• 3 Posts
  • 331 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • All the time. If it’s a company I dislike and I see them advertising on Google, I know I’m costing them money. Google uses an auction house system for ads, so common words can have a lot of competition. You could be making that company pay a dollar or more for that click, and at the same time contribute to a headache for their marketers who are keeping a close eye on their cost per click and customer acquisition costs.

    Yeah, google wins in this scenario too, but there’s not much I can do about that.




  • I once looked at a job listing for something with very specialist technical knowledge in specific programming areas, for a Japanese company based in Tokyo (pre-covid so remote wasn’t really a thing yet). Pretty niche stuff and needed at least basic Japanese language skills too, so I assumed it would pay ok - even if it wasn’t good or great in comparison with jobs where i was.

    After conversion it worked out to be around USD$40k a year, which is probably just over 1/3 of what it would pay at minimum elsewhere. More like 1/4 or less for Silicon Valley type locations, but the rent for a tiny Tokyo shoebox is about the same price even if food is a cheaper. There was no way I was applying for that.

    It isn’t just about a weak yen, it’s much more about hugely underpaying people.





  • Even if we ignored the entire history of the word cripple, it still would be remarkable to not consider hunchback or dwarf as physical descriptions. Given that your next question references video games and then we fall down Godwin’s slippery slope, I’m not convinced you’re honestly engaging with the concept of connotation.

    the words only have deragatory meaning to those who have decided they are such.

    Yes, and when the people who have to live with the consequences of discrimination tell you that you’re speaking in the same way as those who have discriminated against them, it’s worth considering. Even momentarily.

    Have a great day, I’m going to go be a cripple elsewhere now. Nah, just kidding, it will still be my couch. Just not this thread.







  • Maybe enough to make a huge difference. To be clear, I have zero problem with the concept of wealth redistribution to better achieve some kind of equitable outcome (that ideally isn’t at the cost of the environment, which is the big reason that the top global richest will need to give up a lot of travel ).

    I just think a lot of the people who are keen for “eat the rich”, especially in its more violent forms, may not realise they’re on the menu themselves when the issue is looked at from a global all-of-humanity perspective. And, I encourage people to really think about who and what is included or excluded in the definitions of “rich”, what level of variation is acceptable to them, and what a sustainable living situation even looks like for the world’s population if we had total equality. They’re all very hard questions that I don’t have an answer to either.


  • To an extent, it’s completely understandable. To have a significant proportion of the richest people in the world struggle to pay all their bills or afford medical care is a really hard concept to reconcile. And if you’re someone who has never been exposed to a sizable group of people who don’t have a reliable source of clean water or the most basic of staple foods, it’s very easy to not realise how privileged you might be - even if you’re really genuinely struggling compared to everyone around you.

    To me it highlights that the problem is much deeper than wealth inequality, even though that’s a huge symptom. But that’s another topic altogether.

    Thanks for understanding where I was coming from though!





  • How is it victim blaming to try to define the scope? Most of the demographic who visit lemmy wouldn’t consider fast food workers to be rich, and I certainly don’t, but by income they are literally at the halfway point globally. To the billions of people who are below even the 25th percentile, they may well consider a US fast food worker rich. The extreme poverty that exists in this world is a very well hidden atrocity, but the perspectives of those people still matter to me and still should be taken into account.


  • It’s a meme designed to express dissatisfaction with income equality and the desire to fix it. What isn’t clear to me is what qualifies as “rich”. Because a US based entry-level fast food worker is at the 50th percentile of richest people in the world by income, after accounting for cost of living and other regional inequality.

    It’s also pretty clear from studies that everyone in the top 30% of the richest in the world will need to give up a lot of our privileges if we’re going to address climate change, and I don’t think people realise how rich they actually are. https://wid.world/income-comparator/ uses some of the latest research to help you find out, it’s definitely worth a look.