Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
That isn't the problem
The problem is that it's a huge giant gaping loophole for firing minorities, pregnant women and people of a religion you don't like.
OK this is true. But the solution is not to make it expensive and difficult to fire people who don't fit for your business.
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
"I would complain about my boss' racist jokes, but then I run the risk of getting fired because this is an at-will state and my employment is largely dependent on whether or not they like me"
There should be a Japanese archetype for this, the opposite of a tsundere. A person who really, genuinely doesn't want your affection and will die to prove it.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
I think spool has it right. I mean, the last time we saw a huge decline in organized labor and massive deregulation of the workplace was 1920-1929, and remember how awesome that worked out?
No, the last time we saw a huge decline in organized labor and complementary massive deregulation was in the latter half of the 70s and into Reagan's prime. Even Carter's Treasury and Fed saw unions as the enemy (massive stagflation fundamentally shaking the notion of Keynes-as-God)
And that was quite the lovely time in our economy LOL
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
That isn't the problem
The problem is that it's a huge giant gaping loophole for firing minorities, pregnant women and people of a religion you don't like.
OK this is true. But the solution is not to make it expensive and difficult to fire people who don't fit for your business.
"I would complain about my boss' racist jokes, but then I run the risk of getting fired because this is an at-will state and my employment is largely dependent on whether or not they like me"
It's not your business why do you get an opinion on the bosses sense of humor?
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
That isn't the problem
The problem is that it's a huge giant gaping loophole for firing minorities, pregnant women and people of a religion you don't like.
OK this is true. But the solution is not to make it expensive and difficult to fire people who don't fit for your business.
What is an example of a "person who doesn't fit a business"
Like, not specifics. But, in your mind, what is an example of this
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
That isn't the problem
The problem is that it's a huge giant gaping loophole for firing minorities, pregnant women and people of a religion you don't like.
OK this is true. But the solution is not to make it expensive and difficult to fire people who don't fit for your business.
Like the gays
Look, you knew you were gay when you went out looking for work.
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
I'm pretty sure that's covered, even in non At Will Employment states.
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
I think spool has it right. I mean, the last time we saw a huge decline in organized labor and massive deregulation of the workplace was 1920-1929, and remember how awesome that worked out?
No, the last time we saw a huge decline in organized labor and complementary massive deregulation was in the latter half of the 70s and into Reagan's prime. Even Carter's Treasury and Fed saw unions as the enemy (massive stagflation fundamentally shaking the notion of Keynes-as-God)
And that was quite the lovely time in our economy LOL
Yes, clearly an anti-worker environment and expansive deregulation leads to nothing but capitalist utopia.
But hey, why would we want to use anything like observed phenomena when we can just say FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!! and move on?
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
My employee's bug collection creeps me out
also when he refers to his wife, but when he invited me over for dinner the third chair was occupied by a pile of cockroaches squirming in manure.
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Well
Your "store" isn't you selling things to people and claiming those sales as income.
Your "store" is a legal fiction, granted to you by the Government, that shields you from a lot of personal liability, gives you preferential tax treatment vs claiming those sales as personal income, and a bunch of other benefits besides.
You have no innate moral right to that Government Granted Legal Fiction, or those preferential tax breaks, or those host of other things.
They are given to you because we as a society hope to reap some benefit from giving you those things, and among those benefits is the ability to attach some provisos that benefit society even if they do not directly benefit you, like the ability to dictate the terms by which you may employ people under your Government Granted Legal Fiction in order to promote societal stability.
tl;dr the government created the entirely legal structure by which you operate that store. You pay a cost in return for that structure. You are not entitled to a free lunch.
With a crippled labor movement you get a wage gap that is staggering and continuing to expand since there is no guarantee whatsoever of financial security due to a pervasive culture of fear, so people cling onto whatever substandard job they can snag and live through often blatantly illegal conditions, ossifying social classes and making a joke of the rhetoric of America as socially mobile
With the massive shift towards economic conservatism in the 80s you get an entrenchment of this ideology that unions are nothing but a labor monopoly and Terrible To The Economy despite empirical evidence otherwise, since they do safeguard against discrimination, wage inequality, unsafe work conditions, etc
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
Is that honestly the example you're bringing up? This is what you think is the most likely thing?
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
If you can't satisfy your own wife, you are unfit to run a store.
Children might come into your store.
What will they think, seeing this broken shell of a man, with ED, and a bald spot, and a dragon shirt, and love handles, and crows feet, and a pony tail?
Spool I'm certain that you are the only person in chat who doesn't know that "right to work state" is a political sleaze euphemism for "no employee rights, you can be fired at will."
Funny how all the southern states are fire at will.
You still get unemployment benefits if you're fired without cause.
I don't have a lot of problem with the idea that an employer can tell people he doesn't want them working in his business anymore. It's his business!
Moreover, I don't have a problem with laws that prevent a union from locking out workers who don't pay dues.
While an employer should certainly have the right to end a term of employment, it shouldn't be over ANYTHING.
Right to work is bullshit and helps workers not at all.
But why not? I don't understand the logic here. It's my business. I don't like you anymore. So I don't want to pay you. Get out of my store!
Why should the government be able to stop me from doing that?
Because that's a retarded way to run an economy.
Employers aren't kings.
