4416 pts ยท November 21, 2019
Like a dog show.
Wanting to balance my mental health by having my fun meme site not have politics on it does not mean I am uninformed about the bad things happening. I get my news from other places. I am not obligated to get it from imgur too. Purposefully bypassing people politics tag block will just make it so even more people leave this platform.
That is the real answer. The era of free video is over. You have to pay for the costs of hosting any playing the video somehow. And the revenue from ads has plummeted. We won't ever be back in the old times where one ad could pay for videos again. Not unless ads become more effective, which would be its own disaster. We as consumers just need to move to subscriptions that don't have ads, and let the ad based streaming die. But that will involve us remembering that services are not free.
Yeah, the law was actually made to force libraries to remove books about LQBTQ+ people. But a few libraries are fighting back against the law by doing things like above. Not getting rid of the books but forcing the public to have the law put in their faces and not be able to send their children to the library unaccompanied until the law is removed. I hope people see how bad this is and vote in politicians that will undo this.
But where two edges meet it is only......360 degrees.
NoPixel graphics have improved a lot!
If a Maximum wage does not make a meaningful impact on the wages of the low paid workers then what good is it? Why waist the considerable political effort it would take to get such a change if it does not change the system in a meaningful way? Does it really make life so much worse that CEOs get paid 200 Million than 1 Million? I mean I would hope that in order to pay the higher minimum wage the CEO pay would be cut. But I think legislating it is a waste of everyone's efforts.
I mean I would love a UBI too. I think with automation acceleration we should be slowly transitioning onto it. But that is exactly my point. We need large systematic changes. Caping CEO pay is a nothing distraction that will never cause any systematic change besides just giving more motivation for CEOs to embezzle. We should not be fighting losing battles for pathetic changes. We need actual change.
to give a raise to. Lets cut the amount of average hours worked a week to 20 to account for part time workers. That is $390 Million to give everyone under 100k a year a $1 raise. And that raise is only if they work an average of 20 hours. It will be less if the average is higher than that. 2/2
I got curious about the math and looked up some numbers. Managers get paid about 50-70k a year. Less than the cut off of 100k. That to me means that the only ones getting paid more than 100k are going to be the people working at the head office. Which is less than $4000 people. Which compared to the total is literally a rounding error. (I just looked up the actual number of employees and it is only 380k, not 400k like the post said). So that puts my estimate conservatively at 375k employees 1/
Maybe $400 million, but $200 million seems low based off the numbers to me. I just don't think Starbucks is going to have a meaningful amount of their employees paid over $100k a year. But part time is probably common and hard to factor. But knowing for certain would take more data than I am guessing is public. But really my issue is I don't see a $1 an hour making a difference on a systemic level. Which is why I think we need to just increase the federal minimum wage. Make an actual difference.
I guarantee it won't. Isn't it great how easy it is to guarantee things? You need $832 Million a year to just raise the pay of 400,000 workers by $1 an hour assuming 40 hours a week. The best I can find the Starbucks CEO makes $20 Million. I doubt it you cut every executive pay to 0 that you could raise the average employee pay by even a whole dollar an hour. It is just the curse of large numbers. When you are dividing by 400,000 employees even millions of dollars don't go far.
Sure. And I am sure there are a handful of other examples like that. Blackstone is an investment company. Its value does not come as directly from its employees labor. That is a whole other can of worms. But I was specifically saying it is not going to make a difference for a 400,000 employee company like starbucks like mentioned in the post I was replying to.
Look I pulled the number out of my ass as a rough estimate. But I clicked your link and it is showing the top one as $253 Million. Which is no zeros longer than $100 Million. Again I am not saying there is not a systemic problem of overpaying executives. But this money will not make an impact on wages for those under them.
Look, I am all for paying CEO's less. But lets not pretend that the math works the insane way people like to pretend it does. If there is 400,000 employees at a company. And we took a giant $100 Million annual bonus away from a CEO, that would be $20 a month for each employee. Assuming 40 hour work weeks that is less than $0.13 an hour raise. CEO money will not fix wages even if we do succeed in taking it.
