Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1953 1954 [1955] 1956 1957 ... 2144

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 1000181 times)

MrRoboto75

  • Bay Watcher
  • :thonk:
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29310 on: February 19, 2019, 01:57:33 am »

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

my camel case is a form of sarcasm, and in fact I agree with you.
Logged
I consume
I purchase
I consume again

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29311 on: February 19, 2019, 04:13:00 am »

"Nuclear Family" is kind of a loaded term in that it got tossed around quite a bit by the kind of "family-focused" politicians who knew exactly what the right way to raise a child was; and if you didn't go to their church then you were doing it wrong. Lots of angry eyebrows pointed at gays and single parents.

Like, I don't think anyone is going to argue that having two parents is better than having just one (or none, for that matter), but there's a difference between saying "this is generally better" and saying "you need to get married ,(and stay married) or else you're what's wrong with society".


So, is there a problem with the "Nuclear Family"? In the sense of two parents plus their kids, no, not really (one could make the argument about generational living, and keeping the entire village necessary to raise your child in one house, but eh). Is there a problem in the way the term occasionally gets used? Yeah.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29312 on: February 19, 2019, 05:08:59 am »

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

my camel case is a form of sarcasm, and in fact I agree with you.

SPEAKING of the above shit about wage and benefit shenanigans...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-airlines-raises-20170427-story.html

"Employees get raises instead of giving investors more free money. AGAIN. BOO HOO HOOO HOO."  --Citi Group
Logged

RadtheCad

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29313 on: February 19, 2019, 05:13:56 am »

So, is there a problem with the "Nuclear Family"? In the sense of two parents plus their kids, no, not really (one could make the argument about generational living, and keeping the entire village necessary to raise your child in one house, but eh). Is there a problem in the way the term occasionally gets used? Yeah.

I don't think that handing over elements of your conceptual universe to your enemies so readily is a good idea.  A reason you might is political instincts:  if your enemy is in favour of something, it's expedient to attack it and distance yourself from assent to its family of ideas in order to differentiate yourself from the enemy.  If, however, the enemy claims a particularly good idea, and you discard it, you still lose.
Logged
You have to kill your son or nuke the commonwealth.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29314 on: February 19, 2019, 05:20:37 am »

There is much hulabaloo about "The Nuclear Family", and its decline.

A nuclear family is one that has a central set of dedicated caregivers that are able to provide both financially, as well as mentally/emotionally for their children.  The ability to PRODUCE children is not required. (If it were, then sterile cis-hetero couples would not be "nuclear" either!)

As such, gay people, sterile people, polygamous people, poly-amorous people, et al, can all be parts of a nuclear family, as long as those individuals are actively involved and dedicated to the upbringing of their children.


The concept of it has just been coopted by people with a "Heterosexuality is THE NORMAL THING-- Do you HEAR me!? THE NORMAL THING! EVERYTHING ELSE IS ABNORMAL, AND WE CANT ALLOW THAT FOR OUR CHILDREN!!!" agenda, so that everything except "A man and a woman, who are attracted to each other, and married to each other, who are sexually exclusive to each other, and who have had children together" is systemically excluded from the concept of a "nuclear family."


Just ignore those idiots. They persist on the continued coverage of their wailings.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29315 on: February 19, 2019, 05:36:43 am »

Another thing: if you care about gender pay gaps, then you should only support paid parental leave if it's in the form of a government-controlled insurance scheme / payroll tax sort of thing. <snip>

While that is a valid perspective, and very well stated, I'm not sure I'm convinced. Having children is as ubiquitous as getting sick. We require employers to allow sick leave because getting sick is practically guaranteed for human beings. Likewise, having children is, in any healthy society, a near-certainty within any potential workplace. I don't see an unequivocal reason why this shouldn't be considered the responsibility of a business to plan for.

Additionally, to me, the point of that leave is for the caretakers of the child to recover/adjust to the point where they can safely work and care for said child. I think that leave should be equal for maternal/paternal leave. That way noone is incentivized away from hiring a specific gender. We've moved pretty firmly away from the female-takes-care-of-the-baby/male-works-a-job system, and it's time to update these things accordingly. (reference: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/mobile/employment-in-families-with-children-in-2016.htm)

That's a fine perspective, however it misses the main point. The money from the leave comes from somewhere and that somewhere is the company's bottom line. In the long-term, less bottom line means slower wage growth. And since few industries are 50:50 on gender, ultimately, if you leave it to companies to pay for it, that money is, effectively, coming out of the pockets of the same women who are "benefiting" from the money.

