban altogether? Seriously, with the trade deficit spiraling out of control, it makes no sense at all to ban exports.
Rather than question BP for 'getting around' the law, we should question why we have such bad law in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Peter Schiff wrote a very eloquent piece explaining why minimim wage hurts the economy, job growth, and especially the young, unskilled and minorities. Here is part of it:
Low-skilled workers must compete for employers’ dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earn the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.
Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.
There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.
As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won’t be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.
The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.
So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become – had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping – and learning from – the mechanics.
You can read the entire thing here:
http://www.europac.net/comment...
Here, fixed it for you:
"Speed Cameras In Chicago confiscate $50M Less Than Expected"
The cameras don't earn anything, as they don't produce anything of value. They are simply taxing devices, yet another way to confiscate money from drivers, and justified with an unproven "keep your children safe" blanket
He says that if these standards were not made, "the web would have become a giant fax machine where pictures of text would be passed along."
Self righteous nonsense. If these standards were not made, others would have been made instead.
The problem is "security researchers" want to gain notoriety so they can make more money as consultants and doing paid appearances. The way you do that is irresponsible disclosure that causes a big stir. If you tell someone I discovered heartbleed they have heard of that and will take it as a credibility indicator. If you tell them I discovered XSA-128 everyone says never heard of it. It's all about marketing and PR and making bucks. That's how these things end up with catchy names. The people doing this are acting rationally but with questionable motives and their dedication to actual security should be under great scrutiny.
The fact that heartbleed made more noise, also means more people know they need to apply a patch. What you call "irresponsible disclosure" is to some of us the only responsible way to disclose it.
They should be bearing the cost of the training and conferences.
By "they" you mean us right? because the OP specifically said this is a public sector job, so all the training is paid for with tax payer money.
Ideally we would be ruled by a benevolent artificial intelligence who can determine without outside input what is best for everyone.
No. Ideally we would not be ruled at all, and you would be free to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
I suppose it is impossible for you to ever take a train or long bus trip. Should we ban cell phones from them too?
How has it not been enforced? That quote is about limitations on individual state governments, as it comes from Article I, section 10. It says absolutely nothing about the Federal government, which is perfectly entitled to make paper dollars into legal tender.
It does not matter what the federal government does. The constitution clearly says that states cannot use anything other than gold and silver for payment of debts. Meaning, regardless what the federal government does, the states cannot charge state taxes or collect payment for any other debt in anything but gold and silver.
The federal government is not above the constitution, or so it was supposed to work.
From the US. Constitution:
No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
I guess that one has not been generally enforced for a while either.
That's great except that's not how it works. You pay $4500 and then maybe you'll make $100k or maybe you'll make $500. In the latter case, you're probably going to wish you had that extra $4000 to help pay the bills. (I write this an an independent app developer, albeit not in games. Money-wise, I've had several times where I realized I bought something for development that I didn't really need. I've never bought anything where I wished I'd bought it earlier, or otherwise regretted not buying something.)
No. you do not have to pay _until_ you start making $100K/year. It is not required to pay the cost up front, you can use the free version until you reach that threshold.
You can go ahead, make your app, and if it fails and you only make $500/year, you never have to pay a dime to unity.
Here is a helpful car analogy explaining how this security vulnerability works.
They hired the same team to handle security at the main gate in PayPal's headquarters. Here is a picture
PayPal only enforces the two-factor requirement on the client
Many rookie developers just take the easy way and think that they can simply validate data client side. Never trust the client (even if you wrote it), the minute it is out there, someone can tamper with it.
I see this kind of mistakes coming from startups, or the little indie guy making his web site, or the new hire with little experience. For a seasoned tech company like PayPal this is an epic fail. Even if they had a rookie do this app, they need a senior programmer to do a code review, and if they did, then they need to replace him.
Embarrassing, and inexcusable.
I use unity. Like you say, if you make more than $100K per year, then you need to buy pro.
But really, who cares? $1500 - $4500 (depending on what you need) is a very reasonable price for the tool, and an insignificant cost at that point. The cost of writing games is orders of magnitude higher than that, and Unity will end up saving you more in time than $4500 worth of programmer's time. They don't even charge royalty.
Also, why a trap? The terms are clear and you know them up front. Nobody is deceiving you into paying for something you did not want. From my point of view, the terms are quite generous and reasonable, and if you don't think so, then you simply use other tool and this does not affect you
If you have to pay $4500 because you are making $100K/year , it is a very nice problem to have :).
