davidw

robaba said:

foregoneconclusion said:

flydog said:

genovelle said:

Bosa said:

cpsro said:

waveparticle said:

Maybe Cook can help India expand its local technology industry?

Maybe he can help the U.S. in this.

It will be hard but possible if the business environment such as taxes are made friendlier , but certainly not with current tax you to death  people in charge . 

Not a political statement but just stating a fact 

The issue is that our citizens haven’t made the $3.15 an hour they make to build iPhones in China in over 25 years as it went up up $4.75 in 1996 and then $5.15 in 1997. The last move was to $7.25 in 2009. Think about that. People working jobs that pay minimum wage with poor conditions and no benefits saw their worth increase by $4.10 over 25 years. That’s about a 16 cent raise per year. Trust me inflation was a lot more that 16 cents. 

You’re clueless.  Minimum wage in 1989 was $3.35, and you’d be lucky to find any fast food restaurant that would pay more. That $3.35 is equivalent to $7.69 in today’s dollars. The average minimum wage is now $12 per hour, and the average pay at a McDonalds is $15.

The average HOURLY WAGE for ALL WORKERS, not minimum wage workers, in the United States is $11.19. 

Correct, because the minimum federal tipped wage cash hourly rate* is just $2.13.  And how many people actually tip these days?

* https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

You are not interpreting the "minimum wage" for tipped workers correctly.  What the FLSA is saying is that employers can not pay their tipped employees less than $2.13 an hour, even if they make more than $7.25 an hour in tip. If a tipped worker only makes an average of $2 an hour in tip, then the employer must pay that employee $5.25 an hour in wages, in order to meet the $7.25 minimum wage law. If a tipped employee makes an average of $10 an hour in tip, the employer must still pay that employee $2.13 an hour.  The employer can only claim a maximum of $5.12 an hour ($7.25 - $2.13) in tip credit, to offset the FLSA  $7.25 minimum wage. (Or what ever the minimum wage is for the State or county.) 

What this $2.13 "minimum wage" law does is to make it so that employers of tipped employees that makes over $7.25 in tip an hour, can not use all $7.25 in tip to offset the FLSA  minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and end up paying them nothing in wages.   

Plus many States, like CA, do not allow employers of tipped employees to deduct tip from the State minimum wage. And if the minimum wage set by the State is higher than that of the Feds, the State minimum wage prevails.  

But there are a few States where the Federal $7.25 minimum wage is not used for tipped employees because of age or the number of tipped employees do not meet the minimum set by the State. But probably not enough to make a big difference when calculating all employees hourly earnings in US.  

Therefore, if one were to calculate the hourly earnings of tipped employees, it can not or should not, ever be below $7.25. That $7.25 an hour can be a combination of what the employer pays an hour and tip earned an hour. But under FLSA, the employer must pay the minimum of $2.13 of it, no matter if the tip employee earns above the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, in tip. That's what this FLSA  $2.13 "minimum wage"for tipped employees means. That the employer must pay a minimum of $2.13 in wages to their tipped employees. Not that tip employees can earn less than the $7.25 an hour set by FLSA.

But I imagine that there are some bean counters that will use the $2.13 minimum wage for tipped employees in their calculations, even though the tipped employees might be earning over $15 an hour in tip and wages. What a tipped employer earn in an hour and what the employer pay their tipped employees an hour in wages, are two different numbers that might be far apart from each other. 

https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/federal-state-tipped-minimum-wage-rates/

>The point of a tip credit is for employees’ combined minimum cash wage and tips to be more than the regular minimum wage.

If an employee’s tipped minimum wage and tips are not enough to reach the minimum wage, you must make up the difference.<

slow n easy said:

mretondo said:

kurtvdpoel said:

It is physically impossible to insert a plug in a socket and touch the life metal parts, not even with a penny. Plug and socket are constructed that way.  Both have to follow strict standards. If both are constructed as imposed by those standards, nothing could happen to the girl. 

That’s not to say Alexa should have such a challenge.  That’s not acceptable behaviour for a smart speaker. But the little girl was never in danger. Not even when she had done what Alex instructed her to do. 

You can absolutely do this in the US. Our plugs are a terrible design.

I haven’t tried it but I also don’t see why it would be impossible. And the way kurtvdpoel is describing it is not what the article is saying. The article is saying to insert the plug halfway and then touch a penny to the prongs that are still sticking out. I haven’t tried it so I don’t know what the result would be but you absolutely can insert a plug halfway and touch a penny to the prongs.

It not that it's impossible to touch either of the live prongs  (UK uses 230V os both prong are live) with a penny, but that it's nearly impossible to get a shock when doing so.

That's because since the mid eighties, UK plugs live prongs were required to be insulated half way from the plug to the tip. When the tip of the prongs make contact with the live contacts in the socket, only the insulated part of the prong is exposed outside of the socket. Unless the insulation on the prong is compromised, there's no way that any foreign object can come in contact with the bare metal of a live prong. Very clever design.

