Redistribution Upwards?

We are looking for discussions more then debates. Come with an open mind, maybe we all can grow.

Moderators: 4E Admin, 4E Mod

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:47 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:11 am
Except for the very best among them, the elite of the elite, they aren't going to come close to the $14M annual compensation of an S&P 500 CEO.
The argument here would be that the corporate CEOs are the best of the best in the business realm. Or at the very least the most willing to sacrifice everything for a job. Is it really all that different?



User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:34 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:47 am
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:11 am
Except for the very best among them, the elite of the elite, they aren't going to come close to the $14M annual compensation of an S&P 500 CEO.
The argument here would be that the corporate CEOs are the best of the best in the business realm. Or at the very least the most willing to sacrifice everything for a job. Is it really all that different?
Not being snarky...but, for a job..or for the money?

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:16 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:47 am
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:11 am
Except for the very best among them, the elite of the elite, they aren't going to come close to the $14M annual compensation of an S&P 500 CEO.
The argument here would be that the corporate CEOs are the best of the best in the business realm. Or at the very least the most willing to sacrifice everything for a job. Is it really all that different?
They're pretty good at sacrificing other people...

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:32 pm
For the most part, I don’t think I’m right and your wrong. I think it’s a matter of economic philosophy. In my opinion, trying to regulate the problems you outlined would either make the problem worse or create a bigger problem in its place. Some problems are not meant to be solved.


”We’ve spent most of the past 50 years expecting less and less of the rich.”

If you are looking at the tax rate, over the past 50 years the top marginal tax rates has been cut by more than half. Yet the revenue climbs every year. The few years it doesn’t are marked by recession not a drop in the top marginal tax rate. I’m not an expert on tax policy as Im sure there are multiple dimensions to this. I’m just looking at the most directly relevant data. If a 35% top marginal tax rate produces just as much revenue if not more than a 90% tax rate, why not go with the lower tax rate? This is why I laugh when Bernie and Warren talk about taxing the 1%.

“The 401k was sold as a great supplement to pensions, but the pensions have nearly all been eliminated.”

401k is better than a pension. Maybe not for the worker but for society as a whole I think it is. Pensions are a big reason many cities are going bankrupt for one. For two, leftists complain about the unfair corporate and capital gains taxes. Well the 401k gives the ordinary middle class citizen the opportunity to benefit from these “unfair” corporate tax policies. I guess you can’t win with some people.


“Fire at will laws give employers the ability to fire for any reason or none at all.”

Laws exist to prevent discrimination. If a company is losing money, why not allow them to reduce costs rather than go bankrupt to pay a bloated work force? If a company needs to cut 10% of its force to stay profitable, then for the future health of the company the 90% who get to keep their jobs should be happy about the 10% cut. To me it’s completely logical to think that At Will Fire benefits employees more than it hurts them. Better to lose 10% than 100% in bankruptcy.

“Union rights and the rights of nonunion workers as well have been almost entirely gutted.”

As a capitalist i am very pro union. I just don’t see the point of a union unless your job is dangerous or requires special skills. I remember working retail in college someone approached me about unionizing and he gave me his card. I almost laughed in his face.

“There’s no expectation they'll share any of that increased profit with anyone but themselves and the other wealthy people who own the vast majority of all stocks.”

Yes, this is how capitalism works. This system has made the American middle class the most powerful force in the entire planet.

“It's equally false to claim the rich will flee to place where they're treated better. They're already treated better in America than anywhere else in the world. They're not going anywhere.”

And you aim to change that????

“When companies do poorly they just throw the workers under the bus.”

Again, this is how capitalism works. If you’re a doctor and the patient needs to have an arm removed to stop the infection. Do you remove the arm or do you remove the head?? Capitalism works and sometimes it gets ugly.

“Employees and customers alike are deprived of access to the courts through arbitration clauses. On the rare occasion they get caught doing something ethically indefensible they haven't managed to legalize there are no personal consequences.”

I don’t understand. You believe employees and customers should be able to sue companies even though the company didn’t do anything illegal? That’s just weird.


“They’d be nothing without the labor, creativity, and dedication of those who work for them, which they're allowed...no EXPECTED to abuse.”

What about the entrepreneurial risk associated with starting a business? Aren’t they more important that employees which are easier to replace? Unless you’re proposing scrapping capitalism all together for some kind of planned economy. Are you a communist?

“Virtually no connection between your performance and your pay.”