See Sweden, where, despite strong efforts to make parental leave gender-neutral - I think it's 87% of the leave is taken only by women. Any voluntary option to pay leave is going to fall like this, with the costs spread across whichever company is hiring the women in the couples. This is why it's different to general "sick pay" because, parental leave might as well be a PC euphemism for maternity leave, for all the difference that makes.

If you have company-based "Paid Leave" it's part of your remuneration package. That's why I mentioned the "free cars" analogy. If the company is giving you anything that costs money, it's not coming from a "magic money jar" it's coming out of the value that the worker's created, and it's in lieu of wages. This is a truism, because few companies are monopolies, they need to compete with other companies. The money for raises just won't be there if they're spending it on other stuff. If some companies offer attractive paid leave then women will tend to head there, which will mean those companies pay out more money for leave, and profits decline, lowering wage growth. Meanwhile, the husbands of those women will opt for companies which don't have good leave options, but have a higher base wage rate instead.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 05:53:13 am by Reelya »
Logged

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29316 on: February 19, 2019, 05:48:38 am »

Or, again, just have the same standards for paternity leave.

That way companies are indirectly incentivized to only employ nonsexed robots; just as nature intended.


On another note: I don't care, I believe Putin.

Which, if true, is pretty horrible. Also, do try and find Trump'a full rant on the matter, where he goes on about how the American people have finally elected a president they really like and who has done so much for jobs, the economy, and everything.

thompson

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29317 on: February 19, 2019, 05:52:28 am »

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

my camel case is a form of sarcasm, and in fact I agree with you.

SPEAKING of the above shit about wage and benefit shenanigans...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-airlines-raises-20170427-story.html

"Employees get raises instead of giving investors more free money. AGAIN. BOO HOO HOOO HOO."  --Citi Group

Given that most "investors" are pension funds, and many public pension funds are grossly underfunded, I don't really feel any resentment towards companies working towards improving their bottom lines. It's not as if earnings yields are that great - most profits come from capital gains which will return from whence they came during the next downturn. The real problem are the parasites running the company who seem to think they need to siphon off as much of their shareholders money as they can before moving on to the next host to repeat the process.

When the next big downturn does happen employees will lose jobs, investors will lose their savings, Illinois will probably implode, but the executives of the US of A will be doubling their bonuses to compensate for the hard job of sacking all those ingrates.
Logged

RadtheCad

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29318 on: February 19, 2019, 06:03:55 am »

Or, again, just have the same standards for paternity leave.

That way companies are indirectly incentivized to only employ nonsexed robots; just as nature intended.

You can't force people to take the leave;  I'll bet you 10 energy credits biological females will always be taking more parental leave than biological males (they have to, as they give birth.)
Logged
You have to kill your son or nuke the commonwealth.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29319 on: February 19, 2019, 06:29:12 am »

Uhm... No. No you dont.


My friend is a professional temp worker (as in, his full time employment comes from temp gigs he juggles using an agency), and his agency is his boss. They find gigs for him, and if he does not show up, he doesnt get any more gigs to do.

The whole "gig economy" is just a bunch of corporations going "Well... We've ALREADY slashed pensions, skimped on pay raises for 30 years compared to inflation, cut back on healthcare coverage, AND have people working many more hours than is healthy for them to boost our productivity...  HOW ELSE can we squeeze EVEN MOAR profits out of these human slaves of ours? -- What's that Office Drone # 514? We could hire part-time temp workers and H1B visa holders, and evade having to pay things like benefits all together!?  BRILLIANT!"

It has negative value to society, and is only beneficial to large corporations.  Fuck them. Fuck that.  Fuck them with 40 gay skeleton anarchists.

my camel case is a form of sarcasm, and in fact I agree with you.

SPEAKING of the above shit about wage and benefit shenanigans...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-airlines-raises-20170427-story.html

"Employees get raises instead of giving investors more free money. AGAIN. BOO HOO HOOO HOO."  --Citi Group

Given that most "investors" are pension funds, and many public pension funds are grossly underfunded, I don't really feel any resentment towards companies working towards improving their bottom lines. It's not as if earnings yields are that great - most profits come from capital gains which will return from whence they came during the next downturn. The real problem are the parasites running the company who seem to think they need to siphon off as much of their shareholders money as they can before moving on to the next host to repeat the process.

