Rivalarrival
@Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
- Comment on Load bearing number 8 hours ago:
- Comment on Boy Dinner 2 days ago:
Where’s the bread crumbs?
- Comment on Boy Dinner 2 days ago:
Coca cola is still flavored with (decocainized) coca leaves.
- Comment on why do pendulums and space shuttles feel the effects of earth rotation but airplanes do not? 2 days ago:
They do, actually. The direct effects of the earths rotation on an aircraft are much smaller than the effects of localized aerodynamic forces: winds, updrafts, etc.
However, indirectly, “Coriolis effects” on air masses moving toward or away from the poles influence weather patterns at all scales, which has massive influence on air travel.
- Comment on first state btw 4 days ago:
Missouri is on there like 15 times.
- Comment on first state btw 5 days ago:
It’s what happens when you copy all the pointless states, over and over.
- Comment on Tax billionaires, insure millions: The CA wealth tradeoff 1 week ago:
That shit is going to backfire on them, spectacularly.
- Comment on Fr*nce 1 week ago:
Which is to say - the harm to falsely accused men and the harm to legitimately raped or harassed women are on totally different scales.
I’m not comparing the two. I’m addressing only the point that I quoted above:
A male victim and a female victim have equal rights to justice but a woman and a man do not have equal chances of experiencing sexual assault.
Your link says 1 in 5 women (20%) experience rape, and 24.8% of men experience “sexual violence”. That seems to indicate that men and women experience SA at about the same rate. This is consistent with my understanding.
Your “2:1” claim seems to arise from “Nationwide, 81% of women and 43% of men reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment and/or assault in their lifetime.”
I will focus on the word “reported”: It is my understanding that male victims of SA report their assault at much lower rates than female victims.
I would note that your overall thesis does not seem to rely on this particular point. You can abandon this point without detracting from your main argument.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
They are getting screwed over pretty hard, yeah. It’s really only lucrative if you’re using a cheap EV, but there are no cheap EVs.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
Thank you.
- Comment on Fr*nce 1 week ago:
but a woman and a man do not have equal chances of experiencing sexual assault.
On what evidence do you base this claim? I was under the impression that the actual rates are similar, but male-victims very rarely report SA.
- Comment on Fr*nce 1 week ago:
I’m seeing a 14-year gap between the time they initially met and the time they married. The first three of those years would have been criminal, but I haven’t actually seen anything saying the relationship commenced within that time period.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
This is untrue. Margins for restaurants
We aren’t talking about restaurants. We are talking about delivery services.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
I did. I’m a blacksmith. I found a niche where customers are appreciative of labor, and I fill that niche. The two seasons I relied on DD for flexible income are well in the past.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
You don’t have to convince me. I agree with you. These services are profoundly scummy and exploitative. They are almost as greedy as employers have become with your time.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
They make money… When a customer tips. The tip is, effectively, the only money they actually make. It’s not how it should be, but it is how it actually is.
When every customer tips well, and nobody introduces delays to slow your hustle, it’s a fairly lucrative job. When customers think tips are “optional” and stores don’t actually start working on an order until you arrive, it’s a shit job.
It’s pretty much the same for our employed waitstaff. Your tips are paid out to you on the day you earn them. Your base wages are paid out weekly or biweekly. You keep 100% of your tips, but your employer is required to withhold income taxes from your base pay. If you make enough in tips, withholding is all of your base pay. You receive a pay stub where nearly 100% of your pay has been withheld and sent to the IRS for income taxes. Tips are, effectively, the only money you actually take home.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
A client is the person a contractor works for. The only client involved is the service itself, as the driver is a contractor.
The person making the purchase is a customer, not a client.
Ideally, you would be right. The customer should not be involved in the business relationship between the driver and the service. However, this is quite obviously not an ideal situation.
With employed waitstaff, tips are, technically, a bonus. A waitress who does not receive enough tips to put herself over minimum wage is entitled to extra pay to reach that point. Legally, this waitress is “adequately” compensated for her time, regardless of tips.
