Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
also i do not support a full ban on holiday workdays
The "size of government" paradox (with polling data!)
- Thread starter Arwon
- Start date
Thank you
Not necessarily "The most" so much as it shows how awful your society has become when they can even regulate things such as that.
Trading hours were previously always regulated, the issue has been continuing it, changing it or entirely deregulating it. This is conservative inertia versus change.
The trend has been towards deregulated shop hours but some states like Western Australia and South Australia havne't moved far. In practice most states' trading hours legislation exclude shops with small numbers of staff working at any one time, if they're in tourist location, what they sell, etc.
Good Friday and Christmas Day seem to remain non-negotiables for major supermarket chains.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Just as to you this measure apparently seems ridiculous, so does your reaction seem to me and I suppose many others living n countries with such measures. The reason why it is done also seems pretty much straight in your face. I can not fathom why it merits such confusion as to the why.
So... why is your positive freedom/right to buy items at late hours more important than the negative freedom/right to not work at late hours? See, that is the problem with the free market. It is pretty good in benefiting consumer demands. But it pretty much is a clueless baby when it comes to weighting the cost of consumer satisfaction against the costs of accomplishing the satisfaction suffered by the provider (who happens to be the same guy as the consumer). The stereotype-free-market-ideology sadly kind of neglects to mention this and just goes like "Whooo freedoooam!". Apparently, this did a good number on you.
You say that as if it was a trivial issue, it's not. As least the soda cans were trivial, but this certainly isn't.
It's not even "business unfriendly". The total amount of money people will spend does not depend on how long shops are opened, it entirely depends on what they can afford and/or what they need. You don't get anything by keeping your shop open longer unless by outcompeting someone else, who is then forced to keep his own shop open as well. The previous competitive situation has been restored, only with higher costs. You could even call this an outright market failure!
On the other hand, do you know the social situation of most cashiers, the profession that suffers most from unrestricted opening hours? Most of them are women, and often single mothers or second earners (at least in Germany, but I doubt it's all that different in the US). It's utter hypocrisy that conservative parties that are usually opposed to this kind of restriction claim to be "family friendly".
How does your "right" (really? Sounds more like you're pushing an entitlement here) and freedom to buy soap at 2 AM weigh against the employees' right and freedom to spend time with their family when they're needed?
I'm not saying that this makes the decision to restrict opening hours trivial or obvious, but if you live in a society that can't even acknowledge that there are legitimate interests on both sides that have to be weighed against each other, then frankly, it's your society that's truly awful to live in.
Mise
isle of lucy
I think that school grades should be rewarded largely based on how long someone stays at school after normal school hours are over. The longer you stay, the more School Points you get; you can use these SPs to purchase "grade boosts". Someone who gets an F in an exam can simply stay at school all night and all day for a week (a 7-day week, of course), earning enough SPs to bring his final grade back up to an A. This will teach children the value of hard work and dedication, so that, when they grow up, they will be able to service the needs of 2AM soap purchasers like good little Stakhanovites.
I think this is a fair system.
I think this is a fair system.
Well, you should also be able to hire someone to stay for you and you take the points.
Mise
isle of lucy
Good idea, but you would have to have some way for graduating students to give points to their younger siblings for that to work.
Yet you want to infringe on people's right to a normal life.
Working nights is crappy and you lose your social life
Its just another example where you want your rights to trample over other peoples rights
You're not a libertarian, you're a GOPer in denial.
The only government restrictions I have seen of business hours were the blue laws that that kept things closed on Sunday, the laws that restrict the hours you can sell alcohol, the hours a nudie bar can stay open, and the fact that car dealerships must close one day each weekend. All of those laws were pushed by righties or the industry (in the case of the car dealerships).
To go back to the OP, the implicit bias in the questions has been nicely discussed already.
I think a rephrase actually could really help. What do people think of this example.
Would you be: willing to pay higher taxes to have better road maintenance?, willing to pay lower taxes to have worse road maintenance?, willing to maintain the current system as acceptable?
That could then be replicated.
