sorrybookbroke @ sorrybookbroke @sh.itjust.works

Sorry, book broke

---

Read more

Posts

18

Comments

400

Joined

2 yr. ago

Edit: I'd like to thank you for the kind conversation none-the-less. Even if we disagree, you seem like a chill person

Right, but other businesses will have gotten the money you would have spent, thus the greater capacity. They will have more business and require more workers.

Even if they didn't have this capacity or didn't increase it, the difference is clear. In both situations the worker is hurt, but in one the employer is hurt too. Why only hurt the employee? Why continue to support the employer by giving them the same amount of money if your objection is moral?

If you're still going to support the system, the only benefit to not tipping is a discount taken only from the employee, not the employer.

Lastly, I call for nothing like that. What I've been saying is clear. If you're going to support fast food, you should be tipping. No moral consumption and all that, I understand we can't be perfect and support every cause, but my argument is that one should still tip to use this luxery good. Not tipping only hurts the worker. If you don't tip though, you should understand what you're doing.

If you're reason for not tipping is moral objection to the system, you shouldn't think you're doing good by not tipping or that you're not supporting the system of tipping. You are, the employer who has caused this system to exist is not hurt, you're just taking money from a worker. That's all.

Lastly boycotts rarely work. If we want this to change the best way is through local politics. Get involved, get informed, get things changed. Why do you think all the politicians are dissociative weirdos who do no good for the populace? They have to get a start somewhere, replace them.

You should still tip though, or minimize/cut out entirely your fast food consumption.

Leave to where? What other job? We're in a job deficit and non fast food places can only hold so many. Currently, when a fast food joint loses workers, they just pile the new work on employees who can't just leave.

This idea of "just leave 5-head lol :P" is rather short sighted. They need to eat, they need to pay rent, they can't just leave.

Why haven't they left already with already abysmal wages even including tips? We have a shortage of jobs right now If they all left, or a large enough portion left, then they'll need new jobs. No other industry has those jobs available currently. They'd lose wages, and have to go back.

Again, not tipping only hurts the worker, not the employer. Even in your situation the end goal is to hurt the employee so much they leave. Why not hurt the employer instead of only the employee? The only benefit is not paying that 10-15% on your mushroom parmesean chickenburger meal with deluxe fries.

If the end goal is the same, less workers in the industry which hurts the employer forcing better conditions, you not tipping does little to help while only hurting the employee

All you accomplish is a cheaper price on your luxary meal. A discount taken solely from the worker with no negative to the employer save for this idea that one day, the employee will walk out to another job that treats them better. A job that, sadly, does not exist

This does not force them to pay more. They will simply not pay the employee a greater wage. The employer loses nothing by the employee getting less money here. They only lose if they pay more.

If everyone just stopped tipping all that would happen is that the workers now have a lower pay. The employers have lost no money, and have no reason to change anything.

Yes, not paying the fast food joint at all does hurt the worker, but if you're already ok with doing that why not hurt the employer? They'll lose money by not paying a reasonable price this way. Unlike with not tipping where nothing is lost.

Your method hurts only the worker. My method hurts the buisness as well. Only one gives the buisness a reason to change. The buisness does not care about the living situation of an employee

If you participate in the system without paying the tip you only hurt the employee.

They're not just acting like the rest of the world, the rest of the world has better wage laws. They have a different system.

Yes, not participating in the system will hurt the same employees, as not tipping does, but not buying fast food also hurts the employers. Unlike buying without tipping which, again, only hurts the workers.

Once more, if you don't agree with tipping, not tipping won't do anything to the system. The only way forward is to not participate. If you think non participation will do nothing, why harm the worker?

This is alot of moralizing to justify a selfish behavior. Just be honest, you don't care what what happens to the worker as long as you can get your luxary of fast food slightly cheaper

Atleast around where I live, this is not the case. Fast food joints often commit wage theft, and minimum wage isn't near $20+. The highest is just under 17 with most being under 15.

Again, people also tend not to get paid for opening/closing over time certain types of work. Also, sometimes their paycheck is just lower than agreed. It's common

We get news anchors, papers, journalists, and social media figures fear mongering about sky high minimum wages which convinces people progress is being made quick. It is not. You are not immune to propaganda so I understand why you'd think this but, broadly, this is not the case

That's a very good point. Supermarkets also tend to have full meals served hot or stuff you can nuke for a decent price no tipping needed.

You don't hurt the people who've made tipping a necessity by not tipping. You only hurt the worker. The worker is blamed for not being good enough for the basic amount of money to survive.

If you want to kill tipping, stop funding the scum who make it needed. Stop eating out. If you must eat out, you accept that doing so has a greater cost than making your own food. Don't hurt workers while funding, and rewarding, those who exploit them.

Edit: To clarify my opinion, if you eat out you should tip. If you object morally to the idea of tipping then you shouldn't fund those who make it a necessity. No moral consumption and all that jazz still applies. You can eat out, but if you're paying the exploiter, don't take out your anger on the fellow exploited. Leave a tip

Oh you meant there's a per game setting, that's pretty cool I had no idea. Now none of my friends can make fun of me for adding onto my 900 hours of geometry dash

Away from pc but from what I remember when you go into the friends window, after clicking the friends button in the bottom right, at the top of the new window there should be an arrow. From the drop down you should see active, away, invisible, and offline. Choose invisible to be able to see your freinds, talk to them, etc. but show up as offline for them.

