Displaying comments 1 to 50 of 1536
MeFi post:
Is Day Care a luxury or a benefit?
There are many people in this country — including, I’ll bet, many Googlers — who believe that employer-provided day care, at affordable prices, ought to be like health insurance, a benefit that every company provides as a matter of course.
Health insurance is bad enough, because it subsidizes idiots, fatties, smokers, druggies, and drunks--but hey, most of us are one of those things at some point or another. I'm not really enthusiastic about... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:47 PM on July 5, 2008
With that logic then Google shouldn't hire people with kids.
Why not? Google can do whatever they want. I just get irritated at companies that devote an ever-increasing budget to compensation paid solely to employees who have children. It's a great deal for those employees, and a raw deal for the rest. Obviously, I'm part of the rest.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 1:20 PM on July 5, 2008
Isn't this a re-run? Somehow it's less offensive the more often you say it - you might want to mix your trolling up a bit, it's getting stale.
Maybe you're starting to see how sensible my position is.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 1:21 PM on July 5, 2008
Dr. Whatisface's rantings to the contrary, most working Americans eventually have kids, and don't want to stop working when they do, or have to be making half a million a year to pay for them.
Awesome. Those people can pool their money and pay for it, then. If it's true that most working Americans eventually have kids, I really don't see why it's necessary to screw over the handful of us who don't.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:10 PM on July 5, 2008
They miss the point of course, which is that the company supports a family policy as part of a community vision and offers it to everyone on a fair and non-discriminatory basis.
What is "fair" about making me pay for other people's kids? What is non-discriminatory about compensating workers with children more highly than workers without?
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:21 PM on July 5, 2008
Not getting something is not the same as paying. But it illustrates the mindset.
Haha! I stopped reading there. I would just suggest that you think this through a little harder, because your grasp of reality is hilariously lacking.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:32 PM on July 5, 2008
If you don't have a kid, they're not taking anything from you, you're just not taking advantage of all of the benefits available to you.
God, another one. Look, you have to compare the consequences of providing compensation in the form of cash (e.g., salary and bonuses, which everyone can use) or as in-kind benefits (e.g., child care).
From a purely financial perspective, the company is indifferent, assuming the outlays are... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:49 PM on July 5, 2008
You really, really should visit at least four or five European countries for at least three months each. I don't care which ones - you pick them.
Oh man, I'd love to. I can't afford it, though, since instead of paying a decent salary, my employer compensates workers with benefits I can't use.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:50 PM on July 5, 2008
So, when employees are negotiating as a group, it's in their best collective interests to get as many side benefits as possible, even if not all members of the group would use them.
To the extent this even makes sense, it's so obviously wrong, it hurts. What do you mean by "collective interests?" I want to be better off personally--I don't give a sweet fuck if some group I'm a member of is collectively better off if I'm personally worse off.... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 3:39 PM on July 5, 2008
We found, some time ago, that the answer really was yes, it is most economically profitable to educate everyone for free.
We haven't found anything of the sort, and the question would remain, economically profitable for who, and why do we want to benefit them.
While I imagine Dr Steve has a little whine to himself about that every time he does his taxes or passes a school, it is a well-established fact of life that... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 3:46 PM on July 5, 2008
The next generation is paying the dividends on all retirement packages, especially if you don't have one. You only discourage their quality and potential at your own peril. I thought I was rather explicit, but maybe not.
And maybe if I had an infinite amount of money, this would seem like a great investment, but come on. You can't seriously be trying to sell me on the idea that the best investment I could make, as measured by... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 3:56 PM on July 5, 2008
Can I suggest that you either find another job, or do some additional training in order to increase your renumeration to a level that you think appropriate instead of boring the rest of us shitless with your whining?
No, I prefer whining. I could make more money, but the government would just take most of it. What's the point.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 5:50 PM on July 5, 2008
We'd have to completely rework our corporate law [1] to make a publicly held for profit anything but the monomaniac critters they are today.
