They are undeserving of wages that cover things like their own apartment in SF. They need to understand what a budget is and live within their means, which includes finding people to live with.
First of all, I'm not sure you read your own response
That's not the assumption at all. The assumption is that a basic standard of living requires it to be possible...
That's literally what I said the assumption was.
Secondly, to think that every burger flipper in SF should have the ability to rent their own place is idiotic unto itself. There are too many people in too little a space. Something has to give. This could be solved by building taller buildings, but that's not likely to happen there, so they are stuck with finding roommates.
Lastly, I lived with two other roommates while working on my first career. Two of us were pretty stable, but we swapped out the third room a few times. We never had a problem finding another person and we could float another month if we had to, because we were living within our means. That last bit is a key part of being an adult. If you don't believe me, take a look at Kanye West.
And? Is your point that these low-wage workers in high income areas should have the same standard of living as someone doing work that requires a degree or any level of thought or a skill?
There is a faulty assumption in your argument, that a basic standard of living involves not having roommates. This woman in particular was living way above her means. If she lived in a shared apartment, she would have enough to get by on. Her standard of living would not be great, but what do you expect making minimum wage.
As a side note, even at my first job at 15 at a fast food restaurant, I have never made minimum wage. They offered the minimum. I countered with a bit more and we met nicely in the middle. If you settle for minimum wage, you are settling for the kind of life it provides.
She lives in SF in her own apartment at a low paying job. This isn't a story about a living wage. This is about one naive girl who had a hissy fit online when she found out you have to work hard to get what you want.
And before you respond with the being able to pay rent argument, you should add this caveat:
At least enough to cover rent w/roommates, food, transportation to the job...
This has nothing to do with Jeremy Stoppleman. This woman is clearly irresponsible and naive. Nothing she wrote depicts any sign of real world knowledge or experience. I, honestly, would not trust her to watch a chia pet.
Your point would be better made if you didn't resort to partisan politics. Right wing, left wing, they are all the same. They waist obscene amounts of money, pander to a handful of lobbyists, and enact regulations to further limit the freedoms of the American people. Voting in this political climate is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
There was nothing thoughtful or nuanced about his tweets. It was just a wishy washy way of not taking sides. At no point in the rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.
I used all of my past experience dealing with people to come to the conclusion that you were being sarcastic and even with that, I could've been wrong. It is all in the way that "Yeah, right" is said. Even in context, the words "Yeah, right" could've been supportive or sarcastic.
You do realize "Yeah, right" and "Yeah, Right" use the same words and its the inflection you assign the words as you read it that makes you decide its sarcasm.
But satire is not sarcasm. While it would be easy to determine the satirical proposition of eating half the world's people, sarcasm uses the exact same words with entirely different meaning based on inflection. Using some of the comments under my post as an example, "Awesome analogy", can be read as sarcastic or not. The words do not change but the meaning does. Context really doesn't help because he could genuinely like my analogy. In this scenario its clear to us he was being sarcastic, but that's more due to a lifetime of experience of dealing with people.
When you re-read what you wrote, notice you sound it out in your head. The tone of voice you assigned to the words sounds sarcastic. If you read just the words from your comment, it can be either sarcastic or supportive of my claim.
The real problem is they are looking at written data. Sarcasm is based on auditory and visual cues of the person. Detecting sarcasm online is like looking for a needle in a haystack when you don't know what a needle or hay is.
I'm not sure you understand the simple concept of ROI. You mentioned better tracking and conversion tools and any marketing team worth their salt is using these on a daily bases. Our team can track the effects of micro changes in ad campaigns on our visitor traffic and conversion rates. As we can quantify the value of a customer, its quite easy to do the math: X more dollars in advertising results in Y more customers. Simply stated, is X less than Y times customer value.
Obviously, this is a watered down, back of the napkin version. We use far more analysis in making these types of marketing and advertising decisions. Your assumption that all of these companies out there are being taken advantage of by online advertisers is rather naive.
You are confusing neurogenesis and strengthening of neural pathways. Muscle memory is increasing the strength of connections between neurons and neurogenesis is the birth of new neurons. Strengthening neural pathways does not make your brain "grow."
And this is why we will be in the same mess as Greece in 20 years. And like Greece, no one will want to fix the things that need to be fixed: federal retirement age, medicare, taxes, military spending.
Seeing as the idea behind Obamacare was universal health care, I'd say it's implementation was a complete f*** up. Forcing people to have health insurance is not even in the same ballpark as universal healthcare.
Not that I agree with universal healthcare. I seem to be one of the few who understands healthcare is a limited resource and as such must be divvied up some way. As I work for a living, I'd rather it be by the almighty dollar than some politico in Washington.
A) You are using a nearly 100 year old definition of the word
B) Hitler started under and continued to claim membership to the National Socialist Party
You are naive beyond belief, or just willfully ignorant. Not sure which yet.
Just to drive the point home, the modern definition of Fascism contains both the words authoritarian and nationalist, both words you used to describe Hitler.
Slashdot Mirror
They are undeserving of wages that cover things like their own apartment in SF. They need to understand what a budget is and live within their means, which includes finding people to live with.
That's not the assumption at all. The assumption is that a basic standard of living requires it to be possible...
That's literally what I said the assumption was.