Unlike employed waitstaff, there is no provision to ensure this driver is compensated for their labor. There is no provision to ensure they are reimbursed for their actual expenses. The driver is often asked to subsidize certain customers, by accepting compensation that is less than minimum wage, and even at less than actual cost. They are often asked to pay to work.
The services have found a legal loophole to evade minimum wage protections, and they are using it to exploit drivers.
The customer benefits from this arrangement. The customer is thus complicit in the exploitation. Ignorance does not negate their complicity.
You should also know that if you do tip well, the services reduce their base pay further, effectively capturing part of your tip to the driver. They are exploiting you, too.
Again, nobody should be using these services. They are bad for everyone. The only ethical way to use them is to tip sufficiently to ensure the driver’s pay exceeds minimum wage.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
This. And at best, they can get about 6 orders per hour. That’s about 12-24 miles on their odometer, which is $3-6 worth of gasoline in city traffic. At best, they net $6 to $9/hr before tips.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
They can afford it. But the make more when they completely shaft both the customer and the driver.
- Comment on Lawful evil 1 week ago:
Correct me if I’m wrong but the job is basically:
You’re wrong, but it’s understandable. The key point you’re getting wrong is: You make money from a job.
The pay for most of the assignments you get from DD or UE is usually not enough to cover fuel, let alone maintenance on your vehicle. Certainly less than minimum wage for your time. Which is legal for them to do, because you are a contractor, paid per job and not per hour. If the customer doesn’t tip, you are earning less than minimum wage at best. In many cases, you’re actually paying to work, but you’re forced to take these unprofitable orders just to maintain your rating and keep getting assignments. (In my area, drivers call this “eating shit”)
At best, you can take about 6 assignments an hour. To net minimum wage, you need at least three of them to tip well. When a restaurant doesn’t bother to start preparing the order until you arrive, the time you waste waiting is 2-3 orders. If any of the remaining orders that hour don’t tip, you’re below minimum wage.
It is a shitty, exploitative service that nobody should be using. If you are going to use it, be aware that the service is taking everything you’re paying, and completely shafting your driver.
- Comment on A one-time 5% wealth tax would bring Silicon Valley’s billionaires’ wealth back to where it was just 31 days ago 1 week ago:
Absolutely not: Trump, Trump, Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Nixon.
We’ve seen what these bastards did to the postal service and everything else they’ve touched. We’re not putting every major industry in the country under the direct control of men like these. The idea of government-run commercial entities is simply a non-starter. That’s one of the few qualms I have about the IRS holding these shares for any length of time. I would strip control and voting rights from these taxed shares, restoring them only once they have been transferred to a market buyer.
I agree that ownership of production needs to be in the hands of the people, but that ownership needs to be directly in the hands of the people, not through a stake in a government that is, more often than not, overtly hostile and malicious to the interests of the people.
The tax would apply to ALL stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. Natural US persons can exempt up to $10 million worth from their portfolio, but they will owe an equal proportion of every issue in their portfolio: They don’t get to pick and choose what issues they will keep and what they transfer to the IRS: The IRS gets the same percentage of everything.
The artificial persons owe the full tax: no exemptions. If you own $100 million in stocks, you can’t split it up among 10 companies. You can split it up among friends and family to avoid the tax, but they each control their own shares.
To the working class, securities remain a valuable asset. To the ultra-rich, a sufficiently-high tax converts these same securities into an expensive liability. With these conditions, an ownership stake in a worker’s company will become a significant component of their compensation. Ownership of production will be driven away from the ultra-wealthy and to the people.
- Comment on We work 40+ hours a week and they tell us we can’t afford insulin for our neighbors, but we can always afford another war 1 week ago:
The White House recently posted that it would cost $35,500 per household per year to enact Medicare for All.
Obviously, that’s total horseshit, but that’s the attitude we are fighting.
- Comment on A one-time 5% wealth tax would bring Silicon Valley’s billionaires’ wealth back to where it was just 31 days ago 1 week ago:
They freak out about this because their wealth is in holdings and isn’t liquid.
This is a legitimate problem. Forcing a primary shareholder to sell their shares devalues the shares of workers holding them in retirement accounts. Forcing them to liquidate their shares is not at all feasible.
