SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Say a friend of yours gets a job in the US, would you recommend him to move or not? Why?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 114 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Life is to you a dashing and bold adventure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26 2018, @06:45PM (15 children)
If the friend is black, I don't recommend he moves to the USA unless the job, package, benefits, etc is wonderful enough to make up for it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday April 26 2018, @11:22PM (14 children)
The black friend could live almost entirely inside their home, get Amazon to deliver groceries directly to the door, and take an Uber or driverless car to get to and from work. Bonus if the job has telework days.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Friday April 27 2018, @02:45PM (13 children)
It sounds funny, but I assure you it isn't.
Living in the Midwest is hellish for PoC, especially WoC. I don't recommend moving to the US until at the very least a Socialist is put into power.
This country is a wreck, and it's not going to get better until people get serious about change. REAL change, not putting a junior senator who also happens to be black into office (Obama).
(Score: 1, Troll) by bradley13 on Saturday April 28 2018, @01:53PM (2 children)
You know, you're probably right: Living in the US as a black person - at least a black person from elsewhere - must be hellish.
That said, the fault lies almost entirely with...the American blacks. They are the ones keeping racism alive, by pulling the race card at every opportunity. If you hire a black person, any if anything doesn't go their way, they will accuse you of racism. So you avoid hiring blacks, because you don't need that crap in your business - therefore you become a racist. The only option you have is to treat blacks with kid gloves, make special allowances, make sure that they don't stub their toe anywhere. Even incompetents must be kept on, and other people will have to pick up the slack. Which causes resentment and drives racism.
Or take a look at the recent Starbucks incident. Two guys hanging around, disrupting a business, but not even as paying customers. Who brought race into this? The guys who were doing the disrupting. So you don't want blacks around your place of business either. You don't want blacks as customer either [dailymail.co.uk] - same thing, if they don't get their way, they'll pull the race card and disrupt your business. Want to keep disruptive customers out of your business? You are - correctly - a racist. If you want to avoid problems, you again have to give blacks special treatment. Which causes resentment, and drives racism.
Now you have American blacks calling for segregation. Segregates businesses, even segregated territories. Clearly, they know nothing of history, not even recent history. They should be careful what they wish for...they might get it.
I forget who it was (maybe Jerry Pournelle?) who originally wrote something I find completely appropriate: Back in my younger days, I thought everyone should be treated as an individual, regardless of skin color - and that was seen as hopelessly liberal. Today, I think everyone should be treated as an individual, regardless of skin color - and that is seen as hopelessly conservative.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Touché) by idiot_king on Saturday April 28 2018, @03:43PM
Why are racists so unpersuasive?
You know it's fascinating, for something that you spend so much time thinking about, you'd think some of you asshats would've figured out how to sell it by now.
But maybe that's because racism is inherently illogical and unpersuasive anyway.
Maybe you should... drop it. And, you know, join the rest of humanity.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 28 2018, @06:38PM
How were they disrupting the business? The Starbucks manager was disrupting the business - calling the cops is far more disruptive than letting two guys sit and wait. Lots of whites took a look at the Starbucks incident too and they said they have never been forced to pay first before using the toilet (in fact some prefer to use the toilet before ordering just in case it takes longer than expected for them to get their drink). And many have hung out in Starbucks for ages without being asked to leave or the cops being called to kick them out.
Heck meeting people at Starbucks was their fucking selling point at one time: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-starbucks-campaign-touts-role-as-global-hangout/ [seattletimes.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQmVpHQ8ENs [youtube.com]
It wasn't "Meet me at Starbucks unless you're black".
Even in my semi-civilized third world country I've waited for people at Starbucks without buying anything and the cops weren't called on me. And I've waited longer than the two or so minutes the Starbucks manager took to call the cops: http://www.complex.com/life/2018/04/police-arrested-black-men-in-starbucks-called-2-minutes-after-men-entered [complex.com]
Furthermore those two guys were also held for about EIGHT HOURS at the station. Why so long?
So why should those black guys be forced to have worse choices when the whites aren't?
e.g.
a) Buy stuff
or
b) Leave
or
c) Get arrested by the cops and held for 8 hours.
If the whites wouldn't accept this why should the blacks accept it?
Yes more blacks should reject the terrible gangsta culture that too many of them glorify and love (many do reject it), but the fault far from entirely lies with the blacks. Apologists like you take far more of the blame. You help the worse racists justify their racism.
Lastly, it's no surprise the blacks get so used to pulling the race card and thinking people are being racist when so many US cops and people are actually racist. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/employees-fired-nj-gym-racial-profiling-report-article-1.3942390 [nydailynews.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @05:42PM (3 children)
You always say it isn't "real" socialism when a socialist gets into power and fucks everything up. You want to disavow Venezuela.
Well, suppose you are right. Somehow that isn't real socialism, even though they claimed so and you were praising it before shit hit the fan. OK. Fine. How are we supposed to identify "real" socialism, telling it apart from all the not-real socialism we always get? Every time we try socialism, we get the same shit. We get people lined up outside of empty stores. Why should we try again? Can't you see that this would be, at best, risky?
