|
Hello,
I'm looking to buy up to three (3) Anker 10-port USB hubs for block erupters.
Looking to pay .3-.5btc apiece shipped to the USA.
If you're very reputable (according to my opinion), I might be willing to send payment first. Otherwise, I will pay upon receipt of the product. Escrow is fine but not preferred as it's a hassle to me.
I have perfect trading rep, and I recently sold a BFL device to an international customer in which I was entrusted with upfront payment in the amount of thousands of dollars in BTC. You have nothing to worry about when conducting business with me. Feedback available upon request.
|
|
|
|
Does meeting in person with 30K roughly not make anyone else nervous? I just cant imagine carrying that much cash into a trade for the life of me.
Meet somewhere public to do the exchange, like a bank. |
|
|
|
Hmm.
I'm just not getting a hint of those illuminations here in this thread. Perhaps they are dimmer than you think? Indeed, considering his immediate next post negated just about everything he said about himself in the previous. I would love to know how you arrived at that conclusion. Do you know what 'to negate' means? I'm guessing not if you can take two posts that are totally independent of each other and use one to negate the other... Asserting a strong opinion is typically a good way to evoke a strong response. So what? |
|
|
|
I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline
Don't worry, your government is busy inflating the currency quickly enough that that will soon be worth less than what minimum wage is now (counts bitcoins). That's why I said this: This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today. William Binney said it best the other day I was listening to him talk: "We are no longer a country with a government, we are a government with a country." How would earning less in real terms be good for any person? If you think inflation is a good thing, you haven't been reading around this forum enough. I never said inflation to be a good thing, I simply said raising the min. wage was a good thing for every PERSON. You're welcome to go re-read it again if you think I've said anything otherwise. Inflation is something the world has to deal with, not just the U.S., especially considering the global economy is technically tied to the U.S. dollar. This guy's discussion, however, is a social one, and is not necessarily tied down to inflation, so I'm not sure why you are obsessing about it. Ah this entire thread is too good to pass up! The OP was clearly enticing an argument, let's be clear on that. He feels one way, provided little to no factual data to back up his argument, then invites an opinion. Clearly it will not serve to convince you of anything. ... Lol, yes, I did construct the OP in such a way that I figured it would bring some heated comments. And you're right, that's exactly what I was looking for. |
|
|
|
For example, don't say I'm "arguing against my own raise" when I never received a raise, nor asked or demanded for one. Care to try again?
Have you considered asking for a pay cut? You did admit you're under qualified. Consider it. I admit I'm under-qualified on paper. I believe I'm overqualified in terms of competence and ability. And, in fact I actually did take a (voluntary) pay cut to the tune of about $5,000 in order to allow for extra money to be funneled directly towards patient care. That $5,000 was (originally) specifically allotted for my salary. Now, if I really wanted to brag or believed that I was some pinnacle of moral enlightenment, don't you think that might have been the first thing I said? You should probably be feeling like a dumbass right about now. I'm a very humble person and I don't like to brag about my skills, sacrifices, or accomplishments. But, when you challenge my skills, my accomplishments, my intelligence, my conduct, or my professionalism in my field of work, I will illuminate your ignorance so you can see it a bit more clearly. |
|
|
|
If they can strike, more power to them. Agreed. Maybe it will weed out the fast food restaurants that aren't popular due to crummy food. In-n-Out pays well above minimum wage to start, and they do quite well, because they offer a superior product. I'm struggling to find the relevance here. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. In-n-Out is tasty though  Maybe you shouldn't be bitching about what other workers seek in the world, but instead about the idea that any business should succeed, even if they produce a lousy product. My issue is more with the idea that my intuition tells me that this is an inefficient use of the strikers' time. I don't have a problem with people striking, but consider the following: the last time this happened, McDonald's workers in the area got a 10 cent raise. This means that if a worker was to go on strike for a single day, it would take >500 hours or about 3 months of working for that 10 cent raise to earn them back their lost wages. I wonder what percentage of those workers receiving that 10 cent raise remained employed for at least three months after the fact. On a side note, ever drive through bumper-to-bumper traffic and realize the only reason the traffic jam is there is because some group is protesting about something you don't care about? When it starts affecting (objectively) the flow of my day, that's when I feel inclined to give my input. And don't pull the line about how it's going to make lunch prices go up. In-n-Out offers a soda, a delicious cheeseburger and delicious fries (all from fresh ingredients trucked to the store daily) for about $5.00. I wasn't even thinking it. It's not the workers' fault here. It's businesses which choose not to streamline their process and offer a superior product and service that are at fault. To me, this isn't an issue about placing blame. Rather, I see it as a failure-to-adapt problem. Let me be clear first off by stating that I would never even propose a dichotomy of "workers' fault vs. employers' fault." Instead, to me, the situation appears as follows: There are some fast food workers who are dissatisfied with either pay, working conditions, or both. Three things are absolutely certain: 1) They applied for their current job on their own free will, 2) there were preexisting factors or conditions that led them to decide to apply for their current job, and 3) they currently have other options to choose from, and striking is at least one of those options. I simply believe that out of the options available to them, striking is not an optimal one. Of course this is all my opinion. Essentially, it sounds like you're advocating a sloppy and lazy business plan. Quit your whining, enjoy your job, and instead of complaining about workers seek in this world, why don't you go enjoy a nice lunch somewhere?
