Alternatively maybe they had been working on the idea for awhile and it was just a coincidence. Bringing an idea to the table that they were already working on might also hurt your chances of getting a job there.
Why does your faith trump someone else's personal belief? That is, why does faith, which is a belief without any proof, often with proof to the contrary, trump a belief that might actually be grounded in some form of reasoning? In both cases it's simply what you believe vs what someone else believes.
Yeah, but are the decreased amount of police calls due to Target's loss prevention officers (and other such prevention mechanisms), or is it simply due to the fact that they cater to a different demographic? It would certainly be an interesting experiment - if Target removed their loss prevention officer, and/or Walmart added them, how much would change? I have no idea, but I suspect the demographic plays a pretty large role.
Completely agree - there's no chance lack of on-site enforcement accounts for 100% of the difference, but I'm sure the effect is still large. Theft of a $3 bottle of eye drops, to take an example from the article, just seems SO easily resolvable without police intervention. Even without loss prevention officers.
I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic.
Whereas Walmart's genius lay in not only continuing to cater to the lower income demographic... but to keep its valued customers addicted to junk food, junk clothing, junk music, junk kitchenware, and just plain... junk in general (peppered with vindictive, quite possibly career- and/or life-ruining arrests for drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying, now and then) so that they stay in the lower income demographic.
Or shoving it behind something else on a shelf and not paying at all. When people no longer have any respect for authority, social contract or citizenship AND you can't crack them over the head to teach a lesson in hard knocks, how are loss prevention supposed to deal with it? You let it go, then it's suddenly a widespread thing (YES IT WILL BE) and it costs everyone. And frankly it never ends. Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture.
In the normal, pragmatic way: wait until you actually see them put the opened drink behind something else on the shelf. Which, not all the time but often enough, you surely will. If they're drinking it out in the open -- in the line at the register, say? Most likely they're going to pay for it.
Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture.
By the same token, treating people as if they're already "low" (by not giving them the benefit of the doubt for an opening a $0.98 bottle of iced tea before paying) makes for an unworkable culture, also.
When two people order a steak, regardless of their income, they get the same thing. On the other hand, one of the largest services a government offers its citizens is protection of the citizens' persons and wealth, both from domestic and foreign threats. The value of that protection is relative to how much each citizen is worth. If you're in debt, like many Americans, you're basically getting protection only for your person, as you have little to no wealth to protect. On the other hand, if you're worth billions, the government is protecting your wealth as well. It only makes sense that the more you have to protect, the more you should have to pay.
> The value of that protection is relative to how much each citizen is worth. [...] On the other hand, if you're worth billions, the government is protecting your wealth as well. It only makes sense that the more you have to protect, the more you should have to pay.
Fyi, those sentences in your reasoning are already handled by a hypothetical flat tax percentage. It's the percentage that handles your cases as you stated them. For example, if a flat 15% tax was applied for everyone, the billionaire earning $30 million pays $4500000 in taxes, while the Walmart earning $20k pays $3000.
Mathematically, 4500000 is greater than 3000. In that case, the billionaire has paid more taxes which satisfies your reasoning.
On the other hand, the previous posters were emphasizing "progressive" taxes. That means that the percentages themselves are increased as income increases. Your rationale isn't specific to that. Probably the most common math rationale for progressive taxation is the concept of marginal utility of money[1]. In other words, a billionaire's $1 million of money made between $29 million and $30 million is less significant to him and therefore, can be taxed at a more "progressive" tax rate of 40% instead of 15%. On the other hand, the Walmart employees $1000 from $3000 to $4000 pays for food and rent and is not discretionary play money.
Well, despite using the term progressive, the poster I replied to was not emphasizing progressive taxes, because he used an analogy where everyone literally pays the same amount.
In any case, what I said wouldn't be covered under a flat tax percentage unless that flat tax percentage were on wealth, not income. A person making approximately 20k or less currently pays no income tax, which makes sense, because there's virtually no way they can accumulate any wealth at that income. On the other hand, as you move up each income tier, the amount of wealth you can accumulate goes up progressively. So a progressive tax is a close enough approximation to a flat tax on wealth, which is what I'm arguing makes the most sense.
Asking to be paid during an interview seems too much but a 4-8 hour interview doesn't seem too much? The average interview length across all industries is 40 minutes. Asking interviewers to spend 4+ hours on the hope of a job offer seems a tall demand. I think asking to be paid seems a fair counter to what is otherwise a very unfair ask.
I think the distinction being made is the value of the stock vs the value of the company, which is not always perfectly in sync. That's why, at any given time, a stock can be undervalued or overvalued. For example, I think you'd be hard pressed to state that the value of a stock right before a company announces unexpected losses is representative of the actual value of the company. The perceived value, prior to the announcement, is too high.
The problem is that virtually all of the screen time studies don't apply to tablet usage as they were studying the effects of passive screen time such as watching tv. People have a tendency to group the two together as "screen time" but actively playing educational apps on a tablet is very different than passively watching tv. In time we should have a better idea what the effects are but right now tablets are still too new for any comprehensive studies to have been completed.
