If you're being paid for an 8 hour day you should do 8 hours of work.
So, not work for 8 hours, but do "8 hours of work". If I do that work in 2 hours, that meets the stated requirements.
I don't understand how this is going over your head.
I'm using the words you write. And when repeated back, you insist that's not what you mean, then you say the exact same thing, over and over.
Some one who finishes early and goofs off unnoticed for the rest of the time is treated just like the least productive employees because they are literally producing as much as them.
So you resent the fast employees. If someone does more than everyone else, they'll be punished, unless they look busy for 8 hours every day. I've worked there. Everyone got really good at looking busy. So, nobody did more than a few hours work, because it took so much time to look productive. But the boss was happy. Stupid, and getting no work done. But happy.
You apparently have no work ethic.
Getting more work done than anyone else is "no work ethic" to you. Instead, you should be rewarding the person that goofs off. They are your most productive employee. If you paid them 5x everyone else, then you could exepct 5x the work from them. But if you pay them the same as everyone else, expecting 5x the work of everyone else, the only unethical person here is you.
You are in AZ, and you know none of the details? Federal law can only be enforced by Federal Special Agents. A local official has no more right to enforce that law than KKK lynch mobs hanging Blacks for dating white women, and they (And you) are no better than the KKK.
Care to cite a reference to this? There's nothing that I've ever seen, heard or read that suggests that.
You must have moved to the US/AZ very recently. SB 1070 in 2010 targeted Mexicans (According to the debates at the time), and targeted Mexicans in practice. And it, and other racist laws like it, have been mostly struck down by the Supreme Court. Read the decisions of those for more background.
Your Peecee brainwashing is clearly slippng.
Ah yes. Lie and dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion. You'll fit in well in AZ.
I think you mean the right not left, but whatever.
Nope. The right wants to illegally deport the undesireables, or shoot them. The left merely wants to hold them in concentration camps, and pressure the feds to do it.
Call me strange but I really don't see a problem with requiring people to follow the law and deporting them back when they don't.
Right. The issue is that most illegal aliens *aren't* Mexicans. But AZ targets *only* Mexicans. That's unconstitutional, but the racists don't mind violating the Constitution.
Perhaps if you lived here for a while you'd get off your moral high horse because you'd have more of a clue about the actual problems,
Yeah, whatever they are, they aren't homeless. You do remember that the topic was homelessness, right? Careful, you are showing the hate you claim to not be exhibiting.
Ah, you are in AZ, where the far left wants the Sheriff to build a wall and keep illegal aliens in concentration camps until the feds get around to deporting them.
And "what you see" doesn't reflect reality. #1 homeless wouldn't be seen by you. #2 and #3 homeless are the ones that stand out. I had homeless in my schools. You couldn't pick them out. Just because they don't know where they are sleeping that night doesn't mean they wear a huge sign that says "I'm homeless".
The point of drug testing people on benefits is not to remove their benefits and therefore save money, it is to identify people who are
in a highly undesirable situation, and give them a reason to get out of that - almost always with assistance offered, etc.
No assistance is offered. Your assumptions are wrong. It's purely a race-based punishment
If you are poor AND hooked on drugs, there is NO way out - if you are just poor, there is at least a chance.
The poor hooked on illegal drugs is relatively small, as the poor can't afford anything but alcohol. Note, they only test for illegal drugs, not the legal ones.
It looks like it's all about money because you don't understand.
The fact that drugs are a PRIMARY indicator of criminal activity in the poor is some kind of ism
I guess and cannot be discussed either?
Do you have support for that assertion? I've sen a number of PRIMARY indicators of criminal activity given, and everyone who gives one has their own agenda. Note, places with legal drug use do not have the same problems as the US.
I never claimed you were white. You know I'm wrong, yet you can't get anything right. Based on your own statements, you were a beggar by choice. Welfare isn't a trap. You indicated you had help available, but chose to not use it. So help available isn't a trap. Or you are the sole exception?
