You are waaay down the hole, yet you keep digging. I hope you find your way out someday. Until then, recognize that someone cannot converse with you if you insist on changing the meaning of words.
Entitled much? You'll find out how he died when the family wants you to.
And let's not forget that India is currently run by a Socialist.
The political-action policies of unions are determined by their membership. Anyone can run for a union position and participate in the creation of such policies.
The political-action policies of corporations are determined by unelected C-suite bureaucrats and major influential shareholders. You have to have already eaten from the royal jelly to be in that crowd.
Which is more democratic?
Behind every union is a company that gave it a reason to exist by exploiting the workers.
Yet even after the reason is no longer there, the union continues existing.
Lest the company return to its old ways.
I think you're confused. Your ex-colleagues at the post office likely wouldn't even have OT multipliers if it hadn't been for their union. And they can choose to work or not work OT, don't blame the union for that.
And if they're sleeping on the job (OT or not) well that's up to management to handle. They (not the union) have the common-law right to discipline workers for their job performance.
[Linux on the desktop will happen when]...WINE actually works.
Well
I'm very impressed that WINE works as well as it does. Give the development team some credit for getting as far as they have on such an exceedingly difficult engineering problem.
WINE works well enough for several companies that make derivative products to adopt it as a base, including commercial ones.
Good to know. And there are alternatives also.
Everyone = enough in a democracy to change policy, eg a majority.
The rest are just whining bitches in the shadows.
That does it. You are impossible as an interlocutor. And officially scary.
Everyone means everyone -- with no people excluded. The very idea that you can change that word to your liking illustrates the problem that your side presents to
Yes, they [MAGA] absolutely do. (Except for the wee bit about getting everyone to agree with them and change things, which I think even dipshits like you would agree they did in the last election.)
Um
As far as I can tell, we have the technical resources to create a thriving environment for the vast majority of people (and life in general), but have failed to due so because our social systems are predicated on greed. I had the impression that we might agree on that in principle - did I get that wrong?
No, you didn't get that wrong. I think we do agree on these things. Thanks for the reply.
Yes, obviously it would be for the best if everyone was above average.
By the very definition of average, it is impossible for everyone to be above it.
In reality, there are good jobs and bad jobs. Some good jobs are really, really good, and vice versa. One might even go so far as to subject the range of jobs to statistical analysis.
No, you're missing the point. It's not about what is "average." It's about the quality of the jobs in the distribution. And that is independent of the distribution.
If an average job does not pay enough to survive, then you cannot claim jobs have quality simply because they are above average.
You misunderstand the "statistical analysis" at work here.
In a perfect world, 100% of all workers would have a quality job -- one that allows them to not just survive, but thrive, prosper, and be happy. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and probably never will, but at least let us strive towards that end.
"No." ~ Effectively "all" investors, business lobbyists, the entire C-suite, and companies promoting or using AI
If you think that's a "perfect world" then I hope for your sake you're in the group you just described.
I didn't read "quality" (high or otherwise) that way.
It's not where the jobs sit on a distribution, it's what proportion of the jobs in the distribution have quality. Ideally, 100% of the jobs would satisfy that criterion.
Hey, it's all relative. This is not far from saying, "only 50% of jobs are above average!!!"
First of all, that's only true if the average (i.e., mean) job is the same as the median job. Then your 50% claim would be true.
Okay,
Now, the issue addressed is not whether one has an average job. It's whether one has a quality job. In a perfect world, 100% of all workers would have a quality job -- one that allows them to not just survive, but thrive, prosper, and be happy. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and probably never will, but at least let us strive towards that end.
//GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH
