Interesting. My parents just bought a house and we were driving by one house that they didn't bid on. Same neighborhood, similar house. But it had a huge 10' x 15' window facing the street.
They didn't want to live in a fishbowl, so they didn't bid on the home.
If the government hires a private contractor, then that contractor becomes an agent of the government and is thus subject to the bill of rights.
Two examples: 1. The FBI hires someone to break into your house and see what's going on. He sees that you are growing marijuana and reports this back to the FBI. That evidence would be thrown out by the judge because it was obtained illegally.
2. Your landlord enters your house (even if he doesn't give proper notice and enters illegally) and sees that you are growing marijuana. He calls the cops. You are busted and will be in jail for a long time (5 years mandatory minimum in my state).
Better make sure you treat your landlord well, hmm?;)
What this bill is attempting to accomplish (others have already pointed out the loopholes, so I won't bother), is to make it so that a kid can't set up a myspace profile without his parents' knowledge.
This is not spying, this is just giving the parents a chance to sit down with the kid, before he sets up his profile, and have a talk about how to be safe online.
When you look at it that way, it almost starts to sound like "good parenting", hmm?
There is no evidence at all to support your claim of "the plants... still found it preferable to hire illegals".
Other than the fact that the illegals were more competitive in the labor market, despite receiving the same tax treatment as authorized workers. I'm sure the plants' boards of directors didn't get together and say, "Let's hire illegals", and if they had, they surely would never admit to it. Anyhow, that is irrelevant.
What is relevant, is that despite hoards of domestic labor clamoring to work in meat-packing plants (if you believe what you read in the papers), illegal immigrants still won out over the domestic workers and took their jobs. You asserted that this is a result of favorable tax treatment of illegals (no payroll taxes); I refuted that even when we harmonize the tax treatment of both groups of workers (and make the employer pay the payroll taxes on the illegals as well as the legals), the illegals still do better in the labor market.
I learned to recognise cheap straw man arguments like yours.
Are you sure that you understand the definition of the term "straw man"? If so, please tell me how I altered your argument to make it easier to refute.
My refutation of your point: Even when the employer is tricked into believing that the illegal is actually legal and thus paying the payroll taxes (neutralizing the tax issue completely), illegals are still being hired over legals.
Anyhow, at CSU do they also teach you to admit when you are wrong?
And everyone always gets wrong WHY they're cheaper: payroll taxes. The face value of illegal labor is only a little lower than the legal labor but behind the scenes not having to pay the additional taxes an employer has to pick up makes the difference HUGE.
That is actually a load of crap.
If what you said were true, then riddle me this, Batman. Remember the big meat packing plant brouhaha last year with a bunch of meat packing plants getting raided for hiring illegals? Remember what they found? The illegals were all using stolen SSNs and working as though they were legal to work. In other words, the plants were paying the payroll taxes on these illegals despite them being illegal, yet they still found it preferable to hire illegals over the work-authorized.
We can only speculate as to why the plants preferred to hire illegals, but there is one thing that we can say for certain: it was not because of the payroll taxes, because payroll taxes were being paid on the illegals' wages.
When all else fails, listen to the market. The market will tell you what you need to know. (Why yes, I am an economist.)
Of course, all other things being equal, it's usually better to start earlier rather than later. (I say "usually", because there are no absolutes in this world. What if, instead of plunking the money into a Solo 401(k), he used it to grow his own business, which appreciated at a rate of 100% annually, instead of investing in the stock market, which averages only 8-10% annually? Then, he will be happier that he didn't lock that money away in a retirement account.)
Anyhow, I wasn't aware that we were talking about whether to invest now vs. later. G27 Radio said that he was doing independent contracting, you responded that he couldn't save in retirement accounts, I responded that our retirement accounts are better than yours are. That's all.:)
Oh, and not in terms of rate. Sorry, I forgot to address that. I can put, and you should sit down when you read this, $71,250.00 tax-deferred (i.e. I pay no tax on it until I withdraw it) into my 401(k) for '07. If you run the numbers, you'll see that my tax savings is probably worth more than your employer match. Also, I can invest in anything I want in my 401(k) (and I do mean anything--not just stocks/bonds/funds/options), whereas you can only invest in a handful of funds which often have high fees.
