Also, let's not pretending Amazon hasn't been on the forefront of job destroying in this country.
WalMart also employs a ton of high-end, well paid COBOL developers and web store developers to keep their supply chain going but I don't really see anyone here jumping in to defend their honor either.
Nice “whataboutery.” The conversation was not abou Walmart.
I feel like, in a conversation about retailers and the US economy, that mentioning the single biggest employer in the country (who also happens to be a retailer) as a comparison point to the 2nd biggest employer is a far cry from "whataboutism."
My point is, if Amazon loses whatever due to Alibaba coming here (which is kind of like a Target shutting down because a Dollar General opened up down the street, but I digress), then maybe Amazon is the problem? Further, as a company they haven't exactly been a sterling example of "good business" and follow the Walmart example of bullying their way using their influence and size, but somehow still get rooted defenders despite not having earned any of it.
I don't see what sets them apart from any other bad employer in this country other than brand loyalty.
My initial comment wasn't defending Amazon so much as pointing out that what you were suggesting was a long term benefit to nobody except Jack Ma and his investors. You can hate Amazon all you like, there are certainly reasons for it, but acting like the Chinese are going to come in and improve worker conditions is a pretty ludicrous argument.
I never said they'd improve them.
I'm saying they couldn't make it any worse.
Yes, some dev jobs would be in China but considering the amount of money that goes into Bezos pocket that will never enter this economy as taxes or goods purchased, I kind of feel like it's a wash economically.
Well they would have to... because you have to have warehouses here and would have to ship here etc... The margin on American programmers/managers rather than off site is probably nil and you get a better product due to fewer language barriers. But they could never "create jobs" in this manner because the nature of competition means that they would be taking jobs away from Amazon if they were able to make it work.
Edit: well they could create some jobs since Amazon is a monopoly and increased competition would likely lead to quantity increases... but not 1 million of them
Good point. Alibaba *could* have created a lot of warehouse jobs, but largely at the expense of Amazon’s warehouse jobs, and the *good* jobs, developers and their teams, would have been in China. So a net loss for the USA if Alibaba defeats the hometown hero, Amazon.
Or Amazon could, I dunno, pay their employees more.
I won't say they pay well and don't have their problems but I thought Amazon on average paid warehouse workers better than retailers. Not to say that's all that l laudable
If you focus solely on wage dollar amounts and don't take working conditions into account, yes.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
it is kind of amusing* that employers here don't feel the need to match amazon's not-great-but-above-average wages because they know amazon treats their employees like shit and so people leaving to work at amazon is not seen as a threat
*fucking amusing
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Also, let's not pretending Amazon hasn't been on the forefront of job destroying in this country.
WalMart also employs a ton of high-end, well paid COBOL developers and web store developers to keep their supply chain going but I don't really see anyone here jumping in to defend their honor either.
Nice “whataboutery.” The conversation was not abou Walmart.
I feel like, in a conversation about retailers and the US economy, that mentioning the single biggest employer in the country (who also happens to be a retailer) as a comparison point to the 2nd biggest employer is a far cry from "whataboutism."
My point is, if Amazon loses whatever due to Alibaba coming here (which is kind of like a Target shutting down because a Dollar General opened up down the street, but I digress), then maybe Amazon is the problem? Further, as a company they haven't exactly been a sterling example of "good business" and follow the Walmart example of bullying their way using their influence and size, but somehow still get rooted defenders despite not having earned any of it.
I don't see what sets them apart from any other bad employer in this country other than brand loyalty.
You said it yourself: 'because people like their 2 day free shipping.' This is a big deal; order pretty much anything you want for a decent-to-possibly-great price and have it show up in 48 hours? People in the US are REALLY GOOD at ignoring negatives if there's a personal benefit, and when that benefit is as convenient and near-magical as what Amazon does, of course they're going to get a pass.
People aren't defending Walmart, because it sucks to shop at Walmart. Amazon, you're in your pajamas at home.
Your top part is the concerning one, especially considering the negatives that come along with it.
And it's not just some nebulous "people in the US." It's people who should know better, including people here. I saw the same crap about letting companies have a pass for shitty behavior before and now Google pretty much sells your identity for you because we, not just some random THEM, decided in the early 2010's that Google was a benevolent force for good and not shady and shitty like Microsoft.
