...I have not voted R or D since 2004, except when Elizabeth Warren ran for Senate.
So, as of this point, neither of the parties is currently Left enough for you?
It's also that Elizabeth warren is one of the few who actually thinks Wall Street fraud should be prosecuted.
...I have not voted R or D since 2004, except when Elizabeth Warren ran for Senate.
So, as of this point, neither of the parties is currently Left enough for you?
Not even close. I'll vote twice for Bernie Sanders if given the chance.
the last 2 contract jobs I had, the employer insisted that I bring 'my' work laptop home with me each nite. when I explained that I'm not paid beyond 8 hours a day (hey, it was YOU, mr employer, who forced contract on me; I would have gone f/t if offered the chance but nooooo! you didn't want that, did you?) - they simply said that everyone takes their laptop home. its expected.
they want it both ways. no benes for you, ability to can your ass on a moment's notice and yet they expect you to work for them before the workday begins and after it ends; all for fixed income and, again, NO benes. when the US monday holidays come around, guess who can only bill 32 hours that week while everyone else gets their 40?
All the contract bullshit pisses me off too. I am looking for a new job (my boss sucks and I don't get projects to keep my skills current) and I see so many job descriptions that read like a full-time position but are actually 6 month contracts. Seriously? They want a Systems Admin with 3 years of VMWare and SAN experience, Active Directory, backup, Exchange, firewall and LAN/WAN but they only need it for 6 months? That's a permanent, full-time position. But they say it's contract.
Well, guess what? I'm not applying for that position. Why would I give up a full-time job with benefits for a 6 month or 1 year contract? I see many jobs I think I'm qualified for, but so many of them are posted as contract when the description is clearly for a full-time permanent position.
generally when you witness a crime the right thing to do is report it to the authorities, if he was scared of retribution then do it anonymously.
I agree in principle. But practically speaking, we both know how far that would have gone.
What is wrong if they can find someone who can do it for cheaper?
Doesn't a CEO have a right to run his business the way he sees fit. If you can't compete with these low end folks with language barriers that says more about you than it does about cost cutting.
The CEO is probably one of the highest paid people in the company. Surely, they could find someone to do that job for less. And yet, that calculation never seems to come up. Funny, eh?
Perhaps Mickey should be replaced with an H1-B worker
If he had entered the public domain, like he should have years ago, we wouldn't have to.
What is wrong if they can find someone who can do it for cheaper?
Doesn't a CEO have a right to run his business the way he sees fit. If you can't compete with these low end folks with language barriers that says more about you than it does about cost cutting.
I can tell you have thought long and hard on this topic.
Bernie Sanders the man that brought on the housing crisis with his misguided anti redlining legislation ? Pro Tip here, if you can't afford a loan you can't afford a loan.
Tell that to Countrywide. You don't seem to understand that the housing crisis was brought on by fraud on the part of the mortgage originators, loan packagers and ratings agencies.
Seriously, there is enough written on the topic by people like Barry Ritholtz and Matt Taibbi. I don't understand why people keep pushing the legislation angle, except for servicing an agenda or willful ignorance.
You could compete against the H1B holders by matching their salary requirements.
Why do you think it is ok to force people to pay higher prices for your talents, when the same talent is available at a lower price?
Don't you rant and rage when companies do this to you with their products?
Oh, have we given up the pretense that H1B workers are paid the same as domestic workers? Because that's the law, you know. But thanks for your refreshing candor in admitting that hiring H1B's is wage arbitrage.
The fact that it's hard to get the money out of politics - and the presence of that money makes the two parties act more similarly than they otherwise would - doesn't make them the same. It just proves that the system (money and all) is corrupt. Who do you think is more likely to fix that...?
If it's between the Democrats and Republicans to fix it, I'll go with my Aunt Rita.
In general if you look at the donor list, they all come from the same strata of society but represent opposing cultures within that strata. Granted, picking either party is a vote for the wealthy controlling the country, but they are still a fairly diverse bunch and you can pick and choose who's goals align with your own.
This is true for certain social issues. But there is no party that advocates scaling back our military and intelligence agencies, ending the drug war, establishing universal healthcare, or prosecuting white-collar crime. These are some of the important issues that enjoy bipartisan agreement to ignore. That's why I have not voted R or D since 2004, except when Elizabeth Warren ran for Senate.
If people actually wanted 1M liability coverage then uber could flag those accounts and push them to the top but most people don't care and would rather have cheaper fare.
People are also often short-sighted and bad at estimating risk.
You do realize that there is no service that is less conducive to violent or property crime than Uber, right? It would be like a store owner with video surveillance in his own store raping someone as they come in. Might as well walk into a police station and rape the guy at the front desk. There is literally no way you can't get caught. Your every move is tracked by GPS. Christ, you fucking liberals and your "basic needs". You'll have us all living in caves before you're through.
I don't remember a lot of stories about people being attacked by their taxi driver. But I do remember this and this and this. I'm not saying Uber is inherently dangerous. But it seems more than "no service that is less conducive to violent or property crime than Uber". According to my unscientific quick Googling, it seems regular taxis are safer.
I for one don't want to give Physics research a blank check to investigate some unobservable math fantasy.
Why not? And who exactly is asking for a "blank check"?
Since we're on the topic, I'd like a blank check!
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
