Yes, fuck you, your mother, your daughter, your son, your grandmother, and granddaughter f ok r wanting to b able to afford to not die.fuck all y’all! Happy fall
It would be better if there was a standard calculation like:
Commute time = time it would take to commute by public transport from the nearest residential area that could house a family on the income of the worker in question
That puts positive pressure on improving cost of housing, and improving speed of public transport
And were they to try to play the system by getting high speed trams linking a poor, cheap area to the CBD, that would quickly no longer be a cheap place to buy
I agree. And I got extreme with it. because when it comes to making sure all the money we earn goes to ourselves and to our own betterment, the biggest obstacle in the way is the egregious cost of housing. In order to get on top of that hurdle, we either have to become part of the real estate industry, or entirely opt out of it. Well I entirely opted out of it.
VanLife. Yup I’ve been doing van life for the last 3 years. Complete with Solar panels, plumbing, climate control, bedroom, kitchen, storage space. I am in my van right now in one of my membership gym’s parking lot. Every dime I earn goes to me and to whatever I choose, NOT to the extortionate housing industry.
I’ve lost all trust in employers. From large corporations to non-profits to mom and pop to tech startups- I’ve been in it all and I learned businesses do 2 things to their employees:
They lie to you
They underpay you
I’m now freelance musician and teacher and I’m on track to make more than any employer paid me. I’m still in debt after having the rug pulled from under me from my last job, but I’m digging my way out on my own. I will never let one person be in control of my income ever again.
I’m now freelance musician and teacher and I’m on track to make more than any employer paid me.
That’s great! Is there some part of this that you think doesn’t fit into free market capitalism? Seems like you’re living the original american dream there.
Yeah no…So every communist either: !) Figures out how to not be a worker and then abandons the thought 2)Actually manages to be in the revolutionary council but may get assassinated later on 3)Never had any motivation at all, writes articles like this.
Bro, stop saying “communist” you are just embarrassing yourself.
Can I put forward a motion that we start treating this cringe McCarthist shit like the edgelord fodder it properly is and make those who use Communist scarecrows the laughingstock they deserve to be ? Like these idiots can’t grasp Market Socialism to save their life and are still high on gas lighting from the 1980’s.
I’m not American or a fan of market socialism, because I understand it perfectly well, not because of a lack of understanding. Socialism always leads to greater restrictions on the person, and you can’t deny that, your cronies literally advocate for it. Take socialized medicine, politicians immediately start passing laws and regulations to restrict your choices in order to keep costs down, and present it as ethical because “we’re all in this together”. Next thing you know, a workers compensation board has reached the level of petty that a carpenter can be fined for wearing a sleeveless shirt in July, a rule passed because of the risk of sunburn to the shoulder. I am not making this up, I was the carpenter.
Oh Baby cakes! I know socialism passes restrictions on people but are you seriously so petty that you blame workers protections nipping you for wearing a light shirt on sunny day as the height of your problems? Courting sunstroke on a worksite isn’t fucking smart.
And I am sorry but if your government is cutting costs to your healthcare you should probably organize because even a good system needs occasional correction. It’s a long fucking way from letting people be swamped with debt to keep their loved ones alive just a little bit longer. I know people in perpetual fear that a spate of unemployment will destroy their long term health because they can’t afford the insurance themselves. No system is perfect but you can whine about it not meeting your standards but private healthcare is only so great as you keep working. You get fucked up at work and all those “choices” you’re so proud of are just gone.
It was an example how fast they can start micromanaging the smallest details, and you knew that. You don’t think a government had time to make rules like that is an issue? You’re intentionally missing the point, they’ve done this to all aspects of society. I want the fucking guns back too, and any semblance of national pride. You organize anything effectively, the current federal government invokes the war measures act and rescinds it immediately as soon as the review process starts, because there was a glaring loophole left in the old legislation, that it doesn’t get reviewed to see if it was necessary, if they quit using the power in time. We literally have zero rights in Canada because of this
… The War Measures Act? The one that was repealed in like the 80’s?