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
"You built it" in the same way I built my public school education.
can you briefly explain why exports are a thing that people focus on
like, we need to increase our exports! growing trade imbalance! yadda yadda
it seems like exports would be a symptom of a healthy and productive economy not necessarily a driver. ie. everyone is producing enough for everyone so more and more of the excess starts getting sent abroad for currency.
but i dont really know shit about this stuff so please enlighten or link articles if you have any
put it this way:
an increase in net exports, where driven solely by depreciating your currency faster than your sellers adjust (i.e., so that you are being less currency)
will result in a loss in national wealth
but will generally result in greater employment, since making all those exports will probably require more domestic labour.
so at any given time, a bump in exports is highly attractive
in the long-run, the argument gets more tricky. Running persistent trade surpluses is a sign that your country is being persistently exploited by foreigners, in the sense of being paid less than you should be, unless you honestly expect to be eventually paid back in full value with interest, through dramatic future foreign currency appreciation (many trade surpluses are so large that this is a little implausible).
in terms of politics, the popularity of the argument is US-centrism; back when the US had an enormous trade surplus, it moaned about shedding natural wealth to Europe and Asia. Now that it has an enormous trade deficit, it moans about shedding jobs to Europe and Asia.
For rigor, you could invoke local positive externalities (factories encourage other factories), or trade volatility, or twin deficit theory, and so forth, but actual invocations of trade deficit fears are rarely consistent with these.
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Posts
just print it out bro
what I'm doing is constructing a massive election database
so that's what I should call it
deregulation leads to instability, economic collapse, and binge purge cycles of false wealth.
I know which one I favor, but then I am not a Republican because I do not want to live to see America become an actual 3rd world country.
*Obviously there is a point where regulation stymies growth.
OK this is true. But the solution is not to make it expensive and difficult to fire people who don't fit for your business.
There should be a Japanese archetype for this, the opposite of a tsundere. A person who really, genuinely doesn't want your affection and will die to prove it.
No, the last time we saw a huge decline in organized labor and complementary massive deregulation was in the latter half of the 70s and into Reagan's prime. Even Carter's Treasury and Fed saw unions as the enemy (massive stagflation fundamentally shaking the notion of Keynes-as-God)
And that was quite the lovely time in our economy LOL
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
copy and paste
turn it in as a didactic play
receive credit in both law and english class
Like the gays
It's not your business why do you get an opinion on the bosses sense of humor?
Jesus.
Fucking communists.
>:{
They aren't government entities either.
That business is mine. I built it!
If I found out you were fucking my wife, I shouldn't have to keep paying you to work at my store.
What is an example of a "person who doesn't fit a business"
Like, not specifics. But, in your mind, what is an example of this
No English teacher worth their salt will give you a passing grade for turning in a didactic play.
Look, you knew you were gay when you went out looking for work.
It's your fault if anyone finds out you are gay.
Business business business
Corporations are people
People are capital
Vote Republican!
All according to plan...
What do you mean when you say you "don't like them"
u luv me
I'm pretty sure that's covered, even in non At Will Employment states.
But hey, why would we want to use anything like observed phenomena when we can just say FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!! and move on?
also when he refers to his wife, but when he invited me over for dinner the third chair was occupied by a pile of cockroaches squirming in manure.
should I fire him?
Well
Your "store" isn't you selling things to people and claiming those sales as income.
Your "store" is a legal fiction, granted to you by the Government, that shields you from a lot of personal liability, gives you preferential tax treatment vs claiming those sales as personal income, and a bunch of other benefits besides.
You have no innate moral right to that Government Granted Legal Fiction, or those preferential tax breaks, or those host of other things.
They are given to you because we as a society hope to reap some benefit from giving you those things, and among those benefits is the ability to attach some provisos that benefit society even if they do not directly benefit you, like the ability to dictate the terms by which you may employ people under your Government Granted Legal Fiction in order to promote societal stability.
tl;dr the government created the entirely legal structure by which you operate that store. You pay a cost in return for that structure. You are not entitled to a free lunch.
With the massive shift towards economic conservatism in the 80s you get an entrenchment of this ideology that unions are nothing but a labor monopoly and Terrible To The Economy despite empirical evidence otherwise, since they do safeguard against discrimination, wage inequality, unsafe work conditions, etc
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Presumably you'd have issues with their attitude and productivity and have reasons backed up by evidence and example to back that up.
In theory.
Or you could be a douche who doesn't like the way they look at you in the hall and you get off on power trips.
fak you bug boy
clean out your desk
i think ur ugly im gonna fire u cuz ur dumb face
Is that honestly the example you're bringing up? This is what you think is the most likely thing?
If you can't satisfy your own wife, you are unfit to run a store.
Children might come into your store.
What will they think, seeing this broken shell of a man, with ED, and a bald spot, and a dragon shirt, and love handles, and crows feet, and a pony tail?
It's better to sell the store in this case.
put it this way:
an increase in net exports, where driven solely by depreciating your currency faster than your sellers adjust (i.e., so that you are being less currency)
will result in a loss in national wealth
but will generally result in greater employment, since making all those exports will probably require more domestic labour.
so at any given time, a bump in exports is highly attractive
in the long-run, the argument gets more tricky. Running persistent trade surpluses is a sign that your country is being persistently exploited by foreigners, in the sense of being paid less than you should be, unless you honestly expect to be eventually paid back in full value with interest, through dramatic future foreign currency appreciation (many trade surpluses are so large that this is a little implausible).
in terms of politics, the popularity of the argument is US-centrism; back when the US had an enormous trade surplus, it moaned about shedding natural wealth to Europe and Asia. Now that it has an enormous trade deficit, it moans about shedding jobs to Europe and Asia.
For rigor, you could invoke local positive externalities (factories encourage other factories), or trade volatility, or twin deficit theory, and so forth, but actual invocations of trade deficit fears are rarely consistent with these.
dis is ur store
imma poop in it
why shuld da po leez care