Of course, we haven't yet scratched the surface. Google for defined-benefit plans if you want to see some more.
Requesting Cardholder ID When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
No they may not. It's in every merchant agreement with Visa/MC/etc. that the merchant absolutely may not require ID as a condition of paying pay credit card. Merchants will be fined for that, too.
compare signatures
This is an unreasonable request. First of all, the $7/hr schoolkid behind the register is not a handwriting expert, and neither is he expected to be. Furthermore, the signature on the card and the signature on the receipt are not for verification. They are just an acknowledge by the consumer that they agree to the credit card terms and conditions and agree to pay the charge per the T&C, respectively. Definitely not supposed to be fodder for amateur detectives.
If they're online, it's even easier. Require a ship-to address to match the bill-to address of the credit card.
As if nobody buys gifts online. Anyhow, even if the merchant calls the credit card issuer, and the issuer approves the charge, the merchant is still on the hook for fraud, so your suggestion would not work.
Merchants foot the bill for fraud, because they are on the front lines and should be responsible for preventing it.
This is absurd. There is no way to tell by looking at a card whether or not it is lost, stolen, etc. Merchants are not in the business of clearing credit card transactions, they are in the business of selling things.
Credit card companies are in the business of clearing credit card transactions, and if they clear the transaction, it should be their problem if the transaction was fraud.
Ultimately, the ones who pay the cost of fraud is you and me, in the form of higher prices.
condemmed by my Muslim friend in CA, my old coworker from Turkey, my coworker from Somalia
Ahh, but what do they say in private while not among "mixed company"?
For instance, when the US drops bombs in Iraq to kill terrorists and innocent people are killed, and your Muslim friends ask you how you think about it, what do you say? You probably condemn it.
But when al-Zarqawi was killed by a bomb and 6 others, including women and children, were killed along with him, did you really shed a tear for them? Really?
Well, I'll admit my only reaction was, "Nice shot!" and I could truly give a hoot about the collateral damage. But I wouldn't say that do a bunch of Muslims.
First of all, Photoshop is definitely worth every penny it costs. At a minimum, it replaces several hundred dollars worth of lens filters, and that is only about 2% of its functionality. It is an amazing suite, and Adobe has zero difficulty selling licenses.
Secondly, Adobe realizes that a home user is unlikely to spend whatever CS3 costs on software, which is why they have another product called Photoshop Elements. The OEM version can be had for about $30, and full retail is about $60.
Elements does about 90% of what a home user would ever want from Photoshop, but it is unsuitable for pros for a variety of reasons.
This is very clever on Adobe's part. If not for Elements, someone like me would either have to go with one of their competitors or pirate Photoshop. Instead, they made the choice easy for me. I picked up Elements OEM for $30, and now I'm sucked into the Photoshop way of doing things. If I ever "get serious" and start looking for an upgrade, do you think I'm ever going to consider anything other than Photoshop? Ha.
1) If the merchant requires an ID for every transaction, can they still ask for ID when using the Visa?
Yes, they may require ID. What they may not do is require ID as a condition to pay with Visa. In other words, the liquor store can require ID to prove that you are 21, but can not require ID to prove that the names match.
If the merchant would have accepted cash without an ID, then they must accept Visa without an ID.
Credit card companies aren't doing anything because credit card companies don't care about fraud. They don't care, because it doesn't cost them any money.
When someone uses someone else's credit card fraudulently, it's not like the credit card company eats the loss. They just do a chargeback against the merchant who accepted the fraudulent transaction and they have to eat the cost. In fact, the CC company charges the merchant a hefty fee for the privilege of eating the cost.
Of course, that cost just gets passed on to you, the customer, in the form of higher prices.
BTW, I found it strange how many landlords either hinted or outright told me that they preferred single tenants or working couples with no children
First of all, what those landlords said to you was illegal. Very, very bad business practice. They probably are not landlords any more. HUD probably sued them into oblivion.
At any rate, the reason that many landlords prefer not to rent to families with children is that children, as I'm sure you are aware, cause more property damage than adults. Most adults don't:
Practice their art skills on the wall
Shove whatever they can find down the toilet
Throw objects around the house that would be damaging to windows
etc.
