My boss is 250k$+ in debt from renovations and we aren’t doing enough in sales. She’s stressed & just balled her eyes out in front of me. I love this lady to death and this is breaking my heart.
It would mean the world if y’all would stop in and buy a pizza & have a few beers. Come check us out in Kirkwood (east Atlanta).
Urban Pie – 2012A Hosea L Williams Dr, Atlanta GA 30317
Plus you get to see my cute face and my cute employees.
laws about minimum wage should apply to disabled people
laws about minimum wage should apply to incarcerated peopleÂ
everyone deserves a fair living wage for their labor
wait, they don’t???
Not even close. Disabled folks can be paid as little as $1 an hour in some cases at whats called “subminimum wage.” Prisoners are sometimes forced to work without pay at all.
Hi, I am an attorney in the disability field. Many disabled folks make well under $1 an hour in what are called “sheltered workshops”. There are only three states right now that require people with disabilities to be paid at least minimum wage, and they are Alaska, New Hampshire, and Maryland. Goodwill is a major offender, but there are many, many others.
Also minimum wage actually needs to actually be a fair living wage.
Another especially horrific thing about this:
Sometimes voc rehab counselors will… strategically avoid saying much about a sheltered workshop not having opportunities for advancement.
So people will assume that their low pay and dull tasks are temporary and that they can earn promotions or raises, when actually those things are pretty much nonexistent.
So you get people being like “I’ve done this for 20 years, why have I never gotten promoted?”
As a cat owner, I can confirm 50% of the time I am kissing my cats soft head and telling her how much she means me, and the other 50% I’m angrily telling her not to eat plastic
This is an article about an apology from the Dutch Red Cross to the Jewish Community, issues last year, in regards to how the organisation failed the nation’s Jews:Â
The Dutch Red Cross offered its “deep apologies” for failing to act to protect Jews during World War II following the publication of a research paper on its inaction.
“The war years are undoubtedly a black stain on the pages of our 150-year history,” Inge Brakman, the Dutch Red Cross’ chairwoman, told the De Telegraaf daily Wednesday. There was a “lack of courage” on the part of the organization during the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands, she said.
“We have offered our deep apologies to the victims and their relatives,” she said, adding that the organization “acknowledges the mistakes made during and after the war.”
In a study commissioned by the Dutch Red Cross, the Amsterdam-based NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies found there was “a serious shortfall in the help given to persecuted Jews in The Netherlands.”
“Dutch political prisoners in camps outside the Netherlands also had to go mostly without the help of the Red Cross,” the study concluded. But it also said that the Red Cross had mounted considerable efforts for some prisoners, though not Jewish ones.
The results were presented in a book by NIOD historian Regina Grueter, launched on Tuesday in Amsterdam after a four-year investigation.
The organization’s headquarters “made things too easy for the occupiers,” said the current Dutch Red Cross director Gijs de Vries.
Of about 140,000 Jews known to have lived in the country at the start of the Second World War, only about 30,000 survived. A total of 107,000 were interned in Camp Westerbork, in the north-east of the country, before being transported to Nazi concentration camps in other countries.
This is how you show contrition for failing act in a way that ultimately aids evil. You acknowledge that your inaction was complicity. You acknowledge your lack of courage, your shortcomings when the time came to do between choosing what is right and what is easy.Â
Nobody is saying “these people didn’t do the right thing so you must never be at peace ever in your life, you and your descendants must be cast aside into a pit of despair for all eternity.” We are just asking that you acknowledge your failings, apologise for them, and learn from them.
When you come into my inbox seething with rage because I dared to hold people who complied with the Nazis accountable for their inaction, saying “They had no choice, they were scared for their lives, how dare you!” what you’re telling me is that, not only are you not ashamed by your ancestors’ shortcomings, but that you would, without question, repeat their mistakes.Â
If your response is to be defensive rather than ashamed, what you are telling me is that you have learnt nothing from history and that if the Nazis were knocking on your day ~today~ asking for your help in rounding me and my community up into cattle cars, that you would, without hesitation, repeat the sins of the generations that came before you.Â
You are not actually defending your grandparents or great-grandparents for being complicit in the extermination of our families, you are defending yourselves in the eventuality that you are complicit in ours.Â
So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?
Yes.
Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.
Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm. That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty. Â
Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible.Â
The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?
There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE
No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.
I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.
Seriously.
Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.
It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.
>The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?
Uh-huh.
Take away billionaires and you just put millions or possibly billions of people out of work.
Glad to know you hate the working class.
That’s literally the opposite of how reality works but keep going
Do you know how many people work for Walmart?
Get rid of Walmart and you have millions of students and the elderly who needed that paycheque suddenly out of the job.
What about construction workers? Who depend on rich businessmen a lot to get good contracts with good pay.
People have the right to accumulate money and the moment you say they can’t or that there’s a limit that is an issue. The idea that billionaires are exploiting the people they give money to. Is a completely idiotic idea.
The vast majority of the working class is indirectly working for and paid by person or people richer than them. Because you kind of need to be rich to hire thousands of workers.
The rich are an important part of how the economy works. Don’t beleive me? As the Soviets they figured that out the hard way.
Ooooooor maybe Walmart should pay all those students and elderly people a fair wage, and their CEOs can just be fabulously wealthy and not disgustingly wealthy.
Like, this isnt a question of “should ANY amount of wealth inequality exist.” Its specifically about BILLIONAIRES. Not even millionaires. BILLIONAIRES.
Presumably Walmart employees agreed on their terms of payment or they wouldn’t be working there.
Sounds like a fair wage to me.
Not if it forces them onto food stamps to avoid starvation. Without the ability to negotiate for wages on equal footing (through collective action) and without a strong social safety net that ensures temporary unemployment won’t lead to homelessness, then no. Just agreeing to a wage doesnt inherently make it fair.
