The real pieces of shit are still the minority, but he internet gives them as loud of a voice as they choose to have. Take me, for example; I could never reach this large of an audience without the internet. Now, just think, I'm not even that big of a piece of shit -- and the bigger ones are louder!
That's why it seems that the world is so shitty -- one tiny pebble of poo can stink up the whole room.
That much is true, as well; though, if everyone else didn't pay $6/day, the best talent would migrate toward Ford, leading to a better and more desirable product. Really, it's a win no matter how the rest of the job market reacts.
That's a fools game, though, and will ultimately bite those billionaires in their collective asses. Immigrants (specifically illegals) tend to send their earnings back home, so the money paid to them never makes it back into the pockets of the people writing the checks. When you pay a red blooded American (or a legal immigrant -- after all, that's what we all are, anyway) to do the job, they spend it here and it comes back to you at least in part.
Ford didn't ensure that his employees could afford his product out of the kindness of his heart, he did so because an employee with $250 couldn't afford to give him $300 for a Model T. That, of course, meant that every penny Ford paid his employees that they could not pay back to him was a penny he lost; if he paid them enough to afford the product they were making, at least some number of them would buy it and he'd, effectively, be paying them less.
While it's true that, in Ford's case, that only holds true once for each employee, it also meant an increase in the popularity of Ford vehicles; basically, free marketing.
More to the point, though, if Ford had still been paying $5/day in 1925, instead of $6, he'd have been throwing $25/week per employee out the window; but upping it to $6/day, ($30/wk, or 1 Model T at retail every 10 weeks), he put most of his assembly line workers in Fords. If only half of Ford's roughly 2000 assembly line workers bought a Ford vehicle, that's 1000 additional Fords sold; but the sales numbers aren't what matters, the workers' ultimate rate of pay for 20% of a year is! The Model T would have cost roughly $80 in materials and $60 in labor to produce in 1925 and retailed for $300, a profit of $140 if sold to an average customer. However, if sold to a Ford employee, the labor was effectively free and the profit soars to $220, a >57% increase; selling 1000 Model T's to Ford employees was like selling 1572 of them to typical buyers, minus the need to haggle, and those employees were, effectively, paid $8/wk for 1/5 of a year of labor.
From another perspective: An employee earning $6/day working for Ford would earn $30/wk, which equates to $1500/yr accounting for 2 weeks of unpaid leave. An employee who bought a Model T during that year would only cost the company $1280 ($1500 in wages, minus the $300 paid for the car, plus the $80 in materials) that year, a nearly 15% reduction in labor costs for those employees who bought a Ford. If that's half the assembly line workers, that's a 7.5% decrease in labor costs.
Workers earning just $5/day would bring home $250 less per year than workers making $6 (just $30 less than those who bought a Ford in that year) so, on its face, it seems that paying $1 less is a win, right? It is, until you factor in the administrative cost associated with churn as people find better paying jobs; after all, they're gonna want a car and if they can't get one working at Ford, well, that's just silly. The $140 average ($250 for half the assembly line workforce, $30 for the other half) increased yearly salary for an assembly line worker in 1925 equates to $1974 in today's dollars; hiring a new employee can easily cost $3500 or more (~$248 in 1925 dollars), so it is worth it to pay that additional salary if it means you get to keep those employees on your team.
There are a few additional angles form which money paid to someone legally can bounce back into your pocket, all of which disappear when you pay under the table or try to save a buck by cutting salaries.
Before you jump out and say something along the lines of "McDonalds workers can afford McDonalds" or "tech workers often aren't even the target market for the products or services they're working on", I'll concede that you're absolutely correct. That's why I also raised the issue of loyalty; someone earning a fair wage is going to stick around, keeping everything they've learned on the job within your company (rather than adding it to your competitors' war chest) and save you roughly $3500 by not leaving.
If they're not worth hiring, they shouldn't be hired. There are plenty of willing and capable hands who want jobs, yet McDonalds hires the dumb shit who can't tell the difference between a large fries and a medium soda. I swear I spend more in frustration and wasted time getting their mistakes corrected every single time I go to one of these places than my share of the tax increase to put these special needs cases under welfare-paid care. And before anyone jumps on me for "degrading" the mentally handicapped, realize that these people actually do need assistance and I am merely advocating that we give it to them by default, rather than forcing them into jobs they're not qualified for, which reduces their quality of life along with anyone who has to deal with them being forced to do things they clearly can not handle.
