|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:One time I had a job interview and it was processing like thousands of photos in photoshop, cropping them to the same size or something. During the interview they wanted to watch me do like ten of them and I made a macro and then they canceled the interview and canceled the job and I guess just used my extremely simple macro forever after that. Should have demanded a consulting fee. Or negotiated a per photo rate
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Cicero posted:This is pretty gross and should be probe-worthy imo. Attacking posters for their own shittiness is fine, trying to pry into their family background for gotchas is really dumb and bad Is it a gotcha or a real attempt to discern the source and nature of the individuals blindspots? It's really weird when people post misleading statistics that everyone recognizes as misleading but them, because we've all seen them refuted multiple times in this very sub forum, but then continue to act like they should have some benefit that they know what they talk about.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:I literally covered this (it's the one part of my post you didn't quote, funny that) but let me spell it out; the maximum of what an employer will pay is what the job is worth because an employer will never pay more than the job is worth. The point at which you won't pay more is the point at which you're paying them more than what you'll get out of them (or likely less than that but never more), thus everything up to that point is the value of their work. If you're trying to pay them less than this, you're paying them less than what they're worth. Also your trades person analogy is terrible, paying someone the value of their work isn't the same as literally giving them all your money, what the gently caress are you talking about. All intangibly essential employees should get paid the same.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
The twitch stream thing is a dumb argument but how do we decide when someone's art is so bad we aren't going to be giving them a supply of the quality paints they are seeking? Under capitalism it's easy.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:This is basically where I am at yeah. Like in this situation "what wage you get paid" is meaningless; there shouldn't even be money anymore. Money is useful. Even when a group of people don't have currency it they invent something to use instead. Abolishing money is unnecessarily reductionist.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Scarcity can exist for some things and not others and even if we agree to give everyone a high standard of living money is going to be the best way to sort out amongst ourselves what we want/get if we can't have literally everything that exists in the world.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Sure except for when it isn't and the gov't seizes control of production and institutes rationing because it needs to take things seriously for a while instead of playing games with rich people. You said it but that doesn't mean everyone agreed. But yeah, when you cut a bunch of context out of my statement it takes on a different meaning. imagine that.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean it's right, you can't have a market without the threat of poverty, you can't sell people what they aren't at risk of being denied. Not all things have to be part of the markets tho, as someone else mentioned I think. Markets for some luxury and recreational goods. wateroverfire posted:I don't think anyone has said ITT that we had barter then moved to currency because currency better. I'm just straight up saying currency better, only way to run an industrial economy. I'm at a loss for how "well actually a barter economy never existed" was a rebuttal of anything posted so far.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Lol at enjoyment of life being a "pointless thing"
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you think enjoyment of life is something you should marketize and thus deprive some people of then you're a piece of poo poo hth. "Everyone can't have all of everything is exactly the same as deprivation!" Ok guy
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Either you're suggesting markets for things that are literally pointless, as in people do not need them to be happy, or you are suggesting markets for things that people do need to be happy in which case see my prior point. This is a false binary. There are things that people want and are enjoyable but not strictly necessary for their happiness or human happiness generally. I'm suggesting that there is a line drawn and money can be an ok way to generally facilitate exchanges if we fix a lot of other poo poo. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i think what nevvyz is imagining is a communism where we all have almost everything we want but we all issued like 100 bison dollars a year and you get to spend your bison dollars on super luxuries like a caribbean cruise or an avocado. sort of like an arcade tickets type thing Or like Star Trek where you can manufacture infinite pizza from atoms but there's only so many holodecks so you can't just play in one for 8 hours a day every day.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:There is a strong argument that the job guarantee is the socialist version of the UBI. Uncoupling labor and value is actually anathema to Marxism. Personally, destroying the "any reasonable accommodation" part of the ADA makes UBI a nonstarter to begin with. Can there be a UBI that doesn't do this or is it somehow inextricably tied together? This reminds me of the M4A argument that it's bad because "the poor/middle class will pay more" but we could just change the implementation so that they do not. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
There's a mix of weird and unclear assumptions going on like "UBI means we have to pay for healthcare again" but that isn't necessarily the case. We can do UBI and nationalized healthcare where you aren't spending your UBI on healthcare.V. Illych L. posted:i have no idea what you're on about at this point, you're not being coherent Labor markets, not "things you are buying with your ubi" markets. BougieBitch posted:Because someone making 100k already gets to pay it right back in taxes FTFY
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:A UBI that let's people pay rent is going to benefit landlords, but I consider "landlords profiting off giving people homes" a good compromise between "landlords profiting off denying people homes" and "kill all landlords." I think we need to illegalize rent. You're paying, you are paying to own. probably impractical.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Edit: Basically, UBI in the US is brought up as an alternative to unemployment/disability/social security/medicaid, I wasn't and these are more of the assumptions I was referring to. BougieBitch posted:That's the point. If the government is giving money to millionaires to do whatever they want with Giving the money to millionaires, taxed back at a higher rate, lets us get rid of lots of lovely make work means testing jobs. I think we should stop means testing food stamps too. Somfin posted:Like, take a position, is rent control a good positive possible step that we should work toward alongside UBI, or is it something that's going to be too difficult to achieve and should therefore be shelved until it's moot because we've all been delivered to the promised land? I'm finding that "what if shitheads make it bad" is a poor argument against ideas. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:16 on May 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but if you're saying socialism is axiomatically good, I disagree. This is a pattern cropping up in a number of places I've noticed recently. If "Socialism is Good" axiomatically, then the evils committed by revolutionaries are justified. If "Israel has a right to exist" axiomatically, then anything they do has to be accepted . If "I'm going to Heaven because I am a member of such and such church" then I can start being a shitbag on earth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 14:23
|
|