You act as if people are incapable of collective action. Bad companies lose employees, good companies keep them. A company can ignore this if they like but they’ll suffer for it.
The employee is free to go to another company or become independent if they so choose. they may not get the wages that they want but just because I’m not able to sell something for astronomically more than it’s worth doesn’t make my agreement to the sale price any less legitimate.
The free market is what assures fairness not government action.
I think reality has proven that an unregulated or poorly regulated free market does NOT guarantee fairness in the absence of collective bargaining and strong social safety nets.Â
If employees can only choose between starvation level wages or potential homelessness then they aren’t REALLY free to quit in search of greener pastures.Â
As I have said, you premise that there is no collective bargaining is flawed collective action is taken all the time without even mentioning unions.
As a matter of fact collective bargaining, both formal and informal is a part of the free market.
Likewise your premise that people’s only choices are homelessness and starvation wages is also flawed; it’s actually an either or fallacy.
People have potentially limitless option in a market economy and they also have the option of becoming independent. And if people really can’t survive in a situation with so many options they can still leave whichever free market economy that they’re a part of and go to a country with your preferred system.
Your argument is that if a person is worried that quitting their minimum wage job will leave them homeless due to a lack of social safety nets during unemployment, they should MOVE TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY?
Because emigrating is sooooooooooo cheap and easy, right?
Hello, real world calling.
That’s oversimplification to the point of childishness but yes.
I will remind you that you’re saying that if a person is doesn’t like their pay they should wait for a revolution to steal money from other people instead of improving themselves or just finding a different job.
At least my extreme option gives people agency which you seem to forget that they have.
But that’s the point isn’t it? If people were really on starvation wages then it would be cheaper in the long run to emigrate with their meager possessions now rather than wait and hope someone will give you stollen money.
Even if you’re right and the poor are in oppressive system that’s keeping them poor if they’re not willing to do something as simple as leave, then they may be beyond help.
People can’t emigrate to Sweden if they are living paycheck to paycheck working at Walmart. “If people arent willing and able to flee the country, they deserve to starve” is a bold take.
And no one is saying ~wait for the revolution ~ I’m saying we need legal reforms to the entire system, rather than expect individuals to try and parlay with mega corporations one on one.
Funnily enough this is exactly the way the US worked in the 1950′s. And you can say a lot of terrible things about the 50′s and the conformity and the way anyone who wasn’t a straight white man was treated, but you can’t say American business wasn’t prosperous, and you can’t say American employees weren’t either.
These guys talk like this is a pie in the sky ideal that no one has ever tried, rather than business as usual between the 1940′s and the 1970′s. Even the terrible recession of the 1970′s didn’t leave people in as dire straits as they’re in routinely nowadays.
Those who don’t study history are not only doomed to repeat it, sometimes they’re doomed to believing it wasn’t possible.
1. The cat hopped out of the box and wandered off to look for its food bowl, which it knew was around here somewhere. It had no idea how lucky it was. Meanwhile, a single pale ghost peeled of its sheaf of lives and went mewling up until it joined the clouds. It was not until ten years later, and on its last life, that the cat had cause to remember the incident.
2. The younger twin returned from space, grizzled and radiation-burned, still disorientated from the final burst of deceleration. By now the older twin was near death; it had been a long journey. Nevertheless, deep space is not a healthy environment. Thw twins entered the hospice together, and told each other stories of their years apart as far as they were able. It was the twin who had been to space who died first.
3. The accident was widely reported and led to a number of high-profile resignations. Seven people who had been responsible for maintaining the trolley failsafe systems and track security were found guilty of neglecting their duty. They recieved a mixture of fines and prison sentences. The man who had pulled the lever was eventually judged to be innocent, although some held his decision to be politically motivated, and the families of the deceased refused to accept the verdict.
4. The tortoise’s victory was widely reported, and it even signed a small sponsorship deal with a shell polishing company. However, opponents became increasingly reluctant to allow it a head start in subsequent races. Without its crucial advantage, it began losing. The sponsorship deal was not renewed and eventually the tortoise was largely deserted, even by its supporters. It took to performing stunts to try and win back fame, but ended its career in ignominy after a failed dismount killed a passing playwright.
5. Unfortunately, the hotel with infinitely many rooms was found to contain infinitely many cockroaches. It was shut down on public health grounds. The issues involved in evacuating an infinite number of guests were found to be severe, eventually leading to the formation of a tourist singularity which consumed most of the hotel’s host planet and permanently disrupted the orbits in its home system. Fortunately, infinitely many guests also escaped. Their subsequent search for accommodation led to an unusual period of economic growth and hotel-centric culture in that part of the galaxy.
6. The ladder continued through the garage at relativistic speed and slammed into the warehouse behind, converting its considerable kinetic energy into a large explosion. At the inquest, nobody could quite recall why just making the garage slightly bigger had not been considered as a viable option for ladder storage. It seemed that they had all been overcome by a sort of delirium of scientific enthusiasm.
7. They were very nice jars. After the brain-in-a-jar operation had been shut down by horrified authorities, the custodians charged with winding up operations took a few of them home, where they were repurposed as fish tanks, terrariums and fancy dress astronaut helmets.
8. Having finally produced the complete works of Shakespeare, the monkeys were out of a job. Nobody was interested in what they might produce next. They came to the conclusion that they had accidentally typed some morally unacceptable combination of syllables. Subsequently, they used this insight to develop a language and a culture based on being as far distant from that used by Shakespeare as possible. With one exception; the worst insults and most taboo curses were, of course, wholly Shakespearian. Fortunately, Shakespeare had provided a fine selection to choose from.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.