Wait, are you griping about the Emergencies act? The one that requires the sign off of two levels of democraticly elected government Provincial and Federal and a full independantly run inquest every time it is enacted? Ohhhh you’re a Convoy cocksucker! It all makes sense now.
There are exactly two places in the world out of the host of existing democracies that have a constitutional right to firearms with zero public safety checks requiring limitations like licencing and and if you like the US or Guatemala’s gun policy and private healthcare system that much you can just move there instead of ruining this country by trying to turn us into America’s mini-me.
And really? No protections? You really REALLY don’t understand Canadian law at all do you? You know… You could actually read the results of the inquest right? It’s been out for a year.https://web.archive.org/web/…/final-report/
Or maybe you just think even the most soft touch of the protective measures a government makes to protect the welfare of the people and infrastructure key to it’s it’s ability to operate is too harsh ? No wonder you’re so upset, you just can’t handle a democratically elected body telling you that you can’t do absolutely anything you want because you are an entitled whiny baby. Grow up.
So you don’t remember the government claiming it needed a 30 day extension and then suddenly deciding it didn’t need it at all, when the Senate made it clear they were actually going to review whether it was needed? That the two levels you’re talking about? Cause they dodged that you authoritarian clown.
You mean that time the commission heading the report I linked said they wouldn’t have their homework done on time because they still had work to do on the French half of the report to have it ready to got to meet Canada’s national language requirements to have a full bilingual document and then managed to get everything polished off in time with the translation? Yeah they didn’t need two levels of government to rubber stamp a time extension on the report because no one is generally harmed.
Ohhhh no… We’re all gunna fall into ruin because they cared about the longstanding efficacy paperwork… Dumb shit. Don’t believe what your Conservative asswipes try and feed you. They know you won’t bother doing your own fucking homework.
What you think this is a gotcha? This is normal process for when a law that has never been enacted before gets used for the first time and gets challenged. This is part of how the system works. Laws are drafted and passed but basically inert until they are used. A law that is never used never has victims or damages. Only once laws are used can their use be challenged if they do not fit their internal rules exactly (because real life is messy and law drafts inexact) then they go under review. If one Justice kicks up a stink it goes to the Supreme court. The Supreme court decides if the laws were correctly followed. News anchors love the red flag stage because it’s prime drama and people gobble up any implications of “government overreach” like it’s proven fact which feeds their suspicions about how they are living under tyranny.
If the Supreme Court does find the government DID overreach then there will be rulings to appease damages. One justice is not the Supreme court. Even if they rule it was an improper use this continues to be a normal exercise of democracy BECAUSE the government will pay and face consequences. It is a ultimately GOOD thing that this is going under review.
The Justice system in Canada is fairly impartial because they are not an elected body but “what is the law” is at heart a philosophy question so not every judge rules the same. That’s why they have a big panel of them for these courts. To ensure that a majority of senior executors of the law conclude fairly.
To be frank this is the normal check to the Government. Those rights you were claiming we don’t have are being defended by this system of internal review with potential consequences FOR THE GOVERNMENT. These are your rights being defended, BUT they have not yet been proven to be violated, basically an alarm has been raised as it should in cases lile this and they have to go figure out if it was a burglar or a cat.
What you people don’t seem to fucking get is that the system has safeguards. They are being used effectivly but all this requires a bunch of people with full time jobs to prepare, debate, deliberate and fine tooth comb everything. It takes time because legal challenges at this level take years to resolve but that doesn’t keep pace with the 24 hour news cycle that wants you stupid, mad and plugged in RIGHT NOW and the Opposition party will use any dirty trick to use your conditioned suspicions to their advantage. You are falling for the grift. You can stay mad and clutch your guns to your chest like a security blanket and wave your flag all day but the system is functioning. This act was in effect only ACTIVE for 10 days of the 90 made possible by the passing of the original permissions. The Government applied the law to their understanding of the draft and accepted the risk of all of this with full knowledge of the legal consequences to the government. Now the courts figure out if the force used was excessive and that will make precedent to limit any future uses of the act.
It’s not really new legislation. It’s a mildly updated war measures act. Anyways, an actual legal scholar just disagreed with you and the kangaroo commission.
