If you have your landlord call the plumber and pay for the plumber and you expect that to happen faster than you could do it yourself(because you are working your own job), then it’s hard to argue that is not a value-added service.

If you break the toilet and now consider the property unlivable, due to a broken toilet, that isn’t the landlord’s fault nor the fault of the toilet. It’s your fault.

Accidents happen and your landlord should be cool about it, but it’s still your own accident.

None of this applies to natural causes like environmental damage, of course, but a lot of what happens to rental properties is caused by tenants.

FatTony Search engine is it down or just me

Do flip flops cause flat feet?

Walmart near me

Zuck beard real or fake

Mark Zuckerberg now a backstreet boy

1. It is OK not to be happy all the time.

2. It is also OK not to be the best, or even to be the worst!

3. It is OK to acknowledge your behavior or thoughts are bad and to really experience your negative behaviors and thoughts - you can regret or feel sadness about them without looking away to escapism.

Finally, even if you are the worst among your peers, at least you aren’t as bad or sad as characters of old fashioned tragedies and cautionary tales which are meant to give kids intuitive understanding of the three principles above.

Yes it does. I would venture there are alternative solutions but I can’t imagine what they are in any detail, just generally:

Maybe these trucks operate more like trains and have a designated lane where motorists do not have to encounter them?

I think it’s a great idea to require a human attendant for giant autonomous machinery.

If the company does not provide the attendant, then the public is just going to shoulder that burden.

I am NOT going to protect or respect unattended property like an autonomous truck if it runs off the road or rams my vehicle or is a risk to my own safety, for example.

I’m pretty sure I’d be offended just having to ride behind it on the freeway as it drives precisely the speed limit in all traffic conditions - can’t say for sure until I’ve experienced it though.

Just once, I want to see somebody put a boot on a parking cops car while the cop is putting a boot on theirs.

Didn’t these jokers already try to overthrow their capital city, angling for a total annexation of Ukraine within the first few days of the conflict?

If Ukraine had not fought back, it’s statehood would have been history over a year ago.

I’ve tried it, and I ate the whole plate, but I wouldn’t do it again.

Raw chicken tastes like it smells, and it’s just inferior to every other sashimi - not outright repulsive, but just not as good.

I honestly don’t understand how those specialty chicken sashimi places stay in business. I guess there must be an audience for it, but I can’t imagine why.

You can attack the system and while you do that, there are people under 18 years old who are just trying to provide for themselves or their dependents and need a job now.

They have adult responsibilities before the age of 18. A lot of the commenters outright refuse to believe that these legal minors could have possibly matured earlier than the law expects, but that really does happen and it really is socially irresponsible to ignore their struggle.

Most commenters are essentially holding this series of positions based on a photo that is out of context: Why does this kid have a job? The system is bad. Why is the system bad? Some kids have jobs. How can we stop kids from working? We should outlaw jobs for kids.

But that series of positions critically fails to account for exceptions where kids become competent before the age of 18, need jobs and want to work.

It ignores that, in reality, many minors have kids of their own or other dependents that they are struggling to support and it does not provide any plan for them, it makes their situation worse while you fight the system.

That is inhumane public policy. Like many areas of law, this is a complicated issue, and we are going to harm people in our communities if we jump to strict authoritarian control for an answer.

100%

This comment deserves an award. Mods should pin it to the top of the thread, because the majority of comments are totally divorced from their neighbors’ struggle to survive in our imperfect economy.

This is the first time I’ve encountered such extreme and immovable opinions on Lemmy. It’s wild to me that people who are (presumably) trying to support social justice for minors cannot even acknowledge that teenagers sometimes need and would prefer to work - that it’s a separate issue from child abuse and strict authoritarian prohibition over their labor is itself abusive.

Don’t people understand that a 17 year old can have a baby and need a job?

They won’t even entertain the possibility and defend an actual policy position. It’s devoid of social responsibility.

If they are genuinely socialist or communist, then how can they defend stripping 14-18 year olds of their natural right to profit from their own labor? It’s just as bad as a capitalist exploiting that labor with unlivable wages - they are essentially condemning these people to $0 in wages and total state dependence.

Perfectly reasonable!

Are all jobs bad because someone else skims part of the profit? Or is it just bad to you because it’s a person under 18?

Just trying to sort out whether you are for eliminating all work or just work for minors?

If it’s just work for minors, would you support any exceptions?

Like, for example, for an emancipated 17 year old with a baby of their own to support?

It sounds like you are using a legal framework from medical treatment of minors. If I have that right, then you should know that there is an exception for emancipated people under 18 years of age.

Would you support the same exception for work, now that you know this or perhaps you would also eliminate this exception for them to control their own bodies in a medical context?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4008301/#:~:text=A child under the age,(and refuse) medical treatment.

Court-ordered emancipation. A child under the age of 18 who lives independently without the support of parents and makes his or her own day-to-day decisions may petition the court for emancipation. If granted, the minor will have the same legal rights as an adult, including the right to consent to (and refuse) medical treatment.

It sounds like you are equating any job to getting sexually abused or raped.

That is “like… Yuck”.

It’s an irrelevant comparison because the work itself is not abuse. There are other laws that protect kids from being abused, if they are being abused to force them to work(or for any other purpose).

If you don’t care what people under 18 think, you should reflect on how selfish and closed-minded that sounds to me and especially to the real human people you are proposing to lose their ability to work.

Do you really think there is a major difference between the brain of a 17 year old the day before their 18th birthday and the day after? There is no significant difference at all.

So, my question is, where do you draw the line for a person under 18 whose quality of life might depend on working? Should they just have that freedom stripped because you don’t care what they think?

Even if they are on their own? Or supporting a dependent, like their own baby? Really? If you are that authoritarian about this, I hope you forget to vote on it.

As others have pointed out, those laws have important exceptions to account for kids who want to work, and that is the question I am asking all of the knee-jerk authoritarians:

What is the actual policy position they support? What are the exceptions they support or are they completely authoritarian about this issue? (I think a strict rule prohibiting all people under 18 from ever earning a living is a pretty embarrassing position to defend.)

What are emancipated teenagers supposed to do? Should they live 100% at the mercy of state programs and not improve their living standards beyond the meager social welfare they are afforded until they turn exactly 18 years old? Really? Not even a day sooner, even if they are ready and qualified to work?

That would be completely inhumane. Certainly it’s depriving them of their bodily freedom and natural ability to extract capital value from their own labor.

So where is the line? 13? 14? I think somewhere in there is reasonable. Perhaps a test could determine their capacity to participate in their own economic fate? Or an evaluation by a social worker? I could go for something like that.

What if they are NOT emancipated and their parent is supervising them? Should the age minimum be higher then? 17? 18? I do not think so.

I think it’s only logical that the age minimum should actually be lower if a parent is directly supervising - their physical and economic risk is lower if the parent is looking out for their best interests. This of course presumes that the parent is not physically or mentally/emotionally abusing the kid(again, separate laws exist for the abuse component and most parents don’t abuse their kids).