Slashdot Mirror


Obama Praises Amazon At One of Its Controversial Warehouses

theodp writes "In his first term, President Obama was a big booster of indie bookstores. But on Tuesday, the President chose to deliver his speech on Jobs for the Middle Class at one of Amazon's controversial fulfillment centers in Chattanooga, TN. 'Amazon is a great example of what's possible,' said Obama, who also toured the 'amazing facility' where workers can make $10.50-$11.50 an hour as an employee of Integrity Staffing Group, 'may also be eligible for medical and dental benefits', and 'must be able to stand/walk for up to 10-12 hours' in temperatures that 'will occasionally exceed 90 degrees.' So, are '21st century migrant workers' the new middle class?"

435 comments

  1. "Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    -Obama, overlord of Earth.

    1. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The claims of socialist look dumber by the day.

      Obama is just more pro-corporate than Bush, Sr... just a tad less than Bush, Jr.

    2. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it is simpler than that. He knows that Amazon is popular. He also knows most of the people that support him will not research anything he says and just take what he says at face value.

      It's like the Travon thing. He mentions that Travon could have been him when he was younger. He makes these types of racial comments often. Most of the people that I know that support him honestly assume that he struggled and grew up in the deep south (instead of Hawaii) like them.

      This appearance makes him look like he is pro-corporate and pro-middle class without actually doing anything but make a speech. And, judging by your post and people I know, he will fool most people.

    3. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The claims of socialist look dumber by the day.

      Obama is just more pro-corporate than Bush, Sr... just a tad less than Bush, Jr.

      That's what the Democratic Party has become, "not quite as bad as the Republicans." The difference between the two is that when a Republican gives government money to a business it's to encourage growth; when a Democrat does it, it's for jobs. Neither end up happening.

      There isn't a party out there that represents the working class.

    4. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Most of the people that I know that support him honestly assume that he struggled and grew up in the deep south (instead of Hawaii) like them.

      What rock have you been hiding under? Blacks aren't restricted to the deep south. Neither are bigots that think they aren't bigots despite an eagerness to assume some goofy kid is a dangerous criminal.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by JWW · · Score: 0

      Obama is only pro-corporate because extremely large businesses are easier to handle through a centrally planned economy.

      He has no concept of how small business works and truly sees no real need for them and centrally planning the economy around the small business environment is impossible.

      Of course this kind of thinking and action leads to... exactly the same kind of anemic recovery we are experiencing right now.

    6. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is America. The word "socialist" here means "Anything the government does that I don't like." GM bailout? Banksters bailout? Socialism.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      -Obama, overlord of Earth.

      Depressingly, "be content to be slaves" is a bipartisan effort.

    8. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's pro-corporate because he's the whore of big business just like all politicians are. Claims of him being a socialist are farcical. He's done nothing remotely socialist in his whole term. And, no, forcing people to buy privately-run health insurance based on legislation written by the insurance industry is not socialism. It even aims to eliminate and reduce much of the healtg care industry regulations to the benefit of the corporations which is about as anti-socialist as one can be.

    9. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2

      I remember back when the trolling was pro-microsoft, technical-oriented, and the trolls' IQ was above 75.

    10. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Neither are bigots that think they aren't bigots despite an eagerness to assume some goofy kid is a dangerous criminal.

      But, when said young man fits the description of those commiting crimes in that area (often pictured on camera footage on the news), is it being bigoted to be a little fearful when you see someone of that description approaching you just because there is a race difference?

      I think it is more pattern observation, and you tend to be a bit reserved/alarmed/reactionary when you see someone that fits the description of those committing the most crimes in a certain area. Seems a natural self protections reaction more that unadulterated bigotry.

      If one observes a pigeon shitting on all the cars in one area (under a statue perhaps), is it bigotry to be a little cautious parking your car and seeing a a pigeon heading your way....maybe you want to park somewhere else ?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      And, no, forcing people to buy privately-run health insurance based on legislation written by the insurance industry is not socialism.

      It is if you go with the assumption that they knew this would break things fiscally, and not work...and merely be a first step towards single payer by the Fed Govt, then yes, it would be socialists in nature.

      When Obamacare was being legislated, many talking heads were saying that likely this was the case that this was merely a first step towards socializing medicine for the US, since they couldn't do it on fell swoop.

      Bring in this version, break the bank, it doesn't work, but it disrupts everything so badly that "Single Payer" is the only way out...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you just described his entire approach to governing:
      "This appearance makes him look like he is [$POLITICAL_GOAL_1] and [$POLITICAL_GOAL_2] without actually doing anything but make a speech. And, judging by your post and people I know, he will fool most people."

    13. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Shocking, isn't it. It's almost as if he's working in the exact same organization, with the same goals, same supporters and made up of the same people as his predecessor was.

      For a people who staged a revolution to remove the English monarch, the USA really loves to pretend that their President has the powers of a King.

      I prescribe a little more Schoolhouse Rock and less belief in presidential Divine Fiat.

      (No, that wasn't a car analogy. The United States of America isn't run by Bitchin' Camaro either.)

    14. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people that I know that support him honestly assume that he struggled and grew up in the deep south (instead of Hawaii) like them.

      What rock have you been hiding under? Blacks aren't restricted to the deep south. Neither are bigots that think they aren't bigots despite an eagerness to assume some goofy kid is a dangerous criminal.

      What rock have YOU been hiding under? Come on, it's more than not being "restricted to the deep south." Obama spent his childhood in INDONESIA.

    15. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by uniquename72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama is, in almost every policy area, a Reagan Republican. This is part of why Republicans hate him (the other part is that he doesn't have an R after his name).

    16. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      If one observes a pigeon shitting on all the cars in one area (under a statue perhaps), is it bigotry to be a little cautious parking your car and seeing a a pigeon heading your way....maybe you want to park somewhere else ?

      No, it's not bigotry to avoid parking your car around pigeons. However, it became bigotry when you compared black people to pigeons.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    17. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by asylumx · · Score: 1

      will not research anything he says

      then later...

      honestly assume that he struggled and grew up in the deep south (instead of Hawaii) like them

      Wait, so you complain about others not researching what they choose to believe, yet you believe he grew up in Hawaii? He grew up in Chicago. He did struggle with racial issues just like most people in Chicago did.

    18. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if its a black pigeon. No joke, I have seen people arguing on Facebook that it is only racist if you discriminate against someone who is black. If you kill someone simply because they are white, it isn't racist because whites are the majority and they have all the power in the US. People, of all colors, actually believe this.

    19. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Wait, so you complain about others not researching what they choose to believe, yet you believe he grew up in Hawaii? He grew up in Chicago. He did struggle with racial issues just like most people in Chicago did.

      Your post is a great example for what I was talking about. I assume someone must have told you that and you took it as truth.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#Education_summary

      Looks like he was in his mid 20's before he went to Chicago.

    20. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. That you can't realize that makes you sound an awful lot like a bigot.

      And you're asking the wrong question anyways. What you SHOULD be asking is: If you observe pigeons shitting on cars, see a pigeon minding it's own business in a tree, and then assail that pigeon with a weapon, then shoot it after the pigeon expectantly defends itself against an unknown, armed aggressor... oh I give up. Bigots only go away by dying.

    21. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Most of the people that I know that support him honestly assume that he struggled and grew up in the deep south (instead of Hawaii) like them.

      Interestingly enough, in Hawaii you can find a particular set of racial stereotypes distinct from the rest of the US, diverging thanks to a combination of geographic distance and unique history and cultural background.

      For instance, Portuguese jokes occupy a niche equivalent to that of Polish-jokes in the mainland, and developed thanks to an influx of relatively uneducated laborers which arrived in the 19th century. So while I'm pretty sure there is a black stereotype there as well, it may not be the same as in other parts of the country.

    22. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cayenne8 never compared black people to pigeons. They only ASKED - if the descriptions given for perpetrators of recent criminal activity matched the description of an unknown person walking towards you... would be "bigoted" by taking note and raising your own guard? You're the one the made cayenne8's statement about "black people".

      So why did you assume that "black people" were the ones being described by the words "those commiting (sic) crimes in that area"? Might be you that's the bigot...

    23. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asylumx... wrong. Not only did he grow up in Hawaii (no where near Chicago if you check a map), but he got the best education private money could buy.

      But you did a great job of making JackieBrown's point. I've got some more cool aid for you if you want it...

    24. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GM and banker bailouts by the government are a good example of socialism if by 'socialism', you mean "social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy" where that "social ownership" is a coercively financed government.

      The wikipedia definition paints a broad brush: ""Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."

      Now, I suspect you may be on the other side of this quote's position:

      "Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand | The Romantic Manifesto

      Rather than using or providing a meaningful definition, you seem to be cheerleading the mental disintegration. Now - you *MIGHT* be claiming this is what the "other" side does, but you gave no evidence to suggest that.

    25. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      GM bailout & bank bailouts.. Stealing my tax money to give to companies that should have gone under in a Survival of the Fittest mode.

      Yup, seems socialist to me. BTW, I voted for Obama, twice, though the second time more because he seems like _less_ of a hypocrite than Romney. Even if I disagree with lots of his views, at least he seems to actually believe them and follow through with them.

    26. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a people who staged a revolution to remove the English monarch, the USA really loves to pretend that their President has the powers of a King.

      I prescribe a little more Schoolhouse Rock and less belief in presidential Divine Fiat.

      For a person who is a constitutional scholar, Obama really loves to pretend that the President has the powers of a King too.

    27. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by woztheproblem · · Score: 1

      All pigeons shit. A very very small fraction of blacks commit murder. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/428008/july-23-2013/the-word---color-bind

    28. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      A very very small fraction of blacks commit murder

      But, most black males are killed by other black males.

      And, blacks seem to commit more crime per capita than any other race in the US, by what seems to be a much greater degree than their numbers by % of the US population.

      When I watch the local news, I mostly see black faces as those the cops are looking for for a crime, or have picked up for a crime, or are caught on crime cameras committing crimes.

      I just don't see that many Japanese folks as being a problem for the crimes in most cities I visit and watch the news.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by woztheproblem · · Score: 1

      A very very small fraction of blacks commit murder

      But, most black males are killed by other black males.

      I'm guessing you probably mean most black people that are murdered are murdered by black people, not that the cause of death of most black males is murder by other black males. :-)

      And, blacks seem to commit more crime per capita than any other race in the US, by what seems to be a much greater degree than their numbers by % of the US population.

      That is true (I think). But the point is that, even so, the odds that a particular black person is a criminal or a murderer is very very low. So there's no need to be afraid of every black person you see. Just because the odds are higher than for other races, doesn't mean the rate is actually high enough to be worried about when you see a person. That's the point Colbert tries to make.

      When I watch the local news, I mostly see black faces as those the cops are looking for for a crime, or have picked up for a crime, or are caught on crime cameras committing crimes.

      Well, first of all, the local news doesn't report all crimes. But even if they did report all crime proportionally by race, and blacks do have a higher rate of committing crimes, again, the point is that the odds of any black person you see being a murderer is extremely low.

      I just don't see that many Japanese folks as being a problem for the crimes in most cities I visit and watch the news.....

    30. Re:"Be content to be slaves" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is, Trayvon *was* a dangerous criminal. Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman and was trying to beat Zimmerman to death before being shot.

      If Zimmerman had had the balls to explicitly profile Trayvon, he would have been correct.

      Noticing patterns is, of course, the #1 most unforgivable sin in our age of political correctness.

  2. America the beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, at least it's not Canada.

    1. Re:America the beautiful by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank God for that. Imagine having a society have to pay for one of these disposable workers to recover from a sick day!

    2. Re:America the beautiful by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      While the pay might be middling, Amazon warehouse jobs are full time jobs with benefits, including paid leave (and health care, if you have to see a doctor on your sick day).

    3. Re:America the beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the pay might be middling

      middling: moderate or average in size

      thats minimum wage where i live. if you dont make 20 or more, you are no where near average. and thats if you exclude the obscenely wealthy. which would probably raise that by quite a few dollars :)

    4. Re:America the beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Too bad they're not Amazon warehouse jobs, they're Integrity Staffing jobs.

    5. Re:America the beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere in the job description does it say any of that. In fact it specifically says "There is no guarantee to the length of the assignment". I wouldn't consider that a full time job.

    6. Re:America the beautiful by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      middling: moderate or average in size

      thats minimum wage where i live. if you dont make 20 or more, you are no where near average.

      Not sure what the minimum wage at the unnamed place you live at has to do with Chattanooga.

      http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/4706514000

    7. Re:America the beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see - you were under the mistaken impression that holding a salaried position guaranteed you a certain minimum term of employment!

      You might want to look up what "at-will" employment means.

    8. Re:America the beautiful by davydagger · · Score: 1

      middling?, its not even living wage.

    9. Re:America the beautiful by Holi · · Score: 1

      Yeah I checked that out. By that calculator, I would need to survive on 250 a month after rent here in Providence RI. (that 250 would need to cover food bills and gas to get to work). I don't live in an expensive apartment.

      So I think your little webpage might be a little off.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    10. Re:America the beautiful by ethanms · · Score: 2

      That mit site is ridiculous. Where can you get an apartment in Boston for $1000 that isn't an unfinished studio in a basement?

      What they call a living wage is actually poverty level, or below...

  3. Misleading summary by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So he likes to shop at indie book stores with his daughter, and somehow this makes him a hypocrite by giving a speech at an amazon warehouse? The speech itself wasn't really about books anyway:

    In his speech, Obama outlines the areas he believes the country needs to focus on "if we want to create good jobs that pay good wages in durable industries." Among these priorities, listed in order of mention, are: manufacturing and high-tech jobs, infrastructure jobs, and clean energy jobs

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Misleading summary by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing about indie bookstores is largely irrelevant. Choosing to give a speech about 'good jobs that pay good wages in durable industries' in a fulfillment sweatshop that will continue to use expendable temps only so long as robots can't economically handle irregularly shaped packages is... perhaps a bad sign...

    2. Re:Misleading summary by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Clean energy" jobs require subsidy. 3 other people need jobs elsewhere to pay the taxes for them.

    3. Re:Misleading summary by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..a speech about middle class. that's the kicker, not a speech.

      a commie style speech for the working class, sure, that's a good place. but there's a difference even if middle class usually does work.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Misleading summary by stewsters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You cant easily track who buys what books at an indie bookstore if they use cash. Amazon purchases are way easier to add to the NSA data.

    5. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choosing to give a speech about 'good jobs that pay good wages in durable industries' in a fulfillment sweatshop that will continue to use expendable temps only so long as robots can't economically handle irregularly shaped packages is... perhaps a bad sign...

      This shows how out of touch with everyday life Obama - and most if not all politicians - seem to be. Whenever they are asked a question about how much a gallon of milk costs or a loaf of bread I always expect a RainMan answer "'Bout a hundred dollars."

    6. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cant easily track who buys what books at an indie bookstore if they use cash. Amazon purchases are way easier to add to the NSA data.

      All hail cash!

    7. Re:Misleading summary by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      and somehow this makes him a hypocrite by giving a speech at an amazon warehouse?

      As if we even need any more reasons why that Fascist-masquerading-as-a-Socialist is a hypocrit. LOL!!!

    8. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, we're working on the robots.

      BTW, this isn't sarcastic.

    9. Re:Misleading summary by lorenlal · · Score: 2

      You know what, you're right. We shouldn't be subsidizing any energy. Let's do away with oil, gas and coal subsidies, and reset the system from there. Once we establish how much energy actually costs, we can figure out what to invest in from there.

      As for the summary and associated stories, I have no idea what the living wage is in Chattanooga, TN. But wow, this summary looked like someone with an ax to grind with the executive branch. Fair or not, I had to double-check to make sure I wasn't looking at the Washington Times.

    10. Re:Misleading summary by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think oil, gas and coal are subsidised, no. Taxing something less is not the same as subsidising it. Unless you're starting out from the basic assumption that the State owns 100% of production and is benevolent enough to let us keep some of it. Which if you ask me, is not a very Libertarian world view.

    11. Re:Misleading summary by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Among these priorities, listed in order of mention, are:
      manufacturing

      But Jeff Imelt and Terry McAuliffe are sending jobs to China instead, with Imelt looking to create new markets in South Africa using about $26 billion in taxpayer money that Obama promised last month. Obama talks a lot about manufacturing jobs in the US, but all of his policies, and "partnerships" with US corporations are encouraging manufacturing to move somewhere else.

      and high-tech jobs

      There's more of those, but they are primarily going to foreign contractors and H1-B visa holders. Companies are working hard to keep high-tech wages low using these techniques, as well as lobbying congress and the White House to make it easier for them to bring in more foreign workers (who are sent home in a few years)

      infrastructure jobs

      Roads and bridges again? Or propping up AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast a little more?

      and clean energy jobs

      Sorry, but as much as I would like to see a transition to cleaner energy sources, the subsidies and policies promoting "green energy" jobs is a proven failure. Pushing subsidies for this has shown to eliminate 1.8 other jobs for every "green" job created, and often the green jobs are temporary, lower-paying, or both.

      Corporatism is not better than Socialism, and in fact in many ways is worse.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:Misleading summary by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      So he likes to be seen shopping at indie book stores with his daughter

      FTFY.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re:Misleading summary by o2binbuzios · · Score: 1

      The petroleum industry is the #1 tax paying industry to the federal government - something on the order of $50B a year IIRC. In that context, a few percent of that being returned in credits / tax breaks or outright subsidies is more like the 'Cash Back' feature on our credit cards... It is also an example of how any politician, when confronted with a revenue stream, will seek to buy favors with it - which in turn creates an office (or building) full of people asking for it.

      I agree with the point - I'd love to see the government get out of the check writing business in a big way, but pretending that Big Oil is getting a free ride is not accurate. If we're going to have a rational discussion on fixing problems we need to be honest with ourselves and each other

    14. Re:Misleading summary by davydagger · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, giving a tax break to a specific industry or invidual to a tax they'd otherwise have to pay is a subsidy.

    15. Re:Misleading summary by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      I honestly wonder if these politicians are really ignorant, or if they *get* all the issues and just play politics to try and manage the country.

      Like Amazon does provide many *good jobs*. There are a lot of engineering/customer service/managers/sales/product/design jobs that pay very well.

      Indeed,building a very efficient, automated fulfillment warehouse will definitely provide SOME very good paying jobs.

      Now, here's the big but. As they are automated and make use of scale/computers, that means it will provide a few jobs for some skilled people, but not nearly enough to replace the mass jobs of warehouse workers.

      Kind of like 3d printing might make some new jobs in design or 3d printer design... but not enough to repalce the mass assembly jobs.

      So, does Obama realize this and is basically accepting the futility of mass jobs and just praising progress and the small number jobs that come with it. You can't escape technology so lets praise it when we can, and play politics to ensure government is big enough to help people affected?

      Or does he really think the policies/conditions that worked during the industrial, post WW2 age are eternal?
      New invention comes, creates new industry... mass jobs created... cycle continues.

      And please, don't tell me about the horse and buggy... and how the automobile replaced it and we created many more jobs. Things are always the same, until the different. Scale matters. Automation matters. The degree of use of both matters.

      We're now even at a point where even new technologies are unlikely to bring about mass jobs. They're being designed to be highly automated in their manufacturing.
      There might create enough jobs for a small number of people, but not for the masses.

      Just think about America as a whole for minute. Even during Silicon Valley's best times, it was a great center of innovation and provided many many many good jobs... but did it provide enough jobs and money to sustain the United States and its ~300 million people? Heck, I don't even think Silicon Valley generates enough jobs to sustain California :P And now with a more global world and more of the world capable of innovation, this situation isn't going to get better.

    16. Re:Misleading summary by JWW · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, its not. It may have the same effect as a subsidy, but its not a subsidy.

      Oh and calling tax write-offs that oil companies take over employee benefits and such a "subsidy", when every other type of company can use those same write-offs is being disingenuous.

    17. Re:Misleading summary by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I doubt it was the president's point but when you include the part about the robots, it is a good sign. The implication is that people won't have to do "crap" jobs forever. We should all look forward to the day that we hear about sweatshop jobs all the time: from our unhappy robot slaves. If I'm going to be killed by Terminators, I want them to have a reason to do it.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    18. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one would have thought that was sarcastic 30 years ago. Fuck off.

    19. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're late to the party, they've already replaced most minimum wage jobs.

    20. Re:Misleading summary by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      While I'm sure those that would like more of your tax dollars would like to you believe so, no, it's not a subsidy. Dictionaries are your friends.

    21. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll have a reason: You didn't blow their owner when he asked. This day you are looking forward to is only a good day for one guy, the robot owner. And there will only be one guy that owns them all. If there are two, first they'll fight to the death. The rest of us will be standing in line to blow him.
      I keep seeing you guys talk about this wonderful 'post-scarcity' world. I don't think you've thought it through.

    22. Re:Misleading summary by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, its not. It may have the same effect as a subsidy, but its not a subsidy.

      The Wikipedia article on Subsidy paraphrases the Collins Dictionary of Economics:

      Subsidies can be direct – cash grants, interest-free loans – or indirect – tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates.

      Which explicitly says a tax break is an indirect subsidy.

      Oh and calling tax write-offs that oil companies take over employee benefits and such a "subsidy", when every other type of company can use those same write-offs is being disingenuous.

