675 karma · joined December 16, 2022
We as a society have strong reasons to provide a glide path towards reducing that moral hazard created by old entrants.
There are plenty of criticisms for the death penalty but now you're changing the goalposts as you realize your description written in a science fiction feel good reality was a bad fit.
I didn't try to kill them, even though I managed to fight the upper hand off of them. When the scuffle ended all I said was "don't point things at my head."
Choose to believe me or not. Don't make presumptions about eagerness.
Anything beyond that is charity.
When I look at peak imprisonment rates it corresponds pretty well to when men are at max pressure to provide for dependents. Most of us wouldn't hurt someone else for our own good even if starving but look your starving kid in the face and the question becomes more difficult and theoretical about morality and risk of getting caught may go out the window.
The reason I wouldn't hire them is because the system salivates to put those people back in the system, and I prefer to hire someone less likely to get pulled into the abyss at any random moment and cause me to lose out on my trained workforce. Their PO, any officer scanning automatic plate readers, customs agents, whoever, they're all chomping at the bit to pull that person back out of society and employment.
Government apparatuses don't shrink in size. This is why the war on drugs started after prohibition, Henry Anslinger had to go after the evil marijuana. If people stop committing crimes we'll just have to invent more.
Your system is better. But it's special. Special is bad because I don't like having to do things X different ways for X different restaraunts. I would rather pay a little more and not have to remember the quarks of your restaurant. I am also just trained to tip so I will feel icky leaving your restaurant no matter if you are paying them a fair amount already.
So if you charge more money to include the tip I will still feel obliged to tip anyway and I will leave with the experience your restaurant is too expensive and not come back. In short I think you've done the right thing. Don't fight the mob, embrace it.
I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that.
And that's part of the trickery involved here. People say "look that one guy died in that house so we need to require stricter code here." They're not noticing the freezing homeless people that died because housing become $X dollars more expensive and they lost the musical chairs game. Sure the homeless guy wasn't going to buy a brand new house, but through the substitution effect across a wide swath of society eventually down the chain it does filter down to everyone ultimately affecting their access to housing. And hey, added bonus, current homeowners property is also worth more when building becomes more expensive so why not juice that one housing related death for all you got even if you know saving that one in a million rich person's life ends with 2 more dead homeless people or whatever.
The ability for voters, already homed, to just change up the codes on everyone while not having their own homes subjected creates a cruel moral hazard and socially bifurcating effect. The guy that gets in early comes in and gets his, then says fuck you, you have to play by different rules.
I'm not saying the houses should be torn down. I'm saying any updates should put situation where homeowner voters are subject to their own medicine. I don't think they'll choose to tear down the houses. No they might decide after all "hey good enough for me, good enough for you."
As for "can't build with X thing they did/didn't have before." Well you can update the codes to allow both the old and new method for something. That would satisfy conditions for both standing and new construction without uniform enforcement causing old houses to be demolished.
It's honestly kind of insane I've had a couple people basically suggest that if the rules be applied evenly, they're going with the "go and tear down houses when code is updated and see how quick we can make everyone homeless" option to pick up their toys and go home rather than give others the same chance they had by allowing the old ways in the code. That's the only way I can make out you would seriously think people would end up homeless.
The closest we have to that is gold buried in a hole somewhere or maybe a cold storage seed phrase in your head and the discipline not to reveal it in torture.
I wasn't sure and I had hoped the tip worked as you said getting spread around (at least to the sushi chef who takes the sushi order directly and drops it at your table). I figured the hostess would tell me straight up since she's not taking my tip directly and doesn't benefit greatly one way or another.
She made it clear to me. Don't expect anyone beyond the waitress to get a meaningful share. I presume she meant either the sharing was very minimal or the waitress was likely to pocket most of it before reporting the amount to the people she may obliged to share it with. That didn't sit well with me but I have a feeling she was telling the truth, especially in light of the fact that the waitress would have every incentive especially with cash to just pocket the money and tell everybody else they were stiffed or got 5% or whatever.
Personally I didn't agree with your redefinition, but since you go by a completely different standard than everyone else I went to your level to make you understand your absurdity.
> It is logically inconsistent and means that if wages, payments, or exchange of goods exist in any form as compensation for work, then the system is feudalism.
And no I was saying minimum wage law is doing the exactly thing you fear, which is split us apart by outlawing poor people from working if the value of their labor is less than the minimum wage amount. It creates the same bifurcated society you feared where the very poor now have their jobs outlawed and have to work in the black market and shadows already more than they already do. Minimum wage law is basically a giant "fuck you got mine" to people creating less than that value and creating a cartel where a number of poor people benefit at the expense of the even more poor through violence of the state.
Naturally the waitstaff super resented having to maybe take on less tables to do essentially unpaid work on the side of taking your order, prepping utinsels and drinks, possibly even making some very simple ready made stuff themselves, and plate bagging it up etc and a lot of the shit they have to do for a normal table except for no tip.
Which means they don't earn almost any wage.
So if they spend all their time prepping takeout orders for delivery workers they make NO money. So they get very pissed doing this work and intentionally slow it down.
my experience is from several years back, things may have changed.
OK but if I build a new house to the old code then I also will need substantial work to rebuild it to bring it into compliance. So I could use the same logic I shouldn't have to. Safe enough for them, safe enough for me.
>No, houses are held up to the code that applied when they were built,
Again, that's the scam. I'll build my house to one code and then vote to make the code harsher for the next guy to up my property value. If it's impossible to build a new house as economically as mine, mine's now worth more than it would have been.
Later the courts ruled this was technically employment and I got a token check in a class action, but of course never back paid for the hours as an employee.
The food delivery guy is basically seen like the UPS worker. All around I decided it was a fucked business model and quit pretty quickly.
Tipped workers had to up their game because they can no longer do tax evasion with everything on the record. Back in the days where most paid their restaurant with cash, tips were more like 15%. The move from 15 to more like 20 to 25% almost perfectly corresponds with the amount needed to make the same earnings after tax.
IN my state it is a felony have a reagent that say tests for THC whereas ownership of the THC itself is legal.
I had a very strict rule when I was homeless. Stay away from other homeless people. Camp on the edge of town. Ride the bus into rural areas.
How did I get a job with just the clothes on my back? I hitch-hiked to north dakota in the oil fields where a man is a man and they don't give a fuck what you look like. They hired me to do day labor, and once you have enough money for a van or a short stay airbnb it only gets easier from there.
Get the fuck out of tenderloin, and san francisco at all costs. Hitch-hike if you must. If you want guaranteed housing you can also look into doing seasonal harvesting work for fisheries in alaska. They'll pay your flight from seattle and then cover your food/shelter while you're working.