My tax rate is less than 10% (for federal income tax), under 20% for all taxes (federal, including SS/medicare, state and local). Taxes are very regressive. Once you reach the top 10%, you structure your income and deductions to pay less than those who make less. The 1% make nothing in wages. Everything gets structured as capital gains, income tax capped at 15%. The poor schmucks working for a living pay up to almost 40%. The rich never pay more than 15% (and usually then structure expenses as company expenses, for a 0% tax rate).
You're talking about handing money to someone who has already been refused by family and friends
You are so privileged you can't even conceive of a world where friends and family might decline to give money because they have none to give. Do you want to give a moral test to everyone who receives government money? Like the drug tests, they should start with elected officials.
Wow, you must be dumb. I get it. You don't. Yes, there's always more work. I could work 90 hours a day and not do all the work. So how much is enough? 2 hours? 8 hours? 8 hours effort (even if it takes only 2 hours)?
You won't accept that anyone can understand you and still disagree. That makes you look like an idiot. Two people can look at the same facts and come to different opinions. That my opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't understand your facts.
All of those people who finish their project at above average speed and ask what's next will be well ahead of you in a few years.
And if I do the work of those "above average" people in 3 hours, put in another 1, so I'm 33% more productive than those "above average" workers, then goof off for 4 hours a day, what would happen? Would you punish the person that's 33% more productive than everyone else because you want to make sure they are well punished for not doing 21 hours of work every day? Or reward them based on their productivity?
Yes, it will work. The same "it'll never work" has been said many times about single-payer health care, but a number of country have it, and have better overall health than the US. You can say it won't work. But it will. It'll just take someone to do it. Yes, we know you are a coward, you don't want to try of find out.
SS and Medic* combined are over $1.9 T - there's just no way to replace them with basic income
You say that 3 times, but don't indicate why or how. SS *IS* a basic income. Why can't you pay the UBI rather than SS?
we'd need to pay seniors if we dropped those two programs.
Which is why most places with anything approaching UBI have single-payer health care. It'd be much better than what the US has now, and significantly cheaper. But we can't have cheaper. The conservatives object to a balanced budget with inexpensive and effective services.
A true crisis is 10 (or whatever) things, and the car breaks down. $1000 could fix/replace the car, and start back on the road to recovery. But selling the broken car for $50 and losing your job because you can't get to work on time without a car results in the homelessness.
I've seen multiple people where they had the choice of eat or be homeless. Often it's people right on the edge, then work decides to cut their hours a little, squeezes down. They start looking for something else, but don't find anything by the time their income won't cover the basics. The buffer gives them more time to find another job, or spend the money to cut costs. ,br>So often saving money is expensive. How does someone without a car move home to a cheaper one? Rent something to take their stuff. So it takes money to save money.
#3 is a red herring. It's the demon that's invented to lump all the #1 into, so we don't have to think about the millions of responsible and stable people who end up homeless.
Almost all homeless are #1. And $1000 could make all the difference. But if you hate #3 so much that you'r rather have 1,000,000 #1 than pay 10 #3, then it's not a financial choice, but a personal and punitive one.
So what? The studies on the "drug test those on welfare" have shown that the tests cost more than the benefits received by those who tested positive. If you want financial responsibility, you should pay out the drug users. But we don't want "responsibility", we want punitive games. Punish people we don't like, even if the cost of the punishment is much greater than the problem caused. Most welfare recipients are white, but people think of the "average" welfare recipient as a Black person. Why? Studies have shown that if you show the plight of poor whites, then ask about welfare, people are more willing to increase welfare, than if you ask without that background, or show Blacks on welfare.
So, just the same as the Fair Tax regressive tax pushed by conservatives? I got thrown out of a Fair Tax meeting for asking what the justification was for the numbers used, and what the effect would be if the numbers were tweaked. They only wanted the groupthink members to attend so they could compliment themselves on how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is, and questions, even in the question period, weren't allowed.
Drop all other welfare, and run the numbers again. It'd be a spending cut. Not an increase. And if a welfare state is as bad as the Republicans say, we can eliminate the massive military spending, because nobody would want to invade. Net savings, and increased benefits.
