|
I can't believe we have to put trigger warnings on our candy bars.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:That's a chill pill situation if I've ever seen one. Or a shut the gently caress up lozenge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
What I don't understand the the hostility to the idea of acknowledging the existence of food allergies and making some ultimately minor changes that won't affect the guy's life at all. I also don't get the "loving man up" thing. I have a food allergy that can literally kill me and very nearly has twice so far. I can't just kick the food's rear end and hammer it into submission. My options are "don't eat the thing that makes you die" or "eat the thing that makes me die and probably die." Like...what, exactly, does "man up" mean in that situation? It isn't like I can just build up a tolerance to it. It's something that my body just decided that it loving hates. I mean I'm happy as hell that food labels tend to say "hey those of you with food allergies, there's a chance this got contaminated and might make you die."
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What I don't understand the the hostility to the idea of acknowledging the existence of food allergies and making some ultimately minor changes that won't affect the guy's life at all. I also don't get the "loving man up" thing. I have a food allergy that can literally kill me and very nearly has twice so far. I can't just kick the food's rear end and hammer it into submission. My options are "don't eat the thing that makes you die" or "eat the thing that makes me die and probably die." Like...what, exactly, does "man up" mean in that situation? It isn't like I can just build up a tolerance to it. It's something that my body just decided that it loving hates. Usually it's in the context of "peanut products no longer allowed in a school" or "I can no longer get delicious honey-roasted peanuts on an airplane," so I think the main thing boils down to "Things are different now and I do not like it. I don't have any personal contact with affected people, so I assume they are imaginary and just out to give me, personally, a hard time."
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:What the GOP actually want to do is take away the EBT cards and replace them with...nothing. Because those people would suddenly jump up and start the next Apple or Microsofts if they weren't kept down by all the free handouts that enable them to live better than honest working people. Yea, people honestly believe that living on welfare is so fantastic, there is no incentive to actually get a job. Which is insane, but poo poo like "oh they have a fridge" and they found some surfer dude that used ebt to buy lobster once. Oh and a receipt that showed someone buying lobster and mt dew on ebt (but that guy was actually using one he stole from his gf and was turning around selling the stuff).
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Because those people would suddenly jump up and start the next Apple or Microsofts if they weren't kept down by all the free handouts that enable them to live better than honest working people. And the underlying assumption that poor people should never have anything good or pleasant happen to them and should live in grim stoic austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What I don't understand the the hostility to the idea of acknowledging the existence of food allergies and making some ultimately minor changes that won't affect the guy's life at all. I also don't get the "loving man up" thing. I have a food allergy that can literally kill me and very nearly has twice so far. I can't just kick the food's rear end and hammer it into submission. My options are "don't eat the thing that makes you die" or "eat the thing that makes me die and probably die." Like...what, exactly, does "man up" mean in that situation? It isn't like I can just build up a tolerance to it. It's something that my body just decided that it loving hates. To expand on what Puppy Time said: Some allergies (usually nuts) are so sensitive that even just a little dust in the air can cause someone to go into anaphylactic shock or get hives or react however they react. To be safe, some public/enclosed places don't allow any kind of nuts (schools and airplanes, like Puppy Time mentioned) because it's a health hazard. This leads to people getting mad and entitled because their kid should have a god given constitutional right to bring a PB&J to school or they should get to have airplane peanuts regardless of who it might kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:And the underlying assumption that poor people should never have anything good or pleasant happen to them and should live in grim stoic austerity. Oh yes. The lobster receipt thing from snopes http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/receipt.asp Yes, poor people should be forced to eat only the most basic of food stuff. It's their fault their dads couldn't find them a job in their firm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
