We've already seen a decrease in people wanting to come in since Trump was inaugurated, and an increase in people wanting to leave. Soon the Trump administration will need to follow the footsteps of their favorite fascists and start signing laws that restrict the movement of people who want to get out.
Right now, most jobs that pay more than minimum wage (and I suspect at this point some that do as well) handle their applications in an automated approach, sending applications through algorithms that they seldom understand to pick out candidates who are "right". The problem is that a lot of applicants who match the position really well end up getting automatically rejected because they didn't write their qualifications in a way that was readable for the algorithm. Being as they had no access to the algorithm, there wasn't any good way for them to know how to format their application.
The solution is for employers to actually read the applications. This might mean even having people in the departments where the jobs are open get involved (rather than HR people who often don't have a clue what the job entails). Yeah, it will take time, but it will solve the problem. Right now we instead have companies wasting their time reviewing lucky people who are seldom actually qualified and rejecting people who actually are.
I know this is the opposite of the advice that was forced upon us by realtors and bankers but don't forget where they each made their money (both before and after the housing bubble burst). Buy the items that you are going to consume - all the way from your lunch to your car - and lease the items that should still be there when you're done using them (your house). Anything else and you're going to lose even more money.
You don't use up your car, you say? Then you're doing it wrong. You should keep your car running until it doesn't have a useful life left to it (once you have run in to a mandatory repair that is significantly more expensive than the market value of said car), and then scrap it and start over. You can do the same with a phone, but not with a house. Going this way you should have many years with a car where you have finished paying for it and all that is left is maintenance costs; the vast majority of people with mortgages won't live long enough to reach that point on a house.
Even worse, the mortgage holds you down geographically. You can take your car - even if you took out a loan to purchase it - and move to another state with it. You can't do that with a house; instead you have to sell it at a loss and you end up taking your new debt to another state with you.
The summary doesn't describe if he did anything to weed out the redundant files. If you have Cheerleader Nurses Part 4 in three different file formats (or resolutions) they are three different files but ultimately the same material. Similarly if he has three different crops of the picture of Sarah Palin's head cropped onto a bikini model's body (holding an AR-15, of course), they are still the same image. If he didn't do something smart to trim down redundancy I'd be he has not more than.5PB of actual porn.
Never used it. I am not on there at all, never have been. I don't want to sell my personal information to that company.
YouTube (71 percent),
I've used it maybe 10 times in the past year, mostly to watch videos of car repair techniques while I'm working on my car.
Facebook Messenger (68 percent),
Never used it. Why is it a separate app from facebook?
Google Search (61 percent),
Mostly I use this to entertain my son when we're waiting. My voice recognition calls it up automatically and then I'll usually ask it "how much wood can a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood"?
Google Maps (57 percent),
This I do use a lot, generally at least once a week.
Instagram (50 percent),
Never used it. I can't even fathom a good reason to.
Snapchat (50 percent),
Not even sure what this is. Is it better than a regular chat?
Google Play (47 percent),
Does that include the Play store where I download other apps? Otherwise I've never used it.
Gmail (44 percent),
I prefer the regular android mail app, though I've used the gmail app once or twice this year for times when I needed a more extensive search and didn't have my laptop handy
and Pandora (41 percent).
Never used it. My battery drains quickly enough without streaming music.
Geeez, Americans spend that much on hamburgers every hour.
Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.
Where is the "body shaming"? The first post seemed to be pretty close to factual. One source suggests that the annual consumption of hamburgers in the US is around 50 billion burgers. If we say that on average a burger costs $2 (assuming more are consumed at inexpensive places than not), that is $100B per year on hamburgers in this country. Divide by 365 days and we're looking at ~$273M per day, divide by 24 and we're around $11.4M per hour - assuming that the average burger is $2. If the average is closer to $4 then we hit the $22M the original comment was pointing to.
People love to bash on Chicago as allegedly being overrun with illegitimate voting. Now there is some data they can parse through to try to see if they can support it. How many people on this list are dead? What precincts can you put them in?
