Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:29 am

Where does a person go to catch amoebic dysentery?

(I probably could word that better)

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:30 am

At a guess, water which people have shat in. At least, that's where one gets most forms of agonizingly shitting themselves to death.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:09 pm

Why don't companies do profit sharing more often? Why should only CEOs and managers get bonuses for profits while the underlings usually get nothing for their efforts? I'd think that people would have less rage for the bonuses of CEOs if some of it trickled down to the workers of the company as well.

The only one I know of that does this is Wal-Mart, even if it isn't very much money.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 7:43 pm

Because rich people hate other people being rich. They think of low level employees as human resources. You don't give a bonus to your bottle capper machine. Why would you give one to the guy running it.

Those people are just biological machines who don't contribute anything significant.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:37 pm

It was more rhetorical than anything else, but I agree. At one construction company I worked for, the bosses referred to us as "bodies". Once, one was overheard to say that, "They're just like batteries. Use 'em up then throw 'em out." regarding the health of workers.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:44 am

It's similar to this.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 am

Lago Paranoia wrote:So how come the robutus and africanus hominids died out so soon? Did their middle-sized cousin out-compete them or did something happen to cause them to die off?

Neither? They can just be our intermediate ancestors, either or both of them. Fossils are rare things, and rapid transitional phases of evolution caused by repeating booms and busts in an unstable environment are poorly preserved, but they still happen.

@Koumei, Conservatives are small-government misogynistic racists because the past had smaller governments with racist and misogynist laws. Similar with less-trade-please, and foreigners being strange and unknowable.

The pro-rich parties are conservative because the rich people of today almost all got rich in the past, and tend to be highly superstitious about everything that was happening when they ended up becoming rich. Like chickens do with getting fed, if you've seen those experiments.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:09 am

tussock wrote:Like chickens do with getting fed, if you've seen those experiments.

That makes sense, I guess. And given how hard it is to find a definition of "Superstition" that doesn't also cover "Religion", I guess it makes sense that people who are superstitious about what makes them rich will also believe that people with funny hats can speak with magical men who can make all the bad people go away.

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:59 am

Meikle641 wrote:Why don't companies do profit sharing more often? Why should only CEOs and managers get bonuses for profits while the underlings usually get nothing for their efforts? I'd think that people would have less rage for the bonuses of CEOs if some of it trickled down to the workers of the company as well.

The only one I know of that does this is Wal-Mart, even if it isn't very much money.

Because that's Communism!

Seriously though, it's because business sees all employees as replaceable units to discard as they will, and capitalism depends on employees not being paid the full value of their work. You literally cannot run a business by caring about employee morale or paying them the value of their services because both cut into profits.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:46 am

Is hayfever basically the same problem as asthma, eczema and most allergies, in that it's just a bored/ADHD immune system? Because we're three days in and I already hate Spring, and I'm sure it can't be that hard to find a tapeworm.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:48 pm

tussock wrote:Neither? They can just be our intermediate ancestors, either or both of them.

WHUUUUUUUUT? Dude, you are going to have to explain yourself.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:02 pm

They copulated, as did their children and their children's children and so forth. Continually changing their genetic build up via recombination and natural selection until the makeup was significantly altered enough to be considered to have evolved into a closer ancestor.

Or as I said last page: "Neither of them were around when homo sapiens joined the playing field however. So while they almost certainly were out-competed by something or evolved, it wasn't us that directly replaced them."

Tussock is suggesting they may have evolved into a closer ancestor. This is quite possible.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:09 pm

Koumei wrote:Is hayfever basically the same problem as asthma, eczema and most allergies, in that it's just a bored/ADHD immune system? Because we're three days in and I already hate Spring, and I'm sure it can't be that hard to find a tapeworm.

As I understand yer question, yeah, Hay fever is basically an allergic reaction to pollen and/or other airborne crap, which is an immune system disorder.

I have heard of people using tape worms (don't know which kind, I suspect it does matter) to dampen their immune system response in order to trade one set of griefs for another in the hopes of improving their overall state of being.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:10 pm

Koumei wrote:Is hayfever basically the same problem as asthma, eczema and most allergies, in that it's just a bored/ADHD immune system? Because we're three days in and I already hate Spring, and I'm sure it can't be that hard to find a tapeworm.

There's your problem, then.
You're supposed to be after a hook worm.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:15 am

I'm pretty sure tapeworm works just as well as hookworm. Clearly I should test this theory for the good of my fellow man. Or something.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:29 pm

Lesbians with intestinal parasites? That's my secret fetish!

/thumbs up

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:49 pm

K wrote: Because that's Communism!

Seriously though, it's because business sees all employees as replaceable units to discard as they will, and capitalism depends on employees not being paid the full value of their work. You literally cannot run a business by caring about employee morale or paying them the value of their services because both cut into profits.

