Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:26 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
ishy wrote:You really realise how stupid and awkward the dialogue is. Terrible shows become a lot more bearable with a laugh track.
Or they could rewrite the show so that it becomes funny without having to ring the Pavlovian dinner bell.

But that's besides the point. Regardless of how necessary of laugh tracks are, I'm simply wondering how much raw padding they introduce.

When I was a kid, I didn't realize things were supposed to be funny by their own merits and didn't know when to laugh if there wasn't a laugh track.

I had to teach myself what a sense of humor was because it wasn't automatic with me.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:38 am

Thanks guys.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:51 pm

So, I've been thinking: is there any reason why the minimum wage shouldn't be set at whatever the lower bound of the "living wage" is? (Let's assume we've applied some math and determined that $X/hour is that value)

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:58 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, I've been thinking: is there any reason why the minimum wage shouldn't be set at whatever the lower bound of the "living wage" is? (Let's assume we've applied some math and determined that $X/hour is that value)

Because increasing the minimum wage WILL DRIVE COMPANIES BANKRUPT AND MAKE PEOPLE LOSE JOBS AND DESTROY THE ECONOMY AND LET THE TERRORISTS WIN.

iirc

GreatGreyShrike · Post by **GreatGreyShrike** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:47 pm

I think the logic, such as it is, behind having an insufficient-to-live-on-wage as a minimum wage is that there are many jobs done by e.g. teenagers with living expenses that are expected to still be heavily subsidized by other people; also, some jobs are expected to earn additional funding via e.g. tipping.

That said, minimum wage is *far* too low in a lot of places right now, and raising it to a minimum of 'survivable' would probably be a good thing.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:56 am

Conservatives will tell you minimum wage jobs aren't for people to live on, they're for teenagers and college kids trying to make some money, and that if you find yourself trying to live on such a wage you should find a better job/develop a more employable skillset. Because clearly, better jobs grow on trees and are available to anyone who wants them and developing a more employable skillset is completely free. And if you point out that there aren't actually enough teenagers looking for work to perform the jobs they think should be performed by teenagers and that those industries are some of the largest and fastest growing sectors of employment, they mostly just repeat themself except louder.

The moral of the story is sometimes productive and necessary members of society shouldn't get food and shelter because reasons.

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:58 am

The big problem with that logic is that (first Google hit) three-quarters of minimum-wage earners aren't teenagers. That might be fine if two minimum-wage jobs were enough to support a family, but between the low hourly wage and the very low number of hours many employers schedule their employees that just isn't the case.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:44 am

Because the minimum wage is always $0.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 9:59 pm

What is the probability that I'll be arrested if I tell the IRS that I make more money than I actually do?

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:48 pm

Seeing how that means you pay MORE TAXES as opposed to less . . probably pretty slim? O.o

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:23 pm

Stahlseele wrote:Seeing how that means you pay MORE TAXES as opposed to less . . probably pretty slim? O.o

The issue here is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has an income floor.

If you make slightly more than the federal poverty level then the premiums are capped at 2% of your net income, with federal tax credits making up the difference. Deductibles are reduced, as well.

If you make less than the federal poverty level, you have to pay full price (which would be a third or more of your total income) with absurdly huge deductibles on top of that, which make the insurance worthless anyway.

This is obviously problematic.

My current method of simply not paying my doctors and hanging up on collection agencies when they call is working fine so I technically don't need insurance, but it's nice to have.

If I declare a higher net income and pay the tax difference out of pocket I'd qualify for rather huge subsidies.

My other alternative would be to find a woman willing to have unprotected sex with me and wait nine months, at which time I'd qualify for medicaid. But that nine more months of being uninsured. And, you know, the responsibility of taking care of a baby for the next 18 years.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:11 am

I had no idea that obamacare worked that wrong . .
Why do people who have less money have to pay more? x.x
What the fuck is wrong with people over there?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:25 am

Stahlseele wrote:I had no idea that obamacare worked that wrong . .
Why do people who have less money have to pay more? x.x
What the fuck is wrong with people over there?

There was a provision requiring that states expand medicaid to cover everyone below the poverty line. The assumption was, I believe, that would be sufficient since medicaid coverage would be even cheaper than subsidized private insurance. It was still stupid to put in the income floor. I have no fucking clue why they did that. It created a huge vulnerability that shouldn't have been there. They just assumed that everyone who qualified for medicare under the new rules would get it.

