Reagan made the modern GOP, which is still with us, so not really 40 years ago. It’s certainly true that the Dems moved to the right for some electoral chance in the 90s, but that doesn’t really absolve Reaganism of the blame for the current predicament.
KevinC
4301
I still hear Reagan’s crap spouted like it’s law of physics nearly every friggin’ day. My conversations on any topic (healthcare reform or anything else) goes like this:
- We agree the status quo is a major problem.
- We agree that something needs to be done (stop price gouging on insulin or other medications, etc.).
- The solution must NOT involve the government. Because “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”. Always said with reverence or like some sort of mantra.
And then there’s all the Reaganomics crap which is also indisputable truth and that bears his name for a reason. His legacy is still with us and yeah I do blame him for sending us down this path. We should have done better over the past 40 years to reverse course, but there’s also not a lot you can do with the way the senate is structured as we see time and time again.
Thrag
4303
Swiss banks helping brutal dictators, I did nazi that coming.
Randomly chosen thread, but this is based as fuck.
This should happen to people like Rick Scott everywhere they go. They should be heckled even in prison. They should be heckled in hell.
Lots going on in this story!
Alstein
4307
Starbucks has a heavily trans workforce due to Starbucks being an easy-to-get job which offers 100% benefits for transition , which means a heavily leftist workplace (your average GNC barista is likely active in the DSA). If retail unionization was going to start anywhere, it was going to be Starbucks.
Starbucks has had a long history of being pretty worker-friendly. Schultz’s parents were very much working class NYC folk, and from the early days Starbucks offered its workers pretty good benefits and health care, as well as stock plans. Definitely better than the vast majority of the fast food industry.
https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benefits-and-perks/
On the other hand, they’ve been as rabidly anti-union in the face of these union drives as any other corporation.
I missed when this happened a few days ago, but glad the vote went their way even with REI’s anti-union efforts. REI corporate got roundly mocked last month when their CEO started a union busting podcast and opened with a fucking native land acknowledgement:
CEO Eric Artz: “For those of you who I have not had the chance to meet, I use he/him pronouns and I’m speaking to you today from the traditional lands of the Coast Salish peoples.”
DoubleG
4311
New York, unlike most states, bans prison labor for private businesses – but their Democrat governor wants to change that.
This is pretty amazing:
Tl;dr: Memo from Applebees executive says higher gas prices will force more people into the extra part-time job market, which means this is a great opportunity to cut starting wages to take advantage of desperation.
Are you upset that he’s saying it or that labor is subject to supply-and-demand economics, like most other things? Those economics certainly caused them to raise wages, why is it surprising that it would lead to a drop in wages, when the variables shift?
KevinC
4314
Jesus Christ. I especially love the part about no longer competing with “the government” because stimulus money has run out. Just how far do they think that $1400 carried people, haha. That doesn’t even cover a month’s expenses for pretty much anyone.
Sharpe
4315
It’s the attitude, and the disregard for the human cost of the supply and demand analysis.
You don’t. But there’s a difference between being disappointed by something and believing that reality should be other than what it is.
On the other hand, I was a CIO for about 20 years, and a hiring exec / manager for another 10, and I can’t recall ever once advising my staff to cut new hire wages in response to economic conditions. It’s almost like it’s unnecessary and cruel?
How many times have you done it?
Were you in the food services industry? Their margins are thin. I don’t know how you can characterize their labor costs as not relevant or savings there as “unnecessary” to their bottom line.
I think any manager who hires based on trying to ascertain market value is doing exactly this. In a lot of sectors, that market value tends to only creep up. Apparently not in this one.
Would everyone here be more okay if the memo simply said something like “information points to a substantial increase in the pool of applicants. Where possible, we should look to reduce starting wages to take advantage of the larger pool.” Is it his overly detailed explanation that is the problem and/or is it the action itself?