The lawsuits only have to hold off the wall for 3 years (maybe, God forbid, 7), until we get someone in office who'll drop it. In the end, they'll cost less than the wall, a net savings.
And what are you doing to solve the "real" problems of the world? Ever consider that some of the creators losing pledges are using their money to solve those problems? Or that some of the patrons who are now absorbing this fee would have otherwise used that money to solve those problems?
Of course, you'll shout that they'd do better by visiting parts of the world stricken with all these "real" problems, and you're right. They, of course, need money to get there. So anything that takes more money from them, or puts less money in their hands, goes against their ability to solve those problems, doesn't it?
That makes this not a first-world problem but an ancillary "real" problem.
You really don't know until you try, now, do you? And we're back to the whole issue of multiple people and no evidence: you're a child rapist. There, I said it. If I can get 2 more people to say it, it's true, right?
You certainly did not. You've never backed up any claim that I've lied in any situation. Not once. Cite one or more of the actual lies I've told, with some proof that it's a lie. You can't, because such a situation does not exist. Have I been mistaken in the past? Certainly, and I openly correct myself when it is pointed out. Those, however, are not lies; lies require intent and being mistaken is certainly unintentional.
Being as ignorant as you, on the other hand, requires specific intent. That's a legal term. Look it up and keep in mind that you're not as anonymous as you think you are.
If there was no material issue of fact and how the courts would have to rule was not in question, those high priced lawyers who are good at their jobs would advise a settlement and take their huge bonuses for avoiding the trial; that would be on top of their usual pay, of course.
There really and truly is no reason to continue this discussion. If you want the last word, you can have it; just please don't make it something so absurd and ignorant. Again, the courts will decide; and the transcripts will show that there was, in fact, something to be decided.
For all your frustration, there are other people who you frustrate as well.
If we're being real here, and let's please be real here, the frustration on all sides is ultimately sourced from those (men and women) who harass and those (also men and women) who make false accusations of harassment. The frustration just happens to be aimed in every direction because that's what intensely frustrated people do when they don't know who to direct their frustration at; and we're all intensely frustrated.
And if the man does it 10 times a week, to a different woman each time, it's 10 single incidents.
And if the woman gets 10 unwanted comments a week, from a different man each time, its 10 single incidents.
Correct, though I know that was just a lame attempt at reductio ad absurdum. If a woman isn't interested in one man, that's no indication that she's not interested in another. What you wrote works in the other direction, as well. Yes, women can (and do) harass men; and men do, in fact, get hit on at school and in the workplace.
Going back a few years, to 1999, I was being harassed nearly daily by a girl at school. Every day during lunch she would make advances in front of over a dozen other kids sitting at our table and every day I would make it clear I had no interest. After a couple months of this, she decided she would get back at me for rejecting her by flipping it around and claiming I had harassed her. It did not go well for me; and the experience has made it difficult for me to take a woman's claim of harassment at face value. Yes it happens, yes it's awful, but underhanded shit like what happened to me also happens. In the end, there was justice and it went much worse for her, but it's still not an experience anyone should ever have.
Basically, what happened is that I was called into the office and there was the principal, counselor, and a cop waiting for me. They read through a list of things she had said to me (that she claimed I had said to her -- and some of them were very obviously said by her as they were things a girl might do to a boy or might ask a boy do to do her, worded as the girl would have said them) and asked what I had to say about it. My response was to ask for a pen and paper, telling them I had a written statement to offer. I then wrote the names of everyone who sat at the same lunch table as us on a regular basis, handed it to them, and told them those people would be able to back up her story if it was true.
