And you all can start talking about basic income and minimum wage all you want
Those aren't the same thing, and actually they have exactly the opposite effects on unemployment.
Increasing the minimum wage is causing the problem. A government-provided basic income with no minimum wage would still help the poor and provide the safety net, but without forcing certain businesses to choose machines over employees.
And when unemployment goes to zero... *gasp*... low-skilled employers might actually have to compete on wages which can drive interest in increasing skills in order to climb the wage ladder.
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
The employees for a Wendy's location make up probably less than 1% of the local population. Probably less than 10% of the general population frequent that restaurant regularly, but employees get half-price meals all the time so they are even less likely than the average person to pay full price for a meal from Wendy's. The impact to revenue is therefore almost non-existent, so any payroll impact is likely to have a much larger effect on net profits.
Granted, once most everybody fires low-wage employees, this will become the problem you describe. But employee wages drive pricing, and if your burgers cost a dollar or two more than the equivalent burgers next door, you lose customers... just as if your burgers cost less, you gain customers. The good guy loses.
It is a problem, it is an inevitable problem, but doing the "right thing" isn't really a viable solution. The good guy will go out of business. The solution has to come elsewhere.
And actually, if Norway were a US state, it would not add to either total as it would be larger than Montana in area and larger than half the population of NYC.
To be fair, some Republicans do care what you do with your reproductive organs. But it is unrelated to abortion; it's about sexual activities and gender identity. And they don't speak for all Republicans or conservatives.
Conservatives claim to support these things: small government, free market/capitalism, strong defense, individual responsibility, pro-life, and prioritizing the interests of the US. Many also claim to be motivated by religion, particularly Christianity. Rural populations tend to be conservative.
Liberals claim to support these things: big government, social welfare, reduced military, social and environmental responsibility, pro-choice, reducing oppression of minorities, and prioritizing an open and peaceful coexistence with other nations and peoples. Liberals tend to prefer a non-religious, or cross-religious, view of morality over a single strict religious interpretation. Urban areas tend to be liberal.
I use the word "claim" because you can find several cases where each group tends to switch their views, and both groups are incredibly inconsistent at times. And a very large number of Americans back their party (Republicans and Democrats) over a particular political spectrum, changing the definition of each side of the political fence as the parties evolve.
But most of all, they just like fighting. A proposed law from one of the political groups is often denounced by the other before it is even read, and then later the same law might be backed by the second group and then shot down by the first.
It may depend on whether their agreement to pay is a plea of guilty vs. a plea of no-contest.
Plus, the perceived risk of losing in court combined with the inconvenience of showing up for court often outweighs the benefit of a successful outcome for many people. It should not be difficult to show a higher court how such illegal tickets amount to an abuse of power.
They might change to something unrecognizable from their current form
And despite what a lot of people here seem to believe, this is what has happened. Microsoft has completely flip-flopped on their stance on open source. (The company hasn't fully transitioned to open source, but I suspect few corporations with their size and history would be faster.) Windows was the bread-and-butter of Microsoft but now they're really not making much money off it directly. They officially support Ubuntu. Edge is a completely different animal from Internet Explorer. Microsoft is now a hardware designer and maker and their Surface line is pretty darn good by most standards. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft continues to open up its software until the point that some flavor of the entire Windows OS is open source.
It isn't 100% the company everyone wants, and Microsoft still does stuff that makes me cringe (it's forced reboot after update policy is one), but to act like it's the same company it was in the 90s and early 2000s is just to turn a blind eye to reality.
And it's very important to understand that everyone is different. What works for me may not work for someone else. But if you want to lose weight and haven't tried a calorie counter app, I recommend it.
Just be sure to get a second opinion on what calorie rate is right for you (as always you can find lots of second opinions on the Internet). My app (Lose It) was off so much I had to manually subtract 475 calories/day. But, considering that's the only problem I've had with the app, I still recommend it.
I'm in the process, starting around 140kg and down to around 126kg now. My process is to reduce about 500 calories per day, using a calorie counter app. It means going slow, about 2kg/month but it is actually working, the only real results I've had (I've tried months of treadmill, cutting out specific foods, calorie reduction without the app... none of those worked).
I find myself feeling full with less food. The temptation to eat everything is still there, but just being able to tell when I'm full is so helpful. Instead of feeling like I have no willpower, I now feel like my willpower is what makes the difference.