There is pretty good data on how Chicago voted in the 2016 presidential election, and we see only 1.02M votes cast (out of the 1.8M voters on the rolls). Go ahead and get more granular though, can you find precincts with more votes cast than expected?
The people who claim to be so highly knowledgeable on fraudulent voting - if they are as intelligent as they claim - should be able to resolve this pretty quickly. Go ahead, show us how bad it is there.
Can you provide a single example of democrat designed gerrymandering since the 2010 census? You can talk about historical examples prior but they are of little to no consequence for the current population of critters in congress.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion by reading my comment.
The GOP uses gerrymandering and voter restriction in parallel. The latter is what they sell under "voter ID" and "election integrity" mantras, though ultimately they have the same effect as they both aspire to disenfranchise voters and minimize - or complete cancel - the value of a single vote from people who would ordinarily not vote GOP. As we've seen time and time again when the popular vote is counted the GOP seldom wins, they have to resort to underhanded measures in order to build power.
If a party's message is that toxic to the American pubic that they can only enact it by cheating, then the problem is not with the voters who are voting against it.
Have you seen Bernie himself level any complaints against the process? No, because he understands how it works. He didn't get as many voters out to earn the nomination as she did. It doesn't matter if DNC leaders personally liked one candidate over another, they only get one vote.
He did draw attention to the problem of superdelegates
The superdelegates ultimately made no difference in the nomination; if there were none at all Hillary still would have won the nomination. There is a definite argument for them being generally un-democratic but they did not change the outcome of the nominating process.
Despite the media repeatedly being told not to report unpledged delegates in the totals they kept doing so anyway, and this made it look like Clinton had a greater lead than she actually did.
I saw plenty of media outlets reporting both with and without the superdelegate totals. My state was moderately late in the process and the superdelegate numbers did not discourage any voters I knew from going to the caucus.
There were a series of allegations by the Bernie campaign... one is information was being leaked by the DNC from the Bernie Campaign to Hillary
That is all that there was... allegations. People can level all the allegations they want. At the end of the day Hillary received more votes than Bernie and in so doing she earned the nomination. The primaries and caucuses are run by the individual precincts within the districts within the states. The DNC does not have a way to manipulate those results as they are counted by the precincts.
Have you seen Bernie himself level any complaints against the process? No, because he understands how it works. He didn't get as many voters out to earn the nomination as she did. It doesn't matter if DNC leaders personally liked one candidate over another, they only get one vote.
As to her qualifications
There was no better qualified candidate in the 2016 election cycle, period. It is debatable whether there was a viable less qualified candidate than Trump in the 2016 cycle, but neither party put up a candidate who was better qualified than Hillary. You can disagree with her on whatever you like or dislike her for whatever reason you like but there is no contesting her qualifications.
ability to speak publicly
She is a vastly better public speaker than Trump. Trump frequently ends up giving us incomplete and incoherent sentences in his speeches, and has a terrible grasp of facts and reality.
As to republicans restricting voting, justify that please.
Which supreme court gerrymandering case would you like to start with? Those are both republican led efforts at voter suppression. Which state attempting to re-institute Jim Crow laws would you like to discuss after that? That is also something that comes exclusively from the GOP.
it is about ensuring the integrity of the ballot box.
Can you show even a single substantiated case of fraudulent voting in the 2016 election? You can tell me about dead people on the rolls but can you show a case of a dead person actually voting? You can tell me about people registered in multiple districts but can you show them actually voting in multiple districts?
Really this is all a cover up for the real scandal which is that the Hillary camp stole the nomination from Bernie.
I don't know why the simple math of the nomination process befuddles so many people so greatly. Hillary won more states in the primaries and caucuses. That is how you win the nomination.
Fact is that the Dems got split by a corrupt primary
What was corrupt about it? People showed up and voted in the primaries and caucuses. Many precincts around the country had record high turnouts. Many states where the primaries and caucuses tend to not matter at all (due to being too late in the order) had competitive votes and did matter.
