They want to make the excuse that these jobs are not designed to make people money. And yet when we talk about suppressing the power and ubiquity of corporate greed across America, and all of the economic harm that comes with it, all we hear is “but they create jobs!”
Aslanta
joined 3 months ago
“Save for college” 😂😂😂
Not to mention ultra-processed foods and soft drinks are costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars of medical expenses per year. We have the fast food industry causing a health crises and a shitty ‘healthcare’ system perpetuating it.
Oh shit! That’s so fucked up.
I feel this is really the issue. In my own experience working in tech, I they HB1 staff does very well. And I know of a few that left to take jobs with other companies (who presumably also sponsored them) after 1-2 years, so the competition for fair pay was still there. They were also entirely men. I feel like it’s a way to make sure they get the people who don’t ask for too much, in terms of protection from labor practices and sexual harassment. With Amazon’s model being a complete PR and legal disaster currently. it seems to make sense.
All the way since the first company arrived here—the Virginia Company, that is. A handful of OG tech bros who found themselves a land of unrestricted resources and no boss around. They just needed some customers. And thus began immigration.
Scrapping the whole system would force us to finally fix our education system and stop intentionally raising unskilled people who leave college with $100k of debt and are still unqualified for a job.
Almost all of the HB-1 sponsors in my workplace are making 100k+. That may be lower than the average pay for that position in some cases, but it’s definitely not starving anyone.
Yep. Just like for-profit companies, having a diverse range of revenue streams is necessary for securing the financial health of the organization. While Wikipedia receives significant donations from companies like Google and Microsoft, it is essential to also solicit contributions from individuals to ensure that their income is not overly reliant on a single source. Just like in for-profits, Wikimedia likely determines the percentages of income from various sources needed to maintain this diversity. This concept seems particularly important for Wikipedia given its mission to provide unbiased information.
On another note, I’ve seen your same “100 years” notion mentioned a few times on this post. I can’t imagine that everyone who’s saying it independently had the idea to analyze their financial statements and calculate projections over 100 years. Is this an article you’re quoting? Just curious.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It was full of cited information and even the sources led to interesting reads.
view more: next ›
Preceded by, “whether it’s fair to excuse big power users from paying for the grid.”
NO, it’s not. Nobody in charge seems to know the word NO when it comes to big tech. Just say NO.