Carbon tax hurts _you_, the consumer, not companies who are passing their costs to you
It's not intended to hurt the companies. It's intended to alter the market by making a particular product more expensive, and thus less enticing. Other products can then compete better on price and thus become more enticing.
A subsidy or tax break can have a similar type of effect but in the opposite direction.
We should change the law to make these corporations that are keeping profits abroad from being listed in US Regulated stock exchanges. That will bring the profits home and they will pay the taxes.
I don't see much of a relationship between having off-shore profits and the stock exchanges, so I'm not really fond of this plan. Plenty of companies are privately owned and they would not be affected.
Or we could list them as foreign businesses with severe restrictions in lobbying and campaign contributions. That would also create a penalty for gaming our tax code.
Now you're talking. I'm not entirely sure how to implement the cutoff. Keeping $1 out of $100B offshore shouldn't qualify them as foreign, but keeping $1 out of $100B in the US shouldn't exempt them from such a law. Should it be based on a dollar amount, a percentage, or some other criteria? It's important to choose criteria where gaming the system would not be a good option.
Already the corporations have shifted most of their tax burden to the individuals. If the corporations paid the same effective rate as they paid under Ronald Reagan individual tax payers will get an immense tax relief. We can take our personal income tax rates from 36.3% top rate down to 20% top rate or even a flat tax of 15%.
That's just shifting the money. Say your company averages $10K per employee in corporate tax, and each employee averages $10K in income tax. Shifting it so that the company pays $15K on average and the employee pays $5K on average will just mean the employee's base pay will go down by $5K. At best it will be phased in over time and raises will suffer until everything has evened itself out. There is no such thing as free money or corporations cutting profits out of the goodness of their hearts.
Eh, I agree that Windows updates didn't suck this hard in the past. It really is inexcusable.
Windows 10 otherwise is leaps-and-bounds better than Vista, and in my opinion, it's better than 7 or 8.
I just wish, just once, Microsoft could put out a version of something that is only better in every way and not compromised by things like the new update/reboot policy.
- Icons in arbitrary locations on your home screen - Home screen replacement - Multiple user context (my employer doesn't completely control my device) - Removing stock apps from my home screen (I don't have an Apple Watch) - Miracast support - Customizable lock screen (widgets) - Customizable control center - Silencing my phone when I have a "busy" entry on my calendar - Wifi Analyzer - Tasker
Then it would be at the most basic level of where it should be, in my opinion.
Talking with a teacher friend yesterday, he said his school spent about a teacher's salary on new projector equipment for all the rooms 3 years ago. But they didn't spend a dime on maintenance or training teachers how to use the systems and all the filters are clogged and overheating and the projectors are starting to fail. So they are now spending 2-3 teachers' salaries on new smart touch displays to replace the projectors. (And unfortunately, they are low enough for the teacher to use them, so the back of the class can't see them.)
It's easy to justify spending when all you care about is up-front costs, with no maintenance and training costs which are always a significant amount of money. It's pretty easy to see that all those costs aren't helping my friend's school, certainly not as much as a quality teacher would.
If the general election were switched to a better election system (several are better than plurality/first-past-the-post), I wouldn't care how the parties pick their candidates. They would need to pick an electable candidate if they want to have relevance in November; open primaries that mirror the general election system would probably stand the best chance.
For Hawking, it's worth listening to his intuition even if he doesn't yet back it with science. It's not like he's some quack that has never made a solid discovery. Maybe he or someone else will take his ideas and put forth the work to reconcile them.
I agree that the press should never report his ideas as fact or even probable until there is an adequate basis for that claim. For now this needs to be classified as musings of Hawking, and that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for blocking the scams, but how rampant is that, really?
Is this your first day on the Internet?
And you all can start talking about basic income and minimum wage all you want
Those aren't the same thing, and actually they have exactly the opposite effects on unemployment.
Increasing the minimum wage is causing the problem. A government-provided basic income with no minimum wage would still help the poor and provide the safety net, but without forcing certain businesses to choose machines over employees.
And when unemployment goes to zero... *gasp*... low-skilled employers might actually have to compete on wages which can drive interest in increasing skills in order to climb the wage ladder.
