|
foobardog posted:Someone earlier said that they didn't think PNWers hated people. The truth is that they hate everyone, including themselves, but are too timid to do more than passive aggress. the whitest region
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
foobardog posted:Someone earlier said that they didn't think PNWers hated people. The truth is that they hate everyone, including themselves, but are too timid to do more than passive aggress. Especially themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Someone earlier said that they didn't think PNWers hated people. The truth is that they hate everyone, including themselves, but are too timid to do more than passive aggress. Well, we are all allowed our own opinion. ::turns around, rolls eyes to rest of group, sips mocha::
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Someone earlier said that they didn't think PNWers hated people. The truth is that they hate everyone, including themselves, but are too timid to do more than passive aggress. I don't think it's people but they just hate all concepts and groups. "Ugh, <Microsoft/Amazon/Boeing/Starbucks> is KILLING the area!" "Oh you work at Starbucks corporate? That's a great job!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
I just signed up for good to go with the "pay by plate" option. If you see my clean whip sailing down to Renton on 405, please imagine it emanating a forcefield of sympathy for people who can't afford my lifestyle
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I just signed up for good to go with the "pay by plate" option. If you see my clean whip sailing down to Renton on 405, please imagine it emanating a forcefield of sympathy for people who can't afford my lifestyle I wish they made it so that the slow as gently caress prius or outback in front of me would have to pay my toll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Lol Subaru owners what a bunch of rubes
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:I don't think it's people but they just hate all concepts and groups. Or maybe people don't like the corporate capture of government while still appreciating the few well-paying jobs left?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Also: of all the local companies that are "killing the area", Starbucks is the funniest option to pick on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Well it doesn't seem as common as it used to be, but the whole 'Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks' thing was obviously detrimental to independent coffee shops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
It might just be that I notice them more now, but it feels like independent coffee stands/shops are going strong; they may even be getting more prevalent. I just wish more of them used better coffee. So many use garbage like Cafe D'arte or similar. I would love to see more using Torrefazione (which is now a Starbucks brand, so not likely) or Stumptown or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
There's some indications a Starbucks actually increases sales to independent shops. Part of it may be that Starbucks creates new customers for adult milkshake coffee products then a fraction of those new customers seek out the premium/high class option that is the independent shop. There's also possibly the gas station effect where closely located like businesses attract more customers for each business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:There's some indications a Starbucks actually increases sales to independent shops. Part of it may be that Starbucks creates new customers for adult milkshake coffee products then a fraction of those new customers seek out the premium/high class option that is the independent shop. There's also possibly the gas station effect where closely located like businesses attract more customers for each business. The independent shop is the "premium/high class" option? Where do those little drive-through stands fall? They're usually a whole lot cheaper than Starbucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:It might just be that I notice them more now, but it feels like independent coffee stands/shops are going strong; they may even be getting more prevalent. I just wish more of them used better coffee. So many use garbage like Cafe D'arte or similar. I would love to see more using Torrefazione (which is now a Starbucks brand, so not likely) or Stumptown or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The independent shop is the "premium/high class" option? Where do those little drive-through stands fall? They're usually a whole lot cheaper than Starbucks. Or, yeah that I guess. The idea is basically people are going there in the first place because they got turned on to a double whip mocha in the safe, soothing environment of seattles own mega fast food chain. To be clear I'm not actually sure this is true but I've heard it said and anecdotal experience of both sectors growing together bears it out. Contrast that to blockbuster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:In related news, Stumptown was just sold to Peet's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqHUf5wmLg
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Also: of all the local companies that are "killing the area", Starbucks is the funniest option to pick on. It seems no one living or working in Seattle is old enough/was here when Seattle was really badly depressed in the pre-Microsoft days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
