I guess my point is that we’re already talking about a hypothetical situation
Oh okay, fair enough. Yeah ideally that’s the direction it preferably should go in.
IHeartBadCode
joined 2 years ago
Why does everyone always assume that if minimum wage went up or if tipping went away that the customer would absorb the cost?
There’s no technical reason for why, just based on current evidence where 100% of the time producers shove any increase in cost to consumers.
You’re correct that there’s nothing technically preventing producers from eating the increase, it’s just that they’ve never done so, at least in the US.
Only real example where that has happen was with Nintendo and the WiiU. I’m sure there’s more but the fact I’m drawing blank past that but could name you over a thousand times when the cost was shoved off to consumers kind of is my point in a nutshell.
So that said, that’s why a lot of people just assume increase in cost of production equals increase in cost to consumers.
Someone drinking coffee like that seems to me like they’re trying to avoid tipping by going into cardiac arrest.
The penguins are crossing the Drake Passage and taking our jerbs!
I'm a bit wordy, that's something I'm working on. Thank you here's your boost for the kind reminder.
"Congress has taken decisive action to defend our constitutional order and hold accountable a public official who has violated his oath of office,” Representative Mark E. Green, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
But you decided to tank the bipartisan border reform bill. Clearly sound logic here. SMH
But yeah, even Republicans in the Senate are indicating that it's likely the Senate will dismiss the trail as, shockingly, everyone has way better things to do.
However, this is Republicans attempting to normalize impeachment. So this way, when someone mentions Trump being impeached twice they can say, "well so-and-so was impeached sixty-three times!! Impeachment doesn't mean anything!" Which impeachment does mean something, just in this case it shows how petty the House Republicans have become.
Impeaching someone ALWAYS means something, just that if you're sitting there impeaching someone over border issues when yourself have tabled solving those border issues at the behest of the leading candidate for a political party, it clearly doesn't say the thing these Republicans are hoping it says. You cannot reasonably believe people OF SOUND MIND can look at the justification of this impeachment and the recent tanking of solutions by this exact body in the House and think that the conclusions were arrived at in an apolitical manner.
Literally Trump said, "Don't give Biden the win on the border." I mean c'mon, okay you might have an issue with how the guy was running things, you're Congress, you can literally pass legislation forcing the guy to do your bidding. That's actually an option. But Republicans of the House cannot actually get it passed, not just because of their dysfunctional nature, but because Trump told them to not. So this is the result, rather than actually pass legislation to set the guy on the "right" path (I mean I'm going to give GOP House a benefit of doubt here, that they actually want to fix something) and boy oh boy, it was bipartisan it COULD HAVE been a slam dunk here. But rather than do that, they did this.
Republicans are going to think that this is some sort of win, that's cool, whatever helps them to sleep. But nobody is going to forget that Trump literally asked Republicans to tank any kind of solution. That's what this impeachment says. And literally, that's the echo over at r/conservative, it basically boils down to a "take that Biden!" Rather than people actually going, "shouldn't have Congress given clarity if they had issues?"
But of course you ask that question to some of them and it'll instantly devolve into "did Democrats give Trump … ?" And that's the tell that it's tit-for-tat for those people.
In approving the charges, the House also appointed 11 Republicans to serve as impeachment managers, including Mr. Green and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, the right-wing lawmaker who has led the charge against Mr. Mayorkas.
LOL!!! In a perverse sense though, I would love to see MTG attempt to form solid arguments in an impeachment trail. Lady routinely trips on logic and her fallback is just screeching, which given a Democrat would be presiding over the trial, I would love to see Sen. Patty Murray figuratively chuck a gavel at MTG's head and tell her to "shut the fuck up!" Ah man, I almost miss the chance to see MTG as an impeachment manager. Impeachments are usually highly politically charged (hence the reason the background upon which it is set is pretty important) and that's like Rep. Greene's trigger to ignite. Lady doesn't know how to pump the breaks on her partisanship or emotions (which there's a time and place for that in Congress for sure, not when you're in the Senate with the opposite party presiding). Now Rep. Mark Green now that's an obvious choice, he's absolutely got a flare for dotting the i's in an argument. Perfect choice for a manager into this and has a great deal of understanding this domain. But him opposite of MTG, that's just hilarious. I would love to see Rep. Mark Green give Rep. Greene side eyes to reel it in on an almost consistent basis during the hearing.
That's just entertainment you cannot make up.
