Depends. Like, I could see the argument made that these things get set up less in wealthier, white neighborhoods. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong! I just hate when we make it even more expensive to be poor.

> Like, I could see the argument made that these things get set up less in wealthier, white neighborhoods.

I agree; there is absolutely selective and biased placement in many municipalities. That's another good reason to put red-light cameras on every light, and to turn traffic violations into a sliding scale based on income, car value, and other factors (like the car's weight, as a good proxy for the damage it can do to pedestrians or other drivers).

Do you have evidence that they conclusively reduce traffic incidents?

I think the thing I get hung up on is that I don't know if we know they actually work. Intuitively, sure, makes sense, but maybe they are just costing drivers money but not making things safer.

Capitalism gonna make that happen. Have a rare skill? Guess you get paid a ton for it.

I don't understand why this is surprising enough to warrant an NYT article. (Except that the NYT seems to regularly post things that are aimed at disrupting solidarity. Wealthy workers are still workers. We should be looking for ways to get them to have solidarity with us, not villainizing them. )

Top lawyers aren't "workers", while they may do some amount of work they are also the owners of their own business (partners) and employ others.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Lawyers aren't going to have solidarity with workers.

What's a lawyer's goal? To make partner. That's not the kind of goal that moves you toward solidarity with the masses.

Random people still would submit things, not fraudulently just poorly. People at large tend to do dumb shit trying to help.

It'd be the organizations spending public money submitting their data. So randoms won't have access to submit things.

Honestly, we should be at least considering nationalizing Boeing. There's a strategic need for us to build planes, and the corporate leadership continues to show they will not emphasize engineering and safety.

Ok, the article says it costs companies billions. But, maybe that's the right amount? There's no evidence presented that billions is the wrong amount for the cost of mistreating workers.

I'm not saying it definitely is, I just thinks it's shady to frame it as "think of the mega corporations!" Why does the paper assume that it's a negative?

The implication is that a lot of that money is wasted on lawyers.

From the study: "Since 2013, employers have been forced to pay nearly $10 billion in PAGA court case awards, but because of the class-action nature of many claims and heavy lawyer commissions, workers receive only a small portion of these awards"

A fair number of claims are guidance issues or gotcha issues. Wrong employer address on a paycheck is a crime (as it should be), but is it a $2 million dollar crime? Or could it be fixed in the next payroll cycle if a zip code was missing on an address with maybe some kind of penalty per employee for one payroll (not every paycheck).

If much of that money goes to lawyers rather than workers I think there's a good argument to be made that the lawyers were the ones winning.