In terms of killing the area, the rank is this: 1. Boeing - constant work movement in the state starting with moving the corporate office to Chicago, then to South Carolina, and now the China deal. Consistently likes to poo poo on their workforce, and recently killed their pension. 2. Amazon - has gentrified the city horribly, and Jeff Bezos has a dumb libertarian policy of "gently caress the community, don't give back to them." Treats their workforce worse than Boeing does. 3. Starbucks - they're everywhere, but that's not a horrible thing. In terms of damage done to the city, you rarely, if ever hear about Starbucks doing anything unless it's related to Howard Schultz screwing over the Sonics. 4. Microsoft - while I'm not huge on any of their products, they pay well with good benefits and they mostly stay to Redmond. Besides his obsession with charter schools, Bill Gates has done a lot for the community.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:2. Amazon - has gentrified the city horribly, and Jeff Bezos has a dumb libertarian policy of "gently caress the community, don't give back to them." Treats their workforce worse than Boeing does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If companies move out to suburban campuses, progressives complain that they're scared of browns, encouraging sprawl, and inaccessible to transit users. If those companies locate in urban areas, then they're gentrifying forces of doom that displace minorities. perhaps corporations are just bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:perhaps corporations are just bad? But corporations are people too, don't capitalism-shame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:perhaps corporations are just bad? What Amazon doing that's 'wrong' that's causing the gentrification is literally being successful and paying many of its white-collar workers very well. "If a corporation pays its workers too little, that is immoral. And, if a corporation pays its workers too much, that is also immoral." edit: not to mention that you see the same logic applied to the individuals. When affluent people go to the suburbs, leftie D&D goons like yourself make fun of them for being "scared of minorities". So they should go to the cities instead, right? Oh no, then they're gentrifying, displacing all the minorities from their homes! Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Most of the people doing the criticism aren't capital S Socialists, though. and?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
It's internally inconsistent and infantile whining by out-of-touch leftists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's internally inconsistent and infantile whining by out-of-touch leftists. im not really seeing how?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
You don't see how it's internally inconsistent to criticize corporations for both paying their workers too little AND too much? Or how it's internally inconsistent to criticize the affluent for choosing the suburbs and also for choosing the cities?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You don't see how it's internally inconsistent to criticize corporations for both paying their workers too little AND too much? Or how it's internally inconsistent to criticize the affluent for choosing the suburbs and also for choosing the cities? not really no
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:not really no
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If you're either that dumb or that intentionally obtuse (we both know it's the latter), I'm afraid there's little I can do to help you, friend. well that's rather harsh
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You don't see how it's internally inconsistent to criticize corporations for both paying their workers too little AND too much? Or how it's internally inconsistent to criticize the affluent for choosing the suburbs and also for choosing the cities? Amazon can pay some of its workers too much, and other workers too little. There's no inconsistency there. You can also complain that some workers are paid too much relative to the value of their work, or complain about the consequences of the resulting inequality, which is more complex than saying that the start and the end of the problem is that someone's paycheck has too many zeroes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Amazon can pay some of its workers too much, and other workers too little. There's no inconsistency there. quote:You can also complain that some workers are paid too much relative to the value of their work, or complain about the consequences of the resulting inequality, which is more complex than saying that the start and the end of the problem is that someone's paycheck has too many zeroes. And I'm also fine with people complaining about the consequences of inequality. It's just very stupid to blame that on Amazon paying its workers a lot of money. It's like what leftists say when conservatives complain about union workers making "too much"; the solution isn't for them to make less, it's for others to make more, right? But as soon as you switch from unions to tech companies, that logic suddenly vanishes, which is very much internally inconsistent. I realize why that happens, of course; it's because leftists like unions and hate tech companies. "It's ok when my side does it" isn't only a thing for right-wingers. Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:There is when you consider some of those same leftists like to say that Google/Amazon et al. actually pay their engineers less than they're worth. Plus, what exactly do you mean by "pay some of its workers too much"? In what sense are they overpaid? Just because of how it can result in gentrification? I'm pretty sure I found a picture of the "leftists" you speak of: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Nah, I didn't make these up. There really have been leftists (or at least progressives) on the SA boards who've said that engineers at these big tech companies aren't paid what they're worth, and of course nobody's disputing that bit about high union wages. Sorry if that's rather inconvenient for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:There is when you consider some of those same leftists like to say that Google/Amazon et al. actually pay their engineers less than they're worth. If some leftists say engineers are overpaid, and other leftists say engineers are exploited, that's a disagreement. I think you're overestimating the number of people who literally have both opinions in the same day, but it probably happens. Oh