My rental criteria do not exclude children (that would be blatantly illegal, and would cut me off from a huge market segment--both bad business practice). However, my criteria do address children. Applicants are required to submit their kids' report cards (that tells you right away what is going on in that household) and the children must be present at the interview. If the kids are causing problems, and the parent(s) aren't on top of it, that's a rejection.
Families with children are a protected class. Destructive children with parents who don't care are not a protected class.
Licenses for Apache, eh? Well, I suppose you do need to accept the Apache license...
People would actually tell you they're being evicted? Wow. I don't recall being asked that during my renting days
It doesn't always happen, but it certainly does happen.
I ask about evictions on the application, and sometimes it comes up in conversation.
I'd be surprised if someone being evicted wouldn't come up with one of those though if they were asked.
Oh, sure. They come up with all kinds of things. But it's hard to keep up the charade if you're lying. Observe:
Me: So why are you moving? Applicant: I want a bigger place. Me: Don't we all! So what are you looking to upsize? The kitchen? More bedrooms? Living space? (This is so I can talk up how much better my unit is than his former unit) Applicant: Well.. uhh.. I just wanted more square footage. (Uh oh, I don't like where this is going...) Me: Just like big numbers, eh? Doesn't matter where the extra space is, I see. So why are you moving? Applicant: Well, my landlord is difficult to get along with. (BTW, he was just rejected for that comment. If he can't get along with his previous LL, why should I expect he can get along with me? But it'd be rude to just throw him out on his ear, so the conversation continues...) Me: So when are you looking to move in? Applicant: I need to move in by Thursday. Me: Thursday, that's in two days. Why do you need to move so soon? Applicant: Because that's when the sheriff is coming to put me out! Me: NEXT!
You'd be surprised what people say when you let 'em run their mouthes. Not everyone is as smart or as savvy as you.
Developing rental application criteria is an art form, learned from the school of hard knocks. You'd be surprised at some of my criteria if you didn't know why they were there. For instance, let's say you were trying to rent a unit and you got a call saying, "Hi, I'm Alice, and I'm calling to see if your apartment would be good for my son, Bob." Would you think anything of it? Honestly? Or would you just proceed with the app as normal as though nothing happened? It turns out you have already heard more than you need to hear to decide on the application.
The correct move is to reject Bob, and indeed my rental criteria specifies this. Why? Well, you have just witnessed Bob getting kicked out of the house by his own mother. If she don't want him, you don't want him.
I've always hated the "why are you leaving" question, mostly because it's always been a very complicated question for me. It usually involves a feeling of not being paid a fair market value for my work, but I've been told that's a bad answer to give so I try to avoid it.
Love it or hate it, you should at least come up with an answer and rehearse it because people's answers are usually very telling. But you're right, saying you're leaving for more money will put the question in the interviewer's head, "What will happen if this guy's working here and someone comes along and offers him another $1000 bucks?"
Somewhat hypocritically, despite that I hate that question, it's usually the first thing I ask an applicant.
It is not hypocritical at all, and it's not some worthless rite of passage. In fact, you would not be doing your duty to your employer if you neglected to ask it. Is a parent who hates getting shots a hypocrite when he takes his kid in for immunizations? Of course not. At least I hope not, because I absolutely despise needles.
Plenty of employers will refuse to answer even that question for fear of liability.
True. All I was trying to say before was that plenty of employers will answer that question, even though they would not answer a question such as, "Why, specifically, did you fire Mr. Jones?"
I get the same thing all the time as a landlord. Tenant applies for a unit and I get a call from the landlord. I would never answer a question like, "Was Mr. Jones a good tenant?" or "Did Mr. Jones take care of the unit?" But 99% of landlords know the code words, "Would you ever consider renting to Mr. Jones again?" Ask me that, and you will get a one word answer that tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Jones. It's slander-proof, because whatever answer I give must be the truth.
But I think very little of the posts actually encourage lying, and instead suggest being vague at best on the subject.
Again, I do not advise being vague and/or evasive.