If you just gave money to poor people they would stop being poor. Idk why it's so loving hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:If you just gave money to poor people they would stop being poor. Idk why it's so loving hard Yeah but then who would I look down on? Also I earned this money so how dare you tell me to give it to somebody else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Funnily enough lobster use to be considered food for poors since it's a disgusting looking ocean insect that eats trash. Their main use as as fertilizer and bait for better fish. Lobster was cooked a bit differently so it might not have been as tasty.sharktamer posted:Just had a friend posting today that he didn't believe in lactose intolerance. Tell him the majority of people are lactose intolerant and that lactose tolerance is probably some sort of mutation that only about 25% of people on earth have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:To expand on what Puppy Time said: Some allergies (usually nuts) are so sensitive that even just a little dust in the air can cause someone to go into anaphylactic shock or get hives or react however they react. To be safe, some public/enclosed places don't allow any kind of nuts (schools and airplanes, like Puppy Time mentioned) because it's a health hazard. This leads to people getting mad and entitled because their kid should have a god given constitutional right to bring a PB&J to school or they should get to have airplane peanuts regardless of who it might kill. This would possibly bum me out if I were a kid because when I was nine or ten I could've eaten peanut butter by the spoonful. That poo poo is awful for you though, so I would hope that this increase of awareness of peanut allergies would spur some parents to pack slightly healthier meals for their kids. Given how warmly Michelle Obama's healthy lunch initiative was received, however, I can only assume that people are now sending their kids to school with marshmallow cream sandwiches instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Is "Tell strangers not to danger us" a controversial statement? Because, ideally, yes, strangers wouldn't endanger kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Also you better get that 9 page seduction guide LoB. You know you want to. Text messaging was barely on the radar when I wrote the first edition of this book (I remember calling it “a waste of time”), but a lot has changed since then. In fact, my current recommendation is to use text messaging instead of calling as your main way to schedule first dates. The reason is because I’ve had sex with girls using text messaging who wouldn’t have otherwise returned my voicemail. What often happens with voicemail is that a girl may plan to call you back but forgets or loses track of time. A day or two passes and then she feels weird, hesitant, or nervous about picking up the phone. With text, you get responses from girls who are more shy, passive, or flakey, but still open to having sex. There’s also a younger breed of girl who was raised on text and has little experience about making calls and having a normal conversation with a man. While text messaging is easier in that you’ll make fewer mistakes than in a live conversation, it’s far more annoying and tedious. For example, when you call a girl and leave a voice message, you often hear back in a short time and then set a date in just a few minutes, but with text messaging the process can be drawn out for hours—or even days. You’ll sit staring at your phone, wondering why women have made the simple act of setting a date so much more complicated than it needs to be. The key to preventing yourself from going crazy is to be patient, not to get frustrated, and to keep it as simple as possible. On the phone you can crack a joke here or there and then ease into making plans, but that would be foolhardy using text because it’s surely going to be misinterpreted. You’ll be written off as weird. The optimal text game is to remain logistical and to get straight to the point of asking her out. Refrain from sending jokes, stories, or emoticons. I absolutely do not recommend sending a text on the same night you meet (a common one is along the lines of “It was nice meeting you”). It’s a mistake for three reasons: 1) Most other guys do this and you’ll end up grouped with them; 2) It relieves all the tension of her wondering if you’re going to contact her or not; and 3) It can easily be construed as needy, no matter how tight your game was when you met her. Just as when calling on the phone, make your first contact 2–4 days after the first meeting at the same time of night (between 8 and 9 p.m.). Here’s a default text messaging template to follow for setting the first date, with additional comments that explain the strategy. You: hey jenny its roosh. how are you?” Her: “i’m good. how about you?” Send this first text even if she has your number in her phone and knows it’s you. It’s generally a bad sign if it takes her more than an hour to respond, so you’ll know by then if you have a solid prospect on your hands. Note the undercapitalization and missing punctuation (feel free to leave out the last question mark). It’s preferable to show you don’t care too much, and besides, we’re not writing a master’s thesis. An occasional misspelling helps more than hurts because it shows you aren’t proofreading your texts. When