Breadallelogram posted:650,000,000 / 315,000,000 = 2,000,000  Listen to my lovely opinion while I'm only off by 6 significant digits, I tell you what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
e: decided it wasn't really political, moved it to another thread. sorry guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:In the case of "plastic cars", it's the belief that car companies are purposefully reducing the quality of their parts to lower costs, rather than creating safer parts that sacrifice themselves to save the lives of the people inside. In fairness, trusting corporations to look out for consumers best interests is not something that has a good history:  From a memo in which Ford was seeking safety regulation exemptions from NHTSA. What's important to remember is that safety requirements have become more stringent and we're comparing companies now to companies then. In neither time was their primary duty to consumer safety before profits, but better today with higher standards than 30 years ago without them. And of course, actual evidence from crash testing by independent sources. I would be interested to see comparisons in lifetime duration of automotive parts though; in a similar vein to sturdiness, I often hear lament about how parts are made cheap so you have to go replace them / require special tools so only mechanics in shops can work on them, etc. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I would be interested to see comparisons in lifetime duration of automotive parts though; in a similar vein to sturdiness, I often hear lament about how parts are made cheap so you have to go replace them / require special tools so only mechanics in shops can work on them, etc. mystes fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I would be interested to see comparisons in lifetime duration of automotive parts though; in a similar vein to sturdiness, I often hear lament about how parts are made cheap so you have to go replace them / require special tools so only mechanics in shops can work on them, etc. Special tools have to be made and sold to dealerships, so you don't actually see this nonsense in practice too much unless there are engineering requirements that take precedence. Except for German vehicles, where things will be made over complicated for fun sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
America: How can we make this thing cheaper? Japan: How can we do one thing and make it work for everything? Germany: How can we perfect each thing independently from the other things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:
 Here's most of the terribleness (edited for length, removed irrelevant posts for maximum awful-to-pixel ratio)  But I broke out the worst part special:  Keep in mind, almost every poster spouting the GOP line is a gay man in "liberal" Austin Texas. Can't wait til the Republicans flip on monogamous gay marriage and pick up the votes of affluent cis-homosexuals leaping at the chance to poo poo on the poor, trans, and polyamorous communities! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Stupid poors. Don't you know if you live 8 to a room, never go out and never pay for anything besides shelter/food, you can easily live off your entry level wages. And how else would they have the motivation to
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Stupid poors. Don't you know if you live 8 to a room, never go out and never pay for anything besides shelter/food, you can easily live off your entry level wages. Don't twist my words! I never said any of that, I just think that when people suddenly get more money than before that they'll be irresponsible with it. And that's only bothersome to me when those people are poor for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Barry Cade has obviously not had to apply for a job in the last 5-10 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:Barry Cade has obviously not had to apply for a job in the last 5-10 years. Nah, he has. He's just white, attractive, well-spoken, from a good background, worked minimum wage through school and was lucky enough to find a decent-paying job after graduation. Just like me, although he apparently drew the opposite conclusions from his good fortune. (Conclusions I shared when I was in school  but when the recession hit just after I lucked out and started my job, and I saw the rich get bailed out and the poor get hosed over, and saw people graduating after me get shafted in a way that I wasn't entirely through lucky timing I started to question my beliefs about justice in the world).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Don't twist my words! I never said any of that, I just think that when people suddenly get more money than before that they'll be irresponsible with it. And that's only bothersome to me when those people are poor for some reason. Poors don't deserve cell phone ringtones and bottle service at da club because they didn't EARN it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
If we raised the minimum wage, the absolute worst case scenario is that the newly enriched workers are super thrifty, pay down all of their debt then put the remainder in savings. What's more likely is that the money will be spent on a variety of things, from booze to education. I have a very nice life right now because of gambling. I definitely want to see more people with a little extra fun money that they can blow on Bingo. Maybe we'd have more room for promotions around here if more people had fun money. I guess I'm picturing some sort of trickle effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh right, I forgot that you're all masochists who revel in suffering and filth You can deal with the "it's not that hard to find a job" with raw numbers if you fancy: Currently unemployed (7.3% rate) = 11.3 million unemployed individuals Current Job Openings = 3.9 million job openings Assuming all 3.9 million current job openings were filled optimally amongst all 11.3 million currently unemployed individuals, 8 million people would still be unemployed through no choice of their own, whether they spent 80 hours a week applying for a job or 0 hours a week. But the jobs are out there on Craigslist, I'm sure of it! That doesn't even touch underemployment rates, or involuntary part-time workers (8.1 million) or discouraged workers. It's also assuming no one currently employed tries to switch jobs or takes on a second job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