Even more clever is the design of the socket. The socket has a "shutter" that prevents anyone from sticking a paper clip or small screwdriver into one of the hole for the live prong and touch the live contacts. This "shutter" opens to allow the plug prongs to make contact with the live contacts when the ground prong is inserted part way into the socket. 

I knew this about 15 years ago when my sister in-law was married to an Englishman that travel back home frequently and I inquired why the UK plug in his electrical adapter travel kit was so big, compared to that of the US plug.

Plus there's a fuse built into the UK plug.  

JFC_PA said:

The one employee abuse (imho) that isn’t mentioned here but does involve part time is when employers deliberately scatter hours among a large number of part time workers precisely to avoid having the expenses associated with a full time employee. 

that’s common in the food services industry but they’re suffering the consequences as they’re scrap jobs go unfilled. Though that’s taken decades and government complicity in that has to end. Federal minimum wage for tipped workers? $2.13 per hour. 

ETA: appointment only shopping? They realize the need for their services gets cut by the reduced demand  were Apple to change its stores over to that? 

Actually no. Hiring more part time workers to do the job cost more than hiring fewer full time workers. It doesn't make a bit of sense to hire two part time workers to do the job of one full time worker. Even if part time workers don't receive all the benefit of full time workers. Unions actually want employers to hire more part time workers rather than to force full time workers to do overtime. 

Of course unions rather employers to hire more full time workers instead. But this won't make any business sense. With most retail, the busiest time of the week is the weekends. Say that an employer needs 10 full time workers on the busy  weekends but only need 6 full time employees on the average weekdays.  What are employers suppose to do the with the extra full time workers they need for the weekend, during the rest of the week when business is much slower? Without part time workers, full time workers would need to come in on their 6th and 7th days on OT or work more than 8 hours on a weekend day. Which is actually cheaper for the employer than hiring part time workers to cover the busy weekends.  Which is why unions would rather have employers hire more part time help, so full time workers are not forced to do OT. Not to mention this would lead to more union due paying workers. 

I think you are misunderstanding the "minimum wage" of tipped workers. The $2.13 is the minimum an employer must pay a tipped employee, providing the tipped employee is making at least or more than $5.12 an hour in tip, to cover the FLSA $7.25 minimum wage.

E.I. ......  If a tipped employee makes an average to $8 an hour in tips, then the employers must still pay that employee at least $2.13 an hour. The most an employer can deduct form the FLSA $7.25 minimum wage set for all employees, is $5.12. ($7.25 - $2.13) The employer can not use all the $8 an hour in tip, to cover the FLSA $7.25 minimum wage. They can only deduct  $5.12 of that and must pay the tipped employees at least $2.13 an hour, regardless if the tipped employee is making way above the $7.25 minimum wage in tips. The employers can choose to allow their tipped employees to keep all or most of their tips and still pay them the $7.25 or more in minimum wage.

If a tipped employee is only making $2 an hour in tip, then the employer must pay that tipped employee at least $5.25 an hour. (under Federal minimum wage laws.)    

No tipped employee working for an employer that is abiding by FLSA, is only making $2.13 an hour. Those workers are still cover by the $7.25 minimum wage for all employees. Or State minimum wage laws. Which ever is higher. 


Here's a run down on how tipped employees are paid in each State.


https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

crowley said:

davidw said:

Regulatory authorities shouldn't even be concern of this type of competition, unless the platform is a monopoly in its relevant market. 

Monopoly isn't required for damaging anti-competitive behaviour.

Off the top of my head, the only two anti-competitive behavior I can think of, that don't involve having a monopoly, are predatory pricing and collusion. But these are usually attempts to eliminate competition or competitors and to artificially fix prices for the consumers. And they only come under anti-trust if they succeed. Apple is doing none of this, by competing with Spotify on their own platform. 

Remember back when Microsoft was charged with anti-competitive behavior because they had IE pre-installed in their Windows OS? This put other browsers at a competitive disadvantage. So Microsoft was forced to sell Windows without IE pre-installed AND provide choices of competing browsers that consumers can choose from, when initially  installing  Windows on their PC. But at the same time Microsoft was forced to do this, Apple Mac OS came with Safari pre-inhaled. 

Why was Apple allowed to pre-install Safari and Microsoft was being anti-competitive by pre-installing IE? Because Microsoft had a monopoly with Windows, which was over 90% of the desktop OS market. Developers developing browsers for computers had no where else to go, in order to stay in business. Apple on the other hand, had a single digit marketshare with their Mac OS. Developers of browsers can choose to develop for Windows. It was not essential for developers to develop for Mac OS, in order to say in business. 

So unless iOS becomes a monopoly in the mobile OS market, Apple can do things like pre-install their Apple Music App in iOS, compete with Spotify on their own platform and charge Spotify a commission and not be anti-competitive. Spotify is competing on a level the playing field because they are not getting any special treatment just because they have a service that happens to compete with an Apple service.