it’s your turn to reply, send: You: “good good. do you want to hang out later in the week?” You can also say “this week” instead of “later in the week.” There are two things to notice here: 1) We’re getting right down to business (otherwise the process would take forever); and 2) We’re giving her the opportunity to say yes. Putting the ball in her court forces her to make some effort and investment, no matter how small. She doesn’t just hop along for the ride without doing a bit of work. Her: “okay sure” You: “how about thursday around 9?” Sometimes you have to take a stab in the dark when suggesting plans, unlike the phone, where you can feel out the days she’ll be free. What you can do to make it less of a stab is to ask about days she might be free when initially getting her number. As you’re saving her number in your phone, say, “I’m usually free on Wednesday nights—maybe that’ll be good?” Continue to shoot for weekday nights for your first date, and suggest one at least two days in advance. Suggesting a date one day in advance is risky and going for one on the same day is the wrong move, though it’s a common mistake guys diving into text game make. Only desperate girls accept same-day date planning, especially before sex has occurred. It’s something you do to your girlfriend or for a booty call, not to a new girl. Just because you’re using an easier way to contact her doesn’t mean you’re going to get sloppy and change the game. If she happens to be busy on the day of your initial suggestion, she’ll throw out another day if she’s interested and you can proceed as described below. If she replies with a “no,” or “I’m sorry I can’t” without a counteroffer, chances are the interaction is over and she’s simply being nice by replying to you in the first place. There are two things you can do. First, you can suggest another day, but it probably won’t work because if she was feeling you, she would’ve already done that. The second thing, which I recommend, is to do nothing. Don’t reply and let a few days go by until you breezily start another text conversation by sending a restart text, which I’ll explain later. Your hope in restarting is that you’ll be catching her in a hornier mood, when she’ll be more likely to agree to a date. The worst thing you can do is push it when she’s not at all being lukewarm to your texts. Let’s continue the script after she has accepted your date suggestion. Her: “sounds good, where?” You: “let me think of a place. ill hit you up thursday” You do this as an indirect way to confirm the date if it’s scheduled a couple days in advance, which it probably will be. It’s a flake defense move that will prevent you from getting stood up by a girl who changed her mind during the two-day downtime. If you scheduled a date for the next day, then reply by telling her the place. Otherwise, send a confirmation four to five hours before the start time on the day of the date (if you suggested a 9:00 date time, send a confirmation text between 4:00 and 5:00). Here’s an example for setting the date venue: You: “Hey how about we meet at so-and-so bar at 9?” Her: “okay see you then.” She gave you a very straightforward response, but let’s replay it with her replying in a slightly different manner. You: “Hey how about we meet at so-and-so bar at 9?” Her: “okay sounds good” You: “cool” The difference is subtle but important. In the first case she said “see you then,” which implies that the date is locked and loaded. There’s no reason to reply or confirm. In the second case, her “sounds good” was a semi-confirmation that leaves things slightly open. It would be prudent to lock it up with a “cool” or “alright.”For centuries to come, game scholars will debate how necessary it is to send a confirmation text when a girl agrees to the date, but my take is this: for the first date, don’t give her an excuse to stand you up. On future dates, especially after some intimacy has been established, you can be a little more lazy about locking up the confirmation to make her wonder if you’re going to show up or not. That’s riskier on the first date because if she isn’t well-invested in you, she could not show up and simply say she wasn’t sure if you were coming or not. That’s all it takes to set a date with text. The main idea is to keep it simple and purely logistical. Do not try to start a new conversational thread, don’t tell stories, and definitely don’t try to build attraction through cocky or funny lines. Only after you’ve had sex with her and build deeper rapport can you open up and flirt and joke more, but being flirty before sex has a high risk of backfiring. One important thing to keep in mind is to regulate your response times. If she takes 15 minutes to reply to your text, take 10–20 minutes to respond. If she takes 30 minutes, take 20–40 minutes. If she takes 60 minutes, take 45–75 minutes. Vary your response times and be unpredictable—sometimes reply a little earlier and sometimes much later. A big part of having tight text game comes down to your reply times, and the last thing you want is to appear eager. A common occurrence will be when a girl takes forever to respond. You text her, then hours (or maybe even a full day) went by, but she doesn’t text back. You wonder if she died. If