It would be nice if people spoke clearly and didn't obfuscate things.They’re the only unions that dont seem to support most other unions. It’s weird. I’m not sure I’d call them fake unions, I would say they’re toxic and very much not integrated with the rest of labor
The term for that is Business Unionism. Basically the footing that many unions adopted in the 80’s. Protect your workers, but not Labor overall.They’re the only unions that dont seem to support most other unions. It’s weird. I’m not sure I’d call them fake unions, I would say they’re toxic and very much not integrated with the rest of labor
Delaware for one. I will edit this later with the specific legal code, after I ask my wife (she is a lawyer).
Thanks! TIL that term, cool!The term for that is Business Unionism. Basically the footing that many unions adopted in the 80’s. Protect your workers, but not Labor overall.
I don’t know what “undocumented people” are. I’m talking about people who are here illegally. What do YOU think illegals are going to be doing here in a few years?
What planet are we living on? In what world is a $60k salary for an “unskilled” job like retail worker considered slave wages? I’m sure the top end $30/hr are for NYC/LA workers.Because they provide significant value for a massively valuable company, because people deserve living wages, and because cost of living makes that $60k not actually all that much money in at least most urban areas in the us.
Not regionally adjusted though. It’s below COLA in many places. And that’s assuming things stay “low.”Well, that is consistent with the rate of inflation. But Apple can afford more I think.
You got a 5% pay cut? Look for a different job!Better than the 0% I got.
It’s just a little tongue in cheek humor.I’ve worked in academia and I’ve worked in the corporate world. There’s pros and cons to each. You’ve only made a “poor” choice if you’re not where you want to be.
tough to discern some nuances via written word. cheers.It’s just a little tongue in cheek humor.
I'm guessing the $22-$30 per hour is more than the average of the folks on this site
when median rent in NYC hit $3700? if you make $60k that represents most of your take home by itselfWhat planet are we living on? In what world is a $60k salary for an “unskilled” job like retail worker considered slave wages? I’m sure the top end $30/hr are for NYC/LA workers.
I don’t know what planet we’re living on when $30 wage with excellent benefits for a retail worker is considered bad.
It’s called layoffs.How much is not too much ?
and this raise is permanent, this is not like bonus.
How many employees would be ready to take a pay cut when a business starts loosing money ?
So by waving a magic wand they are now legal and can work here? That’s not how a lawful federal government works. They need to go back to wherever they came from and come in with accordance to our laws. No other country on the planet lets you do that. Protecting your country and selectively letting in migrants is not xenophobia. It’s common sense.Apple cant hire illegal immigrants, aka undocumented immigrants, without them having legal status. That’s been part of the whole problem. The reason why Biden just granted temporary status to Venezuelan refugees is so they can get real working papers. At that point they’re definitionally not illegal anymore. When people do not have documentation, are not legally here, they cant find real jobs, and it falls on governments to support them
That’s *literally* what we did during some of the most thriving periods in US history. It helped the US massively. Should there be no controls? No, but we’ve tightened the rules so much that it’s incredibly difficult and very very expensive to immigrate legally. It’s been pushed by xenophobia, plain and simple.
You’re definition does nothing to change my point. I’m all for States rights handling state issues. Immigration or illegal invasion in this case is a federal issue.You dont actually know what “sanctuary city” means, do you? It just really boils down to the municipality isnt going to do CBP/USCIS/ICE’s job for them. There is no obligation on states and municipalities to enforce federal immigration laws. Bet you’re all for states rights, right? Congrats, this is that. No one is stopping ICE from doing their thing in a sanctuary city, they’re just not committing funds or resources to do ICE’s thing for them.
Btw the core reason for this is to help local law enforcement. When undocumented folks are afraid of all law enforcement because of immigration status they will refuse to talk to local cops about, say, solving murders or abductions.
Do you want violent crime solved or do you want local municipalities ineptly (it’s not their specialty, and believe it or not those laws are complicated with a lot of gray areas) enforcing federal immigration law?
You’re going to have to read through and find it yourself.[citation needed]
I guess when you’re so far to the left even the “center” is “far right”.Oh, really? How so? Do you believe the far right “illegals are voting” bs? Because there’s been zero evidence anytime anyone’s actually been forced to try and cough up some in court
Don’t have much to say on this one?🙄 ok, sure
There’s no “racism” involved in any of this. If you think allowing millions of people in to the country and giving them access to more federal services than some of our veterans receive, then I don’t know what else to say.Then you should be for allowing people under the same rules (minus the blatant racist parts) that our ancestors came here on, right?
