DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Understands Politics Better Than Her Critics

You really need to get a grip here. The debate was about companies hiring more employees than they need.

My point is companies do not hire "extra people that they don't need". That's not how business runs.

That's why the only way to create jobs is to create a need or desire for their products. To raise wages in order to give consumers expendable income to purchase goods.

willit was saying that's not true. That his company hired a bunch of people they didn't need.

So it seems you agree that companies just go around hiring people because they enjoy spending money to hurt their profits.

Yeah, sure they do.

Even you know that's not true.

But I love it when you get on these tangents.

There goes the water on my screen! Thanks for the laugh.

Well lets see, they had X amount of employees, then lowered the amount of employees, yet are still producing the same amount of work output with the lower number. Meaning, originally - they hired more employees than they needed.

So this wasn't a plan? They didn't hire the younger workers with the plan of replacing the older workers with those younger workers? How could they have trained these younger workers and prepared them to take over those jobs had they not have hired them?

So they hired more workers than they needed to train those workers to take over for older, more expensive workers. Ending in a plan to cut the work force.

It sounds like for this job and plan to work, they did need to hire those younger workers.

You just don't ............nevermind.

Sure I do. You have to hire the people you plan to use to replace the other people with. It's not complicated. If you plan to replace the older workers with cheaper, younger workers, those workers must be hired and trained to do those jobs. Once they replace those older workers, you just cut your employees while accomplishing the same work.

Her beginning in this speech is why the right doesn't like her.

That wasn't only scenario I presented. Maybe you should read the board.

They bought out the older employees and dispersed the workload to the employees still here.

If the employees still here are able to produce the workload that the employees who were bought out did, along with their duties - then they had too many employees.

He'll never understand.

Well we see it from two different perspectives.

But let's get down to what the original question and premise was based on. I said employers do not hire employees that they don't need. So no matter which perspective one sees it from, you would have to believe at the time they hired all of these people, they didn't hire them because they felt they needed them. And I still stand by the premise that companies simply don't do that.

Now the company you work for may have taken a look at a different company that gave them cause to believe they could get away with less employees now and they are walking down that path. But that still doesn't change the fact that they didn't have all of those other employees because they didn't think at the time they were hired that they needed to hire them.

And that was the entire point all along.

Downsizing became a very popular way for companies to cut costs a very long time ago. But that doesn't change the fact that those in charge felt the need to hire those employees at the time they were hired.

Why?

Easy.

She knows how to get under their skin. The GOP sheep hate a 27 year old women who knows how to ask a question they can’t answer or had no idea was coming.

Or your business got bigger, so you hire more people to handle the increase in business, some of whom are younger cheaper workers, and then over time, business slowed down again, so you have to cut costs. And you cut the older more expensive workers.

You didn't hire the younger workers at the time with the sole purpose of replacing the older workers.

I don't really know where this should go but I'll stick it in here relating to AOC since she's off her rocker and believes in bad socialist policies. Got to love the top down, planned systems causing classic shortages and long wait times. And they wonder why people fly to other countries such as the US to get operations.

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europ...ationing-report

LONDO (XINHUA) - Thousands of elderly people in Britain are left to go blind because of rationing of eye surgery in the National Health Service (NHS), a report revealed on Saturday (April 6).

The Times newspaper said a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found tens of thousands of elderly people are left struggling to see because of an NHS cost-cutting drive that relies on them dying before they can qualify for cataract surgery.

The survey has found that the NHS has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago.

The RCO said its survey has found 62 per cent of eye units retain policies that require people's vision to have deteriorated below a certain point before surgery is funded.

With more than 400,000 cataract operations carried out each year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that there was no justification for policies that denied patients cataract removal surgery until they could barely see.

The RCO said that refusal to fund surgery was insulting and called into question the entire system through which the NHS approves treatments.

Ms Helen Lee of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) said: "Cataracts can have a dramatic impact on someone's ability to lead a full and independent life, potentially stopping them from driving and increasing their chance of serious injury by falling. The NICE guidelines make it clear cataract surgery is highly cost effective and should not be rationed. It is nonsensical for clinical commissioning groups to deny patients this crucial treatment."

Ms Julie Wood, CEO of NHS Clinical Commissioners, which represents local funding bodies, defended the restrictions.

She told the Times: "NICE guidance is not mandatory and clinical commissioners must have the freedom to make clinically led decisions that are in the best interests of both individual patients and their wider local populations. The NHS does not have unlimited resources."

I think you need to remember how this discussion began. I said that companies don't hire employees they don't feel the need to hire. The response was, "Nuh Uh my company just laid off a bunch of people."

I was told they were replaced by younger, cheaper people that were currently with the company. At some point these younger employees had to be hired and trained to take over the higher positions. You don't just put some entry level employee into a higher, more skilled position without some plan in place to help make that happen.

How anyone can support Trump and then point the finger at the other side being "off there rocker" is beyond me. I'm going to need to see the orange of your theory.

You haven't liked your own post yet. What's the hold up?

Thanks for the reminder Pit....Done!

Now there's somebody who's not on ignore!

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

j/c:

I like coming to this forum when I need a good laugh.