she does eventually reply, it’s either because she’s flakey or testing your neediness. While waiting for her response, don’t make the mistake of texting again, no matter how much time has passed, and absolutely do not call her. If you think of a non-response as disrespect (which I believe it is), it’d be foolish to reward it with another text, since it’s the same as calling again after she didn’t respond to your initial voicemail. By sending a second text you put a nail in the interaction while stroking her ego. Wait it out instead, and if she finally does reply, make sure you take your sweet time texting back. You’ll notice when girls are playing the game with you when it takes exactly 30 or 60 minutes to respond. This isn’t entirely bad, because she doesn’t want to appear eager herself (she wants you to think she’s busy and, ultimately, a desirable catch). While on the surface it seems silly to time responses, that’s what it takes to not appear needy and to get girls out who are attracted to you. Believe me when I say that you can lose a girl by replying too quickly. With text messaging, when in doubt, chill out. As long as you regulate reply times and keep it logistical, it’s hard to go wrong. This strategy ensures that you’ll be getting out the girls who already like you. Trying to build attraction through text is fruitless because if you couldn’t do it in person, you’re definitely not going to do it 160 characters at a time. Also consider using black-out periods to hide the fact that you’re meticulous with your reply times. Refrain from sending texts on the hour or half hour. For example, don’t send a text at exactly 4:00 or 4:30; send it at 4:03 or 4:27 instead. While a seemingly trivial detail, this suggests that you aren’t waiting to reply at certain times. Make things appear as natural as possible (ironically, by being unnatural). Text game gets more variable after the first date. You’ll probably be making it up as you go along, but I find that you won’t be heavily messaging a girl until you’ve had three or four dates and have already gotten the bang. If she starts to show affection in her text messaging, it’s okay to do the same. Just follow this simple rule: do not show more affection than she does. It’s okay to keep up with her, but never surpass her. An example is when a girl sends you a text immediately after a good first date. It happens to me about a third of the time. Her: “Hey I had a really good time tonight! Thanks for the drinks, kiss.” You: “Yeah I did too. Good night.” Feel free to show affection or interest as long as she’s doing it first and yours isn’t more than hers, as in the previous example. Follow this principle and your texts will never be mocked by a girl in front of her friends and you won’t be seen as needy or a beta. That leads to a good rule of thumb when it come to text: would you send the text you’re writing if you knew that all her friends were going to read it? Because rest assured—she’ll share nearly everything with her girlfriends. There will be times when you get frustrated about how difficult it is to make plans. A girl is either taking too long to reply or she’s playing games by suggesting to hang out and then suddenly disappearing. In such cases, you’ll be tempted to do one of two things. The first is to reply quickly. You’ll feel that you’re “losing her” and need to keep things going by sending a fast response. This is a wrong move. She’ll sense your neediness and pull back even more. The second thing is to pick up the phone and call her to cut the bullshit and make solid plans, but this is also a wrong move, since I guarantee that she won’t pick up. She’ll just smile at how she’s getting you to chase her down. The last thing you want to do is to appear needy in the face of difficulty, and if you’re feeling frustrated or played, it’s likely that you’ve already lost the girl. The best thing you can do is relax, play it cool, and take your sweet time in replying. Another tool for your text messaging toolbox is the restart text. It’s something you send days after a girl texts a date cancellation, refusal, or some other aloof message that suggests she’s slipping away. For example, say you ask a girl out on a Tuesday night but she responds by saying she can’t and doesn’t make a counteroffer. In that case, chill out, wait a couple days, and then send a restart text containing an innocuous question, such as “How was your weekend?” or “Did you survive Mardi Gras?” or something based on an event or activity she told you she was going to do. The intent of a restart text is to gauge her responsiveness and enthusiasm. If she takes four hours to respond to a restart text and doesn’t give any substance for you to respond to, there’s no point asking her out again. If she responds with some detail or even asks a question, that’s positive enough for you to suggest to hang out one or two text cycles later. Sending a “what are you up to this week” can key you in on what day to go for the date. You use restart texts because you don’t want to ask girls out who are becoming unresponsive, since that’s like trying to have a conversation with someone in a coma. Technically they can hear you, but it’s unlikely you’ll get a response. A restart text gives you information