31 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

Insist?

That sounds serious.

 

However, I don't agree with the question in this context. It's a false dichotomy. Responsibility to whom?

Are you saying moral responsibility?

Like altruism?

Responsible to the employee and to "society".  Which is not necessarily altruism, though invariably it gets packaged that way.  This ("responsibility to stakeholders" in modern parlance), as opposed to the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. 

Alright, let's move on.  Allow me to assert, without proof, something I believe is most likely true: Amazon receives a sufficient number of job applicants for its entry-level positions that it could fill them all without hiring a single beneficiary of government assistance.  So why don't they?  Could it be because they are forbidden to ask?  There are a whole host of questions you're not allowed to ask nowadays, like marital status...I'm not even going to start compiling a list here.   Actually, I don't think Amazon seeks to exclude struggling single mothers, but note that they couldn't even if they wanted to. 

Ultimately what this comes down to is whether Amazon may pay market rates for labor.  Since they're so successful are they to be held to a different standard than McDonalds?  And they have some number of government contracts (which they're dependent on?  What percentage of their revenue comes from the government?  Is it a no-bid deal?  Did they get an affirmative action preference?).   

42 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

Are you seriously arguing that if Amazon can't get government welfare for its workers, it will simply abolish those jobs?

That this is the business model forced on Amazon by the market?

Heh...

Jeff Bezos is a smart man, not stupid.

And so are we...

 

Michael

I'm going to have to insist you answer my first question: Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees?  Yes, no, maybe, sometimes?

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The argument is if taxpayers are going to pay substantial sums of money for a corporation to exist, the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the corporation's employees to eat because the corporation pays lousy wages and finds an unearned loophole for charity handouts from the government to cover the cost. 

Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees?  Especially of their entry-level ones?  There will always be single mothers with limited work history and dead-beat dads.  They have to start somewhere, and it’s going to be in jobs more ideally suited (compensation-wise) to college students who live with their parents.  Amazon picker, for instance.  If there wasn’t government assistance, they’d have to rely on private charity (before the “war on poverty”, that’s what they did), maybe from churches or battered women shelters, etc., to make ends meet.  Then they get to climb the ladder.  It sucks to be on the lowest rung, there's no disputing that. 

Is Amazon to deny employment to single mothers, to avoid the claim that they’re being subsidized?  Imagine what that would look like.  It calls to mind the story of Fantine in Les Miserables. 

This one certainly gets the skeptical juices flowing.  If the recent data don't support warming, make the past colder!

This guy from ARI does a good job.

Though I'm not so sure about the hairstyle.

36 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!

You mustn't leave out: Faster...Harder...Don't Stop...owowowowoWoWOOOOHOOOOO YES!!!!!

All the while the male part of the sketch staves off his climax by reciting Gunga Din. 

On 7/5/2018 at 4:53 PM, william.scherk said:

A respite from Idea Farming on OL. Here is someone who has thought the whole thing through at least once.

Superman III: Now Non-Fiction.

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

And then Caroljane writes the final Morning in America sex scene. 

And the critics sneer at the Mickey Mouse plot.

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If I suggested to you that D'Souza was not 'inartful,' but factually wrong on Hitler's anti-gay actions as Fuhrer, would you be willing to review some evidence?

I think it would be fair to say Hitler was opportunistic in his approach to gays.   Jews too.  There was a case, and I could probably look up the name easily, of a high ranking Nazi discovering he had Jewish roots, and this spawned the line (paraphrasing): we decide who is Jewish and who is not. 

Dinesh's statement would have been equally valid if he'd said Jews instead of gays.  Absurd.  

On 5/22/2016 at 5:23 PM, 9thdoctor said:

 Are lawmakers concerned that these people are going in there to sneak a peek?  Enjoy the aromas?  The whole thing's goofy.

This story made the rounds yesterday:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/19/transgender-wyoming-woman-convicted-sexually-assaulting-10-year-old-girl-in-bathroom.html

I found the headline objectionable, however effective it was as click-bait.   This didn't happen in a public bathroom, but in a private home.  If it had happened in a closet would the headline have included that detail?

In the absence of evidence my mind keeps going back to the novel Black Sunday.  That killer didn't have a manifesto, he just wanted to die while killing a lot of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sunday_(novel)

On 6/15/2016 at 9:50 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

The won't address the problem of self-radicalization among American born Muslims...

It is not immigrants that are the danger,  but memes. 

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that do not commit mass murder?

What's going on here?  I'm agreeing with Bob.  Or at least with the apparent thrust of a couple quotes from him.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It is exactly the same as a Topic Header on the front porch, Brant, but it cannot be read by other than registered and logged-in OL members.

FYI I was able to see it from my iphone, and I've never logged in from there.

I don't have anything especially insightful to say on the topic.  It seems to me that if you're a male transitioning to female, probably the safer place to do your bathroom business is the ladies room.  Are lawmakers concerned that these people are going in there to sneak a peek?  Enjoy the aromas?  The whole thing's goofy.

On 5/6/2016 at 8:48 PM, william.scherk said:

You are banned for another full extra twenty minutes. Next time the penalty will be doubled. 

So I'm allowed back now? 

P.G. Wodehouse once wrote a story featuring, as antagonist, a wicked tabby cat.  His introduction of this character suits the Drumpf to a tee:

"Orange of body, and inky black of soul"

Seems almost prophetic.

"Do not attack the character of discussants or otherwise be a  conversational oaf."  

Trump supporters must have serious psychological problems.  Likely diagnosis: Bed wetters all.

Testing testing...moderator on duty?

Victemhood? Is that the Canadian spelling?