Just do what I did and make your own job!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Assuming all 3.9 million current job openings were filled optimally amongst all 11.3 million currently unemployed individuals, 8 million people would still be unemployed through no choice of their own, whether they spent 80 hours a week applying for a job or 0 hours a week. But the jobs are out there on Craigslist, I'm sure of it! The counter-arguments are "well I found a job, so that shows it's not that hard", and "some people would rather stay unemployed than take a job they feel is beneath them." Yes, one of the people arguing that if McDonald's workers want more money then they need to look for a better job instead settling for McDonald's also blamed unemployment on people refusing to take lovely jobs that don't pay enough. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
I need to stay off of Facebook for the rest of the night
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:You can deal with the "it's not that hard to find a job" with raw numbers if you fancy: Hmm. So there aren't enough jobs being made? If only some people had come forward and started calling themselves job creators, so we could blame them for not making enough jobs, and raise their taxes to motivate them to make jobs until unemployment is better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Hmm. So there aren't enough jobs being made? If only some people had come forward and started calling themselves job creators, so we could blame them for not making enough jobs, and raise their taxes to motivate them to make jobs until unemployment is better. I think you're forgetting that just as the poor must be motivated by privation and misery, the best way to motivate the rich (naturally, as they are the anti-poor) is free money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I need to stay off of Facebook for the rest of the night Tell whoever posted this that Oprah is like 1000x richer than Dr. Carson.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I need to stay off of Facebook for the rest of the night Well poo poo, who knew that being the world's top neurosurgeon told you anything about how insurance companies and economics work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Just do what I did and make your own job! Borrow 20,000 1983 dollars from your parents!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:In fairness, trusting corporations to look out for consumers best interests is not something that has a good history: That memo is generally pretty badly misinterpreted, since it's usually cited as a "smoking gun" regarding Ford's corporate culture in a lawsuit over the Pinto bursting into flames in rear-end collisions. At the time the memo was written, the NHTSA was proposing regulations to reduce fires caused by fuel leaking from vehicles that had rolled over in crashes, which wasn't part of the Pinto issue. The numbers in the memo are also somewhat misleading. The references to 12.5 million vehicles and 180 deaths (along with the $137 million cost of implementing changes) had nothing to do with the Pinto, and were intended to represent all cars and light trucks sold in the US, with the $137 million being a figure split among the entire auto industry. The $200,000/death figure is also commonly cited as an example of Ford being callous, but the number didn't come from Ford, and wasn't used in deciding whether to recall the Pinto. In the early 1970's, the NHTSA used that figure in some documents concerning safety standards (although the figure was never used to determine whether a given safety rule should be implemented), so Ford's use of the $200,000 figure in a memo to the NHTSA was completely acceptable and had nothing to do with calculating whether to fix a product or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Well poo poo, who knew that being the world's top neurosurgeon told you anything about how insurance companies and economics work? Also she never said disliking the ACA was because of Racism, she said that many anti-Obama stances are motivated by racism. That's sort of my major reason for hating the name "Obamacare" even though Obama has tried to take the term back and make it his own, because it ultimately suggests Obama is the original creator, designer and implementer of the law, when it was the final product of both parties of congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Also she never said disliking the ACA was because of Racism, she said that many anti-Obama stances are motivated by racism. They started trying that label before it was passed. I loving cringed when Obama made a speech basically taking ownership of the ACA, because he was validating the conflation of "hate Obama!" with "hate Obamacare!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
But Obama cares!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:That's sort of my major reason for hating the name "Obamacare" even though Obama has tried to take the term back and make it his own, because it ultimately suggests Obama is the original creator, designer and implementer of the law, when it was the final product FTFY.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:FTFY. No man, the Heritage Foundation's plan was totally different. It encouraged people to buy health insurance through the loss of certain tax breaks for those who didn't get it. Not a legal requirement like Obamacare. - Some Heritage Foundation Shithead