      That's a strawman argument, he clearly wrote "tax break to a specific industry or individual". Clearly if everyone other type of company can use the same write-off it's not for a specific industry or individual. Calling your opponent disingenuous for making an argument they clearly haven't made only makes you look foolish.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    23. Re:Misleading summary by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Pushing subsidies for this has shown to eliminate 1.8 other jobs for every "green" job created

      By whom? It seems if a subsidy to generate green energy reduces employment by a net 0.8 jobs, then green energy is going to be much more efficient in the long term that the energy production methods it's replacing. If we reduce the number of people required to maintain our energy infrastructure by 40%, that's actually a huge efficiency gain.

      Ironically, I'd be more worried if the subsidies were creating 0.8 jobs because that would mean we were paying more people to generate the same amount of energy.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    24. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't think oil gas coal are subsidized ?
      what about all that money in the mideast we spend to ensure oil shipments thru strait of hormuz
      what about the lack of environmental remediation - that is a direct subsidy, destroy 1,000 acres of west va mountain, pay no penalty....

    25. Re:Misleading summary by raehl · · Score: 4, Informative

      It may have the same effect as a subsidy

      If it looks like a duck....

      If the government agreed to send oil companies a check for $10 for every barrel of oil produced, we'd all agree that that's a subsidy, right?

      If the government instead says, "We'll credit your tax bill $10 for every barrel of oil you produce, reducing the amount on the tax check you send us", it's THE SAME DAMNED THING.

      Oh and calling tax write-offs that oil companies take over employee benefits and such a "subsidy", when every other type of company can use those same write-offs is being disingenuous.

      No one is calling those tax write-offs available to all businesses subsidies. The subsidies are the tax write-offs available ONLY to oil production companies. One example is the ability to write off the "declining value" of oil wells.

      So, if you're an oil company, you spend $20 billion looking for oil reserves, and deduct those expenses. Then, you find a reserve, worth say, $100 billion. Then, you spend $20 billion getting that oil out of the ground, and deduct those expenses, and then you sell the oil for $100 billion. This is all the normal way a business would run. For example, someone might spend $20 million researching a new product, $20 million making the products, and then sell the products for $100 million, making $60 million in profits they are taxed on.

      But on top of the normal deductions for ACTUAL COSTS, the oil companies ALSO deduct the "declining value of the wells". You know, since the oil in the ground was worth $100 billion, as they pump the oil out of the ground and the "value" of the oil in the ground declines, THEY DEDUCT THE DECLINING VALUE OF THE WELLS TOO!

      And that's a subsidy. It's a tax deduction no normal business gets.

    26. Re:Misleading summary by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Don't get too self assured with your mod points. This is factually incorrect and it is you who is being semantically disingenuous.

      The etymological opposite of TAX is SUBSIDY.

      A subsidy is a payment or relief of tax to generate additional production towards the recipient. Think of it as a CLASS BONUS
      A tax is a payment or increase of tax to generate additional revenue/increase production costs. Think of it as a CLASS PENALTY.

      There is no nuance here. The opposite of Tax is Subsidy. Therefore TAX BREAK = SUBSIDY.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    27. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world, the answer is yes: oil, gas, and coal are heavily subsidized, more so than pretty much any other industry on earth. This is by no means a hard to find fact; it's fairly common knowledge among everyone except fringe lunatics. This is how the oil industry gets away with multiple billions in yearly profits; we end up paying at the pump for their R&D, extraction, and refinement costs. Again, this is one simple Google search away if you ever feel the need to escape your fantasy Libertarian land.

    28. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just to be sure I have this right ...

      If the government taxes $1000 in taxes and then writes you a cheque for $500 it's a subsidy. If the government reduces your tax rate by 50% and only takes $500 in taxes it's not a subsidy.

      That about sum it up?

    29. Re:Misleading summary by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Pushing subsidies for this has shown to eliminate 1.8 other jobs for every "green" job created

      By whom? It seems if a subsidy to generate green energy reduces employment by a net 0.8 jobs, then green energy is going to be much more efficient in the long term that the energy production methods it's replacing.

      I'm not one to call for eliminating ATMs because they take the jobs of bank clerks, but this statistic was more about the drag on the overall economy from the redistribution of funds by central planners, not because things became magically more efficient. If it did, it would improve the economy by freeing up capital for other projects.

      Ironically, I'd be more worried if the subsidies were creating 0.8 jobs because that would mean we were paying more people to generate the same amount of energy.

      Well that's how subsidies work, they use central planning to favor specific activities over others, and abandon the demand side of the market, so consumers are not served.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    30. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what, you're right. We shouldn't be subsidizing any energy. Let's do away with oil, gas and coal subsidies, and reset the system from there. Once we establish how much energy actually costs, we can figure out what to invest in from there.

      The words "we can figure out what to invest in from there" SOMEWHAT SUGGESTS more subsidies. Otherwise, why not end your point with, "We shouldn't be subsidizing any energy.".

      Also, if you are opposed to subsidies, I wouldn't use the term "living wage" as if it were a meaningful or desirable figure. If you mean it to imply that one can comfortably, "feed/shelter/clothe/educate/medicate a family of 4 without further subsidy from the government while saving enough to maintain similar lifestyle after 40-50 years at the same or a similar job", then this ought to imply that the job NOT be something an uneducated, part-time working teenager can accomplish. If the brainpower required is the same as needed to stock cans on a grocer's shelf, then that ought imply

      a) person is already in process of being further educated (financed by self or others)
      b) is living with family or otherwise sharing living expenses - NOT a sole breadwinner
      c) is of an age where healthcare/retirement costs - though always important - are not so much a priority

      If somebody wants a so-called "living wage", then they better bring some serious skills to the table. That's the lesson here.

    31. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd expect him to say:

      "'bout Tree Fiddy."

    32. Re:Misleading summary by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      "I honestly wonder if these politicians are really ignorant, or if they *get* all the issues and just play politics to try and manage the country."

      I'd be inclined to suspect that most of them aren't actually that clueless; but that there isn't exactly a nice prize waiting for anybody dumb enough to be honest.

      The "Hey, if you think the job market is fucking you over now, just wait a few years, and you'll see what a real fucking is like!" speech isn't going to go well, at all, on the more populist side of things; while the "Remember when we at least pretended that welfare was a stopgap measure designed to get people back to work, and support the relatively few tragic edge cases who were incapable of working? Well, that was pretty adorable; but the percentage of the population whose earning power is less than their minimal subsistence is just going to keep going up, for unyielding structural reasons that we can't write off as 'dependency culture' or 'laziness' for the forseeable future." chat is going to go over downright badly among the small-government types.

      If there were a story that was both happy and plausible, I have no doubt that somebody's handlers would have boiled it down into slogans and painted it on somebody's campaign by now.

    33. Re:Misleading summary by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The petroleum industry is the #1 tax paying industry to the federal government - something on the order of $50B a year IIRC. In that context, a few percent of that being returned in credits / tax breaks or outright subsidies is more like the 'Cash Back' feature on our credit cards

      That's ignoring the indirect subsidies. For example, how much has the government spent on diplomatic, military, and economic pressure on the middle east to try to keep oil prices stable? How much was spent on subsidising the federal highway system, which promoted demand in petrol? How much was spent on the tax system that incentivised US car manufacturers to produce fuel-inefficient vehicles by treating SUVs as trucks and giving them a lower tax rate?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    34. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you're an oil company, you spend $20 billion looking for oil reserves, and deduct those expenses. Then, you find a reserve, worth say, $100 billion. Then, you spend $20 billion getting that oil out of the ground, and deduct those expenses, and then you sell the oil for $100 billion. This is all the normal way a business would run. For example, someone might spend $20 million researching a new product, $20 million making the products, and then sell the products for $100 million, making $60 million in profits they are taxed on.

      But on top of the normal deductions for ACTUAL COSTS, the oil companies ALSO deduct the "declining value of the wells". You know, since the oil in the ground was worth $100 billion, as they pump the oil out of the ground and the "value" of the oil in the ground declines, THEY DEDUCT THE DECLINING VALUE OF THE WELLS TOO!

      And that's a subsidy. It's a tax deduction no normal business gets.

      Your maths is wrong. You are claiming the same expense twice in your example. What actually happens is that the upfront $20 million you spent is not deducted as an expense right away. It represents the cost of the oil well and is "capitalised". The capitalised amount is depreciated over the useful life of the well, and the depreciation is claimable as a tax deduction or what you term as "deduct the declining value of the wells". End of the day, you are still taxed on the net gain which is $60 million.

  4. "Controversial?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm seriously failing to see what about these jobs makes them "controversial." The pay and working conditions seem to be completely in line with the type of work it entails. It's certainly better than minimum wage or a true "factory" job (in terms of safety).

    1. Re:"Controversial?" by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're not middle class though, are they? I think that's the point.

    2. Re:"Controversial?" by jameshofo · · Score: 1

      Controversial or not its not a permanent position

      "Integrity Staffing places qualified candidates to work on assignments at Amazon Warehouses on a temporary basis. Assignments vary in length. There is no guarantee to the length of the assignment. Length of employment is based on client’s business needs which can change."

      --
      Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
    3. Re:"Controversial?" by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's certainly better than minimum wage

      Color me unimpressed. Adjusted for inflation the 1968 minimum wage would be $10.50, and that doesn't even take into account that the US inflation adjusted GDP per capita has doubled since 1968. Doesn't seem to me like that money is trickling down.

      or a true "factory" job (in terms of safety)

      The 19th century is over. Most factory jobs aren't all that dangerous.

    4. Re:"Controversial?" by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      It's certainly better than minimum wage or a true "factory" job (in terms of safety).

      The "factory" jobs you referr classically have paid $20-30/hr (and that was over the last decade). 12/hr may be a livable wage in TN but here in California they're paying fast food workers that much and they still need to live in communal tenements/multiple earner arraingements. Only migrants do these jobs. Seems like the war on the middle class is mostly successful out here.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:"Controversial?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice way to pick the highest minimum wage of the past 6 decades.

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

      Not that I'm happy with it at $7.25, but arbitrarily picking 1968 is the sign of some bias.

    6. Re:"Controversial?" by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you bothered adding a link - the link I provided clearly showed that 1968 was the highest real minimum wage, and that's exactly why I picked it. You obviously missed the rest of my point though, that real per capita GDP has doubled since then. So GDP/capita doubles, and minimum wage falls. What's wrong with that picture?

    7. Re:"Controversial?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm seriously failing to see what about these jobs makes them "controversial."

      Then perhaps you should RTFA (that's what I did when I had the same question as you):

      Amazon hasn't received high marks on workplace conditions, either. Several reports have documented the rough working life for Amazon's "fulfillment center" employees, which depict an unsustainable work pace, job insecurity, and in some cases dangerous overheating due to lack of air conditioning. (The heat issue was so bad in some warehouses that Amazon arranged to have ambulances at the ready for employees suffering from heat stress.) For some living in depressed towns, Amazon warehouse jobs may be the best bet. As one Amazon worker told The Financial Times, "I very much want [Amazon] to stay, but equally I would like some of the worst employment practices to end."

      And that's for a job that, according to the same article, "pays just a little above the federal poverty line for a family of four".

    8. Re:"Controversial?" by davydagger · · Score: 1

      bullshit. Its hardly the 40 hours a week, $25/hour factory workers at GM make.

    9. Re:"Controversial?" by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      You may be doing fine, but as a young adult you're not "middle class". As a middle aged male 7.25/hr won't cut it for me.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    10. Re:"Controversial?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BO is a turd, and SD loves to suck his Co*K. He is a grade A turd.

    11. Re:"Controversial?" by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Children and young adults can be middle class -- it's more about expectations and experiences than income though. For example, a middle class child assumes they will go to university, and probably had regular culturally rich holidays, etc.

  5. 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the new normal

  6. Keep up the selfishness.. by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep up the selfishness... Keep buying the cheapest crap from the cheapest place possible, without regard for where you're spending your money, and this is what you get. After all, there's "free shipping", right?

    Welcome to the another manifestation of the culture of "I've got mine. Fuck you."

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll buy the same book more cheaply at Amazon if I can, thank you. I value my pay cheque.

    2. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly.

      "I've got mine. Fuck you."

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American Dream.

      Fuck you if you can't make it.

    4. Re: Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a fulfillment center which exists to get something from manufacturer A to consumer B. the only jobs it "took away" were due to inefficiencies in the transportation market.

      Now the person or company that makes a product can either get more profit or sell more items as there isn't an inefficiency tax.

    5. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying at the best (that is the lowest... but only if you are the buyer!) price is not "selfisness" my dear, it's just the way people can control who gets helped with their (spare - if they manage to buy cheap) money - and what is "crap" for you for others may be something good enough for the price.

    6. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the another manifestation of the culture of "I've got mine. Fuck you."

      You know, the sad thing is since everyone's employers are fucking them over and making them part of this grand middle class which makes $10.50-$11.50/hour (or driving down wages through the use of H1Bs to try to move us there)... nobody has any money left to spend extra on buying things which support local businesses.

      So at the end of the day if it comes down to stretching my dollars as far as I can ... well, fuck trying to make the world a better place. The book is cheaper, and I didn't pay shipping.

      At the end of the day it's "I'm barely hanging onto mine, fuck the world". In this giant race to the bottom that is globalization, most if us are just trying to stay on the rung we're at.

      And, yes, I'm aware that in the long run that's a lousy strategy, but in the long run, it looks like we're all fucked anyway. Wal Mart and Amazon are evil corporations, and I know that, but at the end of the day I still need to look out for my own shit. And if they can save me some money on what I'm buying that I can use for something else ... well, it's hard to overlook that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or "i've got my temp job that isnt guaranteed to be there next payday, so i'm fucked," its obscene that wages are flat, profits are way up, and unemployment is high. a race to the bottom for workers, all the while shareholders demanding high returns and get them.

    8. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there's something fundamental you're missing here.

    9. Re: Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First I believe Amazon is good place to work. Do people at Walmart get benefits like Amazon for similar jobs?

      Second, Amazon doesn't offer cheap goods because of poor wages. They actually are above industry standard for pay and offer amazing benefits, so they actually have a fairly high cost per employee. They offer low price because of extremely low margins, they lose money on a lot of items they sell, and reduced inefficiencies in supply chain management.

      So if you want better jobs for that segment of the economic shop at Amazon over Walmart or Best Buy.

    10. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      After all, there's "free shipping", right?

      You ignore the fact that many of these centers also exist to move product from Warehouse A to Warehouse B. If you believe these places exist only because of "free shipping," you are poorly informed.

    11. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When you're talking about non-necessities, you do have a point. But on the other hand, if buying more shit is the only thing keeping people on the productive side of depression, then it may well be a necessity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      "I've got mine. Fuck you."

      Why the hell should some quaint bookstore owner be entitled to a thriving business when he hasn't innovated a bit, in fact all he really does is mark up what he buys cheaply from a factory and makes sure the place smells "booky". We tolerate middlemen for only so long, and then it's innovate or GTFO. It has been this way since the country was founded, and we stole it from the merchant class of Europe who invented it some 500 years prior. "I've got mine, fuck you" is called capitalism and if you don't "get it" feel free to move to Bolivia or Greece where they would welcome you with open arms, into their despair.

    13. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Careful you don't fall off that high horse.

      I'm a frequent and long-term Amazon customer (their first year, I even got some swag from them for being an early adopter). I rarely buy something on Amazon because it's cheaper, and when price is the deciding factor, it's between Amazon and another online retailer, not between Amazon and a local retailer.

      I'm picky about what I buy, and I do not miss at all the days of walking into a retail establishment with the goal of buying a specific (shoe, gadget, book, whatever), being told that they don't have it in stock, and then either having to settle for something less than I wanted, deal with being upsold by some sales rat, or wait for them to order it and deal with another trip to the location. I don't miss at all the days of the $5 trip on the subway to buy an $8 book, assuming there was something at the bookstore that appealed to me when I got there.

      Governments that think that levying sales taxes on online companies will magically cure retailer woes are morons, because for the people that are buying the stuff, it's selection, convenience, and then price. Physical stores are always going to lose the first, quite often the second, and at best tie on the third. And I bet the guys stocking the local supermarket would be happier with a full-time with benefits job at an Amazon warehouse than where they are now.

      Retailers are middle-men. Good ones offer services and experiences beyond the mere exchange of cash for goods, but they're still middle-men, and if the internet has taught us anything, it's that it eats middle-men. Record stores, game stores, drug stores, book stores...

    14. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      ^ brilliant Ruprecht. Should be +1 all the way. So much love for the shop keeper and not much for the poor old consumer.

    15. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car dealerships must love you.

    16. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So clearly we should raise wages, because that's going to help unemployment.

    17. Re: Keep up the selfishness.. by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Every job is an inefficiency except the one at the top, and maybe even that one.

    18. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, when it comes to musicians, journalists, and writers, then it's "Tough shit if you can't deal with the fact that anyone can make a zillion copies of your work for free, copyright laws be damned" here, right?

    19. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Amazon doesn't win on price, they win on selection.

      This is why whining about sales taxes are also so bogus. The price tag isn't even the real selling point. The fact that I can actually get what I want is the driving factor. It doesn't matter if it's books, movies, or grocery items.

      If Amazon doubled it's wages and propagated the costs, it likely wouldn't change anything.

      The real problem is wage disparity between the people running the place and the ones on the bottom rung.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re: Keep up the selfishness.. by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      ESPECIALLY that one.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    21. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by DogDude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Amazon doesn't win on price, they win on selection.

      In other words, "I've got mine. Fuck you."

      The real problem is wage disparity between the people running the place and the ones on the bottom rung.

      No, the real problem is all of y'all on the bottom rung are stepping on each other to try to get up, and you just don't care.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    22. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by DogDude · · Score: 2

      At the end of the day it's "I'm barely hanging onto mine, fuck the world".

      Oh, please. You have at least a computer, Internet access, and some kind of credit/debit card, and you're ordering entertainment that gets shipped to your door.

      You're part of the problem.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    23. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, being human? The only way to solve such a problem is raising the minimum wage. That is the purpose of the minimum wage.

    24. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by DogDude · · Score: 0

      So in other words, "I've got mine. Fuck you".

      Right.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    25. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you've gone too far. Try actually reading what GP said. Pino Grigio's comment was clearly "I've got mine. Fuck you." Then Jedidiah makes an actually insightful post about why Amazon is successful (and why I shop Barnes and Noble online instead of brick and mortar unless I'm looking for something by a well-known author like Stephen King even though a brick and mortar Barnes and Noble is literally a 5 minute walk from my house).

      The key point here, if I have to make it utterly obvious, is

      If Amazon doubled it's wages and propagated the costs, it likely wouldn't change anything.

      Mods, mod up jedidiah and GGP and mod down parent (so it'll even out I guess, don't like downmoding myself). I'll see if I have mod points when I get home if nobody else wants to do the honors. Thanks -Vel

    26. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      You're part of the problem.

      And you're a smug wanker.

      I have a finite amount of money, and you can bet your ass I'm going to economize where I can.

      The world is fucked up, and I can't single-handedly fix it.

      Go occupy your mom's basement or something, there Zorro.

      Unless you live in a commune where you grow your own organic produce, weave your own cloth, and power the computer you're sitting at with a bicycle ... you're probably just as full of shit as the rest of us.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    27. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      The world is fucked up, and I can't single-handedly fix it....You're probably just as full of shit as the rest of us.

      Speak for yourself. Sorry you feel that way.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    28. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      he hasn't innovated a bit

      Sometimes just doing a job particularly well is worth paying for. Innovation is not the end-all, be-all of the economy, just that of elitist snobs.

    29. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words "Your brick and mortar was shit, fuck you".

    30. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      The American Dream.

      Fuck you if you can't make it.

      Should I feel obligated to support "The American Dream" of the owners of the indie bookstore, even though they've decided to invest in a dying business?

      In our city, there's a "downtown alliance" continually harping on about the importance of supporting local business against the big box stores. The examples that keep being brought up as the enemy are the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club.

      I wager that Sam's Club provides a sustainable income to more families than the 4-employee mom-and-pop that is asking for our patronage. But, of course the owners of the mom and pop shops don't see it that way.

    31. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      Didn't Spinoza work long days grinding lenses to keep a roof over his head? Why are musicians, journalists and writers so damned precious these days?

    32. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      You're the one being an elitist snob. Buying a book on Amazon is so beneath you and anyone who cares about price and convenience is just so plebian.

    33. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he hasn't innovated a bit

      Sometimes just doing a job particularly well is worth paying for. Innovation is not the end-all, be-all of the economy, just that of elitist snobs.

      If doing a job well is worth paying for, then you will get paid for it (ipso facto) and this is a form of innovation (if you don't see it as a form of innovation you will quickly have your opinion corrected, as Walmart and Amazon crush your business into the dirt). If by "elitist snobs" you mean "anyone creating value, wealth, and sustainable growth" then sure, call us that.

    34. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Keep up the selfishness... Keep buying the cheapest crap from the cheapest place possible, without regard for where you're spending your money

      So, you always check prices, and then buy the highest price item when you're shopping?

      I assume you actively avoid Sales, too? Wouldn't want to pay less for something and stretch your paycheck a bit, eh?

      Your theory of the way things should work is that everyone should actively seek to lower their own standard of living to the greatest extent possible.

      Which makes you an idiot....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    35. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      Customer: All your power supply units are no-name, inefficient Chinese or Vietnamese crap with high failure rates. Can't you stock some decent equipment?