I dunno if my outlook is so screwed up or what, but it seems to me that trying to put as many Americans as possible out of work - or at least have them work for as little as possible, just isn't sound business strategy, especially for substandard eateries like Wendy's, who don't exactly cater to the wealthy.
The employees for a Wendy's location make up probably less than 1% of the local population. Probably less than 10% of the general population frequent that restaurant regularly, but employees get half-price meals all the time so they are even less likely than the average person to pay full price for a meal from Wendy's. The impact to revenue is therefore almost non-existent, so any payroll impact is likely to have a much larger effect on net profits.
Granted, once most everybody fires low-wage employees, this will become the problem you describe. But employee wages drive pricing, and if your burgers cost a dollar or two more than the equivalent burgers next door, you lose customers... just as if your burgers cost less, you gain customers. The good guy loses.
It is a problem, it is an inevitable problem, but doing the "right thing" isn't really a viable solution. The good guy will go out of business. The solution has to come elsewhere.
And actually, if Norway were a US state, it would not add to either total as it would be larger than Montana in area and larger than half the population of NYC.
46 US states are smaller than Montana and 24 have less than half the population of New York City.
To be fair, some Republicans do care what you do with your reproductive organs. But it is unrelated to abortion; it's about sexual activities and gender identity. And they don't speak for all Republicans or conservatives.
Conservatives claim to support these things: small government, free market/capitalism, strong defense, individual responsibility, pro-life, and prioritizing the interests of the US. Many also claim to be motivated by religion, particularly Christianity. Rural populations tend to be conservative.
Liberals claim to support these things: big government, social welfare, reduced military, social and environmental responsibility, pro-choice, reducing oppression of minorities, and prioritizing an open and peaceful coexistence with other nations and peoples. Liberals tend to prefer a non-religious, or cross-religious, view of morality over a single strict religious interpretation. Urban areas tend to be liberal.
I use the word "claim" because you can find several cases where each group tends to switch their views, and both groups are incredibly inconsistent at times. And a very large number of Americans back their party (Republicans and Democrats) over a particular political spectrum, changing the definition of each side of the political fence as the parties evolve.
But most of all, they just like fighting. A proposed law from one of the political groups is often denounced by the other before it is even read, and then later the same law might be backed by the second group and then shot down by the first.
Of course, there are the people who didn't realize the rule changed and thought they were parking illegally...
Negligence of the law isn't a defense, in either direction.
It may depend on whether their agreement to pay is a plea of guilty vs. a plea of no-contest.
Plus, the perceived risk of losing in court combined with the inconvenience of showing up for court often outweighs the benefit of a successful outcome for many people. It should not be difficult to show a higher court how such illegal tickets amount to an abuse of power.
They might change to something unrecognizable from their current form
And despite what a lot of people here seem to believe, this is what has happened. Microsoft has completely flip-flopped on their stance on open source. (The company hasn't fully transitioned to open source, but I suspect few corporations with their size and history would be faster.) Windows was the bread-and-butter of Microsoft but now they're really not making much money off it directly. They officially support Ubuntu. Edge is a completely different animal from Internet Explorer. Microsoft is now a hardware designer and maker and their Surface line is pretty darn good by most standards. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft continues to open up its software until the point that some flavor of the entire Windows OS is open source.
It isn't 100% the company everyone wants, and Microsoft still does stuff that makes me cringe (it's forced reboot after update policy is one), but to act like it's the same company it was in the 90s and early 2000s is just to turn a blind eye to reality.
And it's very important to understand that everyone is different. What works for me may not work for someone else. But if you want to lose weight and haven't tried a calorie counter app, I recommend it.
Just be sure to get a second opinion on what calorie rate is right for you (as always you can find lots of second opinions on the Internet). My app (Lose It) was off so much I had to manually subtract 475 calories/day. But, considering that's the only problem I've had with the app, I still recommend it.
I'm in the process, starting around 140kg and down to around 126kg now. My process is to reduce about 500 calories per day, using a calorie counter app. It means going slow, about 2kg/month but it is actually working, the only real results I've had (I've tried months of treadmill, cutting out specific foods, calorie reduction without the app... none of those worked).
I find myself feeling full with less food. The temptation to eat everything is still there, but just being able to tell when I'm full is so helpful. Instead of feeling like I have no willpower, I now feel like my willpower is what makes the difference.
If a subsidy has an expiration date, it's easier to allow it to expire than to renew it.
