But if everyone did it, people wouldn’t be able to afford to work there. There would be no staff and the business would be forced to increase their pay to retain labour, or shut their doors.
Edit for typos.
But if everyone did it, people wouldn’t be able to afford to work there. There would be no staff and the business would be forced to increase their pay to retain labour, or shut their doors.
Edit for typos.
Oh, you mean doing the job they agreed to do for an hourly rate? Why am i subsidizing the corporation not paying them fairly?
If someone doesn’t like how I look, oh well, that’s life. Seems this is a lesson most people learn in grade school - some people aren’t going to like you, you’re not going to like some people.
You’re not entirely wrong, but you’re also totally missing the fact that people are 100% judged by stature and not just in attractiveness, but in their value period.
The taller you are, the higher salary people will assume you already are making. During hiring, this means you’ll be offered a higher starting salary to try and make the offer more appealing to you.
Here’s an article that references the study I’m thinking of. https://merryformoney.com/height-salary/ If you care ,you can maybe dig up the original study somehow.
This sort of bias is pretty inescapable in our culture and will be I think regardless of our language. Preferred body shapes do change over time, even within the span of a single generation. Maybe tying more positive words around these words is part of that change.
If we want to fix the bad stuff corporations are doing, simply put a larger cost on those things. It’s that simple. Pollution, Safety, Health, whatever… price the negative externalities (economic speak for bad things humans don’t want) properly and the market will sort itself out.
The part where it goes right off the rails however, it seems now that its cheaper to buy and own the politicians, and buy and own the media to manufacture consent to kill these regulations than it is to operate responsibly. Which seems to be right around where we are now.
This seems like a poor analogy.
“I don’t have experience with the ‘Megamart Pool TM’ brand of pools, but I’ve got my Lifeguard certificate through a training program that operated at a nearby lake.” Oh sorry, we want our applicants to be familiar with our specific pool with 50+ hours of paid visits logged. Please come back next year after you’ve gather this.
Are there not already words to represent the same thing to anyone old enough to read a message? A different representation of something they are already potentially exposed to isn’t something that technology standards should be censoring.
Especially when the defacto replacement for this is a symbol of something that could very easily give young men a serious sense of inadequacy and insecurity.
edit: (you -> young)
It does add context though.
If I just said “it adds context”, it’s not seen as a counterclaim to your claim. It’s just a new standalone statement.
Depending on where you live, how has home insurance gone in the last 10 years? Trust the money.
If they pay just enough, with tips, then what is it without tips? Not enough. Statistically, more people would move to another just that put y back into ‘just enough’ category.
I don’t see that as 180 at all.