Holy non-sequitor. I think all you need to do is look in the mirror to see half the problems with the world you present. Calling someone entitled, yet you pretty much have come on here to flaunt your (non confirmable) success. That said, $15/hr is chump change--the fact that you started out with this after having a degree shows me you are still young (as am I, but have no degree, and have been making nearly double that wage since I was 20 with no degree--and to this day, quite some years later still no degree...) I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline, as it forces companies to re-evaluate how people are paid throughout the entire structure of the company. You are essentially arguing against your own raise by hating on people trying to raise the federal minimum wage. If everyone in the States got bumped to $15 and I'm sitting at $35/hour, do you think I'm not going to ask for a raise as well? My skills are still just as valuable in relationship to the minimum wage. This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today. I'm not usually one for throwing rocks, especially at individuals, but it blows me away that you are so dense as to not see it. It's simple math and basic economics. Though you did get a degree, so you did sit through quite a bunch of brainwash and American propaganda...that might explain this whole tantrum. Thanks for telling me what my intentions are and for asserting that they are contradictory to my dozen+ explanations of what those intentions are. Without you, I'd be lost. You didn't read this thread carefully. Moreover, your assumptions of me being "brainwashed" by years of exposure to "propaganda" couldn't be further from the truth. I'm mostly an autodidact, and, accordingly, I found school to be exceptionally easy because I learned how to think for myself. I can learn more from a month on the computer and in the library than in an entire year sitting in a classroom. The whole $15/hr thing wasn't about youth, it was because I made the (financially unwise) decision to work at a hospital funded entirely through public aid Ill say it again, you're nuts if you think that using an example of personal success to illustrate a point automatically indicates an intention to flaunt success. If that's what you think, then fuck off. I'm allowed to have a self-esteem, thanks. And, as far as being "dense" goes, it might help if you understand the context of the argument you're debating against first. For example, don't say I'm "arguing against my own raise" when I never received a raise, nor asked or demanded for one. Care to try again? |
|
|
|
...I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition.
So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness? Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest.
"Hey, you're a greedy asshole. Can I have a raise?"
That's the root of your misunderstanding, OP -- strikers aren't praying to their employer, they're ... striking. See the difference? Greedy assholishness is neither here nor there. Is the strikers' problem a rock or a clay problem? A rock problem is one in which you have very little or no control over; a clay problem is one in which you can significantly manipulate the elements causing the problem. If you have a rock problem and you're smart, you'll shift your attention to the things that you DO have control over. Trying to effect change upon elements you cannot directly control will quickly lead to negative returns on the time and effort you've invested. This loss of utility is reflective of the lack of insight of the strikers. |
|
|
|
eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.
