I think the fish and wildlife dept. said they wouldn't intervene unless his condition got worse. I guess they have a clear "must have lost 3 limbs" policy for relocation.

OMG...I was SOOOO hoping you would make that argument.
The 'blanket' minimum wage is the minimum we have decided that those living in the cheapest places to live should be paid. I agree, it should be based on cost of living...but the $15 an hour standard is what we've said should be the minimum in back woods Appalachia, and in larger cities it should be well over $20. Reduce the pay at the top to a reasonably high level and that won't cost most businesses another penny.

OK, bay area....you said ""those who choose to live there need to consider their income" ....ignoring the majority of people who are 'stuck' there without sufficient income; those who've lost financial stability, or those born there to poor parents who have never made any choice, and usually their parents who no longer have a choice to make at this point. They simply can't afford to move. The same goes for most low income people anywhere, they don't "choose" to live there, they don't have the luxury of a 'choice'. ...or are you lobbying for free moving and relocation services for the poor?

10 years ago, $15 an hour was not a living wage in many places, the bay area for one. I left there 20 years ago, and $15 an hour was pretty hard to live on as a single man sharing an apartment THEN, I can't imagine how it is now, especially for those with children.

No, you didn't say ONLY kids living at home have minimum wage jobs, but you did mention them as if they are a large percentage of minimum wage workers, and the group we should focus on, and implied that wages should be determined (at least in part) by THEIR needs. They are in fact the smallest group of minimum wage workers, and even they need more money to eventually move out.

Really? " those unwilling to put in the effort and gain the skill required to actually do a decent service to society." If you really believe a large percentage of people working for minimum wage are "unwilling to put in effort" to better themselves, I just don't know what to say. That's completely batshit insane, they work insanely hard for little compensation, with little respite, and absolutely no respect. Most are putting out more than a reasonable maximum effort just to go deeper into debt constantly, there is no amount of effort that makes more time to make more money to pay for training, or an amount of effort that makes tuition free. Also, who do you think will take over for them if they all put in the effort and gain the skill required to actually do a decent service to society"...(whatever the hell that insulting statement is supposed to mean besides implying they aren't decent or serving society today...by choice)?
What are you talking about "Complacency shouldn't be allowed to make life more difficult for all of us"? WHAT?!? OK, yes, so stop being so complacent about the horrendous way we treat those at the bottom of the financial system because that makes life more difficult for all of us by forcing those with 'more' (but not enough 'more' to avoid taxes) to pay higher taxes for welfare, prisons, policing, housing, etc....by making the nation more crime ridden because it's the only way to make a living for so many...by overtaxing our medical system because so many can't afford to be preemptive with their health and only accept medical help when it's at emergency stage...etc.

If the funds to raise the lowest wages don't come from the extravagant pay that goes to the top and are instead being transferred directly to consumers, yes, it's a vicious cycle. That's why you have to ALSO lower top compensation by law, like maybe tie it to the lowest paid worker in the company. That would stop inflation from being a feedback loop with wages.

Neither.
Perhaps YOU didn't watch the video, or do you just refuse to acknowledge the facts that the Jewish population was quite small, and was treated fairly under 'Palestinian rule' (whether under the Ottomans, Brittan, or France)?
They didn't fight until AFTER Zionisation....or invasion. They declared war because the Jews in droves illegally immigrated there and TOOK/STOLE the land by force and asserted political and military control, and instantly started expanding their control to their neighbors and expelling or disenfranchising non Jews.
Yes, it's absolutely the Jew's fault for stealing other people's land. Yes, it's the Brit's and French's fault for not enforcing the legal immigration plans that were set up and for allowing all the insane illegal immigration/invasion, then later their and the USA's fault for supporting the invaders politically, militarily, and financially.
They absolutely should have KEPT them in Germany/Europe and taken state land and given it to the Jews to form their own state...not allowed them to relocate and take an innocent party's property because they want it. Before the Jewish invasion, the Jews in Palestine were treated just fine...not so with the Palestinians after the invasion.

Did you not bother watching the video, or do you just refuse to acknowledge that BOTH Arabs and Jews were Palestinians prior to the civil war at the end of WW2? Arab and Jewish Palestinians fought one another, the UN recommended a 2 state solution, the Jewish Palestinians agreed, the Arab Palestinians and ALL the neighbouring Arab states all jointly declared war on the Jewish Palestinians with the intent of having all of Palestine for themselves.

But yeah, it all the Jews fault, or if not the Jews fault, it's the Brits and European's fault for not supporting the genocide or eviction of ALL jewish Palestinians and relocating them somewhere in a Europe that had just recently killed them by the million...

