Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Romney used a really bizarre turn of phrase so it's not surprising it was misinterpreted.  If you're providing an upper bound you give one number, not two (he could've said "$250,000 or less").  However, due to the "or less" it's clear he wasn't saying $200k is the lower bound.

[Pnx]

EDIT: 289 workers at a garment factory in Karachi, Pakistan have burned to death due to the factory doors being barred to prevent them skipping work.

But of course, many of us have heard this story before.

Well Pakistan is not exactly the land of rainbows, peace, and prosperity, and Karachi is something of a notorious shithole (though of course, it's hardly the world's only one), so this is hardly surprising...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Even in Pakistan, almost 300 people burning to death in a locked factory is pretty notably bad.

[Montague]

I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

[Pnx]

I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

... That such an incredibly questionable thing to say, I'm not even sure where to start with it.

[lordcooper]

Yeah, I can't work out if that was cute or disturbing.

[Pnx]

You know, let's try a fun comparison.

I can say with absolute certainty that my words have not been intercepted by Chinese spies, I stay away from cheap Chinese sites, and make sure that nobody I talk to is a Chinese spy. I know for sure that I've never given information to anyone who's ever been anywhere near China. Can you say the same?

[Frumple]

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

You can say you think you didn't, anyway, haha! Chances are pretty close to 1 that someone you bought from keeps their business running, at least in part, because of someone who does do business with those of questionable employee conditions. So don't worry! You're still helping fund people who treat their employees like shit. At best, you've achieved a degree or two of separation. Welcome to the world of economics since roughly around the point we mass produced the first engine.

M'still working on figuring out if fully ethical purchasing is even possible in a first world country. Pretty sure it isn't!

As for myself, I'm taking it as I figure out companies I don't need to buy from, from an ethical perspective. It's an amusingly large list filled with plenty of companies largely or entirely based in free countries! Poor times. Have to bend ethical code in order to eat.

Not sure how free countries have any intrinsic causative effect on worker conditions, though. Or even a particularly strong correlative one. No one really seems to have a genuinely good track record anymore, heh.

[Pnx]

The really annoying thing is that there's a lot of companies that move the end of their production, the assembly, to the US so they can avoid having to stamp "Made in China" on their product, or they can stamp "Made in the US of A" to make themselves sound patriotic to all the rednecks, but they keep the rest of their production line back in China or wherever shifting a little bit of the job burden to the US in exchange for having an excuse to mark their price up a little bit, and sometimes the US side of things isn't even all that ethical either!

[Mlamlah]

Mitt either had another 'gaff' or misspoke, or the source is bullshit.

Nobody anywhere thinks 200k/yr is "middle class". Most doctors, lawyers, engineers, airline pilots or upper management in business make far less money then that. 200k/yr means you have a source of income outside of a normal job and a professional salaried position is upper-middle class at most.

Middle class(s) is generally seen as income between ~36k/year to ~150k/ year. Higher then that, you are solidly capitalist class. Salaried employees don't get paid much more then that. Now, there are a independent, business savvy and highly talented doctors, engineers and lawyers and such people that actually work hard that might pull in 1 million a year or more, but that's still beyond what people describe to be in the scope of the middle class.

I would like to point out that financial class divisions should take into account needs as well as income, a bachelor making 36 k a year may very well be considered middle class by some, but someone who supports 3 children on a 36 k salary isn't really middle-class.

[scriver]

I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

I'm more interested in knowing how you research your companies, given that even companies that swear off bad standards tend to be very unwilling to show where their products come from and give even professional journalists a hard time trying to follow the trail. So if you really do have a working method you could tell us, it would certainly lift a boulder off my conscience.

[Pnx]

I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

I'm more interested in knowing how you research your companies, given that even companies that swear off bad standards tend to be very unwilling to show where their products come from and give even professional journalists a hard time trying to follow the trail. So if you really do have a working method you could tell us, it would certainly lift a boulder off my conscience.

Yes, I'd especially like to hear where he got ethical computer parts for the machine he's using, and ethical energy for that matter. Or even just ethical housing, assuming he isn't posting this from a cave with a bicycle powered self-made computer.

[GreatJustice]

Well, a 10 year gap should be enough to show any strong "trend". What the figures show is that 10 years ago, the numbers weren't statistically significantly any different AT ALL.

If there hasn't been a statistically significant 10 year shift, i dispute that you can show any "trend"

What you have demonstrated is that the gap from 2001-2002 is bigger than the 2002-2012 gap, and the gap from 2011-2012 is also bigger than the 10 year gap.

Do those year-to-year variances REALLY tell us a "trend"? More likely they're statistical noise.

===

For instance in 2006 there's a big jump in people who said abortion should be legal under "any situation", but no change in "certain situations", and a big drop in "illegal in all situations". within a couple of years, this jump had supposedly reversed itself like it never happened.

If you believe the statistic (22% anti-abortion in 2005, 17% anti-abortion in 2006), that means 1 in 3 hardcore pro-life people decided it should be legal between 2005 and 2006, and that they ALL changed their minds again within 3 years. I don't believe this for a second, these are long-seated views that take years to switch around in individuals. Clearly there are methodology problems with the whole set of surveys.

Yet the trend for "identification" of pro-lifers went up noticeably, and the lowest point on the far shorter survey going into specifics just so happens to be in 2001, the year before a fairly sharp increase in the identification of pro-choicers. From '96 to '01, identification is far steadier and far more pro-choice. 2001 on its own wouldn't be enough to prove anything, but in the context of the identification graph it so happens to largely fit in to the trends.

Also, as said before, "legal under certain circumstances" can range all the way across the spectrum. You could have 20% in favour under any circumstances, 10% illegal under any circumstances and 70% under "certain circumstances", yet most of that group could very well be just about as pro-life as possible without supporting an outright ban, which would be more than enough to get them to support someone overturning the present state of abortion politics.

[Euld]

I've boycotted Pakistan since 2003.

I don't buy any product from overseas that isn't up to par with the worker's rights and standards of the USA, at the minimum. Only free countries.

I can say I didn't subsidize the folks responsible for the deaths of 300 Pakistani workers in their slave-pen factory, how about yourself?

I'm more interested in knowing how you research your companies, given that even companies that swear off bad standards tend to be very unwilling to show where their products come from and give even professional journalists a hard time trying to follow the trail. So if you really do have a working method you could tell us, it would certainly lift a boulder off my conscience.

Yes, I'd especially like to hear where he got ethical computer parts for the machine he's using, and ethical energy for that matter. Or even just ethical housing, assuming he isn't posting this from a cave with a bicycle powered self-made computer.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I believe someone mentioned Beedle?

[Moghjubar]

Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on