      Local Computer Store: I've got mine. Fuck you.

      or

      Customer: All you have here is NYT best seller list schlock, New Age Oprah garbage, and Christian testimonals. Can't you stock some decent science fiction or popular science books?

      Local Book Store: I've got mine. Fuck you.

    36. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buggy whip makers and milkmen did a great job too, but they still didn't deserve to be saved.

    37. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only after they stared moving America jobs elsewhere so they could sell cheap shit here

    38. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like this will be forgotten as efficiencies and technologies advance, as it has been for hundreds of years. Otherwise we'd still be copying texts by hand under candlelight. Don't feed the trolls, people.

      While it's unfortunate that people have to suffer along the way, the alternative of everyone suffering is not an alternative for me.

    39. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep up the selfishness... Keep buying the cheapest crap from the cheapest place possible, without regard for where you're spending your money, and this is what you get. After all, there's "free shipping", right?

      So I should... what, exactly? Spend more of my hard-earned paycheck than I need to, because somebody else is too lazy to innovate or provide more value for his services?

      "I've got mine. Fuck you"? Yes, that's about the shape of it. If you can't compete on price, compete on service provided if you want my business. There's a small indie bookstore in Boston that I go to pretty frequently, because the guy who runs it has an encyclopedic command of literature. He's fascinating to talk to, and provides excellent recommendations. I'd be said if he went out of business, because while he costs more, the service I get from him is *worth it.*

      What's next, if he goes out of business, you'll tell me I have an obligation to patronize the Barnes & Noble store, because they can't compete with Amazon on price alone? I'm going to go have some vacant, vapid teenager who knows nothing about any of the books they stock sell me something at a premium because B&N *really needs the business*?

      Your argument boils down to, "You've got yours, now give it to me." FUCK YOU.

    40. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to "Give me yours. Fuck you"

    41. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Bellevue, WA and still buy lots from Amazon* (despite the 9.8% sales tax). The bottom line for me is that Amazon offers easy returns. It is broken or doesn't meet what you expected -- full refund. If you just changed your mind -- just pay shipping. I've never had a problem with Amazon, so I buy from them in preference to other etailers and retailers.

      *Whereas Amazon is when if the best in this respect, NewEgg is one of the worst. I would never buy something over $9.99 from NewEgg. :)

    42. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      >No, the real problem is all of y'all on the bottom rung are stepping on each other to try to get up, and you just don't care

      I don't see how one can blame the victim in this case for the faults of capitalism. Hate the player, not the game?

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    43. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've got mine. Fuck you."

      No, its I've earned mine. Fuck you, earn your own.

      And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    44. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This coming from the asshole who probably makes a wage that's above the national average. Some people can't afford to pay more and satisfy their inner smug douche. Be fucking glad you're fortunate enough that you can.

    45. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Here is a hint if a business can't hack it from competition then they should go out of business. A perfect example from around here is there was a regional home improvement chain that basically dominated the market for years with small stores slightly larger than hardware stores. Then the big national chains came in and guess what the regional chain is still around and is actually expanding since they decided to compete instead of whine and bitch that they were being driven out of business. The built bigger stores, offered more products, provided better service, and had cheaper prices on construction essentials (MDF, 2x4s, nails, drywall, screws, etc). They also pay more than their competition does for the same type of work. Then there are auto parts stores many of which are dying because they don't want to compete with the internet. The only time I go into an auto parts store is when I need something now and I think they will have it since most of the time they end up having to order it anyway and half of the time I end up having to return the part because the part isn't right. By not right I don't mean they gave a part with a different part number than was quoted, but whom ever made the part designed it wrong and claimed it worked. I have had to return various filters, housings, gaskets, belts, etc. so now all I really buy at the auto parts store are various automotive chemicals, adhesives, spark plugs, and light bulbs. Most of my car parts get ordered online now since it only takes a day longer to get them, I get the right part instead of something that claims to be the right part, I have a wider selection of parts and warranties on them, and is costs less even if I pay for shipping.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    46. Re:Keep up the selfishness.. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Frequently, they were shit, as were many of the "Mom and Pop" stores Walmart blew away.

      Want customers? Try service!

      There is a medium-sized hardware store where I live whose owner WELCOMED the Lowes (huge chain hardware store) across the street and WELCOMED Walmart behind his location.

      I've been shopping there since 1985 because the service is superb, the staff are friendly and helpful, and the selection is tailored to what both DIYers and pros actually use.

      Wally's Hardware thrives under the bigger footprints of two competitors, not to mention competing with other larger local hardware franchises.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  7. Temperatures that 'will occasionally exceed 90 deg by korbulon · · Score: 5, Funny

    well it is the Amazon duh

  8. Middle Class by tdp252 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Middle-Class is being redefined as people who can afford basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing and medicine. Want money to enjoy life beyond that? Tough luck!

    1. Re:Middle Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't possibly be poor, they have a whole refrigerator!

    2. Re:Middle Class by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      The Middle-Class is being redefined as people who can afford basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing and medicine.

      The New American Dream.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:Middle Class by kimkardashianle · · Score: 0

      I agree

    4. Re:Middle Class by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not so much a re-definition of "middle class", it's more a perpetuation of the very pervasive myth that most Americans are middle class, when in fact most are really working class.

      First, an accurate definition of "middle class": At a minimum, middle class family is one that can accumulate wealth if they manage their finances reasonably well. That wealth may be in the form of pensions, retirement accounts, investments, home equity, vehicles owned free and clear, bank accounts, or just about anything else, but there has to be a clear upwards trajectory. For example, a middle class family is in a position to save a significant pile of cash that will allow them to send their child to college without their child taking out large loans. By contrast, a working class family is at best capable of paying their bills on time and putting food on the table.

      The key facts are:
      (1) The average American family has negative net worth, which means not only are they not accumulating wealth, they're losing wealth.
      (2) The average American family has, over the last 15 years, cut spending dramatically on entertainment, travel, food, clothing, and almost all other discretionary categories. That means the "out-of-control spending" hypothesis is incorrect.
      (3) Personal bankruptcies have been increasing steadily since 1995, and then skyrocketed since 2008. Most involved: extended unemployment, medical bills (even for insured patients), and adjustable rate mortgages bumping upwards.
      (4) The average American family does not have the ability to pay their bills if they miss a single paycheck.

      Also worth mentioning: If you're a typical /.er with a job in the IT sector, you very likely pull in about 3-5 times what the average American worker makes.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Middle Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Middle-Class is being redefined as people who can afford basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing and medicine. Want money to enjoy life beyond that? Tough luck!

      Look, the middle class has always been a fantasy in this country. What has changed is a sense of entitlement.

    6. Re:Middle Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this sort of parroted mindless drivel moderated insightful?

    7. Re:Middle Class by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, yes. THIS!

      The truth is, the middle class is getting squeezed out, but the smartest way to achieve that goal without inciting revolt is to simply redefine what the term means.

      We've always had and always will have the "poor". That's an unavoidable fact of human nature. There will always be a certain percentage of people who simply don't care to expend any effort to earn above the bare minimum, and others who simply can't do so, due to physical or mental limitations. Occasionally, you'll even get the odd situation where someone is plunged into poverty due to circumstances beyond their control, and the hole is simply too big to dig back out of.

      At the other end, you have the rich/wealthy. Some are there through a life of honest, hard work, while others cheated and lied their way to the top. Still others had it handed to them from a previous generation. At some point, some of the rich become rich enough so the sheer amount of money they possess can essentially work for itself. These people have a hard time spending it as fast as the income it generates via interest and investment gains. Others have major setbacks, just like the former "middle class" people who were plunged into poverty -- except thanks to a combination of their connections and the amount of wealth they amassed first, they often only fall back into middle class status vs. poverty. Of course, they view this as a bad thing and strive to get back to the lifestyle they were accustomed to.

      Traditionally, I think all of this worked ok, because the poor viewed the middle class as a goal to achieve, and at the same time, as a group of people likely to lend a hand to them. (The rich may be the ones funding the big foundations and charities.... but it's your average middle class Joe who decides to give to the food pantry at church, or to donate some time around the holidays to bring toys/gifts and food to a poor family in need.) Meanwhile, the rich viewed the middle class as critical to their success. If you own a business, you need middle management and engineers and salespeople, accountants, etc. These folks aren't coming from your own social class.

      But now, the country competes on a global scale, with many countries where living standards for the masses are FAR lower than ours. Automation is quickly replacing the need for the unskilled labor (working poor, essentially). And the rich elite at the top have concluded that the biggest obstacle to their future success is the middle class. (People who are both unhappy with the status quo AND intelligent enough to leverage the legal system to make changes are dangerous.) They want to make adjustments so former middle class people slip into a state of being the working poor, while still doing all those jobs the old middle class did for them. The people at the very bottom? They don't matter any more than they ever did, really. They're just another line item expense to deal with via tax deductible charitable donations and so on.

      I grew up in the midwest, where manufacturing and "blue collar jobs" were a huge part of the landscape. I saw that slipping away ever since the 1990's or so. It's not dead yet, certainly, but just in the city I lived in alone, at least 3 auto plants closed down and other big manufacturers were bought out by international companies. One could drive through the area and see steel manufacturers busily cutting and loading steel onto trucks and say, "Things look fine to me!" But only upon much closer inspection, actually talking to the rank and file employees there, did you get a better idea of what was happening. A lot of those people were working 2 or 3 jobs instead of just 1, sometimes working one of them only for the healthcare benefits. Some were driving motorcycles in to work each day, which you might think was fine -- until you found out the real reason for that was they couldn't afford the gas anymore to use a car. Some of these people had really useful skills that they weren't utilizing at all, because they simply couldn't find a better payi

    8. Re:Middle Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if you consider the average American Family. There's just as equal number of single folks out there. And more single folks as wealth decreases in general for all.

      The fact is wealth by personal accumulation doesn't work. Systems are just that... controlled. It doesn’t even drive innovation.

    9. Re:Middle Class by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's not so much a re-definition of "middle class", it's more a perpetuation of the very pervasive myth that most Americans are middle class, when in fact most are really working class.

      Where's the evidence for this claim? Just because "the average American family" can't be bothered to save money doesn't mean that they aren't middle class. Keep in mind the key word of your definition, "can".

      At a minimum, middle class family is one that can accumulate wealth if they manage their finances reasonably well.

      Just because you can accumulate wealth doesn't mean that you choose to do so. The "facts" you state, merely show that a lot of people are choosing not to accumulate wealth, to live from paycheck to paycheck, and so on. They don't show whether those people are so-called working class or middle class.

    10. Re:Middle Class by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      While I don't entirely disagree that the screws have been put to the "middle class" but some of it was middle class people spending beyond their means for a very long time. My mother and step father are a perfect example of this, they had a very good income but spent every dime and quite a bit more for a very long time.

      They got a new car every 2-3 years (cars got replaced every 5 years but were in really bad shape at that point) huge house with giant mortgage, bought an expensive time share that they have a mortgage on, buy all sorts of new gadgets and toys, vacations to multiple exotic destinations every year. They basically accumulated massive amounts of debt when times were good trying to live high on the hog to show off how rich they were. Then things took a turn and my step dad lost his job because he never bothered to keep up his skill set and was the last COBOL programmer at the only company he had ever worked at and when they shut down that system he couldn't adapt to anything else (they tried for over a year) and was fired.

      That was 7 years ago and since they have had a very hard time. They have no savings, just had to buy a new vehicle (on a 72 month loan so they can afford the payment) since their 7 year old vehicle died (had less than 100,000 miles on it), did a cash out refinance on their house to a new 30 year mortgage (they only had 6 years left to go on their old one), and are still buying stuff they don't need (they just got 2 new iphones, 2 ipads, and a 60 inch TV). At the moment I think their plan is to die before their cash out refi money runs out since they have so much debt.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    11. Re:Middle Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, what are they doing to their vehicles? Do they simply ignore oil changes and other basic maintenance? I've never bought anything but used cars for myself, all of them but the most recent were at least six years old at my purchase, and they all lasted at least that long before being replaced. To top it off, every single one of them has been a Ford, all the way back to models from the 70s. Even if your parent/step-parent chose Chevys or Chryslers over Toyotas and Hondas, they should have been able to get a decade and 200K out of them as long as they avoided the obvious lemons (OK, that mostly eliminates Chryslers, but still).

      Also, how does a competent COBOL programmer not find work? They are literally dying off before those old systems can be replaced, and COBOL maintenance programmers are still in need. He should have been able to pick from at least a couple of positions where the office chairs still had that fresh corpse aroma.

      - T

    12. Re:Middle Class by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, what are they doing to their vehicles? Do they simply ignore oil changes and other basic maintenance?

      Basically yes. After 5 years the vehicles are rusty pieces of crap that leak and burn oil like no tomorrow. Neither one of them is a very attentive drive so they hit curbs and potholes frequently. My step father drove a vehicle with a broken steering knuckle for a week once and described it a a little vibration.

      Hey not all Chrysler vehicles are crap, my 96 Jeep Cherokee is doing just fine with 377K miles on it. Then again it is using the old inline 6 with a manual transmission and has no power accessories. Like your self all I have driven have been used vehicles, typically with over 100K miles on them, but have had a couple of GM's, a Ford, a Chrysler, and 4 BMWs. By the time I am finished with them they have either been wrecked (twice rear ended) or not worth fixing with over 250K miles on them. I would love to get a new 0 miles car as I would take care of it and it would probably be the last vehicle I owned.

      Also, how does a competent COBOL programmer not find work? They are literally dying off before those old systems can be replaced, and COBOL maintenance programmers are still in need. He should have been able to pick from at least a couple of positions where the office chairs still had that fresh corpse aroma.

      Easy he lacked the analytical skills to apply his knowledge to anything other then the system that he had been using for for 25 years. Either that or he just outright refused to try to try to apply himself to something different which wouldn't surprise me either.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  9. Wait til they get around to installing Kiva robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robots don't need medical benefits.

    Seriously, is this supposed to be controversial? Barnes and Noble has been accused of putting indie booksellers out of business too. And indie booksellers aren't exactly the job creating engines of the 21st century.

  10. Woah, wait a minute... by Svenia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When did ~$24k gross a year become middle class? Did I miss a memo or have I been living in fantasy land? (11.50 per hour * 40 hours per week * 52 weeks)

    1. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends on location. In my part of the country, that's the lower end of middle class. You can have the house with the white picket fence for that. Middle class homes start at $40k. The poor people houses start at $5k...

      That said, even the unskilled manufacturing jobs around here pay more than that. $13.50/hr is the standard now...

    2. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since that's roughly 1/2 household median income, I'd say that pretty squarely qualifies as middle class in most of the country.

    3. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by mmcxii · · Score: 2

      You don't understand. It's easier to make up a new definition to fit the conditions than it is to have the conditions fit the current definition.

      And in this way if they do raise the minimum wage they can have all kinds of nifty headlines that show that the middle class has been bolstered to higher numbers than we've since the 70s.

    4. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Since that's roughly 1/2 household median income, I'd say that pretty squarely qualifies as middle class in most of the country.

      Squarely? More like barely.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    5. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      It all depends on location. In my part of the country, that's the lower end of middle class. You can have the house with the white picket fence for that. Middle class homes start at $40k. The poor people houses start at $5k...

      That said, even the unskilled manufacturing jobs around here pay more than that. $13.50/hr is the standard now...

      True that, but with the population shifts moving to more urbane (and thus, more costly) areas, what you are describing is - quite sadly - not the American norm anymore. We live in truly dysfunctional times.

    6. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Svenia · · Score: 1

      Where I live jobs are hard to come by. That is if you're not looking to work at a fast food chain or tourist spot and want something to match your masters or bachelors you worked so hard for. Even if you do find something that vaguely fits your field at best you'll make $9-10 and hour, but that's just the experience myself and those I know have had.

      That being said the cost of living isn't terrible, but it's incredibly high considering what the average wage is locally. Then again I live in the cesspool that is Florida, so perhaps it's my own fault for not seeking greener pastures.

    7. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If population shifts to more urban and thus expensive to live area's can not afford more than the basics. Oddly people might move back out of the squalor that is urban living. High density living is not really good for anything some people prefer it and that is there choice but we should not structure our society to cater to them.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    8. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      When did ~$24k gross a year become middle class? Did I miss a memo or have I been living in fantasy land? (11.50 per hour * 40 hours per week * 52 weeks)

      They're expecting both parents of a 4-person family to have jobs at this level, giving them ~$48k. The current system of taxation and the Federal Reserve's continual inflation of the monetary system practically require it.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    9. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Svenia · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I didn't consider that aspect. Being non-married and childfree it didn't even cross my mind they'd start considering (albeit a bit deviously) that middle class would now include two working spouses.

      So instead of the 1950s when only men worked and they made let's say $48k, now the women can work for 40 hours too. Since there's double the employees, everyone gets half wages but it "works out" because the family as a unit still makes the same amount they needed. Just now the corporation gets 80 hours of labor for the same amount of pay.

    10. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree, according to the Federal Government, the poverty line for a family of four is $23,550. This job pays between $21,840 and $23,920. Therefore if the worker is married and supporting a family of four on their own they are either under the poverty line or just above it. Defintely not middle class.

    11. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Let me explain. First of all you have the math wrong. It should be 11.50 per hour * 88 hours per week * 52 weeks = $52,624. A very respectable sum indeed. Thank you, Amazon, for caring enough to let me work 88 hours per week. Many companies I've tried stopped me at 80. The lesson here is that persistence in job searches pays off !

      --
      I come here for the love
    12. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      52 weeks? the poor sod doesn't even get a single day off the whole year?

      yeah, peasants don't deserve time off. fuck them!

      (sigh)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Svenia · · Score: 1

      Nope, not a single bit of time off for our dear little middle class worker. He gets two days per week (assuming they don't do the whole 7 day workweek, 5-6 hours per day lovely scheme most big box chains like to do). If he behaves really well they might let him set up a cot in the backroom that he can rotate sleeping in with other workers, so he doesn't have to go home each night. Maybe

    14. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If population shifts to more urban and thus expensive to live area's can not afford more than the basics. Oddly people might move back out of the squalor that is urban living. High density living is not really good for anything some people prefer it and that is there choice but we should not structure our society to cater to them.

      Actually, as a society we're geared towards density living - it's only in the past 100 years or so have we "spread out" to create suburban sprawl.

      Most older cities and towns are not designed for cars and narrow streets and what not were designed for human transportation (on foot or bicycles) and human propelled cargo movement.

      Younger cities where cars are more common suffer from suburban sprawl where cars are required in order to do *anything*.

      Naturally, it's also why places like Europe tend to have better public transportation systems because the old cities never grew to accommodate the car, so the only way to get people in and out is mass transport (London's Underground, for example...).

      Newer places like the United States tend to have grown up around cars so they tend to be more spread out and less dense.

      There are good and bad sides to both - the high density living has resulted in many plagues and diseases to prevail, and travel between places was long and difficult. Hell, Game of Thrones gets it quite right - your high density living would be inside the castle walls, but it also means you get stuff like incest because newcomers are quite rare when it takes days of travel between.

      Of course, not having a car can easily save a TON of money between depreciation maintenance, gas and insurance - if you can get rid of one car, gas and insurance can easily be $2000 a year or more. If you're making $24K, that's an extra $175 or so per month, enough for half a month of groceries.

      The big problem being, of course the supermarket requires a car thanks to sprawl.

    15. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by kqs · · Score: 1

      The current system of taxation and the Federal Reserve's continual inflation of the monetary system practically require it.

      You mispronounced "the current level of wages". Individual wages are set by the market, and the market has found that since most families have two wage-earners, companies can pay each wage-earner less. It sucks, but blaming the government or federal reserve for this is... confusing.

      $48k is middle class in most areas, though not in terribly expensive areas. $24k is certainly not middle class.

    16. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed the past 20 years where the "middle class" of the United States spans from something like $22,000 / year to $400,000 / year. Which is why everyone things they're middle class...because the middle class is "everything that isn't ultra-mega-rich and isn't super-poor in a strict sense."

    17. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate women? Aren't women allowed to work in your liberal utopia?

      Husband and wife can both get jobs making $22k per year, putting them right at the median household level.

      I know math is hard, but if you assume that every job should pay "median household income or higher," you're really kind of an idiot.

    18. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Delivery services are available, affordable, convenient, and a time saver so needing a car for groceries is not necessarily true.

      I would differ on humans being prone to high density. NYC had half the population 100 years ago and less than 100k 100 years before that and still the largest city in the US. Effectively there is a density point where it's dense enough for services, actives etc but that's far below the millions mark.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    19. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      You mispronounced "the current level of wages". Individual wages are set by the market, and the market has found that since most families have two wage-earners, companies can pay each wage-earner less. It sucks, but blaming the government or federal reserve for this is... confusing.

      So what you're saying is that if you continue to make the same amount of money, but that money is worth less each year because of inflation, and your taxes continue to rise because governments on all levels continue to spend and borrow more, that's confusing?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    20. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by nbritton · · Score: 1

      When did ~$24k gross a year become middle class? Did I miss a memo or have I been living in fantasy land? (11.50 per hour * 40 hours per week * 52 weeks)

      No you did not, my annual Social Security disability benefits are about that much, and I of course have full Medicare benefits. It's not a lot for even a single person.

