J.C.MacSwell

How is it that 1.21 million Americans are able to work for below the Federal minimum, and how will more than doubling it help them?

Okay. So you are saying one is at rest wrt the CMBR frame, which is an inertial frame only locally, and the other is not?

How do they not grow further apart?

Friction can degrade energy but it can't reduce the angular momentum of a closed system...so unless the accretion disc has angular momentum opposed to that of the BH there shouldn't be any negation over time.

Any effect from reduced accountability due to the tenure system?

As Ken alluded to, it protects those nearby more than it hurts those that receive the diluted pollutants.

I'm tending to agree with Halc on this one...I don't think either of us is in bad company...

Yeah, not with the Earth remaining outside the EH. Agree with both. But it doesn't disappear immediately. It takes time, and the bigger the BH the longer it takes. In the mean time you move toward it, and overtake it. Compare your reference frame to that of the BH centered on the singularity/future singularity. Neither are perfect inertial frames.

Not a typo, but I could be conflating the EH with the photon sphere. Thinking about it I obviously am. +1. I don't think that affects the rest of my argument. Light can still spiral inward at the EH,correct? It doesn't need to track radially.

But if it's capable of 90 degrees...it's capable of "waiting" for you...with an imperceptible redshift in your accelerating frame if the BH is big enough. My point wrt 90 degrees was your claim light at (or inside) the EH could only go straight to...(Hello to the singularity?) 😀

At the EH light can still go 90 degrees to the radial. Up to that point it can do a little better., but light can essentially "orbit" at the EH. You can still "catch up" to light emitted from your feet, even if it is already past the EH. Big enough BH and it's barely redshifted for you as you speed toward the ultimate demise of whatever your atomic particles that made you up well after your normal lifetime, oblivious to the fact you entered a BH.

They have multiple directions, just none of them can include a vector in the opposite direction of the future singularity. I don't think that GR conflicts with my take on this. The larger the BH the more normal things would seem as you cross the EH. Large enough and you can't observe any difference from what we observe right now, in which case neither of us would likely ever stand corrected. Nothing could substantially change in our lifetime.

Assuming the black hole is big enough, It's not necessary. You see your feet consistently the whole time, simply by catching up. When your feet enter the black hole you don't see that version of the feet until you get there. We could be inside the event horizon of a large enough black hole right now, so large there is nothing to tip us off. So large the gradient is insignificant to our lives, and the Universe as we know it.

Why would it not? I can understand some aspects of setting a Federal minimum, which would be well below any median or average state need. Why instead set one considerably higher?

It is getting a little bit, but whether for Covid, minimum wage, or other issues I think there are aspects best left to different levels of government, in whole or in part. It still requires good decision making. Quebec is not a good example of leadership, or populace, making exceptionally good ones consistently and overall, but I'm not sure having Ottawa make decisions for them would have made for better outcomes...and in similar respect I don't think D.C. deciding the minimum wage for Alabama, by in fact more than doubling it, is a healthy way to go.

By scale, DeSantis should be more accountable to those municipalities than Biden would be. Our Province here in Nova Scotia mandated masks for indoor public places generally, but divided the province into zones for what they considered appropriate levels of restrictions for the different zones at different times depending on outbreak levels. So far we have done relatively well, though much of it is due to geographical isolation and "isolationability". Not perfect, but I don't think it would have worked as well if the restrictions were controlled by the Federal Government, whether by a one size fits all approach or controlling a similar system from Ottawa.

Possibly. It may be appropriate for some areas or municipalities to set their own. States though, can mandate different levels for different areas within their state if they choose to do so... somewhat centralized but an intermediate approach.

No. But I have a somewhat informed opinion that the Federal minimum wage should be raised above $7,25 an hour but no where near $15 under present circumstances, and that a cautious approach would leave states with more abilIty to adjust for their own....whereas a bold approach can add significant economic risks to some areas while really having no effect on others. California's minimum wage is currently $14/hr. All lesser paying jobs are already underground. Big whoop for them if they get mandated $15. They'll probably have $15 soon anyway and enjoy the right to make it so. Whether they get it exactly right or not, at least they'll be able to adjust it taking their own state circumstances into account. A raise to $15 Federal minimum would seem less "crammed down from above" for them.

Right. Something centralized government proponents don't worry about. They know what's best for everyone.

Using this argument works for the current minimum wage...or raising it to $10...or $15 or more...but the bolded part significantly diminishes the higher the floor is raised. A "made for median" America policy leaves much of America with a higher than optimum floor locally, and removes the economic tool to adjust it.

You seem quite willing to mandate a $15 minimum for Alabama. If they can do that why not $30 for California? Or have you researched Alabama?

Does that chart just indicate to you that Federal minimum wages now fall comparatively short of 1968 levels? (I think we can agree on that) Does it not also show the need for letting states set their own minimums? Also the black indicator doesn't represent the current situation except in states with minimum wages set at the current Federal minimum. How does using the local median rent level represent affordable housing for minimum wage earners? To the degree it's useful does it correlate the same today as 50 years ago? In any case, does the chart not make a strong case overall for setting minimum wages locally and not nationally? For example, It seems that one could live comfortably right now in Pittsburgh making Federal minimum, working just 30 hours to make median rent affordable. Why mess with that? Are they all really going to be able to work just 15 hours to still have median rent affordable after mandating a 15/hr minimum? Or will many be out of jobs? Would you advocate a $30 State minimum wage for California? Why not?

He had a lot of Gaulle saying that in Canada...

All Republicans and Trump voters though...amirite? 😃

Let's not ask the Americans here to overcompensate more than they already have... 😷