Sorry, I don’t get how your math works in that first paragraph. I do certainly expect that share prices will adjust over time, I just don’t expect a quick one for one, as I have never seen the market behave that way. But I don’t understand your assertion that the share holder will come out ahead if the prices don’t increase at all. Even in the simplified example you first gave, where you own a tenth of the company, if the price didn’t change, you would only have the same value of shares you started with. It isn’t like they buy back all shares except yours and you suddenly have a controlling interest. The value proposition is dependent on the price moving at least somewhat in step with the buybacks.There is no mechanism that automatically adjusts the share price like you’d see on an ex-dividend date so you won’t see anything exact. That being said, pretend the share price didn’t adjust over time: you could earn enormous returns by simply buying the stock of companies engaged in buybacks if your contention was that the market didn’t appropriately adjust to the buyback policy over time. Something this “easy” to earn add’l return will be arbitraged away.
I’m against many buybacks but I’m also against many dividends! I just don’t see a huge reason to be for one and against the other for the argument of stock market manipulation. As an example, many companies were/are super reticent to cut their dividend payments when the economy or their business is going through bad times because, for whatever reason, dividends are thought of as “sticky” and something that should never be reduced even if it’s the right business decision. This can lead to some really unnecessary cash depletion just when a company needs to conserve most. In fact, this is a big reason why companies like buybacks - they find it easier to slow their pace of buybacks than cutting a dividend (which has a negative connotation).
He poorly worded it, however it’s called fiduciary duty and it requires prioritization of the wellbeing of the company. It’s not a slam dunk answer because anyone could argue that the general health & welfare of the employees are part of that wellbeing. In business parlance, the CEO would argue back that their are metrics for employee satisfaction and as long as those are met, they’re fine and within their fiduciary responsibilities. They would use those metrics to determine that many employees are happy and don’t care about what the CEO makes and feel happy about the 4% increase. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just trying to clarify what he was saying.What is this law that requires for-profit companies to prioritize their financial health? I've never heard of such a law.
It sure what you’re on about exactly@nathansz you starting to see what’s going on?
I guess when you’re so far to the left even the “center” is “far right”.
You are probably not living alone, in a 1 bedroom apartment in NYC if you only make $60k a year.when median rent in NYC hit $3700? if you make $60k that represents most of your take home by itself
Life is about choices. I’ve lived my life in California. It too is very expensive. If I want to continue living here I either downgrade locations, work towards a better job, or move. You said median rent so there are literally places from little to very expensive. If you’re a retail worker in NYC, hopefully you’re dual income, room mates, or you found a decent rent bargain. It’s why people flock across our southern border. They’re looking for a better standard of living. If NYC is too expensive, it may be time to look elsewhere. We’re quite lucky that our country has 50 different states and economies. I too will be moving away from a state that I’ve lived in for 55 years because it’s too expensive, when I retire I want my income and expenses to align with my happiness goals.when median rent in NYC hit $3700? if you make $60k that represents most of your take home by itself
$60,000 can be extremely difficult to live on your own in NYC/SF/LA/Seattle/Portland in the United States these days.What planet are we living on? In what world is a $60k salary for an “unskilled” job like retail worker considered slave wages? I’m sure the top end $30/hr are for NYC/LA workers.
I don’t know what planet we’re living on when $30 wage with excellent benefits for a retail worker is considered bad.
Everytime someone has a reply like this I have to wonder "do you have family? Children? Dependents? family care responsibilities? A support network? Specific medical needs? Disabilities (or someone in your family who does)? The cash to move in the first place (spoiler: moving a family isnt cheap)? A drivers license (NYC is one of the few places in this country where most people dont drive to work) and cash for a car (because almost anywhere else you'll need one)? Can you come up with the first and last months rent plus security deposit for the place you're moving? Do you have help to move? Have you found a job where you want to move to afford it (it's hard to find a job before you move)?"Life is about choices. I’ve lived my life in California. It too is very expensive. If I want to continue living here I either downgrade locations, work towards a better job, or move. You said median rent so there are literally places from little to very expensive. If you’re a retail worker in NYC, hopefully you’re dual income, room mates, or you found a decent rent bargain. It’s why people flock across our southern border. They’re looking for a better standard of living. If NYC is too expensive, it may be time to look elsewhere. We’re quite lucky that our country has 50 different states and economies. I too will be moving away from a state that I’ve lived in for 55 years because it’s too expensive, when I retire I want my income and expenses to align with my happiness goals.
It's an idea or counter argument that isn't really well thought out. Any meaningful pushback exposes the wet paper bag level logic the argument has.Everytime someone has a reply like this I have to wonder "do you have family? Children? Dependents? family care responsibilities? A support network? Specific medical needs? Disabilities (or someone in your family who does)? The cash to move in the first place (spoiler: moving a family isnt cheap)? A drivers license (NYC is one of the few places in this country where most people dont drive to work) and cash for a car (because almost anywhere else you'll need one)? Can you come up with the first and last months rent plus security deposit for the place you're moving? Do you have help to move?"
"people can just move" is such an utterly unrealistic and absurdly simplistic response to high cost of living that I almost feel embarrassed for people who make the argument. It's not that easy for most people.