well? quote:Plus, what exactly do you mean by "pay some of its workers too much"? In what sense are they overpaid? Just because of how it can result in gentrification? Idk man. I'm not making that argument, just being an rear end in a top hat argument referee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Nah, I didn't make these up. There really have been leftists (or at least progressives) on the SA boards who've said that engineers at these big tech companies aren't paid what they're worth, and of course nobody's disputing that bit about high union wages. Sorry if that's rather inconvenient for you. Not having seen the posts you are referencing I can't really speak to them, but handwaving away problems of the growing disparity of wealth and the impacts on urban populations of the same as a simple dichotomy of "leftists" versus "conservatives" is facile at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Almost by definition, any profitable company (so that excludes Amazon, I guess, lol) will pay their workers less than the value they create for the company. This is the classic Marxian definition of exploitation, and it's what's capitalism runs on. There's no reason to believe that tech workers are any different. The overpaid workers are generally upper management who mainly exist as a way to obscure the strings that capital pulls. CEOs and VPs are important, but it'd be insane that they generate 100s of times more value than the workers below them. Instead, these upper management positions pass the profit gained from the workers to themselves and their shareholders (which often includes the workers, technically, but when you consider contract workers and the rigmarole to cash stock options, it's not comparable to the major shareholders). Additionally, suburban flight and gentrification are two methods leading to the same thing, economic segregation. In gentrification, developers create upscale housing while avoiding, ignoring, and destroying affordable housing. In suburban flight, upscale housing is created and prices set to preclude lower class people moving in. It's not hypocrisy, because a more balanced approach needs to be taken in both cases, and those are the two bad extremes. You're making the equivalent argument of global warming deniers not understanding that while the average temperature goes up, it causes effects that mean local temperatures can go way down from normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Most of the people doing the criticism aren't capital S Socialists, though. Maybe the corporation could reduce prices if they're making so much money they're inadvertently gentrifying an area? (I know it'll never happen) Personally I'd rather have a corp. go to the suburbs like microsoft did, rather than gentrify a city and force the poor to move to the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:If some leftists say engineers are overpaid, and other leftists say engineers are exploited, that's a disagreement. I think you're overestimating the number of people who literally have both opinions in the same day, but it probably happens. Oh well? The bigger issue anyway is that blaming the negative effects of gentrification on companies hiring lots of people at high salaries is deeply stupid. CaptainSarcastic posted:Not having seen the posts you are referencing I can't really speak to them, but handwaving away problems of the growing disparity of wealth and the impacts on urban populations of the same as a simple dichotomy of "leftists" versus "conservatives" is facile at best. foobardog posted:Additionally, suburban flight and gentrification are two methods leading to the same thing, economic segregation. In gentrification, developers create upscale housing while avoiding, ignoring, and destroying affordable housing. In suburban flight, upscale housing is created and prices set to preclude lower class people moving in. It's not hypocrisy, because a more balanced approach needs to be taken in both cases, and those are the two bad extremes. quote:You're making the equivalent argument of global warming deniers not understanding that while the average temperature goes up, it causes effects that mean local temperatures can go way down from normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
effectual posted:Maybe the corporation could reduce prices if they're making so much money they're inadvertently gentrifying an area? (I know it'll never happen) quote:Personally I'd rather have a corp. go to the suburbs like microsoft did, rather than gentrify a city and force the poor to move to the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Cicero posted:That's a fair point, but at least in the case of modern gentrification, the people doing the gentrifying are generally not intending to displace the poor, so they'd probably be fine with a balanced approach that created mixed-income neighborhoods. In the extreme case of SF, for example, most of the affluent techies very much want the lower-income artsy types to be able to stick around, or at the very least they're ambivalent about it. I hope that's true, but I really don't know. It's interesting because as a tech worker who moved to Capitol Hill, I'm technically Part Of The Problem, but I moved here because of the queers and artsy people, and because I found Redmond boring. But even then, in the past 6 years, it's definitely become a lot more like Belltown than it was, and I don't like that! On one hand, you do probably have people moving in who don't give a gently caress about what exists here, but then there are long time residents unwilling to consider giving up their single-family homes for increased density. seiferguy is right when they say it's that people hate concepts and groups more than the actual real people. It's probably more like how white people saw colonizing the West as "wow, look at all this open land the Indians aren't using!" without understanding why that land opened up. (Not to drop the blame for the Indian wars.) And yeah, that analogy is bad. I'm kind of tired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:37
|
|