Our scared-shitless terrorism reactionary laws allow the police to hold anyone for 48 hours without charge. That's more than enough for many (most?) people to lose their jobs. Submit or else, citizen.
This is a good point. They don't have to convict you to screw up your life.
I know what the groupthink around here is, but "...now, because of videos, we are seeing just how systemic and widespread it is" is an expression of a preconceived notion, not a valid inference from data.
It isn't groupthink. Is the federal investigation of the Ferguson PD not data? Is the history of the NYPD's relations with minority communities not data? Video footage is now forcing people to confront the reality that many in these communities have had to live with for decades if not longer.
These days I think it takes a special kind of willful blindness to not see the systemic mistreatment of citizens, especially the poor and minorities, by the police and those above them. You have to really identify with authority not to see it.
With illegal immigration, the argument is the immigrants are taking jobs no one here wants to do. I can buy that
If you can't find someone to take your shitty job, you're compensation for said job is likely equally shitty. I don't understand how one gets from "I can't staff this crap job offering bottom of the barrel compensation" to "no one in America wants this job".
Go to the right parts of town and you can find all-American hookers willing to suck your cock for $20. People will do anything for money. Don't fucking tell me that Americans just don't want certain jobs... they just want money for it -- probably more money than the poor immigrant schmuck who you're eying for the position 'cause (s)he'll do it for next to nothing. Honestly, you should be paying that immigrant schmuck more anyway, else you're a greedy, dishonest, racist, diseased cock bag. "they're not from here, so I can pay them less"... fuck that shit.
Pretty much. Businesses will talk a good game about the sanctity of the market until it starts costing them money. Like you say, if you can't find a qualified candidate to fill a position, you are not offering enough money. If there literally doesn't exist a person with the qualifications you need, then you need to hire and train the best applicant you can find and then compensate them such that they won't be poached by your competitors. Will it be more expensive? Probably. Zuck it up buttercup, you can afford it.
I read a study recently (wish I could find a link) that showed that almost 100% of the increase in corporate profits over the past decade or so has been due to lowering labor costs. These companies have grown accustomed to massive profits at the expense of their employees. When people complain about low wages they are told they must work harder and learn to compete. But when a company must pay more for labor? Nope, sorry, that just won't do. They have shareholders to consider, after all! Can't let that stock price dip, no sir!
It's fine to have people's wages go down or remain flat; it's just the market discovering prices. But corporate profits going down due to higher labor costs? Better call up that Congressman and hire another lobbyist to make that free market a little more free!
Amazing how these self proclaimed 'good guys' won't invest in Americans. But rather they want to import cheap labor to keep costs down and have more money in their pockets.
Look, what do you expect? They are in business after all. I don't begrudge them a profit.
What really irks me though, is how they parlay their business position and liberal stance into political power to try and do things that make them more money, and the politicians that fall for the lure of money over what's best for the country. Convinces me of the geniuses of the founding fathers of the country who believed the government needed to be small and the least intrusive as possible, where politicians would have the minimum of power.
Do you favor a small government because when that government is corrupted it will have less influence? That seems to be the point. Wealth always brings power. But you don't want to limit wealth, you want to limit the power of the institution corrupted by wealth. But if wealth brings power, what will be the countervailing force if government is small and limited? If you say, "the market" I'll know you haven't thought this through.
Meanwhile, the company I'm at has teams at less than half strength, pretty much every silicon valley perk you can think of, great working conditions, very high pay, and just can't find people to fill the positions, even with being willing to sponsor visas if only we could find someone competent with low level code and rendering.
And then there's the issue that no one is willing to train. When I started in tech I worked for a large bank that trained me on their systems for a month before setting me loose on the user population. Can you find no one that could be up to speed in a month or two with training?
For a 10-hour workweek to be productive enough to support a "leisure society with resources for all" will require significant advances in materials, economics, physics, engineering, and especially politics.
I think politics is the largest impediment to a leisure society. We already have the productive capacity. Our needs could be met if people weren't constantly being convinced to buy stuff they don't need. But our economic system requires constant growth and profits. I have said before on this site that I think Capitalism is holding us back. And politics is the only way to change that.
In my entire life only times I can think of soldiers keeping anything safe was American interests in other countries overseas, think oil. Otherwise they don't keep us safe. Seems their job is more protecting US interests.
But if they put it that way, no one would join!
Typical Progressive thinking is being evidenced by the article. We blew 10 billion on this in their minds, that could've been spent on "other things" (Never mind that they NEVER tell anyone what those "other things" that it wouldn't have been wasted on was) and that we have "gaping holes in our defense" as a result.
They never back up any of the claims with proof. Especially the "holes" remarks. When get them cornered on details, you're a "racist", "bigot", and the like from them.
Like you said...not much of any real story here, but they'll beat that drum so that they can reduce the defense budget and pour it into a real hole in the ground. Their little pet projects don't get even half of the "scrutiny" that this got from them- and produce even less results than these DoD "failues" did. But it's all about the feels, don't you know?
You mad!
...If you were rich in 2007, you're even richer today.
Well, that was kind of the point, now wasn't it?
You serious man? There was a huge collapse in the stock market in 2098 and were still in a recession. Coincides perfectly with the time Obama entered office and the dems took both houses.
Coincidence much?
Pssst. Obama didn't enter office until 2009. Just FYI.
Automate the passengers. Problem solved. Forever.
PR and advertizing firms are doing their best!
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