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

Although the smell, due to the additives, which were noticed way back (oct-nov) by the communities near by. http://ktla.com/2015/10/30/concerned-porter-ranch-residents-protest-after-gas-facility-leak-causes-odor/

The company has been relocating families since it seems.

Another video that shows the leak about three weeks ago
https://youtu.be/IAKiqy82GIQ

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC did a story about a month ago.
https://youtu.be/OaY6-8MRwBE

Oh and one last thing before Christmas - the economic and ghetto building motivation is so obvious. This enormous wave of people practically runs through Slovenia and Austria, countries with wonderful standards of living, that I would gladly relocate to if I had a good opportunity even just for the skiing - into the muslim "heaven" of awful slums in large German, Swedish, French and Belgian cities. They dont even see this exodus as a chance to escape from their main predicament. I have to admit stupid people frighten me a bit.

The theory can still work, though. Rather than relocating a cart, imagine it's a new restaurant opening. That new restaurant sucks up a lot of the business of one of the prior restaurants. The prior restaurant goes out of business and the cycle starts again, repeating until there are no better locations to open new restaurants.

@entr0py

The premise is not off at all. Starbucks simply skipped all the moving around steps and located in the "middle of the beach" where the existing coffee shop already was, because (it is likely) that is the best spot in the market.

Starbucks, or any business, does not open to "drive them out of business" they open a store to sell their goods and make a profit.

As someone who has worked with several retailers in very aggressive market sectors (pizza, fast casual, etc) I can tell you that the two vital components to any successful retailer/restaurant are 1) Good location 2) Good Operations. A good location means your customer will see you and get to you. Good operations means once they are there they will be served well.

More often then not when we start working with a new client we look at their competition not because we want to "drive them out of business", but because they have already looked at and evaluated the market. We then evaluate their locations and see if that is still the correct location or not. Markets shift for a variety of reasons - housing growth, retail expansion, major retailers relocating, etc.

"It's easier to steal someone else's customer base than try to create your own." Really? I find this to be the silliest argument. There is a limited amount of money people are going to spend on a product. Lets say a town will spend $1000 a day on coffee. If you open another coffee shop they are not going to spend an additional thousand. The $1000 is just going to be divided up. Maybe there is a slight increase because of access, but by and large people are only going to spend so much. Furthermore, people are creatures of habit. They are actually more likely to continue to go where they have been going unless you offer something better. That better might be a combination of easier access, faster service, a nicer interior, cheaper prices, or better product.

In the city I work in there are several grocery chains expanding and opening new stores. Does that mean people are spending more on groceries? No. What has happened is the grocer with the weakest operations closed. Those locations (over 30) have since been taken over by a variety of both national chains and local independent grocers (all who have better operations). This competition has meant better prices and service for customers.

I buy my coffee a block from my house (and I usually just buy the beans they roast on site) from a local shop. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that other people choose to go to the Starbucks up the street. The coffee I buy is better and I pay a premium for it.

Edit: One last thought - Among the many competitive advantages corporate users have is that they can operate at a loss or lower profit than many "local" stores. That being said the same is not quite as true from franchisee business owners (who have different advantages, hopefully).

@Shepppard

Restaurants like to be next to one another so long as they are different products. It creates a "food destination". Preferably lack of availability or a restriction would prevent users that have a product that is very similar.

Ever notice how most retail developments only have one coffee shop or one sandwich shop? Retail users ask landlords for an exclusive use. For example, Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts will say they can be the only store that sells coffee in a shopping center. Another restaurant may serve coffee as an incidental use - that is it can't be the central part of their business. This makes it harder for a new user to enter an established market.

You seem to be fixated on peak capacity of sit down restaurants. Restaurants have to complete their own analysis of how much square footage to have to accommodate the heaviest dining times, but still cover their costs when seats sit empty. Each square foot adds to their cost.

This video is very accurate in describing how users evaluate and respond to competition within a market.

I have worked in commercial retail brokerage for the last 10 years with several national users - pharmacies, banks, restaurants, and general retail use.

As a final comment, users can and will move. People do not notice as much but retailers relocate when they must to stay competitive or to block another user from coming into a market.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

No, instead the perpetuate a state sponsored version of history that says the palestinians willingly left their homes when Israel was founded, ignoring the terror campaign instituted that made them want to leave their homes, ignoring the hundreds of thousands that were literally forced out at gun point. Instead they force their children to participate in a generations long campaign of ethnic cleansing. Instead they relocate their families to settlements, thereby implicating them in war crimes. No, they don't use suicide bombers, they just use bombers. That way they can go back over and over again.

I'm not saying the Palestinians make good neighbours. I am saying that Israel makes for a horrible neighbour.

