![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/2QNz7bkA1V.png)
If they could do this, it would be a good idea. It’s just not possible.
If they could do this, it would be a good idea. It’s just not possible.
A while back some Texas lawmakers wanted to offer a reward for turning in women seeking out of state abortions. I think that’s what the commenter is referring to.
If you don’t mind using an exploit for the pantheons, Hollow Knight is a very fun game to 100%.
If you don’t use the exploit, you will become a shell of your former self.
15-20%, since less than half of the US votes republican.
As long as you get out and vote! We’ve got this!
The person who shot Ronald Reagan, their motive was wanting to impress Jodi Foster.
A single nuclear unit in the US typically has 1 GW output or less. Some plants have multiple units. A two unit plant might have around 2 GW output for instance.
This isn’t my POV, this is the reality of the performance conversations I’ve been involved with.
Pick one
I upvoted your comment for being insightful, not trying to dismiss what you’re saying. I get where you’re coming from, and I agree that what you’re saying is likely true for most businesses, but there are other people who’s reality of conversations they have been involved with resulted in being fired unfairly.
I mean, whether they are natural or not shouldn’t matter. The “shallow decision making and poor choices” are just as accessible to a leftist woman. It feels kind of yucky to be setting standards for how you think it is acceptable for women to present themselves, regardless of whether they are on the same side of the political aisle.
“We can shame women for how they choose to present themselves as long as they disagree with us about Palestine” is a weird take when you examine it for what it is.
I don’t know, there’s nothing morally wrong with her makeup and face. If she happened to be a leftist but otherwise looked the same, I doubt we’d be rushing to the comments to mock her style. This is alienating to women who are like minded to us but have a similar sense of fashion to Boebert.
Hitler’s mustache is now so closely associated with nazis and fascism that we would rightly mock anyone who unironically kept their facial hair that way. Lauren Boebert’s eyebrows don’t feel like they deserve the same treatment, since it is very normal for many women with leftist values to keep up their appearance in a similar way. The eyebrows are not the problem; her beliefs are.
We both think that she’s an idiot. Why does she have to look stupid? If some right wingers were talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this way we would find that repugnant.
Respectfully, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms we can make without resorting to making fun of her appearance.
Edit for clarity:
Imagine if you were a woman who disagreed wholeheartedly with Lauren Boebert, and found her a wretched human being, but happened to look a lot like her. Then you see others who think like you do attacking her appearance.
Why would we create an environment that alienates people on anything other than ideological or moral grounds? The only people our criticisms should repel are people with dangerous ideologies that we don’t want to be associated with.
The real question is whether sustainable jet fuel can melt steel beams.
American libertarians are conservatives who don’t like that label, and have a big stick up their butts about taxes.
Lots of people saying this isn’t uplifting enough. If this was my dad, I’d feel a lot more than just uplifted.
The more people who come around to reason, the more people will be exposed by proxy to a healthy perspective. This is absolutely uplifting, even if it’s tragic we are in this place to begin with.
What brand/model do you have? I’ve been looking into purchasing one.
I used those figures for ease of understanding and easy math.
Easy, but not accurate and therefore misleading.
At no point did I believe there was a factory somewhere selling widgets, or that a person named Joe was salaried as he built them.
No one thought you did… until now.
My overall point is that for all economics to remain the same, average productivity per worker per hour must remain the same, otherwise there will be price increases or other economic effects.
Correct, things will change. The point is that the system can handle those changes. Price increases will happen, sure. But if we take a look at the year prior to [current year], prices tend to go up. Rather than use this as an argument against working fewer hours, or not paying employees more, we should be using the systems we have in place to provide as much benefit to people as is reasonable. Since the 4 day work week does work, (many examples of companies increasing productivity this way) this is a reasonable benefit to push for.
So in this example, the revenue is $1100 a week per worker. If the worker does make $1000 for that time, that does spell doom.
Let’s work it the other way. A typical business allocates 15-30% of its revenue to payroll. If an employee is making $1,000 a week, that means that if this widget factory was making enough to be a reasonably successful business in the US today, their revenue per worker would range from $3,333 to $6,667. This means the company would be “losing” somewhere between $667 to $1,333 a week by paying the same wages but losing 1 widget.
Overhead is not exclusively the $1,000 you pay Joe. It is also whatever else you pay to keep the factory in business and Joe working. Some of this, like electricity, will decrease when Joe is at work less.
Now if you consider that for decades the widget factories have been making more widgets, but paying the workers lower wages, we have a healthy widget empire more than capable of supporting a 4 day work week.
Examples like these are only helpful if we use realistic numbers. $1,000 a week for a worker’s wages is plausible. $1,100 in revenue from that work is not.
*Herr Trumpfelmeisersteineinkuchenbuchen