I can see why some would seriously call it Communism, but really, if management and shareholders get something, why not the people doing the actual work?

Wal-Mart gives profit sharing if the store in question exceeds sales goals by whatever amount for whatever amount of time. Ends up being like, a couple hundred to a grand-ish a year if the store does well. Then again, my mother's store is supposedly one of the highest grossing ones in Canada?

I dunno. Seems weird that a company as exploitive and miserly as Wal-Mart does this, but 99% of companies and employers don't.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Most companies in my area do give out bonusses to employees for performance, and sometimes hand out bonusses to all employees if the company did exceptionally well.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:14 am

ishy wrote:Most companies in my area do give out bonusses to employees for performance, and sometimes hand out bonusses to all employees if the company did exceptionally well.

Mine does both. Well, a better raise for good performance, and everyone gets a percentage of their salary based on how well the company did (the base line being 10%).

From what I gather, that's not entirely normal for my area, though.

K · Post by K » Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:07 am

Meikle641 wrote:
K wrote: Because that's Communism!

Seriously though, it's because business sees all employees as replaceable units to discard as they will, and capitalism depends on employees not being paid the full value of their work. You literally cannot run a business by caring about employee morale or paying them the value of their services because both cut into profits.
I can see why some would seriously call it Communism, but really, if management and shareholders get something, why not the people doing the actual work?

Wal-Mart gives profit sharing if the store in question exceeds sales goals by whatever amount for whatever amount of time. Ends up being like, a couple hundred to a grand-ish a year if the store does well. Then again, my mother's store is supposedly one of the highest grossing ones in Canada?

I dunno. Seems weird that a company as exploitive and miserly as Wal-Mart does this, but 99% of companies and employers don't.

Walmart would be super-fucked if its employees ever unionized, so they are basically using every low-cost PR move that they can do. "Profit-sharing" for a few stores is far cheaper than paying union wages.

Different industries have their own anti-union tactics. For example, nursing unions are being fought in California by hospitals importing Philippine nurses and programmer unions are kept suppressed by Indian and Chinese visa workers.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:43 pm

Yeah, screwing over the employees seems to be an effective way to keep prices low. I used to wonder how Family Video could rent their videos at such a low price compared to Blockbuster. Then I got a job there and found out:

They (at least when I worked there) started employees at really low wages.
They didn't schedule enough people to allow people to take breaks (on a week day, the person opening will be in the store alone for seven hours or more).
They don't compensate people who run mid-shift deposits to the bank (and will count this as a "break" if people complain about not getting breaks!).
They inform new hires that it's not worth their time trying to sue the company for unfair treatment because everyone who has tried has lost (this was brought up nonchalantly to illustrate how fair the company must be if it never loses a case).
They will engage in bookkeeping shenanigans to avoid paying overtime when it rarely comes up.
They don't use a good cash drawer system to tie employees to a drawer for accountability, instead, favoring to simply fire people they suspect of stealing because it's quicker and easier (I was laughed at in a meeting when I suggested doing this to get rid of the problem).

Now, granted, this is just what I saw at the store I worked at, but I know a lot of it was from our district manager, so I'm not sure how far the policies extend.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:53 pm

The walmart I used to work at set unreasonably high goals to ensure our quarterly bonus was low. We nearly always had profit well above over last year's, but since it wasn't double we were considered underperforming.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:06 am

So I have been puzzled over the Clinton-era surplus of many years ago. The tale is we had a surplus, but I've looked at the US debt, and apparently we still had debt.

So the question is, how do we have debt yet accumulate a surplus? Why was the surplus not used to pay off the debt? Why did it count as a surplus?

Maybe this belongs in the politics thread, but it's an annoying question and I'd like it answered.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:16 am

If your bond rate is below inflation, it's cheaper to have the debt than not sell the bonds.
Also, if your bonds are of medium to long term (> 5 years), it doesn't matter if you want to buy it out, you generally can't.
It's worth noting that because of the safety of bonds, earlier in the crisis yields dipped below 0%, that is people were paying the US government to lend money to them. In which case: debt? Yes please.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:51 am

...You Lost Me wrote:So I have been puzzled over the Clinton-era surplus of many years ago. The tale is we had a surplus, but I've looked at the US debt, and apparently we still had debt.

So the question is, how do we have debt yet accumulate a surplus? Why was the surplus not used to pay off the debt? Why did it count as a surplus?

Maybe this belongs in the politics thread, but it's an annoying question and I'd like it answered.

There are two terms that get confused easily, debt and deficit. Debt is the total amount owed and deficit is the amount that the debt is increasing per year. Clinton ran a surplus, which means for one year the US didn't run a deficit, that year the total debt actually decreased. You can find varying figures for how much it actually went down online.