This situation is sad and ironic.

The area known as Judea was renamed Palestine during the time of Roman emperor Hadrian.
The residents of Judea/Palestine were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity around 400 ad by the Romans, and later in the 700's ad were forced to convert to Islam.
They never left. They just changed religions. The children of the Jews of the new testament, are the Palestinians of today (now practicing Islam).

Many years passed, the Eastern Roman empire resided over much of the area, ruled out of Turkey, and the region was more or less all-right. Along the way it changed names to the Ottoman empire.

After WW1, the Ottoman empire shrank dramatically, and renamed itself to simply Turkey. However it still held some lands that were not actually Turkish (eg. ~Syria), and was still a mini-empire.
Around this general time period, Palestine became a British colony.

During WW2, there were many displaced Europeans of Jewish faith that had nowhere to go.
(*Britain didn't want them either, most places didn't. Anti-Semitism was rather common at the time. Even the Nazi eugenics policy wasn't much criticized at the time. re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics. Actually, the Nazi's strong association with anti-semitism + all the anti-Nazi propaganda during WW2, helped cure a lot of anti-semitism in Europe.).
In the late 1940's Britain split occupied Palestine into smaller-Palestine+Israel, and assisted in relocating WW2 displaced Europeans of Jewish faith to Israel. Which at face value made sense, because "the bible says Jews are from Judea". However the area from which was established Israel was more or less ~devoid of followers of the Jewish faith in the 1940's.
And that's the irony! The British creation of Israel involved taking land from Palestinians (i.e. The children of the original Jews of Judea), and giving it to Europeans of Jewish faith (foreign immigrants).

That then resulted in middle-eastern resentment and backlash over western invasion/occupation/seisure-of-land. This resentment against immigrating European Jews caused 'Jews at large' to be discriminated against throughout the middle-east, and that in turn led to a migration wave of regional-Jews from the surrounding areas into Israel.
This resulted in a concentration of Jewish-faithed immigrants of European and middle-eastern ethnicity, all in Israel - further displacing the original residents.

Basically, in the end, the original people of Judea were kicked out of their homes and their lands given to immigrants... and they really resent it. While in the mean time the immigrants acclaim to have a god given right to be there because there is some old paper that says that people of their faith are from the area.

Ta-da.

Britain could have just sent Europeans of Jewish faith to Palestine, and made it an integrated nation.
But nope, they had to displace people and create a bunch more problems.
Gee, thanks Britain.
I pretty much face-palm when I hear "this conflict is thousands of years old" (when it's only been ~66 years).


Note :
I make the distinction between ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish.
I use the phrase "Europeans of Jewish faith" to clarify that these were displaced Europeans, who may have had an ancestor or two way way way up the family tree that was from Judea - but were otherwise European and of Jewish faith - who may have lived in an area with little mingling with outsiders, and hence a visually distinct appearance (i.e. what made it possible to make visual caricatures of their people, such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_%281940_film%29)
You can also play semantics with "what is ethnically Jewish, when the ethnicity is labelled after the faith", etc.

There's also the geopolitical aspect. Israel is the only "Western" nation in the middle-east. Given that the area is globally significant in terms of resources, that makes Israel a critically important ally. So the rhetoric will always lean.

Personally, I wonder if the things that European Jews suffered during WW2, didn't create some mental/emotional baggage that today plays itself out with how they treat Palestinians. Sort of a "I don't care about your suffering, because I've been through worse" kind of situation.

However, I understand how Israel does not want an open integrated society with Palestinians. The Jewish population is rather small, and in an integrated society they would be such a small proportion that they would essentially be bred out of existence within a few generations. For those who wish to preserve their culture, that's 'kind of a big deal'.

-scheherazade

I think it's noble to do whatever little you can to oppose the brutal half-century long occupation, humiliation, starvation and assassination of your people, yes.

Israel is an illegal occupying power in international law, that's a fact. It constantly violates practically every obligation that occupation incurs in international law; it engages in collective punishment, it regularly seizes and destroys private property, it laughingly fails to provide for the safety and welfare of the population under its control, it settles occupied territory with its civilians, it forcibly relocates Palestinian civilians, it routinely ignores the UN's attempts to restrain these and other illegal behaviours, these are facts.

Israel is engaged in terrorism in Gaza and elsewhere, and has been for decades - fact.

What you do is shave all the males bald and tattoo a giant letter 'C' for cunt on their foreheads after dropping leaflets warning those who want to keep their disguises, to get the hell out before sunrise. Relocate the women and children to de-assholification kibbutzim created specifically to derail yet another generation's mind-fucking.