Oh, that's really stupid. How do "property rights" deal with corporate polluters? What, do the people living in a trailer sue General Electric for poisoning their well water?
In the United States, corporations exist primarily to separate liability from ownership. As a result, people making criminal or negligent decisions inside corporations almost never go to jail or face any negative repercussions at all. Until the corporate structure is fixed, corporations will continue to do whatever they choose, with no criminal consequences.
Nonetheless, it’s also the role of the citizenry to demand for solutions, and fair solutions at that (i.e., not pseudo-solutions that allow private corporations to track your life and every purchase, and to get a financial cut on top of it). Yet, I haven’t seen any public discourse on the topic, which I find really strange.
At least in the US, a larger percentage of the citizens have been convinced that private corporations can only do good, and government can only do bad. You're right. The government should step in and create a system, but I don't see that ever happening in the US.
I think you are missing something somewhere, because by that logic there should be far far far more businesses that do not take credit cards, and the vast vast vast majority of consumer facing (versus business-to-business companies) that I deal with do take credit cards.
No, that's crazy. Nobody today can afford not to take cards. Cards are 80% of our sales. But, that 20% of cash doesn't cost us the 3% in fees, so you'd have to be dump or crazy not to accept cash.
We're small a small transaction (~$50ish average receipt) merchant, and our cash handling costs are pretty minimal. Honestly, I haven't calculated it, but it works out to just a few man hours a week. We do 8 figures worth of sales every year, so those few man hours/week don't add up to anything close to 1% of our gross sales.
... cards are *expensive*. They're about 3%. It doesn't take 3% of our gross revenue to handle cash. Nowhere close to that.
These businesses who can afford to throw away 3% of their gross right off the top are doing so because either:
- Their products are severely overpriced, and they don't mind giving 3% to Visa/MC
- They're being run by very inept people.
I use cash everywhere possible. It's easy. It's cheap. It's anonymous.
hey know that anyone over 58 can go whenever they want depending on how they've planned
In the US, anybody can go at any time for any reason. Being 58 doesn't have any significance in the US.
Alternatively, if they know you want to retire and they know a layoff is coming then that is a win win. They don't have to upset anyone, they get rid of someone who likely has a higher salary, and on top of it you get severance pay, insurance and unemployment.
Also not true in the US. People who are laid off are generally entitled to some sort of unemployment from the state. Even that is small and usually quite temporary. That's it.
With brick and mortar stores, you have a few trains and trucks delivering to the stores, then people going to last mile (via car, bike, foot, etc.) to get stuff.
With delivery, each individual item is packaged and shipped separately to lots of different locations.
Unless I'm missing something obvious, it's clear to me that all of this "home delivery" stuff is much much more energy intensive than shopping locally.
I am thinking things like books, office supplies, small tools and things I buy online today, I might go pickup in person if picking up is all I had to do!
You can't be bothered to interact with a cashier? Are you lazy or an asshole or both?
They don't have to. Amazon's customers don't care about the environment, already. Nobody who cared about the environment would have every little item to their house delivered.
That's nice that you want all of that, but what you want isn't really all that important to society. It's more important that companies treat their employees properly, and play on a level playing field. Of course it's cheaper to take a Uber than a taxi: They don't pay the same taxes and fees that taxi companies pay, they don't pay their "employees" anywhere near what taxi companies pay, and they're fueled by dot-com bullshit money. While you make a great case for your own convenience, you have ignored the needs of everybody else involved in your (selfish) decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
"smartphones, which become obsolete after three years."
What the fuck? On what planet?
Or we could do like other countries do: let the government pay for the research and the treatment.
Oh, that's really stupid. How do "property rights" deal with corporate polluters? What, do the people living in a trailer sue General Electric for poisoning their well water?
The "free market" doesn't take into account externalities, such as pollution, so I'm glad that it's NOT a "free market" decision.
This is the original story that should have been linked to. Not that stupid Vox shit.
https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes
In the United States, corporations exist primarily to separate liability from ownership. As a result, people making criminal or negligent decisions inside corporations almost never go to jail or face any negative repercussions at all. Until the corporate structure is fixed, corporations will continue to do whatever they choose, with no criminal consequences.