Bernie did not get as many people out to the vote in the primaries and caucuses as Hillary did. End of story.
serially weak candidate
She was orders of magnitude more qualified for the position, though simultaneously likely the only candidate on the planet capable of losing to Donald Trump. Hillary herself ended up being her own
worst enemy as she - by being Hillary Clinton - drove many conservatives to go vote because they didn't want her (or really, her husband) to be in the white house (again). Republicans went out in droves holding their noses about how much they despised voting for a pathological liar with three failed marriages, voting only to prevent the election of the spouse of a democrat who they have been programmed for decades to hate with a passion far exceeding the hottest of stars.
If the dems actually thought they were getting elections stolen from them, they'd be the ones pushing election reform. That they're the ones resisting reform makes it very clear their assertions are insincere.
The republicans are not pushing election reform in any real way. The republicans are pushing to reform voting, with a specific interest in restricting voting. Election reform would be an interest in actually bringing a wider array of viable candidates to the voters, and the GOP has less than zero interest in that.
An office full of people using speech recognition won't get anything done. While the kids might be starting to realize that since they never learned how to type they can actually speak faster than they can type, they will also have to learn that they can't all be using speech recognition simultaneously in the same room.
Apparently in spite of him being one of the most despised people in the country - people who were called for jury duty reacted negatively towards him in the jury screening process even if they didn't know who he was - they still managed to pull together an impartial jury. I'd be surprised if his attorneys don't have an appeal filed before the end of the day Monday.
Don't get me wrong, I have no pities for him whatsoever, but I would think they would base an appeal on the difficulty of finding an impartial jury. Just because he was found not guilty on 5 of 8 doesn't mean the jury wasn't biased against him. Beyond that, we all know we don't send rich white kids to prison.
I didn't say that. I said the NRA is racist. That is a big difference. The NRA doesn't give a shit about non-white people. The best they could do - and only when cornered in a TV interview - was call the shooting a "tragedy". Never a written statement or any display of concern.
Granted, that is more concern than what they show for the hundreds of innocent children killed every year in this country as a result of improperly secured weapons left around by idiots, but they don't get interviewed about those killings.
Fuck the gun grabbers. Thankfully they are out of power now.
There haven't been "gun grabbers" in power any time in at least the past several decades. If you think Obama was a "gun grabber" than please show me one piece of legislation he signed into law as president or one executive order he issued as president that changed gun laws or regulations in this country. You can't, because he never did. Even when the democrats had both houses of congress no bill was ever proposed that did anything about guns, let alone voted on, passed, and sent up for his signature.
You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple seconds out the door you are ready to fire.
It takes much longer than a couple of seconds for the mandatory background check to get to the FBI and for them to respond in the affirmative.
I apologize if that was unclear. The "couple of seconds" was referring to how long it takes to load a modern gun once you have it in your hand and have ammo for it - the person I was replying to was making a claim that if ammo suddenly became outrageously expensive people would switch to black powder to which I countered by pointing out how the difference in convenience of firing and loading could well prevent that.
The last time I had one, it was about fifteen minutes,
The last time I went to buy sudafed it took me 20 minutes and there were zero people in line in front of me. I could have rushed the counter and stolen in (as I could see exactly where it was) much more quickly but being a law abiding citizen I waited for the pharmacist to handle it the correct way. Some gun purchases may take longer, but a sudafed purchase cannot be rushed much more than that without raising law enforcement flags.
The NRA supports the rights of ANY legal gun owner to own or carry their firearms.
Really? Then why didn't the NRA have more to say about legal gun owner - and legal permit-to-carry holder - Philando Castile when he was gunned down by the police?
You can pretend that the NRA cares about non-white people as much as they care about white people, but the truth won't support it.
Indeed it is a joke. There are incalculable billions of rounds of ammo in circulation right now; we couldn't make them all go away even if we tried.