Wording it that way was my only mistake, as they took it as an admission of guilt and suspended me. Home life was, let's just say, not good during the following 3 days before they decided they should maybe actually interview some of the kids on my list. They interviewed a total of three before they had heard enough; one of those three was a nerdy little shit (who I'd never really paid attention to by then, but who later became one of my best friends) who carried a tape recorder around and had a habit of recording things for no particular reason. He, of course, recorded lunches, which meant he recorded what actually happened, proof that she was the one who said the things she claimed I had said, and proof that I had tried to put a stop to it.
In the end, I got a shitty apology from the school that did nothing to make up for the trauma I suffered at home (not the girl's fault, I blame my father for his reaction) but she got expelled. Not for the harassment, mind you, but for the false claim.
And that's how it should be, really; the punishment for falsely claiming someone harmed you should be much worse than the punishment for what you're claiming. And I mean provably false, as in there is some actual proof that things didn't happen the way it is claimed they happened; of course, the accused simply being found innocent shouldn't be enough to trigger false charges prosecution. Presumption of innocence and all that, you know?
And if 10 men do it, and 1 woman does it, that means it's okay for everyone to do it.
Now this is a fine example of reductio ad absurdum against "whataboutism", good for you. I mean, you think you're arguing against natural and respectful interaction between males and females, wherein one backs down when it is made clear the other has no interest in them, but whataboutism is wrong and needs to be put to an end, so thank you for arguing against it, even if you think you're doing something else.
The worst of it is that the self-proclaimed security guys have no clue what the fuck they're talking about in the first place, most of the time. For instance, the moron here on Slashdot who kept calling me Junior while insinuating that I'm an old-timer (insisting that I was relying on techniques 3 decades out of date), right after insisting that my Mac must have a virus, then going on about how Macs don't get viruses.
I'm pretty sure the only thing that particular moron knows how to secure is another vial of crack.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the flags you just used with journalctl and tell me if you think the authors care.
The real pieces of shit are still the minority, but he internet gives them as loud of a voice as they choose to have. Take me, for example; I could never reach this large of an audience without the internet. Now, just think, I'm not even that big of a piece of shit -- and the bigger ones are louder!
That's why it seems that the world is so shitty -- one tiny pebble of poo can stink up the whole room.
That much is true, as well; though, if everyone else didn't pay $6/day, the best talent would migrate toward Ford, leading to a better and more desirable product. Really, it's a win no matter how the rest of the job market reacts.
That's a fools game, though, and will ultimately bite those billionaires in their collective asses. Immigrants (specifically illegals) tend to send their earnings back home, so the money paid to them never makes it back into the pockets of the people writing the checks. When you pay a red blooded American (or a legal immigrant -- after all, that's what we all are, anyway) to do the job, they spend it here and it comes back to you at least in part.
Ford didn't ensure that his employees could afford his product out of the kindness of his heart, he did so because an employee with $250 couldn't afford to give him $300 for a Model T. That, of course, meant that every penny Ford paid his employees that they could not pay back to him was a penny he lost; if he paid them enough to afford the product they were making, at least some number of them would buy it and he'd, effectively, be paying them less.
While it's true that, in Ford's case, that only holds true once for each employee, it also meant an increase in the popularity of Ford vehicles; basically, free marketing.
More to the point, though, if Ford had still been paying $5/day in 1925, instead of $6, he'd have been throwing $25/week per employee out the window; but upping it to $6/day, ($30/wk, or 1 Model T at retail every 10 weeks), he put most of his assembly line workers in Fords. If only half of Ford's roughly 2000 assembly line workers bought a Ford vehicle, that's 1000 additional Fords sold; but the sales numbers aren't what matters, the workers' ultimate rate of pay for 20% of a year is! The Model T would have cost roughly $80 in materials and $60 in labor to produce in 1925 and retailed for $300, a profit of $140 if sold to an average customer. However, if sold to a Ford employee, the labor was effectively free and the profit soars to $220, a >57% increase; selling 1000 Model T's to Ford employees was like selling 1572 of them to typical buyers, minus the need to haggle, and those employees were, effectively, paid $8/wk for 1/5 of a year of labor.
From another perspective: An employee earning $6/day working for Ford would earn $30/wk, which equates to $1500/yr accounting for 2 weeks of unpaid leave. An employee who bought a Model T during that year would only cost the company $1280 ($1500 in wages, minus the $300 paid for the car, plus the $80 in materials) that year, a nearly 15% reduction in labor costs for those employees who bought a Ford. If that's half the assembly line workers, that's a 7.5% decrease in labor costs.