    21. Re:Woah, wait a minute... by kqs · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall something about taxes being at or very near all-time-lows (well, modern-time-lows, like since WW2). So once again, your point is confusing. I assume that rather than making up facts, you have been listening to "facts" from sources who make them up and you have never thought to fact-check those sources.

      Inflation is a fact of pretty much any monetary system and (in small doses) is fine. In fact, long-term lack of inflation ("stagflation") and deflation are demonstrably harmful. Plus, once again, inflation has been low lately, so you seem to be afraid of imaginary monsters.

      That being said, yes, if your wages stay the same and inflation runs its slow course, you have less effective money. The confusing part is where you blame the government for inflation, but make no mention of companies and the market which keep wages the same, even when the per-capita GDP (a rough measure of worker efficiency) has gone up and inflation (a rough measure of income the companies make for a given output) has gone up. I'm confused because you blame the wrong people and wrong causes. And blaming the wrong causes means that you have no chance of fixing the problem, and are likely to make it worse when you try.

      Please, check your facts. There are lots of fact-checking sites out there; all of the good ones list their sources so you can fact-check the fact-checkers if you believe they are in error. And when you find a media source which gives a high ratio of bad facts, well, stop paying attention to them. No source is perfect, but some are far less perfect than others.

  11. Obama isn't a Democrat by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's like all politicians, just a Corporatist who happens to have either a "D" or "R" after his name.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:Obama isn't a Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is corporatist. If don't toe the "businesses are sacred" and "entrepreneurs are the ubermensch" lines, you're branded a heretic. Quality of life and person are based on nothing more than your ability to generate excess profit for the ruling class.

    2. Re:Obama isn't a Democrat by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Actual Democrats are an endangered species. Come to think of it, reasonable Republicans are pretty rare too. I like Ike, but these days he'd be considered a raving pinko.

    3. Re:Obama isn't a Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good! Let's sit back and flame Obama from the right ("Muslim socialist") and left (Snowden) with random political bits.

    4. Re:Obama isn't a Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he's a democrat.

    5. Re:Obama isn't a Democrat by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is the national religion, executive profit-drive its pedophilia.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  12. They'd be better off by Chrisq · · Score: 0

    ...one of Amazon's controversial fulfillment centers in Chattanooga ... workers can make $10.50-$11.50 an hour as an employee of Integrity Staffing Group,

    They'd be better off as shoe-shine boys on track 29

  13. No suit 'n tie - Blue Collar by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    There is no Middle Class anymore. Since the Middle Class stopped wearing suits and settled for business casual, everybody became Blue Collar.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:No suit 'n tie - Blue Collar by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      There is no Middle Class anymore. Since the Middle Class stopped wearing suits and settled for business casual, everybody became Blue Collar.

      The idea of Middle Class has changed through history. Originally it was applied to factory owners, who came between the "landed gentry" and the plebeians.

  14. Re: What's your boggle, citizen? by binarylarry · · Score: 0

    Enhance your calm, anonymous coward.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  15. good high wage jobs by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny how hard it is to live on one of these 'good, high wage jobs'. Working in tech obviously I'm used to high compensation for my time, but I've done military, machining, making packaging for frozen dinners, etc etc. It's funny how the more physically demanding the job is the harder they want you to work to have to joy of keeping your job while at the same time paying you 1/4th what you make with a desk job. There is a skill difference in the work obviously but I don't think anyone should go home after a 40+ hr week with too little money to live. You can get by on 11 in the burbs but what if your job is in the city? Somehow Starbucks employees are just supposed to "get by". Getting by usually means 25+ year olds still living with their parents because their full time job isn't enough to be able to afford a place of their own.

    Funny how Walmart offered suggestions on budgeting recently that excluded the cost of heating (don't remember if transportation was on there or not, but heck bus both ways to a 5 day a week job will probably run you $80 a month at least so you'd be working for your first day and a half of the month just to get to work).

    1. Re:good high wage jobs by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      There is a skill difference in the work obviously but I don't think anyone should go home after a 40+ hr week with too little money to live.

      What are you, some kind of communist?

      ;-)

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:good high wage jobs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Funny how Walmart offered suggestions on budgeting recently that excluded the cost of heating (don't remember if transportation was on there or not,

      You don't remember because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. That was McDonalds. The Furor over Wal*Mart is that part of their employee orientation includes information on how to apply for government assistance, which is going to be necessary because they don't pay you enough to live on.

      This is just another reason why the minimum wage should be a living wage. I don't believe in coddling commuters, I believe in encouraging people to live near work, so I believe it should be based on the cost of living where the job is actually located. There are lots of good arguments supporting this, not least the various costs of commuting.

      We are well overdue for arcologies. Surely there are many people who would prefer to live in such an arrangement?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:good high wage jobs by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Canadian = close enough ;)

    4. Re:good high wage jobs by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of McDonald's: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/15/2300321/mcdonalds-buget-low-wage/ . They've since changed the heating to "$50" in attempt to save face: http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/mcdonalds/ Still, the health insurance budget amount on the example is lower than the cheapest health insurance offered by McDonald's and the budget only works out if you're working two part time jobs for 70-75 hours a week.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    5. Re:good high wage jobs by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I agree with the commuting thing. I don't own a car but think I should pay (and my work should afford me the ability to pay) the full cost of my transportation but that it should still be costly enough that people tend to live were the work. At least were I leave public transit is hugely subsidized (~60% of the cost paid by the government). People still whine about the $3.75 it costs to get on a bus. Does seem steep and I don't think a typical inner city ride is really worth ~$10. But the thing is our bus drivers are getting $60k plus a killer pension. So the government subsidizes the "Walmart employees/students" riding the bus while at the same time making sure that the bus drivers are really well taken care of. Perhaps $40k a year for the bus drivers and less subsidizes would make both the government spend less and Walmart have to pay more in order for anyone to work for them.

      There is also the incentivizing nature of public transit: people are willing to commute because it is cheap but they will whine and moan if buses run less frequently than say ~20min so you end up with a lot of demand for long range transit but an even larger demand for frequent runs so commuters that get out of work at 4:30 don't have to wait till 5pm to go with the rest of us.

      I work in Toronto, think it is number 2 next to LA in north america for commutes (average commute is > 1.5hr). But a single room apartment goes for about $1000 on the bottom end and you can get a 3-4 bedroom house with that kind of monthly payment with the commute. So: live like a college student till you die, or be able to afford a family and give up 3hrs a day to get to the city to work.

    6. Re:good high wage jobs by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Yeah and part time jobs tend to want you to keep your schedule free so that they can move you around at their whim. My sister worked both at Walmart and as a hair dresser. Neither job wanted to give her full time hours. But if you ever turned down a shift you got black listed and they would go to everyone else first if another shift opened up. Expecting flexibility when you aren't willing to hire people for enough hours to be able to live is ridiculous IMHO.

      P.S. I think they purposely tried to screw your schedule up so that you'd not try working another job. They'd have 3 people each working 4hrs a day 6 days a week rather than have them come in say say 3 for 8 even if they could work out the schedule so the same number of staff would be around at any given time. So you make peanuts and have to go back and forth to work more frequently than someone working full time ... nice.

    7. Re:good high wage jobs by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      The idea of having your own place is relatively new. Used to be EVERYONE lived with their parents. Now kids get pissy if you want them to share a room with their sibling.

    8. Re:good high wage jobs by internerdj · · Score: 1

      We sort of have arcologies in the way of several "traditional" living communities around town. They combine residential structures with shopping, education, and (presumably) work. Unfortunately, your choice of employment local to the community is limited by the market pressures of the city at large. The planned nature raises cost of the buildings, so the housing attracts high end clients. The higher costs of business property has led to a lot of vacancy and the few employers (while high end retail) don't pay well enough to support living in the community. So you can do some living stuff there but you have to drive out to work at a job that will support living there and the workers have to drive in because they can't afford to live there. As much as I love the idea of an arcology, I'm not so sure I'd risk my investment money on an arcology.

    9. Re:good high wage jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Being 30+ years old and living in your mothers basement is still not normal and never was. Your mom asked me to tell you that. She also wants you to get a job and for you to do your own laundry.

    10. Re:good high wage jobs by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      ;) Agreed never normal. People used to get married younger. You might have lived with your parents for the first few years but even then you'd be out of the house by your early 20's when the kids started coming. Now we delay things with college education, a few years looking to land a job in your field, then another few to find your 'soul mate" and viola we are 30+ years old still trying to figure out what to do with your life rather than actually having a life. Pretty sad actually.

    11. Re:good high wage jobs by Svenia · · Score: 1

      I've had my fair share of part time and full time minimum wage jobs while going through college. Anything from computers sales, pharmacy technician to cashier. At each and everyone of these big box type jobs, regardless of whether I was full time or part time the moment you said you couldn't work on certain days your hours would get slashed. Being in school it required a lot of brown nosing with whoever was making the schedule (not to mention being the hardest worker, always showing up, offering to pick up extra shifts, etc etc) to maintain any semblance of reasonable hours.

      If you try to work two jobs, well it's near about impossible usually. They'll both try to give you your schedule a week or two before and every week they'll be completely different, at least in my experience. Try to tell them well I can only work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and I guarantee you'll hear nonstop "well we aren't accepting availability changes" or "well we hired you to be always available" or some other BS excuse. Try to find a job without open availability? Good luck, you'll need it (at least in the county I live in).

    12. Re:good high wage jobs by Svenia · · Score: 1

      It's sad but keep in mind in those days things were a bit different. A woman's main goal in the 1950s was to get married and have kids. She didn't care about going to college or having a career so much. Men were usually able to find a steady (albeit maybe crappy) job that would support him and her, they could have children and a house. If you didn't have these things by your 30s you were an old maid or bachelor and obviously had some type of dysfunction. That's what old TV shows keep telling me anyways =P

      I'd rather the general populace live with their parents for an extra decade (albeit not due to finances would be preferable, but it's reality) than everyone decide at 20 to say "Screw college, I'll work at McDonalds forever, find a wife and knock her up a few times. That's what they did in the 1950s right? Living the dream." It's not realistic now to be able to afford that type of life for most people.

    13. Re:good high wage jobs by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Gah, replying to undo accidental negative moderation.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    14. Re:good high wage jobs by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Right now the US G is attempting to reduce people's effective wage without them noticing That's what the $40 Billion per month money printing is for. The idea is that if the economy sucks, we need to start paying people less so they are competitive... But people don't like wage cuts, so the US G just prints enough money so that it's worth less. This is happening all over the world with all the currencies which is why the USD isn't tanking comparatively.

      So, sure, they can make the minimum wage anything you want, $20/h, $100/h, it doesn't really matter. They'll just print up enough money until people are making the target effective wage that they are looking for.

    15. Re:good high wage jobs by rwv · · Score: 1

      living wage

      I keep this site bookmarked: http://livingwage.mit.edu/

    16. Re:good high wage jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally!!! Somebody who sees it like I do!!! I worked a lot of minimum wage jobs before programming and I couldn't agree more with what you said.

    17. Re:good high wage jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Housing expenses listed there are way low, at least for the areas I know well across several states. For example, in my city the monthly cost for housing for two adults is listed as mid $500s, which is damned near impossible. Even a Section 8 rental in a bad neighborhood would be hard to find in that price range. Older, very small homes here, even with recent historically low mortgage rates, will still cost far more than that per month once property taxes, homeowner insurance, and ordinary maintenance costs are included. It's hard to gauge the other categories, as health care, food, and transportation can be quite different from one couple to the next. However, the housing cost values appear to be below what's feasible.

      - T

  16. Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It must be a cold day in Hades.

    Relentless war which the globalist elites are waging against any possible middle class opposition - CHECK.

    Utter hypocrisy of moving employees off-book, into sub-contractor scams, where hours are guaranteed to be less than 30-per-week so as not to qualify for Obamacare - CHECK.

    Big-$$$ campaign contributions and other goodies being laundered from Bezos through Gorelick and into the Chicago Machine - CHECK.

    Hypocrisy of Martha's Vineyard vacationing politician, who otherwise would love him some indie bookstores, heading to the mother of all vertical bidnesses for a little facetime on the evening newz - CHECK.

    What's next, an honest discussion of why Fuckerberg and Ballzmer and L-Word-ison really want all those H1B aliens?

    Might be a good day to go long on some snowball contracts in Hell.

    1. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 0

      I wish I had some nod points. I sure as hell would have given you one.

    2. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey now, he's the Democrat. He's not some neo-con pig corporate goon racist. The standards are different. Just sit back, relax and learn to accept your fate. It's for The Greater Good(tm), don'tcha know?

    3. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey now, he's the Democrat. He's not some neo-con pig corporate goon racist. The standards are different. Just sit back, relax and learn to accept your fate. It's for The Greater Good(tm), don'tcha know?

      Exactly. Since he is a Democrat we simply call him an evil Socialist bent on the destruction of America without even knowing what the word "Socialist" means and despite what he actually says or does.

    4. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      So a Republican....

    5. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Ruwer, you're being sarcastic, right?
       
      You're using some kind of literary device to show that you are surprised that Slashdot would approve a story about how the American middle class is getting raped by the the big money machine that controls Obama, just like it controlled Bush and Clinton, etc;

      But I must be wrong...

      Right?

      You really aren't surprised that Slashdot would approve a story about how the American middle class is getting raped by the the big money machine that controls Obama, just like it controlled Bush and Clinton, etc; Doesn't Slashdot approve stories like that from time to time?

      Also, it's interesting that you mention someone named Fuckerberg, because that sounds a lot like Mark Zuckerberg, who we all know is the point man on the big money machines so far unchallenged attempt at turning the USA into the next Police State. Interesting coincidence.

    6. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Utter hypocrisy of moving employees off-book, into sub-contractor scams, where hours are guaranteed to be less than 30-per-week so as not to qualify for Obamacare - CHECK.

      Err, this isn't something just with Amazon.

      This is becoming a pretty widespread result of Obamacare...lots of places are reducing hours to keep from having to pay the new fees/taxes.

      It isn't even doing it through subcontractors. I know of other businesses that are reducing hours to under 30. My Mom got caught up on this....and I know of others in the retail (national department stores) that are getting hit the same way.

      Also, there's lots of small businesses that are hanging at the 49 employee number to avoid the Obamacare mandates.

      Whether you agree with Obamacare in full, in part or not at all....I think most everyone can see that these two reactions in particular apparently weren't anticipated as side effects as widespread as they seem to be at this point.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My company, a mid-sized fabless semiconductor company, has been laying off engineers and offering them 16-30 hours per week positions via contract houses. The company gets to reduce their costs all around as a result, it pressures the staff they keep to work harder to avoid being the next one, and the people they let go usually take the contract work because it's still better than unemployment.

      And I'm not talking about "engineers", I mean mean REAL engineers, like VLSI designers and chip level people... ...before you say "anyone decent should just leave", please keep in mind that for much of chip design stuff it's a shrinking non-Asia pool of jobs as is true for most of semiconductor stuff. So while the top 10% may be able to hop from company to company, the other 90% will be out of work for a while as they try to claw back in somewhere, several former colleagues are still out of work approaching 6 months now.

    8. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My son had to do an analysis of the impact of Obamacare regulations on businesses around the fifty employee mark. He was a sophomore in college and it was VERY clear from the research he showed me that this would be the outcome.

      (1) Stay below the minimum employees and avoid regulation. CHECK - happened with ADA

      (2) Penalties cheaper than offering insurance. CHECK - cost tradeoffs are easy for accountants and finance types.

      (3) Keep employees below minimum hours to avoid regulation. CHECK See (1).

      (4) Not enough rebate/incentive money to buy personal insurance. CHECK

      Folks are not stupid. Create a system where you have to take specific actions to avoid costs or obligations and people will take those actions. It didn't take a Nobel prize winning economist -- just a logical analysis.

    9. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      My company, a mid-sized fabless semiconductor company, has been laying off engineers and offering them 16-30 hours per week positions via contract houses. The company gets to reduce their costs all around as a result, it pressures the staff they keep to work harder to avoid being the next one, and the people they let go usually take the contract work because it's still better than unemployment.

      Why don't the engineers incorporate themselves, and just come back to do corp-to-corp 1099 contracting...and what way everyone is a winner?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Since he is a Democrat we simply call him an evil Socialist bent on the destruction of America without even knowing what the word "Socialist" means and despite what he actually says or does.

      Odd. Living in "socialist canada" and having done so my entire life, one can see the similarities that yes indeed he is a socialist. Of course if you enjoy revisionist history, then of course he's not. Much like here in Ontario the Liberal party didn't turn around and lie to the public on the gas plant scandals. Rather according to the left-wing media outlets here, they simply "lost various things..." while shuffling money into expensive "green power."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If young adults just starting out or uneducated persons are working for minimum wage or even a couple dollars more but are getting a max of 30 hours a week then none of them gross more than 15k a year. They still don't have health benefits and are worse off than before {when they were getting 40 or more hours}.

    12. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by kbolino · · Score: 2

      There were plenty of people who foresaw the consequences, they were just derided as obstructionists.

    13. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by TheRon6 · · Score: 1

      there's lots of small businesses that are hanging at the 49 employee number to avoid the Obamacare mandates.

      [...]

      I think most everyone can see that these two reactions in particular apparently weren't anticipated as side effects as widespread as they seem to be at this point.

      Italy's cutoff for corporations being required to pay into the socialized medicine system is ten employees. That's why 90% of its workforce is employed at companies with less than ten workers.

      This was not only anticipated, it was planned. Gotta kill those evil big corporations y'know!

      --
      Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
    14. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of other businesses that are reducing hours to under 30. My Mom got caught up on this....and I know of others in the retail (national department stores) that are getting hit the same way.

      If you work retail (or a similar setting where you punch a clock,) for less than 30 hours a week, chances are high that you qualify for Medicaid anyway so why does Obamacare factor in to it at all?

      If you can prove that this is common (plural of anecdote is not data...) then you may have a point. Until then you just have an op/ed piece (that you can probably get to run on the atlantic, the blaze, etc.)

    15. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your entire post should be tagged with [citation needed], but I'll just point out one thing:

      Businesses have been hanging at 49 for a long time already. That's not new with Obamacare at all. See, for example, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 199 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993). A number of states dropped the threshold at which these types of benefits kick in, too, so you'll see businesses hanging on at 15/20/etc. in those states. This is a well understood and long standing thing, not something that wasn't anticipated.

    16. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      So the engineers didn't have health insurance before? Or they did, and the company realized that they could downsize and blame Obama for forcing them to provide what they were already voluntarily providing?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    17. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they were obstructionists. They tried to kill the entire bill instead of fixing it. And they're still obstructionists. They're still trying to kill the entire law instead of fixing it.

    18. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .I think most everyone can see that these two reactions in particular apparently weren't anticipated as side effects

      Some believe they were expected, and that increasing the number of people receiving govmint cheese was the desired effect.

    19. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by nbauman · · Score: 2

      There are lots of people who did a logical analysis in the library (Karl Marx was one), but it turned out that things worked out differently in real life.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/will-obamacare-lead-to-millions-more-part-time-workers-companies-are-still-deciding/

      We haven’t seen many employers move forward with such a change. A recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that 4 percent of companies it surveyed had moved to a larger, part-time workforce in response to the Affordable Care Act.

      If part-time workers offer an easy way to dodge an expensive mandate, why haven’t more employers jumped on board? I asked Christopher Ryan, a vice president of strategic services at ADP, to help explain. He spends a lot of time talking to companies about this issue and says it mostly boils down to a trade-off between having a skilled workforce and reducing benefit costs.

      “If you’re operating a large restaurant in Manhattan on Valentine’s Day, you’re probably wanting to have a highly-trained, highly-skilled wait staff,” he says. “And it’s a question of, do you want your restaurant manager thinking about benefit costs, and who needs to be sent home at 8 p.m. [so they don't go over their 30-hour week], or do you want to think about providing consumers with a great experience?”

      Obamacare will only affect employers with under 50 employees who are not offering health insurance to their employees right now. Right now, those businesses are freeloading off the government, because when their employees or their families get sick, they go to an emergency room, and the public hospitals pay for them.

      Most profitable businesses do offer health insurance to their employees. So if those inefficient businesses have to stay under 50 employees to avoid paying enough to afford health care, good riddence to bad jobs. They'll be replaced by more efficient businesses that can afford to pay for health care for their employees.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Employer_mandate_and_part-time_working_hours

      This is not to defend Obamacare. A single payer system would have been much better, but the people who contribute to Democratic and Republican campaigns didn't want it. We didn't have a president who would resist them.

      I'm sure your son is a bright kid and I hope that during his college education he will learn to look at reality as well as theory.

    20. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two part time jobs will keep your boost your hours per week, and keep companies under the "30 hours" per week.

      However I am not sure if the "Health Care Act" (lets get it right, and Dimwit Romney, pushed this same plan in Mass, and no one bothered to bitch and moan about that, or expose the evils in his system) have regulations or provisions to nail the worker if they accumulate over 30 hours per week. I am guessing is does!!!

    21. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Also, there's lots of small businesses that are hanging at the 49 employee number to avoid the Obamacare mandates.

      Wait... so that's all we needed to do to combat big business?

    22. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was predicted to work exactly how it turned out. This was perfectly designed to reduce unemployment.