Nonetheless, it’s also the role of the citizenry to demand for solutions, and fair solutions at that (i.e., not pseudo-solutions that allow private corporations to track your life and every purchase, and to get a financial cut on top of it). Yet, I haven’t seen any public discourse on the topic, which I find really strange.
At least in the US, a larger percentage of the citizens have been convinced that private corporations can only do good, and government can only do bad. You're right. The government should step in and create a system, but I don't see that ever happening in the US.
This is true. It's also true that you're a selfish asshole. Congrats!
I think you are missing something somewhere, because by that logic there should be far far far more businesses that do not take credit cards, and the vast vast vast majority of consumer facing (versus business-to-business companies) that I deal with do take credit cards.
No, that's crazy. Nobody today can afford not to take cards. Cards are 80% of our sales. But, that 20% of cash doesn't cost us the 3% in fees, so you'd have to be dump or crazy not to accept cash.
... and I wouldn't shop at a place that didn't accept cash.
We're small a small transaction (~$50ish average receipt) merchant, and our cash handling costs are pretty minimal. Honestly, I haven't calculated it, but it works out to just a few man hours a week. We do 8 figures worth of sales every year, so those few man hours/week don't add up to anything close to 1% of our gross sales.
Neat! Now you can work for Amazon and get no benefits and really shitty pay! Boy, this American economy is just humming right along...
... cards are *expensive*. They're about 3%. It doesn't take 3% of our gross revenue to handle cash. Nowhere close to that.
These businesses who can afford to throw away 3% of their gross right off the top are doing so because either:
- Their products are severely overpriced, and they don't mind giving 3% to Visa/MC
- They're being run by very inept people.
I use cash everywhere possible. It's easy. It's cheap. It's anonymous.
What does the government have to do with this? Take off your tinfoil hat and use your brain. Visa/MC get 3% of every single transaction.
Cards cost significantly more than cash. Cards cost 3%. Cash handling isn't nearly that expensive.
Comrade, you are correct! Trump is a "uniter" and has a "positive and encouraging vision"!
.... and what about the health externalities from fossil fuels, troll? What do those cost?
hey know that anyone over 58 can go whenever they want depending on how they've planned
In the US, anybody can go at any time for any reason. Being 58 doesn't have any significance in the US.
Alternatively, if they know you want to retire and they know a layoff is coming then that is a win win. They don't have to upset anyone, they get rid of someone who likely has a higher salary, and on top of it you get severance pay, insurance and unemployment.
Also not true in the US. People who are laid off are generally entitled to some sort of unemployment from the state. Even that is small and usually quite temporary. That's it.
With brick and mortar stores, you have a few trains and trucks delivering to the stores, then people going to last mile (via car, bike, foot, etc.) to get stuff.
With delivery, each individual item is packaged and shipped separately to lots of different locations.
Unless I'm missing something obvious, it's clear to me that all of this "home delivery" stuff is much much more energy intensive than shopping locally.
Use your phone.
... everybody who buys one of those always-on microphones!
I am thinking things like books, office supplies, small tools and things I buy online today, I might go pickup in person if picking up is all I had to do!
You can't be bothered to interact with a cashier? Are you lazy or an asshole or both?
but why do they have to try and greenwash it?
They don't have to. Amazon's customers don't care about the environment, already. Nobody who cared about the environment would have every little item to their house delivered.
That's nice that you want all of that, but what you want isn't really all that important to society. It's more important that companies treat their employees properly, and play on a level playing field. Of course it's cheaper to take a Uber than a taxi: They don't pay the same taxes and fees that taxi companies pay, they don't pay their "employees" anywhere near what taxi companies pay, and they're fueled by dot-com bullshit money. While you make a great case for your own convenience, you have ignored the needs of everybody else involved in your (selfish) decisions.
That's not at all true. You should do some research. The best companies in the world pays "more than necessary".