swansont

Positive charges. Similar to mechanical systems, they are moving to a lower energy state (“downhill” in an electric sense) It can. In the case of EM waves, there’s no charges moving transferring energy and DC only gives static fields. Zero frequency. The details depend on the kind of bulb, but “converting frequencies” is not part of the physics model. The input electrical frequency doesn’t matter. The input electricity could be DC.

! Moderator Note Site guidelines https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

In perpetuity? We both mentioned the 10-year time frame.

You’ve argued you can’t raise it all at once, and here you’re apparently arguing you can’t raise it incrementally. So I guess there’s nothing to discuss with you on this aspect. If you’re buying a $500 bike, I’m thinking the hourly wage of someone at the store is only a small part of that, so bumping the minimum will have a small effect. But maybe that kid sticks around longer with a better wage, and you don’t have to train someone new every time some kid bolts to another job that pays more. That may be a reason Amazon went to $15 an hour recently. They apparently saw the value in doing so. It’s funny that in these kinds if examples, an edge case is used (a kid working their first job, making $10 an hour) instead of something more representative. That seems to happen a lot.

If they had raised it 7% per year we’d be there, but they didn’t. The current proposal is to raise it over 3 years, not one. - - - - Back in 2010, most states were at or very near the federal level. A few went over $8, with Washington topping the list at $8.55. Somehow several of the states have been able to increase their minimum wages over the last decade without having unemployment spike. Others let the wage stagnate. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0651.pdf Seems like one of the arguments I’ve seen is since they’ve ignored the issue for 10 years that should prevent fixing the problem now (but not worded that way). I don’t find that compelling. If you built up a sweatshop business based on suppressed wages, well, you’re going to have to figure out a better business model.

! Moderator Note You have not established this to be the case, and your “logical conclusion” is implying that the justice system would be discarded in these cases, and is likewise without support. This is not in keeping with our rule on making arguments in good faith. I will leave the discussion open so these points can be explored, but am closing the poll

Number of people in hospital ≠ number of deaths If e.g. 20% of hospitalized patients die, then the occupancy is 5x higher than the deaths. And the length of stay matters, too. And AFAIK it’s ICU capacity, specifically, that’s being strained. Do these other afflictions result in an ICU stay?

And at least half the radiation is going to be sent in a different direction than the face. The phones work, after all.

Which underscores the issue: a large part of the economic adjustment will be because the minimum wage has been suppressed. If it had been indexed, the accommodation would’ve been incremental.

But the impact will be less for those making more than the federal minimum. The scale was the point I was making. The population, and economy, is much, much larger today.

More than twice as many people were freed by 1865 (~3.9 million, out of a US population of about 31.5 million) than are working for the minimum wage (1.7 million in 2018, out of a population 10x larger than in 1865), so I would expect the economic impact to differ https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2018/home.htm#cps_mw_whe_hist.f.1

They don’t say anything about a battery in that abstract, but OK. It heats up when the circuit is drawing current. No, that’s not a valid conclusion. The processor is not doing as much in airplane mode. It’s not just the RF from pinging the tower. ”transmitting at full power (+2.6 degrees C) and in stand-by mode (+2.0 degrees C)” puts a limit on the RF contribution, and it’s no more than 0.6 degrees out of the 2.6, which agrees with their conclusion that RF is a small contributor Yes. Notice that this summary is not consistent with your earlier one.

What’s problematic about it? When a computer’s processor is running, it heats up. It’s not the battery, as such. It’s the current, and resistive heating.

“Our results suggest that direct RF heating of the skin only contributes a small part of the temperature rise and that most is due to heat conduction from the handset.” It’s in the abstract of your link. If you put a warm slab of material next to your skin, the skin temperature will go up. Conduction and insulation.

You’ll still do what you’re supposed to do. Fantastic. (You brought it up first. It’s not up to me to clarify what you meant; only you can do that) The next issue is what will trigger the job loss. Because people quitting a second job because they can make a living wage with only one job is not a bad outcome for workers.

As I’ve tried to convey, you have to quantify it to draw a conclusion. Thus far you’ve refused to do In the US this often means it’s a lie, so yeah, kill lies about politics

FFS, YOU’RE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED THIS! Raise the wages high enough and few can afford to eat any any place...they won't have jobs Also in areas in the US that hiked their minimum wage, like Seattle, WA. Which is why data >> think-tank projections

That would be why a number is needed

The maximum efficiency of a heat engine is 1 - Tc/Th Temps need to be using an absolute scale (e.g. Kelvins) But the actual efficiency is going to be less.

Will a ten-cent increase cause widespread job loss?

I’m not talking about “some countries” Why would other countries be paying their workers in US dollars? The job loss is your claim. Please don’t try to push the burden of proof onto me. I mentioned a number, as I said, because yes, there is a point where nobody could afford to employ people. But you presented no evidence of what that level might be, or if the proposed increases are anywhere close to such a level. It’s not my burden to rectify the vagueness of your argument. I haven’t seen an argument. I’ve seen bald assertion. That’s projection. Unemployment didn’t rise, despite increases in Sep 2017, Jun 2018 and Jun 2019. It trended down slightly. https://ycharts.com/indicators/british_columbia_unemployment_rate

Such as the minimum wage not applying unless the businesses have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000? Yeah, that’s already the law. After the minimum wage rose in 2009, there was a drop in the poverty rate in 2010, despite the horrible economy. And it continued to drop. But a lot of factors enter into this. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/ How much? Do you have data? 2010 inflation was just 1.5% 2009 was 2.7% Again, lots of factors in play. https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-inflation-rate-history-by-year-and-forecast-3306093

What’s the evidence that a minimum wage increase would “quickly kill jobs”? I’m trying to ascertain if this is true because it’s absurd, or simply an unsupported assertion. What’s the evidence that they won’t have jobs? It’s a talking point for opponents of higher wages, but AFAICT that’s all it is. Reducing hours of employees? You’ve presented no evidence of this. Not even taken a stab at an analysis. Just rhetoric.

Why? Why? Is “high enough” some reasonable number? Like $20 vs the $15 being implemented or proposed? Or is it more like making it $200 an hour, which isn’t in the ballpark of what’s being discussed? That’s not a wage, though.

! Moderator Note Discussion of minimum wage and basic universal income has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124176-minimum-wagebui-split-from-immigration/