I think a rephrase actually could really help. What do people think of this example.
Would you be: willing to pay higher taxes to have better road maintenance?, willing to pay lower taxes to have worse road maintenance?, willing to maintain the current system as acceptable?
That could then be replicated.
GhostWriter16
Deity
We'd have to cut the neocons out of the process first, and we can't have that apparently. Got to fund those wars.
Of course, I'd rather cut the wars and the taxes rather than cut the wars and increase "Welfare" (Involuntary redistribution) but I disgress.
That (Bold) is ridiculous, it means that people can just stay on the public dole and not look for jobs. Ours is two years right now. I think its too much.
I'm not really on the religious right other than being religious and being on the economic right (I disagree with about half of "Republican" social policy, and with the exception of one candidate I despise the Republican foreign policy.)
"Privatize roads and let the market decide" really needs to be an option (I'm not sure I'd privatize them, although I'd definitely leave it to the local states and keep the Feds 100% out of it, but it needs to be an option.)
No. I said they never time out, not that there is zero conditionality attached. You still have to look for work or participate in training.
But having unemployment benefits with a time limit seems crazy. What happens when there just aren't jobs and the period expires?
The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I like it. You could make a thread with poll, but unfortunately, instead of choosing, people will only be concerned with finding a loophole to the question so they don't have to answer it.
Like: privatisation should be in there, so we can discuss that, so I don't have to make that choice.
I think that's a fair critique, because an entire segment feels like they are not being presented with a choice.
Would you be: willing to pay higher taxes to have increased government spending on road maintenance?, willing to pay lower taxes to have decreased government spending on road maintenance?, willing to maintain the current system as acceptable?
Privatizing roads doesn't work, Ghostwriter, because for the idea to be viable, you'd need to set up miniature monopolies with legal protection. You'd be beholden to corporate masters in a way that would be nearly free of any type of real market-based feedback. Shuttling authority between Feds and States is already done for entirely reasonable reasons. Those who desire 'smaller government' are already having their views practically implemented, because everyone knows that you assign such tasks to governments closest to the issue.
Would you be: willing to pay higher taxes to have increased government spending on road maintenance?, willing to pay lower taxes to have decreased government spending on road maintenance?, willing to maintain the current system as acceptable?
Privatizing roads doesn't work, Ghostwriter, because for the idea to be viable, you'd need to set up miniature monopolies with legal protection. You'd be beholden to corporate masters in a way that would be nearly free of any type of real market-based feedback. Shuttling authority between Feds and States is already done for entirely reasonable reasons. Those who desire 'smaller government' are already having their views practically implemented, because everyone knows that you assign such tasks to governments closest to the issue.
GhostWriter16
Deity
No, they can insist not to work nights, or insist higher pay for such and that could be signed in the contract.
Some people actually don't mind working nights, or would be happy with the extra pay that they could perhaps obtain for doing that.
I wouldn't be particularly against some extra pay for it being required, although I think that market could quite possibly handle that on its own. I am absolutely against working at night being banned.
And I'll seriously consider actually supporting the GOP when they stop wiretapping phones, starting wars, and stealing from taxpayers at home to finance foreign wars. Until then, no.
Amend it
I'm actually seriously not in favor of the Federal government being involved in either of those, so I'd support amending it out.
You are right, however, that if its in there it is constitutional. But since I didn't actually reference the constitution its a nonargument.
"Shall have the power" doesn't mean "Must."
I'm not saying to privatize roads, but I am saying that some people do believe we should and so it does need to be a poll option.
The market handling it on its own has lead to many an unwanted graveyard shift. ''The market'' is not the magical answer to everything, you know.
Congress having the power to build roads is the same as Congress having the power to build roads.
ftfy.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Negotiate. Heck, use collective bargaining. The government should stay out of it.
And, as stated, some people would be willing to take those hours. What you are doing is denying those people a job that may even pay more than those who do mind would get paid.
Read my posts. I'm against banning working at night.
Yeah, I do. And I disagree with them on a lot. You can't fit me in a box