Exceptions exist but if you work for a good company and you are a good worker, this is completely untrue. That’s been my personal experience anyway. Bad workers often don’t know how bad they are and complain about their unfair treatment when in reality they probably should’ve been fired a long time ago but management doesn’t have the balls to do it. Again, this is anecdotal.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:13 pm

Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:34 am
Not being snarky...but, for a job..or for the money?
The motivation is probably different for each person. On some level, both probably come into play for most.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:15 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:16 am
They're pretty good at sacrificing other people...
People at my company regular complain about what the VP's make. I always ask the same question, "How many of them do you see with mother or father of the year mugs?" They spend more time at work then they do with their families. I wouldn't want their jobs. You couldn't pay me enough.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
401k is better than a pension. Maybe not for the worker but for society as a whole I think it is.
There is a huge practical problem with expecting people to save for their own retirement. Every way that has ever been attempted about half the people do it. The other half then become a burden on society in retirement. I don't see how this is better for anyway.

I'm not saying pensions are the answer. Guaranteed pensions are not sustainable. I think the best overall option would be to force workers to have mandatory contributions to a retirement savings account.

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
If you are looking at the tax rate, over the past 50 years the top marginal tax rates has been cut by more than half. Yet the revenue climbs every year. The few years it doesn’t are marked by recession not a drop in the top marginal tax rate. I’m not an expert on tax policy as Im sure there are multiple dimensions to this. I’m just looking at the most directly relevant data. If a 35% top marginal tax rate produces just as much revenue if not more than a 90% tax rate, why not go with the lower tax rate? This is why I laugh when Bernie and Warren talk about taxing the 1%.
Logically, doesn't that show increasing income and wealth inequality? It's literally the only way to get more money with a lower rate.
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
401k is better than a pension. Maybe not for the worker but for society as a whole I think it is. Pensions are a big reason many cities are going bankrupt for one. For two, leftists complain about the unfair corporate and capital gains taxes. Well the 401k gives the ordinary middle class citizen the opportunity to benefit from these “unfair” corporate tax policies. I guess you can’t win with some people.
If it's not better for the worker then how can it be better for society? Also, do you really think workers wouldn't be pouring more money into their 401k's if they had the money to contribute?
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
Laws exist to prevent discrimination. If a company is losing money, why not allow them to reduce costs rather than go bankrupt to pay a bloated work force? If a company needs to cut 10% of its force to stay profitable, then for the future health of the company the 90% who get to keep their jobs should be happy about the 10% cut. To me it’s completely logical to think that At Will Fire benefits employees more than it hurts them. Better to lose 10% than 100% in bankruptcy.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with saving distressed companies. Employment At Will laws apply to ALL companies ALL the time...to the detriment of workers.
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
As a capitalist i am very pro union. I just don’t see the point of a union unless your job is dangerous or requires special skills. I remember working retail in college someone approached me about unionizing and he gave me his card. I almost laughed in his face.
You support unions, you just don't see the point...
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
Yes, this is how capitalism works. This system has made the American middle class the most powerful force in the entire planet.
No, that's the way Reaganomics/neoliberalism works. Prior to the current economic regime CEOs were expected to take into account the best interest of STAKE holders, not just SHARE holders. It's a fraud upon Capitalism and it is unsustainable. Economic growth has slowed for 4 CONSECUTIVE decades under neoliberalism. The glory days of the American economy have nearly been totally squandered creating a second Gilded Age.
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
“When companies do poorly they just throw the workers under the bus.”

Again, this is how capitalism works. If you’re a doctor and the patient needs to have an arm removed to stop the infection. Do you remove the arm or do you remove the head?? Capitalism works and sometimes it gets ugly.
Why is it that arm is never the loathesome CEO who's destroying his company from the corner office?
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
I don’t understand. You believe employees and customers should be able to sue companies even though the company didn’t do anything illegal? That’s just weird.
Companies don't need arbitration when they do something legal. They need it when they need to cover up something illegal.
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
What about the entrepreneurial risk associated with starting a business?
What about it? My answers throughout this thread have dealt with how society has bent over backward to take out all the risk for the CEO class and shovel it all onto the worker.
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
Exceptions exist but if you work for a good company and you are a good worker, this is completely untrue. That’s been my personal experience anyway. Bad workers often don’t know how bad they are and complain about their unfair treatment when in reality they probably should’ve been fired a long time ago but management doesn’t have the balls to do it. Again, this is anecdotal.
We're talking about CEOs here. Virtually no one fires the CEO for anything other than not cheating the workers enough. Even then they get golden parachutes which often equal a lifetime of pay for the average worker.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:30 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
If it's not better for the worker then how can it be better for society? Also, do you really think workers wouldn't be pouring more money into their 401k's if they had the money to contribute?
The historic answer to that is, no they wouldn't or at least half of them wouldn't.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:36 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm
401k is better than a pension. Maybe not for the worker but for society as a whole I think it is.
There is a huge practical problem with expecting people to save for their own retirement. Every way that has ever been attempted about half the people do it. The other half then become a burden on society in retirement. I don't see how this is better for anyway.