If I'm interviewing somebody and I ask, "Why did you leave your last position?" (or "Why are you moving?", which I ask at least 3 times when interviewing a rental applicant) I don't want to hear, "Well, it was just not a good fit and hey, did you catch the Red Sox game last night?" All that tells me is that you got canned and you don't know or care why.
It's the same thing with a rental applicant, except I ask three times at different points in the conversation, so it usually goes something like this:
Me: So why are you moving? Applicant: Well, it was just time for a change. [...] Me: So why are you moving? Applicant: Well, I didn't get along very well with my former landlord. [...] Me: So why are you moving? Applicant: Well, I'm being evicted. Me: NEXT!
If I can see that you are being honest with yourself and honest with me about what went wrong at your previous employer, you are in a lot better shape than if you are being vague and evasive.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. My parents just bought a house and we were driving by one house that they didn't bid on. Same neighborhood, similar house. But it had a huge 10' x 15' window facing the street.
They didn't want to live in a fishbowl, so they didn't bid on the home.
If you didn't expect the neighbor's 15 year old son to peep on your nude sunbathing, then you know absolutely nothing of 15 year old boys.
If the government hires a private contractor, then that contractor becomes an agent of the government and is thus subject to the bill of rights.
;)
Two examples:
1. The FBI hires someone to break into your house and see what's going on. He sees that you are growing marijuana and reports this back to the FBI. That evidence would be thrown out by the judge because it was obtained illegally.
2. Your landlord enters your house (even if he doesn't give proper notice and enters illegally) and sees that you are growing marijuana. He calls the cops. You are busted and will be in jail for a long time (5 years mandatory minimum in my state).
Better make sure you treat your landlord well, hmm?
Yup. Definitely super-overkill, but a pretty neat package.
Asterisk.
What this bill is attempting to accomplish (others have already pointed out the loopholes, so I won't bother), is to make it so that a kid can't set up a myspace profile without his parents' knowledge.
This is not spying, this is just giving the parents a chance to sit down with the kid, before he sets up his profile, and have a talk about how to be safe online.
When you look at it that way, it almost starts to sound like "good parenting", hmm?
You also get the privilege of paying VAT up in Canada. The total tax burden in Canada is much higher than the US, once you factor in all taxes.
No model release is required for editorial use of a person's image/likeness.
Do you think the 9 o'clock evening news gets signed model releases from the folks they show getting carted away by the cops in handcuffs?
On the other hand, if whomever makes handcuffs wants to use that footage in an advertisement for handcuffs, that firm would need a model release.
What is relevant, is that despite hoards of domestic labor clamoring to work in meat-packing plants (if you believe what you read in the papers), illegal immigrants still won out over the domestic workers and took their jobs. You asserted that this is a result of favorable tax treatment of illegals (no payroll taxes); I refuted that even when we harmonize the tax treatment of both groups of workers (and make the employer pay the payroll taxes on the illegals as well as the legals), the illegals still do better in the labor market.Are you sure that you understand the definition of the term "straw man"? If so, please tell me how I altered your argument to make it easier to refute.
Your point as I understood it: illegals can work for less because employers aren't paying payroll tax, which makes the illegals seem cheaper. Is this an incorrect summary of your point? If so, how? Let me paste your argument in here for reference: "And everyone always gets wrong WHY they're cheaper: payroll taxes. The face value of illegal labor is only a little lower than the legal labor but behind the scenes not having to pay the additional taxes an employer has to pick up makes the difference HUGE."
My refutation of your point: Even when the employer is tricked into believing that the illegal is actually legal and thus paying the payroll taxes (neutralizing the tax issue completely), illegals are still being hired over legals.
Anyhow, at CSU do they also teach you to admit when you are wrong?
If what you said were true, then riddle me this, Batman. Remember the big meat packing plant brouhaha last year with a bunch of meat packing plants getting raided for hiring illegals? Remember what they found? The illegals were all using stolen SSNs and working as though they were legal to work. In other words, the plants were paying the payroll taxes on these illegals despite them being illegal, yet they still found it preferable to hire illegals over the work-authorized.
We can only speculate as to why the plants preferred to hire illegals, but there is one thing that we can say for certain: it was not because of the payroll taxes, because payroll taxes were being paid on the illegals' wages.