The competitors to oil-based energy are already selling at higher cost. The tax would even out the price point and allow others to compete.
Carbon tax hurts _you_, the consumer, not companies who are passing their costs to you
It's not intended to hurt the companies. It's intended to alter the market by making a particular product more expensive, and thus less enticing. Other products can then compete better on price and thus become more enticing.
A subsidy or tax break can have a similar type of effect but in the opposite direction.
We should change the law to make these corporations that are keeping profits abroad from being listed in US Regulated stock exchanges. That will bring the profits home and they will pay the taxes.
I don't see much of a relationship between having off-shore profits and the stock exchanges, so I'm not really fond of this plan. Plenty of companies are privately owned and they would not be affected.
Or we could list them as foreign businesses with severe restrictions in lobbying and campaign contributions. That would also create a penalty for gaming our tax code.
Now you're talking. I'm not entirely sure how to implement the cutoff. Keeping $1 out of $100B offshore shouldn't qualify them as foreign, but keeping $1 out of $100B in the US shouldn't exempt them from such a law. Should it be based on a dollar amount, a percentage, or some other criteria? It's important to choose criteria where gaming the system would not be a good option.
Already the corporations have shifted most of their tax burden to the individuals. If the corporations paid the same effective rate as they paid under Ronald Reagan individual tax payers will get an immense tax relief. We can take our personal income tax rates from 36.3% top rate down to 20% top rate or even a flat tax of 15%.
That's just shifting the money. Say your company averages $10K per employee in corporate tax, and each employee averages $10K in income tax. Shifting it so that the company pays $15K on average and the employee pays $5K on average will just mean the employee's base pay will go down by $5K. At best it will be phased in over time and raises will suffer until everything has evened itself out. There is no such thing as free money or corporations cutting profits out of the goodness of their hearts.
Eh, I agree that Windows updates didn't suck this hard in the past. It really is inexcusable.
Windows 10 otherwise is leaps-and-bounds better than Vista, and in my opinion, it's better than 7 or 8.
I just wish, just once, Microsoft could put out a version of something that is only better in every way and not compromised by things like the new update/reboot policy.
If your technology is getting in the way more than it is helping you, then you're doing it wrong.
If it's an iPhone that allows
- Icons in arbitrary locations on your home screen
- Home screen replacement
- Multiple user context (my employer doesn't completely control my device)
- Removing stock apps from my home screen (I don't have an Apple Watch)
- Miracast support
- Customizable lock screen (widgets)
- Customizable control center
- Silencing my phone when I have a "busy" entry on my calendar
- Wifi Analyzer
- Tasker
Then it would be at the most basic level of where it should be, in my opinion.
Talking with a teacher friend yesterday, he said his school spent about a teacher's salary on new projector equipment for all the rooms 3 years ago. But they didn't spend a dime on maintenance or training teachers how to use the systems and all the filters are clogged and overheating and the projectors are starting to fail. So they are now spending 2-3 teachers' salaries on new smart touch displays to replace the projectors. (And unfortunately, they are low enough for the teacher to use them, so the back of the class can't see them.)
It's easy to justify spending when all you care about is up-front costs, with no maintenance and training costs which are always a significant amount of money. It's pretty easy to see that all those costs aren't helping my friend's school, certainly not as much as a quality teacher would.
Some people in CS make the top 1% in salary and some don't work long hours.
FTFY. This actually applies to many industries, not just CS, so I don't understand your point.
If Microsoft wasn't trying to shove Win10 down everyone's throat via that deceptive dialog, none of this would be an issue.
Windows 10 upgrade isn't the only software that pops up dialogs occasionally.
If the general election were switched to a better election system (several are better than plurality/first-past-the-post), I wouldn't care how the parties pick their candidates. They would need to pick an electable candidate if they want to have relevance in November; open primaries that mirror the general election system would probably stand the best chance.
Except, of course,
the attackers can't tell who has paid the extortion fee and who has not
For Hawking, it's worth listening to his intuition even if he doesn't yet back it with science. It's not like he's some quack that has never made a solid discovery. Maybe he or someone else will take his ideas and put forth the work to reconcile them.
I agree that the press should never report his ideas as fact or even probable until there is an adequate basis for that claim. For now this needs to be classified as musings of Hawking, and that's all.