This seems incredibly difficult to do effectively. If a corporation isn't obligated to maximize shareholder returns, why would I want my 401(k) or pension invested in it? As a practical matter, simply to be competitive for capital, it seems that corporations are always going to have to make some credibly... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 7:02 PM on July 5, 2008
So the old saying "a conservative is a liberal has been mugged" can be expanded to say "a libertarian is a liberal who hasn't been mugged yet."
I'm not a libertarian, or anything close to one. I was just responding to Brian B.'s ludicrous claim that subsidizing daycare is a good investment, financially.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 8:19 PM on July 5, 2008
Well, if you really want an answer and aren't trolling, it is for three reasons:
I think we're talking past each other. I know why employers do it, and I think they have good reasons to. I was arguing, though, that it's financially bad for me, personally. Brian B. appeared to be insisting that it wasn't, because of some nebulous benefit I would derive in the future from a properly daycared citizenry.... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 9:45 PM on July 5, 2008
tkolar: One way or another you've ended up with a worldview that doesn't map onto reality very well, and you'll likely spend the rest of your life railing against the fact that what happens in the real world doesn't match your expectations of what "should" happen.
I think you've been reading a lot into my comments that I haven't actually said. This doesn't surprise me. People tend to pigeonhole me into their conception of a... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:32 PM on July 6, 2008
MeTa post:
work out your personal issues somewhere else, will you?
dnab relentless trolls himself, relieving the rest of us of any need to do so.
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 9:51 PM on July 4, 2008
Putting words in people's mouths and misconstruing what they say is what we do here, people. Nobody cares what you really think.
People respond because they want to feel self-righteous, or win an easy (i.e., imaginary) argument, or troll somebody--not because they actually want to engage someone in discourse.
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:02 PM on July 4, 2008
Speak for yourself, Steve. Oh. You are.
That was a fine illustration of the "feel self-righteous" reason for responding.
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:05 PM on July 4, 2008
It's hardly ironic, BP. I expected it when I got a message from someone earlier telling me to get to #mefi 'urgently'.
The message said "ASAP." Talk about misconstruing what people say!
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:09 PM on July 4, 2008
He wasn't quoting. He was using summary marks.
What are "summary marks?" If he wanted to summarize the contents of the mefimail, he didn't need to use any marks at all.
In any event, ASAP doesn't necessarily imply urgency--it can easily imply impatience as well. I'm deeply hurt by the way I've been misconstrued and trolled.
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:18 PM on July 4, 2008
Since you decided to go there--which is pretty fucking rude, by the way--how about we put up what you said?
When you complain about people misconstruing you, it's OK, but when I do it, it's pretty fucking rude? Or is it only rude when I complain about you misconstruing me?
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:22 PM on July 4, 2008
Just a friendly reminder: If anyone feels inspired by this thread to cut themselves, don't forget to youtube it!
posted to MetaTalk by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:40 PM on July 4, 2008
MeFi post:
I Never Drink Water, Fish F**K In It
The very best bottled water is pinched from conference rooms at work. One can also get a fine selection of bottled teas and juices that way.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 8:36 PM on July 4, 2008
These exorbitant profit margins have attracted the interest of private equity funds who have begun buying up local water companies and jacking up the prices. It makes me sick to think of a day when blood brokers will have bought up all the fresh drinking water on earth then hold the rest of us hostage like they are doing right now with oil.
Why don't you just buy into water and ride it to the top, chicken little?
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 8:47 PM on July 4, 2008
How old does the wine bottle need to be?
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 9:00 PM on July 4, 2008
Anyway, point is, I'm not so sure that raising concerns about water profiteering are so baseless as to warrant Chicken Little references.
"Water profiteering" just seems like a meaningless term to me. I have trouble getting excited about people paying other people to supply a scarce resource.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 9:45 PM on July 4, 2008
Water is essential to life. Not one person on earth can get along without water. If you do not find the idea of some people profiting off of water why those that can't afford it die of thirst revolting then I assume you are a Republican.
Food is also essential to life, but I also have trouble getting excited about supermarkets. Does that make me a Republican? Are Democrats outraged by supermarkets? I'm not sure.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 10:15 PM on July 4, 2008
MeFi post:
Decision on FISA delayed
I think I support retroactive immunity, because lawsuits against telecommunications companies for warrantless wiretapping were going to be bullshit anyway.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 11:51 AM on July 4, 2008
And yes, this is of particular importance, because the law was broken at least twice - first this administration breaking the rules set by FISA, second by the companies that agreed to turn over access to their networks and thus to their customers' data.