If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity. It's easy to say that without any context. First, we are in a unique period of RECORD corporate profits coupled with high joblessness. That isn't normal. Normal has typically been high corporate profits coupled with increasing payouts to employees, who spend their money and stoke inflation. We're getting there, a coup,e more years and we might just be close to where we started Second, if one employee protests for higher wages, yes, it's easy to dump them and move on. Especially when people are fighting over jobs. In other periods, it's even employers fighting over labor. It will b again, too. Its easy to put one employee out to pasture, much more difficult to put your entire workforce out and then rehire and retrain them. It'll be much more difficult to put them all out, hence the point of collective action It's no more of an entitlement attitude for someone to expect better pay than it is for someone to expect another to work for them at only the cheapest rate possible. In a perfectly tuned capitalist system, both sides would have power and be able to make some demands and cede other to other demands at the same time. Right now, were in a flawed environment because employers have all the power. In the future, the pendulum will swing back. And if your that steadfast in not paying wages that employees eel ate livable, you may just find yourself with an empty shop. Excellent post, and suddenly the detractors aren't responding. I love the blatant idiocy displayed by "it's the free market" when a business owner does something, but suddenly when workers naturally self-assemble into unions, it's somehow communism or socialist sponsored oppressive regulation. I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition. So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness? Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest. "Hey, you're a greedy asshole. Can I have a raise?" |
|
|
|
|
Hey OP, are you from the U.S.? I'm thinking that the name alone could make this immediately illegal in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!
Then why were you bitching about them? Because I believe they are thoughtless to the extent that they aren't even addressing the root of the issue and because they have no idea what the root of the issue is or why they can't magically be given $15 per hour. I was also bitching because it's a poor means of personal adaptation to environmental conditions. If a person is in dire need of change and have the capacity to elicit that change, then they should do so or else be subject to the passive course they've otherwise chosen. And, if they don't have the capacity, then chances are their skills aren't worth much more than $7.25 anyway. The bottom line is that the strikers cannot in any way force their employers to give them higher wages. Accordingly, while they can demand raises and attempt to persuade their employers, the decision to actually implement a pay increase is beyond their control. Instead, it would be optimal that the strikers focus on what they can control, e.g. Looking for better work, learning the skills needed to obtain better work, etc. But, through protesting, they are deferring personal responsibility away from themselves and instead place it upon companies who are preoccupied with their responsibilities to their shareholders and customers. Thus, if you are a striker and are concerned about yourself and not the shareholders or customers, chances are that you aren't giving your company a good reason to listen to you. |
|
|
|
No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies. It's a totally separate issue. The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck.
The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them. Those "someones" just happen to be companies.
Actually, your OP is about you and your bitching about people trying to affect change, albeit in a way you disapprove, hence your bitching. It's also about how you fell into a position in which you are under qualified and overpaid, a situation which is uncommon, and thus utterly stupid of you to assume everyone else might have such an opportunity. What you fail to realize though, is that perhaps the changes those workers are trying to affect are important. As I've pointed out several times, and as you've been unable to aggregate into your thinking processes, there is fat to trim in the fast food business. Holy shit. I'm done with this conversation with you until you realize that what I "fail to realize" is not only something I do realize, but more importantly it's OFF-TOPIC. In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes! But seriously, I've never met a normal person who can't understand something in plain simple English even after it's been repeated and rephrased 20 times. Start your own damn thread if you want to talk about what the businesses should be doing. |
|
|
|
|
No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies. It's a totally separate issue. The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck.
The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them. Those "someones" just happen to be companies.
I could have written the thread about students demanding that their tuition be decreased, in which case I would be talking about students' attitudes. But then if you started talking about the business practices of colleges, I have to slap you for veering off topic.
|
|
|
|
TL;DR: Public protests & strikes are one of the many legal options available in wage negotiations.
You feel that those methods are suboptimal, and you're free to do so.
The fast food workers disagree, they're free to do that too; they are also within their rights to act on those beliefs.
Their strikes are no more an expression of entitlement than your fancy cover letters.
Spot on. Except that last sentence you just threw in there to make yourself sound stupid. Let it go. |
|
|
|
1) Profit margin is likely 5-10% because 1) it's a food-service business, a type of business that is known for low profit-margins do to a long list of unavoidable expenses and high overhead cost and 2) they aren't being run as efficiently as possible (aka sloppily). Sure, it could be improved, but that's irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.