    23. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Obamacare took effect I got my crappy county health plan that hardly covers anything taken away. And I live on the brink of death with daily grand mal seizures. I am lucky that the crappy county health plan covers my seizure meds that still don't do anything because they are the cheap meds that have been around for over 30 years. -- yeah what a contry when slavery is no longer just for the minorities, but for everyone who is not in the higher class society.

    24. Re:Wow - how did this one get approved at /. ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the adjunct instructors in Universities and colleges across the country

  17. who really works there by slashmydots · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I worked for $8/hr at a graphics company on top a heat press in July without air conditioning and had to stand up for 8 hours straight with one crappy break and very little water when I was 18. Guess who I worked with from the staffing agency? People with criminal records. People who were chain smokers. People with gambling problems. People who had been divorced 3 times. And I guarantee, people who didn't have college degrees. So if you make stupid life choices, you end up at a crap job like that. As for me, someone else made the job sound better than it was and made a referral commission and I only worked there 1 month lol.

    1. Re:who really works there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      News Flash: *Not everybody* who goes to college, has no criminal record, doesn't gamble, smoke, etc. gets the world handed to them on a silver platter. Some of us work very hard to earn one, two or even three college degrees and still spend our lives humping crappy jobs at less than $10 per hour, jobs we thought we'd leave behind once we finished school. The available jobs do not match the skills and training of college graduates in the US (and perhaps other places in the world).

    2. Re:who really works there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called NORMAL PEOPLE you fucking bastard and you're begging for someone among them to get rid of you for profit, how smart do you think that is? Now go run behind whatever ideology, ideals, morals or ethics you claim to have but don't ever dare pretend that you're human because you're not.

    3. Re:who really works there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, less confirmation bias please. Yours is an anecdote that does not reflect reality lol.

    4. Re:who really works there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, keep talking you little scum of the Earth faggot. You and your little freak circus people can keep working there.

    5. Re:who really works there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmhmm, you go work at a place like that and tell me it's not a damn freak show.

  18. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I sold dew worms to fishermen for a year to buy my first computer

    And now you can't even buy a cup of coffee with what you'd get from doing that.

    Everybody wants it all but doesn't want to work for it. Guess what? It doesn't work that way

    You're right, the people who have it all don't work for it, they've already got it and now they spend their days on the golf course making the hard decisions of which division to amputate in order to make this quarter's numbers look good enough for a bonus.

  19. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're temp workers without benefits, working 12 hour days, and get fired if they make any mistakes or say the wrong thing. Length of employment and available work is not guaranteed, but when there's work you're working overtime. Workers are searched off clock when entering the building, during break, and when they leave. You can't bring anything with you as the shipping center ships everything so how do they know if you're stealing it?

    These are shitty, high stress jobs for people near the end of their ropes.

  20. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at a store, retail, as a night shift manager. In retail, that's a pretty chunk of money; in the real world that money also places me and my family below the poverty level. We are a single income family, because around here it is rather hard to find meaningful work, therefore my wife stays home and cares for the house and children.

    Before I came to work at my store, I was privately employed, in a $60k, 12-15hour per day job, and we didn't need my wife to work. That business failed because I failed to adapt. Yes, I failed.

    I am also working on my CS degree in the off hours in order to bring us out of our situation.

    TLDR;
    People do what they have to do to survive. Is it fair? No. Life isn't fair. Some of us made our own situation come to be. Some of us, well, we do the best we can. In my experience, there are even those who have a few extra bucks in the bank, aren't completely happy with what they have.

  21. Obama hates America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Plain and simple: Obama is turning America into a third world nation.

      I guess that's one way to help us export more and import less. Except he's also making it more and more difficult for any jobs to even be filled by Americans.

    It's less simply more like he just wants to destroy Americans of every class and replace Americans with people actually from other countries. Thank god we can of course trust him. So we are walking into nice pretty shower facilities...err that we aren't walking out of.

    1. Re:Obama hates America by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plain and simple: Obama is turning America into a third world nation.

      Don't give him too much credit - he has plenty of help.

    2. Re:Obama hates America by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Plain and simple: the Elite is turning America into a third world nation.

      FTFY

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:Obama hates America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true.

  22. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Informative

    $10.50-$11.50 per hour works out to be around $21k-$24k a year on average, given a full 40-hour work-week. That's hardly middle class. It's actually much closer to the Census Bureau's defined poverty threshold. If the worker is the head of a traditional 4-person family, it actually puts him/her at or below the poverty line.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  23. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by umafuckit · · Score: 2

    You have to work hard.

    If working hard was all it took their would be far fewer people complaining.

  24. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Assume for a moment, everyone has the same ambition as you, and works their way into management. Who's left to do non-management tasks?

    Not everyone can be on top, therefore its a fair expectation that people not on top should still be able to make a decent wage.

    Its not about lack of drive or ambition or skill. Its about not fucking over your fellow humans just because you can.

  25. $11.50 an hour... by __Paul__ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is not middle fucking class.

    --
    worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
    1. Re:$11.50 an hour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is not middle fucking class.

      In the current economic climate, the majority of households are two-income. So, what's the income of of two folks working at 11.50? 47840, which, sadly, places them pretty solidly within the middle 20% of all households.

      Welcome to the future!

  26. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More people need to hear these stories. A majority of the 1% i know are like you. If the other side wants to play we emotion then the only way to level with them is emotion.

  27. Each generation raises it's parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What one generation does, the next undoes, and the next does again...

    The idea of Middle Class hasn't existed for most of history, only briefly between the 50 year period of the 1940's to the 1990's.

    This generation's great grandparents fought hard against management, forming unions, making and following through with physical threats, etc... all to win the right to be paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Their children being raised in this "lap of luxury", our parents, had no respect for the struggle their parents went though to earn that quality of life. When their time came to work they fought vehemently against taxes so they could keep even more of their wealth, and when they got to management they lowered wages and broke the unions their parents built, all to further increase their personal wealth at the expense of their peers.

    Those spoiled brats ripped down their parent's grand creation to sell for scrap value to grant themselves slightly more temporary wealth, and as a result we, their children, are faced with the same situation our grandparents found themselves in almost 100 years ago.

    We will rebuild, but this time there will be an eternal digital record such that our children might look back and see what we went though to earn their quality of life, and hopefully they will not take their wealth for granted the way our parents did.

    1. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      When [our parents] time came to work they fought vehemently against taxes so they could keep even more of their wealth, and when they got to management they lowered wages and broke the unions their parents built, all to further increase their personal wealth at the expense of their peers.

      Generalize much?

      Also, not everybody's parents are from the same generation.

    2. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      You can demand higher and higher pay but unless you also achieve higher and higher productivity, the capital will go elsewhere. Detroit would be a prime example.

    3. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      We will rebuild, but this time there will be an eternal digital record such that our children might look back and see what we went though to earn their quality of life, and hopefully they will not take their wealth for granted the way our parents did.

      It will be conveniently sorted by "pro labor" news outlets and "pro business" news outlets; when it comes time to do this over each side will just pick the version of history they prefer and stick with it. Kind of like how things work today...

    4. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can demand higher and higher pay but unless you also achieve higher and higher productivity, the capital will go elsewhere. Detroit would be a prime example.

      So, what you're saying here is, the reason the city of Detroit is in the horrible fiscal shape it is in is because of workers, not piss-poor governance and city management?

      Cognitive dissonance, or are you really just that much of an asshole?

    5. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      I don't think I said that, no.

    6. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong! Productivity has climbed and climbed over the years, but the wages have remained stagnant. This has been true of most of America for the past 30 years. Capital is going where people can be paid 2 dollars per day because sweatshops with near slave like conditions are most profitable.

    7. Re:Each generation raises it's parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can demand higher and higher pay but unless you also achieve higher and higher productivity, the capital will go elsewhere. Detroit would be a prime example [bbc.co.uk].

      No, that's pretty much exactly what you said.

      Worker productivity is at an all time high, machines have replaced most of the workers that remain, wages are at historic lows save for a few old timers that haven't taken subpar buyout packages, and yet capital still goes elsewhere. You're right however, Detroit is a prime example: of everything that is wrong with capitalism.

      Had the factories not replaced labor with machines and pocketed the difference, had mega-corporations spent on caring for their employees and not buying congressmen, had your fellow man and not pure financial gain been the prime motivator behind these decisions, then Detroit and every other US city would be in much better shape than any of them are in today.

  28. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you talking about?

    They're decent, honest jobs that pay a fair wage.

    That's about as middle class as it gets.

    No, actually it's not. I'm not sure where you live, but $11.50 an hour is not even close to middle class in most places.

  29. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, I'm sure someone there is making good money letting cots in a room out to the employees so they're not homeless. China-style middle class, coming to America!

  30. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These are shitty, high stress jobs for people near the end of their ropes.

    Ah, so these are the new middle class American jobs!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  31. doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I thought the "middle class" used to be the shopkeepers.
    You know, the people the Amazons and Walmarts of the world put out of business in the last two decades.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      No they didn't. The middle class used to be doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Not shop keepers.

    2. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the bourgeoisie.

      They're actually traitors to the people, and responsible for aiding in the enslavement of the masses.

      Death to all of them.

    3. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The middle class used to be doctors, lawyers and other professionals.

      I'm not sure what good it is talking about the 1800s as if it's relevant.

    4. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a useful baseline as the term middle class has been distorted to the point where it has no meaning whatsoever anymore.

      If you are working for all of your money, you simply aren't middle class and weren't ever really. That's just a lie that people in power like to tell to keep the huddling masses from getting discontent.

      If people realized they were really part of the underclass they might be more inclined to act out or just differently.

      A lot of higher paid wage slaves have themselves convinced that they are something different than people that fill Amazon orders and that's not really the case.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Zalbik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you are working for all of your money, you simply aren't middle class and weren't ever really. That's just a lie that people in power like to tell to keep the huddling masses from getting discontent.

      This is a very good definition, but unfortunately (at least where I live), many people simply make the choice not to be middle class in favor of lifestyle.

      Now, I'm in a reasonably well off "economic bubble" city, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but....

      Many of the people I work around have 2400+ sq foot houses, 2 expensive (40K+) cars, re-modelled kitchens, multiple cell phone plans (at $80+ a pop), gadgets galore, all brand-name clothing, take 1-2 out of country vacations per year, and some even own vacation property.

      Yet they live in debt.

      They allow their money to actively work against them, which astonishes me.

      Why are people constantly lined up a starbucks to pay $5+ for a cup of coffee? Are name-brand clothes so much better than Wal-Mart that they are worth 3-4x the price? Do they really need a data plan on your cell phone for $80 a month? etc. etc. etc.

      As much as we like to blame: the president, the government, big banks, wall street, global economy, immigration policies, etc for the current financial situation, at least where I am, I see the biggest issue being: people themselves.

    6. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the people I work around have 2400+ sq foot houses, 2 expensive (40K+) cars, re-modelled kitchens, multiple cell phone plans (at $80+ a pop), gadgets galore, all brand-name clothing, take 1-2 out of country vacations per year, and some even own vacation property.

      Yet they live in debt.

      I do not get the "Yet". They live in debt because they have all kinds of things they cannot afford.

    7. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      A lot of higher paid wage slaves have themselves convinced that they are something different than people that fill Amazon orders and that's not really the case.

      Bingo. You nailed it right there. That is the divide and conquer mechanism that is used. As long as someone who makes $150k a year thinks they aren't in the same boat as someone who makes $30k, the race to the bottom will continue.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    8. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are working for all of your money, you simply aren't middle class and weren't ever really. That's just a lie that people in power like to tell to keep the huddling masses from getting discontent.

      This is a very good definition, but unfortunately (at least where I live), many people simply make the choice not to be middle class in favor of lifestyle.

      Now, I'm in a reasonably well off "economic bubble" city, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but....

      Many of the people I work around have 2400+ sq foot houses, 2 expensive (40K+) cars, re-modelled kitchens, multiple cell phone plans (at $80+ a pop), gadgets galore, all brand-name clothing, take 1-2 out of country vacations per year, and some even own vacation property.

      Yet they live in debt.

      They allow their money to actively work against them, which astonishes me.

      Why are people constantly lined up a starbucks to pay $5+ for a cup of coffee? Are name-brand clothes so much better than Wal-Mart that they are worth 3-4x the price? Do they really need a data plan on your cell phone for $80 a month? etc. etc. etc.

      As much as we like to blame: the president, the government, big banks, wall street, global economy, immigration policies, etc for the current financial situation, at least where I am, I see the biggest issue being: people themselves.

      A cup of coffee at Starbucks is $1.85, maybe more if you are in an airport. An extra large "cup" (really it's 3 cups imperial) of sugar, coffee, artificial flavor, and whipped cream will set you back close to $4, but that is not "a cup of coffee".

      But you are right that those with poorly managed debt are basically ensuring their perpetual enslavement.

    9. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you are working for all of your money, you simply aren't middle class and weren't ever really.

      I disagree with the other replier. This is a bad definition because it lumps the people who make bad financial decisions in with people who actually are some degree of poor because they don't earn very much. My take is that if you can save/invest 10% of your salary (the "tithe" level, if you will), then you're some degree of middle class even if you choose not to do so.

      A lot of higher paid wage slaves have themselves convinced that they are something different than people that fill Amazon orders and that's not really the case.

      And why should I pay heed to beliefs that we should all shoehorn ourselves into categories of victimhood? In this case, a lot of highly paid wage slaves are such because they choose to be. It's a lot easier to choose to squander money that you've been paid rather than choose to save money that you never saw. That alone makes those highly paid wave slaves very different than the shipping and handling people.

    10. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yet they live in debt.

      Debt is not all alike. Most people who 'own' houses are in debt, but having the debt lowers their overall costs. When I bought my house, it took about 9 months before the amount I'd saved due to my mortgage payments being less then my rent to be greater than the total cost of moving, including all of the legal fees and so on associated with buying the house. Was living in debt a bad financial choice for me?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re: doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      No, of course not. When I said "live in debt", I literally mean many people have negative net worth, not that that have a mortgage.

      Some debt is okay
      Some kinds of debt can be smart (eg rental properties)
      Too much debt (especially when debt > assets) is stupid

    12. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Everyone talks like this: "You spend too much on little luxuries; you should not be enjoying these things; there is a moral value to going without them; and you will be rewarded in the economy for your asceticism."

      But here's the thing: Those little luxuries are absolutely negligible expenses. You could buy a $5 latte every day for under $2k a year.

      For comparison:
      - College for one child (4 yrs) can be expected to cost $250k.
      - A one-bedroom condo costs $500k.
      - A 20-year retirement at $50k/yr costs $1M

      Those numbers may sound large, but they really are accurate for desirable metro areas. And you will have to work for each one of those dollars, because at this point, any assumption that investment appreciation will outpace inflation is just wishful thinking (outside of property, whose very appreciation is placing it increasingly out-of-reach).

      Next to the sheer magnitude of those costs, what's $5?

    13. Re:doctors & lawyers, you're next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people constantly lined up a starbucks to pay $5+ for a cup of coffee? Are name-brand clothes so much better than Wal-Mart that they are worth 3-4x the price?

      $5 for a cup of coffee is absolutely stupid, but some people don't understand why. However, brand name clothing is typically much better than Wal-Mart clothing. The fabric is more durable, the stitching is of a higher quality and therefore more durable. Even among brands that you find at Wal-Mart, the same brand in a higher quality store will be made of a better fabric with better stitching. Wal-Mart sells poor quality goods, that's why they're so cheap.

      I agree with most of the rest of what you said, though.

  32. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Selling dew worms without a license is now a federal crime.

  33. I fail to find the controversy. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    First of all, it's a warehouse job on the floor. If you are working out on the floor: It's going to be hot. It's going to be long hours of physical activity. Complaining about these things is like complaining that farm jobs involve touching dirt (oh no!) or that waitress positions are not glamorous positions.

    Second, the warehouse jobs on the floor making 10-11.5 is quite high. I don't know about you but I don't expect it to make $100,000 a year especially for a temporary position. Management and staff positions might make more however these are not mentioned or considered.

    Integrity Staffing places qualified candidates to work on assignments at Amazon Warehouses on a temporary basis. Assignments vary in length. There is no guarantee to the length of the assignment. Length of employment is based on client’s business needs which can change.

    Third, Amazon sells more than books unless you haven't been paying attention. Mentioning indie bookstores does what exactly? Can I get diapers in bulk at my local indie bookstore?

    Maybe the better point is how the President could do more assertive things for the country like in this op-ed piece rather complaining at a faux controversy.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:I fail to find the controversy. by cbope · · Score: 1

      The controversy is that $10.50-11.50 is not a living wage today. Unless you happen to have two jobs and work 80 hours/week combined. If the US minimum wage had kept up with inflation over the past few decades, it would be just over $20/hour today. Do the research, the figures are out there.

      The problem with $10.50-11.50/hour is it's too much to qualify for government assistance while at the same time being too little to live on unless you want to live in a cardboard box under an overpass. It's fine for young adults still in school working part time, but don't kid yourself, this is not a living wage for an adult.

    2. Re:I fail to find the controversy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you happen to have two jobs and work 80 hours/week combined.

      Good luck doing that in real life. That's my real complaint with this situation, the "McBudget" openly expects people to work two jobs (and find insurance for $20/mo, but that's another rant), but you better bet that you'll lose the McJob if you can't just walk off your other job whenever your manager is short on a busy night and needs you to be there in 30 minutes.

    3. Re:I fail to find the controversy. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The real issue is that there is a no-win for people in this position. Businesses balk at raising minimum wage to living wage and conservatives balk at increasing any government assistance.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  34. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

    So what ? Not everybody in life travels the same road between point A and B. While I agree that you need to work hard, there's luck, chance and coincidence involved as well. Many people are also living in environments where they're talent and ability will get wasted.

    Nobody is bitching and whining how they don't' have and others have. They're wining about the decline of middle class / shittier standard of living.

    AFAIK, Middle class was never 26400 usd a year, walking/standing 11 hours a day on 30 degrees C. That's not a job, that's modern slavery.
    You have for basic expenses, food, housing (forget about owning anything, property can't own) and two days off.

    You should be sympathetic, because some of these people, maybe not "successful" financially, but they worked more than you have.
    A bit of humility wouldn't hurt as well.

  35. Re:Temperatures that 'will occasionally exceed 90 by telchine · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as temperatures don't exceed 451 degrees, they should be fine

  36. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, self-made superstar! You grew up in a time of amazing opportunity. Care to wager on how that situation would play out today?

    A word of warning: The ladder you climbed has been pulled up by you self-made types, convinced that it wasn't needed.

  37. Do you know what a middle class job is? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are you talking about?

    They're decent, honest jobs that pay a fair wage.

    That's about as middle class as it gets.

    Ummm, no. Physical working conditions are certainly great, but Amazon fulfillment warehouses are notoriously known for driving workers into a state of constant terror due to managerial abuse. A middle class job used to imply a sort of shielding from such things (not totally but certainly more than what you would see and still see at a minimum wage fast food joint.)

    Middle class doesn't imply that anymore. And $10-$12 an hour is $24K. That is not below what is typically considered a low-end middle class salary. $24K was middle class twenty years ago. Not anymore. They are just above the limit that forces people to use social services.

    I'm not saying these jobs are decent or honest (and thank God they are not Walmart salaries.) Any job with salaries above the poverty line is better than no job or poverty-line job, anytime, any day. And I'm not saying that for the type of job being performed, these are not fair wages. They are.

    But let us not call them middle class wages. They are not. The rising cost of living, education and health care, and the continuous shift towards replacing full-time workers with part-time workers (or contractors) have pretty much made sure a $12/h job is not a middle class job anymore.

    1. Re:Do you know what a middle class job is? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Middle class means different things in different places. In the bay area, you nearly need a 6 figure income to be middle class. In rural Arkansas, the median wage might be $20k a year, which makes these very much middle class jobs. In Mexico, these wages would be considered very generous.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:Do you know what a middle class job is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Middle class doesn't imply that anymore. And $10-$12 an hour is $24K. That is not below what is typically considered a low-end middle class salary. $24K was middle class twenty years ago. Not anymore. They are just above the limit that forces people to use social services.

      I don't know of the cost of living in Chattanooga, TN, as such I don't know whether $24K/year is a living wage or not. Meanwhile, it is stated the workers are employees of Integrity Staffing Group, which says they're on contract not full-time. If they're on a short term contract that is actually the equivalent of a $12K/year full time job, if they're on a long term contract that is roughly equivalent to a $16K/year full time job.

  38. How is this controversial? by sirwired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see anything controversial about the warehouse. It's hot (or cold) unskilled manual labor. It pays above minimum wage, but like most jobs with unskilled labor, pays no benefits. They do not do so because it would not provide them with any competitive advantage vs. other fulfillment companies.

    Breaking the "race to the bottom" to make sure you won't starve to death and have access to things like basic medical care when you are a productive member of society (fulfilling your end of the "social contract") is arguably a useful thing for government to do.

    1. Re:How is this controversial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      government doing useful things? That's social/commun/kenya/colonial/ism.

    2. Re:How is this controversial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the continued campaign against labor jobs to scare people away from them and into taking 80k in college debt they can't discharge, ever, because working in higher temps and for longer hours is 'below you'.

      Union construction workers work in higher temps for longer hours for less pay. However, they're not seen as 'below you' due to effective advertising by the unions.

    3. Re:How is this controversial? by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Breaking the "race to the bottom" to make sure you won't starve to death and have access to things like basic medical care when you are a productive member of society (fulfilling your end of the "social contract") is arguably a useful thing for government to do.