I don't have any opinion about whether or not this "important." I personally don't care, but you clearly do. I just don't think that a private lawsuit is a good way to address it, though,... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:15 PM on July 4, 2008
Also for discovery. A lot of the information coming out now due to the civil suits in progress would never have otherwise seen the light of day.
I consider this abusive. The goal of a lawsuit should be the relief sought--not any collateral damage or costs caused.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:29 PM on July 4, 2008
And of course, you can't trust a court and a Federal judge to decide, you know, issues of, like constitutional law.
Class action lawsuits are very expensive to defend against, even if the actual harm to be redressed is small or the claim relatively meritless.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:35 PM on July 4, 2008
I can't see why the existing cases should not go forward.
What are the monetary damages associated with having a telecom snoop on you? I don't know if there are statutory damages, but the real damages seem, to me, totally insignificant. What's being redressed is a weird hybrid political/dignitary harm, and I simply don't see the point of it.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:41 PM on July 4, 2008
Why do you think it should be Congress' duty to halt pending litigation? If the cases are meritless or if there are other problems, then won't the courts deal with it? Why should Congress mess with the court system and its ability to deal with each case as it is brought before it?
Congress isn't "messing with" the court system. Congress moots ongoing litigation all the time.
I see no problem with Congress stopping... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:51 PM on July 4, 2008
There is zero reason that the bill couldn't have granted civil immunity (i.e. no damages, but you can still go ahead with the suit if you like) instead of short-circuiting the lawsuits.
What would people be suing for? You're not supposed to go into court and say, "yeah, I know I'm not entitled to any damaged, but I just want to run this guy through the discovery wringer."
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 12:55 PM on July 4, 2008
To whom? A lot of litigation is slow and expensive. I'm not quite seeing why that's an argument against this litigation, per se.
To the telecoms. The point is simply that Congress apparently believes that the costs of these lawsuits are far higher than the plaintiffs should be able to expect to recover, so Congress is going to nip them in the bud. This seems perfectly sound to me.
I also don't see why slow, hugely... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 1:16 PM on July 4, 2008
Given a right of action, a plaintiff should be able to pursue that right if for no reason other than to vindicate his or her rights, damn the cost to the defendants.
This begs the question--Congress is proposing eliminating the right of action. I personally think the statutory damages you linked are nuts. They're completely disproportionate to any actual anticipated harm.
We're not going to reach any agreement on this. You... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 1:30 PM on July 4, 2008
Also, Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America always takes the contra side in any issue, because he's a troll.
That's simply not true. There are some issues where I follow the majority pretty closely. Opposition to sexism and racism is one of them. I'm also hostile toward religion.
Plus, if I agree with the post and the comments, I'm unlikely to bother to comment at all. I guess I could start, if it would make you feel better.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 2:08 PM on July 4, 2008
Ask post:
Intellectual property and marriage
An NDA is just a promise not to disclose something. It's not really the sort of thing that's susceptible to conflict of interest concerns. You worry about a conflict of interest when a person X stands in a position of trust with respect to a person Y, but X has reason not to act in Y's best interests.
In your scenario, the spouse who works for Company B isn't in a position of trust with respect to Company C (e.g., a fiduciary or something like it). They're just... [more]
posted to Ask Metafilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 8:58 PM on June 30, 2008
MeFi post:
Police State, take one step forward.
A Civil War, two World Wars and a Cold War all failed to seriouisly damage the US Constitution.
What, are you high? Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas, arrested political dissidents, and ignored Supreme Court rulings. Thousands of American citizens were put in interment camps during World War 2. Going back even further, the Alien and Sedition Acts were used to jail political opponents.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 11:55 PM on June 29, 2008
That was before the Bill of Rights was passed.
Negative. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, and the bill of rights was in 1791.
posted to MetaFilter by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America
at 7:08 AM on June 30, 2008