Apple is getting the same leeway despite being hellaciously anti-customer.
I find the defeatism and "this is because of airquote the masses airquote" to be kind of infuriating, and this added clout that tech companies still have because of the dot com boom 20 years ago.
People don't give a shit about negative externalities. Maybe people should know better, but people are stupid.
And it should be infuriating, because it is infuriating.
The economics will change people's minds.
If the 45-year stretch of wage stagnation and 38 years of failed Reaganomics hasn't changed anyones mind yet, I doubt anything else will as long as people who have a lot of money are treated like celebrities in this country.
I'm still not a fan of "people are stupid" determinations, simply because anyone who isn't you gets thrown into "people." It's like asking me to believe everyone else on the road is a terrible driver except you, and when you do dumb things in your car it was an honest mistake.
(Not YOU personally, royal you.)
jungleroomx on
+13
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
people need to understand economics before we can expect economics to change their minds
they don't even attribute clear lines of cause and effect when economic realities affect them directly
People don't give a shit about negative externalities. Maybe people should know better, but people are stupid.
And it should be infuriating, because it is infuriating.
The economics will change people's minds.
If the 45-year stretch of wage stagnation and 38 years of failed Reaganomics hasn't changed anyones mind yet, I doubt anything else will as long as people who have a lot of money are treated like celebrities in this country.
I'm still not a fan of "people are stupid" determinations, simply because anyone who isn't you gets thrown into "people." It's like asking me to believe everyone else on the road is a terrible driver except you, and when you do dumb things in your car it was an honest mistake.
(Not YOU personally, royal you.)
"People" are pretty stupid outside their field of expertise though, and that's everyone in one area or another. I know plenty of otherwise intelligent people in high-skill fields who the second you step a little outside that area revert to all the worst tendencies we tend to criticize here.
I think round 2012 the Republican primary had like a real-time demonstration of this in a debate? When questions strayed into the committees nominees had actually spent a year or so sitting on for different topics, suddenly the "Republican bullet point rah-rah America" responses evaporated and you got people you wouldn't regard as intellectually astute giving deferential, considered answers about complex topics because they had spent some time absorbing that they were complex topics.
People don't give a shit about negative externalities. Maybe people should know better, but people are stupid.
And it should be infuriating, because it is infuriating.
The economics will change people's minds.
If the 45-year stretch of wage stagnation and 38 years of failed Reaganomics hasn't changed anyones mind yet, I doubt anything else will as long as people who have a lot of money are treated like celebrities in this country.
I'm still not a fan of "people are stupid" determinations, simply because anyone who isn't you gets thrown into "people." It's like asking me to believe everyone else on the road is a terrible driver except you, and when you do dumb things in your car it was an honest mistake.
(Not YOU personally, royal you.)
Except wage stagnation and failed Reaganomics is changing people's minds. Look at how popular Bernie's proposals are. There's a political appetite for these kind of changes, so it slowly is working.
Also when I say people are stupid, I'm including myself in that. Everyone is idiotic. Climate change is the greatest threat to our entire society but few people give a shit because they care about the price at the oil pump when they fill up their F-150. Acknowledgement that people are stupid and care only about prices and their immediate self-interest can help formulate policies that actually change things rather than policies that don't do much of anything. Hence why a carbon tax could do a lot of good with regard to climate change, or imposing an interstate online sales tax at a higher rate than local sales taxes in the case of Amazon.
Like, if people weren't stupid then we wouldn't have negative externalities survive on the market; people would be smart enough and have the information necessary to make informed consumer choices about the extent said negative externalities will affect them.
But we have negative externalities exactly because people are stupid and don't understand those things because, again, the price is cheap.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Well they would have to... because you have to have warehouses here and would have to ship here etc... The margin on American programmers/managers rather than off site is probably nil and you get a better product due to fewer language barriers. But they could never "create jobs" in this manner because the nature of competition means that they would be taking jobs away from Amazon if they were able to make it work.
Edit: well they could create some jobs since Amazon is a monopoly and increased competition would likely lead to quantity increases... but not 1 million of them
Good point. Alibaba *could* have created a lot of warehouse jobs, but largely at the expense of Amazon’s warehouse jobs, and the *good* jobs, developers and their teams, would have been in China. So a net loss for the USA if Alibaba defeats the hometown hero, Amazon.
