jasory @ jasory @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

301

Joined

2 yr. ago

Probably not. The majority of users are just there for entertainment and commentary, they aren't the same niche that occupies Lemmy communities.

Well you keep making all these claims about how America is a hell scape, when it's actually a more desirable country than the one you are promoting.

Nope, not "not able to". They just want there nice cars and homes. You can easily save money in the US, it's all just rich kids who want to live the same lifestyle there parents raised them in after they (the parents) worked for 20 years.

I personally know many homeless people and have been homeless myself. We are in the far minority, even most poor communities aren't in danger of being homeless. Homeless people tend to be drug addicts or violent people that others don't want to help (for obvious reasons).

"I think you are missing the point"

Nope, you specifically complained about having more flexible days by allowing people to carry over sick time. Now presumably you think that it's better to have unlimited sick time, but at no point have you ever actually said that. All you have done is whine about carrying over sick time.

"A fixed quantity of sick days will ensure that people show up sick for work when they run out"

Of course sick time is necessarily equal to or less than total employment time (eventually you will have to work at some point, so clearly any set number of sick time can theoretically be insufficient). Now having 40 hrs of sick time each year is by your own admission plenty for you and plenty for most people. If companies were actually losing appreciable amounts of money on their sick time policy (like you claim ) they would change it. It's easy to see that "Flu costs 12 billion $/pa" and forget that the US economy is larger by a factor of 1000 ( so less than .1 percent economic loss), as well as workplace transmission only comprising a fraction of that.

"And it doesn't stop sickness"

Of course it doesn't. Much of sick time isn't used for communicable health issues and people tend to contract communicable diseases elsewhere anyway.

"Call it paid time off or holiday"

You literally have no idea what this discussion is about. You whined about carrying over sick days and how it "doesn't make sense" (because you're an idiot), and I pointed out that fiscally sick time is identical to vacation time, so if it's okay to carry over vacation time then why is it not permissible for sick time?

"Don't pretend that this is a better system"

A better system than what? Fixed amount of sick time each year? Because that's the point of comparison. I can't compare it to whatever you are advocating for because you flat out refuse to say it. (Again I strongly suspect you want indefinite sick time, but despite having multiple opportunities to elaborate you have failed to do so).

"By having a fixed account ... {bunch of irrelevant nonsense}"

You realise the distinction you need to make is not in fixed days, compared to zero days. But fixed days compared to carried over days. If you are going to try to make a fiscal argument (again) actually try to understand what you are talking about.

Edit: You did misuse "liability", or are at least fiscally inept. You claimed that carrying over sick time was somehow reducing liability, so either you have no idea what that word means or you don't know how basic finance works. (It actually increases financial costs because you often have to pay out sick time at a higher rate if the employee pay increases.)

Literally proving my point, Denmark had all these problems and then they privatised it, and created incentives for employment.

"Don't have to worry about homelessness"

Neither do Americans. The vast majority of Americans will never be homeless, the vast majority of people who complain about it are rich kids on social media trying to get sympathy.

"There's also way more to life than work"- The biggest factor in quality of life (in a wealthy country) is your job ( or less commonly your parents money). Also if you make more (and pay less in taxes), all those benefits can be provided from your savings. And your savings account is far more flexible than earmarked money from the government.

There is a reason why people want to work and live in America and not .... Denmark. The ease to make money and the flexibility to spend it to maximise your quality of life is far greater than most countries.

You literally claimed yourself that 5 days a year is plenty for yourself (via stating that you don't use that many days). So this supposed acknowledgement "that this isn't enough", doesn't appear to be true. You apparently think that it is enough and would even be able to save up days just from your normal behaviour.

"I understand the reason to minimize the liability for the employers"- the liability? Do you mean the expenses of paying for indefinite leave? Where does liability come anywhere into this? Do you know what that word means?

You seem to be arguing for indefinite sick time (which is actually paid by taxpayers because businesses can't pay people who produce nothing), but doing it by attacking a more beneficial system for employees (apparently because you have no idea what you are talking about).

"More like 70 percent as to not reduce lifespan"

Lifespan doesn't matter, it's total output from the input. Machines generally are run at 100 percent (whatever that is), because it is the most efficient.

You have it backwards, are you under the impression that you are allocated X amount of days until retirement?

Sick days are accrued each year, if you can carry them over then every sick day you didn't use gets added to your current year.

"Dave" could have saved up sick days, from the past years to get more full-time pay. However the fact that he didn't, does not mean that he gets less sick time accrued this year.

This criticism is dumb.

Carrying over sick days is fine because the employer already alloted pay for that. Sick days are no different than vacation days from a fiscal perspective, the only difference is you don't need to schedule them and/or there may be specific laws about them.

You then claim "accruing sick days will make people want to use them"-

1. No. In fact the converse is true, sick days that don't carry over pressures employees to take them. Because you are basically losing a vacation day, you would be an idiot to not use all 5 days each year. (In case you are confused, no you don't actually have to be sick to use sick days, many companies have a "don't ask" policy.)
2. This doesn't really matter since in the US virtually every employer will cash out the sick time at the end of employment so it costs the same anyway, because as already mentioned the money has already been allocated.

No, because there is way more to life than just emergency medical leave.

For most people they're not going to be using that leave, they'd much rather have the money instead of it being taxed from them. Additionally it is much easier to get a job in the US and it generally pays better.

I don't know what country you live in, but ones that have extensive labor protections often have very high youth unemployment (people with little experience can't get hired), because businesses are unwilling to take risks on potentially bad employees if they can't terminate them or have to pay out a lot of money to do so.

It's popular to demonise America, but there are also a lot of problems the US doesn't have.

Federal employees are immediately terminated if they strike, so the unions are basically just workplace clubs.

Government agencies simply pay more and have good benefits because they don't want to deal with turnover.

CamelCase directories and snake_case files.

So you are accelerating?

At some points it was "superior". Elements was used as a textbook throughout Europe and the Arab world, because it was one of the first and few books with rigorous proofs. If course it was probably compromised of previous works, but there was really nothing else like it.

Again, no. Cops can detain and investigate without making a formal arrest or bringing someone to jail. If it is questionable circumstances, then they will simply take statements and go for an arrest later.

There actually is a circumstance where police are incentivised to plant evidence, and that's if you have a problematic individual (someone who gets the police called on them regularly), and planting evidence of a more serious crime would remove them from the street.

Theocratic Christians are such a minority that the risk of this is nil. This is like conservatives fear-mongering about the US going Stalinist.

The US has never had a biblical law system and never will. (Certainly not in the near future, although with infinite time anything is possible).

They randomly accused people they have no evidence of for commiting a crime. So yeah, they are being a bigot.

Well, homeless may refer to people who don't legally possess shelter, while unsheltered or unhoused refers to people who don't reside in any shelter. I think it is a useful distinction because you do encounter people who consider couch-surfing to be homelessness, even though the physical circumstances are quite different from living on the street.

"A targeted shooting a deliberate murder.... that does tend to be more rare"

Accidental fatal shootings are well known to exceed intentional ones.

It's rare to get an article on individual targeted killings, but they do in fact comprise the majority of killings. So no, this is not a rare form of killing at all, it's simply being reported because it's another journalist.

Is it because they interviewed the aunts and uncles as their primary source?