Lack of opportunity teaches people to slack. Money is irrelevant to whether people slack. That you object to helping people doesn't mean you have to lie about it too.
So, if someone wants the benefits of the police, but doesn't want to pay for them, will they be covered? Or will they be excluded? That's always been the problem with "voluntary" basic services.
I have empathy for the map maker. No exception handling is ever correct. Ideally, you'd halt. Return NULL, and let the application handle the error. But the map makers and users hate that, so you give them what they want, a 100% correct answer (a location in the middle, with an error to include it all), but, as we see here, that's undesirable as well. If they'd returned the NULL, they'd have gone out of business. So, they made the correct choice.
That's for the application, not the map maker. The map maker gave the most accurate result possible, that the applications people screwed it up is a separate issue.
I was clearly talking about the major social media groups. In that set, nobody has solved the problem. 3rd party add-ons weren't in the set addressed.
And you don't seem to get your hypocricy where you complain when I mention a non-twitter in a twitter-only discussion, then in a twitter-only discussion, you include 3rd party mods. If the world is wider, then it's your error for trying to narrow down the discussion to Twitter Inc. only, or it's your error for including a 3rd-party solution. All the bluster is cover up for your obviousl double-standard, so preserve your cognitive dissonance.
"that person who gets their work done 40% earlier and then goofs off is just as valuble to me as some one who takes the full amount of time alloted"
I'm still saying slacking off because you got your work done early is lazy
So which is it? Is it worse to get your work done in the allotted time (if done in a way you don't like) or is it the same to get it done in the allotted time?
"just as valuable" is an equivalence. That's not a preference. You resent those who work fast, and disparage them, but claim they are worth the same.
Slacking off because you are incompetent gets a pass, and slacking off because you are good is punished, or they are the same. Or they are the same, but you prefer the incompetent to the "lazy".
Slashdot Mirror
If you're being paid for an 8 hour day you should do 8 hours of work.
So, not work for 8 hours, but do "8 hours of work". If I do that work in 2 hours, that meets the stated requirements.
I don't understand how this is going over your head.
I'm using the words you write. And when repeated back, you insist that's not what you mean, then you say the exact same thing, over and over.
Some one who finishes early and goofs off unnoticed for the rest of the time is treated just like the least productive employees because they are literally producing as much as them.
So you resent the fast employees. If someone does more than everyone else, they'll be punished, unless they look busy for 8 hours every day. I've worked there. Everyone got really good at looking busy. So, nobody did more than a few hours work, because it took so much time to look productive. But the boss was happy. Stupid, and getting no work done. But happy.
You apparently have no work ethic.
Getting more work done than anyone else is "no work ethic" to you. Instead, you should be rewarding the person that goofs off. They are your most productive employee. If you paid them 5x everyone else, then you could exepct 5x the work from them. But if you pay them the same as everyone else, expecting 5x the work of everyone else, the only unethical person here is you.
Whats illegal about deporting illegals?
You are in AZ, and you know none of the details? Federal law can only be enforced by Federal Special Agents. A local official has no more right to enforce that law than KKK lynch mobs hanging Blacks for dating white women, and they (And you) are no better than the KKK.
Care to cite a reference to this? There's nothing that I've ever seen, heard or read that suggests that.
You must have moved to the US/AZ very recently. SB 1070 in 2010 targeted Mexicans (According to the debates at the time), and targeted Mexicans in practice. And it, and other racist laws like it, have been mostly struck down by the Supreme Court. Read the decisions of those for more background.
Your Peecee brainwashing is clearly slippng.
Ah yes. Lie and dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion. You'll fit in well in AZ.
I think you mean the right not left, but whatever.
Nope. The right wants to illegally deport the undesireables, or shoot them. The left merely wants to hold them in concentration camps, and pressure the feds to do it.
Call me strange but I really don't see a problem with requiring people to follow the law and deporting them back when they don't.
Right. The issue is that most illegal aliens *aren't* Mexicans. But AZ targets *only* Mexicans. That's unconstitutional, but the racists don't mind violating the Constitution.