The problem is that many states haven't implemented the new Medicaid rules, don't have to, and aren't planning to.

Logially, if they were going to rely on something like this they should have expanded Medicare instead, which is a purely federal program that doesn't rely on State implementation. But they were idiots, as I said.

Of course, the smartest thing would have been to just expand Medicare to cover everyone and get rid of Medicaid as redundant instead of trying to subsidizing private insurance.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:34 am

Stahlseele wrote:I had no idea that obamacare worked that wrong . .
Why do people who have less money have to pay more? x.x
What the fuck is wrong with people over there?

Ninja'd, but originally, the ACA required each state to extend Medicaid eligibility to people at or below the poverty line, and gave everyone above the poverty line federal tax credits and other benefits (diminishing as you move further and further away from the poverty line). When the Supreme Court ruled on the ACA, they struck down the mandatory Medicaid expansion and left the decision of whether or not to expand Medicaid up to each state individually. About half the states chose not to (because Republicans stopped it), and in those states there exists a coverage gap. People below the poverty line do not qualify for Medicaid and do not qualify for federal subsidies.

Hyzmarca is apparently one of the millions of people in that coverage gap. The Supreme Court and his state government have fucked him.

Hyzmarca wrote:What is the probability that I'll be arrested if I tell the IRS that I make more money than I actually do?

I can't say what the probability of being caught or charged is, but it almost certainly still qualifies as tax evasion. If you didn't stand to gain financially by over reporting your income, you wouldn't be considering doing it. And intentionally reporting false information to the IRS for the purposes of financial gain sounds very much like tax evasion.

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the fact that hyzmarca could save money on his taxes by pretending to be wealthier than he actually is. If there is any line left between satire and reality, I can't find it.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:55 am

Just a minor correction: the Medicaid expansion is to cover people who make up to 138% of the poverty line. Medicaid coverage varies from state to state, but many states didn't even cover income up to the poverty line before (I think in Washington, for example, you were eligible for Medicaid if you made less than 75% of the poverty level).

Shiritai · Post by **Shiritai** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:11 am

And in politically shitty states like North Carolina, adults without children or disabilities flat-out never qualify for Medicaid. Sounds like hyzmarca's stuck in a similar situation.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:15 am

Maj wrote:Just a minor correction: the Medicaid expansion is to cover people who make up to 138% of the poverty line. Medicaid coverage varies from state to state, but many states didn't even cover income up to the poverty line before (I think in Washington, for example, you were eligible for Medicaid if you made less than 75% of the poverty level).

In Georgia low income alone is insufficient. There's family medicaid, for low income children, parents, and pregnant women. Then there's medicaid for the aged, blind, and disabled.

Which is why I mentioned having a kid as the other option for getting medical insurance. I figure that it would alter my lifestyle less than poking my eyes out would.

The medicaid expansion is for 138% but subsudies go down to 100%

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:56 am

That's true. I wasn't thinking about exceptions. Kids got it here, too. Moms didn't unless they were pregnant.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:55 am

I had heard that in Virginia it's very hard to get it even if you have kids, on account that Virginia is a shithole chock-full of teabaggers and libertardians.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:31 pm

There's no simple wikipedia entry for splines. I don't suppose anyone here has the mathematical know-how to explain the concept to someone who's already forgotten most high school math?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:00 pm

Well, the wikipedia entry is actually fairly straightforward. A spline is basically made up of pieces of many different polynomial functions. So for example, you might say:

From 0 =< x < 1, f(x) = x
From 1 =< x, f(x) = x^2

The basic idea is that sometimes you have a function which can be mapped to a fairly simple function over a short range, but is very complicated to try and develop the actual function for it over a long range.

Did you have a specific problem you were having trouble with?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:06 pm

I'm not doing any actual math. I'm just trying to figure out the most entertaining possible definition of "reticulating splines."

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:15 pm

Sailors making erotic ropework.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:59 pm

So, about how many actual 'witches' were killed in the European Witch Hunts? I'd just wikipedia it, but, wikipedia has been shown in this very forum to be biased on any subject that makes historical Christianity look bad. Rationalwiki is usually good but a few years ago some apologist got ahold of that page and some other related pages (like the Inquisition) and I don't know how much has been scrubbed out. Aside from that, Google tends to be really inconsistent, giving me results over the centuries from tens of thousands to millions -- the latter of which seems ridiculous.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:06 pm

I was under the impression that the witch trials were less about "purging the brides of Satan" and more about "getting rid of nagging women legally"...