Are you not reading what I've been telling you? And regarding irrelevancy, well, let's just say it's not irrelevant as soon as you decided to start bitching about the workers because you had a bad day. Why'd you stop the bold with just "irrelevant?" The rest of it is important, that is, "irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising. "Unavoidable expenses" are "irrelevant" because it's about the damn company. What's with you and talking incessantly about these companies? I'm bitching about the workers. You're the one bitching about the companies! Remember? Now you're just confusing your position with mine.  If you want to talk about the companies involved in these strikes, make your own damn thread. By admission, you're bitching about the workers, which has a context associated with it - wages paid by a company. For example, you bitch about a child crying, and I point out that the mother is beating the child. How dense would you have to be to continue to go on about the two being unrelated? I think you're forgetting the context AGAIN. A child is helpless in the situation and can't defend himself. That's absolutely not the case for the workers who can choose to remove themselves from that environment. That's why I'll tell again for the millionth fucking time, leave the companies out of it!!! |
|
|
|
1) Profit margin is likely 5-10% because 1) it's a food-service business, a type of business that is known for low profit-margins do to a long list of unavoidable expenses and high overhead cost and 2) they aren't being run as efficiently as possible (aka sloppily). Sure, it could be improved, but that's irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.
Are you not reading what I've been telling you? And regarding irrelevancy, well, let's just say it's not irrelevant as soon as you decided to start bitching about the workers because you had a bad day. Why'd you stop the bold with just "irrelevant?" The rest of it is important, that is, "irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising. "Unavoidable expenses" are "irrelevant" because it's about the damn company. What's with you and talking incessantly about these companies? I'm bitching about the workers. You're the one bitching about the companies! Remember? Now you're just confusing your position with mine. If you want to talk about the companies involved in these strikes, make your own damn thread. |
|
|
|
In Chicago, IL fast food workers are striking, protesting and demanding $15/hr where the state minimum wage is $8.25/hr.
Okay. The average profit margin for a company is about 5-10% and these idiots want their salaries nearly doubled, arguing that they're not receiving a livable wage.
Why is their profit margin 5-10%, and are you sure of this, and you cannot think of any way this can be improved? Furthermore, are you certain that a 5-10% profit margin precludes higher wages being paid? Also, so because people are not receiving a liveable wage, you're saying they are idiots, which may or may not be the case, but so what? They still need a liveable wage, do they not? Um, no. I'm getting a bit sick of this attitude of entitlement floating around the USA, and keep in mind I work in the field of social services.
Do you mean the fact that businesses feel entitled to run a sloppy business and deserve the right to succeed even when offering a product so crappy, they can't fill their stores effectively? When I graduated and began work as a counselor in the adult psychiatric unit of a Chicago hospital, I made $15/hr with a post-graduate degree and was sent to the emergency room twice for being assaulted on the job within a period of 6 months.
Irrelevant to the above, but thanks for sharing. So, what did I do? Did I bitch and complain and protest about my salary or my work conditions?
You're bitching here. No. Instead, I updated and revised my résumé and began sending it directly to the email addresses of the hiring managers at a variety of agencies. Within 2 months I secured a new job where I am under-qualified and overpaid, and I love my new job. I'm proud of it, and proud of myself for doing what I needed to do to adapt and thrive.
By your own admission, you're under-qualified and overpaid. Not a good thing. Thoughts?
I shared them. 1) Profit margin is likely 5-10% because 1) it's a food-service business, a type of business that is known for low profit-margins do to a long list of unavoidable expenses and high overhead cost and 2) they aren't being run as efficiently as possible (aka sloppily). Sure, it could be improved, but that's irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising. 2) No, I'm not aware of exact profit margin figures for any of the companies involved in the strike. 3) I never made any assertions relevant to the OP about the relationship between profit margins and wages. In fact, nothing at all about the companies involved in the strike is relevant to the OP other than the fact that the strikers worked for them. The OP is entirely about the general attitude of the strikers. This is why I keep telling you that you're pulling shit from nowhere in this discussion. Leave the damn company out of it! It's off-topic. 4) And, the reason I'm leaving the company out of it is because I do believe $8 or $10 or even $12 isn't what I would consider "livable." I wouldn't be satisfied with that amount, heck I'm not even satisfied with the amount I currently make. But if you want to start picking apart the lousy practices of fast food restaurants, then you have to pick apart other restaurants, and in fact all other companies who apparently treat their workers to sub-par entitlements. And at the end of it all, you're talking about capitalism which fucking necessitates competition. In competition, there are winners and losers. But I really, really, really don't want to have that discussion. It's way too complex. The OP is simple. You went wayyy too far down the rabbit hole. Continuing on... 5) That first part about me is relevant because I was making a simple, general statement about 1) my pay at the time to set a ratio for context and 2) the implication that I was dissatisfied with both my pay and my working conditions, also to set a ratio for context. 6) Bitching isn't the only thing I was doing. But seriously, people can't dislike shit anymore or want to talk about why they dislike something? Grow up. 7) I'm under-qualified on paper. and so therefore I'm 'over-paid' in relation to where I 'should be' on paper. If I can go find better, why can't the strikers'? 'Cause I'm white? Or because of some other horseshit backed by misinterpreted statistics?  Thanks for sharing your thoughts |
|
|
|
Awesome! Now I actually look forward to responding to this when I get off work |
|
|
|
|
Here, ill give you the argument that you're supposed to be arguing against in case you'd like to try again to make a contextually relevant response.