That said, I have a hard time believing that it would really cause an uptick in black powder sales. Right now as the law stands it is relatively easy to kill someone with a typical firearm. Hell in many states it takes less time to purchase a weapon than it takes to purchase sudafed. You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple seconds out the door you are ready to fire. Black powder isn't rocket science but to people who are unfamiliar with it there is quite a bit more effort and time into it. You can buy a black powder revolver but those are usually only 6 shots; you can buy a Glock with a 12 shot clip for little money at plenty of places, and even buy another 12 shot clip at the same time if you feel so inclined.
If somehow we suddenly found ourselves with zero non-black-powder guns and zero ammo for them, I expect a lot of people who would have used those to kill people would just find it not worth the effort and walk away from whatever caused them to want to kill that other person.
You have in particular ignored the fact that a family of 5 cannot just up and move on a whim. It is difficult enough for a married couple, but add three more bodies to the equation and it becomes a real task. Just because they are living in a garage doesn't mean they don't have possessions and connections beyond. Three kids makes it highly likely at least one is school age, and even if none of them are the parents need to find a place to live with an acceptable school system (or pay for private which likely they cannot afford). Same vector opposite magnitude would be if they have any kids who are daycare age.
On top of that is still the problem of actually getting even as far as a job interview. You never even attempted to address that problem. These people can't just pick a town, move there, and hope to find a job - that would be a recipe for disaster. They need to have some sort of job offer beforehand so they can even justify the moving expenses. They would very likely need to finance such an endeavor, and that would be incredibly foolish without a job offer for one - or even better both - of them.
In other words, as I already said before, they are stuck.
I'll just leave it here. Good day.
So you're quitting while you're behind? Good of you to recognize that. Feel free to come back and try responding to my points if you'd like to have a discussion. So far you have tried to declare victory for some reason without actually addressing the issues here.
Facebook is not going to leave the Bay Area any time soon; they are more likely to go out of business than leave the area in the next 10 years - and that will have nothing to do with wages or other business costs from the area. They will need people to work there. The fact that these two happen to be cafeteria workers (not sanitation as you have implied) does not negate the fact that facebook needs them to work there.
And none of the other problems go away as a result. They still don't make enough money to save up money to move a family of 5 to a market where cost of living is closer to the prevailing wage for their work. They still won't be able to get potential employers to read their resumes and give them a chance when labor continues to be a buyer's market. They still won't be able to get any kind of financial assistance from the government because they make too much money compared to the poverty line (even if the line should be placed much much higher in the Bay Area).
You missed the point entirely. Employers know ahead of time that these people made approximately $X per year based on their education and location. These workers then send their resumes out to another location where the prevailing wage for the same job is less and the employer automatically rejects the application because they won't pay that same $X wage. The worker never gets a chance to appeal their willingness to work for a lower wage in another community because they never get to communicate with an actual human being from that company.
Put another way, the company they apply to sees their application and thinks along the lines of "worker was making $X and I can only offer $Y. They will only stay with me until someone else can pay them $X, so it isn't worth offering $Y to someone who is not going to stay - hence no value in even reaching out to them for an interview or informational phone call". Then off to the (digital) shred bin their resume goes.
The worker won't get welfare for reasons already discussed. They will instead be stuck indefinitely in the market that they can't afford to live in.
It's not as if there is some database where they can query how much each person made.
No, but it is easy to get a range of pays that an employee working for employer X in market Y would be paid. The Bay Area is one of the most expensive markets anywhere, especially for tech professionals.
The beauty of screening & interviews is negotiation.
Yes, but the screening is often done automatically with little to no human input. These people would submit their resumes and they would automatically end up in the (digital) shred pile as the algorithms would recognize that they would be "overqualified" or "overcompensated (relative to the market of the new potential employer)".
In other words, they are functionally stuck. They can't afford to live in the market where they work and they make too much in that market to get potential employers to look at their applications. Many thousands of workers across the country are in similar situations but since labor is a buyer's market there is no incentive for employers to look in to ways to resolve the problem; it is cheaper for them to just keep hiring random kids straight out of college in the hopes of getting a good one than to adjust their shitty algorithms to try to get a good worker with experience.
