My sarcasm implies the point. Your “arguments” are just stating something is good enough because “positive means more better”, while ignoring the complexities of the issue at large. How much is enough? And averaging out inflation over time indefinitely without specifying time intervals is disingenuous. Defining useful time intervals for that which aren’t inherently biased to sway the overall argument is in itself a debate to have. This is all without challenging the assumption that the worker’s value stays the same or increases very slowly over time, so they must be happy with an effective raise.

Seeing as how you don’t care to address the obvious major points that come up in conversations about inflation vs wages in your argument to begin with, and are happy just making hammy assertions, I’m happy to just mock them without putting in too much effort. Why would I let myself fall prey to the bullshit symmetry principle to someone already signaling bad faith with hammy statements?

Legacy comment.

Oh boy!

it’s the same map as the one with all the hot single moms in your area

Our demand for nurses is high, and a key part to our current solution is to under-train them, and lower our standards for what it takes to be a nurse, to be about to pump out more at a fast rate.

Source: know a dozen nurses, some who have graduated as recently as this year. The questions in the exams they take are nothing short of ridiculous oftentimes, they’re just checking for a pulse, two brain cells, and a very vague gist of medical concepts behind the minimum on what it takes to know to perform the manual tasks of their job

Why do you think there were so many anti-vax nurses? It’s ignorance paired with the ego inflation they get from people assuming they are more knowledgeable than they are.

Oooooo above average inflation?! Man, what a time to be alive!

In a perfect world, everything is fair and power imbalances don’t exist. In a perfect world capitalism may not exist. In a perfect world is not a good tool for analysis, here, and doesn’t excuse the tone-deaf response from Costco.

In our actual world, where virtually every other corporation is what it is, why would Costco think they are completely immune from the distrust that sows? Why would Costco think this doesn’t come off as manipulative? Why didn’t they emphasize “we apologize and we will do better”?

No, I think the under-handed tone of doom and gloom was very deliberate. I think they want the effect it had: reinforcing their stance that unions are bad, to let the employees know that they should still fear retribution of some vague type, if only to slow down employees at other stores following suit, while they devise a strategy to deal with it.

i wish i was on the fios instead

Tell me you don’t understand language and simultaneously logic without telling me

downvotes for a Cornpop story reference they probably didn’t realize, oh well, typical Lemmy

Joe Biden, if Joe is to be believed

For all your whining about nuance, you sure love to take the most reductionist (straw-manned) interpretation of things and come out of the gate swinging with insults. Excuse me while I use this to justify dismissing your pedantry.

Mmm, beg to differ. Your whole position is tedious and pedantic.

It’s all anecdotal, folks.

I won’t vote for Trump, I just don’t like having to eat a shit pie and being told it’s french silk caramel, and if I say otherwise I’m Republican, Uneducated, or something else equally insulting.

I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."

OP is _ _________ ____ ___ _ _______ ____

lmao, I’m Mexican. Pointing out the last name is Mexican being the reason it’s the same for both of them in a silly way doesn’t make it racist. It makes sense that we try to be watchful of actual racism, but it also makes sense to not go overboard, we lose support, sow division, and waste energy that way

not if people like them. I like them.

Just because you’ve adapted to the lies doesn’t make them ok, nor the best version of what is possible

Negative hype can kill a product that could have been good.

Positive false hype can deceive people into wasting money.

Sure, complete honesty would be ideal, but if you say “well it sucks right now but we promise it will be ok when you buy it”, not many people would rush to order one.

And they shouldn’t. It’s just another way of saying “people acting rationally based on truthful information”

Many good products never made it to market because of insufficiently good perception.

That should be a separate issue. It’s not the only available path, just one often taken because it’s the most forgiving of shoddy business practices, doesn’t justify its existence, either.

On the flip side, creating positive hype out of smoke and mirrors can be used to kill a competitor’s product for no good reason, so it’s not quite ok either.

I think people are starting to realize the depth of corporate deception and bad-faith practices and how that affects everyone at large, and so they’re rightly tired of them and trying to reset it all back to simple, effective, and fair ethical standards.