      This is it precisely. We have finite resources, and as more and more people populate the earth the less and less we have to go around per person. As much as I hate the idea, at the end of the day we're going to have to implement population controls on a grand scale.

  39. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why on the fucking earth do you need to "work hard" to have a decent basic living ?
    We live in an era of robots and amazing machines and computers and excess food production, why is it that people obsessed with becoming rich and have a lot more than they need are also obsessed with making all other's people lives miserable ?
    Not everybody wants to become rich famous and powerful. Most people just want a decent life, and America is rich enough for that.
    What is wrong with you people ?

  40. "in line with the type of work it entails" by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
    Oh, I agree those wages are common. But that's part of the problem.

    I worked in a warehouse in the summers when I was in college - grocery warehouse. That was... cripes, about twenty years ago. I made $9/hr, which was pretty good for the time. I wasn't trying to raise a family or anything on that, though; just help pay some tuition and books and stuff. Tuition was (much) lower then, the student loan rates were lower, etc.

    Now, if the wages had kept pace with inflation, they'd be making over $14.50/hr. So they're actually making less in real terms than I did.

    Along those lines, here's some food - so to speak - for thought: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/mcdonalds-salaries_n_3672006.html

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:"in line with the type of work it entails" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, can we get sources other than huff puff, I'm not sure I've found a more biased, rumor site on the internet.

    2. Re:"in line with the type of work it entails" by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      Sure, google "mcdonalds 17 cents". Then take your pick.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  41. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People do what they have to do to survive. Is it fair? No. Life isn't fair. Some of us made our own situation come to be. Some of us, well, we do the best we can. In my experience, there are even those who have a few extra bucks in the bank, aren't completely happy with what they have.

    This. We've become a society where our first reaction is to complain about being treated unfairly, instead of assessing the situation, coming up with a plan to improve things, and putting in the hard work to make it happen. It's refreshing to see there are still people out there who aren't willing to wait for a better life to come to them.

  42. how long did you hold that to your chest? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    The American Dream.

    Fuck you if you can't make it.

    As if that has not been the norm in other parts of the world since the beginning of time.

    The reality is that the American Dream is not what it used to be, but it is certainly a much better alternative for a lot of folks in other countries. I'm not saying that we do not have a problem, but it is not one unique of this country, and it is far more fixable than what other countries are facing right now - think Greece, Spain, France or take your pick of any country in Latin America (where I'm from) or Africa.

    1. Re:how long did you hold that to your chest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if that has not been the norm in other parts of the world since the beginning of time.

      The idea behind the so-called American Dream is not much more than a belief that post-revolutionary American society is truly classless. Given that, since a man is only judged by what he owns and what he earns, it's possible for those born rich to descend to poverty through misspending and for the poor to work their way out of poverty.

      Compared to the feudalism that preceded (and was contemporaneous with) the early history of the US, it was a major improvement, but there is plenty of room for discussion and debate about the extent to which the USA has a classless society and the amount of social stratification in other countries.

  43. No, it's not, and it's a shame. by sirwired · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are correct; $11.50 an hour is not middle-class. However, that no-benefit salary is usually enough to make you ineligible for things like Medicaid (even though you aren't buying jack-$hit in medical care on that paycheck) or a Public Defender if you are accused of a crime.

    It's a tragedy that a productive member of society that is fulfilling his/her end of the "social contract" still cannot obtain the things we would expect every civilized nation to make sure it's citizens have access to.

    1. Re:No, it's not, and it's a shame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Wisconsin, 2005, the cutoff for qualifying for a public defender was having more than $248 to your name in any kind of value. My part time $8/hr job and my 1988 Chevy Nova made me ineligible. My wages were garnished at 30% to pay for a court appointed lawyer. Afterwards, I lost my job (District Managers Assistant for a local newspaper) when my employers learned that my drivers license had been suspended. My fines and court costs totaled $700-$800 depending on which paperwork I read, in addition to the mandatory suspension of my DL. This was for a first offense possession of THC. I was charged at the state level, I believe, because I would not snitch on my friend.

  44. Inflated expectations leads to disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you cannot raise a family of four on $12/hour.

    But that's not Amazon's fault. The work isn't worth any more than $12/hour. If you raised the price of labor to $20/hour, then Amazon would use more automation.

    If a worker is only capable of getting a minimum wage job and wants to raise children, they'd better hope their spouse can work as well.

    But as far as these jobs being "controversial"? Not even a little.

    1. Re:Inflated expectations leads to disappointment by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      If you raised the price of labor to $20/hour, then Amazon would use more automation.

      And that'd probably be a net good for the economy, moving it higher-tech, and creating better jobs in tech than the ones automated away. Unless you're a Luddite who thinks automation is bad and we should keep all jobs manual forever.

      The $20/hr minimum wage in Denmark is a big boost to innovation and the country's economy, for example.

  45. The most conservative president in history... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... is praising a very conservative employer. Why are we surprised by this? Obama has done more for the conservative movement than Reagan ever could have dreamed of. He gives lots of lip service to raising minimum wage, reducing tax burden on the lowest income brackets, making health care and education more accessible, etc; but his actions counter those promises. He has cut taxes more than Reagan, he has reduced government more than Reagan, we have seen union membership continue to plummet even more quickly than it did under Reagan, and we have seen college tuition rise even more than it did under Reagan. On top of all that minimum wage hasn't increased anywhere near as much as inflation, while employers have continued to amass more power over their employees.

    I don't know why anyone is surprised to see Obama praising the Amazon warehouse. It cuts jobs and neglects the value of employees; those are classic conservative values. And don't try to claim that the massive health insurance industry bailout act (aka "ObamaCare") is somehow not a conservative act; Reagan would have crapped himself with excitement over signing a bill into law that forces average Americans to become consumers of for-profit businesses.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:The most conservative president in history... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Obama has done more for the conservative movement than Reagan ever could have dreamed of.

      Especially since Obama is/was supposed to be on the left wing. If you didn't like Reagan's right wing policies you could vote for the opposition. If you don't like Obama's right wing policies, who are you going to vote for? Personally I vote for the Greens, but I think we're a touch short of a plurality. You can also be sure that one thing the duopoly will protect is the duopoly.

    2. Re:The most conservative president in history... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      "Obama is/was supposed to be on the left wing"

      According to whom? The only people who carry that banner are the Republicans who are trying to defeat him. IMHO, he's straight down the middle, with a couple of deviations to either side. Nobody on the left really likes him because he's too conservative and won't stand up to corporate interests; nobody on the right likes him because he's a muslim communist who coddles the lazy and kills the first born of every white person (or so I've heard on talk radio).

      I think he had good, reasonable ideas, and is a smart guy who can't manage independent minded people - or at least can't find sound managers. His biggest problem is that he expects other people to be as driven and focused as he is when he's really dealing with congress and government bureaucrats, who are the exact opposite.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:The most conservative president in history... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      The fascinating thing is how the media has convinced the majority of the American public that Obama is a "lefty socialist". Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is a moderate Republican on par with George HW Bush. I gotta give Murdoch, The Kochs, Karl Rove and Limbaugh their props here. They worked the system good and manipulated public opinion brilliantly.

      But I view them the same way I would Goebbels, Himmler and Goering.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    4. Re:The most conservative president in history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citations needed]

  46. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except they're really NOT middle class jobs.

    10.50 an hour is 420 a week, or 21,320 per year. Before taxes.

    In what fucking universe is less than half of the median US income "middle class"? Sure, i's a livable wage, if you're single or newly married and living in Chattanooga, driving a cheap car, etc, but it's still not what I would really call middle class. Working class is absolutely the more appropriate term to use for this position.

    Sorry if that offends you, but that's the truth.

  47. Funny but the guy doesn't remember his own schtick by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In late August 2008, Then Senator Obama gave a little speech in a airline maintenance hanger in Kansas City. He complained about the Republicans and how much ground the middle class had lost, about healthcare. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xauuo1CvexE Listening to it now it still echos of somebody who didn't have ideas then and certainly has no ideas now. What's ironic about his middle class speech there is that American Airlines closed down that maintenance facility in 2010.. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20100924-American-Airlines-closes-former-TWA-base-878.ece

    Sounds like the same schtick over and over again.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  48. A great example of what's possible by nssy · · Score: 1

    Its just an example. Much more is possible.

    --
    Some of us learn from other people's mistakes and the rest of us have to be other people. -- Zig Ziglar
  49. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Seriously. I sold dew worms to fishermen for a year to buy my first computer (which I had to solder together myself). I taught myself to program, got hired to train other people, worked at solution delivery for a while, moved into architecture, then management, and now I'm the 1% that people complain about.

    Everybody wants it all but doesn't want to work for it. Guess what? It doesn't work that way. Bitching and whining about what you don't have and how others have it all and how come you don't blah blah blah won't cut it. You have to work hard. While I was building my first computer my house didn't even have running water.

    Ask me if I'm sympathetic.

    I bet you had to walk to school in the rain, uphill both ways! I'm not complaining that others have what I don't. I make a comfortable salary and think I'm well compensated. I complain because I see people around me getting the shaft. I understand that when fewer and fewer people have good opportunities, and the profits from increased productivity go more and more to the owners of capital, it negatively affects society. Our system works better when more people can have real opportunity.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  50. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by lazarus · · Score: 0

    You're right, the people who have it all don't work for it, they've already got it and now they spend their days on the golf course making the hard decisions of which division to amputate in order to make this quarter's numbers look good enough for a bonus.

    I get up at 5am and am on my way out by 6am. I get home around 6:30pm at which point I make dinner for myself and my wife, check to see what the ACs on Slashdot have posted, and then go to bed so I can do it all again the next day. I don't have a TV, a stereo, a video game console, or for that matter a microwave.

    I don't play golf and I spend most weekends trying to get caught up on the around-the-house work that I don't have the time or energy to do during the week.

    You my AC friend are either self deluded, have been taken in by the mainstream media, or both. And everybody I know with my kind of responsibility is still working their asses off after 25 years of working their asses off. Oh, and I willingly pay ALL the taxes I owe, every dime.

    It's not a popular message, but I'm sick of hearing the bitching. You want it, you have to work for it. Your whole fucking life. You don't want to work that hard? No problem, but don't complain about the people who do.

    Oh, and "golf-playing megalomaniacs like me" hire people and CARE about their well being. I hired a Lync/Exchange/Windows guy yesterday. I am paying him VERY well and he chose to work for me because I can offer him a better work/life balance.

    Okay everyone, pick up your stones and throw. I don't give a shit anymore.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  51. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best analogy I've heard is this:

    There are 10 people sitting in a circle, all starving. There is 1 can of beans in between them. Modern capitalism is a fight to get the can of beans. The winner:

    1. Works hard
    2. Is lucky
    3. Eats
    4. Made good decisions

    This is all true, but the fact is, only 1 person can have that can of beans. Just because 1-4 are true doesn't mean that if all 10 people did 1-4 they would get a can of beans.

  52. Menial Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, are '21st century migrant workers' the new middle class?"

    No, warehouse work is the new 21st migrant worker. That sort of job isn't and shouldn't be considered middle class.

  53. pot tells kettle by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Seriously. I sold dew worms to fishermen for a year to buy my first computer (which I had to solder together myself). I taught myself to program, got hired to train other people, worked at solution delivery for a while, moved into architecture, then management, and now I'm the 1% that people complain about.

    Everybody wants it all but doesn't want to work for it. Guess what? It doesn't work that way. Bitching and whining about what you don't have and how others have it all and how come you don't blah blah blah won't cut it. You have to work hard. While I was building my first computer my house didn't even have running water.

    Ask me if I'm sympathetic.

    You are awesome. That was sarcasm btw. Great that you went from the bottom to the top. Want a cookie or a start for that? A documentary by Michael Moore? You are not the only one. I came to this country with no language skills, working at McDonalds or driving fork lifts. I climbed all the way up so now I'm a nice, comfortable upper-middle class position.

    Your house didn't have running water? Woopie doo! I was in a god-forsaken, roach-infested shanty town nothing but with water and sugar for food and nothing more. Since you pretty much went on a dick contest (mine is better than you, you lazy slobs), I might as well join and show you mine.

    Seriously, you are one conceited cookie. Your struggles? Big. Fucking. Deal. You think your struggles and successes somehow make you fundamentally better than those who don't make it?

    Newsflash. They. Fucking. Don't. They. Don't. Qualify. You. To. Assign. Ethical. Scores. On. People's. Successes. Or. Misfortunes.

    More newsflash. That was what you just did by making a work ethics comparison between yourself against the less fortunate.

    Yes you worked hard, and no one will ever take that away from you. But guess what, you were lucky to live at a particular place and time and circumstances that allowed you to fully reap the rewards of your hard labor, rewards that were rightfully yours.

    No one makes it out to the top 100% by themselves, without any assistance of social circumstances and luck, independently of hard they work. Anyone who thinks otherwise is full of hubris.

    Despite all my successes that came out from a zero that most folks (possibly not even you) would never even come to understand, I would never come to believe, despite my success, that people fighting for better working conditions is bitching and winning about what they don't have. Things have changed to the point that they are truly dysfunctional. It doesn't really matter why as the problem is extremely complex and defies simple (simpleton) characterizations.

    It is absolutely stupid of you to characterize protesting, low-wage folks as bitching bitches that do not work hard, regardless of circumstances and context. But hey, if characterizing complex socio-economic phenomena with simpleton generalizations rock your boat... let them eat cake and shit like that.

    1. Re:pot tells kettle by lazarus · · Score: 1

      You sound angry.

      As it turns out, I completely agree with you with respect to growing up in a system complete with a free market economy, a social safety net, and a democratically elected system of government. And I have posted as much in this thread. That I left that out in my first post was about TFA which was about US workers in a US warehouse owned by a US company and an American president.

      And while it was fun to read your lengthy assessment of my character after reading a few sentences of mine, you are completely off the mark with respect to how I feel about the less fortunate. Again, TFA was about EMPLOYED workers in the US and the middle class.

      But you have a big dick. You win. Go you.

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    2. Re:pot tells kettle by airdweller · · Score: 1

      spot on. ...and I'm out of modpoints...

  54. crap job better than no job doesn't make it good by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this, right here.

    Amazon is contracting these jobs out so they are distanced from the managerial abuses, lack of benefits, instability, and poor working conditions.
    AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOLDS THIS UP AS A PARAGON TO BE EMULATED.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  55. and they should be happy - by fsagx · · Score: 2

    You don't understand. It's easier to make up a new definition to fit the conditions than it is to have the conditions fit the current definition.

    The chocolate ration is increasing to 30 grams!

  56. Probably for quite awhile by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I guess it depends on how you define "middle class". The traditional definition would more or less be people who are not rich, nor poor. That is how it came about in the first place. Back in the day, you were one or the other and the difference was stark. The rich had everything, the poor had nothing, the rich needed to do nothing, the poor had to do everything, etc, etc. The poor had at least one, and usually more than one, basic need un or under fulfilled. The poor generally belonged to the rich, literally, they were slaves or indentured to the land.

    Well as time went on a "middle" class came about and grew. They weren't rich, they had to work for a living, but they weren't poor either. They had their needs met, they had some measure of independence and self determination, and so on.

    By that standard, the vast majority of America is middle class. We have some actual poor, and some actual rich, but most people would be in a wide band that is the middle. There's great variance in that band, but the general statements of the original middle class are true.

    Now some people believe that definition is (or should be) changed. That you divide it down further. A frequent term you see for people who are not poor, but are only a bit above it is "working class". Middle class is then something higher up above that.

    The big problem is most people don't actually think as to how they define it. Online, people seem to define "middle class" as some nebulous kind of good lifestyle that they can't really define what it entails or what it takes to have, but that they think they should have and are mad they don't.

    At any rate, it depends on how you wish to define things. There is no international standard or anything so really, you need to decide for yourself what terms and levels you think make sense. But yes, $24k/year can be "middle class" by some definitions, at least in cheaper areas of the country.

    1. Re:Probably for quite awhile by Svenia · · Score: 1

      I understand this, and in a small percentage of communities perhaps $24k is enough to live and flourish. The term to me (and this is my personal view of it, not the Wikipedia definition) has always meant that a middle class person had anywhere from enough money to comfortably live (think in terms of enough that you could save for a rainy day while living a normal life, not a choosing visiting the doctor vs. rent every month type of lifestyle) all the way to comfortably enjoying life (you'd have enough to put your kids through college should you choose to, not necessarily the nicest private schools, but through public school for say 4 years).

      It seems these days, or perhaps it has always been this way seeing as I'm not very old, that middle class consists of enough to barely survive. You paid rent and aren't on food stamps? Middle class! So I suppose by what you explained then yes, $24k in some areas could consists of a very low, but still possible middle class, aka the working class. Perhaps that's just my age showing, or my ignorance. It seemed to me that the line between poverty and middle class was much more defined in the past.

      I just find it hard to believe that in most places a person can afford that typical american dream middle class lifestyle (modest house, modest car, modest savings, modest clothes, 2.5 kids, etc etc) on $24k a year. (At least in the places likely to supply the job you would need to make the $24k a year example.) Again, sorry if my ignorance of the world is showing too much, I just feel the article is an unjust phrasing of middle class that will influence most people into believing something is flourishing that isn't quite there. =)

    2. Re:Probably for quite awhile by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      By my definition, I grew up "working class". I always had food, clothes, TV, but no car, air conditioner, or fancy toys. Now, I'm middle class, with some luxuries (good car, Tivo, iPad), but I still have to work for a living, and will for the foreseeable future.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  57. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by lazarus · · Score: 0

    I'll take your bet. I've got two daughters making the same climb. Without my help. The first one started off selling doughnuts and coffee three years ago, she now has a college diploma, is in the jewellery business, and just bought her first house. Again, I gave her advice, but nothing else.

    Boo hoo hoo. Life is hard.

    Apparently I'm using up my 10 years of good karma in a single thread... What the hell.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  58. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the subject of golf, I wonder when Slashdot will start running stories on some of the latest crop of game improvement gadgets, such as GPS swing analyzers.

    Personally I could use a GPS golf ball *finder* for some of my wayward tee shots.

  59. I do find it funny how physical labour is "bad" by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    I can see taking exception to the pay. It is valid to have the position that we should be more socialist, that people in lower skill jobs should make more. Not everyone will agree, of course, but it is a valid position to have and to argue. However this concept that there is something bad about having to stand and move all day for work, or that it won't be in a climate controlled office. Oh give me a break.

    It is just part of this bias that Mike Rowe calls a "war on work" as though only jobs sitting at a desk are real jobs. That if you are out doing any sort of physical work, then your job sucks and you should aspire to something better. No, actually, it is perfectly valid to work like that and you can be quite happy. One thing I'll say for sure is it helps keep you in better shape when you are active like that. I was a surveyor's assistant for a while, which meant working outside doing physical things. Man was I in good shape. I felt good too, had more energy than I do now where I sit at a desk all day. This is not to say I hate my desk job, I love doing computer support, but I am realistic about the benefits I got from being active all day.

    So ya, I don't see what is wrong with these Amazon warehouse jobs, other than perhaps the pay. Trying to make it seem bad because people are standing and moving just smacks of laziness. "Oh those poor people, they have to actually use their bodies, which is actually healthier! Whatever will they do!"

    If Amazon treats them well and their workplace is safe, then what is to complain about, environment wise?

    1. Re:I do find it funny how physical labour is "bad" by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Does Amazon treat them well?, for starts no guarantee of employment, total hour flexibility - they can fire you at will, reduce your hours, change your shift at will then make you work 12 hours per day at a whim. Everyone permanently on an ejection seat. So it's set up with fear, abuse and "competition" (read hatred) between workers that have to fight for the crumbs and live in fear of going homeless or hungry.

      It's also a job of running around with boxes and maintaining very high productivity all day - doing that more than 8 hours is a bit insane - so I guess the work week is little more than commute/work/sleep. It's not a horrible thing per se and I do share your concerned that manual work is undervalued - which is a symptom of the general hatred towards the working class in the US.
      But I'm not sure you can disconnect the issue of wage. The job barely pays for the needed food intake, barely affording to be in good enough shape for the work is somewhat part of the working conditions. It's also amazing that $10.50 is "above the minimum wage" or that minimum wages are not adjusted for inflation. You people need a nice week-long general strike involving a few million people, with stores and fast-food joints not functioning, garbage piling up, trucks blocking the highway ramps, that sort of things.

    2. Re:I do find it funny how physical labour is "bad" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this bias that Mike Rowe calls a "war on work" as though only jobs sitting at a desk are real jobs

      That's my very favorite thing about Mike Rowe. Anyone else would have made "Dirty Jobs" about "see kids, this is why you want to go to college." However, just think of where society would be if no one were willing to replace the sewage pump in the bottom of the 500,000 gallon holding tank, or even do something relatively clean like drive around and collect our garbage. Such jobs are absolutely vital to our way of life, and it's absurd that the people doing such things aren't properly paid for their time since it's "a job that any idiot could do" and "they should have gone to college if they wanted a real job." The simple fact is that every low-paying job out there is something that we need people to do. It isn't like they're pity jobs with pity wages, and if minimum wage were increased, amazon would just say "well, we really don't need people to fullfill our orders and we can't afford to pay more for a job that doesn't actually need to be done, so we're going to have to let you all go."