Slashdot Mirror
We've already seen a decrease in people wanting to come in since Trump was inaugurated, and an increase in people wanting to leave. Soon the Trump administration will need to follow the footsteps of their favorite fascists and start signing laws that restrict the movement of people who want to get out.
Right now, most jobs that pay more than minimum wage (and I suspect at this point some that do as well) handle their applications in an automated approach, sending applications through algorithms that they seldom understand to pick out candidates who are "right". The problem is that a lot of applicants who match the position really well end up getting automatically rejected because they didn't write their qualifications in a way that was readable for the algorithm. Being as they had no access to the algorithm, there wasn't any good way for them to know how to format their application.
The solution is for employers to actually read the applications. This might mean even having people in the departments where the jobs are open get involved (rather than HR people who often don't have a clue what the job entails). Yeah, it will take time, but it will solve the problem. Right now we instead have companies wasting their time reviewing lucky people who are seldom actually qualified and rejecting people who actually are.
He'll see this as evidence that NASA is colluding with ISIS and then we'll really be in for it.
I know this is the opposite of the advice that was forced upon us by realtors and bankers but don't forget where they each made their money (both before and after the housing bubble burst). Buy the items that you are going to consume - all the way from your lunch to your car - and lease the items that should still be there when you're done using them (your house). Anything else and you're going to lose even more money.
You don't use up your car, you say? Then you're doing it wrong. You should keep your car running until it doesn't have a useful life left to it (once you have run in to a mandatory repair that is significantly more expensive than the market value of said car), and then scrap it and start over. You can do the same with a phone, but not with a house. Going this way you should have many years with a car where you have finished paying for it and all that is left is maintenance costs; the vast majority of people with mortgages won't live long enough to reach that point on a house.
Even worse, the mortgage holds you down geographically. You can take your car - even if you took out a loan to purchase it - and move to another state with it. You can't do that with a house; instead you have to sell it at a loss and you end up taking your new debt to another state with you.
Did they stop investigating?
Only if he supports Donald Trump.
The summary doesn't describe if he did anything to weed out the redundant files. If you have Cheerleader Nurses Part 4 in three different file formats (or resolutions) they are three different files but ultimately the same material. Similarly if he has three different crops of the picture of Sarah Palin's head cropped onto a bikini model's body (holding an AR-15, of course), they are still the same image. If he didn't do something smart to trim down redundancy I'd be he has not more than .5PB of actual porn.
Never used it. I am not on there at all, never have been. I don't want to sell my personal information to that company.
I've used it maybe 10 times in the past year, mostly to watch videos of car repair techniques while I'm working on my car.
Never used it. Why is it a separate app from facebook?
Mostly I use this to entertain my son when we're waiting. My voice recognition calls it up automatically and then I'll usually ask it "how much wood can a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood"?
This I do use a lot, generally at least once a week.
Never used it. I can't even fathom a good reason to.
Not even sure what this is. Is it better than a regular chat?
Does that include the Play store where I download other apps? Otherwise I've never used it.
I prefer the regular android mail app, though I've used the gmail app once or twice this year for times when I needed a more extensive search and didn't have my laptop handy
Never used it. My battery drains quickly enough without streaming music.
Geeez, Americans spend that much on hamburgers every hour.
Ahh, yes, body shaming from the "tolerant" Leftist.
Where is the "body shaming"? The first post seemed to be pretty close to factual. One source suggests that the annual consumption of hamburgers in the US is around 50 billion burgers. If we say that on average a burger costs $2 (assuming more are consumed at inexpensive places than not), that is $100B per year on hamburgers in this country. Divide by 365 days and we're looking at ~$273M per day, divide by 24 and we're around $11.4M per hour - assuming that the average burger is $2. If the average is closer to $4 then we hit the $22M the original comment was pointing to.
People love to bash on Chicago as allegedly being overrun with illegitimate voting. Now there is some data they can parse through to try to see if they can support it. How many people on this list are dead? What precincts can you put them in?
There is pretty good data on how Chicago voted in the 2016 presidential election, and we see only 1.02M votes cast (out of the 1.8M voters on the rolls). Go ahead and get more granular though, can you find precincts with more votes cast than expected?