Secondly, to think that every burger flipper in SF should have the ability to rent their own place is idiotic unto itself. There are too many people in too little a space. Something has to give. This could be solved by building taller buildings, but that's not likely to happen there, so they are stuck with finding roommates.
Lastly, I lived with two other roommates while working on my first career. Two of us were pretty stable, but we swapped out the third room a few times. We never had a problem finding another person and we could float another month if we had to, because we were living within our means. That last bit is a key part of being an adult. If you don't believe me, take a look at Kanye West.
Are you under the impression that SF, for example, doesn't have fast food or other predominantly low-wage services within their high-rent area?
And being a sensible person, I don't think that.
And? Is your point that these low-wage workers in high income areas should have the same standard of living as someone doing work that requires a degree or any level of thought or a skill?
Democracy tends to get replaced in one of two ways:
The people continue to vote themselves entitlements and they become a communistic society
-or-
A dictatorship with strong military support takes over.
There are plenty of historical examples.
There is a faulty assumption in your argument, that a basic standard of living involves not having roommates. This woman in particular was living way above her means. If she lived in a shared apartment, she would have enough to get by on. Her standard of living would not be great, but what do you expect making minimum wage.
As a side note, even at my first job at 15 at a fast food restaurant, I have never made minimum wage. They offered the minimum. I countered with a bit more and we met nicely in the middle. If you settle for minimum wage, you are settling for the kind of life it provides.
And before you respond with the being able to pay rent argument, you should add this caveat:
At least enough to cover rent w/roommates, food, transportation to the job...
This has nothing to do with Jeremy Stoppleman. This woman is clearly irresponsible and naive. Nothing she wrote depicts any sign of real world knowledge or experience. I, honestly, would not trust her to watch a chia pet.
Yeah, if you are an irresponsible child, which judging by her letter, she still is.
You do realize "work with" in the minds of all these people means secret courts and warrants forcing involvement. Don't be naive.
Your point would be better made if you didn't resort to partisan politics. Right wing, left wing, they are all the same. They waist obscene amounts of money, pander to a handful of lobbyists, and enact regulations to further limit the freedoms of the American people. Voting in this political climate is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
There was nothing thoughtful or nuanced about his tweets. It was just a wishy washy way of not taking sides. At no point in the rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.
Taxation and grants are indirect ways of controlling production. Wake up, the U.S. is a socialist oligarchy.
I used all of my past experience dealing with people to come to the conclusion that you were being sarcastic and even with that, I could've been wrong. It is all in the way that "Yeah, right" is said. Even in context, the words "Yeah, right" could've been supportive or sarcastic.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You do realize "Yeah, right" and "Yeah, Right" use the same words and its the inflection you assign the words as you read it that makes you decide its sarcasm.
But satire is not sarcasm. While it would be easy to determine the satirical proposition of eating half the world's people, sarcasm uses the exact same words with entirely different meaning based on inflection. Using some of the comments under my post as an example, "Awesome analogy", can be read as sarcastic or not. The words do not change but the meaning does. Context really doesn't help because he could genuinely like my analogy. In this scenario its clear to us he was being sarcastic, but that's more due to a lifetime of experience of dealing with people.
When you re-read what you wrote, notice you sound it out in your head. The tone of voice you assigned to the words sounds sarcastic. If you read just the words from your comment, it can be either sarcastic or supportive of my claim.
The real problem is they are looking at written data. Sarcasm is based on auditory and visual cues of the person. Detecting sarcasm online is like looking for a needle in a haystack when you don't know what a needle or hay is.
I'm not sure you understand the simple concept of ROI. You mentioned better tracking and conversion tools and any marketing team worth their salt is using these on a daily bases. Our team can track the effects of micro changes in ad campaigns on our visitor traffic and conversion rates. As we can quantify the value of a customer, its quite easy to do the math: X more dollars in advertising results in Y more customers. Simply stated, is X less than Y times customer value.
Obviously, this is a watered down, back of the napkin version. We use far more analysis in making these types of marketing and advertising decisions. Your assumption that all of these companies out there are being taken advantage of by online advertisers is rather naive.
You are confusing neurogenesis and strengthening of neural pathways. Muscle memory is increasing the strength of connections between neurons and neurogenesis is the birth of new neurons. Strengthening neural pathways does not make your brain "grow."
And this is why we will be in the same mess as Greece in 20 years. And like Greece, no one will want to fix the things that need to be fixed: federal retirement age, medicare, taxes, military spending.
Seeing as the idea behind Obamacare was universal health care, I'd say it's implementation was a complete f*** up. Forcing people to have health insurance is not even in the same ballpark as universal healthcare.
Not that I agree with universal healthcare. I seem to be one of the few who understands healthcare is a limited resource and as such must be divvied up some way. As I work for a living, I'd rather it be by the almighty dollar than some politico in Washington.
If you think Hitler wasn't a Fascist because:
A) You are using a nearly 100 year old definition of the word
B) Hitler started under and continued to claim membership to the National Socialist Party
You are naive beyond belief, or just willfully ignorant. Not sure which yet.
Just to drive the point home, the modern definition of Fascism contains both the words authoritarian and nationalist, both words you used to describe Hitler.
Ergonomics Kill
That would make a great bumper sticker.