“Mildly”… Uh no. The War measures act conflicted with the Human Rights act and was amended to reflect the civil rights protections. The two do not look even remotely alike.
While I agree the Emergencies Act isn’t “new” legislation because it was drafted 30 years ago I take umbrage with your idea that that is the relevant issue. It sat on the books in mint condition never used for a very long time. It may not be new but the seal is freshly popped.
So.
The government can technically draft any law they want (provided it doesn’t explicitly violate constitutional protections at time of draft) but that it doesn’t mean that the exercise of those laws protect the government from the consequences of using them if the enactment is incorrect or if it violated constitutional rights in the enactment beyond the original scope… A law never used is just legal theory. You can debate it but it was passed and it’s a pain to remove from the books and you usually need to put something in it’s place to do a similar job if it’s there for a “potential” use to defend against something that may or may not happen.
The Emergencies act is in effect brand new in the system because it has only recently effected actual humans and the law can now be applied to evaluate the effect in it’s actual real world use and actual people can be the recipients of compensation for damages.
That “kangaroo Court” is no fucking joke. The government could stand to lose millions of dollars in damages if the door is opened to removing civil case protections… Which is why the Supreme Court is an independent body thay concerns itself with the charge of defending the law. Governments come and go but that’s the oath they take is binding for life or until they retire from the court at age 75.
Elected representatives are not generally experts in law, they are just provided guidance by system appointes experts to protect themselves from potential liability… but those experts are not the Supreme court panel. The justice system is a bunch of people whose life work is the protection and binding law to protect the welfare of the citizens of Canada and the democratic process because they have legitimate enforcement power and perform the duties of being a check to the temporary power of individual administrations.
I see your brain shorted out but your ego is still chugging along. If you can’t see the relevance maybe you should spread some dust bane around that empty head of yours, close up shop and give it a real college try on another day sport.
Most Americans don't see themselves as workers, they see themselves as just some a main character who is only struggling due to a personal fault in a quick time event rather than corporate planed actions that worked with the government to enable that thinking in the first place.
You say "tax the rich" and they think you mean them because they made $100k last year. Nah you're good! You could make 10x that and you'd still be good. I was talking about the people who make 450,000x that amount in a year.
“Have you tried applying on LinkedIn? Messaging recruiters or hiring managers on LinkedIn?”
“Oh no don’t use LinkedIn, everyone ignores those because of bots, apply directly”
“Put keywords from the job listing in your resume so the algorithm will rank you hire”
“Oh no don’t use words from the listing in your resume or you’ll be flagged as a bot”
“Hire a headhunter to apply to many positions for you”
“Avoid headhunters because when they spam your resume, you’ll get flagged as a bot”
“Complete a tedious and time consuming project for the company and post it on your personal site so they see you’re not a bot already qualified”
“Oh they didn’t even open the link to look at it? Well do one for the next company and the next and the next…”
Looking for a white collar job today is basically an arms race with the net result recruiters spend the bulk of their time weeding out bots, and applicants spend the bulk of their time trying to not look like bots. It’s ridiculous and I kind of wish places just accepted in person applications again.
yeah, people shit on the boomer ‘firm handshake’ thing but at this rate, even as a card-carrying introvert i’d rather take my chances and at least get a feel of the place rather than filling out another godawful application that no one will ever read
One way I was able to land a job was doing the old fashioned “speak to the hiring manager and shake his hand”. She said out of all the online applications (hundreds by the way every month) I was the first person to actually go up there and express interest. Still had to put in the online application, but a week later I interviewed and got the offer.
These businesses love to dehumanize the employee pool when they should realize it’s so easy these days for them to get in the exact same position.
LinkedIn is fine, my past 2 contracts both were off LinkedIn
Yes, include keywords but spread them out, absolutely. Also include them in your cover letter.
Don’t use headhunters, but you can use recruiters.
Pick a specific tech stack to specialize in, one that is popular abd high demand. 100% yes you should have a portfolio using that tech you can link to on your resume or applications. Focus on applying to the smaller but refined pool of jobs that explicitly need the exact tech stack you have in your portfolio.