I'm so nice you ignored me twice!

This is the speech where she tries to use a more southern accent, correct?

Why do dems do that when talking to black people?

It's because the entire democrat party is racist and takes advantage of African Americans and have continued to do so for years. They take them and their vote for granted every single time. They pander to them and play race politics.

You might be surprised at my answer. But because you asked, you deserve an honest answer from someone who actually knows the whys and wherefores... and has spent 60+ years living them in This American Life.

It may take a day or two, but I'll see you in your PM Inbox.
Let's have a talk, OK?

Hell, post them here. I have a thought or two on this, as well. And not all of them are sinister in nature.

I strongly thought about not posting this.


Strictly anecdotal. I grew up in a working class neighborhood in Cleveland. Over the course of my life I've lived in rough areas and was fortunate to go to private schools thanks to Football and my mother. I never quite understood why I did it, but I mimicked all sorts of things, from dialect all the way to other people’s laughs. Long after being with someone I would find myself emulating their specific laugh, I would catch myself doing it without intending to do it. I literally called myself a chameleon when I was young, it was the only thing that seemed close.

It did not matter which group it was, blacks, jews, PR’s, rich folk, poor folk I would unconsciously begin to emulate their dialect the more time I spent with them. It really began to stand out to me when I brought my then girlfriend now wife home with me. I knew that how I spoke changed when I was back in the neighborhood where I grew up but to what extent even I was unaware. There is a guy that works for me, he’s Latino of some sort and when I hear the slang that comes out of my mouth when yucking it up with him it gives me pause because I can hear it but it wasn’t contrived it just sort of comes out as a bonding tool.

At the end of the day from the best I can gather it’s a subconscious assimilation. I honestly don’t think it’s as nefarious as people think, when you’re from a diverse area you tend to pick this stuff up from each other. It’s like a giant melting pot in your brain and sometimes it just happens.

Now Hilary Clinton and her hot sauce schtick was so contrived it deserved mocking. I think SOME of them may be doing it on purpose, but why any politician would willfully expose themselves to something like this leads me to believe it is not intentional.

AOC is OOHM.

I have never really picked up others accents, however I would pick up the terms and words others use.

For instance:

I used to visit my aunt in New Orleans ever summer. I wouldn't get a southern twang, but I would pick up the way they talked. When speaking to an elder, instead of saying, Frank....you would say Mr. Frank. Amy, Miss Amy. etc. I would pick that up easily and then I would lose it when I got back home.

Or depending on where I am I will soda or pop.

As far as my accent goes, I grew up in Florida until I was 8, and Pittsburgh area until now. But my parents are all from Cleveland (I was born in Cleveland but we moved when I was 1). My friends say I sound like I am from Cleveland, but when I am in Cleveland with family there, they say I sound like I am from Pittsburgh.

I do not think its an intentional thing that AOC did (and everyone knows I am not fan of her). I feel its unconsciousness that we have to fit in, we want to feel part of the group we are with, so we talk and act differently, not knowingly. JMO.

There's good people on both sides.

Let's hope the president never says that.

Where do you think I got it from.

I bet you thought it sounded a lot better when he said it.

"Those who stand beside Nazi's are good people!"

Will, while I would agree with you that some people pick up accents, inflections, or sayings over time, this was a speech given in ny, by a newyorker. There wouldn't be enough time for her to pick up a new accent. Therefore, it was practiced.

He only said that in your narrow closed off head.

No, that's what he said and those who heard it know that. It's why a man like David Duke, former head of the KKK said this......

"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests

David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard, is unambiguous about what Saturday’s alt-right and neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, means to him: It’s the fulfillment of President Donald Trump’s vision for America.

“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”

The Charlottesville rally is nominally about the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee rather than anything in the Trump administration. But Duke was an enthusiastic supporter of Trump as far back as the Republican primary in 2016, and Trump’s reluctance to disavow that support was, briefly, a big issue.

Duke has remained a faithful Trump supporter since then, insisting that the president-elect’s policies line up with the former KKK leader’s vision for America.

He was less happy with Trump’s vague tweet condemning the violence later Saturday afternoon:


David Duke @DrDavidDuke

I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138358/charlottesville-protests-david-duke-kkk

Sure, later Trump did his best to walk back his comments, but he got his message across to a certain portion of his base. The rest of his base? They're still trying to play ignorant about it.

Ridiculous take Pit. Trump can't help who votes for him. I'm sure Sharpton and Faracan voted for Obama. I'm sure a goofball like Duke voted for Trump because Trump leans to the right. Did you think Duke would maybe vote for Bernie?

I agree 100%. Trump can't be held responsible for Duke voting for him. They just have very similar worldviews is all. And I doubt Duke would vote for a Jew.

I think both extremes have people they vote for. But I do believe my point in the discussion still stands. Trump's comment about what happened in Charlottesville bolstered what people like Duke believe. That their views are just fine. That Trump sees their views just as valid as those who stand against bigotry and hatred.

I agree those on the extreme right will always vote Republican and those on the extreme left will always vote Democrat.

But never, since George Wallace have I seen a GOP president pander to racists like the comment Trump made after Charlottesville. That's the point I was making.