I 100% agree with that^
Well, sure, but what's your point? Do you think they put the exemption there for companies to differentiate themselves with their altruistic overtime policy?
Another thing to note is that many computer professionals make above the old max, *and* the new max -- but as was mentioned above these rates are ridiculously low, near minimum wage. So again, why the exemption?
Previously, computer professionals had been considered exempt under section 13(a)(1), along with the exemption for executives, administrators, and professionals, but under Section 13(a)(17) a specific exemption was provided for any “computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker”
(from the same site I linked to).
To me it's strange they call-out computer professionals explicitly, and that they added it in 1996 when programmers were really starting to cost money for companies.
But you have to wonder about all the other exemption stuff too. There are also "learned professionals" and "creative professionals" exemptions. They might as well said "anyone that could cost big business a lot of money".
The "reasoning" behind the act is described as making it so that the FLSA would not apply to anyone who is capable of "exercising judgment" in their job. Because ostensibly, these people can negotiate for themselves. Have you found that to be the case with young/low level "professionals"? I know I haven't. I have seen lots of companies try to work the 20-something crowd 50-70hrs a week.
Also, at a time when states are passing laws against collective bargaining, it seems there are few places for these workers to turn. These rates need to be higher, and pegged to cost of living based on location. As it stands almost no one who works in SF or NYC would qualify.
1. The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
2. The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; [or]
3. The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems;
Interesting stat Thanks. I may certainly have the wrong impression about usage. Do you have a link to your source though? Would like to read more.
To be clear, I think that's 35,000 daily usages, not users. And most are under 30 mins (I think). But I did mean to make sure it was clear I was only speaking anecdotally, "as far as I can tell" -- I certainly may have a skewed perspective from the stations I see.
Thank goodness we have urban transit planners, people with degrees in this stuff. They are heavily, heavily pushing bicycle transit and bike shares. Not because it's 'sexy', but because it works.
I couldn't agree more. I am in awe of what they accomplish, to be honest. But at the same time, I can see they are struggling. From what I have read the MTA is $15-32B in the hole. So even though these bikes are a drop in the bucket, it is easy to be overly sensitive about the city wasting money, and the ever forward march of advertising. I also think it's good to look at them in that larger context.
You can plop down a bike share station in a matter of days or weeks (the biggest hassle are the community meetings) which affords enormous flexibility; it takes months to redo a bus route, and decades to plan a subway line.
An interesting point for sure.
Bike share bikes convert a fair number of people over to bike ownership, too - and the presence or more bike riders on the city's streets makes the streets safer for everyone.
Both of these statements seem unquantifiable to me -- I just say this because you have a good reply that seeks to show the actual number of bikes in comparison to my admittedly anecdotal statement. I have seen stats regarding "protected bike lanes" making things safer, but that is a subtle difference to "more bikes make everything safer" Here are the stats, I assume this is what you are referring to: http://www.streetsblog.org/201... But I really dont know where you could find data on these bikes converting people to ownership.
I think though you are talking an order of magnitude difference in cost, or more. I would expect that citibikes are relatively cheap in the grand scheme of infrastructure and any modifications to roads will spread across to private cycles as well.
Oh, definitely. Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise. The MTA budget is in the tens of billions, while the bikes are in the tens of millions. But the MTA moves 8 million+ per day while citibikes are ridden ~35,000 times per day.
I think Citi foots most of the upfront cost for the bikes but they are far from free to use: https://www.citibikenyc.com/pr...
Compare that to a $3 subway ride.
I am all for people riding their bikes, but a citibank advertisement is no substitute for a proper, functioning mass transit system. But from Citi's perspective, as an brand-awareness advertising campaign, I would be that the bikes are an unquestionable success. I just hope we aren't wasting too much time on a feel-good fix, and not enough on the real needs of the city. ( The MTA is thought to be $30B in debt: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/... )
Anyways, thanks for your links, hope to visit your country someday. Now I know where to bike!
Over the last 10-15 years NYC has significantly redesigned a lot of streets to fit bike lanes. They lowered the speed limit from 30 to 25 (past year or two), and added a lot more pedestrian stuff too I think. They also redesigned some traffic flow regarding right and left turns. (I am not sure all that was about bikes though).
Here's an article from 2010:
Most Citi bikes go ununsed as far as I can tell. Bikes are good, but I am not sure this was a good use of resources and space. I personally would've rather seen cleaner, faster, quieter and more reliable subways than more advert-bikes. But it's not so sexy for citibank to donate a tiny fraction of the MTA's budget for some billboards/posters.
That said, citibikes are far from the worst thing to waste money and time and space on. I just dont think it's clear if they are really a net positive.
So, https://intended.god/ ?
The bottom part of the display is not actually a screen and makes the circle around the display look like a flat tire at the bottom.
This shows it pretty well:
(still the best looking of the smartwatches, imo)
Not all medallions are priced the same. Look it up yourself. Or, keep replying with curses if it makes you feel better. You clearly are having trouble comprehending some of this.
That "basic licensing requirement" has nothing at all to do with safety.
Which license? I think if you can show a license that does just amount to graft, then any reasonable person would get on board with the idea that license is bad regulation. Except, the person you are replying to, specifically mentioned safety.
Neither argument can really be assessed unless concrete specifics are used. While most of TFA mentions "unfair competition" if you click through and read about the original German injunction they mention this:
The court in Frankfurt found that Uber posed unfair competition to the local taxi industry. It said Uber did not have the necessary licenses and insurance for its drivers and noted that the company could be selective in providing rides, while taxi drivers are required to accept anyone needing a ride.
To me, at least from these articles, it's a little hard to tell what's in the German rules for taxis. Do you have some info on this? To me it looks like one shady unethical business is bitching about another shady and unethical business, and one has an app. There is a lot of talk about 'complying with the regulations' in the articles, then a lot of slashdotters calling that regulation bullshit, but no mention of what the regulations actually are. So how do you know they are bullshit? Or are you just arguing on a political / emotional level?
But some people want to government to control all the things, and any excuse will do.
Beat up that straw man, yo.
You know, it's kinda shocking your karma isn't in the toilet. Your post is not only trollish flaimbait, it's borderline nonsensical.
Still, the curse at the end made you sound internet-tough.
This line is always trotted out by people who dont understand NYC medallions. Like it's "ooooh big scary number!"
That price is for a business medallion is purchased by a company that runs the car 24 hours a day in 3 shifts bringing in $300,000 / yr. or more.
I didnt call them exploitative -- that was some troll AC a few posts up. I'm just saying that not caring if they were, is a bad argument.
Frankly, your post is full of hyperbole too though. It would be nice if we could drop the BS and have a discussion. (I know, I know this is slashdot and all). But if you are going to make specific claims, "48 hour shifts" in (weasel word) "many" markets -- it'd be nice if you had a source. Was just reading at 48 hours without sleep you start having involuntary micro-sleeps followed by disorientation, no matter the activity. Scary thought. http://www.everydayhealth.com/...
I have been cheated by nearly every cab driver I've ever used, had them refuse to accept payment from my wife, etc. None of that is even possible on Uber.
See, that's a pretty reasonable argument for why you support and use Uber. I may not totally agree, (I have mixed feeling about Uber personally), but that would have been a valid point. Instead you went with... "it doesn't even matter if Uber is exploitive"
If you actually want to promote something, might want to find a better line of reasoning than 'they can scorch the earth, as long as it works for me'.