Example: I specialized in .NET tech stack. C#, azure, EF Core, NUnit, Sql Server, etc etc. The full windows stack.
It’s a super popular stack, and there’s tonnes of demand. I don’t waste my time applying for python or c++ or lua or go or rust jobs. I stick to my stack.
I have many projects on my github using that stack, including install instructions, releases, docker containers, etc etc.
As a result I can talk about the tech used in these stacks extensively, I know them like the back of my hand. I have strong opinions on patterns with them, I can teach others about them, etc.
I despise the current paradigm of mock’ing everything, abstracting everything, and unit testing 100% cide coverage for no logical reason.
Instead I only unit test the following:
Any code I truly want to unit test, because it does something that is iffy on if it works or not, I break out into atomic logic that can very easily unit test.
Code coverage is a business requirement and we already have 100% coverage from integration tests, then I’ll start worrying about unit testing the shit out of stuff.
In other words if you waste time on mindless unit tests to assert that 1+1=2 when you dont have 100% coverage on your integration tests yet, you are wasting time.
In terms of atomic code, consider this example:
<span style="color:#323232;">public class StudentService(IStudentRepository repo)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">{
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> public bool AnyGrade12()
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> {
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> var students = repo.GetStudents();
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> return students.Any(s => s.Grade == 12);
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> }
</span><span style="color:#323232;">}
</span>
This would be very normal as a pattern to see, but I hate it because to test it, now I need to mock a stubbed in IStudentRepository.
Now this is what I consider atomic logic. The rule of thumb is, if the class has no dependencies or all it’s dependencies are atomic, it too is atomic.
Generally it becomes clear all the atomic logic can just be declared as static classes pain-free, and there’s no need to abstract it. It’s trivial to unit test, and you don’t have to mock anything.
Any remaining non-atomic code should end up as anything you simply must integration test against (3rd party api calls, database queries, that sort of stuff)
You’ll also often find many of your atomic functions naturally and smoothly slot into becoming just extension functions.
This approach goes very much against the grain of every dotnet team I’ve worked with, but once I started demoing how it works and they saw how my unit tests became much less convoluted while still hitting ~90% code coverage, some folks started to get on board with the paradigm.
Is a worker on the road for their own benefit or for the benefit of their employer? Do people voluntarily choose to drive in godawful rush hour traffic 5 days a week just for shits and giggles, or is it because times are mandated by their employer?
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision? Should an employees housing options be dictated by the employer?
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes, and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
It’s a nuanced debate. In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer. Huh, just something else to think about.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
This only seems like a difficult question if it’s one worker having the conversation with their employer. The moment it’s one employer vs. all their workers, the answer is obviously yes, with the employer left footing the bill.
Why would the employer have to foot the bill when they could just fire all their workers and hire people who live closer? Because our housing market is hell and nobody lives closer. Either businesses will have to pay for commutes directly by treating them as hours worked, or they’ll have to pay for them indirectly by relocating their offices to places where workers actually live.
Given how sprawled we all are, the latter will be the more expensive option. At least, until sufficiently large businesses lobby governments to subsidize the costs of relocating their offices… ugh.
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
I don’t think a company would want to restrict themselves by using that as a criteria, because someone who is much better for the position but lives farther away may be excluded for the person who lives closer who cannot do the job as well.
Cost to employer is calculated based on many factors, the capability of the worker doing the work is one of them.
Maybe employees deserve compansation for commutes,
If companies charge to have their workers commute to work locations to do jobs for them, then yes, they should.
Basically the flip side of the coin of, for example, a plumber coming out to your house to fix a leaky pipe charging you for him to actually come out to the house regardless of any work done when he gets there.
and maybe a company changing their in-office policy should include compensation to make up for the impact to the employees lives.
Well a company should make sure compensation is satisfactory enough for the best talent to do the best work for them.
Actually, I’m big on nuanced conversations, but I really don’t think it is in this case, I think what you been expressing is more strawmanning than actual real world scenarios.
In the military, housing on post is free, and those who chose to live off post receive a housing allowance. You could say this is a comparable arrangement. But the military also dictates where you live, and you don’t have quite the freedom as you do with a private employer.
