Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?
Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.
And if they don’t sell, there is no profit, it’s still unrealized.
Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?
Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.
And if they don’t sell, there is no profit, it’s still unrealized.
It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?
Another major example imo, is using the single word “gender”, both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.
The best way to ensure a discussion isn’t productive is to make sure that the ‘discussers’ are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol…
It’s literally not a fact. Net worth is a price tag, not an amount of cash.
No they aren’t. The number that’s increasing is a price tag, not cash. That’s why no one’s wallet or bank account gets bigger when that same number goes down.
I guess what they’re getting at is that if “non-binary” is considered a gender identity unto itself, then you could describe one being trans with the transition being “from man to non-binary”, for example.
Gender identity doesn’t get assigned at birth. There is no “gender” field on a birth certificate.
Sex gets identified at birth (at the latest, usually before, during pregnancy, unless specifically requested to keep it secret).
Two reasons this is important to point out:
wowwww a trans person making unfair assumptions/criticisms of people for quoting an extremely popular piece of pop culture.
let’s all say it together!!
Being trans does not grant a prejudice pass!!
The fact is, most Harry Potter fans neither know nor care about any of the personal exploits of the author.
If she kept that a secret or anything then sure… But it’s not exactly a hidden fact that money gained from Harry Potter is being put towards hate.
The spaces you hang out in obviously make a big deal of these and broadcast them consistently, I’m sure. But it’s clear you spend enough time in them that you’ve lost perspective in how things are in the ‘world at large’.
Although it’s very obvious and “not hidden”, to you, it wouldn’t even have to be hidden from the average Harry Potter fan, because they make literally zero effort to seek it out. They simply don’t care about anything she does, outside of writing the books they like to read.
P.S. The way you worded it in a previous comment implies heavily that a lack of explicit criticism of Rowling is equivalent to “support”. It isn’t.
What you are describing is essentially the roguelike/lite genre, lol. Search up some of that, see if anything looks fun.
That is one horrendous logo, lol
There was an attempt
women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.
It’s simply the difference that’s being noticed, and no one’s really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same ‘are you sick?’ kind of reactions on any given day she doesn’t wear makeup to work.
Same, I’m really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.
The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of ‘gatekeeping her real face’ behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.
P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old ‘hack’ for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.
The only way to fight this is to raise the minimum wage to something that is livable for the average worker.
Then what do you do when only the Amazons and Walmarts of the world with the deepest pockets can afford that, and small business basically ceases to exist, as a result? People talk a lot about ‘if you can’t pay a livable wage you don’t deserve to be in business’, but the same people also complain about monopolies and lack of choice at the same time. How do you propose this be reconciled?
Also, no one’s ever going to be able to begin to enforce a “living wage”, even if they wanted to, until that wage is given a concrete definition–at the very least, a formula with variables to account for cost of living differences across the country. Until then, all this clamoring for a “living wage” is completely pointless.
Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything?
Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.
The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what’s more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?
making massive profits off the work of their employees.
Labor is a cost, not a source of profit, what kind of moronic statement is this? If employees were a source of profit, the notion of downsizing would never exist–why would a company ever lay anyone off, if workers create more value than their wage?
Even the founder of Costco (only stepped down as CEO a few years ago), a company famous both for how well it treats its customers, and its workforce?
…until they pay the loan back, you mean.
Hell, loans better be tax free, it’s not income if you have to pay it back.
P.S. Some food for thought: if workers’ labor is being ‘skimmed’ by employers, making workers into a source of profit as a result, then why would a company ever downsize as a measure against financial difficulty? Why would any business ever fire anyone who’s doing their job, if worker = profit for the business?