Perhaps if you lived here for a while you'd get off your moral high horse because you'd have more of a clue about the actual problems,
Yeah, whatever they are, they aren't homeless. You do remember that the topic was homelessness, right? Careful, you are showing the hate you claim to not be exhibiting.
Ah, you are in AZ, where the far left wants the Sheriff to build a wall and keep illegal aliens in concentration camps until the feds get around to deporting them.
And "what you see" doesn't reflect reality. #1 homeless wouldn't be seen by you. #2 and #3 homeless are the ones that stand out. I had homeless in my schools. You couldn't pick them out. Just because they don't know where they are sleeping that night doesn't mean they wear a huge sign that says "I'm homeless".
The point of drug testing people on benefits is not to remove their benefits and therefore save money, it is to identify people who are in a highly undesirable situation, and give them a reason to get out of that - almost always with assistance offered, etc.
No assistance is offered. Your assumptions are wrong. It's purely a race-based punishment
If you are poor AND hooked on drugs, there is NO way out - if you are just poor, there is at least a chance.
The poor hooked on illegal drugs is relatively small, as the poor can't afford anything but alcohol. Note, they only test for illegal drugs, not the legal ones.
It looks like it's all about money because you don't understand.
The fact that drugs are a PRIMARY indicator of criminal activity in the poor is some kind of ism I guess and cannot be discussed either?
Do you have support for that assertion? I've sen a number of PRIMARY indicators of criminal activity given, and everyone who gives one has their own agenda. Note, places with legal drug use do not have the same problems as the US.
Yet, in your little mind, anyone, anywhere and anytime who knows anything about the poor that conflicts with your chosen ideology must be privileged?
Nope. Only you are saying that.
I've been there, as a beggar;
The people who truly have no one to turn to are outliers,
So, you were a homeless beggar by choice? Or is the answer going to be more insults and ad hominem?
I never claimed you were white. You know I'm wrong, yet you can't get anything right. Based on your own statements, you were a beggar by choice. Welfare isn't a trap. You indicated you had help available, but chose to not use it. So help available isn't a trap. Or you are the sole exception?
My tax rate is less than 10% (for federal income tax), under 20% for all taxes (federal, including SS/medicare, state and local). Taxes are very regressive. Once you reach the top 10%, you structure your income and deductions to pay less than those who make less. The 1% make nothing in wages. Everything gets structured as capital gains, income tax capped at 15%. The poor schmucks working for a living pay up to almost 40%. The rich never pay more than 15% (and usually then structure expenses as company expenses, for a 0% tax rate).
You're talking about handing money to someone who has already been refused by family and friends
You are so privileged you can't even conceive of a world where friends and family might decline to give money because they have none to give. Do you want to give a moral test to everyone who receives government money? Like the drug tests, they should start with elected officials.
How on earth are not understanding this?
Wow, you must be dumb. I get it. You don't. Yes, there's always more work. I could work 90 hours a day and not do all the work. So how much is enough? 2 hours? 8 hours? 8 hours effort (even if it takes only 2 hours)?
You won't accept that anyone can understand you and still disagree. That makes you look like an idiot. Two people can look at the same facts and come to different opinions. That my opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't understand your facts.
All of those people who finish their project at above average speed and ask what's next will be well ahead of you in a few years.
And if I do the work of those "above average" people in 3 hours, put in another 1, so I'm 33% more productive than those "above average" workers, then goof off for 4 hours a day, what would happen? Would you punish the person that's 33% more productive than everyone else because you want to make sure they are well punished for not doing 21 hours of work every day? Or reward them based on their productivity?
Yes, it will work. The same "it'll never work" has been said many times about single-payer health care, but a number of country have it, and have better overall health than the US. You can say it won't work. But it will. It'll just take someone to do it. Yes, we know you are a coward, you don't want to try of find out.
SS and Medic* combined are over $1.9 T - there's just no way to replace them with basic income
You say that 3 times, but don't indicate why or how. SS *IS* a basic income. Why can't you pay the UBI rather than SS?
we'd need to pay seniors if we dropped those two programs.