Which is why this tax should never be payable in dollars. It should be paid directly in shares. It doesn’t have to be converted to cash first; the shares themselves go straight to the IRS.
The confiscated shares can be liquidated slowly over time. Every time 1000 shares are traded on the free market, the IRS gets to offer one of its taxed shares. The influence on the market price of the shares is minimized. If the shares become worthless, they just sit on the IRS books, collecting dust forever.
I’d only tax securities - investment holdings. Stocks, bonds, other fungible, intangible, financial assets. I want them spending their money on tangible products and personal services (as opposed to financial services) that are ultimately produced by workers. I want them pushing their money back into rotation, not setting up dollar farms to collect it from everything that moves.
But, if we want to go after general wealth, we can also do the same thing for deeded property or titled property. They don’t have to sell the land or the car/boat/plane; we just put a tax lien on it now, and collect later.
- Comment on Why is Nadal Hassan's execution being livestreamed? What makes him so special? Why not other people's execution's live streamed? What Jared Loughner? Or Bryan Kohbeger? 1 week ago:
Why? To make you ask that question.
They want you being appalled about what they are doing, so they can go tell their base that you support a Muslim terrorist and murderer. They want to portray you as a deranged sociopath, more concerned about the killer than his victims.
All they have to do is commit an atrocity against a despicable person, and our outrage at the atrocity can be portrayed as treasonous: We are providing aid and comfort to an enemy. Their base gets to be disgusted by us, and driven to support them.
- Comment on White House website publishes a page on "socialism". They think it will scare people to hear that if we tax 1000 billionaires, $355,000 worth of benefits will be distributed to 150,000,000 households. 1 week ago:
If the government is going to be paying $355k for everyone to get healthcare, then everyone is going to receive $355k worth of care.
If the White House numbers are right, and we aren’t currently paying and receiving $355k for care, then either the government is incredibly wasteful, or private insurance is incredibly under-treating us.
Ludicrous is the idea that care costs will rise when the government replaces commercial, for-profit health insurance.
- Comment on White House website publishes a page on "socialism". They think it will scare people to hear that if we tax 1000 billionaires, $355,000 worth of benefits will be distributed to 150,000,000 households. 1 week ago:
When I spend $20 on a pizza, I receive $20 worth of pizza.
When the government spends $355,000 on medical care for the public, the public receives $355,000 worth of medical care.
OP’s claim is just the flip side of the White House claim. By not having the government spend that money, we are taking on that $355,000 burden individually, rather than collectively through a risk pool.
- Comment on White House website publishes a page on "socialism". They think it will scare people to hear that if we tax 1000 billionaires, $355,000 worth of benefits will be distributed to 150,000,000 households. 1 week ago:
The headline and the post are saying the same thing from opposite perspectives. The headline is saying the government will be spending $X providing Medicare for all. The post is saying “all” will receive $X worth of care.
It’s a little clunky phrasing, but it’s not actually misleading.
- Comment on White House website publishes a page on "socialism". They think it will scare people to hear that if we tax 1000 billionaires, $355,000 worth of benefits will be distributed to 150,000,000 households. 1 week ago:
It does say that. But the reverse is also true. The government is spending that money; someone is receiving the benefits of that spending. Since we’re talking about “medicaid for all”, the beneficiaries are “anyone who needs medical care”. Which means, we will receive, on average, $355000 worth of care, per household, over a 10-year period.
Of course, nothing of this analysis is in any way reliable. The per-household cost of health care with commercial insurance is far higher than the cost of health care with Medicare. Higher still is the cost of forgoing medical treatment due to financial concerns.
- Comment on White House website publishes a page on "socialism". They think it will scare people to hear that if we tax 1000 billionaires, $355,000 worth of benefits will be distributed to 150,000,000 households. 1 week ago:
Damn, that’s a lot less than I thought it would cost for everyone to have equal access to healthcare.
If it’s that cheap, why are we denying healthcare to anyone?
- Comment on Tech hobbyists, How are you avoiding the crazy prices for computers and newer tech? 2 weeks ago:
I took up blacksmithing.