MMMPox!
indiscernible screaming
MMMPox.
cries of agony
Yeah, yeah!
While Crystal Dynamics didn’t specify which content it’s referring to, it’s speculated that it could be the animalistic depiction of Pacific Island natives in Tomb Raider 3, who are implied to be cannibals.
Yeah that's with any position. Things change. More argument about loyalty being a transitory thing. My second job was like that. Was really good and then the company we third partied for was sued by a US State for fraud. When the contract wasn't renewed I thought we'd move on, but I was surprised by how many of our eggs had been placed in a single basket. The vast majority of the company I worked for relied on those contracts to supply jobs, so when that went away the company went from thirty software developers to one. 90% of the company I worked for's value evaporated within two months.
It was this that I also became aware of what the WARN Act was.
I guess I'll interject with personal experience so take everything that follows as, my most humble opinion of things. I have zero expectation for anyone to agree.
Gen X myself, I am currently in a position that I am completely happy with now. That did not come without a massive fight. This is quite literally my 6th job in my field (system's programming) and now the second longest I've stayed with a company. Quoting from the story:
Without the promise of high returns for their loyalty, Gen Z has learned to follow the money
And this should be people's default until shown otherwise. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "it's just business" in the course of my various jobs. At the end of the day, your employer is looking at bottom line most times. One should not invest themselves into any relationship when the other is simply looking at the piratical ramifications of the relationship and not the broader nature of that relationship.
It's about the money and being able to pay for living expenses, which is reasonable. The dollar went a lot further when baby boomers were entering the workforce. It doesn't go as far now.
Yeah, while suffering when sufferable was okay when a taco was under a buck, dollar doesn't go anywhere today. The amount of time to have shits and giggles with an employer on actual compensation is about seven seconds today. When I first got into the field being underneath the region's average for X number of years wasn't unheard of. And for me, it was all cool because shit was cheap. Today, being under the region's average for a position needs to be measured in X minutes, not this year shit. Employer's that want to play games, Gen Z should not budge for a second on the matter.
When a raise and promotion don't hit swiftly, Gen Z is quick to jump ship
I'll say this. When I got to my current position, I knew right off that this was a good company. How? I can't really put a finger on the how, but having been in two jobs previous that were hyper toxic, I had a feeling. Now, I still didn't play games coming in though. I indicated exactly what I expected and that the job couldn't be "all hands on deck" 24/7, 365. That's just shitty management. I gave them six months to show me the money and if it didn't come through I had every intention to hit the door at the 121 day mark.
There was still friction, no meaningful relationship doesn't have those moments, but the things I was indicating was actually being taken serious, and compensation for kicking ass on my end was forthcoming. If your employer doesn't like talking money with employees, you're going to have a lot of friction and I'm not telling anyone what to do, but employer's feeling uncomfortable with the topic of money should be a red flag for you. If that's the straw that breaks the camel's back or just a stone in the wall for you, that's your call. But in my opinion, employers that get squishy about the word money shouldn't be employers. Not with how this world currently is. Maybe we can go back to the "ha ha ha" playing coy game when a significant percentage of a person's paycheck doesn't have to go for simply feeding themselves.
But Gen Zers "haven't lost the passion for what they want to do,"
And I have never thought they have. The Gen Z that I oversee are some of the best workers I've ever dealt with. But the world isn't allowing them to be slacking on ensuring that proper compensation is constant. Inflation is eating away any kind of raise I can give them as fast as I can give it to them. As far as I have seen, Gen Z is some of the best workers to date to come out of the woodwork and it's actually kind of shitty they cannot have the environment to flourish that I had at their age.
Again, from my personal experience, I think there's a lot of management that's still in the lax mood of how employment might have worked back in the day. When a few years under the line of compensation was just the name of the game. But the game has seriously changed and a lot of the folks my age and the boomers as well are still stuck in "the way things used to be™" and it's so bad right now, no one has time for that anymore.
As I've heard so often, it's just business. But I think employers have been so used to the giving that advice, they are completely at loss when receiving it. The Gen Z I've worked with, and it may be different for others, but the ones I've worked with and the ones I currently manage, they're some of the hardest workers who take everything they do as personal value and will be some of the best employees IF YOU ENCOURAGE THEM AND COMPENSATE THEM.
I too dislike that the world has become really centered around pay. But to quote some Tolken:
So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
Treat your folks like people, and the rest mostly falls in place.