Or Amazon could, I dunno, pay their employees more.
I won't say they pay well and don't have their problems but I thought Amazon on average paid warehouse workers better than retailers. Not to say that's all that l laudable
I thought the opposite, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm one way or the other.
That being said, being an Amazon warehouse worker is a lot shittier than being a front-line retail worker. If they're paying less, it's just because of supply/demand and/or labour monospony, not because the work is any better.
People don't give a shit about negative externalities. Maybe people should know better, but people are stupid.
And it should be infuriating, because it is infuriating.
The economics will change people's minds.
If the 45-year stretch of wage stagnation and 38 years of failed Reaganomics hasn't changed anyones mind yet, I doubt anything else will as long as people who have a lot of money are treated like celebrities in this country.
I'm still not a fan of "people are stupid" determinations, simply because anyone who isn't you gets thrown into "people." It's like asking me to believe everyone else on the road is a terrible driver except you, and when you do dumb things in your car it was an honest mistake.
(Not YOU personally, royal you.)
Except wage stagnation and failed Reaganomics is changing people's minds. Look at how popular Bernie's proposals are. There's a political appetite for these kind of changes, so it slowly is working.
Also when I say people are stupid, I'm including myself in that. Everyone is idiotic. Climate change is the greatest threat to our entire society but few people give a shit because they care about the price at the oil pump when they fill up their F-150. Acknowledgement that people are stupid and care only about prices and their immediate self-interest can help formulate policies that actually change things rather than policies that don't do much of anything. Hence why a carbon tax could do a lot of good with regard to climate change, or imposing an interstate online sales tax at a higher rate than local sales taxes in the case of Amazon.
Yeah, but also increasingly popular are fascism and jingoism and just plain-ass tripling down on Reaganomics.
Wage stagnation and income inequality might be changing people's minds, but what it's changing people's minds to.....
Well they would have to... because you have to have warehouses here and would have to ship here etc... The margin on American programmers/managers rather than off site is probably nil and you get a better product due to fewer language barriers. But they could never "create jobs" in this manner because the nature of competition means that they would be taking jobs away from Amazon if they were able to make it work.
Edit: well they could create some jobs since Amazon is a monopoly and increased competition would likely lead to quantity increases... but not 1 million of them
Good point. Alibaba *could* have created a lot of warehouse jobs, but largely at the expense of Amazon’s warehouse jobs, and the *good* jobs, developers and their teams, would have been in China. So a net loss for the USA if Alibaba defeats the hometown hero, Amazon.
Or Amazon could, I dunno, pay their employees more.
I won't say they pay well and don't have their problems but I thought Amazon on average paid warehouse workers better than retailers. Not to say that's all that l laudable
I thought the opposite, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm one way or the other.
That being said, being an Amazon warehouse worker is a lot shittier than being a front-line retail worker. If they're paying less, it's just because of supply/demand and/or labour monospony, not because the work is any better.
Is it? Or is it just shitty in a different way?
It’s also worth remembering that all those factory jobs people are howling about going to China would be indistinguishable from working in an Amazon warehouse, day to day.
Well they would have to... because you have to have warehouses here and would have to ship here etc... The margin on American programmers/managers rather than off site is probably nil and you get a better product due to fewer language barriers. But they could never "create jobs" in this manner because the nature of competition means that they would be taking jobs away from Amazon if they were able to make it work.
Edit: well they could create some jobs since Amazon is a monopoly and increased competition would likely lead to quantity increases... but not 1 million of them
Good point. Alibaba *could* have created a lot of warehouse jobs, but largely at the expense of Amazon’s warehouse jobs, and the *good* jobs, developers and their teams, would have been in China. So a net loss for the USA if Alibaba defeats the hometown hero, Amazon.
Or Amazon could, I dunno, pay their employees more.
I won't say they pay well and don't have their problems but I thought Amazon on average paid warehouse workers better than retailers. Not to say that's all that l laudable
I thought the opposite, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm one way or the other.
That being said, being an Amazon warehouse worker is a lot shittier than being a front-line retail worker. If they're paying less, it's just because of supply/demand and/or labour monospony, not because the work is any better.
Is it? Or is it just shitty in a different way?
It’s also worth remembering that all those factory jobs people are howling about going to China would be indistinguishable from working in an Amazon warehouse, day to day.
