651–660 of 675 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as they're not forced to work, I don't see how NYT is exploiting them. What harsh working conditions are they working under that makes their situation so untenable at NYT but aren't willing to go looking for better conditions elsewhere?
They sure are forced to work. I don't know of a way to survive without working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who are they to judge how big tech treats their employees when they pay their own so poorly? The journalists (and tech workers) don't decide their own salary. You conflated "they" as both management and the people being managed, to make it "ironic."
Uh hello, journalists also don't choose the theme they write in. That's also management
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am saying that the media was enamored with her because she represented a shift rightwards compared to her predecessors, and that her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. In that the media vastly prefered her over Trump, it was because she was pro-establishment and better aligned with corporate interests, not because she was economically to his…
> … her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. Huh. If that were true she would have won. So it can’t be true. Unless your claim is “the right was too far right” in which case your “right-of-the-electorate” cannot be mathematically true. Were you trying to make a different point? The current one doesn’t hold water.
Besides, there are people who just don't vote if your platform or personality is not engaging. That was a big phenomenon with Clinton and is generally what decided whether or not Democrats win: the higher the turnout, the higher their chances. If a Democrat runs to the right, they lose turnout from leftwing voters who stay home, they don't (just) win votes from the center.
Also, Clinton did win the popular vote, despite all of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tech salaries have bloomed massively because there isn't a union I presume you support free markets, so I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries. Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections.
> I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries No need to be surprised - it more than crossed my mind. > Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections Well, screenwriters aren't in the same ballpark as the other two, but the highly paid athletes and actors are not having their wages negotiated by a union rep. They h…
Food service and retail workers are not widely unionized. Do they have high salaries?
> the highly paid athletes and actors are not having their wages negotiated by a union rep
So then you understand even with a union, workers can be free to negotiate their own wages. The union doesn't necessarily hold superstars back from earning their true market value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the McDonald’s workers absolutely not Absolutely yes, it's a whole program for coerced labor. Like I said, I bet you didn't know about it because this shit is absolutely under the table in regards to our media. But yes, we do, to this day, have prisoners who are mostly black forced to work for well under minimum wage in private businesses, such as McDonald's, Wendy's, Golden Corral... sounds a lot like slavery when…
It sounds like slavery because it is: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. People act like the US abolished slavery but it instead institutionalized it and then later (of course...) privatized it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, this is because the page linked above is for the “Times Guild”, not the Time Tech Guild. Times Guild is the journalists; the Times Tech Guild is the product engineering folks that just authorized a strike. They are two separate unions within the Times. They support each other but do mot have precisely the same platforms or negotiations with the company. This press release goes into more detail as to the motivatio…
Ah, that makes things much better for the platform page linked earlier! I see now that there was a selector at the top of the page to move specifically to the Tech guild. And it is spartan, but that feels expected for such a young guild. Huge thanks on pointing out that misread of mine!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like slavery because it is: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. People act like the US abolished slavery but it instead institutionalized it and then later (of course...) privatized it.
You're 100% right, but I avoided touching on this more deeply because if you make any mention of institutionalized or systemic racism then a lot of people will stop listening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Women, who make up 41% of the Tech Guild, earn 12% less on average than men > * Black women and Hispanic or Latina women, who make up just over 6 percent of the Tech Guild, make 33% less than white men in the unit > * Black workers, who make up 7 percent of the union, earn 26% less than white workers Do they work equivalent jobs with equivalent experience?
A lot of comments on this thread seem to feel like the “why” of this matter is settled with an answer of “The men have more experience and are working higher-level jobs. Therefore, they receive higher pay.” This is not the equilibrium we are aiming for as a society, and the matter is not settled here. The point of these measurements is not to demand that women are paid more for less work. The point is for us to keep…
There is no need for a society that forces, top down, every possible occupation to be perfectly split 50/50 by sex. Just let individuals make their own decisions.
In this case, why do we "need" more women coding? Maybe they are doing other work that is just as important and fulfilling and useful to society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is because software dev is a volatile market. It doesn't matter how "talented" you are, it's about your rank in the social circles and it shows in the product. There is now far more devs than there is work for them. This is a planned strategy to reduce salaries. If you're "talented". Make your money and get out asap.
Strange to read, not my experience at all. > it's about your rank in the social circles It's among the most meritocratic I have a view into (from conversations with friends in.. mechanical engineering, entrepreneurship, academia, nonprofit, sales, education, ..)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is because software dev is a volatile market. It doesn't matter how "talented" you are, it's about your rank in the social circles and it shows in the product. There is now far more devs than there is work for them. This is a planned strategy to reduce salaries. If you're "talented". Make your money and get out asap.
Planned by whom?