201–205 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever point you thought you were making, you weren't. And even if you were, it certainly wasn't obvious.
No. I was correct. Interns producing something of value to the company have to be paid, otherwise it's illegal. If you are getting paid, then the discussion doesn't involve you. Sorry if you don't understand. Your ignorance doesn't make me wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bull. The store didn't create the problem. The numbers may be correct; the conclusion is yellow journalism. The store may even help alleviate the problem, by providing Some income for these people. Its not very clever to ask WalMart to just pay these people more; how about UCBerkely show some sincerity and pay them themselves?
The numbers are the only thing that's quoted. The conclusion is that if they paid lower wages, the amount of government support to employed people would rise unless those policies were changed also. Government support paid by taxes, including the taxes of those who work at UCBerkeley.
For example, they could have expressed how much is Saved the public per WalMart. They didn't express it that way. Because it made a more sensationalist article the other way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You completely missed my point. If unpaid internships become the norm, that is it becomes expected that a person has to perform a period of unpaid work as some kind of apprenticeship, then they will be forced to do so if they want a paid job at the end of it. So I might walk away from an unpaid internship, but I'll still need to work unpaid in another internship until at such point employers deem that I've done my ti…
Your argument applies equally well to any screening procedure - e.g., college degrees. Do you believe that requiring/favoring people with college is also a bad precedent that needs to be stamped out?
What skills do you really mean to ask for? If you waste time asking for things you think imply those skills other people will be out-recruiting you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
75% of the poor do have a car (25% have two or more), 66% have 2 rooms per person, and just over half have AC. Firstly AHS has a disclaimer that it overestimates poverty levels. This can inflate who falls into the "below poverty levels". Also the AHS is counting totals, yes someone may have A/C but that doesn't mean they have a car or 2 rooms per person. Someone could have two rooms & a car that breaks down often, bu…
I agree that the government overestimates poverty levels. It's a much smaller problem in the US than most people believe. Rooms per person, A/C and car may not illustrate quality of life, but they are consumption. If the Indian upper middle class can reduce consumption and live without such luxuries in order to save 20% of income, so can the US poor.
Also again comparing the US to India is not an exact science.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/mginews/bigspenders.asp The next two groups—seekers, earning between 200,000 and 500,000 rupees ($4,376- $10,941), and strivers, with incomes of between 500,000 and 1 million rupees ($10,941-$21,882)—will become India's huge new middle class. While their incomes would place them below the poverty line in the United States, things are much cheaper in India. When the local -cost of living- is taken into account, the income of the seekers and strivers looks more like -$23,000 to $118,000-, which is middle class by most developed-country standards.
Perhaps not having clean drinking water makes other aspects of life cheaper in India. Does clean drinking water matter? Yes. But maybe not having clean drinking water is the trade off you make for being able to save 20% of your income?
Also there are very few places here in the US that are going to let you work for free to learn about the system works & then either hire you on or give you skills that are transferable elsewhere. Employers do not like desperation & want people who have qualification that match what they're looking for. They'd rather pay someone who knows what they're doing than waste their time on someone who's desperate for a job & is actually going to cost them money while that person subtracts from others while learning things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I was correct. Interns producing something of value to the company have to be paid, otherwise it's illegal. If you are getting paid, then the discussion doesn't involve you. Sorry if you don't understand. Your ignorance doesn't make me wrong.
I know, I know, it's everyone else's fault they misunderstood you.
Regardless, being right has nothing to do with popularity. I mean, enough people watch Fox News. Besides, I'm not the one support unpaid interns doing illegal work. And before you try to chime in with some quip about straw man, unpaid internships are the topic, not paid work. It's what my comment was about. A few people disagreed.
Whatever. Go back to your "popularity makes it right" way of life.