The people who claim to be so highly knowledgeable on fraudulent voting - if they are as intelligent as they claim - should be able to resolve this pretty quickly. Go ahead, show us how bad it is there.
Can you provide a single example of democrat designed gerrymandering since the 2010 census? You can talk about historical examples prior but they are of little to no consequence for the current population of critters in congress.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion by reading my comment.
The GOP uses gerrymandering and voter restriction in parallel. The latter is what they sell under "voter ID" and "election integrity" mantras, though ultimately they have the same effect as they both aspire to disenfranchise voters and minimize - or complete cancel - the value of a single vote from people who would ordinarily not vote GOP. As we've seen time and time again when the popular vote is counted the GOP seldom wins, they have to resort to underhanded measures in order to build power.
If a party's message is that toxic to the American pubic that they can only enact it by cheating, then the problem is not with the voters who are voting against it.
Have you seen Bernie himself level any complaints against the process? No, because he understands how it works. He didn't get as many voters out to earn the nomination as she did. It doesn't matter if DNC leaders personally liked one candidate over another, they only get one vote.
He did draw attention to the problem of superdelegates
The superdelegates ultimately made no difference in the nomination; if there were none at all Hillary still would have won the nomination. There is a definite argument for them being generally un-democratic but they did not change the outcome of the nominating process.
Despite the media repeatedly being told not to report unpledged delegates in the totals they kept doing so anyway, and this made it look like Clinton had a greater lead than she actually did.
I saw plenty of media outlets reporting both with and without the superdelegate totals. My state was moderately late in the process and the superdelegate numbers did not discourage any voters I knew from going to the caucus.
There were a series of allegations by the Bernie campaign... one is information was being leaked by the DNC from the Bernie Campaign to Hillary
That is all that there was ... allegations. People can level all the allegations they want. At the end of the day Hillary received more votes than Bernie and in so doing she earned the nomination. The primaries and caucuses are run by the individual precincts within the districts within the states. The DNC does not have a way to manipulate those results as they are counted by the precincts.
Have you seen Bernie himself level any complaints against the process? No, because he understands how it works. He didn't get as many voters out to earn the nomination as she did. It doesn't matter if DNC leaders personally liked one candidate over another, they only get one vote.
As to her qualifications
There was no better qualified candidate in the 2016 election cycle, period. It is debatable whether there was a viable less qualified candidate than Trump in the 2016 cycle, but neither party put up a candidate who was better qualified than Hillary. You can disagree with her on whatever you like or dislike her for whatever reason you like but there is no contesting her qualifications.
ability to speak publicly
She is a vastly better public speaker than Trump. Trump frequently ends up giving us incomplete and incoherent sentences in his speeches, and has a terrible grasp of facts and reality.
As to republicans restricting voting, justify that please.
Which supreme court gerrymandering case would you like to start with? Those are both republican led efforts at voter suppression. Which state attempting to re-institute Jim Crow laws would you like to discuss after that? That is also something that comes exclusively from the GOP.
it is about ensuring the integrity of the ballot box.
Can you show even a single substantiated case of fraudulent voting in the 2016 election? You can tell me about dead people on the rolls but can you show a case of a dead person actually voting? You can tell me about people registered in multiple districts but can you show them actually voting in multiple districts?
Really this is all a cover up for the real scandal which is that the Hillary camp stole the nomination from Bernie.
I don't know why the simple math of the nomination process befuddles so many people so greatly. Hillary won more states in the primaries and caucuses. That is how you win the nomination.
Fact is that the Dems got split by a corrupt primary
What was corrupt about it? People showed up and voted in the primaries and caucuses. Many precincts around the country had record high turnouts. Many states where the primaries and caucuses tend to not matter at all (due to being too late in the order) had competitive votes and did matter.