Workers earning just $5/day would bring home $250 less per year than workers making $6 (just $30 less than those who bought a Ford in that year) so, on its face, it seems that paying $1 less is a win, right? It is, until you factor in the administrative cost associated with churn as people find better paying jobs; after all, they're gonna want a car and if they can't get one working at Ford, well, that's just silly. The $140 average ($250 for half the assembly line workforce, $30 for the other half) increased yearly salary for an assembly line worker in 1925 equates to $1974 in today's dollars; hiring a new employee can easily cost $3500 or more (~$248 in 1925 dollars), so it is worth it to pay that additional salary if it means you get to keep those employees on your team.
There are a few additional angles form which money paid to someone legally can bounce back into your pocket, all of which disappear when you pay under the table or try to save a buck by cutting salaries.
Before you jump out and say something along the lines of "McDonalds workers can afford McDonalds" or "tech workers often aren't even the target market for the products or services they're working on", I'll concede that you're absolutely correct. That's why I also raised the issue of loyalty; someone earning a fair wage is going to stick around, keeping everything they've learned on the job within your company (rather than adding it to your competitors' war chest) and save you roughly $3500 by not leaving.
If they're not worth hiring, they shouldn't be hired. There are plenty of willing and capable hands who want jobs, yet McDonalds hires the dumb shit who can't tell the difference between a large fries and a medium soda. I swear I spend more in frustration and wasted time getting their mistakes corrected every single time I go to one of these places than my share of the tax increase to put these special needs cases under welfare-paid care. And before anyone jumps on me for "degrading" the mentally handicapped, realize that these people actually do need assistance and I am merely advocating that we give it to them by default, rather than forcing them into jobs they're not qualified for, which reduces their quality of life along with anyone who has to deal with them being forced to do things they clearly can not handle.
...more valuable to their employers... who, of course, pay them a higher wage commensurate with that increased value. Right?
and include a free bar of pink soap with every game?
The lawsuits only have to hold off the wall for 3 years (maybe, God forbid, 7), until we get someone in office who'll drop it. In the end, they'll cost less than the wall, a net savings.
+1 to Taofladermaus, I'll have to check out the other two.
Not all there, I meant. I'm not sure if autocorrect deleted it or I just didn't type it.
Mostly just not there. What's one thing you should never stick in crazy?
And what are you doing to solve the "real" problems of the world? Ever consider that some of the creators losing pledges are using their money to solve those problems? Or that some of the patrons who are now absorbing this fee would have otherwise used that money to solve those problems?
Of course, you'll shout that they'd do better by visiting parts of the world stricken with all these "real" problems, and you're right. They, of course, need money to get there. So anything that takes more money from them, or puts less money in their hands, goes against their ability to solve those problems, doesn't it?
That makes this not a first-world problem but an ancillary "real" problem.
$1.73 just to give someone a dollar? Christ. Yeah, this is gonna hurt creators.
You didn't stop to think there was a reason I wasn't interested, did you?
You really don't know until you try, now, do you? And we're back to the whole issue of multiple people and no evidence: you're a child rapist. There, I said it. If I can get 2 more people to say it, it's true, right?
It was Gr8Apes who brought up Trump, I was responding to that. Nice try, though.
$1.38 after this goes into effect. A 38% surcharge is just ludicrous.
You certainly did not. You've never backed up any claim that I've lied in any situation. Not once. Cite one or more of the actual lies I've told, with some proof that it's a lie. You can't, because such a situation does not exist. Have I been mistaken in the past? Certainly, and I openly correct myself when it is pointed out. Those, however, are not lies; lies require intent and being mistaken is certainly unintentional.
Being as ignorant as you, on the other hand, requires specific intent. That's a legal term. Look it up and keep in mind that you're not as anonymous as you think you are.
When did I cite Trump?
If there was no material issue of fact and how the courts would have to rule was not in question, those high priced lawyers who are good at their jobs would advise a settlement and take their huge bonuses for avoiding the trial; that would be on top of their usual pay, of course.
