nickff

36 ms·

691.
by nickff 2y ago
Most companies are trying to hire people with more than 2-4 years of experience, but not 0-2 years of experience. They are far from losing all candidates to death or retirement.
692.
by nickff 2y ago
This system still does incentivize the board to accept (or at least not deter) junk or fraudulent applicants.
693.
by nickff 2y ago
Some industries do face shortages in short term skilled labor supply; they might be able to get more people trained up in 5-10 years, with enough investment, but you can’t get a journeyman ready in three months. Others just want more supply
694.
by nickff 2y ago
One problem with hiring juniors (from an employer perspective) is that they take a while to get trained up, then leave after 1-3 years, meaning that they require investment which never gets paid back. You can argue that the company should g
695.
by nickff 2y ago
There are a lot of companies; Americans have a spectrum of views, as do corporations. In addition, both individuals and corporations are capable of talking out of both sides of their mouth (or just plain lying).
696.
by nickff 2y ago
Some of the listing services actually do charge employers per applicant, unless they are rejected within a certain amount of time (usually 48 or 72 hrs).
697.
by nickff 2y ago
Please explain; the fact that a single eyewitness is unreliable (and I agree that they are,) does not mean that the consideration of a jury of one’s peers would be.
698.
by nickff 2y ago
How does getting rid of the death penalty address the parent’s concern about false imprisonment? I understand the philosophical and practical arguments against the death penalty, but getting rid of it won’t forestall zealous prosecutors.
699.
by nickff 2y ago
Nobody currently alive actually voted on anything related to the US Constitution, any of the first fifteen amendments, or many important laws, because they weren't alive. I don't see how the Thirteenth Amendment is any different f
700.
by nickff 2y ago
Well, supporters of state authority could argue that the contract was a prior one, the ‘social contract’. As it happens, I am a philosophical anarchist, so that doesn’t work for me, but most discussants here probably believe in political au
701.
by nickff 2y ago
My read is that they were asking the reader to imagine they (the reader) are a prisoner, and thus a slave according to the thirteenth amendment. Even under your reading, that comment is a pure hypothetical, because federal prisoners are no
702.
by nickff 2y ago
The Thirteenth Amendment does not say that prisoners are slaves. The text (of section one) is: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
703.
by nickff 2y ago
Yes, though I am including delivery and support staff with warehouse workers (basically everyone who is working 'on the floor'). More than half of their employees are categorized as "laborers and helpers", and there are
704.
by nickff 2y ago
Strike pay (at least often) requires picketing to qualify. Unions also often pay people to post comments online and otherwise present the union’s perspective to media or the public. Sometimes these people are listed as unit leaders, or have
705.
by nickff 2y ago
Would union supported/enforced comments count as astroturfing as well? I think it’d be interesting to ban pay for picketing & comments, though I’m not sure it’s enforceable.
706.
by nickff 2y ago
I don't understand how you got down from 7% down to 1.6%. I think you are not counting COGS as an expense, and that's where the error comes from. If your assumptions are otherwise correct, I think you'd get roughly a 7% incre
707.
by nickff 2y ago
Most companies’ largest expense is labor/wages (usually somewhere on the order of 25-50%), and profit margins are usually on the order of 0-5%. Increasing pay or benefits substantially would increase costs by a lot more than 0.5%.
708.
by nickff 2y ago
> "Maybe the fabric industry moved out because American workers weren’t cost-competitive." That seems like a likely factor, but insurance against product liability suits can be very expensive in some (litigious) industries, a
709.
by nickff 2y ago
The problem is that there are a lot of spurious and dubious cases, and class-actions are very expensive and risky to defend, even when the defendant is innocent, largely because they're seen as unsympathetic 'piggy-banks' (wh
710.
by nickff 2y ago
> "Perhaps putting all liability on the importer, distributor, or retailer for imported goods." These parties do carry extensive liabilities when there's a product defect or fault, as was the case in the cited case. The
711.
by nickff 2y ago
I linked to the cited case in my comment; it's an interesting read, and I suggest that you check it out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42452760
712.
by nickff 2y ago
Thanks for the citation of 'Chapman v Brown', it's an interesting case that I hadn't heard of: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/1...
713.
by nickff 2y ago
Why do you describe “free market” as being ideological, and “pro-market” without those terms? Both seem equally ideological (or not).
714.
by nickff 2y ago
Submarines have roughly neutral buoyancy when submerged; how will you detect the mass?
715.
by nickff 2y ago
And those cases could definitely be audited, but that will be a limited and biased sample.
716.
by nickff 2y ago
To be fair to the grandparent, you can’t fully audit whether the cases of the people who successfully petitioned, because they’re now dead.
717.
by nickff 2y ago
What happens when the employee steals $1k of wages (by slacking off or lying about sick days)? Even fewer consequences than occur when the employer fails to pay wages that are due.
718.
by nickff 2y ago
Your linked post seems to be a polemic, not a legal analysis. Many advertisements are subject to successful (expensive) class-action lawsuits based on some fraud or truth-in-marketing claim. Also, this isn’t an advertisement, it’s a communi
719.
by nickff 2y ago
I suspect most libertarians think the biggest problem here (and in many other areas) is that the government is providing a guarantee of safety, but not actually taking the steps which are required to ensure safety (because it'd be extr
720.
by nickff 2y ago
> "It's not, not anymore than it already was." Maybe it already was fraud. I expect to see class-action lawsuits on the way soon.

More ›