Which is why most places with anything approaching UBI have single-payer health care. It'd be much better than what the US has now, and significantly cheaper. But we can't have cheaper. The conservatives object to a balanced budget with inexpensive and effective services.
A true crisis is 10 (or whatever) things, and the car breaks down. $1000 could fix/replace the car, and start back on the road to recovery. But selling the broken car for $50 and losing your job because you can't get to work on time without a car results in the homelessness.
I've seen multiple people where they had the choice of eat or be homeless. Often it's people right on the edge, then work decides to cut their hours a little, squeezes down. They start looking for something else, but don't find anything by the time their income won't cover the basics. The buffer gives them more time to find another job, or spend the money to cut costs.
,br>So often saving money is expensive. How does someone without a car move home to a cheaper one? Rent something to take their stuff. So it takes money to save money.
#3 is a red herring. It's the demon that's invented to lump all the #1 into, so we don't have to think about the millions of responsible and stable people who end up homeless.
Almost all homeless are #1. And $1000 could make all the difference. But if you hate #3 so much that you'r rather have 1,000,000 #1 than pay 10 #3, then it's not a financial choice, but a personal and punitive one.
So what? The studies on the "drug test those on welfare" have shown that the tests cost more than the benefits received by those who tested positive. If you want financial responsibility, you should pay out the drug users. But we don't want "responsibility", we want punitive games. Punish people we don't like, even if the cost of the punishment is much greater than the problem caused. Most welfare recipients are white, but people think of the "average" welfare recipient as a Black person. Why? Studies have shown that if you show the plight of poor whites, then ask about welfare, people are more willing to increase welfare, than if you ask without that background, or show Blacks on welfare.
It's more a racial issue than a financial one.
So, just the same as the Fair Tax regressive tax pushed by conservatives? I got thrown out of a Fair Tax meeting for asking what the justification was for the numbers used, and what the effect would be if the numbers were tweaked. They only wanted the groupthink members to attend so they could compliment themselves on how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is, and questions, even in the question period, weren't allowed.
Drop all other welfare, and run the numbers again. It'd be a spending cut. Not an increase. And if a welfare state is as bad as the Republicans say, we can eliminate the massive military spending, because nobody would want to invade. Net savings, and increased benefits.
Money for nothing teaches people to slack.
Lack of opportunity teaches people to slack. Money is irrelevant to whether people slack. That you object to helping people doesn't mean you have to lie about it too.
Every tech company I've worked for has sent out emails endorsing the Republican candidate. But then, they weren't on the west coast.
So, if someone wants the benefits of the police, but doesn't want to pay for them, will they be covered? Or will they be excluded? That's always been the problem with "voluntary" basic services.
I have empathy for the map maker. No exception handling is ever correct. Ideally, you'd halt. Return NULL, and let the application handle the error. But the map makers and users hate that, so you give them what they want, a 100% correct answer (a location in the middle, with an error to include it all), but, as we see here, that's undesirable as well. If they'd returned the NULL, they'd have gone out of business. So, they made the correct choice.
If the map is locked to a US-only view, why would you want it to display an African location? That would break all the applications.
That's for the application, not the map maker. The map maker gave the most accurate result possible, that the applications people screwed it up is a separate issue.
I was clearly talking about the major social media groups. In that set, nobody has solved the problem. 3rd party add-ons weren't in the set addressed.
And you don't seem to get your hypocricy where you complain when I mention a non-twitter in a twitter-only discussion, then in a twitter-only discussion, you include 3rd party mods. If the world is wider, then it's your error for trying to narrow down the discussion to Twitter Inc. only, or it's your error for including a 3rd-party solution. All the bluster is cover up for your obviousl double-standard, so preserve your cognitive dissonance.
I'm still saying slacking off because you got your work done early is lazy
So which is it? Is it worse to get your work done in the allotted time (if done in a way you don't like) or is it the same to get it done in the allotted time?
"just as valuable" is an equivalence. That's not a preference. You resent those who work fast, and disparage them, but claim they are worth the same.
Slacking off because you are incompetent gets a pass, and slacking off because you are good is punished, or they are the same. Or they are the same, but you prefer the incompetent to the "lazy".