Yeah, if the carbon credit actually removed the same amount of carbon you created. In a way that was not already going to happen. And in a way that does not just add that carbon back in later. Then it could be a great solution. But the current versions of it fail in almost all of these ways.
The people clicking on ads won't change because of this. So while they may reduce the cpm for ads, it will be all other factors held equal at minimum reduced by a proportional amount compared to how many new views they get. And that is assuming that absolutely no one that used to use an ad block, who is now forced to watch ads will interact positively with the ads. Which while I would not expect that to happen often, should happen a non zero chance. The negative PR is the only cost I see.
friends. But this means when you use adblock you are just saying other people who don't use adblock have to watch more ads to pay for the server costs I just caused to watch a video. We need to encourage alternatives to ads. If you don't want to support youtube with premium, consider subscribing to something like Nebula. It is primarily owned by content creators, and has several popular youtubers on it trying to make a living without ads. 2/2
I get that people are against the current attack on ad blockers. And sure go off on that if you want. But this is a larger issue underneath. It is expensive to run a site like youtube, crazy expensive. Ads are currently how they make that money. And I hate that as much as everyone else here. But the only reason any site like this allows ad block is because they get the money from other people that don't do that. And maybe the ad blocked users will share links with their non adblock using 1/
I bought premium before all this started. I watch way more hours of youtube than netflix or any of the other subscription I pay for. I hate the ad monetization based internet and so I wanted to embrace the alternative. Unfortunately I think ads have been so baked into the DNA of the internet, we may never truly see mass use of alternatives.
XD, fair
But what makes it a pass and not a dribble?
Is the other guy correct that if he did not touch the ground before the last hit that it would be legal?
They may have something extra. But from the fundi circles I used to run in, the version I heard about was called an accountability partner. It generally just involved a regular meeting, where you would be honest with each other about if you watched porn. The idea being that knowing you would have to admit to it later would help you have strength to not give into temptation. I think it in principle worked in similar ways to alcoholics anonymous. Only 1 on 1.
Like a dog show.
Wanting to balance my mental health by having my fun meme site not have politics on it does not mean I am uninformed about the bad things happening. I get my news from other places. I am not obligated to get it from imgur too. Purposefully bypassing people politics tag block will just make it so even more people leave this platform.
That is the real answer. The era of free video is over. You have to pay for the costs of hosting any playing the video somehow. And the revenue from ads has plummeted. We won't ever be back in the old times where one ad could pay for videos again. Not unless ads become more effective, which would be its own disaster. We as consumers just need to move to subscriptions that don't have ads, and let the ad based streaming die. But that will involve us remembering that services are not free.
Yeah, the law was actually made to force libraries to remove books about LQBTQ+ people. But a few libraries are fighting back against the law by doing things like above. Not getting rid of the books but forcing the public to have the law put in their faces and not be able to send their children to the library unaccompanied until the law is removed. I hope people see how bad this is and vote in politicians that will undo this.
But where two edges meet it is only......360 degrees.
NoPixel graphics have improved a lot!
If a Maximum wage does not make a meaningful impact on the wages of the low paid workers then what good is it? Why waist the considerable political effort it would take to get such a change if it does not change the system in a meaningful way? Does it really make life so much worse that CEOs get paid 200 Million than 1 Million? I mean I would hope that in order to pay the higher minimum wage the CEO pay would be cut. But I think legislating it is a waste of everyone's efforts.