Not if they were unionized jobs, then the worker at the factory would have better hours, more respect, and a pension.
Well they would have to... because you have to have warehouses here and would have to ship here etc... The margin on American programmers/managers rather than off site is probably nil and you get a better product due to fewer language barriers. But they could never "create jobs" in this manner because the nature of competition means that they would be taking jobs away from Amazon if they were able to make it work.
Edit: well they could create some jobs since Amazon is a monopoly and increased competition would likely lead to quantity increases... but not 1 million of them
Good point. Alibaba *could* have created a lot of warehouse jobs, but largely at the expense of Amazon’s warehouse jobs, and the *good* jobs, developers and their teams, would have been in China. So a net loss for the USA if Alibaba defeats the hometown hero, Amazon.
Or Amazon could, I dunno, pay their employees more.
I won't say they pay well and don't have their problems but I thought Amazon on average paid warehouse workers better than retailers. Not to say that's all that l laudable
I thought the opposite, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm one way or the other.
That being said, being an Amazon warehouse worker is a lot shittier than being a front-line retail worker. If they're paying less, it's just because of supply/demand and/or labour monospony, not because the work is any better.
Is it? Or is it just shitty in a different way?
Given the comparative turnover rates, yes it is.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Well they would have to... because you have to have warehouses here and would have to ship here etc... The margin on American programmers/managers rather than off site is probably nil and you get a better product due to fewer language barriers. But they could never "create jobs" in this manner because the nature of competition means that they would be taking jobs away from Amazon if they were able to make it work.
Edit: well they could create some jobs since Amazon is a monopoly and increased competition would likely lead to quantity increases... but not 1 million of them
Good point. Alibaba *could* have created a lot of warehouse jobs, but largely at the expense of Amazon’s warehouse jobs, and the *good* jobs, developers and their teams, would have been in China. So a net loss for the USA if Alibaba defeats the hometown hero, Amazon.
Or Amazon could, I dunno, pay their employees more.
I won't say they pay well and don't have their problems but I thought Amazon on average paid warehouse workers better than retailers. Not to say that's all that l laudable
I thought the opposite, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm one way or the other.
That being said, being an Amazon warehouse worker is a lot shittier than being a front-line retail worker. If they're paying less, it's just because of supply/demand and/or labour monospony, not because the work is any better.
Is it? Or is it just shitty in a different way?
It’s also worth remembering that all those factory jobs people are howling about going to China would be indistinguishable from working in an Amazon warehouse, day to day.
I was curious about this so I looked up companies with the highest turnover and Amazon is about the only one that isn't a life insurance company or an energy company. #2 in the country as well.
Not all warehouse jobs are terrible, as I've worked them before. From the descriptions I've read about Amazon, they're worse than a WalMart distro center, which I did work and had people there doing the grunt stuff for years and years, as opposed to the Amazon median which is 1 year.
I don’t know that any nonunionized warehouse job is gonna be /great/ but the stories from amazon warehouses are actually nightmarish.
Yeah.
I got worked hard as a truck unloader at WalMart and worked harder as a DC drone, but we got piss breaks, 1 hour lunches, and even 2 15 minute breaks during the day.
What I'm hearing from Amazon is that workers are resorting to piss bottles.
As far as I can tell, workers in America loathe unions, so I don’t see how unions can be expected to fix things if the workers hate them more than the bosses.
+4
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
As far as I can tell, workers in America loathe unions, so I don’t see how unions can be expected to fix things if the workers hate them more than the bosses.
We are taught to hate unions. We are also taught to feel bad about taking vacation and to feel guilty when we use sick leave.
I, a non-union worker, recently got a sizeable raise because the union, which I am not eligible to join, recently negotiated for a huge raise for its employees, and the company summarily felt pressured to raise the wages of others, to avoid attrition or bad press.
Union hatred in America is 100% manipulation by businesses.
I, a non-union worker, recently got a sizeable raise because the union, which I am not eligible to join, recently negotiated for a huge raise for its employees, and the company summarily felt pressured to raise the wages of others, to avoid attrition or bad press.
Union hatred in America is 100% manipulation by businesses.
A lot of things are, such as our ingrained reluctance to talk about our incomes. Especially within the same company.
I, a non-union worker, recently got a sizeable raise because the union, which I am not eligible to join, recently negotiated for a huge raise for its employees, and the company summarily felt pressured to raise the wages of others, to avoid attrition or bad press.
