I would not really do it out of concern for safety, but all of these issues also have huge impact on scheduling causing delay's, cancellations, etc.. which is already a big problem.
Yes we all know the authorities do a terrible job of actual investigation instead jumping to assumption, speculation, and "gut" of their "experience" to intuit the "truth" of the matter with out any logic or reason..
Presuming and Assuming when it comes to a death investigation is often the start of how innocent people go to jail
There is a case where a woman "stabbed her self" 17 or so times, including in the back of the head and it was ruled a "suicide"
It does not take much for a motivated medical examiner to rule a death a suicide, their are plenty of examples where clearly not suicide was been rule suicide in history.
Then there is always the movie "The Shooter" where they had an arm contraption purpose built to force someone to "commit suicide", The device itself is plausible
In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc
If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.
>>As well as discourages intentionally messing up within the company and profiting from short selling
While I do not agree with the OP on insider trading being good.... I also think short selling is a net negative and should be banned right along side insider trading
I have been working for over 30 years, never once have I considered the NLRB being for me the normal worker.... never once have I ever wanted to be part of a union, and never once have I ever seen personally unions provide any benefit to workers. I have worked in and around unionized manufacturing plants my entire life, including many times during the formation of a union. In all most all cases the workers lives, pay, and conditions were WORSE post union than before...
there problem here is that the intent from an originalist standpoint of the commerce clause was to prevent New York from regulated commerce coming from Delaware, or vice versa.
Was to regulate, as in to make regular...
It was not to expand to allow regulations to apply to any commerce that happened to cross state lines... like your example of shipping a package.
The movement of the package may then trigger federal regulations but those regulations should not move up stream to the Person that packed the box, as that activity was wholly intrastate. The employer and the employee was both in the same state, and the transaction for the labor was enclosed into a single state.
The transaction from the consumer to the company may be interstate and that may be regulated by the Commerce clause.
This would imply that congress has unlimited authorirty to regulate anything it chooses, that would be a complete inversion of constitutional purposes which is to limit the power of congress to just a few things.
now over the centuries bad judges making terrible rulings (see Wickard) , and a few poor amendments (17th being one of them) have allowed the federal government to expand well beyond its original limited powers.
Thankfully and mercifully the current Supreme Court seems very willing to put the federal government back into its proper constitutional box... Amazon I am sure is looking to leverage that... As outside the terrible expansion of the Commerce Clause in Wickard does the federal government have any authority to regulate employment in any state... No where other than a massive liberal reading of the commerce clause is that power found in Article 1 Section 8 from which all congressional and federal authority is derived.
While you are correct given the government debt levels and printing of money, on principle taxation should only be used to raise money for public purposes. Not to incentivize or punish behavior.
Allowing the government to use taxation for purposes other than public finance has been and will continue to be an avenue for abuse, and authoritarian control ultimately leading to tyranny
Paid for my car. My insurance and anything in wanted that was not basic needs.
My parents provided shelter, basic food at home, and transport to school and official functions...
If I wanted anything beyond that like access to a car to go out with friends. Or to buy a new game.. or go to a party etc. I hade to fund that with my own money
My parents were terrible at personal finance. They were not savers nor did the schools teach me anything about saving.. investment or compound interest so I did not start any of those things until my late 20's.. I failure instill regret....
That said my parents never asked me to contribute to the household finances.. and now today as one of my parents has no retirement they now live with me and I do not ask them to contribute to the household finances...
So you deny that atleast in the US we have a huge Competence Crisis.. You ignore and deny the many many studies that show the IQ of the average graduate is dropping and dropping fast, you ignore the many many professors that have come out to state outright there is a plagiarism problem in most universities, and that administrators are forcing professors to pass students that should never be passed? You ignore the many many high schools that do not have a single student that pass standardized math and reading tests?
Yes there is "kids get off my lawn" but to just dismiss all of the data and problems as that is ignorant and dangerous
I 100% disagree, the coddling of the American mind is a huge problem and we continue to push out development in favor of these new age idea that "kids cant handle it" with the result that we now have an entire generation of Adult Children...
Most college graduates likely could not pass a 8th grade exam from 100 years ago, the social cost of that is immense.
>>These taxes can fund free education or healthcare or defense.
is it is always a bad idea to ear mark a tax for a specific purpose. Especially if you desire to use the tax as a punitive measure to reduce that which you deem bad for society, if it works now you need to come up with the money for the thing you funded elsewhere because all government programs are permanent
Look at smoking, all kind of things were funded on the back of smoking taxes, and when those punitive taxes worked to reduce smoking the revenue dried up but the budgets for for those programs did not so now the money had to come from somewhere else....
Using the tax code to punish or reward behavior is always bad
well now we will get in a Hobbes vs Locke, I am more Lockean
I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most
Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized
Often times it is due to the employee not properly documenting anything. They still have to prove they are owed the money. you cannot just go to the DOL and claim you owed something with no proof.
I only called sick a handful of times, never was late, and did my job to the best of my ability. it is called work ethic. I started at $0.25 above minimum wage, as we given several raises, and position changes by the time I left at age 18, why because I was one of the most reliable teens they had, and they did not want me to go to another employer.
Some parents instill work ethic in their children even teens, sadly we do not have many good parents these days it seems like
and for the record, walmart never asked me and I never did work a single second off the clock...
First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free
This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is.
Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company.
The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union