(Score: 2) by UncleSlacky on Monday April 30 2018, @02:08PM (2 children)
The defining tenet of socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves. This is not and has never been the case in Venezuela, or pretty much anywhere else, so no, "true socialism" has never been tried.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dr Spin on Saturday May 05 2018, @07:43AM (1 child)
However, I am sure there must be a middle path between:
the government rowing the ship of state (socialism)
the government letting the ship of state go wherever the (economic) winds happen to blow it (conservatism)
I advocate the government steering the ship of state - preferably away from rocky shores (liberalism - UK definition)
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by UncleSlacky on Monday May 07 2018, @08:45PM
> the government rowing the ship of state (socialism)
"Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does the socialister it is." - Carltural Marks
Nope, sorry, communism is the end result, socialism (social ownership of the means of production) is the method for achieving it. Marx himself used the terms interchangeably.
There can be no "middle way" - either the MoP is privately owned (capitalism) or socially (socialism). A "healthy mix" that retains private property is still just capitalism with a few sops to the poor to stop them from revolting (welfare).
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 29 2018, @11:19PM (4 children)
Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans were killed by socialism in the UK. Just this past week, Alfie took 4 days to starve. Charlie died last summer.
In each case, group of people running hospitals in the UK decided that they should die. (totally not a "death panel", right?)
In each case, the parents had been offered free care in other countries. (Charlie in the USA, and Alfie in Italy)
In each case, the UK hospitals prevented the parents from taking their children to get that care. The parents couldn't even be there as their children died.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/single-payer-health-care-denies-care-sick-children-like-alfie-evans/ [thefederalist.com]
Before Hitler started killing Jews, he killed people like Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. Know your history. The disabled, both physically and mentally, were first to be killed.
To be clear, it isn't the "Nationalism" of the "National Socialist" (Nazi) party that causes this. It's the socialism. Socialism always leads to the killing of undesirables because they are a burden on the socialist system.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30 2018, @07:38AM
Over ten thousand people die from preventable medical issues every year in the US because they don't have adequate access to healthcare, often because they cannot afford it. This is the context that you completely ignore. Even if you can point to several cases of single payer systems screwing up (and I'm sure you legitimately can), the US system is so much worse.
Then there are the medical bankruptcies that happen frequently in the US. You manage to get care, but then are stuck with crushing debt. Great.
I'd say people being denied health insurance because of preexisting conditions - which was allowed before the ACA - qualifies as a "death panel." People being unable to seek medical help because they know they can't afford it also qualifies. But you don't seem to care about either of those.
You focus on some bad things in single payer systems while completely ignoring the much worse issues in our for-profit price-gouging fake free market system. You are a profoundly dishonest person, and your propaganda is rancid.
(Score: 4, Informative) by isostatic on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:08PM (1 child)
No they didn't. It was judges that decided it, not people in hospitals you idiotic twat
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:45AM
Sure, judges get involved at some point, but they are rubber stamping what the hospital wants. Judges aren't going to get involved in medical issues any more than minimally required.
Hospital: "We should starve this baby to death. It is best for her."
Judge: "According to the hospital, it is best to starve the baby. It shall be done."
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Wednesday May 16 2018, @08:49AM
It wasn't socialism in the Alder Hey Hospital case. Socialism kept the baby alive for the length of time it was. The parents could never have afforded the cost of the intensive neonatal cot that kept him alive, expecially not for that length of time.
The issue is more on the libertarian authoritarian axis. In the UK the state often thinks it knows best i.e. not being able to take children out of school during term time even though you may be taking them somewhere where they may benefit educationally e.g. viewing ancient Greece/ Rome etc. It's often called the Nanny State by right wing leaning tabloid newspapers but there is an element of truth in it. UK politics doesn't really have the libertarian element in it and when it does it tends to be associated with the right wing. We don't have a main stream left wing but libertarian party.
In several recent high profile cases the NHS has said to parents that they cannot treat their children privately. In the case of Alfie it was costing the state a lot of money and blocking an intensive care resource that is scarce. It was actually in the tax payers' interests to let Alfie be "treated" elsewhere. I very much doubt he would have survived and I think the Doctor's opinion on survival was correct but I believe that his parents had the right to take him elsewhere. I don't believe they had the right to keep him on in Alder Hey indefinitely being paid for by the UK taxpayer.
A horrible situation for everyone involved and I hope the family find peace and get another chance at being parents.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 18 2018, @04:52PM
Granted: the US is a train-wreck in progress, so much could be better, and so many countries around the world do _some_ things better - however, there is a general trend of forward-ish progress.
People who complain about the discrimination and injustice toward PoC are right, and also missing the enormous progress made in the last 100 years. Not just abolition of slavery, but also real change away from how things were in the 1860s-1960s where PoC could be killed outright without a murder investigation, physical abuse and acts of terror were a very real thing up through the 1960s - there are faint echoes of these days even now, but the echoes are truly dying down as the decades roll by.
Cost of living, wages paid, tolerance of diversity, and other quality of life measures are all quite varied throughout the US, which is why the poll question lumping the whole US together is virtually meaningless.
I will say that our healthcare sucks, expensive, frustrating, and often yielding sub-optimal results due to the reimbursement structure. If you're high enough up the income food-chain, and lucky enough to not need extensive healthcare, it can be O.K., good even - but even before lawyers, 10,000 health insurance executives at the bottom of the ocean would be a good start.
🌻🌻 [google.com]