Doug, a thought here, just a view from my experience. Most people who really do treat others poorly, don't like themselves. They are basically miserable; possibly trying to offset that with power to abuse others, power to make money off them, etc. They aren't going to admit that, but underneath it would be true. My major point is that criticism won't change the view or character of that kind of person, because they don't have room for any concerns other than themselves. I would think best consequence would be for guests to avoid the hotels, bring about financial failure. This can happen because people do not have the power to change the way the top management thinks, but would have the ability to influence their potential guests. Hundreds of bad reviews in the hotel business has a very powerful effect; if you can encourage doing that, it will hit home. Enough of it kills the ability to profit because occupancy falls, possibly resulting in them selling out and new management taking over. This doesn't mean the entire management or ownership has the abusive attitude, but it means who ever has the power to set the policies- written and unwritten- does. Leadership begins at the top. That's why they fire coaches on losing ball teams; that is what changes the whole environment. Other than that, I think the people who were fired would be better off finding somewhere better to work than returning to a situation that hasn't really changed in attitude.
Well then I don't care about you. And I suspect I join with a lot of others in that. Maybe not your mother.
Well then I don't care about you. And I suspect I join with a lot of others in that. Although maybe not your mother.
It's way too late for a policy u-turn. We're in a worldwide competition for resources--we have to sell into world markets to pay for raw materials. Globalism is the game, period.
This reads like virtue signalling, I'm sorry to say. And way off the mark virtue signalling, at that. What you're seeing (and apparently 'caring' about) is a result of humans and their small societies, failing to take responsibility for themselves and each other. What you're actually promoting is a further defection from responsibility, in suggesting that all of us are somehow responsible for every random stranger - and therefore no one is. You're literally encouraging MORE 'suffering'. If you truly cared, you would ensure that your small society is doing whatever it can to guard against hard times. You would not reduce your concern to observations about random strangers. You would champion personal and group responsibility.
Well, I don't see it that way. I'm a defender of capitalism -- the system that is pulling the human species out of backwardness. But I've seen a lot of pro-capitalist types make the assumption that the sort of society we want is 'everyone for himself'. That's not true. It may be for them, but it's very distant from the traditional conservative attitude. So if you see someone who is playing by the rules, working hard, obeying the law ... and then their boss throws them into the street. Well ... my reaction is to condemn that boss. I really don't see what's controversial about this. It seems to me that some conservatives have listened to the Leftist caricature of conservatism, and decided that that's what they like. This is not a good idea.
Why would you expect a business (your employer, for example) to behave like your family? or a charity? If all of us go into the working world expecting our employer to save us, and thereby neglecting our own role in preparing for calamity, then WE are failing .. not our employers. Their only role is to exchange currency for labour .. that's IT. Their responsibility to us ends there. They're a trading partner - like the guy who repaired your car, or the woman who sold you a shirt. And it was never about 'every man for himself' .. that's exactly the attitude I see in your view. When you neglect your own role, in the bizarre expectation that random strangers and businesses will have your back, you are literally championing dog-eat-dog. There is no man more alone in a storm, than one who imagined the world would care for him. I'm a collectivist, to add to that. I'm a staunch advocate for collective living and self-reliance. I'm no fan of those who throw their fate to the world, solo.
61falcon? Hmmm - now I'm curious too. How about you? Did you VoTe fer Mr. Ok ListEn uP and LoOkY RiGHt hErE aT tHiS HeRe GraPH....
Ugh, sorry. I had written a much better explanation but the draft mechanism of this app failed me when I jumped out to look something up and then came back and it was gone. Odd that was.... We probably should start another thread, maybe like something under the Science category about what should be our priorities in tackling things like a planet B option versus lots of other stuff, like as but one example maybe we could get serious about a program to keep a big ass meteor from impacting us... I think another example I was looking for was something that is a bit of a stretch - but possibly if we do ever invent a warp or hyperspace mode of travel - then, and again this is pure speculation on my part having almost no expertise in graduate level and beyond and physics, but maybe a project like the SSC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider would need to be funded first so that we could get to planet B. This though is kinda true, isn't it? Humans die without gravity: literally.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body "In recent years there has been an increase in research on the issue of how humans can survive and work in space for extended and possibly indefinite periods of time. This question requires input from the physical and biological sciences and has now become the greatest challenge (other than funding) facing human space exploration."
We need to do two things: stop all globalism outside of essential freight, and fund a UN-backed space program. Meantime, yes ... the possibilities and potentials are incredible.
Yes Sir - thank you and it has been my pleasure to read your response. You've hooked my interest to see your three rules. Please share!
Yes, I'm afraid it is. We've developed a high tech economy, manufacturing and services. We're not going to bring back $2/hour manufacturing jobs to displace $15/hour service sector work.
I'm not interested in starting a public challenge on this, I know how that goes. However I will message you directly and share that with you. Should get that done sometime tomorrow.
We require employers to maintain a safe workplace, limit the hours they can require an employee to work, require they pay a minimum salary, so there's more to it than a simple exchange. Do you think laws protecting workers are wrong? Huh?
What does this mean? Don't buy anything outside the country except "essential freight." What about raw materials?
I agree. But it the basis of the chart you showed that explains that wages haven't kept pace with inflation. Perhaps the government should stop creating inflation.
The reason we need a small amount of inflation... the inflation/deflation of the currency goes up and down within a range. If we shoot for 0%, sometimes we'll tip into deflation. Here's the problem: deflation increases real interest rates and that negatively impacts economic growth.
I understand that. I never considered short periods of minor deflation to be as hurtful as long term inflation. Since we don't see deflation I don't know for sure. The problem for me is that I think longer term than businesses and governments do. 2% inflation over a year doesn't seem like a big deal but over many years it is a very big deal. Since I started working the dollar has lost 90% of its value. It is a long time to be sure but 90% is a lot. I paid $1600 for my first new car and fed it 25 cent per gallon gasoline. It feels like yesterday to an old timer like me.
I'm with you on that, but factor in your wage at that age and the wage today that someone of the same age and skill level might earn. Legitimate inflation is a sort of mirage. The real measure is how much a person's quality of life changes in terms of their productivity- is it easier or harder to maintain the equivalent lifestyle? Some things are a lot cheaper now- and a few are outrageously exaggerated such as healthcare. Overall, people working today have it easier than you and I did 50-60 years ago. They don't appreciate that difference- but then, they haven't been there. Unfortunately, many don't respect the knowledge of those that have either, and think life is so unfair to them.
So you condemn it when the Right engages in it. Excuse it when the Left engages in it. The TRUE HEROES of the epidemic:
We're sitting here, watching all of that unravel. Local factories which closed down in past decade are being reopened, and old machines fired up. It's happening all over the world.
1) irrelevant. the terms of the 'trade' between buyer and provider (of labour) are between them. nothing to do with my point about making hay while the sun shines. wasn't even a decent try 2) nothing to do with my point about making hay while the sun shines, and the sun shines every time you get paid. you either make hay, or you leave your fate to a world which doesn't give a damn about you. 3) if you disconnect from your collective (the people and place representing security), AND fail to make hay while the sun shines .. you've made a clear choice about how you want your life to play out. you've elected to have as little control over it as possible.