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Well poo poo, who knew that being the world's top neurosurgeon told you anything about how insurance companies and economics work? It apparently doesn't tell you how evolution or geology works either. I can't wait for this guy to show up some more, he seems like a conservative's wet dream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Just got this in an email from a high school classmate that I haven't talked to in almost a decade.quote:The Left is trying to divert attention from the fact that they've caused millions of people to lose their insurance and have only managed to sign up a few thousand in their place. So they're agitating for an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10/hour. But if the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, and you *really* care about the poor, why not raise it to $50/hr, or $100/hr, or more?? To answer that question is to explain why there shouldn't be a minimum wage for free citizens in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
quote:So they're agitating for an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10/hour. But if the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, and you *really* care about the poor, why not raise it to $50/hr, or $100/hr, or more?? If any minimum wage at all will cause unemployment, why not decrease everyone's wage to $0? Then everyone will be employed! Genius! quote:your employer has to pay about 30% more than your salary in order to keep you employed, between taxes and mandatory unemployment insurance Has this person ever actually been employed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Has this person ever actually been employed? I believe he's a Catholic priest, or is in a seminary to become one. I don't think he had a job while we were in HS because his family is pretty well off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:I believe he's a Catholic priest, or is in a seminary to become one. I don't think he had a job while we were in HS because his family is pretty well off. Shocking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:I believe he's a Catholic priest, or is in a seminary to become one. I don't think he had a job while we were in HS because his family is pretty well off. I bet he loves Pope Francis
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Armacham posted:I bet he loves Pope Francis It's kind of funny how agnostic and atheist leftists have taken a liking to the Pope while the religious right has become extremely wary of him. Strange times we live in. The church hierarchy spent centuries trying to keep a Jesuit off the throne, then they voted one on, and now everything is upside down. Also, the NYPD is coming for your guns, prepare for a conservative howl about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:It's kind of funny how agnostic and atheist leftists have taken a liking to the Pope while the religious right has become extremely wary of him. Strange times we live in. The church hierarchy spent centuries trying to keep a Jesuit off the throne, then they voted one on, and now everything is upside down. I think most agnostic/atheist leftists are on board with the core teachings of Christ. The problem is Christian leaders so rarely exemplify or preach those teachings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Absolutely, dude. Name and shame is pretty well the point of this thread. From a bit back but I remember the last time Michigan raised the minimum wage my sister was all up in arms because she'd finally, after 15 years in the labor force, got a job paid more than minimum wage, a whole $0.10 more than minimum wage and she was really upset by the idea that she'd be back at minimum wage. I kept trying to tell her that she'd be getting more money than she is now but she was just really upset at the idea that she'd be back at "entry level" wage as she put it. 
Soviet Commubot fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
I remember some study that gave people a choice between both them and their neighbor making $50,000/year, or they could make $30,000 and the neighbor made $10,000. People generally chose to make less money overall, as long as they were making more money than the other guy. Does anyone else remember this? I'm just guessing at the money amounts, I can't remember what the exact numbers were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:Just got this in an email from a high school classmate that I haven't talked to in almost a decade. quote:The Left is trying to divert attention from the fact that they've caused millions of people to lose their insurance and have only managed to sign up a few thousand in their place. So they're agitating for an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10/hour. But if the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, and you *really* care about the poor, why not raise it to $50/hr, or $100/hr, or more?? To answer that question is to explain why there shouldn't be a minimum wage for free citizens in the first place. Oh wait, that didn't "explain why there shouldn't be a minimum wage for free citizens in the first place," did it? Instead it explained why companies that can't give their employees a certain bare minimum standard of living are failures and don't deserve to continue existing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Anyone who tries the $100 minimum wage thing should also try that next time they get a pay increase. The company can afford to pay me 20 cents more an hour? Why not $2000 more an hour?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:45
|
|