When all else fails, listen to the market. The market will tell you what you need to know. (Why yes, I am an economist.)
I'm glad you said this, because I was going to say it if you didn't.
In heavy labor, Mexicans work extremely hard. Way harder than your average American.
So you know, I am 0% Mexican, so no self-back-patting from me. But I'm not blind. I know backbreaking work when I see it.
The middle class.
Of course, all other things being equal, it's usually better to start earlier rather than later. (I say "usually", because there are no absolutes in this world. What if, instead of plunking the money into a Solo 401(k), he used it to grow his own business, which appreciated at a rate of 100% annually, instead of investing in the stock market, which averages only 8-10% annually? Then, he will be happier that he didn't lock that money away in a retirement account.)
:)
Anyhow, I wasn't aware that we were talking about whether to invest now vs. later. G27 Radio said that he was doing independent contracting, you responded that he couldn't save in retirement accounts, I responded that our retirement accounts are better than yours are. That's all.
Oh, and not in terms of rate. Sorry, I forgot to address that. I can put, and you should sit down when you read this, $71,250.00 tax-deferred (i.e. I pay no tax on it until I withdraw it) into my 401(k) for '07. If you run the numbers, you'll see that my tax savings is probably worth more than your employer match. Also, I can invest in anything I want in my 401(k) (and I do mean anything--not just stocks/bonds/funds/options), whereas you can only invest in a handful of funds which often have high fees.
Of course, we haven't yet scratched the surface. Google for defined-benefit plans if you want to see some more.
Cheers!
Only if they ID everyone, cash or credit.
If they only ID credit card users, they can be fined and they can lose their privileges to accept credit cards.
Remember, they are providing a public service. They don't OWE you the right to accept credit cards at your store.
Just so you know.
Credit card companies are in the business of clearing credit card transactions, and if they clear the transaction, it should be their problem if the transaction was fraud.
Ultimately, the ones who pay the cost of fraud is you and me, in the form of higher prices.
For instance, when the US drops bombs in Iraq to kill terrorists and innocent people are killed, and your Muslim friends ask you how you think about it, what do you say? You probably condemn it.
But when al-Zarqawi was killed by a bomb and 6 others, including women and children, were killed along with him, did you really shed a tear for them? Really?
Well, I'll admit my only reaction was, "Nice shot!" and I could truly give a hoot about the collateral damage. But I wouldn't say that do a bunch of Muslims.
In the case of a dishwasher, I agree with you. But in the case of a car or (especially) a house, I disagree.
I won't waste time explaining why if I'm preaching to the choir, but if you don't understand why, let me know and I'll explain.
First of all, Photoshop is definitely worth every penny it costs. At a minimum, it replaces several hundred dollars worth of lens filters, and that is only about 2% of its functionality. It is an amazing suite, and Adobe has zero difficulty selling licenses.
Secondly, Adobe realizes that a home user is unlikely to spend whatever CS3 costs on software, which is why they have another product called Photoshop Elements. The OEM version can be had for about $30, and full retail is about $60.
Elements does about 90% of what a home user would ever want from Photoshop, but it is unsuitable for pros for a variety of reasons.
This is very clever on Adobe's part. If not for Elements, someone like me would either have to go with one of their competitors or pirate Photoshop. Instead, they made the choice easy for me. I picked up Elements OEM for $30, and now I'm sucked into the Photoshop way of doing things. If I ever "get serious" and start looking for an upgrade, do you think I'm ever going to consider anything other than Photoshop? Ha.
If the merchant would have accepted cash without an ID, then they must accept Visa without an ID.
Credit card companies aren't doing anything because credit card companies don't care about fraud. They don't care, because it doesn't cost them any money.
When someone uses someone else's credit card fraudulently, it's not like the credit card company eats the loss. They just do a chargeback against the merchant who accepted the fraudulent transaction and they have to eat the cost. In fact, the CC company charges the merchant a hefty fee for the privilege of eating the cost.
Of course, that cost just gets passed on to you, the customer, in the form of higher prices.
Ain't credit cards grand?