on where you stand while asking the girl to put some effort into the process, and if she refuses to do so, delete her number with no regrets. You can use text messaging to set the second date as well. At the end of a good first date, feel out her future schedule by saying, “Maybe we should hang out again in a few days.” Remember you’re just feeling out her schedule, not trying to iron out plans. Her response will clue you in on which day to suggest for the next date. Text her in two or three days to see how she’s doing and then ask her out with the next reply, remaining logistical and boring. Her replies may have more color in them and you can add some to yours in response, but don’t go overboard (you’ll know when you’ve done that because she’ll take forever to reply, punishing you for being a retard). If everything goes well on the second date and you want to continue seeing her, pick up the phone and make a first phone call, which also doubles as a test. Even though she has your number in her phone and has gone out with you (and maybe was even penetrated by your snake), there’s at least a 50% chance that she won’t answer. In that case, leave the brief voicemail as described earlier. If she takes more than two hours to call back or merely responds with a text instead of calling, don’t ever call again unless she calls you. She’s telling you that she’s not ready to put in the extra work of talking on the phone—so you shouldn’t either. Stick to texts. We’re at a point in our culture where you may never talk on the phone with a girl you get into a relationship with. A good rule of thumb is not to call until you’ve had sex—or come very close to it. Once you get past the downside of text messaging, you’ll find that there’s a healthy upside—getting more dates. With text I get a 75% reply rate (with phone, it’s closer to 66%). That may not sound significant, but over a couple years that means I’m taking out a lot more women. I prefer talking on the phone, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Since it’s possible that you may get more dates by calling instead of texting, it’d be prudent to experiment with both strategies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:To expand on what Puppy Time said: Some allergies (usually nuts) are so sensitive that even just a little dust in the air can cause someone to go into anaphylactic shock or get hives or react however they react. To be safe, some public/enclosed places don't allow any kind of nuts (schools and airplanes, like Puppy Time mentioned) because it's a health hazard. This leads to people getting mad and entitled because their kid should have a god given constitutional right to bring a PB&J to school or they should get to have airplane peanuts regardless of who it might kill. This was something I was pretty ignorant about. I always thought of food allergies as being as simple as not eating whatever it was that you were allergic to. I didn't know that there are some people whose allergies are severe enough to include airborne particles of the food item until I witnessed it. It was pretty scary. I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to be the child experiencing it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Karma Monkey posted:This was something I was pretty ignorant about. I always thought of food allergies as being as simple as not eating whatever it was that you were allergic to. I didn't know that there are some people whose allergies are severe enough to include airborne particles of the food item until I witnessed it. It was pretty scary. I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to be the child experiencing it. I wonder whether people with those kinds of allergies ever had time to be terrified of it. Back in the olden days they probably died pretty young. It sucks, but all the quarantining in the world isn't going to make a difference. If your allergies are THAT bad you will get exposed to sometime at some point and probably at the worst possible time. Creating safe zones could make it worse because it gives people a false sense of security. Your epipen is your only friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I wonder whether people with those kinds of allergies ever had time to be terrified of it. Back in the olden days they probably died pretty young.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
John Big Booty posted:back in the old days, practically everyone died young. Or as people lined to day now "sucked it up"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I wonder whether people with those kinds of allergies ever had time to be terrified of it. Back in the olden days they probably died pretty young. Yeah I'm one of those people who thinks if you're able to be fatally triggered by something relatively common through minute traces of it in the air your problems are slightly bigger than most public areas can really defend against. I don't get mad at schools not allowing peanut butter or whatever cause that's retarded, but at a certain point you should probably just consider finding an alternative way to educate your child if some kid's morning peanut butter toast breath could be an insta-kill for them. That seems more serious of a condition than just hoping places will somehow ban all microscopic particles of peanut dander