I'm not saying pensions are the answer. Guaranteed pensions are not sustainable. I think the best overall option would be to force workers to have mandatory contributions to a retirement savings account.
I don’t think we have to do anything. This problem has already been solved. Social Security gives people enough money to live a minimal lifestyle. That’s all the govt should do if they are not responsible enough to save properly.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:08 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:30 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
If it's not better for the worker then how can it be better for society? Also, do you really think workers wouldn't be pouring more money into their 401k's if they had the money to contribute?
The historic answer to that is, no they wouldn't or at least half of them wouldn't.
I can't answer for everyone, but, if I had made a lot better money and hadn't been out of the workforce twice due to circumstances beyond my control, I would have tried to do something, I did own stocks in Radio Shack when I worked for them, ( they matched contributions, which was nice) and I did have a Roth IRA at one point...

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:56 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

Logically, doesn't that show increasing income and wealth inequality? It's literally the only way to get more money with a lower rate.
Im not following your logic. Like at all, I’m sorry. I think logically it shows that if you tax less, people spend more.
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

If it's not better for the worker then how can it be better for society?
People are many things. Workers, consumers, tax payers, citizens. If burdening a business with a pension makes that business weaker, it could be bad for everyone. Maybe even the worker whose job security is at risk. Worse yet, he could lose the pension for which he invested heavily in if his company goes bankrupt.
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

This has nothing whatsoever to do with saving distressed companies.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Most companies are distressed during the first few years. Most companies become distressed during a recession. If a company makes a mistake or is caught up in a scandal. They might have to trim some fat until they recover. At some point all companies change or become distressed. Are you thinking that companies like to randomly fire their employees for no reason???

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
Economic growth has slowed for 4 CONSECUTIVE decades under neoliberalism. The glory days of the American economy have nearly been totally squandered creating a second Gilded Age.
Maybe the growth of the middle class is asymptotic. That’s my best guess. Which is why all our extra wealth goes to the top 1%.
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

Why is it that arm is never the loathesome CEO who's destroying his company from the corner office?
Never? So in the history of the United States a CEO has never lost his job?
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
Companies don't need arbitration when they do something legal. They need it when they need to cover up something illegal.
If they’re doing something illegal just sue them. I don’t know what else to tell you. 🤷🏽‍♂️
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

... society has bent over backward to take out all the risk for the CEO class and shovel it all onto the workers.
Yes. And that’s the arrangement that’s best for everyone. Including the worker.
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm

We're talking about CEOs here. Virtually no one fires the CEO for anything other than not cheating the workers enough. Even then they get golden parachutes which often equal a lifetime of pay for the average worker.
Your hyperbole aside, those are the breaks. Oh well...

I think what me and you have is just a simple disagreement over economic philosophy. I prefer freedom over tyranny. You prefer something else I guess.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:02 pm

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
It's literally the only way to get more money with a lower rate.
Literally? I’m sorry I just reread this and found humor in it. Yes that is literally the only way if looked through the eyes of a socialist. Because to a socialist everything circles around to inequality, oppression and class warfare. It’s a very dangerous way to think. Ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Class warfare was how they came to power.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:06 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:56 pm
"If they’re doing something illegal just sue them. I don’t know what else to tell you."[/quote}



That is the point Eryk..a lot of companies and credit cards are famous for this..require you to use arbitration and prohibit you suing them for any reason, even they did do something illegal...it is a sneaky way to avoid being held accountable of having to pay out settlements and favors them, not the customer/client/employee.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:06 pm

Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:08 pm
I can't answer for everyone, but, if I had made a lot better money and hadn't been out of the workforce twice due to circumstances beyond my control, I would have tried to do something, I did own stocks in Radio Shack when I worked for them, ( they matched contributions, which was nice) and I did have a Roth IRA at one point...
My point is that no matter what the system has been, any time the burden of saving for retirement is but in the hands of the individuals about half do, and this stays pretty consistent across income brackets.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:08 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:02 pm
Literally? I’m sorry I just reread this and found humor in it. Yes that is literally the only way if looked through the eyes of a socialist. Because to a socialist everything circles around to inequality, oppression and class warfare. It’s a very dangerous way to think. Ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Class warfare was how they came to power.
Eryk doesn't go on the attack here. In this case instead of comparing John to dictators you could give other examples of how it could happen. This kind of comparison leads to bickering and kills conversation. It's not enough that I am deleting, but it is enough for me to ask you to ton it down.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:08 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:02 pm
Literally? I’m sorry I just reread this and found humor in it. Yes that is literally the only way if looked through the eyes of a socialist. Because to a socialist everything circles around to inequality, oppression and class warfare. It’s a very dangerous way to think. Ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Class warfare was how they came to power.
Eryk doesn't go on the attack here. In this case instead of comparing John to dictators you could give other examples of how it could happen. This kind of comparison leads to bickering and kills conversation. It's not enough that I am deleting, but it is enough for me to ask you to ton it down.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:10 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:08 pm
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:02 pm
Literally? I’m sorry I just reread this and found humor in it. Yes that is literally the only way if looked through the eyes of a socialist. Because to a socialist everything circles around to inequality, oppression and class warfare. It’s a very dangerous way to think. Ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Class warfare was how they came to power.
Eryk doesn't go on the attack here. In this case instead of comparing John to dictators you could give other examples of how it could happen. This kind of comparison leads to bickering and kills conversation. It's not enough that I am deleting, but it is enough for me to ask you to ton it down.
Thank you, I wondered whether to say something or not

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:11 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:06 pm
Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:08 pm
I can't answer for everyone, but, if I had made a lot better money and hadn't been out of the workforce twice due to circumstances beyond my control, I would have tried to do something, I did own stocks in Radio Shack when I worked for them, ( they matched contributions, which was nice) and I did have a Roth IRA at one point...
My point is that no matter what the system has been, any time the burden of saving for retirement is but in the hands of the individuals about half do, and this stays pretty consistent across income brackets.
I know, I am not doubting that is true at all...I was just saying, it isn't as easy as those in better positions or are more fiscally conservative understand

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:11 pm

Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:10 pm
Thank you, I wondered whether to say something or not
Definitely, If he would have called John a Stalinist or a socialist I would have deleted since this was more of a comparison, I felt a simply request to cool it was in order. I hope that clarifies the difference to me.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:12 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:11 pm
Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:10 pm
Thank you, I wondered whether to say something or not
Definitely, If he would have called John a Stalinist or a socialist I would have deleted since this was more of a comparison, I felt a simply request to cool it was in order. I hope that clarifies the difference to me.
Yeah

I am getting double posts, do you know what causes that?

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:15 pm

Typically it's when you hit submit a 2nd time before the page loads. I do it sometimes too.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:17 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:15 pm
Typically it's when you hit submit a 2nd time before the page loads. I do it sometimes too.
I don't remember doing that, but, it could be old age...lol

Also, I am having a problem with my notifications, where I take care of the ones in the list, and mark them read, refresh and the red number isn't there, but, there are new notifications in the list? I am going to check my settings, but, I thought I already had those done

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:11 pm

Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:06 pm
That is the point Eryk..a lot of companies and credit cards are famous for this..require you to use arbitration and prohibit you suing them for any reason, even they did do something illegal...
When people sign employment contracts or click “I agree” who knows what kind of rights are being waived. I remember when I worked as a retail manager I signed one saying that I waive my right to time and a half if I go over 40 hours. Some states, such as California, have laws prohibiting people from waiving certain rights.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:14 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:11 pm
Z is for Zangie wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:06 pm
That is the point Eryk..a lot of companies and credit cards are famous for this..require you to use arbitration and prohibit you suing them for any reason, even they did do something illegal...
When people sign employment contracts or click “I agree” who knows what kind of rights are being waived. I remember when I worked as a retail manager I signed one saying that I waive my right to time and a half if I go over 40 hours. Some states, such as California, have laws prohibiting people from waiving certain rights.
Yeah, if I remember correctly, credit cards did this first and they lobbied to be able to do so...I know that is what it says, but, you either agree or don't get a job, or the credit or whatever it is

Post Reply