A few years ago I had a chat with a mate over in QLD, and mentioned our ludicrous prices in WA. The standard line at the time here was "Beer has to be expensive in WA, because we're not allowed to subsidise the cost with pokies".
His reply was there are bars in QLD with pokies, and bars without, and none of them charged anything like what we were paying for a pint in WA (nor did the bars with pokies charge significantly less than those without).
Real question: Is the price of a pint high because of operating costs or taxes? Also, can each state set their own alcohol tax rules, and does WA have very strict rules?
Alcohol taxes / excise are controlled at the federal level in Australia. In WA I think the high cost is 1/3 ridiculously high rents, 1/3 high minimum wage and other costs, and 1/3 operators screwing the public because they can.
Higher median wage in WA than other states + higher operating costs to venues (WA liqour licenses used to be the most expensive unsure if this is still the case).
Wouldn't a higher median wage be more profitable for the operators though? They were all paying minimum wage the last time I was involved (which was many years ago), but they'd have been benefiting from the influx of FIFO money since the start of the mining boom?
Women also, statistically, commit fewer crimes and far fewer violent crimes. One might reasonably suppose that the statistical output matches the input. (I would also be unsurprised if they were more likely to cooperate, and to plead guilty.) This holistic perspective is less compatible with instinctive misogyny, however.
Unfortunately, the statistical output does not match the input.The evidence shows women receive lighter sentences for the same crime. Also, more attractive people receive shorter sentences etc.
None of it says good things about human nature, facts are facts though.
Are you suggesting casino and bookmakers' clients derive no utility at all from gambling? In the absence of any enjoyment or other benefit, who forces the clients to participate?
Same argument can be made for tobacco salesmen, drug dealers etc. If people pay money for something then they MUST derive some benefit from it... I find that assumption questionable.
Other things I could mention: multi-level marketing, snake oil sellers e.g. homeopathy astrology etc.
I find the assumption that every casino and gambling company in existence provides no benefit, of any kind, to any of their customers....extremely questionable.
Why "on Mac"? Is it required? I'm interested in trying out anything that might help to break Autodesk's monopoly, but not at the expense of having to use a Mac.
When I tried out FreeCAD on Ubuntu a couple years ago, it was an extremely frustrating experience. I was following a tutorial for new users until I got to a part with a simple instruction that involved clicking a button on the toolbar. The only problem was, the button wasn't there, and the instruction was so simple that it didn't specifically say "click this button at this location", it was more like "do this thing". It was worded in a way that made me think "it must be obvious and simple, why can't I figure this out?" After way too much time spent digging through menus, trying to configure the UI and searching online for a solution, I installed the Windows version out of frustration. The button was right there, front and center. The Linux version I had installed was just straight up missing it.
FreeCAD has come a long way since then, although it still has a pretty steep learning curve. Once you get the paradigm of it, though, it's manageable.
I use it most days, and am very happy with it. Although I'm not an actual designer and I don't have a great deal of experience with other CAD software.
I had a similar experience with an HR manager in Australia, boasting about how they'd used a recent downturn to cut individuals' hourly rates by 10% (including many of my friends), while not reducing the charge-out rate to the client. Corporate management (as distinct from small business) selects for people like this.
In this other universe, would the entrenched taxi operators willingly embrace new technology such as this, rather than continuing to provide a sub-par experience enabled by their entrenched position & political lobbying? Because that certainly didn't happen in this universe.
"...at a minimum, they will substitute a 30% fee with a 4% credit card processing expense..."
Which large corporation is paying anything close to 4% for credit card processing? Based on what's available to me in my small business, I'd be astonished if anyone doing any significant volume was paying as much as half of this percentage.
Are you selling something with some utility to adults? And as a consequence you have zero to very few chargebacks, because your customers aren't going to be overriden by their parents?
I can imagine there are a lot more problems with kids' spending on Roblox, which would bring the processing fees way up.
When reading fast, we tend to read first/last letters and the 'pattern' of the whole word and not really read the spelling. In this case, Reticulum is not very common or a familiar word and most folks would first read (or rather 'see') the word 'rectum'!
In every city I have lived, that is a good thing, despite all the bad things ridesharing startups may have done.
reply