Bernie did not get as many people out to the vote in the primaries and caucuses as Hillary did. End of story.
serially weak candidate
She was orders of magnitude more qualified for the position, though simultaneously likely the only candidate on the planet capable of losing to Donald Trump. Hillary herself ended up being her own worst enemy as she - by being Hillary Clinton - drove many conservatives to go vote because they didn't want her (or really, her husband) to be in the white house (again). Republicans went out in droves holding their noses about how much they despised voting for a pathological liar with three failed marriages, voting only to prevent the election of the spouse of a democrat who they have been programmed for decades to hate with a passion far exceeding the hottest of stars.
If the dems actually thought they were getting elections stolen from them, they'd be the ones pushing election reform. That they're the ones resisting reform makes it very clear their assertions are insincere.
The republicans are not pushing election reform in any real way. The republicans are pushing to reform voting, with a specific interest in restricting voting. Election reform would be an interest in actually bringing a wider array of viable candidates to the voters, and the GOP has less than zero interest in that.
An office full of people using speech recognition won't get anything done. While the kids might be starting to realize that since they never learned how to type they can actually speak faster than they can type, they will also have to learn that they can't all be using speech recognition simultaneously in the same room.
Apparently in spite of him being one of the most despised people in the country - people who were called for jury duty reacted negatively towards him in the jury screening process even if they didn't know who he was - they still managed to pull together an impartial jury. I'd be surprised if his attorneys don't have an appeal filed before the end of the day Monday.
Don't get me wrong, I have no pities for him whatsoever, but I would think they would base an appeal on the difficulty of finding an impartial jury. Just because he was found not guilty on 5 of 8 doesn't mean the jury wasn't biased against him. Beyond that, we all know we don't send rich white kids to prison.
to smear gun owners and call them racist.
I didn't say that. I said the NRA is racist. That is a big difference. The NRA doesn't give a shit about non-white people. The best they could do - and only when cornered in a TV interview - was call the shooting a "tragedy". Never a written statement or any display of concern.
Granted, that is more concern than what they show for the hundreds of innocent children killed every year in this country as a result of improperly secured weapons left around by idiots, but they don't get interviewed about those killings.
Fuck the gun grabbers. Thankfully they are out of power now.
There haven't been "gun grabbers" in power any time in at least the past several decades. If you think Obama was a "gun grabber" than please show me one piece of legislation he signed into law as president or one executive order he issued as president that changed gun laws or regulations in this country. You can't, because he never did. Even when the democrats had both houses of congress no bill was ever proposed that did anything about guns, let alone voted on, passed, and sent up for his signature.
You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple seconds out the door you are ready to fire.
It takes much longer than a couple of seconds for the mandatory background check to get to the FBI and for them to respond in the affirmative.
I apologize if that was unclear. The "couple of seconds" was referring to how long it takes to load a modern gun once you have it in your hand and have ammo for it - the person I was replying to was making a claim that if ammo suddenly became outrageously expensive people would switch to black powder to which I countered by pointing out how the difference in convenience of firing and loading could well prevent that.
The last time I had one, it was about fifteen minutes,
The last time I went to buy sudafed it took me 20 minutes and there were zero people in line in front of me. I could have rushed the counter and stolen in (as I could see exactly where it was) much more quickly but being a law abiding citizen I waited for the pharmacist to handle it the correct way. Some gun purchases may take longer, but a sudafed purchase cannot be rushed much more than that without raising law enforcement flags.
The NRA supports the rights of ANY legal gun owner to own or carry their firearms.
Really? Then why didn't the NRA have more to say about legal gun owner - and legal permit-to-carry holder - Philando Castile when he was gunned down by the police?
You can pretend that the NRA cares about non-white people as much as they care about white people, but the truth won't support it.
Indeed it is a joke. There are incalculable billions of rounds of ammo in circulation right now; we couldn't make them all go away even if we tried.
That said, I have a hard time believing that it would really cause an uptick in black powder sales. Right now as the law stands it is relatively easy to kill someone with a typical firearm. Hell in many states it takes less time to purchase a weapon than it takes to purchase sudafed. You buy the weapon and the ammo at the same time and only a couple seconds out the door you are ready to fire. Black powder isn't rocket science but to people who are unfamiliar with it there is quite a bit more effort and time into it. You can buy a black powder revolver but those are usually only 6 shots; you can buy a Glock with a 12 shot clip for little money at plenty of places, and even buy another 12 shot clip at the same time if you feel so inclined.
