They don't have to - if the penalty is a fine, then it's just the cost of business. Everyone is fine with the system - as long as the profits gained from breaking the rule are bigger than the fine, behavior won't change.
Is that the methodology used here? I'd have guessed the Overall was an aggregate of the subcategories, not it's own question. I wonder if the overall would be lower if it was asked last, after considering all the other areas.
You can’t go lower than minimum wage. Those making minimum wage would benefit the most.
Better to say "It's unlawful to go lower than minimum wage". Though, here are some lawful situations where employers pay sub-minimum wage. We all know companies don't operate lawfully.
relying on private for-profit companies to provide basic transportation services in a city is stupid
While true, it hurts fewer people to build up the alternative before cutting off the current system. I don’t know (and doubt) if Minneapolis is doing that specifically, but Minnesota has been on a progressive tear and I hope they keep going.
My first full-time job, I had the Creative Zen MP3 player, boasting 14 hours of playback and a gigabytes of storage. Looking back, the only way I made it through successfully was that device. And Napster et al. I’m sure. Long live thumping beats! (Thank you for listening to my talk).
Perhaps, I find the quality at Dollar Tree to be worse than say, Walmart, and sometimes even more expensive. I don’t have any practical use for dollar stores.
Maybe your view is too narrow if it’s fueled by personal anecdotes. Technology not hurting you is just a data point, not a conclusion. Typically when we say positive, we really mean “net positive” and that’s unknown. And the argument is not that we shouldn’t use tools to make our lives better. It’s OK to recognize that tools can be harmful and seek to reduce that harm.