  60. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when has every job been required to guarantee a "middle class" lifestyle?

    Being poor SHOULD be uncomfortable. It's a great motivator to work hard and better yourself.

    If you don't challenge your muscles, they get soft, flabby, and weak.
    If you don't challenge your brain, it gets soft, flabby and weak.
    If you never have to work hard to achieve something better, you get soft, flabby and weak.

    Want to know what's really causing our decline as a country? This notion that "everybody should be at or above average." It's logically an impossible goal, and guaranteeing everybody a minimum subsistence that is *middle class* means you've actually reduced the incentive for people to work, innovate, and improve themselves.

    Make education accessible. Make training programs accessible. Make health care accessible. And by ALL means, make sure that minimum wage will at least give you a place to live and food on the table and clothes to wear. But any suggestion that every job should have "middle class" wages is ridiculous. You don't need 3 big screen tvs to survive. You don't need a boat to survive. You don't need a McMansion in the suburbs to survive. You don't need a new $35k car every 4 years to survive.

    I say again: being poor should be uncomfortable. The goal for society should be making poor people capable of thriving and climbing socially, not making them dependent on a government handout for the rest of their lives.

  61. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    Oh, and "golf-playing megalomaniacs like me" hire people and CARE about their well being

    Then you're not a golf playing megalomaniac, are you?

    You also don't "have it all". You may have decided that you have enough, and possibly even deluded yourself into thinking that enough is the same as all, but you don't have it all.

    have been taken in by the mainstream media

    Maybe that is the problem, people can't just keep up with the Joneses they have to keep up with everyone they see on TV too. Maybe if more people could decide to find some attainable level of wealth to declare to be "enough" they could appreciate the value of the work they put towards that end.

    It reminds me of Brave New World where the alphas and betas are reminded that they should be thankful that the deltas and epsilons were there to do the hard work and to not taunt them in order to preserve the social order, and reminding the deltas that they should be thankful for the alphas and betas to do all the hard thinking, and that they should be glad their life is so easy. But no matter how hard a delta works they'll never become an alpha, and nobody encourages them to aspire to become one.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  62. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These are shitty, high stress jobs for people near the end of their ropes.

    Ah, so these are the new middle class American jobs!

    Exactly. This is the new reality. What we used to call "working class" is being re-defined as "middle class", and the new American Dream is "just getting by."

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  63. Re:Hope and change the Obummer way! by jdmuskrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i guess he is really just another fucking republican after all. corporations are people and people are nothing.

  64. Wal-Mart Effect by rullywowr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The issue with Amazon is while they offer great service and the lowest prices, they are forcing not only other businesses to go under but also dictating the prices of goods in the market. Many companies have a Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy in order to keep an even playing field for their resellers. Amazon is so large, and buys so much, that do not obey to MAP policies - they do what they please. If the manufacturer doesn't like this, they can choose not sell to Amazon and subsequently lose sales in the millions of dollars.

    In the wake of low prices and convenience, we are seeing the extinction of a free-enterprise market and the transition of skilled laborers to box-stuffers....all run by the efficiency of a computer system.

    1. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MAP is nothing more than collusion.
      I think they should be flatly illegal. In a totally free market no one would ever obey them.

      You don't want a free market you want a market that is ruled the way you like.

      The correct solution to amazon paying this little is just to raise the minimum wage for this job. If you don't want to do that, then you think this wage is fine.

    2. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The correct solution to amazon paying this little is just to raise the minimum wage for this job. If you don't want to do that, then you think this wage is fine.

      ???

      I read the part about simple day laborers sorting boxes making nearly $12 / hour and was amazed....that's pretty high pay for manual, no education required, simple work.

      I wouldn't have guessed hourly pay was that much for a grunt job like that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by rullywowr · · Score: 3, Informative

      MAP is nothing more than collusion. I think they should be flatly illegal. In a totally free market no one would ever obey them.

      You don't want a free market you want a market that is ruled the way you like.

      The correct solution to amazon paying this little is just to raise the minimum wage for this job. If you don't want to do that, then you think this wage is fine.

      MAP is not collusion, it is the currently best (and affirmatively deemed legal by courts) way to create a fair playing field for all the resellers of a particular product. I know most people feel MAP is a bad thing because as end users we all pay the same MAP price, just like trying to buy an Apple product - price is same everywhere. With this being said, when a company as large as Amazon or Wal-Mart does not abide by MAP, it is simply a race to the bottom with who has the lowest price. Because these large companies get a huge quantity discount, without MAP they could afford to sell for pennies on the dollar for an extended period of time. This action has the very real potential put all the other resellers out of business. When the other competition is gone, Amazon (et. al.) are free to raise the prices as high as they want as they retain complete market control. The manufacturer of the good is forced to sell to Amazon at whatever price Amazon determines. Amazon is so large that they can make or break a company simply by not choosing to sell a product...and you can bet your ass it is on Amazon's terms because they know the power they hold.

      A marketplace without MAP, as you suggest, is simply a setup for monopolistic control by companies who can afford to do it. Look what happened to all the Mom and Pop shops in the US with the introduction of Wal-Mart: gone. Without some kind of level price structure, the reseller with the deepest pockets will prevail.

    4. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I have no problem with paying the same price everywhere. I do have a problem with not being able to find the best price as quickly as possible.

      Dumping is already illegal.

      Mom and pop shops often were worse than walmart. I worked in some as a kid and they loved part time work, they loved to keep you on training pay(PA at the time allowed a short period of time of lower than minimum wage for training) for over the legal limit. They would go so far as to fire and rehire the same person over and over for that last one.

      You are missing one very obvious solution, do not allow resellers. You can use amazon as a storefront but sell your own products. Resellers are a middle man and like most should simply be eliminated if they don't provide value for both ends of the transaction.

    5. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with you in that location. I was just pointing out that singling out amazon is the wrong approach. Either everyone should pay more for this work or not.

      $12/hour to sort boxes were I live is a little on the low side, in even bigger cities you would find no employees. Here even McDonalds is advertising over $10/hour for some shifts.

    6. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      As Yoda stated, "there is another."

      WalMart, and Amazon are middle man, only.

    7. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with you in that location. I was just pointing out that singling out amazon is the wrong approach. Either everyone should pay more for this work or not.

      $12/hour to sort boxes were I live is a little on the low side, in even bigger cities you would find no employees. Here even McDonalds is advertising over $10/hour for some shifts.

      We don't pay that much for engineering interns where I work.

    8. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Around here you would get none.
      Not much demand for engineers in the fly over states?

    9. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Amazon is so large, and buys so much, that do not obey to MAP policies - they do what they please.

      Then why all of the "see the price in your cart" items?

      I thought that was a way around the MAP agreements. (Presumably because "if you're about to buy something, you have to know what the price is", and in your cart _can_ mean the same as about to buy something.)

      BTW, I agree with others that MAP is bad and if Amazon can help do away with them, great. (I would even agree that *dumping* shouldn't be illegal, except in some very limited areas, like *possibly* some medicines, or government sanctioned monopolies.)

    10. Re:Wal-Mart Effect by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      just like trying to buy an Apple product - price is same everywhere.

      I won't deny that is *usually* the case, at least in comparison to other products, but I presume that that is due to profit margins and the prices Apple *sells* to the other companies.

      But iPod touch 5th generation 32 GB -- $274.99 at Amazon and $284.99 at walmart.com. Both beneath the MSRP BTW.

      When the other competition is gone, Amazon (et. al.) are free to raise the prices as high as they want as they retain complete market control.

      Yet (ironically?), Amazon itself is a case of that not being true. "Books cost too much" (Crown Books' slogan, one of the few physical bookstore chains where you could get books comparatively inexpensively). Amazon could sell books cheaper than the other places, so did, and got market share.

      Even if Amazon theoretically puts these other companies out of business, once they raise prices TOO MUCH, someone else can come in and undercut them. Heck, even though of course big companies obviously can buy huge volumes of items to get discounts, you could also argue that some guy in his garage is willing to live on smaller margins as his business grows, as opposed to a publicly traded company that needs X% profit margins or their stock goes down.

    11. Re: Wal-Mart Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what? i want amazon's prices to be low. i don't want to shop at indie bookstores. it's not my job to care that they go under. that is indeed how the free market works.

  65. Divide and Conquer by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was a time in the US when the "working class" actually banded together for higher wages and benefits. There was a time when Americans cared enough about the future of their children to take the necessary steps to guarantee them a better future, whether they were garbage collectors or brain surgeons. The lessons learned from the affects of Robber Baron Capitalism and The Great Depression have been utterly lost. Utterly Lost.

    What has happened is(for lack of a better term, and a nod to Queensryche's 1988 masterwork, "Operation Mindcrime") that the 1% that rule America discovered how to "divide and conquer", as if that tactic hasn't been used countless times through history with the same results. Since the 1980s(yea, you've heard this before) the 1% have successfully rolled back the social safety nets, which in the past were mainly affecting the poor. Now the middle class is sliding down into poverty.

    This is no "market adjustment" or "realignment of labor forces". This is nothing less that a concerted and tightly executed plan to turn the US into a third world country, where the vast majority of the population is poor, marginalized and has little or no political or economic power, where a small elite controls all facets of society.

    The lessons learned from the affects of Robber Baron Capitalism and The Great Depression have been utterly lost. Utterly Lost...

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Divide and Conquer by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I just don't understand what their endgame is. For every example of sustained Robber Baron periods there are countless examples of violent revolution or coup. When you already own most of everything, why push your luck for that last little drop?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    2. Re:Divide and Conquer by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir, for telling it like it is.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    3. Re:Divide and Conquer by chakan2 · · Score: 1

      "I just don't understand what their endgame is"

      Does there have to be an endgame? As long as the 1% or whomever dies before the massive revolt I think they win. It's like the stock market, it's all about short term gains and who gives a damn about long term profits 10 years from now.

      The other point (and sorry for the crazy conspiracy theory aside) there won't be an "endgame." The local authorities have already militarized to the point of being able to take out every single person in their local communities in case of massive uprising.

      Maybe to phrase it another way is we've already been checkmated and the "Endgame" was back in the 90's.

    4. Re:Divide and Conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so, how do you feel about 20 million illegal aliens competing with Americans for jobs?

      It sounds like you might take a racist attitude towards them, arbitrarily deciding that based on an imaginary line on the map, or, worse, some different genes from you, they're not eligible for the American dream. Is this right? If so, for the sake of your soul, not to mention your job if anyone finds out, I implore you to reconsider your pejorative words about developing countries.

    5. Re:Divide and Conquer by booch · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.

      Besides, it doesn't make sense for the 1% to want to live in a 3rd World country. For one, if they wanted that, they could go do that now, and live even higher on the hog proportionate to their neighbors, while still extracting rent here in the US. I'm sure they want to increase their wealth, even potentially at the expense of others, but really, who doesn't.

      But your point that the other 99% haven't learned the lessons is pretty valid, as is the fact that those in power are helping the 1% at the expense of the 99%, whether intentionally or through incompetence.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  66. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. I worked in a restaurant for 10 yrs. to get a four year degree. I grew up dirty poor. I worked full time, and went to a college full-time, which was an hour away. Plus, my daughter had just been born. Hard times, but that's in the past and now I am easily paying for my daughter college education.

  67. I saw it coming by sageres · · Score: 1

    But tell me our dear 2008/2012 Obamaniac liberals Slashdot liberals did not see it coming...

    1. Re:I saw it coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted for him. Did I think he was "the savior" that all the conservatives mockingly called him? No.

      I'd vote for him again. Who's the alternative who has a reasonable chance of getting nominated and elected?

  68. My kingdom for a mod point. by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    The jobs described sound like most entry-level labor-class jobs - whether it's a framer, and landscaper, a farm worker, feed store employee, or any other manual job which requires very little training. Those never were middle class jobs, and neither is a warehouse job.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  69. It should be about "positive job growth" by texas+neuron · · Score: 1
    Amazon, Sam's, Walmart, Home Depot - etc. all cost less because they either - make a smaller profit margin, pay less for what they sell, or pay less to run their business or some combination of the above. All of these mega-stores have put lots of smaller stores out of business and the result is a net job loss in the retail industry. Folks are paying less money for stuff so it may be a net gain overall but to think these are great jobs - as Obama does - is not very smart.

    Contrast that with the Keystone Pipeline - high level blue-collar jobs with further job creation in the refineries. If we do not build the pipeline here, the Canadians are likely to build one to the ocean and export the stuff to be refined somewhere else and the result will be the loss of well paying jobs. When we choose to not develop ANWR and states elect to not drill for oil and gas - then we are shipping these jobs overseas.

  70. Denmark is a tiny little country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you raise the minimum wage to $20, and you replace the no-skill person with a machine, where does that person find a job?

    You're just pushing more people onto welfare and foodstamps, which is a bad thing overall.

    You cannot generalize the experiences of Denmark, a country that has an economy less than the size of North Carolina to a gigantic economy like the United States.

    1. Re:Denmark is a tiny little country by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      You retrain that person for something more in demand. Of course, this requires your welfare system to not suck, and to include an educational component (Denmark has free university, and also has free continuing education to retrain unemployed workers).

      The U.S. could do it better, if anything, since it has some economies of scale. The main advantage being small gives Denmark isn't efficiency, but social cohesion to allow it to set up such a system in the first place: people actually feel responsible for the progress of the country, not just getting themselves rich.

  71. Disappointment by vikingpower · · Score: 2

    Here in Europe, many people look upon Obama as the biggest US-caused / US-related disappointment in more than a century.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys shouldn't have given Obama that Nobel Prize.

      Obama is actually pretty liberal, more liberal than I am and I voted for him twice. Especially on matters of wealth redistribution. But the powers of the President of the US are fairly limited with respect to the economy - Congress passes the laws and there are two houses, so either one can basically bring the President's programs to a standstill. Every US President in recent times has had to come to the political middle sooner or later during their term in office, in order to get anything done with regards to the economy.

      Maybe that's why Republican Presidents tend to be risk takers in foreign policy - the US Constitution gives the WH relatively free rein in that space.

    2. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do many of us here in the US.

  72. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Kozz · · Score: 2

    ... given a full 40-hour work-week ...

    Except that with a job like that, they're probably not only paying low wages but also employing the people part-time so the company need not pay benefits of any kind. So the person maybe is only working 25-30hrs per week, and then they have to go get a second job of the same kind. Nice, huh?

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  73. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for you. Quit trying to fix the system so that no one else can make it!

  74. For Obama... by houbou · · Score: 1

    He got his 2 terms, so, now, its all about perception, getting to the finish line with some style and substance and hoping to pass the POTUS seat to another Democrat. Can't blame him I s'pose.

    1. Re:For Obama... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I don't think the democrats will take the next presidency. The young people that put them over the top are pretty damn disillusioned with the gap between what was promised and what was delivered.

    2. Re:For Obama... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Are these young people old enough to remember what happened the last time a Republican was elected? Or the Democrat before him?

    3. Re:For Obama... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Probably not in any meaningful way. Their most recent lesson is that presidential candidates lie... which I suppose is the same lesson they would take from the previous few candidates.

    4. Re:For Obama... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Since and including Clinton we've only had "Republican Light" Democrats, "Centrists", which is actually code for "we'll whore ourselves out to corporate money and push whatever agenda they want, all wrapped in warm and uplifting rhetoric about common American values of the middle class".

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  75. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, then suppose they find another can of beans a day or two later, and no one else has eaten in the meanwhile. The guy who's already eaten the last can of beans is in a better position to be able to eat this one too. He's (marginally) less desperate, but much healthier at the moment.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  76. middle class by nten · · Score: 1

    Originally the term middle class was used to describe the wealthy merchant class that lived like born nobility but were not. In the US which never had nobility, upper class was redefined to be the european middle class, the wealthy merchants, and that left the boundary between middle and lower a bit ambiguous.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  77. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

    I'm in good shape too, coming from almost nothing. Hardly the 1%.

    Perhaps that's the difference, because at the end of the day, I'm haunted by the fact that the biggest difference between me and the guy who's pissed himself on the side of the road while begging for change is luck. Sure, I've got skills, I'm intelligent, I'm a damn hard worker, but at the end of the day, I was in the right place at the right time. No matter how much I chest thump otherwise, divine intervention, luck, chaos, karma, whatever you want to call it, it's always the biggest factor.

    Heh. "Begging for Change."

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  78. What a creep this guy has turned out to be by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

    I feel like a dumbass for buying his bullshit during the elections (I didn't vote for him, but he seemed like a decent guy). I thought Cheney was a straight thinking, honest guy in 2000, too (didn't vote for that pair either).

    There should be criminal penalties for lying politicians.

    1. Re:What a creep this guy has turned out to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there should be a competency test for voting.

    2. Re:What a creep this guy has turned out to be by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

      Competency is meaningless if you don't have good info to base your decision on.

  79. indie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never heard of an indie bookstore before. i've heard of Indiana in the states.

  80. Obama Shamalam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrogant, Socialist Obama. Country divided. Inflation out of control. Outsourcing and importing at record highs. Higher taxes. Suffocated economy. Still involved in a war (ah... two wars actually). Gitmo still open. NSA way out of control. Homeland Security way out of control. Social engineering.

    Yeah - when will Americans WAKE THE FUCK UP??? Maybe when the damage is irreversible.

    1. Re:Obama Shamalam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH shut up!
      The country was divided LONG before Obama. Bush handled the division quite handily. Homeland Security - Bush, NSA out of control - Bush... Geez

      sounds like youre beef is with George W. Bush not Obama. the fact that the Republican run house blocks any real change that Obama tries to do... yeah lets put all the blame on one guy... when the problem lies in the entire system.

      DROP THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!! get more than two and see how well it can work when different ideologies need to work together, and not just fullfil their own agendas.

  81. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Svenia · · Score: 1

    I have absolutely no interest in walking around in designer clothes, driving a Ferrari or hell even having a spare bedroom. All I want is a studio apartment (closest one to where I live is 50 miles away, minimum here is a 1 bedroom), clothes on my back, health taken care of and a spare $50 every month after my savings to buy a new game or two. I don't want kids, I don't want a dog, I don't want organic produce, I don't want Starbucks coffee. I'm not looking for a lot, but it's becoming harder and harder to maintain even that type of lifestyle and I think that's ridiculous.

    Yes, yes, call me entitled. "When I was your age we didn't have video games!" if you will, but as AC said it seems a bit silly to assume everyone is out to become the next *insert FotM celebrity*. Some of us just want to be happy and not have to - stand/walk for 12 hours a day in 90 heat just to be a cog in a machine for a paycheck that may or may not even cover the lifestyle I referred to.

  82. the ultimate plan by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    It makes sense, actually.

    Total personal income (all) for the US in 2012: $13,401,868,693,000.
    Divided by the current population of the US (312 million)
    = $43,000 yr.

    Working for 11.50/hour = $23,000/yr. 2 jobs = $46,000 yr.

    So we see, the goal of Democrats is to make sure that wealth and income is distributed absolutely equally, with everyone working 2 shitty 40-hour jobs.

    Then, FINALLY, it will all be "fair"!

    --
    -Styopa
  83. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you think you gave your daughters advice and "nothing else," when you raised them in a middle-class home, with access to the social privilege that entails, nicely demonstrates how myopic you are. You really have no clue.

  84. Reality? by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    The current occupant couldn't find it with a map.

  85. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I see on TV, the American Dream is getting rich very quickly for doing very little work. I think the dream is what keeps people content with their continually lowered standard of living -- delusional Joe the Plumbers talking about taxes they'll never be rich enough to have to pay, and all that.

  86. Wow, what drugs are you on? by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    First of all.... the conservative movement of the Reagan era is LONG gone. I think that's worth noting, because America was in a much different place in the 80's than it is today, but also because practically everyone running as a "Republican" today has values very far from what Reagan did.

    If you simply want to do a quick "once over" of how the Obama and Reagan presidency differed, you only have to look at the economic picture. The U.S. was prospering under Reagan's administration. College tuition might have risen under Reagan, but so did people's ability to pay it, by and large. Obama has done practically nothing to "reduce government" that I'm aware of, either? Please cite these claims! If anything, he's consistently maintained practically all of the additional government baggage the Bush administration brought about (and which MANY people think needs to go!). TSA, Homeland Security ... these things didn't even exist in the Reagan days.

    As far as this specific article? I'm not particularly surprised to see Obama praising an Amazon fulfillment warehouse. I simply agree that it's an "interesting" choice for a speech about middle class jobs. I have no problem with Amazon, and would probably agree with Obama that the company as a whole is an example of a U.S. tech success story. But certainly, the temporary, low paid labor positions the warehouses create aren't doing much to improve the nation's economic situation.

    Overall, I'm very much in agreement that Obama has done an awful lot of maintaining policies and govt. programs put in place his Republican predecessor. But his predecessor wasn't following in Reagan's footsteps. (In fact, going back as far as Bush, Sr.'s presidency -- I remember reading an anecdote about Reagan feeling the man wasn't even fit to shake his hand at the inauguration, and didn't want to attend the White House dinner for him either. He only did all of that because it was expected of him as a tradition.)

    1. Re:Wow, what drugs are you on? by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      UID > 1m. Likely was barely sentient enough to remember Ronnie losing his marbles, and to read Bush I's lips on the boob toob.