I don’t think you can use this as a justification for the points you’ve been expressing, as a military and a corporation are two very different things, and the responsibilities of persons to each of them is very different, and not comparable.
Huh, just something else to think about.
Well, real conversations are always better than just attempts to redirect the narrative, that’s for sure.
People don’t choose to commute for “shits and giggles”, but there is choice involved in how long your commute is, if it’s a job that pays well enough that moving is an option. To be clear, if a job is changing from remote to in-office, I think it should absolutely come with a pay increase to compensate for that increased labor of getting to the office. But should you be paid for the time spent commuting as if they’re working hours? That doesn’t seem right to me.
I live in a city with ridiculous urban sprawl. However, I choose to live in a smaller apartment with a higher $/sq ft so that my commute is just a 10 min bike ride. I chose it both because it saves me time and reduces the amount of pollution I’m contributing every day. I have coworkers, though, that choose to live as far as 2 hrs drive each way, outside of the reach of the city’s public transport. I’ve asked, and their reasons are: to be closer to their relatives, to be in a part of town they just like better, for lower cost housing so they can spend more elsewhere, or bc they want their kids to be raised in a suburb instead of the city. They all technically could live closer, but they choose not to because they have other priorities. Which is fine and valid, but still ultimately a choice.
So, should my coworkers be paid up to 50% more than me (4 hrs per day!) because of their choice? Or to say it another way, should I be paid less than them because of my choice that is already costing me more in rent? Wouldn’t that actually incentivize longer commutes and the problems that come with it, like more road congestion and more pollution? Realistically, I think employers would stop employing those who live so far because they’re not actually getting more value from the employee that’s costing them 50% more.
The transportation situation in the US is fully the failure of cities, states and the federal government to fund and plan for adequate land use and transport networks.
I could not agree more. The vast majority of American cities seem to have been thrown together ad hoc one development at a time with zero planning for mass transit with a few exceptions like Chicago.
In person work should be taxed to pay for the roads, transit, and congestion costs they cause if we really wanna get all ‘let’s measure productivity’ about this.
Your commute is your own problem, I don’t pay my employees for driving to work, they can always move closer to the office or sleep in their cars in the parking lot overnight if driving home and back is such a big deal.
So no, I won’t be paying you to drive home and furthermore, at my businesses I have a swear jar policy; every swear word an employee says I take a dollar/hour off their pay for that day. So watch your potty mouth or you’ll be the one who ends up paying me.
I have seen you thinking similarly on other posts. Are you actually a business owner or just a troll? Based on that second paragraph I have to believe you’re just a troll.
Imagine that you are right and a person is on drugs; what kind of inhumane psychopath do you have to be to see someone having a medical emergency - regardless of the cause - and think that the police are the best people to deal with the situation?
You would only have to uncritically believe what you were told growing up by state PSAs, sitcoms, cartoons, teachers, librarians, medical professionals, therapists, other police officers, religious leaders, and probably your parents and grandparents. Every shadow you see on the cave wall tells you that the police are the answer to every problem.
Atlassian have proven (along with a load of other companies and academic studies) that forcing people to work in an office is an anchor on productivity.
CEOs that are forcing their employees to come back into the office are willfully pissing away productivity.
That is arguably negligent from an investment perspective
Exactly. Employees are not cookie cutter duplicates. The more productive ones always have more options, even when you treat them all the same. This is worse for the company than firing people randomly.
I suspect that this has nothing to do with productivity for most companies. I'm not smart enough or really concerned enough with why CEOs are massive assholes to look into this - but I figured it has to do with other stuff like property.
If you own a building and rent out space to cafes and gyms or you charge for parking etc there's a lot of incentives to get your little cash cows back in the building.
Right but the company that owns them likely owns the property or is its self owned by another company that also owns a company that owns the properties these people work in so it's super important for their overall profits to keep these buildings filled.
Another dumb-ass op-ed that starts with a stupid premise and gets worse from there. Look how desperately they try to make it seem like workers are different by generation. watch them desperately thrash and twist to avoid the truth, that conditions are their fault.
