On a more serious note, I do think it’s kinda dumb that local attractions have to pay to be on those signs. You’d think it would be more of a community funded thing to encourage more tourists.

Hmmm

Even the Far Side got in on the act

It is, though—women having children later in life are at higher risk for complications for both themselves and the baby. It also has a higher risk of birth defects.

And of course he adds in a picture of John Wayne, the draft-dodging, woman-beating, other wannabe cowboy poser.

Not the same. A more apt version using your comparison would be someone saying ‘I’ve been sober for a year!’ and the other person (who still drinks, but perhaps cheered them on now and again from the sidelines) says either ‘You mean we’ve been sober for a year!’ or ‘Yes, and it’s all thanks to me!’ - never mind they didn’t actively step in to help, or try to go dry themselves.

What the complaint you quoted was objecting to are people claiming full part of something they had no control over and no (or not much) involvement in, just to make themselves feel more important.

Yes we as a social species like to share in accomplishments, and that’s fine! But there is a line, that unfortunately gets crossed quite a lot, where people start to feel that they themselves were involved in the accomplishments of others, and that’s not so good. To paraphrase an above poster, we didn’t win the Super Bowl.

And also, some things people take ‘group pride’ in aren’t accomplishments at all. Being born in a specific place, for instance, or having a specific skin color. Or even just trying to share credit with every inventor/creator/whatever of the same gender. It does all tie back to our instinctive tribalism, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.

We actually have our own map system, although of course you can use Google Maps too.

There was a book like that, but this illustration is from a calendar James Gurney did.

And that is why I love having AAA.

Oh noooo it’s old no-one should like stuff that’s old only new things are cool

You know, one day the stuff you like will be old too.

Also, Star Trek been around a long time, yeah, but it’s still going with new content.

No, you’re just being purposely vague for some reason. And you really want to pay people substandard wages for some reason.

But if you legit can’t come up with any concrete examples and have to fall back on things like eating food, then fine, we can end the discussion.

Again the vagueness. ‘Can’t work very well’. Define that. Are we talking someone who’s not mentally apt enough to do NASA rocket science but still can ring up groceries just fine? Are we talking someone wheelchair-bound so they can’t stock shelves? What level are we talking here? Because those people could still do jobs and earn a living wage.

No. Give me concrete examples, please.

And how do they do that?

Define ‘not valuable enough’ and I’ll answer you.

It has everything to do with it as you are very insistent on underpaying people for some reason. You have yet to state that reason.

To answer your question I would need more information. Exactly what do you mean by ‘not valuable enough to earn a living wage’?

Dude, my niece would answer ‘no’ to any question asked of her, then follow up with ‘yes’ if she liked it/wanted to do it.

Learning a kid’s quirks is just part of parenting. What the heck are you on about?

Still didn’t answer my question.

For the love of…

I guess I need to use simple words and shorter sentences with you.

If you hire a person, you pay them a living wage.

If they’re not doing their job right, train them better.

If they still don’t work out, fire them.

There. Is. No. Reason. Not. To. Pay. Workers. A. Living. Wage.

None.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Why are you so enamored of exploiting workers?

Right, which is, as the other person said, why you fire them if they don’t do a good job. You don’t keep a mistake-maker and pay them less, you hire someone who can do the job and pay them well.

And how is it ‘meaningless’? You just defined it: a wage allowing someone to live in the place they’re located. So yes, it changes from place to place. That’s not ‘meaningless’, it’s ‘regional’. And you should still pay someone a living wage.

I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to it. Why do you want people suffering and in poverty for providing services? If you work, you should be able to eat and live, full stop. Even if it’s only in the cheaper parts of your town.

And again, that’s just wage slavery done up in a different bow.

Payment for a job is you not wanting to do it or being unable to do it, so you hire someone to do it. If they do the job, they can’t do something else, so you pay them enough to make it worth their time. You support them so they can help you. If you can’t pay them enough to support them, then do the damn job yourself.

Seriously, why are you so against people getting a living wage? It used to be even grocery checkstand workers could afford a decent place. Back then our economy was better too.

We’ve done it before, and it worked. Other countries today do it and it works - see the wages for McDonald’s workers in Denmark as an example.

The only thing taking away living wages does is force people into wage slavery to line the pockets of the rich to a ridiculous degree. It’s not sustainable and it benefits no-one but a few people who don’t need that money anyways.