      >conservative movement of the Reagan era is LONG gone
      However, this is simply incorrect. Two names, often heard together: Grover Norquist.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    2. Re:Wow, what drugs are you on? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      UID > 1m

      You are free to make whatever baseless assumptions you want based on my UID.

      Likely was barely sentient enough to remember Ronnie losing his marbles

      Ronald Ray-Gun never had his marbles, at least not since he entered politics. The best thing he ever did was an accidental case of brilliant acting when he managed to convince the Soviets that the Star Wars Missile Defense was real, but that wasn't what he set out to do. Everything else he did was horseshit.

      and to read Bush I's lips on the boob toob.

      I remember Bush telling us "read my lips, no new taxes" and then raising taxes. I also remember him describing Reaganomics as "voodoo economics", and vomiting on the lap of a foreign dignitary. Those events of course did not all occur in one day.

      conservative movement of the Reagan era is LONG gone

      However, this is simply incorrect. Two names, often heard together: Grover Norquist.

      While Grover holds every republican in Washington by the scrotum, he himself is not an elected official. Furthermore, what Grover dictates is many orders of magnitude more conservative fiscally than anything that Reagan did. While he may idolize Reagan's legacy, Reagan is FDR in comparison to what Grover keeps insisting on. In reality, Obama is more conservative fiscally than Reagan, and is indeed the most conservative president in US history.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  87. An absolute must-read on the subject by sootman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: My brief, backbreaking, rage-inducing, low-paying, dildo-packing time inside the online-shipping machine.

    "... when you're late or sick you miss the opportunity to maximize your overtime pay. And working more than eight hours is mandatory. Stretching is also mandatory, since you will either be standing still at a conveyor line for most of your minimum 10-hour shift or walking on concrete or metal stairs."

    "The gal conducting our training reminds us again that we cannot miss any days our first week. There are NO exceptions to this policy. She says to take Brian, for example, who's here with us in training today. Brian already went through this training, but then during his first week his lady had a baby, so he missed a day and he had to be fired."

    It's 4 pages. Take the time to read it. It's depressing as fuck. I buy very little from Amazon anymore, and when I do, it's usually from individual sellers, not "Amazon" itself.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:An absolute must-read on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know of any company where it's ok to miss days your first week. It's just getting off on the wrong foot.

  88. I have changed the agreement. Pray I don't change by Thud457 · · Score: 2
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  89. Be constructive by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about instead of criticizing a company for creating all these jobs, innovating an entire new industry, producing incredible value for customers, and instead praise them for doing so?

    Working for low wages sucks. I know plenty of people who do this. Often they are recent immigrants or children of recent immigrants. Both parents may need to work. Grandmother may need to live with them and do child care. Their kids might not have their own bedrooms.

    But having wages of this level means they can have a (used) car, refrigerator, microwave, TV, running water and a flush toilet - things they may not have had if they were unable to come to the US. So they are happy about that. But life is still challenging, though they get by and have a life as enjoyable as anyone else (I know unhappy rich people and happy poor people).

    Low wages are an important price signal. It says perhaps you should finish high school, or go to college like 66% of high school graduates, or go to a trade school, or become an entrepreneur and start your own business (I know a Central American immigrant who started as a maid, saved up money, and now owns a chain of restaurants). Or perhaps you should move to areas with higher wages, like the Bakken or Eagle Shale areas.

    Don't be like Washington DC and destroy thousands of potential jobs by saying Walmart should pay higher wages than the minimum wage. Don't force people to be unemployed.

    If you really want to help these people, first let them have jobs (i.e. at the market wage) rather than try to manipulate their wages and making them unemployed. Give them a chance to make some money now. Then they may figure out they need to save to get more skills, move, stay in place and learn how to move into management, etc.

    Then ask yourself why our unionized socialized government monopoly schools might not be preparing everyone for high-skill, high-productivity jobs.

    1. Re:Be constructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC did not destroy thousands of jobs. They just prevented some Walmarts from moving in. The citizens of DC will still need to get their groceries. They'll just do it at the local mom and pop down the street. Those local stores that would not survive competition with Walmart employ people too!

    2. Re:Be constructive by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The question is what is seen and what is unseen due to the basically Bill of Attainder against Walmart in Washington, DC.

      A study shows that a Walmart opening may negatively affect directly competing stores in neighboring zip codes, but that stores not competing directly with Walmart (such as boutiques and restaurants that do not duplicate Walmart's offerings) benefit from a Walmart opening, and this tends to diversify and enrich local retail markets.

      Also keep in mind that Walmart shoppers will now have more cash left in their pockets due to lower prices, and will be able to spend that money in the local economy. Enhancing economic efficiency does not destroy economies, it enhances them.

      Many of the Walmarts that will not be built in DC were to be anchor tenants of new retail developments to be built to replace run-down or abandoned areas - and now these retail developments are in question, such as the 18.5-acre town center in Ward 7. Moreover, DC residents already go over the border to Maryland and Virginia (where there are Walmarts) to spend $1 billion.

      In the poorest areas of Washington, DC, such as southeast DC across the Anacostia river, locals would greatly benefit from Walmart's lower prices and greater variety of foodstuffs and products closer to where they live.

    3. Re:Be constructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about instead of criticizing a company for creating all these jobs, innovating an entire new industry, producing incredible value for customers, and instead praise them for doing so?

      Companies don't create jobs, customers do. Customers are created when companies pay employees a living wage. In the long term, everyone suffers in a mindless race to the bottom.

    4. Re:Be constructive by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Companies don't create jobs, customers do. Customers are created when companies pay employees a living wage. In the long term, everyone suffers in a mindless race to the bottom.

      Entrepreneurs & companies create the innovative ideas that allow customers to benefit from voluntary economic transactions with them. Without that innovation ("I should build a store in this location","I'll make a phone with a touchscreen"), the latent desires of the customer can never be fulfilled.

      On the other hand, if companies are forced by government not to pay market wages, basic economics shows that leads to either shortages of jobs (if the price is forced to be too high) or requires some kind of non-economic rationing (if the the price is forced to be too low). This applies to jobs, cars, gasoline, etc.

      Manipulating the price signal damages economies and leads to less economic production ("deadweight loss") that hurts everyone in the long run.

      It may feel nice to believe that wealth can or should be created out of nothing or by fiat by god or government, but in fact wealth is only created by people being able to voluntarily exchange goods and labor in the market.

      Even before there were "jobs" or "money", people were voluntarily trading goods to enhance each other's wealth.

    5. Re:Be constructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of the low-wage jobs, then consider the the high-skill jobs. I believe that the people who get the higher education required, do so because those high-skill jobs are simply more interesting to them. The higher pay is nice, of course, but if apple picking and airplane design paid the same salary, there still would be plenty who study to do the more interesting work. Your "important price signal" is completely unnecessary.

      Also your slam on public schooling is uncalled for. Unions are the best technique ever devised for providing fair compensation for work. As for the schools being "socialized", do you really want them all to be private? That only kids with rich parents or some lucky cash wind-fall would be able to be educated? Come on, education is public because we need all our fellow citizens, poor and rich alike, to be educated.

  90. 90C ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Withstand temperatures of 90C? That's kinda hot. Water boils at 100, so to say you get cooked in an environment like that is very close to the truth. Even on that old fahrenheight scale, it comes out to 194F.

  91. THIS SHIT, right HERE by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    want you to keep your schedule free so that they can move you around at their whim.

    This seems to be a common pattern with many of these SHIT "recovery" jobs. They don't want to give you full-time hours, because they'd have to give you benefits. But they don't want to give you a stable schedule so you can get a second (or third) job to make ends meet. McDonald's is the specific case I remember hearing a report about.

    If those rat-bastards want full-time availability, they should pay full-time wages.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  92. Surprised you missed the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's no surprise that if the only thing you bring to the job market is a strong back (unless you're in the NFL) you're probably going to be at the low end of the food chain. Learn a skill, get an education, do an internship. These are entry level positions that have historicaly been filled by students, casual labor, and the unskilled. Why blame market forces instead of a mirror? Only in Lake Woebegone can everyone earn above average results. Few of us lay claim to chance success...programming, engineering, etc. pays well for a reason

  93. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    So you provided your daughter with comfortable housing and food and education, in a place or near a place she could sell donuts, and gave her advice (maybe there are hurried white collar guys that can afford to casually buy donuts and coffee, and that makes their day happier)

    I'd be a fool to call this priviledges but those little things can make a huge difference vs not even having them. Esp. when youth can't get a first job (been like that in my country for a decade or more, in the US it's becoming real but is very recent. It's called mass unemployment).

  94. Socialists, capitalists, democrats, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're all shooting wide of the mark. All these new policies, political moves, power grabs, changes to working conditions, hours and benefit structures, combined with the overarching driving need to accomplish it all under the name of ecological sustainability leads to one possible outcome: not eco-socialism, which, if done correctly might be better than what 's really coming down the pipe at us, but eco-plutocracy.

    Consider that one of the greatest spokesmen for the climate change camp, winning accolades for his movie (rife with scientific inaccuracies) and winner of a Nobel Prize for his contributions to the climate change movement, lives in a sprawling compound that sucks up more power than a small village and who has the chutzpah to write a cheque for endangered fish credits when it was found out that they were serving an endangered fish at his daughter's wedding reception. "Oh, sorry, are we eating an endangered fish? Here take some money to make up for it. That should fix everything."

    He also made millions of the exchange of Carbon Credits through his Chicago Carbon credit exchange. Thankfully that actually died a quiet death in 2010. There was a program to buy carbon credits for the carbon your body exhaled in your daily life.

    Eco-plutocracy, rule by the rich in the name of ecological causes and campaigns.

  95. Re:Temperatures that 'will occasionally exceed 90 by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Burning Kindles would make a lot of toxic fumes.

  96. Re: I have changed the agreement. Pray I don't cha by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1

    I would give you a +1, if I could.

    --
    The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  97. Math, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What planet do you people live on where income only comes from one entity within the house?

    It's been at least 15 years, to my count, that "middle" class families have single wage earners.

    Stop the $10/hr = poor crap; you're taking household income, calling it single income, and taking the potato that you get and calling it math.

    It's a hell of a lot more money than a single-out-of-work teacher makes in New York.

  98. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by lazarus · · Score: 1

    I completely agree with you. If you don't live in a country with free markets, which has a strong social safety net, and which is democratically organized, getting ahead in life (if you want that) is very difficult if not impossible. The people who do not, but want to, try to immigrate.

    If you're telling me that there is "mass unemployment" in the US, I'm calling BS. It's 7.6% in the US, 7.7% in the UK, and 7.1% in Canada. I suppose there is supposed to be some conspiracy against youth. After my daughter moved to a new city to go to college she called me to ask for money (before her student loans came in). I told her to get a part-time job instead. She called me back in 20 minutes to say she had one, in the same vertical she was going to school for, and that it paid $12/hr. Meanwhile people her age were camped out in parks smoking dope, texting each other on their cell phones, and telling the cameras they were the disenfranchised youth of today and we should all feel sorry for them.

    I know, I know. If you grow up in the middle of nowhere (like I did), you can't just walk out your door and get a job. That's why I sold worms, cut grass, and pumped gas while I tried my hand at writing articles and submitting them for publication to magazines like Compute! and Compute's Gazette.

    Sadly, they never published anything from me. ;)

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  99. summary of comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world has too many useless people.

  100. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

    I hope, for your sake, that as you are working on your CS degree you are also doing some jobs to gain experience. It will be really hard for you to break in, even at entry level, without some previous experience to show.

  101. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "despite an eagerness to assume some goofy kid is a dangerous criminal."

    Oh my god, you cannot be serious. So Trayvon Martin is now "some goofy kid"? Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

    Watch this, idiot:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

  102. Re:Hope and change the Obummer way! by Garridan · · Score: 2

    Idiot. Get your ignorant head out of your uninformed ass. Democrats and Republicans are both owned by big business. You're as bad as the watchers of Fox News who get riled up over the "evil democrats" and have never bothered to look in the mirror. There NO DIFFERENCE between these parties and you're a chump to fall for their finger-pointing.

  103. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it fair? No. Life isn't fair.

    That was my attitude until the last few years. After '08 financial crisis, read about the top 1%, the ecnomy improving yet hiring was stagnant, the board members of investment firms getting off scott free & blaming lower level execs for breaking the law, increadible mis-management and wheel sleeping morons at the SEC, the American prison population quadrupling over the last 10 years, the whole-sale gutting of the right of habeas corpus, and the complete lack of caring or understanding of the removal of the many fundamental constitutional rights here, I am of a mind that its beyond "not fair", but the game is rigged and not rigged for me or you. And you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  104. Koch Brothers by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a useful baseline as the term middle class has been distorted to the point where it has no meaning whatsoever anymore.

    In my benighted Red 19th-century state, the Kochs are running TV ads refuting the 1% / 99% argument, reassuring the working poor that they indeed are well-off and middle class. Pay no mind to your paycheck-to-paycheck, one middling medical issue away from oblivion, dear serfs!

    Exerable assholes highly deserving of dying in a fire.

  105. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by lazarus · · Score: 2

    This is the best analogy you've heard??

    In the US there are 14 cans of beans. And 15 people. (unemployment rate of ~7.5%) 14 people each get a can of beans, they are allowed to eat only 70% of the can and have to give 30% to the government. The government spends their 30% making sure that their hill of beans is protected from outside forces, that their supply of beans is secure and stable, that the 15 people have access to medical coverage, clean water, sewage systems, etc. The 15th person has access to the infrastructure the government purchased with the 30% of the other 14 people, and is given food stamps to get some beans of his own.

    The 15th person complains he is poor. The other 14 people complain about government waste and how the government should be doing more for the 15th person (without raising their taxes). Meanwhile in other countries without free markets and social programs there is one can of beans and 10 people...

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  106. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by airdweller · · Score: 1

    "The first one started off selling doughnuts and coffee three years ago, she now has a college diploma, is in the jewellery business, and just bought her first house."
    She got a college degree, found a job in the jewellery business and bought a house within _three_ years after having started off selling donuts/coffee? That's impressive, but I don't think that's a relevant example.

  107. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey now, maybe his daughters really did have to kill rats for food as kids.

  108. I'll be selfish with my time, thank you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not about money, it's about convenience; time is the most valuable asset you have. If I can spend that with my family instead of driving all over town to shop at a store that may or may not have exactly what I want, so be it.

    So while I'd love to ruminate about the poor old shopkeep who is providing what is now a commodity service, I'd rather focus on the real cultural idiocy - the disdain for intelligence driven by pop culture and the idea that education is easy (MOOCs, "online" degrees, for-profit colleges, etc.).

    I'd rather educate those looking to better themselves, something vastly more important than making sure they can make a living simply by re-selling other peoples crap, something that is a commodity service regardless of where I shop. Furthermore, I'd rather not define myself solely as a consumer by doing so.

    "Fuck you" indeed.

  109. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by lazarus · · Score: 1

    Yes, all completely true. One year college course in jewellery, moved to a small town to take a full-time job in the business, and she moves into her new house tomorrow. Mind you the house needs a lot of work, but that's really the point isn't it? She could be sitting in an apartment handing her money over to someone else and complaining about how the house of her dreams is out of reach and the people with all the money just keep getting richer. Instead she is building equity and settling for what she can afford.

    And she doesn't have a car. She walks to work, though it takes her about 30 minutes to do so. No public transit in the small town.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  110. unskilled manual labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unskilled manual labor

    I hear this a lot. Anyone that actually has had a jobs a manual laborer knows that it does indeed require skill. The difficulty is not in completing the work, but doing it without injury- be it immediate or through long term physical stress. Unfortunately no one can be completely error-free in the long term so the honest truth of it is most people that do 'unskilled' physical labor for an extended period of time end up with permanent physical problems. So the next time you see some poverty stricken slob limping along and being in your way to get to your cushy air conditioned desk job with a starbucks in hand, be kind. They have given more for their paycheck than can be replaced, something none of us on slashdot will ever likely have to do.

  111. Re:crap job better than no job doesn't make it goo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect from a president who calls a drug-dealing, intoxicated criminal his "son"?

  112. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    You can come up with a plan and work hard to improve a situation and still know that it's unfair and that it doesn't have to be that way. This false dichotomy between being a professional victim vs. being responsible for your actions is just a conservative talking point.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  113. 10.50-11.50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a software developer but $10.50/hour would be a raise for me. As an independant contractor I am also most definitely not elgible for any kind of health coverage. It's difficult to get high wages when work can simply be outsourced to thrid world countries.

  114. One fact fail in otherwise reasonable post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (1) Negative net worth != losing wealth. If I own a rental property or few they would most likely be mortgaged leading to a negative net worth. Assuming you've covered the rents the individual would NOT be losing wealth but generating it as the mortgages are paid down over time and equity is built up. Its called leverage., mind you it increases risk. Some types of debt are not evil.

    1. Re:One fact fail in otherwise reasonable post. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      If I own a rental property or few they would most likely be mortgaged leading to a negative net worth.

      1. It sounds like you may be operating under a misconception about what net worth is: The rental properties you own are assets, so the effect of those properties on your net worth are the value of the properties minus the amount you owe on the mortgage. So, for example, if you own $250,000 worth of rental properties, and owe $200,000 to the bank, that's a +$50,000 to your net worth. If you reverse those numbers, then that's a -$50,000 to your net worth.

      2. If one individual has negative net worth, that's not necessarily a problem. If over 50% of Americans have negative net worth, that's probably an indication of a problem.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  115. Re:Temperatures that 'will occasionally exceed 90 by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

    Because I was curious, and don't know how to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius in my head, I was about to enter "90 Fahrenheit" in Google. But after seeing the most recent NSA story on the front page and I just used KDE's krunner (Alt-F2), with nice standard-y, but somewhat unexpected results.
    By the way, 90 Fahrenheit is 32.2 Celsius.

    --

    Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
  116. What's your boggle, citizen? - not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What are you talking about?

    They're decent, honest jobs that pay a fair wage.

    That's about as middle class as it gets."

    This was marked as a troll?

    Remember asshat moderators, you're not supposed to moderate down because you disagree

  117. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you're not a golf playing megalomaniac, are you?

    You also don't "have it all". You may have decided that you have enough, and possibly even deluded yourself into thinking that enough is the same as all, but you don't have it all.

    You're right. The fact that he thinks he has enough indicates that he's not one of the psychopaths responsible for the mess we're in. Not all business owners are greedy monsters. The ones at the top, however, do not think they have enough. They will never think they have enough.

  118. The Real Tragedy by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    Sadly, most of the people who work at Amazon aren't Amazons. Any company that wants to grow should hire a couple Amazons.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  119. TAX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all im gonna say

  120. Taxes by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Govt doesn't need your taxes. Unlike you, Govt can print currency. Govt is imposing taxes to keep you subservient.

  121. Re:People Need to Get Over Themselves by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    What it sounds like is that you're working your good years away so you can have a bunch of money to be old and unhealthy. You have no hobbies? Any exercise? sex? any fun at all? You sound miserable.

    --
    -
  122. Amazon = low end Walmart by gnimblingpin · · Score: 1

    Where is the outcry from all those who are scandalized by Walmart wages/benefits?? I wonder if the difference in reaction has to do with perception in the public eye. After all, Walmart has a conservative family at the helm, and Amazon has a progressive one.

  123. Re:Hope and change the Obummer way! by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

    It's been obvious from the day that Deepwater Horizon blew that Obama works for he corporations. Why is anyone surprised by this sort of thing from him? What we know now is that Bezos paid Obama.

  124. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "Exactly. This is the new reality. What we used to call "working class" is being re-defined as "middle class", and the new American Dream is "just getting by." "

    That's the pre-WWII American Dream too. That lovely postwar boom and its lovely consequences finally petered out and the rest of the world figured out how to compete.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  125. Re:What's your boggle, citizen? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    "Exactly. This is the new reality. What we used to call "working class" is being re-defined as "middle class", and the new American Dream is "just getting by." "

    That's the pre-WWII American Dream too. That lovely postwar boom and its lovely consequences finally petered out and the rest of the world figured out how to compete.

    No, that's just not true - I don't know why you would make such an assertion.

    The American Dream, until very recently, was all about living in an environment where every individual can reach his full potential, as long as he is willing to make the sacrifices to get there. Since the founding of the country (and even before, to some degree), the Dream was achievable, but not often not by everyone. Note, first, that some people have greater potential than others, so it was not about everyone being able to reach greatness, but that everyone should have the opportunity to reach the pinnacle of their ability - something that was denied to slaves, women, minorities and other groups throughout the country's history. A situation that moral actors have had to fight and scratch over generations to correct and improve.

    The tragedy is that just when the conditions are right for every individual to be accepted for who they are instead of any accident of birth, the Dream is being denied to the vast majority of people, because of an overbearing government that values the status quo over allowing the kind of disruptive progress that can occur in a land of opportunity for all.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  126. Unions replaced by staffing companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is fascinating that these workers are employed by "Integrity Staffing" instead of by Amazon. It seems that prior to the massive assault on unions by Republicans, a union would be a buffer between a large employer and common workers. But now a staffing company is, somewhat, in that role. Except a staffing company obviously is representing the employer's (short term) interests, while a union would explicitly be looking after the worker's interests.

    It is no coincidence that the middle class is in such decline at the same time as corporate profits and cash reserves are at all time highs. That money was stolen from the middle class. The corporations are sitting on their huge pile of gold like Smaug.