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
I understand it's less "could breathe peanut butter breath" and more "kids are messy as poo poo and likely to contaminate surfaces that an allergic kid might come in contact with." The breathing peanuts issue is more when you're on a plane, since the air is contained in a small area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
How many people are dead because of George Washington Carver?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:I tried to make something as lovely looking as usual, but I could not loving figure it out, so here you go Surprised this isn't tatooed on Windows 98
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:[snip] Rein it in a bit my friend
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
I wish I could find a larger version of this http://i.imgur.com/xu7JuWy.jpg And it was paired with this http://i.imgur.com/UMBB7ec.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
~*Redneck Swagger*~
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
I'm not a libertarian because I'm not a bitch who'd rather complain on the internet instead of trying to better myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
I'm not a libertarian because i realize that i need a solid society to be able to pay me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
 I was looking up a horrible actress in a terrible movie, and saw this posted on IMDB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
These people aren't libertarians because it isn't in their best interest, and that makes them bad. I'm a libertarian because it is in my best interest, and that makes me good
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:2,986 words on texting trickybiscuits has a new favorite as of 09:23 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
brain.centipedes posted:No idea what this dude's talking about. Same dude again. Still have no idea what his problem is. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
brain.centipedes posted:Same dude again. Still have no idea what his problem is. Please dig through his old posts and find him complaining about hangovers and posting them at him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
brain.centipedes posted:Same dude again. Still have no idea what his problem is. He doesn't get invited on holidays or to parties, and seeing everyone talk about them on social media fills him with rage. Simple really. twistedmentat posted:I wish I could find a larger version of this Image 1 - don't really have a problem with the government doing any of those things. EvilGenius has a new favorite as of 09:30 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
brain.centipedes posted:Same dude again. Still have no idea what his problem is. "I don't care about your hangover, but let me tell you about mine and how it doesn't exist."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I wish I could find a larger version of this Oh yes I too hate those subsidised teacher salaries. I dunno how it is in the state but over here teachers don't make poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Oh yes I too hate those subsidised teacher salaries. I dunno how it is in the state but over here teachers don't make poo poo. Which is still more than fair market value for making sure that people know something or other about how the world works!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Oh yes I too hate those subsidised teacher salaries. I dunno how it is in the state but over here teachers don't make poo poo. Teachers are underpaid here in the states too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:Which is still more than fair market value for making sure that people know something or other about how the world works! The market value argument assumes the market is paying fairly. Besides, what's wrong with being happy for someone who earns a decent wage? You think teachers should earn less because you do, you bitter poo poo? And as has been said, teachers get paid gently caress all. Professional trainers and coaches however can earn a fortune.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
OptimusShr posted:Teachers are underpaid here in the states too. Not as much as in France, here and elementary school teacher makes between 1879€ and 2016€ in take-home pay after 10 years in "service". Your first year you start out at 1325€. Of course if you work in private schools you often start out right at minimum wage, 1137€ take-home, like me. That said, I'd much rather teach here than in the States. I have a great deal of autonomy in my classroom, there's no bullshit standardized tests to spend a third of the year taking or preparing for and I get French state healthcare and labor protections. A lot of my childhood friends back in the States are teachers and more than a few of them have temporary contracts each year and they never really know if they're going to have a job for the fall until July or August and a couple of them don't have contracts for the summer months so they have to go find a summer job with the college kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 11:49
|
|