If we're going to do executions, then the whole "pain-free" premise should go right out the door. We're killing the criminal in retaliation for a crime. Why does it need to be so painless? I mean, don't torture the criminal by starvation or dehydration or anything like that. But hanging, guillotine, firing squad, etc. are all effective means. You could even give some local to ease the pain on some of these methods.
Otherwise, all you're really doing is admitting that execution isn't right, but trying to get away with it anyway.
The problem with the US justice system is that it focuses on punishing the criminal instead of compensating the victim. "Your family member got murdered? don't worry, we will execute the killer", what kind of consolation is that?, instead an effort should be made to force the criminal give something back to the victim's family. He can't make them whole, but it would be a little more just.
The goal should not be to make him suffer, that is truly pointless. The focus should be on either eliminate the treat to society, or compensate the victim.
Why does it need to be painless? because it is trivial to do so (nitrogen asphixiation?) and it accomplishes the goal of eliminating the threat to society.
Not hard at all, as the price was irrelevant.
My point was that it is only $2 if you _only_ focus on the chip which is absurd.
The cheapest breadboard I could find was $30.
In other news, I also figured out how to get a great ride for $1. All you need to do is add a $1 car freshener to your existing BMW.
According to the Austrian school of economics, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. This starting from Carl Menger, on his book "The origins of Money" https://mises.org/books/origin...
Naming Hayec (another Austrian economist) and intrinsic value in the same breath is an oxymoron, and actually if you look at Rand Paul's quote, he does not mention intrinsic value either.
Value is subjective, it exists _only_ in the mind of the valuator, and is equal to the marginal utility of the good (how much better off would you be if you got more of the good). For example, the same piece of broccoli would be valued differently by a kid that hates vegetables than a vegetarian who loves them.
Like how socialized medicine provides better care at a third of the cost of a system based on profits and insurance?
When comparing what to what? The American medical system is as far as it can be from free market without being socialized. Between RX, now mandated insurance, tax distortions, billion dollar FDA approval process, AMA certification (enforced by government), etc. it is all a big clusterfuck of inefficiencies and monopolies imposed by government. They just assume people are to stupid for their own good and then need a daddy government to treat the smallest infection.
Heck the cost of approving a new medicine is so high that government essentially ensured nobody can enter the market. This is why in my original post I said "Except when government is involved".
Compare that to healthcare that is not government controlled such as lasik and plastic surgery. Both the cost goes down every year and quality goes up.
Socialized medicine is a disaster everywhere. You often need to wait months for an appointment, lack of medical equipment is very common, people often end up going to emergency for small things only to wait hours because medics are treating true emergencies. This is something I speak from experience being from a country with socialized medicine. But please note I am not advocating the american system either.
But this went already far enough from the original topic, so I am out.
and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue
They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.
I absolutely despise the phrase "giving back" when referring to charity, because it implies they took something.
Apple has already given back, every dollar they got was in exchange for either an app, iphone, ipad, laptop or something else that the customer got. They have already given something back for every penny they made. This goes for every single company selling products or services (Except when governments are involved)
I donate quite a bit every year for worthy causes without asking for anything in return, and I hate it when my efforts are diminished by calling them "giving back".
Charity is not "giving back", charity is charity, it is a company or individual willingly giving up profit in order to help someone. Ideally, the company benefits from the charity by getting good PR, so it becomes a win-win; it becomes an investment instead of charity, which makes it more sustainable and will hopefully cause it to repeat in the future.
As far as open source code goes, Apple does invest significantly in projects like llvm and webkit and the world is a better place because of it.
The idea that apple somehow owes me and you or the apache foundation is just entitlement mentality.
If you bought apple's products, it is because you think their product is worth more than the money you paid for it, otherwise you would not have gotten it. In that case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you did not buy apple's product, then what they do does not affect you. In this case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you want to encourage Apple to donate code or money, then highlight, applaud and buy products from companies that behave the way you want them to. If enough people vote with their money and show that charity pays off, then either apple will do it, or the companies you support will do it more thanks to your support.
...but the potential customer base for both devices is basically the same...
Technically yes, both are for human beings that don't wear eye patches, which is basically the same customer base for eye drops.
Winzip vs Microsoft word vs C++, which one is right for you?
Here is a link to the comparison chart mentioned in the description.
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.
Perhaps they should get rid of the ban altogether? Seriously, with the trade deficit spiraling out of control, it makes no sense at all to ban exports.
Rather than question BP for 'getting around' the law, we should question why we have such bad law in the first place.