When the next big downturn does happen employees will lose jobs, investors will lose their savings, Illinois will probably implode, but the executives of the US of A will be doubling their bonuses to compensate for the hard job of sacking all those ingrates.

Not pension fund, more 401k--  And the fact that these investors were able to instigate a 5% drop in value, indicates that these are not long-haul investors we are talking about anyway. But Nice Try (tm).

The bright idea to use the stock market to pay for retirement does not obviate the need to pay people a living wage to keep the economy running. (Wages have not kept pace with inflation over the past 30+ years-- As such, total buying power per hour worked has dropped, but costs have not stayed comparatively low. Instead, things like the afore mentioned gig economy have cropped up, where people seek alternative outside employment to make ends meet.)  Complaining about having to pay the bare minimum of average wage-- which is exactly what Citi-group just did (The pilots, sterwardesses and other crew were getting paid **LESS** than industry standard, which is why they got the raise!) instead of getting a bigger return, just indicates a jaded disconnect from reality and nothing else.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29320 on: February 19, 2019, 07:09:03 am »

Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29321 on: February 19, 2019, 07:36:16 am »

Or, again, just have the same standards for paternity leave.

That way companies are indirectly incentivized to only employ nonsexed robots; just as nature intended.

Having the same standards doesn't change anything. For example, in Sweden a couple gets 390 paid childcare days. 60 days is reserved for the dad only. So 330 days can be used by either parent. Dad's average 3 months total leave, of which 2 months are the mandatory dad-only ones, so effectively, dads only use 10% of the optional amount of leave, with the mother using 90%. Nobody is forcing couples to use the leave in that manner: most of those 390 paid days are available to either parent. The standards, in Sweden, are already equal. This is just the decision that most Swedish couples make.

This is why the cost of leave needs to be spread across all workplaces if you don't want the cost of the leave exacerbating the gender wage gap. in this case, it's easy to see how if women are taking 90% of the government funded optional childcare leave in Sweden, then if Sweden left it up to the companies to pay for leave, then that would tend to increase the wage gap, which would tend to make the decision easier: since the women are working in industries with lower pay scales (caused in part by all the paid leave that the companies are providing) then it would be no-brainer that the woman takes the time off, not the man. You absolutely must spread the costs  among all industry sectors if you do not want the paying of childcare leave to economically reinforce the trend of women taking all the childcare leave.

Sure, we can even this out by expanding the dad-only leave to be half - but this would reduce the amount of time off mothers get. Made "equal" by fucking over mothers and forcing them to leave their children when they don't want to. And we'd slap ourselves on the back for a "job well done". Or, we could expand the leave so both mother and father get 1 year's paid leave each. Assuming this is affordable, the question would then arise about how unfair this was to single mothers, since they'd only get 1 year. So, we'd have to give 2 years paid leave to single mothers, for fairness. However, thinking another step forward: what effect would this have on couple's decision-making about whether to get married at all? Couples might find it more advantageous to declare both of them to be "single" and for the mother to get the two years full leave, while the dad works, just like they're deciding to do now. These are the decision real parents already make. If we try and force "equality" laws into people's personal relationships, they'll just find loopholes to get out of them.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 08:32:56 am by Reelya »
Logged

Doomblade187

  • Bay Watcher
  • Requires music to get through the working day.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29322 on: February 19, 2019, 08:40:35 am »

So, who wants to feel the bern in 2020?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-enters-2020-presidential-race-complete-revolution-n972906
Oh no. Nothing against Bermie, but last rime he hard split the democratic vote. Really don't want that happening again.
Logged
In any case it would be a battle of critical thinking and I refuse to fight an unarmed individual.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29323 on: February 19, 2019, 09:31:15 am »

Too late, he's officially throwing his hat in.

Remember, the primaries are intended to weed this out.  The fallacy is thinking that young-generation democrats, and old-generation democrats, are the same voter base.  As seen in the 2016 election, Hillary had the latter, but not the former, even after she won the primary; The younger generation democrats just did not throw in with her, and many abstained from voting all together.

That same abstention is likely to happen again if they do not get a candidate that appeals to their interests. This means Warren and pals need to emulate Sanders' politics if they want to make him irrelevant in the next election, and pick up those votes.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29324 on: February 19, 2019, 09:33:24 am »

This could also be upstaged by GOP people who decide to challenge Trump.

It'd be funny if Trump goes 110% Orange Idiot against some primary challengers, wins the primaries, but then his antics actually lose him the general election.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 09:35:43 am by Reelya »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1953 1954 [1955] 1956 1957 ... 2144