Given that situation 'x' exists and fast food employees don't want 'x' and instead prefer 'y', what is the best way to actualize 'y?' It the best way to demand that 'y' be given to them? Or is it best to go out and grab 'y for yourself?
Based upon what I've said here, if you respond with ANYthing about advocating for a business, sloppy business practices, responsibility, fault, or blame, then I ought to slap you for being an ignoramus.
|
|
|
|
|
Stop misquoting me. I never said workers are 100% responsible. Fucking learn to read. Do you live in some alternate reality where every word has some alternate definition? Do you always read between the lines so much that you actually don't read the actual lines? Please quote where I stated employees are 100% responsible for their situation? As far as businesses being allowed to suck, well, no shit. That's not my opinion or belief, it's a fact that shitty businesses exist. But none of that has anything to do with the OP.
Learn. To. Fucking. Read.
|
|
|
|
Congrats on the new job and all but with your attitude I'm not surprised you ended up in the emergency room twice for being assaulted on the (previous) job.
I wasn't the target of assault. I was defending patients who were the targets of assault, and sometimes when you protect someone else, you get a dinner glass broken over your jaw. Better my face than the patient's. Some patients directly encouraged my manager to give me a raise because they felt I was the only counselor who actually saw the potential in them to be able to do better for themselves instead of assuming that they needed more Medicaid-funded meds, food stamps, and other poverty assistance. I was typically labeled the "nice one." The thread isn't about my job, or me. I don't want congratulations. But I will correct you. Honestly, the responses in this thread are appalling. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. If spreading the idea that it might actually be more beneficial if people do what's necessary to adapt to a bad situation rather than demanding someone to adapt the environment to fit them is a bad thing, then I really don't know what to say anymore. The point of the OP is simple -- adapt or face consequences. This is a realism. Some choose to adapt by protesting. Others choose to adapt by directly acting to better their circumstances. You can decide which would be more beneficial to the fast food employees. I've found the latter approach to work a whole lot better during my work with literally thousands of low-income, minority clients. Why is it that you don't get the fact that fast food businesses can prosper and pay better wages, and simultaneously offer a better product to boot, at a great price? Has it occurred to you that maybe the fast food industry is the one that needs to adapt? Maybe their free ride should be over. When I walk into most fast food restaurants, I see stupidity, and it's not the minimum wage earners. It's the menu, the training procedures, the wasted space (real estate), etc. http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspxAll you keep doing is trying to replace the context of the issue as I've defined it with a context that you've created. For the love of god, If you're going to argue, make sure you know what the fuck you're arguing against. Ill make it really simple for you. The OP has absolutely nothing to do with advocating any type of business practice. How do I know this? Because I wrote the damn thread. I've never even contended that many fast food chains are shitty. It's totally beside the point. For whatever reason you keep trying to change the issue to something it's not. As I stated to you privately, if I suggested that mothers shouldn't date child molesters, I would somehow expect you to accuse me of advocating child molestation. In this case, I'm suggesting that employees shouldn't continue to work for a company they aren't happy with, and you're saying that this somehow implies that I'm advocating for companies making their employees unhappy due to poor business practices. Ill say it again, you have a serious comprehension problem. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