Whenever I'm online I get alot 9f requests to play comp on cs2 so it's helpful when I just want a calm stardew valley evening, or I'm already 5 stacked. It's not just for porn. I have no idea why you'de buy porn off steam though. That's a wild idea

Careful deleting the prefix, as it will delete game save data. I'd suggest backing up the data, and the prefix, before creating a new one. Just rename the prefix by adding --old to the end and move the save game out of the prefix

I wonder if that man was able to go without peeing for that amount of time. What food and drink did he consume. Did our suggestions help? Also, separate question, why? Seriously, why. Why couldn't he tell us why either.

That's my favourite moment. Early on but it sticks in my head.

You are valid, and we love you

As an entirely un-related party with no further knowlage I can confirm that yeah, it definitly happened.

My source? I just want to believe man

If my players said that from this image the spear would suddenly become a pretty sick magic item.

It's also cursed though, like the one ring, to cause jealousy and greed

Hi there friend, I am here to inform you that many woman also like the titty. Gay girls exist my friend, and the gender of the three professionals is never specified.

I'll assume ya ain't trying to be homophobic my buddy but I hope you keep that in mind for future refference.

Edit racism comment was another guy, sorry, very tired

To answer the "are you a boss" question the answer is kinda, but yhat's the idea of socialism. Everyones a boss. The idea is against non-workers owning the industry, and ensures workers have control over it. If you see an issue with your suggested practice I understand but I'll clarify it' not anti-socialist. At your scale, with the other options available, I can only see your option being a better one.

I think you see the possible issues inherent in renting as well as the coercion in it. There's certainly ways in which one can exploit the relationship. As long as you're not doing so however there's no moral flaw. In fact, on an environmental note you're likely helping. If you're undercutting the massive industry and treat those who rent from you well you're doing them a kindness.

Of course, one can do evil here, but understanding that and actively making effort not to do so is a good place to be in. All economic activity can cause harm no matter the system. As a socialist, I believe that when more people with a stake in the work have control over industry the outcome is better

Hey man, I understand the confusion and would like to correct some notions. Particularly with some comments here conflating socialism with other ideas.

Socialism is simply workers controlling industry. This may mean many things including each business being controlled by it's individual workers, all industry being collectively owned by society as a whole, or other similar ideas. Personally I believe in the former. As long as the people working in a business control said business this is socialism

What if that industry is the rental of tractors? Well, then all workers involved in this business must control the business. If you are the sole worker, the only one operating this business, then you have sole control.

If you were to, let's say, buy 10 tractors and bring on a receptionist to manage calls and schedule tractor usage well then that receptionist would also own, and control, this business as well. Same goes as it grows. Just as a person selling wheat to a grain mill doesn't need to hold any ownership over the grain mill nor the mill over the farm you selling your tractors usage doesn't need those using it to own your tracker.

Socialism does not necessitate the collective ownership of property nor does it mean industrial rental isn't an option. It only necessitates that the workers control industry. This may mean that each individual business operates as it's own entity, controlled by it's individual workers.

Workers seizing the means of production can mean does not mean, necessarily, society owning it collectively nor does It mean all who use it may have ownership.

I feel that socialism and communism often get conflated. Private ownership of property and the means of production is allowed under socialism, just not ownership over industry. You can personally own and rent out a tractor but you cannot personally own a tractor rental company. Under communism, all is owned collectively

Now, the morals of renting are another thing altogether and entirely detached from socialism. Personally, I think it mostly immoral. Under your circumstance I see no issue selling excess time with a tool you use for the majority of the time. The issue comes when a single renter start to pay entirely for maintenance with excess profits. In my opinion, this should grant them partial ownership. Once more though this is detached from socialism entirely

But they are now, they exist currently. The fuck are you talking about. If we became an ancap society they wouldn't magically disapear. What, you think that any ancap would ask for these companies to disolve before they're society started? To go back to square one? Nah, that's not what the guy pictured or any popular ancap has suggested. That's not randian, that's some fantasy. Rands suggested solution necesitates the lalrger corporations gaining control. To be allowed to freely operate. Name me one ancap thought leader who suggests a mass reset and that in no world a large corp could form.

Also, even if ancap sociaty started from scratch eventually a company would gain power over an industry. With nothing to stop them, the biggest companies would inevitably grow bigger. That's capitalism, the need to grow is constant and one cannot stagnate. Not neccessarally a bad thing but with no guide rails it logically means monopoly. No, a lack of copyright law wouldn't stop any company from growing to a size where they could kill competition.

When there's a new industry too, they'll be the ones to pioneer it. What, do you think Microsoft came fully formed from bill gates forehead? No, the current companies at the time would have taken gates designs and copies them. They, with their distribution networks, would easily outcompete. What if bill made a better product? Well, no copyright, it's now theirs.