At any rate, the reason that many landlords prefer not to rent to families with children is that children, as I'm sure you are aware, cause more property damage than adults. Most adults don't:
- Practice their art skills on the wall
- Shove whatever they can find down the toilet
- Throw objects around the house that would be damaging to windows
- etc.
My rental criteria do not exclude children (that would be blatantly illegal, and would cut me off from a huge market segment--both bad business practice). However, my criteria do address children. Applicants are required to submit their kids' report cards (that tells you right away what is going on in that household) and the children must be present at the interview. If the kids are causing problems, and the parent(s) aren't on top of it, that's a rejection.Families with children are a protected class. Destructive children with parents who don't care are not a protected class.
Licenses for Apache, eh? Well, I suppose you do need to accept the Apache license...
I ask about evictions on the application, and sometimes it comes up in conversation.Oh, sure. They come up with all kinds of things. But it's hard to keep up the charade if you're lying. Observe:
Me: So why are you moving?
Applicant: I want a bigger place.
Me: Don't we all! So what are you looking to upsize? The kitchen? More bedrooms? Living space? (This is so I can talk up how much better my unit is than his former unit)
Applicant: Well.. uhh.. I just wanted more square footage. (Uh oh, I don't like where this is going...)
Me: Just like big numbers, eh? Doesn't matter where the extra space is, I see. So why are you moving?
Applicant: Well, my landlord is difficult to get along with. (BTW, he was just rejected for that comment. If he can't get along with his previous LL, why should I expect he can get along with me? But it'd be rude to just throw him out on his ear, so the conversation continues...)
Me: So when are you looking to move in?
Applicant: I need to move in by Thursday.
Me: Thursday, that's in two days. Why do you need to move so soon?
Applicant: Because that's when the sheriff is coming to put me out!
Me: NEXT!
You'd be surprised what people say when you let 'em run their mouthes. Not everyone is as smart or as savvy as you.
Developing rental application criteria is an art form, learned from the school of hard knocks. You'd be surprised at some of my criteria if you didn't know why they were there. For instance, let's say you were trying to rent a unit and you got a call saying, "Hi, I'm Alice, and I'm calling to see if your apartment would be good for my son, Bob." Would you think anything of it? Honestly? Or would you just proceed with the app as normal as though nothing happened? It turns out you have already heard more than you need to hear to decide on the application.
The correct move is to reject Bob, and indeed my rental criteria specifies this. Why? Well, you have just witnessed Bob getting kicked out of the house by his own mother. If she don't want him, you don't want him.Love it or hate it, you should at least come up with an answer and rehearse it because people's answers are usually very telling. But you're right, saying you're leaving for more money will put the question in the interviewer's head, "What will happen if this guy's working here and someone comes along and offers him another $1000 bucks?"It is not hypocritical at all, and it's not some worthless rite of passage. In fact, you would not be doing your duty to your employer if you neglected to ask it. Is a parent who hates getting shots a hypocrite when he takes his kid in for immunizations? Of course not. At least I hope not, because I absolutely despise needles.
I get the same thing all the time as a landlord. Tenant applies for a unit and I get a call from the landlord. I would never answer a question like, "Was Mr. Jones a good tenant?" or "Did Mr. Jones take care of the unit?" But 99% of landlords know the code words, "Would you ever consider renting to Mr. Jones again?" Ask me that, and you will get a one word answer that tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Jones. It's slander-proof, because whatever answer I give must be the truth.Again, I do not advise being vague and/or evasive.
If I'm interviewing somebody and I ask, "Why did you leave your last position?" (or "Why are you moving?", which I ask at least 3 times when interviewing a rental applicant) I don't want to hear, "Well, it was just not a good fit and hey, did you catch the Red Sox game last night?" All that tells me is that you got canned and you don't know or care why.
It's the same thing with a rental applicant, except I ask three times at different points in the conversation, so it usually goes something like this:
Me: So why are you moving?
Applicant: Well, it was just time for a change.
[...]
Me: So why are you moving?
Applicant: Well, I didn't get along very well with my former landlord.
[...]
Me: So why are you moving?
Applicant: Well, I'm being evicted.
Me: NEXT!
If I can see that you are being honest with yourself and honest with me about what went wrong at your previous employer, you are in a lot better shape than if you are being vague and evasive.