So yes, iOS would have to be a monopoly in its relevant market, before their competitive behavior with Spotify can be construed as being anti-completive. Unless there's some sort of predatory pricing or collusion involve. 

narwhal said:

Well, I had Tiles for a couple years -- but they were expensive and not great. Seemed nobody was running the Tile app, so your lost stuff stayed lost. I bought a bunch of Apple's AirTags when they came out and they work better and are cheaper. Tile and now Life360 are a business with no future. And to hear that Life360 sells customer data -- they've slit their own throat.

I get that Epic doesn't like to pay 30% commission to Apple, but Amazon and Netflix didn't want to either and they found a solution that works for them. I'm thinking Epic would be better off negotiating with Google and Apple, not suing them. Make some money while their product is hot. By the time the Epic trial is over, they may not have a product anyone wants. Or more likely they'll get bought out by someone, someone who doesn't want to participate in a multi-year lawsuit.

As for Spotify, I think they have a case. Since Apple competes in music streaming, Spotify should NOT be charged a commission. It gives Apple an unfair advantage. Same with other categories. If the host OS competes, they need to eliminate commissions for competitors in that product category. Probably should do the same for video streaming and audiobooks. Apple's not making money from Netflix and Audible anyway.

So are you also suggesting that since Costco sell their own Kirkland brand of bath tissue and papers towels, the makers of the likes of Charmin and Bounty should not have to pay Costco anything to be able to compete, by having free access to Costco paying membership customers in Costco own warehouse store? 

What about Walmart? Walmart sell dozens of their own brand  products, that are often less expensive than the competition. So should all makers of competing products be able to sell their products on Walmart shelves and not compensate Walmart in doing so? This to "level the playing field", so competing product makers can better compete with Walmart, in a Walmart?

You can also say that this is "unfair" to the product makers, but how is this "unfair" to the consumers?  


BTW- Apple is probably still making 10"s of millions of dollars a year (if not over $100M) from Netflix subscribers. For sure its not going to be increasing over the years. If you were to do more research, instead of just reading the headlines, Netflix only stopped paying Apple (and Google) a commission with their new subscribers. All the iOS (and Android) subscribers that had Netflix accounts before this change in 2019 and were paying with iTunes, still have the option to pay with iTunes (and Android users with Google Pay) until their subscription lapses. Before Netflix changed their payment policy (in 2019), there were over 300M Netflix users on iOS. Now, not all were paying with iTunes, but enough were to produce over $250M revenue in 2018 for Apple and they all retained the option to pay with iTunes. And Netflix is only paying a 15% commission on all of them by now. Netflix would be stupid to cut off iTunes payment from these older subscribers. With the competition for video streaming services ramping up, paying a 15% commission to retain iOS subscribers make business sense. Every time Netflix raises their subscription price, they lose customers and Wall Street is concern on whether the price increase will make up for the lost subscribers. So NFLX takes a hit until Netflix shows that the loss of subscribers did not significantly affect their earnings. So far, Netflix is not going to gamble that they might lose a significant amount of iOS subscribers if they were to end iTunes (and Google Pay) payment for all subscribers or increase their subscription price when paying with iTunes (or Google Pay). 

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251348140


Spotify is by far the biggest music streaming service. They now have 160M paid subscribers (including free trial) and 200M customers on their free ad supported tier. Apple only have about 65M Apple Music subscribers (including free trials). Spotty been in business since 2006 and is still losing massive amount of  money every year. In 2020, the lost amounted to over $500M (and much more depending on who's counting).  

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-lost-the-equivalent-of-2-2m-every-day-in-2020-as-it-spent-over-1bn-on-sales-and-marketing-for-the-first-time/

To me, Spotify shouldn't be too concern about any commission they are paying to Apple (and Google). At least those are paying customers. They should be more concern that Apple do not ever have to raise the price of an Apple Music subscription. Apple can even offer a free year subscription with each iDevice purchase, to increase iDevice sales. Apple can easily handle any Apple Music revenue loss that would probably result in no more than a rounding error on their bottom line. But keeping Apple Music subscription price the same (or non existent) prevents Spotify from raising their subscription price, unless they can justify it to their customers by offering more features than Apple Music. And adding more features will cost Spotify even more money as Apple can easily do the same to keep up. That's the competition than Spotify should be concern about. But the consumers will benefit from that competition, no matter how "unfair" Spotify and other thinks it would be.

Ultimately, I think Steve Jobs will eventually be proven right when he said .... "The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model, and it might not be successful."


https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/steve-jobs-rolling-stones-2003-interview-243284/ ;   

People use to say that once paying subscribers reaches critical mass, it will be highly profitable. Well, music streaming subscriptions growth is already beginning to slow significantly and music streaming services are still far from being profitable. At least for the music streaming services. It's been very profitable for the music industry. And increasing subscription cost will slow the growth even more. Meanwhile, the iTunes Music Store is still chugging along and profitable for Apple. 

https://newatlas.com/spotify-music-stream-doomed-business-model/53638/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6774ded560-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-6774ded560-90842045