Their virtual pet game is creepily connected to their social media platform and has poor performance on low end phones, like the kind kids typically have. Their company has a huge problem at the leadership level if they are making those kinds of enormous mistakes. Maybe selling will fix it.
I was under the impression that this is the exact kind of thing that violates the GDPR. That is.. processing an identifier (IP address) to do something more (track user actions across multiple requests) than what is required (route traffic to the server).
My recent experience with wanting analytics for an enterprise application was that for my limited needs, it was easier to roll my own than to deal with evaluating all the options and integrating with another service. There are already a ton of privacy focused alternatives to google analytics. So many such that finding one that serves a niche is practically ungoogleable.
“Trying to regulate” and “succeeding in enforcing regulations” aren't the same thing.
In fact, a low clearance rate can be evidence of trying to regulate far beyond one's capacity to consistently enforce; if you weren't trying to regulate very hard, it would be much easier to have a high clearance rate for violations of what regulations you do have.
Basic economics can be reduced to:
Operate while marginal_revenue >= marginal_cost (mr >= mc).
In this example, marginal cost just increased by some delta, d, to get to $20. This means that anyone currently working in such fashion that d > (mr - mc) now provides negative value to their employer.
Furthermore, in any future venture, people will only be hired if they can provide >= $20 in hourly revenue.
Likely fast food restaurants will raise prices to cover the increased mc, so this ultimately gets passed on to the consumer.
Because you’re not changing the service you’re providing and a “worse” worker doesn’t decrease the throughput of the store in any measurable fashion.
This increase will get passed onto the consumer, and it will also create more competition in who can maintain the constraint of $20/hr for pay while decreasing the rest of their costs to compete with the McDonald’s and KFCs.
> Because you’re not changing the service you’re providing and a “worse” worker doesn’t decrease the throughput of the store in any measurable fashion.
I dont think either assertion is true.
Maybe a business finds ways to cut costs to offset the wage increases leading to a worse product for the consumer.
If I have a worker that is able to produce 150% of the tacos per hour compared to another worker, there is definitely a difference in throughput and therefore a difference in value.
> This increase will get passed onto the consumer... reducing the profit margin
I agree. There are three outcomes:
1. Pass the costs to the consumer
2. Reduce profit margins
3. Go out of business (this happens when 1 and 2 fail)
The policy now has forcably changed the market equilibrium for labor by reducing supply in jobs comparable to fast food. The government has now mandated the consumer must pay more than the market equilibrium price. It has mandated that entrepreneurs reduce their income.
Command economies were literally one of the golden ages of the American middle class. So no they do actually work.
Anyone who is working deserves a living wage. Otherwise we’re now helping companies hire people and not pay them enough for the work they do. These people don’t go away, they end up costing all tax payers more $.
Also, next time you go to a fast food place look and see how many of them are high schoolers. Maybe that’ll stop the strawman arguments.
> Also, next time you go to a fast food place look and see how many of them are high schoolers. Maybe that’ll stop the strawman arguments.
Have you considered that by increasing minimum wage so dramatically, high schoolers now need to compete with adults for the same positions, and they are now crowded out because they have less flexibility with their hours and schedules?
High schoolers may be willing to accept a lower wage for the same work, which would give them an advantage in hiring, but now they are barred from seeking it.
> High schoolers may be willing to accept a lower wage for the same work, which would give them an advantage in hiring, but now they are barred from seeking it.
The point of a government is to protect people from being exploited.
It is not exploitation if it's voluntary. The business cannot enslave the teenager. They can simply offer a wage and hope someone bites. If nobody bites, they either need to increase the offer or go without the labor.
It is fine. I believe the Wagner Act, which prohibited child labor federally, is unconstitutional.
Everywhere child labor is a symptom of the poor. But I believe parents should have the ability to teach and labor their children as they see fit. Regulations against unsafe working conditions are fine, so long as they're implemented at the correct level, but the government deciding it knows better than the parent is always wrong.
Its controversial because if the market could bear a price increase, it would already bear it. The left hand side of your inequality is already at a local maximum, and can not be raised to pass on costs to the consumer.
If that is the case, that means that prices are fixed so either profits will decrease, service will diminish to cut costs to counteract the rising cost of labor, or both.
Companies whose costs can't be cut to cover the rising labor and profits shrink to zero will go out of business.
Why are we mandating that people go out of business when they have people voluntarily trading their labor for a set price?
Why are we reducing the roi of producers of capital which will lead to fewer investments?
Is this a play to reduce fast food for the sake of public wellbeing?
Is there a 5A argument here that the government has passed a law for the public benefit and that law invalidated labor contracts, so now the government owes just compensation for the delta between what their labor cost them prior to the new minimum wage? I would say yes.
A personal example for me is that on the iphone, the default view shows me 24 icons, which is way too many to be useful. Its so useless, in fact, that most tech savvy users simply swipe up and use the search feature. But there's no way to know that you can swipe up to get to the search feature, leaving most non-tech-savvy users to visually inspect pages of icons, one at a time, until they find the app they are looking for.