Union hatred in America is 100% manipulation by businesses.
A lot of things are, such as our ingrained reluctance to talk about our incomes. Especially within the same company.
Senator from Hawai'i. This is a tremendous line, even though it does lean into the dumb conventional wisdom about who we borrow most of our money from.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+15
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i wouldn't advocate lying to people, but if throwing something truthy using their own rhetoric back at them causes them to think "hey, maybe this is really stupid"
i'm not going to stand in the way
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+9
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
China does buy a lot of our debt, so it's accurate enough to set up a '...it's the CIRCLE of LIFE...' singing moment.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Senator from Hawai'i. This is a tremendous line, even though it does lean into the dumb conventional wisdom about who we borrow most of our money from.
Political Correctness gone mad.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Trump just said that it was Obama's fault we didn't borrow more money when we were basically being paid to borrow
The House’s new bill takes effect starting in 2025, and would add $600 billion to the national debt within the next decade, and then $3.2 trillion in the 10 years after that, according to Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center.
They really aren't even pretending anymore to give a shit about deficits.
They're trying to eliminate the political attack that accurately describes the tax bill they passed. Which raises my taxes to cut them for Trump and Corporations.
Nobody gives a shit about the deficit, the bipartisan support for a DoD budget bigger than what Trump asks for is more than enough evidence of it. Which is why budget concern trolling from the left is bad, it plays to the GOP frame that created Serious Politician Paul Ryan, for starters.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Wonderful. So if/when the world starts moving away from the dollar as a reserve currency, we'll be double-fucked. And there's an economic contraction coming at some point; we're overdue for one now.
Nobody gives a shit about the deficit, the bipartisan support for a DoD budget bigger than what Trump asks for is more than enough evidence of it. Which is why budget concern trolling from the left is bad, it plays to the GOP frame that created Serious Politician Paul Ryan, for starters.
PAYGO rules help ensure that new programs are self sustaining and are less reliant on annual appropriations which Republicans can fuck with. You may not have to worry about that with the Pentagon, but you do with the ACA &c.
I'd argue that it's important to use the defecit against the republicans the way a newfoundlander uses a club against a baby harp seal because it's the consistent weapon in their arsenal against sitting democratic presidents; it points to the utter hypocrisy of the party and the failure of conservative economic theory.
When I worked at Wal-Mart I had to help a co-manager pass the union training class, because he had been part of a union and was trying to give real answers instead of the ones Wal-Mart wanted.
I've definitely had scare mongering speeches about unions at my current job as well. I just roll my eyes the whole time during that stuff.
I'd argue that it's important to use the defecit against the republicans the way a newfoundlander uses a club against a baby harp seal because it's the consistent weapon in their arsenal against sitting democratic presidents; it points to the utter hypocrisy of the party and the failure of conservative economic theory.
Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't work, people just don't give a shit. See: Trump. Also, on the bolded bit, what deficit concern trolling actually does is to argue that Dems are better at applying conservative economic theory than the Repubs. If that's what you want to argue, ok then.
Posts
I never said they'd improve them.
I'm saying they couldn't make it any worse.
Yes, some dev jobs would be in China but considering the amount of money that goes into Bezos pocket that will never enter this economy as taxes or goods purchased, I kind of feel like it's a wash economically.
If you focus solely on wage dollar amounts and don't take working conditions into account, yes.
*fucking amusing
Your top part is the concerning one, especially considering the negatives that come along with it.
And it's not just some nebulous "people in the US." It's people who should know better, including people here. I saw the same crap about letting companies have a pass for shitty behavior before and now Google pretty much sells your identity for you because we, not just some random THEM, decided in the early 2010's that Google was a benevolent force for good and not shady and shitty like Microsoft.
Apple is getting the same leeway despite being hellaciously anti-customer.
I find the defeatism and "this is because of airquote the masses airquote" to be kind of infuriating, and this added clout that tech companies still have because of the dot com boom 20 years ago.
And it should be infuriating, because it is infuriating.
The economics will change people's minds.
If the 45-year stretch of wage stagnation and 38 years of failed Reaganomics hasn't changed anyones mind yet, I doubt anything else will as long as people who have a lot of money are treated like celebrities in this country.
