I found Scala to be missing too much of what I liked about Haskell. If I'm gonna lose out on the niceties that are unique to Haskell, then I'd rather go with something more pragmatic, like Kotlin.
485 karma · joined April 8, 2015
I believe you but this is yet another reason why it was inappropriate for the pilot to mention this to passengers. Nearly everyone around me was visibly distressed as we "idled" to Pittsburgh.
> The flight may have been scary to the passengers, and people may not have wanted to get back on, but I'm sure it was quite routine to the people up front.
Maybe for the pilot/copilot but the flight attendants' facial expressions when I got off the plane did not suggest to me that this was routine.
I could be wrong about it being illegal, I was just repeating what an (other) airline employee told me. But they did take my luggage off the plane after telling me that they weren't going to.
They took my luggage off the plane and United agreed to put me on the next flight to my final destination for free even though tickets were $750 that day.
> turning off the lights for a landing is regular procedure, nothing unusual.
The lights were off for about an hour as we glided toward Pittsburgh.
> Your strong language
My assessment is that I was told my luggage would continue on to DC without me if I didn't board in an attempt to get the plane leaving as soon as possible after refueling. I didn't care enough to get back on, and learned the following day that they had actually removed my luggage before departure.
The only thing I found about it online is a couple of tweets from other passengers of the same flight.
Could be that Canadian software engineers prefer to move to the US to make much better money.
Definition 3b.
I don't care what you think demand means, you already said you know what I mean and you keep being obtuse about it. I'm not moving demand and supply curves, I'm saying if the price of oranges goes up, some people are gonna substitute them with apples. Yes, some people are gonna keep buying oranges anyway because they value them at more than what the price increase is at. But overall fewer people will buy oranges.
You keep giving specific examples of where employers might keep employees even if they have to pay them more, maybe to convince yourself that this is a complicated issue. I didn't say all minimum wage employees lose their job when the minimum wage rises. But there are fewer jobs. This isn't complex, there isn't a special nuance that requires a PhD in economics and an MBA to understand. Some employees are barely worth it at the current price to some employers and not worth it at a higher price. Minimum wage laws don't magically make employers value employees more.
The effects of minimum wage laws are visible. Increased unemployment, primarily for teenagers and young adults, automation, and outsourcing are commonplace everywhere with minimum wage laws.
Demand means the amount of a product or service that people want. Increasing the price of something does reduce the demand for it (and increases the supply).
> this is even worse than wrong, I don't know what to say at this point.
This is puzzling and I think you misread what I wrote. An employee bringing in less in revenue than they are paid is an unsustainable situation.
> no, they can't replace with cheaper workers - because of minimum wage
They can replace the workers with fewer more experienced ones who will be able to command the higher wage.
> A wage increase means the money has to come from somewhere
It does come from somewhere: fewer hired workers. If you raise the price of oranges, you will sell fewer. Setting a price floor on labor is no different.
> It depends.
No, it doesn't. Employers try to pay employees as little as they can and employees try to earn as much as they can. When an employer feels they're not getting enough for their money, they replace them. When an employee feels that they aren't compensated enough, they find another job. "Labor" is too generic to make claims about elasticity of demand–some types of labor may be elastic, others inelastic, but minimum wage laws do not discriminate. In addition, there is always a ceiling where supply and demand become irrelevant: the revenue added by hiring a worker must be higher than their wage. If a new price floor is higher than what an employee is able to bring in in revenue, that employee will not remain employed.
> I know what you are trying to say [...] > FYI here is 'supply and demand' [1]
So you're either being pedantic or condescending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
If you raise the price of something–anything–it lowers demand. That's why minimum wage laws create unemployment.
> It may or may not yield less employment depending on elasticity.
If you're earning your employer $10/h and the minimum wage rises to $11, you will not have a job. Either right away if the employer realizes it, or eventually when they go out of business if they don't.
Adding elasticity to the equation unnecessarily complicates this. Some things have elastic demand, others have inelastic demand. Why focus only on the relevant case for the point you're making? The overall effect of a price increase is decreased demand.
> If businesses are flush with profits, then they'll eat the higher labour input and that's it
Profits have nothing to do with it. If a business has employees at some wage and the minimum wage rises above that wage, they will, at least eventually, replace the low-wage employees with new ones (or with automation) that add at least as much value as they are paid (or cost). Profits don't magically make businesses waste money on inexperienced employees where they could otherwise be more efficient with more experienced employees at the same price or with automation.
> Otherwise, prices may rise
Not without an associated drop in demand.
> You can see this more acutely in healthcare, where there are stronger regs, because the power asymmetry is bigger aka the supplier has the power of 'life or death' over the customer.
Assuming you are talking about the US, there is no difference there. The supplier has power because they are able to limit the supply, e.g. the AMA limiting (with govt help) the number of doctors who graduate every year. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope...
In which of these places does the economy only go up?
and also lose money when those public companies lose value?
People already have that option, as long as they're ok also losing money when the economy is down.
Working is a two-way agreement, not exploitation. The job market "discriminates against" people with little or no experience. Gaining experience is valuable, that's why young people choose to take jobs with low monetary pay.
What's the alternative?
Testability does require some forethought but if your codebase always takes that into account then it's as easy as other languages.
no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Exactly. I have had zero accidents in 20 years; I'm not interested in a car that will lower the overall accident rate if it increases mine.