I mean I would love a UBI too. I think with automation acceleration we should be slowly transitioning onto it. But that is exactly my point. We need large systematic changes. Caping CEO pay is a nothing distraction that will never cause any systematic change besides just giving more motivation for CEOs to embezzle. We should not be fighting losing battles for pathetic changes. We need actual change.
to give a raise to. Lets cut the amount of average hours worked a week to 20 to account for part time workers. That is $390 Million to give everyone under 100k a year a $1 raise. And that raise is only if they work an average of 20 hours. It will be less if the average is higher than that. 2/2
I got curious about the math and looked up some numbers. Managers get paid about 50-70k a year. Less than the cut off of 100k. That to me means that the only ones getting paid more than 100k are going to be the people working at the head office. Which is less than $4000 people. Which compared to the total is literally a rounding error. (I just looked up the actual number of employees and it is only 380k, not 400k like the post said). So that puts my estimate conservatively at 375k employees 1/
Maybe $400 million, but $200 million seems low based off the numbers to me. I just don't think Starbucks is going to have a meaningful amount of their employees paid over $100k a year. But part time is probably common and hard to factor. But knowing for certain would take more data than I am guessing is public. But really my issue is I don't see a $1 an hour making a difference on a systemic level. Which is why I think we need to just increase the federal minimum wage. Make an actual difference.
I guarantee it won't. Isn't it great how easy it is to guarantee things? You need $832 Million a year to just raise the pay of 400,000 workers by $1 an hour assuming 40 hours a week. The best I can find the Starbucks CEO makes $20 Million. I doubt it you cut every executive pay to 0 that you could raise the average employee pay by even a whole dollar an hour. It is just the curse of large numbers. When you are dividing by 400,000 employees even millions of dollars don't go far.
Sure. And I am sure there are a handful of other examples like that. Blackstone is an investment company. Its value does not come as directly from its employees labor. That is a whole other can of worms. But I was specifically saying it is not going to make a difference for a 400,000 employee company like starbucks like mentioned in the post I was replying to.
Look I pulled the number out of my ass as a rough estimate. But I clicked your link and it is showing the top one as $253 Million. Which is no zeros longer than $100 Million. Again I am not saying there is not a systemic problem of overpaying executives. But this money will not make an impact on wages for those under them.
Look, I am all for paying CEO's less. But lets not pretend that the math works the insane way people like to pretend it does. If there is 400,000 employees at a company. And we took a giant $100 Million annual bonus away from a CEO, that would be $20 a month for each employee. Assuming 40 hour work weeks that is less than $0.13 an hour raise. CEO money will not fix wages even if we do succeed in taking it.
Yeah, if the carbon credit actually removed the same amount of carbon you created. In a way that was not already going to happen. And in a way that does not just add that carbon back in later. Then it could be a great solution. But the current versions of it fail in almost all of these ways.
The people clicking on ads won't change because of this. So while they may reduce the cpm for ads, it will be all other factors held equal at minimum reduced by a proportional amount compared to how many new views they get. And that is assuming that absolutely no one that used to use an ad block, who is now forced to watch ads will interact positively with the ads. Which while I would not expect that to happen often, should happen a non zero chance. The negative PR is the only cost I see.
friends. But this means when you use adblock you are just saying other people who don't use adblock have to watch more ads to pay for the server costs I just caused to watch a video. We need to encourage alternatives to ads. If you don't want to support youtube with premium, consider subscribing to something like Nebula. It is primarily owned by content creators, and has several popular youtubers on it trying to make a living without ads. 2/2
I get that people are against the current attack on ad blockers. And sure go off on that if you want. But this is a larger issue underneath. It is expensive to run a site like youtube, crazy expensive. Ads are currently how they make that money. And I hate that as much as everyone else here. But the only reason any site like this allows ad block is because they get the money from other people that don't do that. And maybe the ad blocked users will share links with their non adblock using 1/
I bought premium before all this started. I watch way more hours of youtube than netflix or any of the other subscription I pay for. I hate the ad monetization based internet and so I wanted to embrace the alternative. Unfortunately I think ads have been so baked into the DNA of the internet, we may never truly see mass use of alternatives.
XD, fair
But what makes it a pass and not a dribble?
Is the other guy correct that if he did not touch the ground before the last hit that it would be legal?
They may have something extra. But from the fundi circles I used to run in, the version I heard about was called an accountability partner. It generally just involved a regular meeting, where you would be honest with each other about if you watched porn. The idea being that knowing you would have to admit to it later would help you have strength to not give into temptation. I think it in principle worked in similar ways to alcoholics anonymous. Only 1 on 1.