If somehow we suddenly found ourselves with zero non-black-powder guns and zero ammo for them, I expect a lot of people who would have used those to kill people would just find it not worth the effort and walk away from whatever caused them to want to kill that other person.
"make every bullet cost ten thousand dollars and there will never be another accidental shooting".
All points addressed already.
Where? You have not addressed several key points.
You have in particular ignored the fact that a family of 5 cannot just up and move on a whim. It is difficult enough for a married couple, but add three more bodies to the equation and it becomes a real task. Just because they are living in a garage doesn't mean they don't have possessions and connections beyond. Three kids makes it highly likely at least one is school age, and even if none of them are the parents need to find a place to live with an acceptable school system (or pay for private which likely they cannot afford). Same vector opposite magnitude would be if they have any kids who are daycare age.
On top of that is still the problem of actually getting even as far as a job interview. You never even attempted to address that problem. These people can't just pick a town, move there, and hope to find a job - that would be a recipe for disaster. They need to have some sort of job offer beforehand so they can even justify the moving expenses. They would very likely need to finance such an endeavor, and that would be incredibly foolish without a job offer for one - or even better both - of them.
In other words, as I already said before, they are stuck.
I'll just leave it here. Good day.
So you're quitting while you're behind? Good of you to recognize that. Feel free to come back and try responding to my points if you'd like to have a discussion. So far you have tried to declare victory for some reason without actually addressing the issues here.
Facebook is not going to leave the Bay Area any time soon; they are more likely to go out of business than leave the area in the next 10 years - and that will have nothing to do with wages or other business costs from the area. They will need people to work there. The fact that these two happen to be cafeteria workers (not sanitation as you have implied) does not negate the fact that facebook needs them to work there.
And none of the other problems go away as a result. They still don't make enough money to save up money to move a family of 5 to a market where cost of living is closer to the prevailing wage for their work. They still won't be able to get potential employers to read their resumes and give them a chance when labor continues to be a buyer's market. They still won't be able to get any kind of financial assistance from the government because they make too much money compared to the poverty line (even if the line should be placed much much higher in the Bay Area).
You missed the point entirely. Employers know ahead of time that these people made approximately $X per year based on their education and location. These workers then send their resumes out to another location where the prevailing wage for the same job is less and the employer automatically rejects the application because they won't pay that same $X wage. The worker never gets a chance to appeal their willingness to work for a lower wage in another community because they never get to communicate with an actual human being from that company.
Put another way, the company they apply to sees their application and thinks along the lines of "worker was making $X and I can only offer $Y. They will only stay with me until someone else can pay them $X, so it isn't worth offering $Y to someone who is not going to stay - hence no value in even reaching out to them for an interview or informational phone call". Then off to the (digital) shred bin their resume goes.
The worker won't get welfare for reasons already discussed. They will instead be stuck indefinitely in the market that they can't afford to live in.
It's not as if there is some database where they can query how much each person made.
No, but it is easy to get a range of pays that an employee working for employer X in market Y would be paid. The Bay Area is one of the most expensive markets anywhere, especially for tech professionals.
The beauty of screening & interviews is negotiation.
Yes, but the screening is often done automatically with little to no human input. These people would submit their resumes and they would automatically end up in the (digital) shred pile as the algorithms would recognize that they would be "overqualified" or "overcompensated (relative to the market of the new potential employer)".
In other words, they are functionally stuck. They can't afford to live in the market where they work and they make too much in that market to get potential employers to look at their applications. Many thousands of workers across the country are in similar situations but since labor is a buyer's market there is no incentive for employers to look in to ways to resolve the problem; it is cheaper for them to just keep hiring random kids straight out of college in the hopes of getting a good one than to adjust their shitty algorithms to try to get a good worker with experience.