There really and truly is no reason to continue this discussion. If you want the last word, you can have it; just please don't make it something so absurd and ignorant. Again, the courts will decide; and the transcripts will show that there was, in fact, something to be decided.
For all your frustration, there are other people who you frustrate as well.
If we're being real here, and let's please be real here, the frustration on all sides is ultimately sourced from those (men and women) who harass and those (also men and women) who make false accusations of harassment. The frustration just happens to be aimed in every direction because that's what intensely frustrated people do when they don't know who to direct their frustration at; and we're all intensely frustrated.
And if the man does it 10 times a week, to a different woman each time, it's 10 single incidents.
And if the woman gets 10 unwanted comments a week, from a different man each time, its 10 single incidents.
Correct, though I know that was just a lame attempt at reductio ad absurdum. If a woman isn't interested in one man, that's no indication that she's not interested in another. What you wrote works in the other direction, as well. Yes, women can (and do) harass men; and men do, in fact, get hit on at school and in the workplace.
Going back a few years, to 1999, I was being harassed nearly daily by a girl at school. Every day during lunch she would make advances in front of over a dozen other kids sitting at our table and every day I would make it clear I had no interest. After a couple months of this, she decided she would get back at me for rejecting her by flipping it around and claiming I had harassed her. It did not go well for me; and the experience has made it difficult for me to take a woman's claim of harassment at face value. Yes it happens, yes it's awful, but underhanded shit like what happened to me also happens. In the end, there was justice and it went much worse for her, but it's still not an experience anyone should ever have.
Basically, what happened is that I was called into the office and there was the principal, counselor, and a cop waiting for me. They read through a list of things she had said to me (that she claimed I had said to her -- and some of them were very obviously said by her as they were things a girl might do to a boy or might ask a boy do to do her, worded as the girl would have said them) and asked what I had to say about it. My response was to ask for a pen and paper, telling them I had a written statement to offer. I then wrote the names of everyone who sat at the same lunch table as us on a regular basis, handed it to them, and told them those people would be able to back up her story if it was true.
Wording it that way was my only mistake, as they took it as an admission of guilt and suspended me. Home life was, let's just say, not good during the following 3 days before they decided they should maybe actually interview some of the kids on my list. They interviewed a total of three before they had heard enough; one of those three was a nerdy little shit (who I'd never really paid attention to by then, but who later became one of my best friends) who carried a tape recorder around and had a habit of recording things for no particular reason. He, of course, recorded lunches, which meant he recorded what actually happened, proof that she was the one who said the things she claimed I had said, and proof that I had tried to put a stop to it.
In the end, I got a shitty apology from the school that did nothing to make up for the trauma I suffered at home (not the girl's fault, I blame my father for his reaction) but she got expelled. Not for the harassment, mind you, but for the false claim.
And that's how it should be, really; the punishment for falsely claiming someone harmed you should be much worse than the punishment for what you're claiming. And I mean provably false, as in there is some actual proof that things didn't happen the way it is claimed they happened; of course, the accused simply being found innocent shouldn't be enough to trigger false charges prosecution. Presumption of innocence and all that, you know?
And if 10 men do it, and 1 woman does it, that means it's okay for everyone to do it.
Now this is a fine example of reductio ad absurdum against "whataboutism", good for you. I mean, you think you're arguing against natural and respectful interaction between males and females, wherein one backs down when it is made clear the other has no interest in them, but whataboutism is wrong and needs to be put to an end, so thank you for arguing against it, even if you think you're doing something else.
I decided to hold my breath for this a few years ago. Did you know that after you pass out you start breathing again?
The worst of it is that the self-proclaimed security guys have no clue what the fuck they're talking about in the first place, most of the time. For instance, the moron here on Slashdot who kept calling me Junior while insinuating that I'm an old-timer (insisting that I was relying on techniques 3 decades out of date), right after insisting that my Mac must have a virus, then going on about how Macs don't get viruses.
I'm pretty sure the only thing that particular moron knows how to secure is another vial of crack.
I dunno but I've had 2 +2 Troll posts in the past week so I'm okay with it.