They sampled 18-25 y/os then skipped straight over the rest of the workforce to workers 65 and older.
No talk about compensation differences between these groups. No talk about 26-64 year olds… I want to find the author and personally tell them how disappointed i am in their work, but it was probably ai or one of those gig word count jobs and they wouldn’t even care
Yeah, I’m a millennial who has hated those same things since probably around the same time gen Z started joining the workforce. I bet the only real difference is that gen Z didn’t join the workforce with the illusion that it wasn’t so bad because millennials were already talking about it. And gen X cynicism (which is deserved, not trying to open a front in the “generation war” here) likely planted the seed for millennials to notice it.
I’m seeing the same. I’m an older millennial that joined the workforce in a conservative state, so I kept my mouth shut about shitty work conditions so I didn’t end up fist fighting some of my coworkers. Gen Z is entering a workplace full of disgruntled millennials like myself and we’re together making an environment where it’s safer to tell employers we’re tired of being taken for granted.
Gen X here and it has been common knowledge since 2000 that the only way to not fall behind your peers in terms of salary or career advancement is to change jobs every few years.
Existing staff getting paid less than new hires has been a thing for at least 25 years.
Hell, I think it was boomers, if not the silent generation, who first learned the hard way that company loyalty can screw you. If that shit started in the 80s, it would have caught the silent generation.
The whole generational conflict is just another attempt to divide people so they are less likely to unite effectively against the ones who put their profit ahead of everything and everyone else.
Younger Silent and older Boomers definitely got the biggest shaft of all. This was the group of people who were promised a pension and regular retirement. Then the idiots who manage the companies ran them into bankruptcy and got business-friendly bankruptcy judges to dissolve the pensions, leaving retired and retiring people with nothing to fall back on. Younger Boomers looked at that and went “sounds good to me!”.
I’m a Xilenial and agree 100% with what you said. Younger Gen X started to notice these problems, but when your 35-ish year old Boomer parents are living the life, they shut you down without mercy. It took until the youngest Millenials/Older Gen Z for people to be able to talk about this openly.
I know I’m in the minority likely, but Trader Joes is shit it isn’t because it can’t survive unionization. Just because your chips are organic doesn’t make buying it from overly outgoing cashiers any healthier. Prepackaged junk food is prepackaged junk food and they sell a ton of it. Frozen dinners are still sodium bombs even though they don’t have “preservatives”. That said, fuck these two anti-union shitstains of companies.
I shop at union grocery stores. The boutique chains see this as a something to exploit instead of a feature. Many union chains are local too, most boutique ones are national.
There are a few specific items that Trader Joe’s is notable for… but ditto for Safeway, Hannaford’s, Food Lion, Star, Superstore, and SaveOn - I think two decades ago Trader Joe’s was a trailblazer in high quality offerings but they’ve slowly compromised for profits and competitors have realized that high quality offerings are valued by consumers - not just price.
That’s exactly my experience. We loved Trader Joe’s in the early 2000s. Now there isn’t much there we can’t find elsewhere, and the quality isn’t as good as what it once was. What IS exclusive to them is often artificially scarce to drive up price and demand. Looking at you, ube mochi pancake mix.
I have to admit to experiencing the same. I have fond memories from my undergrad years when I lived a few blocks from one and basically based my diet around them. Maybe they’re not the same anymore.
They have a lot of prepackaged junk but they do have good prices on bananas, blueberries and nuts. They also have a decent super high fiber, low sugar bran cereal.
I forgot to mention the little Persian cucumbers. They don’t always have them in stock at the co-op.
I’m also of the opinion that produce is seasonal and should be treated that way. Some times of the year we shouldn’t have bananas, blueberries, etc. They don’t care where we get the good priced fruits from. Could be Peru or Vietnam, they don’t care as long as they are on the shelves for consumers to buy. That ain’t how we survive a climate crisis.
I don’t understand the trader Joe’s love. It’s a grocery store with a poor selection of fruits, vegetables, and fresh meats. They have a decent wine and beer selection. It’s basically half frozen stuff, it’s maybe higher quality than other places, but it’s just frozen shit.