I'm still not a fan of "people are stupid" determinations, simply because anyone who isn't you gets thrown into "people." It's like asking me to believe everyone else on the road is a terrible driver except you, and when you do dumb things in your car it was an honest mistake.
(Not YOU personally, royal you.)
they don't even attribute clear lines of cause and effect when economic realities affect them directly
"People" are pretty stupid outside their field of expertise though, and that's everyone in one area or another. I know plenty of otherwise intelligent people in high-skill fields who the second you step a little outside that area revert to all the worst tendencies we tend to criticize here.
I think round 2012 the Republican primary had like a real-time demonstration of this in a debate? When questions strayed into the committees nominees had actually spent a year or so sitting on for different topics, suddenly the "Republican bullet point rah-rah America" responses evaporated and you got people you wouldn't regard as intellectually astute giving deferential, considered answers about complex topics because they had spent some time absorbing that they were complex topics.
Except wage stagnation and failed Reaganomics is changing people's minds. Look at how popular Bernie's proposals are. There's a political appetite for these kind of changes, so it slowly is working.
Also when I say people are stupid, I'm including myself in that. Everyone is idiotic. Climate change is the greatest threat to our entire society but few people give a shit because they care about the price at the oil pump when they fill up their F-150. Acknowledgement that people are stupid and care only about prices and their immediate self-interest can help formulate policies that actually change things rather than policies that don't do much of anything. Hence why a carbon tax could do a lot of good with regard to climate change, or imposing an interstate online sales tax at a higher rate than local sales taxes in the case of Amazon.
But we have negative externalities exactly because people are stupid and don't understand those things because, again, the price is cheap.
Certain ideologies have intertwined economics with nationalistic jingoism to prevent bad economic events from resulting in change.
i mean
yeah
not wrong
I thought the opposite, so it'd be nice if someone could confirm one way or the other.
That being said, being an Amazon warehouse worker is a lot shittier than being a front-line retail worker. If they're paying less, it's just because of supply/demand and/or labour monospony, not because the work is any better.
Yeah, but also increasingly popular are fascism and jingoism and just plain-ass tripling down on Reaganomics.
Wage stagnation and income inequality might be changing people's minds, but what it's changing people's minds to.....
Is it? Or is it just shitty in a different way?
It’s also worth remembering that all those factory jobs people are howling about going to China would be indistinguishable from working in an Amazon warehouse, day to day.
Not if they were unionized jobs, then the worker at the factory would have better hours, more respect, and a pension.
Given the comparative turnover rates, yes it is.
I was curious about this so I looked up companies with the highest turnover and Amazon is about the only one that isn't a life insurance company or an energy company. #2 in the country as well.
Not all warehouse jobs are terrible, as I've worked them before. From the descriptions I've read about Amazon, they're worse than a WalMart distro center, which I did work and had people there doing the grunt stuff for years and years, as opposed to the Amazon median which is 1 year.
Yeah.
I got worked hard as a truck unloader at WalMart and worked harder as a DC drone, but we got piss breaks, 1 hour lunches, and even 2 15 minute breaks during the day.
What I'm hearing from Amazon is that workers are resorting to piss bottles.
We are taught to hate unions. We are also taught to feel bad about taking vacation and to feel guilty when we use sick leave.
Union hatred in America is 100% manipulation by businesses.
A lot of things are, such as our ingrained reluctance to talk about our incomes. Especially within the same company.
Eat the rich, etc.
The other white meat.
Senator from Hawai'i. This is a tremendous line, even though it does lean into the dumb conventional wisdom about who we borrow most of our money from.
i'm not going to stand in the way
Political Correctness gone mad.
They really aren't even pretending anymore to give a shit about deficits.
Supply side economics and crying about the deficit is all about getting rid of social problems that are broadly popular.
The Republicans were getting their asses kicked in the legislature until they came up with that bullshit.
PAYGO rules help ensure that new programs are self sustaining and are less reliant on annual appropriations which Republicans can fuck with. You may not have to worry about that with the Pentagon, but you do with the ACA &c.
I've definitely had scare mongering speeches about unions at my current job as well. I just roll my eyes the whole time during that stuff.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't work, people just don't give a shit. See: Trump. Also, on the bolded bit, what deficit concern trolling actually does is to argue that Dems are better at applying conservative economic theory than the Repubs. If that's what you want to argue, ok then.