I guess I'll interject with personal experience so take everything that follows as, my most humble opinion of things. I have zero expectation for anyone to agree.
Gen X myself, I am currently in a position that I am completely happy with now. That did not come without a massive fight. This is quite literally my 6th job in my field (system's programming) and now the second longest I've stayed with a company. Quoting from the story:
Without the promise of high returns for their loyalty, Gen Z has learned to follow the money
And this should be people's default until shown otherwise. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "it's just business" in the course of my various jobs. At the end of the day, your employer is looking at bottom line most times. One should not invest themselves into any relationship when the other is simply looking at the piratical ramifications of the relationship and not the broader nature of that relationship.
It's about the money and being able to pay for living expenses, which is reasonable. The dollar went a lot further when baby boomers were entering the workforce. It doesn't go as far now.
Yeah, while suffering when sufferable was okay when a taco was under a buck, dollar doesn't go anywhere today. The amount of time to have shits and giggles with an employer on actual compensation is about seven seconds today. When I first got into the field being underneath the region's average for X number of years wasn't unheard of. And for me, it was all cool because shit was cheap. Today, being under the region's average for a position needs to be measured in X minutes, not this year shit. Employer's that want to play games, Gen Z should not budge for a second on the matter.
When a raise and promotion don't hit swiftly, Gen Z is quick to jump ship
I'll say this. When I got to my current position, I knew right off that this was a good company. How? I can't really put a finger on the how, but having been in two jobs previous that were hyper toxic, I had a feeling. Now, I still didn't play games coming in though. I indicated exactly what I expected and that the job couldn't be "all hands on deck" 24/7, 365. That's just shitty management. I gave them six months to show me the money and if it didn't come through I had every intention to hit the door at the 121 day mark.
There was still friction, no meaningful relationship doesn't have those moments, but the things I was indicating was actually being taken serious, and compensation for kicking ass on my end was forthcoming. If your employer doesn't like talking money with employees, you're going to have a lot of friction and I'm not telling anyone what to do, but employer's feeling uncomfortable with the topic of money should be a red flag for you. If that's the straw that breaks the camel's back or just a stone in the wall for you, that's your call. But in my opinion, employers that get squishy about the word money shouldn't be employers. Not with how this world currently is. Maybe we can go back to the "ha ha ha" playing coy game when a significant percentage of a person's paycheck doesn't have to go for simply feeding themselves.
But Gen Zers "haven't lost the passion for what they want to do,"
And I have never thought they have. The Gen Z that I oversee are some of the best workers I've ever dealt with. But the world isn't allowing them to be slacking on ensuring that proper compensation is constant. Inflation is eating away any kind of raise I can give them as fast as I can give it to them. As far as I have seen, Gen Z is some of the best workers to date to come out of the woodwork and it's actually kind of shitty they cannot have the environment to flourish that I had at their age.
Again, from my personal experience, I think there's a lot of management that's still in the lax mood of how employment might have worked back in the day. When a few years under the line of compensation was just the name of the game. But the game has seriously changed and a lot of the folks my age and the boomers as well are still stuck in "the way things used to be™" and it's so bad right now, no one has time for that anymore.
As I've heard so often, it's just business. But I think employers have been so used to the giving that advice, they are completely at loss when receiving it. The Gen Z I've worked with, and it may be different for others, but the ones I've worked with and the ones I currently manage, they're some of the hardest workers who take everything they do as personal value and will be some of the best employees IF YOU ENCOURAGE THEM AND COMPENSATE THEM.
I too dislike that the world has become really centered around pay. But to quote some Tolken:
So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
Treat your folks like people, and the rest mostly falls in place.
The hell I can.
Bullshit.
Yeah, that's not good. There are 209M 16-64 people in the US.
That affects a shitton of that 209M.
That's not getting ahead. Lady you've got some WILD definition of "ahead" that I would say over 50% of the United States does not share. Holy fucking shit. You all should fucking stop for a second, especially with interviews with CBSNews. We are not in positive territory. That is not the definition of victory by anyone grounded in reality.
I'm glad people's paychecks are going up a paltry sum. But none of that makes any difference if we cannot afford food, live saving medicine, or child care. Those are really, really, really fucking important things. There is no victory if those are not addressed. I get since you're under the treasury, money in/money out is the primary research here. But maybe just stick to those factors and not a broader commentary on the economy if those three basic things are still major issues with over 50% of the United States.
HOLY SHIT how disconnected from reality can one be?