I was so disappointed the first time I went to Trader Joe's. It had been so hyped up and people made it sound like a mini Jungle Jim's. Then it opened and it was just a more expensive Aldi.
For those that don’t live near Cincinnati, Jungle Jim’s is an international grocery store that’s amazing for foodies. It’s massive, and it has everything from international meats and cheeses to alcohol to fruits to sweets to hot sauces. It’s really a unique experience when it comes to grocery shopping.
It was better back in the early 2000s, in my opinion for two main reasons. First, the prices and quality were better. Second, and biggest of all, they carried a wide variety of products that had a limited presence in many American supermarkets, namely vegan/vegetarian meals, organic crap, and eclectic snacks. Most major grocers have caught up with demand and now they don’t stand out all that much.
I haven’t been to a TJs in a while, but I remember I would go there for maybe one or two specific things that I couldn’t get anywhere else. They were delicious.
But you know what? I don’t even remember what they were anymore, that’s how important TJs is over any other grocery store.
Fuck them for being anti union. Guess they’ll continue not getting my money.
The anti-unionization stuff makes me sad. They're really the only ones around here who carry vegetarian/vegan options. If I go to the chain store next door the prices are quite a bit more expensive, and all they have is a small corner of the refrigerated section of vegetarian options of questionable expiration.
The no preservatives label needs better regulation. Every food that has it is loaded with either salt or sugar. The reason that they are loaded with salt and/or sugar is because salt and sugar are two of the oldest and most used preservatives. And that's my soapbox, thanks for listening.
The other one that pisses me off is no added nitrates (except for all the nitrates in the additives we added). Just be honest, companies. It’s really not hard to not be total shitbags.
Why is suggesting making your own lunch a “bad” thing though? I’ve been doing it for years to save money and eat better. Food is absolutely on “us” I would be eating whether I’m home or at work, but then again I’m a US born Stockholm syndrome slavelord that’s just used to the shit system we have here. Do other countries require their companies to pay for lunches?
What’s nice is that when you work from home, you have your whole kitchen at your disposal to make your lunch. As opposed to needing to plan ahead while wasting part of your day on a commute.
are currently between 27 and 42 years old — are significantly more likely to want to do some form of paid work during retirement.
Want is not the right word there, and it completely changes the message. This is a fucking hit job, trying to convince people that company executives stealing pension plans, and a failed society that abandons its elderly, is something young people desire.
I would have retired 20 years ago if I could. I will never understand people that say they don’t know what they’d do with themselves in retirement. What unimaginative and boring people they must be. I have a thousand interests I can’t fully pursue because of work obligations.
I’m one of those people. If not pointed in a specific direction by someone else I’ll just aimlessly do nothing but kill time for months on end. I have a couple interests, but nothing that could keep me occupied for an extra 40 hours a week.
This isn’t to say I love working, but I don’t hate it either. I’d rather have work than no work, even for the same amount of money.
This was my stepdad, always said that. I just would tell him “whatever you want.” And it wasn’t for a lack of hobbies, he has plenty. I just don’t understand the mindset of people that want to “work.” Like, I love making things and “working” on my own things, but never have I gone to work and happy to be there. To work for a manager that micromanages me, another manager who want me to falsify records, (that btw it won’t come back to him but to me,) a GM who would put undo pressure on you to stay longer then you were scheduled. Fuck that place. Nothing made me happier when my situation changed and didn’t need to pick up extra hours. Six hour mark rolled around and I was out. I’d take that time go to the gym, go on a bike ride, go rock climbing, go paddle boarding because I sure as hell enjoyed working on myself more then I ever did at any job. And to work so hard for so little, damn if America isn’t just on large pyramid scheme.
When humans went to a six day work week, the wealthy said it would end civilization.
When we went to a five day work week, they said the same.
Same as when we said overtime needs more pay, women should be paid more, 9 year olds can’t work in coal mines, and basically every other labor law from the past 10,000 years.
And we are more productive than ever due to automation. I bet 2 days would be enough to keep society running. Nothing fancy though. 3 would be enough for economic growth.
Work Reform
Top