I'm not a lawyer, and I originally made a claim about sportsbetting covering a a subset of prediction markets, so just being covered for more laws that are not necessarily related to bets.
I can see the argument that they are piggybacking off a body of regulations that wasn't designed for this. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know if that holds, but even if it does, it's undeniable that there are enough parallels between commodity futures and prediction markets and that's why it's being used to regulate so far.
If you argue for more or more specific regulation, it's probably going to be a fork, not regulation from scratch.
And as mentioned in other comments, there's existing laws around the subject of bets themselves that mean that there already exist loads of regulations around these subjects, in the end they are just contracts, which is one of the main branches of law and has a huge body of law and jurisprudence, so either it's inaccurate to say they are unregulated, or it regulation means something much more specific that I'm unaware of.
Current layoffs are more correlated with overhiring during/after Covid. The fed money printer, growing national debt and low interest rates are more to blame.
Have to start somewhere. Update the law as bad actors operate. Observe, iterate, etc. Failure is not trying, or when you stop attempting to improve. Trying is table stakes.
"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." We are aligning incentives, with policy, to encourage desired outcomes.
The general problem with this one is that there are a thousand legitimate reasons not to hire someone that are also infeasible to efficiently establish the veracity of.
Suppose you post a job because you'll need to fill that position if you get a contract you expect to get with 85% probability. You legitimately expect to hire someone but can't in good faith make anyone an offer until the contract with the customer is signed. Then the contract negotiations take longer than expected. You still expect to hire someone soon but the deadline keeps getting pushed back by the delays, and then you have to keep interviewing new people because the ones you interviewed last month took a position somewhere that gave them an offer sooner. You might not hire someone for a year, or if the negotiations fall through you might not hire anyone at all, but at no point were you acting in bad faith.
Suppose you actually need to fill a position as soon as possible but it's hard to find a qualified candidate. There are, however, countless unqualified ones who ignore the requirements and apply anyway.
What do you propose to do with that? It's obviously unreasonable to penalize a company for not hiring unqualified applicants, or for doing the right thing and not making an offer until they know they won't have to rescind it, but then anyone can list those as their reason for keeping their listing open for a long time. Whether it's true depends on the company's internal state, which the company can thereby fabricate however they want. It's easy to write a job posting with stringent qualifications that gives you cover to reject any applicants for any period of time, and effectively impossible to distinguish that from an employer who actually has stringent standards.
The actual way to improve it is to reform the laws that cause companies to list jobs they have no true intention of filling as a requirement for complying with some other law.
The proposed law would require disclosure. Not legal penalty for no hire before the projected date.
Employers can reject candidates for employment gaps. They can do this without allowing candidates to explain. Or they can decide to reject an explanation. Candidates should have equivalent information. And equivalent choice.
> The actual way to improve it is to reform the laws that cause companies to list jobs they have no true intention of filling as a requirement for complying with some other law.
> Employers can reject candidates for employment gaps.
They can also reject candidates for a thousand other reasons, so if you make any given reason an inconvenience or liability risk then they just claim it was one of the others.
> The evidence this is the real problem is what?
It's a known problem with, for example, H1B. They're required to advertise for a job before they can hire H1B, but they don't actually want to hire the applicants because they just want to hire the H1B, so then you get a sham listing where no candidates will be accepted.
Exactly. We shouldn't treat corporate regulation as something you try all at once to get the wording, incentives, and disincentives exactly right and then you're stuck with it for 20 years. It should be a living document. Put something into force today. See what companies do to try to avoid/skirt the regulation--then immediately close those doors and re-run the experiment. See what they try next and close those doors too, repeat until companies have no choice but to obey the spirit of the regulations. We should be doing this, rather than having these Big Upfront Designed laws that get no iteration.
you're not engaging with all the political and game theory issues that make that difficult to do in practice. Let alone the uncertainty that impacts businesses (even ones that are acting in good faith)
Ghosting does much more harm to candidates than the burden to not-ghost does to companies. I'm not going to cry over all "talent acquisition experts" having to do some actual work. Uncertainty that businesses face does not compare to uncertainty that a candidate face after 18 months of unemployment. Ask me how I know.
I'm not sure the incentive here is strong enough. For a specific profile they want, at $2500 for every 30 days, I could see businesses just paying that fine as an operational cost.
The incentive also exists, for the kinds of employers who would post ghost jobs, to also force in-person work again. You don't have to pay these fines to multiple states on one ghost job if the job is only available in one location.
I will keep this in mind while working with reps in other states to encourage a more aggressive policy stance with regards to ghost jobs.
> The incentive also exists, for the kinds of employers who would post ghost jobs, to also force in-person work again. You don't have to pay these fines to multiple states on one ghost job if the job is only available in one location.
You're presuming that this is something employers want to circumvent. As the article discusses, many of these postings are likely legitimate jobs which the employer does intend to fill, and they just don't do the work (which has minimal value to them) of ensuring that all the postings get taken down once they've filled it.
>Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different.
>Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?
No. You always have the right to legal representation -- at your own expense and, in criminal cases, depending on your financial situation, a court-appointed attorney. In many places, the state will only provide an attorney if you're indigent -- and can prove it.
The Miranda Warning[0] (not Miranda "Rights") is generally required if you're being arrested and/or detained for "questioning."
However. the rights mentioned in those warnings (right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) don't magically appear when the warnings are given. They apply regardless of whether or not the warnings are given -- whether you're a suspect, a witness or the object of a police officer's lustful desires, etc.
What's more, the police are legally allowed to lie to you (e.g., "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon." to get you to waive your rights).
As I understand the primary change over the past 20 years or so is that if you don't positively, verbally/in writing unequivocally invoke your rights to remain silent and have an attorney present, the police may ignore less unequivocal assertions.
>That's the bit that sounds odd. Surely they can't just claim you're not a suspect yet and therefore deny you a lawyer?
IIUC, In a non-custodial situation, they are not required to provide the Miranda Warning[0]. However, the rights mentioned in that warning exist and are in force regardless of your status (custodial/non-custodial). One may invoke them at any time. I recommend doing so loudly if you're within two or three meters of law enforcement.
> It's like if people in Wales were constantly firing rockets at London because they wanted to destroy all English people, and England doing nothing about it for years until there was a huge slaughter, and then finally retaliating.
Or just like the IRA… asymmetric warfare/terrorism is a natural response to violent oppression
Discarded proportionalty calculations is in response to asymmetric warfare/terrorism which is in response to violent oppression is in response to ethnic conflict, which is in response to migration which is in response to persecution.
Everyone has factors influencing their decisions but everyone still has their own agency and responsibility.
> Or just like the IRA… asymmetric warfare/terrorism is a natural response to violent oppression
In neither case was oppression happening. The IRA wanted a separate Ireland, and would kill other Irish people and English people to get it.
You'd be far more oppressed (read: killed) if you were a Jew in Palestine, or a gay man in Palestine, or any number of other things in Palestine. Israel was the place where you could be those things. The controls were in place to stop the people coming in that would bring Palestinian "morality" into Israel.
>asymmetric warfare/terrorism is a natural response to violent oppression
it always sounds more high-minded to adopt universal/philosophical wording, but it's highly effective, your point is well made. October 7th was violent oppression, your explanation is sound.
It’s become the exclamation mark of mid-sentence punctuation. It connotes fragmented or interrupted speech in my opinion. The problem is that writing is not speech, that’s why it is more often seen in written dialogue.
reply